Promissory Oaths Act 1868: A Legacy of Oath‐Taking Amid Calls for Greater Accountability

The Promissory Oaths Act 1868 remains one of the enduring relics of Victorian constitutional practice. Enacted during Queen Victoria’s reign, the Act established standardised wording for oaths of allegiance, official oaths, and judicial oaths for public office‐holders. At the time, these oaths were intended to secure loyalty to the Crown and to the evolving framework of British governance, rather than to serve as a modern tool for judicial accountability.

The Act’s Historical Purpose

Originally, the Act sought to amend and consolidate earlier statutory requirements by prescribing the precise forms of oaths that judges and other officials were to take. The judicial oath, for example, was meant to bind office‐holders to “do right to all manner of people after the laws and usages of this realm, without fear or favour, affection or illwill.” In its historical context, the Act was less about disciplining judges for misbehaviour and more about ensuring that those entrusted with power adhered to a clearly defined standard of loyalty and service.

Modern Judicial Accountability: A Complex Balancing Act

In the contemporary era, the legacy of the Promissory Oaths Act is frequently invoked during debates on judicial conduct. Today, the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office (JCIO) plays a central role in handling complaints against judges. The JCIO investigates allegations of misconduct and recommends disciplinary measures to the Lord Chancellor and the Lady Chief Justice. However, many observers point out that while the Act once symbolised an unequivocal pledge of service, the modern system – built on a framework of self‐regulation – does not automatically penalise judges for failing to live up to the lofty ideals of their oath.

Critics have argued that the JCIO, far from serving as an independent and robust watchdog, can sometimes appear overly deferential towards the judiciary. There is a growing chorus suggesting that the current mechanisms of accountability allow judges, in effect, to operate under a code of their own making. This perceived self‐policing has led some commentators to assert that the judiciary risks evolving into a body that governs itself with insufficient external oversight – a situation that some critics describe as a form of judicial tyranny.

Judicial Tyranny and the Call for Reform

While it is important to note that breaches of the judicial oath do not automatically result in a judge’s removal from office, the spirit of the oath continues to underpin high expectations of judicial behaviour. Many legal scholars and campaigners maintain that when judges act in ways that stray from these expectations, they undermine public confidence in the institution. They argue that the disciplinary processes, as administered by bodies like the JCIO, often fall short of addressing serious misconduct effectively. In this view, the structure of judicial self‐regulation can leave the public with few effective remedies when they perceive a judge has abused their office.

Opponents of the current system contend that if the JCIO is not seen as sufficiently independent or proactive, then its role in safeguarding the integrity of the judiciary is undermined. They call for reforms that would introduce more transparent and externally accountable procedures. In this context, some claim that the remnants of the old oath – once a clear symbol of an official’s commitment to public service – now serve as a stark reminder of the gap between the high ideals of judicial office and the realities of a system that many feel is too lenient on its own members.

A Legacy Under Scrutiny

The Promissory Oaths Act 1868, with its precise wording and historical significance, remains a foundational piece of British constitutional history. Yet, its enduring presence also invites reflection on how judicial accountability is maintained today. While the oath itself continues to symbolise the duty of judges to serve impartially and with integrity, the modern mechanisms intended to enforce that duty are increasingly being questioned. Critics argue that unless reform is undertaken, the system may inadvertently shield judges from the very accountability that the oath once represented.

As the debate over judicial oversight continues, the challenge remains to balance the need for judicial independence with the public’s demand for transparency and accountability. Whether the current framework – with the JCIO at its centre – can evolve to meet these challenges is a question that is likely to shape discussions on judicial reform for years to come.