An experienced magistrate has been given a warning for misconduct after making a ‘racist’ comment on WhatsApp during a discussion about Winston Churchill.
Derek Muhammad JP made the comment in a private message group during an ‘intellectual discussion about the complex legacy of Winston Churchill and the colonial history of Britain’.
But, another member of the group complained it was ‘racially prejudiced’ and left them in a state of ‘distress’.
Bedfordshire-based Mr Muhammad, who has been a magistrate for almost 20 years, denied the comment was racist and claimed it had actually been a ‘criticism of colonial exploitation’.
He added that he could not be prejudiced against people ‘with whom he shares ancestry’. But, despite his protestations, Mr Muhammad has now been given formal advice for misconduct.
The Judicial Conduct Investigations Office (JCIO) said in a statement that magistrates sign a declaration when they are appointed to ‘maintain the dignity, standing and good reputation of the magistracy at all times’.
Social media guidance for magistrates cautions them against behaving, even in their private life, in a way which might ‘reduce respect for judicial office or cast doubt on their independence, impartiality or integrity’.
The comment itself was not revealed by the JCIO, nor was Mr Muhammad’s heritage.
An experienced magistrate has been given a warning for misconduct after making a ‘racist’ comment on WhatsApp during a discussion about Winston Churchill (pictured)
A spokesperson for the JCIO said: ‘A complaint was made by a member of the public that Mr Muhammad had made a comment in a private WhatsApp group which was perceived by the complainant to be racially prejudiced.
‘The [member of the public] reported experiencing distress as a result of the comment.
‘Mr Muhammad denied the comment was racist. He said it had been taken out of its context, which was a private intellectual discussion about the complex legacy of Winston Churchill and the colonial history of Britain.
‘He said it was a criticism of colonial exploitation. He cited his own heritage and argued that it is not credible to suggest he harbours racial animus toward people with whom he shares ancestry.
‘He cited his long, unblemished record of public service. He suggested that the complaint was vexatious and insincere.’
Mr Muhammad, who is based in Bedfordshire, has not had his conduct as a magistrate questioned until now.
After an investigation, a member of the South-East Region Conduct Advisory Committee found that Mr Muhammad posted the comment and that it was ‘racially inappropriate as it could be interpreted as expressing a negative view of people from a particular group or background’.
This was regardless of his intention or actual beliefs.
The JCIO spokesperson said: ‘The nominated committee member noted Mr Muhammad’s failure to show remorse or awareness of how his comment could be perceived, despite being an experienced magistrate, appointed in 2007.
‘However, in recommending a sanction of formal advice, the nominated committee member noted that it was a single comment posted in a private group and that Mr Muhammad did not intend to cause offence.’
