SOLOMON ISLANDS

CODE OF CONDUCT

for

JUDICIAL OFFICERS 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Foreword

Preamble

I  PRINCIPLES

1.0  Independence

2.0  Impartiality

3.0  Integrity

4.0  Propriety

5.0  Equality

6.0  Competence and Diligence

II.  How to Use the Code

III.  Compliance with the Code

IV.  Definitions

FOREWORD

By

The Honourable Sir Albert R. Palmer
Chief Justice of Solomon Islands

This Code sets out in clear terms standards of ethical and professional conduct for Judicial Officers in Solomon Islands. This Code follows models of Codes of Conduct developed for Judiciaries in other major jurisdictions  such as the Statement of Ethical Principles for Judges adopted in Canada in 1998, the European Charter on the Status of Judges in the same year, the Restatement of Values of Judicial Life adopted by the Chief Justices Conference of India in 1999, the Guideline for Judges of South Africa in March 2000, the Guide to Judicial Conduct published by the Council of Chief Justices of Australia in June 2002 and the Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct 2002. Codes of Conduct have also been or are about to be adopted by the Judiciaries in Pacific countries such as Cook Islands, Fiji, Kiribati, Marshall Islands and Niue. 

In 2008, the Solomon Islands Judiciary decided that it should formalize in writing a Code of Judicial Conduct to help provide guidance, direction and reference for its judicial officers as well as enquiring members of the public. Consultations with judicial officers, other government and non governmental agencies were undertaken before the finalization of this Code. This Code reflects the collective wisdom of those consulted and has the support of the entire Solomon Islands Judiciary.

This Judicial Code of Conduct sets out 6 core Principles, followed by statements of the application in Solomon Islands of each Principle and a commentary to clarify the Principles. The Principles are based on the universally accepted statements of judicial ethics and standards of conduct as set out in the Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct which was created by Judges using their own experiences. 

I wish to record my appreciation to the Judicial Officers of the Solomon Islands and the Pacific Judicial Development Programme in developing the Solomon Islands Code of Judicial Conduct.

It is my honour to formally publish the Solomon Islands Code of Judicial Conduct. 

Date: 14th August 2008

PREAMBLE

WHEREAS the judicial power of the State is vested in the Judiciary which is independent of the legislature and the executive branches of government.

WHEREAS  judicial officers  are bound by their Judicial Oath of Office in all things, to uphold  the application of the Laws and Usages of the Solomon Islands and to do right to all manner of people without fear or favour, affection or ill will. 
( wordings taken from the Judicial Oath of Office)

WHEREAS  a competent, independent and impartial judiciary is essential to the  protection of human rights, the rule of law and the proper administration of justice.

WHEREAS  it is essential that Judicial Officers, individually and collectively, respect and honour Judicial Office as a public trust and strive to enhance and maintain public confidence in the Judicial system.

WHEREAS  the foregoing principles are reflected in international and regional instruments, judicial conventions and traditions.

WHEREAS,  the primary responsibility for the promotion and maintenance of high standards of judicial conduct lies with the Judiciary.

AND NOW, THEREFORE,  the following Solomon Islands Code of Judicial Conduct for the Judges and Magistrates are ADOPTED to supplement existing rules of law and conduct which bind Judicial Officers.

1.0					PRINCIPLE
			
			              INDEPENDENCE

Judicial independence is a pre-requisite to the rule of law and a fair trial. A judge should therefore uphold and exemplify judicial independence in both its individual and institutional aspects 

Application

1.1	A judicial officer should uphold the independence of the judiciary by exercising judicial functions independently and free of irrelevant influence. 

1.2	Judicial Officers are independent from other branches of government but also from each other.  Judicial decision making is the responsibility of the individual judge.

1.3	A judicial officer shall firmly reject any attempt to influence his or her decisions in any matter, where such attempt arises outside the proper performance of judicial duties.

1.4	Judicial officers should maintain and enhance the institutional and operational independence of the judiciary. 

1.5	Judicial officers should exhibit and promote high standards of judicial conduct in order to reinforce public confidence in the judiciary, which is fundamental to the maintenance of judicial independence.

2.0			    PRINCIPLE 

IMPARTIALITY

Impartiality is essential to the proper discharge of the judicial office. Impartiality is essential not only to the decision itself but also to the process by which the decision is made. A judicial officer should perform judicial duties without fear, bias or prejudice.

Application
	
2.1	A judicial officer should perform his or her judicial duties without fear, favour, bias 
or prejudice.

2.2	A judicial officer should minimize the occasions on which it might be necessary for the judicial officer to be disqualified from hearing or deciding cases.

2.3	A judicial officer shall refrain from making any comment to the media or to members of the public while proceedings are before or could come before the Court that might affect the outcome of the proceedings or impair the fairness of the proceedings or trial of any person.

2.4. A judicial officer shall disqualify himself or herself from participating in any proceedings in 
which he or she is unable to decide the matter impartially or where it would appear to a reasonable observer that the judicial officer is unable to decide the matter impartially. Such instances include but not limited to:

(a)	proceedings where the judicial officer, depending on the circumstances,  has the same ethnic or cultural background as the parties in the proceedings. 

(b)	where the judicial officer is related to or is a personal friend to a party in the proceedings.

(c)	situations where the judicial officer is personally hostile or has a personal bias against a party or parties in the proceedings;

(d)	where the judicial officer holds strong views on the issue before the court; or where the judicial officer has personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts in the proceedings. 

(e)	proceedings where  the judicial officer or a member of his or her family has a close personal or financial interest in the outcome of the proceedings. 

(f)	where a close member of the judicial officer’s family is politically active and where concern may be raised on the judicial officer’s impartiality and detachment from the political process.

Provided that disqualification of a judicial officer shall not be required if, because of urgent circumstances, or circumstances due to geographical isolation during circuit and where no other judicial officer is available, that failure to act could lead to a serious miscarriage of justice.

2.5	A judicial officer disqualified under the above or on any other term shall disclose on the Court record the basis for disqualification and may ask the parties and their lawyers, if represented, to consider, out of the presence of the judicial officer, whether to waive disqualification. If all parties agree to the waiver, the judicial officer shall hear the case.  

3.0			PRINCIPLE 

INTEGRITY

Integrity is essential to the proper discharge of the judicial office. 

Application

3.1 A judicial officer should ensure that his or her conduct is above reproach in the view of a reasonable, fair-minded and informed person.

3.2 The behaviour and conduct of the judicial officer must reaffirm the public’s faith in the integrity of the judiciary.

4.0 				PRINCIPLE 

           PROPRIETY

Propriety and the appearance of propriety are essential to the performance of all of the activities of a judicial officer.

Application

4.1 A judicial officer should freely and willingly accept personal restrictions that might 
be viewed as burdensome by the ordinary citizen.  In particular, a judicial officer should conduct himself or herself in a way that is consistent with the dignity of the judicial office.

4.2	A judicial officer should, in his or her personal relationship with members of the legal profession who practice regularly in his/her court, avoid situations which might give rise to a reasonable suspicion of favoritism.

4.3	A judicial officer should not participate in the determination of a case which involves any member of the judicial officer’s family.

4.4	A judicial officer, like any other citizen, is entitled to freedom of expression, belief, association and assembly, but in exercising such rights and freedoms, a judicial officer should always maintain and preserve the dignity of the judicial office and the impartiality and independence of the judiciary. 

4.5	A judicial officer should be well informed and knowledgeable about his or her own personal, fiduciary and financial interests and should be reasonably informed about the financial interests of the members of the judicial officer’s family.

4.6	A judicial officer should not convey or permit others to convey the impression that anyone is in a special position to improperly influence him or her in the performance of judicial duties.

4.7	Confidential information acquired by a judicial officer in his or her official judicial capacity must not be used or disclosed for any purpose other than to the judicial officer’s judicial duties.  

5.0 				PRINCIPLE 

EQUALITY

Ensuring equality of treatment to all before the courts is essential to the due performance of the judicial office.

Application

5.1	A judicial officer should not in the performance of judicial duties, by words or conduct, show bias or prejudice towards any person or group on irrelevant grounds.

5.2	Judicial officers should pay special attention to the right of equality before the law and the right of equal protection and benefit of the law.
	
5.3	A judicial officer should not permit court staff or others subject to the judicial officer’s influence, direction or control to differentiate between persons concerned in a matter before the judicial officer, on any irrelevant grounds.

5.4	A judicial officer should require lawyers and/or parties in proceedings before the court to refrain from manifesting, by words or conduct, bias or prejudice based on irrelevant grounds (except such as are relevant to an issue in the proceedings and which may be the subject of legitimate advocacy).

6.0					PRINCIPLE 

COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE 

Competence and diligence are crucial to the due performance of judicial office.

Application

6.1	A judicial officer should give precedence to his or her judicial functions over any other activity. 

6.2	A judicial officer shall not engage in any activity which may adversely affect the diligent discharge of his or her judicial functions.

6.3	A judicial officer should perform all judicial duties and shall dispose of all judicial matters, including delivery of reserved decisions, fairly, efficiently and with reasonable promptness.

6.4	Judicial Officers should take all reasonable steps to enhance legal knowledge, judicial skills and personal development necessary for the proper performance of judicial duties. For this purpose, training and other facilities should be made available to judicial officers. 

6.5	Judicial officers shall maintain order, decorum and treat all parties courteously in all proceeding in which he or she is involved. 

II.	HOW TO USE THE CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT

This Code contains key principles to guide the conduct of Judicial Officers in the performance of their functions on the Bench and in their private lives. Although the Code addresses many of the main issues of ethics and conduct, it is by no means comprehensive. Where the Code is silent, the spirit of the Code is to be applied.

Judicial Officers should proactively seek advice from the Head of Jurisdiction about issues of personal concern or where there is some difficulty in determining whether an action is ethical or not. Consultation with the Head of Jurisdiction is encouraged.

III.	COMPLIANCE WITH THE CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT

The Solomon Islands Code of Judicial Conduct is a public document. Adherence to this Code is not only fundamental to the integrity and independence of the Judiciary, but to also maintain public confidence in the Judiciary. Breaches of the Code can be viewed seriously and may lead to consultation and advice or to appropriate action taken by the Head of Jurisdiction.

IV. DEFINITIONS

In this Code, unless the context otherwise permits or requires, the following meanings shall be attributed to the words used:

“Judicial Officer” means any person exercising judicial functions, with the exception of the Local Court Justices. The Local Court Justices may however use this Code for guidance purposes.

“Judicial officer’s family” means a judicial officer’s:

First Degree
Spouse
Children
Parents
Brothers and sisters (siblings)
De facto Partner (“02”) (the number “02” is commonly used in Solomon Islands to refer to the de-facto partner as being second to the husband or wife in a relationship). 

Second Degree
Grandparents, grandchild, in-laws of the First Degree, uncles, aunties, nephews, nieces and enemies/hostile friends.

Third Degree

Distant relatives or Linesmen/tribe, clans, friends and beyond. For example, in some cultural groups, a cousin, 10 times removed can be considered to be sufficiently close to warrant disqualification.

A judicial officer must disqualify him/herself from hearing cases of or involving family members falling within the above definition. A judicial officer may hear cases falling outside the above definition. Any objection from any party over the relationship between the judicial officer and family members falling outside of the above definition, the Judicial Officer may disqualify him/herself if another judicial officer can be found to hear the case. In exceptional situations, where a judicial officer is unable to transfer the case, the relationship between the Judicial Officer and the litigant must be disclosed on the record and consent of all parties in the case to be sought. If consent is given, the judicial officer can participate in the proceedings. This process must be recorded on the case file.   

“irrelevant grounds and irrelevant influence” includes the grounds of race, colour, sex, religion, national origin, disability, age, marital status, sexual orientation, social and economic status and other like grounds.