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
Judiciary Law Legal Analysis Legal Professionals

What is a Coroner ?

Coroner

A coroner is an independent judicial officer responsible for investigating sudden, violent or unexplained deaths.

The office of the coroner was formally established in 1194, originally as a form of tax gatherer. In the centuries since this has evolved and now the role of the Coroner is to investigate deaths if they have reason to suspect that;

  • The death was violent or unnatural; or
  • The cause of death is unknown; or
  • The deceased died while in state detention.
Coroners – Courts & Tribunals Judiciary

Governed by the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 overseen by the Chief Coroner, their work meticulously establishes who died, how, when, and where, without assigning blame. This preventive role aids in avoiding future incidents and provides closure to bereaved families.

Operating across 74 local areas, coroners blend legal and medical expertise to maintain public trust. They also conduct Treasure inquests under the Treasure Act 1996, safeguarding archaeological heritage.

Each coroner area is led by a Senior Coroner. Some local authorities also appoint one or more Area Coroners to support the Senior Coroner in addition to the appointment of a number of Assistant Coroners.

The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) publish Annual National Statistics on deaths reported to coroners, including inquests and post-mortems held, inquest conclusions recorded and finds reported to coroners under treasure legislation.

Also published by the MoJ is the Guide to coroners statistics which provides a background overview of coroners, focusing on concepts and definitions published in Ministry of Justice statistics. It also covers policy background and changes, statistical publication revision policies, data sources, quality and dissemination.

In July 2026, the Protocol for Legal Professionals Wishing to Raise Concerns Informally About Coroner Behaviour was issued by the Chief Coroner of England and Wales.

The Chief Coroner’s Role

The Chief Coroner Her Honour Judge Alexia Durran is the judicial head of the coroner system, providing national leadership for coroners in England and Wales. The role of Chief Coroner was only established in 2009 and the first appointment in 2010.

The appointment of the Chief Coroner is made by the Lady Chief Justice in consultation with the Lord Chancellor.

Key duties of the Chief Coroner :-

  • Provide support, leadership and guidance for coroners in England and Wales;
  • In conjunction with the Judicial College, put in place suitable training arrangements for coroners and coroners’ officers;
  • Approve coroner appointments;
  • Keep a register of coroner investigations lasting more than 12 months;
  • Publish Prevention of Future Death reports and responses;
  • Monitor investigations into the deaths of service personnel;
  • Exercise global case management powers (including directing transfers of inquests between coroner areas in certain circumstances, and requesting the Lord Chief Justice and Lord Chancellor to appoint judges in certain high-profile or complex inquests); Provide an annual report on the coroner system to the Lord Chancellor, to be laid before Parliament;
  • By convention, the Chief Coroner also sits in the High Court hearing some of the most important judicial and statutory review cases concerning coroners.

Appointment and Qualifications

Coroners are appointed by their local authority, with consent from the Lord Chancellor and Chief Coroner. These permanent roles last until age 75, ensuring stability and independence from external influences.

Candidates require at least five years’ experience as solicitors, barristers, or registered medical practitioners specialising in pathology or forensics. This expertise enables effective navigation of legal-medical intersections. The Chief Coroner’s oversight guarantees selections prioritise integrity and competence.

The Investigation Process

Investigations start with the coroner assuming temporary custody of the body, ordering a post-mortem—often forensic for suspected unnatural causes—to establish the medical facts. Family input on cultural sensitivities is sought, with non-invasive options like CT/MRI scans available to lessen distress.

An inquest follows if required: a public hearing, ideally within six months, reviewing evidence from witnesses, reports, and experts.

Article 2(2) of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) inquests are enhanced inquests held in cases where the State or ‘its agents’ have ‘failed to protect the deceased against a human threat or other risk’ or where there has been a death in custody. Cases where the deceased has been under the care or responsibility of social services or healthcare professionals are also often included in this category of inquest.

‘Jamieson’ and ‘Middleton’ inquests as they are sometimes known, consider neglect on the part on of an individual, and system neglect, under Article 2, respectively.

Juries are used in custody deaths, notifiable accidents, or police actions, issuing verdicts like ‘accidental’, ‘misadventure’, ‘unlawful killing’, or narratives without blame.

Treasure inquests similarly assemble experts to verify criteria, notifying the British Museum for preservation.

Powers and Impact

Coroners possess extensive statutory powers to ensure thorough and transparent investigations. They can summon witnesses to give evidence under oath, compel the production of documents or objects, and even enter premises if necessary for inquiries.

Inquests may be suspended or adjourned pending criminal proceedings, public inquiries, or the gathering of evidence from abroad, preventing overlap and preserving evidential integrity.

Practical support includes issuing interim death certificates to facilitate urgent administrative needs, such as insurance claims or funerals, while full registration awaits conclusion. Delays in investigations, those surpassing 12 months, are reported to the Chief Coroner, who can intervene to expedite processes and maintain efficiency.

The Ministry of Justice have produced ‘A Guide to Coroner Services for Bereaved People’

Contact the Chief Coroner’s Office
Royal Courts of Justice
London
WC2A 2LL

Email: [email protected]

Coroners’ Society of England & Wales

The Coroners’ Society of England and Wales is the principal professional association and representative body for coroners operating in England and Wales.

Membership is primarily restricted to serving coroners, area coroners, and assistant coroners with corresponding membership open to equivalent judicial office-holders abroad.

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

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

Latest Articles ↓

Most Popular ↓

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

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

Categories
Judiciary Legal Professionals

District Judge Sam Goozee

District Judge Goozee

Sam Goozée is a District Judge (Magistrates’ Courts) of England and Wales who was appointed on the 23rd March 2016.

District Judge Goozee serves as the Resident District Judge for Berkshire Magistrates’ Courts and the leadership judge for the south east region.

District Judge Sam Goozee was the judge presiding over Tommy Robinson’s terrorism case at Westminster Magistrates’ Court.

DJ Goozee issued rulings on the first day of the trial, including protecting Robinson’s address from publication due to threats and restricting live-tweeting for independent media following a BBC complaint, while allowing mainstream outlets to report. The two-day trial continued on the 14th October 2025.

On the 4th November 2025 at Westminster Magistrates’ Court, Tommy Robinson (defence funded by Elon Musk) was found not guilty by District Judge Sam Goozee of the terror offence.

I cannot put out of my mind that it was actually what you stood for and your political beliefs that acted for the principle reason for this stop.

The stop was not lawful, and I cannot convict you. I find you not guilty.

District Judge Goozee

It is believed, from Companies House data, that Judge Sam Goozée was born on the 31st January 1971 and was a former director of the now dissolved JUSTICES’CLERKS’SOCIETY (00078822).

Who’s Who lists Goozée, Sam Mark (born 31 Jan. 1971), a District Judge (Magistrates’ Courts), since 2016.

Legal Career

District Judge Goozee judicial career stems from a long background in the magistrates’ courts service. After a brief stint in private practice, he spent most of his professional life as a legal advisor in magistrates’ courts, starting in Hampshire before transferring to Dorset.

There, he advanced to legal manager and deputy justice clerk (now known as senior legal manager). He later moved to North and West Yorkshire, where he became Justices Clerk, equivalent to head of legal operations.

While in this senior management role, he applied successfully for a part-time deputy district judge position, sitting a few days a month with Civil Service support for up to 20 days annually, plus additional sittings on his own leave.

This paved the way for his full-time appointment as a district judge in 2016. Apart from two years of defending and prosecuting cases in Bournemouth, his career has been dedicated to advisory and managerial roles in the courts a path he describes as providing an excellent foundation for judicial appointments.

District Judge (MC) Goozee is shown on the District Judges (Magistrates’ Courts) published on the Courts and Tribunal Judiciary website.

District Judge (MC) Goozee 
South East		23-03-16
District Judges (Magistrates’ Courts)

Notable Roles and Contributions

Beyond his judicial duties, District Judge Goozee is passionate about outreach and education. He engages with University of Reading law students through programs that expose them to real courtroom scenarios, such as bail applications and pleas in mitigation, helping them bridge academic learning with practical application.

He highlights the everyday realities of magistrates’ courts, including factors like organised crime and substance issues that lead to cases, to foster a nuanced understanding of the criminal justice system. Students have praised his personable and encouraging approach, noting how he supports career development in a field often seen as rigid.

Notable Cases

District Judge Goozee (MC) has presided over several high-profile matters, including:

Image of DJ Goozee : Microsoft Co-Pilot © Ministry of Injustice 2025

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

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

How to Complain about a Magistrate ?

Complain about a Magistrate

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

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

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

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

Guide to Judicial Conduct

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

The Role of Magistrates

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

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

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

Grounds for a Complaint

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

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

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

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

Complaints Process

Step 1: Gather Evidence

A robust complaint requires:

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

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

Step 2: Submit to the Correct Authority

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

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

Ensure submissions are polite and concise.

Step 3: Investigation Process

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

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

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

Step 4: Escalating the Complaint

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

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

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

Step 5: Seek Legal Advice

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

Judicial Complaints Disciplinary Outcomes

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

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

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

Summary

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

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

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

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

Latest Articles ↓

Most Popular ↓

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

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

Categories
Judiciary Legal Professionals

Social Media Guidance and the Judiciary

Social Media Guidance and the Judiciary

Having read the disciplinary statement from the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office in relation to Ms Nicola Baldwin JP JCIO 44/25 dated 3rd October 2025, the statement includes :-

“The Social Media Guidance 2024 advises judicial office holders not to use their official title or disclose their judicial role on any platform or account with unrestricted public access.”

The complaint also alleged that Ms Baldwin referred to her position as a magistrate on her employer’s website, her email signature, and her social media account for personal gain.”

Mr Justice Keehan, on behalf of the Lady Chief Justice, and the Lord Chancellor agreed with advice from the JCIO that Ms Baldwin’s actions could have risked reputational damage to the magistracy.

Why do numerous judges and magistrates still maintain publicly accessible LinkedIn profiles that display their judicial titles and roles, despite the advice contained in the Social Media Guidance for the Judiciary ?

LinkedIn is widely considered to be a social media platform.

Allegedly (according to Grok) The Social Media Guidance for the Judiciary explicitly lists LinkedIn as a social media platform

A quick google search for linkedin district judge or linkedin circuit judge or linkedin tribunal judge or linkedin magistrate returns numerous judges and magistrates not following the guidance.

For example the top 2 results for each judiciary search :-

Grok says there are 28 verified judges (salaried or fee-paid) from England and Wales with active, public LinkedIn profiles as of the 7th October 2025.

This number does not seem accurate as the google searches above return additional results. Needless to say the number of judiciary that don’t follow the guidance is quite high. What other rules or guidance is not followed by members of the judiciary ?

NameJudicial RoleLocationLinkedIn ProfileNotes
Chris MillsDeputy District JudgeUnited Kingdomhttps://uk.linkedin.com/in/chris-mills-84630718Ministry of Justice; civil and family law focus; limited public details.
Alexander JacobsCircuit Judge (Crown Court at Wood Green)United Kingdomhttps://www.linkedin.com/in/alexander-jacobs-a2442834/Ministry of Justice UK; 499 connections; criminal law focus.
Peter CookeCircuit Judge (Derby Crown Court)United Kingdomhttps://uk.linkedin.com/in/peter-cooke-6a07111bHandles criminal and civil matters; experienced in Crown Court.
Mushtaq KhokharHis Honour JudgeGreater Leeds Areahttps://www.linkedin.com/in/mushtaq-khokhar-56290848/Ministry of Justice UK; 64 connections.
Michael Evans KCHis Honour JudgeUnited Kingdomhttps://www.linkedin.com/in/michael-evans-kc-b9337b4a/Judicial Office; King’s Counsel in serious crime cases.
Petey WrightHis Honour Judge WrightHemel Hempsteadhttps://www.linkedin.com/in/petey-wright-30987031/UK Department of Justice; 1 connection; limited activity.
Geoffrey PayneCircuit Judge (Bencher, Inner Temple)Londonhttps://www.linkedin.com/in/geoffrey-payne-89306964/Ministry of Justice UK; Inns of Court alum.
Amy SevierDistrict JudgeUnited KingdomRemoved 08/07/26Ministry of Justice UK; Durham University alum; 310 connections.
John LinwoodDeputy Master (Chancery Division, High Court)Londonhttps://www.linkedin.com/in/john-linwood-454320a8/Ministry of Justice UK; Newcastle University alum.
Helen RimingtonDistrict Judge & Tribunal Judge (Mental Health Tribunal)Greater LondonRemoved 29/04/26Ministry of Justice; 11 connections.
Julian AllsopDeputy District Judge (Civil)United Kingdomhttps://www.linkedin.com/in/julian-allsop-923b9264/Ministry of Justice UK; employment law specialist.
Morris, HH JudgeHis Honour Judge (H.M. Circuit Judge)Cardiffhttps://www.linkedin.com/in/morris-hhjudge-80a98823/1 connection; limited details.
John WoollardDistrict Judge (Magistrates’ Courts) & RecorderUnited Kingdomhttps://uk.linkedin.com/in/john-woollard-8202815Highbury Corner Magistrates’ Court & Barnet Family Court; mental health tribunal work.
Ross JohnsonCircuit Judge (Crown Court at Luton)LondonRemoved 08/05/26Former District Judge (MC) and Recorder; 128 connections; criminal defence background.
Jonathan RoseCircuit JudgeUnited Kingdomhttps://uk.linkedin.com/in/jonathan-rose-5b688587Ministry of Justice (MOJ); civil and family jurisdiction.
Peter HuntDeputy Circuit JudgeUnited Kingdomhttps://uk.linkedin.com/in/peter-hunt-283832abMinistry of Justice; focuses on tribunal and county court cases.
Mark BrownCircuit JudgeUnited Kingdomhttps://uk.linkedin.com/in/mark-brown-7a924463UK Department of Health (judicial role via MOJ); health and social care tribunals.
Rebecca FryHead Judicial Assistant (Supreme Court; former judge support role)Londonhttps://uk.linkedin.com/in/rebecca-fry-52127324UK Supreme Court; barrister with judicial advisory experience; Oxford alum; 500+ connections.
Niko PavlopoulosJudicial Assistant (Supreme Court)United Kingdomhttps://www.linkedin.com/in/niko-pavlopoulos/UK Supreme Court; UCL alum; 500+ connections; supports Justices on appeals.
Kamran ChoudhryCircuit Judge (St Albans Crown Court)United KingdomRemoved 11/05/26Recent appointment (2025); South Eastern Circuit; former barrister at Garden Court Chambers.
Abbas MithaniCircuit JudgeUnited KingdomRemoved 09/06/26Specialist in commercial and insolvency; Queen’s Counsel background.
David Hodge KCSpecialist Civil Senior Circuit JudgeLeedsRemoved 19/03/26Business & Property Courts; appointed 2005; Leeds-based.
Paul AyersDistrict Judge (Magistrates’ Courts)United Kingdomhttps://uk.linkedin.com/in/paul-ayers-104b991a9Ministry of Justice UK; focuses on criminal cases in magistrates’ courts.
Karen Walden-SmithDesignated Civil Judge & Deputy High Court JudgeUnited KingdomRemoved 27/05/26Circuit Judge with High Court authorisation; civil jurisdiction specialist.
Anne MolyneuxCircuit JudgeNorth West EnglandRemoved 08/07/26Recorder background; featured in JAC case studies on judicial careers.
Joanne CloughDeputy Upper Tribunal Judge (Administrative Appeals Chamber)United KingdomRemoved 03/08/26Fee-paid First-tier Tribunal Judge; social entitlement chamber focus.
Ayesha SiddiqiRecorder & Solicitor JudgeManchesterRemoved 11/05/26Diversity in judiciary advocate; featured in Law Society webinars.

What is the Social Media Guidance for the Judiciary ?

The Social Media Guidance for the judiciary is unpublished externally but referenced in the Guide to Judicial Conduct published by the Courts and Tribunal Judiciary.

There does not appear to be a copy available in the public domain. Why ?

Media Guidance and Social Media Guidance for the judiciary have been updated with the latest versions

Guide to Judicial Conduct – Revised July 2023

Page 16 of the Guide to Judicial Conduct dated July 2023 has a URL for the Social Media Guidance for the Judiciary published on the judiciary intranet

https://intranet.judiciary.uk/2021/05/11/launch-of-new-socialmedia-guidance-for-the-judiciary/

Page 22 of the Guide to Judicial Conduct states :-

“judicial office holders should not use their judicial title on social media and it is most unlikely to be appropriate to disclose the fact of their judicial role on any platform or account with unrestricted public access.”

The Social Media Guidance for the Judiciary guidance was updated and circulated in October 2024 (replacing the 2021 version) to address evolving risks from social media use by judicial office holders, including salaried judges, tribunal members, coroners, and magistrates.

The Social Media Guidance for the Judiciary guidance was prompted by recent disciplinary cases, such as the formal warning issued to Deputy Senior District Judge Tanweer Ikram in June 2024 for breaching social media rules by liking a post on LinkedIn, which led to widespread complaints and reputational harm to the judiciary.

The nominated judge found that Judge Ikram had breached the Social Media Guidance for the judiciary by identifying himself as a judge on LinkedIn.

STATEMENT FROM THE JUDICIAL CONDUCT INVESTIGATIONS OFFICE –  Deputy Senior District Judge Tanweer Ikram

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

His Honour Judge Hiddleston

His Honour Judge Hiddleston

Adam Wallace Hiddleston, known as His Honour Judge Hiddleston was born on the 1st April 1965.

HHJ Hiddleston is currently a Circuit Judge in the London Circuit. He was previously a judge in the First-Tier Tribunal’s Health, Education and Social Care Chamber (Mental Health).

Early Life and Education

HHJ Hiddleston was born in the UK and attended Loretto School in Scotland, graduating in 1981. Specific details about his higher education are not publicly documented, but he qualified as a barrister, developing expertise in criminal and administrative law before his judicial appointments.

Legal Career

His Honour Hiddleston began his career as a barrister at the 3 PB chambers in Greater London, specialising in criminal law and regulatory matters as noted in legal directories like The Law Pages. His practice involved representing clients in court, often in cases involving vulnerable individuals.

He was appointed as a Recorder in 2012 and as a Fee-paid Judge of the First-tier Tribunal assigned to the Health, Education and Social Care Chamber in 2014.This role involves hearing appeals under the Mental Health Act 1983, reviewing detentions and treatment orders to ensure compliance with legal and human rights standards.

In 2015, The Queen appointed Adam Hiddleston to be a Circuit Judge and he was deployed to the South Eastern Circuit based at Croydon Crown Court.

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

His Honour Judge Hiddleston London16-10-2015
List of Circuit Judges

Legal Controversy

On the 13th February 2025, Moussa Kadri, a 59-year-old Muslim man, attacked Hamit Coskun, a 51-year-old Kurdish-Armenian man, outside the Turkish consulate in London’s Knightsbridge after Coskun burned a Quran and made inflammatory statements like “Islam is religion of terrorism.”

Kadri, who pleaded guilty to assault and possessing a bladed article, slashed at Coskun with a knife, later claiming he was protecting his religion.

Attacker of Quran-burning protestor is spared jail – BBC News

At Southwark Crown Court, Judge Adam Hiddleston condemned Kadri’s actions as “disgraceful” and the use of blades as a “curse on our community,” but sentenced him to a 20-week suspended prison term for 18 months, plus 150 hours of unpaid work and 10 days of rehabilitation.

Coskun was convicted of a religiously aggravated public order offence for his “highly provocative” and hate-motivated actions, though he insisted his protest targeted Islam as an ideology, not Muslims.

REX v. Moussa KADRI Sentencing Remarks – HHJ Hiddleston

Anyone can Ask for a Crown Court sentence to be reviewed using the online service to send a request to the Attorney General’s Office. They’ll review it and decide whether to send it to the Court of Appeal, who can make a decision about the sentence.

The incident sparked debate on the two tier justice system and blasphemy laws.

This sentence will do nothing to dispel the suspicion that Britain has a two-tier criminal justice system. Had a knife-wielding white male pleaded guilty to attacking a Muslim for breaching a Christian blasphemy code, you can bet your bottom dollar he would have gone to prison.

Free Speech Union on X

The UK government reaffirmed that no blasphemy laws exist in England and Wales and they have no plans to introduce them.

This decision sends a green light to any Muslim who wants to enforce an Islamic blasphemy by taking the law into their own hands. The court is effectively saying that if you attack a blasphemer with a knife, he will be convicted of causing you harassment, alarm or distress and you won’t have to spend a day behind bars.

The Free Speech Union on X

Authorisation to sit as a High Court Judge

HHJ Hiddleston 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 Hiddleston 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 Hiddleston : Microsoft Co-Pilot

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 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
Judiciary Legal Professionals

Independent Review of Bullying, Harassment and Discrimination at the Bar

Independent Review of Bullying, Harassment and Discrimination at the Bar

An Independent Review of Bullying, Harassment and Discrimination at the Bar was published on the on the 8th September 2025 by Baroness Harriet Harman KC . The review had been commissioned by the Bar Council in June 2024.

Independent Review of Bullying Harassment and Discrimination at the BarDownload

The review addresses the prevalence, causes, and impact of bullying, harassment, and sexual harassment at the Bar and proposes 36 recommendations, for the Bar Council, Judiciary and other bodies to consider to tackle these issues.

The report emphasises the need for “decisive and radical” reforms to address a “culture of impunity” and “collusive bystanding” that allows misconduct to persist.

This is a moment of reckoning for the Bar.

Baroness Harriet Harman KC

The BBC published an article He put his hand down my tights’: Sexual harassment widespread among barristers, review finds in relation to the Independent Review of Bullying, Harassment and Discrimination at the Bar report.

Prevalence of Misconduct

The review confirms systemic bullying, harassment, and sexual harassment within the Bar, occurring in chambers, courtrooms, and behind closed doors.

Over 170 written submissions and consultations with pupils, junior and senior barristers, and chambers staff revealed disturbing accounts, including groping, sexual propositions, and bullying by senior barristers and judges.

Research from 2023 showed 44% of barristers experienced or witnessed bullying, harassment, or discrimination over two years, with women from ethnic minorities particularly affected.

Junior barristers, pupils, and those on work experience are especially vulnerable due to power imbalances, with reporting perceived as “career suicide.”

Judicial Bullying

The report highlights “abundant, disturbing, and compelling” accounts of judicial bullying, including judges shouting, banging desks, or belittling barristers in court.

Certain judges are “widely known” for making barristers’ lives miserable, yet complaints are rare due to fear of repercussions.

The judiciary’s failure to acknowledge this issue contributes to a lack of accountability.

The Lady Chief Justice’s response to the Independent Review of Bullying, Harassment and Discrimination at the Bar was also published on the 8th September 2025.

While the majority of judges behave professionally and courteously, Baroness Harman’s review refers to too many examples of judicial bullying.

Such behaviour is unacceptable and should have no place in our justice system.

I am clear that the senior judiciary does not seek to excuse or minimise bullying by judges. I am absolutely committed to a modern, diverse and inclusive judiciary that upholds our values of integrity, fairness and respect to all.

We have clear standards of behaviour expected from all judicial office holders, which is supported by training and support for judges at all levels, particularly those with leadership responsibilities. We have been focussing on judicial conduct in and out of court for many years.  

The Rt Hon the Baroness Carr of Walton-on-the-Hill, Lady Chief Justice of England and Wales

Culture of Impunity

A “culture of denial” and fear of career repercussions discourage victims from reporting, leaving perpetrators, particularly those in senior positions, unaccountable.

The complaints system lacks transparency and efficacy, with delays (e.g., the Jo Sidhu KC case took two years) and lenient sanctions undermining confidence.

Impact

Victims experience humiliation, isolation, and career damage, with some leaving the profession.

Misconduct undermines the Bar’s reputation and the rule of law, which relies on high ethical standards.

Judicial bullying can distort case outcomes, affecting justice delivery.

Key Recommendations

  1. Code of Conduct and Training (Recommendations 1–4, 12):
    • Clarify the Bar Standards Board (BSB) Code of Conduct to explicitly address bullying, harassment, and sexual harassment, including personal vs. professional relationships.
    • Mandate anti-bullying and anti-harassment training for all barristers.
  2. Complaints System Overhaul (Recommendations 5–8, 15–20):
    • Introduce time limits for processing complaints, provide victim support services, and ensure regular updates for complainants.
    • Train BSB staff in handling vulnerable witnesses and review case handling, especially when criminal investigations are involved.
    • Improve transparency and consistency in complaints processes across the Inns of Court.
  3. Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups (Recommendation 11):
    • Proscribe sexual relationships between barristers/employees and pupils, mini-pupils, or work experience students as serious misconduct.
  4. Judicial Accountability (Recommendations 30–35):
    • Remove time limits for complaints to the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office (JCIO).
    • Introduce independent court monitors to observe judicial behavior and provide audio recordings of proceedings to professional court users.
    • Include an independent person in judicial misconduct sanction decisions alongside the Lady Chief Justice and Lord Chancellor to address perceptions of leniency.
  5. Commissioner for Conduct (Recommendation 36):
    • Appoint a Commissioner for Conduct to oversee efforts to tackle bullying, harassment, and sexual harassment.
  6. Sanctions and Deterrence (Recommendations 25–26, 29):
    • Implement “career-limiting or career-ending” sanctions to deter misconduct, with prior findings considered in career progression (e.g., silk or judicial appointments).
    • Chambers’ constitutions should outline sanctions for misconduct.
  7. Online Abuse (Recommendation 24):
    • Regulate online bullying, harassment, and sexual harassment, including inappropriate behavior on platforms like LinkedIn.
What can you do when a barrister or judge bullies or harasses you? – Art of Law

Conclusion

The report underscores that bullying, harassment, and sexual harassment are systemic issues at the Bar, driven by power imbalances and a lack of accountability.

It calls for transformative changes to protect victims, restore trust in the complaints system, and uphold the Bar’s ethical standards and reputation. The proposed reforms aim to shift the “jeopardy” from victims to perpetrators, ensuring a safer and more equitable working environment for all legal professionals

A Statement of Expected Behaviour sets standards expected of all judicial office holders. This is included in the Judicial Guide to Conduct and the Equal Treatment Bench Book.  

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

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

Latest Articles ↓

Most Popular ↓

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

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

Categories
Judiciary

The Hon Mr Justice Jay

Mr Justice Jay

Sir Robert Maurice Jay, styled The Hon. Mr Justice Jay, is a prominent figure in the English judiciary, known for his intellectual rigor, sharp legal mind, and a career marked by both acclaim and controversy.

Born on the 20th September 1959, Mr Justice Jay has served as a High Court judge in the King’s Bench Division since June 2013, following a distinguished career as a barrister and his high-profile role as Leading Counsel to the Leveson Inquiry into press ethics.

Mr Justice Jay is married to Deborah, an author, and they have a daughter. He is known for his intellectual pursuits outside the courtroom, with interests in history, art, classical music (particularly Wagner’s Ring Cycle), chess, cookery, golf and cycling. These hobbies reflect the same meticulous and analytical approach that supposedly characterizes his legal work.

While Judge Jay’s legal acumen is widely respected, his judicial conduct has faced significant scrutiny, particularly in the high-profile libel case of Serafin v Malkiewicz and also wishing an al-Qaeda 7/7 terrorist kingpin ‘all the best’.

Early Life and Education

Robert Jay was born to Professor Barrie Samuel Jay, a consultant surgeon at Moorfields Eye Hospital, and Marcelle Ruby Jay, a geneticist. Educated at King’s College School in Wimbledon, Jay excelled academically, earning an Open Scholarship to New College, Oxford, where he obtained a first-class degree in jurisprudence.

A contemporary of actor Hugh Grant, Jay’s intellectual prowess was evident early on. He undertook pupillage under Simon D. Brown (later Baron Brown of Eaton-Under-Heywood) and was called to the Bar at Middle Temple in 1981.

Legal Career and Rise to Prominence

Jay’s early career as a barrister focused on public law, general common law, group litigation, and public inquiries. He was appointed Queen’s Counsel (now King’s Counsel) in 1998 and served as a Recorder from 1999 and a Deputy High Court Judge from 2008.

In 2011, he was elected Head of Chambers at 39 Essex Chambers, cementing his reputation as a leading legal mind. His appointment as Leading Counsel to the Leveson Inquiry (2011–2012) brought him into the public eye. The inquiry, which investigated the culture, practices, and ethics of the British press following the phone-hacking scandal, showcased Jay’s incisive questioning and command of complex legal and ethical issues. His use of esoteric vocabulary—words like “condign,” “pellucidly,” and “adumbrate”, and memorable asides, such as describing evidence as “light refracted through two intermediate prisms,” earned him both admiration and amusement.

In 2013, Jay was appointed a High Court judge, sitting in the King’s Bench Division, where he has presided over a range of cases, including defamation, fraud, and immigration appeals as a member of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission.

His judicial decisions have been praised for their intellectual depth, such as in the libel case of Serafin v Malkiewicz, where the Supreme Court commended his 70-page judgment as “intricately constructed and beautifully written.”

The Serafin v Malkiewicz Controversy

Despite his accolades, Mr Justice Jay’s judicial career has not been without controversy. The most significant criticism arose from his handling of the 2017 libel case Serafin v Malkiewicz, involving Jan Serafin, a Polish businessman and litigant in person, who sued the Polish-language magazine Nowy Czas over defamatory allegations. Jay dismissed Serafin’s claim after a seven-day trial, but his conduct during the proceedings drew sharp rebuke from higher courts.

The Court of Appeal, in a 2019 ruling, Serafin v Malkiewicz & Ors [2019] EWCA Civ 852 , described Mr Justice Jay’s behaviour as “threatening, overbearing, and, frankly, bullying” noting that he had “cast off the mantle of impartiality” by aggressively cross-examining Serafin and accusing him of lying. The court found that Jay’s interventions rendered the trial unfair, particularly given Serafin’s lack of legal representation and limited English proficiency.

The Supreme Court, in a unanimous 2020 ruling, Serafin (Respondent) v Malkiewicz and others (Appellants) UKSC/2019/0156, led by Lord Wilson, went further, stating that Jay had “harassed and intimidated” Serafin with “immoderate, ill-tempered and at times offensive language.” The trial was declared unfair, and a retrial was ordered, with the Supreme Court expressing “deep regret” that the justice system had failed both parties.

The Serafin case highlighted broader issues about judicial conduct toward litigants in person, particularly those navigating complex legal proceedings without representation. Critics argued that Jay’s approach failed to accommodate Serafin’s vulnerabilities, raising questions about impartiality and fairness in the judiciary.

The case also had implications for defamation law, as the Supreme Court clarified aspects of the public interest defense under the Defamation Act 2013, emphasizing that journalists need not always seek pre-publication comment from claimants.

Controversy Surrounding Mr Justice Jay’s Remarks in Haroon Aswat Case

On September the 8th 2025, a report by The Sun “Judge sparks fury after wishing 7/7 kingpin ‘all the best’ as he prepares to walk free despite fears he’s still a threat” sparked outrage after it revealed that High Court judge Sir Robert Jay, styled Mr Justice Jay, wished “all the best” to Haroon Aswat, a convicted terrorist linked to al-Qaeda, during a hearing at London’s Royal Courts of Justice.

Aswat, a 50-year-old British man from Batley, West Yorkshire, is due to be released from a psychiatric hospital and return to live with his family, prompting significant concern from counter-terrorism officials and the public. This article examines the details of the case, Jay’s controversial remarks, and the broader implications, drawing on available information and critically assessing the situation.

Judge “Best Wishes” to a terrorist ? – BlackBelt Barrister
Background on Haroon Aswat

Haroon Rashid Aswat, born on September 22, 1974, in Yorkshire to a Muslim family with roots in Gujarat, India, has a long history of association with extremist activities. In the 1990s, he was linked to radical cleric Abu Hamza al-Masri and the Finsbury Park Mosque, where he helped organize groups to engage in terrorism in Jammu and Kashmir and Bosnia. Aswat was convicted in the United States in 2015 for conspiring to establish a terrorist training camp in Oregon in 1999, alongside Abu Hamza, to train recruits for al-Qaeda. He pleaded guilty to terrorism charges and was sentenced to 20 years, later reduced to seven years due to time served in UK custody.

Aswat’s connection to the July 7, 2005, London bombings, which killed 52 people and injured over 770, has been particularly contentious. Although never charged in connection with the attacks, police traced 20 calls from the suicide bombers to a phone linked to Aswat. He has also claimed involvement in both the 7/7 bombings and the 9/11 attacks in the US, describing himself as a “terrorist” and “foot soldier” of al-Qaeda who does not “shy away from responsibility.” These statements, made while in US custody, raised alarms about his ongoing extremist ideology.

Aswat was deported to the UK in 2022 after serving his sentence and has since been detained under the Mental Health Act at Bethlem Royal Hospital (often referred to as Bedlam) due to a diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia. His release, expected in the near future following effective psychiatric treatment, has sparked concern due to a legal loophole preventing full risk assessments for psychiatric patients.

The Hearing and Mr Justice Jay’s Remarks

During a High Court hearing on the 1st April 2025, Mr Justice Jay approved a terrorist notification order for Aswat, requiring him to regularly inform police of details such as his address, foreign travel, and vehicle registration. This order was intended to allow authorities to monitor Aswat, who has been assessed by police, including Detective Inspector Karen Bradley, as posing a “risk to national security.” Despite these concerns, no formal terrorist risk assessment has been conducted since his return to the UK, largely due to restrictions on assessing individuals under psychiatric care.

According to a court transcript obtained by The Sun, Jay concluded the hearing with remarks that have drawn widespread criticism:

“I have to wish you all the best and say to you that the way forward is to keep on your medication, listen to the advice you are going to get, and keep out of the sort of things you were doing.”

These comments, directed at a man with a history of terrorist activities and expressed extremist views, were perceived as overly lenient and inappropriate particularly given warnings from counter-terrorism officials.

Detective Chief Superintendent Gareth Rees of the Metropolitan Police’s Counter Terrorism Command highlighted Aswat’s positive reflections on his time with al-Qaeda and his aspirations to reconnect with the group, underscoring the ongoing threat he poses.

Public and Official Reaction

The remarks triggered a firestorm of criticism. The Sun and Daily Mail reported public and official “fury,” with Shadow Justice Secretary Robert Jenrick stating,

“This despicable man was behind one of the most deadly attacks in modern history. He should never experience freedom again.”

Jenrick’s comments reflect a broader sentiment that Aswat’s release, particularly without robust surveillance such as GPS monitoring or an ankle tag, is a failure of the justice system. A 2022 psychiatric report by Dr. Richard Taylor noted that Aswat continued to express “violent extremist Islamic ideology” despite being mentally stable, further fueling concerns about his release.

The Home Office responded by emphasising that “protecting the British public is the very first priority” and that “robust counter-terrorism risk management measures” are in place. However, the absence of a full risk assessment and the reliance on a notification order—rather than more stringent monitoring—has raised doubts about the adequacy of these measures. A government source claimed Aswat would be subject to “robust monitoring” for 30 years, but critics argue this falls short given his history and the legal constraints on surveillance due to his psychiatric status.

Image of Mr Justice Jay : Getty Images

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

Secretary of State for Justice

Alex Norris

Alex Norris was appointed Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor on the 20th July 2025.

Alex was previously Minister of State at the Home Office between 6th September 2025 and July 20th 2026.

He was previously Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government between 9 July 2024 and 6 September 2025.

Alex Norris has been the MP for Nottingham North and Kimberley (and its predecessor Nottingham North) since June 2017.

You may also be interested in our article on the Lord Chancellor, Lady Chief Justice, Master of the Rolls and the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 which explains the transfer of some powers from the Lord Chancellor to the Lord Chief Justice.

What is the role of the Secretary of State for Justice ?

According to the gov.uk webpage for the Secretary of State for Justice, it lists the ministerial roles as follows :-

Responsibilities

  1. Oversight of all portfolios and Ministry of Justice strategy
  2. Oversight of departmental COVID-19 response supported by other ministers according to portfolio
  3. Oversight of international business and future relations with the EU
  4. MoJ support for the Union
  5. Resourcing of the department
  6. Functions of the Lord Chancellor
  7. Judicial policy including pay, pensions and diversity (these and other operational decisions affecting the judiciary are reserved to the Lord Chancellor)
  8. Corporate services

Previous Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice

  1. The Rt Hon David Lammy MP 2025 to 2026
  2. The Rt Hon Shabana Mahmood MP 2024 to 2025
  3. The Rt Hon Alex Chalk KC 2023 to 2024
  4. The Rt Hon Dominic Raab MP 2022 to 2023
  5. The Rt Hon Brandon Lewis CBE MP 2022 to 2022
  6. The Rt Hon Dominic Raab MP 2021 to 2022
  7. The Rt Hon Robert Buckland KC MP 2019 to 2021
  8. The Rt Hon David Gauke 2018 to 2019
  9. The Rt Hon David Lidington CBE 2017 to 2018
  10. The Rt Hon Elizabeth Truss MP 2016 to 2017
  11. The Rt Hon Michael Gove MP 2015 to 2016
  12. The Rt Hon Chris Grayling MP 2012 to 2015
  13. The Rt Hon Kenneth Clarke KC 2010 to 2012

David Lammy the Lord Chancellor and Justice Secretary, has made several critical statements about US President Donald Trump in the past, particularly when he was a backbench MP.

In 2018, Lammy wrote in a TIME magazine article that Trump was a “woman-hating, neo-Nazi-sympathising sociopath” and a “profound threat to the international order.” He also called Trump a “tyrant in a toupee” and vowed to protest against the UK government’s “capitulation” to Trump during his visit to the UK.

In 2017, Lammy tweeted that Trump was a “racist KKK and Nazi sympathiser” and pledged to protest on the streets if Trump visited the UK.

In 2019, responding to Trump’s claim that he had been treated badly as president, Lammy tweeted, “4 US Presidents have been assassinated snowflake,” a comment criticized for its tone.

The Rt Hon David Lammy MP on US President Donald Trump

Photo Credit : David Lammy

Check out our articles on 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
Judiciary Legal Analysis

Do Retired Judges Keep Their Title ?

Retired Judge

In the United Kingdom, judicial titles such as “His Honour,” “Her Honour,” or “Lord/Lady Justice” carry significant prestige, reflecting the authority and responsibility of judges during their tenure.

But what happens to these titles after retirement? Do retired judges, from circuit judges to High Court judges and beyond retain their honorifics?

This article explores the conventions, relevant legislation, and practical examples surrounding the use of judicial titles post-retirement across various judicial roles in the UK by drawing on guidance from the Incorporated Council of Law Reporting (ICLR) article What Do I Call the Judge and the HM Courts and Tribunals Judiciary article What do I call a judge?.

Judicial Titles During Active Service

Judicial titles in the UK vary by court level. Circuit judges, appointed under the Courts Act 1971, are addressed as “Your Honour” in court and styled “His Honour Judge [Surname]” or “Her Honour Judge [Surname]” (with KC added if applicable).

High Court judges, also under the Courts Act 1971, are addressed as “My Lord” or “My Lady” and styled “The Honourable Mr/Mrs Justice [Surname].” Court of Appeal judges, often referred to as Lords or Ladies Justices, carry the title “Lord/Lady Justice [Surname].” Supreme Court Justices are styled “Lord/Lady [Surname]” and addressed as “My Lord/Lady.”

Judges such as Deputy District Judges and Tribunal Judges are referred to as “Judge”.

Magistrates are referred to as “Your Worship, or Sir or Madam”

The ICLR and Judiciary guidance confirm these conventions for active judges, with correspondence typically beginning “Dear Judge” or “Dear Sir/Madam” depending on the role.

Post-Retirement Title Usage

Upon retirement, judges cease to hold their judicial office, raising questions about title retention. The answer varies by judicial level and context, formal legal settings, professional correspondence or social interactions.

Formal Legal Contexts

Legally, judicial titles are tied to the office held. The Courts Act 1971 and Senior Courts Act 1981 establish judicial roles but do not address post-retirement titles.

The Public Service Pensions and Judicial Offices Act 2022 allows retired judges, including circuit, High Court, and Court of Appeal judges, to be recalled for “sitting in retirement” roles, such as deputy circuit or High Court judges.

When serving in these capacities, they are addressed with their former titles in court (e.g., “Your Honour” for circuit judges, “My Lord/Lady” for High Court judges). Outside such roles, retired judges do not officially retain their titles in formal legal proceedings. Using titles like “His Honour” or “Mr Justice” in court documents for non-serving retired judges may be inappropriate.

Professional and Social Contexts

In practice, retired judges are often addressed with their former titles as a courtesy.

The ICLR guidance notes that retired circuit judges may be styled “His Honour [Full Name]” in correspondence, with letters beginning “Dear Judge.” Similarly, retired High Court judges may be addressed as “Sir [First Name]” or “Dame [First Name]” if knighted or appointed DBE, or simply “Mr/Mrs Justice [Surname] (Retired).” Retired Court of Appeal or Supreme Court judges often retain “Lord/Lady [Surname]” due to peerages, which are lifelong.

The Judiciary’s guidance does not prohibit these practices, suggesting flexibility in non-judicial settings. For example, a retired judge speaking at a legal event might be introduced with their former title, such as “Her Honour Judge [Surname] (Retired)” or “Lord Justice [Surname] (Retired).”

Practical Examples

Consider His Honour Judge Melbourne Inman KC, a retired circuit judge often referenced with his title in professional contexts, suggesting its use post-retirement as a courtesy.

Retired High Court judges, like Sir John Mummery, are frequently styled “Sir John” or “Mr Justice Mummery (Retired)” in legal publications. Lord Dyson, a former Supreme Court Justice, retains his title due to his peerage, as seen in public appearances.

Retired judges serving as arbitrators or mediators, common roles post-retirement are often introduced with their former titles in professional settings.

Conventions and Nuances

Title retention is largely customary. In legal and professional circles, using “His Honour,” “Mr Justice,” or “Lord/Lady” for retired judges is common, particularly in correspondence or when referencing their judicial contributions.

Peerages, like those for Supreme Court or Court of Appeal judges, are retained for life, ensuring continued use of “Lord/Lady.”

The Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1993, which governs judicial pensions, does not address titles but reinforces the retirement age of 75, after which judges may serve in limited capacities.

Conclusion

Retired UK judges do not officially retain their titles in formal legal contexts unless recalled to judicial roles under the Public Service Pensions and Judicial Offices Act 2022.

However, conventions outlined by the ICLR and Judiciary allow titles like “His Honour,” “Mr Justice,” or “Lord/Lady” to be used as a courtesy in professional and social settings. This practice reflects respect for their service, with variations by judicial level and context. For formal situations, clarity on a judge’s status is essential to ensure accuracy.

What are Judges Lodgings ?

Check out our articles on Judges Salaries and Fees, Dodgy Judges, Lady Chief Justice, 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 Legal Professionals

Watch UK Court Proceedings Online

Court Proceedings Videos

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

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

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

See Photography in Court for more information.

High Profile Cases Videos

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

Latest Court Proceedings Videos

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

IN FULL: Disgraced funeral director jailed for 20 years

A funeral director who failed to bury or cremate people and gave bereaved relatives the ashes of strangers was jailed for 20 years.

Some 35 bodies and more than 100 sets ...of ashes were found by police raiding Legacy Independent Funeral Directors in Hull in March 2024.

Robert Bush, 48, admitted 67 offences, including denying 30 people a decent and proper burial, theft from 12 charities, and fraudulent trading over a period of almost 12 years.

Sentencing him at Hull Crown Court, Mr Justice Hilliard told the former undertaker he had "caused anguish and pain on a scale beyond comprehension".

The court heard Bush defrauded nearly 200 families out of £562,117 and had acted out of "financial greed".

Hilliard warned that unless a body was one of those recovered by police in 2024 and properly identified, no-one who had used Legacy's cremations services "at any time can be absolutely certain they received the ashes of their loved one".

"He must have a heartless side to him - which allowed him to treat the living and the dead in the way he did, and he was very confident he would get away with what he was doing."

The judge added: "I don't think I have ever known offences affecting so many people and so deeply."

The court was told relatives of 46 people who were cremated between 2017 and 2024 were given the wrong ashes and the loved ones of another 11 never received any.

"How betrayed they now feel," said the judge.

"Husbands and wives, partners, parents, children, grandchildren, now discovering that they are left with nothing, or in some cases we heard, an empty plastic bag or a teaspoonful of ash which the police managed to recover for them."

The judge's sentencing remarks can be read in full at: https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/r-v-robert-bush/

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

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

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

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

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

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

Android https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.bskyb.skynews.android&hl=en_GBShow More
IN FULL: Disgraced funeral director jailed for 20 years
IN FULL: Disgraced funeral director jailed for 20 years
A funeral director who failed to bury or cremate people and gave ...
Whole life order for triple killer
Whole life order for triple killer
A triple killer who murdered and dismembered the bodies of two of his ...
TikTok killers' appeals dismissed
TikTok killers' appeals dismissed
Four people convicted over the deaths of two men in a high-speed car ...
Friend of Manchester synagogue attacker jailed over military base terror plot
Friend of Manchester synagogue attacker jailed over military base terror plot
A "committed jihadist" who planned an attack on a military base with ...
Teen hackers jailed over £29m TfL cyber attack
Teen hackers jailed over £29m TfL cyber attack
Two hackers who livestreamed themselves carrying out a cyber attack on ...
Brothers jailed for 1984 murder during violent spree against men they thought were gay
Brothers jailed for 1984 murder during violent spree against men they thought were gay
Two brothers were jailed for murdering a civil servant in 1984 during ...

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

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

Latest Articles ↓

Most Popular ↓

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

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

Rule of Law - Open Justice - Policing By Consent