I wrote to the Judicial Conduct Investigations Unit about the Palestine Action Proscription ruling and in particular Baroness Carr's ludicrous and offensive description of the Suffragettes as "a direct action civil disobedience protest group ... operating transparently in the open" when it was quite clearly a terrorist organisation that used firebombing tactics, horsewhipped Winston Churchill at at railway station and invented the letter bomb...
Now this was a bit naughty as I know I cannot make a complaint about the Judgement itself so I thought instead I'd find an obscure ground to make a technical complaint on so chose sexist language and so ... I was expecting to get a response saying that this is not a relevant complaint.
However, not only did I get a response stating that the complaint was rejected I got the following bizarre reply stating that even if Baroness Carr had indeed been sexist - which assertion they rejected - she was in fact outside the remit of the Judicial Conduct Investigations Unit because the "Lady Chief Justice" is not classed as a "Senior Judge". One might ask what she's doing sitting on the Court of Appeal then? Or indeed why she's on the Privy Council? Or why she's on £312,000 a year? Or why she is is the Head of the Judiciary of England and Wales and the President of the Courts of England and Wales? Was no one else available?
Apparently I can still complain to the Judicial Appointments and Conduct Ombudsman which I may do about the historical ignorance of our Judges but I found it interesting that they rejected my complaint not just for being bollocks but because the Lady Chief Justice is not a Senior enough Judge.
If you're wondering how senior you have to be to be called a senior Judge the mysterious answers are chronicled below in a communication that reads like something out of Jarndyce & Jarndyce...
Our ref: 52004/26
02 July 2026
Dear Anthony Miller,
Complaint Regarding the Lady Chief Justice
I refer to your complaint dated 17 June regarding the Lady Chief Justice.
I have now assessed your complaint. You are receiving this letter because your complaint is
outside the JCIO’s statutory remit.
The framework for considering complaints about judicial conduct is set out in Chapter 3 of
Part 4 of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 (“the Act”), the Judicial Discipline (Prescribed
Procedures) Regulations 2014 (“the 2014 regulations”) and the supporting Judicial Conduct
Rules.
The statutory framework applies to judicial office holders. Judicial office, for the purposes of
discipline, is defined in section 109(4) of the Act as office as a senior judge or an office listed
in Schedule 14 to the Act. The office of senior judge is further defined in section 109(5) as any
of –
• The Master of the Rolls
• The President of the Queen’s Bench Division
• The President of the Family Division
• The Chancellor of the High Court
• A Lord Justice of Appeal
• A puisne judge of the High Court
The office of Lady (or Lord) Chief Justice does not appear in either Schedule 14 to the Act or
in the definition of senior judge as set out in section 109(5). It is for this reason that the
statutory framework does not apply to the office of the Lady Chief Justice.
For the reasons explained above, the office of Lady Chief Justice is not a judicial office in the
context of the judicial discipline rules and regulations and nor is it any of the other types of
offices listed in that regulation.
It may assist you to know that even if the office of Lady Chief Justice had fallen within the
remit of the judicial discipline rules and regulations, your complaint would have been rejected
in any event. This is because, as part of their case management discretion, judges are entitled
to form and express opinions about issues related to a case they are presiding over. Expressing
that view in the language you have cited in the example provided would not constitute
misconduct. The language itself was not inappropriate, even though you personally found the
judge’s view to be offensive. The fact you have been offended would not, in itself, constitute
misconduct on the part of the judge.
Please note that we cannot respond to any further correspondence about your complaint that
does not contain relevant new information which might give rise to the need to reconsider
our decision.
Judicial Appointments and Conduct Ombudsman
You can complain to the Judicial Appointments and Conduct Ombudsman, Douglas
Marshall, if you believe the JCIO have not handled your complaint properly. The
Ombudsman does not have the power to investigate the complaint itself, but he can
consider how the JCIO has handled it. You should make your complaint within 28 days of
receiving this letter. The Ombudsman is not required to consider complaints outside this
period. If you miss this deadline, the Ombudsman usually will not look at your complaint
unless there is a good reason for the delay.
To make a complaint, use the online form: https://jaco.form.service.justice.gov.uk
The Ombudsman will need your permission in order to consider your complaint. You will
need to provide your permission for his Office to disclose your complaint to the JCIO, and
for the JCIO to disclose our documents to them.
You will also need to provide your JCIO reference number. It is in the top right of this letter.
It will start with “Our Ref” and have seven numbers, for example, 12345/26.
The Ombudsman’s Office can also be contacted:
• In writing: 1.55, 1st Floor, The Tower, 102 Petty France, London, SW1H 9AJ
• By e-mail: headofoffice@judicialombudsman.gov.uk
You can find further information about the Ombudsman, as well as easy-read versions of
the complaint form and leaflet, at: https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/judicialappointments-and-conduct-ombudsman
Your personal data
You can find information about how the JCIO collects and processes personal data in our
Privacy Notice: www.complaints.judicialconduct.gov.uk/privacy-notice.
My Complaint
Summary: The Judge said : "It is not - as claimed - a direct action civil disobedience protest group like the suffragettes, operating transparently in the open," she added. "It is a covert organisation which operates with secret cells to avoid the detection and prosecution of those using violence to destroy property and cause injury." I wish to complain that this is sexist. The Women's Social and Political Union were in fact an extremely accomplished and successful terrorist organisation. They invented the letterbomb sending such devices to both David Lloyd George and Herbert Asquith. They horsewhipped Winston Churchill and Bristol Railway Station. Mabel Capper threw a hatchet at Asquith cutting Irish MP John Redmond on the ear and firebombed the Theatre Royal. When Emmeline Pethick-Lawrence and Frederick Pethick-Lawrence objected to these tactics they were expelled from the WSPU. Asquith was frequently assaulted whilst playing golf. They used not just petrol bombs but had their own production line for the manufacture of nitroglycerine. Destroyed buildings included The Nevill Ground Pavilion, Royal Tunbridge Wells. There was also a tube bombing campaign and multiple postmen were injured by phosphorus letterbomb devices. There was a large firebombing campaign aimed at private houses around London. Schools, prisons, churches and dockyards were all subject to attack. There was even a plan to kidnap the Home Secretary. As a result the counter-terrorist Special Branch of London's Metropolitan Police were brought in to infiltrate meetings resulting in secretive structures of the kind the Judge states did not exist. Given all this well known information which can easily be procured by a visit to wikipedia it is astounding that the Judge equates Palestine Action which the Suffragettes when the Suffragettes clearly deliberately targeted people and not just property. Therefore I wish to complain that the Judge's remarks are sexist in that they seek to portray women as "the gentler sex" and promote a fiction that Universal Suffrage for all was achieved by mere direct action civil disobedience when in fact it was achieved by brutal physical violence and terror. This perpetuates a view that women are not equal to men in their ability to run effective, violent terrorist campaigns. It seeks to portray the Suffragettes as a sterotype of demure, sensible ladies which is insulting to the femaile sex and to humanity as a whole. I therefore which to complain that the Judge's remarks represent using racist, sexist, or otherwise offensive language.
