The case involved the stalking of an ex-partner and children, in which an application for challenge was made after the close of the hearing but before the final judgment. The question before the Supreme Court was whether the court should have been allowed to give final judgment.

In its ruling, the Supreme Court ruled that a challenge request received by the court after the close of the hearing – at a time when the judges concerned could reasonably have taken cognisance of it before the scheduled final judgment – was timely. In such a case, if the challenge chamber cannot decide before the time when the final judgment is scheduled, the session judge must reopen and suspend the investigation pending that decision.

Timely

The Supreme Court holds that a challenge request submitted in writing prior to the ruling, but after the close of the hearing, is timely if it was received by the court ‘at such a time that the judge concerned could still reasonably take note of it’. If the request was filed in time, but if it cannot be decided on by the challenge chamber before the time the ruling is determined, the session judge must reopen and suspend the investigation pending the challenge chamber’s decision.

In the case under consideration, it appeared that the challenge petition was filed on time, on 11 July 2022, two days before the final verdict on 13 July 2022. According to the Supreme Court, it must be assumed that the judges concerned were able to take cognisance of it before the judgment was delivered. This implies that the court should have reopened and adjourned the investigation pending the decision of the challenge chamber, and should not yet have issued a final judgment.

Lack of interest

But because of a ‘lack of interest’, the Supreme Court does not casse. This is because if the court had indeed reopened and adjourned pending the decision of the challenge chamber after filing the challenge petition, it would not have resulted in a different final ruling by the court.