Categories
Criminal Justice Legal Professionals

Jo Morris Barrister

Jo Morris Barrister

Jo Morris is a practising criminal barrister of Drystone Chambers and a member of the Honourable Society of the Middle Temple.

On the 29th May 2026 a five-person disciplinary tribunal of the Bar Tribunals and Adjudication Service found her guilty of professional misconduct arising from remarks made at Snaresbrook Crown Court on the 3rd January 2024. The tribunal reprimanded her, imposed a fine of £3,000 and ordered her to pay costs of £3,810. She was neither suspended nor disbarred and remains entitled to practise.

An experienced criminal law barrister has been reprimanded and fined for an “outburst of racist language” when talking to a trainee police officer at Snaresbrook Crown Court.

Barrister Jo Morris fined for racist “goat farmer” remarks – Legal Futures

The words recorded by the Bar Standards Board were spoken in conference to an attending police officer. They were not uttered in open court, nor were they addressed to the complainant.

“she only wants a visa so that she doesn’t have to go back to her little goat farm where she is from”

and

“yeah, a fucking little goat farmer.”

The complainant was a woman from Pakistan who had made allegations of domestic abuse.

Barrister Johanna Morris Disciplinary FindingsDownload

Professional background

Jo Morris was called to the Bar by Middle Temple in November 2003. The Bar Standards Board register records her current status as dual capacity. A dual-capacity barrister in England and Wales works in both an employed and a self-employed capacity at the same time. Her primary practice address is Drystone Chambers, 1 Bedford Row, London.

Her practising certificate is valid from 1st April 2026 to 30th April 2027. She holds full rights of audience and is authorised to accept public access instructions. The register lists her areas of practice as crime and “other.” She is not registered for youth court work. The May 2026 finding is recorded on her public register entry.

Johanna Morris is a Grade 4 prosecutor for the Crown Prosecution Service and has been ranked as a leading junior. A Grade 4 prosecutor (Level 4) is the highest ranking on the Crown Prosecution Service Advocate Panel, reserved for experienced barristers and solicitors who handle the most serious, complex, and high-profile criminal cases.

Jo is also on the RASSO, counter terrorism and serious crime panels. She is also on the disclosure panel of the Serious Fraud Office.

Her practice encompasses serious criminal work, including homicide, sexual offences, terrorism, firearms and fraud, together with military justice and aspects of international criminal law. She is an advocacy trainer for Middle Temple and a pupil supervisor.

The incident at Snaresbrook Crown Court

On the 3rd January 2024 Morris was instructed at short notice to appear for the Crown on a bail application. The defendant was the former partner of the complainant. A trainee detective constable attended court and expressed concern for the complainant’s safety if bail were granted.

The officer informed Morris that the defence had advanced, as a ground for bail, the proposition that the defendant could assist the complainant with an application for leave to remain in the United Kingdom. The officer also made clear that the complainant did not wish the defendant to be released.

The tribunal found that the reference to the visa played a “material part” in the remarks that followed. It considered that the comments appeared to reflect a provisional view that the complainant was “playing the system” by associating allegations of domestic violence with her immigration status.

The remarks were not made in the complainant’s presence. The officer later described them as offensive and said that she felt extremely uncomfortable. Screenshots of messages she sent to a colleague formed part of the evidential record.

The charge and the tribunal’s conclusions

The allegation was one of professional misconduct contrary to Core Duty 5 of the Code of Conduct of the Bar of England and Wales (9th Edition, Version 4.7): behaving in a manner likely to diminish the trust and confidence which the public places in a barrister or in the profession.

The tribunal characterised the language as “extremely rude with obvious racist themes” and “gratuitous.”

It found “a discriminatory element,” the motivation for the conduct arising from “animosity or hostility to a person from a protected characteristic group.”

It also identified an imbalance of seniority between Morris and the trainee officer, “emphasised by the use of offensive language.”

In the tribunal’s view, the public would regard her conduct at court, in the presence of an officer concerned for the welfare of a domestic-abuse complainant, as “wholly inappropriate, unprofessional and inexcusable.”

Jo Morris initially denied using the words attributed to her but upon being shown the officer’s messages, she accepted that she must have said something to that effect.

In her statement she said that she was not a racist, but accepted that she is at times irritable and expresses herself in an “overtly robust” manner without appreciating the impact of her words.

She also allowed that the remarks may have been “some sort of off-colour and misjudged joke.” She had no recollection of the precise language, but accepted the officer’s evidence and expressed deep regret for the offence caused.

Mitigation, sanction and publication

In mitigation, the tribunal accepted that Jo Morris had “stepped into the breach” at short notice and had thereafter conducted the hearing professionally, securing onerous and appropriate bail conditions. Testimonials from judges, King’s Counsel and other practitioners indicated that the episode was, on balance, isolated.

The panel found “no indication whatsoever” in those testimonials of “racist tendencies” and described the conduct as “a complete aberration.”

Jo Morris subsequently completed an eight-week Open University course on diversity. The tribunal concluded that the misconduct did not indicate an ongoing risk to the public or a likelihood of repetition.

Jo Morris continues to practise from Drystone Chambers. Should she have been disbarred ?

Read the reviews of Junior Sussex Barrister Gavin Howe and Legal 500 Junior Barrister Eleanor Battie.

Check out our related articles on Rule of Law, Open Justice, What is Law, Is the Law Black and White ?, Branches of Law, Bullying, Harassment and Discrimination at the Bar, Blackbelt Barrister, The Secret Barrister, Barristers, Direct Access Barrister, Barristers Behaving Badly, Inns of Court, Council of the Inns of Court, Bar Standards Board, Bar Tribunal and Adjudication Services, Bar Council, Innocent until Proven Guilty and the highly questionable Sussex Family Justice Board.

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

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

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

Latest Articles ↓

Most Popular ↓

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

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

[post_title] was last updated on the 27th August 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