A lawyer has dismissed a judge’s claims that her rights were violated and said it was correct that she faced a tribunal.

Puisne Judge Nicole Stoneham launched legal action against the Governor, the Chief Justice and the Attorney-General over their handling of complaints against her, arguing that she had not been given a fair opportunity to respond.

She insisted that her constitutional rights were breached over claims of misconduct.

Mrs Justice Stoneham argued that she was not given a fair opportunity to answer the allegations and alleged that her reputation was damaged.

Keith Robinson, for the Attorney-General and the Governor, rejected her claims in his summing-up during a civil action in the Supreme Court this week.

The case arose from a recusal application in a divorce hearing in which the wife alleged Mrs Justice Stoneham was connected to the husband’s family and claimed that she had released him on bail after he breached a Domestic Violence Protection Order.

She denied the bid but in May 2023 the Court of Appeal ordered her to recuse herself immediately ruling that her response to the allegations was “wholly unsatisfactory”.

Mrs Justice Stoneham was suspended on July 11, 2023 by former Governor Rena Lalgie after a complaint made by Narinder Hargun, who was Chief Justice at the time, to the Judicial and Legal Services Committee.

A tribunal later cleared Mrs Justice Stoneham of any misconduct, but she claimed to be devastated by the claims and is now seeking redress.

Mr Robinson told the court: “The constitutionally appropriate process was the tribunal.

“Of course the result of that [and a number of judgments] would be [her] reputation is damaged. But then the legal system gives a right of reply to that.”

Mrs Justice Stoneham also launched the legal action on grounds that the May 2023 Court of Appeal judgment contained serious and “entirely unwarranted” allegations of misconduct by the judge, including of corruption.

She claims that prior to the decision she was given no notice that the court was considering making the findings it did, or any opportunity to respond to the allegations against her.

Mrs Justice Stoneham also claims that regarding a decision of Mr Justice Hargun, when he was the Chief Justice, on August 11, 2023, her constitutional rights were breached as she was given no notice that the making of a complaint to the JLSC was being considered nor had a chance to respond.

Mrs Justice Stoneham was exonerated on April 15, 2025 of all allegations of misconduct by a tribunal.

However, by then the judge had been suspended for more than nine months from office “suffering serious and irretrievable damage to her reputation as well as to her mental health”, she claimed.

These decisions, it was claimed, “constituted unfair determinations of her civil rights to enjoy a good reputation and to her ability to serve her position and discharge her duty as a judge”.

Mrs Justice Stoneham also alleged that the Chief Justice had no power to refer cases to the JLSC for determination, and that it had no power to consider the case of misconduct against her or even to determine that she had a “case to answer”.

All these decisions, it is claimed, breached the judge’s constitutional rights.

Dan Squires, KC, for Mrs Justice Stoneham said in his summing-up: “In this case, we have not see a decision of a court before [which led] directly to a judge being accused, suspended, disciplined and it turns out she has done nothing wrong. And this was never put to her, which is pretty extreme.”

Judge Hugh Southey, KC, reserved judgment to a later date.

• 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