Complaints about judges now tally 1262 over the past five years and have jumped 45 per cent since 2017.
But there were 40 fewer complaints this year than last from people who claimed a judge was either corrupt, biased, incompetent, drunk or on drugs.
Meanwhile, the number of complaints that never made it past the first hurdle jumped 94 per cent in five years, according to the latest annual report of the Judicial Conduct Commissioner.
Commissioner Alan Ritchie said in the report, to July 31 this year, that a fair chunk of complaints alleged specific misconduct by judges, including corruption, prejudice, bias, incapacity, incompetence and discourtesy.
Of the number referred beyond initial assessment, 22 went to the Chief District Court Judge, including one about comments made by a judge to an offender over a refusal to accept a Covid-19 vaccination.
Others were about delays in the issuing of decisions, victims' rights, the handling of cases involving offences against women, inappropriate disclosure of details likely to lead to the identification of the whereabouts of a victim, and access to courts for guide dogs including those in training.
Two referrals to the Chief High Court Judge related to the management of court business, and disclosure related to a possible conflict on the part of a judge.
The commissioner's role was to deal with complaints about judges. After an initial assessment, a complaint was either dismissed, considered to require no further action, or referred up to a Head of Bench.
Those considered not to require further action had increased 100 per cent since 2017.
The number dismissed had risen 94 per cent since then, while the number referred to a Head of Bench had also increased a whopping 337 per cent, from eight in 2017-18 to 35 in the past year.
A handful of complaints had been withdrawn during the past five years.
In rare cases, a complaint would go to a Judicial Conduct Panel. This has happened only twice in the past five years.
Ritchie said claims of bullying from judges evident over the past two to three years "seem to have diminished", but there had been allegations of substance abuse, with one complainant asserting that a judge "could not have got matters so badly wrong without being affected by alcohol or drugs".
Ritchie said it was an easy allegation to make and none of this type had been backed by any persuasive evidence.
However, he was obliged to add that a recommendation would "almost certainly have been made" in the case of a judge "clearly troubled by alcohol use", but who resigned during the preliminary stages of examination into the complaint.
The Governor-General could formally remove a judge from office if misconduct was established.
Anyone could complain about a judge, but complaints had to be about conduct, inside or outside court, and not about the decision.
In the year to July, 323 new complaints were received from 249 individual complainants, factoring in the number of judges involved in the proceedings from which the complaint arose.
For example, a matter in the District Court is heard by one judge, but there might be a panel of judges hearing a case in higher courts.
A total of 411 complaints were on the commissioner's books in the past year, including those unfinished and rolled over from the previous year.
All in all, 381 were finalised, leaving the remaining 30 rolled over into the current year [2022-23].
Ritchie said the type of complaint had been relatively consistent with earlier years.
He said in the simplest form a complainant might say: "The Judge got things completely wrong. Please help me to have the decision changed. I don't have any money for an appeal."
He said in most instances there was no question about the genuineness of the complaint.
"Often, however, complainants have simply reached the end of the courthouse road and are pleading for help for what they see as a last resort."
Ritchie said there had to be sympathy for complainants in that situation, and it was not always the case that a complainant's disagreement with a decision would preclude the commissioner from finding issues of conduct that warranted intervention.
This was evident in the more than 30 referrals to Heads of Bench.
He said developing trends arose each year to which Heads of Bench - and in some cases, the Principal Family Court Judge who was not a Head of Bench - were referred, to ensure the orderly conduct of court business, and professional development.
Judges also took part in continuing education and training.
Ritchie said it had been a testing year for Ministry of Justice support staff, to whom he was especially grateful.
