Formal warning follows misuse of judicial security access while attending court privately
A magistrate has been issued with a formal warning after using a judicial security fob to access restricted areas of a court while attending in a private capacity. The Judicial Conduct Investigations Office (JCIO) announced on 16 June 2026 that Ms Lorraine Edwards JP, of the North and East Hertfordshire Bench, had been sanctioned for misconduct following an investigation under the Judicial Conduct (Magistrates) Rules 2023.
According to the JCIO, magistrates sign a declaration and undertaking upon appointment, agreeing to act with circumspection and maintain the dignity, standing, and good reputation of the magistracy at all times. The South-East Conduct Advisory Committee investigated concerns that Edwards had requested activation of her judicial security fob at a court where she had never sat. It was alleged that she used the fob to access secure areas of the court and facilitated a member of the public entering restricted areas while attending the court in a private capacity.
In representations made during the investigation, Edwards accepted that she had used her judicial security fob while attending court to support a witness and had enabled a member of the public to enter restricted areas. She said she had acted out of concern for the witness and their family and believed, mistakenly, that access had been authorised through prior arrangements.
Edwards accepted that she had made an error of judgment and expressed remorse for her actions. Following its investigation, a nominated committee member found that Edwards had gained access to secure parts of the court for reasons unrelated to her judicial duties and had facilitated a member of the public gaining access to those areas.
The committee member concluded that her actions created a risk to court security and to the integrity of an active Crown Court trial and amounted to serious misconduct. In recommending a reprimand, the committee member took into account Edwards’ experience, acceptance of responsibility, expressions of remorse, and the absence of any previous disciplinary findings. After considering the findings, Mr Justice Keehan, acting on behalf of the Lady Chief Justice and with the agreement of the Lord Chancellor, determined that a lesser sanction should be imposed.
The JCIO said a formal warning was issued after taking into account that, although the potential risk created by the conduct was significant, no actual harm had materialised to the integrity of the trial. The formal warning is one of the disciplinary sanctions available under the Constitutional Reform Act 2005. Judicial misconduct sanctions range from formal advice and formal warning through to reprimand and removal from office.