Summary
The Court expunged adverse comments about an advocate’s professional conduct from four sets of High Court proceedings. The comments were unnecessary to decide the disputes, reflected personal perceptions and had been recorded without an opportunity for the advocate to explain himself. Their potential continuing damage to his professional reputation made expunction appropriate. The appeals concerned only those remarks and sought no substantive relief against the parties in the underlying cases.
Issues
- Whether the disparaging observations about counsel satisfied the standards for recording such remarks in judicial orders.
Held
- Relevant considerations include whether the affected person had an opportunity to explain or defend the conduct, whether the evidence justified the remarks, and whether criticism of that conduct was an integral necessity for deciding the case. Even justified criticism must use restrained language. (¶¶ 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14)
- Judicial freedom to decide fearlessly carries a corresponding need for restraint in commenting on counsel where the conduct has no bearing on adjudication. Permanent written observations demand particular care. (¶¶ 12, 15)
- The challenged comments were unnecessary to resolve the cases, appeared grounded in the judge’s personal perception and were made without allowing an explanation. Condemnation of professional integrity in those circumstances violated the opportunity-to-be-heard principle. (¶¶ 16, 18)
- Leaving the remarks in place could damage the advocate’s standing and career indefinitely. The Court therefore expunged the observations reproduced in paragraphs 4 to 7, disposing of the appeals on that limited basis. (¶¶ 1, 2, 17, 18)
Result
Appeals disposed of; the adverse remarks reproduced in paragraphs 4 to 7 of the judgment ordered expunged.