Magistrate using his phone during trial issued with formal advice

The Judicial Conduct Investigations Office has handed down formal advice to two magistrates.

Ken Stammers JP was issued with formal advice for misconduct after two fellow magistrates, sitting on a trial with Stammers, saw him using his phone during a trial, contrary to guidance.

A presiding justice had to ‘admonish [Stammers] in open court’.

Following a judicial disciplinary investigation, a conduct panel of the London conduct advisory committee found that Stammers had used his phone during the trial.

There was no evidence using his phone had affected his attentiveness, but the panel found ‘Stammers’ actions lacked circumspection and had the potential to damage the reputation of the magistracy’.

Meanwhile, Danny Goodchild JP, a magistrate on the supplemental list, was issued with formal advice for misuse of the JP suffix.

He used his JP suffix when providing a written response to a complaint made against him by a fellow member of the Spiritualist National Union (SNU) about his behaviour during a virtual meeting. The complaint to the SNU was not upheld.

A spokesperson for the JCIO said: ‘When magistrates retire, they are automatically placed on the supplemental list. While supplemental list magistrates have no judicial powers, they are entitled to continue to refer to themselves as a JP.

‘They are also subject to the same expectations in how they conduct themselves as serving magistrates. This includes being circumspect and avoiding use of the suffix ‘JP’ in ways that could be perceived as trying to gain influence.’

Following a judicial disciplinary investigation, a conduct panel of the North West region conduct advisory committee found Goodchild should not have used the JP suffix in the way he did but ‘took into consideration’ that Goodchild had taken responsibility for using the suffix.

The JCIO added: ‘The panel decided that Mr Goodchild’s actions lacked circumspection, had the potential to damage the reputation of the magistracy and therefore amounted to misconduct.’