Justice Delayed: Who is Supervising the Judges?

The recent reprimand of Ellenbogen J by the Lady Chief Justice following delays in delivering five judgments, raises an important question that deserves rather more attention than the disciplinary proceedings: what arrangements exist to ensure that judges are properly mentored, supported and supervised in the discharge of their judicial responsibilities?

This is not to be confused with judicial independence because, of course, a judge must remain independent. Rather, it is a question about the management of judicial work, professional development and the early identification of difficulties, for if those difficulties remain unaddressed, there may be serious consequences for litigants and public confidence in the administration of justice.

The judiciary today is considerably larger and more diverse in its responsibilities than when I first came into the law about 60 years ago. Since then the courts have been joined by an extensive tribunal system, with thousands of judicial office holders across a range of legal disciplines.

The Judicial College’s strategy for 2026-2030 refers to its responsibility for training approximately 24,000 judicial office holders. It delivers around 1,700 live training courses annually which are supplemented by digital learning and other resources.

Just like the rest of us, judges need continuing professional development and support to manage the competing demands of judicial office.

The Judicial College provides induction and continuing education. Specialist programmes cover civil, criminal, family and tribunal jurisdictions. The Lady Chief Justice oversees training the judiciary in the courts; The Senior President of Tribunals has a similar responsibility for tribunal judges.

I understand there are also mentoring and appraisal arrangements. The annual report of the Lady Chief Justice confirmed the continuation of the Judicial Peer Mentoring Scheme. Specialist arrangements exist within the High Court divisions.

The 2025 Annual Report also records developments in judicial leadership and appraisal. The 2024 Judicial Attitude Survey revealed that the majority of judges valued the support received from their immediate leadership judge.

Although this is, at first sight, encouraging, the existence of training and mentoring does not of itself establish that there is an effective system for identifying and addressing poor judicial performance.

It is uncomfortable to read some of the recent decisions. Ellenbogen J received a reprimand after delays of between eight and thirteen months in delivering five judgments. Three still remained outstanding when the sanction was imposed.

Sweeting J received a formal warning in April 2026 for delays in two judgments. In June 2026 he received a further formal warning concerning another judgment which had been delayed for approximately twenty months.

Employment Judge Kenward received a formal warning after 46 outstanding judgments, written reasons, orders and reconsideration decisions were identified across three regions. He had failed to report those to his leadership judges as required by the guidance.

The consequences of such delays may be substantial and irreversible to litigants awaiting decisions.  Additionally, the administration of justice depends upon efficient judgments delivered swiftly, and certainly within the guidelines.

Judicial leadership is organised through a hierarchy which includes Heads of Division, Presiding Judges, Resident Judges and Designated Judges, and a similar system exists in the tribunal system. Judges are also subject to appraisal and are expected to report outstanding work in accordance with applicable guidance.

But I wonder how effectively these arrangements operate in practice. For example, is there a comprehensive system of recording every reserved judgment and monitoring its age? Exactly when is a judge required to explain a delay?  What sort of oversight does a leadership judge have in these circumstances? And what exactly happens when a judge fails to deliver a judgment within a stated period?

One would hope that effective supervision would protect judicial independence by identifying difficulties before they developed into serious problems. One would also hope that a judge experiencing an excessive workload, personal difficulties or problems managing reserved judgments would be able to seek assistance without necessarily facing disciplinary proceedings.

The public is entitled to expect that judges are properly trained, supported and held accountable for the efficient discharge of their responsibilities, but the primary focus of supervision should be to prevent misconduct before it occurs rather than punishing it afterwards.

It is trite that justice delayed is always justice denied and the consequences for those affected are huge. I hope that the current arrangements are sufficiently effective to identify the problem before it reaches that stage.