Lord Justice Edis, senior presiding judge of England and Wales, is currently reviewing courtroom security and what’s described as “violent contempt in the face of the court”. Not a moment too soon, I’m sure.
In December, a 40-year-old man pleaded guilty to assault causing actual bodily harm and criminal damage following an incident at Milton Keynes county court. It was reported that the attacker was a litigant in person who was attending a closed family hearing and that the judge was chased out of the courtroom and through his chambers before being assaulted. The judge needed hospital treatment but was home within two days.
HM Courts and Tribunals Service said the incident was “shocking” but “extremely rare”.
“My response would not have been that these incidents are isolated,” the lady chief justice of England and Wales told the Commons justice committee last month. Baroness Carr of Walton-on-the-Hill said that what had happened was “extremely serious” and had been “treated as an incident of the utmost gravity”. A serious incident review was being carried out by the senior presiding judge, among others.
Aggravated stalking
Last week, a disaffected litigant was sentenced to eight years in prison for aggravated stalking. On the face of it, that seems a long sentence. But after reading the sentencing remarks delivered by Mr Justice Saini after a two-week trial at Bristol Crown Court, one can see why the sentence was justified.
The defendant was Javed Sheikh, 43. His victim was HH Judge Simon Oliver, a specialist family judge.
From 2007 to 2009, Sheikh was worked for the Royal Brompton and Harefield Hospital NHS Trust as a trainee cardiac physiologist. He was dismissed for gross misconduct and barred from working with children or vulnerable adults. He challenged the barring decision, unsuccessfully. His appeal was heard by a tribunal chaired by Oliver.
Sheikh then began a five-year campaign of harassment of Oliver through a website he had set up for the purpose.
In his sentencing remarks, Saini told Sheikh:
Not only were highly offensive personal attacks made on Judge Oliver, but you included his home address, photographs of his house, and photographs of his children and grandchildren in the blog.
I find these were all part of the campaign to recruit others to cause Judge Oliver and his family harm both online and by encouraging personal violence. Amongst other things, you accused Judge Oliver of operating a system of taking bribes in his judicial role, including in the Upper Tribunal case which you portrayed in totally false terms.
You accused him of being a racist, a rapist and a murderer. Judge Oliver came out as a gay man in 2015 and separated from his wife. The blog heavily implied that, because of his sexual orientation, he used male prostitutes and was a paedophile…
I find that you adopted a particularly cynical approach of recruiting persons who had been unsuccessful litigants in family proceedings, particularly those in proceedings concerning young children and custody. Although your own case was not heard by Judge Oliver as a family judge, you calculated, rightly, that there was an audience for your bile amongst those who Judge Oliver may have come across in family care proceedings.
The comments on the blog, which exceeded 2000 posts, show this was a willing and gullible audience for your conspiracy theories about Judge Oliver. Their comments show they were ready to be persuaded that a judge who may have decided cases about their children against them was a vile and corrupt criminal.
All of your allegations about misconduct and crimes by Judge Oliver were totally false.
Oliver had obtained an injunction in 2019 ordering the defendant (whose name was then spelled Shaikh) to stop harassing him. Sheikh breached that order and served eight months in prison after receiving a 16-month sentence for contempt of court. That was taken into account by Saini in sentencing him to eight years imprisonment last week.
The judge also issued a series of restraining orders against Sheikh. Any breach is punishable with up to five years’ imprisonment, a longer term than is available for contempt.
Comment
The lady chief justice has told judges “in no uncertain terms” that if they do not feel it is safe for them to conduct a hearing then they should not proceed.
Family judges are particularly vulnerable. They protect the weakest members of society. But sometimes those judges need protection too.
And a case such as this needs to be more widely reported. Litigants need to know that people can spread malicious lies about family judges. And those who harass judges in this way need to know that, eventually, they will face lengthy prison sentences.