JCIO 82/25

   

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 Mr Morris Suckall JP with a formal warning for misconduct.

Facts

The declaration and undertaking which all magistrates sign upon appointment includes a commitment to be circumspect in their conduct and maintain the reputation and good standing of the magistracy. Similarly, the Guide to Judicial Conduct reminds judicial office-holders to always conduct themselves in ways which preserve public confidence in the judiciary. Judicial office holders are also expected to avoid posting, liking, sharing, or commenting on social media content that could undermine public confidence in their impartiality or bring the judiciary into disrepute.

In 2017, Mr Suckall made three posts on Facebook which included inappropriate commentary on politically and socially sensitive issues. The posts remained online until they were drawn to the attention of the North-East Region Conduct Advisory Committee in 2024.

Mr Suckall’s representations

Mr Suckall admitted to making all three posts but stated they were intended for a private audience. He described the posts as reactions to events and political controversies. He acknowledged that one post was unwise but rejected the suggestion that he had failed to act with circumspection.

Nominated committee member’s findings

Following an investigation under Rule 147 of the Judicial Conduct (Magistrates) Rules 2023 a nominated committee member of the North-East Region Conduct Advisory Committee found that Mr Suckall’s posts were deliberate, publicly accessible, and demonstrated ill will toward a political figure and bias against a minority group. They concluded that Mr Suckall had failed to exercise circumspection, showed limited insight, and failed to recognise the reputational risk posed by his conduct. The nominated committee member recommended that Mr Suckall receive a reprimand, the most serious sanction short of removal from office.

Decision

After careful consideration, Mr Justice Keehan and the Lord Chancellor agreed that a formal warning was a more reasonable and proportionate sanction. This was on the basis that, while Mr Suckall’s conduct was highly improper, the posts were historic and there was no evidence of a sustained pattern of behaviour. Additionally, Mr Suckall has served as a magistrate for 13 years with no other disciplinary findings against him before or since the posts were made in 2017. 
 

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