The complainant alleged that the judge treated him inappropriately, with disrespect, in an un dignified and humiliating manner, and also discriminated against him on the basis of race and disability.webid-20150000
The complainant alleged that the judge treated him inappropriately, with disrespect, in an un dignified and humiliating manner, and also discriminated against him on the basis of race and disability. The complainant also alleged that the judge violated his constitutional rights, violently opposed his views, terrorized him with threats and mind games, did not conduct himself with integrity so as to sustain and enhance public confidence in the judiciary, was adversarial, belligerent and belittled the complainant. The judge allegedly also mistreated and verbally assaulted the complainant who was self-represented, was insulting, frustrated, and made comments, expressions and gestures which reasonably may be interpreted as showing insensitivity to or disrespect during the hearing. The complainant also claimed that the judge talked in a condescending manner, reprimanded him, made improper remarks, and completely disregarded clear evidence of collusion and conspiracy between defence counsels.
With these allegations in mind, the Council carefully reviewed the case. The Council explained to the complainant that it has no authority to review a judicial decision for the purpose of determining its correctness. The Council explained that judges are generally expected to remain courteous during court proceedings; however, judges are also expected to maintain firm control of proceedings and, as necessary, act firmly and authoritatively. The complainant may have perceived this as threats, verbal assaults and disrespect when in fact the judge was simply controlling the proceedings.
The Council concluded that the complainant’s allegations of discrimination, racism and corruption were vexatious and clearly an abuse of the complaint process. This conclusion was supported in part by the complainant’s unnecessary use of strong and abusive language and his lack of supportive evidence. The matter was closed.Back