FORMER Hamilton man and controversial magistrate Richard Pithouse has been stood down by the Judicial Commission of Victoria while investigations into a new complaint are completed.

The complaint about the conduct and capacity of Magistrate Pithouse was received by the Judicial Commission in September last year, relating to the his in-court behaviour.

In October 2022, the Commission recommended that he be stood down from office in light of the complaint.

The recommendation was made pursuant to section 98(1)(a) the Judicial Commission of Victoria Act 2016 (the Act).

The Commission was satisfied that the matter the subject of the complaint could, if substantiated, amount to proved misbehaviour or incapacity of Mr Pithouse such as to warrant his removal from office.

It was also satisfied that the continued performance of functions by Mr Pithouse was likely to impair public confidence in the impartiality, independence, or integrity of him, or the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria.

Following the recommendation, Chief Magistrate the Honourable Justice Lisa Hannan stood down Mr Pithouse from performing any functions in open court, until further notice.

Pursuant to section 99(4) of the Act, the standing down of a judicial officer does not affect their salary, allowances, or entitlements.

The Commission referred the complaint to an investigating panel in December last year for further investigation, pursuant to section 13(3) of the Act, with the investigation still ongoing.

This is not the first time Mr Pithouse has been investigated for inappropriate comments, with an investigation undertaken in 2018 for comments he made to an alleged rape victim after hearing she phoned a sexual assault crisis line after the alleged offending. 

The commission found the remark highly inappropriate and offensive in 2021 and Mr Pithouse was told to receive counselling by a Chief Magistrate and a retired County Court Judge, with the matter closed in the same year after he reportedly acknowledged his wrongdoing.

Another incident occurred in December 2017, with The Spectator running an article about Mr Pithouse coming under scrutiny over comments he made in the Werribee Magistrates’ Court, where he criticised the female in a family violence case for not making a sworn statement against the man attacking her.

During that instance, Mr Pithouse said in open court that the woman wanted to be “beaten up”, after police said the victim was terrified of her former partner and believed both her and their child were at risk if the accused received bail.

Mr Pithouse granted bail to the accused, despite police opposition, advising Mr Pithouse of the man’s prior history of aggravated burglary, robbery and assault with a weapon.

During that case Mr Pithouse claimed the strength of the police case was pitiful and asked why the man should be punished if the woman continued to invite him back into her home.

The former partner of O’Keeffe Pithouse Lawyers was also criticised in 2010 when he refused to consider evidence from the victim of a brutal assault, ignored her injuries and let her attacker off without conviction, instead ordering the woman to pay the RSPCA $250.

In the same year Mr Pithouse denied a victim the right to read their impact statement to the court due to time constraints.

Other previous incidents include Mr Pithouse refusing to extend an interim intervention order to protect a school boy from being severely bullied, and rejecting police suggestions for an intervention order to protect the wife of a violent prisoner, who was later stalked and attacked by the man.

Mr Pithouse was a well-respected member of the wider community during his time in Hamilton.

He moved to town in 1996 as a solicitor with Hunter Newns after spending time as a legal adviser in the Navy.

He then partnered with Gerard O’Keeffe before he was appointed to the bench in 2008.