Members of the judiciary must avoid expressing controversial opinions online even if they do so anonymously, according to strict new rules, in case they are one day identified.

Those who have previously posted comments on the internet have even been told to delete them or face sanctions.

One JP has already agreed to remove references to his role from his blog despite being “not particularly happy about it”, while another recently resigned from the magistracy after being ordered to stop making comments on her website or in the press.
There is anger in legal circles at the official guidance given that senior judges are allowed to give interviews and publish books or articles, and one has even launched a campaign to promote marriage.

The rules have been set out by Lord Justice Goldring, the Senior Presiding Judge, who last week was forced to back down after making a surprise attempt to stop magistrates standing as Police and Crime Commissioners.

In the leaked guidance issued last week he wrote: “Judicial office holders should be acutely aware of the need to conduct themselves, both in and out of court, in such a way as to maintain public confidence in the impartiality of the judiciary.
“Blogging by members of the judiciary is not prohibited. However, officer holders who blog (or who post comments on other people’s blogs) must not identify themselves as members of the judiciary. They must also avoid expressing opinions which, were it to become known that they hold judicial office, could damage public confidence in their own impartiality or in the judiciary in general.

“The above guidance also applies to blogs which purport to be anonymous. This is because it is impossible for somebody who blogs anonymously to guarantee that his or her identity cannot be discovered.
“Judicial office holders who maintain blogs must adhere to this guidance and should remove any existing content which conflicts with it forthwith. Failure to do so could ultimately result in disciplinary action.”

The judge said the guidance, which is “effective immediately” and covers comments on “micro-blogging sites such as Twitter”, applies to all holders of judicial office in courts and tribunals. This would include many barristers who sit as part-time judges and who use social media services such as Twitter and LinkedIn to discuss their cases at the bar.

It could cause fresh trouble for magistrates standing in November's police commissioner elections who had hoped to campaign online.

Trevor Coultart, a magistrate who first published the guidance, wrote on his blog: “I can – sort of – understand why the guidance has been issued. I’m not particularly happy about it, but as a Magistrate I’ve sworn to uphold the law regardless of whether I agree with it, and I’ll treat this guidance in the same way.”
He said he would have to delete all his previous references to his role on the bench even though it would be “pretty fruitless” because they would still be visible through internet searches.

The author of another blog called The Justice of the Peace claimed the “patronising” directive was aimed solely at magistrates and said: “My interpretation of this statement is that it seeks to curb my right of free speech to express opinions which might or might not be those of the official organs involved.
“I have for example frequently criticised the Crown Prosecution Service amongst others within the judicial system. I have used actual incidents carefully camouflaged and edited to preserve total and complete anonymity of all parties concerned.
“Is such knowledge made public a possible cause of damage to public confidence in my or my colleagues` impartiality or the judiciary in general? I would answer that it is not.”

In June this year the Office for Judicial Complaints announced that Mrs Shay Clipson, who had been the country’s only Romany magistrate, had resigned from the bench after being accused of making “inappropriate comments”.
“A letter was sent to Mrs Clipson requesting that she remove her blog from the internet and to refrain from comment through the press, her website or any other medium. If she did not, she would be removed from the magistracy.”
It comes after the second most senior judge in the country, Lord Neuberger, warned that members of the judiciary are in danger of “devaluing the coinage” by giving too many speeches and “risk undermining” their independence by commenting on Government policy.

He singled out for criticism an Appeal Court judge, Lord Justice Stanley Burnton, who appeared as an “amateur food critic” on an episode of Masterchef.

(Source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/)

Members of the judiciary must avoid expressing controversial opinions online even if they do so anonymously, according to strict new rules, in case they are one day identified.

Those who have previously posted comments on the internet have even been told to delete them or face sanctions.

One JP has already agreed to remove references to his role from his blog despite being “not particularly happy about it”, while another recently resigned from the magistracy after being ordered to stop making comments on her website or in the press.
There is anger in legal circles at the official guidance given that senior judges are allowed to give interviews and publish books or articles, and one has even launched a campaign to promote marriage.

The rules have been set out by Lord Justice Goldring, the Senior Presiding Judge, who last week was forced to back down after making a surprise attempt to stop magistrates standing as Police and Crime Commissioners.

In the leaked guidance issued last week he wrote: “Judicial office holders should be acutely aware of the need to conduct themselves, both in and out of court, in such a way as to maintain public confidence in the impartiality of the judiciary.
“Blogging by members of the judiciary is not prohibited. However, officer holders who blog (or who post comments on other people’s blogs) must not identify themselves as members of the judiciary. They must also avoid expressing opinions which, were it to become known that they hold judicial office, could damage public confidence in their own impartiality or in the judiciary in general.

“The above guidance also applies to blogs which purport to be anonymous. This is because it is impossible for somebody who blogs anonymously to guarantee that his or her identity cannot be discovered.
“Judicial office holders who maintain blogs must adhere to this guidance and should remove any existing content which conflicts with it forthwith. Failure to do so could ultimately result in disciplinary action.”

The judge said the guidance, which is “effective immediately” and covers comments on “micro-blogging sites such as Twitter”, applies to all holders of judicial office in courts and tribunals. This would include many barristers who sit as part-time judges and who use social media services such as Twitter and LinkedIn to discuss their cases at the bar.

It could cause fresh trouble for magistrates standing in November's police commissioner elections who had hoped to campaign online.

Trevor Coultart, a magistrate who first published the guidance, wrote on his blog: “I can – sort of – understand why the guidance has been issued. I’m not particularly happy about it, but as a Magistrate I’ve sworn to uphold the law regardless of whether I agree with it, and I’ll treat this guidance in the same way.”
He said he would have to delete all his previous references to his role on the bench even though it would be “pretty fruitless” because they would still be visible through internet searches.

The author of another blog called The Justice of the Peace claimed the “patronising” directive was aimed solely at magistrates and said: “My interpretation of this statement is that it seeks to curb my right of free speech to express opinions which might or might not be those of the official organs involved.
“I have for example frequently criticised the Crown Prosecution Service amongst others within the judicial system. I have used actual incidents carefully camouflaged and edited to preserve total and complete anonymity of all parties concerned.
“Is such knowledge made public a possible cause of damage to public confidence in my or my colleagues` impartiality or the judiciary in general? I would answer that it is not.”

In June this year the Office for Judicial Complaints announced that Mrs Shay Clipson, who had been the country’s only Romany magistrate, had resigned from the bench after being accused of making “inappropriate comments”.
“A letter was sent to Mrs Clipson requesting that she remove her blog from the internet and to refrain from comment through the press, her website or any other medium. If she did not, she would be removed from the magistracy.”
It comes after the second most senior judge in the country, Lord Neuberger, warned that members of the judiciary are in danger of “devaluing the coinage” by giving too many speeches and “risk undermining” their independence by commenting on Government policy.

He singled out for criticism an Appeal Court judge, Lord Justice Stanley Burnton, who appeared as an “amateur food critic” on an episode of Masterchef.

(Source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/)