Lord Justice Richards, an experienced Court of Appeal judge, was arrested in January after allegedly exposing himself to a female passenger on a train in southwest London. He was released on bail and later charged but the scandal had already catapulted him into the national press.
However, it emerged this week that the judiciary chose not to give Richards a full suspension after he voluntarily agreed to refrain from sitting in court.
As reported by legalweek.com (10 May), Richards has continued to handle paper judgments and immigration applications, sparking unrest in some legal circles over what it means to ‘sit in court’ in the wording of the judiciary’s disciplinary code.
Under disciplinary guidelines issued by the Office for Judicial Complaints, a judicial office holder can be suspended on the recommendation of the Lord Chief Justice and the Lord Chancellor.
The judiciary has also rebuffed suggestions of a cover-up after one lawyer claimed that a judge, Lord Justice Wilson, went out of his way to hide Richards’ continued judicial activity by keeping his name off a court transcription on 26 April.
A Judicial Communications Office (JCO) spokesman this week refuted the allegations, adding that, as the appeal was withdrawn earlier that morning, Wilson felt there was no need for his abridged dismissal statement to be recorded. The JCO also stressed that Richards’ involvement in that case had already been specified in open court. However, some lawyers remain unhappy over the episode. One senior human rights solicitor commented: “It seems very bizarre that Richards should be allowed to do anything at all given the circumstances. I cannot see what grounds there could possibly be for justifying that.”
Richards, who denies the charges against him, is due to appear before Westminster Magistrates Court on 11 June.
See legalweek.com/blogs for more comment.
