A magistrate with 17 years of service received a formal warning after an investigation found she engaged in bullying and harassing behaviour toward a colleague. Roberta Buckingham was also accused of improperly disclosing confidential information related to the probe to a third party.
She denied making any derogatory comments and said she considered herself a victim of harassment and discrimination by the colleague, whom she believed held a grudge.
What the investigation found
The Judicial Conduct Investigations Office said her behaviour over several months was demanding, disrespectful, pressurising, accusatory or unprofessional toward a colleague.
Investigators concluded she had improperly disclosed confidential details about the conduct investigation. She accepted that she shared information but claimed she did so in good faith, believing the third party already knew about the investigation.
Related: SFO sees steady vacancy rate despite costs
The inquiry noted she referred to her colleague in disparaging terms to a third party.
All magistrates sign a declaration and undertaking upon appointment. According to the spokesperson, that document requires magistrates to maintain the dignity, standing and good reputation of the magistracy. The guide to judicial conduct also tells office holders to be courteous, patient, tolerant and punctual and to respect the dignity of all.
The office concluded her conduct amounted to serious misconduct and recommended a reprimand, the most severe sanction short of removal.
However, the lord chancellor and Mr Justice Keehan, acting on behalf of the chief justice, decided a lesser penalty was appropriate. They issued a formal warning instead, citing the facts of the case and her previous record. That tenure without prior complaints appears to have weighed in her favor.
The warning remains on record.
Related: PM unveils major homebuying reforms
For anyone working in a role where professional behavior is explicitly codified, the outcome is a reminder that even a long career can’t fully insulate someone from accountability. It also shows that disciplinary bodies sometimes balance the severity of misconduct against an individual’s overall record.
What happens next
The formal warning stays on her record, though the office did not specify whether it will affect duties or future assignments. She remains a magistrate. The colleague she was accused of targeting was not named in the findings.
The spokesperson outlined the broad expectations for magistrates: they must display respect for and observance of the law and remain patient and tolerant when encountering difficult situations. Her behaviour, according to the investigation, fell short of those standards over months.
She denied making any derogatory comments, and the investigation did not find that her conduct included the most serious form of bullying—only that it was demanding, disrespectful, and pressurising. That distinction may explain why the lord chancellor and Mr Justice Keehan chose a formal warning over a reprimand.
