JCIO 20/25

A spokesperson for the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office said:

Former magistrate Ms Amie Canham, was subject to a disciplinary investigation after it became apparent that she had been subject to adverse findings in civil proceedings. The Lord Chancellor and Lady Chief Justice have agreed that, had Ms Canham not resigned before the conclusion of the investigation, she would have been removed from office for misconduct.

Facts

On appointment, magistrates sign a declaration and undertaking to be circumspect in their conduct and maintain the dignity, standing and good reputation of the magistracy at all times in their private, working and public life. They also agree to report their involvement in civil proceedings.

A matter was referred to the North-East Conduct Advisory Committee after Ms Canham informed her bench chair that she had been the subject of adverse findings in civil proceedings. Ms Canham had not declared her involvement in these proceedings prior to the adverse findings being made.

Ms Canham’s representations

Ms Canham stated that she disagreed with the outcome in the civil proceedings, but that she was not in a position to lodge an appeal.

Nominated Committee Member’s findings

Following an investigation carried out under the Judicial Conduct (Magistrates) Rules 2023, a nominated committee member found that the facts amounted to gross misconduct and recommended that Ms Canham should be removed from office. Ms Canham exercised her discretion to refer the matter to a disciplinary panel to consider the complaint.

Disciplinary Panel’s findings

The disciplinary panel found that the adverse court findings against Ms Canham, and her failure to promptly report her involvement in those proceedings, amounted to gross misconduct.

In recommending that Ms Canham be removed from office, the panel acknowledged the difficulties in Ms Canham’s circumstances, and that she had no previous findings of misconduct against her. However, they considered that Ms Canham had sought to attribute blame for the adverse findings against her, that she was critical of the court process which resulted in that finding.

Decision

After Ms Canham submitted her resignation, the Lord Chancellor and Lady Chief Justice exercised their discretion under regulation 22 of the Judicial Discipline (Prescribed Procedures) Regulations 2023 to continue to deal with the case. They agreed with the findings of the disciplinary panel that Ms Canham’s actions had breached the high standards expected of a judicial office holder and that, had she not already resigned, she would have been removed from office.

Notes for Editors

Media queries in relation to the JCIO should be made in the first instance to the Judicial Press Office - telephone 020 7073 4852 or via email - press.enquiries@judiciary.gsi.gov.uk

Sanctions for misconduct by judicial office-holders are set out in the Constitutional Reform Act 2005. They are, in order of severity: formal advice, formal warning, reprimand and removal from office.

For more information about the Office, including details on how to make a complaint against a judicial office holder, you can visit the JCIO website at: Judicial Conduct Investigations website