Insights / News
Insights / News
The First Claimant is the father of Indi Gregory, who was terminally ill and tragically passed away in 2023 following the implementation of a care plan permitting the withdrawal of life support treatment. That decision was sanctioned by the High Court (Peel J) against whose decision an appeal was made. Permission to appeal was refused by the Court of Appeal by Peter Jackson LJ, King LJ and Moylan LJ (who were named as Interested Parties in this judicial review claim). The Second Claimant was part of the legal team supporting the First Claimant in those proceedings.
The Claimants made complaints to the First Defendant about remarks made by Peter Jackson LJ, approved by the other LJs, in the judgment refusing permission to appeal, which in their view were not necessary to the judgment and which unfairly reflected negatively on them, constituting misconduct about which a complaint could be made. The First Defendant refused to consider the complaint because it was about a judicial decision. The Claimants complained further about that decision to the Second Defendant, who upheld the First Defendant’s approach. The Claimants then commenced judicial review proceedings against the Defendants.
Although a refusal of permission decision, Dove J expressly noted the lack of judicial consideration of the legal framework governing the activities of the First Defendant, and therefore granted permission for the judgment to be cited. His detailed judgment discusses the importance of judicial independence from a constitutional perspective, and concludes at paragraph 47:
“In my view it is clear, and a cardinal principle upon which the 2005 Act is built, that judicial independence must be guaranteed and safeguarded. This is a principle which has to govern the operation of the first defendant’s role in relation to the disciplinary powers contained in sections 108 and 115 of the 2005 Act. In undertaking their activities they must protect judicial independence and take account of the Lord Chancellor’s duty not only to protect judicial independence but also recognise the need for the judiciary to have the support necessary for them to exercise their judicial functions. As noted, it is clear that this is reflected in the 2023 Rules; it is also reflected in the emphasis in the guidance provided by the first defendant online focussing on a judge’s “personal behaviour” as distinct from a decision that they have made or how they have managed a case. It is this distinction which leads to what the first defendant describes in written submissions as its limited remit.”
Permission to proceed with the judicial review claim was accordingly refused on the basis that no admissible complaint about judicial misconduct had been made.
Dove J’s decision can be found here: Gregory & Anor v Judicial Conduct Investigations Office & Anor [2025] EWHC 201 (Admin) (03 February 2025).
Alex Line specialises in the areas of employment and education law. He has extensive employment and discrimination law experience, having practised in these areas throughout his career at the Bar. He is also well placed to assist with public law cases affecting these and associated areas. Alex has a busy advisory and advocacy practice, regularly appearing in the Employment Tribunal, County Court and the First-Tier Tribunal. He also has High Court, Employment Appeal Tribunal, Upper Tribunal, and Court of Appeal experience. He has been appointed to the Attorney General’s panel of counsel to the Crown (B Panel) and has previously been on the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s panel of counsel (B Panel).
To find out more about Alex, contact Nick Levett on +44 (0)20 7427 4908 or Chris Rowe on +44 (0)207 427 4911 for a confidential discussion.
News 4 Feb, 2025
Call: 2009
