Though generally it does not seem to me right that judges should be given anonymity, the safety of judges and their families does complicate the issue in the Sharif case.
However, I feel many people are unaware of the huge amount of protection judges are afforded when they are the subject of complaints. The JCIO, for example, the body who investigates complaints about judges is exempt from the Freedom of Information Act (so they don’t have to respond to investigative journalists). And the JCIO make it difficult for people to know if they have a valid reason for making a complaint. They publish a list of things you can complain about in a judge’s behaviour. Then when you question them with queries about some complaint about a judge they have upheld but is not on the list, they say well our list only gives examples - it’s not meant to be exhaustive. And then sometimes a thing you can complain about one year changes, and the next year it’s not on the list. This is why critics of the JCIO have suggested it should be renamed the JPO - the Judges’ Protection Office.
And if you are thinking about referring the JCIO to the judicial Ombudsman, the JACO… don’t waste your time, it’s another Ombudsman that’s ‘not fit for purpose’ . That’s not my verdict, its Sir Martin Lewis in a report to Parliament in 2017 following his thorough investigation: ‘The Ombudsman Services are not fit for purpose’ Actually, my experience of 3 Ombudsmen suggests it’s much worse than simply not fit for purpose - read Della Reynolds’ excellent book about the PHSO Ombudsman: ‘What’s the Point of the Ombudsman.’
The clamour for ‘anonymity’ has backfired even more than the picture of Barbara Streisand’s house!
Who advised these judges to go this far in their quest for anonymity has failed to look at the bigger picture and has made a gross error of judgment because now the case has reached international prominence.
When the case is all done it will surely filter out who they were anyway like all the so-called ‘super injunctions’ did
4. The only ‘retribution’ that may arise from verdicts which effectively attempts to protect a child or punish the murderers would be from people who would be contrary to those verdicts so who would be aggrieved by the law being used to protect the victim?
Though generally it does not seem to me right that judges should be given anonymity, the safety of judges and their families does complicate the issue in the Sharif case.
However, I feel many people are unaware of the huge amount of protection judges are afforded when they are the subject of complaints. The JCIO, for example, the body who investigates complaints about judges is exempt from the Freedom of Information Act (so they don’t have to respond to investigative journalists). And the JCIO make it difficult for people to know if they have a valid reason for making a complaint. They publish a list of things you can complain about in a judge’s behaviour. Then when you question them with queries about some complaint about a judge they have upheld but is not on the list, they say well our list only gives examples - it’s not meant to be exhaustive. And then sometimes a thing you can complain about one year changes, and the next year it’s not on the list. This is why critics of the JCIO have suggested it should be renamed the JPO - the Judges’ Protection Office.
And if you are thinking about referring the JCIO to the judicial Ombudsman, the JACO… don’t waste your time, it’s another Ombudsman that’s ‘not fit for purpose’ . That’s not my verdict, its Sir Martin Lewis in a report to Parliament in 2017 following his thorough investigation: ‘The Ombudsman Services are not fit for purpose’ Actually, my experience of 3 Ombudsmen suggests it’s much worse than simply not fit for purpose - read Della Reynolds’ excellent book about the PHSO Ombudsman: ‘What’s the Point of the Ombudsman.’
The clamour for ‘anonymity’ has backfired even more than the picture of Barbara Streisand’s house!
Who advised these judges to go this far in their quest for anonymity has failed to look at the bigger picture and has made a gross error of judgment because now the case has reached international prominence.
When the case is all done it will surely filter out who they were anyway like all the so-called ‘super injunctions’ did
1. All are equal under the law ( even judges )
2. Felixstowe Justices “ there is no such thing known to law as an anonymous justice “ ( or words to that effect ) https://swarb.co.uk/regina-v-felixstowe-justices-ex-parte-leigh-ca-1987/
3. If you don’t want blowback don’t be a judge
4. The only ‘retribution’ that may arise from verdicts which effectively attempts to protect a child or punish the murderers would be from people who would be contrary to those verdicts so who would be aggrieved by the law being used to protect the victim?
The judges did not initially seek anonymity. They were not consulted before Mr Justice Williams did and said what he did.
The appeal was live streamed on YouTube and is available to watch:
14th January AM : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bE4BrMjlgE&t
14th January PM : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UIoi404I5TM
15th January AM : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=74Y0d4cgdd4
Fascinating case
Thank you.