A court official who claims he was dismissed for whistleblowing about a magistrate dispensing justice from Portugal is taking legal action against the Ministry of Justice for unfair dismissal.
Background of the Case
Chris John, a former legal adviser, said he was 'shocked' to discover Magistrate Phil Taylor dialling into hearings from his home near Lisbon, Portugal, to decide on criminal cases at Reading Magistrates' Court. Mr John raised concerns that Taylor's decisions on low-level crimes under the Single Justice Procedure (SJP), as well as thousands of other remote convictions and sentences, could be unlawful and invalid.
He took his complaints to Justice Secretary David Lammy and Courts Minister Sarah Sackman. Senior judges and officials investigated and concluded that magistrates should not dial into hearings from outside the UK. However, Mr John claimed he faced resistance to a wider investigation into SJP practices, including the use of Microsoft Teams for administering justice and magistrates operating from unknown locations.
Allegations of Bullying and Dismissal
Mr John said he was 'bullied' and ostracised at work after refusing to participate in SJP sessions he believed were unlawful. He argued that his eventual dismissal was part of a campaign of 'retaliation due to my whistleblowing'. According to his employment tribunal submission, he was allocated to work as a legal adviser for Mr Taylor in an online SJP session in July 2024. During that session, the magistrate revealed he was dialling in from Portugal to decide on convictions and sentences for over 100 defendants, an arrangement he claimed had been ongoing 'for years now'.
Mr John stated: '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.' He added that no corrective action was taken by his employer.
Legal and Procedural Issues
During the pandemic, the law was changed to allow SJP sessions to take place via Microsoft Teams with magistrates appearing remotely from home. However, those provisions were withdrawn in 2022. Mr John argued that courts continued remote hearings without a proper legal basis, potentially rendering thousands of convictions invalid.
Mr John was transferred to Guildford Magistrates' Court in October 2024. He claimed that a manager, Andrew Przedborski, was 'content for me to be bullied' after disagreements over the legality of remote SJP hearings. He was suspended following an incident in July last year when he intervened in an altercation between two youths and police officers at the court. He believes his dismissal was linked to his whistleblowing complaints.
Incident at Court
In his tribunal complaint, Mr John described the incident: police officers were detaining a violent youth defendant, and he stepped in when he saw the boy's friend approaching the officers. '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 said. 'I believe the youth struck me in the chest and I continued to try and get him to the end of the corridor.' The youth was eventually detained by an adult male.
Mr John faced no police investigation and received a letter of thanks from Surrey Police Chief Constable Tim De Meyer for his intervention. However, he was suspended from his role as a legal adviser by the Ministry of Justice and ultimately dismissed on March 13 this year. He alleges that footage of the incident was unlawfully shared and deleted by court staff, a matter reported to the Information Commissioner's Office. The dismissal was confirmed at a disciplinary hearing that proceeded without him after his request for an adjournment due to his mother's cancer diagnosis was denied.
Ministerial Response
Mr John's local MP, Sir Jeremy Hunt, raised questions about the SJP system and remote magistrates with Ms Sackman. She confirmed that officials investigated the complaint about the magistrate sitting from Portugal. In her response, 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. Whilst permission might be sought from a foreign state, this would only be contemplated in the most pressing circumstances and the most serious cases, which would never arise in magistrates' courts proceedings.'
A reminder was circulated to court officials that magistrates cannot sit from abroad. However, Ms Sackman insisted: '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.'
Ministry of Justice Position
The Ministry of Justice has previously confirmed that it does not retain records of magistrates' locations during SJP sessions. When contacted about the tribunal case, 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 department stated there is no evidence of a widespread issue of magistrates appearing via live link from abroad.
Criticism of the SJP System
The SJP system has faced sustained criticism for its lack of transparency, with magistrates deciding cases in private without public or media access. Handling around 800,000 low-level criminal offences annually, the system has been labelled 'conveyor belt justice' by campaign group Transform Justice, which raised concerns about quick decisions without proper evidence examination.
The Ministry of Justice conducted a consultation last spring on potential changes to the SJP system, including greater transparency, but no conclusions or recommendations have been published since it ended in May 2024.
The first hearing of Mr John's tribunal case is scheduled for Thursday.
