Correspondence: Supervisory Committee of Judges: Re: Complaints: (1) Judge Tore Schei, (2) Judge Wenche Arntzen and (3) Judge Nina Opsahl

Correspondence: Supervisory Committee of Judges: Re: Complaints: (1) Judge Tore Schei, (2) Judge Wenche Arntzen and (3) Judge Nina Opsahl



Andrea Muhrrteyn | Norway v. Breivik | 01 August 2012

Complaint to Secretariat of the Supervisory Committee of Judges:

On 30 May 2012 complainant filed three complaints with the Secretariat of the Supervisory Committee of Judges against respectively: (1) Judge Tore Schei, (2) Judge Wenche Arntzen and (3) Judge Nina Opsahl.

On 06 June 2012 complainant noted that she had not yet received any information detailing the process and procedure for her complaints, and additionally provided the completed signed “Skjema for klage på dommere til Tilsynsutvalget for dommere (TU)” forms for her complaints.

On 02 July 2012 complainant noted: “I am still waiting for the Secretariat of the Supervisory Committee for Judges, to provide me with a Case and/or Reference Number for my complaint/s, including details about processing of my complaint/s in Norway v. Breivik matter against respectively: (1) Judge Nina Opsahl, (2) Judge Wenche Arntzen & (3) Chief Justice Tore Schei.”

On 04 July 2012 complainant filed a complaint with the Parliamentary Ombudsman: Slow Case Processing or Failure to Provide Case Processing by Secretariat of the Supervisory Committee of Judges

On 11 July Parliamentary Ombudsman responded (Ref: 2012/1943). On 20 July I recontacted the Supervisory Committee to provide me with a Case and/or Reference Number for my complaint/s, by 27 July 2012.

On 31 July the Supervisory Committee of Judges responded, to which I responded.

Correspondence: Supervisory Committee of Judges: Re: Complaints: (1) Judge Tore Schei, (2) Judge Wenche Arntzen and (3) Judge Nina Opsahl

From: Domstol Administrasjonen: Eiken, Espen
Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2012 9:46 AM
To: 'jmcswan@mweb.co.za'
Subject: Tilsynsutvalget for dommere - Klage: Justice Tore Schei, Judge Wenche Arntzen, Judge Nina Opsahl

We refer to your three complaints to the Supervisory Committee for Judges (Tilsynsutvalget for dommere).

Your complaints will be handled according to our standard procedure. According to our standard procedure we don’t send a confirmation letter to inform that we have received a complaint. Each complaint will be given a case number. The average handling time for the Supervisory Committee has lately been up to six months.

On behalf of the Supervisory Committee for Judges
Espen Eiken
Senior Adviser





From: Lara Johnstone
Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2012 1:28 AM
To: 'Eiken, Espen'
Cc: Judge Wenche Arntzen; Judge Nina Opsahl; Ch.Justice Tore Schei
Subject: RE: Tilsynsutvalget for dommere - Klage: Justice Tore Schei, Judge Wenche Arntzen, Judge Nina Opsahl

Ms. Eiken,
Supervisory Committee for Judges

Many thanks for your correspondence dated 31 July 2012.

I am a little unclear as to a few issues in your correspondence:

1. Committee does not Acknowledge Receipt of Complaints

I am confused: Is the Committee deliberately or negligently ignorant that it's behaviour contradicts its alleged goals of encouraging confidence in the courts?[1]. If the Committee is unable to identify very basic common sense unethical conduct in its own procedures (namely to professionally acknowledge receipt of any complaint to inform a complainant of the complaints procedures); is such behaviour not conducive to undermining confidence in the Committee's work; and consequently in the broader role of the court system?

2. Standard Procedure:

Your brochure states: "The proceedings are in writing. All parties involved are informed and are given an opportunity to make a statement. When the case is ready for hearing – after all parties have made their statements – this takes place at a meeting which all the Committee members attend. Complaints are generally dealt with on the basis of written statements. But the parties are entitled to make verbal statements to the Supervisory Committee, unless the Committee should consider this as obviously unnecessary to the elucidation of the case. In special cases, it may be relevant to obtain statements from others, examine witnesses, etc."

It is unclear from aforementioned procedures, whether all parties statements are public statements provided to all parties?

My complaints were filed on 06 June 2012, with a follow-up enquiry on 02 July, with no response whatsoever from the Committee until 31 July 2012, subsequent to complaints filed with the Parliamentary Ombudsman.

Can you please clarify; so that I am crystal clear about the Committee's process, and can continue these proceedings with confidence in the Committee's impartial objectivity and professionalism:

1. It will take six months for me to be issued a case number?
2. Or, it will take six months to complete the complaint enquiry?

Or put differently; how long should I wait for a professional response from the Committee, before concluding that -- like Norwegian Judges, Prosecutors, Police and Editors -- the Committee just ignores politically incorrect complaints, as if the people who file such complaints simply do not exist?

Respectfully,


Lara Johnstone
Norway v. Breivik :: Uncensored
http://norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com/

[1] Committee's Purpose:
The Supervisory Committee's most important guideline is to work to identify factors that are likely to undermine confidence in the courts. This work requires three important considerations must be weighed against each other: For the courts to function appropriately in society must be turned down on the factors that contribute to doubt that judges act on the basis of appropriate judicial conduct. That ethical standards that support and develop confidence in the courts as independent, impartial and competent public institutions for conflict resolution.

» » » » [Complaints: Judicial Ethics]