Dean Gregory & Anor, R (on the application of) v Judicial Conduct Investigations Office & Anor

Dean Gregory & Anor, R (on the application of) v Judicial Conduct Investigations Office & Anor

The JCIO was correct to refuse to accept the claimants’ complaints as they related to judicial decisions and the manner in which the judgment was delivered, not to personal behaviour amounting to misconduct. The statutory framework and rules require protection of judicial independence and exclude such complaints from the JCIO’s remit. The Ombudsman properly limited its review to process and found no procedural error.

Parties
Claimant (1): Dean Gregory; Claimant (2): Pavel Stroilov; Defendant (1): Judicial Conduct Investigations Office; Defendant (2): Judicial Appointments and Conduct Ombudsman; Interested Party (1): The Rt. Hon Lord Justice Peter Jackson; Interested Party (2): The Rt. Hon. Lady Justice King; Interested Party (3): The Rt. Hon. Lord Justice Moylan
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 May 2025
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Renewed Application for Permission to Apply for Judicial Review
Outcome
Permission to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Judicial Conduct, Misconduct Complaints, Judicial Independence, Procedural Fairness
Administrative Law Judicial Review Judicial Discipline Judicial Conduct Misconduct Complaints Judicial Independence Procedural Fairness

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dean Gregory

Claimant (1)

Pavel Stroilov

Claimant (2)

Judicial Conduct Investigations Office

Defendant (1)

Judicial Appointments and Conduct Ombudsman

Defendant (2)

The Rt. Hon Lord Justice Peter Jackson

Interested Party (1)

The Rt. Hon. Lady Justice King

Interested Party (2)

The Rt. Hon. Lord Justice Moylan

Interested Party (3)

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Renewed Application for Permission to Apply for Judicial Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office (JCIO) erred in law by refusing to investigate complaints about comments made by judges in a judgment as outside its remit under the Judicial Conduct Rules 2023.
  2. 2 Whether the Judicial Appointments and Conduct Ombudsman failed to properly review the process followed by the JCIO.

Ratio Decidendi

The JCIO was correct to refuse to accept the claimants’ complaints as they related to judicial decisions and the manner in which the judgment was delivered, not to personal behaviour amounting to misconduct. The statutory framework and rules require protection of judicial independence and exclude such complaints from the JCIO’s remit. The Ombudsman properly limited its review to process and found no procedural error.

Court Disposition

Permission to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Costs order in favour of the first defendant in the sum of £3,664.
  • Costs order in favour of the second defendant in the sum of £3,040.63.