Judicial ethics and applicable standards of conduct reflect core values of impartiality, independence and integrity. Conduct that is consistent with those values maintains public confidence in the courts and VCAT, and fosters community respect.
These resources provide high-level authoritative guidance on issues of conduct and ethics. They discuss how core judicial values such as impartiality, independence and integrity inform the standards of conduct expected of judicial officers.
The materials chosen for inclusion on this page were selected in collaboration with the Judicial Commission of Victoria, drawing on the knowledge of conduct and ethics issues of both organisations.
-
External LinkJUDICIAL LIFE
Guide to Judicial Conduct (3rd ed, amended 2022).
The Guide provides principled and practical guidance to judicial officers as to appropriate course of conduct and matters to be considered in determining a course of conduct, in and out of office. By maintaining high standards of conduct, it is expected that the reputation of the Australian judiciary and public confidence in the courts will be preserved and enhanced. The Guide is published by the AIJA on behalf of the Council of Chief Justices of Australia and New Zealand. -
External LinkJUDICIAL LIFE
Judicial ethics in Australia (3rd ed, 2009).
Written by former Judge James Thomas AM of the Queensland Court of Appeal as one judge talking to his peers, this book is a key text on the development of judicial ethics in Australia. It aims to assist judges in finding reasoned solutions to ethical issues and considerations through thorough examination and examples.
The Guide to Judicial Conduct and Judicial Ethics in Australia have both been cited in decisions by Conduct Divisions as providing content to phrases such as misbehaviour or incapacity, and are used by the Judicial Commission of Victoria to inform its assessment of appropriate standards of conduct. In addition, community standards about the proper performance of judicial duties inform the notions of misbehaviour and incapacity.
-
External LinkJUDICIAL LIFE
Commentary on the Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct (2007).
This commentary supports the understanding and implementation of the 6 core judicial values set out in the Bangalore Principles by elaborating on the philosophical foundations of those values and how the values manifest in practical terms. It refers to appropriate standards of conduct both inside and outside the courtroom, the need to resist and reject outside influences, the need to avoid bias, the appearance of partiality or bias and discriminatory attitudes. -
DocumentJUDICIAL LIFE
Overview of the Bangalore Principles on Judicial Conduct and Commentary
Prepared by the Judicial College of Victoria, this overview highlights aspects of the Principles and Commentary tailored to the Victorian judiciary. It is designed to help readers familiarise themselves with the Principles and Commentary in an efficient manner. -
External LinkJUDICIAL LIFE
Ethical Principles for Judges (2nd ed, 2020)
Developed by the Canadian Judicial Council, this document identifies five core judicial values: independence, integrity, respect, diligence and competence, equality, and impartiality. It offers extensive guidance on how judicial officers can uphold these values and addresses modern challenges to judicial ethics, including the impact of social media, involvement in alternative dispute resolution, and transitioning to retirement. -
External LinkJUDICIAL LIFE
Understanding and navigating the power imbalance between associates and judges.
This paper by two judges and one master of the Supreme Court of South Australia considers the nature of the judge-associate relationship, how to manage risks arising from inevitable power gaps between judges and associates and promote a positive workplace experience for associates. Note: Thomson Reuters subscription required.
While the Guide to Judicial Conduct is an Australia-wide resource, the Judicial Commission of Victoria has issued two guidelines for Victorian judicial officers about standards of ethical and professional conduct expected of judicial officers and VCAT members.
-
External LinkJUDICIAL LIFE
Judicial Conduct Guideline on Sexual Harassment
This Guideline emphasises the expected conduct of judicial officers as leaders: ‘The conduct of judicial officers has the potential to instil confidence that people will not be sexually harassed or be penalised or victimised for speaking up.’ -
External LinkJUDICIAL LIFE
Judicial Conduct Guideline on Judicial Bullying
This Guide produced by the Judicial Commission of Victoria provides detailed and practical information about the standards of respect and civility expected of Victorian judicial officers. It defines judicial bullying and provides examples of improper conduct both in and out of court and identifies the potential outcomes of judicial bullying.
The Guideline on Judicial Bullying defines judicial bullying as:
"Judicial bullying is conduct by a judicial officer towards an individual that:
a. Is unreasonable
b. Includes, but is not limited to, conduct that a reasonable person would, having regard to all the circumstances, perceive as belittling, humiliating, insulting, victimising, aggressive or intimidating.
What is unreasonable is to be assessed objectively, with regard to the following factors:
a. The functions of the judicial officer;
b. The subject or target of the conduct;
c. The tone or nature of the conduct;
d. Whether the conduct is momentary or sustained;
e. The location, including the jurisdiction and type of proceeding (for in-court matters) in which the conduct occurs; and
f. The overall context of the conduct."
The Guideline emphasises that robust and vigorous legal debate and adversarial exchanges are common and go to the heart of the interests of justice by ensuring relevant issues are raised and explored. When undertaken in a respectful and courteous manner, such exchanges are consistent with the standards of conduct expected of judicial officers.
The Guideline also provides examples of judicial bullying:
• "Any form of shouting, yelling, aggression or offensive language;
• Ridiculing or mocking a person;
• Making comments or criticisms that amount to a personal attack; and
• Making gratuitous comments about the integrity or professional reputation of a legal practitioner or threatening adverse professional consequences."
Questions of judicial conduct are most acute in relation to in-court conduct. Issues include:
- appropriate interactions with lawyers, witnesses and the public, including –
- providing procedural fairness for parties and witnesses
- responding to unhelpful, disrespectful or wasteful lawyers
- providing appropriate levels of assistance to self-represented litigants
- effective management of proceedings to ensure the fair and efficient use of court time
- responding to applications for disqualification on the grounds of bias.
The following resources address many of these issues. Further related resources can be found in the Judicial conduct guidelines and Key decisions on judicial conduct sections of this page.
-
DocumentJUDICIAL LIFE
Judicial Bullying: Consultation Paper.
What distinguishes appropriate judicial conduct from conduct that is inappropriate or unacceptable? At [79] and following, the Judicial Commission analyses how a range of sources – from legislation and case law, to guidelines and socio-legal research – inform the standards of conduct expected of judicial officers, with particular focus on bullying. -
External LinkJUDICIAL LIFE
Judging and Emotion.
This book draws on extensive empirical research on the Australian judiciary including interview research, surveys and court observations. Professors Sharyn Roach Anleu and Kathy Mack analyse how judicial officers experience and manage their own emotions, as well as those of court users. -
External LinkJUDICIAL LIFE
Judicial Humour in the Australian Courtroom.
This paper draws on observational data, judicial interviews and past publications to discuss the scope and role of humour in the courtroom. The paper notes the dangers of humour, along with its value as a humanising tool, and to help settle jurors and litigants. The paper suggests that humour about procedural matters, which does not display criticism or harshness, is more likely to be appropriate than humour about the outcome of the case, which displays a flippant attitude, or which undermines court decorum. -
DocumentSKILLS
Victims of Crime in the Courtroom: A Guide for Judicial Officers
Published in 2019 and updated in 2023, this comprehensive guide for judicial officers and court staff provides information on how to limit the potential for the court experience to re-traumatise victims, witnesses and complainants without compromising the integrity of the tribunal process. -
External LinkSKILLS
Handbook for Judicial Officers.
This collection of papers covers topics including judicial independence, impartiality, diversity, ethics and efficiency. Drawing on eminent speakers from Australia and England, the handbook provides a range of views on the core skills and attributes of modern judicial officers. -
External LinkJUDICIAL LIFE
Psychosocial hazard fact sheet: Workplace Bullying.
This short document by Worksafe Victoria provides a widely used definition of workplace bullying, contributors and prevention measures. It also identifies some impacts of workplace bullying, including reduced performance, loss of self-esteem, difficulty establishing trusting relationships, sleep disturbance, poor health, substance abuse and self-destructive behaviour. -
External LinkJUDICIAL LIFE
Without Fear or Favour: Judicial Impartiality and the Law on Bias.
This report on judicial impartiality was produced by the Australian Law Reform Commission released a report on judicial impartiality in 2022. Initially prompted by concerns arising from Charisteas v Charisteas (2021) 273 CLR 289, the Commission took a broad view of judicial impartiality and the systemic features which promote impartiality. -
External LinkJUDICIAL LIFE
Elements of Judicial Excellence: A Framework to Support the Professional Development of State Trial Court Judges.
The American National Center for State Courts developed this framework to identify the areas of competence required for judicial officers. The framework identifies nine characteristics, including ethics and integrity, self-control and self-knowledge, and leading the court process.
The following cases contain some key principles regarding the scope and content of appropriate judicial conduct.
Michael v Western Australia [2007] WASCA 100 – Managing self-represented litigants
In this case, the self-represented appellant alleged a judge’s conduct throughout a 6-day trial gave rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias against him (Ground 4). The Court of Appeal considered in detail how ‘relations between the appellant and trial Judge became strained’, outlined the bounds of acceptable conduct where a party is self-represented, and analysed whether the judge’s conduct went too far.
R v Mawson [1967] VR 205 – Management of hearings
This judgment contains a succinct explanation of how a judicial officer intervening in the running of a trial can cause a miscarriage of justice. Examples exclude where the intervention deprives a party of their ability to put their case, or prevents a witness from giving their evidence, or gives rise to the appearance that the court is supporting one of the parties.
Anderson v National Australia Bank [2007] VSCA 172 – Management of hearings
In separate judgments, Maxwell P and Nettle JA both affirmed that a trial judge is entitled to intervene in questioning of a witness to clarify the evidence given and, in a civil trial without a jury, to ask probing questions which demonstrate scepticism about the evidence given. Further, the judge is entitled to constrain irrelevant or marginal examination of witnesses which serves only to prolong proceedings.
Piccolotto v The Queen [2015] VSCA 143 – Management of hearings
This appeal concerned a judge’s conduct throughout a criminal jury trial. The Court of Appeal recognised that the judge did ‘react with impatience or irritation from time to time’ (at [42]). The Court identified the different demands on a trial judge, which require balancing the need to ensure trials are conducted as efficiently as possible while ensuring the parties’ right to a fair trial.
Bodycorp Repairers Pty Ltd v Oakley Thompson & Co Pty Ltd [2018] VSCA 33 – Management of hearings and delivery of reasons
This appeal concerned an argument on apprehended bias on the part of an Associate Justice, arising from heated exchanges in the proceedings. The Court of Appeal noted that judges are permitted to display ‘irritation or impatience’ (citing Li v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (2000) 96 FCR 125) and are entitled to challenge counsel with perceived flaws in their submissions.
The Court of Appeal also commented on the obligation of a court to announce its decision and reasons for decision publicly. It noted that principles on this issue differ between superior and inferior courts, and that for superior courts, circulation of reasons by email, and by posting on the internet, may better achieve the aims of open justice than distribution in court. However, regardless of how reasons are distributed, important decisions should be announced in open court, after the court has given notice to the parties.
Wainohu v New South Wales (2011) 243 CLR 181 – Duty to give reasons
This case, which concerned the conferral of functions to disrupt organised crime groups on judges of the Supreme Court of New South Wales, provides a clear statement that the delivery of reasons is an ordinary incident of the judicial process, and hence an ordinary obligation of judicial officers. French CJ and Kiefel J noted, however, that while the obligation might be universal, the content of the obligation varies depending on ‘the nature of the jurisdiction which the court is exercising and the particular matter the subject of the decision’ (at [56]). Their Honours also noted that providing reasons is an expression of the open court principle.
Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy (2000) 205 CLR 337 – Test for apprehended bias
This decision provides the oft-quoted test for apprehended bias:
… a judge is disqualified if a fair-minded lay observer might reasonably apprehend that the judge might not bring an impartial mind to the resolution of the question the judge is required to decide (at [6]).
It requires the party to first identify what might lead a judicial officer to decide a case other than on its legal and factual merits, and then to articulate the logical connection between that matter and the feared failure to decide the case on its merits (at [8]).
Charisteas v Charisteas (2021) 273 CLR 289 – Apprehended bias
In this proceeding, counsel for one of the parties had extensive interactions with the judge who was seized of the matter. These interactions included meeting for drinks, phone calls and countless text messages. The High Court held that the conduct gave rise to an apprehension of bias, and reiterated the principles regarding the need for judicial officers to avoid any interactions with counsel who are currently appearing before them, except with the knowledge and consent of the other party.
The Judicial Commission of Victoria publishes statements when it finalises complaints with recommendations for further action, or in cases of public interest where the complaint is dismissed.