Judge fired for watching porn in chambers LOSES unfair dismissal claim
A former judge who was fired for watching pornography on court computers has lost his claim for unfair dismissal.
Last March, Warren Grant was removed from the bench, along with two other judges, for viewing “pornographic material on judicial IT equipment”. According to reports at the time, the immigration specialist accessed websites including Pleasure Zone, Spicy Tranny and Retro Porn Hub.
The 61-year-old Cambridge-educated former solicitorhad claimed his sacking by the Ministry of Justice was unlawful. Citing the Disability Discrimination Act, the experienced judge argued that his behaviour was the result of a mental illness brought on by problems within his marriage. Earlier reports also cited depression.
According to Metro, Grant — who sat at the first tier immigration tribunal based at Taylor House in London — has now lost his claim for unfair dismissal. During a week long hearing at London’s Central Employment Tribunal, the respondents argued that Grant had broken strict judicial guidelines when he accessed explicit websites using the court IT system.
At the time of Grant’s sacking, and according to the Judicial Conduct Office, both the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice concluded “this was an inexcusable misuse” of his judicial IT account and “wholly unacceptable conduct for a judicial office holder”.
Today’s report states that Grant will appeal the decision. The Judicial Office did not respond to Legal Cheek’s request for comment.
A former judge who was fired for watching pornography on court computers has lost his claim for unfair dismissal.
Last March, Warren Grant was removed from the bench, along with two other judges, for viewing “pornographic material on judicial IT equipment”. According to reports at the time, the immigration specialist accessed websites including Pleasure Zone, Spicy Tranny and Retro Porn Hub.
The 61-year-old Cambridge-educated former solicitorhad claimed his sacking by the Ministry of Justice was unlawful. Citing the Disability Discrimination Act, the experienced judge argued that his behaviour was the result of a mental illness brought on by problems within his marriage. Earlier reports also cited depression.
According to Metro, Grant — who sat at the first tier immigration tribunal based at Taylor House in London — has now lost his claim for unfair dismissal. During a week long hearing at London’s Central Employment Tribunal, the respondents argued that Grant had broken strict judicial guidelines when he accessed explicit websites using the court IT system.
At the time of Grant’s sacking, and according to the Judicial Conduct Office, both the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice concluded “this was an inexcusable misuse” of his judicial IT account and “wholly unacceptable conduct for a judicial office holder”.
Today’s report states that Grant will appeal the decision. The Judicial Office did not respond to Legal Cheek’s request for comment.
(24/6/2016 Legal Cheek Weekly)
這篇只是跟進的報導, 第一次報導這件事寫了這一篇: 鹹濕法官的申訴。現在塵埃還未落定, 欲知後事如何, 有待上訴結果。上訴? 不能說是濫用司法程序, 以mental disability作理據, 我想一定有傳召精神科醫生作供, 否則誰可以講法官瀏覽鹹網是婚姻及憂鬱導致的異常及自己不能操控的行為呢? 另外也要提出證據這大老爺在上鹹網時婚姻及精神問題已存在。對法官的操守有嚴格要求絕對合理, 在所有公職人員中, 對法官的品格行為, 道德操守要求最高。在英國的法官的委任過程中, 也試過有人違反了普通的交通違例而不獲任命。我覺得過份嚴苛, 但事實就是這樣。如果上文涉案的法官精神有問題, 他應該有責任尋求治療, 及早醫治, 而非在被察覺後導致罷官才以此抗辯。在14個月內, 每天數次瀏覽鹹網, 至少都屬玩忽職守。我不知英國有沒有像香港的OAT, 若果有就調他去那裏工作, 包保看到無動於衷。香港的法官中, 似乎未聽過有誰因精神健康不佳而不能聽審的。做到黐肺的不少, 黐線嘛是遲早問題。
標少可以說一下時昌迷你倉大火，大業主：恒隆，小業主：時昌，租戶各負的責任嗎？很想知道這是誰之过錯，THX。
回覆刪除我不懂評論。首先要看有沒有違反地契及大廈公契, 如果在用途上沒有違反, 就要看迷你倉的設計及存放物有沒有違反消防條例。租戶和業主之間訂立租約對儲存物品有甚麼限制, 租戶有沒有違反這些條款, 引起火警的原因, 大家暫時一概不知, 所以無得評論。
刪除難道政府責任不在考慮之列? 聽說政府在活化工廈前不會批出的.
刪除這我真的不懂。
刪除