An inquiry into the misconduct of a coroner has led to disciplinary action.
- The assistant coroner made inappropriate remarks during an inquest.
- Judicial authorities deemed the comments prejudicial, resulting in formal warnings.
- Another judge faced criticism for delays in delivering a judgment.
- Both cases highlight issues in legal conduct and accountability.
An enquiry into the conduct of Assistant Coroner Heath Westerman has resulted in a formal warning after he was overheard describing a barrister’s submission as ‘bollocks’. The incident occurred following a hearing into the death of a complainant’s son, where Westerman was heard making the inappropriate comment in what he believed to be a private setting. Despite his assumption, the remarks were considered unprofessional, leading to a complaint and subsequent investigation by the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office (JCIO).
Westerman conceded to making the specific inappropriate comment, attributing it to frustration at the perceived inadequacy of the barrister’s submission. Although intended to be a private conversation with two staff members, Westerman acknowledged the inappropriateness of his language, expressing remorse for his intemperate words. He refuted other alleged statements, such as questioning the legitimacy of the people involved, citing significant work pressure at the time. Following the incident, he promptly apologised to the complainant, reported the incident to his senior coroner, and recused himself from the case to maintain impartiality.
The investigation conducted by an unnamed judge established that Westerman indeed made comments about the ‘ridiculous’ length of the inquest listing, which was deemed to be both inappropriate and prejudicial, although he was not found to have made the alleged remark ‘Who do these people think they are?’ The verdict saw both the Lady Chief Justice, Baroness Carr, and Lord Chancellor Shabana Mahmood agreeing that a formal warning was an apt sanction, taking into account Westerman’s previously unblemished record.
In a parallel case, Judge Catherine Burton encountered disciplinary action due to a substantial 16-month delay in rendering a judgment on costs. The JCIO identified this delay as misconduct. Despite several communication attempts by the parties involved, the delay was attributed to mismanagement and overlooked emails, for which Burton expressed regret, acknowledging her awareness of the pending judgment and failure to expedite proceedings. To prevent future occurrences, she has committed to procedural adjustments within her jurisdiction, ensuring significant emails are monitored and addressed promptly.
The Lady Chief Justice and Lord Chancellor consensually upheld the recommended sanction in this case, as well. These incidents underscore the importance of maintaining professionalism and timeliness within the judicial system, reinforcing the accountability measures that are in place.
These cases illuminate the imperative for rigorous standards and accountability within the judiciary.
