header-logo header-logo

04 June 2014
Issue: 7609 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Points don’t win prizes

District Judge candidate ruled out due to points on driving licence

A solicitor and deputy district judge’s application for a position as a full-time district judge was rejected because he had points on his driving licence.

Graham Jones, family law partner at Smith Llewellyn, was told in December that the Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) rejected his application because he was not of good character as he had seven penalty points. This was the result of two convictions: one for speeding and the other for failing to obey a traffic signal.

Jones brought a judicial review, but his application failed in the High Court. 

Delivering the lead judgment in Jones v JAC [2014] EWHC 1680 (Admin), Sir Brian Leveson said JAC’s 2013 guidance stated that candidates with more than six penalty points on their licence would “normally” be rejected. He ruled that this guidance was lawful and that JAC made a rational decision.

Sir Brian said it was consistent that an application fail even though an existing judge who acquired six penalty points after appointment might be allowed to continue. There were “important differences” between disciplining those who hold judicial office and appointing new judges. 

However, he concluded: “Given the outstanding success that Mr Jones otherwise had in the district judge competition, however, I conclude by hoping that, as the first of his convictions will fall away later this year, he will consider re-applying when the next competition is launched.”

Last October, the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office launched, taking over from the Office for Judicial Complaints. Under the new, speedier system, complaints will be dealt with in three months rather than one year. In 2012, three tribunal members, 17 magistrates and one judge were removed from office, a further 19 judicial office holders were reprimanded, and 16 resigned.

 

Issue: 7609 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll