Barrister wrongly jailed for contempt has JR application over JCIO complaint dismissed

A barrister wrongly imprisoned for alleged contempt of court has failed in his latest attempt to have the responsible judge investigated for misconduct. 

Sharaz Ahmed, called in 2000, was imprisoned by Her Honour Judge George for an alleged contempt of court in November 2023. He was immediately sentenced to six weeks imprisonment. By the time the order was quashed by the Court of Appeal, Ahmed had served three weeks at HMP Wandsworth.

Ahmed, who was a partner of Landmark Legal LLP at the time, complained to the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office about George’s conduct at two hearings in Guildford Crown court. The vast majority of his complaint was rejected by the JCIO as it was not considered misconduct under its statutory remit. Allegations of an ‘aggressive and intimidating’ tone were considered ‘misconceived’ by an investigator.

An application for judicial review of the rejection was heard by Mrs Justice Stacey. Fiona Horlick KC, for Ahmed, said: ‘[Ahmed] is asking for this to be looked at rather than dismissed on the basis the judge was not rude enough... The thrust of my argument is that what happened on this particular case falls into the category of misconduct. It was conduct that was so egregious that it should be investigated.’

She added: ‘Whatever [Her Honour Judge George] might have thought, the fact is that the Court of Appeal had no trouble in finding that there were no proceedings against the claimant in this particular case and therefore no proceedings on which it was possible for her to have found a contempt and to have gone on to imprison the appellant in this case.

‘It was a very gross error. To imprison anybody where there were no proceedings is bad enough but to imprison a practising lawyer perhaps is almost worse, but in any case that is what happened. There were no proceedings against him, he was never issued with anything with his own name with a penal notice. Misconduct is a word that should cover a situation like this because the conduct is so egregious that it should be investigated.’

Alex Line, for the JCIO, said: ‘There has to be detachment from judicial case management and decisions from misconduct. That closes the door, in my submission, very firmly against the submissions that are made today.’

Passing judgment following the short hearing, the judge said: ‘It is apparent from the wording of the [JCIO] letter…when considering the nature of the complaints made by the claimant that these were, other than the aggressive and intimidating tone and interruptions and bullying behaviour, that these were absolutely matters of judicial decision and case management that are not at the behest of misconduct.’

The behaviour complained of had been investigated at first level, she added. ‘Having read the transcript of the hearing’ she was ‘satisfied there was no error’ in the JCIO’s decision to conclude that the rest of Ahmed’s complaint was ‘misconceived’.

Refusing the application, the judge said: ‘I find that the application for judicial review is not arguable, that the matters complained of plainly fall well outside any possible definition [of misconduct]. The judge did not behave in the way alleged.’

No order as to costs was made.