An assistant coroner has faced disciplinary action after he was overheard referring to a barrister’s submission as “bollocks,” reflecting misconduct.
An investigation was conducted by the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office (JCIO) following a complaint made on behalf of a party involved in an inquest. The assistant coroner, Heath Westerman, admitted to describing the barrister’s submission in derogatory terms, attributing his comment to frustration over what he deemed a poor submission. This conversation occurred with two staff members in a private area, under the belief that the complainant had left the building. Mr Westerman accepted his language was inappropriate and expressed regret over the incident.
Mr Westerman denied two other allegations related to his comments. He clarified that he was under significant work pressure, which may have influenced his actions. Despite his denial of the remaining allegations, an investigating judge determined that Mr Westerman did indeed imply that the duration of the inquest listing was ‘ridiculous,’ a statement deemed both inappropriate and prejudicial. However, it was concluded that he did not make the remark ‘Who do they think they are?’
Acknowledging his misconduct, Mr Westerman apologised immediately to the complainant, reported the matter to his senior coroner, and recused himself from the ongoing case. The Lady Chief Justice, Baroness Carr, and Lord Chancellor Shabana Mahmood reviewed the case alongside the judge’s findings. They agreed that a formal warning was a reasonable sanction, noting Mr Westerman’s previously unblemished record.
In a separate case, Insolvency and Companies Court Judge Catherine Burton was advised formally after a 16-month delay in issuing a judgment on costs. Though several emails from requesting parties were not forwarded to Judge Burton, the JCIO found she had enough opportunity to prepare the judgment timely. Judge Burton acknowledged the delay, apologised to all parties involved, and advised the JCIO that future cases would automatically be scheduled for subsequent hearings if there was insufficient time to resolve the matter. She also took steps to ensure crucial emails reached judges promptly.
Both incidents underscore the importance of timeliness and professionalism within the judicial system, as highlighted by the JCIO’s disciplinary actions.
The outcomes reflect the judiciary’s commitment to maintaining standards of conduct and efficiency, vital for public confidence.
