In a recent decision by the High Court in London, former judge Andrew Easteal was denied the opportunity to legally challenge his dismissal.
This came after it was revealed that he had deleted WhatsApp conversations with a known drug dealer.
Presiding Judge Jonathan Swift declared at the hearing that Easteal’s removal did not violate his right to a private life, leaving no arguable basis for the case.
Easteal’s career ended abruptly last year when the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office (JCIO), responsible for overseeing judicial complaints, discovered he had intentionally erased electronic data pertinent to a police investigation of an individual he knew.
Appointed in 2018 at Lincoln Crown Court, Easteal had become acquainted with “Alex,” who was subsequently sentenced to nearly a decade in prison for conspiring to supply cocaine.
The court learned that in 2019, Easteal and his partner had visited “Alex” in Albania, returning to the UK just days before “Alex” was apprehended at a British airport with significant amounts of cocaine and cannabis, as well as two mobile phones.
One of these phones revealed extensive communication with Easteal, dubbed “Judge Andy” in 153 WhatsApp messages.
Amidst an investigation by Britain’s National Crime Agency into potential misconduct in public office by Easteal due to his ties with “Alex,” Easteal was requested to hand over any relevant material from his electronic devices.
Although he submitted his phone, the JCIO contended that the missing data was a grave misconduct warranting his removal.
Despite Easteal’s denial of any intent to obstruct the criminal probe, his actions led to no further criminal charges against him.
He subsequently sued the JCIO, seeking reinstatement, arguing through his lawyer Ramby de Mello that the deletions were an effort to protect his privacy.
However, the JCIO’s lawyer, Mark Vinall, argued that Easteal’s deletion of the messages, knowing they were of interest to law enforcement, constituted evidence tampering.
Judge Swift concluded the lawsuit must be dismissed due to procedural errors in serving the JCIO, but noted he would have dismissed the claim on its merits regardless.
The legal battle, recorded as Easteal v Judicial Conduct Investigations Office, AC-2023-LON-000169, was argued by Ramby de Mello of No5 Barristers’ Chambers for Easteal, and Mark Vinall of Blackstone Chambers for the JCIO.