JCIO 09/25

A spokesperson for the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office said:

The Lady Chief Justice, with the Lord Chancellor’s agreement, has issued District Judge Christopher Falvey with formal advice for misconduct.

Facts

The Guide to Judicial Conduct states that judicial office-holders are expected to display diligence and care in the discharge of judicial duties.

The JCIO received a complaint from a party to family proceedings alleging that there had been an 11-month delay by District Judge Falvey in signing off a final order.

District Judge Falvey’s representations

District Judge Falvey stated that the delay did not amount to 11-months, but rather was closer to four months. In explaining the delay, District Judge Falvey stated that after the relevant hearing, he had directed counsel to agree and file a draft order.

When the draft order was unable to be agreed, District Judge Falvey requested written submissions, which were received in March 2024. He was able to consider the written submissions, having been away, around mid April. He signed off the order in August 2024.

District Judge Falvey accepted that there had been a delay in signing off the order. He explained that this was due to other work pressures.

Nominated judge’s findings

Following an investigation carried out under the Judicial Conduct Rules 2023, a nominated judge found that District Judge Falvey was responsible for a delay in signing off the order of four months and three weeks. The nominated judge found that this amounted to misconduct.

In recommending a sanction of formal warning, the nominated judge took into account that District Judge Falvey had received a sanction of formal advice in 2017 for a delay in issuing a judgment. The nominated judge also considered the nature of the proceedings to be an aggravating factor.

Decision

The Lady Chief Justice and the Lord Chancellor agreed with the nominated judge’s findings that District Judge Falvey’s actions amounted to misconduct. However, after careful consideration, they decided to issue him with a lesser sanction of formal advice.

In doing so, they took into account the nature of the proceedings alongside the length of the delay for which he was responsible, his acceptance of responsibility and the fact his previous finding of misconduct took place around seven years before the circumstances leading to the complaint in this case.

Notes for Editors

Media queries in relation to the JCIO should be made in the first instance to the Judicial Press Office - telephone 020 7073 4852 or via email - press.enquiries@judiciary.gsi.gov.uk

Sanctions for misconduct by judicial office-holders are set out in the Constitutional Reform Act 2005. They are, in order of severity: formal advice, formal warning, reprimand and removal from office.

For more information about the Office, including details on how to make a complaint against a judicial office holder, you can visit the JCIO website at: Judicial Conduct Investigations website