Judge: I was out of line – but I intend to fight sacking
The judge sacked for going online to comment on stories about his own cases has admitted being reckless but says his punishment was too severe.
Jason Dunn-Shaw, who sat as a part-time judge at Maidstone and Canterbury crown courts, is appealing against his dismissal from the judiciary on the grounds it is disproportionate and marked by procedural deficiencies.
Last week we revealed Mr Dunn-Shaw was removed after describing his critics as “donkeys” and “trolls”, accused them of being “narrow-minded and bigoted” and complained “lots of warty fingers at work here”.
The barrister and member of Maidstone Chambers, said he had served diligently, adding: “The Judicial Conduct Investigations Office (JCIO) accepts comments were made on KentOnline under a pseudonym.
“The day I received my sacking was the same day a judge was exonerated for calling a defendant a deeply offensive term in open court. It seems to me unfair the tracking of anonymous material places me where I am now.”
The story was followed by national media including Radio 4’s Today programme and he told presenter John Humphrys: “I think the sacking is wholly disproportionate and frankly unfair.
“I absolutely agree I was reckless and now I understand the position a reprimand or formal warning would have been appropriate.”
The comments at the centre of the furore – made under the pseudonym “Querelle” – had appeared on our sister website KentOnline beneath reports of a case in which he had sat as judge and another in which he had represented a family subsequently convicted of fraud.
Mr Dunn-Shaw said his comments were justified after visitors to KentOnline had described his client Margaret Rigby as an “evil witch” and a “disgusting old broad”.
In 2015, Rigby, her daughter and her son-in-law were convicted by a jury at Canterbury of defrauding elderly dementia sufferer Barbara Lewis out of £57,000. Abusive comments under “Querelle” appeared beneath a report of the trial.
Mrs Lewis’s son Nick complained to the JCIO, believing only Mr Dunn-Shaw could have written them since they showed such intimate knowledge of the case.
The JCIO said: “The Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice concluded this behaviour fell below the standard expected of a judicial office holder and have removed Mr Dunn-Shaw from office.”