There was a 12% fall in complaints made to the Judicial Conduct Commissioner in the year to 31 July 2017, according to the Commissioner's annual report.
Of the 314 complaints about individual judges during the year, the number of actual complaints was 177.
"However, the 158 complaints shown as having been made about Supreme Court Judges came from only 13 individuals of whom some have been declared vexatious litigants," the report says.
It notes that in the 31 July 2017 year there were 2 referrals to Heads of Bench (down from 4 in the previous year) and no recommendations were made for appointment of a Judicial Conduct Panel. Since the Act commenced on 1 August 2005 only one recommendation has been made - in the year to 31 July 2010.
During the 31 July 2017 year, 330 complaints were finalised, 16% fewer than the previous year.
Complaints lodged with Judicial Conduct Commissioner, year to 31 July
|Unfinalised from previous year||64||98||95|
|No further action taken||56||42||33|
|Referred to Head of Bench (s17)||2||6||2|
|Referred to Head of Bench (s8B)||0||0||4|
|Recommendation for Judicial Conduct Panel||0||0||0|
|Complaints not finalised||48||64||98|
The report says there has been no signficant change in the range of complaints received. Partiality, discourtesy, incapacity and incompetence along with corruption, conspiracy and other criminal acts have all been asserted.
"Most often, though, the preliminary examination required by the [Judicial Conduct Commissioner and Judicial Conduct Panel] Act  has readily exposed not only a lack of evidence or substance but also that the complaint has arisen from a relatively straightforward disagreement with a Judge's decision," Judicial Conduct Commissioner Alan Ritchie says.
"Usually there is no option but to dismiss complaints like that because of the effect of section 8(2) under which the Commissioner is unable to challenge or call into question the legality or correctness of a judicial decision."
Both formal referrals to Head of Bench were to the Chief District Court Judge. The first related to a major purpose of the Act - to enhance public confidence in the judiciary. "This was a somewhat difficult situation relating to the development and testing of procedures and guidelines required by new legislative provisions," Mr Ritchie says.
The second arose from behaviour outside a courtroom "which may have diminished public confidence in the Judge's suitability for office".