More than 200 complaints were lodged in the past year arising from the conduct of judges, according to the annual report of a judicial watchdog.

At the same time, there were more than 80 complaints relating to the way judicial appointments were made, it says.

The report from the Judicial Appointments and Conducts Ombudsman is the first since the office was set up in April last year.

The ombudsman, Sir John Brigstocke, acts as an appeal body for judges, lawyers or members of the public who are dissatisfied with the way that an initial complaint is handled by the relevant office.

In all from April 2006 to April 2007 he received 304 complaints, 222 of which related to the handling of complaints about judicial conduct and 82 related to judicial appointments.

The total of 304 was well over double the anticipated volume of complaints, predicted to be 120 cases a year.

Of those received, 37 complaints have been finalised, of which nine were upheld or partially upheld.

Sir John says: “My decision was not challenged by either the Lord Chancellor (or, in conduct cases, the Lord Chief Justice) in any of these cases.”

He says that all his recommendations for redress were also accepted. Details of the cases are not disclosed but he outlines four, anonymously.

One concerned the Office for Judicial Complaints. The complainant said the Office had failed to conduct a fair and independent investigation of his allegation about a judge’s behaviour.

The ombudsman notes that the Office had asked the judge to comment on the allegations but then, in deciding to dismiss the complaint, “appeared simply to prefer the judge’s version” without listening to the tape of the hearing or conducting any independent verification.

Sir John upheld that part of the complaint, saying that the Office should have taken steps to verify what had happened before deciding on the conflicting accounts.

The Office is now to establish appropriate guidelines for future cases.

Another case involved someone who unsuccessfully applied for appointment as a judge.

The complainant felt his application was treated unfiarly because three different panels had conducted the interviews.

Sir John says: “I upheld this part of the complaint because I found a significant discrepancy in the way one of the three panels had approached its task and there was clear evidence that this might well have affected the outcome.”

He recommended that the complainant be put on the reserve list for consideration, which was done. The candidate was subsequently appointed.

Explore Law

• Columnists

• Law Panel

• Law Reports

• Student Law

Times Recommends

• Linklaters trounces rivals as UK's biggest firm
• Clifford Chance profits plunge 37 per cent
• Casual drinkers hit by spread of 'dry' zones