Comments are usually moderated. However, I do not accept any legal responsibility for the content of any comment. If any comment seems submitted just to advertise a website it will not be published.

Tuesday, 28 October 2025

THE ARK OF JUSTICE



"So sick of this. Also we aren’t allowed to call them “junior doctors” anymore. They are meant to be “resident doctors “
But they are never there."

Recently I asked a family friend who is an NHS consultant what she thought of the then impending doctors` strike.  Her reply is above.  I then researched the oath taken by new doctors which essentially has discarded the classical Hippocratic Oath by making a public statement that they will do no harm.   They do not take a single, mandatory oath but they must pledge their commitment to professional standards upon registration with the GMC. Many medical schools use versions of the Declaration of Geneva or a modified Hippocratic Oath during graduation ceremonies which are considered important statements of ethical commitment to the principles of medicine.  Whatever the soothing words of their leaders it appears that those on strike are in breach of their undertaking and yet are allowed to continue.  


On the other hand judicial office holders take the following oath and woe betide them if they are suspected of breaking that oath. “I, _________ , do swear by Almighty God that I will well and truly serve our Sovereign King Charles the Third in the office of ________ , and I will do right to all manner of people after the laws and usages of this realm, without fear or favour, affection or ill will.” Witnesses in court take the following oath or affirmation:-


"I swear by Almighty God that the evidence I shall give shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth."


"I do solemnly, sincerely and truly declare and affirm that the evidence I shall give shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth."


In light of the above it is apparent in many trials with evidence presented and sworn that there have been statements made which have been knowingly false.  Perjury:-  the offence of wilfully telling an untruth or making a misrepresentation under oath.


The current case of the alleged spies for China is a case in point.  Judging by the many published comments from behind the scenes some diametrically opposing statements have been made by or on behalf of the two formerly accused parties. Of course outwith court proceedings lying is a natural human trait distasteful, distressing, necessary, convenient or even stimulating for us all at various times, occasions or events.  But in court it`s a criminal offence. Perjury or perverting the course of justice is triable only on indictment with a maximum of life imprisonment and an offence range of community order – 7 years’ custody.(seems a contradiction but copied from sentencing guideline)


With such a serious offence it would be logical to think that it occurs only in such cases where there are very serious outcomes or matters at stake. It might be logical but we do not know. None of the organisations involved publishes appropriate statistics. The question is why is there secrecy on such an important feature of the justice system. One can only speculate. There is of course the standard conspiracy theory to be applied: there would be government discomfort if the offence seems widespread and doubt of the courts` efficiency if the offence were considered so rare as to be not worth recording. In other words you`re hanged if you do and hanged if you don`t.


The bottom line for a bench of magistrates or a panel of jurors is to use their common sense and natural abilities to ascertain whether a witness`s testimony is credible. And the obvious follow up is to inquire whether those involved have these abilities. The recent Channel 4 programme The Jury demonstrated only too clearly the vagaries in the system.


The justice system boat is holed in many places. It is society`s ark to harmonious living on this overcrowded island [England only]. With politicians of the centre being pressured from right and left, west to east and north and south and "diversity" becoming somewhat less than harmonious it seems that one day all that will remain for us to cling on to will be faith in the above oaths still being able to carry with confidence the burden of a free people that their governors are capable of keeping their oath of office. Without a written constitution it is arguable that the safeguards to society of the UK being a republic are open to some doubt.


The oath of allegiance taken by MPs and members of the House of Lords to sit in Parliament.


Wording: "I do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty King Charles the Third, his heirs and successors, according to law. So help me God."
Taking the oath: MPs can swear on a religious text of their choice. The oath can also be taken with an "uplifted hand," which is the standard manner in Scotland.


Affirmation: A solemn affirmation is available for those who do not wish to swear a religious oath. Its wording is: "I do solemnly, sincerely, and truly declare and affirm that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty King Charles, his heirs and successors, according to law."


Other languages: While the oath must legally be in English, MPs can request oath and affirmation cards in other languages, such as Welsh, Scottish Gaelic, Irish Gaelic, and Cornish.

Tuesday, 21 October 2025

THE LAW OF ENGLAND & WALES ALL AROUND US



We are told that it is commonly thought by foreigners that if s/he is eg stuck in a lift with an English person or waiting in a queue for a late arriving bus that if there is an irresistible urge to break the silence then one subject that is unlikely to be ill received is to discuss the weather.  This is understandable insofar as we are all in one location subject to the same aberrations of climate.  In a wider sense we are all citizens living under the same law but outside those directly involved few take any interest until they or friends and/or family are personally involved.  I suppose that in some infinitesimally small way this blog has been purposed to offer a single ray of light on the legal umbrella  supposedly offering all of us equality before the law and the prevention of injustice striking us down.  Truth be told we all know that is just pie in the sky but as an ancient Chinese adage tells us every journey however long begins with just one step.  


Faith in the high standards of our judiciary has been a mantra politically for decades if not for centuries; that is until events show the contrary.  If eg a surgeon`s statistics reveal an unusual number of failed outcomes sooner or later some investigative body or another will announce the results of its inquiries and with appropriate press releases  police will be called in.  But what happens when we learn of senior level judges proving to be wanting in their sentencing decisions when an Appeal Court`s findings are diametrically different.  In this case it seems that it was not just literally an error of judgement.  Will we ever hear of any resulting  chastisement of the judge?


Today the Met Commissioner announced that his force will no longer investigate non crime hate incidents.  This decision follows the recent arrest at gunpoint of the writer of the wonderful TV series Father Ted.  Perhaps this is an indication that the British idea of free speech lives to fight another day.  Whatever one`s opinion this lengthy article might stimulate some consideration of the subject.   


An unashamed publication advancing its own political viewpoint is protected in our society and rightly so.  However not all its readers will want to know or be aware of an opposing outlook.  This example would not want to inform its readers that for this country arms trade balance with Israel is very much in favour of the UK.   In the most recent year for which full UK figures are available the UK granted export licences for military goods to Israel worth £18 million in 2023.


More than once I have offered my thoughts on the inevitability of AI sentencing at the magistrates courts.  This article in the Law Society Gazette and the comments of those perhaps likely to be involved might shed some light on the thinking of some legal eagles. 


The phrase "all human life is there" is strongly associated with the John Hilton Bureau, an advice column run by the News of the World newspaper from 1942 to 1969. This phrase became the title of historical articles and analyses about the bureau and its role in advising the public on a vast range of personal matters during and after the Second World War.  Nothing could better describe this report in Tees Side Live.  Having occasionally mourned the death or dearth of local court reporting this item gives me pause for thought however distasteful. 


The highest fine ever imposed by a bench where I was presiding was on a "company" fly tipping: that figure was some thousands less than the rogues involved here required to stump up.  The big question is when if ever will the fines and costs be paid. Precedence does not predict a happy conclusion.  


Re my comment above on court reporting it is truly wonderful that Cornwall Live about whom I have been happy to offer praise has invested time and money in reporting news from the county`s courts.  Such reports as here used to be commonplace where a suburb or district had its own print news outlet.  Sadly these days are history but from this furthest west county of England is a fine example of what is possible.  The next step will be the live transmission from the actual magistrates remand court when legal and financial limitations are overcome.  


Next month the City of Westminster council will require every property within its boundary to be registered and licensed if it is rented out to tenants; from the swankiest self contained penthouse apartment within parliament`s division bell to houses of multiple occupation in areas with the highest levels of deprivation  including Queens Park, Mozart Estate, Lisson Green Estate (Church Street) and Warwick Estate.  Compulsory questions that must be answered by those in receipt of rents include mortgage details, leaseholder(s), tenant agreement,  criminal history (if any), room sizes and positions, facilities and/or appliances in kitchen and bathroom(s) and much more.  All this to cost the landlord close to £1,000 with a fine of up to £30,000 for those landlords who fail to register but continue to let their properties. Annual retention fees are as yet unknown.  No doubt there will be unintended consequences.  Things are done differently in Sheffield


Finally for today there are those drivers who enjoy the occasional alcoholic beverage who are unaware of the law concerning being "in charge" of a vehicle whilst intoxicated. This driver was fortunate that according to the sentencing guidelines which were followed by the bench, he was allowed to drive from court if he wanted to.  


In 2023, there were 29,529 people convicted for the offence of “driving or attempting to drive a motor vehicle while having an alcohol concentration in excess of the prescribed limit”.  Surprisingly there are no figures for the numbers convicted for the offence as was the driver above. The only numbers available seem to be that between 2005 and 2015 there were 15,454 convictions for being in charge while over the limit (S.5(1)(b)). My researches show that fewer than 1,000 – 1,200 convictions per year in England & Wales and only a minority (perhaps one in five) results in a disqualification;  most receive endorsement points instead as did our offender above. 



It is strange as to why there is little information from the MOJ on this offence. It raises some points eg a solitary figure sitting in the driver`s seat is unlikely to arouse police suspicions, are the figures correct because there are few such offenders, police are more concerned with those who are actually driving intoxicated and have fewer worse crimes to investigate with their limited resources.  


Finally it seems that pressures from Islamists that criticism of their religion constitutes an offence akin to antisemitism but without the safeguards that the latter has in law is not going as planned.  Its protagonists refuse to accept that the latter is hate against Jews for what they are but any so termed phobia is just criticism of a religion which can be likened to accusations of blasphemy the legislation on which was repealed in 2008 under the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act.


But there it is all around us: above and below left and right; the law of England & Wales. 

Tuesday, 14 October 2025

COMMON OR NAPOLEONIC BUT IT`S JUST MUSICAL CHAIRS



It`s often shouted from legal and political rooftops that the justice system is a development of the common law as if that is explanation enough for its supposed benefit to society.  A similar claim based on the history of England is that we have a superior form of governance owing to our not having a written constitution.  


I would suppose that clarity and accessible civil codes are written and comprehensive giving citizens, lawyers and judges clear rules in one coherent document.  The constitution of the United States is a fine example and a philosophical triumph considering the times when it was created. Common law relies on precedent which can be fragmented, complex and difficult for non-specialists to understand. Codified law provides consistent application across cases reducing judicial discretion whereas common law depends on judicial interpretation leading to variable outcomes and possible inconsistency between jurisdictions. Indeed "leftie judges" and their influence in immigration tribunals has become a political hot potato.   Common law gives judges law making power which critics see as undemocratic or lacking accountability. Common law evolves case by case making it slow, costly and dependent on litigation to establish principles. In practice this means judges can temper punishment or adapt doctrines to new situations. From Magna Carta to the present day it is argued that common law is centred around the rights of the individual as opposed to those of the nation state. Trial by jury and an adversarial system rather than an inquisitorial judicial process are often cited as the prime reasons for the differences between the English derived system and that of those countries which apply a platform based upon the Napoleonic Code.


As a former presiding magistrate I have experienced situations where truth and justice have seemed to be in opposition to due process. I do not think it is controversial to opine that there are occasions where the quality and ability of advocates pleading in magistrates courts is lacking, such situations leading to the possibility of the guilty being acquitted or horror of horrors the innocent being found guilty. With the risk of such miscarriages of justice being on the horizon I have intervened in court and become more inquisitorial than the legal advisor at the court review would have deemed appropriate. Usually in such matters my colleagues agreed with my interventions. Who is to argue that if such interventions were more frequent there might be fewer decisions at the crown court going to appeal?


With tens of thousands of cases before magistrates every week below are just a few which caught my eye today.


If ever there was a case which demonstrated the inability of our judicial system to cater for drug induced criminality this must surely be it. A life ruined and with the knowledge that the sentencing options are totally inadequate to rehabilitate the offender the costs to her and society should be a spur to innovation. I have long advocated that a model workhouse fit for this century would be of benefit to offenders and our society. When all else has failed there must be innovation. For further thoughts please insert "Bring back the workhouse" in the search box.


Nine years ago I commented on the lack of public lavatories in Chester and York. [Type "Piss up in Chester and York" in the search box for access]. Whether this offender would have benefitted from improved provision of public lavatories is a moot point but there is no doubt that such availability is a limited resource. With pubs often catering for a young clientele it might be that those in need of such facilities are inhibited from pursuing their physiological needs.
 By most measures of availability, cleanliness, technology, accessibility and design Japan has the best and most widely available public lavatories in the world.  It is nothing short of a national disgrace that the negative of all the preceding adjectives describes the position in Britain. 


I have long been against the ever increasing use of what I term displacement orders whereby a usually prolific offender is prohibited from certain geographical locations and therefore his law breaking becomes a matter for another county or police jurisdiction. Such orders are issued under various powers by police or courts.  It used to be ASBOs; now there are  PSPO breaches/dispersals, Section 34/35 dispersals, Community Protection Notices (CPNs), Criminal Behaviour Orders (CBOs), Civil injunctions/ASBIs, closure orders) and others.  There is no doubt that with increasing police involvement in so called non hate crime and/or accusations of causing offence that the law abiding citizen is much more likely than s/he was 25 years ago in being a statistic in the police national computer. 


A recent interesting case at Swansea crown court will be of particular instruction to magistrates.  The warning is that it is precarious for one bench to assure a witness or defendant that another bench will take a pre determined or particular course of action at a subsequent sitting.  


In 15 months this government is now on its second Justice Secretary.  The Tories had 10 such ministers between 2010 and 2024. Is it any wonder that justice in this country is just a merry go round or a game of musical chairs?

Tuesday, 7 October 2025

ANTISEMITISM: THE CANARY IN THE COALMINE



I make no apology today for commenting on the despicable actions taking place today in places of learning and on the streets to glorify the happenings two years ago which shocked the world except for those who expressed their glee at the murder of Jews at a rate unseen since 1945. My particular ire is the feigning arguments of this and previous government that they are unable to prevent these heinous activities taking place.


 "Yesterday, December 7, 1941a date which will live in infamy the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by the naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan." 9/11 is an event that will be remembered in history although the year might be forgotten [2001].  7/7 train and bus bombing in London 2005 by Islamist terrorists killed 52 on their way to and from work.  7th October 2023 the date when 1,200 music attendees and civilians were murdered in Israel and 250 hostages taken into Gaza. 


Apart from the number 7 being a statistical oddity a distinguishing feature of the above is that the events of two years ago are being celebrated by an assortment of evil, ignorant hateful people from unashamedly nazi inspired ex professors and MPs and clandestine colleagues of similar opinions, luvvies who consider their celebrity status elevates their opinions to those of righteousness and students who have had their minds invaded by the aforementioned educationalists and encouraged almost daily by visual media of the traditional and current on line form.  Student demonstrations lauding the terrorist activities of October 7th are taking place in  

London;  An “Inter-University March” is scheduled, departing from King’s College near the Strand, passing LSE, UCL, SOAS, finishing at other campuses including Queen Mary University, London


Glasgow — Protests are slated at Strathclyde University and University of Glasgow. 


Edinburgh — Events are due to take place at the University of Edinburgh. 


Leeds — A protest is expected on the Leeds campus. 



Additionally, universities across other UK cities (e.g. Sheffield) have planned events.  They are described as "protests".  The victim terminology of the current era has been infused with a hatred of Jews which has been held in suspended animation for 80 years and which has been fostered in a form to infiltrate those who are easily influenced by puppet masters using Roubles and Rials to pull the strings of opinion formers in the western world. And yet within the last few days government figures, including Keir Starmer our plastic prime minister, repeat like hypnotised rabbits that they can do nothing to prevent such hate mongering which was influential in the synagogue killings last week on Yom Kippur the date on which in 1973 Egypt chose to wage yet another war of aggression against the State of Israel following their failures in 1948 and 1967 to eradicate Jews from the river to the sea.


Starmer with as much eloquence as he can summon, an effort in itself, has stated in reference to today`s anticipated events that those involved have a "total loss of empathy and humanity". He goes on to describe their activities as "unBritish" and concludes "we will not be silent or indifferent to hatred aimed at anyone in our society".   


And back he goes to Downing Street to wash his hands telling all who will listen that in our free society he can do nothing to prevent these openly antisemitic demonstrations of supposed solidarity with people who rejoice in the death of Jews.  Those far higher up the tree of legal knowledge than I could ever aspire have made it clear that he is talking nonsense and that a British government has all the legislation it needs to put a stop to these deliverers of hate. 


Under the Public Order Act police may impose conditions on processions or assemblies (time, place, route, maximum numbers) to prevent serious public disorder, criminal damage, disruption, etc. Those conditions must be necessary and proportionate. A Commissioner or Chief Constable can prohibit a protest in a certain area for up to 3 months with the Home Secretary’s agreement.  


The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022  strengthened police powers in relation to protests including more scope for conditions, seizure of items used to cause disruption and powers to direct persons away from certain areas. It introduced or reinforced offences relating to ‘locking on’, serious disruption, and non-compliance with conditions.   


Under the Terrorism Act 2000 / Proscription powers; if a protest is directly linked to a proscribed terrorist organization (or its support) then existing counter-terrorism law can be invoked. Under the Terrorism Act 2000 “proscribed organisations or groups” are banned; membership, encouragement, support, displaying symbols, or even public expression in favor of them are criminalised. The UK government proscribed the group “Palestine Action” under these powers.  Once an organisation is proscribed public support (speech, display, banners, logos) may attract arrest and prosecution.  


With injunctions / civil orders / banning orders a government (or local authority / police) might seek court injunctions (civil remedies) to prevent particular gatherings or assemblies, especially if they anticipate breach of public order, incitement to violence or other unlawful acts.


The proposed “Public Order Bill” (in the policy / debate stage) includes ideas of “banning orders” on individuals (preventing them attending protests)  though such measures are controversial and raise strong civil liberties objections.


There are many arguments against imposing a ban on situations I have indicated but the essence of this post is that there are ways to ban or control the proposed demonstrations.  The government is unwilling to admit that these avenues are available to it.  Like so much that has been heard from number 10 since 4/7/24 words bear little connection to reality or action needed.  All that can be hoped for today and the days ahead is that there can be some effective opposition to the deadly undercurrent of antisemitism in this country which is being exploited by an inglorious combination of Islamists, Marxists and Fascists.  This poisonous brew is being fanned daily and sometimes even hourly by a fetid combo of academics, luvvies and various media outlets  financed by those who would dearly love to see the cohesion of this society fall apart.  That must not happen. The canary in the coalmine is having difficulty finding its voice. 



Wednesday, 1 October 2025

HANDCUFFING IS OUT OF CONTROL



This is just a brief insight into the activities of the police in their increasingly aggressive tactics when interviewing those whom they consider are involved in the now notorious "non hate crime".  Increasingly it seems that such supposed offenders are being handcuffed on their doorsteps and arrested.  They are being handcuffed usually in the painful position of behind the back as opposed to the frontal position. They are usually compliant.  This is scandalous.

The following is the Metropolitan Police "text book" on using handcuffs.  Perhaps some criminal lawyers might want to read it prior to attending court if the situation comes to that with the more serious offenders. 


Tuesday, 30 September 2025

MAGISTRATES YESTERDAY TODAY AND TOMORROW



Around 95% of criminal court cases begin and end at magistrates courts. The application process for appointment of lay magistrates is onerous to say the least. Data on lay magistrates when probing behind the raw numbers, age, sex and the ubiquitous "diversity" statistics is rather thin on the ground. What is known is that on 01/04/2025 there were 14,636 listed lay magistrates. In most regions over the last couple of years there have been advertisements on or in various media asking members of the public to apply to the magistracy with emphasis that the position is for "ordinary" people. The numbers of JPs have halved since 2010 in line with the closure of half the country`s courts. In a parliamentary answer given on 17 July 2025 the MOJ said: “We do not have a set number of magistrate vacancies on 9 July 2025.” Despite that, it is understood that the target is to recruit 2,000 people annually. The Magistrates Association speculates that there is a current shortfall of 4,000 to 5,000 magistrates. Latest figures show that of 4,112 applicants 898 were appointed but in the previous year 2023/24 of 4,025 applicants 2,008 were successful in their applications. It doesn`t take an observer to have a PhD in statistics to notice that it was twice as likely to be an unsuccessful applicant in the current tranche of applications than in the previous twelve months.


Whether this variation is powered by a supply/demand consideration from the MOJ is unknown. What is known is the number of magistrates removed from office over the last 15 years.


2010–11: 22 magistrates removed. 
UK Parliament Data

2011–12: 19 magistrates removed. 
UK Parliament Data

2012–13: 17 magistrates removed. 
UK Parliament Data

2013–14: (reported in JCIO annual report)

2014–15: 19 magistrates removed. 
jciodev.microsoftcrmportals.com

2015–16: 15 magistrates removed. 
jciodev.microsoftcrmportals.com

2016–17: 15 magistrates removed 
UK Parliament Data

2017–18: 11 magistrates removed

2019-20: 13,177 magistrates — 12 removals — 9.11 per 10,000. 
jciodev.microsoftcrmportals.com

2020-21: 12,651 magistrates — 15 removals — 11.86 per 10,000. 
Judicial Conduct Complaints

2021-22: 12,506 magistrates — 6 removals — 4.80 per 10,000. 
Judicial Conduct Complaints

2022-23: 13,340 magistrates — 4 removals — 2.99 per 10,000. 
Judicial Conduct Complaints

2023-24: 14,576 magistrates — 17 removals — 11.66 per 10,000
Judicial Conduct Complaints




It`s not unlikely that the Covid epidemic had a major effect on the figure for 2022/3.  However considering that in 2010 there were around 30,000 magistrates and 22 were sacked but in 2023/24 17 were removed from half the number of the  2010 cohort perhaps the criteria for removal have been lowered.  


Readers can judge for themselves whether those recently *removed should have known better that their actions were not compatible with their position on the bench.  Have the advisory committees which do the appointing have anything to answer for?  Should magistrates as a form of hybrid between the professional and lay judiciary be held to different standards than currently is the case?  Should magistrates powers be permanently limited to non custodial matters?  Even considering the current review, as with much surrounding the judiciary, there are many unanswered questions.  


Magistrates of today are as changed from those of 1945 as those predecessors were of their namesakes in 1901.  The future status and activity of the institution is as unimaginable as piloting a spacecraft to a moon landing would have been to the Wright brothers.  


   


*Some current removals in the last couple of months can be viewed herehere and here.  For a complete result look here





Tuesday, 23 September 2025

UNHEARD TALES OF WOE



I suppose it was Rumpole of the Bailey 1978-1992 and Crown Court 1972 - 1984 which were the forerunners of UK television producers` obsession with legal drama just as it was Dixon of Dock Green 1955 - 1976 which heralded the infinitely variable police series for British audiences.  Indeed the first and last mentioned of these productions became almost a metaphor for the real life activities of their fictional characters. At their root of course was character and plot; the essential ingredients of any first class story whether in print, celluloid or electrons.  The following few tales hardly represent even <1% of daily offerings in the drama of our courts but in the fertile minds of legal and crime writers they could be the seeds to stimulate yet another tale of good - v - evil, prosecution - v - defence , police - v - criminal, justice -v - injustice: all grist to the mill of crime writing.


The wave of support for the cause of Palestinians has gone through western society like a dose of salts through a constipated fatso with middle class students amongst the most vociferous both in America and here.  No campus has arguably been seen as more affected than Cambridge.  In summing up the confrontation between police and students the judge in this case said, "rights to free speech and assembly did not give protesters an "unqualified right" to choose where and how to protest."  


The proscribing of Palestine Action has given very serious overtones to those who might be described as rent-a-protester filling the streets against use of oil, against deniers of climate change, against deniers of immigration limitation and any cause which seems to be worthy of  being defined as "progressive" in their circumscribed mindset.  That so many deny an underlying racist element in their opposition to the legislation is exemplified by the first of three comments published in this report which going by its free subscription is akin to a stalking horse for those who would remake western society and its historic legacy. 


The courts and the public have to listen to some truly evil offenders whose aim is to destroy the very essence of witnesses who testify against them despite ever more efforts to protect them through the legal process. In the days of the razor gangs in the East End and South Side of Glasgow in the 1920s and 1930s that city was described in the novel of the same name as No Mean City.  Whilst the current weaponry of a drug riven society might have changed the sociopaths on trial can be as evil as their forebears when their treatment in the dock is protected by decades of liberal legislation.  As in many cases concurrent sentences for dissimilar offences seem incongruous.  A fine example of current court reporting is available here.  


The case of Clive Freeman should serve as another warning to those who still consider that British justice is the world`s finest where it`s more important that the guilty are acquitted than the innocent are convicted. The recent TV programmes on fictitious juries sitting on "real" cases should be a warning to all that our current jury system is arguably not fit for purpose. This blog 02/09/2025. 


When there is a former soldier who served in Northern Ireland  on trial for committing  murder in 1972 we should be concerned. The trial of former British paratrooper Lance Corporal Soldier F opened this week in Belfast. He is charged with two murders and five attempted murders on Bloody Sunday in Derry in 1972. In 1991 with The Troubles at their bloody height three men in the province were found guilty of plotting to kill members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary.  The Appeal Court has recently overturned their convictions.  If ever serious insurrection took place in Great Britain the law has overwhelming power to render the illegalities in Northern Ireland in that period as merely a prelude to what would happen here.  


With a direct instruction from the Ministry of Justice by its former boss that custodial sentences should be carefully rationed how can we be sure that sentencing is still under the control of the courts i.e. judges and magistrates consider all the evidence and applying the Guidelines come to a reasoned conclusion?  In simple terms; we can`t.  Colin Robson-Durrance appears to be a beneficiary of legal conjuring the effect of which is not unlikely to diminish public faith and confidence in our justice system as much as any tinkering at the legal edges. 


Most of us will not approach any of the scenarios which engulfed those described above but around each case a talented author could produce a tale of woe of which  Kafka would have been proud encompassing our legal processes.  Next time a riveting story as described in the opening paragraph holds some fascination consider that it might be based on hundreds of cases of which we will never have heard.  

Tuesday, 16 September 2025

PRISON CELL SHORTAGE TAIL WAGS THE DOG OF SENTENCING





Over the last few weeks my posting has been looking at magistrates courts through what some readers might consider perhaps the wrong end of the telescope.  This was not the intention. Public events appeared to be of some significance for us all.  Perhaps in popular jargon the observations of the last month or two might be described as having been commenting from a macro point of view on the justice system.  However from the position of a magistrate, the micro position faces similar conflicts as I faced for seventeen years with considerably more flexibility than those currently on the bench.  Magistrates in the last century were certainly in much greater control of their situation than now.  We were free to discuss in our opinion what truly mattered to us in private meetings three or four times a year.  Whether that freedom made us better at the job is not for me to opine.  So, returning to what has actually happened in our courts recently the sample of cases below is not necessarily typical of a days sitting and they are  but a tiny example of the thousands of cases weekly which generally stimulate little public interest.


A police officer on duty is bitten by a woman who says she has aids and assaults another.  Her custodial sentence is suspended. Seems that for all the bluster from government on the protection of police officers and other public servants the reality is that owing to a broken jail system the bench had no other  option [possibly after advice from their legal advisor]. The sentencing guideline for the offence is here.   


Stalking became a specific criminal offence in England and Wales on November 25 2012 through amendments to the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 introduced by the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Before this date stalking was often dealt with under the more general harassment laws but the new legislation created separate, specific offences for stalking.   I cannot remember sitting on such a case but I was around when measures to protect a witness giving evidence were in play. So congratulations to the bench in  Haverfordwest who were able to decide that an alleged victim`s live evidence was essential for a case to continue despite CPS protestations. When justice so often puts the "victim" before common sense and innocent until proved guilty I would opine that it takes a strong and well led bench to act as that bench has done.  


The numbers of trading standards officers have been cut to the bone in many{most} boroughs with the result that children find it fairly easy and risk free to source a retail outlet where tobacco and alcohol products are available. Hartlepool is no exception. There is no public register of how many such people are employed by that borough.  A Hartlepool committee agenda (Neighbourhood Services Committee 4 Nov 2024) lists staffing in the Trading Standards section and includes 3 × Senior Trading Standards Officers and 1 × Graduate Trading Standards Officer. Information seems to being deliberately withheld or almost impossible to verify. That being the case I am certain the council were pleased to read the following report. As is so often the case in such matters the lowly shop worker is chastised and the owner, private or corporate, goes scot free. 


In the Tony Blair era government brought in the gone but not forgotten ASBO primarily to enable the scourge of unruly neighbours to be confronted by the civil law a breach of which was a criminal offence.  It was replaced in 2014 by the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act which spawned Criminal Behaviour Orders (CBOs), Civil Injunctions, Community Protection Notices (CPNs), Public Spaces Protection Orders (PSPOs) and Dispersal Powers.  This offender in the Isle of Wight must have been as the devil incarnate for his neighbours and in a society which offered adequate resources for the mentally disabled might have avoided his decline which affected those living nearby. The District Judge[MC] uttered comments which we as magistrates were strongly advised to resist, do not say anything which might indicate a future sentence by a future bench


In Cornwall the local reporter has relayed to the public reading CornwallLive a masterpiece of court reporting; reporting  as it used to be in the 20th century before the age of the internet. Thomas Hammersley seems, as many others, to have been the recipient of a sentence not meeting the seriousness of the crime.  Even if the image is generic a baseball bat with nails in it is a deadly weapon. 


It seems the composition of  Swansea Council’s Trading Standards team is a secret known only to those who pay their wages.  My guess is that like so many other towns, boroughs, counties and cities the department of trading standards has been pruned to the limit resulting in only a tiny percentage of infractions being acted upon never mind being charged. What is reported in Swansea is an indication of what serious repercussions can result when we the public are sold contaminated or unsuitable food.    


If ever there was an example of why dog owners should have thought as to how to secure their pet when driving this is it.  Sentencing has been postponed.  I wonder if that will be another example of the tail of the prison cell shortage wagging the dog of justice. 

Tuesday, 9 September 2025

TREASURY ££ -v- PUBLIC CONFIDENCE


It was with a perhaps muted fanfare that recently the now former Lord Chancellor [the 11th since 2010] announced that there would be set up a new level of intermediate criminal court over which a District Judge[MC] would preside with two lay magistrates as wingers. After a mixed reception from the legal profession all has gone quiet on the proposal.  If, however, the concept were to materialise there are many questions arising.


Currently DJs sit alone answerable to no one excepting themselves, their conscience and the Appeal Court or  Judicial Conduct Investigations Office.  That will not change.  What will change will be training programmes for DJs.  Just as Crown Court judges have training for sitting on appeals with two magistrates as wingers to deal with fact finding and/or sentencing similar training will be necessary for DJs.  This will be conducted through the Judicial College.  Crown Court judges’ training covers criminal procedure, sentencing, appellate review and the particular role of the Crown Court when exercising appellate jurisdiction from magistrates.  It is not unlikely that DJs are likely to receive similar training for serving in any newly proposed intermediate courts alongside magistrates but with some important caveats.  The Criminal Courts Review explicitly recommended that, in the event of structural changes such as creating a unified Criminal Court joint training for District Judges and magistrates would become necessary. It suggested that the Judicial Studies Board should oversee the development of such training and involve DJs  actively in training magistrates as well.  I remember all too well that at my court we were fortunate to have two DJs who excelled at training sessions; indeed who put those who professed specialised qualifications in such tasks as rank amateurs.  Magistrates will also need refreshed training to work effectively in these new intermediate courts covering collaboration, sentencing responsibilities and procedural changes.  I would opine that experienced magistrates who undertake chairing responsivities as presiding magistrates might be dismayed if such sittings are much reduced. Perhaps there will be a two tier structure.  Currently interested parties can only speculate.  


If intermediate courts are introduced (handling either-way cases that might otherwise go to the Crown Court for jury trial) then this immediately raises the number of sitting days required from DJs and consequently additional DJs would likely need to be recruited to ensure availability and avoid bottlenecks.  There is a possibility that magistrate recruitment might be affected.  In the last two years over £1 million has been spent on such efforts. Sitting in a more “serious” jurisdiction (cases that would otherwise go to the Crown Court) may make the role more attractive to volunteers but on the other hand such cases can be more time consuming which could deter younger people sacrificing earning potential but encouraging older and/or retired JPs to offer increased sittings. 


As with selection of magistrates qualified to sit on Crown Court appeals there might develop a two tier system for the proposed new intermediate court where a higher level of experience and competence will be needed to sit as a winger: a Premier League and a Championship?  The driving forces for the proposals are the unsustainable backlog at Crown Courts and the reduced costs of summary versus jury trials.  However the increased costs of employing the additional DJs required would go some way to mitigate the hoped for savings.  


In the long run this might have the negative effect of reducing the participation of magistrates in all but the most minor offences and be a stepping stone to a completely professional judiciary. For many criminal lawyers it would be an overdue and welcome positive effect.  All this speculation might be premature. As of now there’s no sign of consultation or training course outlines specifically tailored to the proposed intermediate courts.  Considering that this nation`s justice system is now operating under its 12th boss in 25 years is it any wonder that chaos reigns?  On the 6th prime minister within that same period only adds to the disfunction of the political environment which has resulted.  


Without Justice the concept of a free democratic society is a chimera.  Even when the J factor is still alive and occasionally kicking there must be public confidence in its function.  That confidence is daily being eroded. It`s hard to see how the proposed court changes will be of value except in the balance sheet at the Treasury. 

Tuesday, 2 September 2025

NO TO HUNG JURY OR SCOTS VERDICT SO COMPROMISE RULES THE DAY. NOT SATISFACTORY


First shown: Channel 4 Tuesday 26 August 2025 "The Jury: Murder Trial" was fascinating for me as probably it was for many with an interest in how justice works in England and Wales.  I would opine that in the last year or two trial by jury; its history, implications, limitations and future have crossed the minds of many people who previously have not had a care how the guilty are found guilty and the innocent acquitted.  At least that`s the theory.  Indeed it has been a subject here over the last few weeks. 

Last night I watched the final most dramatic episode also available on Channel 4 online. The 12 jurors seemed to belong to three groups of people:

1. Those whose inner beliefs or inbuilt prejudices seemed to be a filter through which they digested the information presented to them.
2. Those who despite having an opportunity refused to consider only the evidence or apply reasoned analysis.
3. Those who seemed to be influenced by the most recent argument put to them and felt overwhelmed by the position of  responsibility into which they were thrust.  

The result was a compromise decision brought about by fearing to announce that they were a hung jury.  I would suggest that if this trial had been under Scots law a verdict of "not proven" would have been a more likely result because that in effect would have reflected the reality. The final verdict of manslaughter did not appear to have been a logical ending to a finely balanced argument.  It was compromise that in our English legal system was like trying to square a circle.  That justice was done and seen to be done is a moot point.  The stark contrast between the guilty group and the acquitters  underscores how verdicts can diverge despite identical evidence simply due to personality clashes, emotional biases or group dynamics.   All 12 were startled when the judge told them that the verdict of the jury at the actual trial some time previously was guilty of murder.  If ever there was cause to take a deep breath this was it.  If ever there was "proof" of the capriciousness that is in effect "the jury system" and a clear argument for eg a judge and two assessors to decide on guilt or innocence this was it.

Missing from the production was any reference to the manner in which the foreman was chosen.  As any magistrate will attest the quality and abilities of that individual who should control the parameters of the discussion and direct attention to vital areas of the evidence was IMHO an omission where realism was sacrificed for time considerations and/or more dramatic conversations or pieces to camera which seem to have been dominated by a young woman in pink and a retired chef.  The programme brought into stark relief the disturbing situation when prosecution and defence counsel offer to the jury evidence from "experts" who have opposing opinions.  Two decades or more ago when DNA statistics` analyses were in their infancy and thrown at jurors like tennis balls from an automatic server, opposing apparently authoritative "experts" served their opposite opinions  to jurors, likening them to answers from a deity.  Currently the Lucy Letby case is provoking considerable discord among experts who testified and those now being consulted by the defence working towards a retrial. 

In sum the last part leaves viewers torn: empathising with everyday citizens attempting gravely serious legal work but also troubled by the system’s susceptibility to bias, spectacle and inconsistency.



Tuesday, 26 August 2025

RULES



Rules, rules and more rules seem to be the order of the day amongst so many professions and occupations.  From the 12th century onward there was an increase in guilds  especially in growing towns like London, York and Norwich. These regulated trades, set quality standards, trained apprentices and in so doing provided a barrier to non members attempting to emulate and/or compete  with those who set themselves on an exclusive platform. By the 14th and 15th centuries many London guilds had evolved into the Livery Companies; powerful institutions that combined status for their members, mercantile protection  and increasing political significance.  In modern times economic regulation, educational and social charitable work and the enforcing of professional standards have become the mainstay of these institutions. There are many City of London freeholds owned by guilds now hired out for formal, political and social occasions their regulatory functions having been removed to be replaced by statutory bodies.



The legal and medical professions and their disciplinary offshoots are perhaps the best examples of those where in house control of their practitioners has been replaced by government appointed independent bodies. For obvious reasons the body overseeing the behaviour of judicial office holders has been the subject of much comment on this site. However a brief review of the cases published shows a dearth of information on this public site. In contrast the disciplinary functions and investigations of the body overseeing barristers; 
the Bar Tribunal and Adjudication Service (BTAS) provides detailed reports of alleged misconduct of barristers. Solicitors who are called to account do so within the rules of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal. Both these supervisory organisations provide detailed reports of cases where the lives of the accused might be forever changed. Within the medical profession also the watchword is openness but that public insight has been late in arriving. In the 1980s I played a very small part in demanding that malpractice allegations` before the then disciplinary committee and held in secret be reported in full to the public. Now the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service provides public hearings and reports.


The English legal system, its practice and its practitioners,  has without any irony been a law unto itself until post 1960s.  It might not be inaccurate to say that magistrates having one foot in the judiciary and the other as members of the public have been subjected to disciplinary processes unsuitable for their hybrid task.  Some numbers might be informative at this point. In 1999 15 Justices of the Peace were removed from office: the same number as 2016-2017.  2017–18 saw 11 magistrates removed. Latest statistics are that between 28th April this year and 15th August 22 magistrates have been disciplined of whom 5 were removed from office. Considering there are 14,636 active magistrates the disciplinary record could be considered very low and an approval for the wisdom of the advisory committees which appointed them. From the point of view of magistrates they have a multitude of rules to follow; a far cry from their empowerment  by the Justices of the Peace Act 1361 during the reign of King Edward III.  For those interested these rules are stated below. 


However as with all rules based systems there will always be those who seek to bend, avoid or transgress them.  For the disciplinary committees involved there will always be those individually or organisationally  who practise the concept that the upstandingness of the organisation must be at the forefront of any disciplinary process irrespective of many or most other considerations or the exposed victims.  The closed shop mentality of the original guilds is not quite dead and buried. 


The Judicial Conduct (Magistrates) Rules 2014 


Coming into force --18th August 2014 


CONTENTS 


PART 1 

General 


1. Citation and commencement 

2. Interpretation 

3. Judicial office holders to whom these Rules apply 

4.–8. Chairman of an Advisory Committee 

9.–14. Making a complaint about judicial misconduct 

15.–17. Time limits within which a complaint must be made 

18.–21. Extension of time limits 

22. Measurement of time for doing an act 

PART 2 

Assessment of complaint 


23. Scope 

24.–30. Consideration of complaint 

31. Options when considering a complaint 

32. Dismissal of complaint 

33.–35. Dismissal procedure 

36.–37. Referral to a conduct panel 

38.–40. Procedure to be followed before a referral is made to a conduct panel 

41. Interim suspension 

42. Scope 

43. Summary process 

44.–46. Procedure 

47.–48. Report 

49.–51. Reporting procedure 

52. Scope 

PART 3 

Summary Process 


PART 4 

Conduct Panel 


53. Composition of a conduct panel 

54.–57. The role of the Advisory Committee Secretary 

58.–66. Procedure 

67.–78. Hearings 


79.–81. Conduct panel report 

82.–94. Reporting procedure 


PART 5 

The role of the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office 


95. Scope 

96.–97. The role of the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office 

98.–102. Referral to an investigating judge 

103. Referral to a disciplinary panel 

104.–105. Referral to the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice 

PART 6 

Judicial Investigation 


106. Scope 

107. Nomination of investigating judge 

108.–115. Investigation by an Investigating Judge 

116.–121. Report of investigating judge 

PART 7 

Disciplinary panel 


122. Scope 

123. Disciplinary panel 

124.–126. Functions of a disciplinary panel 

127.–129. Procedure of disciplinary panel 

130. Report and recommendation 

131.–137. Report procedure 

PART 8 

Miscellaneous 


138.–140. Re-opening a case that has been dismissed 

141.–142. Procedure to be followed when re-opening a case 

143.. Consideration of matter in absence of a complaint 

144.-147 Withdrawal of a complaint 

148.–149. Deferral of consideration of a case 


150. Transitional provision 

151. Revocation 

The Lord Chief Justice, in exercise of the powers conferred by sections 115 and 117 of the 

Constitutional Reform Act 2005, and regulation 7 of the Judicial Discipline (Prescribed 

Procedures) Regulations 2014 and with the agreement of the Lord Chancellor makes the following 

Rules: 





PART 1 

General 


Citation and commencement 


1. These Rules may be cited as the Judicial Conduct (Magistrates) Rules 2014 and come into 

force on 18th August 2014. 

Interpretation 


2.—(1) In these Rules— 

“the Act” means the Constitutional Reform Act 2005; 

“Advisory Committee” means one of the Lord Chancellor’s Advisory Committees on justices 


of the peace; 

“bank holiday” means a bank holiday under the Banking and Financial Dealings Act 1971 in 

England and Wales; 


“business day” means any day other than a Saturday, a Sunday, Christmas Day, Good Friday 

or a day which is a bank holiday in England and Wales; 

“case” means a complaint or issue of misconduct being considered under these Rules; 

“Chairman of an Advisory Committee” has the meaning given in rule 4 and rule 7; 

“complaint” means a complaint containing an allegation of misconduct by a magistrate; 

“designated member of an Advisory Committee” means a member of an Advisory Committee 


who has been designated by a Chairman of an Advisory Committee under rule 5; 


“disciplinary action” means— 


(a) the exercise by the Lord Chancellor of the Lord Chancellor’ power to remove a 

magistrate from office under section 11 Courts Act 2003; or 

(b) the exercise by the Lord Chief Justice of the Lord Chief Justice’ powers under section 

108(3), (4)(b) and (c) and (5) of the Act; 

“disciplinary panel” has the meaning given by regulation 11 of the Regulations; 

“investigating judge” has the meaning given by regulation 10 of the Regulations; 

“licensing body” means any body that licenses or regulates any profession; 

“magistrate” means a justice of the peace who is not a District Judge (Magistrates’ Courts); 

“magistrate concerned” means the magistrate whose conduct is being considered in 

accordance with these Rules; 


“nominated judge” has the meaning given by regulation 9 of the Regulations; 

“Regulations” means the Judicial Discipline (Prescribed Procedures) Regulations 2014; 

“TDC” means a Training and Development Committee. 


Judicial office holders to whom these Rules apply 


3. These Rules apply to magistrates (including those on the supplemental list). 

Chairman of an Advisory Committee 


4. The Chairman of the Advisory Committee is the Chairman of the Advisory Committee for the 

local justice area to which the magistrate concerned is assigned under section 10(2) of the Courts 

Act 2003. 




5. Subject to rule 6, the Chairman of the Advisory Committee may designate another member of 

that Advisory Committee to act on their behalf in relation to— 

(a) a specific complaint; 

(b) all complaints; or 

(c) a category of complaints. 

6. A designated member of an Advisory Committee may not deal with a complaint about 

himself or herself. 

7. Notwithstanding rule 4, the Chairman of an Advisory Committee may also ask another 

Advisory Committee to deal with a specific complaint when there is a good reason to do so. In 

such circumstances, references in these Rules to the Chairman of the Advisory Committee are to 

the Chairman of the Advisory Committee to which a complaint has been transferred. 

8. Notwithstanding any designation under rule 5, the Chairman of an Advisory Committee may 

decide to deal personally with a specific complaint. 

Making a complaint about judicial misconduct 


9. A complaint must be made to the local Advisory Committee or its Secretary. 

10. A complaint must contain an allegation of misconduct. 

11. A complaint must be made in a complaint document unless the Chairman of the Advisory 

Committee agrees to accept a complaint in another form. 

12. A “complaint document” is a document in writing which— 

(a) is legible; 

(b) contains an allegation of misconduct on the part of a named or identifiable magistrate; 

(c) states the date, or dates, the alleged misconduct took place; and 

(d) states the name and address of the person who is making the complaint. 

13. A complaint document is to be accompanied by the originals or copies of all the documents 

within the control of the complainant to which he or she intends to refer. 

14. The Advisory Committee or its Secretary must not accept a complaint in any case where the 

complainant states that they do not want the magistrate concerned to see a copy of the complaint 

document or of any document accompanying it. 

Time limits within which a complaint must be made 


15. A complaint must be made within three months of the latest event or matter complained of. 

16. Subject to rule 18 (extension of time limits), the Advisory Committee or its Secretary must 

not accept a complaint if the complaint is made outside the time limit in rule 15. 

17. The complainant must be informed— 

(a) that their complaint has not been accepted because it is out of time; and 

(b) that they may make representations within ten business days of the notification that their 

complaint is out of time to the Advisory Committee for an extension of the time limit. 

Extension of time limits 


18. The Chairman to the Advisory Committee may extend the time limit for making a complaint 

only in exceptional circumstances. 




19. The fact that a complaint may contain an allegation of misconduct will not, by itself, be 

sufficient reason for the Chairman to the Advisory Committee to accept a complaint outside the 

three month time limit. 

20. The Chairman to the Advisory Committee may extend or shorten any other time limit under 

these Rules, whether or not the time limit has expired, where there is good reason to do so. 

21. Where the Chairman to the Advisory Committee has extended a time limit, it must— 

(a) inform the complainant and, if they are aware of the complaint, the magistrate concerned; 

and 

(b) keep a record of the reasons for the extension. 

Measurement of time for doing an act 


22. In these Rules the time for doing any act in response to a notification, invitation or request 

(“the document”) starts on the day that corresponds to the method of delivery used in relation to 

the notification, invitation or request shown in the table below-

Method of delivery Starting day 

First class post (or other method which 

provides for delivery on the next business day). 

The second business day after the day on which 

the document was posted. 

Second class post. The third business day after the day on which 

the document was posted. 

Delivering the document to or leaving it at a 

permitted address. 

If it is delivered to or left at the permitted 

address on a business day before 4.30pm, that 

day; or if delivered at, or after, 4.30pm, the next 

business day. 

Fax. If the transmission of the fax is completed on a 

business day before 4.30pm, that day; or if 

transmitted at, or after 4.30pm, the next 

business day. 

Other electronic method. If an e-mail or other electronic transmission is 

sent on a business day before 4.30pm, that day; 

or if an e-mail or other electronic transmission 

is sent at, or after, 4.30p, the next business day. 


PART 2 

Assessment of complaint 


Scope 


23. This Part applies where— 

(a) a complaint is made to an Advisory Committee or its Secretary under rule 9; 

(b) the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice refer a complaint to an Advisory 

Committee in accordance with regulation 13 of the Regulations; 

(c) no formal complaint has been made but the Chairman of an Advisory Committee decides 

to deal with a case under rule 146 (consideration of matter in absence of a complaint); or 




(d) the Ombudsman refers a case to an Advisory Committee to investigate under section 

111(7)(b) of the Act. 

Consideration of complaint 


24. The Chairman of the Advisory Committee must initially consider whether an allegation of 

misconduct has been made by a complainant. 

25. If not, they may refer the matter to the Bench Chairman to deal with as a pastoral or training 

matter. 

26. Otherwise, the Chairman of the Advisory Committee must— 

(a) decide what action to take under rule 31; or 

(b) refer the complaint to the Advisory Committee to decide what action to take under rule 

31. 

27. For the purposes of deciding what action to take the Chairman of the Advisory Committee or 

the Advisory Committee may— 

(a) make such inquiries as they consider appropriate; or 

(b) request any documents which appear to be relevant to the complaint. 

28. The Advisory Committee Secretary must— 

(a) where no referral is made under rule 25 to the Bench Chairman, inform the complainant 

whether their complaint is being considered by the Chairman of the Advisory Committee 

or the Advisory Committee; or 

(b) where a referral is made under rule 25 to the Bench Chairman, inform the complainant 

that their complaint is being dealt with as a pastoral or training matter by the Bench 

Chairman. 

29. Where the magistrate concerned has been informed of the complaint, the Advisory 

Committee Secretary must send a copy of the complaint and any supporting documentation to the 

Bench Chairman. 

30. Where the Advisory Committee considers the complaint, it must do so in consultation with 

the Advisory Committee Secretary. 

Options when considering a complaint 


31. The Chairman of the Advisory Committee or the Advisory Committee may— 

(a) dismiss the complaint in accordance with rule 32; 

(b) refer the complaint to a conduct panel in accordance with rule 36; 

(c) deal with the complaint in accordance with the summary process in Part 3 of these Rules; 

or 

(d) where there has been no misconduct, refer the matter to the Bench Chairman to deal with 

as a pastoral or training matter. 

Dismissal of complaint 


32.The Chairman of the Advisory Committee or the Advisory Committee must dismiss a 

complaint, or part of a complaint, if it falls into any of the following categories— 


(a) it does not adequately particularise the matter complained of; 

(b) it is about a judicial decision or judicial case management, and raises no question of 

misconduct; 

(c) the action complained of was not done or caused to be done by a magistrate; 

(d) it is vexatious; 




(e) it is without substance; 

(f) even if true, it would not require any disciplinary action to be taken; 

(g) it is untrue, mistaken or misconceived; 

(h) it raises a matter which has already been dealt with, whether under these Rules or 

otherwise, and does not present any material new evidence; 

(i) it is about a person who is no longer a magistrate; 

(j) it is about the private life of a magistrate and could not reasonably be considered to affect 

their suitability to hold their judicial office; 

(k) it is about the professional conduct in a non-judicial capacity of a magistrate and could 

not reasonably be considered to affect their suitability to hold judicial office; 

(l) for any other reason it does not relate to misconduct by a magistrate. 

Dismissal procedure 


33. The Chairman of an Advisory Committee or an Advisory Committee may not dismiss a 

complaint under rule 32(a) unless the complainant has been given a reasonable opportunity to 

provide adequate details of the complaint. A complainant must provide any further details within 

15 business days of the request for further details. 

34.Where an account of facts given by a complainant differs from an account given by the 

magistrate concerned, the Chairman of the Advisory Committee or the Advisory Committee must 

consider any source of independent evidence which exists and which may help to verify the facts 

in dispute before it dismisses the complaint, unless to do so would be disproportionate in all the 

circumstances. 


35. Where the Chairman of the Advisory Committee or the Advisory Committee dismisses a 

complaint under rule 32, they must inform— 

(a) the complainant of the dismissal and the reasons for it; and 

(b) if they are aware of the complaint, the magistrate concerned. 

Referral to a conduct panel 


36. The Chairman of the Advisory Committee or the Advisory Committee may refer a complaint 

to a conduct panel where— 

(a) the magistrate concerned accepts the misconduct alleged; or 

(b) the Chairman of the Advisory Committee or the Advisory Committee consider that it is 

appropriate to investigate the complaint further. 

37. Where a complaint has been referred to a conduct panel it must be dealt with in accordance 

with Part 4 of these Rules. 

Procedure to be followed before a referral is made to a conduct panel 


38. Before a referral can be made to a conduct panel, the Chairman of the Advisory Committee 

or the Advisory Committee must— 

(a) provide the magistrate concerned with— 

(i) details of the complaint; 

(ii) any supporting documents; and 

(iii) any information obtained by the Chairman of the Advisory Committee or the 

Advisory Committee when considering the complaint under this Part of the Rules; 

(b) invite the magistrate concerned to comment upon the complaint within 20 business days 

of the invitation to do so; and 

(c) consider any comments received from the magistrate concerned. 




39. The Chairman of the Advisory Committee or the Advisory Committee can continue to refer 

the complaint to the conduct panel only if— 

(a) the magistrate concerned has provided comments within the time provided; or 

(b) the time has elapsed for providing comments and the magistrate concerned has not 

responded. 

40. The Chairman of the Advisory Committee or the Advisory Committee must provide to the 

Bench Chairman a copy of the invitation made under rule 38(b) seeking comments from the 

magistrate concerned. 

Interim suspension 


41. Regulation 17 of the Regulations governs the procedure relating to the possible interim 

suspension of a Magistrate. 

PART 3 


Summary Process 


Scope 


42. This Part applies where the Chairman of the Advisory Committee or the Advisory 

Committee has decided under rule 31(c) to deal with a complaint in accordance with the summary 

process. 

Summary process 


43. The Chairman of the Advisory Committee or the Advisory Committee may advise the Lord 

Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice that the magistrate concerned should be removed from 

office without further investigation where the magistrate concerned — 

(a) has been convicted in the United Kingdom of any criminal offence and has been 

sentenced to imprisonment, including a suspended sentence, as defined in section 

189(7)(b) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003; 

(b) has been convicted elsewhere of any criminal offence which, if committed in any part of 

the United Kingdom would constitute a criminal offence, and has been sentenced to 

imprisonment, including a suspended sentence; 

(c) has been committed to prison for contempt of court (including a suspended committal 

order); 

(d) has been convicted in the United Kingdom of an offence involving dishonesty, deception, 

theft or perverting the course of justice; 

(e) has been convicted in the United Kingdom of a sexual offence or violent offence; 

(f) has been cautioned in relation to a criminal offence falling within sub-paragraphs (d) and 

(e)of this paragraph; 

(g) is an undischarged bankrupt or a person whose estate has had a sequestration awarded in 

respect of it and who has not been discharged; 

(h) is the subject of a bankruptcy restrictions order or an interim bankruptcy restrictions order 

or an order of like effect made in Scotland or Northern Ireland; 

(i) has made a composition or arrangement with, or granted a trust deed for, creditors and not 

been discharged in respect of it; 

(j) is subject to— 

(i) a disqualification order or disqualification undertaking under the Company Directors 

Disqualification Act 1986; 




(ii) a disqualification order or disqualification undertaking under the Company Directors 

Disqualification (Northern Ireland) Order 2002; or 

(iii) an order made under section 429(2) of the Insolvency Act 1986 (disabilities on 

revocation or administration order against an individual); 

(k) has failed to disclose information concerning their suitability to hold judicial office to— 

(i) an Advisory Committee; or 

(ii) the person who made their appointment, 

which they knew about before their appointment as a magistrate; 

(l) has at any time been subject to any investigation or proceedings concerning their fitness 

to practise by any licensing body, the final outcome of which was— 

(i) the suspension of the magistrate concerned from a register held by the licensing 

body, and that suspension has not been terminated, 

(ii) the erasure of the name of the magistrate concerned from a register held by the 

licensing body, 

(iii) a decision that had the effect of preventing the magistrate concerned from practising 

the profession licensed or regulated by the licensing body, or 

(iv) a decision that had the effect of only allowing the magistrate concerned to practise 

that profession subject to conditions, and those conditions have not been lifted; 

(m) has been removed from another judicial office in accordance with prescribed procedures; 

(n) has failed to comply without reasonable excuse with any sitting requirement specified by 

the Lord Chancellor; 

(o) is subject to any form of restriction or restraint in bringing proceedings before a court or a 

tribunal in any part of the United Kingdom. 

Procedure 


44. Before advice may be given under rule 43, the Chairman of the Advisory Committee or the 

Advisory Committee must give the magistrate concerned an opportunity to make representations 

as to— 

(a) whether the alleged ground took place; and 

(b) if so, why they should not be removed from their office. 

45. The magistrate concerned must provide the representations referred to in rule 44 within 15 

business days of the request for them. 

46. The Chairman of the Advisory Committee or the Advisory Committee can continue to 

provide advice under rule 43 only if— 

(a) the magistrate concerned has provided representations within the time allowed; or 

(b) the time allowed for providing representations has elapsed and the magistrate concerned 

has not provided any representations. 

Report 


47. The Chairman of the Advisory Committee or the Advisory Committee must prepare a report 

if they intend to advise the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice under rule 43. 

48. The report must state— 

(a) that one or more of the grounds in rule 43 applies and why; and 

(b) any representations provided by the magistrate concerned under rule 45. 




Reporting procedure 


49. Rule 50 applies where a report is prepared by a member of the Advisory Committee who has 

been designated by the Chairman of an Advisory Committee under rule 5. 

50. The designated member of the Advisory Committee must submit a draft of their report to the 

Chairman of the Advisory Committee. The Chairman of the Advisory Committee must consider 

whether to change the report and communicate any changes to the designated member. The 

designated member must accept those changes and produce a final report. 

51.The Chairman of the Advisory Committee or the Advisory Committee must provide the 

report to— 


(a) the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice; 

(b) the magistrate concerned. 

PART 4 


Conduct Panel 


Scope 


52. This Part applies where— 

(a) the Chairman of an Advisory Committee or an Advisory Committee refers a complaint to 

a conduct panel under rule 36; or 

(b) the Ombudsman refers a case to a conduct panel under section 111(7)(b) of the Act. 

Composition of a conduct panel 


53. An Advisory Committee conduct panel must be comprised of three members drawn from the 

Advisory Committee or another Advisory Committee. If this is not possible members may be 

drawn from a Sub-Committee of the Advisory Committee. 

The role of the Advisory Committee Secretary 


54. The Advisory Committee Secretary (or a nominee) will normally provide administrative 

support to a conduct panel. The Advisory Committee Secretary may not be a member of the panel 

and, whilst they may advise the panel on the application of these Rules and on the principles of 

natural justice, the Advisory Committee Secretary may not take part in a panel’s deliberations on 

the merits of the case. The panel must retain a note of any advice which the Secretary has 

provided. 

55. The Advisory Committee Secretary may assist with the drafting of any report, reasons and 

recommendations. 

56. The Advisory Committee Secretary must keep the complainant and the Bench Chairman 

notified of the progress of the complaint. In particular, the Advisory Committee Secretary must 

inform the complainant and the Bench Chairman of decisions made in relation to a complaint as 

they occur, and in any event, provide updates at regular intervals. 

57. The Advisory Committee Secretary must write to the magistrate concerned on behalf of the 

Chairman of the Advisory Committee inviting the magistrate concerned to attend a conduct 

hearing. The letter must: 

(a) set out all of the issues under consideration; 

(b) inform the magistrate concerned of their right to be accompanied at the hearing; 

10 



(c) request their written representations on any records on their file relating to previous 

conduct matters which may be taken into account by the conduct panel if the complaint is 

substantiated; 

(d) where the conduct panel is investigating the complaint further— 

(i) ask for details of any third party whom the magistrate concerned wishes to provide 

evidence on their behalf; and 

(ii) invite the magistrate concerned to submit statements from anyone able to provide 

evidence on their behalf; and 

(e) where the magistrate concerned accepts the misconduct alleged— 

(i) advise the magistrate concerned that a conduct panel will be convened to make 

recommendations to the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice on the admitted 

facts of the complaint; and 

(ii) inform the magistrate concerned of their right to make written or oral representations 

to the panel before they make their recommendations. 

Procedure 


58. The conduct panel may— 

(a) make such inquiries that it considers are appropriate to fulfil its functions; 

(b) request any documents which appear to be relevant to the complaint. 

59. But any records on the files of the magistrate concerned must not be shown to the conduct 

panel unless the panel decide that the complaint is substantiated. 

60. Unless rule 61 applies, a conduct panel must take oral evidence from the magistrate 

concerned. The hearing must be conducted in accordance with rules 67 to 78. 

61. Where the magistrate concerned fails, without good reason, either to agree a hearing date or 

to attend a conduct panel hearing which has been arranged, the conduct panel must consider the 

case on the papers along with any evidence provided under rule 76. 

62. A record must be made of the conduct panel’s reasons for proceeding in the absence of the 

magistrate concerned. 

63. A conduct panel may take evidence, including oral evidence, from any other person. 

64. Any evidence obtained under rule 63 must be disclosed to the magistrate concerned. A 

hearing under rules 67 to 78 may only proceed where the magistrate concerned has been given a 

reasonable opportunity to consider such evidence. 

65. If the magistrate concerned requires more time to consider evidence disclosed to them under 

rule 66 before a hearing then the hearing must be adjourned. 

66. The panel must consider, in consultation with the Bench Chairman and the Justices’ Clerk, 

whether it is appropriate for the magistrate concerned to abstain from duties where they have 

failed to provide written comments, agree a hearing date or attend a conduct hearing. 

Hearings 


67. Each member of the conduct panel must be in possession of a copy of the complaint, the 

response (if any) from the magistrate concerned and any other written evidence. 

68. Subject to rule 76, the conduct panel must not have seen, heard or be in possession of 

evidence that has not been disclosed to the magistrate concerned. 

69. The Advisory Committee Secretary must arrange for a full and accurate note of the 

proceedings to be taken. 

11 



70. The substantive part of the hearing must begin with the magistrate concerned being asked 

whether they agree wholly or in part with the facts as set out in the papers. 

71. The facts must be checked chronologically, if possible, separating those which are agreed 

from those which are disputed, and following up the latter with appropriate questions. 

72. The magistrate concerned must be invited to answer any questions raised. 

73. Follow up questions may be asked when the magistrate concerned has responded to the 

initial questions. 

74. Subject to rule 75, any person providing evidence to the panel must attend only for the 

purposes of giving evidence and must not be present during any other part of the proceedings. 

They may be accompanied, while giving evidence, but unless there are wholly exceptional 

circumstances, they must speak for themselves. 

75. The magistrate concerned must be given the opportunity to hear any evidence given to the 

conduct panel and be invited to comment on that evidence after a person giving such evidence has 

finished and in their presence. 

76. But where the magistrate concerned has been informed that a witness will be asked to attend 

a conduct panel hearing to provide evidence and the magistrate concerned does not attend the 

hearing, the conduct panel may hear from that witness in the absence of the magistrate. 

77. The conduct panel Chairman may wish to follow-up any issues which require clarification. 

78. When this process has finished, the magistrate concerned must be asked if there is anything 

in conclusion which they wish to say to the panel. 

Conduct panel report 


79. The conduct panel must prepare its report setting out: 

(a) the details of the complaint; 

(b) a summary of the evidence presented; 

(c) findings of fact made by the conduct panel; 

(d) a full explanation of the panel’s reasoning; and 

(e) a clear statement of its recommendations. 

80. The conduct panel must complete its report within ten business days of the hearing. 

81. If the conduct panel concludes that there has been misconduct— 

(a) the Advisory Committee Secretary must put before the conduct panel any relevant 

records relating to other conduct matters brought to the magistrate’s attention in the past, 

together with any written representations made by the magistrate about the accuracy of 

the record; and 

(b) the panel must then move on to consider what advice it will offer to the Lord Chancellor 

and the Lord Chief Justice on whether disciplinary action should be taken, and if so what. 

Reporting procedure 


82. Rules 83 to 86 apply where the conduct panel recommends that disciplinary action should be 

taken. 

83. The conduct panel must send a copy of its report and note of the hearing to the magistrate 

concerned and invite the magistrate concerned to make representations upon the report. 

84.When sending the report to the magistrate concerned and where the report recommends 

removal or suspension from office, the relevant Advisory Committee must ask the magistrate 

concerned if they want the matter referred to a disciplinary panel to consider. 


12 



85. The magistrate concerned may within 15 business days of receipt of the report— 

(a) provide comments on the report to the relevant Advisory Committee; 

(b) make representations to the relevant Advisory Committee regarding the need for further 

investigation into the matter; 

(c) where the report recommends removal or suspension from office, state whether they want 

a disciplinary panel to consider the complaint. 

86.—(1) The Advisory Committee must inform the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office of 

any request from the magistrate concerned to have their matter referred to a disciplinary panel. 


(2) The conduct panel must send a copy of the report to the Judicial Conduct Investigations 

Office and to the Chairman of the Advisory Committee together with a copy of— 

(a) the complaint; 

(b) the representations (if any) from the magistrate concerned; 

(c) any other written evidence considered by the panel; and 

(d) a full and accurate note of the hearing. 

87. The Bench Chairman, the Justices’ Clerk and the complainant must be informed that the 

panel’s report has been sent to the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office. 

88. Where the conduct panel decides to dismiss a complaint, the conduct panel must send a draft 

of its report to the Chairman of the Advisory Committee together with— 

(a) the complaint; 

(b) any other written evidence considered by the panel; and 

(c) a full and accurate note of the hearing. 

89. If the Chairman of the Advisory Committee makes a proposal that the conduct panel’s report 

should be changed, the conduct panel must consider whether or not to change it to give effect to 

that proposal. 

90. If the Chairman of the Advisory Committee agrees that the complaint should be dismissed, 

the conduct panel must— 

(a) inform the Bench Chairman of its decision; 

(b) send a copy of its report to the magistrate concerned; and 

(c) inform the complainant of its decision. 

91. If the complaint raises any pastoral or training issues, the conduct panel must always 

consider whether to refer those issues to the Bench Chairman and/or the Chairman of the TDC as 

appropriate. 

92. When considering whether a complaint raises pastoral or training issues, the conduct panel 

may seek advice from the Judicial College. 

93. The Justices’ Clerk must be consulted and kept informed of any referral under rule 91. 

94. Any correspondence with the Bench Chairman or the TDC Chairman must be copied to the 

magistrate concerned. 

PART 5 

The role of the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office 


Scope 


95. This Part applies where a conduct panel has sent its report to the Judicial Conduct 

Investigations Office in accordance with rule 86. 

13 



The role of the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office 


96. On receipt of the report from the conduct panel the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office 

must examine the papers to ensure that— 

(a) all the information necessary for the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice to make 

a decision has been obtained; and 

(b) the procedure set out in these Rules and in the Regulations has been followed. 

97. Where procedures have not been followed, the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office may 

remit the case back to the Advisory Committee Secretary with advice as to further action. 

Referral to an investigating judge 


98. Where the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office considers that a complaint is sufficiently 

serious or complex, or that a more detailed investigation is required to establish the facts of a 

complaint, the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office may request that a complaint is referred to 

an investigating judge to investigate in accordance with Part 6. 

99. A request under rule 98 must be considered by a nominated judge. 

100. If a nominated judge agrees to the request, then the complaint must be referred to an 

investigating judge to consider in accordance with Part 6. 

101. If a nominated judge disagrees with the request, then the Judicial Conduct Investigations 

Office must— 

(a) refer the case back to the Advisory Committee Secretary in accordance with rule 97; 

(b) refer the case to a disciplinary panel in accordance with rules 103 to 105; or 

(c) provide the conduct panel report to the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice in 

accordance with rule 106. 

102. Where a complaint is referred to an investigating judge, the Judicial Conduct Investigations 

Office must— 

(a) inform the magistrate concerned and the complainant that the complaint has been referred 

to an investigating judge; 

(b) provide the report of the conduct panel together with any representations received from 

the magistrate concerned under rule 85 to the investigating judge. 

Referral to a disciplinary panel 


103.Where the magistrate has requested that their case be referred to a disciplinary panel to, 

consider, the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office must— 


(a) refer the complaint to a disciplinary panel to consider in accordance with Part 7 of these 

Rules; 

(b) send the report of the conduct panel to the disciplinary panel together with any 

representations received from the magistrate concerned under rule 85; and 

(c) inform the magistrate concerned and the complainant that the complaint has been referred 

to a disciplinary panel. 

Referral to the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice 


104. Where the circumstances in rule 105 apply, the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office must 

send the conduct panel report and any representations received from the magistrate concerned 

under rule 86 to the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice. 

105. The circumstances referred to in rule 104 are— 

(a) where— 

14 



(i) the report of the conduct panel recommends that some disciplinary action, other than 

removal or suspension, should be taken; or 

(ii) the report of the conduct panel recommends that the magistrate concerned should be 

removed or suspended from office and the magistrate concerned has not confirmed 

that they want a disciplinary panel to consider the complaint under rule 103; and 

(b) no referral has been made to an investigating judge under rule 100. 

PART 6 

Judicial Investigation 


Scope 


106. This Part applies where a referral is made to an investigating judge— 

(a) by the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office under rule 100; or 

(b) by the Lord Chief Justice and Lord Chancellor under regulation 13 of the Regulations; or 

(c) by the Ombudsman under section 111(7)(b) of the Act. 

Nomination of investigating judge 


107. The investigating judge must be nominated in accordance with regulation 10 of the 

Regulations. 

Investigation by an investigating judge 


108. The investigating judge must— 

(a) determine the facts of a case; 

(b) determine whether in the facts amount to misconduct; and 

(c) advise as to whether disciplinary action should be taken and if so what. 

109. Any question as to whether a fact is established must be decided on the balance of 

probabilities. 

110. The investigating judge must— 

(a) decide how to conduct the investigation; 

(b) notify the magistrate concerned and any complainant of the proposals for the conduct of 

the investigation, and whether oral evidence will be taken; 

(c) invite the magistrate concerned to give evidence and make representations about the 

procedure adopted; and 

(d) record any representations on the proposals that are received. 

111. The investigating judge may invite the complainant or any person who may be able to 

assist the investigation to give evidence about the case. 

112. Any evidence or representations from the complainant, the magistrate concerned or any 

other person must be provided to the investigating judge within ten business days of an invitation 

under rules 110(c) or 111. 

113. The investigating judge may take oral evidence if it is considered necessary to do so. 

114. The investigating judge must disclose any evidence obtained under rule 111 to the 

magistrate concerned and must invite the magistrate concerned to make representations about the 

evidence. 

15 



115. The magistrate concerned must make any representations under rule 114 within ten 

business days of the invitation under that rule. 

Report of investigating judge 


116. The investigating judge may decide the form of their report. 

117. The investigating judge must disclose a draft of their report to the magistrate concerned and 

invite the magistrate concerned to comment on it. The comments may include proposals for 

changes to the report. 

118. The investigating judge may show a draft of their report to any other person, and invite 

them to comment upon it. 

119. Disclosure of the draft report under rule 118— 

(a) may be of the whole or part, 

(b) may be in the form of a summary, and 

(c) must omit any information the disclosure of which is prohibited under section 139 of the 

Act (confidentiality). 

120. Any comments must be provided to the investigating judge within ten business days of 

disclosure of the draft report under rules 117 and 118. 

121. After considering any comments received in accordance with rules 117 and 118 the 

investigating judge must— 

(a) complete their report and submit it to the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice with 

details of any requested changes which the investigating judge has not made. 

(b) send a copy of their report to the magistrate concerned; and 

(c) send a copy of their report or the relevant part of it to any other person who has been 

invited to comment upon it, but omitting any material the disclosure of which is 

prohibited under section 139 of the Act (confidentiality). 

PART 7 


Disciplinary panel 


Scope 


122. This Part applies where— 

(a) the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office refers a complaint to a disciplinary panel under 

rule 103; 

(b) the Lord Chancellor and Lord Chief Justice have referred a complaint to a disciplinary 

panel under regulation 13 of the Regulations; 

(c) the Ombudsman refers a case to a disciplinary panel to investigate under section 

111(7)(b) of the Act; or 

(d) a referral is made under rule 140(b)(ii). 

Disciplinary panel 


123. The disciplinary panel must be convened in accordance with regulation 11 of the 

Regulations. 

Functions of a disciplinary panel 


124. A disciplinary panel may consider and review— 

16 



(a) any findings of fact; 

(b) any finding as to the conduct of the magistrate concerned; and 

(c) any proposed disciplinary action. 

125. Where a disciplinary panel reviews any findings of fact under rule 124(a), any question as 

to whether that fact is established must be decided on the balance of probabilities. 

126. Where a conduct panel has recommended that the magistrate concerned should be removed 

or suspended from their office, the disciplinary panel must advise the Lord Chancellor and the 

Lord Chief Justice whether removal or suspension is justified. 

Procedure of disciplinary panel 


127. The disciplinary panel may— 

(a) make such inquiries as it considers are appropriate to fulfil its functions; 

(b) request any documents which appear to be relevant to the complaint. 

128. A disciplinary panel must take oral evidence from the magistrate concerned unless it 

considers it unnecessary to do so. 

129. A disciplinary panel may take evidence, including oral evidence, from any other person. 

Report and recommendation 


130. The disciplinary panel must prepare a report that sets out— 

(a) the facts of the case; 

(b) whether in its opinion there has been any misconduct; and 

(c) whether disciplinary action should be taken and if so what. 

Report procedure 


131. The disciplinary panel must send its draft report to the magistrate concerned. 

132. The disciplinary panel may disclose its draft report to the complainant and any other person 

who may be affected by its contents. 

133. Disclosure of the report under rule 132— 

(a) may be of the whole or part; 

(b) may be in the form of a summary; 

(c) must omit any information the disclosure of which is prohibited under section 136 of the 

Act (confidentiality). 

134. The disciplinary panel must invite each person to whom it discloses its report to comment 

on it. 

135. Any comments on the report must be made within ten business days of the day on which 

the report is sent out for comment. 

136. In finalising its report the disciplinary panel— 

(a) must have regard to any comments received under rule 134; 

(b) must include those comments with its report. 

137. The disciplinary panel must send its report to the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief 

Justice. 

17 



PART 8 

Miscellaneous 


Re-opening a case that has been dismissed 


138. Exceptionally, a Chairman of an Advisory Committee may re-open a complaint that has 

been dismissed where they receive new information concerning that complaint. 

139. For these purposes, new information means information which— 

(a) relates to judicial misconduct; 

(b) is cogent and credible; 

(c) has not already been considered under these Rules; and 

(d) is sufficiently serious to justify re-opening a complaint. 

140. If a Chairman of an Advisory Committee decides to re-open a complaint, they may— 

(a) consider the complaint in accordance with Part 2; 

(b) refer the complaint to— 

(i) another Chairman of an Advisory Committee to consider under Part 2; or 

(ii) a disciplinary panel to consider in accordance with Part 7; or 

(c) request that the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office make a referral to an investigating 

judge in accordance with rule 100. 

Procedure to be followed when re-opening a case 


141. A Chairman of an Advisory Committee may re-open a case of their own volition. 

142. A complainant may provide new information to the Chairman of an Advisory Committee. 

Consideration of matter in absence of a complaint 


143. Where a Chairman of an Advisory Committee receives no complaint but receives 

information from any source which suggests to them that taking disciplinary action might be 

justified they must consider that information as though it were a complaint and deal with it under 

these Rules with the exception that any obligation to be discharged in relation to a complainant 

does not apply. 

Withdrawal of a complaint 


144. A complainant may withdraw their complaint at any time. 

145. Where a complaint is withdrawn, it may still be investigated if rule 146 applies. 

146. A withdrawn complaint may continue to be investigated where it is being considered by— 

(a) a Chairman of an Advisory Committee or the Advisory Committee if the Chairman of an 

Advisory Committee or the Advisory Committee considers it appropriate to continue to 

investigate the complaint; 

(b) a conduct panel under Part 4 of these Rules if the conduct panel considers it appropriate 

to continue to investigate the complaint; 

(c) an investigating judge under Part 6 of these Rules if the investigating judge considers it 

appropriate to continue to investigate the complaint; or 

(d) a disciplinary panel under Part 7 of these Rules if the disciplinary panel considers it 

appropriate to continue to investigate the complaint. 

18 



147. Where rule 146 applies, the case is to continue to be considered under these Rules as if the 

complaint had not been withdrawn and the complainant must be informed of this decision by the 

Chairman of the Advisory Committee, the Advisory Committee, the investigating judge or the 

disciplinary panel as the case may be. 

Deferral of consideration of a case 


148. A Chairman of an Advisory Committee or an Advisory Committee may defer consideration 

of a case where there is good reason to do so. 

149. Where consideration of a complaint is deferred, the Chairman of the Advisory Committee 

or the Advisory Committee must inform the complainant and, if they are aware of the complaint, 

the magistrate concerned. 

Transitional provision 


150. These Rules apply to any complaint made before these Rules come into force which has not 

been withdrawn, dismissed or determined.