Ministry of Justice says security was upgraded at judges’ homes, with figures showing many in judiciary fear for safety

Tens of thousands of pounds has been spent on installing tighter security measures at the homes of top judges who fear for their safety, it has emerged amid growing hostility towards the judiciary in public and online.

The Ministry of Justice confirmed public money had been spent on upgrading security at the homes of four judges between 2014 and 2016. It was also announced judges are to be given training in how to use social media sites so that they can protect themselves against online abuse.

The figures, released under the Freedom of Information Act, have emerged after several high court and supreme court judges faced furious criticism from some quarters for ruling parliament must be given a vote before Britain started formal Brexit talks. One headline labelled them “enemies of the people”. The three high court judges who gave their ruling on the article 50 case in November, were singled out for personal attack by the Brexit-supporting media, who criticised them for being “out of touch” and claiming they had “declared war on democracy”.



A recent judicial attitude survey found 48% of female and 36% of male judges feared for their safety out of court, while 51% of all judges who responded feared for their personal safety while in court.



One, who worked in Britain’s family and civil courts, said threats of hostage-taking, physical assaults and death had become common. She told how a man who had his children taken away from him threatened to kill her and tried to smuggle a knife into her court.



The threats were so severe the police visited her home and spoke to neighbours to ensure she had a safety plan, she told the Press Association.

Government cuts had left courts so pared back that judges were routinely left in small rooms with warring parties with no security of court clerks to protect them. “The level of threats is getting worse. Incidents are common and the authorities are not even recording them,” she said.



In the financial year 2014/15 £20,918.74 was spent on safety improvements at one judge’s house and the following year, £3,939.93 was spent installing security at the homes of three judges.



Prof Cheryl Thomas, co-director of the UCL Judicial Institute, who co-ordinated the Judicial Attitude Survey, said that many district judges feared for their safety, with government cuts leading to issues that contributed to concerns, compounded by cuts in court staff.

Cases before the judges were “often very emotionally charged, difficult family cases perhaps involving the removal of a child from the family home”.

She also pointed to an increase in litigants in person, people who represent themselves in court, due to government cuts in legal aid.



She said: “So, as we have more and more people who need to go to court to resolve difficult, stressful, emotional family breakdown issues, who may not have access to lawyers to represent them, you have warring parties fighting it out in court.



“And that places much greater security concerns on judges in court.”



Not only are judges contending with threats made in the courtroom, but many, especially senior judges, are concerned about being threatened on Facebook and Twitter too.



The survey found 22% of circuit judges, who try the most serious criminal cases, 21% of court of appeal judges and 19% of high court judges feared for their personal safety online. This concern was shared by 15% of judges across the board.

Thomas said: “Judges in their day jobs are judges, but they are also normal human beings and they may have Facebook accounts that have nothing to do with their work, and they may think that no one can find out anything about them.

“Or they may be completely unaware about the details about them that are simply very easily obtainable by quick internet searches.”



She said advice was now being given to judges “to help them understand what kind of information is out there, freely available, about them, whether they wish that to be the case, and if not how to ensure that they have a bit more privacy in terms of their online life”.