Judges behaving badly

I thought that all people were equal before the law but it seems some are more equal than others.

The Guardian put in a request for the names of judges who had been disciplined. More than 170 members of the judiciary have been found to have misbehaved in the last decade but their names (and what they did) are secret.

Apparently it would affect their ability to do their job if such information was published. It seems we can't be trusted to know who or why or have little idea of even the process so we can determine if it is efficient or effective.

An appeal by the Guardian against the refusal of its Freedom of Information request was rejected today. A copy of the decision can be seen here.

Reporter Rob Evans has written a spirited repost to this in which he says:

This is an outrageous decision. Judges are highly paid public servants whose conduct in court and (to an extent) out of court must be above reproach: it is fundamental that the public should know how complaints against judges are resolved and the reasons why particular judges have been reprimanded or sacked.

and it also gives some useful background on the case. If you think Parliament had learnt from the expenses scandal about fighting FoI cases, think again.

Rob ends the piece saying:

If you know of any cases in which judges have misbehaved, please contact me on [email protected]

And perhaps that is the way forward on this one as taking it to appeal is just too expensive. Let's see what data can be gathered the old fashioned way. Here's one to start off with about the suspension of Avon Coroner Paul Forrest who has now made his own complaint. I should stress that no-one had been found guilty of anything - but if they were, how much would we be allowed to know?

Update: Sarah Ditum makes a nice comparison with the case of police blogger NightJack outed needlessly by the The Times. Paul Bradshaw offers advice for anonymous bloggers.