In conversation with colleagues, the president of a court of appeal has expressed themselves in a manner that is inconsistent with the constitutional ban on reprisals

Summary of the decision: The Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman has, on his own initiative, reviewed the statements of a president of a court of appeal in private conversations with three trainee judges who signed an open letter to the Government concerning, among other matters, the stress under which judges are working. The review has addressed whether, in these conversations, the president expressed herself in a manner that is inconsistent with the prohibition on reprisals against anyone exercising their constitutional right to freedom of expression.

The Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman’s conclusion is that, in all three cases, the people in question had reason to perceive the statements as a reprimand for signing the letter. The president thereby acted in contravention of the constitutional ban on reprisals. She is criticised for doing so.

The Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman takes this incident very seriously, particularly given that the conversations took place between a president of a court of appeal and judges at the beginning of their career paths.