Publication of Complaint Information Policy

1. The Judicial Commission of Victoria (the Commission) recognises:
   1. the importance of transparency and promoting confidence in Victoria’s judiciary; and
   2. that its investigation process is not designed to be punitive.
2. With these considerations at the forefront, the purpose of this policy is to:  
   1. guide the Commission’s approach to engaging with the media and publishing information about complaints; and
   2. promote consistency in when and how the Commission will do so. 

3. Under section 139(1)(a) of the Judicial Commission of Victoria Act 2016 (the Act), the Commission may publish information, including about a complaint, where it considers it to be in the public interest. 
4. In deciding whether publication is in the public interest, the Commission will balance the disclosure considerations under section 4 of the Act, as appropriate, taking into account the circumstances of each complaint. These align with the purposes of the Act overall, to:
   1. Ensure a transparent and accountable process for investigating the performance of judicial officers¹; 
   2. Maintain present and future public confidence in the Victorian Courts and Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT); 
   3. Protect the privacy and safety of an individual; and 
   4. Prevent disruption to the orderly administration of justice.

5. The Commission recognises that informing the public through media and other channels, such as stakeholder engagement, is an essential part of the Commission’s operations.

6. Consistent with its purposes, the Commission’s vision and mission, as captured by its Strategic Plan 2022-2024, is to:

   1. ensure that public confidence and trust in the Victorian courts and VCAT is maintained; and
   2. provide a fair and transparent complaint resolution process.

   Engaging with the public is a key mechanism to fulfil these goals.

7. The Commission recognises that publishing complaint information:
   1. Demonstrates that the Commission’s complaints process is transparent and that judicial officers are not exempt from scrutiny or being held accountable.
   2. Publicly endorses and commends best practice judicial conduct.
   3. Educates the public, the legal profession, and the judiciary about what is appropriate and inappropriate judicial conduct.  
   4. Publicly denounces conduct that infringes the standards generally expected of judicial officers.
   5. Has a deterrent effect in discouraging inappropriate conduct amongst the judiciary.
   6. Can correct misinformation in the public domain. 

Referral to head of jurisdiction or investigating panel 

8. Where:
   1. the Commission determines to refer a complaint to an officer’s head of jurisdiction; or

   2. an investigating panel finalises its investigation and notifies the Commission of the outcome under section 43(5) of the Act,

      the Commission will, if it is in the public interest to do so, publish complaint information, as appropriate, including:

      1. the details of the complaint and matters alleged;  
      2. aspects of any response received from the judicial officer;  
      3. a summary of the Commission’s findings; and
      4. the outcome of the Commission’s or investigating panel’s investigation.   

Dismissal 

9. Where a complaint is ultimately dismissed, if the Commission:
   1. identifies best practice or model judicial conduct or behaviour; or

   2. is aware of misinformation in the public domain,  

      the Commission may, if it is in the public interest to do so, publish complaint information, as appropriate, including:  

      1. the details of the complaint and matters alleged;  
      2. a summary of the Commission’s findings; and  
      3. the outcome of the Commission’s investigation.  
10. If the Commission decides to publish complaint information about best practice or model judicial conduct or behaviour, whether it publishes the relevant judicial officer’s identity is subject to paragraph 18 below.

Current investigation 

11. Where an investigation is underway, the Commission will not ordinarily publish complaint information.
12. However, the Commission may, in certain circumstances, decide that it is in the public interest, and therefore appropriate, to publish complaint information or engage with the media during an investigation. These may include:
    1. where significant steps in an investigation have occurred, such as the standing down or resignation of a judicial officer; or
    2. where there is a need to correct misinformation in the public domain.  
13. If the media enquires about or reports on a complaint by a particular complainant or about a judicial officer which is not yet finalised, the Commission will consider whether it is in the public interest to publish complaint information on its website or respond to the relevant media enquiry or report by email setting out that:  
    1. the Commission has received a complaint about the judicial officer; and
    2. as the investigation is ongoing, the Commission will not be commenting further at this time.
14. If the media enquires about or reports on specific allegations made in a complaint, the Commission’s practice is to respond in accordance with the preceding paragraph, but to not specifically confirm or refute the specific allegations.  

15. Routine and consistent publication of an officer’s identity promotes the purposes of the Act.
16. If the Commission decides to publish complaint information, then subject to paragraph 18 below, the Commission’s practice, generally, is to publish the relevant judicial officer’s identity, when it is in the public interest to do so.  
17. In determining whether it is in the public interest to publish a judicial officer’s identity, the Commission will have regard to:
    1. ensuring that the Commission’s investigative process is transparent and accountable in a way that encourages public and professional confidence in the Commission.
    2. maintaining present and future public and professional confidence in Victorian courts and VCAT, including by ensuring that the impact of informing the public and the message conveyed are not undermined by not naming the judicial officer.  
    3. protecting the privacy and safety of individuals, taking into account:  
       1. the privacy of any person, including (but not limited to) the privacy of the judicial officer concerned;
       2. any possible threat to a person’s safety that may result from publishing identifying information; and
       3. whether the media has become aware of, or speculated on, the judicial officer’s identity.
    4. preventing disruption to the orderly administration of justice, taking into account the possibility that another judicial officer may be assumed or speculated to be the subject of the complaint.
    5. the content of a judicial officer’s response (if any) to a complaint.
    6. any other matters the Commission considers relevant.  
18. Where the Commission publishes complaint information about best practice or model judicial conduct or behaviour, the relevant judicial officer’s identity will only be published with their consent. 

19. The Commission will consider, on a case-by-case basis, the most appropriate method for dissemination of information having regard to paragraph 7 above.
20. The following (non-exhaustive) options will be considered:
    1. Publication on the Commission’s website only.
    2. Dissemination to the legal sector.²
    3. Dissemination to media outlets more broadly. 

¹ Any reference to ‘judicial officer’ in this policy should be taken to include non-judicial members of VCAT.

² For example, on a case-by-case basis, the Law Institute of Victoria, the Victorian Bar, the Victorian Legal Services Board, the Federation of Community Legal Centres, Victoria Legal Aid, the Office of Public Prosecutions and Victoria Police.