For some time now, the OJC has carried the following rubric on decision letters it sends to people who complain about judges:
RESTRICTEDÂ â€” This information is intended for the recipient only and should not be copied to a wider audience without the permission of the author.
This rubric is presumably intended to discourage complainants from speaking to the media. The letters that complainants receive from the complaints body generally contain information that is not made routinely available to reporters.
In March 2010, the OJC wrote to a complainant telling her that her complaint against a junior member of the judiciary responsible for administrative rulings in the High Court had been substantiated.
Glory Anne Clibbery had complained that Master Foster had not tape-recorded all hearings over which he had presided. The OJC said that the Lord Chief Justice had consequently issued formal advice to Master Foster reminding him of the requirement to ensure that an audio recording was made of all court proceedings before him.
This turns out not to have been true. Although the OJC caseworker's letter of 4 March 2010 clearly saysÂ
the Judicial Communications Offfice tells me that Master Foster received informal advice. There is a difference.Â
The Lord Chief Justice has consequently issued formal advice to Master Foster ...
Miss Clibbery complained to the Judicial Appointments and Complaints Ombudsman of the attempt to "gag" her, arguing that a decision letter from the OJC should be as public as a court ruling. She pointed out that she had won something of a victory for free speech in the family courts in 2001, in the case of Clibbery v Allan (seeÂ Allan v ClibberyÂ 2002).
In a letter dated December 24, an investigating officer from the ombudsman's office said that Miss Clibbery's concerns aboutÂ the "restricted" marking on the foot of OJC correspondence had been discussed with the OJC. The letter continued:
I understand that the OJC no longer marks its correspondence in this way. It has also accepted that it cannot prevent you from disseminating its correspondence to a wider audience.
The letter from the ombudsman's office to Miss Clibbery was marked "Private and Confidential".
Joshua Rozenberg is an independent legal commentator who presentsÂ Law in ActionÂ on BBC Radio 4.
- Conduct Unbecoming: The Classical Commentaries of Norman Lebrecht in Standpoint
- Chronicling The Crash: A Standpoint Ebook
- Grounds for Hope
- Is Islam a Peaceful Religion? Daniel Johnson at the Oxford Union
- Standpoint's Autumn Salons
- Win Tickets to the Inaugural Standpoint Salon
- Is Hunter's History Bunk?
- Lawson Collects on Climate Change Bet
- Friends of Russia or Friends of Putin?
- Russia's Win-Win Election
- The Kremlin Plays Old Tricks With Pussy Riot
- A Pyrrhic Victory for Georgian Democracy
- Abandoned in Moscow
- Standpoint's New Facebook Page
- No need to pander to the Bear, Mr Obama
- Standpoint Recommends: The Tacitus Lecture 2012
- Goodbye, Vienna
- Friends Indeed â€” Daniel Johnson on Gertrude Himmelfarb
- New Culture Forum Lecture: Jeremy Hunt
- Kangaroo Courts Arrive Down Under
- The BBC's painful novelties
- Money can't buy you love - Nichi Hodgson
- World Youth Day Diary: Day Four
- World Youth Day Diary: Day Three
- World Youth Day Diary: Day Two
- World Youth Day Diary: Day One