It seems to me to be out of step with the modern world and also raises a possible freedom of speech issue. There are many lawyers who provide useful, non-biased legal commentary on social media and elsewhere who also sit as part time judges. And there are plenty of full time judges who provide commentary on the law.
My view for part time judges is that there should be guidance which advises against taking strong positions on controversial issues, and the rest should be for the usual process of self recusal and if necessary issues raised by parties if they feel a judge is not impartial. Judges are not robots and should not be expected to be, and people who want to express an occasional opinion online or contribute to a public debate should not be discouraged from becoming judges.
This also raises a potential unintended consequence - if the guidance is suggesting judges are banned from expressing opinions publicly, suggesting the two things are incompatible (as opposed to be potentially problematic but not necessarily so) parties may start to trawl their previous social media comments for reasons for their recusal.
Anyone using social media should be careful. It is a form of instant gratification but with potential long term consequences. I am watching with interest how the current Foreign Secretary is treated by the new US administration.
Sorry, Dudley. I'm very careful not to publish comments about identifiable individuals that I can't confirm or that are not legally privileged. Please don't test my patience any more. Joshua
I've responded on a non-public email address making it clear I could have provided confirmation that would stand up in a court of law. And curiously, no-one's ever sued me for libel - they wouldn't dare. I always have proof (confirmation) of what I say
It seems to me to be out of step with the modern world and also raises a possible freedom of speech issue. There are many lawyers who provide useful, non-biased legal commentary on social media and elsewhere who also sit as part time judges. And there are plenty of full time judges who provide commentary on the law.
My view for part time judges is that there should be guidance which advises against taking strong positions on controversial issues, and the rest should be for the usual process of self recusal and if necessary issues raised by parties if they feel a judge is not impartial. Judges are not robots and should not be expected to be, and people who want to express an occasional opinion online or contribute to a public debate should not be discouraged from becoming judges.
This also raises a potential unintended consequence - if the guidance is suggesting judges are banned from expressing opinions publicly, suggesting the two things are incompatible (as opposed to be potentially problematic but not necessarily so) parties may start to trawl their previous social media comments for reasons for their recusal.
Anyone using social media should be careful. It is a form of instant gratification but with potential long term consequences. I am watching with interest how the current Foreign Secretary is treated by the new US administration.
Wise advice. There's also Allison Pearson: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/11/14/three-police-forces-probe-pearson-tweet/
Wise guidelines applicable even to a lay person.
Sorry, Dudley. I'm very careful not to publish comments about identifiable individuals that I can't confirm or that are not legally privileged. Please don't test my patience any more. Joshua
I've responded on a non-public email address making it clear I could have provided confirmation that would stand up in a court of law. And curiously, no-one's ever sued me for libel - they wouldn't dare. I always have proof (confirmation) of what I say