You’re offline. This is a read only version of the page.
JCIO 85/25
Date: 17 March 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 Mr Derek Muhammad JP of the Bedfordshire Bench with formal advice for misconduct.
Facts
Magistrates sign a declaration and undertaking on appointment to act with circumspection and maintain the dignity, standing and good reputation of the magistracy at all times. The Guide to Judicial Conduct and Social Media Guidance for the Judiciary caution judicial officeholders against behaviour, even in their private life, which could reduce respect for judicial office or cast doubt on their independence, impartiality or integrity.
A complaint was made by a member of the public that Mr Muhammad had made a comment in a private WhatsApp group which was perceived by the complainant to be racially prejudiced. The complainant reported experiencing distress as a result of the comment.
Mr Muhammad’s representations
Mr Muhammad denied the comment was racist. He said it had been taken out of its context, which was a private intellectual discussion about the complex legacy of Winston Churchill and the colonial history of Britain. He said it was a criticism of colonial exploitation. He cited his own heritage and argued that it is not credible to suggest he harbours racial animus toward people with whom he shares ancestry. He cited his long, unblemished record of public service. He suggested that the complaint was vexatious and insincere.
Nominated committee member’s findings and recommendations
Following an investigation under the Judicial Conduct (Magistrates) Rules 2023, a nominated committee member of the South-East Region Conduct Advisory Committee found that Mr Muhammad posted the comment, and this was racially inappropriate as it could be interpreted as expressing a negative view of people from a particular group or background. The nominated committee members found that, regardless of Mr Muhammad’s intention or actual belief, the comment could be perceived to call into question his impartiality, independence or integrity. This amounted to misconduct.
The nominated committee member noted Mr Muhammad’s failure to show remorse or awareness of how his comment could be perceived, despite being an experienced magistrate, appointed in 2007. However, in recommending a sanction of formal advice, the nominated committee member noted that it was a single comment posted in a private group and that Mr Muhammad did not intend to cause offence. She further acknowledged his previously unblemished conduct record.
Decision
Having considered the mitigation offered by Mr Muhammad, Mr Justice Keehan and the Lord Chancellor agreed with the nominated committee member’s recommendation.
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
