You’re offline. This is a read only version of the page.
JCIO 23/26
Date: 22 June 2026
A spokesperson for the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office said:
Former magistrate Miss Lesley Pickup was subject to a disciplinary investigation following two complaints concerning her written communications. The Lord Chancellor and the Lady Chief Justice have agreed that, had Miss Pickup not resigned before the conclusion of the investigation, she would have been removed from office for gross misconduct.
Facts
On appointment, magistrates are required to maintain the dignity, standing and good reputation of the magistracy and to conduct themselves in a manner which promotes public confidence in the judiciary.
Two complaints were considered together. The first complaint concerned a letter written by Miss Pickup to a former employer, which was subsequently published online. The letter referred to Miss Pickup’s personal views on use of single-sex spaces, and it was alleged that the contents of the letter could impact on public confidence in judicial impartiality. The second complaint concerned a written comment by Miss Pickup about a member of court staff that they “did not understand the British sense of humour”, which was alleged to be intemperate and inappropriate.
Miss Pickup’s representations
Miss Pickup stated that she was unaware that her resignation letter would be published online and rejected the allegations made in relation to her communications.
Nominated Committee Member’s findings
Following an investigation under the Judicial Conduct (Magistrates) Rules 2023, a nominated committee member found that Miss Pickup was not sufficiently circumspect in her conduct in allowing her letter to enter the public domain and was therefore reckless as to the potential risk this may pose to the dignity, standing and good reputation of the magistracy. The nominated committee member found that Miss Pickup’s written comment about the member of staff did not align with core magisterial attributes of communication with sensitivity, respect and professionalism.
Disciplinary panel’s findings
The matter was subsequently considered by a disciplinary panel. In relation to the first complaint, the disciplinary panel found that Miss Pickup risked her letter entering the public domain and creating a perception of bias. The disciplinary panel found that Miss Pickup’s conduct showed little awareness of the standards expected of a magistrate in relation to social media and the sharing of personal views publicly on contentious matters, and showed no awareness around the risk of perceived bias in her role as a magistrate. In relation to the second complaint, the disciplinary panel found that Miss Pickup showed a lack of awareness regarding intemperate language and how her comment may be perceived as racially insensitive.
The disciplinary panel concluded that Miss Pickup’s conduct amounted to gross misconduct. In reaching their recommendation, the panel considered that the seriousness of the conduct was aggravated by a previous disciplinary sanction in 2022 for disruptive behaviour during an online training course and improper tone in post-course feedback, and a previous sanction in 2016 for intemperate behaviour, which the panel considered to demonstrate a pattern of behaviour and a failure to learn from earlier interventions. The disciplinary panel recommended that Miss Pickup be removed from office.
Decision
After careful consideration, the Lord Chancellor and the Lady Chief Justice agreed with the recommendation. They concluded that, had Miss Pickup not resigned, she would have been removed from office for gross misconduct.
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
