Piece by Joshua Rozenberg on recent guidance on social media use. He picks up the point that its application to fee paid judges (and non-lawyer tribunal members) looks like quite a serious new restriction on their professional and political activity. open.substack.com/pub/rozenber... - ThreadSky

georgeperetzkc.bsky.social • 130 days ago

Piece by Joshua Rozenberg on recent guidance on social media use. He picks up the point that its application to fee paid judges (and non-lawyer tribunal members) looks like quite a serious new restriction on their professional and political activity. https://open.substack.com/pub/rozenberg/p/what-not-to-say-on-x?r=ga1yo&utm_medium=ios

Comments

juliedoughty.bsky.social•130 days ago

perhaps it will be modified? It seems to be being widely discussed and critiqued before actual publication

radiobeartime.com•130 days ago

They read much like the guidance for civil servants. Which is where I suspect any tension will arise.

mambarlife.bsky.social•130 days ago

That is a perceptive observation and a concern that some that have expressed that the judiciary are in essence being shoehorned into being civil servants.

radiobeartime.com•130 days ago

Yes, I worked with a lot of lawyers in my public sector time and that was a constant complaint throughout the profession from the RCJ down. Judicial independence must be preserved.

On the other hand idiots must have the manners put on them :)

mambarlife.bsky.social•130 days ago

Well now…

And what do they do about retired Law Lords? ;-)

radiobeartime.com•130 days ago

🚀

seanmackey.bsky.social•130 days ago

The not to correct inaccurate information clause is rather problematic and worrisome.

marverde.bsky.social•128 days ago

"They are instructed not get involved in arguments or debates about controversial subjects, even to **correct inaccurate** or offensive content posted by others."

I'm no lawyer but that scared the wits out of me.

marverde.bsky.social•128 days ago

Also, impartiality is inferred from simply hiding your opinions, from silence.

I'd rather have the opposite, to avoid big shocks at the wrong moment.

If nobody knows how a judge thinks, a real bigot is considered impartial. What a joke.

davidmuttering.bsky.social•130 days ago

I was interested - and not a little surprised- to read about this. It seems likely to have a deleterious effect on inclusivity and suggest that tribunals can only be disinterested if they're uninterested.

marverde.bsky.social•128 days ago

👍🏻

mambarlife.bsky.social•130 days ago

Perfectly put

majorclanger.bsky.social•130 days ago

Indeed. Does this mean DDJ Bloggs could not post about a law firm or Chambers event co-organised with a domestic abuse charity, in case he or she was somehow seen as prejudiced against people who hit their partners and so unfit to hear applications for non-molestation orders?

georgeperetzkc.bsky.social•130 days ago

I suspect that’d be OK, given that it’s not a politically controversial view. Though a quick visit to X might make you query that assertion.

lottiejohn1.bsky.social•128 days ago

I read the guidance as preventing a barrister who sits from commenting on SM on e.g. assisted dying. But not from participating on a panel discussion on the same topic. Why should one be a conduct issue if the other is not?

davidmuttering.bsky.social•128 days ago

Also, if the regulation only begins on appointment, how is it different if one has spoken out via SM etc on issues prior to appointment?

lottiejohn1.bsky.social•128 days ago

Well, quite. The Guide to Judicial Conduct also says this (which the social media guidance does not appear to make allowance for).

georgeperetzkc.bsky.social•130 days ago

I agree.

ishankolhatkar.com•128 days ago

@seanjones.org posted a link a few weeks ago. I can’t see how any salaried or fee-paid Judge can use social media at all if they follow them to the letter, beyond posting pictures of fluffy cats. Even then, is that implying an anti-dog sentiment?

Perhaps that’s the aim.

georgeperetzkc.bsky.social•128 days ago

It’s also flatly inconsistent with the Guide to Judicial Conduct, which says this about what fee-paid judges can say in public.

mambarlife.bsky.social•130 days ago

Thank you for sharing as mere junior I was blissfully unaware.

gingercrone.bsky.social•130 days ago

Applies to volunteer magistrates too. Who hold quite different roles outside their one, maybe two days a month in court. I would imagine it could deter many people from applying.

billbj6.bsky.social•130 days ago

Suggesting one needs to hide a point of view, to appear balanced.
Isn't that flawed?
Doesn't that simply create hidden views.
Better to display an open mind where points of view are not rigidly held, but open to change from other considered perspectives.

georgeperetzkc.bsky.social•130 days ago

I think the test should be whether (a) it gives rise to a real risk of apparent bias in the type of case you might realistically have to decide (eg a part-time immigration judge shouldn’t attack the Home Office/“lefty lawyers”) and (b) does it bring the judiciary into disrepute (eg abuse/prejudice).

georgeperetzkc.bsky.social•130 days ago

But I don’t see any reason why a part-time judge doing (say) special educational needs appeals should not express firm public views about (say) the Safety of Rwanda Act.

georgeperetzkc.bsky.social•130 days ago

Or why (as, say, a practitioner in competition law) they should not write a post on Linked In that is highly critical of a Competition Appeal Tribunal judgment that is being appealed.

billbj6.bsky.social•130 days ago

So wisdom is required.
Hopefully that's available in the people who uphold the basic boundaries in public life.

Comments

Posting Rules

Reply