Guidance from the Senior Presiding Judge

Okay, hands up who knows me in “Real Life”. (Whatever that means.)

Yep, quite a few of you. Well, if you know me in real life then one of the things you’re quite likely to know about me is that I’m a Magistrate.

Well, count yourself lucky. If the only way you know I’m a Magistrate is because of something you’ve read on here, or on Twitter or Facebook or anywhere else online, I hereby issue a directive requiring you to forget you ever read that. And, indeed, that you ever read this.

An email came yesterday: we’ve been issued some guidance…

Blogging by Judicial Office Holders

This guidance is issued on behalf of the Senior Presiding Judge and the Senior President of Tribunals. It applies to all courts and tribunal judicial office holders in England and Wales, and is effective immediately.

A “blog” (derived from the term “web log”) is a personal journal published on the internet. “Blogging” describes the maintaining of, or adding content to, a blog. Blogs tend to be interactive, allowing visitors to leave comments. They may also contain links to other blogs and websites. For the purpose of this guidance blogging includes publishing material on micro-blogging sites such as Twitter.

Judicial office holders should be acutely aware of the need to conduct themselves, both in and out of court, in such a way as to maintain public confidence in the impartiality of the judiciary.

Blogging by members of the judiciary is not prohibited. However, officer holders who blog (or who post comments on other people’s blogs) must not identify themselves as members of the judiciary. They must also avoid expressing opinions which, were it to become known that they hold judicial office, could damage public confidence in their own impartiality or in the judiciary in general.

The above guidance also applies to blogs which purport to be anonymous. This is because it is impossible for somebody who blogs anonymously to guarantee that his or her identity cannot be discovered.

Judicial office holders who maintain blogs must adhere to this guidance and should remove any existing content which conflicts with it forthwith. Failure to do so could ultimately result in disciplinary action. It is also recommended that all judicial office holders familiarise themselves with the new IT and Information Security Guidance which will be available shortly.

Any queries about this guidance should be directed to [name removed] at Judicial Office – Tel: 0207 [removed] Email: [removed].

I’m well aware in posting this on here I’m directly going against the guidance it contains, but simply wanted to let my readers know what has been issued so that they know why you won’t see me mention being a Magistrate online any more. I can – sort of – understand why the guidance has been issued. I’m not particularly happy about it, but as a Magistrate I’ve sworn to uphold the law regardless of whether I agree with it, and I’ll treat this guidance in the same way.

You’ll see that the guidance even goes so far as to instruct me to “remove any existing content” that conflicts with it. Well, a quick search indicates that I’ve only ever mentioned it on here about eight times in five years (now nine!), In due course I will probably comply and go back and edit all those posts that mention it. Including this one. Which I guess I’ll need to delete. Pretty fruitless, really, as all the posts will still exist in caches and backups somewhere.

I’m still waiting to hear how the excellent Magistrate’s Blog, written anonymously by Bystander, will respond. If he decides to call it a day it will be a sad loss.

As an aside, when I first saw the email, and read that guidelines had been issued on blogging, I wondered whether the judiciary were going to instruct us to refrain from blogging and using social networks at all. If that had been the case I would have seriously considered resigning from the bench.

I’m glad that I’ve not needed to consider that.

(PS: Introduction for new visitors here.)

22 thoughts on “Guidance from the Senior Presiding Judge

  1. Phil Wadner

    Making the directive retrospective does seem to be a tad OTT, because as you point out, your followers all ‘know’ what you get up to. Unless of course it has all been a fictional tale, a convincing piece of creative writing? But, in the spirit of English law, I shall forget I ever knew. Your Worship.

  2. Pingback: Judges Threatened With Disciplinary Action For Blogging About Their Day Job – Even If They Do So Anonymously | Legal Cheek

  3. Pingback: Judgment without opinion :

  4. Pingback: Judiciary silenced out of court | Lucy Reed | Technology News

  5. Pingback: Judiciary silenced out of court | Lucy Reed | Tech News

  6. Pingback: Judiciary silenced out of court | Lucy Reed | Web Guru Guide

  7. james

    Acording to the Telegraph you said as “a Magistrate I’ve sworn to uphold the law regardless of whether I agree with it, ”

    In other words, you are happy to hurt others unjustly – so long as you get paid.

    1. Trevor Post author

      That’s just what I said, yes. Can’t see how you’ve reached that conclusion from it, though.

      Oh, and magistrates don’t get paid.

      1. james

        In essence, you are agreeing to keep quiet and to treat people unjustly in order to hide the law’s “prejudices” and to comply with the law – even when you think that the law is treating people badly.

        You do get paid – in status.

        You are selling your morality for some status.

        We are supposed to have a JUSTICE system – and this means that if someone on the ‘inside’ – such as yourself – sees injustices being perpetrated by those in the legal profession – who are blindly following the law – they should speak out and protest..

        ALL decent legal professionals should do so.

        1. Trevor Post author


          Thanks for clarifying your reasoning; it’s helped me understand the point you’re making.

          Magistrates Courts are not the place where laws are made; that’s the role of the higher courts and parliament.

          As I suspect you are aware, magistrates swear an oath to “do right to all manner of people after the laws and usages of this Realm without fear or favour, affection or ill will.”

          In the eight years since taking that oath I’ve never been involved in a hearing that I feel has contributed to an injustice in the way you describe. Such a thing would clearly conflict with the oath to “do right”.

          The very nature of the blogging guidance that’s just been issued makes it difficult to give illustrative examples of what I mean by upholding the law even if I disagree with it and, in any case, inappropriate for me to continue this discussion online.

  8. Pingback: Judiciary silenced out of court | Perth Debremedhanit Medhane Alem

  9. Alex Monaghan

    How to they expect you to remove your content from the archive sites that are out there? Unless wordpress gives you decent access to all spiders that have indexed your site since creation, you’ll have no idea who has visited and / or copied (unless you want to spend days searching all possible copies)

  10. Pingback: Should judges blog? A little more detail on the new guidance | Media law and ethics

  11. Pingback: Social Media and the Judiciary « The IT Countrey Justice

  12. Pingback: Let the Judges Blog – Adam Wagner « Inforrm's Blog

  13. Pingback: What prompted concerns about extra-judicial blogging and how should new guidance be interpreted? – Judith Townend « Inforrm's Blog

What do *you* think?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

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