Judge Wrong to Hear Case From Bed Post-Surgery, Court of Appeal Rules
The Court of Appeal found that a deputy High Court judge should not have presided over a case while recovering from surgery, even though the judgment itself was not deemed unjust.
A judge was incorrect to hear a case from his bed while recovering from surgery, the Court of Appeal has determined. Richard Clayton KC, sitting as a deputy High Court judge, heard an appeal via video link for a suspended optometrist the day after undergoing surgery for a ruptured Achilles tendon.
During the hearing, Judge Clayton indicated he had difficulty navigating PDF bundles and was unable to take notes. He also mentioned being tired and that the case was "testing his stamina," noting he had been advised not to stand for eight days after leaving the hospital. He concluded the hearing by stating it had been "quite tricky but not impossible to deal with the hearing largely from a non-sitting position."
The optometrist, Suleman Patel, who had been found guilty of serious misconduct and suspended for nine months, appealed the decision to the Court of Appeal. Patel argued the outcome was unjust because Judge Clayton was not in a suitable condition to oversee the proceedings. While Lord Justice Phillips and Lady Justice Falk acknowledged that the hearing had unsatisfactory elements, they ruled that these did not result in injustice or an incorrect judgment. However, they did state that Judge Clayton was wrong to have heard the case from his bed.
"The deputy judge is to be commended on his willingness to hear a case whilst recovering from injury and his fortitude in doing so in bed, in trying circumstances," Lord Justice Phillips stated in the judgment. "However, I consider that, save in exceptional circumstances, such as great urgency or where a matter can only be heard by a specific judge, a judge should only undertake a hearing when they have the essential tools to undertake the task properly and professionally."
Lord Justice Phillips added, "Although it did not cause any injustice in the present case, in my judgment the deputy judge should not have sat on the present case whilst encumbered by his injury. I do not say that a judge should never undertake a hearing whilst in bed or otherwise than at a desk or table, but it should be a last resort, where the matter cannot sensibly be listed before a judge sitting in the conventional way."
The Court of Appeal also noted that emails sent to Judge Clayton seeking his judgment went unanswered, and the written ruling was not provided for 16 months.