Retired magistrate admonished for Shamima Begum letter to The Times
A retired magistrate has been issued with a misconduct rap after using his title in a public letter calling for Shamima Begum to be “treated as a victim”.
Charles Peck wrote to The Times newspaper in February after Begum lost an appeal against the government’s decision to strip her of British citizenship.
Begum, who was born and raised in east London, ran away at 15-years-old to join ISIS in Syria, where she married a jihadi fighter.
She ultimately left the terrorist group and is currently stateless, living in a refugee camp in Syria. She has failed in legal bids for her British citizenship to be restored.
Mr Peck wrote in his letter: “Surely our national security is not enhanced when a UK-born woman is stripped of her citizenship for naively running off as a child into a groomed marriage. Instead, she should have been treated as a victim, entitled to all the help and protection of the British government.”
The letter, which pointed out that other countries have repatriated people who joined ISIS, called the British stance “shameful”, and was signed Charles Peck, JP.
The Judicial Conduct Investigations Office (JCIO) announced on Wednesday that a complaint against Mr Peck was investigated and he has been given formal advice for the “misuse of the ‘JP’ suffix”.
The JCIO said retired magistrates continue to be allowed to use the JP title, but they are “subject to the same expectations in how they conduct themselves as serving magistrates.
“This includes being circumspect and avoiding use of the suffix ‘JP’ in ways that could be perceived as trying to gain influence.”
The JCIO said Mr Peck accepted responsibility for the letter and “considered that it was appropriate to use his JP suffix in this specific case and that he was acting in accordance with his Judicial Oath, to do right by all manner of people, by calling out an issue.
“He did not accept that his views could have been perceived as critical of the government or the judiciary or that it had the potential to damage the reputation of the magistracy.”
But a conduct panel found that “whilst Mr Peck was commenting on a highly sensitive issue, which he felt passionately about, he should have been aware of the perception that using the JP suffix could inadvertently create.
“The panel decided that Mr Peck’s actions lacked circumspection and amounted to misconduct. The panel was concerned that Mr Peck had reserved the right to use his JP suffix on any future letter, if he felt that justice required it.”
