A magistrate has been reprimanded for serious misconduct after publishing four posts on Facebook that were said to show he “held a prejudicial view of matters involving Jewish people and Israel”. A reprimand is the most serious disciplinary finding short of removal from judicial office.

The magistrate was identified as Ansar Gulzar JP of the Buckinghamshire bench. As usual, the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office provided no further details to distinguish him from anyone else of the same name — though a number of clues can be found online.

A courts centre in Buckinghamshire

A complaint was made to the investigations office about four posts published between June 2025 and January 2026. In a statement yesterday, the office said:

It was alleged that the posts expressed views on highly controversial and political matters and included content capable of creating the impression that Mr Gulzar held a prejudicial view of matters involving Jewish people and Israel. It was further alleged that his Facebook and LinkedIn accounts referred to his judicial office…

Mr Gulzar accepted that he posted the four Facebook posts and took full responsibility for them. He said that he had been under the impression that the posts could only be seen by his family and friends and were intended for general discussion. He disputed the translation or interpretation of one of the posts and said that he should have been more careful with his choice of words.

Following an investigation, an unnamed member of the local conduct advisory committee found the allegations proved and concluded that they amounted to serious misconduct:

In reaching this recommendation, the nominated committee member found that the four posts formed a course of conduct rather than a series of isolated incidents, that they expressed views on highly controversial and political matters, that they had the potential to cause emotional harm and undermine public confidence in the judiciary, and that Mr Gulzar had referred to his judicial office on social media contrary to the applicable guidance. The nominated committee member recommended a reprimand.

That recommendation was accepted by Mr Justice Keehan on behalf of the lady chief justice and endorsed by the lord chancellor.

Last night, the campaign group UK Lawyers for Israel said that it had lodged the original complaint with the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office in January after being alerted to Facebook posts that it considered antisemitic and incompatible with the impartiality expected of a serving magistrate.

Among the posts highlighted by the group was one published on 2 October 2025, following the terrorist attack at a Manchester synagogue on Yom Kippur in which two Jewish people were killed.

Gulzar was said to have written:

My thoughts and prayers are with the victims of Manchester. Every life matters. Question bothering me is why there is always an attack on a Jewish person when Israel wants to divert media attention?

UK Lawyers for Israel argued that the statement advanced a conspiratorial narrative by suggesting that violence against Jewish people was connected to Israel seeking to manipulate media coverage.

Another post, from June 2025, said:

America has a long & brutal history of slave trade. African’s were American slaves between 16th & 19th Century. American’s are Israeli slaves from 19th century.

The campaign group subsequently alerted the investigations office to a further post published on 17 January 2026, which was said to have presented Israel as a uniquely manipulative force responsible for destabilising countries across the Middle East.

It included the words:

Whatever you have to do, however you have to do it, do it now and at the same time.

Welcoming the finding of serious misconduct, UK Lawyers for Israel said that holders of judicial office must command the confidence of everyone who comes before them, including Jewish people and those connected with Israel.

“It was particularly important that these social media posts were considered as a course of conduct rather than in isolation,” the group added. “A serving magistrate who publicly expresses highly controversial political views capable of creating an impression of prejudice risks seriously undermining confidence in the impartiality of the justice system.”

Comments are disabled for this piece.