Tens of thousands of pounds of public money has been spent on boosting security measures at the homes of judges who have become fearful for their safety following unpopular rulings.
Nearly £25,000 was spent on upgrading measures at the homes of four judges between 2014 and 2016, Ministry of Justice figures show.
Some £20,918.74 was spent on safety improvements at a judge's home in the financial year 2014/15.
The following year £3,939.93 was spent increasing security at the homes of three judges.
The data was released to the Press Association under the Freedom of Information Act and follows a recent backlash against three judges who made a ruling on Brexit.
In November 2016, three High Court judges ruled the Government must seek MPs' approval before triggering Article 50 - the formal process of leaving the EU.
The Daily Mail called them "enemies of the people" while the Daily Express claimed the ruling was a marker of "the day democracy died". Several Tory MPs also criticised the judges.
This month the Judicial Attitude Survey, which is released every two years, revealed 48% of female judges and 36% of male judges fear for their safety outside of court, while 51% of judges fear for their personal safety while in court.
One judge who worked in Britain's family and civil courts said hostage-taking, physical assaults and death threats have become common - compounded by cuts in court staff.
Speaking on condition of anonymity to the Press Association, she told of how a man who had his children taken away from him threatened to kill her and tried to smuggle a knife into her court.
She said: "The level of threats is getting worse. Incidents are common and the authorities are not even recording them."
Some judges are getting training in how to use social media sites so they can protect themselves against online abuse.
Cheryl Thomas, a UCL law professor who coordinated the survey, said judges who sit on high-profile cases which attract media attention can feel more vulnerable online.
She said: "Judges in their day jobs are judges, but they are also normal human beings and they may have Facebook accounts that have nothing to do with their work, and they may think that means that no one can find out anything about them.
"Or they may be completely unaware about the details about them that are simply very easily obtainable by quick internet searches.
"I know there has been some recent work done with those judges to help them understand what kind of information is out there, freely available, about them, whether they wish that to be the case, and if not how to ensure that they have a bit more privacy in terms of their online life."
No comments:
Post a Comment