Formal advice
A district judge has been given formal advice after being found to have behaved rudely towards a barrister and excluding him from a hearing, leaving his client unrepresented.
District Judge Nicola Murphy excluded the barrister from a directions hearing after repeatedly criticising his tone, in conduct the judicial watchdog found to be unjustified.
The complaint was brought by the barrister himself, who alleged that the judge had behaved in a “rude, aggressive, and bullying manner” towards him. He said that despite attempting to identify himself as counsel, the judge criticised his tone, refused to let him clarify his role, and excluded him from the hearing, leaving his client without representation.
The judge denied all allegations, saying her conduct was a direct response to the barrister’s “disrespectful and intimidating behaviour”. She said that despite repeated warnings and reference to the court’s “zero-tolerance policy”, the barrister continued to challenge the court’s authority, which led her to require his removal. Her approach, she explained, was driven by concerns about safety and maintaining proper standards of conduct in court.
Following an investigation, a nominated judge for the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office (JCIO) found that confusion had arisen at the start of the hearing after the usher introduced everyone present only as “the parties”. As a result, the judge initially mistook the barrister for his client.
After the barrister explained that he was acting as his client’s representative, the judge repeatedly criticised his tone. Having reviewed the audio recording, the nominated judge concluded that the barrister had been neither impolite nor discourteous, and that the judge’s criticisms, including her invocation of a zero-tolerance policy, were unjustified.
The nominated judge concluded that Murphy’s conduct was “rude”, made worse by the barrister being excluded in front of the parties. In recommending a sanction of formal advice, account was taken of her previously unblemished record.
The Lord Chancellor and the Lady Chief Justice agreed with the recommendation and issued Murphy with formal advice for misconduct, the lowest level of disciplinary sanction.
I wasn’t there but – 15 years of telling women they are so much more important than men, that if they say something they cannot be wrong, shoud a man have the audacity to point out that they are wrong, then that is in breach of the zero tolerance to a breach of the ‘believe all women’ policy. I hope this is a salutary lesson.
Pillock.
I am guessing you are also anonymous around women in real life?
I don’t know you, and I have no way of confirming this, but gut instinct says that you should never be left alone in a room with a woman.
Someone’s hurt you, seek therapy.
I think you have succeeded in deflecting attention from the real issue in the matter, which is why a District Judge thought it appropriate to deny a litigant representation in court and to in effect humiliate the barrister in front of the court, the parties and the barrister’s client. The official report gives little if any detail about what actually went on between the barrister and the DJ. But to exclude and eject a barrister from court is a very serious matter. Had the litigant who instructed the barrister complained one wonders if the outcome might have been different. Possibly yes if the litigant was significantly prejudiced by the denial of representation, which I assume was not the case.
Exclusion should be genuinely rare and genuinely justified. What the Murphy case illustrates is what it is not: a tool for a judge to deploy because an advocate’s tone grates, or because a confusion at the start of a hearing has produced an awkward dynamic. The power exists to protect the integrity of proceedings, not to protect the judge’s comfort.
Possibly so – but given that the hearing was recorded, and we know as a matter of fact that there was no rudeness or other inappropriate conduct, it’s hard to see this as a genuine overreaction. It was, as you say, an exercise of capricious power by a privileged party against a more vulnerable party.
It’s incredibly rare, not at all like it was 30 years ago, and very, very unlikely to have come from the mouth of, say, a High Court Judge who was confident that he/she had been elevated on merit
And you still haven’t learned to keep it shut 🤣
That is a disgusting remark.
I don’t think its a disgusting remark. But a very truthful observation of your character. Brought on by your remarks
This was in response to OP. OP’s remarks are disgusting.