Introduction

The case of Page v. Lord Chancellor & Anor ([2021] EWCA Civ 254) presents a pivotal examination of judicial impartiality and the boundaries of personal beliefs within judicial conduct. The appellant, Mr. Richard Page, served as a magistrate on the Central Kent bench. His removal from the magistracy followed his public expression of personal religious beliefs against same-sex adoption, which he alleged led to victimisation and unlawful discrimination.

This commentary delves into the intricate details of the case, exploring the legal principles established, the precedents cited, and the broader implications for judicial conduct and employment law.

Summary of the Judgment

In February 2021, the England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) dismissed Mr. Richard Page’s appeal against his removal from the magistracy. The court upheld the Employment Tribunal’s findings that his removal was not an act of victimisation based on his religious beliefs or complaints of discrimination. Instead, it was due to his public declaration of bias against same-sex adoption, which compromised the impartiality requisite for judicial office holders.

The court reaffirmed that while magistrates and judges may hold personal beliefs, their public duties require them to set these aside to ensure unbiased application of the law. Mr. Page’s failure to do so, especially through public statements, justified his removal to maintain public confidence in the judiciary.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment references several key cases that have shaped the understanding of victimisation and judicial conduct:

• Nagarajan v London Regional Transport [2000] 1 AC 501: Established the necessity to assess the mental processes behind discriminatory actions.
• R (E) v Governing Body of the JFS [2009] UKSC 15: Further clarified the distinction between motive and reason in discrimination cases.
• Amnesty International v Ahmed [2009] UKEAT 0447/08: Applied principles of victimisation in the context of employment law.
• Martin v Devonshires Solicitors [2010] UKEAT 0086/10: Distinguished between the act of complaining and separate reasons for adverse employment actions.
• Woodhouse v West North West Homes Leeds Ltd [2013] UKEAT 0007/12: Reinforced limitations on applying victimisation in cases involving mental health issues.
• Baka v Hungary [2016] ECHR 568: Discussed the balance between freedom of expression and judicial impartiality.
• R (Ngole) v University of Sheffield [2019] EWCA Civ 1127: Addressed the scope of Article 10 in the context of professional conduct and public statements.

These precedents collectively underscore the court’s approach to balancing individual rights with institutional integrity, particularly within the judiciary.

Legal Reasoning

The court dissected the notion of victimisation under Section 27 of the Equality Act 2010, focusing on whether Mr. Page’s removal was due to his protected act—making an allegation of discrimination—or other legitimate reasons. The Employment Tribunal concluded that Mr. Page was removed not because he complained about his treatment but because his public statements demonstrated a bias incompatible with his judicial duties.

The Court of Appeal affirmed this reasoning by emphasizing that judicial impartiality is paramount. The court highlighted that Mr. Page’s declarations indicated a preconception that same-sex adoption was less favorable, thereby undermining his ability to administer justice fairly.

Additionally, the court clarified the distinction between "reason" and "motive" in discrimination law, reiterating that an employer’s genuine, separable reasons for adverse actions negate claims of victimisation.

Impact

This judgment reinforces the critical expectation that judges and magistrates must avoid any appearance of bias. It sets a clear precedent that public expressions of personal beliefs that conflict with judicial obligations can lead to disciplinary actions, including removal from office.

For employment law, the case exemplifies the application of victimisation provisions, particularly the importance of distinguishing between protected acts and legitimate employment-related decisions. It underscores the judiciary's role in upholding standards that ensure public confidence in legal institutions.

Furthermore, the case impacts the discourse on freedom of expression for public officials, delineating the limits of personal expression in the context of professional responsibilities.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Victimisation under the Equality Act 2010

Victimisation occurs when an individual is subjected to a detriment because they performed a "protected act," such as alleging discrimination. In this case, Mr. Page claimed his removal was due to his religious beliefs and complaints about discrimination. However, the court found his removal was due to his biased public statements, not his complaints.

Distinction between Reason and Motive

Reason refers to the actual cause behind an action, while motive relates to the underlying intent or purpose. The court emphasized that even if a protected act is involved, the genuine, separable reasons for employment actions must be established to avoid claims of victimisation.

Judicial Impartiality

Impartiality means that judges must make decisions based solely on the law and evidence, without personal biases influencing their judgments. Mr. Page’s public statements suggested a preference for heterosexual adoption, which indicated a potential bias, thereby compromising his impartiality.

Freedom of Expression vs. Judicial Responsibility

While judges have the right to freedom of expression, this right is balanced against their duty to remain impartial and maintain public confidence in the judiciary. Public statements that reveal personal biases can infringe upon the judicial role's integrity.

Conclusion

The judgment in Page v. Lord Chancellor & Anor serves as a significant affirmation of the principle that judicial officers must maintain impartiality both in action and appearance. It underscores the judiciary's sensitivity to public confidence and the strict boundaries set to prevent personal beliefs from influencing judicial duties. This case sets a critical precedent for ensuring that the integrity of the judicial system is preserved, highlighting the delicate balance between individual rights and institutional responsibilities.

Moving forward, judicial officers can draw on this ruling to understand the importance of compartmentalizing personal beliefs from professional responsibilities. Employers and disciplinary bodies within the judiciary are reminded of the necessity to uphold impartiality to sustain public trust in legal institutions.