Sharanjit Sandhu found guilty of serious misconduct after a false account over a car park breach
A magistrate who breached her court’s parking rules and then gave a false account about it has been issued with a formal warning for serious misconduct.
Sharanjit Sandhu was accused of breaking protocol over the use of a court car park and of trying to mislead both the complainant and others when questioned about her actions.
According to the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office (JCIO), Sandhu admitted breaching the parking protocol on two occasions. She claimed the incidents were due to a misunderstanding over her scheduled sittings and about when it was acceptable to use the facility. She also told investigators that the matter had been resolved with court security staff.
However, the investigation found her explanation for the breaches was not accepted. Officials determined that her account, including the claim she had settled the matter with security staff, was “intentionally false”.
Embed from Getty ImagesThe investigating judge concluded that misuse of the car park alone would have amounted to misconduct rather than serious misconduct. But the decision to provide a false statement was considered a “significant aggravating factor”, elevating the offence to serious misconduct.
The JCIO statement explained: “Mrs Sandhu’s decision to give a false account of the matter was a significant aggravating factor. This elevated his finding to one of serious misconduct.”
In addition to the parking matter, a fellow magistrate lodged a complaint alleging that Sandhu had been rude to him and to a member of court staff. Sandhu denied the accusation, and the investigation into this complaint found no misconduct. That allegation was dismissed.
The outcome of the parking investigation was endorsed at the highest levels. Mr Justice Keehan, acting on behalf of the Lady Chief Justice and with the agreement of the Lord Chancellor, issued Sandhu with a formal warning for serious misconduct.
Formal warnings from the JCIO are one of the sanctions available for misconduct by members of the judiciary. While they stop short of removal from office, they signal that behaviour has fallen well below the standards expected of judicial office‑holders.
Breaches of court protocols, particularly when compounded by dishonesty, are treated seriously because they undermine public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. In this case, investigators stressed that it was not the parking breach itself that led to the most severe finding, but Sandhu’s subsequent false statement during the inquiry.
The JCIO’s findings highlight the importance of candour and cooperation in misconduct investigations. Even relatively minor infractions can escalate into serious disciplinary matters when an individual attempts to mislead colleagues or investigators.
Sandhu will continue in her role but with the warning formally recorded. The JCIO has not disclosed further details about the specific court or the circumstances of the parking breaches, in line with its usual policy on protecting certain operational information.
