ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Reference:  ADJ-00014174

Parties:

Complaint:

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer:  Brian Dalton

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 25 of the Equal Status Act, 2000following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and firstly considered as a preliminary matter if I have jurisdiction to hear the complaint and if the claim is properly before me for investigation.

Background:

Preliminary Matter:

This complaint is made under the Equal Status Act 2000 as amended and is misconceived. I have no jurisdiction to hear the complaint. The complainant’s alleged unfair treatment allegedly occurred in the course of his appearance before the Judge at a Circuit Court hearing. In those circumstances the principle of judicial immunity applies and the complaint is misconceived as the complaint is incapable of achieving the desired outcome and in error or a misunderstanding of the law relies on the Equal Status Act 2000 as amended to bring this complaint.  Based on the matters as detailed I have no jurisdiction under the Equal Status Act 2000 as amended to investigate into the complaint.

The Court Services wrote to the Workplace Relations Commission and stated:

“The matters alleged by Mr Alamazani relate to the conduct of proceedings before a Judge of the Circuit Court. Judges are office-holders appointed by the President of Ireland in accordance with the Constitution, and are independent in the exercise  of their functions.

In those circumstances, I would respectfully point out that the subject-matter of the complainant’s communication with the Commission is not within the remit of the Commission.”

In Kemmy v Ireland [2009] IEHC 178 the principle of Judicial Immunity and its purpose was comprehensively addressed:

'This freedom from action and question at the suit of an individual is given by the law to the judges, not so much for their own sake as for the sake of the public, and for the advancement of justice, that being free from actions, they may be free in thought and independent in judgment, as all who are to administer justice ought to be.'"

30.

In Desmond & Anor v. Cornelius Riordan [2000] 1 I.R. 505, at p. 507, Morris P. stated:

"It is, in my view, well settled that the immunity from suit enjoyed by the judiciary exists not for the benefit of the judge but for the benefit of the community as a whole. This immunity is perceived to be necessary and desirable so that a judge may perform his functions the better, freed of concern that in the course of performing his duties he may defame a third party and be required to be answerable to that party in damages."

31.

(Endorsed by Geoghegan J., in the Supreme Court in Beatty and Beatty v. the Rent Tribunal and Anor [2006] 2 I.R. (S.C.), 191, at 212 where he said: "The immunity of judges is based on public policy considerations.")

32.

In an earlier case, Macaulay & Company Limited v. Wyse-Power [1943] 77 I.L.T.R. 61 at 63, McGuire J. held that:

"The people were entitled to have the opinion of a judge without fear of his words being challenged elsewhere. It was salutatory and beneficial privilege."

Section 22 of the Equal Status Act 2000 as amended provides that a claim maybe dismissed at any time if of opinion that it has been made in bad faith or is frivolous, vexatious or misconceived or relates to a trivial matter. The alleged conduct referenced in this complaint occurred during a Court hearing. Judicial decision making is not a service or facility available to the public and does not constitute a service as defined under the Equal Status Act 2000 as amended. The Judge in exercising judicial decision making is immune from suit. This claim is misconceived as it is incapable of achieving the desired outcome as judicial decision making is not a service as defined under the Act and also a Judge is immune from suit when exercising judicial decision making.  I find that I have no jurisdiction to investigate this complaint.

Decision:

Section 25 of the Equal Status Acts, 2000 – 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under section 27 of that Act. However, section 22 of the Act provides that a complaint may be dismissed at any time if an opinion is formed that the claim is misconceived.

Dated:   20-09-21

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer:  Brian Dalton

Key Words: