Disturbing questions were being asked last night about four judges caught looking at pornography at work. Fearing a cover-up, MPs and legal experts want to know whether the four were looking at X-rated material while presiding over trials. Two are known to have overseen cases in which the charges related to pornography or sex offending. Three were viewing explicit material in their chambers. Andrew Maw, left, resigned before he could be sacked while Immigration judge Warren Grant, right,  confirmed today he lost his job for viewing porn on official judicial equipment . But senior judges and the judicial disciplinary board refused to give any detail about the ‘inappropriate’ activities of the judges. And officials declined to say whether criminal charges had been considered or whether their summary departures will affect their judicial pensions. A criminal charge of misconduct in public office can be brought when a public officer ‘wilfully misconducts himself to such a degree as to amount to an abuse of the public’s trust’. London immigration judge Warren Grant, district judge Timothy Bowles of Romford county court and recorder Peter Bullock, who worked on the north-eastern circuit, were all sacked for viewing pornographic material. Recorder Andrew Maw, who worked at Lincoln county court, resigned before he could be forced out. An official statement said he had ‘viewed similar inappropriate material via his judicial IT account’ and would have been removed from office ‘had he not resigned before the conclusion of the disciplinary process’. David Green, a criminologist at the Civitas think-tank, said: ‘We need to know what kind of cases they were dealing with and whether the material they were looking at was relevant to those cases. That is how their behaviour could have become a matter of conduct in office. ‘The issue is: What do we know about the cases they were hearing? This could be important for the administration of justice. Sex scandals being regularly unearthed have made us all suspicious about the behaviour of public officials.’ Recorders are qualified to preside over crown court criminal trials. But the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office, which handles disciplinary complaints against judges and magistrates, refused to give any information about the misconduct or the cases the judges dealt. This means no one can know whether their judge was watching pornography during recesses in their own case or whether cases that might have involved complicated sexual issues were being run by a judge who was using pornography in his office during the trial. The dismissal of so many judges in one day – and behind closed doors – provoked disquiet in Westminster and among legal experts. Liberal Democrat John Hemming, who campaigns for open justice, said: ‘I am concerned about the lack of transparency in the running of the judiciary. We know little about what happened here, but it was considered serious enough for the judges to be dismissed. This is one key aspect of concern over transparency in the judiciary.’ Sacked: Three judges have been fired and one resigned after being caught watching porn on work computers . Tory MP Dominic Raab said: ‘It is a cardinal rule that British justice is not just done, but also seen to be done. Those upholding the law need to be held to similar standards of transparency and accountability.’ One of the four judges jailed a teacher for downloading child pornography and another sentenced a Peeping Tom for using a mobile phone to film women in swimming pool changing rooms. A statement from the Investigations Office said the three men ‘have been removed from judicial office following an investigation into an allegation that they viewed pornographic material on judicial IT equipment in their offices.’ It said the judges were not linked in any way. The statement added that ‘the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice were satisfied that the material did not include images of children or any other illegal content, but concluded that this was an inexcusable misuse of their judicial IT accounts and wholly unacceptable conduct for a judicial office holder’. The sackings came less than two months after the Lord Chief Justice told MPs of the seriousness with which he regards ‘extreme’ pornography. Lord Thomas told the Commons justice committee he believed a recent murder case illustrated ‘that the peddling of pornography on the internet had had a dramatic effect on an individual’ and that is what is available now to download and to see … is simply horrific’. The secretive disciplinary process culminated in the dismissal rulings by Lord Thomas and Justice Secretary Chris Grayling, who make the final decision when serious allegations are made against judges or magistrates. No details were given about how the allegation of viewing pornography on office computers came to be made against judges in four different courts. There was speculation the judges’ misuse of office computers could have been noticed as part of security checks of IT systems. The disciplinary process run by the JCIO was revamped in 2013 when the organisation ceased to be known as the Judicial Complaints Office. It has 15 staff, headed by Judith Anckorn, and took disciplinary action in 58 cases from more than 2000 referred to it in the 2013/14 financial year. Judges may be called in to supervise investigations, and judges who are facing serious allegations have a right to be heard by a disciplinary panel, which is held behind closed doors. Yesterday’s statement said that the pornography viewed by the judges did not have illegal content, but it did not say whether other criminal charges were considered in their cases. The action against the judges is not thought to have included measures to curb or confiscate their pension entitlement. An immigration judge in London currently earns an annual salary of £121,450 and a district judge commands £115,489. The judicial pension scheme has long offered equivalent to half the judge’s salary after 20 years of service. They sat in judgment over sex offences . One of the four disgraced judges once jailed a teacher caught downloading child pornography. Matthew Curtis was arrested after the FBI found he had paid two American sellers for child porn in 1999. The teacher at Bourne Grammar School in Lincolnshire said he was not responsible for the 17 images found on his school computer. But ANDREW MAW jailed Curtis for eight months in 2004 and told him: ‘Were it not for these matters, I am sure you would have risen high up in your chosen profession. ‘It is only by your actions that you have thrown it all away.’ Mr Maw was a recorder sitting at Northampton Crown Court at the time. He retired from the bench in September, before the investigation into the misuse of his own computer was concluded. The Judicial Conduct Investigations Office said he would have been sacked had he not retired. Mr Maw, 66, a married father of three, lives in Lichfield, Staffordshire. The former judge was admitted as a solicitor in 1973 and was appointed a recorder in 2000. Mr Maw attended the former Wintringham Grammar near Grimsby. Andrew Maw was a recorder sitting at Northampton Crown Court (pictured) in 2004 when he jailed a teacher caught downloading child pornography . He was chairman of the Grimsby Everyman Club. He was also a member of the Grimsby St James Rotary Club before relocating to Lichfield. He was most recently recorder at Lincoln county court, dealing with civil and family cases, but also sat on criminal cases at the crown courts in Derby and Grimsby. Another of the disgraced judges, PETER BULLOCK, once banned a pervert from swimming pools after he was caught filming women undressing on his mobile phone. He ordered the offender not to enter any municipal pools and gave him a three-year community order. Mr Bullock, 70, was a deputy district judge and recorder on the north-eastern court circuit before his dismissal. The father of two lives in Cramlington, a small town in Northumberland. He refused to comment at his detached £275,000 home yesterday. A relative said: ‘He doesn’t want to talk.’ The third judge sacked for viewing porn on his work computer said he had been suffering from ‘severe and undiagnosed depression’ at the time. WARREN GRANT, 60, a married father of five, was an immigration judge in London and believed to be earning £128,000 a year. In a statement released yesterday, he said: ‘I do not wish to comment save to say that for some years before, and during, the period covered by the conduct which formed the subject of the complaint laid against me I was suffering from severe and undiagnosed depression. I request that the privacy of my family and myself be respected so that we are allowed to continue with our lives.’ Mr Grant lives in Golders Green, North London. He attended the independent Royal Grammar School in Newcastle before studying law at St Catherine’s College, Cambridge. He speaks five languages including French and Hebrew and also plays in a jazz band. TIMOTHY BOWLES, 53, was a district judge at Romford county court. District judges are full-time officials who deal with a range of family and civil cases.
Judges Tim Bowles, Warren Grant and Peter Bullock lose jobs in scandal . Recorder Andrew Maw resigned before porn investigation was completed . Lord Chancellor said their conduct was 'inexcusable' for Britain's judges . Former judge, Warren Grant, says he had 'severe depression' at the time .