Magistrate issued with formal advice after failing to report three speeding offences totalling 10 points
A magistrate tasked with presiding over speeding cases has been issued formal advice for misconduct—after it emerged she herself had been caught breaking the speed limit not once, but three times.
Abiola Onatade, a serving magistrate, had accrued 10 penalty points on her driving licence over multiple offences. Although judicial guidelines require magistrates to report any conviction involving six or more points, Onatade delayed disclosing her driving record—only doing so once the total had reached double digits.
According to the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office (JCIO), Onatade eventually informed her bench chair that she had been issued more than six points. She later clarified that the 10 points stemmed from three separate speeding incidents.
In its findings, the JCIO noted that Onatade took full responsibility and apologised for failing to report the earlier infractions.
“Ms Onatade recognised that accruing points on her licence, as a magistrate who deals with speeding matters, did not reflect well on herself or the magistracy,” a JCIO spokesperson said.
Embed from Getty ImagesOnatade offered a personal assurance that she would adhere to speed limits going forward.
Her actions were found to breach guidance laid out in the Guide to Judicial Conduct, which states that all judicial office-holders must demonstrate respect for and observance of the law. Upon appointment, magistrates also sign a declaration to uphold the dignity and reputation of their role.
Judicial guidance requires magistrates to report any instance where:
- they are disqualified from driving,
- they receive six or more penalty points in one go, or
- their total points exceed six.
In Onatade’s case, although she did not face a disqualification, her failure to report the earlier offences meant she had violated her duties of transparency and accountability.
The misconduct finding was handed down by Mr Justice Keehan, on behalf of the Lady Chief Justice and the Lord Chancellor. However, the sanction was relatively light—formal advice, the lowest tier of disciplinary action for judicial office-holders.
In deciding the outcome, the authorities cited Onatade’s apology, previously unblemished record, and her commitment to avoiding further breaches.
Though the matter may appear minor compared to more severe cases of judicial misconduct, it has raised eyebrows within the legal community, particularly because Onatade continues to oversee driving-related cases in her role.
One legal commentator noted:
“Magistrates must not only enforce the law but be seen to live by it. When the person handing out fines for speeding is themselves a serial speeder, it’s not a good look for public confidence in the system.”
The JCIO said it would not escalate the matter further. Onatade is expected to remain in her position, with no restrictions placed on her judicial duties.
But for those observing from the public gallery, the episode adds to growing scrutiny over the conduct of judicial office-holders and how disciplinary measures are applied—especially when self-regulation and personal integrity are essential.
