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.’
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 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.
The judges did not initially seek anonymity. They were not consulted before Mr Justice Williams did and said what he did.