A court official who alleges he was dismissed for whistleblowing about a magistrate conducting hearings from his home in Portugal is taking legal action against the Ministry of Justice for unfair dismissal.
Chris John, a former legal adviser, said he was 'shocked' to discover that magistrate Phil Taylor was participating in criminal case decisions at Reading Magistrates' Court from his residence near Lisbon. Mr John raised concerns that the remote working arrangement could render unlawful the convictions and sentences imposed during that session, as well as thousands of others overseen by Mr Taylor.
Mr John escalated his complaints to Justice Secretary David Lammy and Courts Minister Sarah Sackman. An investigation by senior judges and officials concluded that magistrates should not join hearings from outside the UK. However, Mr John claims he encountered resistance to a broader probe into Single Justice Procedure (SJP) practices, including the use of Microsoft Teams links and magistrates dialling in from undisclosed locations.
He asserts that he faced bullying and ostracism after refusing to participate in SJP sessions he deemed unlawful, and that his dismissal was an act of retaliation for his whistleblowing. In July 2024, Mr John was assigned as legal adviser to Mr Taylor during an online SJP session, where the magistrate revealed he was connecting from Portugal—a practice he said had been ongoing 'for years now'.
'I was seriously concerned that Mr Taylor must have undertaken thousands of SJP cases whilst being at home in Portugal, yet my employer took no action to either establish the number of cases undertaken or establish how Mr Taylor had ever been allowed to conduct hearings from Portugal,' Mr John stated in his employment tribunal claim.
Mr John further argued that courts were being given quotas for SJP case processing. During the pandemic, legislation permitted remote SJP sessions via Teams, but these provisions were withdrawn in 2022. Mr John contends that courts have continued remote hearings without proper legal authority, potentially invalidating many convictions.
After being transferred to Guildford Magistrates' Court in October 2024, Mr John said a manager, Andrew Przedborski, was 'content for me to be bullied' following disagreements over the legality of remote SJP hearings. He was suspended after intervening in an altercation between two youths and police officers in July 2025. Mr John believes his eventual dismissal on March 13, 2026, was linked to his whistleblowing.
During the incident, Mr John said he saw a youth approaching officers who were detaining a violent suspect. 'The youth made contact with my arm, kept moving forward and I pushed him away with my hand on the side of his neck and thumb under his chin to force him away from the police officers,' he recounted. He added that the youth struck him in the chest, and he continued trying to move him away until an adult male detained the youth.
Mr John received a letter of thanks from Surrey Police Chief Constable Tim De Meyer for his intervention, but the Ministry of Justice suspended and later dismissed him. He claims footage of the incident was unlawfully shared and deleted by court staff, a matter reported to the Information Commissioner's Office. The disciplinary hearing proceeded without him despite his request for an adjournment due to his mother's cancer diagnosis.
His local MP, Sir Jeremy Hunt, raised questions about the SJP system with Courts Minister Sarah Sackman, who confirmed that officials investigated the complaint about the magistrate sitting from Portugal. She stated: 'The Senior Presiding Judge’s advice to the judiciary is that magistrates and judges should not participate in court proceedings by live link outside the territory of the UK. This is because states might object that only its judges can make judicial decisions in their territory.'
However, Ms Sackman added: 'I am told that there are no grounds to suggest that any case where this member of the judiciary conducted remote hearings from abroad was unlawful and would therefore need to be nullified. Court orders are binding unless and until they are overturned on appeal.'
The Ministry of Justice confirmed that it does not retain records of magistrates' locations during remote SJP sessions. A spokesperson said: 'Magistrates carry out vital work serving the delivery of justice in England and Wales. There is clear guidance that they are expected to take part in court business only while in the UK.'
The SJP system, handling around 800,000 low-level offences annually, has faced criticism for its lack of transparency. Campaign group Transform Justice has labelled it 'conveyor belt justice', raising concerns that magistrates make decisions too quickly without proper evidence scrutiny. The MoJ conducted a consultation on potential reforms last spring, but no conclusions have been published.
The first hearing of Mr John's tribunal case is scheduled for Thursday.
