Magistrate still sitting in English courts from Portugal nearly two years after remote-work row erupted
Court official, Chris John alerted managers to the 'unlawful' arrangement and is now suing the Ministry of Justice in an employment tribunal claim over claims he was sacked for whistleblowing.
A magistrate who dished out justice from Portugal is still sitting in the English courts, nearly two years after his work-from-abroad set-up was first uncovered.
Listen to this article
Phil Taylor was at the centre of an internal storm in 2024 after it was discovered he was dialling in to oversee criminal cases in Berkshire from his home near the Portuguese capital Lisbon.
A court official, Chris John, alerted managers to an arrangement he believes is “unlawful”, and he is now suing the Ministry of Justice in an employment tribunal claim over claims he was sacked for whistleblowing.
After details of the case were revealed last week, the Judicial Office – which supports judges and magistrates across England and Wales – confirmed that Mr Taylor is still sitting as a magistrate for courts in Berkshire nearly two years later.
Read More: I've been a magistrate for thirty years. Here's what it will actually take to fix our courts
When asked if he is still dialling in to court from Portugal to carry out his role, the Judicial Office refused to say and simply replied: “We cannot comment.”
Mr Taylor was reported to the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office which probes allegations of misconduct by judges and magistrates, but he has not been the subject of any finding of wrongdoing.
In 2024, Mr Taylor was dialling in from Portugal to decide on convictions and sentences in hundreds of criminal cases dealt with in the Single Justice Procedure (SJP), and allegedly told Mr John he had been doing it “for years”.
HM Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) says it does not keep records of the locations of magistrates when they carry out their role remotely using a video link.
But it has insisted that it has not obtained any evidence of a widespread practice of magistrates dialling in from outside the UK.
It is understood that judges and magistrates are told to use a secure email system when conducting their court work, and have been issued with firm instructions that it cannot be used when they are out of the country.
Mr John, a former police officer and criminal law lecturer before becoming a magistrates’ court legal adviser, set out in his tribunal claim that he believes all SJP cases decided by Mr Taylor from Portugal should be overturned because the court sessions were invalid.
He complained repeatedly to senior court managers about Mr Taylor’s remote sittings, and suggests that tens of thousands of convictions could be affected if, after investigation, it is found there was a widespread culture of video links being used improperly.
Remote working from home was authorised under law in the early stages of the pandemic, but the legislation was repealed in 2022.
Mr John says he believes the practice of remote working, especially in the Single Justice Procedure, continued after 2022 without a proper lawful basis.
In evidence placed before the employment tribunal, a court manager referred to SJP sessions as a “pre-court process”, and she told Mr John in August 2024 that remote participation by a magistrate is “permissible”.
But she added: “The single justice cannot undertake their judicial functions from abroad.”
In September 2024, courts were issued with reminders that magistrates should never dial in from abroad for SJP sessions.
And in an internal memo obtained through a freedom of information request, legal advisers were told that cases concluded in this way would not automatically be rendered unlawful “as we don’t know what the attitude of the foreign countries would have been had they been asked”.
The HMCTS response to Mr John’s whistleblowing complaint reveals that courts in the South East implemented a new system after the incident with Mr Taylor, to check if a magistrate is dialling in from abroad before starting a hearing.
There was also a promise to raise the issue with a senior HMCTS manager “to ensure consistency of approach throughout our regions”.
Mr John has accused one of his court managers, Andrew Przedborski, of bullying and aggressive behaviour, and believes this was driven by his whistleblowing complaint about the SJP system.
The MoJ’s defence to the claim sets out that Mr Przedborski denies the allegations against him.
The Government is fighting the tribunal claim, and says Mr John was sacked because of a separate incident involving an altercation at court with a teenager.
Mr John says he was assaulted when stepping in to protect police officers from the advancing youth, while the MoJ says he risked reputational damage by using force in a public court to restrain the teenager.
The tribunal claim is due to be heard at a later date.