Skip to main content
About Us
About Us >Judges >Judicial Conduct >Identical or similar complaints against the same judge or judicial officer

Identical or similar complaints against the same judge or judicial officer

Complaint Response
The Magistrate’s reasons for sentence gave rise to reasonable perception of bias or involved political comments.
(Court case no.: TMCC700003/2020; Offences: (1) Arson, (2) Possessing items with intent to destroy or damage property)
Judiciary’s Response to Complaints (TMCC700003/2020)
The Magistrate had acted in a biased manner, including analysis of evidence not beyond reasonable doubt, comments/rulings based on subjective views, and preconceived stance on sentence, etc.
(Court case no.: FLCC5275/2019; Offences: Assaulting a Police Officer in the Due Execution of His Duty)
All relevant court proceedings not yet concluded. Response to be provided.
The then Acting Principal Magistrate had biased/preconceived views on the case, including not accepting the defendant's testimonies, the sentence being disproportionate, and the defendant's application for bail being denied promptly, etc.
(Court case no.: FLCC3419/2019; Offences: Obstructing a Police Officer in the Due Execution of His Duty)
All relevant court proceedings not yet concluded. Response to be provided.
The Magistrate had made comments/rulings in various court cases that gave rise to reasonable perception of bias, including not accepting the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and imposing lenient sentence on or acquitting the defendants, etc.
(Mainly include the following court cases:
Court case no.: ESCC103/2020; Offences: (1) Assaulting a Police Officer in the Due Execution of His Duty, (2) Assaulting a Police Officer in the Due Execution of His Duty
Court case no.: ESCC654/2020; Offence: Criminal damage
Court case no.: ESCC2461/2019; Offences: (1) Possession of offensive weapon, (2) Taking part in unlawful assembly
Court case no.: ESCC700006/2019; Offence: Arson being reckless as to whether life would be endangered)
Judiciary’s Response to Complaints (ESCC2461/2019, ESCC700006/2019, ESS33914-16/2019, ESCC654/2020, ESCC103/2020, ESCC292/2020, ESCC722/2020 and ESCC2551/2019)
The Magistrate’s ruling in the case was not based on facts and was biased.
(Court case no.: ESCC2586/2019; Offences: (1) Behaving in a disorderly manner in a public place, (2) Behaving in a disorderly manner in a public place)
All relevant court proceedings not yet concluded. Response to be provided.
The Magistrate had made comments/rulings in various court cases that gave rise to reasonable perception of bias, including the rulings not conforming to the principle of “the benefit of the doubt should go to the defendant”, accepting the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and imposing unfair sentence, etc.
(Court case no.: ESCC1108/2020; Offence: Assault occasioning actual bodily harm
Court case no.: ESCC2460/2019; Offences: (1) Assaulting a police officer in the due execution of his duty, (2) Possessing things with intent to damage property
Court case no.: ESCC2566/2019; Offences: (1) Possession of an instrument fit for unlawful purpose, (2) Possession of things with intent to destroy or damage property
Court case no.: ESCC2410/2019; Offence: Possession of offensive weapon in public place
Court case no.: ESCC495/2020; Offence: Assault occasioning actual bodily harm)
Judiciary’s Response to Complaints (ESCC1108/2020, ESCC2460/2019, ESCC 2566/2019, ESCC2410/2019 and ESCC495/2020)