An action had been brought against a colonial judge, alleging malice.
Held: Lord Esher MR said: ‘the question arises whether there can be an action against a judge of a court of record for doing something within his jurisdiction, but doing it maliciously and contrary to good faith. By the common law of England it is the law that no such action will lie.’ and ‘The ground alleged from the earliest times as that on which this rule rests is that if such an action would lie the judges would lose their independence, and that the absolute freedom and independence of the judges is necessary for the administration of justice . . The public are deeply interested in this rule, which indeed exists for their benefit, and was established in order to secure the independence of the judges, and prevent their being harassed by vexatious actions.’
Judges:
Lord Esher MR
Citations:
[1895] 1 QB 668
Cited by:
Cited – In re McC (A Minor); McC v Mullan HL 1984
The House considered the immunity from suit of judges. The Magistrate here had passed a custodial sentence on a minor without complying with a statutory provision which required him to inform the offender of the right to Legal Aid.
Held: The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Torts – Other, Legal Professions
Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.463696
