Why are judges being sanctioned?
The number of judges subject to disciplinary measures has doubled in four years, rising from 35 in 2021 to 70 in 2024. Sanctions issued by the High Council of the Judiciary vary according to the seriousness of the professional and ethical misconduct.
35 out of 70 magistrates were sanctioned in 2024. However, it should be noted that a quarter of the cases were dismissed between 2021 and 2024, representing 55 out of 202 cases. Furthermore, the number of cases dismissed is very high when it comes to disciplinary investigations of reporting judges : 998 in 2024, representing 75% of the total number of cases dismissed
Approximately twenty warnings and reprimands were recorded in 2024. While these disciplinary measures are not as severe as a temporary suspension without pay or dismissal, a warning or reprimand can negatively impact the career of a judge considering promotion or judicial responsibilities such as presiding over a court.
Breaches of professional duty are the most frequent. This is the case of a judge who handed down a sentence without first thoroughly reviewing the case file. The case concerned a release order granted after 20 hearings!
This bad practice undermines the public trust in the judicial system and their right of access to justice are paramount. Failing to adjudicate a case within a reasonable timeframe without legitimate grounds also constitutes serious professional misconduct.
Furthermore, illicit enrichment constitutes an ethical breach. The General Inspectorate of Judicial Affairs conducted a dozen asset assessments. Its investigations ultimately resulted in two disciplinary measures out of the 35 handed down in 2024. The High Council of the Judiciary reports 125 cases of asset monitoring and valuation. However, its report does not mention the number of judges in breach of the law or the number of disciplinary measures potentially taken against them from 2021 to 2022.
The dominant profile of offenders
This is a judge of exceptional rank serving in a court of appeal and in their fifties. This is the typical profile of offenders in 2024. Thus, 35 magistrates received a warning or reprimand in more than half of the cases. Dismissal and forced retirement were the last to be sanctioned. Approximately five cases involved corruption. Judges of exceptional rank accounted for the majority of sanctions: 24 out of 35. The remainder were magistrates of the first, second, and third ranks. Trial judges—those who preside over a case following a trial—top the list. They are followed by a dozen prosecutors, the magistrates who represent the prosecution in a trial on behalf of the public prosecutor’s office and the general interest. By jurisdiction, the judges and public prosecutors of the Kingdom’s 33 courts of appeal make up the bulk of those sanctioned, representing 23 of the 35 magistrates. In contrast, no investigating judge or sentencing judge appeared before the disciplinary board in 2024.
F.F.
