We received two separate complaints – one from a self-represented complainant and the other from a legal sector organisation – about an Officer’s conduct in two separate proceedings concerning applications for intervention orders. One of the proceedings involved sexual assault allegations. The complaints alleged that the Officer:

made inappropriate, upsetting, and rude comments;
engaged in overbearing conduct and did not treat the parties with dignity and respect; and
did not adopt a trauma-informed approach when interacting with the parties, which was inconsistent with expectations about how the Specialist Family Violence Court should operate.

The complaints detailed the impact of the Officer’s comments on the parties, which caused feelings of distress and humiliation.

We listened to the audio recordings of the proceedings. The Officer was given an opportunity to respond to the complaints.

In the responses, the Officer acknowledged his language, tone of voice, method of questioning and interruption of the parties and apologised for the impact of his conduct. The Officer detailed the stress of dealing with complex proceedings, unrepresented litigants, online hearings and broader workplace pressures but noted his strong track record of resolving intervention order proceedings at special mention hearings.

In relation to the proceeding involving sexual assault allegations, the Officer said he believed what the self-represented complainant had told him about her grounds for seeking an intervention order but had tried to explain the potential unintended consequences of granting an order.

The Commission made several findings with a focus on the Officer’s frequently abrupt and impatient tone and use of blunt, informal language in the proceedings, including certain colloquial expressions. For example, the Officer across the proceedings:

used the expression ‘don’t poke the bear’ to suggest the complainant should fear the respondent’s reaction to her application;
invited parties to make submissions in the way of an analogy with asking for presents from Santa Claus;
casually asked the parties if they had been to gaol;
referred to parties potentially being ‘lunatics’ or ‘stupid’; and
used a basketball metaphor to refer to intervention order matters.

We found that the Officer’s conduct was inconsistent with the:

decorum and formality generally expected of court proceedings, and incongruous with the extremely sensitive and personal subject matter of the proceeding involving sexual assault allegations; and
professionalism, respect and courtesy judicial officers are expected to show towards court users, especially in intervention order proceedings.

Each complaint was separately referred to the head of jurisdiction with recommendations that the Officer:

be counselled by the head of jurisdiction as to appropriate judicial conduct, particularly in proceedings involving allegations of sexual assault, family violence matters and matters involving intervention order applications;
in relation to managing judicial stress, be directed to engage with the Judicial Officers Assistance Program as needed and read and/or refamiliarise himself with relevant resources; and
in relation to the family violence jurisdiction and virtual hearings, the Officer be directed to read and/or refamiliarise himself with relevant resources.

The self-represented complainant expressed her appreciation for our investigation and said she hoped the outcome would help to ensure better experiences for women participating in the intervention order process.

Judicial acknowledgment of impact on complainants