Having spent months assessing a complaint about the working environment at the court, a WorkSafe spokesman confirmed to The Age the matter had progressed to an investigation stage examining alleged health and safety breaches. The Coroners Court is one of Victoria’s most important institutions. Through the state coroner and 10 other coroners, it seeks to explain to grieving families how a loved one died and makes recommendations to improve public safety. The revelation of the WorkSafe investigation comes months after Judge Hinchey returned to the County Court to hear serious injury list cases. Loading Judge Hinchey took the unprecedented step of standing down in August while a serious and detailed complaint against her could be investigated by Victoria’s Judicial Commission.

The complaint includes allegations ranging from bullying, intimidation and inappropriate workplace behaviour to the questionable use of public funds and removal of cases from individual coroners without proper consultation. Interviews with numerous past and present court staff, as well as internal emails and staff surveys obtained by The Age, provide a detailed portrait of an increasingly dysfunctional and, at times, hostile, workplace between 2016 and 2018. Judge Hinchey has strenuously denied wrongdoing and has expressed confidence that she would be able to rebut every allegation against her. She declined to comment, but said through a spokesman that she was focused on her work at the County Court and had made her responses to the Judicial Commission where she was hopeful of a good outcome. Whereas WorkSafe has been able to progress from the assessment phase to an investigation, the Judicial Commission appears to be struggling to cope with the biggest test of its two-year existence. More than six months after receiving the complaint about Judge Hinchey, the commission is unable or unwilling to inform the public about what it is doing.

The commission’s lack of progress and perceived lack of communication is frustrating both Judge Hinchey’s supporters and the complainants. Judge Hinchey’s legal team filed its response to the complaint in October but has heard nothing since from the commission. Past and present Coroners Court staff linked to the complaint also say they have no idea what is going on. “The whole thing is a debacle,” said a former court manager who contributed to the complaint. Worksafe has moved to an investigation, but the Judicial Commission appears to be struggling with the biggest test of its existence.

The options available to the commission include dismissal of the complaint, referral to the head of jurisdiction or the creation of a special investigative panel. But the commission is refusing to say what course of action it has taken, saying only that the matter is progressing. Newly appointed court chief executive Carolyn Gale said that over the past six months there had been several new initiatives designed to build a more positive, supportive and inclusive working environment at the court. Some programs to improve staff well-being, particularly having to deal with daily trauma through the cases before the court, began under Judge Hinchey. Victoria’s legal fraternity is closely watching the handling of the Judge Hinchey case. Law Institute of Victoria president Stuart Webb said the Judge Hinchey case was the “first real test” the commission faced since its 2016 establishment as the place where the public could raise complaints about the conduct of judicial officers.

While Mr Webb did not wish to comment on the length of time involved, he said it was important the public was properly informed when the commission concludes its work to ensure confidence in the independence of the process. There is nothing in the Judicial Commission of Victoria Act that prevents it from informing the public about an investigation into the conduct of a judge or magistrate. The act makes clear that the commission may release information about the handling of a complaint or the status of an investigation if it deems it in the public interest. A possible explanation for the commission’s difficulties is Judge Hinchey’s status as a head of jurisdiction through her role as State Coroner. This meant Judge Hinchey sat on the commission’s board alongside Supreme Court chief justice Anne Ferguson, County Court chief judge Peter Kidd, chief magistrate Peter Lauritsen and VCAT president Michelle Quigley. Acting state coroner Iain West has taken Judge Hinchey’s place on the board for the time being.

Under the legislation, the commission’s board is involved in deciding what course of action to take on a complaint. The commission has refused to respond to questions from The Age on whether one or more members of its board have recused themselves from the Judge Hinchey matter because of real or perceived conflicts of interest. The complaint against Judge Hinchey included her allegedly removing cases from fellow coroners without discussion and warning Coroner’s Court solicitors not to cross her because she has a “long memory” and would be a judge for many years. The commission’s 2017-2018 annual report details 264 complaints referred and received. Of those, 182 were dismissed, two were referred to a head of jurisdiction, two to an investigating panel and 72 remain open.