header-logo header-logo

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

20 February 2025
Categories: Legal News , Profession , Health & safety
printer mail-detail
Judges need to understand their safety in court is ‘paramount’ and should make contact with their local police, the Lady Chief Justice, Baroness Carr has said.

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.’

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll