Watchdog directs judge to counselling after 'inappropriate' comments

A Victorian judge who admonished a barrister in front of her client and behind her back will receive counselling after the watchdog found his comments were "unfair and inappropriate".

The Judicial Commission of Victoria said Judge Michael Tinney of the County Court should also undergo training after it substantiated part of a complaint against him.

The complaint was made by the barrister, who the ABC understands is an experienced and senior member of the profession.

She alleged Judge Tinney engaged in judicial bullying, but the commission found that while his conduct was "inappropriate", it "did not amount to judicial bullying", and dismissed other parts of the complaint.

It is the first time a barrister's complaint about a sitting judge has been published by the Judicial Commission, which last week revealed the findings of its investigation.

The commission found that on two occasions, Judge Tinney made "critical" comments about the barrister's professional integrity and competence — once in front of their client and colleagues and once when they were "not present to defend themselves".

"In one exchange the officer [Judge Tinney] suggested that counsel did not need to cheat and in another he said that he shuddered to think what submissions would be made," the commission said.

It found his conduct on those occasions was "inconsistent with the respect, courtesy, patience and tolerance" of the court.

"These comments were, of themselves, inappropriate, and unwarranted, and liable to cause unnecessary hurt, and therefore infringed the standards of conduct generally expected of judicial officers.

"Other comments taken as single or isolated incidents may have been understood as momentary displays of frustration or annoyance but cumulatively were disrespectful towards counsel and were liable to diminish counsel's professional standing."

Judge Tinney vigorously rejected all the allegations and denied any wrongdoing to the commission.

He declined to comment to the ABC.

The Judicial Commission has now referred the substantiated part of the complaint to the County Court's Chief Judge Amanda Chambers.

Chief Judge Chambers also declined to comment.

Complaints revolved around sex offence trials

The senior barrister's complaint revolved around Judge Tinney's alleged conduct during three separate sex offence trials dating back to 2022 and 2023.

She was the lead lawyer in the first two trials and was initially leading a third trial but handed the case back.

She accused Judge Tinney of treating her differently, having an "inappropriate tone and demeanour" and making "critical comments of an inappropriate nature" in the three trials.

The barrister told the commission that Judge Tinney's behaviour amounted to judicial bullying and caused her "significant distress".

In a response to the commission, Judge Tinney vigorously rejected all the allegations in the first and third trials.

He denied bullying the barrister and engaging in any inappropriate conduct in the second trial, but accepted that he had made "robust" statements and displayed some frustration and annoyance.

Judge Tinney told the commission those displays were "often in the moment".

He said the critical statements about the barrister were "justified and not gratuitously made" but acknowledged he did not act perfectly and would do things differently in the future.

Judge Tinney said had he known the impact of his words, he would not have said them in the way he did.

According to the commission, judicial bullying happens when judges or magistrates display unreasonable conduct including humiliating, insulting, belittling or intimidating someone in court.

The Judicial Commission dismissed allegations Judge Tinney had an inappropriate tone and demeanour, and treated the barrister differently, in the first two trials.

But it found he made critical comments of an inappropriate nature about her professional integrity and competence in the second and third trials.

"In the course of interactions with counsel the officer admonished counsel in terms that were unfair and inappropriate,"

the commission said.

"The commission acknowledged that the trials were challenging for both the officer and counsel, and that some degree of frustration was understandable in the circumstances.

"However, it concluded that, on a number of occasions, the officer's comments exceeded what was appropriate and fell short of the standards expected."