Too strict?
Time limit rules for complaints against judges have come under scrutiny after a judge was accused of targeting a female barrister with anonymous social media trolling.
Judge Daniel Sawyer is reported to have been the subject of a complaint to the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office (JCIO) over allegations he targeted Dr Charlotte Proudman online.
The judge — not to be confused with another judge with the same surnname — is said to have admitted being behind posts on X, formerly Twitter, under the pseudonym ‘Yet Another Tweeting Barrister’, but denied they amounted to harassment or bullying.
The complaint, seen by The Telegraph (£), centred on posts mostly written in 2022, when Judge Daniel Sawyer was serving as a recorder. Among the alleged posts was one appearing to question Proudman’s grasp of legal terminology, claiming “the average GCSE student knows this”, and another apparently urging followers to “ignore anything that this person tweets”.
In another thread, the judge is said to have written: “Allow me to conclude in the words of what I think is a popular song… the criminal justice system has at least 99 problems but the fact that rape complainants can choose to be screened from the defendant ain’t one.” According to the complaint, followers could have read his play on the Jay-Z lyric 99 Problems as a possible reference to Proudman as a “b****”. In a subsequent post, the account said it was unaware that the song contained the word b****.
A colleague of Proudman’s filed a complaint with the JCIO, the body responsible for handling judicial misconduct, within the required three-month window, arguing the limit had been met by acting within three months of discovering Sawyer was apparently behind the posts.
The watchdog described some of the posts as “forceful correction”, adding that the judge had been unaware of the full meaning of the Jay-Z lyrics when spoken to. After being made aware of their meaning, he “clarified he did not intend to insult Dr Proudman and rejected personal attacks”.
However, legal affairs journalist Joshua Rozenberg reports, citing the original complainant, that while the report was initially accepted by the JCIO, it was later reversed following a change in the rules on time limits. They were subsequently told that, under the revised approach, complaints had to be made within three months of publication.
While extensions to the time limit can be granted in exceptional circumstances, those put forward on behalf of Proudman were deemed insufficient, prompting questions over whether the JCIO’s interpretation of the rules is too strict, particularly in circumstances where anonymous social media accounts have been used.
In this particular case, the JCIO said that, had the complaint progressed to a full investigation, it would have found that the conduct complained of did not breach disciplinary rules and would not have required any action.
In a statement, Proudman said the JCIO was “not fit for purpose” and argued that it “originally accepted the complaint because they accepted the conduct could amount to misconduct and referred it to a nominated judge”.
“The judge then seemingly asserted that the JCIO had acted unlawfully and changed when the three-month time limit ran from — treating it as running from when the tweets were posted rather than when they were seen,” she continued. “This appears to amount to the JCIO unilaterally altering its interpretation of the rules without transparency and public consultation.”
Legal Cheek was unable to reach Judge Daniel Sawyer directly for comment. The JCIO declined to comment.
(
(
