Court Of Appeal Judge Heard Case Bed: Higher Court Cites Irregularity

• A deputy High Court judge, Richard Clayton KC, heard a remote appeal from his bed in November 2024 while recovering from surgery.
• The Court of Appeal ruled that the judge should not have proceeded with the hearing under such circumstances, despite acknowledging his fortitude.
• Lord Justice Phillips clarified that hearing cases from unconventional settings, such as a judge hearing from bed, should only be a last resort.
• The Court also criticized a 16-month delay in the final written judgment and the practice of orally delivering draft judgments.
• Despite procedural irregularities, the Court of Appeal found no injustice sufficient to overturn the original decision and refused permission to appeal.

Lord Justice Phillips stated that while a judge's willingness to proceed in difficult circumstances was commendable, conducting a hearing from bed should be considered only as a last resort when no conventional alternatives are available.

A deputy High Court judge, Richard Clayton KC, presided over a remote appeal hearing in November 2024 concerning an optometrist. The judge, who was recovering from surgery for a ruptured Achilles tendon and had only returned from the hospital the previous day, conducted the proceedings from his bed. He had been advised against standing for eight days but, after securing approval from senior court staff, decided to proceed with the case. This unusual setup meant the Court of Appeal judge heard case bed, a circumstance he himself acknowledged to the parties.

During the hearing, Judge Clayton informed participants that he was "sitting prone in bed," which presented challenges in navigating digital document bundles. He further admitted that holding his computer made it impossible to take notes effectively. He later confessed that the hearing was "testing my stamina significantly" and, towards its conclusion, requested a five-minute break due to fatigue. Despite these difficulties, he apologized for the situation, describing it as "quite tricky but not impossible" to manage proceedings from a non-sitting position.

The appeal originated from a nine-month suspension imposed on an optometrist by the General Optical Council following findings of serious misconduct involving dishonesty. Judge Clayton ultimately dismissed the optometrist's appeal. However, the optometrist subsequently challenged this decision, arguing that procedural irregularities during the hearing had rendered the outcome unjust.

The Court of Appeal, in a judgment delivered by Lord Justice Phillips, addressed the circumstances of Judge Clayton's hearing. Phillips LJ acknowledged and commended the judge's willingness and "fortitude" in undertaking the case while recovering from injury and conducting it from his bed under trying conditions. However, the Court firmly stated that Judge Clayton should not have taken on the hearing, particularly given the absence of significant urgency and the availability of alternative arrangements.

Lord Justice Phillips clarified the Court's stance on unconventional hearing environments, stating, "I do not say that a judge should never undertake a hearing whilst in bed or otherwise than at a desk or table, but it should be a last resort, where the matter cannot sensibly be listed before a judge sitting in the conventional way." This guidance underscores the principle that while flexibility in remote hearings is possible, maintaining judicial propriety and the appearance of fairness is paramount. The Court of Appeal remote hearing guidelines implicitly suggest that such extreme measures are only justifiable in exceptional, unavoidable circumstances.

Despite the highly unusual setup, the Court of Appeal ultimately found that Judge Clayton had remained fully engaged with all presented material and arguments throughout the proceedings. Phillips LJ concluded that no injustice had been caused to the optometrist specifically by the judge hearing from bed, noting that judges frequently encounter cases that prove more demanding than initially anticipated.

Beyond the physical setting of the hearing, the Court of Appeal also scrutinized the timeline and delivery of the judgment, highlighting a significant judicial conduct procedural irregularity. Judge Clayton orally read out a draft judgment just 16 days after the remote hearing. However, the final written version of the judgment was not issued until March 2026, a substantial 16 months after the hearing took place. During this prolonged period, the parties involved repeatedly sent emails to chase the delayed judgment, which remained unanswered.

Lord Justice Phillips deemed the lack of response to these inquiries "unacceptable." He also issued a broader caution regarding the practice of orally delivering draft judgments, stating that it should be discouraged due to the inherent risk of causing confusion among parties. This aspect of the ruling provides important clarification on best practices for judicial communication post-hearing, particularly within the context of the General Optical Council appeal procedure and similar administrative appeals.

Despite these acknowledged procedural shortcomings, including the considerable delay in the final judgment and the unaddressed communications, the Court of Appeal ultimately concluded that these issues did not amount to an injustice sufficient to warrant overturning the original decision.

The Court of Appeal's decision to refuse permission to appeal in this case provides crucial insights into judicial conduct and the evolving landscape of remote hearings. While commending a judge's dedication and willingness to proceed under challenging personal circumstances, the ruling firmly establishes that such unconventional hearing environments, like a judge hearing from bed, must be a measure of absolute last resort. This sets a precedent for how judicial discretion should be exercised when personal health issues intersect with professional duties, emphasizing that procedural fairness and the appearance of justice cannot be compromised without compelling reasons.

The judgment also serves as a critical reminder regarding the timely delivery of written decisions and the importance of clear communication from the judiciary. The criticism leveled at the 16-month delay and the unanswered emails underscores the need for efficiency and transparency in the judicial process, even if, in this specific instance, these delays were not deemed to have caused sufficient injustice to overturn the original ruling. This case, therefore, provides valuable guidance for all judicial officers on maintaining high standards of conduct and procedure, particularly as remote hearings become more commonplace.

This ruling clarifies the Court of Appeal's stance on judicial conduct during remote hearings, particularly regarding unconventional settings. Lawyers should note that while judicial effort is commendable, procedural fairness and the 'last resort' principle for non-standard hearing environments are paramount, providing grounds for potential challenges based on procedural irregularity, even if no injustice is ultimately found. It also highlights concerns about delayed written judgments and discourages oral draft judgments.

Source: Original reporting via Legal Cheek