A Conservative councillor has been removed from his position as a magistrate after publicly criticising a judge and alleging the existence of a 'two-tier justice system'. Simon Fawthrop, who represents the Orpington ward on Bromley Council, made the contentious statements following the conviction of four individuals who opposed the Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) for harassing London Mayor Sir Sadiq Khan.
Mr Fawthrop, acting as a spokesperson for the defendants outside Westminster Magistrates' Court, identified himself as a magistrate. He described District Judge Daniel Sternberg's verdict as 'inconsistent' and a 'body-blow to free speech', and suggested the judge should have recused himself due to 'unconscious bias'. He drew parallels to a separate case where Greenpeace activists were acquitted of criminal damage after scaling the home of then-Prime Minister Rishi Sunak. Mr Fawthrop argued that Judge Sternberg's decision to convict the anti-ULEZ campaigners 'gave the public an impression of a two-tier justice system'.
The Judicial Conduct Investigations Office (JCIO) subsequently found Mr Fawthrop guilty of gross misconduct, leading to his dismissal as a magistrate. The ruling revealed that he had claimed to be the target of a 'politically motivated' complaint and was found to have fundamentally misunderstood his duties. The JCIO notice of the misconduct proceedings, conducted in private, stated: 'A complaint was made to the London Conduct Advisory Committee alleging that Mr Fawthrop publicly criticised a court judgment and the criminal justice system and referred to his status as a magistrate while acting as spokesperson for a group of defendants. It was also alleged that Mr Fawthrop had failed to notify his bench chair of his involvement in acting as a spokesperson for the group.'
When confronted with the conduct investigation, Mr Fawthrop 'maintained that the views expressed were not his own and that he had not been directly involved in the case'. He argued that his role as a spokesperson was in his capacity as a councillor, not as a magistrate. He accepted that he had referred to his judicial status during one statement and apologised, describing it as unintentional. Mr Fawthrop characterised the complaint against him as politically motivated.
Mr Fawthrop made his remarks outside the central London courthouse in December 2024 after activists Nicholas Arlett, Martin Whitehead, Alison Young, and Lloyd Dunsford were convicted of harassment and fined for their demonstration approximately 100 metres from Sir Sadiq's Tooting home. The protest was against the mayor's extension of ULEZ charges to outer London. After the verdict, Mr Fawthrop called the decision 'a travesty of justice' and suggested the group would appeal. 'Today's judgment is another body-blow for free speech and peaceful protest in this country,' he said. He suggested Judge Sternberg may have 'misdirected himself' and failed to consider the impact on free speech. When asked about potential bias due to an alleged personal link to an event involving Sir Sadiq, Mr Fawthrop replied: 'He should have taken the opportunity – and I can say this as a JP – that if there's any doubt whatsoever that you might actually have an interest, or be not seen to be doing justice at all, you recuse yourself automatically and on this occasion this didn't happen, and it should have happened in my view.'
A JCIO disciplinary panel 'found that Mr Fawthrop's conduct had the cumulative effect of undermining public confidence in the judiciary and the criminal justice system'. It added: 'His comments, which included criticism of the trial judge's impartiality and integrity, were considered inappropriate for a serving magistrate. The panel noted that Mr Fawthrop had failed to notify his bench chair of his involvement in the case. They found that his justification – that he was acting solely in his capacity as a councillor – demonstrated a fundamental misunderstanding of the obligations of judicial office. The panel also expressed concern that Mr Fawthrop continued to minimise the seriousness of his actions and failed to fully acknowledge the risk of damage to the magistracy and the criminal justice system.'
The Lady Chief Justice Baroness Sue Carr and Lord Chancellor David Lammy concurred with the finding of gross misconduct and ordered Mr Fawthrop's removal as a magistrate.
