There can`t be many people who are unaware of the circumstances around the following statement videoed to the great British public a couple of days ago; “middle-class women of a certain age”. That that crass statement by a man who has been made a household name and extremely wealthy by the BBC was offered by him in riposte to allegations of misogyny and worse indicates a certain arrogance or worse. Even at a distance it demonstrates an inability as Robbie Burns observed “o wad some pow'r the giftie gie us to see oursels as ithers see us!”
"The expedited process in the Judicial Conduct Magistrates Rules 2023 enables the JCIO to advise the Lord Chancellor and the Lady Chief Justice that a magistrate should be issued with formal advice or a formal warning where—
(a) there is no dispute as to the facts set out in the complaint;
(b) the alleged facts relate to conduct which the JCIO considers that the Lord Chancellor and the Lady Chief Justice would be very likely to decide amounted to misconduct; and
(c) the JCIO considers that the Lord Chancellor and the Lady Chief Justice would be very likely to decide that formal advice or a formal warning was the appropriate disciplinary sanction.
The declaration and undertaking signed by all magistrates on their appointment states that they will agree to be circumspect in their conduct and maintain the good reputation of the magistracy at all times, in their private, working, and public lives. They should avoid situations which might reasonably reduce the respect for judicial office or which might cast doubt upon their judicial impartiality. This includes avoiding use of the ‘JP’ status in ways that could be perceived as trying to gain influence."
"Following a hearing in March 2024, two magistrates who had sat with Mr Nathan on the bench, complained to the London Conduct Advisory Committee that Mr Nathan had been using his iPhone and iPad during the proceedings to read and respond to personal messages and emails. One of the magistrates reported that they had seen Mr Nathan using his iPad on a separate occasion to send personal messages to his partner, a fellow magistrate, who was sitting at the back of the court, having finished sitting for the day.
Timothy Nathan JP’s representations
Mr Nathan accepted that he had used his personal devices to send and receive messages, in relation to his self-employment as a professional pilot, during the long pauses in the hearing. He denied that there was any effect on his performance at the hearing or on the dignity of the court. The only people affected were the two magistrates who were sitting with him, as no other court users were aware of what he was doing. Whilst he did not recall, the other incident mentioned in the complaint, he confirmed that it was possible that he was having a text conversation on that occasion with his partner regarding travelling home arrangements."
The result for him was being issued with "formal advice".
On 1st October this year the decision on Mr Michael Woodhouse JP was published.
"A legal adviser complained about the manner in which Mr Woodhouse had spoken to her at the end of a court day. She said that she had informed him that he could not invite a member of the public who was considering applying to the magistracy into the retiring room for a conversation. He asserted that he had invited prospective applicants into the retiring room for years and would not be told what to do in ‘his’ court. He demanded in a raised voice that the complainant call her senior legal manager and line manager to verify the information. He then repeated these sentiments in a conversation with the member of the public, which the complainant heard.
Mr Woodhouse’s representations
Mr Woodhouse accepted the allegations. He agreed that his behaviour was unacceptable and excessive and that the discussion should not have taken place in open court. He offered two further written apologies for his behaviour. He said he had been surprised at what the complainant had told him as it was contrary to advice he had received for several years. His frustration was not aimed at her but at court communications. He had apologised to the complainant and prosecutor on the day. He had also immediately called the senior legal manager and complainant’s line manager to apologise, and promptly reported his behaviour to his bench chair. In mitigation, he detailed several personal difficulties he was experiencing which he believed had affected his behaviour."
Having regard to the selection of the above recent rulings I find it astonishing that those selected for the position of Justice of the Peace with all the responsibilities of that office can allow their tongues to be light years ahead of their brains. Personally when active I reported winger colleagues whose activities included whilst on the bench sleeping, doodling, mind blowing incompetence and agreeing with every argument guilty or not guilty when discussing verdict in the retiring room. But these complaints were put to the Deputy Justices Clerk who had private words with those involved. However when I saw a letter in a newspaper signed by a Mr X J.P. I did report him to the advisory committee.
I am of the opinion that considering there are 14,576 magistrates in post across England and Wales as at 1 April 2024, up 9% compared to the previous year those reported today are a small minority. But the rate of increase is perhaps outpacing the resources available to ensure adequate training especially with the imminent retirement of experienced presiding justices notwithstanding the ability to sit until aet 75 which some [many?] will not undertake. It`s no secret that many of the judiciary and legal profession would prefer to see the end of or at least a diminished role for magistrates. I do think that on a scale of zero to 100 where 100 represents the end of the magistracy in its current form we are at around 70. Time will tell.
Mr Woodhouse’s representations
Mr Woodhouse accepted the allegations. He agreed that his behaviour was unacceptable and excessive and that the discussion should not have taken place in open court. He offered two further written apologies for his behaviour. He said he had been surprised at what the complainant had told him as it was contrary to advice he had received for several years. His frustration was not aimed at her but at court communications. He had apologised to the complainant and prosecutor on the day. He had also immediately called the senior legal manager and complainant’s line manager to apologise, and promptly reported his behaviour to his bench chair. In mitigation, he detailed several personal difficulties he was experiencing which he believed had affected his behaviour."
His transgression according to the investigating judge amounted to misconduct and resulted in a sanction of formal advice.
On the same day as the above, Mrs Jean Banford JP heard of her fate.
"A complaint was made to the North West Conduct Advisory Committee that Mrs Banford referred to her status as a magistrate during a heated dispute with a neighbour about the neighbour’s dog. Mrs Banford was said to have repeatedly emphasised her knowledge of the law given her position as a magistrate, when telling the neighbour that their dog could be destroyed.
Mrs Banford’s representations
In her representations, Mrs Banford accepted that in hindsight her comment could be deemed as inappropriate, but explained that the neighbour’s refusal to accept that the dog was putting people in fear and could be destroyed as a result, caused her to emphasise her knowledge of the law."
For her inflated ego she was issued with a formal warning.
On 11th October Ms Lynn Killoran JP was issued with formal advice for misconduct. Her misfortune was as follows:-
"A fellow magistrate complained that during two conversations with him, Ms Killoran made remarks which displayed an unconscious bias of an antisemitic nature. He alleged that she spoke about her work in the charity sector and a correlation between Jewish charities and fraud.
She stated that Jewish charities are believed to make use of the ‘Jewish Accounting System’, whereby money disappears without a trace and reappears later at a much higher value. The magistrate, himself Jewish, was concerned that Ms Killoran was relaying antisemitic stereotypes.
Ms Killoran’s representations
In detailed representations, Ms Killoran denied making the majority of the comments alleged in the complaint and asserted that what she did say had been taken out of context. She denied that her comments were antisemitic."
The 16th October saw the publication of the misdeeds of Miss Tessa Smith JP; resulting in her being given "formal advice".
"The North West Conduct Advisory Committee (NWCAC) received a referral about a reference relied on by a defendant in a criminal case, which was given by Miss Tessa Smith JP. In the reference, Miss Smith described her own judicial role and used the JP suffix.
Tessa Smith JP’s representations
Miss Smith took full responsibility of her actions and apologised. Miss Smith explained that she had been a magistrate for less than a year. She accepted that she should not have used the JP suffix and should have given the reference in a personal capacity."
On 24th October 2024 Mr Jeremy Betts JP found out what his ill considered remarks cost him.
"Mr Betts and his colleagues were sentencing a youth following the recent imposition of a 24-month Detention & Training Order (DTO) at the Crown Court. The defence advocate made representations to the bench regarding the recent sentence and the sentencing remarks of the judge who, in the knowledge of the upcoming case at the Youth Court, said they had sentenced the youth with the intention that no additional sentence would be added.
It was alleged that, following these representations, Mr Betts said, “I’m not having some judge tell me what to do”.
Mr Betts’ representations
In his representations Mr Betts denied that he had made the comment in open court but admitted that he had made the comment, or a variation of it, in the retiring room."
His copybook is now blotted with "formal advice".
The 25th November saw the results published of the indiscreet comments by Mr Thomas Rock JP.
"A complaint was made to the North West Region Advisory Committee about a comment which Mr Rock had made during a panel discussion with fellow magistrates in the retiring room. The panel was due to hear a case of possession of the controlled drug, Khat in the afternoon session. During the discussion, it was mentioned that Khat was commonly used in Pakistan. In response, Mr Rock made the remark that they had to keep people in Pakistan subdued or they’d be off joining the Taliban.
Mr Rock’s representations
Mr Rock expressed his concern that the complaint had been made and explained that he was previously unfamiliar with the term ‘Khat’ and had been trying to enlighten himself by discussing it with a colleague.
He explained his belief that high levels of poverty in Pakistan, where it borders with Afghanistan and where there is a Taliban presence, feeds into the recruitment into rival gangs/factions operating in the use and production of drugs."
His misconduct resulted in a formal warning.
Elizabeth Slamer JP`s comeuppance arrived last week on 26th November.
"A complaint was made to the Midlands Region Conduct Advisory Committee after a letter entitled ‘Single parenthood’ was published in The Times on 26 July 2024. The letter, written by Ms Slamer, included her status as a family court JP. Ms Slamer’s letter, sent in response to a letter from a different author about the failure of the Child Support Agency, remarked on the “relentless rise in the acceptability of” absent fathers than of “single mothers”.
Elizabeth Slamer’s representations
Ms Slamer accepted full responsibility for her actions and admitted that she had included her judicial status in the letter to add weight to her argument and highlight her experience. She stated that she had reacted in the moment to a perceived unfairness in the original author’s comments, who she considered had unfairly identified single mothers as the sole reason for the problem of demands on benefits and housing. Ms Slamer accepted that she had failed to consider the lack of impartiality that this could indicate."
That lack of impartiality resulted in "formal advice" for Ms Slamer.
For Mr David Payne JP the day of reckoning was 27th November.
"Mr Payne was referred to the Midlands Conduct Advisory Committee regarding his use of social media.
Mr Payne had identified himself as ‘Presiding Justice’ on his Facebook page and checked in at Wolverhampton Magistrates Court when he was sitting there. He had also shared posts on politically sensitive topics such as refugees and the government’s winter fuel policy.
Mr Payne’s representations
In representations, Mr Payne stated that he had a limited understanding of how Facebook worked and that a family member had set the account up for him and it was they who had identified him as ‘Presiding Justice’. He explained that he had used the check in feature as a means of keeping in touch with relatives that lived abroad and that he had shared the posts because he thought they were humorous.
Mr Payne admitted that he had not made himself aware of the guidance on the use of social media and, having read this and reflecting further, he realised that others may see the posts differently.
He also confirmed that he had deleted his account."
A formal warning was the outcome.
To sum up:- Judicial misconduct is categorised as minor, serious, or gross and the sanction for misconduct is determined by the seriousness of the conduct:
Formal advice: A sanction for lower level misconduct
Formal warning: A sanction for more serious misconduct
Reprimand: A sanction for more serious misconduct
Removal from office: A sanction for the most serious misconduct
The Lord Chief Justice and the Lord Chancellor jointly agree on the sanction for each case of misconduct. Factors that are considered when deciding the sanction include:
Whether the office-holder accepted responsibility for their actions
Whether the conduct affected others or damaged the reputation of the judiciary
Whether personal issues affected the office-holder's behaviour
Any previous disciplinary findings against the office-holder
I am of the opinion that considering there are 14,576 magistrates in post across England and Wales as at 1 April 2024, up 9% compared to the previous year those reported today are a small minority. But the rate of increase is perhaps outpacing the resources available to ensure adequate training especially with the imminent retirement of experienced presiding justices notwithstanding the ability to sit until aet 75 which some [many?] will not undertake. It`s no secret that many of the judiciary and legal profession would prefer to see the end of or at least a diminished role for magistrates. I do think that on a scale of zero to 100 where 100 represents the end of the magistracy in its current form we are at around 70. Time will tell.
