Councillor stripped of magistrate role after criticising ULEZ court ruling

The Judicial Conduct Investigations Office (JCIO) found that the actions of Simon Fawthrop, a member of Bromley Council, had amounted to gross misconduct.

The complaint centred around comments he made outside Westminster Magistrates' Court following a decision by District Judge Daniel Sternberg to fine four ULEZ protestors for harassing the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan.

According to a report from the Independent, Fawthrop said he was a magistrate himself, described the verdicts as "inconsistent" and suggested the judge should have recused himself due to "unconscious bias".

Video posted online shows Fawthrop acting as a spokesperson for the four defendants outside the court. In it, he can be seen stating: "It brings the justice system into disrepute when you get these inconsistencies."

He adds: "I know it is each case sort of on its merits, but this was not anywhere near Sadiq Khan's house."

The JCIO decision, handed down on Tuesday (21 April), notes that a disciplinary panel found his conduct had the cumulative effect of undermining public confidence in the judiciary and the criminal justice system.

"His comments, which included criticism of the trial judge’s impartiality and integrity, were considered inappropriate for a serving magistrate," it added.

The panel also noted that Fawthrop failed to notify his bench chair of his involvement in the case.

They found that his justification – that he was acting solely in his capacity as a councillor – demonstrated a fundamental misunderstanding of the obligations of judicial office.

The panel also expressed concern that he "continued to minimise" the seriousness of his actions and failed to fully acknowledge the risk of damage to the magistracy and the criminal justice system.

The councillor meanwhile admitted to making public comments on the case but maintained that the views expressed were not his own and that he had not been directly involved in the case.

He argued that his involvement as a spokesperson was in his capacity as a councillor and not as a magistrate.

He also accepted that he had referred to his judicial status during one statement and apologised, but claimed that it was unintentional.

The councillor also hit out at the complaint, describing it as politically motivated.

The Lady Chief Justice and Lord Chancellor ultimately agreed with the disciplinary panel’s finding of gross misconduct and recommendation to remove Fawthrop from office.

Adam Carey