“Aggressive” circuit judge interrupted barrister excessively


Clerkenwell & Shoreditch County Court: Designated civil judge

A circuit judge who adopted an aggressive tone with a female barrister and interrupted her excessively has been issued with “formal advice” for misconduct.

The Judicial Conduct Investigations Office (JCIO) said His Honour Judge Richard Roberts addressed the barrister differently from the other counsel before him.

HHJ Roberts is a senior circuit judge and designated civil judge based at Clerkenwell & Shoreditch County Court in London.

The barrister complainant alleged that, whilst she was making submissions during a hearing, the judge interrupted her excessively “in an aggressive manner and with an elevated tone”.

The Guide to Judicial Conduct tells judges to treat others with courtesy, patience and tolerance, while The Statement of Expected Behaviour emphasises the importance of treating others fairly and respectfully and of maintaining composure, including when under pressure.

HHJ Roberts told the nominated (investigating) judge that he gave the complainant “all the time she needed to make her submissions”.

He accepted that he interrupted her at certain points but explained why he did so. The JCIO recorded: “He said he made points forcefully but not aggressively, though he accepted that his tone was elevated at times.

“He regretted showing frustration, He also referred to his long service as a judge and offered some mitigation related to his personal circumstances at the time.”

The nominated judge found that HHJ Roberts interrupted the complainant’s submissions so frequently as to amount to excessive intervention.

“At times, he raised his voice, and on some occasions his words and tone could reasonably be described as aggressive,” the JCIO said.

“On other occasions, his tone conveyed irritation and frustration, The nominated judge found that this was noticeably different to the way HHJ Richards addressed the opposing barristers.

“The nominated judge concluded that HHJ Roberts’ actions amounted to misconduct and recommended that he receive a sanction of formal advice.

The Lady Chief Justice, Baroness Carr, and Lord Chancellor David Lammy agreed.




Leave a Comment

By clicking Submit you consent to Legal Futures storing your personal data and confirm you have read our Privacy Policy and section 5 of our Terms & Conditions which deals with user-generated content. All comments will be moderated before posting.

Required fields are marked *
Email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Blog


The SRA needs to admit it got it wrong about SLAPPs

The High Court judgment in Ashley Hurst v SRA in January raises serious questions about the regulator’s approach to allegations of SLAPP-like behaviour.


Why menopause support belongs on every law firm’s agenda

Progression in the law slows significantly as women approach senior leadership. Most will be at the height of their careers around the average age menopause symptoms begin.


Law firms need to go beyond document checks

At the root of every failed compliance review is a familiar phrase: a calm assertion of “but we did a document check”.


Loading animation