Office for Judicial Complaints

On 23 January 2010 Cherie Booth QC, wife of Tony Blair (who until recently had been Prime Minister of the United Kingdom), was sitting as a recorder in a case where a man was found guilty violent assault in which he broke another man's jaw in a queue in a bank. Ms Booth prevented the man from going to prison. "Mrs Blair said he was a 'religious person' who had not been in trouble before."[4] A number of complaints were made to the Office for Judicial Complaints[5] pointing out that under English law everyone is equal under the law and individual religious beliefs cannot be reasons for the guilty to be given privileged treatment. On 10 June 2010 the OJC issued a statement saying that the investigation had found that "Recorder Booth’s observations did not constitute judicial misconduct".[6]

On 18 May 2010, the OJC issued a statement reporting that, following investigation, the Lord Chief Justice had given Judge Trigger 'formal advice'[7] following comments he made whilst passing sentence in a case in July 2009. He had said to the defendant that "your case illustrates all too clearly the completely lax immigration policy that exists and has existed over recent years in this country. People like you, and there are literally hundreds and hundreds of thousands of people like you, come to these shores from foreign countries to avail themselves of the generous welfare benefits that exist here."[8] The comments were found to be an "inappropriate judicial intervention in the political process".[7]

Justice Peter Smith was given a formal reprimand by the Lord Chief Justice[9] following behaviour which the Court of Appeal strongly criticised as "extraordinary", "intemperate" and "regrettable".[10] The judge, who had failed to gain a position with the law firm Addleshaw Goddard, refused to stand down from hearing a case in which a partner in the firm was a party. The Court of Appeal had concluded that "the approach adopted by the judge ... provides strong support for [counsel]'s submissions that the fair-minded and informed observer, having considered the facts, would conclude that there was a real possibility that the judge was biased against Addleshaw Goddard and its partners, one of whom is the first claimant".[10]