Written by Constitutional accountability
The Promissory Oaths Act 1868 still matters because the judicial oath expresses a public promise of impartial justice. But the oath is not, by itself, a modern enforcement mechanism. The harder question is whether today’s disciplinary system gives the public enough transparency, independence and confidence when judicial conduct is challenged.
The oath’s historical function
The Promissory Oaths Act 1868 is a surviving marker of Victorian constitutional practice. Its importance lies less in modern complaints handling and more in the formal language of public office: allegiance, duty and fidelity to law.
In its original setting, the judicial oath was not designed as a consumer complaints code or a direct disciplinary weapon. It was a solemn constitutional undertaking: those entrusted with judicial power were to exercise that power according to law, impartially and without improper preference.
What the oath does not do
The continuing force of the oath should not be overstated. A disappointed litigant cannot normally convert disagreement with a judgment, procedural ruling or assessment of evidence into a disciplinary complaint merely by saying that the judge breached the oath.
That distinction matters. Errors of law and disputed case-management decisions are normally matters for appeal, reconsideration or other procedural routes. Misconduct is different. It concerns personal behaviour serious enough to call for disciplinary scrutiny.
What the oath supplies
A constitutional standard: impartiality, fidelity to law and the expectation that judicial power will be exercised without improper influence.
What it does not supply
An automatic remedy, an appeal route, or a direct basis for removing a judge whenever a party considers a decision unfair.
The modern disciplinary filter
Today, judicial conduct complaints in England and Wales are handled through a formal disciplinary framework. The JCIO supports the Lord Chancellor and the Lady Chief Justice in their disciplinary functions, but its remit is deliberately narrower than many litigants expect.
The practical effect is that the system separates judicial independence from judicial misconduct. A judge may make a decision that one party considers wrong, harsh or procedurally unfair. That does not automatically make the decision misconduct. The disciplinary question is whether the judge’s personal conduct crossed the relevant threshold.
Oath
The public promise attached to judicial office.
Decision
A ruling, order or case-management choice made within proceedings.
Appeal route
The usual route for alleged legal, procedural or evidential error.
Misconduct route
The route for serious personal conduct issues, not ordinary disagreement with judicial reasoning.
Public confidence and perceived self-protection
The strongest criticism of the present arrangements is not that every adverse decision should become a disciplinary case. That would threaten judicial independence and encourage collateral attacks on judgments. The stronger criticism is that the public may struggle to see how the system deals with serious conduct concerns, especially where complaints are rejected at an early stage or where the distinction between case management and personal conduct is difficult to apply.
This is where the oath still has rhetorical force. It reminds the public that judges do not merely hold technical authority. They hold public power under a constitutional promise. Where the disciplinary machinery appears opaque, narrow or overly protective, the gap between constitutional language and practical accountability becomes more visible.
The defensible reform question is not whether judges should be punished for unpopular decisions. It is whether serious conduct complaints are handled visibly, independently and with enough confidence to sustain the authority of the courts.
Language such as “judicial tyranny” should therefore be treated with care. Used loosely, it risks overstating the position and weakening the argument. Used as shorthand for an accountability concern, it points to a real constitutional tension: courts require independence, but independence cannot mean insulation from legitimate scrutiny.
A disciplined case for reform
The better reform argument is not anti-judicial. It is pro-institutional. Public confidence depends on the perception that judges are independent in deciding cases, but accountable where personal conduct falls below the standards expected of judicial office.
Clarify
Make the boundary between appealable error and misconduct easier for the public to understand.
Explain
Give clearer reasons where complaints are rejected because they concern a decision rather than conduct.
Publish
Improve accessible publication of outcomes and systemic learning without compromising lawful confidentiality.
Strengthen
Consider whether external participation in sanctions or review would improve legitimacy without weakening judicial independence.
The Promissory Oaths Act 1868 therefore remains more than constitutional decoration. It is a reminder of the standard attached to judicial power. But the oath can only maintain public confidence if the modern system for addressing misconduct is credible, transparent and capable of confronting serious failures when they arise.
The task is not to turn every grievance into discipline. It is to ensure that independence and accountability are not presented as opposites. A judiciary that is independent enough to decide cases fearlessly must also be accountable enough to retain public trust.
The suggestion is an LiP should before presenting evidence insist that the Judge take the promissory Oaths Act 1868 Oath before the Court as any other witness or party is expected to take an oath on the bible or honesty if they are not religious. There by enforcing impartiality and integrity in the much maligned UK justice system. In fact all legal professionals should swear an oath in court to act honestly and with integrity so if during the hearing any legal or judicial official is found to be unprofessional a retrial is ordered at the personal legal or judicial professionals expense. Helping Legal and Judicial professionals understand the commitment to legal standards often negated and seen as the failure of the legal system by ordinary citizens