Stacey: Allegation misconceived
The High Court has ruled that there was no misconduct by a judge who wrongly jailed a barrister for contempt of court.
Rejecting a renewed application for judicial review [1] by the barrister, and upholding a decision of the Judicial Conduct Investigation Office (JCIO), Mrs Justice Stacey said that, having read a transcript of the hearing, she agreed with the JCIO that the allegation of “aggressive and intimidatory behaviour” by the judge was misconceived.
“I find that the application for judicial review is not arguable, that the matters complained of largely fall well outside any possible definition of judicial misconduct and the allegations that could, in theory, amount to judicial misconduct are misconceived because the transcript of the hearing demonstrates that the judge did not behave in the way that was alleged.
“It is not arguable that the decisions made were unlawful, irrational or procedurally unfair.”
In December 2023, the Court of Appeal ordered the immediate release from prison [2] of Sharaz Ahmed, a barrister partner of a London law firm, after Her Honour Judge George jailed him for breach of an undertaking to the court.
On 24 November, he had been committed to prison for contempt for six weeks, of which three were to take effect immediately, and fined £9,000.
The Court of Appeal found a number of serious flaws in the way HHJ George followed the committal procedure.
These included that the contempt application was against a company, Landmark Legal, of which Mr Ahmed was a director, and not against him personally. The application also did not set out the particulars of the contempt, Mr Ahmed had not been informed of his right to protection from self-incrimination or legal advice, nor had he been advised of the availability of legal aid.
Stacey J said Mr Ahmed found his three-week stay in HMP Wandsworth “extremely difficult”. The prison “was in coronavirus lockdown conditions and he was confined to his cell for 23 hours a day, causing immense disruption to his mental wellbeing as well as his legal practice”.
After his release the barrister complained to the JCIO about HHJ George on multiple grounds, including the procedural errors she made and that she had been “aggressive and intimidating and did not give him an opportunity to speak at all”.
The JCIO decided that, other than this behaviour, the complaints fell within the definition of judicial decisions and case management and were thus rejected.
Further, an audio recording of the hearing showed that the judge’s tone was not aggressive or intimidatory. “Quite the contrary, the judge’s tone was measured, and straightforward throughout the hearing,” it said.
Stacey J agreed, describing all but the aggressive behaviour allegation as “classic examples of judicial decisions and case management that are not apt to be considered as misconduct and fall outside the scope of the JCIO remit”.
The judge said the decision on the aggressive behaviour allegation was “entirely consistent with the written transcript before the court and cannot be challenged as a fact in the absence of some obvious glaring error and there are none”.
The judge ruled that the application for judicial review was not arguable.