A judge has refused to allow a longstanding dispute over the Judicial and Legal Services Committee to be appealed further.

LeYoni Junos, of the Civil Justice Advocacy Group, argued that the JLSC was an “unconstitutional body” that lacked authority to investigate or hear her complaints against local judges and called for a judicial review.

While her application was refused by Puisne Judge Juan Wolffe last month, Ms Junos applied for leave to appeal the decision on a series of grounds including that the judge failed to fully take her arguments under consideration.

She further argued that the judge had not properly considered her concerns about “apparent and inherent bias” of the judiciary in the matter.

However, in a ruling released last week, Mr Justice Wolffe denied her leave to appeal on all grounds.

The judge wrote that Ms Junos had provided no factual or legal basis to support her claim of bias, noting that such claims are serious and should not be made without foundation.

Mr Justice Wolffe said: “If indeed there were any sustainable allegations of apparent or inherent bias of the judiciary as a whole and myself specifically, then the applicant could have, and should have, made a formal application for me to recuse myself at the outset of the hearing of her renewed appeal.”

He noted that Ms Junos was aware she could make such an application because she had done so in respect of a separate judge.

“I suspect the applicant would have taken issue with any appointed judge hearing her judicial review application — even those who may hail from overseas — as that person’s appointment would ordinarily need to go through the Chief Justice, whom she made a judicial complaint against, and as well through the Governor, whom she has instituted judicial review against,” Mr Justice Wolffe added.

The case came as a result of a complaint made by the Civil Justice Advocacy Group, a pressure group challenging the legitimacy of a committee set up to handle complaints about judges, to John Rankin, the then Governor, in February 2019, regarding the behaviour of the Chief Justice.

Later that month, Government House told the group the complaint had to be resubmitted to the JLSC in accordance with its “complaints protocol”.

The group, in an open letter sent to Rena Lalgie, Mr Rankin’s successor, said it filed the civil proceedings against the Governor on May 17, 2019, but that it “was met with absolute silence from the judiciary — that is, there was, and has been to date, no communication from the Registrar as to the granting or refusal of leave for this application”.

The JLSC subsequently filed for a judicial review of the Governor’s decision in the Supreme Court, arguing that the JLSC was an unconstitutional body with no legal authority.

Ms Junos told the court that the Governor had a responsibility to appoint a tribunal to hear the complaint.

She highlighted that Gibraltar and Cayman include the creation of judicial services commissions in their respective constitutions.

However, in his decision, Mr Justice Wolffe noted that other jurisdictions, including Australia and the Isle of Man, use a non-statutory framework to handle complaints against the judiciary.

While the judge said Bermuda may wish to follow in the footsteps of Gibraltar and the Cayman Islands by creating a constitutional body, the lack of constitutional support was not “fatal” for the JLSC.

Ms Junos, in her leave to appeal, argued that Mr Justice Wolffe’s decision did not fully appreciate her arguments that the only body capable of investigating her complaint was a tribunal.

The judge responded that the contents of his ruling entirely countered that ground of appeal.

“It may be that the applicant did not agree with my conclusions, but this is not tantamount to me not addressing the gravamen of the grounds on which she sought judicial review,” Mr Justice Wolffe wrote.

• It is The Royal Gazette’s policy not to allow comments on stories regarding court cases. As we are legally liable for any slanderous or defamatory comments made on our website, this move is for our protection as well as that of our readers.