“Rude” judge sanctioned after throwing barrister out of court


Barrister: Initially confused for client

A district judge who was rude to a barrister before throwing him out of court in front of his client has been given formal advice for misconduct.

The Judicial Conduct Investigations Office said it rejected District Judge Nicola Murphy’s contention that the barrister had been disrespectful and intimidating towards her.

The JCIO said the complainant, a barrister acting at a directions hearing, alleged that the judge behaved in a rude, aggressive and bullying manner towards him.

He claimed that, despite attempting to identify himself as counsel, the judge “unjustifiably” criticised his tone, refused to allow him to clarify his role as counsel, and excluded him from the hearing, leaving his client unrepresented.

The judge denied any allegation of rudeness, aggression, bullying or loss of temper, stating that her conduct was “a direct response to the barrister’s disrespectful and intimidating behaviour”.

She said that, despite repeated warnings and reference to the court’s zero tolerance policy, the barrister continued to challenge the court’s authority, which led her to require his removal from the hearing.

The judge said her approach was driven by “concerns about safety and maintaining proper standards of conduct in court”.

The judge nominated to investigate the matter found that, at the start of the hearing, there was confusion about the identities and roles of those present after the usher introduced everyone only as “the parties”.

As a result, the judge initially mistook the barrister for his client. After the barrister explained that he was acting as his client’s representative, the judge repeatedly criticised his tone.

The JCIO said: “Having reviewed the audio recording, the nominated judge concluded that the barrister was not impolite or discourteous and that the judge’s criticisms, including the invocation of a zero-tolerance policy, were unjustified.

“The barrister was ultimately excluded from the hearing, which proceeded without him.

“The nominated judge concluded that the judge’s conduct was rude, and this was compounded by the barrister being excluding in front of the parties.”

The nominated judge recommended a sanction of formal advice for misconduct, taking into account the judge’s previously unblemished record.

The Lady Chief Justice, Baroness Carr, and Lord Chancellor David Lammy agreed and issued Judge Murphy with the formal advice.




    Readers Comments

  • Muhammad Sadiq says:

    It’s very good conclusion, bench and bar part of judicial system, they should need to deal with good behaviour each other.

  • Hally says:

    A great proportion of these judges are in dire need of retraining and investigation


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


Is the legal profession ready for agentic AI?

An AI agent is difficult to supervise. By design, it works in the background. It means a solicitor can be held responsible for work they had no real means to oversee.


Why firms stall in adopting AI and how to unlock real progress

If your firm is hesitating on AI, it’s almost never the technology that’s in the way. What stalls adoption is everything that surrounds the tool.


Home-buying reform must focus on experience, not just technology

Buyers and sellers don’t judge their experience by the number of digital platforms they use or the technology operating behind the scenes.


Loading animation