SHOOT THE MESSENGERSince the “guidance” on blogging by members of the judiciary was published a fortnight ago I have been convinced it was aimed primarily at blogging by magistrates for the simple reason that as far as I have discovered no judges blog anonymously about legal matters. I am not concerned with the other advice by the Senior Presiding Judge in that same “guidance”. My initial opinion was and is that this government through officials of varying seniority have nudged enough people in a short or long chain enough times for their wishes to be translated into action and that reasonable criticism of the functioning of the magistrates` courts has become too heavy to be tolerated. Why else has this issue been raised? Are the true results of cost cutting in magistrates` courts and associated agencies slowly being realised by mass media? Are there skeletons to be discovered in the justice cupboard? Is the government`s intention in the long run to reduce magistrates to being members of neighbourhood justice panels and replace them in the courts with District Judges? How many judges resign over legislation being enacted which goes against their conscience and everything in which they believe? Unpaid magistrates cannot be threatened by anything other than removal from office. That such a disposal would not affect that office holder`s income is a problem for the Justice Department. "Bystander" whose identity is almost common knowledge has taken the route of declaring a collective.

Since November 2009 I have published over 1,000 posts dealing with activities within my own court {a small minority}, commenting on the activities and outcomes in other courts reported in the public media, been none too complimentary about the Magistrates` Association, criticised more than praised the activities of the Crown Prosecution Service and associated similar court agencies, various senior police officers and police generally and been coruscating in my opinion of the consequences to our justice system of the government`s funding cuts.

The essence of the “guideline” is the following.... "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....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."

Apart from the free speech argument which has been presented here and in many other places it is an insult to even the most junior members of the judiciary that they would damage public confidence in the judiciary or their own impartiality. Even if that were to be considered a possibility the existing sanctions available to such individuals are sufficient; ie removal from office although by what standards and by whom would such people be judged?

I therefore am going to continue blogging as I have done previously. I can declare very firmly that my actions in court are as impartial now as they have always been since I was appointed. By shining a little light on others within the system and offering my own considered opinions when I feel obliged no impartial observer could reasonably opine that public confidence in the judiciary and its impartiality could be undermined. I seem to recall that similar arguments were raised when live televising of the House of Commons was first mooted. If the SPJ and his associates consider that criticism by this blogger per se is detrimental to the standing in which judges and the judiciary in this country are held, it is they who have the problem not a simple blogger and his simple messages.