Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Court User

A District Court Judge

Representatives

  Self-Represented

Act

Complaint Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 21 Equal Status Act, 2000

CA-00055884-001

03/04/2023

Evidence of the Complainant (under oath)

The Complainant claims he was discriminated against when a District Court Judge said to him “Mr <Complainant>, you cannot drink that water, that water is not for you”.

The Complainant submitted that he was at the District Court and his case was called for hearing. He stood at the top of the court with his legal representative. The Complainant submitted that he poured water into a plastic cup which was on the table in front of him, but as he put the cup to his lips the Judge stated: “Mr <Complainant>, you cannot drink that water, that water is not for you”. The Complainant told the hearing that the Judge may have “taken a dislike” to him and may have been “irritated with him” as his case had been listed for 10am, but he had objected to the hearing going ahead because he believed that there had been a breach of a High Court Order in relation to his case. This objection was overruled by the Judge, and the case was then scheduled for hearing at 3pm the same day. The Complainant wondered why his case was pushed back to 3pm and he thought to himself that the Judge was thinking “I’ll teach him a lesson”.

The Complainant submitted “I was appalled that someone like him could say that to me”. The Complainant emphasised to the hearing the use of the word ‘you’ by the Judge, and added “what did he mean by ‘you’? Who is entitled to drink it? Am I less equal to these people?” The Complainant added “I couldn’t believe it”. The Complainant submitted that throughout the day other persons attending court were free to drink the water. Further, there was no signage to say members of the public cannot drink the water. The Complainant submitted “why is the Judge entitled to drink water and I am not?” The Complainant submitted that he saw gardaí and legal professionals drinking the water so why was he the only person told he could not drink the water.

In response to questions from the Adjudication Officer, the Complainant told the hearing that he did not know why the Judge said that to him,  and that maybe the Judge was trying to protect the Court Service in relation to the breach of the High Court Order. The Complainant further submitted that maybe the Judge said that to him because he has often been told he looks and speaks like members of the traveller community. The local area has many members of the traveller community living there and he has been told in the past that he physically resembles some of these persons. The Complainant confirmed to the hearing that he is not a member of the traveller community. The Adjudication Officer noted that the Complainant had not selected the traveller community ground on the complaint form, nor had he mentioned discrimination on the traveller community ground in the narrative of the complaint form, and that the Complainant had selected the ‘disability’ ground only. The Complainant then submitted that he has a hidden disability and that perhaps that was a reason why the Judge said what he did. The Complainant added “I’m not saying categorically that’s why he said it, but it’s a possibility”. In response to a question from the Adjudication Officer as to the Judge’s knowledge or otherwise of the Complainant’s disability, the Complainant responded that he had a Jam card around his neck and the Judge “may have seen it”, and accordingly he may have been aware that he had a hidden disability, and that may have been the reason for treating him unfavourably. The Complainant added “I can’t speak his mind: it is a possibility that is why he told me not to drink the water”.

The Complainant submitted that the correspondence from the Courts Service in advance of the hearing was an attempt to influence the WRC. The Complainant directed the hearing to Article 34 of Bunreacht na hÉireann, and specifically to the role of a Judge, and the declaration made by every Judge. The Complainant submitted that he accepted that a Judge was required to be impartial and that they may have immunity from suit, but that this immunity only applied to the carrying out of their judicial functions. The Complainant submitted that “water has nothing to do with his role as a Judge”, and accordingly the Judge’s unfavourable treatment of him was not immune from suit. The Complainant submitted that “water was a service available to me and I was denied that by <the named Judge> and that had nothing to do with his judicial capacity and he was biased in doing so. Why was the Judge entitled to drink water and I’m not? Article 40 of the Constitution – we are all equal before the law. Am I different to a Garda, a Solicitor, a Judge? The State were losing their case and he felt he would sort me out”. The Complainant added that water was a basic human right and that he was discriminated against and humiliated that day in the court room. The Complainant added that the failure of the Respondent to attend the hearing was further disrespectful conduct towards him and the WRC.

I note that the Complainant sent a notification to the named Respondent on 27 February 2023 using an address of the relevant District Court Office. However, the District Court Office returned the ES1 form to the Complainant. 

On the WRC complaint form, the Complainant named the Respondent (a District Court Judge) on the complaint form and gave an address for the Respondent of the relevant District Court Office. On 20 April 2023 the WRC sent notice of this complaint to the Respondent at the address of the relevant District Court Office provided on the complaint form. In response, a letter was received by the WRC from the Courts Service on 25 April 2023. In this letter the Courts Service advised that it would be inappropriate for a Judge to engage in correspondence on this complaint, and therefore all further correspondence could be sent to the Courts Service. The Courts Service also submitted within this correspondence that the subject matter of the complaint was outside the jurisdiction of the WRC on the grounds: (i) of judicial immunity and (ii) that court proceedings do not constitute a ‘service’ as defined under the Equal Status Act 2000.

On 8 August 2023 notification of a hearing date into this complaint was sent by the WRC to the Courts Service. On 22 September 2023 a Law Firm, acting on behalf of the Courts Service (and not the Respondent Judge), notified the WRC that the Courts Service would not be attending the hearing as it was not a named Respondent. It added that, in light of the notification of hearing being sent to the Courts Service (as had been requested of the WRC by the Courts Service), the Courts Service requested that the following be brought to the attention of the Adjudication Officer, namely, that the complaint should be dismissed pursuant to s 22 of the Equal Status Act 2000 on the grounds that it is misconceived for the following reasons: (i) the administration of justice is not a “service” as defined under the Act, and (ii) judicial immunity extends to the conduct of any Judge in Court proceedings. This correspondence was copied to the Complainant in advance of the hearing.

A judge enjoys complete immunity in respect of any act done or thing said while exercising their judicial functions (Kilty v Dunne [2018] IECA 80) save where the judge engages in corrupt or mala fide behaviour in deciding a case (Kemmy v Ireland [2009] IEHC 178 and Macauley & Company Limited v Wyse-Power [1943] 77 I.L.T.R 61). This complaint concerns alleged conduct of a Judge during court proceedings. I find this complaint is not a matter within the jurisdiction of the Workplace Relations Commission on the grounds of judicial immunity and therefore I do not have jurisdiction to hear this complaint.

I decide I do not have jurisdiction to inquire into this complaint.

Judicial immunity.