Abusive Family Court Judges: Accountability Required
There is an abusive family court judge now ‘educating’ on family violence & abuse. Principal Family Court Judge, Jacqueline Moran, apparently doesn’t think that’s a problem
I practiced as a lawyer until 2016. In the last few years of practice, this was in a regional court, where everyone knew everyone. That also meant I appeared regularly in front of one of the resident judges there: Stephen Coyle.
In spite of our professional relationship, in 2016, Judge Coyle took it upon himself to reserve my personal family court case to himself. He hadn’t had any previous involvement in the case on any substantial level, so there was no clear reasoning behind the decision.
There was however (because of our professional relationship), an obvious and serious conflict of interest, yet he refused to recuse himself; going so far as to claim that he didn’t remember who I was or if I had ever appeared in front of him in a professional capacity. Since I appeared in our regional court daily, where he was a resident judge, it was a bit of a leap on his part.
In a similar case (G v N [2018] NZHC 2763), Coyle was also criticised by the High Court for continuing to act where there was a conflict of interest; reflecting something of a pattern for him. He does quite literally consider himself to be above the law and who is there to stop him?
Of related concern is that my case also involves family violence and abuse. I previously published a newsroom article (as well as on here), where I detailed the never ceasing series of family court (and related) applications that I have been subjected to by an abusive ex partner. Coyle was the judge in the majority of those proceedings.
Coyle has been criticised by the Court of Appeal in Nikau v Nikau [2018] NZCA 566, in relation to his approach on family violence matters. It’s an issue also reflected across many of his other published decisions (see for example: Carter v Wi; AJO v AWO).
It’s also an issue I knew well from my professional practice in the regional court we both worked too: discussion in the lawyers room was often rife with criticism of him on this front, as well as in relation to other lapses of professionalism. (He is, for example, also well known for his failure to read case files and for then lashing out lawyers who seek to correct his consequent false presumptions).
The Livingstone Case & the Murder of Two Children
In the 2013 criminal case, NZ Police v Livingstone, Coyle also discharged without conviction and minimised the offending of a man who appeared before him on a second breach of a protection order and who shortly thereafter, went on to kill his two children.
Anyone who works in the field of family violence can tell you that a lot will have occurred before a protection order is even applied for. On the first breach of such an order, it can sometimes be appropriate for a judge to go lightly, with the hope that the offender might yet be reformed. A second breach though, is worthy of absolute condemnation — as most district court judges (to their credit) recognise.
Coyle’s gross mishandling of the situation in Livingstone, reflected his lack of knowledge around how family violence operates and left open the circumstances for what then occurred: the murder of two young and defenceless children, by their father, whose behaviour had not been condemned and held to account by the judge he had appeared before.
I have pointed to the Livingstone case specifically here too, because it reflects the worst nightmare of any mother appearing in the family court.
Yet as demonstrated across the extensive work of the Backbone Collective and various New Zealand sociologists and psychologists, as well as health and legal academics, there are literally hundreds of cases where New Zealand courts have failed to protect mothers and their children from family and sexual violence and abuse.
Earlier this year, there was also an extensive open letter signed by more than 70 domestic violence experts and academics across a multitude of disciplines, all condemning the family courts approach to family violence and calling for an investigation.
In spite of all of these clearly articulated concerns, one might hope the family court judiciary would sit up and take notice: perhaps humble themselves a little and commit to bettering the system.
Instead, in news article after news article this year, Principal Family Court Judge, Jacqueline Moran, has made it clear that she believes there are no issues with the way in which family violence and abuse is dealt with in her courts.
Judge Coyle and Family Violence & Abuse
Of great concern to me this week, was then also seeing Judge Coyle listed as a key speaker at the upcoming NZ Law Society Family Violence Dynamics Forum, where he will be speaking to an audience of potentially hundreds of legal (and related) professionals.
Coyle’s profile for that event too, notes that he ‘is a member of the Principal Family Court Judge’s Advisory Board and is currently leading a project…on making changes to improve the experiences of victims in the Family Court’.
I know personally, that Coyle takes no responsibility for what happened in the Livingstone case or in any of the other cases he has sat on, where there has been family violence or abuse and where his actions have led to devastating consequences for victims.
I know he takes no responsibility in relation to the Livingstone case in particular, because I raised the case before him, in one of my personal family court cases and got a ferocious denial in response.
Instead of compassion or empathy for what I have endured as the consequence of my abusive relationship, I received a long rant that included accusations about my purported ‘lack of veracity’, and many other personal and inappropriate remarks.
Clearly, Coyle prefers to stamp his authority, rather than offer compassion, and in doing so (certainly in my case), undoubtedly thought to leave me with little credibility.
His approach to family violence and abuse begs the question: why does Principal Family Court Judge, Jacqueline Moran, think Coyle is in any way suited to lead her project on ‘making changes to improve the experiences of victims in the Family Court’?
I don’t doubt Coyle is right in believing he can rely on his colleagues standing behind his comments: protecting ones ‘own’, is a core mentality in the legal profession and is a practice I witnessed frequently as a lawyer.
Catriona McLennan, for example, was a lawyer investigated by the law society in 2018, after she dared to say publicly that a judge’s comments on domestic violence were ‘inappropriate’ and ‘condoned violence’. The kerfuffle that resulted over that situation, meant that the investigation against her was ultimately discharged.
It reminded me too, of one of the big reasons why I left law: while I am free to speak as I want to today, when I was a lawyer, I faced the ever present threat of being forced out of the profession, had I wanted to speak the truth (and I did!).
Still, the Principal Family Court Judge’s choice to have Coyle lead her project in relation to family violence and abuse victims, is extremely questionable. Coyle has also refused any suggestion that he may need further education on the dynamics of family violence and abuse.
Judicial Accountability & Bullying
Recent news articles over the last few weeks, have at least begun to question what we should do when judges misbehave and how they should be held to account. For the longest time though, there has been no effective accountability, which is what Judges like Coyle have been able to rely on.
As one RadioNZ article recently (and accurately) declared in its headline: “Complaining about a Family Court judge isn’t safe”. Other recent news articles have also noted extensive bullying by judges.
Again though, Principal Family Court Judge, Jacqueline Moran, apparently doesn’t think bullying is an issue in her courts either; that is, despite findings by the law society itself, to the contrary.
In a very recent case involving Hawkes Bay Family Court Judge, Peter Callinicos, some very serious allegations of bullying were also made; allegations unfortunately all too consistent with my own experience of that particular judge when I was in practice too and also reflecting something I witnessed frequently in my appearances before many other notorious judges.
I remember many awful situations in my professional career, where it was necessary to pre-warn clients about particularly obnoxious judges and the inevitable bullying that they could expect once in the dock or witness box. Frequently it was the case, that I needed to step between my client and those particular judges to halt bullying or berating that had the potential to jeopardise my client’s rights.
In Auckland (New Zealand’s main centre), I was respected for my professionalism in this respect and frequently received praised from the bench. When I moved to Tauranga though and began work in NZ’s “regional” courts, I encountered an altogether different reality.
That’s not to say that there weren’t plenty of problematic judges in Auckland: it is simply that in Auckland, I didn’t experience the kind of toxic culture that regional courts, like that of Tauranga, are often known for across the board.
Barriers to Accountability: Family Court
One of the biggest barriers facing those wanting to criticise family court judges, is that the worst of the bullying also (most often) occurs outside of publicised decisions. This means that the worst behaviours of judges are not held to account in places like the family court, where hearings are generally closed to the public.
Only “formal” decisions are also subject to appeal. That means that little to none of the in-between stuff that occurs before a trial, at pre-trial hearings, or before a case may have gone very far at all, is appealable.
When a judge behaves badly outside a ‘formal decision’, there is literally nothing to appeal.
This is something I witnessed frequently in practice (and of course in my own family court cases), where an ill-informed or unknowledgeable family court judge would berate or coerce a victim in ways that then caused untold damage. Yet there was (and is) no accountability for this behaviour.
All of this means that when the Principal Family Court Judge harps on about “appeals” being the means by which judges can be held to account, she’s talking absolute nonsense, because a lot of what occurs in family court, is not in fact able to be appealed.
That is of course, also quite aside from the fact that the enormous financial and legal barriers that a victim faces in relation to appeals, make appeals quite impossible for many family court litigants anyway. Even as a trained lawyer, I certainly found this to be the case in my own personal family court cases.
Enjoyed this story and wish to back its creator? Contemplate becoming a Medium member. By registering through my referral link, I’ll get a small commission without any additional cost to you! In return, you’ll unlock unlimited access to all stories on Medium.
