Judge Cleared of Harassment After Anonymous Trolling Allegations on X
A crown court judge who faced accusations of trolling a prominent female barrister through an anonymous social media account has been officially cleared of harassment. Judge Daniel Sawyer, who presides in Portsmouth, was investigated over allegations that he breached judicial guidance on social media and abused his position by targeting Dr Charlotte Proudman on the platform X.
Allegations of Sustained Online Hostility
The complaint alleged that Judge Sawyer, using the pseudonym 'Yet Another Tweeting Barrister', repeatedly posted, liked, and replied to hostile comments about Dr Proudman. These included claims that she knew 'nothing' about the criminal courts and that her commentary on gender-based violence was 'unprofessional drivel'. Other posts reportedly encouraged users to 'ignore anything that this person tweets'.
Further allegations stated that Mr Sawyer mocked Dr Proudman's understanding of legal terminology, implying it was worse than 'the average GCSE student'. The barrister, a vocal women's rights campaigner, was also criticised for her views on rape laws in various threads.
Controversial Lyric Reference and Investigation
In one notable thread, Mr Sawyer is said to have written: 'Allow me to conclude in the words of what I think is a popular song... the criminal justice system has at least 99 problems but the fact that rape complainants can choose to be screened from the defendant ain't one.' This was interpreted as a play on the Jay-Z lyric 'I got 99 problems but a b**** ain't one', leading to allegations that his followers would assume he was calling Dr Proudman a derogatory term.
The tweets in question were mostly written in 2022, when Sawyer served as a recorder or part-time judge. He was appointed a circuit judge for the western circuit in 2024. The Judicial Conduct Investigations Office (JCIO) launched an investigation after a complaint was filed in June 2025.
Judicial Watchdog's Findings and Response
Judge Sawyer admitted responsibility for the posts under the pseudonym but denied they constituted bullying or harassment. The JCIO's investigation concluded that there was no intent to bully Dr Proudman and that his behaviour did not warrant disciplinary action. Their report stated: 'The conduct complained of would not have breached the disciplinary standards in such a way as to require disciplinary action.'
It is understood that the JCIO initially responded by saying it had upheld the complaint against Mr Sawyer, but this was later clarified as an error. The judicial guidance, circulated to bench members, advises judges to 'pause before you post' and notes that likes can be interpreted as endorsements.
Reactions and Ongoing Dispute
Dr Proudman has maintained that Mr Sawyer's posts were part of a sustained campaign against her. She told The Times: 'Daniel Sawyer targeted me with a public campaign of harassment and misogyny. This behaviour is utterly incompatible with the standards expected of those entrusted with judicial power.'
A JCIO spokesman said: 'The [office] has responsibility for the investigation of conduct and discipline of judges. [We] cannot comment on individual complaints, investigations or legal proceedings.' The Daily Mail has approached Dr Proudman for further comment, while The Times has contacted Mr Sawyer.
Interestingly, Mr Sawyer was initially linked to the anonymous account due to posts about horseback archery, a niche sport in which he is heavily involved. This connection helped identify him as the user behind the controversial tweets.
