Mr Ansar Gulzar JP, a Buckinghamshire magistrate has been reprimanded for serious misconduct following a complaint concerning a series of social media posts about Jews and Israel.
The Judicial Conduct Investigations Office (JCIO) announced on 30 September 2026 that Mr Gulzar, a magistrate on the Buckinghamshire Bench, had been reprimanded by Mr Justice Keehan, acting on behalf of the Lady Chief Justice, with the agreement of the Lord Chancellor.
UK Lawyers for Israel (UKLFI) had complained about Mr Gulzar in January 2026 after being alerted to Facebook posts which it considered antisemitic and incompatible with the impartiality expected of a serving magistrate.
UKLFI pointed out that Mr Gulzar publicly identified himself as a magistrate on Facebook and LinkedIn while publishing material which breached judicial standards concerning bias, prejudice, integrity, impartiality and use of social media.
Among the posts highlighted by UKLFI 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.
Mr Gulzar wrote: “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?”
UKLFI 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, stated: “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.”
UKLFI also subsequently drew the JCIO’s attention to a further post published on 17 January 2026, which presented Israel as a uniquely manipulative force responsible for destabilising countries across the Middle East and included the words: “Whatever you have to do, however you have to do it, do it now and at the same time.”
JCIO finds “serious misconduct”
Following an investigation, the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office found that Mr Gulzar’s Facebook account was his, that the posts were publicly viewable and that his Facebook and LinkedIn accounts referred to his judicial office.
Mr Gulzar accepted that he had published 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 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 in his choice of words.
Following an investigation under the Judicial Conduct (Magistrates) Rules 2023 , the nominated committee member found the allegations proven and concluded that Mr Gulzar’s conduct amounted to serious misconduct.
The committee member found that the four posts constituted “a course of conduct rather than a series of isolated incidents”, that they expressed views on highly controversial and political matters, and that they had the potential to cause emotional harm and undermine public confidence in the judiciary.
The committee member also found that Mr Gulzar had referred to his judicial office on social media in breach of the applicable guidance and recommended that he receive a reprimand.
Mr Justice Keehan and the Lord Chancellor agreed that the conduct amounted to serious misconduct and imposed the reprimand.
A reprimand is the second-most serious disciplinary sanction available for judicial office-holders, below removal from office.
A spokesperson for UKLFI said:
“We welcome the finding that Mr Gulzar’s conduct amounted to serious misconduct. Judicial office-holders 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. 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.
“We are pleased that the concerns we raised were investigated and that a serious disciplinary sanction has been imposed.”