A Victorian County Court judge has been directed to undertake counselling and training following a finding by the Judicial Commission of Victoria that certain comments made to a barrister were 'unfair and inappropriate'. The ruling addresses concerns about professional conduct within the state's legal system, marking a significant step in judicial oversight.

Judge Michael Tinney will undergo both counselling and further training after the Judicial Commission substantiated part of a formal complaint lodged against him. While the commission found his conduct to be 'inappropriate', it determined that it did not amount to 'judicial bullying', dismissing other aspects of the complaint.

Commission's Detailed Findings

The complaint, lodged by a senior and experienced barrister, alleged that Judge Tinney engaged in unacceptable behaviour during three separate sex offence trials conducted between 2022 and 2023. The barrister claimed an 'inappropriate tone and demeanour' and 'critical comments of an inappropriate nature' were directed at her.

Specifically, the commission found that on two distinct occasions, Judge Tinney made critical remarks concerning the barrister's professional integrity and competence. One instance occurred in the presence of her client and colleagues, while the other took place when the barrister was not present to defend herself.

In one exchange, the judge suggested 'counsel did not need to cheat,' and in another, he stated he 'shuddered to think what submissions would be made.' The Judicial Commission concluded that such comments were 'inconsistent with the respect, courtesy, patience and tolerance' expected within the court. These statements were deemed 'unwarranted, and liable to cause unnecessary hurt,' thus infringing upon the high standards of conduct required of judicial officers.

While individual comments might have been viewed as momentary displays of frustration, the commission noted that, cumulatively, they were disrespectful and had the potential to diminish the barrister's professional standing.

The Judge's Defence and Referral

In response to the Judicial Commission's inquiry, Judge Tinney vigorously denied all allegations of wrongdoing, particularly rejecting claims of bullying and inappropriate conduct. However, he acknowledged making 'robust' statements and displaying moments of frustration or annoyance, describing them as 'often in the moment'.

Judge Tinney maintained that his critical statements were 'justified and not gratuitously made' but conceded that he did not act perfectly and would approach similar situations differently in the future. He expressed that had he been aware of the impact of his words, he would not have uttered them in the manner he did.

The Judicial Commission defines judicial bullying as unreasonable conduct by judges or magistrates, including humiliating, insulting, belittling, or intimidating individuals in court. Despite some allegations, the commission dismissed claims that Judge Tinney exhibited an inappropriate tone or demeanour, or that he treated the barrister differently in the first two trials. However, it upheld that critical comments about her professional integrity and competence were indeed made in the second and third trials.

This case marks the first instance where a barrister's complaint about a sitting judge has been publicly revealed by the Judicial Commission. The substantiated portion of the complaint has now been formally referred to County Court's Chief Judge Amanda Chambers for further action. Both Judge Tinney and Chief Judge Chambers declined to comment on the matter when approached.