Petition of Dean: Procedural Error and Recusal Mandate

Based on the sources provided, the Supreme Court of New Hampshire's decision in Petition of Dean, 2025 N.H 44, issued on September 19, 2025, is a pivotal development in Penny S. Dean's case against the New Hampshire Fish and Game Department. The decision does not address the merits of the allegations against Ms. Dean but instead focuses on a crucial procedural error made during the adjudicatory process
.
The court vacated the department's decision to revoke Ms. Dean's hunter education instructor certification and remanded the case for a new hearing
. The central reason for this ruling was the court's conclusion that the presiding officer—the department's executive director—erred by declining to recuse himself from the proceeding
.
The Core Ruling on Recusal
The Supreme Court's decision hinges on the issue of impartiality and prejudgment. Ms. Dean had repeatedly argued that the executive director could not be a "neutral and detached hearing officer" because he had participated in the initial decision to revoke her certification
.
• The Court's Reasoning: The court agreed with Ms. Dean's position
. It pointed to the department's own rules (N.H. Admin. R., Fis 203.02(b)(2)), which state that a presiding officer should withdraw if they have "made statements or engaged in behavior which objectively demonstrates that he or she has prejudged the facts of a case"
.
• The Decisive Action: The court found that by signing the January 5, 2023, revocation letter—which the court characterized as "essentially the charging document"—the executive director's behavior "objectively demonstrates" that he had "prejudged the facts" of the case
. This action provided good cause for his withdrawal as the presiding officer
.
• Validation of Dean's Objections: This ruling validates the objections Ms. Dean raised from the outset of the administrative process
. As detailed in the pre-hearing conference transcript, she filed a written motion for recusal and reiterated her objection verbally on April 11, 2023, stating that the executive director was one of the "decision-makers in this matter". The executive director denied her motion at the time, stating that he could be "fair and impartial". The Supreme Court's decision directly contradicts his assessment and sides with Ms. Dean's argument on this procedural point
.
Jurisdictional and Procedural Matters
The court also clarified the proper legal avenue for reviewing such a decision.
• Appeal vs. Certiorari: The department argued that because no statute specifically authorized an appeal under RSA chapter 541 for the revocation of a volunteer instructor's credentials, the correct path for review was a petition for a writ of certiorari
.
• The Court's Agreement: The court agreed, noting that RSA 214:23-c, the relevant statute, provides no mechanism for judicial review
. Therefore, the court treated Ms. Dean's filing as a petition for certiorari review. Certiorari is described as an "extraordinary remedy" used sparingly to examine whether an agency acted illegally, arbitrarily, or abused its discretion
.
Impact on the Larger Context of the Case
By vacating the decision and remanding the case, the Supreme Court effectively nullified the outcome of the May 24 merits hearing, where the executive director had found that the department sustained its burden of proof against Ms. Dean
.
The ruling means:
• The department's August 7, 2023, final order revoking her certification is void
.
• The case is sent back to the Fish and Game Department for a new hearing before a new, impartial hearing officer
.
• The Supreme Court explicitly stated that other issues raised by Ms. Dean should be "resolved by a new hearing officer in the first instance"
. This gives Ms. Dean the opportunity to re-litigate the entire matter, including the discovery disputes and substantive allegations, in a new adjudicatory proceeding that conforms to the principles of due process upheld by the court.