The Hearing Panel concludes that the signing of the subpoena, in circumstances in which Justice of the Peace Foulds knew he was in a clear position of conflict of interest, combined with his subsequent efforts to direct and control the service of that subpoena, are acts that support the finding that this conduct was another deliberate attempt by His Worship to involve himself directly in matters relating to the prosecution of BB. His Worship’s characterization of the proceeding fails to address the resulting compromise to his ethical obligations as a justice of the peace. These obligations include the maintenance of independence, impartiality and objectivity. This conduct is viewed as undermining the appearance of justice and to compromise the administration of justice generally. The Hearing is not persuaded that these actions fall short of misconduct by a judicial officer because of Justice of the Peace Foulds’ professed personal concerns for the health, emotional well-being, personal security interests or other personal vulnerabilities of AA. AA’s vulnerabilities were well-known to His Worship at this time. Justice of the Peace Foulds was intimately familiar with the difficulties confronting AA as of September 2014 when he acknowledged that he and AA were cohabitating together. Any concerns with respect to AA’s general welfare and the state of her emotional well-being, as those current concerns relate to the service of the subpoena, should have been addressed through official channels such as the Victim Witness Assistance Office and made known to the police independent of the direct involvement of Justice of the Peace Foulds in the subpoena process itself. His Worship could have demonstrated support for AA by refraining from the conduct in which he engaged, conduct that the Hearing Panel concludes was intricately related to the prosecution of BB. His desire to provide supportive assistance to AA should have been accomplished by directing his focus to the provision of personal comfort and support outside of his judicial role. The insistence by Justice of the Foulds that service be made in the manner he directed caused unnecessary upset to Ms. Correia who was sufficiently
The Hearing Panel concludes that the signing of the subpoena, in circumstances in which Justice of the Peace Foulds knew he was in a clear position of conflict of interest, combined with his subsequent efforts to direct and control the service of that subpoena, are acts that support the finding that this conduct was another deliberate attempt by His Worship to involve himself directly in matters relating to the prosecution of BB. His Worship’s characterization of the proceeding fails to address the resulting compromise to his ethical obligations as a justice of the peace. These obligations include the maintenance of independence, impartiality and objectivity. This conduct is viewed as undermining the appearance of justice and to compromise the administration of justice generally. The Hearing is not persuaded that these actions fall short of misconduct by a judicial officer because of Justice of the Peace Foulds’ professed personal concerns for the health, emotional well-being, personal security interests or other personal vulnerabilities of AA. AA’s vulnerabilities were well-known to His Worship at this time. Justice of the Peace Foulds was intimately familiar with the difficulties confronting AA as of September 2014 when he acknowledged that he and AA were cohabitating together. Any concerns with respect to AA’s general welfare and the state of her emotional well-being, as those current concerns relate to the service of the subpoena, should have been addressed through official channels such as the Victim Witness Assistance Office and made known to the police independent of the direct involvement of Justice of the Peace Foulds in the subpoena process itself. His Worship could have demonstrated support for AA by refraining from the conduct in which he engaged, conduct that the Hearing Panel concludes was intricately related to the prosecution of BB. His desire to provide supportive assistance to AA should have been accomplished by directing his focus to the provision of personal comfort and support outside of his judicial role. The insistence by Justice of the Foulds that service be made in the manner he directed caused unnecessary upset to Ms. Correia who was sufficiently
2018-foulds-reasons-EN.docx