Can a judge remove himself ?

Battleaxe44

I think OP means recourse about the Judge removing himself after three hearings..I could be wrong...

Nicki

browneyedbazzi wrote: »

ETA: also, the barrister's comment sounds a bit like sour grapes or the barrister trying to weasel out of getting any flack for being wrong about the likely sentence or not having done enough to get the sentence down.

The barrister will have been paid a brief fee for the sentencing which was say £1000. For each extra day he appears in court on the sentencing he will get a refresher which will be much less, say £150. It stands to reason that a barrister would rather things go smoothly and be dealt with on the day. 3 sentencings which go through on the day they are supposed to will net the barrister (using this example) £3000. 1 sentencing which ends up back in court 3 times will net him £1,300 and prevent him accepting other work on that day. So the barrister sounding off about the judge being "unprofessional" was most likely his own frustration that the judge had him back in court 3 or 4 times for a single sentencing losing him a lot of money, rather than any real concern that the defendant got an outcome which was unexpected.

Please note that the brief fee and refreshers will depend on the seniority of the barrister, the complexity of the case and where in the country this took place, and the figures I have used are just examples to illustrate the economic principle not what this barrister got paid, before the thread veers wildly off thread.

peachyprice

browneyedbazzi wrote: »

Also, I think it's entirely possible that the first judge didn't realise he had previous dealings with the offender until he sat down to read the pre-sentencing reports.

neneromanova wrote: »

If the Judge was found out to have know the Prisoner after sentencing then the verdict would have been null and void

The judge knew the victim, not the defendant.

OP is under the impression that the second judge gave a harsher sentence as a favour to the first judge, even though they don't know in what capacity they knew of the victim.

browneyedbazzi

Nicki wrote: »

The barrister will have been paid a brief fee for the sentencing which was say £1000. For each extra day he appears in court on the sentencing he will get a refresher which will be much less, say £150. It stands to reason that a barrister would rather things go smoothly and be dealt with on the day. 3 sentencings which go through on the day they are supposed to will net the barrister (using this example) £3000. 1 sentencing which ends up back in court 3 times will net him £1,300 and prevent him accepting other work on that day. So the barrister sounding off about the judge being "unprofessional" was most likely his own frustration that the judge had him back in court 3 or 4 times for a single sentencing losing him a lot of money, rather than any real concern that the defendant got an outcome which was unexpected.

Please note that the brief fee and refreshers will depend on the seniority of the barrister, the complexity of the case and where in the country this took place, and the figures I have used are just examples to illustrate the economic principle not what this barrister got paid, before the thread veers wildly off thread.

Yes, I can see why the barrister will have been annoyed from a financial perspective - it's another possible ulterior motive behind the comment - but that doesn't give any credence to their statement that the judge was acting unprofessionally

jacques_chirac

Battleaxe44 wrote: »

Your barrister will know if there is recourse for you. You might have a case for Judicial Review Board, if the Judge sat through two previous hearing and then excised himself because he realised he knew the victim. he might not have realised this during the earlier hearings and went to seek advice regarding his position.

Be guided by your Barrister and solicitor and ask if it is a case for the Judicial Review Board.

Your understanding is incorrect - the avenue for a complaint here is an appeal against the decision. Judicial review is something completely different.

peachyprice

OP, do your homework before you appeal though. If it's found the second judge has been more lenient than he would normally because the first judge knew the victim in a negative manner, the defendant could end up with a longer sentence.

the_pink_panther_2

The judge can and must remove himself if he feels that for one reason or another he is unable to be impartial, one reason for this is that he knows defendant or victim.

True, that if it took him so long to realise he knew the victim then can't say he knew them well but that's irrelevent. He could have for instance thought that the face looked familiar to him, but it would be common for a judge to recognise faces shown to him within the justice system, and initially assumed they'd been involved in an earlier case, then in this instance realising that he knew the victim from elsewhere - so it is possible he could have realised later on. Can't see that this would mean that the next judge would be more or less harsh on the sentencing though.

Almost sure the defendant has no grounds for recourse as the judge was duty bound to behave the way he did under the circumstances.

Battleaxe44

jacques_chirac wrote: »

Your understanding is incorrect - the avenue for a complaint here is an appeal against the decision. Judicial review is something completely different.

Jacques, I was making the comment about a judicial review regarding the first Judge's behaviour. not the sentence imposed by the second judge.

neverdespairgirl

Nicki wrote: »

The barrister will have been paid a brief fee for the sentencing which was say £1000. For each extra day he appears in court on the sentencing he will get a refresher which will be much less, say £150.


Please note that the brief fee and refreshers will depend on the seniority of the barrister, the complexity of the case and where in the country this took place, and the figures I have used are just examples to illustrate the economic principle not what this barrister got paid, before the thread veers wildly off thread.

It's very likely indeed that this was a legal aid matter, so you're way out of line.

Sentencing hearings are fixed fee within the graduated fee scheme.

It's not wildly off-thread to point out that £1,000 is a ridiculous amount - the standard fee payable for a sentencing hearing involving a single Defendant is £60, and doesn't vary by the experience of the barrister or the nature of the offence, either! If the facts are opened, he will be paid £60 on each occasion, and if the facts weren't opened, the standard mention fee which is, I think, £47.50.

The brief fee / refresher is a way of charging which simply doesn't apply to sentencing hearings, but applies to multi-day trials.

neverdespairgirl

What is it you don't like about hte first judge's behaviour?

Any judge who realises at any stage in a case that he knows one of the people involved in it has to take action when he does realise. It is, of course, unfortunate that it happened after several hearings, but I'm afraid it comes down to "one of those things".

When I say, "knows one of hte people involved", I exclude the lawyers - obviously, most judges will have met most barristers who appear in front of them, and met them often. I've appeared in front of judges who used to be in my CHambers, before being elevated to the bench. But if they know a witness or party to the events in the case, they must pass it on to another judge.

As to what the second judge did - do you have any reason to think that the first judge had anything to do with it? Judges sentence people all the time, so it's not normally something they'd decide to plot about behind the scenes.