High Court judge handed misconduct warning after 14-month ruling delay

Mr Justice Sweeting blamed the delay on his ‘busy sitting schedule and personal matters’
Mr Justice Sweeting has been reprimanded over a late High Court judgment
PA

A High Court judge has been formally reprimanded for misconduct after taking more than a year to deliver a judgment in a case.

Mr Justice Sweeting faced a Judicial Conduct Investigations Office (JCIO) probe after he spent 14-months reaching conclusions in a case, in a lengthy delay he blamed on his “busy sitting schedule and personal matters”.

The judge, a former Bar Council chair and recent appointee to the High Court, apologised and accepted he should have delivered the judgment earlier, after the investigation found he had “failed to immediately recognise the consequences of his actions.”

JCIO investigations are conducted in private, and the 145-word public notice about the High Court judge’s misconduct and sanction does not identify the case which suffered the delay.

Mr Justice Sweeting heard an application from North Warwickshire Borough Council for an injunction against eco-protesters at a Shell oil terminal in May 2022. He delivered the ruling in that case - granting the injunction - in July this year.

Court records show that in two other recent High Court cases that the judge was overseeing, he reached his conclusions after 11 months had passed since the original hearings.

In the misconduct statement, a spokesperson for the JCIO said: “The Lord Chief Justice, with the Lord Chancellor’s agreement, has issued Mr Justice Derek Sweeting with formal advice for misconduct.

“The Guide to Judicial Conduct requires judicial office-holders to display diligence and care in the discharge of judicial duties.

“Following an investigation carried out under the Judicial Conduct (Judicial and other office-holders) Rules 2014, a nominated judge found that Mr Justice Sweeting had not issued a judgment in a timely manner and failed to immediately recognise the consequences of his actions. The judgment was not issued until fourteen months after the initial hearing.

“Mr Justice Sweeting apologised and acknowledged that the judgment should have been completed earlier. In mitigation he cited his busy sitting schedule and personal matters.

“The Lord Chief Justice and the Lord Chancellor took into consideration the mitigating circumstances in this case and agreed to issue Mr Justice Sweeting with formal advice.”

The notice does not disclose details of the judge’s busy sitting schedule, or reveal the nature of the personal mitigation.

It also does not go into any detail on the consequences of the 14-month delay.

Create a FREE account to continue reading

eros

Registration is a free and easy way to support our journalism.

Join our community where you can: comment on stories; sign up to newsletters; enter competitions and access content on our app.

Your email address

Must be at least 6 characters, include an upper and lower case character and a number

You must be at least 18 years old to create an account

* Required fields

Already have an account? SIGN IN

By clicking Create Account you confirm that your data has been entered correctly and you have read and agree to our Terms of use , Cookie policy and Privacy policy .

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged in