JCIO 44/24

A spokesperson for the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office said:

Mr Justice Keehan, on behalf of the Lady Chief Justice and with the Lord Chancellor’s agreement, has issued Mr Manjit Cheema JP with a formal warning for misconduct.

Facts

The declaration and undertaking which all magistrates sign on appointment includes a commitment to be circumspect in their conduct and maintain confidences.

On 23 September 2023, Mr Cheema’s bench chair made a statement to the North-East Conduct Advisory Committee about a conversation during which Mr Cheema had remarked that a male party to a case could be a risk to women. Mr Cheema subsequently emailed a witness statement from the case to the bench chair in breach of confidentiality and data protection. The bench chair also stated that on another occasion, Mr Cheema told him that he had contacted the male’s employer anonymously.

Mr Cheema’s representations

Mr Cheema accepted that he had forwarded a witness statement from the case, which included personal details of individuals, to his bench chair. He stated that he did so because he had not dealt with a case of this nature before, and he wanted to aid his learning by sharing the document with his bench chair and asking for his advice.

While accepting that he had expressed his concerns about the male party to the case in a retiring room conversation with colleagues, Mr Cheema denied that he had contacted the individual’s employer or said that he had done so.

Mr Cheema apologised for his actions. He stated that he understood his obligations regarding confidentiality and had not intended to cause any harm by his actions.

Conduct panel’s findings

A conduct panel established under the Judicial Conduct (Magistrates) Rules 2014 found that Mr Cheema had not contacted the employer. The panel noted that in verbal evidence the bench chair accepted that he might have misheard Mr Cheema.

The conduct panel found that by sending the witness statement to his bench chair, Mr Cheema breached confidentiality, failed to be circumspect in his conduct and failed to respect confidences. He also failed to comply with guidance on judicial data protection.

In recommending that Mr Cheema receive a reprimand, the conduct panel, while acknowledging that he had apologised and had a lengthy and unblemished record of service, concluded that he had shown little insight regarding the potential consequences of his actions.

Decision

Having considered all the circumstances of the case and Mr Cheema’s 25-year record of service with no previous findings of misconduct, Mr Justice Keehan and the Lord Chancellor decided that a formal warning would be reasonable and proportionate.

Notes for Editors

Media queries in relation to the JCIO should be made in the first instance to the Judicial Press Office - telephone 020 7073 4852 or via email - press.enquiries@judiciary.gsi.gov.uk

Sanctions for misconduct by judicial office-holders are set out in the Constitutional Reform Act 2005. They are, in order of severity: formal advice, formal warning, reprimand and removal from office.

For more information about the Office, including details on how to make a complaint against a judicial office holder, you can visit the JCIO website at: Judicial Conduct Investigations website