Category: Legal Professionals

Legal professionals study, develop and apply law

Categories
Judiciary Legal Analysis Legal Professionals

Judicial Guidance on Artificial Intelligence

Judicial Guidance on Artificial Intelligence

On the 1st October 2025, the Courts and Tribunals Judiciary published an updated version of its Artificial Intelligence (AI) Guidance for Judicial Office Holders.

This document refreshes the initial guidance that was issued in April 2025 and is available on the official judiciary website Artificial Intelligence (AI) – Judicial Guidance (October 2025) and as a downloadable PDF Artificial-Intelligence-AI-Guidance-for-Judicial-Office-Holders-2.pdf.

The guidance applies to all judicial office holders, including judges, tribunal members, clerks, judicial assistants, and support staff under the authority of the Lady Chief Justice and the Senior President of Tribunals.

Lord Justice Birss, who is the Chancellor of the High Court and Lead Judge for Artificial Intelligence, emphasised in the document’s forward the role in maintaining judicial integrity:

“The use of AI by the judiciary must be consistent with its overarching obligation to protect the integrity of the administration of justice and uphold the rule of law.”

This update reflects rapid advancements in AI technology and responds to emerging challenges, such as the proliferation of generative AI tools. It aims to promote responsible use while ensuring compliance with legal and ethical standards.

Do you think AI replace Judges ? or AI replace Lawyers ?

Background and Purpose

The guidance emerges amid growing AI adoption across public sectors, including the justice system. It builds on prior consultations and aligns with broader UK government initiatives, such as the AI Safety Summit outcomes from 2023. The document’s primary purpose is to provide clear, practical advice on AI’s integration into judicial work without compromising core principles like impartiality, accuracy, and confidentiality.

It addresses the dual nature of AI: as an efficiency enhancer for routine tasks and a potential risk for decision-making processes. The scope extends beyond judiciary staff to interactions with legal representatives and unrepresented litigants, who may increasingly use AI tools for case preparation.

By publishing the guidance online, the judiciary underscores its commitment to open justice, allowing public scrutiny and fostering trust in AI-assisted processes.

Key Principles

The guidance is structured around four core principles, each designed to guide ethical and effective AI use.

  1. Understanding AI Capabilities and Limitations: AI systems, particularly large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT or Google Gemini, process data probabilistically rather than through true comprehension. They can generate plausible but inaccurate outputs, known as “hallucinations,” such as fabricated case law or statistics. The guidance mandates that users familiarise themselves with these tools’ training data—often skewed towards US-centric or historical sources—and verify all outputs against primary legal sources.
  2. Upholding Confidentiality: Judicial work involves sensitive information protected under data protection laws, including the UK GDPR. The document prohibits inputting confidential details into public AI platforms, as providers may retain data for model improvement. Where feasible, users must disable chat histories and treat any accidental disclosures as data breaches, reportable via the judiciary’s incident management system.
  3. Ensuring Accuracy and Accountability: Personal responsibility remains paramount. Any document or decision attributed to a judicial office holder must reflect their independent judgement, even if AI assisted summarisation or drafting. The guidance stresses cross-verification: for example, AI-generated summaries of precedents require manual review of originals.
  4. Addressing Bias: AI inherits biases from its datasets, potentially exacerbating inequalities in areas like sentencing or evidence evaluation. Users are directed to the Equal Treatment Advisory Committee (ETAC) Bench Book for bias mitigation strategies, including diverse data prompts and regular audits of AI outputs.

Practical Applications

The guidance categorises AI uses into permissible administrative roles and restricted judicial functions.

Permitted applications include:

  • Document Management: Technology-assisted review (TAR) for e-disclosure, where AI flags relevant documents in large datasets, subject to human oversight.
  • Administrative Support: Drafting routine correspondence, prioritising emails, or transcribing non-sensitive meetings.
  • Research Aids: Summarising public domain materials, provided results are not relied upon without verification.

Prohibited or high-risk uses encompass:

  • Legal Analysis: AI cannot substitute for judges’ interpretation of law or facts; direct engagement with evidence is required.
  • Drafting Judgements: Core reasoning must originate from the office holder, not algorithmic generation.

For tribunal settings, AI may assist in scheduling or case triage but not in assessing witness credibility. The document includes checklists for safe deployment, such as logging AI use in case files for transparency.Risks and MitigationsSeveral risks are explicitly outlined. “Hallucinations” pose the most immediate threat, with examples of AI inventing non-existent statutes leading to miscarriages of justice in other jurisdictions. Deepfakes and manipulated evidence—such as altered audio or “white text” in images invisible to the human eye—demand forensic authentication protocols.

Mitigations include:

  • Training programmes for judiciary staff on AI literacy.
  • Procurement guidelines favouring secure, UK-hosted AI solutions over public tools.
  • Protocols for litigants: Judges should inquire about AI use in submissions and may require disclosure of generated content.

In cases of AI misuse, sanctions mirror those for traditional errors, potentially including costs orders or professional referrals.

Ethical Considerations and Future Implications

Ethics form a cross-cutting theme. The guidance aligns with the Judicial Oath and Guide to Judicial Conduct, reinforcing duties of fairness and diligence. It anticipates evolving threats, such as AI in predictive justice tools, and calls for ongoing reviews—potentially annually.

For unrepresented parties, the document advises sensitivity: AI-generated advice may mislead, so courts should promote verified resources like Citizens Advice. Broader implications include enhancing access to justice through AI transcription for hearings, balanced against equity concerns.

Conclusion

The October 2025 guidance represents a measured approach to AI in the judiciary, prioritising safeguards over unchecked innovation. By embedding accountability and verification, it ensures technology amplifies rather than erodes judicial authority.

As AI integrates further, perhaps in virtual hearings or automated small claims, the judiciary’s proactive stance will be crucial. This framework not only protects the rule of law but also positions the UK courts as leaders in ethical AI governance.

Check out the related articles on the Judiciary, 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, 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 Law Legal Professionals

Chancellor of the High Court

Chancellor of the High Court Sir Colin Birss

The Chancellor of the High Court is head of the Chancery Division and is the judge with day to day responsibility for the Business and Property Courts. 

The Chancellor of the High Court is based in the Rolls Building in the City of London along with seven centres in major cities in England and Wales, the Business and Property Courts, including the Chancery Division, deal with the resolution of business disputes and cases involving property in all its forms. 

This important work includes commercial, competition, financial, insolvency and companies, technology, digital assets, intellectual property, trusts, partnerships, mortgages and land law.

Current Chancellor of the High Court

The latest Chancellor of the High Court, Sir Colin Birss, was sworn in, by the Lady Chief Justice, at a ceremony in the Royal Courts of Justice on Monday 3 November.

I am – we all are – delighted to welcome Colin as he takes up appointment. The Chancery Division is in extremely safe and able hands. I am in no doubt that he will make a fine Chancellor… With the utmost warmth we wish him well as he takes up his important duties.

Lady Chief Justice

The Rt Hon Lord Justice Colin Birss was called to the Bar in 1990 and took Silk in 2008.

He started his judicial career as a Deputy Chairman of the Copyright Tribunal in 2009.

He was later appointed as a Senior Circuit Judge in 2010, as a High Court Judge assigned to the Chancery Division in 2013 and as a Judge of the Court of Appeal in 2021.

He became the Deputy Head of Civil Justice in 2020 and is currently Lead Judge for Artificial Intelligence.

I am honoured to be sworn in as Chancellor of the High Court and I am excited to bring the experience I have gained as Deputy Head of Civil Justice to this unique role. I look forward to working with all the judges of the Business and Property Courts to provide access to justice and ensure timely and fair resolution of the disputes in these courts, promoting the rule of law.

Chancellor of the High Court Sir Colin Birss

Historical Development

The position originated in the medieval Court of Chancery, established in the 14th century to provide equitable remedies beyond common law limitations, such as trusts and specific performance. The Lord Chancellor led this court, but inefficiencies led to reforms.

The Chancery Act 1851 created vice-chancellors to assist. The Judicature Acts 1873–1875 merged law and equity into the High Court, abolishing the separate Chancery court.

The role revived in 1971 as Vice-Chancellor under the Administration of Justice Act 1970. The Senior Courts Act 1981 designated it vice-president of the Chancery Division. The Constitutional Reform Act 2005 renamed it Chancellor of the High Court, effective 1st October 2005, to enhance judicial independence.

Responsibilities

The Chancellor manages the Chancery Division, which handles civil cases in business, property, intellectual property, probate, trusts, insolvency, and competition law.

Principal duties:
  • Administrative oversight: Case allocation and policy with the Lord Chief Justice.
  • Judicial functions: Hearing appeals in the Court of Appeal (Civil Division) requiring Chancery expertise.
  • Governance: Participation as a Privy Counsellor.

Appointments are made by the King on Prime Minister’s advice from Court of Appeal judges.

Case CategoryExamples
Business & CommercialShareholder disputes, partnerships
PropertyMortgages, land boundaries
Intellectual PropertyPatents, trademarks
Trusts & InsolvencyWills, bankruptcies

Notable Former Chancellors of the High Court

  • Sir Raymond Evershed (1971–1977): Former Master of the Rolls.
  • Sir Robert Megarry (1977–1985): Author of property law texts.
  • Sir Richard Scott (1994–2000): Led arms-to-Iraq inquiry.
  • Sir Andrew Morritt (2000–2011): Managed digital reforms.
  • Sir Geoffrey Vos (2016–2021): Introduced online resolution; later Master of the Rolls.
  • Sir Julian Flaux (2021–2025): Retired 1 November 2025.

Image of Chancellor of the High Court Sir Colin Birss – Courts and Tribunals Judiciary

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

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

Latest Articles ↓

Most Popular ↓

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

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

Categories
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.

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
Government Law Legal Professionals

Government Legal Profession (GLP)

Government Legal Profession (GLP)

The Government Legal Profession (GLP) is the collective network of qualified lawyers embedded across UK government departments and agencies, providing expert legal advice, litigation support, policy guidance, and compliance services to ensure the government operates within the rule of law.

As of 2025, the GLP operates under the Civil Service umbrella and serves as the government’s primary in-house legal resource. The Government Legal Department (GLD) serves as the principal legal adviser to the UK Government.

The Government Legal Profession (GLP) was formally known as The Government Legal Service (GLS).

Key Roles and Functions

The GLP comprises thousands of qualified lawyers (including solicitors, barristers, and chartered legal executives) embedded across government departments, agencies, and devolved administrations.

The government is our sole client.

Whether the government is creating new laws, buying goods and services, or defending its decisions in court, it needs significant levels of legal advice on a range of complex issues.

To carry out this work, the government needs its own lawyers and legal trainees who understand its business.

Government Legal Profession – About Us

Their work is diverse and spans advisory, legislative, litigation, commercial, and employment law. Unlike private practice, the government’s interests are their sole client, requiring lawyers to balance legal rigor with policy considerations, public interest and political sensitivity.

Area of WorkDescriptionExamples
Advisory & Policy SupportProviding legal advice on policy development, ensuring compliance with existing laws, and assessing risks for new initiatives. Lawyers collaborate with ministers, policymakers, and officials to implement manifesto commitments.Advising on whether policies require new legislation; drafting secondary regulations (e.g., Statutory Instruments) that directly impact communities.
Legislative WorkAssisting in creating and scrutinising bills, guiding them through Parliament, and supporting ministers in debates.Preparing proposals for primary legislation; working with the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel to ensure laws are enforceable and withstand judicial review.
LitigationRepresenting the government in courts and tribunals, from employment disputes to high-profile constitutional cases in the Supreme Court.Handling judicial reviews, human rights claims, national security matters, and public interest immunity cases; managing a high volume of cases with broader policy implications.
Commercial LawAdvising on procurement, contracts, intellectual property, and state aid to maximise value for public money and minimise spending risks.Developing procurement strategies; negotiating supplier contracts for large-scale projects.
Employment LawSupporting HR functions across government, including policy advice, compliance training, and tribunal representation.Handling non-contentious issues like employment policies; litigating in Employment Tribunals and Appeals.

Structure and Leadership

Impact and Unique Aspects

GLP lawyers enable the government to “govern well within the rule of law” by ensuring policies are legally sound, legislation is robust, and disputes are resolved with public interest in mind.

Their work often involves high-stakes, public-facing issues and contributes to delivering public services efficiently. The rebranding from GLS to GLP highlighted a shift toward viewing government legal work as a unified profession, fostering collaboration across government. For more details, including career opportunities, visit the official GOV.UK page: Government Legal Profession.

Government Legal Department careers

Information on the Trainee Solicitor and Pupil Barrister opportunities available within government departments is published in the Legal trainee scheme guidance.

Information regarding the application and assessment process for the legal trainee scheme is published in the guidance Legal trainee scheme: how to apply.

Legal trainee recruitment enquiries
Recruitment Team
11th Floor, Lower Castle Street
Castlemead
Bristol
BS1 3AG
United Kingdom

Email : [email protected] / Tel : 0117 923 4417

The UK Government’s Government Legal Profession (GLP) also recruits qualified lawyers (barristers, solicitors and chartered legal executives) to provide legal services across departments, primarily through the Government Legal Department (GLD). Information regarding career development, flexible working, salaries and training opportunities is also published as guidance Working for GLP.

Qualified lawyer vacancies across government are advertised on the Civil Service Jobs Website.

The Civil Service is an equal opportunities employer.

Check out the related articles on the Government Legal Department (GLD), Attorney General, Solicitor General, 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
Criminal Justice Government Law Legal Analysis Legal Professionals

Serious Fraud Office (SFO)

Serious Fraud Office (SFO)

The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) serves as a vital independent government department in the United Kingdom, tasked with investigating and prosecuting instances of serious fraud, bribery, and corruption. The SFO is overseen by the Attorney General.

As a dedicated watchdog, it protects public confidence in financial systems and maintains the UK’s position as a leading international financial centre. In today’s interconnected and rapidly evolving economic environment, the SFO addresses threats that span borders and pose significant risks to individuals and the wider economy.

The SFO 2024-2029 Strategy emphasises a bold, pragmatic approach alongside efficient resource management, despite ongoing budgetary challenges. This article outlines the SFO’s historical development, operational framework, leadership structure, key prosecutions, and recent initiatives, illustrating its critical role in upholding justice and economic stability.

The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) fights complex financial crime, delivers justice for victims and protects the UK’s reputation as a safe place to do business.

SFO is a non-ministerial department.

Serious Fraud Office – What We Do

HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate (HMCPSI) holds a statutory duty to inspect the operations of the Serious Fraud Office (SFO).

Historical Development

The establishment of the Serious Fraud Office emerged from the financial turbulence of the 1980s, when major scandals prompted demands for improved corporate governance and criminal accountability. The Guinness share-trading fraud, involving the artificial inflation of share prices during a corporate takeover, highlighted the limitations of conventional police investigations in handling such complexities.

Consequently, the Criminal Justice Act 1987 created the SFO, operational from April 1988, as a specialised entity to identify, investigate, and prosecute the most severe forms of financial misconduct. This initiative drew from the 1986 Roskill Committee’s recommendations, which called for an integrated body combining investigative and legal expertise.

A distinguishing feature of the SFO is its unified model, allowing simultaneous investigation and prosecution under the oversight of the Attorney General, which balances accountability with operational autonomy.

Over more than three decades, the agency has adapted to new challenges, including the aftermath of the 2008 global financial crisis and the rise of international bribery networks.

Its jurisdiction extends to England, Wales, and Northern Ireland, excluding Scotland and the Crown Dependencies, in line with the UK’s devolved legal arrangements. Official records demonstrate how the SFO has transitioned from a primarily reactive role to one focused on proactive prevention.

Mandate, Powers, and Operations

The SFO focuses on offences that cause substantial harm to the public interest, such as economic disruption, damage to the UK’s international reputation, or cases requiring specialised expertise. The Director authorises investigations based on rigorous criteria set out in the Criminal Justice Act 1987, including powers for compulsory interviews (section 2) and the execution of search warrants.

Additional tools include asset recovery through confiscation orders and Deferred Prosecution Agreements (DPAs), which encourage corporate cooperation and remediation.

Beyond domestic efforts, the SFO engages in international collaboration, sharing intelligence on cross-border schemes. During the 2024-2025 fiscal year, it prioritised swift resolutions by closing protracted legacy cases to concentrate on high-potential investigations.

Recent developments, such as the joint SFO-Crown Prosecution Service guidance on corporate prosecutions released in August 2025, strengthen procedures by incorporating provisions like Section 51B of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 for more precise judicial oversight in complex fraud matters. These measures reflect the SFO’s determination to counter an increasingly sophisticated array of economic crimes.

Landmark SFO Cases

The SFO’s record includes pivotal cases that have influenced corporate accountability standards. The 1980s Guinness Share Trading Fraud, involving the manipulation of share prices during a takeover bid, resulted in convictions for insider dealing and false accounting against key figures, including Guinness CEO Ernest Saunders, establishing foundational precedents on market manipulation under the Criminal Justice Act 1987.

In international defence dealings, the 2010 BAE Systems settlement with the SFO imposed a £30 million penalty for accounting irregularities related to a £28 million overpriced military radar system sold to Tanzania in 1999, including undisclosed commission payments; this paralleled a US $400 million fine for Saudi-related issues, marking an early milestone in coordinated global anti-corruption efforts.

Investigations into Barclays Bank, one of the UK’s leading multinational investment banks, have played a prominent role in two major SFO cases.

In the first, concerning the 2008 Qatari fundraising scandal during the global financial crisis, the SFO launched a 2017 prosecution alleging fraud by false representation. This centred on secret £322 million fees linked to a £4 billion emergency capital injection from Qatar.

The case concluded in 2020 with the acquittal of three senior executives, including former CEO John Varley was a significant blow to the SFO.

The second involved Barclays’ role in the Libor manipulation scandal, resulting in the 2016 convictions of three ex-traders—Jonathan Mathew (four years’ imprisonment), Jay Merchant (six-and-a-half years), and Alex Pabon (two-and-a-half years suspended)—for conspiracy to defraud, with total custodial terms surpassing 10 years.

Yet, the September 2025 Supreme Court judgment overturned related convictions of Tom Hayes and Carlo Palombo owing to erroneous jury guidance on dishonesty. In response, the SFO acknowledged that the Barclays outcomes might also be unsafe.

Organisational Structure and Leadership

Headquartered in London, the SFO employs approximately 500 staff, including barristers, solicitors, forensic accountants, and digital specialists, organised into divisions for operations, legal services, intelligence and policy.

Nick Ephgrave QPM, was appointed Director of the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) on the 25th September 2023 and brings extensive experience from senior positions at the Metropolitan Police Service and the Crown Prosecution Service. Nick Ephgrave has prioritised innovation, as highlighted in his February 2024 speech to the Royal United Services Institute, where he advocated for a more assertive institutional culture.

Claire Bassett is the interim Chair of the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) Board.

The SFO Declaration of Interests shows Financial and other interests declared by the Director, Non-Executive Directors and other board members, including details of any recusals.

Serious Fraud Office (SFO)
2-4 Cockspur Street
London
SW1Y 5BS
United Kingdom

Tel : 020 7362 8100 / Email : [email protected]

His Honour Judge Melbourne Inman KC (Retired) – The High Court Judge That Never Was ! Serious Fraud by the Judiciary ? Can you Email a Judge ?

Check out the related articles on the Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate, Crown Prosecution Service, Victims’ Right to Review (VRR), 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
Criminal Justice Government Law Legal Analysis Legal Professionals

HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate (HMCPSI)

HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate (HMCPSI)

HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate (HMCPSI) is an independent statutory body established by the Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate Act 1999, becoming fully operational in April 2000.

HMCPSI holds a statutory duty to inspect the operations of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) which is responsible for over 500,000 prosecutions annually in England and Wales and the Serious Fraud Office (SFO), which handles complex fraud and corruption cases.

The purpose of inspection is to drive improvements and build public confidence in the prosecution process. Our inspections do this by providing independently assessed evidence, which:

While we may make recommendations in our reports, we are not a regulator, and do not have any power to enforce compliance.

HMCPSI has a statutory duty to inspect the operation of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) and the Serious Fraud Office (SFO).

Historical Background

HMCPSI’s origins trace back to the late 1990s amid concerns over the CPS’s performance following its creation in 1986.

The pivotal Glidewell Review of 1998 commissioned by the government, exposed inefficiencies and recommended an independent inspectorate to monitor prosecutorial standards.

This led to the Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate Act 2000, which formalised HMCPSI as a statutory entity in 2000.

Role and Responsibilities

At its core, HMCPSI’s mandate is to inspect the CPS and SFO delivering independent assessments that drive systemic enhancements.

Inspections evaluate case handling, decision-making, and resource allocation, culminating in reports that highlight strengths, weaknesses and actionable recommendations.

While it cannot enforce changes, HMCPSI’s findings empower stakeholders, including Parliament and the Attorney General, to hold agencies accountable. Additionally, it extends expertise to other UK and international prosecution services through collaborative arrangements promoting best practices globally.

Transparency is paramount: methodologies are openly documented, ensuring credibility and fostering trust in the justice process.

We are part of the solution to improving the Criminal Justice System through high quality inspection.

  • We hold the CPS and SFO to account for what they deliver (we make recommendations that drive improvement)
  • Victims will be at the heart of inspection (where we can, we will use victim experience in our inspection)
  • Using our 25 years of experience we will help public prosecutors improve (their legal casework)
  • Inspection will identify and spread best practice
HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate (HMCPSI) Vison Statement

Organisational Structure and Leadership

HMCPSI operates as a lean, specialised organisation, comprising around 40 staff members divided into inspection, policy, and support teams. The inspection division, led by two Deputy Chief Inspectors, conducts fieldwork and compiles evidence-based reports.

At the helm is the Chief Inspector, appointed by the Attorney General for a fixed term. In January 2025, Anthony Rogers, a seasoned prosecutor with extensive CPS experience, assumed this role, bringing fresh perspectives on efficiency and victim support.

Reporting directly to the Attorney General, the leadership ensures strategic direction aligns with evolving justice priorities.

The operational relationship between the Attorney General and the Chief Inspector is set out in a protocol agreed between the Law Officers (the Attorney General and Solicitor General) and the Chief Inspector.

Recent Activities and Impact

HMCPSI’s 2024-2025 annual report underscores ongoing strains on the criminal justice system, including backlogs exacerbated by post-pandemic recovery.

Key outputs include a follow-up inspection on joint CPS-police operations, where progress was noted on two of four recommendations, and an area review of CPS Yorkshire and Humberside, the third in a phased programme, revealing improvements in case progression but gaps in victim communication. These efforts have spurred tangible reforms, such as enhanced training, affirming HMCPSI’s influence despite resource constraints.

The HMCPSI publish the latest press releases and good practice on their website.

You can contact HMCPSI :-

HMCPSI
7th Floor, Tower
102 Petty France
London SW1H 9GL

Tel : 020 4574 3218 / Email : [email protected]

Check out our related articles on the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) Complaints and Feedback, Rule of Law, Open Justice, Victims’ Right to Review (VRR), 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
Government Law Legal Professionals

The Office of the Parliamentary Counsel

The Office of the Parliamentary Counsel

The Office of the Parliamentary Counsel (OPC) is a non-ministerial department within the Cabinet Office and employs specialist government lawyers who draft all government bills presented to Parliament.

The Office of the Parliamentary Counsel converts departmental policy instructions into legislative text that is clear, workable, and designed for enduring use. Subject to parliamentary examination, its output maintains the rule of law by reconciling government intentions with principles of judicial enforceability.

The Office of the Parliamentary Counsel publish guidance about the drafting of legislation, produced by the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel for members of that office.

The Legislative process: taking a bill through Parliament is an overview of the process by which bills become law.

History and Establishment

The origins of the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel (OPC) lie in the mid-19th century, when demands grew for standardised legislative drafting to address inconsistencies in government bills.

Prior to 1869, bill preparation was inconsistent: some were drafted by the Home Office counsel for multiple departments, others by independent counsel or departmental officials, resulting in variations that affected the coherence of the statute book.

The OPC was established on 8 February 1869 by a Treasury Minute as a two-year experiment to settle all departmental bills and draft other government bills (excluding those for Ireland and Scotland). Henry Thring was appointed as the inaugural full-time head, with one assistant. In January 1871, a further Treasury Minute made the arrangement permanent, commending Thring’s improvements to bill preparation.

Initially part of HM Treasury, the OPC expanded gradually with rising legislative demands. By 1901, it comprised one Parliamentary Counsel, an assistant, and support staff. Additional Parliamentary Counsel were appointed in 1914 and 1930. By the 1960s, the office had grown to 16 lawyers and support staff.

In 1969, the OPC transferred to the new Civil Service Department and adopted its current name. Following the department’s dissolution in 1980, it became part of the Cabinet Office, where it remains.

Role and Functions

At its core, the OPC drafts all government bills introduced to Parliament, engaging from policy inception through to enactment. This iterative process involves close collaboration with departments, refining drafts to ensure coherence and workability.

Beyond bills, it prepares amendments, reviews subordinate legislation amending primary Acts, and advises on parliamentary procedure and constitutional matters. A dedicated team partners with the Law Commission on reforms and consolidations.

The OPC also fosters legislative excellence through training for Government Legal Department lawyers and publishing guidance, such as the 2022 Common Legislative Solutions guide on penalties and policy devices.

Its counsel, qualified barristers and solicitors, prioritise “good law”: necessary, effective, coherent, and accessible statutes that withstand scrutiny.

Structure and Operations

Headquartered at 1 Horse Guards Road in London, the OPC operates as a nimble unit of 46 counsel and 7 support staff, led by the First Parliamentary Counsel, currently Jessica de Mounteney.

Email : [email protected]

Telephone : +44 (0)20 7276 6586

Check out our related articles on Attorney General, Solicitor General, 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 Kingdomhttps://www.linkedin.com/in/amy-sevier-995b1712b/Ministry 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 Kingdomhttps://www.linkedin.com/in/abbas-mithani-98765432/Specialist 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 Englandhttps://uk.linkedin.com/in/anne-molyneux-678def90/Recorder background; featured in JAC case studies on judicial careers.
Joanne CloughDeputy Upper Tribunal Judge (Administrative Appeals Chamber)United Kingdomhttps://www.linkedin.com/in/joanne-clough-abc123de/Fee-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.

Rule of Law - Open Justice - Policing By Consent