Categories
Judiciary Legal Professionals

His Honour Now His Dishonour

Circuit Judge HHJ

Andrew Easteal formerly known as His Honour Andrew Easteal has been removed from office by the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office (JCIO) for misconduct after he ‘deliberately’ deleted data which was of police interest. 

The Lord Chancellor, with the Lord Chief Justice’s agreement, has removed His Honour Judge Andrew Easteal from office for misconduct.

Judicial office-holders are expected to strive to ensure that their conduct, both in and out of court, maintains and enhances the confidence of the public, the legal profession, and litigants, in their personal impartiality and that of the judiciary. They are also expected to put the obligations of judicial office above personal interests.

Following an investigation carried out under the Judicial Conduct (Judicial and other office holders) Rules 2014 by a senior judge appointed by the Lord Chief Justice, Judge Easteal was found to have deliberately deleted data in the knowledge that it was of interest to police officers carrying out a criminal investigation. The judge denied that his intention was to frustrate the criminal investigation.

Having considered the mitigation offered by Judge Easteal, the Lord Chief Justice and Lord Chancellor agreed with the investigating judge’s finding that this was misconduct of the utmost seriousness, for which the judge should be removed from office.

STATEMENT FROM THE JUDICIAL CONDUCT INVESTIGATIONS OFFICE

Despite being removed from Office, Andrew Easteal is still on the List of Circuit Judges on the Judiciary website. This is several hours after the announcement.

Clearly not all judges are as honourable as they seem !

“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’

Check out our articles on Mr Justice Williams, His Honour Judge Melbourne Inman KC, His Honour Judge Jeremy Richardson KC, His Honour Judge Guy Kearl, HHJ Farquhar, HHJ Bedford, Dodgy Judges, Can you Criticise a Judge ?, Do you Have to Bow to a Judge ?, Can you Email a Judge ?, Can you Criticise a Judge ? 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.

[post_title] was last updated on the 23rd June 2026

By Dom Watts

Dom Watts founded the Ministry of Injustice in July 2021. Dom is an IT Professional with 30+ years experience in Tier 1 Banking, Government, Defence, Healthcare and Global Blue Chips. Dom has no legal training and is not a lawyer but has previously consulted for a Magic Circle Law Firm. You can find Dom on X or Google.

Dom Watts publishes the Ministry of Injustice as a citizen journalist. The journalism exemption is detailed in the Data protection and journalism code of practice published by the ICO and Section 124 of the Data Protection Act 2018.

Section 2 of the Defamation Act 2013 sets out the defence of truth. Section 3 of the Defamation Act 2013 sets out the defence of honest opinion. Section 4 of the Defamation Act 2013 sets out the defence of public interest. Section 8 of the Defamation Act 2013 sets out the single publication rule.

Section 4a of The Limitation Act 1980 defines the time limit for actions for defamation or malicious falsehood as one year from the date on which the cause of action accrued.

Article 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998 gives the right to freedom of expression. "This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers."

"Free speech encompasses the right to offend, and indeed to abuse another." - Para 43 Scottow v CPS [2020] EWHC 3421 (Admin)

"Free speech is a fundamental common law right" - Para 21 R v Shayler [2002] UKHL 11 [2003] 1 AC 247 per Lord Bingham and Para 42 Phillips -v- Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs [2024] EWHC 32 (Admin)

Dom is a member of The Free Speech Union

“A key issue here is the need to distinguish between conduct which, however objectionable, does not justify invoking the criminal law and conduct which crosses the line and results in criminal liability" - Para 31 R v O’Neill [2016] EWCA Crim 92 [2016]

“Harassment is generally understood to involve improper oppressive and unreasonable conduct that is targeted at an individual and calculated to produce alarm and distress” - Para 38 R v O’Neill [2016] EWCA Crim 92 [2016]

"The behaviour said to amount to harassment must reach a level of seriousness passing beyond irritations, annoyances....The gravity of the misconduct must be of an order which would sustain criminal liability" - Paras [40-44] Hayden v Dickenson [2020] EWHC 3291 (QB)

"If you tell the truth, you don't have to remember anything"

In 2002 Dom Watts was an unlikely consumer champion. The dad of three from Croydon took on the power and might of Kodak – and won...Dom on BBC Working Lunch

Rule of Law - Open Justice - Policing By Consent