Skip to content

Magistrate refused to return to court and deliver verdict

Avatar photo

By Legal Cheek on

8

Formal warning

Courtroom door
A magistrate has been formally warned after refusing to return to court to deliver a verdict, and subsequently making unsubstantiated accusations against her fellow panel members.

Shanelle Nwanaebi JP, sitting in the South East London Local Justice Area, was the subject of a complaint brought by a member of court staff. The complaint alleged that she refused to return to court to deliver a verdict and behaved in an “argumentative and offensive manner” towards her colleagues.

Nwanaebi told the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office (JCIO) that she had left because she found the situation difficult to continue with and “felt justice was not being done”.

But Nwanaebi denied behaving in such a manner, and claimed her colleagues had reacted adversely to being challenged by a younger magistrate.

Following an investigation, the nominated committee member (NCM) found that while Nwanaebi’s words were challenging, they did not cross the line into offensive. However, her refusal to return to the courtroom and deliver the majority verdict was found to constitute misconduct. The post-hearing accusations she made against her colleagues were also found to be unsupported by any evidence and similarly amounted to misconduct.

In the disciplinary statement, the NCM described the decision not to return to court as a “serious failure to uphold judicial responsibilities”, compounded by the unwarranted accusations. She recommended a reprimand for serious misconduct.

In mitigation, the NCM noted that Nwanaebi had no prior findings of misconduct, had expressed remorse, and had since sat alongside one of her colleagues without incident.

However, Mr Justice Keehan and the Lord Chancellor disagreed with the NCM’s recommendation and determined that, on the facts, a formal warning, one level below a reprimand, was the more appropriate sanction.

On appointment, magistrates sign a declaration and undertaking requiring them to maintain the dignity, standing and good reputation of the magistracy at all times.

guest

8 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Johncharles
Johncharles
1 month ago

Wouldn’t dare sack her would they

Witch Smeller Persuivent
Witch Smeller Persuivent
1 month ago
Reply to  Johncharles

Are you making racist assumptions based on her name, perchance?

Pattern Noticer
Pattern Noticer
1 month ago

I mean he’s not wrong.

Rhys
Rhys
1 month ago

This country is under the leadership of kier starmer so its no surprise

Old Millenial Buffer
Old Millenial Buffer
1 month ago

Any entitled Gen-Zer who can’t cope with being outvoted and spits their dummy out of the pram in circumstances like this is clearly unsuitable for the Magistracy.

No doubt they were “triggered” or something like that.

Stacy
Stacy
1 month ago

Always double standards for one section on society

Witch Smeller Persuivent
Witch Smeller Persuivent
1 month ago
Reply to  Stacy

Which section of society would that be?

Gordon
Gordon
1 month ago

Don’t give a flying whatever they call it. 👍🥴🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿

Related Stories

Courtroom door

Judge sacked for ‘overly familiar’ behaviour towards staff

Reprimand recommendation upgraded to removal

Jun 4 2026 10:49am

Fancy being the next President of the Supreme Court?

Search begins following news of Lord Reed's planned retirement next year

Apr 2 2026 10:43am
6