Category: Civil Justice

Civil justice refers to the system of laws, procedures, and institutions designed to resolve disputes between individuals, organisations, or entities (including public bodies) in non-criminal matters in a fair, accessible, and efficient manner.

Categories
Civil Justice Criminal Justice Family Law Legal Professionals

What is a Court Legal Adviser ?

Court Legal Advisor

In magistrates’ courts across England and Wales, lay justices (magistrates who are not legally qualified), deal with the overwhelming majority of criminal cases. Magistrates’ courts handle approximately 90-95% of all criminal cases in England and Wales.

To ensure proceedings are conducted lawfully, fairly and efficiently, lay justices are supported by justices’ legal advisers (also known as court legal advisers).

Court Legal advisers are qualified lawyers, either solicitors or barristers, who provide expert assistance to the court on all matters of procedure, evidence and sentencing law.

Alternative job titles for a Court Legal advisers include Court clerk or assistant to justices’ clerk.

We are HMCTS – Legal Adviser

Statutory Basis: Section 28 of the Courts Act 2003

The fundamental legal framework for the role is provided by Section 28 of the Courts Act 2003 (Function of giving legal advice to justices of the peace).

Under Section 28(1), the Lady Chief Justice may authorise a person:

  • (a) to give advice to justices of the peace about matters of law (including procedure and practice) on questions arising in connection with the discharge of their functions, including when the adviser is not personally attending on them; and
  • (b) to bring to the attention of justices of the peace any point of law (including procedure and practice) that is or may be relevant.

Authorisation is limited to suitably qualified court staff and carries statutory protection of independence.

Core Duties in Criminal and Youth Courts

In criminal and youth courts consisting of lay justices, the detailed duties of justices’ legal advisers are set out in Rule 2.12 of the Criminal Procedure Rules 2025.

A justices’ legal adviser must provide the court with any legal advice it needs (whether or not the court asks for it), including advice on:

  • questions of law and mixed questions of law and fact
  • matters of practice and procedure
  • relevant judicial decisions that bind the court
  • the process to be followed to reach a decision
  • the law relating to sentencing
  • the range of penalties and orders available, taking into account any applicable sentencing guidelines
  • any other matter relevant to the case

(5) In performing the functions for which these Rules provide a justices’ legal adviser―

(a) must avoid the appearance of advocacy for a party;

(b) must adhere to the same principles that apply to courts of independence, impartiality, integrity, propriety, competence, diligence and ensuring fair treatment; and

(c) may consult with other justices’ legal advisers.

Rule 2.12 (5) of the Criminal Procedure Rules 2025

Key requirements include:

  • Allowing parties an opportunity to make representations on the advice given
  • Being permitted to ask questions of parties or witnesses to clarify evidence
  • Assisting the court in drafting and recording reasons for its decisions
  • Supporting unrepresented defendants
  • Maintaining strict impartiality at all times

(3) To provide the legal advice required by paragraph (2)(a) a justices’ legal adviser must―

(a) if necessary, attend the members of the court outside the courtroom; and

(b) in that event, inform the parties, if present, of any such advice given there.

Rule 2.12 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Rules 2025

Advisers may not announce verdicts, sentences, or allocation/sending decisions.

Role Beyond Criminal Courts

While their primary and most extensive work is in criminal courts, justices’ legal advisers also support lay justices in family proceedings (under Family Procedure Rules Practice Direction 2C) and certain civil matters in magistrates’ courts.

However, the criminal jurisdiction remains the largest part of their caseload.

Skills and knowledge

As a Courts Legal Advisor , you’ll need:

  • legal knowledge including court procedures and government regulations
  • to be thorough and pay attention to detail
  • persistence and determination
  • analytical thinking skills
  • excellent verbal communication skills
  • the ability to think clearly using logic and reasoning
  • concentration skills
  • the ability to learn through your work
  • to be able to use a computer and the main software packages confidently

Qualifications and Employment

Justices’ legal advisers are employed by His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS). Entry typically requires completion of the academic stage of solicitor or barrister qualification. Candidates may join through the two-year HMCTS trainee legal adviser programme or by direct application if already fully qualified.

Starting salaries are around £32,000, rising to £53,000 or more with experience. The role demands excellent legal knowledge, strong analytical skills, clear communication, attention to detail and the ability to remain calm and impartial under pressure.

Career path and progression

After qualifying, you’ll become as a Tier 1 legal adviser. With more experience, you can move on to be a Tier 2 adviser, working on more complex cases and with more responsibility. For instance, reviewing casework and mentoring trainees.

As your career as a legal advisor develops, and with further training, you can move up in stages to become:

  • a legal adviser team manager in a court
  • an area or regional manager
  • a justices’ clerk, if you have over 5 years’ experience
  • a barrister, crown prosecutor or judge
Dodgy Magistrates (JP)

Check out our articles on Rule of Law, Open Justice, Judges Salaries and Fees, Dodgy Judges, Magistrates, Chief Magistrate, Do you Have to Bow to a Judge ?, Can you Email a Judge ?, Can you Criticise a Judge ?, Crown Prosecution Service, Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) and the highly dubious Sussex Family Justice Board.

The Ministry of Injustice is not the Ministry of Justice nor is it affiliated in any way with the justice system, legal profession, police or any other law enforcement agencies.

Latest Articles ↓

Most Popular ↓

You should always seek formal legal advice from a qualified and reputable lawyer (solicitor or barrister).

There are a number of links to Free and Paid For Legal Resources and Legal Organisations on the Free Legal Advice , Legal Aid and Pro Bono pages.

Categories
Civil Justice Criminal Justice Family Law Law Legal Professionals

What is a Skeleton Argument ?

Skeleton Argument

A skeleton argument is a concise written document prepared by a party (or their legal representative) and submitted to the court in advance of a hearing. It summarises the key factual and legal issues in dispute, sets out the main arguments that will be advanced, and identifies the authorities (cases, statutes, or other materials) that will be relied upon.

It acts as a “roadmap” for the judge and the advocate, helping to focus oral submissions and save valuable court time. Skeleton arguments (or their equivalent, such as position statements) are now a standard feature of litigation in England and Wales.

Purpose and Benefits of a Skeleton Argument

The primary purpose of a skeleton argument is to assist the court by clearly and concisely setting out the arguments on which a party intends to rely. A well-drafted skeleton:

  • Defines and narrows the real issues in dispute
  • Allows the judge to pre-read the case efficiently
  • Provides a clear structure for oral advocacy
  • Promotes efficiency in hearings

Judges frequently read skeletons before the hearing. A strong, well-structured skeleton can significantly influence the outcome by framing the case in advance.

Skeleton arguments are generally not required in the Magistrates’ Court unless the court specifically directs for one (e.g. for a complex legal issue).

Skeleton Arguments in Civil Proceedings (CPR)

In civil cases, skeleton arguments are governed by the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 (CPR) and the associated Practice Directions. The most important guidance is contained in Practice Direction 52A (Appeals), Section V, which sets out the requirements for skeleton arguments and is widely followed as best practice in first-instance hearings as well.

Key requirements include:

  • Must be concise, clear and focused
  • Set out in numbered paragraphs
  • Clearly define the areas of controversy
  • Contain cross-references to the relevant documents in the court bundle
  • Be self-contained (no incorporation by reference to earlier documents)
  • For each authority cited, state the proposition of law it supports and give specific page or paragraph references
  • Avoid lengthy quotations from cases or documents

Failure to comply with these requirements may result in costs sanctions or adverse comments from the court.

Skeleton Arguments in Criminal Proceedings (CrimPR)

In criminal cases, skeleton arguments are governed by the Criminal Procedure Rules 2025 (CrimPR) and the Criminal Practice Directions 2023 (as amended Nov 2025).

They are commonly required in the Crown Court for contested applications, trials involving significant legal argument, complex sentence hearings, and all appeals to the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division).

Key requirements include:

  • Strong emphasis on brevity and clarity
  • Must clearly identify the real issues
  • Proper citation of authorities (proposition of law + pinpoint reference)
  • Must comply with any page limits or other directions set by the court
  • Must be filed and served in accordance with any timetable set by the court

Non-compliance may lead to the skeleton being rejected, costs orders, or adjournment of the hearing.

Skeleton Arguments in Family Proceedings (FPR)

In family law cases, the Family Procedure Rules 2010 (FPR) and Practice Direction 27A (Court Bundles and Position Statements) apply. The terminology differs slightly from civil and criminal litigation.

In financial remedy proceedings, the term “position statement” is commonly used, and this includes what would otherwise be a skeleton argument. Strict page limits apply:

  • First Appointment: maximum 6 pages
  • Other interim hearings: maximum 8 pages
  • FDR appointment: maximum 12 pages
  • Final hearing: maximum 15 pages (excluding agreed documents)

In children and other non-financial family cases, a separate skeleton argument may be filed where appropriate (generally not exceeding 20 pages).

For appeals in family proceedings, see FPR PD 30A, which requires a skeleton argument to accompany or follow the appellant’s notice.

Common requirements across family cases include:

  • Numbered paragraphs
  • Cross-references to the court bundle
  • Clear propositions of law for each authority cited
  • No new evidence or factual allegations
  • Emphasis on the welfare of the child (where relevant) or the s.25 factors in financial cases

Recommended Structure for a Skeleton Argument / Position Statement

  1. Introduction – The order or relief sought and the party’s position
  2. The Issues – A clear numbered list of the matters the court must decide
  3. Factual Background – Short neutral chronology or agreed facts
  4. Legal Framework – Relevant statutes and case law
  5. Submissions – Arguments on each issue, clearly linked to the facts and law
  6. Conclusion – Summary of the relief requested

Published Skeleton Argument Templates and Examples

Several official and professional templates are publicly available:

  • Official GOV.UK Template – Form AC014 (Skeleton Argument) – ideal for appeals and tribunals
  • SRA Guidance Template
  • Many barristers’ chambers and law firms publish precedent skeletons for specific applications (e.g. summary judgment, interim injunctions, family financial remedies)

While using a template is helpful, always tailor it to the specific requirements of your court, hearing type and any individual directions from the judge.

Best Practice Tips

  • Use short sentences, clear headings, and numbered paragraphs
  • Use 12-point font with 1.5 line spacing
  • Avoid footnotes where possible
  • File and exchange by the court deadline (usually the day before the hearing)
  • Always comply with any specific directions from the judge

Comparison Table

AreaGoverning RulesDocument NameTypical LengthMandatory?
CivilCPR + PD 52A (Section V)Skeleton ArgumentConcise (often up to 25 pages on appeal)Usually yes, especially on appeals
CriminalCrimPR + Practice Directions 2023Skeleton ArgumentSubject to court directionsCommon in complex/contested cases
Family (Financial)FPR PD 27APosition Statement (incl. skeleton)6–15 pages (stage dependent)Yes for most hearings
Family (Children/Other)FPR PD 27A + PD 30APosition Statement / SkeletonUp to 20 pagesIf appropriate

Conclusion

The skeleton argument (or position statement in family cases) is an essential bridge between written statements and oral advocacy in the UK courts. Whether in civil, criminal, or family proceedings, the golden rules remain the same: clarity, brevity, and precision.

A well-crafted skeleton or position statement does not merely summarise the case, it persuades the court before a single word is spoken in the hearing.

Check out the related articles on the Attorney General, Solicitor General, Lady Chief Justice, Master of the Rolls, Lord Chancellor, Justice Secretary, Rule of Law, Open Justice, Law, Is the Law Black and White ?, Government Legal Department, Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), Abuse of Process, Government Legal Department (GLD), What Does Lady Justice Symbolise ?, McKenzie Friend, Can a Judge Direct a Jury to Find a Defendant Not Guilty ?,Law Society, Law Commission, McKenzie Friend Right of Audience, Solicitors, Solicitors Regulation Authority, Barristers, Bar Council of England and Wales, Bar Standards Board, R v Sussex Justices, Police Impartiality and the highly questionable Sussex Family Justice Board.

The Ministry of Injustice is not the Ministry of Justice nor is it affiliated in any way with the justice system, legal profession, police or any other law enforcement agencies.

Latest Articles ↓

Most Popular ↓

You should always seek formal legal advice from a qualified and reputable lawyer (solicitor or barrister).

There are a number of links to Free and Paid For Legal Resources and Legal Organisations on the Free Legal Advice , Legal Aid and Pro Bono pages.

Categories
Civil Justice Law Legal Analysis

Norwich Pharmacal Orders and Dodgy Fire Sticks

Norwich Pharmacal Orders and Dodgy Fire Sticks

Norwich Pharmacal orders (NPOs) are a form of court-ordered disclosure used in England and Wales and in equivalent jurisdictions such as Ireland.

Norwich Pharmacal orders (NPOs) require a third party to provide information or documents to help identify or locate an unknown wrongdoer when that information is held by an innocent party who has become involved in the relevant wrongdoing.

Unlike standard disclosure in ongoing litigation, Norwich Pharmacal orders target non-parties who have been unwittingly “mixed up” in the misconduct. This allows claimants to pursue justice when the perpetrators hide behind anonymity online or through other means.

Norwich Pharmacal orders are widely used in digital contexts. Common applications include identifying anonymous online infringers in defamation, harassment, or copyright cases, tracing fraudsters through banks or payment providers and supporting intellectual property enforcement actions.

Origin and Legal Basis

The remedy originates from the landmark 1974 House of Lords decision in Norwich Pharmacal Co v Customs and Excise Commissioners [1974] AC 133. In that case, the pharmaceutical company found that counterfeit versions of its patented drug were entering the United Kingdom but could not identify the importers. Customs and Excise held the import records.

The House of Lords ruled that a third party innocently involved in facilitating wrongdoing owes an equitable duty to assist the victim by disclosing relevant information, including the identity of the wrongdoer. This principle forms the basis of Norwich Pharmacal jurisdiction today.

Requirements for Obtaining an Order

To obtain a Norwich Pharmacal order, the applicant must generally satisfy the following key conditions:

  • There is a good arguable case that wrongdoing has occurred (this can include torts, breaches of contract, intellectual property infringement, or other actionable wrongs).
  • The order is necessary to enable the applicant to bring proceedings or obtain legitimate redress against the ultimate wrongdoer. Alternative routes must be unavailable or ineffective.
  • The respondent (third party) has been “mixed up” in the wrongdoing, even innocently, and is able to provide the required information.
  • The court must be satisfied that granting the order is just and proportionate, and that the application is not a mere “fishing expedition”.

Courts exercise discretion and balance the need for justice against privacy and other rights.

The Justice and Security Act 2013

Section 17 of the Justice and Security Act 2013 introduced a statutory restriction on the Norwich Pharmacal jurisdiction. It provides that a court may not make a Norwich Pharmacal order (or similar order) in civil proceedings if the disclosure sought would be damaging to the interests of national security.

The Act was enacted partly in response to cases where claimants sought disclosure of sensitive intelligence material through Norwich Pharmacal applications. It prevents the court from ordering disclosure of “sensitive information” where the Secretary of State certifies that such disclosure would damage national security.

Sky v Revolut – Dodgy Fire Sticks

On the 26th March 2026, Mr Justice Brian Cregan in the Irish High Court granted a Norwich Pharmacal order requiring Revolut Bank UAB to disclose information to Sky.

Sky sought the names and addresses of 304 subscribers and ten resellers who had made payments via Revolut for illegal streaming devices, commonly known as “Dodgy Fire Sticks” or “Dodgy boxes”.

These devices, loaded with unauthorised software, enable access to premium content including Premier League football, TNT Sports, Sky Sports, and Disney+ without legitimate subscriptions. It is said that many UK viewers access Irish-sourced illegal feeds through such devices.

The payments related to services provided by Wexford resident David Dunbar, who was previously ordered to pay Sky €480,000 in damages.

He also faces approximately €100,000 in legal costs and was fined €30,000 for contempt of court after breaching orders to preserve data.Sky confirmed that the information would be used to commence legal proceedings against the resellers and certain users.

The data is to be provided on an encrypted spreadsheet within 28 days. Revolut remained neutral on the application.

Police authorities have repeatedly warned that purchasing such devices can fund organised crime and expose users to risks of data theft and malware.

Check out our related articles on Defendant’s Costs Order, Wasted Costs Order, Public Spaces Protection Order (PSPO), Rule of Law, Open Justice, Is the Law Black and White ?, Abuse of Process, What Does Lady Justice Symbolise ?, McKenzie Friend, Can a Judge Direct a Jury to Find a Defendant Not Guilty ?,Law Society, Law Commission, McKenzie Friend Right of Audience, Solicitors, Solicitors Regulation Authority, Barristers, Bar Council of England and Wales, Bar Standards Board, Contra Mundum, R v Sussex Justices, Police Impartiality and the highly questionable Sussex Family Justice Board.

The Ministry of Injustice is not the Ministry of Justice nor is it affiliated in any way with the justice system, legal profession, police or any other law enforcement agencies.

Latest Articles ↓

Most Popular ↓

You should always seek formal legal advice from a qualified and reputable lawyer (solicitor or barrister).

There are a number of links to Free and Paid For Legal Resources and Legal Organisations on the Free Legal Advice , Legal Aid and Pro Bono pages.

Categories
Civil Justice Criminal Justice Judiciary

Dodgy Magistrates (JP)

Magistrates Justice of the Peace JP

The Judicial Conduct Investigations Office (JCIO) investigates complaints against judicial office holders in England and Wales, including lay magistrates known as Justices of the Peace (JPs).

A “fee-paid magistrate” is usually a Deputy District Judge, which is a different, legally qualified role compared to a Lay Magistrate (JP). 

When misconduct is substantiated, sanctions are imposed by the Lord Chancellor (with agreement from the Lady Chief Justice or delegate) and published as statements on the JCIO website.

Misconduct means personal misbehaviour which is serious enough to require the Lord Chancellor and the Lady Chief Justice to take formal disciplinary action.

Dodgy Judges

As of the 12th February 2026, in the 2025/2026 period, the JCIO issued 83 disciplinary statements in total. Of these, 47 involved Magistrates/Justices of the Peace (JPs) (identified by “JP” in the listings; the remainder include judges, coroners, and tribunal members).

The primary reason for JP discipline is failure, without reasonable excuse, to meet minimum sitting requirements (at least 13 full days or 26 half-days per year, often over three consecutive years), leading to removal via summary process.

Other cases involve social media misuse, failure to report personal legal involvement/convictions, inappropriate conduct/comments, misuse of judicial status, driving offences and other breaches.

Sanctions range from formal advice (mildest; visible 2 years) to formal warning (4 years), reprimand (6 years), or removal from office (5 years for sittings failures; indefinite otherwise).

Some note “would have been removed” if not resigned first.

Below is the complete list of all 47 JP cases, in the order they appear on the JCIO page (most recent first). Each includes the JCIO reference, name (linked to the official statement page), misconduct summary, sanction, and key notes/mitigating factors (based on statement content).

Disciplined Magistrates (2025/2026) as of 12th Feb 2026

  • JCIO 83/25 – Mr Adrian Kermode JP
    Misconduct: Liked a politically sensitive LinkedIn post (August 2025), risking impartiality and reputational harm.
    Sanction: Formal advice.
    Notes: Accepted responsibility, apologised, promptly unliked, provided future conduct assurances; single passive engagement.
  • JCIO 82/25 – Mr Morris Suckall JP
    Misconduct: Three inappropriate Facebook posts (2017) showing bias/ill will toward political figure and minority group.
    Sanction: Formal warning.
    Notes: Historic posts; 13 years unblemished service; no sustained pattern but limited insight.
  • JCIO 80/25 – Ms Michelle Bevan-Margetts JP
    Misconduct: Election leaflet included unauthorised comments on government policy and judiciary effectiveness.
    Sanction: Formal advice.
    Notes: Additions without knowledge; voluntary mitigation; incomplete insight.
  • JCIO 76/25 – Mr Lascelles Haughton JP
    Misconduct: Failure to meet minimum sittings for three years; disengagement and no contact.
    Sanction: Removal from office.
    Notes: No reasonable excuse; work commitments cited but insufficient for prior years.
  • JCIO 75/25 – Mr David Whitehead JP
    Misconduct: Called into LBC radio identifying as magistrate and criticising government policy on deportation.
    Sanction: Formal warning.
    Notes: Claimed private capacity; limited insight into breach of impartiality standards.
  • JCIO 73/25 – Mr John Parfitt JP
    Misconduct: Irregularities in managing bench social fund (inaccurate records, personal account use).
    Sanction: Formal warning.
    Notes: 16-year unblemished record; full responsibility; rectified with payments; personal challenges.
  • JCIO 72/25 – Mrs Roberta Hall JP
    Misconduct: Failure to meet sittings for three consecutive years.
    Sanction: Formal warning.
    Notes: Reasonable excuse for one year; 33 years service including chair roles; improved sittings.
  • JCIO 71/25 – Mr Steven Kinchington JP
    Misconduct: Used position to obtain case information not involved in.
    Sanction: Formal advice.
    Notes: Full responsibility; apologised; basic enquiry for acquaintance; no prior misconduct.
  • JCIO 70/25 – Mrs Nicola Walker JP
    Misconduct: No sittings or training since June 2022 appointment.
    Sanction: Removal from office.
    Notes: Unforeseen circumstances; no engagement with contacts.
  • JCIO 69/25 – Mrs Rebecca Reeves JP
    Misconduct: Failure to meet sittings and complete required training since April 2023.
    Sanction: Removal from office.
    Notes: Personal reasons for postponements; no response to rescheduling.
  • JCIO 68/25 – Mr Sarfraz Uddin JP
    Misconduct: Failure to meet minimum sittings for three years (from April 2022).
    Sanction: Removal from office.
    Notes: No response to requests; no reasonable excuse.
  • JCIO 67/25 – Miss Jennifer Reay JP
    Misconduct: Failure to meet sittings since April 2022.
    Sanction: Removal from office.
    Notes: No response provided.
  • JCIO 65/25 – Miss Angela Cahill JP
    Misconduct: Failure to meet sittings for two years; disengagement.
    Sanction: Removal from office.
    Notes: No response; no prospect of meeting requirements.
  • JCIO 64/25 – Mr Mark Lenderyou JP
    Misconduct: Shouting at court officer; unprofessional conduct.
    Sanction: Formal advice.
    Notes: Accepted unprofessional; apologised; personal factors affected note-taking.
  • JCIO 61/25 – Mr Nick Johnston JP
    Misconduct: Failed to promptly report convictions resulting in nine penalty points.
    Sanction: Formal advice.
    Notes: Full responsibility; ashamed; commitment to role.
  • JCIO 59/25 – Craig Rydqvist JP
    Misconduct: Failure to meet minimum sittings in 2024/25; delayed training.
    Sanction: Reprimand.
    Notes: Training delays; committed to reducing work; on track for current year.
  • JCIO 58/25 – Clive Powell JP
    Misconduct: Disruptive behaviour in training (aggressive criticism, raised voice).
    Sanction: Formal advice.
    Notes: Personal experiences; no contrition but long service.
  • JCIO 57/25 – Evelyn McCann JP
    Misconduct: Failure to meet sittings for three years (2022/23-2024/25).
    Sanction: Reprimand.
    Notes: Genuine mistake for one year; apologised; work/personal issues; unblemished since 2007.
  • JCIO 56/25 – Mrs Jill Clarke JP
    Misconduct: Belatedly reported providing police statement (2019) and accidental JP suffix in reference.
    Sanction: Formal advice.
    Notes: Apologised; resubmitted without suffix; long unblemished service.
  • JCIO 53/25 – Mrs Madeleine Bonser JP
    Misconduct: Requested case papers for mentee despite policy prohibition.
    Sanction: Formal warning.
    Notes: Assumed policy changed; 18-year unblemished record.
  • JCIO 52/25 – Mrs Jane Taylor JP
    Misconduct: Shared YouTube video with potentially transphobic commentary in WhatsApp group.
    Sanction: Reprimand.
    Notes: Defended as non-transphobic; political motivation claimed.
  • JCIO 50/25 – Ms Susan Kelly JP
    Misconduct: Failure to meet sittings for three consecutive years from April 2022.
    Sanction: Removal from office.
    Notes: Representations not accepted as reasonable excuse; personal circumstances; long service.
  • JCIO 49/25 – Ms Kate Waghorn JP
    Misconduct: Inappropriate racially insensitive comment about probation officer.
    Sanction: Formal warning.
    Notes: No malice; remorse; apologised; 30-year record.
  • JCIO 48/25 – Ms Gillian Sebright JP
    Misconduct: Inappropriate accusatory tone to staff; insensitive remark on religious beliefs.
    Sanction: Formal advice.
    Notes: 20-year unblemished record; sincere apology; no intentional offence.
  • JCIO 47/25 – Dr Amy Delicate JP
    Misconduct: Inappropriate behaviour in hearing (desk banging, sighing, swearing).
    Sanction: Formal advice.
    Notes: Stress from bundles; qualified apology; 5-year unblemished record.
  • JCIO 46/25 – Mr Michael Muldoon JP
    Misconduct: Speeding offence (six points); failed to report exceeding six points.
    Sanction: Formal advice.
    Notes: Prompt self-report; regret; clean licence otherwise.
  • JCIO 45/25 – Mr John Garforth JP
    Misconduct: Failure to report internal employment investigation.
    Sanction: Formal advice.
    Notes: Misunderstanding; not deliberate; took responsibility.
  • JCIO 44/25 – Ms Nicola Baldwin JP
    Misconduct: Failed to inform of co-defendant in civil proceedings; used JP status on website/email/social media.
    Sanction: Formal advice.
    Notes: Accepted facts; removed references; no intent to gain; no prior since 2006.
  • JCIO 43/25 – Mr Andrew Dawson JP
    Misconduct: Used magistrate status in election leaflet (“17 years keeping streets safe”).
    Sanction: Formal advice.
    Notes: Intended for campaign; apologised; genuine error.
  • JCIO 42/25 – Mrs Marisa Austin-Knowles JP
    Misconduct: Failure to report involvement in proceedings; mentioned status in court.
    Sanction: Formal warning.
    Notes: Undisputed; misunderstood reporting; apologised.
  • JCIO 38/25 – Mr Ramesh Nayak JP
    Misconduct: Obtained colleague’s medical records without consent.
    Sanction: Formal advice.
    Notes: Intended to help; remorseful; good faith.
  • JCIO 34/25 – Mr David Armitage JP
    Misconduct: Disclosed victim-identifying information from proceedings to organisation.
    Sanction: Removal from office.
    Notes: Unaware of anonymity; best intentions; remorseful.
  • JCIO 33/25 – Mr Joe Bangudu JP
    Misconduct: Failed to promptly report involvement in proceedings (three-month delay).
    Sanction: Reprimand.
    Notes: Serious misconduct; personally affected; remorse; no prior.
  • JCIO 32/25 – Mrs Angela Bradshaw JP
    Misconduct: Offensive comment overgeneralising a cultural group.
    Sanction: Formal advice.
    Notes: Ill-advised; accepted responsibility; direct apology.
  • JCIO 30/25 – Miss Linda Hill JP
    Misconduct: Failure to meet sittings for three years from April 2022; no engagement.
    Sanction: Reprimand.
    Notes: Work/personal commitments; felt unsupported; unblemished since 2007.
  • JCIO 29/25 – Mr Martin Dominique JP
    Misconduct: Rude, aggressive towards litigant; abuse of authority.
    Sanction: Formal warning.
    Notes: Admitted remarks; single instance.
  • JCIO 28/25 – Mrs Shirley Holmes JP
    Misconduct: Conditional caution for altercation (removing headset); breached respect for law.
    Sanction: Formal warning.
    Notes: Provocation; regretful; personal challenges; no prior.
  • JCIO 26/25 – Mr Edmund Sutton JP
    Misconduct: Failure to meet sittings for four years; no engagement.
    Sanction: Removal from office.
    Notes: No response to contacts.
  • JCIO 25/25 – Mr Alfred Bean JP
    Misconduct: Loud, rude complaint about parking; aggressive rant to staff.
    Sanction: Formal advice.
    Notes: Frustration; regret; attempted apology; 12-year record.
  • JCIO 24/25 – Mr Terry Regan JP
    Misconduct: Failed to report motoring convictions timely; multiple offences (nine points, ban).
    Sanction: Formal warning.
    Notes: Misinterpretation; remedial actions; long-serving.
  • JCIO 23/25 – Mr Peter Chapman JP
    Misconduct: Failure to complete five essential e-module trainings.
    Sanction: Formal advice.
    Notes: Claimed completed; not intentional avoidance.
  • JCIO 22/25 – Mrs Sharanjit Sandhu JP
    Misconduct: Rude to magistrate/staff; derogatory emails; car park breach.
    Sanction: Formal warning.
    Notes: Denied rudeness; retaliatory complaint; some complaints dismissed.
  • JCIO 21/25 – Mrs Fiona Jones JP
    Misconduct: Failed to meet minimum sittings (30 half-days for dual jurisdictions) in 2024; repeated failures.
    Sanction: Reprimand.
    Notes: Work/personal; 30 years committed; improving in 2025.
  • JCIO 20/25 – Ms Amie Canham JP
    Misconduct: Adverse findings in civil proceedings not declared; failure to report involvement.
    Sanction: Would have been removed (resigned).
    Notes: Gross misconduct; difficult circumstances; no prior.
  • JCIO 19/25 – Mr Robert Walker JP
    Misconduct: Stern, belittling, intimidating tone to staff.
    Sanction: Formal advice.
    Notes: Negative reception; intended to help; long service.
  • JCIO 14/25 – Ms Abiola Onatade JP
    Misconduct: Failure to report exceeding six penalty points (10 points from speedings).
    Sanction: Formal advice.
    Notes: Responsibility; impact recognition; long record.
  • JCIO 13/25 – Mrs Karen Earnshaw JP
    Misconduct: Accessed court database for relative’s case; mentioned status in call.
    Sanction: Reprimand.
    Notes: Serious misconduct; accepted facts; apologised.
  • JCIO 12/25 – Mrs Jane Greasley JP
    Misconduct: Neglected to report family member’s court involvement.
    Sanction: Formal advice.
    Notes: Misunderstanding of requirements; accepted responsibility; no prior since 2006.
  • JCIO 10/25 – Mrs Susanna Craig JP
    Misconduct: Failure to complete minimum annual sittings (15 days for dual jurisdictions) for last three years; no response to contacts.
    Sanction: Removal from office.
    Notes: Summary process; no reasonable excuse provided; no mitigating factors mentioned.
  • JCIO 08/25 – Dr Charles Jumbo JP
    Misconduct: Expressed personal views on homosexuality during retiring room discussion, offending colleagues and raising impartiality concerns.
    Sanction: Reprimand.
    Notes: Long unblemished record; assurance of fair decisions; entitled to views but must avoid undermining magistracy; lesser sanction than recommended removal.
  • JCIO 06/25 – Mr Anderson Jordan JP
    Misconduct: Failure to complete minimum sittings despite prior warning; failed to access email/rota.
    Sanction: Would have been removed (resigned).
    Notes: Accepted failure, apologised, cited personal difficulties; but explanations insufficient; gross misconduct.
  • JCIO 05/25 – Mrs Christine Parry JP
    Misconduct: Acted rudely and dismissively towards staff member, causing emotional upset.
    Sanction: Formal advice.
    Notes: No malice; reckless rather than intentional; tensions acknowledged.
  • JCIO 04/25 – Mr Andrew York JP
    Misconduct: Failed to report involvement as complainant in criminal trial, leading to abortion due to conflict.
    Sanction: Formal warning.
    Notes: Full responsibility, apologised; informed police/court staff but not bench chair; unblemished record; personal circumstances.

Statistical Breakdown (47 Magistrate Cases in 2025/2026) as of 12th Feb 2026

  • Sanctions Distribution
    • Formal advice: 20 (≈43%) — Common for mitigated or low-harm breaches.
    • Formal warning: 10 (≈21%) — For moderate reputational risks.
    • Reprimand: 8 (≈17%) — For serious but non-removal misconduct.
    • Removal from office: 7 (≈15%) — Mostly sittings failures.
    • Would-have-been-removed (resigned): 2 (≈4%) — Confirmed for JCIO 20/25 and JCIO 06/25.
  • Primary Reasons
    • Failure to meet minimum sittings: 15 (≈32%) — Leads to most removals.
    • Failure to report incidents/convictions/proceedings: 10 (≈21%).
    • Inappropriate conduct/comments: 10 (≈21%).
    • Social media/online misuse: 4 (≈9%).
    • Misuse of judicial status/position: 5 (≈11%).
    • Driving-related offences: 3 (≈6%).
  • Additional Insights
    • Gender: Balanced (≈50% female, 50% male, inferred from names).
    • Mitigation factors: Long service (10–30+ years), remorse, quick correction often cited to reduce severity.
    • Trends: Sittings shortfalls cluster in recent statements; increasing focus on social media and reporting.

Magistrates Disciplined by the JCIO after 12th Feb 2026 (Last updated 1st June 2026)

The High Court Judge that never was – His Honour Judge Melbourne Inman KC

Check out our articles on Chief Magistrate, Rule of Law, Open Justice, Judges Salaries and Fees, Dodgy Judges, Mr Justice Williams, His Honour Now His Dishonour, His Honour Judge Stuart Farquhar, Do you Have to Bow to a Judge ?, Can you Email a Judge ?, Can you Criticise a Judge ? and the highly dubious Sussex Family Justice Board.

The Ministry of Injustice is not the Ministry of Justice nor is it affiliated in any way with the justice system, legal profession, police or any other law enforcement agencies.

Latest Articles ↓

Most Popular ↓

You should always seek formal legal advice from a qualified and reputable lawyer (solicitor or barrister).

There are a number of links to Free and Paid For Legal Resources and Legal Organisations on the Free Legal Advice , Legal Aid and Pro Bono pages.

Categories
Civil Justice Criminal Justice Judiciary Law Legal Professionals

United Kingdom Supreme Court Judicial Assistant Recruitment 2026

Supreme Court of the United Kingdom Judicial Assistant

The UK Supreme Court is currently recruiting Judicial Assistants for the 2026/27 legal year, offering a prestigious and intellectually demanding opportunity for talented lawyers and legal researchers.

UK Supreme Court – Judicial Assistant Recruitment 202627 – Job Description – Final.pdf

Up to 11 positions are available, providing successful candidates with unparalleled close-quarters experience supporting the Justices of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom and the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (JCPC).

Judicial Assistants online information event 2026-27

A Unique Role at the Apex of the UK Legal System

The Supreme Court hears cases of the greatest public or constitutional importance affecting the whole population andJudicial Assistants play a vital part in the Court’s day-to-day operations.

Assigned typically to one or more Justices, they engage in high-level legal work that directly contributes to some of the most significant cases in the country.

Core responsibilities include:

  • Undertaking detailed legal research on appeals and applications for permission to appeal.
  • Drafting bench memoranda that summarise applications for permission to appeal.
  • Attending appeal hearings and participating in discussions with the Justices.
  • Preparing plain English press summaries of judgments, which are published on the Court’s website.
  • Responding to enquiries from international judicial networks and comparative law bodies.
  • Providing general assistance to Justices, including support for extra-judicial activities such as speeches, articles, and publications.

Beyond supporting individual Justices, Judicial Assistants contribute to the broader work of the Court. This can involve helping the Registrar with permission applications and appeals, as well as participating in the Court’s educational and outreach programmes.

The role is fixed-term, running from Monday 14 September 2026 to Friday 30 July 2027. It is based at the iconic Middlesex Guildhall building in Parliament Square, London.

Who Should Apply?

The Supreme Court welcomes applications from a diverse range of backgrounds. Whilst many past Judicial Assistants have been qualified solicitors, barristers, or advocates with some practical experience, the Court emphasises that the most important quality is exceptional intellectual ability.

Applications are actively encouraged from candidates who may not yet be qualified to practise but who possess outstanding academic knowledge of the UK legal system and advanced legal research skills.

Competition remains fierce, and all applicants must meet the essential criteria set out in the official Job Description.

A fundamental requirement is that candidates must have the right to work in the UK; the Court does not sponsor visas or work permits.

The full Job Description, which details the person specification and essential criteria, is available to download from the recruitment page.

Why Consider This Opportunity?

Working as a Judicial Assistant at the Supreme Court offers a rare window into the highest level of judicial decision-making in the United Kingdom. It provides:

  • Direct exposure to landmark cases and the reasoning of the country’s most senior judges.
  • The chance to hone advanced legal research, analysis, and writing skills in a demanding yet supportive environment.
  • Valuable insight that is highly regarded by future employers.
Being a Judicial Assistant – 2026

Alumni of the scheme have gone on to enjoy successful careers at the Bar, in leading City law firms, in academia, within the Government Legal Department, and in policy roles across the public and private sectors.For further insight, the Court recommends listening to podcasts featuring current or former Judicial Assistants, which offer behind-the-scenes perspectives on life at the Court.

How to Apply

Applications for the 2026/27 legal year are open now. Interested candidates should visit the dedicated Judicial Assistant recruitment page.

To apply:

  • Review the Job Description carefully to confirm eligibility.
  • Complete the online application form via the “Apply Now” link.

The closing date is midnight on Thursday 26th February 2026. Late applications will not be considered.

Interviews are expected to take place in person at the Court during the week commencing 20th April 2026.

The Court also hosts a free online information event for the 2026/27 recruitment round; registration details are available on the recruitment page.

For any queries, contact the recruitment team at [email protected]

Check out our related articles on Rule of Law, Open Justice, Do you Have to Bow to a Judge ?, Can you Email a Judge ?, Can you Criticise a Judge ?, What is Law, Is the Law Black and White ?, Branches of Law, Bullying, Harassment and Discrimination at the Bar, The Secret Barrister, Barristers, Direct Access Barrister, Barristers Behaving Badly, Inns of Court, Council of the Inns of Court, Bar Standards Board, Bar Tribunal and Adjudication Services, Bar Council, Innocent until Proven Guilty and the highly questionable Sussex Family Justice Board.

The Ministry of Injustice is not the Ministry of Justice nor is it affiliated in any way with the justice system, legal profession, police or any other law enforcement agencies.

Latest Articles ↓

Most Popular ↓

You should always seek formal legal advice from a qualified and reputable lawyer (solicitor or barrister).

There are a number of links to Free and Paid For Legal Resources and Legal Organisations on the Free Legal Advice , Legal Aid and Pro Bono pages.

Categories
Civil Justice Criminal Justice Family Law Law Legal Analysis Legal Professionals

Art of Law

Art of Law

Art of Law is a Youtube channel run by Alan Robertshaw who is an experienced barrister of England and Wales.

This channel provides you with free legal guidance and explains different aspects of law, legal principles, and, procedures for media and art law. Legal advice can be very expensive and you will usually have no knowledge when you encounter a legal problem.

Art of Law

Alan Robertshaw was Called to the Bar in October 1997 (Middle Temple). He has Full Rights of Audience and his areas of practice are Defamation, Intellectual property, Other and Other common law.

Alan is authorised by the Bar Standards Board to accept direct public access work and to conduct litigation.

Alan was formerly at 1 Dr Johnson’s Buildings and then Goldsmith Chambers where he still remains a door tenant.

Art of Law should should not be confused with The BlackBelt Barrister or the Secret Barrister.

Art of Law is not a replacement for formal legal advice but it is highly informative and may help you to understand more about the law.

Highly Recommended ★★★★★

Latest Art of Law YouTube Videos

Who decides how long a murderer serves in prison? And what offences can police officers commit?

The Sentencing Council: https://sentencingcouncil.org.uk/about-us/about-the-sentencing-council/sentencing-council-members/

How tariffs are calculated: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2020/17/schedule/21


Disclaimer: Neither this nor any other video, may be taken as legal advice. I accept no liability whatever for any reliance placed upon ...it.Show More
Who decides how long a murderer serves in prison? And what offences can police officers commit?
Who decides how long a murderer serves in prison? And what offences can police officers commit?
The Sentencing Council: ...
How does the law decide who is an ethnic group?
How does the law decide who is an ethnic group?
The test: https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1982/7.html The 'Who is ...
What can you do if someone shoves a camera in your face?
What can you do if someone shoves a camera in your face?
Disclaimer: Neither this nor any other video, may be taken as legal ...
Just how accurate is media anyway?
Just how accurate is media anyway?
Disclaimer: Neither this nor any other video, may be taken as legal ...
Why no retrial in the Manchester Airport assault case?
Why no retrial in the Manchester Airport assault case?
Also, why can't judges tell juries about the sentence? Disclaimer: ...
What's the best way to get the judge to like you?
What's the best way to get the judge to like you?
Also, an A-400 Disclaimer: Neither this nor any other video, may be ...

Read the reviews of Junior Sussex Barrister Gavin Howe and Legal 500 Junior Barrister Eleanor Battie.

Check out our related articles on Rule of Law, Open Justice, What is Law, Is the Law Black and White ?, Branches of Law, Bullying, Harassment and Discrimination at the Bar, The Secret Barrister, Barristers, Direct Access Barrister, Barristers Behaving Badly, Inns of Court, Council of the Inns of Court, Bar Standards Board, Bar Tribunal and Adjudication Services, Bar Council, Innocent until Proven Guilty and the highly questionable Sussex Family Justice Board.

The Ministry of Injustice is not the Ministry of Justice nor is it affiliated in any way with the justice system, legal profession, police or any other law enforcement agencies.

Latest Articles ↓

Most Popular ↓

You should always seek formal legal advice from a qualified and reputable lawyer (solicitor or barrister).

There are a number of links to Free and Paid For Legal Resources and Legal Organisations on the Free Legal Advice , Legal Aid and Pro Bono pages.

Categories
Civil Justice Judiciary Law Legal Professionals

Deputy Head of Civil Justice

Deputy Head of Civil Justice

The Deputy Head of Civil Justice is a senior judicial leadership post responsible for the strategic direction, reform and day-to-day administration of civil justice in England and Wales.

The role works closely with the Head of Civil Justice (currently Sir Geoffrey Vos, who holds that position ex officio as Master of the Rolls and President of the Court of Appeal Civil Division).

Current Holder

The Lady Chief Justice, following consultation with the Lord Chancellor duly appointed Mrs Justice Cockerill as the new Deputy Head of Civil Justice. Her appointment took effect from the 1st November 2025 for a term of three years.

Lady Justice Cockerill was called to the Bar (Lincoln’s Inn) in 1990 and took silk in 2011. She specialised in commercial law from 1990 to 2017.

She was appointed a Deputy High Court Judge in 2016, and a High Court Judge in the-then Queen’s Bench Division in 2017. From 2020 to 2022, she served as the Judge in Charge of the Commercial Court.

Lady Justice Sara Cockerill was sworn in as a Lady Justice of the Court of Appeal in October 2025.

The Salary of the Deputy Head of Civil Justice from from 1st April 2025 to 31st March 2026 is £266,556

Statutory Basis and Appointment Process

The office of Deputy Head of Civil Justice was established by the Courts Act 2003 (section 62), which amended the Senior Courts Act 1981 to create structured leadership roles for civil justice. The key provisions are as follows:

  • The Lord Chief Justice appoints the Deputy Head of Civil Justice, following consultation with the Lord Chancellor (now the Secretary of State for Justice).
  • Eligible appointees are typically a puisne judge of the High Court or a Lord/Lady Justice of Appeal.
  • The appointment is for a fixed term (usually three years) and on terms agreed at the time of appointment.
  • It is not tied automatically to any other judicial office, such as the Vice-Presidency of the King’s Bench Division.

This contrasts with the Head of Civil Justice, which is held automatically by the Master of the Rolls as President of the Court of Appeal (Civil Division).

Principal Responsibilities

The Deputy Head of Civil Justice has a broad and influential remit, including:

  • Providing judicial leadership for civil justice policy and reform across the County Court, High Court, and specialist lists.
  • Co-chairing (with the Head of Civil Justice) the Civil Justice Council.
  • Leading judicial input into the Civil Procedure Rule Committee (CPRC) in practice, though the Master of the Rolls remains the statutory chair.
  • Overseeing major HMCTS reform projects, including the Damages Claims Portal, Online Civil Money Claims, and broader court digitisation.
  • Acting as the primary judicial liaison with government and HMCTS on civil justice operational matters.
  • Contributing to judicial deployment and welfare in the civil jurisdiction.

Former Deputy Head of Civil Justice

Image of Lady Justice Cockerill – HM Courts and Tribunals Judiciary

Check out the related articles on the Attorney General, Solicitor General, Lady Chief Justice, Lord Chancellor, Chancellor of the High Court,Justice Secretary, Rule of Law, Open Justice, Law, Is the Law Black and White ?, Government Legal Department, Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), Government Legal Department (GLD), Abuse of Process, What Does Lady Justice Symbolise ?, McKenzie Friend, Can a Judge Direct a Jury to Find a Defendant Not Guilty ?,Law Society, Law Commission, McKenzie Friend Right of Audience, Solicitors, Solicitors Regulation Authority, Barristers, Bar Council of England and Wales, Bar Standards Board, R v Sussex Justices, Police Impartiality and the highly questionable Sussex Family Justice Board.

The Ministry of Injustice is not the Ministry of Justice nor is it affiliated in any way with the justice system, legal profession, police or any other law enforcement agencies.

Latest Articles ↓

Most Popular ↓

You should always seek formal legal advice from a qualified and reputable lawyer (solicitor or barrister).

There are a number of links to Free and Paid For Legal Resources and Legal Organisations on the Free Legal Advice , Legal Aid and Pro Bono pages.

Categories
Civil Justice Criminal Justice Family Law Judiciary Legal Professionals

How to Complain about a Magistrate ?

Complain about a Magistrate

Magistrates (justice of the peace or JP) are essential to the UK’s justice system and preside over cases in magistrates’ courts.

Magistrates hear less serious criminal cases (summary offence and some either-way offences) like minor assaults, motoring offenses, theft, and minor criminal damage but they can also hear civil cases such as those involving council tax and child maintenance, and family court proceedings. Magistrates deal with the majority of criminal cases.

If you believe a magistrate’s conduct was inappropriate, you can make a complaint. The process is governed by specific legislation and rules, ensuring total transparency and accountability.

Members of the judiciary should seek to be courteous, patient, tolerant and punctual and should respect the dignity of all. They should ensure that no one is exposed to any display of bias or prejudice on grounds which include but are not to be limited to “race, colour, sex, religion, national origin, caste, disability, age, marital status, sexual orientation, social and economic status and other like causes

Guide to Judicial Conduct

This article provides a comprehensive guide to complaining about lay magistrates and district judges (magistrates’ courts) in the UK.

The Role of Magistrates

Magistrates include lay magistrates and district judges. Lay magistrates, per the Courts Act 2003, are unpaid community volunteers trained to handle minor criminal, family and civil cases.

District judges, appointed under the same Act, are salaried, legally qualified professionals managing complex cases full-time.

Complaints typically address conduct, not judicial decisions, which are subject to appeal under the Criminal Justice Act 2003 or Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 etc.

Grounds for a Complaint

The Judicial Conduct (Magistrates) Rules 2023 govern lay magistrate conduct, while district judges, as judicial officeholders, are subject to the Judicial Conduct Rules 2023 and the Judicial Discipline (Prescribed Procedures) Regulations 2023.

Both must adhere to the Guide to Judicial Conduct (revised July 2023), which sets ethical standards like impartiality and integrity. Complaints about either can include:

  • Rudeness, unprofessionalism, or dismissive behaviour in court breaching the Guide’s principles.
  • Apparent bias, prejudice, or discriminatory remarks potentially violating the Equality Act 2010.
  • Inappropriate personal conduct during hearings, such as failing to maintain decorum.
  • For district judges, additional concerns may include misuse of judicial authority or failure to uphold the professional standards in the Judicial Conduct Rules 2023.

Complaints about judicial decisions or case outcomes are not permitted; these require appeals to higher courts, such as the Crown Court or High Court, under the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 or Senior Courts Act 1981.

Complaints Process

Step 1: Gather Evidence

A robust complaint requires:

  • Details of the incident (date, time, court location).
  • The magistrate’s name (lay or district judge) or description.
  • A factual account of the behaviour.
  • Witness names and contact details.

The need for clear evidence aligns with guidelines from the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office (JCIO) and Advisory Committees.

Step 2: Submit to the Correct Authority

The complaints process varies by magistrate type, per the Constitutional Reform Act 2005.

  • Lay Magistrates: Complaints go to the local Advisory Committee under the Judicial Conduct (Magistrates) Rules 2023. Find contact details via the magistrates’ court or gov.uk. Submit a formal letter or email with your name, contact details, incident description, evidence, and desired outcome (e.g., investigation or apology). Complaints should be lodged within three months.
  • District Judges: Complaints are submitted directly to the JCIO under the Judicial Conduct Rules 2023 and Judicial Discipline (Prescribed Procedures) Regulations 2023, via their online portal (complaints.judicialconduct.gov.uk) or post, with the same detailed requirements.

Ensure submissions are polite and concise.

Step 3: Investigation Process

For lay magistrates, the Advisory Committee investigates under the Judicial Conduct (Magistrates) Rules 2023, reviewing records and interviewing parties confidentially.

For district judges, the JCIO investigates under the Judicial Conduct Rules 2023.

Outcomes, which may include retraining or removal, are authorised by the Lord Chancellor and Lord Chief Justice under the Constitutional Reform Act 2005.

Step 4: Escalating the Complaint

For lay magistrates, if dissatisfied with the Advisory Committee’s response, request a JCIO review within 28 days (or sooner if the process exceeds six months), per the Judicial Conduct (Magistrates) Rules 2023. You should submit prior correspondence via the JCIO’s portal.

For district judges, the JCIO’s decision is final, though clarification can be sought.

Additionally, if you believe the JCIO mishandled the process (e.g., procedural errors, delays, or failure to follow the Regulations), you can escalate to the Judicial Appointments and Conduct Ombudsman (JACO) within 28 days of the JCIO’s decision.

Step 5: Seek Legal Advice

For complex issues or case outcome impacts, consult a solicitor about appeals or judicial review under the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 or Senior Courts Act 1981.

Judicial Complaints Disciplinary Outcomes

The Judicial Conduct Investigations Office (JCIO) publishes statements on its website when a disciplinary sanction is issued to a judicial office holder. 

Complaints about lay magistrates from 2025/2026 are below (as of 21st October 2025).

For other judicial holders and up to date disciplinary statements visit the JCIO Disciplinary Statements page or the Dodgy Judges article on this site.

Summary

Complaints about lay magistrates follow the Judicial Conduct (Magistrates) Rules 2023, while district judge complaints adhere to the Judicial Conduct Rules 2023 and Judicial Discipline (Prescribed Procedures) Regulations 2023, with both guided by the Guide to Judicial Conduct.

Submit lay magistrate complaints to the Advisory Committee and district judge complaints to the JCIO. Provide clear evidence and act promptly. Check gov.uk or the JCIO website for details.

Check out our related articles on Chief Magistrate, Judiciary, Dodgy Magistrates, Rule of Law, Open Justice, Is the Law Black and White ?, Abuse of Process, What Does Lady Justice Symbolise ?, McKenzie Friend, Law Society, Law Commission, McKenzie Friend Right of Audience, Solicitors, Solicitors Regulation Authority, Barristers, Bar Council of England and Wales, Bar Standards Board, R v Sussex Justices, Police Impartiality and the highly questionable Sussex Family Justice Board.

The Ministry of Injustice is not the Ministry of Justice nor is it affiliated in any way with the justice system, legal profession, police or any other law enforcement agencies.

Latest Articles ↓

Most Popular ↓

You should always seek formal legal advice from a qualified and reputable lawyer (solicitor or barrister).

There are a number of links to Free and Paid For Legal Resources and Legal Organisations on the Free Legal Advice , Legal Aid and Pro Bono pages.

Categories
Civil Justice Criminal Justice Family Law Law Legal Analysis Legal Professionals

What is a Wasted Costs Order ?

Wasted Costs Order

In the legal system of England and Wales, a wasted costs order is a mechanism used by courts to address improper, unreasonable, or negligent conduct by legal representatives that results in unnecessary costs in criminal, civil or family proceedings.

This article explains what a wasted costs order is, how it applies and its significance in ensuring fairness and efficiency in the judicial process.

Definition of a Wasted Costs Order

A wasted costs order is a court order that requires a legal representative—such as a solicitor, barrister, or other advocate—to personally bear the costs incurred due to their improper, unreasonable, or negligent conduct.

These costs may be payable to the opposing party, their own client, or, in criminal cases, sometimes to public funds (e.g., the Legal Aid Agency).

The concept is governed by Section 19A of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 for criminal cases, Section 51(6) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 for civil cases and family cases.

Further guidance provided by the Criminal Procedure Rules 2010 (CrimPR 45.8 and CrimPR 45.9), Civil Procedure Rules (CPR 46.8 and Practice Direction 46) and Family Procedure Rules (FPR 28.1), which incorporate CPR 46.8.

“Wasted costs” refer to expenses incurred unnecessarily as a direct result of a legal representative’s conduct, which could have been avoided had they acted appropriately.

This distinguishes wasted costs orders from standard cost orders, which typically arise from the outcome of a case rather than the behaviour of legal professionals.

When Can a Wasted Costs Order Be Made ?

The court has discretion to issue a wasted costs order in both civil and criminal proceedings, but it must satisfy a strict two-stage test, as established in Ridehalgh v Horsefield [1994] Ch 205 for civil cases and reflected in criminal case law such as R v P [2011] EWCA Crim 1130. The two stages are:

  1. Improper, Unreasonable, or Negligent Conduct: The court must determine that the legal representative’s actions were improper, unreasonable, or negligent. For example:
    • Improper conduct includes dishonest or unethical behaviour, such as deliberately misleading the court or pursuing a baseless case.
    • Unreasonable conduct involves actions that are vexatious or misguided, such as persisting with a hopeless defence or prosecution in a criminal case.
    • Negligent conduct refers to failing to meet the standard of care expected of a competent legal professional, such as missing court deadlines or failing to prepare adequately.
  2. Causation of Wasted Costs: The court must be satisfied that the conduct directly caused unnecessary costs. For instance, if a barrister’s failure to advise a defendant properly in a criminal case leads to an unnecessary hearing, the costs of that hearing may be deemed “wasted.”

Courts exercise significant caution when issuing wasted costs orders due to their serious professional and financial implications for legal representatives. The burden of proof lies with the party seeking the order (or the court, if acting on its own initiative), and the threshold for proving misconduct is high.

Making an Application in Criminal, Civil and Family Proceedings

Criminal Proceedings

In criminal cases, wasted costs orders are addressed under Section 19A of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 and CrimPR 45.8 (which covers costs resulting from unnecessary or improper acts or omissions) and CrimPR 45.9 (which specifically deals with applications for wasted costs orders against legal representatives). These orders can apply to both prosecution and defence counsel and may involve costs payable to the opposing party, the client, or public funds (e.g., legal aid). Examples of conduct leading to wasted costs in criminal cases include:

  • A prosecution lawyer pursuing a case without sufficient evidence, causing unnecessary court hearings.
  • A defence lawyer failing to advise a client properly, leading to a trial that could have been avoided through a guilty plea or withdrawal.
  • Missing procedural deadlines, resulting in wasted court time or resources.

For instance, in R v Farooqi [2013] EWCA Crim 1649, the Court of Appeal considered a wasted costs order against a barrister whose conduct was deemed improper, though the order was ultimately not imposed due to procedural issues.

The Criminal Procedure Rule Committee and Ministry of Justice publish the Application for a wasted, etc. costs order under CrimPR 45.8, 45.9 or 45.10 form which must be served on the court and other parties.

Civil Proceedings

In civil cases, wasted costs orders are governed by CPR 46.8 and Section 51(6) of the Senior Courts Act 1981. They are typically sought by the opposing party who has incurred unnecessary costs due to the other side’s legal representative’s conduct or by a client against their own lawyer. Examples include pursuing a claim with no reasonable prospect of success or failing to comply with court orders, leading to adjournments.

  • A party can apply for a wasted costs order by filing an application notice in accordance with Part 23 of the CPR or by making an oral application during a hearing.
  • The court can also make a wasted costs order of its own initiative. 
Family Proceedings

There is no specific form titled “Application for a Wasted Costs Order” for family proceedings, just as in civil proceedings. Instead, applications are made under FPR Part 18 (Applications in Family Proceedings), which mirrors CPR Part 23.

In family proceedings, the Form C2 is typically used for applications within existing proceedings (e.g., children’s cases), while Form N244 (the standard civil application form) is used for financial remedy proceedings or where no specific family form applies.

Who Can Apply for a Wasted Costs Order ?

A wasted costs order can be sought by:

  • The opposing party in criminal, civil or family proceedings, who has incurred unnecessary costs due to the other side’s legal representative’s conduct.
  • The legal representative’s own client, if they have suffered financial loss as a result of their lawyer’s actions (e.g., wasted legal fees or costs of unnecessary proceedings).
  • The court itself, which can initiate a wasted costs order on its own motion (suo motu) if it identifies egregious conduct during proceedings.

In criminal cases, the court may also consider the impact on public funds, particularly where legal aid is involved.

The court may require written submissions or a hearing to determine whether the order is justified. Appeals against wasted costs orders in criminal proceedings follow CrimPR Part 34 (for magistrates’ courts to the Crown Court) or CrimPR Part 39 (for Crown Court to the Court of Appeal).

Examples of Conduct Leading to Wasted Costs Orders

Some examples of conduct that might lead to a wasted costs order in civil or criminal proceedings include:

  • Pursuing a case (civil or criminal) with no realistic prospect of success, such as a baseless civil claim or a criminal defence lacking any evidential foundation.
  • Failing to comply with court orders or procedural rules, leading to adjournments or additional hearings.
  • Providing misleading information to the court or failing to disclose relevant facts, such as withholding key evidence in a criminal trial.
  • Acting in a way that unnecessarily prolongs proceedings, such as making frivolous applications or failing to prepare adequately for trial.

Implications and Considerations

Wasted costs orders serve as a deterrent against poor professional conduct and promote fairness and efficiency in both civil and criminal proceedings. They protect parties from bearing the financial burden of their opponent’s or their own lawyer’s misconduct and, in criminal cases, safeguard public funds.

However, courts are cautious about issuing such orders for several reasons:

  • Professional Consequences: A wasted costs order can harm a lawyer’s reputation and financial standing, so courts ensure the evidence is robust and the conduct sufficiently serious.
  • Access to Justice: Courts avoid discouraging lawyers from taking on challenging cases or acting fearlessly, particularly in criminal defence work, where robust advocacy is essential.
  • Proportionality: The costs claimed must be proportionate to the misconduct, and minor errors or oversights are unlikely to justify an order.

Legal representatives are typically given an opportunity to respond to allegations of misconduct before an order is made, ensuring fairness and due process. In criminal cases, the court may also consider the public interest and the impact on legal aid budgets.

Conclusion

In England and Wales, a wasted costs order is a vital tool to address improper, unreasonable, or negligent conduct by legal representatives in criminal, civil and proceedings.

Governed by statute and procedural rules, these orders ensure accountability, protect parties from unnecessary costs, and uphold the integrity of the judicial process.

While rarely used due to their high threshold and significant implications, wasted costs orders play a crucial role in maintaining professionalism and efficiency in the legal system. Legal representatives must act with diligence and integrity to avoid the serious consequences of such an order.

Check out our related articles on Defendant’s Costs Order, Norwich Pharmacal Orders, Public Spaces Protection Order (PSPO), Rule of Law, Open Justice, Is the Law Black and White ?, Abuse of Process, What Does Lady Justice Symbolise ?, McKenzie Friend, Can a Judge Direct a Jury to Find a Defendant Not Guilty ?,Law Society, Law Commission, McKenzie Friend Right of Audience, Solicitors, Solicitors Regulation Authority, Barristers, Bar Council of England and Wales, Bar Standards Board, Contra Mundum, R v Sussex Justices, Police Impartiality and the highly questionable Sussex Family Justice Board.

The Ministry of Injustice is not the Ministry of Justice nor is it affiliated in any way with the justice system, legal profession, police or any other law enforcement agencies.

Latest Articles ↓

Most Popular ↓

You should always seek formal legal advice from a qualified and reputable lawyer (solicitor or barrister).

There are a number of links to Free and Paid For Legal Resources and Legal Organisations on the Free Legal Advice , Legal Aid and Pro Bono pages.

Categories
Civil Justice Criminal Justice Judiciary Legal Professionals

Watch UK Court Proceedings Online

Court Proceedings Videos

The latest cases in the Crown Court and Court of Appeal are available on the Sky News Courts YouTube channel. These videos are an opportunity to see justice in action.

Section 41 of the Criminal Justice Act 1925 (CJA 1925) makes it an offence to take any photograph, make or attempt to make any portrait or sketch of a justice or a witness in, or a party to, any proceedings before the court, either in the courtroom or its precincts.

The Crimes and Courts Act 2013 allows the ban to be disapplied in certain circumstances by secondary legislation. For instance, the Court of Appeal and Competition Appeal Tribunal can broadcast proceedings. The Crown court can broadcast sentencing remarks. The Supreme Court is excluded from the two bans because cases heard by the UK’s highest court, which was established in 2009, would have previously been heard in the House of Lords where broadcasting was allowed.

See Photography in Court for more information.

High Profile Cases Videos

Lady Chief Justice gives judgment in the Court of Appeal – Shamima Begum
High Court Judge Mr Justice Goss imposed life sentences with whole-life orders – Lucy Letby

Latest Court Proceedings Videos

Please be advised that videos may contain graphic descriptions of serious crimes, including murder and sexual offences.

UK Athletics fined £350,000 over death of Paralympian hit by falling metal cage

UK Athletics was fined £350,000 over the "wholly avoidable" death of a Paralympian who was killed when a shot-put cage collapsed during training.

Abdullah Hayayei, 36, who represented the United Arab ...Emirates, was killed at Newham Leisure Centre, east London, during a practice session in 2017.

The father-of-five was preparing to represent his country in the F34 class discus, javelin and shot put at the World Para Athletics Championships in London when part of a 31st throwing cage fell on him.

He was left with a severe head injury after the 5ft high cage toppled over because it was put up incorrectly and without its base plate, in an "accident waiting to happen".

The national governing body for athletics was charged with causing the death of Mr Hayayei by "supplying for use... a discus/shot put cage which it used and operated without its base structure and which collapsed" into the Paralympian while he was practising shot putting.

UK Athletics Ltd admitted corporate manslaughter and was ordered to pay nearly £400,000 over six years - made up of a fine of £350,000 and legal costs of £44,000, as well as a statutory surcharge.

Keith Davies, who was the head of sport for the 2017 World Para Athletics Championships, also pleaded guilty to a health and safety charge.

The 79-year-old was handed a community order to do 175 hours of unpaid work, to be carried out in the next 12 months.

Sentencing, Judge Richard Marks KC said Mr Hayayei's death was "tragic, untimely and wholly avoidable".

He noted failings by UK Athletics were not a "one-off" but said any financial penalty would "weaken" its ability to support individual athletes and athletics in the community.

He told Davies, a retired PE teacher, that he knew, or ought to have known, base plates were an "integral part" of the cage construction.

He was "on notice" following an earlier collapse of an identical cage, the judge said, adding: "This was an accident which sooner or later was waiting to happen."

In the five years since UK Athletics acquired two identical cages originally used in the 2012 Olympics, they had never been properly assembled with the base plates attached, the court heard.

Davies had claimed UK Athletics had never been supplied with base plates, but this proved not to be true, the court was told.

The judge's sentencing remarks can be read in full at: https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/metropolitan-police-v-uk-athletics-limited-and-keith-davies/

SUBSCRIBE to our YouTube channel for more videos: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCF3HqeLrCkZgARQfyqj1m-g?view_as=subscriber

Follow Sky News on Twitter: https://twitter.com/skynews and https://twitter.com/skynewsbreak

Like us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/skynews

Follow us on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/skynews

For more content go to http://news.sky.com and download our apps:

Apple https://itunes.apple.com/gb/app/sky-news/id316391924?mt=8

Android https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.bskyb.skynews.android&hl=en_GBShow More
UK Athletics fined £350,000 over death of Paralympian hit by falling metal cage
UK Athletics fined £350,000 over death of Paralympian hit by falling metal cage
UK Athletics was fined £350,000 over the "wholly avoidable" death of a ...
Mother and ex-boyfriend jailed for total of 27 years over death of boy, 4
Mother and ex-boyfriend jailed for total of 27 years over death of boy, 4
A mother’s ex-boyfriend has been jailed for the manslaughter of her ...
Woman jailed for murdering sister and taking Rolex
Woman jailed for murdering sister and taking Rolex
A woman who stabbed her film director sister to death before stealing ...
Teens detained for killing man they branded a paedophile
Teens detained for killing man they branded a paedophile
Three teenagers who lured a man they believed to be a paedophile to a ...
Life sentence for man who raped woman in her home
Life sentence for man who raped woman in her home
A man who raped a Sikh woman in her home while subjecting her to a ...
Conviction quashed for church warden jailed over murder of university lecturer
Conviction quashed for church warden jailed over murder of university lecturer
A former church warden who was jailed for life for the murder of a ...

Check out our related articles on Rule of Law, Open Justice, Is the Law Black and White ?, Abuse of Process, What Does Lady Justice Symbolise ?, McKenzie Friend, Can a Judge Direct a Jury to Find a Defendant Not Guilty ?, Law Society, Law Commission, McKenzie Friend Right of Audience, Solicitors, Solicitors Regulation Authority, Barristers, Bar Council of England and Wales, Bar Standards Board, Contra Mundum, R v Sussex Justices, Police Impartiality and the highly questionable Sussex Family Justice Board.

The Ministry of Injustice is not the Ministry of Justice nor is it affiliated in any way with the justice system, legal profession, police or any other law enforcement agencies.

Latest Articles ↓

Most Popular ↓

You should always seek formal legal advice from a qualified and reputable lawyer (solicitor or barrister).

There are a number of links to Free and Paid For Legal Resources and Legal Organisations on the Free Legal Advice , Legal Aid and Pro Bono pages.

Rule of Law - Open Justice - Policing By Consent