HMCTS says removal necessary to protect listed building

A new mural by Banksy that appeared yesterday on the Royal Courts of Justice in London will be taken down, court authorities have confirmed.

The artwork, which shows a judge striking a protester with a gavel, was quickly covered with black plastic and surrounded by barriers. HM Courts & Tribunals Service says the removal is necessary to protect the Grade II-listed building.

They said: “The Royal Courts of Justice is a listed building and HMCTS are obliged to maintain its original character.

The piece is widely considered to be referencing recent protests linked to the banning of activist group Palestine Action, but for now, its time on the court’s walls is set to be short-lived.

Potential BANKSY ARTWORK.

Depicting a Judge attacking a protester with his Gavel.

Currently being covered by the Westminster Council.#StreetArt #Banksy #LondonArt #breaking #BreakingNews #artnews pic.twitter.com/od8bvStLfb

— Mighty Mushroom Man (@MightyMushroomM) September 8, 2025

Incident occurred 15 years ago

A judge has received a formal warning after admitting to having sex in his judicial chambers over 15 years ago.

Recorder Paul Kirtley admitted the encounter, with his then partner, had taken place as alleged and accepted that his conduct was inappropriate. He expressed shame and offered his “unreserved apologies”, according to the public disciplinary statement.

The Guide to Judicial Conduct requires judicial office holders to ensure their behaviour, both in and out of court, maintains public confidence in their impartiality and avoids situations which might undermine respect for the judiciary.

A complaint to the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office (JCIO) alleged that Kirtley had “engaged in sexual intercourse with the complainant”, his then partner, in his chambers while they were in a relationship.

An investigation was carried out following the grant of an extension of time due to exceptional circumstances. A nominated judge found that Kirtley’s behaviour amounted to misconduct.

The judge noted in mitigation that the incident was a one-off, consensual encounter that occurred over 15 years ago, but concluded that engaging in such activity in judicial chambers risked reducing respect for judicial office. They recommended that Kirtley receive a formal warning.

The Lady Chief Justice and Lord Chancellor accepted the recommendation and issued the warning.

Remark amounted to misconduct, watchdog finds

A family judge has been formally advised after making a remark that effectively questioned the complainant’s immigration status.

Judge Kharin Cox had asked during a hearing whether the applicant’s need for a declaration of parentage was related to the Home Office. The party later complained that this suggested he was an immigrant, despite being a British citizen born in the UK.

Cox accepted she had said she was “guessing” the Home Office might be involved, following a reference to administrative requirements. She told the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office (JCIO) that her question was not an assertion, but simply a query, and said no prejudice was displayed.

However, following an investigation, a nominated judge found that Cox’s behaviour amounted to misconduct. The comment was deemed to amount to “a questioning of the complainant’s immigration status” which could be “regarded as demonstrating a negative stereotype based on the complainant’s presumed characteristics”.

The JCIO said the reason for the application could have been explored “without making such a comment”. In the disciplinary statement, emphasis is put on the Guide to Judicial Conduct which states that judicial office holders should ensure no one in court is “exposed to any display of bias or prejudice”.

The investigation acknowledged that Cox is a long-serving judge with an otherwise unblemished conduct record. The incident was described as a “single, ill-judged remark”. But it also found that she had “failed to recognise the inappropriateness of her conduct and had not apologised”.

Cox was issued formal advice as a sanction.

Antitrust artwork

It’s not every day a judge picks up the virtual paintbrush — but Sir Marcus Smith has done just that, adding his own colourful diagram to a hefty legal ruling.

The meaty case in question featured no less than five KCs instructed by firms including Linklaters, Jones Day, Milbank, and Stephenson Harwood. Over almost 280 pages — including three diagrams — the CAT panel ruled unanimously on technical points of law.

Two diagrams, of a more corporate flavour, were submitted by parties to the case. The third, however, was how Sir Marcus Smith J interpreted the situation. Annex 3 at page 222, highlights what is titled “The Tribunal Diagram”:

Notice how the contractual relations are all helpfully expressed by rich colour-coding.

Paragraph 19 provides a little explanation. In response to suggestions Sir Marcus Smith J had dreamt up an approach “not argued by the parties”, the judge cited the diagram as evidence that he had, in fact, been paying very close attention.

At paragraph 255(6) he added, “My concern to understand the operation of the market was evident throughout the hearing (specifically, in the diagram at Annex 3, that was regularly under consideration during the trial).”

There’s a certain vibrancy to the diagram not seen in other efforts littered through the annex, which are more mundane in manner.

Aidan Robertson KC, described by his set Brick Court Chambers as “a leading silk” in competition law, highlighted the unusual annex on LinkedIn. There, Robertson described the drawing as “unprecedented… (so far as I am aware).”

In the comments, one observer noted that Sir Marcus Smith, who was previously a silk at Fountain Court, has a habit of introducing novel touches in his judgments. In another competition case, he included an economic analysis of why free market economies have firms, complete with references to seventeenth-century joint-stock companies.

However, Sir Marcus Smith is not the only judge to bring creativity into legal rulings. Legal Cheek has previously reported on a judge who used emojis to help children understand a family law judgment. More recently, an American judge included a gumbo recipe in the footnotes of a ruling involving Trump’s legal battles with law firms.

‘Unidentified glitch’

A High Court judge has issued a stern warning to solicitors after their client breached a court embargo by sending a confidential draft judgment to her husband.

Three days before ruling on an inheritance dispute, His Honour Judge Paul Matthews circulated the draft judgment to parties and their lawyers. In this instance the claimant was invited by her solicitors to check for typos.

The draft judgment — including the substance of what it said — was under a court embargo, meaning it was private to be seen by the parties and their lawyers only.

However, according to the ruling, the draft was sent to the claimant’s husband’s email account by “some kind of automatic forwarding operation” after the firm emailed it to their client — the claimant. By forwarding the draft to her husband, the claimant disclosed the judgment to a third party, breaching that embargo.

A senior partner at the firm said the claimant had been “clearly advised” not to circulate the judgment, but that “due to some currently unidentified glitch”, the draft ended up visible in her husband’s inbox. The claimant and her husband sat down together to review the entire draft judgment, aiming to identify any “typographical errors”.

The ruling says the husband was “somewhat confused” to be told he should not have seen the judgment as he “did not consider himself to be a ‘third party’”.

The judge did not accept that, ruling the husband did “not explain why he did not consider himself to be a third party… He was simply a witness, and that was all. The mediaeval idea that man and wife are one person in law was exploded long ago. He had no proper basis for supposing that he was exempted from the embargo”.

While the firm’s senior partner “very properly” informed the court about the breach, the judge was not satisfied, noting that the terms of the embargo were “not made express in the letter from the solicitors to their client. Any solicitors who do not do this already really ought to do so in future. The clearer the instructions to the lay client are, the better.”

The firm apologised for not having taken such steps as might have pre-empted or avoided this issue, and the claimant apologised for the “unintended disclosure.”

The judge held that the firm had not “failed in principle to bring home the obligation of confidentiality to that client, as was their duty. It is simply a pity that she did not understand its extent… When the court gives an instruction, it is intended to be followed. On a future occasion, the court may not be so generous.”

Finding that “no real harm” had come about, the judge did nothing further, except warn that breaching a court embargo “is a serious legal matter which may lead to proceedings for contempt of court, and punishment in appropriate cases”.

The judge added:

“The lay parties to litigation really do have to understand that the circulation of draft judgments to them is a privilege… If laypeople cannot deal with this, judges will not be able to trust them with draft judgments for the future.”

In a final warning, the judge said “solicitors who pass on embargoed material to their clients [must] ensure that there is not an inadvertent forwarding (automatic or not) of such material to third parties”.

Human input remains crucial

A new report has shed light on senior judges’ views on AI, highlighting both the areas of their work that could benefit from the technology and their concerns about its use.

The study used focus‑group discussions with 12 judges from across the UK judicial hierarchy, including five members of the Supreme Court, to dig into a range of attitudes towards AI.

A certain amount of enthusiasm for the technology was shown. One judge summarised AI’s benefits as “increasing productivity, reducing cost and reducing some of the drain on resources that we all have” while another commented that, “Anything that can improve efficiency and productivity whilst ensuring we don’t lose the essence of what justice is, is exciting and to be welcomed.”

The discussion on productivity seems to have centred on “boring” bulk administrative tasks such as disclosure exercises, bundling and summarising cases. There were also suggestions that AI could handle “small claims” as well as a possibility that AI could be used to create versions of judgments that could be easily understood by a child or by the general public.

Despite these benefits, there were many areas of judicial work that judges felt required a necessary human element. In cases which involve prison sentences or removing children from their parents, this human element was thought to be especially important. “People take comfort from having a human face, a human decision maker,” one participant commented. There was additional concern about the decisions AI might make in these sensitive cases, “Law is not a matter of pure logic,” was the view of one judge, “you need a practical, humane result to a problem if it’s humanly possible.”

Furthermore, a sense emerges from the report that these judges like being judges and are reluctant to share the most interesting parts of their workload with AI. “There’s a lot of people here [in the judiciary] who rather like hanging around law libraries,” one commented, reflecting on the “satisfaction of problem solving” and “following the footnotes.”

To the suggestion that AI could be used to produce judgments, another participant objected on the grounds that, “each of us, I think, enjoys writing, possibly in our own style.” Another comment reads, “When we come out of a case, we all meet together and discuss what we think about it and why. We can’t have a room of robots doing that.”

As the number of non-barristers on the bench falls to its lowest point in a decade, what is holding solicitors back?

Solicitors are joining the judiciary in the lowest numbers seen in a generation. In recently published advice, the Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) highlighted the ongoing underrepresentation of solicitors within the judiciary and offered guidance for those applying for judicial roles.

According to the July 2024 Judicial Diversity Forum Report, in 2023-24, 52% of applicants for legally qualified judicial roles were solicitors, while 29% were barristers.

Although solicitors made up just over half of applicants, given the size of the pool of eligible solicitors, this proportion is strikingly low. As of 2023, there were more than 160,000 practicing solicitors in England & Wales, compared to only 17,000 barristers.

Furthermore, solicitors only made up 32% of recommendations for appointment in 2023-24, compared to barristers, who made up 40%, meaning that being a solicitor more than halves the odds of successfully applying for the bench, compared to barristers.

While representation of women and ethnic minorities has increased in the judiciary, representation of non-barristers among judges it at its lowest point in a decade, having consistently fallen since 2014.

Why are solicitors less likely to apply for judicial roles?

Research compiled for the Ministry of Justice by the National Centre for Social Research (NCSR) in 2023, shows that solicitors were likely to ‘self-select out’ of the judicial appointment process, believing that there was a preference to appoint senior barristers to these roles.

The NCSR also found that solicitors were deterred from considering judicial positions because of a perceived hierarchy within the legal profession, barristers being considered the most elite, and that solicitors are less confident in their skills and experience, compared with their peers at the Bar.

An interview with two solicitor-judges published by the Law Society, mentions relative distance from the courts as a factor affecting solicitors’ confidence applying for judicial roles. Recorder Ayesha Siddiqi said, “It can feel daunting to apply for a judicial appointment if you don’t come from a litigation background.” While High Court judge Karen Ridge commented, “Perhaps solicitors don’t have the same networks as barristers, who sometimes have the advantage of seeing colleagues take on part-time judicial roles.”

The barriers to appointment

A lack of experience at court can also hinder solicitors who do apply from securing judicial roles. Ridge offers this advice to solicitors, “If you’re thinking of a judicial career, I’d encourage you to consider applying for both fee-paid tribunal and deputy district judge appointments. You can then acquire judicial skills which may assist in your application for more senior roles.”

This echoes the advice given by the JAC, which claims, “Not being prepared or fully understanding the role of a judge is a common mistake candidates make,” and continues by advising that candidates “at a minimum” should “sit in with judges to get a broader understanding of the role” and “observe a public hearing to see how a judge manages a courtroom”.

For top solicitors working in demanding commercial firms, taking on a part time judicial role – or even taking time out to visit court – may seem almost impossible.

The difficulties of preparing for a judicial appointment while working as a solicitor in private practice have been emphasised by figures including Paul Richmond, chair of the Northern Circuit District Judges Association. Speaking in 2021, Richmond pointed out:

“Firms of solicitors are becoming less keen on senior figures taking time out, several days a month, to serve as deputy district judges … Keeping them in the office is a way to stop them becoming full-time members of the judiciary.”

Back in 2009, Sir Igor Judge, then the Lord Chief Justice, also laid some responsibility with law firms. “Before any individual can become a full-time judge, he or she must take on part-time judicial responsibilities,” he wrote in the Law Society Gazette, before pointing to a “reluctance” from senior lawyers “to allow their younger partners time away from the office to gain judicial experience as part-time judges” as an obstacle that prevents solicitors from gaining this experience.

Support for solicitor candidates for judicial roles

Combatting the ongoing issue of diversity on the bench, the JAC runs support schemes for judicial candidates such as the Targeted Outreach programme which helps candidates from underrepresented groups, including solicitors, prepare for the process.

Commenting on the representation of solicitors in the judiciary, Law Society of England and Wales president Richard Atkinson said:

“There is still much work to do to address the fact that the judiciary in England and Wales does not reflect a diverse and inclusive profession. We are committed to seeing an increase in successful solicitor appointments. We continue to work with the Judicial Diversity Forum (JDF) partners to support initiatives which seek to improve diversity and help eligible solicitors demonstrate their breadth of unique, transferable and invaluable experience during the selection process”

A JAC spokesperson said: “The judiciary benefits from having people from different professional backgrounds, which is why we work together with applicants, the professions and the judiciary to help prepare talented candidates for these roles. We would encourage anyone who is interested to take a look at the range of materials on our website.”

PhD candidate and UN judge faces over six years behind bars

A former University of Oxford law student and judge has been handed a lengthy prison sentence following conviction for modern slavery offences.

Lydia Mugambe, 50, was a top judge studying for a DPhil in law — specialising in human rights — at Pembroke College, University of Oxford. In February 2023 she was arrested on suspicion of modern slavery offences.

Mugambe has now been sentenced to six years and four months in prison.

During the trial in March, Mugambe was found guilty on four charges. The victim, who had been led to believe she would be working at the Ugandan Embassy in London, was held as a slave by Mugambe, providing unpaid childcare and domestic work. The victim said Mugambe threatened to “burn my passport and bank card”.

A spokesperson for the University of Oxford said the institution was “appalled” by its student’s crimes and was “commencing its own disciplinary process” which includes powers to “remove students convicted of serious criminal offences”.

Mugambe had previously served as a judge in the High Court of Uganda and on an international war crimes court for the UN. During her arrest, Mugambe claimed diplomatic immunity — which the UN waived. In a statement, the UN court said it is “discontinuing Judge Mugambe’s participation”.

A lawyer from the Crown Prosecution Service has said the victim showed “tremendous bravery in speaking out and supporting the prosecution of the powerful woman who exploited her.”

In his sentencing remarks, the Crown Court judge, Justice David Foxton, said the defendant “showed absolutely no remorse” for her actions:

“In the course of your practice as a lawyer, and your time as a judge, you have made a material contribution to the protection of human rights. In 2020, you won a scholarship to further your interest in human rights law by undertaking a DPhil at Oxford University.”

“You brought the victim to the UK intending to force her to work for you, under the threat of a penalty if the victim did not do what you wanted. You did not intend to pay the victim for her work for you in the UK, as you had in Uganda, and you did not do so.”

Along with her jail sentence, Mugambe will also pay the victim compensation totalling over £12,000. The victim was granted an indefinite restraining order.

Embargo confusion after draft judgment was sent to press

The High Court has ruled that international firm Fieldfisher will not face contempt of court proceedings after a confidential judgment was wrongly sent to journalists ahead of its official hand-down date.

The incident involved the circulation of a confidential embargoed draft judgment (CEDJ) in a high-profile judicial review case concerning the death of a 16-year-old boy. Mr Justice Fordham, formerly of Blackstone Chambers, described this as a “serious error” – which can lead to contempt of court, resulting in criminal penalties.

Fieldfisher, which acted for the deceased boy’s family, sent the CEDJ to journalists from the BBC, Guardian, Daily Telegraph, and ITV – some days before it was due to be made public. The court heard that Nicola Pearson, Fieldfisher’s media manager, treated the court embargo like a regular press embargo.

A court embargo, including a CEDJ, is highly confidential and private to the court – breaching an embargoed judgement can find those responsible in contempt of court. Meanwhile, a press embargo is not legally binding. It involves sharing information with journalists before it is made widely public, on the understanding it’s not published until a set time.

Pearson sent the judgment along with press quotes, assuming it was permissible under those terms.

In the judgment, under a section called “A Big Mistake”, Fordham stressed that Pearson, who is not a lawyer, “understood ‘embargo’ to indicate that it was permissible to circulate the CEDJ to journalists”. Until the judgment is officially handed down as a public document, court embargoes are “expressly ‘confidential to the parties and their legal representatives’”.

The court was shown an email from Jill Greenfield, the Fieldfisher partner overseeing the case, which read, “I am not sure what the rules are for giving it to press before Thursday – it has to be very clear that it is embargoed whatever”.” Pearson had also organised a marketing video interview given by Greenfield.

Greenfield had told the deceased boy’s family not to discuss the judgment with anyone, though Pearson had contradicted this. After separately conducting an interview with a journalist from The Guardian, though, the judgment explains Greenfield sought advice from Andrew Dodd, Fieldfisher’s general counsel.

Dodd explained to Greenfield and Pearson what the court embargo meant. But he did not go far enough in his instructions, the court heard, and did not seek “a prompt and clear picture of exactly what had happened”. Dodd also failed to contact barristers on the case nor notify the court. Parties are expected to inform the court of such breaches at once.The Court became aware of the breach as journalists contacted them for comment and informed Fieldfisher.”

The judge said he was “particularly concerned” that Pearson sent the fourth of the four emails attaching the CEDJ “after the telephone call with Mr Dodd and Ms Greenfield… at which Mr Dodd had made clear that the CEDJ could not be sent to journalists.” Fordham had “real difficulties” with Pearson’s explanation this had been a mistake, however decided not to make a finding of fact.

In deciding to take no further action, Fordham concluded his ruling with:

“I am satisfied, having issued this judgment, that further steps are neither necessary nor proportionate. The primary purpose of contempt proceedings – to secure compliance with the Court Embargo – stands achieved. The seriousness with which the Court treats these matters stands fully communicated and acknowledged… So far as the Court is concerned, this judgment is enough. The enquiry has been undertaken. Sufficient clarity has been achieved. Lessons will have been learned.”

You’ll need ‘sound judgment and decisiveness’

Fancy becoming a Supreme Court Justice? Well, now’s your chance!

The current sitting deputy president of the UK Supreme Court, Lord Hodge, will retire on 31 December 2025. Hodge will be 72 in May, whilst all Supreme Court judges are mandated to retire once they reach 75.

With Lord Hodge’s exit, a position has opened up on the bench for one lucky candidate. Meanwhile, the successful new judge will enter the pool with the current justices as a candidate for new deputy president.

There are two separate application forms for the role of justice and deputy president, with lengthy requirements. Among the key criteria to become a Supreme Court judge is “sound judgment and decisiveness”, as you might expect. Other sought-after attributes include legal ability, creativity, independence, and a knack for “collegiate decision-making”. Candidates are expected to have their finger on the pulse when it comes to the constitution, too.

Supreme Court justices, who also sit on the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, all receive the courtesy title Lord/Lady. Ex-barristers (and Scots advocates) historically dominate the bench — including Lord Hodge — but legal academics and jurists like Lady Hale and Lord Burrows, plus solicitors like Lord Collins, have judged on the Supreme Court too.

Supreme Court President Lord Reed has said:

“If your primary motivation is money, then this job is not for you… if your leisure time is of central importance to you, then again, this job is not for you… if you’re looking for a job full of human interest then I’m afraid this probably is not for you either… our only objective is to clarify [the law]… Many people, I’m afraid, would find that an arid way of life.”

Still, if you’re “exceptional”, unperturbed, and have sound enough judgement (alongside fifteen years experience in law plus two or more years in the senior judiciary) then don’t hesitate. The deadline to apply is tomorrow (25 April 2025) at 5pm. These opportunities don’t come up often, so good luck!

Unfamiliar case names and US spellings among key giveaways

Judicial guidance on the use of AI in courts was updated this week, outlining common pitfalls, recommended practices for available tools, and a glossary of key terms.

The new release updates guidance from 2023, applying to all judicial office holders – court clerks, support staff, court of appeal judges, legal assistants, and more – and was published online to promote “open justice and public confidence”.

The document outlines key signs that a party may have used AI—such as cases that “do not sound familiar” or include “unfamiliar citations (sometimes from the US)”; parties “citing different bodies of case law” on the same issues; and submissions that use American spelling, reference overseas cases, or “do not accord” with judges’ understanding of the law.

Perhaps most interesting is the final indicator: “content that (superficially at least) appears to be highly persuasive and well written, but on closer inspection contains obvious substantive errors.”

Nevertheless, the guidance notes there is no reason AI couldn’t be a “potentially useful” tool, and judges won’t be required to disclose if they’ve used it. Depending on the context, lawyers may not need to either, “provided AI is used responsibly.” However, “it may be necessary… that lawyers are reminded of their ‘obligations’” and confirm they have independently verified the accuracy of any material generated with AI assistance.

The reference to litigants-in-person (LiPs) is slightly different:

“[AI] may be the only source of advice or assistance some litigants receive. Litigants rarely have the skills independently to verify legal information provided by AI chatbots and may not be aware that they are prone to error. If it appears an AI chatbot may have been used to prepare submissions or other documents, it is appropriate to inquire about this, ask what checks for accuracy have been undertaken (if any), and inform the litigant that they are responsible for what they put to the court/tribunal.”

“Fake material” is also discussed: “Judges should be aware of this new possibility and potential challenges posed by deepfake technology”, as well as potentially unintentional forgeries (“hallucinations”) — like citations or quotes from “fictitious” cases, legislation, or legal texts.

Another section advises against legal research and analysis, noting AI often bases its legal “view” on US law. “Anything you type into it could become publicly known”, reads the guidance, advising chat histories to be turned off and to deny mobile app permissions. If something private and confidential is uploaded, judicial office holders are to treat it as a data breach.

Separately, the guidance reveals that Microsoft’s AI tool, Copilot, is now available on judges’ computers. While it does not explicitly encourage its use, it does describe the tool as “secure”. Sir Geoffrey Vos, Master of the Rolls, has been positive about AI in the past, despite some “silly” examples of bad practice.

This comes with a glossary to help judges and staff navigate the techy jargon.

This comes amidst a rise in AI use by both lawyers and LIPs. On the lawyers side, examples range from Shoosmiths’ £1 million bonus pot for using AI to disbarred US lawyers. Among LiPs, one barrister has warned of risks, while a US pro se litigant employed an AI-generated avatar of counsel.

Judge issued formal advice

A judge who helped a solicitor enter a court building through an “alternative entrance” after they refused to comply with security checks has been issued with formal advice.

Judge Jenna McKinney, who was sitting as a magistrate at the time, let the unnamed duty solicitor back into the court building through another entrance after they had previously been denied re-entry by security staff.

The solicitor’s subsequent re-entry via other means led to “a dispute between the solicitor and security staff, resulting in the solicitor having to be restrained,” the JCIO said in a statement.

At the time, McKinney held appointments as both a magistrate and a tribunal judge. She has since stepped down from the magistracy but continues to sit in the Immigration and Asylum Chamber.

In her explanation to investigators, McKinney said she believed the bench needed to find a way to deal with the solicitor’s absence, as they were due to represent several parties in a case that was about to begin. Her intention, she said, was to ensure the hearing could proceed.

She accepted in hindsight that her actions were inappropriate and apologised.

The JCIO noted that judicial office-holders are expected to maintain confidence in their impartiality and to comply with court security policies. Following an investigation under the Judicial Conduct Rules 2023, a nominated judge found McKinney’s actions amounted to misconduct.

However, the judge considering the case took into account McKinney’s previously unblemished record, full engagement with the investigation, and the fact she had not been assisted by others present at the time.

With those mitigating factors in mind, the judge recommended a sanction of formal advice — the lowest level of disciplinary action available. The recommendation was accepted by the Senior President of Tribunals, on behalf of the Lady Chief Justice and with the agreement of the Lord Chancellor.

Following reports of disruptions

Judges and court officials are set be issued with new guidance on allowing emotional support animals in court, following reports of disruptions caused by barking, growling, and even defecation.

An alert on the handling of emotional support animals was recently circulated to judges and will be followed by an official update to the court officials’ rulebook.

According to The Telegraph, the alert notes that emotional support animals are “not regulated, have not necessarily undergone any training nor serve a specific function, and in some instances may be little more than family pets; there have been examples of people bringing cats and lapdogs into courts and tribunals, without making any advance requests.”

The newspaper also reports incidents involving dogs jumping at or ‘attacking’ witnesses, while other parties have been affected by allergies and phobias. In one case from 2017, a defendant’s Staffordshire terrier reportedly urinated and defecated in the court’s foyer after sentencing.

Currently, the Equal Treatment Bench Book includes rules on guide, hearing, and other medical dogs — which are covered under equality legislation — ensuring they are allowed into courtrooms and given breaks and access to water. There is no guidance on emotional support animals, however.

A district judge, Clare Jane Hockney, recently wrote “there is concern that allowing the court users to bring in potentially untrained pets, claiming them as ESAs, could cause disruptions and significantly impact on the fairness of the hearing and the rights of others”. Hockney further noted “untrained pets” could “interfere with genuine assistance dogs by barking, jumping at or even attacking them. There is of course no requirement [for the court] to admit a regular pet.”

Until the Equal Treatment Bench Book’s next edition addresses this situation, court officials have been advised to follow Hockney DJ’s advice. Judges will ask parties to explain how the emotional support animal might assist their mental health and participation, usually via a medical or psychological report, plus request evidence of training – such as certificates.

Even then, the bench will balance this need with all the parties’ rights in the courtroom, retaining the right to exclude any animal not protected under equality law. Hockney DJ added: “A pet that is untrained and meets no evidenced mental health needs should not be permitted. Judicial oversight is vital as abuse of the use of ESAs could impact on those with genuine needs, and even lead to a general scepticism of genuine assistance dogs.”

Legal Cheek has previously reported on animals being brought to court, from an accused man stroking his cat whilst in the dock, to a small horse which defecated in a courtroom.

Cyber counsel frustrates (human) judges

The claimant in a New York employment dispute was reportedly given short shrift after attempting to use an AI-generated avatar to argue his case before a court.

According to AP News, Jerome Dewald submitted a video to present his oral argument. But when Justice Sallie Manzanet-Daniels invited the court to play it, the five-judge bench quickly realised that the counsel introducing Dewald’s case wasn’t a real person — it was an AI-generated avatar.

“May it please the court,” began Dewald’s cyber counsel — a “man” speaking in uncanny tones, “I come here today a humble pro se before a panel of five distinguished justices.”

A baffled Manzanet-Daniels composed herself before questioning Dewald. “Is that counsel for the case?”

“I generated that. That is not a real person,” Dewald replied.

Dewald v. Mass Mutual (begins 19:22)

According to his LinkedIn, Dewald is involved in the AI industry. His venture, Pro Se Pro, uses AI to file and argue court proceedings. Manzanet-Daniels caught on quickly: “You are not going to use this courtroom as a launch for your business, sir”.

It appears from the stream that Dewald had declared himself unable to articulate his case, which was why he had submitted the two videos. The second video was not played.

After being invited to make submissions for five minutes, Dewald is seen putting an earbud in and typing into his phone, before repeating the words spoken by his avatar.

AI continues to throw up strange happenings, disrupting the legal world on this side of the pond as well. One firm is now offering a bonus encouraging lawyers to use AI, whilst a senior judge has encouraged its use — despite noting issues. In March, William Rees-Mogg, a barrister, warned LinkedIn about risks as litigants-in-person turn to ChatGPT for advice and drafting. Perhaps he’ll be facing his learned friend robo-barrister of cyber counsel in the future.

Human rights specialist awaits sentencing

A law PhD student at the University of Oxford has been found guilty of offences related to modern slavery.

Lydia Mugambe, 49, joined Pembroke College, Oxford, in 2020 for a DPhil. In 2021, she was Treasurer in Pembroke’s Middle Common Room (MCR) and is listed in the “Hall of Fame” — but is now in serious hot water after being convicted of requiring a person to perform forced labour, among other offences.

According to a now-deleted page, Mugambe was involved with the Oxford Human Rights Hub. She was also one of 57 “eminent experts in international law and human rights” of the Abidjan Principles on the human rights obligations of States providing and regulating education. As well as serving as a judge in the High Court of Uganda, Mugambe had most recently had been appointed to a UN international war crimes tribunal, in May 2023.

But in February 2023 Thames Valley Police received a report that a woman was being held as a slave by Mugambe.

Police uncovered that the victim was supposed to work for John Mugerwa, the Deputy High Commissioner at the Ugandan Embassy. Instead she became Mugambe’s unpaid domestic maid, nanny, servant, and slave in exchange for assisting Mugerwa in a separate court case ongoing in Uganda.

Commander for Oxfordshire, Chief Superintendent Ben Clark said: “Mugambe used her position of power as well as her knowledge of the law to take advantage of the victim, ensuring that she would become her unpaid domestic servant.”

Police bodycam footage shows Mugambe asserting she had a “diplomatic passport” and “immunity” from arrest. According to Clark, any immunity Mugambe may have enjoyed as a UN Judge has been “waived” by the UN Secretary General.

Bodycam footage shows the moment police arrested Mugambe

Credit: Thames Valley Police via BBC News

Despite his involvement, and facilitating the visa obtained by Mugambe, John Mugerwa couldn’t be charged due to diplomatic immunity — which the Ugandan government refused to waive.

Following a three-week trial, a jury found Mugambe guilty on all four charges. On 13 March 2025 she was convicted at Oxford Crown Court of: arranging or facilitating travel of another person with a view to exploitation; requiring a person to perform forced or compulsory labour; conspiracy to intimidate a witness; and conspiring to do an act to facilitate the commission of a breach of UK immigration law by a non-UK national.

Mugambe is set to be sentenced on 2 May.

Baroness Carr calls for ‘objective and accurate reporting’

“Inaccurate reporting” has led to judges receiving death threats and being “doorstepped,” the Lady Chief Justice warned — just days after a new survey revealed that many judges now fear for their personal safety.

Speaking to the House of Lords constitution committee, Baroness Carr added to her previous comment that she was “deeply troubled” by an exchange during Prime Ministers’ Questions where the PM claimed that a judge had made the “wrong decision” in relation to an immigration appeal. This, she said, was a misunderstanding of the case.

“To imply, for example, that a Palestinian family was allowed to settle in this country under the Ukrainian family scheme is simply, wholly wrong,” she said. “But as a result of that headline and the publicity, without going into details or individuals, there have been extraordinarily serious security threats.”

“It’s really important to understand that no one has ever suggested, no one is saying there should not be robust and healthy debate both in and outside parliament, including criticism if necessary of judgments,” she continued. “But the judicial process and judicial independence have to be respected.”

Carr added that if the judgment is wrong the litigants have the option to appeal, however if the law itself is deemed to be wrong, that is the realm of parliament to change.

Whilst debating a judgment is fair game, Carr said, “Inaccurate reporting and abuse of a judge who cannot speak out to defend themselves” is unacceptable. “The trigger for my concern in the context of the need to respect the judicial process is the dangers that arise out of inaccurate reporting.”

The committee were told that judges have received death threats and been doorstepped. One judge, Carr said, had been contacted on social media by someone who claimed threateningly that he was standing next to the judge’s child on a bus.

“I welcome reporting and criticism but what I have always asked for, from day one, is fair, objective and accurate reporting,” Carr told the committee.

“This is not about closing the debate down,” she said. “The debate should be wide open. It is for the courts to decide whether a judgment is wrong. But it is absolutely unacceptable — as I must protect my judges and defend them — that they are exposed to the sort of comments and reporting that shatter their lives.”

A recent survey of judges in the UK found that nearly four in ten judges (39%) are now worried about their safety in court, with 26% concerned outside of court.

As a response, Carr continued, the courts and judiciary have taken protection action. “They change the way we work on a day-to-day basis now, she said. “We are taking steps — which I cannot divulge or share — on a daily basis in relation to where we do things and how we do things.”

Part of a wider set of proposals by an independent body

The Supreme Court could soon find itself handling more criminal appeal cases if the Law Commission’s latest proposals receive the green light.

Unveiled this week, the Law Commission’s proposed reforms aim to make the criminal appeals system in England and Wales more accessible. One of the more eye-catching proposals is to remove the current requirement that an appeal must involve a “question of law of general public importance” before it can be heard by the Supreme Court.

This change would give the UK’s highest court the power to decide which cases it hears, potentially paving the way for more criminal matters to reach its doors.

Currently, only cases deemed to involve significant legal questions make it to the Supreme Court. By taking away the need for the Court of Appeal’s certification, the Law Commission could be opening the gates for more appeals to be considered at the highest judicial level.

Professor Penney Lewis, the Commissioner for Criminal Law at the Law Commission, highlighted the importance of these changes by pointing to the Post Office scandal, where faulty accounting software led to wrongful convictions.

She said:

“The criminal appeals system serves a crucial function in society. It not only ensures that miscarriages of justice are corrected but that the criminal law is applied consistently and predictably. As the Post Office scandal has demonstrated, anyone can be a victim of a miscarriage of justice. Our proposals seek to ensure that those who are wrongly convicted can effectively challenge their convictions.”

See the Commissioner’s full statement here:

The consultation paper also outlines other changes, including extending time limits for lodging appeals. The proposals include expanding the Unduly Lenient Sentence scheme to include offences such as death by careless driving and animal cruelty. They also suggest adjusting the test for compensation for wrongful convictions, making it easier for those who can prove their innocence on the balance of probabilities to receive compensation — rather than the current standard of proving innocence beyond reasonable doubt.

The Law Commission is inviting feedback on these proposals, with the consultation set to close on 30 May.

Files and lunch locked away

A court session at the Stratford Housing Centre was delayed by nearly an hour yesterday after a judge’s chamber door became jammed.

The afternoon listing was suspended for 50 minutes after a deputy district judge was barred from his office by a lock malfunction.

The episode, which was witnessed by court blogger Daniel Cloake, began in the afternoon. With six possession and trespass cases listed to begin at 2pm, an usher announced to the waiting punters outside the court that there was a mechanical failure with a door that had been “a bit of a nemesis for some time”.

Fifty minutes later, the court finally resumed. The judge offered a hasty apology, explaining, “there was a problem with access to the room where the files and my lunch were kept” before quickly adding “my lunch was the least important thing”.

The final of the six cases did not finish until just before 5pm.

Apologising to the parties for the late finish, the judge said “if it hadn’t been for that wretched door jamming we might have been done a bit earlier”.

HM Courts & Tribunals Service has been approached for comment.

Worrying findings in new survey

Judges across the UK are facing increasing pressures, with the latest Judicial Attitude Survey highlighting rising stress, safety concerns, bullying, and dissatisfaction with pay, painting a challenging picture of life on the bench.

The findings, published this week, form party of a study conducted by the UCL Judicial Institute, aiming to shed light on the experiences and views of judges across the UK. The report, which saw a participation rate of 94% among UK salaried judges, has found that personal safety is a serious concern, with nearly four in ten judges (39%) now worried about their safety in court. Concerns about safety outside of court have also risen from 19% to 26%.

District judges in the magistrates’ courts report the highest levels of concern, with 58% feeling vulnerable. Area coroners (62%) and senior coroners (53%) also expressed significant safety worries. These fears come against the backdrop of recent high-profile incidents, including an attack on a family judge.

Bullying within the judiciary is also on the rise. According to the survey, 14% of salaried judges and 7% of fee-paid judges reported experiencing bullying in the last two years, up from 11% and 5% respectively in 2022. Respondents described the bullying as undermining their work, overbearing leadership, and demeaning language. Most incidents were attributed to senior colleagues or leadership figures within the judiciary. However, over two-thirds of those affected chose not to report it, citing concerns about potential consequences or a belief that it would not make a difference.

Judicial stress levels are also worryingly high. This is the first year the survey asked about stress, and almost all judges admitted to feeling it. The highest levels were reported by family division High Court judges and circuit judges. Symptoms included sleep disturbances (77%), irritability (57%), and headaches (52%). A significant number also reported burnout (30%) and feelings of isolation (29%).

The most commonly cited cause of stress was workload. Over half (58%) said they struggled to find personal time due to workload pressures, while 53% admitted they found it difficult to maintain a work-life balance. Other stressors included the demands of case management and digital working pressures.

Pay also remains a contentious issue in the judiciary. Judges have faced declining net earnings for the past decade, and many feel they are not adequately compensated for the work they do. More than half of district judges (61%) and 55% of district judges in the magistrates’ courts say they are underpaid. This financial dissatisfaction is contributing to low morale, with nearly half of all salaried judges considering quitting early.

According to the survey, 699 salaried judges plan to leave the judiciary within the next five years, either due to dissatisfaction or reaching retirement age. Another 327 are undecided, bringing the potential number of judges leaving to 1,117 by 2029. This poses a significant challenge for a judicial system already struggling with case backlogs.

The survey also revealed a decline in societal respect for judges. Almost two-thirds (59%) believe they are less respected by society than they were two years ago. Only 9% of judges feel valued by the government, contributing to a sense of frustration and low morale within the judiciary.

The combination of safety concerns, bullying, high stress levels, pay dissatisfaction, and declining public respect suggests the judiciary is facing significant challenges. With record case backlogs and fewer judges considering joining the bench, the system could face ongoing difficulties in maintaining morale, recruitment, and public confidence.

The Lady Chief Justice, Baroness Carr of Walton-on-the-Hill, is set to appear before the House of Lords Constitution Committee this week, where these findings are expected to be a central focus. How these issues will be addressed remains to be seen.

The Judicial Attitude Survey isn’t the only cause for concern in the courts. At her annual press conference last week, Baroness Carr, revealed shocking conditions in court buildings, from leaking roofs patched with tarpaulins, to toxic fumes from insect infestation treatment. Some courts lack basic necessities like running tap water, while others have lost sitting days due to crumbling infrastructure. Baroness Carr noted that judges are often ‘just keeping a stiff upper lip’ but admitted the number of courts needing urgent renovation is ‘probably too many to mention’.

Master of the Rolls backs artificial intelligence in latest speech

Lawyers should embrace AI, despite horror stories of hallucinations in ChatGPT-created court filings, the Master of the Rolls has said.

In a speech delivered at LawtechUK’s generative AI event, Sir Geoffrey Vos claimed that lawyers and judges have “no real choice” but to embrace AI and set out what, in his view, are three “very good reasons why they should do so.”

Firstly, he mentioned the widespread uptake of AI tools among businesses. “All other industrial, financial and consumer sectors” will use AI “at every level,” the master of the rolls said. If lawyers are to serve these businesses, “there is simply no way” they can set themselves apart and reject AI as dangerous or imprecise.

Secondly, lawyers should be “adept at the understanding the capabilities and weaknesses of generative AI” in order to cope with the influx of “AI liability disputes” that this new technology is likely to cause. Familiarity with the technology will allow lawyers to advise their clients effectively on this issue.

Finally, Vos invoked the efficiency argument, stating simply that embracing AI “will save time and money.” He restated his commitment to creating the Digital Justice System, which would allow civil, family and tribunal disputes to be resolved online, “using AI where appropriate”, without entering the “expensive and time-consuming” court process.

However, Vos did assure AI sceptics that he advocated for implementing AI tools “cautiously and responsibly”, making a tongue-in-cheek jab at the perceived conservatism of the profession: “taking the time that lawyers always like to take before they accept any radical change.”

This speech forms part of an ongoing debate about how AI is best used in the legal system. Vos spoke of the need to “build bridges” between the “enthusiasts” and “sceptics” of AI, seeming to suggest that too many lawyers fall into the latter category.

Speaking of the incidents in which lawyers have used GenAI to write submissions which included fictitious “hallucinated” case references and quotations, Vos said, “We should not be using silly examples of bad practice as a reason to shun the entirety of a new technology.” He mentioned “the hapless Steven Schwartz in New York”, the first of several lawyers to be caught using ChatGPT to create court documents which included such inaccuracies. A lawyer was disciplined just last week in Australia for similar misconduct.

Since his appointment as Master of the Rolls, Vos has become known for his interest in artificial intelligence and innovation, having made several speeches encouraging the use of AI in the justice system including telling lawyers and judges to “get with the programme” on AI back in 2023.