Two magistrates have been issued with formal warnings for misconduct over their interactions with colleagues – with one magistrate’s communication described as ‘[verging] on bullying’.
A complaint was made by two colleagues that at a sitting in September last year Alfred Bean responded in an abrupt manner to advice given to him about the safekeeping of a laptop. He was also alleged to have responded in an ‘aggressive and cynical manner to feedback about the delivery of his opinion relating to a sentencing decision’ which ‘caused upset and fractured the atmosphere’. Bean, as a result, left the court early.
The magistrate, who was issued with formal advice for similar misconduct in August 2025, denied the allegations.
A spokesperson for the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office said: ‘[Bean] stated that although he did not agree with the advice about the laptop, he nevertheless followed it and did not intend to cause offence.’
Bean said he ‘intended to be helpful during the hearing and denied interrupting the presider’. An investigation found Bean did not intend to be ‘overly assertive’ but his communication came across as ‘aggressive and verged on bullying’. It found this was a breach of the statement of expected behaviour and amounted to misconduct.
Mr Justice Keehan, on behalf of the lady chief justice, and with the lord chancellor’s agreement issued Bean with a formal warning.
Read more
A second magistrate, Fiona Williams, was subject to a complaint concerning allegations of displaying anger and frustration toward a colleague. A separate complaint about Williams alleged she had spoken ‘patronisingly to parties’, commented on political issues in the court retiring room and delayed proceedings by showing personal photographs to colleagues.
Williams admitted shouting at a colleague and showing a loss of temper.
The JCIO said: ‘[Williams] expressed regret and that she should have handled the situation differently. She also accepted that it was inappropriate for her to comment on political matters in the retiring room and gave assurances that she would concentrate on court business in future.’
An investigation concluded Williams’ actions amounted to misconduct. It noted Williams had served as a magistrate for 29 years without previous disciplinary findings but considered the ‘repeated nature of the incidents and her role as an experienced presiding justice to be aggravating factors’.
Mr Justice Keehan, on behalf of the lady chief justice, and with the agreement of the lord chancellor, has issued Williams with a formal warning for misconduct.
Sanctions for misconduct by judicial office-holders are, in order of severity, formal advice, formal warning, reprimand and removal from office.
No comments yet