Judge who branded abusive defendant ‘a bit of a c**t’ cleared of misconduct

Judicial Conduct Investigations Office will not take formal action against Judge Patricia Lynch QC


A female judge who branded an abusive defendant “a bit of c**t” has been cleared of wrongdoing by a judicial watchdog.

Back in August 2016 Judge Patricia Lynch QC, sitting at Chelmsford Crown Court, entered into a sweary back and forth with defendant John Hennigan.

Appearing in the dock having been accused of breaching his anti-social behaviour order (ASBO), Hennigan — who has 23 convictions to his name — told Lynch that she was “a bit of a c**t”. Keen to reciprocate in vernacular familiar to Hennigan, Lynch responded:

You are a bit of a c*** yourself. Being offensive to me doesn’t help.

Despite overwhelming public support, not everyone was impressed with the judge’s c-bomb.

Less than two days after the incident, Legal Cheek reported that the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office (JCIO) had received around ten complaints regarding Lynch’s colourful language.

Fast forward five months and, according to The Guardian, the JCIO has now confirmed it will not be taking formal action against Lynch. In a statement sent to one of the complainants, the JCIO said:

Although the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice considered HHJ Lynch’s remarks to be inappropriate, they did not find that they amounted to misconduct or warranted any disciplinary sanction. [They] were of the view that the matter should be dealt with by informal advice.

Lynch — who later apologised for her remarks — has now been been advised to respond “appropriately to parties in court at all times”. Even if they are c**ts.

For all the latest news, features, events and jobs, sign up to Legal Cheek’s weekly newsletter here.



I think both you and the defendant are clear proof that race is irrelevant in determining whether someone is a worthwhile human being or not.

Reply Report comment

How do you know whether that defendant is a worthwhile human being or not? all you know are the circumstances of one offence which happened to come before a court. Or is a mere single transgression against your equalist ideology enough to wipe the worth of whatever someone may have done in their life either before or after that transgression?

Reply Report comment

By all accounts the man painted a swastika on the garage door of his council house and has a criminal record as long as your arm. Make of that what you will.

Reply Report comment

Hmmm, I think that any fair minded observer would conclude that it is fairly improbable that the individual in question intended it to be a hindu peace symbol… and he still has a criminal record as long as your arm.

Reply Report comment

She really should of received a bit more than a telling off! It really says something about modern society when a judge behaves in this manner!

Reply Report comment

Shame, I was hoping for a declaratory judgement stating that the learned judge was correct and that the defendant in question was indeed a c***.

Reply Report comment
Lefty and proud

Seems like the Trumpenkrieg is a bit of wrexiteer, what’s being from a minority got to do with the price of butter? If the defendant was from a minority he would probably got a longer sentence… dickhead!

Reply Report comment

A wannabe alt-right bellend with pseudo-intellectual pretensions is what Trumpenkock is.

Best ignored – but rarely will you meet a more odious prick…
(and he posts on here under several guises – sometimes even mine – which he thinks is the height of “alpha non-snowflake” hilarity…). To reiterate: prick !

Reply Report comment
Bored with stuck up prats.

The best judges and almost always the most effective have been plain spoken and to the point. He said it she responded. She was doubtless right. Great word if used selectively and to the point. It was. End of.

Reply Report comment

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.