What we do with your complaint

Your complaint will be handled in accordance with The Judicial Discipline (Prescribed Procedures) Regulations 2006 (SI 2006/676)
When we receive your complaint we will first send you an acknowledgement. If your complaint is not about conduct we will tell you about other offices which might be able to help you.
If your complaint is for us, we will consider the issues raised and the quality of the evidence provided. If satisfied that the complaint requires further investigation, we will then send the judge a copy of your complaint and ask for his or her comments. We may ask you or others who may have witnessed the event complained of for further evidence, and may also listen to the tape recording of the hearing and/or obtain information from other people who were present.
In some cases it may be necessary to ask a senior judge to carry out an investigation into what has happened.
At all stages we will keep you fully informed of progress.
If the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice uphold your complaint, they will consider what action, if any, is appropriate. The Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice have the power to agree to advise, warn or remove a judge for misconduct.
The Lord Chancellor and Lord Chief Justice will not normally pay compensation for losses arising from actions by judges. They may consider making an ex gratia payment, but only in the most exceptional cases.
We aim to deal with your complaint and provide you with a full response, including any disciplinary action, which may have been taken, within 3 months. However if a judicial investigation is needed the process may take several months longer.
In some cases where the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice decide to take formal disciplinary action against a judicial office holder, the judicial office holder has a right to request that his or her case be referred to a 'review body'. Where a case has been referred to a review body, the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice must accept any findings of fact made by the review body and cannot impose a sanction on the judicial office holder that is more severe than that recommended by the review body. Each review body consists of 4 members, 2 judicial office holders and 2 lay.