The Court of Appeal has dismissed Agnieszka Nowak’s appeal against a High Court decision refusing her leave to seek judicial review of the handling of her complaint about a judge.
In an ex tempore judgment delivered on 2 July 2024, Mr Justice Allen said Ms Nowak had not identified an arguable ground to challenge the Complaints Review Committee’s determination that her complaint was inadmissible. Ms Justice Faherty and Mr Justice O’Moore agreed.
Ms Nowak complained to the Judicial Council about a judge’s conduct during a Dublin Circuit Court hearing on 19 April 2023. The Registrar decided on 4 September that the complaint was inadmissible. Ms Nowak sought a review and submitted written observations on 29 September. The Committee determined on 2 October 2023 that the complaint was inadmissible under the Judicial Council Act 2019. The Registrar notified her in writing on 19 October and sent her the determination.
Ms Nowak sought judicial review, arguing, among other things, that the Registrar had failed to refer the complaint, that the Committee’s determination was unsigned, that there was no evidence of a vote or written notification to the Registrar, and that the review was unfair and unreasonable. The High Court refused leave on 19 February 2024, finding that none of her grounds met the threshold of arguability.
On appeal, the Court of Appeal addressed those grounds and a claim that the judge had not been notified of the referral. It said the Registrar’s letter inviting Ms Nowak to send observations to the Committee showed that she had been told of the review. The absence of a copy of a notification to the judge in records disclosed to Ms Nowak did not establish that no notification had been sent.
The court found no legal requirement for handwritten signatures on the Committee’s determination. It said the typed names of the Committee members conveyed their agreement with the unanimous decision, and that the Registrar’s letter confirmed he had been notified in writing and enclosed the determination.
The Committee’s process was a screening stage to decide whether, if the alleged conduct were established, it could amount to judicial misconduct rather than an error made in the exercise of judicial jurisdiction. The court also noted that the determination recorded that Ms Nowak’s observations had been received and considered.
The appeal concerned the refusal of leave to seek judicial review. The Court of Appeal dismissed it, leaving the Committee’s inadmissibility determination unquashed.