Category: Judiciary

The judiciary which is also known as the judicial system, judicature, judicial branch, judiciative branch, and court or judiciary system) is the system of courts that adjudicates legal disputes/disagreements and interprets, defends, and applies the law in legal cases.

Categories
Criminal Justice Judiciary Legal Professionals

His Honour Judge Nicholas Rowland

His Honour Judge Nicholas Rowland

Judge Nicholas Edward Rowland, known as His Honour Judge Nicholas Rowland, is a long-serving Circuit Judge of England and Wales who is assigned to the South West Circuit.

His Honour Judge Nicholas Edward Rowland was called to the Bar in 1988 and practised as a barrister for over 25 years before becoming a full-time judge.

He was appointed a Recorder (part-time judge) in 2005 and sat at Southampton Crown Court, before being appointed a Circuit Judge on the 23rd June 2014 on the South West Circuit, where he has served as a permanent judge based at Southampton Combined Court Centre ever since.

We are pleased to announce that His Honour Judge Nicholas Rowland, a former member, has been appointed to the Crown Court bench to be based in Southampton.

3PB Barristers Autumn 2014 News

Detailed public records on Judge Rowland’s pre-appointment professional background (such as whether he practiced as a barrister or solicitor, chambers affiliation (3 Paper Buildings (3PB) is one of the UK’s oldest chambers), year of call to the Bar, or areas of specialization) are limited.

Unlike some judges whose biographies appear on chambers websites, judicial profiles, or in appointment announcements with full career histories, Judge Rowland’s pre-bench career is not extensively documented in open sources.

HHJ Rowland is shown on the List of Circuit Judges published on the Courts and Tribunal Judiciary website.

His Honour Judge Nicholas Edward RowlandSouth West23-06-2014
List of Circuit Judges

Judge Rowland Legal Controversy – Judge Praises Behaviour of Teenage Rapists

A gang of three teenage boys from the traveller community in Hampshire have avoided custodial sentences after being convicted of multiple rapes against two schoolgirls in separate attacks in Fordingbridge.

In November 2024, two boys aged 14 lured a 15-year-old girl via Snapchat to a riverside underpass, where they raped her while laughing and filming the assault on their phones. Just two months later, the same pair, joined by a 13-year-old boy, subjected a 14-year-old girl to a knife-point gang rape in a park, again recording the attack and encouraging each other to degrade her further.

On the 5th March 2026, following a five-week trial at Southampton Crown Court, the three boys were convicted. The two older boys, now aged 15, were found guilty of multiple counts of rape and taking indecent images of a child. The youngest boy, now aged 14, was convicted of two counts of rape. They were sentenced on the 21st May 2026.

Despite the seriousness of the offences which included filming and the use of a knife in one attack, His Honour Judge Nicholas Rowland sentenced all three to youth rehabilitation orders rather than prison. The two older boys received three-year orders with intensive supervision, while the youngest received an 18-month order.

Judge Rowland cited the defendants’ young age, low intellectual capacity, ADHD issues, vulnerability to peer pressure and limited understanding of consent as key mitigating factors.

Judge Rowland told them: “None of you need to go to prison today,” and praised their good behaviour during the trial “You have all done very well with the restrictions put in place throughout the trial. (The second boy) and (the third boy) your problems are quite bad.“ stating he wished to avoid “criminalising these children unnecessarily” and focus on their rehabilitation.

Judge Rowland’s lenient sentence has sparked significant public outrage and political criticism, with senior politicians describing it as “soft justice” and calling for tougher penalties for such serious sexual offences against children.

The case has reignited debate over the sentencing of young offenders in England and Wales, particularly in cases involving extreme violence and the filming of sexual assaults.

On Friday 22nd May 2026, a government spokesperson said that the Attorney General’s office had received “multiple” requests for the sentences to be reviewed under the Unduly Lenient Sentence (ULS) scheme.

The Unduly Lenient Sentence (ULS) scheme allows anyone to ask for certain Crown Court sentences to be reviewed by the Attorney General’s Office (AGO) if they think the sentence is too lenient. 

The review is ultimately conducted by the Law Officers (Attorney General or Solicitor General) and if they consider the sentence appears unduly lenient, they can ask the Court of Appeal to review the sentence.

On Tuesday 26th May 2026, the Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer announced that the sentences will be referred to the Court of Appeal.

Authorisation to sit as a High Court Judge

HHJ Rowland may be authorised to sit as a High Court Judge by s9(1) of the Senior Courts Act as amended by the Crime and Courts Act 2013.

According to CRIMINAL PRACTICE DIRECTIONS 2015 DIVISION XII His Honour Judge Rowland should be addressed as “My Lord” in court.

Modes of Address B.1 – The following judges, when sitting in court, should be addressed as ‘My Lord’ or ‘My Lady’

(b) any Circuit Judge sitting as a judge of the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) or the High Court under section 9(1) of the Senior Courts Act 1981;
(d) any Senior Circuit Judge who is an Honorary Recorder.

Description B.3 – In cause lists, forms and orders members of the judiciary should be described as follows:

(a) Circuit Judges, as ‘His [or Her] Honour Judge A’. When the judge is sitting as a judge of the High Court under section 9(1) of the Senior Courts Act 1981, the words ‘sitting as a judge of the High Court’ should be added;

The three key values which are central to the role of judicial office holders (JOHs) in England and Wales are:
• Independence
• Impartiality
• Integrity

“Publicity is the very soul of justice. . . . It keeps the judge himself, while trying, under trial….Where there is no publicity there is no justice”

Jeremy Bentham – Mr Justice Cobb: ‘Justice must be seen to be done’

Image of HHJ Rowland : Microsoft Copilot

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

Check out our articles on 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
Family Law Judiciary

President of the Family Division

President of the Family Division

The President of the Family Division is a highly esteemed position in the United Kingdom’s judicial system.

It is a role responsible for overseeing and presiding over family-related cases in England and Wales. In this article, we will delve into the history of the position and provide details on the current holder. The salary of the President of the Family Division is £280,311.

History

The President of the Family Division is a judicial office in England and Wales, established in 1873 by the Judicature Act, which reformed the court system in England and Wales.

The Act created a single Supreme Court of Judicature consisting of the High Court of Justice and the Court of Appeal. This replaced the previously separate court systems of common law and equity, and it also established several new judicial positions, including the President of the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division.

The Family Division was created in 1971 when Admiralty and contentious probate cases were removed from its predecessor, the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division.

Selection Process for President of the Family Division

Selection for President of the Family Division is run under the relevant sections of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 as amended by the Crime and Courts Act 2013.

In accordance with section 70 of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005, as amended by the Crime and Courts Act 2013, a panel determined the selection process to be followed.  As required by the Crime and Courts Act 2013, the Lord Chancellor is consulted as part of the selection process.

In accordance with s.10(3) of the Senior Courts Act 1981, the selection exercise was open to all applicants who satisfy the judicial-appointment eligibility condition on a 7-year basis, or are judges of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, Court of Appeal, or High Court.

Current and Former Presidents of the Family Division

On the 23rd April 2026, His Majesty The King was pleased to approve the appointment of The Rt Hon Lord Justice Stephen Cobb as the President of the Family Division. This appointment follows the retirement of Sir Andrew McFarlane on 13 April 2026.

The Rt Hon Lord Justice Stephen Cobb was called to the Bar, Inner Temple, in 1985 and took Silk in 2003. He started his judicial career as a Recorder in 2004 and was authorised to hear cases under section 9(1) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 in 2009. He was appointed as a High Court Judge in 2013 and was assigned to the Family Division; he also sat in the Administrative Court of the Kings Bench Division and was a nominated judge of the Court of Protection. He was appointed to the Court of Appeal in June 2024, and took his place in 2025. He served as a Family Presiding Judge (North Eastern Circuit) between 2015 and 2021.

Sir Andrew McFarlane was the President of the Family Division and Head of Family Justice in England and Wales from July 2018 until his retirement on the 13th April 2026.

Sir Andrew succeeded Sir James Munby.

As well as being the President, The Rt Hon Lord Justice Stephen Cobb is the Head of the Family Division of the High Court of Justice and may sit as of right in the Court of Appeal, the High Court and the Family Court either alone or as part of a panel.

Lord Justice Stephen Cobb is also Head of Family Justice, Head of Probate, President of the Court of Protection and chairs both the Family Procedure Rule Committee and Family Justice Council.

The Family Division of the High Court consists of 19 High Court Judges. It deals with:

  • Divorce, including disputes over children, property or money;
  • Adoption, wardship and other matters involving children; and
  • Judgments on behalf of those who are unable to make decisions for themselves, such as persistent vegetative state victims.

The Family Division also deals with undisputed matters of probate – the legal recognition of the validity of a will – in the Probate Registry of the Family Division in London, and the 11 probate registries in England and Wales.

Image of the Rt Hon Lord Justice Stephen Cobb : Photoshot

Check out our articles on Rule of Law, Open Justice, Judges Salaries and Fees, Dodgy Judges, 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
Judiciary Legal Professionals

Can you Buy a Judge ?

His Honour Judge Martin John Cook For Sale

His Honour Judge Martin John Cook was for sale, in a box, at the Mega Car Boot Sale at Sayers Common on Sunday 29th March 2026 !

For £100 you could have his judicial gown, sash, court shoes and other memorabilia . His Honours wig had already been sold on eBay for £275.

The judges former court attire had been found in a box during a house clearance of a five million pound house in Esher, Surrey.

His Honour Judge Cook in a Box

His Honour Judge Michael John Cook was a British circuit judge (often referred to as HHJ Michael Cook or simply Judge Michael Cook) known particularly in the field of legal costs in England and Wales.

Judge Michael Cook passed the Solicitor Final Exam on the 31st July 1953

His Honour Judge Cook is more often cited as an author and commentator on costs rather than through a large volume of widely reported appellate judgments.

His Honour Judge Martin John Cook

Stringer v Copley (KT903476) on the 17th May 2002, is the most frequently cited judgment by HHJ Michael Cook in modern costs practice. Disbursements Decoded: The Breakdown Debate in Fixed Costs Litigation

Judge Cook’s holdings (widely quoted in later cases) was that Medical agency fees are recoverable between the parties provided it is demonstrated that their charges do not exceed the reasonable and proportionate cost of the work if done directly by solicitors.

Invoices/fee notes from medical agencies must distinguish between the medical expert’s fee and the agency’s own charges.

Judge Cook’s famous textbook Cook on Costs (now in updated editions dedicated to “the late Michael Cook”) frequently references his practical views, and later cases or articles quote him on topics like:

  • Sufficiency of particulars in solicitors’ bills (referenced in Ralph Hume Garry v Gwillim [2002] EWCA Civ 1500, where his views in Cook on Costs align with Cordery on Solicitors).

    In the latest edition of Cordery, written by His Hon. Judge Michael Cook, it is said that:−”A bill of costs must contain sufficient particulars to enable the client to judge the fairness of the charges.” Judge Cook says the same in his own work Cook on Costs.
  • Blackstock v Blackstock [1990] EWCA Civ J1129-9 before Lord Justice Slade and Lord Justice Butler-Sloss upheld Judge Cook’s reasoning and refusal of the ouster order.
  • Broader costs assessment principles, proportionality and remuneration.

Judge Michael Cook lived a long life in the law and passed away at the age of 93. Costs Judge Master Jennifer James wrote a tribute titled “A life in law well lived – His Honour Judge Michael Cook” in the Costs Lawyer Journal, reflecting on his contributions and the impact of his eponymous textbook.

Do Retired Judges Keep Their Title ?
Dodgy Judges
Can you Email a Judge ?

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

Check out our articles on Rule of Law, Open Justice, Judges Salaries and Fees, Dodgy Judges, Do you Have to Bow to a Judge ?, Can you Email a Judge ?, Can you Criticise a Judge ?, Judicial Guidance on Artificial Intelligence 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
Judiciary

First-tier Tribunal Judge Linda Veloso

Judge Linda Veloso

Judge Linda Veloso is a sitting judge in the United Kingdom’s tribunal system, specifically serving in the First-tier Tribunal, Immigration and Asylum Chamber.

Judge Veloso has gained public attention in recent years due to high-profile decisions in immigration and deportation cases, including one that drew widespread media coverage in March 2026.

Judge Veloso is shown on the First-tier Tribunal Judges published on the Courts and Tribunal Judiciary website.

Judge Veloso Legal Bio

Linda Veloso was called to the Bar by Lincoln’s Inn in 1996, marking the start of her legal career as a barrister. She accumulated significant experience in legal practice before transitioning into judicial roles.

In 2013, she was appointed as a fee-paid (part-time) judge in the First-tier Tribunal’s Social Entitlement Chamber, where she handled cases related to social security, disability benefits, and other welfare matters.

On November 25th 2019, the UK judiciary announced her full appointment as a Judge of the First-tier Tribunal, assigned to the Immigration and Asylum Chamber effective December 6th 2019.

Linda Veloso has been appointed as a Judge of the First-tier Tribunal on the advice of the Senior President of Tribunals, the Right Honourable Sir Ernest Ryder.

The Senior President of Tribunals has assigned her to the Immigration and Asylum Chamber with effect from 6th December 2019.

Linda Veloso, aged 47, will continue to be known as Judge Veloso. She was called to the Bar (L) in 1996. She was appointed as a fee-paid Judge of the First-tier Tribunal in the Social Entitlement Chamber in 2013.

Appointment as a Judge of the First Tier Tribunal, Immigration and Asylum Chamber: Veloso
Judge VelosoImmigration & Asylum
List of First Tier Tribunal Judges

At the time of her appointment, she was 47 years old and continued to be addressed as Judge Veloso.

This role involves adjudicating appeals against Home Office decisions on immigration, asylum, deportation, and human rights claims.

Judge Veloso career progression reflects a common path for many UK tribunal judges: starting with fee-paid judicial experience in one chamber before moving to a salaried position in a specialised area like immigration law.

Notable Case: The 2026 “Chicken Nugget” Ruling

Judge Veloso came under significant public and media scrutiny in March 2026 for her decision in the protracted deportation appeal of Klevis Disha, an Albanian national who had been in the UK since around 2001.

Disha, who had a criminal conviction and faced deportation, contended that his removal would breach his and his family’s rights under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (right to respect for private and family life).

The case focused heavily on Disha’s 11-year-old son (referred to as “C” in court documents), who has complex behavioural issues, sensory processing difficulties, a restricted diet, and struggles with certain food textures.

Evidence indicated that C had lived his entire life in the UK, received specialised support from his school, and was making progress in a “delicate ongoing process”.

The child reportedly did not speak or understand Albanian and had no familiarity with Albania.The Home Office opposed the appeal, including assertions that C spoke Albanian as a first language and lacked a formal autism diagnosis. Judge Veloso rejected several of these claims and ruled in Disha’s favour.

In her determination, she concluded that it was in the child’s best interests to remain in the UK with his family, where he could continue to receive established support.

She stressed that uprooting him would be unduly harsh, given his needs and the fact that the UK was the only country he had ever known. The ruling invoked Article 8 and placed the child’s welfare as a primary consideration.

The decision provoked considerable controversy and media headlines referring to the “chicken nugget migrant” case, arising from earlier arguments about the child’s limited food preferences (including UK-specific chicken nuggets) not being available abroad.

Several news outlets such as The Sun, GB News, and the Evening Standard covered the outcome, with some commentators criticising it as an illustration of human rights law hindering deportations. The Home Office stated that it was actively considering the judgment.

The full judgment in the case of Klevis Disha v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Appeal Number: HU/60457/2023), decided by First-tier Tribunal Judge L Veloso and promulgated around March 2026 (hearing on 26th February 2026, signed 12th March 2026, published 17th March 2026), is publicly available on the official UK Judiciary website.

The three key values which are central to the role of judicial office holders (JOHs) in England and Wales are:
• Independence
• Impartiality
• Integrity

“Publicity is the very soul of justice. . . . It keeps the judge himself, while trying, under trial….Where there is no publicity there is no justice”

Jeremy Bentham – Mr Justice Cobb: ‘Justice must be seen to be done’

Image of First Tier Tribunal Judge Veloso : xAI – Grok

Check out our articles on Dodgy Judges, Judges Salaries and Fees, Mr Justice Williams, His Honour Judge Melbourne Inman KC, His Honour Judge Richardson, His Honour Now His Dishonour, His Honour Judge Michael Slater, His Honour Judge Martin Davis, HHJ 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

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
Criminal Justice Judiciary Legal Professionals

His Honour Judge Amjad Nawaz

His Honour Judge Nawaz

Judge Amjad Nawaz, known as His Honour Judge Amjad Nawaz, is a long-serving Circuit Judge of England and Wales who is assigned to the South East Circuit.

Judge Nawaz was appointed to the Circuit bench on October 24th 2008 (with the formal announcement made by HM The Queen on the advice of the Lord Chancellor).

Detailed public records on Judge Nawaz’s pre-appointment professional background (such as whether he practiced as a barrister or solicitor, chambers affiliation, year of call to the Bar, or areas of specialization) are limited.

Unlike some judges whose biographies appear on chambers websites, judicial profiles, or in appointment announcements with full career histories, Judge Nawaz’s pre-bench career is not extensively documented in open sources.

Beyond his core judicial duties in England and Wales, Judge Nawaz has undertaken additional roles that reflect his engagement in international judicial matters.

Judge Nawaz has been appointed as a Senior Judge of the Senior Judges’ Court in the Sovereign Base Areas of Akrotiri and Dhekelia (British Overseas Territories in Cyprus).

HHJ Nawaz has also participated in judicial exchanges and collaborations. In 2023, he joined discussions and visits (often alongside Her Honour Judge Azmat Nisa) to Nigeria, invited for talks on judicial case management, digitalization of court processes, paperless trials, and exchange programs.

Similar engagements have included visits to the UAE to discuss judicial decision-making, international arbitration, and legal traditions.

HHJ Nawaz is shown on the List of Circuit Judges published on the Courts and Tribunal Judiciary website.

His Honour Judge NawazSouth East24-10-2008
List of Circuit Judges
Judge Amjad Nawaz

Judge Nawaz Legal Controversy – Chaudhry Zaman spared jail for sexually assaulting 12 year old girl

In February 2026, a sentencing decision by His Honour Judge Amjad Nawaz at Reading Crown Court sparked widespread public outrage and debate over judicial leniency, cultural biases and the protection of child victims in the UK justice system.

Migrant, 70, told 12-year-old girl to ‘cover her head’ during sexual assault – Telegraph

Migrant, 70, who told girl, 12, to ‘cover her head’ before sexually assaulting her on way home from school is spared jail – Daily Mail

The case involved 70-year-old Chaudhry Zaman, a migrant living in Berkshire, who was convicted of sexually assaulting a 12-year-old girl in Slough. What began as a straightforward criminal proceeding quickly escalated into a broader controversy, fuelled by media coverage, social media backlash, and accusations of favouritism.

On the 2nd February 2026 Judge Nawaz handed down a nine-month prison sentence, suspended for 18 months. Additional penalties included 80 hours of unpaid community work, a five-year restraining order barring Zaman from approaching within 200 meters of the girl’s school, and a 10-year registration on the sex offenders’ register.

In his remarks, Judge Nawaz acknowledged the victim’s suffering, stating: “The victim has lost her self-esteem, lost her confidence and lost her friends and that is all down to your actions… That has caused a breakup of friendships which she regrets.”

Judge Nawaz also addressed Zaman directly about the CCTV evidence and the girl’s account of the forced hand-holding and kiss.

Judge Amjad Nawaz justified the suspended sentence by agreeing with the pre-sentence report that Zaman’s risk could be “managed in the community,” considering his age, remorse (despite denying guilt) and assurances it would “never happen again.”

It has prompted calls for reviews of sentencing guidelines for child sexual assaults, particularly when offenders cite age or cultural factors. Supporters of the decision point to the pre-sentence report and overcrowding in UK prisons as practical considerations, but detractors see it as prioritizing the perpetrator over the victim.

This controversy highlights ongoing tensions in the UK over immigration, cultural integration and judicial accountability. While some view the outrage as racially tinged, others insist it’s about ensuring justice for vulnerable children. The debate continues online, with thousands of views and shares amplifying demands for stricter penalties in similar cases.

Authorisation to sit as a High Court Judge

HHJ Nawaz may be authorised to sit as a High Court Judge by s9(1) of the Senior Courts Act as amended by the Crime and Courts Act 2013.

According to CRIMINAL PRACTICE DIRECTIONS 2015 DIVISION XII His Honour Judge Nawaz should be addressed as “My Lord” in court.

Modes of Address B.1 – The following judges, when sitting in court, should be addressed as ‘My Lord’ or ‘My Lady’

(b) any Circuit Judge sitting as a judge of the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) or the High Court under section 9(1) of the Senior Courts Act 1981;
(d) any Senior Circuit Judge who is an Honorary Recorder.

Description B.3 – In cause lists, forms and orders members of the judiciary should be described as follows:

(a) Circuit Judges, as ‘His [or Her] Honour Judge A’. When the judge is sitting as a judge of the High Court under section 9(1) of the Senior Courts Act 1981, the words ‘sitting as a judge of the High Court’ should be added;

The three key values which are central to the role of judicial office holders (JOHs) in England and Wales are:
• Independence
• Impartiality
• Integrity

“Publicity is the very soul of justice. . . . It keeps the judge himself, while trying, under trial….Where there is no publicity there is no justice”

Jeremy Bentham – Mr Justice Cobb: ‘Justice must be seen to be done’

Image of HHJ Nawaz : @BasilTheGreat

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

Check out our articles on 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
Criminal Justice Judiciary Legal Professionals

Her Honour Judge Nirmal Shant KC

Her Honour Judge Nirmal Shant KC

Judge Nirmal Shant, known as Her Honour Judge Nirmal Shant KC, is a Senior Circuit Judge and Resident Judge based at Nottingham Crown Court

Interview with Her Honour Judge Nirmal Shant

The Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales, the Right Honourable The Lord Burnett of Maldon has appointed Her Honour Judge Nirmal Shant QC to be a Senior Circuit Judge, Resident Judge based at Nottingham Crown Court, with effect from 1 September 2022.

Senior Circuit Judge, Resident Judge Appointment: Nirmal Shant KC

HHJ Shant is shown on the List of Circuit Judges published on the Courts and Tribunal Judiciary website.

Her Honour Judge Shant KCMidlands30-03-2015
List of Circuit Judges

HHJ Shant is shown on the Resident Judges list published on the Courts and Tribunal Judiciary website.

CircuitCourtJudgesDate of appointment
 MidlandNottingham Crown CourtHHJ Nirmal Shant KC01-09-22
Resident Judges

Her Honour Judge Shant KC Bio

Born in India, Her Honour Judge Shant migrated to the United Kingdom at the age of two with her family. The family later returned to India for much of her early childhood before settling permanently in the UK when she was 11.

Read the article on the website Sikhs in Law entitled Spirituality and Success: Judge Shant KC

Despite facing limited expectations at school, where a careers advisor once suggested she apply for a job at Woolworths rather than pursue law, she remained determined.

In 1979, she enrolled to study law at the University of Leicester, graduating and being called to the Bar in 1984.

Judge Shant began her career as a junior criminal barrister, building a strong practice in the East Midlands and beyond. She secured tenancy at the respected 1 High Pavement Chambers in Nottingham, where she prosecuted and defended cases in Crown Courts for over three decades.

Her expertise in criminal law, including fraud, led to her appointment as Queen’s Counsel in 2006 (some sources note 2007 or 2008), making her one of the first women to take silk in the Midlands and among the early black and minority ethnic barristers to achieve this prestigious rank in the region.

In 2001, she was appointed a Recorder, marking her entry into the judiciary. She became one of the first Asian Recorders in the area. In 2015, she was appointed a full Circuit Judge by the Judicial Appointments Commission and assigned to Derby Crown Court.

The following year, in 2016, she was promoted to Resident Judge at Derby Crown Court, a leadership position where she not only presided over serious criminal cases but also managed court administration, case listing, and the welfare of staff and fellow judges. She served as the first female Honorary Recorder of Derby.

Her Honour Judge Nirmal Shant KC was awarded Honorary Doctor of the University (HonDUniv) in July 2022 by the University of Derby in recognition of her outstanding contribution to promoting justice within Derby and Derbyshire, and her support for Derby Law School.

In August 2022, the Lord Chief Justice appointed her as a Senior Circuit Judge and Resident Judge at Nottingham Crown Court, effective from 1st September 2022. She also assumed the role of Honorary Recorder of Nottingham, the highest judicial position in the city and county.

Legal Controversy – The Sheraz Malik Rape Case Reporting Restriction

In late 2025 and early 2026, HHJ Shant attracted media attention and criticism in connection with her handling of a pre-trial hearing in the case of Sheraz Malik, a 28-year-old Pakistani national charged with raping an 18-year-old woman in Sutton Lawn park, Sutton-in-Ashfield, Nottinghamshire, on 29 June 2025.

At a hearing in September 2025 at Nottingham Crown Court, Judge Shant imposed a reporting restriction under the Contempt of Court Act 1981, postponing publication of Malik’s immigration status as an asylum seeker until the conclusion of his trial. She cited a “substantial risk of prejudice to the administration of justice” if the information were made public prematurely, in line with standard judicial guidance designed to protect jury impartiality by limiting exposure to potentially inflammatory or irrelevant details.

The trial venue was also moved from Nottingham to Birmingham Crown Court after social media comments by Reform UK MP Lee Anderson (MP for Ashfield) risked prejudicing local jurors; Judge Shant wrote to the MP requesting removal of the posts to safeguard a fair trial.

Malik was convicted on 26th January 2026 at Birmingham Crown Court of two counts of rape (unanimous verdicts) and acquitted on a third.

The restriction was lifted post-verdict, allowing media to report that Malik was an asylum seeker born in Pakistan who had previously lived in Italy, Germany, and France before arriving in the UK.

The decision drew criticism from some quarters, including MP Anderson and outlets such as The Sun, Daily Mail, and GB News, who argued it limited public transparency and that the information should have been available earlier. Critics portrayed it as a “gagging order” that concealed relevant context, particularly given the offence’s location in Anderson’s constituency and broader debates on immigration and crime.

However, the ruling aligned with established UK legal principles prioritising fair trial rights over immediate public disclosure of non-essential facts. No appeal, formal complaint, or disciplinary action against Judge Shant arose from the case, and mainstream coverage (e.g., BBC, Nottingham Post) presented it as a procedural measure rather than misconduct.

Public and media reactions reflected wider societal divisions on such issues, but nothing indicates systemic criticism of her judicial conduct.

JUDGE SHANT KC STOPPED JURY AND PUBLIC FROM LEARNING THAT RAPIST WAS ILLEGAL MIGRANT

Authorisation to sit as a High Court Judge

HHJ Shan KC may be authorised to sit as a High Court Judge by s9(1) of the Senior Courts Act as amended by the Crime and Courts Act 2013.

According to CRIMINAL PRACTICE DIRECTIONS 2015 DIVISION XII Her Honour Judge Shant should be addressed as “My Lady” in court.

Modes of Address B.1 – The following judges, when sitting in court, should be addressed as ‘My Lord’ or ‘My Lady’

(b) any Circuit Judge sitting as a judge of the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) or the High Court under section 9(1) of the Senior Courts Act 1981;
(d) any Senior Circuit Judge who is an Honorary Recorder.

Description B.3 – In cause lists, forms and orders members of the judiciary should be described as follows:

(a) Circuit Judges, as ‘His [or Her] Honour Judge A’. When the judge is sitting as a judge of the High Court under section 9(1) of the Senior Courts Act 1981, the words ‘sitting as a judge of the High Court’ should be added;

The three key values which are central to the role of judicial office holders (JOHs) in England and Wales are:
• Independence
• Impartiality
• Integrity

“Publicity is the very soul of justice. . . . It keeps the judge himself, while trying, under trial….Where there is no publicity there is no justice”

Jeremy Bentham – Mr Justice Cobb: ‘Justice must be seen to be done’

Image of HHJ Shant KC : Nottinghamshire Live

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

Check out our articles on 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
Criminal Justice Government Judiciary Legal Professionals

Minister of State for Courts and Legal Services

Sarah Sackman KC MP - Minister of State for Courts and Legal Services

The role of Minister of State for Courts and Legal Services is a key position within the Ministry of Justice (MoJ), focusing on the operational and policy aspects of the UK’s justice system.

As of January 2026, this post is held by Sarah Sackman KC MP, who brings a wealth of legal expertise to the role.

Sarah Sackman KC MP on Government Plans to scrap Jury trials for crimes with sentences of less than three years

Appointment and Background

Sarah Sackman KC MP was appointed Minister of State in the Ministry of Justice on the 2nd December 2024. Prior to this, she served as Solicitor General for England and Wales from July 2024 until her promotion.

Elected as the Member of Parliament for Finchley and Golders Green in the July 2024 general election, Sackman has a distinguished legal career. Called to the Bar in 2008, she practised as a barrister at Francis Taylor Building and later at Matrix Chambers, specialising in public law, election law, planning, environment and rating law.

Her appointment as King’s Counsel (KC) reflects her standing in the legal profession.The previous holder of the role was The Rt Hon Heidi Alexander MP, who served briefly in 2024.

Sarah Sackman is married to Daniel Benjamin Squires KC, who represented double killer Fuad Awale.

David Lammy, the Justice Secretary, agreed to pay £7,500 in compensation and foot a £234,000 legal bill for Awale after a judge ruled that his treatment in jail breached his human rights.

Key Responsibilities

The Minister of State for Courts and Legal Services oversees a broad portfolio critical to the functioning of the justice system. These include:

  • Criminal courts policy
  • Legal Aid and administration of the Legal Aid Agency
  • Civil Justice
  • Legal Support and Dispute Resolution
  • Legal Services
  • Administration of His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service
  • Magistrates Policy
  • Open Justice
  • Tribunals Policy (including fees)
  • Irregular Migration
  • Judicial Review
  • Leading the MoJ’s mission to “Kickstart economic growth”

This role plays a vital part in ensuring access to justice, efficiency in the courts, and reforms to legal aid and tribunals.

Recent Developments and Priorities

Since taking office, Sarah Sackman has been associated with several initiatives aimed at improving access to justice and modernising the legal system. Notable announcements linked to the role include:

  • Multi-million-pound investments in legal aid to support victims and enhance access to justice.
  • Measures to increase protection for victims of violence, such as scrapping certain fees.
  • Reforms to enable claimants to challenge powerful organisations in court more effectively.
  • Recognition of cryptocurrency as personal property, positioning the UK as a leader in this emerging area.
  • Investments in court infrastructure, such as new Crown Courtrooms, and promotion of UK legal services internationally.

These efforts supposedly align with the government’s broader goals of delivering “swift and fair” justice, boosting economic growth through a robust legal sector, and ensuring transparency and fairness in the courts.

Daily analysis of Crown Court usage – On the 7th January 2026, 75 out of the 516 Crown courtrooms in England & Wales are not sitting. A staggering 15% of them.

The position underscores the importance of a well-functioning justice system in upholding the rule of law and supporting economic stability.

With her background as a practising barrister and recent experience as Solicitor General, Sarah Sackman is well-placed to drive forward reforms in this challenging but essential area of public policy.

Photo Credit : Sarah Sackman KC MP

Check out our articles on the Justice Secretary, Lady Chief Justice, Lord Chancellor, Attorney General, Solicitor General, Government Legal Department, Rule of Law, R v Sussex Justices 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
Criminal Justice Judiciary Legal Professionals

His Honour Judge Fuller KC

His Honour Judge Fuller KC

Jonathan Paul Fuller, known as His Honour Judge Jonathan Paul Fuller KC was born on the 27th February 1954.

His Honour Judge Jonathan Fuller KC was appointed as a Circuit Judge on the 3rd October 2014 and sits primarily on the South West Circuit at Bournemouth Crown Court.

As a Circuit Judge, Judge Fuller is authorised to hear serious criminal cases in the Crown Court, as well as certain civil and family matters.

Name:Jonathan Paul Fuller KC
Position:Self Employed Barrister
Year of Call:1977
Chambers:187 Chambers
Contact Chambers:Greater London
Profile:www.187fleetstreet.com
Practising Status:Bar Standards Board
Criminal Cases:Defending:
RW (2014-02-14)

B (2013-12-18)

SE (2012-12-14)


Prosecuting:
Donna Louise Chalk (2013-06-26)

Ryan Ian Woodmansey (2013-06-26)

Andrew William Christopher Dwyer-Skeats (2013-06-26)

Lee Matthew Nicholls (2013-06-26)
Jonathan Paul Fuller KC on Lawpages

HHJ Fuller is shown on the List of Circuit Judges published on the Courts and Tribunal Judiciary website.

His Honour Judge Fuller KCSouth West03-10-2014
List of Circuit Judges

Legal Controversy

Luke Yarwood who posted two anti-immigration tweets on X was handed a 18-month jail sentence by Judge Fuller at Bournemouth Crown Court on the 17th December 2025.

Head for the hotels housing them and burn them to the ground

I think it’s time for the British to gang together, hit the streets and start the slaughter.

Violence and murder is the only way now. Start off burning every migrant hotel then head off to MPs’ houses and Parliament, we need to take over by FORCE.

Luke Yarwood

The posts were only viewed 33 times.

His barrister argued the posts had 33 views between them and were the ‘impotent rantings of a socially isolated man’ that had no ‘real-world’ consequences.

But Judge Jonathan Fuller said Yarwood’s ‘odious’ tweets were designed to stir up racial hatred and incite violence, and jailed him.

Twitter user is jailed by Judge Fuller for 18 months for two anti-immigration tweets made after Christmas market car attack that were viewed just 33 times – Daily Mail

His case has been compared with Lucy Connolly, who pleaded guilty inciting racial hatred after sending the X post on the day of the Southport attacks. She was sentenced by Judge Melbourne Inman.

This is not a court of politics but law. You are entitled to express your views, but freedom of speech is not an absolute right, it’s a qualified one. 

What the law prohibits is the stirring up of racial hatred.

The continuing safety and stability of our communities are undermined by actions such as yours.

The tweets speak for themselves, they are odious in the extreme. There could be few clearer examples of words specifically designed to stir up racial hatred and incite violence.

They are serious offences that could have had serious consequences and can only be marked by a sentence of immediate imprisonment.

His Honour Judge Fuller KC
Nick Dickson about Judge Fuller on X

Authorisation to sit as a High Court Judge

HHJ Fuller KC may be authorised to sit as a High Court Judge by s9(1) of the Senior Courts Act as amended by the Crime and Courts Act 2013.

According to CRIMINAL PRACTICE DIRECTIONS 2015 DIVISION XII His Honour Judge Fuller should be addressed as “My Lord” in court.

Modes of Address B.1 – The following judges, when sitting in court, should be addressed as ‘My Lord’ or ‘My Lady’

(b) any Circuit Judge sitting as a judge of the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) or the High Court under section 9(1) of the Senior Courts Act 1981;
(d) any Senior Circuit Judge who is an Honorary Recorder.

Description B.3 – In cause lists, forms and orders members of the judiciary should be described as follows:

(a) Circuit Judges, as ‘His [or Her] Honour Judge A’. When the judge is sitting as a judge of the High Court under section 9(1) of the Senior Courts Act 1981, the words ‘sitting as a judge of the High Court’ should be added;

The three key values which are central to the role of judicial office holders (JOHs) in England and Wales are:
• Independence
• Impartiality
• Integrity

“Publicity is the very soul of justice. . . . It keeps the judge himself, while trying, under trial….Where there is no publicity there is no justice”

Jeremy Bentham – Mr Justice Cobb: ‘Justice must be seen to be done’

Image of HHJ Fuller : Grok

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

Check out our articles on 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.

Rule of Law - Open Justice - Policing By Consent