Judges expense shampoo, crockery and taxis to collect their robes
THE judiciary is to be given a new expenses policy after The Daily Telegraph found that Britain’s most senior judges have claimed for crockery and shampoo on taxpayer-funded expenses.
Data released under the Freedom of Information Act show how some of the most high-profile members of the judiciary in England and Wales had claims for everyday items approved, even though they receive a salary of at least £180,000.
At present, judges are encouraged to follow the expenses policy for Ministry of Justice (MOJ) civil servants, and the judiciary has also set out specific guidance relating to travel, accommodation and relocation.
However, it can now be revealed that the MOJ is finalising a specific expenses policy for judges and that discussions are taking place about resuming publication of the expenses, which was stopped in 2013 to save money.
The disclosures about claims approved by the MOJ are likely to raise questions about whether the system is adequately monitored.
The data relates to claims paid to all judges in the High Court and Court of Appeal, as well as heads of divisions, in the year ending February 2018.
There are 140 such judges in England and Wales, and 93 of whom had 2,467 claims approved over the period.
Dame Philippa Whipple claimed £64.98 for “crockery” for her office and Sir Andrew Edis claimed £15 on a taxi journey for “transporting ceremonial robes”.
Dame Gwynneth Knowles, a High Court judge who was appointed in Oc- tober 2017, claimed £5 for “shampoo”. Lord Ian Burnett, who took up the most senior judicial position of Lord Chief Justice in October 2017 on a salary of more than £250,000, claimed for multiple journeys to and from his home.
Unlike MPS, judges face no restrictions on claiming for the cost of firstclass rail travel, often citing their need to work with confidential documents when making such claims, despite there being nothing to stop other members of the public accessing their coaches. The data shows there were more than 70 such journeys made – the most expensive cost nearly £240.
A spokesman for the MOJ said: “Judges perform a vital role in society and are often expected to travel considerable distances to carry out their work.
“When necessary, expenses can be claimed to cover reasonable travel, accommodation and subsistence costs.
“There are strict limits on how much can be claimed but there may be occasions where it is appropriate to exceed these limits, such as on international visits or where bookings need to be made at short notice.”
A spokesman for the judiciary said that the crockery, “which was not from a luxury brand”, was purchased by Mrs Justice Whipple so that she “could give tea and coffee when she hosted meetings”. The spokesman added that Mr Justice Edis used a taxi at the end of a trial at a London court to transport “his working robes, documents from the case, legal text books used in the case and other papers he was working on” to the Royal Courts of Justice, where he is based.
Lord Burnett’s “use of his personal car is less of a cost to the taxpayer than taking a taxi”, the spokesman said, adding that in the case of Mrs Justice Knowles’s claim for shampoo, it was not “unreasonable for anybody who was working away from home for a long period to spend a small amount of money on toiletries”.