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
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 October 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.

“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’

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.

“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’

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.

His Honour Judge Amjad Nawaz was appointed as the Resident Judge at Reading Crown Court for a period of four years commencing 20 April 2026.

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.

“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’

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.

“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’

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.

“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’

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.

“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’

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 Law Legal Analysis Legal Professionals

What is the Parole Board ?

Parole Board

The Parole Board for England and Wales is an independent executive non-departmental public body sponsored by the Ministry of Justice.

Established in its modern form by the Criminal Justice Act 1967, it is responsible for deciding whether prisoners serving certain types of sentences in England and Wales are safe to be released into the community under licence and, if already released, whether they should be recalled to prison.

It does not cover Scotland or Northern Ireland, which have separate arrangements.

Legal Framework

The Parole Board’s primary powers derive from:

It deals with three main categories of prisoner:

  • Life sentence prisoners (mandatory, discretionary and automatic life sentences, and imprisonment/detention for public protection (IPP))
  • Prisoners serving extended determinate sentences (EDS)
  • Certain determinate sentence prisoners who are assessed as dangerous and subject to Parole Board release (e.g. extended sentences under older legislation or those moved to parole release by executive decision)

For most standard determinate sentence prisoners, release is automatic at the halfway or two-thirds point and the Parole Board has no role.

Role and Functions

The Board’s core functions are:

  • To conduct risk assessments and decide whether prisoners can be safely released on licence before the end of their sentence
  • To set licence conditions
  • To decide whether released prisoners who have breached their licence should be recalled to custody
  • To advise the Secretary of State on transfer of life sentence and IPP prisoners to open conditions
  • To consider applications for early release on compassionate grounds in exceptional circumstances (rare)

All decisions must prioritise the protection of the public while giving the prisoner a fair hearing.

Composition and Membership

The Parole Board consists of over 300 members, appointed by the Secretary of State for Justice. Members include:

  • Judicial members (serving or retired judges)
  • Psychiatrist members
  • Psychologist members
  • Probation officer members
  • Independent members (from a wide range of professional and lay backgrounds)

Members sit part-time and are supported by a permanent secretariat based in London.

Cecilia French was appointed Chief Executive of the Parole Board in October 2024 and The Chair Alexandra Marks CBE was appointed in 2025.

Members serve fixed terms typically of five years.

Types of Parole Hearing

  • Oral hearings: held when the case is complex or contested. Conducted either in prison or, increasingly, by video link. The prisoner, victim (if participating via the Victim Contact Scheme), and witnesses give evidence. A panel (usually three members) questions all parties.
  • Paper hearings: for less complex recall cases or some determinate sentence reviews, decided “on the papers” without a live hearing.

Since 2022, most oral hearings for serious offenders have been open to the public or victims upon application, following a rule change intended to increase transparency.

The Release Test

For indeterminate sentence prisoners (life, IPP, etc.), the statutory release test is: “whether it is no longer necessary for the protection of the public that the prisoner should be confined.”

For determinate extended sentence prisoners and certain others, the test is whether the Board is satisfied that “it is no longer necessary on the grounds that [the prisoner] would not present a significant risk to members of the public of serious harm occasioned by the commission of further specified offences.”

The burden of proof lies on the prisoner to show they are safe for release.

Reconsideration Mechanism

Since 2019, prisoners (or the Secretary of State) may apply for a decision refusing release to be reconsidered if there has been an error of law or fact, or if new information could have changed the outcome. This replaced the previous judicial review route for most cases.

Key Reforms (2022–2025)

  • The Root and Branch Review (2022): led to greater ministerial oversight of release decisions for the most serious offenders.
  • Victims and Prisoners Act 2024: introduced a “public protection” top-down decision-making approach, a power for the Secretary of State to veto release of certain high-profile prisoners, and greater victim involvement.
  • Increased transparency: summary reasons for release decisions are now published online for top-tier cases.

Criticism and Controversy

The Parole Board has faced significant criticism over the years:

  • The 2018 John Worboys case (initial decision to release the “black cab rapist”) led to the then-Chair’s resignation and prompted major rule changes.
  • Ongoing concerns about the continued detention of prisoners on abolished IPP sentences (over 2,800 still in custody as of 2025, many years past tariff).
  • Delays in hearings, partly due to prison overcrowding and staff shortages.

Current Statistics (as at Dec 2025)

  • Approximately 12,000–14,000 parole reviews conducted annually
  • Around 3,000 oral hearings per year
  • Release rate for indeterminate sentence prisoners hovers between 25–35 % at first review, rising with subsequent reviews
  • Over 99 % of those released on parole do not commit a serious further serious offence during their licence period

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.

“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’

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

Joshua Radcliffe Barrister

Joshua Radcliffe Barrister

Joshua Radcliffe is a barrister practising from New Walk Chambers in Leicester and also Equity Chambers in Birmingham. Joshua is a graduate of the University of Birmingham and a former investment professional.

Barrister Josh Radcliffe represented one of the teenage defendants in a high-profile rape case heard at Warwick Crown Court. The case involved two asylum-seeking minors who had pleaded guilty to the rape of a 15-year-old girl in a Warwickshire park.

Josh Radcliffe has appeared before the Court of Appeal in respect of appeals against both sentence and conviction, as well as representing the successful appellant in the leading case on social media hearsay (Bracher v Crown Prosecution Service [2023] EWHC 3500 (Admin).

Josh Radcliffe, as a barrister, specialises primarily in criminal law, with particular experience in:

  • Defence work across the full range of criminal offences
  • Public Access instructions (accepting direct instructions from members of the public in suitable cases)
  • Advisory work and representation in regulatory matters and inquests

Josh Radcliffe is authorised to conduct litigation in Public Access cases and regularly appears in the Crown Court, Magistrates’ Court and Youth Court.

Joshua Radcliffe is a member of the The Criminal Appeal Lawyers Association.

Barrister Details – Mr Joshua Radcliffe
Date of Call :
Inn of Court : Lincoln’s Inn
Areas of practice : Chancery contentious ,  Chancery non-contentious ,  Crime ,  Family – children ,  Family – other

Barrister Joshua Radcliffe – New Walk Chambers

Controversy Defending Two Afghan Rapists

Two teenage Afghan migrants were filmed by their victim as they “forcefully” walked her through a dark park before raping her. The harrowing footage was thankfully recorded by the 15-year-old victim.

Jan Jahanzeb and Israr Niazal, both aged 17, were sentenced to youth detention terms of 10 years and eight months and nine years and 10 months respectively.

Barristers for Jan Jahanzeb and Israr Niazal, Robert Holt and Joshua Radcliffe, had unsuccessfully tried to stop their names being made public, saying it could lead to “widespread public disorder”.

Barrister Joshua Radcliffe said “I have no doubt that if the general public were exposed to that, we would have disorder on our hands.”. He also suggested Israr Niazal may still be able to “make a life for himself in this country” when he is released.

At Warwick Crown Court, Her Honour Judge Sylviade de Bertodano, lifted reporting restrictions banning the media from naming the pair as it was in the public interest for them to be named.

In England and Wales, barristers are regulated professionals bound by strict ethical standards outlined in version 5.0 of the Bar Standards Board (BSB) Handbook.

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, Blackbelt Barrister, 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.

“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’

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

Robert Holt Barrister

Robert Holt Barrister

Robert John Holt is a barrister specialising in criminal defence, based at Citadel Chambers in Birmingham, England. He joined the Bar relatively recently, transitioning from a long career as a solicitor and has quickly established himself in the field of criminal law.

Barrister Robert Holt represented one of the teenage defendants in a high-profile rape case heard at Warwick Crown Court. The case involved two asylum-seeking minors who had pleaded guilty to the rape of a 15-year-old girl in a Warwickshire park.

From Solicitor to Barrister

Admitted as a solicitor in 1998, Robert Holt built an extensive career in criminal defence. He gained higher rights of audience in the Crown Courts in 2006, allowing him to advocate in higher courts while still qualified as a solicitor. Over the years, he rose to become a partner in Stevens Solicitors, one of the UK’s largest criminal defence firms, handling cases across Magistrates’ Courts, Crown Courts, and appeals.

Prior roles included positions at firms such as Atticus Solicitors Limited and Stevens Solicitors. His experience as a solicitor-advocate provided a strong foundation in defence work, focusing on representing clients in serious criminal matters.

In November 2024, Holt made the transition to the Bar, joining Citadel Chambers which is a set known for its expertise in criminal law. This move brought his wide-ranging defence experience to the barristerial side, where he continues to appear in Magistrates’ Courts, Crown Courts and the Court of Appeal.

Barrister Details – Mr Robert John Holt
Date of Call : Oct 2024
Inn of Court : Gray’s Inn
Areas of practice : Crime

Barrister John Halt – Citadel Chambers

Controversy Defending Two Afghan Rapists

Two teenage Afghan migrants were filmed by their victim as they “forcefully” walked her through a dark park before raping her. The harrowing footage was thankfully recorded by the 15-year-old victim.

Jan Jahanzeb and Israr Niazal, both aged 17, were sentenced to youth detention terms of 10 years and eight months and nine years and 10 months respectively.

Barristers for Jan Jahanzeb and Israr Niazal, Robert Holt and Joshua Radcliffe, had unsuccessfully tried to stop their names being made public, saying it could lead to “widespread public disorder”.

Barrister Robert Holt, representing Jan Jahanzeb, asked Her Honour Judge Sylviade de Bertodano to ban the media from saying the pair were Afghan asylum seekers.

At Warwick Crown Court, Her Honour Judge Sylviade de Bertodano, lifted reporting restrictions banning the media from naming the pair as it was in the public interest for them to be named.

In England and Wales, barristers are regulated professionals bound by strict ethical standards outlined in version 5.0 of the Bar Standards Board (BSB) Handbook.

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, Blackbelt Barrister, 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.

“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’

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 2026 to 31st March 2027 is £275,885.

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.

“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’

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