Solicitor “cannot complain” to JCIO about judge’s criticism


Court of Appeal: Comments were part of judicial decision

The High Court has rejected a solicitor and his client’s bid to challenge the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office’s (JCIO) refusal to entertain their complaints about three Court of Appeal judges.

Mr Justice Dove agreed with the JCIO’s decision that the complaints fell within the exception in its rules for judicial decisions and case management.

Dean Gregory was the father of Indi Gregory, a baby who became critically ill and the subject of high-profile litigation over her care and treatment in autumn 2023.

Mr Justice Peel approved a care plan permitting the withdrawal of invasive treatment and its replacement with palliative care. Indi’s parents resisted this and were refused permission to take her to Italy for treatment.

Mr Gregory then applied for permission for Indi to be extubated at home rather than, as the trust proposed, in a hospice.

Peel J refused that too and Mr Gregory applied for permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal, where Lords Justice Peter Jackson and Moylan, and Lady Justice King, conducted an oral hearing and refused permission. Indi died two days later.

Mr Gregory complained to the JCIO that, in giving his ex tempore judgment, Peter Jackson LJ made “insulting” comments about both Indi’s parents and their lawyers.

Dove J explained: “In effect, [Mr Gregory] submitted, the comments amounted to making of accusations of misleading behaviour and dishonesty against the claimants. [He] submitted that this was quite inappropriate and occurred at an extraordinarily difficult time for himself and his wife.”

The second claimant was Pavel Stroilov, who was a trainee solicitor representing Mr Gregory at the time, since when he has qualified. Mr Stroilov is listed as working at Andrew Storch Solicitors, which acted for Mr Gregory, and is a legal consultant to the Christian Legal Centre.

He complained to the JCIO about the comments he considered aimed at him.

Peter Jackson LJ observed that there was “a sense of unreality” surrounding the application. “Before us the parents are seeking an order leading to an outcome that Indi should be extubated at home, but in reality they (or those who they have entrusted with their legal representation) are taking steps to prevent the court’s decision from being carried into effect at all [by seeking to transfer the proceedings to Italy]…

“Then, it transpired that during the midday break in the hearing of this appeal, Mr Pavel Stroilov, a trainee solicitor instructing Mr Quintavalle, who was in the same room as him during his submissions this morning, had sent a letter and a witness statement to [Peel J] in an apparent attempt to persuade him to reopen his welfare decision.

“Mr Quintavalle was asked a number of questions by the court about this, but I am not yet clear what he knew about this further initiative before he addressed us this morning, or what control is being exercised over the trainee solicitor’s actions in this case. I do not propose to say more about that now, but we will take whatever action seems appropriate in due course.”

Later in the ruling, Peter Jackson LJ expressed his “profound concern about the approach that has developed in this litigation”, adding: “The highest professional standards are rightly expected of lawyers practising in this extremely sensitive area.

“The court will not tolerate manipulative litigation tactics designed to frustrate orders that have been made after anxious consideration in the interests of children, interests that are always central to these grave decisions.”

The judge had earlier described the argument that the Italian authorities were better able than the English court to determine Indi’s best interests as “wholly misconceived” and that the request was “clearly contrary” to the spirit of the Hague Convention.

Mr Stroilov argued that the judge had implied that his correspondence with Peel J was “seriously inappropriate, leading to a suspicion that [he] must have sent it without proper supervision and in a manner which raised professional conduct issues for solicitors and/or counsel”.

The Italian proceedings, meanwhile, “were portrayed as an example of improper and manipulative litigation tactics designed to frustrate orders made in the UK courts”.

The other two judges both stated simply that they agreed with Peter Jackson LJ’s ruling and thus, it was submitted, associated themselves fully with all of his comments, “which they knew, or ought to have known, were improper”.

The JCIO rejected the complaints for falling foul of rule 8(c) of the Judicial Conduct Rules 2023, which prevent it from accepting complaints concerning judicial decision and case management. This decision was upheld by the Judicial Appointments and Conduct Ombudsman.

In refusing permission for a judicial review of these decisions, Dove J highlighted the “cardinal” principle of judicial independence that underlay the disciplinary rules.

Judges often needed to make findings or pass observations “which will be unwelcome or even offensive to parties or witnesses involved in the dispute”, he continued.

The protection of judicial independence also safeguarded the ability for a judge “to express conclusions in trenchant and uncompromising terms” and “to pass some observations about wider issues in the context of the case before them”. All of these activities “are part of the judge undertaking their judicial duties”.

He continued: “Once this distinction is understood, it is clear that the [JCIO] was correct not to accept the claimants’ complaints because they did not comply with rule 8(c) since on analysis they did not contain allegations of misconduct.”

Rather, they all related to Peter Jackson LJ’s judicial decision “and the way in which, fulfilling his judicial role, he expressed the judgment which he delivered in that capacity”.




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


Managing risk: a guide for law firms

Traditional risk management approaches typically focused on responding to incidents after they have occurred. Best practice today demands a more forward-thinking approach.


Legal tech in 2025: Data, data and more data management

Even the staunchest sceptics are now recognising that generative AI is here to stay. But was 2024 the year that the AI ‘hype bubble’ burst?


Understanding mid-sized law firms’ priorities in 2025

Mid-tier practices are looking to grow both organically, or by a merger/takeover, and our survey revealed that 17% of firms are intending to pursue an acquisition strategy over the next 12 months.


Loading animation