Tribunal: ‘no misconduct’ by Justice Stoneham
A tribunal has found that there was no misconduct by a judge who was ordered to recuse herself from a case owing to a concern about bias, it was announced today.
Its report meant that Puisne Judge Nicole Stoneham could return to her judicial responsibilities, a statement from Government House said.
The tribunal panel wrote: “ … we have concluded that the judge was not guilty of any misconduct arising from the matters under complaint.
“Rather, as she accepts, she made errors of law and judgment, which in our view did not amount to misconduct.”
Government House released a statement today in which it said that the tribunal report, which has been published in full, reached “a clear conclusion”.
A Court of Appeal judgment from May 2023 ordered Mrs Justice Stoneham to recuse herself immediately from a continuing legal case between an unnamed couple at loggerheads over schooling arrangements for their teenage son.
The ruling found that the judge failed to disclose in an August 22 judgment that she intervened in December 2018 to secure the release of the father from police custody after he was arrested for an alleged breach of a domestic violence protection order, and failed to explain her connection to his family when ruling on the question of her own recusal.
Mrs Justice Stoneham was suspended last July after the Court of Appeal’s findings, with the case getting sent before a tribunal.
The tribunal found: “There would be no call for the judge to recuse herself had she given an explanation of those facts at the recusal hearing.
“The judge’s failure to give an explanation amounted to an error of law … it is the appellate process that exists to correct errors of law.
“The Court of Appeal did so when it allowed the appeal. It is regrettable that the judge did not volunteer, nor did the Court of Appeal seek an explanation which could have clarified the position and dispelled the suspicions spoken of in the Court of Appeal judgment.”
The tribunal said there was nothing “sinister, partial or improper” in directing the father’s release on bail on December 23, 2018.
It added: “All judges make mistakes from time to time.”
That being said, the tribunal concluded that “there could be no question that the judge has been guilty of misbehaviour for the purposes of Section 74 (4) of the constitution.”
It added that Mrs Justice Stoneham “did not appreciate at the time, that a Supreme Court judge does not have jurisdiction in out-of-hours bail matters. She should not have been involved in such applications at all.”
The tribunal found that neither of these errors of law amount to judicial misconduct.
The statement from Government House said that Andrew Murdoch, the Governor, had met Mrs Justice Stoneham and the Chief Justice to discuss the tribunal’s findings.
It added: “The Governor stated that he was grateful for the thorough work by the tribunal and their clear report, which he considers provides helpful clarity to the issues raised in the Court of Appeal judgment and the original complaint.
“He added that it enables a line to be drawn under the matter and allows Justice Stoneham to return to her judicial responsibilities with all suggestions of judicial misconduct having been fully answered.
“In releasing the tribunal report today, the Governor takes the opportunity to express his high regard for the judiciary in Bermuda, the importance of respecting their independence and emphasising that matters of judicial misconduct are examined in accordance with the constitution and principles of natural justice.
“He also noted the publication of the revised judicial complaints protocol for Bermuda, published on April 4, 2025, which provides clear procedures for the response to allegations of judicial misconduct.
“More generally, the Governor expressed his strong support for the existence of fair procedures under which any office holder in Bermuda can be held to account for their conduct in their office — such processes are essential to ensure public confidence in the institutions in Bermuda.”
In the 2023 Court of Appeal ruling, Appeal Justice Dame Elizabeth Gloster wrote: “On any basis, a Puisne Judge’s intervention to obtain the release of a person arrested under the 1997 [Domestic Violence — Protection Orders] Act would appear to be irregular at best and unlawful at worst.”
Narinder Hargun, then the Chief Justice, passed on a complaint to the Judicial and Legal Services Committee, seeking its view on whether Mrs Justice Stoneham’s conduct amounted to judicial misconduct.
The committee concluded in September 2023 that there was a case to answer.
Rena Lalgie, who was then the Governor, decided that Mrs Justice Stoneham’s removal from office should be considered and suspended her accordingly on July 11, 2024.
The tribunal was set up that month, chaired by the Right Honourable Lord Burnett of Maldon.
It submitted its report to Government House in April, and it was provided to Mrs Justice Stoneham and the Chief Justice.
The tribunal found that in relation to the release of the father from custody in December 2018, there was “nothing sinister or improper in the judge intervening on his behalf”.
Rather, she made a legal error in exercising a jurisdiction she did not have.
The report showed that the Department of Public Prosecutions did not approve prosecution against the father on the alleged DVPO breach.
“The decision was made in an entirely orthodox way by the DPP’s office,” the tribunal found.
Mrs Justice Stoneham, a former magistrate who was appointed a Supreme Court judge in 2016, dealt only with Family Court matters.
• To read the tribunal report in full, see Related Media
• It is The Royal Gazette’s policy not to allow comments on stories regarding court cases. As we are legally liable for any libellous or defamatory comments made on our website, this move is for our protection as well as that of our readers
