GetWiki

{{Worldwide view|date=February 2024|2=the United States (and to a lesser extent, the United Kingdom)}}Judicial immunity is a form of sovereign immunity, which protects judges and others employed by the judiciary from liability resulting from their judicial actions.JOURNAL, Shaman, Jeffrey, January 1990, Judicial Immunity from Civil and Criminal Liability, San Diego Law Review, 27, 1, It is intended to ensure that judges can make decisions free from improper influence exercised on them, contributing to the impartiality of the judiciary and the rule of law.WEB, melissaann.evans, Judicial Immunities Promote Fair and Impartial Judgments,weblink 2023-05-15, www.unodc.org, en, In modern times, the main purpose of "judicial immunity [is to shield] judges from the suits of ordinary people",Judicial Immunity at the (Second) Founding: A New Perspective on §1983, 136 Harv. L. Rev. 1456, 1460 (2023) primarily litigants who may be dissatisfied with the outcome of a case decided by the judge.Though judges may be immune to suits, in many constitutional democracies judicial misconduct or bad personal behavior is not completely protected – total impunity is considered contrary to the rule of law.For an ECHR example see Ernst and Others v. Belgium, 2003, § 50-55 Depending on the jurisdiction, they may be criminally charged for courtroom behavior unrelated to the decision-making process (for example, by shooting someone and committing a murder) and judges may be removed. The method by which judges are removed varies by the judicial system in question, they include removal by other judges on the same or a higher court (in the United States, a judicial council), by a recall election, by the next regular election, or following impeachment by a legislature.

History

The extent and importance of judicial immunity over time are not wholly clear. A consensus of jurisprudential opinion however shares the view that judicial immunity developed gradually over time, evolving into its current-day position. The early origins of the doctrine may be, according to some sources, traced to the preservation of judicial independence from the political forces of the day,{{Citation |last=Webb |first=Thomas E. |title=Case of Proclamations [1610] 77 ER 1352, 12 Co Rep 74, King's Bench |date=2021-09-01 |work=Essential Cases: Public Law |publisher=Oxford University Press|doi=10.1093/he/9780191926440.003.0011 |isbn=978-0-19-192644-0 }}WEB, hlr, 2023-03-10, Judicial Immunity at the (Second) Founding: A New Perspective on § 1983,weblink 2023-05-15, Harvard Law Review, en-US, although today judicial independence is regarded as a separate principle, and immunity mainly justified from the judge's distance and independence from the parties to a case.

Development in the United States

The United States, upon independence, inherited from England, a common-law heritage of judicial immunity, the Supreme Court even holding that "[f]ew doctrines were more solidly established at common law than the immunity of judges from liability for damages for acts committed within their judicial jurisdiction".Pierson v. Ray 386 US 547, at 554-5 (1967) Notably, in Bradley v. Fisher, 80 US (13 Wall.) 335, the Supreme Court, referring in dicta to contemporary precedent in England, held that an action ought not to be entertained against a judge for his judicial acts even where allegedly done "maliciously and corruptly", at 349. The breadth of this view, however is often disputed.Whilst scholars disagree on the exact history of judicial immunity at common law, most generally agree that its key purposes include preserving the impartiality of the judge, and avoiding attacks on judicial officers as an alternative or a bypass to appeals.WEB, 2023-05-15, Judicial Immunity {{!, Encyclopedia.com |url=https://www.encyclopedia.com/law/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/judicial-immunity |access-date=2023-05-15 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230515201303weblink |archive-date=2023-05-15 }}

United Kingdom

In the United Kingdom, tribunals are considered judicial in nature and so judicial immunity applies to them at common law. This was accepted by the Employment Appeal Tribunal and subsequently the Court of Appeal of England and Wales in respect of police misconduct hearings constituted under the Police (Discipline) Regulations 1985 (since superseded by the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2008) in Heath v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis.BAILII, Heath v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis, EWCA, 2004, 943, [2005] ICR 329, Court of Appeal (Civil Division), However, in P v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, in which a police officer (an officer of the Crown, but under the Equality Act 2010 treated as an employee in employment discrimination cases) sought review of her dismissal as constituting disability discrimination due to post-traumatic stress disorder, the Supreme Court ruled that the Employment Equality Framework Directive provided directly applicable rights of access to justice in cases of employment discrimination, which, given the supremacy of EU law, overrode the common law rule of judicial immunity.BAILII, P v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, UKSC, 2017, 65, 25 October 2017, Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, WEB,weblink The primacy of EU law: asserting the right to equal treatment v judicial immunity, Maya, Sikand, Laura, Profumo, 8 November 2017, Garden Court Chambers,

United States

In the United States, judicial immunity is among a handful of forms of absolute immunity, along with prosecutorial immunity, legislative immunity, and witness immunity. The U.S. Supreme Court has characterized judicial immunity as providing "the maximum ability [of judges] to deal fearlessly and impartially with the public".WEB,weblink Ferri v. Ackerman, 444 U.S. 193 (1979), The justification is as follows: because of the likelihood of innocent individuals being convicted in a court of law under false claims, the "burden" of being subjected to a court of law (a trial) would "dampen" the judges "enthusiasm" or "passion".Barr v. Matteo, 360 U.S. 564 (1959) Opponents of judicial immunity argue that this doctrine is not adequately justifiedweblink {{Bare URL PDF|date=March 2022}} For example, judges could be shielded from any personal capacity liability, and still be subject to official capacity liability so that they may be held accountable for their injurious acts – thus "balancing" the "evil" to better protect the fundamental rights of victims. Judicial immunity does not protect judges from suits stemming from administrative decisions made while off the bench, like hiring and firing decisions. But immunity generally does extend to all judicial decisions in which the judge has proper jurisdiction, even if a decision is made with "corrupt or malicious intent".NEWS,weblink The Wall Street Journal, New Lawsuits Try to Pierce Shield of Judicial Immunity, November 12, 2009, Ashby, Jones, By way of counterexample: in 1997 West Virginia Judge Troisi became so irritated with a rude defendant, he stepped down from the bench, took off his robe, and bit the defendant on the nose.NEWS