CHANGE OF P.M. WILL HAVE LITTLE CHANGE FOR JUSTICE

Yesterday I published the latest post of a magistrate`s diary:  A NEW BEGINNING WITH A NEW SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE?  This was written 13th May 2010. Four days previously as a result of the general election on that day the Tories regained power after thirteen years of Labour government.  Thus began an age of austerity subsequent to the recent banking collapse which was almost an existential end to two generations of economic growth following the end of World War 2 and the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. The newly ensconced Lord Chancellor Kenneth Clarke was proud to announce ahead of all his cabinet colleagues his departmental budget reduction for the following year.  Altogether 23.8% (£2 billion)  was to be cut from the previous money pot.  Immediately a programme of economies followed including limits on recruitment at the Crown Prosecution Office and legal aid.  In June the ministry announced plans to close more than 150 of the 530 courts in England and Wales. In a major speech the following week Clarke made it clear that the prison population was too high. Changes were initiated which effectively allowed offenders to walk free from what would have been previously an immediate jail sentence. Those with a more thorough knowledge of our justice system than I ever possessed were scathing in their opinions:  they asserted that the economies to be expected would be false ones. Cutting legal aid would simply lead to more litigants in person. Cases would take longer and court costs would rise. Vulnerable children would be at greater risk. There would be more miscarriages of justice costing huge sums to investigate and put right.  How prescient were those commentators.  162 of the active 323 magistrates courts in England and Wales in 2010 have shut with predictable results.  Waiting times have gone through the roof. Those on low income have been denied legal aid, travel times and therefore costs  for staff and witnesses have increased against assurances propagated by a press office`s regurgitation of information that would have made a Pravda reporter in the former USSR feel comfortable. At its heart justice is a function of the state. Apart from the armed services it is not like other public services which can be handed over to the private sector. Justice is a pillar of a democratic society. When the public lose confidence in its efficacy the future is dire. 

Literally at the time of writing a new prime minister is kissing hands with the monarch. Within 24 hours we will be informed whether or not the current incumbent  Brandon Lewis retains his position at Petty France or whether the 10th Secretary of State at the MOJ since 2010 will be appointed. In any event what changes affecting magistrates will take place during his/her occupancy and what would be desirable?  Non payment of the BBC license fee will be decriminalised; a long overdue realisation that an outdated financing model for that organisation cannot be enforced by outdated legislation which to say the least is unjust for so many caught up in its rotten tentacles.  The iniquitous Single Justice Procedure is likely to be offered to miscreants presenting for a wider range of offences that at present.  The increased sentencing powers available to magistrates court benches (two years custody) was met with howls of rage from the legal profession.  I have some sympathy with them owing to the likely diminished quality of Justices of the Peace currently being appointed on a mass basis with questions being asked over a tendency for "diversity" being a criterion in the minds of advisory committees.  However the necessity of defendants being able to have legal assistance when they need it be it because of the seriousness of charge to be faced and/or an inability to self fund that assistance is in my opinion fundamental to a society retaining confidence in those who judge them in court.  The concept of the level playing field of justice and an equality of arms to decide the outcome of trial is no longer realistic when lawyers cannot afford to appear in a court to speak for defendants owing to the derisory fees on offer.  Magistrates must have the confidence to be more interrogative when it becomes apparent that a miscarriage of justice is a possibility owing to a witness`s or defendant`s inability to express his/her thoughts in an acceptable or appropriate manner.  

With so many factors in front of him to be tackled before the next general election it is unlikely that activities of the Ministry of Justice will make headlines or that the new prime minister would want them to.   Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

ADDENDUM 13.15  25TH OCTOBER

Current Justice Secretary Brandon Lewis has resigned.  Look forward to Lord Chancellor number 10 at Petty France since 2010

JUDICIAL CONDUCT INVESTIGATIONS OFFICE IS UNFIT FOR PURPOSE

The Judicial Conduct Investigations Office is the judiciary`s disciplinary body.  Its composition is charted below. 

Unlike most such organisations it operates in secret. Unlike the Spanish Inquisition or the Star Chamber in England the proceedings are not available to public inspection unlike the trial eg of Joan of Arc who was tried by an English ecclesiastical court the verdict of which was subsequently overturned.  Of course that didn`t prevent her being burned at the stake.   Details of the disciplinary process and more are available by typing JCIO in the search box. Today, however, the iniquity of this so called judicial court  is more exposed than ever in its treatment of magistrates who have supposedly erred. In a word they are punished much more severely than their civil service full time paid seniors on the judicial ladder. 

Date:16 September 2022

STATEMENT FROM THE JUDICIAL CONDUCT

INVESTIGATIONS OFFICE

Mr Gary Cracknell JP

A spokesperson for the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office said:

"Mr Justice Keehan, on behalf of the Lord Chief Justice, and with the Lord Chancellor’s agreement, has issued Mr Gary Cracknell JP of the South Northumbria Bench with formal advice for misconduct following a complaint about a verbal altercation he had with a neighbour. While finding the majority of the complaint to be unsubstantiated, they decided that Mr Cracknell’s conduct demonstrated a lack of the circumspection and sound judgment expected of a judicial office-holder."

ENDS

Note that even although the majority of the complaint is unsubstantiated Mr Cracknell`s judicial record is permanently endorsed with "formal advice".  This terse statement is typical of the public record. 

Date: 19 August 2022

 

STATEMENT FROM THE JUDICIAL CONDUCT

INVESTIGATIONS OFFICE

 

Kate Fitzpatrick JP, Natalie Carter JP and Susan Carrington-Porter JP

 

A spokesperson for the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office said:

"Mr Justice Keehan, on behalf of the Lord Chief Justice and with the Lord Chancellor’s agreement, has issued Kate Fitzpatrick JP, Natalie Carter JP and Susan Carrington-Porter JP, of the Staffordshire Bench with formal advice for leaving court early without authorisation when they were listed to sit on hearings."

ENDS

From the above it would seem that a full bench must have had its own very good reason(s) for leaving.  The term "without authorisation" is a form of words that I`m sure would not have been used were the miscreant a District Judge or Recorder. It indicates the manner in which the JCIO regards magistrates. 

Date: 26 July 2022

 

STATEMENT FROM THE JUDICIAL CONDUCT

INVESTIGATIONS OFFICE

 

Lesley Pickup JP

 

A spokesperson for the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office said:

"Mr Justice Keehan, on behalf of the Lord Chief Justice and with the Lord Chancellor’s agreement, has issued Lesley Pickup JP of the Greater Manchester Bench with a formal warning for her disruptive behaviour during an online training course and for the improper tone of her post-course feedback. In reaching their decision, they took into consideration that Miss Pickup had received a previous disciplinary sanction for intemperate behaviour and was unwilling to accept full responsibility for her actions."

ENDS

"disruptive behaviour",  " improper tone of her post-course feedback", "intemperate behaviour",  "unwilling to accept full responsibility for her actions."  These phrases of castigation appear to me as if a teacher is disciplining a disruptive child in her class.As for " unwilling to accept full responsibility for her actions." that means that she defended herself against the accusations but failed to convince the accusers of her innocence.  It reminded me of an occasion when I was appraised internally by the then bench chair who told me the process was that subsequent to her presenting me with her report and signing it off I was permitted to add my own comment after hers and that would complete the matter.  However after my criticism of her comments and having signed as instructed she proceeded to add her criticism of my comment wholly against  her own description of how the matter would be officially completed. She had changed her own rules to suit herself.  In the above case I have a sense that Ms Pickup had forfeited an opportunity to be professionally defended and that no doubt would be due to the cost of so doing.  In any event we just do not know proving once again that secret justice is bad justice.

Date: 25 July 2022

STATEMENT FROM THE JUDICIAL CONDUCT

INVESTIGATIONS OFFICE

Polliner Chukwuma JP

A spokesperson for the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office said:

"Mr Justice Keehan, on behalf of the Lord Chief Justice and with the Lord Chancellor’s agreement, has issued Mrs Polliner Chukwuma JP of the East London Local Justice Area with a formal warning for making a complaint against another magistrate in bad faith. In reaching their decision, they took into consideration that Mrs Chukwuma failed to accept responsibility for her actions."

ENDS

Once again the statement throws out the accusation that the erring magistrate "failed to accept responsibility for her actions."  In other words she had not pleaded guilty but defended her actions.  What`s more the sentence of the inquiry took into consideration that non acceptance of culpability.  The defendants at the Spanish Inquisition knew they could save their lives by renouncing their heretic beliefs or their Judaism.  I doubt that Mrs Chukwuma was offered the opportunity to "repent" and accept a reduced sentence; eg "advice" as opposed to "formal warning".  Unfortunately she now faces dismissal if a further "grievance" is successful. 

The above is just a current extract of the everyday workings of an organisation which should not exist in an England of 2022.  There must be some form of disciplinary process for members of the judiciary but in its current form it is simply not fit for purpose.

BAD NEWS FOR THEM AND WORSE NEWS FOR US

It seems that with Dominic Raab`s departure from Petty France the new government (for that is what we have in practice if not in name) felt that pressure on the courts would be relieved by the Criminal Bar Association`s acceptance of an agreed fee increase back dated to the backlog of 60K cases in crown courts. But no sooner had one head of the legal Gorgon been lopped off than others have appeared.  Solicitors are also putting forward claims for increases.  The Crown Prosecution Service, a direct employer within the MOJ, is under pressure from its diminished workforce of prosecutors for increased pay rates.  This from a service which, like teaching, dentistry, the legal profession and others has, over the last two decades, introduced a class of prosecutors of lower qualification to prosecute initially what were simple guilty pleas in the magistrates courts. And like the aforementioned professions their scope has been widened the prime purpose of which is to reduce costs.  On top of all that magistrates courts staff, legal advisors and court associates, who  postponed last month’s planned strike after the death of Queen Elizabeth II, will take action from 22 to 30 October at 65 magistrates’ courts in England and Wales over the  controversial Common Platform system. 

And that leaves magistrates, who,  for more than a decade have been considered in practice if not in theory as unpaid employees by HMCTS [His Majesty`s Courts and Tribunals Service].  Their morale whilst not measurable is considered by some as not of the highest level.  Part of the reason is one of out of pocket expenses; an important consideration considering that JPs are volunteers.  The mileage rate is now 45p per mile – the standard, HMRC-approved, rate. However it was changed some time ago from a three tier system which paid a different rate according to the size of your car’s engine. Those with very small cars were made better off, those with larger engines lost out to the tune of 13p per mile. The new system might be fair but inevitably the losers are not happy. If officials want someone to sit in a court thirty, forty or fifty miles from their home, they do not take account the cost to the magistrate of that journey before allocating that sitting to him or her. In response to requests that the paid rates should be increased to cover the significant increases in the cost of fuel, insurance, maintenance etc, the MoJ simply says it would be too difficult to introduce a new, fairer, system.  When magistrates courts were responsible for their own individual rotas such difficulties were sorted in house.  The take over of that process was the second in a continuing series of authoritarian grabs by HMCTS the first being the abolition of magistrates courts committees a couple of decades ago.  This has continued to the present when so called unelected appointed "leadership" magistrates were supposed to be a replacement for elected bench chairmen who comprised a national forum which could be described as a magistrates` senate. They most certainly are not.  They are self serving people with a veneer of doing public works looking forward to a gong which the civil service often offers to its own unlike that which is earned by fine people like my late mother for doing good works within the community.   

I am sure that many now on the bench must be re thinking their role in our justice system.  Covid 19 has reeked havoc on the courts as it has in so many parts of our lives.  There are three areas to be considered.  The best place to begin is the judicial oath which every JP must swear in a public place before being recognised.    “I, _________ , do swear by Almighty God that I will well and truly serve our Sovereign lord King Charles III in the office of Justice of the Peace 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.”  With the introduction of the Single Justice Procedure over five years ago can it truly be said that those undertaking this position are following their oath?  The process is carried out behind closed doors where the onus in practice is for the accused to prove his/her innocence; where there is no possibility of outside comment because of course there is no reporting. But it seems there are enough magistrates willing to sell their souls so that they do not incur the wrath of HMCTS.  Indeed they might be described as spineless but their dark place in our courts system is self inflicted to some extent.  They have no way to resist apart from resignation.  They have no organisation which represents them.  Some might cry but there is the Magistrates Association.  But the Magistrates Association is to magistrates what the Spanish Inquisition was to heretics: a lingering painful  departure or a quick end. Its charter prohibits any form of representative protective activity.  It produces a lengthy 37pp account of its activities for the Charities Commission and specifies that its annual income from membership fees is £472,728 equalled by a similar grant from government but nowhere does it tell us in all the 37pp how many active members are on its books.  Generally speaking if the government whistles the MA does a jig. Unless magistrates have a truly independent protective organisation where individuals can exchange opinions and have a shoulder to cry on when faced with professional problems representation as we know it is a mirage. Indeed as a very early contributor to an independent forum constructed on the MA website early this century I have witnessed its being absorbed into the "protective arms" of the MA and then being removed altogether.  The result is as a body of around 12,000 souls nationally magistrates have no way to communicate with each other except in small voluntary groups

Finally and perhaps of most importance is the fact that so many defendants now appear for summary trial without legal representation or plead guilty simply to avoid the period wasted until court time is allocated for trial and of course to seek a 33% early guilty plea sentence reduction.  During the trial magistrates have from their earliest training been told to apply the principle of there being equality of arms on a level playing field and that their position is to sit as Zeus in the clouds and pass judgement on the facts presented. It is my strongly and long held opinion that whilst not approaching the position of "magistrate" as employed in France nevertheless British magistracy must be redefined.  And that means that a currently forbidden on pain of death interrogative approach must be undertaken when litigants in person (LIP) are facing professional prosecutors of the CPS.  During my final five or so years pre retirement when this situation even then was becoming not uncommon I upset many legal advisors and not a few colleagues by assisting those who could not quite formulate their answer in cross examination by the often incomprehensible legal verbalise of crass prosecutors owing to poor English or intellect or both and more significantly those whose ability to question witnesses was hampered by their inability to translate their thoughts into clearly understood sentences.  

Justice cannot be done in 2022 by habits formed in 1922. It is urgently required that an academic researches all aspects of the magistrates courts procedures from first appearance to sentencing outcomes with particular regard to those points above.  Only then will there be continuing public confidence in this part of the justice system; a part where well over 95% of justice is dispensed. And for magistrates themselves: until utilising perhaps outside influences attempts to attract individuals of the calibre of those of the last decades of the 2oth century will be blighted.  But as the cynic within me keeps whispering: governments are seeking ever increasing control of the legal system to suit themselves.  Sourcing JPs en masse as is happening now is not a clear indicator of  a desire to improve the quality of what was once upon a time the independent bench.  All too often the appearance is to reinforce the concept of  a master and servant relationship which is bad news for them and worse news for us.

 

TITANIC JUSTICE

So now we have the ninth Justice Secretary in 12 years of Tory government.  Each has left no fundamental mark upon the justice system although failing Grayling did his best to undermine the prison and probation services.  Until the summons hits them in the letter box most people have little knowledge of and couldn`t care less about the courts and what goes on within them.  Part of the reason is that local court reporting about which I have written here more than once is becoming a historical left over from the time when local newspapers cost a single denarious  (1d). When local communities were what that term really meant and neighbours or some of them were truly their brothers` keepers. When shame of transgressing in many forms really did act as a deterrent to misdemeanours and more serious acts of local disapproval. With over a million cases annually passing through magistrates courts very few are considered worthy of local reporting by newspaper editors or their financially pressed owners.  Instead when apparently atrocious decisions are reached in the courts it`s more likely that dissemination of the cases is spread by social media with all the accuracy and (m)objectivity such media offer to those with the time and the wit to provide an opinion.  Indeed the Law Society Gazette last week published a very interesting article on court reporting. 

Thankfully notwithstanding the above there are still some reports of the magistrates courts up and down the country.  And there are still some cases where the defining object seems to be that all steps must be taken so that as few offenders as possible are subject to immediate custody however much the facts of the case seem to point unhesitatingly in that direction. 

An officer of Staffordshire Constabulary was found guilty after a two day trial  of common assault following which he was found guilty of misconduct at a public hearing chaired by the force`s Chief Constable but allowed to keep his job. Such lenient decisions are sure to undermine public  confidence within the country. No shame, no deterrence and yet there is wonder in high places why respect for the uniform is failing. 

Until 15-20 years ago suspended sentences were not very common.  Then the law changed in parallel with the cost of keeping convicts in jail becoming a hot political topic and the increasing discomfiture within and without parliament of the annual rises in custodial sentences almost overwhelming the prison system.  According to all guidance given to magistrates a custodial sentence could be suspended only when the custody threshold had been reached.  That instruction  fell upon the deaf ears of some magistrates and certainly many probation officers who saw a suspended sentence as one level below certain immediate jail time.  Criminal Behaviour Orders (CBO) have been the subject here previously my opinion being that they should be titled for accuracy as criminal displacement orders.  They are civil orders the breach of which is a criminal offence.  Indeed I sat on the first such case in the country and because its terms were not met by the prosecution it was thrown out. When a magistrates court sentences an offender to 40 weeks inside it is a matter of note considering that only about 3% of all cases in those courts receive an immediate custodial sentence. It is somewhat against the grain when 40 weeks custodial, a very severe sentence, is suspended.  What does that do for public confidence in our courts?  Consider also that the offending was in public.  

Crown Court judgements naturally receive more coverage than the lower courts but the single sentencer, the judge, also has the Sentencing Guidelines to follow plus the unwritten advice concerning our overcrowded prisons.  Critics of comments such as those here maintain that without full knowledge of a court`s proceedings remarks on sentencing are without foundation.  Unsurprisingly I disagree. The alternative is silence. As this case shows it is truly shocking that apart from any mitigation by the defence such an offender committing such an offence should not escape immediate custody. To the general public as per the article headline he has avoided jail. When the state fails to act in accordance with natural justice that justice and its proponents are devalued and a sense of vigilantism creeps in to the dismay of all who hope some sense of society still remains in our psyche.    

A similar case in Hartlepool shows that there is a deficit in government thinking brought about by a continual failure to provide required funding for the Ministry of Justice currently a little over £9 billion.  

The problem is an unrecognised national carbuncle on the arse of justice.  Readers will see a similar dereliction of catering for the public good  in this case. 

There is no doubt that below the public consciousness budgets like that are of little significance to public and Treasury when NHS, Education, Defence and Social Security hit all the headlines.  However like the Titanic it`s what is below the waterline which most effectively defines whether a ship (and its passengers) or a nation sinks or swims to safety.  

EXCEPTIONAL HARDSHIP REQUIRES REVISION

Last week I posted on the possible connection between those who evade a driving disqualification by successfully pleading special reasons or exceptional hardship and who later are convicted of serious driving offences punishable by a custodial sentence.  The law in such matters is not fit for purpose when a man said to be worth £100 million and a duke of the realm attempted to use the latter get out of jail free card.  He was unsuccessful thanks to the lay bench at Lavender Hill Magistrates Court in London.  This area of law urgently requires revision.

There is no specific legal definition of what might amount to exceptional hardship. Each case will turn on its own particular facts and the personal circumstances of the individual driver. For example loss of employment will undoubtedly cause some hardship for anyone but whether that amounts to ‘exceptional hardship’ will depend on a number of factors including financial circumstances and family support to name a few.   

Magistrates should know all about exceptional hardship as it applies to driving disqualification……….or at least their legal advisers ought to know. Practice suggests that the loss of employment by itself is unlikely to satisfy the “exceptional” test. Some judicial guidance can be found in the Scottish case of Brennan-v-McKay (1996) 1997 S.L.T. 603. A taxi driver reached 12 penalty points on being convicted of speeding. He claimed that he would be likely to lose his job and be unable to obtain other work and this would have a substantial effect on his family. The High Court of Judiciary held that the justices were entitled to conclude that exceptional hardship had not been demonstrated. Whilst it was not an invariable rule that exceptional hardship would only be established where persons other than the accused and his immediate family would suffer it was ruled that it was necessary to demonstrate that there were other circumstances associated with loss of employment which might involve reflected hardship of a serious kind on the accused`s business, his family or his long term prospects [per Lord Hope in Brennan-v-McKay].

 
It is important to note that offenders may not put forward the same circumstances which have been used either for not disqualifying or for reducing the length of the totting up disqualification within three years of conviction {sec. 35(4)(c) RTOA 1988} It follows that detailed court records must be made of the exact circumstances which justified any finding of exceptional hardship. 

Nevertheless those facing a totting ban with some cash at their disposal for legal representation are likely to tell extraordinary stories to escape their just rewards; the aforesaid Duke of Norfolk being a prime example.  I would suggest that all those whose cases rest on a financial argument of being unable to afford alternative forms of transport eg taxis should be made to provide proof of their earnings eg tax return or similar irrefutable documentation to the court.  I would further suggest that those whose income is in excess eg of £100K /per annum be refused to employ a financial argument.  When the argument is based upon the proposed disqualification`s effect on third parties these individuals should be required to attend court and be cross examined and provide relevant evidence failing to do so being an immediate dismissal of the application. 

I would hope but have my doubts that this high profile case might stimulate some thinking by the new occupants at Petty France that all is not well with so many errant drivers evading a banning order.  The fact that MOJ refuses a Freedom of Information request to provide facts which are recorded on their data bases that might prevent innocent people being injured or worse by drivers who have little care for other road users is, unfortunately, a signal to the rest of us that they are all fur coat and no knickers when it comes to providing the public with real effective benefits from knowledge sitting there but ignored.   

A MINORITY REPORT APPROACH TO AVOIDING LENIENCY ON DRIVING BANS

In order for a democratic society to function as such the law must reflect the attitudes of that society to particular actions which might be detrimental to members of that society individually or as a group.  There are as so often is the case exceptions to the rule.  Hanging was suspended  (pardon the pun)  in 1965 when arguably there was no public mandate so to do but the government at the time led rather than followed public sentiment. It was abolished four years later. Offences for errant motoring activities have been around since the first cars appeared on the streets around 120 years ago when a driver was fined for refusing to identify himself to a constable. 

Since then the numbers of such offences have reached the hundreds.  Events and improved data collections have refined both the definition of offences and their sentencing.  Generally it should be assumed that the purpose is to deter, punish and rehabilitate offenders just as with much other legislation.  To do that a firm statistical basis on which to formulate such legislation is required.  Cost benefit analyses and other parameters are weighed, studied, and predicted to ensure maximum efficiency in the practice of new regulations.  The prevention of harm to individuals one would assume is a guiding light to those who are involved in this task. One such volume of information to that end  is already within the millions of data points collected by the MOJ: Special Reasons and Exceptional Hardship statistics. The latter topic has been discussed here at length and might be accessed by those two words being inserted in the search box. 

Between 7,000 and 8,000 motorists in England per year who have totted-up more than 12 points on their driving licence avoid disqualification by using that loophole in the legal system. A total of 142,275 people between 2017 and 2021 were banned from driving after accruing a licence-losing volume of points.However, a further 35,569 were allowed to remain on the road having told magistrates they will face 'exceptional hardship' if they were unable to continue driving. 

Driving offences where special reasons are applicable can be argued for any Motoring Offence. However these reasons are commonly used for: 

Drink Driving 

Failing to Provide a Specimen 

Speeding 

Driving without Insurance

Failing to Provide Driver Details. 

For special reasons in a specialist hearing to be accepted by the court the circumstances relied upon need to satisfy the criteria below;
 

Must be a mitigating or extenuating circumstance
Must not amount in law to a defence to the allegation Must be directly connected with the commission of the offence
Must be something which the Court ought to properly take into consideration when imposing sentence.

Whilst the statistics of exceptional hardship are widely available those for special reasons are locked somewhere in the bowels of the computers at Petty France where perhaps an expert researcher which excludes me might find them. However this post is not primarily concerned with numbers.  It is that knowing the numbers and circumstances of both get outs who go on to commit much more serious motoring offences would be an enabler in predicting those of them who would indeed be a future danger to life and limb both to themselves and innocent others. To that end a third party has recently made such a Freedom of Information request.   The MOJ has admitted it knows the numbers of those who have saved themselves from a driving disqualification by the successful employment of the above two arguments and have later convicted of having committed further serious imprisonable motoring offences  at the crown court especially causing death or serious injury by careless or dangerous driving but that the cost of relating them to their  driving records of previously escaping a ban is beyond the statutory allowance of £600. 

This appears to be a deliberate avoidance of a statistical analysis which just might offer clues to those who subsequent to avoiding a totting disqualification nevertheless show indications of being possible future offenders in more serious matters of breaking motoring laws. It might also give reasons to legislate so that the two arguments are placed under a more stringent basis so that fewer totters are excused their just deserts and that that dangerous minority is less likely to drive in a manner dangerous to others. For movie aficionados my proposal might be termed the Minority Report approach.  Now that would mean an incoming Secretary of State for Justice actually doing something tangible to improve the well being of the public instead of the seemingly unending press releases his department is expert in providing. 

DEATH OF A QUEEN AND S.5 PUBLIC ORDER ACT

There can be few of us who have not wondered whether or not our nation has been gripped by some form of national hysteria.  I write as somebody who leans towards republicanism but who was honoured to swear allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II and her heirs and successors  as a Justice of the Peace. She was head of state and I felt no hypocrisy on my part by so doing.  I am old enough to have been a primary school boy when told of the death of George VI.  Thus to some degree I stand apart from those of later generations who, in dozens of media conversations, have said that they felt some sort of personal affinity to our late monarch.  I did not.  The most startling impression I have had in the last few days is that so many people in this country are repeating scenes we last saw in 1997 on the death of Princess Diana.  I am no psychologist but my abiding impression of the TV coverage at that time was a nation in the grip of the aforesaid condition of national hysteria. It has long been recognised that groups of people can be enveloped in an overpowering common feeling whether benign or bewitched.  The Salem witch trials of 1692-3 have been considered lately by  psychologists as perhaps being of such a nature.  But what caused the mass hysteria, false accusations, and lapses in due process which resulted in the "execution" of 14 women? Scholars have attempted to answer these questions with a variety of economic and physiological theories. Thankfully the results so far of public grief expressed on the streets of Britain are not threatening to anyone except perhaps to that handful of individuals who have dared to express by means of posters carried that they would prefer to live in a republic or to one or two individuals who have voiced diverse opinions of the Duke of York.  According to social media and scant reports in mainline TV the police have merely arrested them in order to prevent a public affray or breach of the peace.  It is likely that S.5 of the Public Order Act was employed. 

Harassment, alarm or distress.

A section 5 offence comprises two elements:
 A person must (a) use threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or (b) display any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting; and

The words or behaviour, or writing, sign of other visible representation must be within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby.

Unique amongst the public order offences in the Act, section 5 requires no proof of any intention, nor that any person actually be caused harassment, alarm or distress, only that the act took place within the hearing or sight of a person “likely” to be caused harassment, alarm or distress.

It doesn`t take a lawyer to realise that this offence is based on subjectivity and not objectivity.  Thus it gives the police widespread power to impose their will at any scene which appears to them to be encompassed by the legislation.  The maximum penalty is a fine. For someone of the criminal classes a conviction for a S.5 offence is but a tap on the wrist but for a professional person of good standing it could be a hammer blow. Intending protesters should consider carefully the possible consequences of their actions. 

A SORRY HISTORY OF LORD CHANCELLORS//A LITANY OF FAILURE

Cameron, May, Johnson and now Truss; the fine figures that have led this country since 2010.  Such an accumulation of prime ministers in a dozen years makes us more Italian than Italy when it comes to political upheavals.  When it comes to Secretaries of State for Justice/Lord Chancellor the occupants of said post over the same period were as frequently deployed as the substitutes in international Rugby Union.  When one considers the disarray and lack of cohesive thought within that ministry it is no surprise that it is currently appearing to self destruct in front of us.  Barristers have finally had enough of being paid a pittance for their services within the criminal courts system but expected to provide a first class service for which they have taken an oath so to do.  Judges by their own volition ration their sitting days owing to impossible rules on the taxation of pensions in addition to government deliberately limiting courts` functioning timetables to reduce spending. Magistrates courts` staff have planned strike action later this month.  Magistrates` local independence has been absorbed into direct control by Her Majesty`s Courts and Tribunals Service their representative court committees and national bodies eliminated yet the farce of a pursuit of "local diversity" is pursued nevertheless.  Two year delays in crown court trials are now commonplace with corresponding delays at the lower court and Covid being the parroted reply to criticism such response being used as an alibi for deliberate under funding of the  whole system from police via probation to prison. 

This debacle started in 2010 when Kenneth Clarke proudly declared that he was the first cabinet minister to fulfil his part of the austerity programme by slashing the Justice Department budget by 23%. Thus began the closing of half the country`s courts. And so the decline to the sorry situation today when a former occupant of Clarke`s office somehow being promoted above her competence ( contrary to Peter`s Principle) enters number 10. The history of how she and the other holders of the office have  ruined a system a millennium in the making does not make for happy reading.

After Clarke`s time in office came Chris (failing) Grayling to Petty France: perhaps the worst Lord Chancellor of modern times. Earlier in 2010 it was reported by the Daily Telegraph that an IP address associated with the Parliamentary estate had been discovered attempting to remove references to his role in the expenses scandal from his Wikipedia page. They attempted the edit to remove the information five times and later received a warning from a Wikipedia administrator. It was Grayling who proposed cuts to legal aid which were widely criticised by the legal profession. In May 2013, 90 Queen's Counsels signed a letter sent to The Daily Telegraph that branded the cuts "unjust", as they would seriously undermine the rule of law. 6 January 2014 saw the first strike in British history by barristers and solicitors in protest at the cuts.In February 2014, he introduced the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 to the House of Commons.  In October 2014, Grayling unveiled the Conservative Party's proposals for reforms to human rights in order to curb the European Court of Human Rights' influence over British court rulings, whilst honouring the text of the original Convention on Human Rights in a British Bill of Rights and Responsibilities.In January 2015 data relating to three fatal police shootings including details of marksmen and the deceased's family were lost in the post by the Justice Department. According to The Guardian it was particularly embarrassing for Grayling as the Government was claiming it needed to access personal data to deal with terrorism and could keep it securely. The data included details of the Mark Duggan shooting incident which had triggered the 2011 England riots.

After the 2015 general election Cameron promoted Michael Gove as Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor in his newly formed cabinet. He was praised in December 2015 for scrapping the courts fee introduced by his predecessor Grayling whose departure from office was greeted with unashamed relief by all in the legal world including magistrates who had had to  pronounce to offenders his ridiculous newly imposed court charges. The fees had been heavily criticised for, among other things, causing innocent people to plead guilty out of financial concerns. Gove removed the 12-book limit on prison books introduced by Grayling arguing that books increased literacy and numeracy, skills needed for making prisoners a "potential asset to society". The move, effective from September 2015, was welcomed by all including  the Howard League for Penal Reform and the literary establishment.  

And then followed Liz Truss. She was widely castigated for failing to support more robustly the judiciary and the principle of judicial independence, after three judges of the Divisional Court came under attack from politicians and from the Daily Mail for ruling against the government in R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union. Lord Falconer, the former Lord Chancellor, who had previously suggested that, like her immediate predecessors Chris Grayling and Michael Gove, Truss lacked the essential legal expertise that the constitution requires, called for her to be sacked as Justice Secretary as her perceived inadequate response "signals to the judges that they have lost their constitutional protector". She didn`t last long and nobody lamented her leaving office.

She was followed by David Liddington who lasted six months in office and was a total waste of space.

And along came David Gauke who achieved nothing in his short tenure.

 A week after being sworn Rober Buckland in July 2019 in an interview for The Times newspaper expressed the opinion that suspects accused of serious crimes should be granted anonymity if the accusations threatened their reputation stating "let's say you are a reputable local business person who is accused of fraud. Your good name is going to be really undermined by this mere accusation. That might be a meritorious case for anonymity." In response to the interview Ian Murray, director of the Society of Editors stated said it was "absurd to suggest that in a liberal democracy we are going to create a system of justice that enables the rich, the powerful and celebrities to be protected when they are under investigation for serious crimes but the ordinary man or woman would be offered no such protections." Buckland's opinion was rejected by a Government spokesman who confirmed "this is not government policy", and the Ministry of Justice which confirmed "this isn't departmental policy" and stated that Buckland would not be giving further interviews on the subject which would now be handled by Downing Street.  In September 2020 Buckland stated on The Andrew Marr Show that he would resign only if the UK Internal Market Bill broke the law "in a way I find unacceptable".  An example of double speak from one of the experts.  Indeed he might have been following Humpty Dumpty with the latter`s assertion that words mean what I want them to mean. 

Finally until today we have Dominic Raab who in my humble opinion was all mouth and no trousers.  It has been obvious to all that he has been more concerned with his previous position as deputy prime minister following his failure as foreign secretary than accomplishing anything worthwhile other than unnecessary press releases in his time at Petty France.  

And so the story ends to begin again with more aspirants to an office which has been devalued by virtually all who have held sway since 2010 over a pillar of our democracy.  

THE TWO TIER PRICING OF TESCO AND ENGLISH JUSTICE

Since Covid offered me the perfect excuse to live a hermit like existence without having to excuse my curmudgeonly  behaviour to anyone my visits to the supermarket have been replaced by a weekly home delivery of groceries by Tesco.  Having been a regular customer in the past the Tesco Clubcard saved a pound or two each week albeit at the cost of their marketing department knowing a bit more about my lifestyle than I would have generally found acceptable.  However as a card user and home delivery recipient I have noticed that there is an increasing marketing emphasis on offering Tesco Clubcard holders substantial discounts on many every day items.  In other words Tesco is openly operating a two tier pricing system which its customers can take or leave.  They can do as I have done for some years, continue to shop at Tesco without a card or take their custom elsewhere.  All very reasonable in a democratic capitalist believing free society.  But.........receive a summons to attend a magistrates court for eg assault, a driving offence, criminal damage or myriad other offences deemed suitable for summary justice and also be at your wits end as to how you`ll be able to afford to pay the rent or buy a new school uniform  and you will have to rely on your own verbal eloquence to convince the bench that you are not guilty of the charge(s) put to you.  Twenty years ago there would have been the possibility of a state funded duty solicitor to assist you with advice and possibly actual representation before the court.  That entitlement is no longer available.  In addition to that change there is now reduced opportunity for legal aid and thus legal representation for those faced with being charged to appear at the crown court where the consequences of conviction for most defendants  are grave indeed.  Just as at Tesco there is now a two tier pricing system for criminal justice in this once great nation which for so long had been a beacon of light to others of how law should be applied to all without fear or favour.  The blunt truth is that only rich defendants can afford the services of a lawyer to put their case before a magistrates court. Anecdotally there are many defendants who are now pleading guilty at the earliest opportunity to receive a 33% reduction in any sentence they might expect to receive in order to end the matter for which they consider themselves unable to defend whether or not they are actually at risk of being found guilty or are indeed innocent.  At the crown court where the stakes are considerably higher for defendants striking barristers have increased trial delays for over two years in some cases, such delays reducing considerably witnesses` abilities to recollect with certainty events around which the case revolves.  Thus a trial becomes a lottery where any witness testimony  for prosecution or defence can be challenged on that basis alone: "Mr (Ms) X how can you be sure that what you tell this court of the events surrounding this matter now two years distant are accurate and did indeed take place as you testified under oath?"

Of course the so called great and the so called good will still bring their divorces, libel cases and contract disputes to the Royal Courts of Justice where the best and most expensive legal brains this country has to offer will plead on their behalf for £5,000 for every day the proceedings last. Meantime the little people will soldier on as they did 150 years ago in thrall now to the whims of the Sentencing Guidelines and their exponents.  After all it was only on 9 January 1868 that the last transported felons from England landed in Australia. None of them had legal representation. 

A PUDDING TO REDUCE KNIFE CRIME

https://thejusticeofthepeaceblog.blogspot.com/search?q=KNIFE+CRIME

For ease of access I have begun today`s post with the link above. The first four of the posts offer a brief outline of the farce that is this government`s supposed "fight" against knife crime. Almost without fail successive Lord Chancellors have employed their vast public relations resources to shout loudly of the government`s intention to curb knife crime. In each and every case it has been a shout in the wilderness where there is nobody listening.  Year after year the numbers tell a different story.  Those prepared to carry a bladed article are not listening and neither are the judges who continue it seems to ignore the gory tragedies that are daily taking place on our streets.  Sentence for possession of a bladed article like all sentencing matters is governed by the Sentencing Council. The guideline like all the rest is akin to an explanation in plain English of an algorithm. Indeed my opinion is that within a decade an algorithm will actually be employed with human judicial override to fine check the conclusion in a similar manner to driverless cars and other forms of transport.  The CPS guidance on charging those whose cases are presented to them by police are no less  onerous. Indeed it is a wonder that anybody suspected of breaking the law on bladed articles is charged at all never mind imprisoned. 

And so to the lamentable current state of affairs. Of all those convicted of knife crime fewer than a third receive a custodial sentence.  The figures are that of 19,555 knife related convictions in the year to March 2022 5,815 were sentenced to immediate custody. A quarter of the total convictions were sentenced to custody suspended; a 100% increase in that sentence cf 2012. Minimum prison sentences for offenders who repeatedly carry knives came into effect as of 17 July 2015. The  ‘two-strikes’ sentence was supposed to mean that those adults convicted more than once of being in possession of a bladed article faced a minimum 6 month prison sentence with the maximum remaining at 4 years. Young offenders, that is to say those aged 16 and 17, were meant to face a minimum 4 month detention and training order.  Needless to add that has not happened. For the last two years a little over 40% of knife crime offenders were given non custodial sentences.  Contrary to common misconception deaths involving knives have hardly changed over a decade.  

In London there does appear to be a particular problem although release from pandemic restrictions might be a cause.  74.4% of all homicides were caused by knives or sharp implements in 2021, a 15.6% increase from 2020. 
It is a perennial problem which this and previous Tory governments have been unable to reduce. The current incumbent at Petty France currently is seeking to blame barristers for all his department`s woes and groans.  It takes teams of academics to analyse knife crime.  To understand the reasoning behind judicial decisions must be like the proverbial painting of the Forth Bridge.  However as is said; the proof of the pudding is in the eating and the public taste is one of disdain for the abilities of the judicial process to adequately deter and punish those who leave their homes and roam the streets with a knife on their person.

With antagonism being fostered against "stop and search", in some instances with justification, out of the box thinking is urgently needed to protect the mainly young people being killed by their peers. One can only hope that a future Secretary of State for Justice can find a hidden ingredient so that the judicial pudding will be baked and offered to the satisfaction of we, the public, who consume it.  

A RANT AGAINST WOKE

In most large organisations, public or private, there are those employed to expand the role of those employed to expand the role of some section or another within said organisation. They feast on uncertainty, fear, ignorance of others, short corporate memories and of course personal grievances for perceived slights on their abilities from managers who themselves are forever covering their corporate arses.  Such attitudes and resulting behaviours are all too evident within the NHS and para medical services, supervisory bodies whose failings are almost a weekly headline whether it be the care of children, the care of the elderly, the structure of buildings, the quality of teaching from kindergarten to university etc etc. In addition to those human frailties the intensity exemplified by the term "woke" has invaded almost every aspect of our lives where the individual meets "the group".  Thinking as we have known it for half a century has been overwritten by what we are expected to think by those who control even a small part of our destinies in themselves a small part of our daily existence.  The system of justice which is chimera for many is not exempt from those aforesaid strictures. 

The term "approved school" officially ceased to exist in the UK in the early 1970s. In England and Wales, as a result of the Children and Young Persons Act 1969, responsibility for these institutions was devolved from central government to local councils and they were renamed "Community Homes".  Scandal upon scandal at such places have been shockingly revealed but never as often in the last few years where men of Pakistani origin were allowed to perpetrate the most heinous crimes upon young white girls in places such as but not limited Rochdale and Rotherham.  They were able to undertake their ghastly criminality because the vast majority of those who could have limited their awful law breaking; MPs, police, social workers and others knowingly turned a blind eye for fear of stoking the wrath of the "diversity" industry.   George Orwell's farm animals had a maxim: “four legs good, two legs bad.” This phrase too often characterises our government's approach to environmental protection, individual rights, climate change, controversy over gender and sex and diversity.  The interests of woke shouldn't always prevail over the interests and rights of people. Ancient societies where the average lifespan was perhaps half of current levels valued those who lived long enough to be able to compare and contrast the mores of their society when the vast majority had only the present circumstances upon which to base their reactions to the events in an ever changing world. Today whilst we might not despise such memories we certainly don`t consider their usefulness more than just background bleating against modernity. 

Within the behemoth that we call the justice system the memories of those who rule us are those of goldfish who are forever chasing their own tails around a newly explored bowl hour after hour, day after day. Recently the MOJ in another of its myriad press releases announced the "revolutionary first secure school."  Along with the closure of asylums for the mentally ill the closure of approved schools has been one of the most foolish actions of government in a generation. Now it`s resurrection will be hailed as a new beginning in the care of young offenders.  It`s paradoxical to say that nobody in their right mind would argue that unformed young minds under bad influences must not be re-educated as much as society can tolerate. But in reality that is precisely what has been the norm  for two generations. There is no doubt that many of those mental hospitals and closed criminal courts will some day revert to their  original purpose when clear minds realise the folly of the incompetents who have been ruling us this century and in some matters long before that.  

The awful murder of Sarah Everard has brought into question the iniquitous secret justice of some summary offences by the reaction of police at the vigil held for her death. The Single Justice Procedure was, is and will be until it is terminated an abuse of centuries old adage of justice being seen and heard to be done. Considering the volume of cases daily being rubber stamped this topic should be higher up the list of "must effect change" of those in the justice system with the power to do just that.  That most incompetent of all Lord Chancellors, Chris Grayling, in addition to SJP brought to its knees an adequate in the circumstances Probation Service in the name of "efficiency"; next in line after "diversity" as an excuse to enact change for change`s sake.  

But for the god of all that`s woke "diversity" reigns supreme and within all parts of "justice" it is the Zeus to which all rational thinking must bend the knee. This guide is just a preamble. And as other fads have come and gone the basis for ensuring that racist attitudes within English society were controlled if not eradicated has become the tail of intent wagging the dog of society. But where racist attitudes actually still wriggle through the justice system, certainly in complaints against police and within the judiciary, the openness with which we now expect to be the right of society is still an ideal more than a reality. 

IF THE WORST WERE TO HAPPEN

This, I think, is the longest post I have ever written inclusive of copied files.  If JP readers are unfamiliar with the content I think they should change that situation so that in the unlikely event of their being the subject of a complaint they might be aware of what awaits them. 

Most magistrates have had no reason to familiarise themselves with The Judicial Conduct (Magistrates) Rules.  For convenience I have copied at the end of this post the original pdf (uncopyable direct) in the best form my limited IT skills allow.  There might have been an update but the version below is still 99% in operation.  Like many organisations a reading will show that the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office does not believe that less is more.   On the surface one would think at least initially that each and every contingency is accounted for but one would be missing the trees in the forest; the hoops that must be jumped through are a formidable obstacle to any poor sucker of a JP who falls foul of this star chamber.  Contrition, contrition, contrition; this seems to be the emotion expressly required for any form of redemption to be allowed the miscreant whose magisterial career unfortunately rests in the hands of the JCIO.  Even the chief magistrate a District Judge (MC) fell foul of its tentacles. Some other magistrates have also been subject to its interpretation of what language or terms are unacceptable in this age of woke. We will never know whether or not redemption was obtained by the heretic`s renouncement of his/her sins or indeed whether or not there was honesty in said heretics` regret at following false idols in language if not in deed. 

This Office is in reality a group of people; civil servants within the Ministry of Justice tasked with acting as police officer, judge and jury.  No doubt there are those rightfully "convicted" but we, the public, will never know the wheat from the chaff. Below the organisational chart with the named occupants of positions in the JCIO is the "bible" of prosecution. 

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: 

2 



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. 

3 



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. 

4 



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 

5 



(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; 

6 



(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. 

7 



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; 

8 



(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. 

9 



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. 

Revocation 

151. The Judicial Conduct (Magistrates) Rules 2013 are revoked. 

Lord Chief Justice 

Date 

I agree 

Lord Chancellor 

Date 

19