Uncertainty lingers over Chief Magistrate Joanne Walsh’s future in the judiciary, with more than three weeks having passed since the conclusion of her disciplinary hearing.
The proceedings concluded in early September after just a few days.
Walsh, who has held her position for 12 years, was suspended by the Judicial and Legal Services Commission (JLSC) on July 20, with full pay until further notice.
The suspension came in the wake of the issuance of at least 10 disciplinary charges on July 12.
Among the initial allegations were accusations of her failure to transmit funds to the government treasury, along with the destruction of magistrates’ notes, vouchers, and government property.
During the course of the hearing, five additional charges were introduced. However, details of these latest charges have not been disclosed.
A tribunal of judges presided over the matter, hearing evidence related to Walsh’s alleged misconduct and counterarguments from her legal team.
Walsh was represented by a legal team comprising attorneys Kendrickson Kentish, Leon Symister, Wendel Robinson, and Cherise Archibald.
All parties involved in the proceedings were expected to submit written arguments. Following this, the tribunal was to deliver its decision. However, the wait for that decision continues.
The JLSC had been conducting an investigation into Chief Magistrate Walsh for several months. The probe was initiated in response to allegations of misconduct brought to the commission’s attention by the Permanent Secretary (PS) in the Ministry of Legal Affairs.
A prior attempt by the PS to launch an investigation in 2022 was superseded when the matter was referred to a higher authority.
Subsequently, the commission continued its investigation and appointed Justice Godfrey Smith to lead the inquiry, allowing Walsh an opportunity to provide her response before formal charges were laid.
Walsh sought an interim injunction to halt the disciplinary proceedings, asserting that her suspension was unlawful and amounted to an abuse of process.
However, on September 4, her request for interim relief was denied by Judge Jan Drysdale. Judge Drysdale ruled that there was insufficient evidence to support allegations of an abuse of process by the commission in exercising its statutory power to suspend.
Consequently, the disciplinary hearing commenced shortly after.