JCIO 27/26

   

A spokesperson for the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office said:

The Lady Chief Justice, with the Lord Chancellor’s agreement, has issued District Judge Nicola Murphy with formal advice for misconduct.

Facts

The Guide to Judicial Conduct states that: ‘Judicial office holders’ conduct when at court should uphold the status of judicial office, the commitment made in the judicial oath and the confidence of litigants in particular and the public in general. They should seek to be courteous, patient, tolerant and punctual and should respect the dignity of all.

The complainant, a barrister acting at a directions hearing, alleged that the judge behaved in a rude, aggressive, and bullying manner towards them. He stated that despite attempting to identify himself as counsel, the judge unjustifiably criticised his tone, refused to allow him to clarify his role as counsel, and excluded him from the hearing, leaving his client unrepresented.

The judge’s representations

The judge denied all allegations of rudeness aggression, bullying or loss of temper, stating that her conduct was a direct response to the barrister’s disrespectful and intimidating behaviour. She said that despite repeated warnings and reference to the court’s zero tolerance policy, the barrister continued to challenge the court’s authority, which led her to require his removal from the hearing. The judge explained that her approach was driven by concerns about safety and maintaining proper standards of conduct in court.

Nominated judge’s findings and recommendation

Following an investigation under the Judicial Conduct Rules 2023 a nominated judge found that at the start of the hearing, there was confusion about the identities and roles of those present after the usher introduced everyone only as “the parties”. As a result, the Judge initially mistook the barrister for his client. After the barrister explained that he was acting as his client’s representative, the judge repeatedly criticised his tone. Having reviewed the audio recording, the nominated judge concluded that the barrister was not impolite or discourteous and that the judge’s criticisms, including the invocation of a zero-tolerance policy, were unjustified. The barrister was ultimately excluded from the hearing, which proceeded without him.

The nominated judge concluded that the judge’s conduct was rude, and this was compounded by the barrister being excluding in front of the parties. The nominated judge recommended a sanction of formal advice for misconduct, and in doing so, took into account the judge’s previously unblemished record.

Decision

After careful consideration, the Lord Chancellor and the Lady Chief Justice agreed with the recommendation to issue Judge Murphy with formal advice for misconduct. 
 

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