LCJ concerned about in-court and online security risks for judges

A national programme of improvements to security has been being rolled out since the ‘incredibly serious attack’ last year on Patrick Peruško in Milton Keynes Family Court, Baroness Carr said this week.

‘It's sometimes as simple as moving a witness box from left to right so the witness isn't blocking the judge's exit. It can be making sure that the wooden barrier is working. We have much more regular tests of panic alarms. We have blind tests. We have a new potentially violent person protocol. We have better engagement with local police stations. All of that I'm really engaging with, and trying to get judges to realise many of them do have a police station next door, make contact with the chief constable, make contact with your local police officer so that it all comes to life a bit.’

Speaking at her annual press conference, the Lady Chief Justice said she has become increasingly concerned about online abuse, and has been looking at arrangements in Canada, where there is a dedicated police unit devoted to judicial security.

Baroness Carr said: ‘I think that we are, at the moment, potentially behind the curve, and so I've set up the new security task force headed by Mrs Justice Yip to gather together not only the judges that she wants, but also to draw on expert, I hope, if necessary, external advice to work out what we can do.’

The Lady Chief Justice also spoke out about ‘unacceptable’ comments in the House of Commons during Prime Minister’s Questions on 12 February, regarding an immigration case. She said she has written to the prime minister and Lord Chancellor about the exchange.

The case, which is unreported, concerned a family from Gaza whose application to live with a British relative was incorrectly made on the Ukraine Family Scheme form initially and subsequently appealed on human rights grounds.  

Baroness Carr said: ‘Both the question and the answer were unacceptable. It is for the government visibly to respect and protect the independence of the judiciary, where parties, including the government, disagree with their findings they should do so through the appellate process and, of course, MPs, just like the governing body, also have a duty to respect the rule of law.’