Judicial Conduct Office issues formal advice after judge’s comment about machete provokes complaint
On 8 January 2026, the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office (JCIO) announced that District Judge (Magistrates Court) Leo Pyle had been issued with formal advice for misconduct following a complaint about a remark he made during a court hearing.
The disciplinary action was taken with the agreement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Lord Chancellor, who reviewed the findings of a nominated judge appointed under the Judicial Conduct Rules 2023.
According to the JCIO statement, the complaint concerned a comment made by DJMC Pyle during a hearing in Sheffield in which he addressed a defendant described as having a “dark skin tone” with the words: “Why would you need to carry a machete in the town centre unless you are a sugar plantation owner?”
The Guide to Judicial Conduct emphasises that all judicial office holders must be courteous, patient, tolerant and punctual, and that they must respect the dignity of all persons in court. It also states that judges should ensure that “no one in court is exposed to any display of bias or prejudice from any source”. In addition, the Statement of Expected Behaviour highlights the responsibility of judicial office holders to promote a positive working environment in which diversity is recognised and everyone is treated with dignity and respect.
The complaint was referred to the JCIO under these standards. The complainant said the judge’s reference to “sugar plantation owner” was inappropriate, citing concerns about the racial connotations of the term when used in relation to a person of Black heritage.
In response, DJMC Pyle acknowledged that his comment had caused offence. He said the remark was intended as a rhetorical device, not a reflection of bias, to illustrate his contention that there was no lawful reason for someone to carry a machete through the town centre. He explained that by referring to a sugar plantation he meant to emphasise how “serious and dangerous” possession of such a weapon was outside of appropriate agricultural or industrial use.
Despite the apology, the nominated judge who investigated the matter found that DJMC Pyle failed to consider the inappropriateness of the remark at the time. The judge concluded that by deciding to use that particular language, the magistrate had moved beyond the facts of the case and used an example that was ill-judged and contrary to judicial training on avoiding language that could be perceived as pejorative or biased.
The nominated judge also found that the comment was not respectful toward the defendant or their appearance, and was perceived by others as having racial undertones. This, said the investigator, fell below the high standards expected of those who hold judicial office.
In deciding on the appropriate sanction, the nominated judge took into account the distress and offence caused by the comment, but also recognised that DJMC Pyle had expressed sincere remorse and that he had a long record of service with generally positive relationships with those who came before his court.
After reviewing the report, the Lady Chief Justice and the Lord Chancellor agreed that issuing formal advice was the appropriate course. Under the Constitutional Reform Act 2005, disciplinary measures for judicial office holders can range from formal advice to formal warnings, reprimands, or removal from office.
Formal advice is the least severe disciplinary outcome available to the judiciary and serves as an official admonition that the judge’s conduct fell short of required ethical standards. It does not remove the judge from office but is intended to underscore the importance of adherence to professional conduct rules in all court settings.
The JCIO’s statement underlined that judicial office holders are held to high ethical standards designed to maintain public confidence in the judiciary. It also reiterated that all judges and magistrates are expected to treat court users with respect, regardless of background, and to avoid language that might be interpreted as prejudicial or inappropriate in context.