PERTH – Western Australia is set to establish an independent watchdog to investigate allegations of misconduct and mental incapacity among judges and magistrates.
The proposed legislation, introduced to parliament, seeks to modernize the state’s legal accountability framework by creating a formal mechanism for complaints, bringing the state into alignment with the majority of other Australian states and territories.
The Judicial Commission will serve as the primary body for handling grievances regarding the behavior and capacity of judicial officers, ensuring a standardized process for addressing professional misconduct without compromising the independence of the judiciary.
Scope of Oversight and Limitations
The commission is designed to address behavioral and capacity issues rather than legal errors. Under the new framework, complaints may be lodged regarding:
- Bullying or harassment by judges and magistrates.
- Inappropriate comments directed at witnesses or legal practitioners.
- The mental capacity of a judicial officer to continue performing their duties.
Attorney-General Tony Buti emphasized that the watchdog is not a substitute for the legal appeals process. The commission will not have the authority to investigate the merits of a specific court decision or sentence, as those matters must continue to be resolved through the established appeals system.
“We have great judicial officers in Western Australia, but there also has to be confidence that any complaints that may be made about their behaviour or their capacity to do their job, can be properly investigated,” Buti said.
The model broadly reflects arrangements in place in other jurisdictions, where independent judicial conduct bodies sit alongside – but do not displace – formal appeal rights and parliamentary removal mechanisms set out in constitutional and judicial tenure provisions.
Composition and Governance
The commission will operate independently of the government to maintain the separation of powers. It will be composed of nine members:
- Six heads of jurisdiction.
- Three community members, one of whom must be a legal practitioner.
- One director.
The body will oversee judges across all jurisdictions, including the District and Supreme courts. Beyond its investigative role, the legislation aims to implement an educational mandate to improve how judicial officers handle sensitive cases.
“We also want to educate judges in regard to how they should appropriately deal with matters such as domestic violence or other instances that come before them,” Buti said.
The commission’s governance structure is intended to reassure the public that complaints are assessed at arm’s length from the government of the day, while still operating within the broader constitutional framework for judicial discipline, which ultimately requires parliamentary involvement for removal from office.
Investigation and Removal Process
Complaints may be submitted by any individual or organization. Once received, the commission can either dismiss the complaint, refer it to a head of jurisdiction, or, in more severe instances, escalate the matter to an independent investigating panel.
These panels will be appointed on an as-needed basis and will consist of:
- Two current or retired judicial members.
- One “high-standing” member of the community.
If the investigating panel proves misbehaviour, the findings are reported to the attorney-general, who is then required to table the report in parliament.
“It is independent, we do not become involved until they decide to hand a report to government,” Buti said.
The final stage of the process requires both houses of parliament to agree on the findings. If approved, parliament may recommend to the governor that the judicial officer be removed from office, consistent with the protections on judicial tenure contained in the Western Australian constitutional framework.
The creation of a dedicated commission is intended to provide a clearer, more transparent pathway for dealing with complaints that fall short of removal, such as the need for counselling, training or other management responses by heads of jurisdiction.
Political Response and Regional Court Infrastructure
Shadow Attorney-General Nick Goiran welcomed the legislation, noting it follows years of advocacy and previous recommendations from the Law Reform Commission. However, Goiran questioned the current handling of judicial complaints and the accessibility of the court system.
“The opposition looks forward to now scrutinising the legislation once it is finally introduced to ensure it will meet community expectations,” Goiran said in a statement. “In the meantime, we call on the attorney-general to come clean on how many complaints he has received against the judiciary and what he intends to do about them until this commission actually begins.”
Goiran further criticized the state of regional legal access, citing more than 20 regional courthouses that remain temporarily closed due to security concerns.
“We call on the attorney-general to outline a precise timetable as to when regional courts in our state will return from their unprecedented winter hibernation,” Goiran said. “After all, no complaints against the judiciary can possibly be lodged if the courts are not even open to begin with.”
The debate over court access goes to the heart of how the justice system functions in practice: while the commission would provide a new avenue for oversight, its effectiveness will depend on how easily court users and practitioners can engage with the system across metropolitan and regional Western Australia.
If passed, the commission is scheduled to be established by the start of 2027 and fully operational by the end of that year, placing Western Australia in line with the growing use of independent judicial conduct bodies across Australia and comparable common law systems.
Related reading
