Automated report. This article was drafted by software from the sources listed below, checked automatically against them, and read by the editor, Sam Allcock, before it was published. Law Week labels every article produced this way. A person is answerable for it: if something here is wrong, write to editor@lawweek.co.uk and we will correct it on the page and say what changed.
Lord Chancellor Alex Norris MP has written to shadow justice secretary Nick Timothy MP rejecting criticism of the Deputy Chief Magistrate, saying the merits of judicial decisions are matters for the courts rather than ministers or MPs. The letter, dated 28 October 2026, was published after Mr Timothy’s own letter of 1 October was made public.
In the letter, Mr Norris said allegations about the conduct of judicial office holders are considered through the judicial complaints system, with disciplinary outcomes determined jointly by the Lady Chief Justice and Lord Chancellor. He said a social media incident raised by Mr Timothy had already been referred to the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office and had resulted in a formal warning issued by the Lady Chief Justice and Lord Chancellor at the time, a decision published on the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office website. He added that judicial decisions made by Judge Ikram, as referred to in the letter, are subject to the ordinary appellate process, and that it would not be appropriate for him to interfere with or revisit those decisions.
Key points
- The letter responds to correspondence from Nick Timothy MP dated 1 October regarding the Deputy Chief Magistrate.
- Mr Norris said allegations of judicial misconduct are handled through the judicial complaints system, with outcomes decided jointly by the Lady Chief Justice and Lord Chancellor.
- A social media incident raised by Mr Timothy was referred to the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office and resulted in a formal warning, published on that body’s website.
- Mr Norris said judicial decisions made by Judge Ikram are subject to the ordinary appellate process and that it would not be appropriate for him to interfere with them.
- Mr Norris said he would deposit a copy of the letter in the Library of the House.
What the letter says
Mr Norris wrote that “the merits of judicial decisions are matters for the courts and, where appropriate, appellate courts, rather than for ministers or MPs.” He said he recognised that people will not always agree with judicial decisions and will want to debate them, calling this “a healthy feature of a vibrant democracy.” However, he said that “personalised criticism of individual judges, particularly where it relies on selective reporting or omits relevant context, as you have done, risks undermining public confidence in the ability of judges to decide cases independently and impartially.”
Security concerns and conduct in public life
Mr Norris said judicial office holders, along with others in public life, are facing increasing security concerns, and that those participating in public debate should be mindful of the wider environment. He noted that “judges, unlike politicians, are constrained in their ability to respond publicly to personal criticism,” adding that those in prominent positions have “a particular responsibility to ensure that legitimate scrutiny does not become personal attack.”
He asked Mr Timothy to “refrain from mounting this kind of dangerous public criticism in future” and said that, given Mr Timothy had chosen to publish his own correspondence, and in light of the wider public interest, he was placing his response in the public domain and would deposit a copy of the letter in the Library of the House.