Judiciary hate criticism

Regulators have moved to clamp down on 'gratuitous attacks on the judiciary or the justice system’ by barristers on social media.

Revised social media guidance from the Bar Standards Board, which follows the conclusion of a consultation on conduct in non-professional life, covers barristers’ duties under the BSB Handbook on social media use both in a professional and in a personal capacity.

The regulator says the guidance ‘seeks to make clear that it is the manner in which barristers express their views that is more likely to concern us rather than the substance of that view’. Bu it adds: ‘Although the substance of a barrister’s view may also raise regulatory issues.’

The nine-page guidance lists a ‘non-exhaustive’ set of examples of the types of conduct on social media that could amount to a breach, including ‘comments about judges, the judiciary, or the justice system which involve gratuitous attacks or serious criticisms that are misleading and do not have a sound factual basis’.

The BSB has also published new guidance on the regulation of non-professional conduct which seeks to clarify where regulatory boundaries lie in relation to conduct that occurs outside the scope of a barrister’s professional practice.

The 12-page document says: ‘Having a regulatory interest in conduct does not mean that regulatory action will necessarily follow.’

BSB director general Mark Neale said: ‘After carefully considering the wide range of responses we received to our consultation, these revised guidance documents provide greater clarity rather than indicating a significant change to our approach.

‘The documents explain more clearly how we will apply the existing rules and how we try to balance barristers’ obligations under the BSB Handbook with their rights under the Human Rights Act 1998.’

Nick Vineall KC, chair of the Bar Council, said: ‘We think that the BSB has struck the appropriate balance, and it is right that the regulator focuses on the use of language that is seriously offensive, discriminatory, bullying or harassing. There is absolutely no place for bullying or discrimination, online or offline, at the Bar.

‘The Bar ought to be a profession where everyone is capable of maintaining civil discourse.

‘Regardless of where the line is drawn in terms of professional misconduct, there will be a huge space where comment that does not amount to misconduct is nevertheless unkind, unnecessary, and profoundly undesirable. Ultimately, if you would not say something to someone’s face, don’t say it to them, or about them, on social media.’

Barrister Charlotte Proudman got what some will say was her just desserts by way of this Bar Standards Board (BSB) prosecution for allegedly bringing the profession into disrepute when criticising a judge on social media and supposedly misrepresenting the judge's ruling. What goes around comes around ... Charlotte Proudman got what was coming to her ... some will say ... from her over the top past behaviour - as she suffered badly and was worried sick that her career may come to a premature end. BUT criticism of a judge, may, in principle, be fair comment and on this occasion, Dr Proudman came out a winner as the Disciplinary Tribunal ruled that she had no case to answer, and declared that her robust opinions were ECHR Article 10 - freedom of speech - compliant. One IS allowed to say hurtful things of others under U.K common law IF they are reasonably justified. The BSB were doing the judiciary's dirty work for them when trying to teach Ms Proudman a lesson ... as the judiciary hate criticism.

Below is a leading article from The Times newspaper dated 24 December 2024 and it relates to a recent refusal by Mr Justice Williams to allow the Press to name the judge/judges who long ago gave custody of Sara Sharif to her father Irfan Sharif - who went on to abuse, torture and murder Sara who died in Woking in August 2023, aged 10. Irfan Sharif is serving life for murder along with Sara's stepmother. Mr Justice Williams has recently granted an anonymity order for the judge/judges and social workers involved in the custody battle when Sara was sent to live with her evil father Irfan Sharif and evil stepmother.

The thinking behind Williams J's decision is that maybe, if the judge/judges who granted custody to Irfan Sharif is/are identified by the Press there will be extremely unfair criticism and unwarranted abuse of that judge on social media when full details of the custody hearings etc. are examined by the Press, BECAUSE Mr Justice Williams believes the previous custody proceedings were carried out within the parameters of the law and with integrity and that any mistakes were forgivable given one cannot accurately predict future events. BUT the Press would like the chance to thoroughly assess/reappraise the custody proceedings and name the earlier judge/judges when deciding whether he/she/they fouled up.

The judiciary do f**k up all the time. They are not as infallible as they would lead us to believe. AT LEAST in this case - for the truly sickening murder of defenceless, brave and abandoned Sara Sharif - the full facts must come out, so let us wait and see what transpires if and when the judge/judges in question is/are hopefully named, along with the social workers.

The Master of the Rolls Sir Geoffrey Vos has given the Press permission to appeal the decision of Mr Justice Williams, and the hearing will take place in mid-January 2025 before three Appeal Court judges at the Royal Courts of Justice.

The current Lady Chief Justice Sue Carr and her predecessor Sir Ian Burnett DO COVER UP for in-house abusers - when protecting civil servants Ben Yallop, Michele Souris and Alice Rose working in their Private Office. Sir Geoffrey Vos covers up too.

Every day the judiciary at the Royal Courts of Justice use sleight of hand to cheat litigants of justice.