You’re offline. This is a read only version of the page.
JCIO 56/25
Date: 13 January 2026
A spokesperson for the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office said:
Mr Justice Keehan, on behalf of the Lady Chief Justice and with the Lord Chancellor’s agreement, has issued Mrs Jill Clarke JP with formal advice for misconduct.
Facts
On appointment, magistrates sign a declaration and undertaking which includes an agreement to report, without exception, any impending criminal or civil proceedings against them, or in which they become involved in any capacity, and of the outcome.
The Useful Information for Magistrates leaflet published by the Ministry of Justice (2020) reminds magistrates to be mindful of the perceptions that can be created from the use of the suffix JP, and to be careful with regard to its use for personal references particularly where it relates to court proceedings.
Mrs Clarke was referred to the Midlands Conduct Advisory Committee after belatedly advising her bench chair that she had provided a statement to the police in the investigation into a criminal prosecution. She provided the statement to the police in 2019, and notification was not made to the bench chair until January 2025. She also submitted a character reference to the defendant’s solicitors in which she accidently included the JP suffix..
Mrs Clarke’s representations
Mrs Clarke apologised for her actions and explained that she did not think giving a statement to the police would impact on her position as a magistrate or reflect negatively upon the reputation of the magistracy. She said she had not purposely misled or not informed HMCTS and as soon as she became aware of her obligation to report she kept her bench chair updated.
She also said she had not realised her character reference had included her JP suffix until the secretary to the Midlands Conduct Advisory Committee raised this with her. She apologised for this oversight and explained she had later re-submitted the reference and removed the suffix.
Nominated Committee Member’s Findings
The matter was considered by a nominated committee member of the Midlands Conduct Advisory Committee in accordance with the Judicial Conduct (Magistrates) Rules 2023.
The nominated committee member found that, given the high standards of conduct expected of a judicial office holder, and the length of time before the matter was reported, there had been some potential reputational harm. The nominated committee member concluded that while she had not deliberately tried to hide her involvement in the criminal proceedings, Mrs Clarke’s conduct was sufficiently improper to amount to misconduct. The inclusion of the JP suffix in the initial character reference to the defendant’s solicitors demonstrated a lack of care and attention to detail, which, while not deemed misconduct in itself, was an aggravating factor.
Decision
The nominated committee member took into consideration Mrs Clarke’s engagement with the conduct investigation, her apology and her long and previously unblemished service. Mr Justice Keehan and the Lord Chancellor agreed with the findings and issued Mrs Clarke with formal advice.
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
