Tory councillor sacked as Justice of the Peace after accusing decide of ‘two-tier justice system’ in ULEZ case | EUROtoday

A Conservative councillor has been dismissed from his function as a Justice of the Peace after publicly criticising a decide and alleging a “two-tier justice system”. Simon Fawthrop, who represents Orpington ward on Bromley Council, made the controversial remarks following the conviction of 4 anti-ULEZ activists for harassing Mayor of London Sir Sadiq Khan.

Mr Fawthrop, performing as a spokesman for the defendants exterior Westminster Magistrates’ Court, said that he himself was a Justice of the Peace. He labelled District Judge Daniel Sternberg’s verdict “inconsistent” and a “body-blow to free speech”, additional suggesting the decide ought to have recused himself as a consequence of “unconscious bias”.

He drew a comparability to a separate case the place Greenpeace activists had been acquitted of legal harm after scaling Rishi Sunak’s home. Mr Fawthrop argued that Judge Sternberg’s resolution to convict the anti-ULEZ campaigners “gave the public an impression of a two-tier justice system”.

The Judicial Conduct Investigations Office (JCIO) has since discovered Mr Fawthrop responsible of gross misconduct, resulting in his elimination as a Justice of the Peace. The ruling revealed that he had claimed to be the goal of a “politically motivated” criticism, and was discovered to have basically misunderstood his duties.

The JCIO discover of the misconduct proceedings, which had been carried out in personal, units out: “A complaint was made to the London Conduct Advisory Committee alleging that Mr Fawthrop publicly criticised a court judgment and the criminal justice system and referred to his status as a magistrate while acting as spokesperson for a group of defendants.

“It was also alleged that Mr Fawthrop had failed to notify his bench chair of his involvement in acting as a spokesperson for the group.”

When confronted with the conduct investigation, Mr Fawthrop “maintained that the views expressed were not his own and that he had not been directly involved in the case”, the notice continues.

“He argued that his involvement as a spokesperson was in his capacity as a councillor and not as a magistrate.

“He accepted that he had referred to his judicial status during one statement and apologised, saying it was unintentional. Mr Fawthrop described the complaint against him as politically motivated.”

Mr Fawthrop made his remarks exterior the central London courthouse in December 2024 after activists Nicholas Arlett, Martin Whitehead, Alison Young and Lloyd Dunsford had been convicted of harassment and handed fines over their demonstration round 100m from Sir Sadiq’s Tooting house.

The demonstration was known as to oppose the rollout by the mayor of ULEZ expenses to outer London.

Afterwards, Mr Fawthrop known as the choice “a travesty of justice” and instructed the group would mount an attraction.

“Today’s judgment is another body-blow for free speech and peaceful protest in this country,” he stated.

He instructed Judge Sternberg might have “misdirected himself” and had not taken into consideration the affect on free speech of convicting the defendants.

When requested a couple of suggestion that the decide might have been biased due to an alleged private hyperlink to an occasion involving Sir Sadiq, Mr Fawthrop replied: “He should have taken the opportunity – and I can say this as a JP – that if there’s any doubt whatsoever that you might actually have an interest, or be not seen to be doing justice at all, you recuse yourself automatically and on this occasion this didn’t happen, and it should have happened in my view.”

A JCIO disciplinary panel “found that Mr Fawthrop’s conduct had the cumulative effect of undermining public confidence in the judiciary and the criminal justice system”.

It added: “His comments, which included criticism of the trial judge’s impartiality and integrity, were considered inappropriate for a serving magistrate.

“The panel noted that Mr Fawthrop had failed to notify his bench chair of his involvement in the case.

“They found that his justification – that he was acting solely in his capacity as a councillor – demonstrated a fundamental misunderstanding of the obligations of judicial office.

“The panel also expressed concern that Mr Fawthrop continued to minimise the seriousness of his actions and failed to fully acknowledge the risk of damage to the magistracy and the criminal justice system.”

The Lady Chief Justice Baroness Sue Carr and Lord Chancellor David Lammy agreed with the discovering of gross misconduct, and ordered Mr Fawthrop be eliminated as a Justice of the Peace.