The article initially makes it sound like they broke into the judge's house and stole if from their desk after feeding their dog poisoned liver.

Reality sounds more like they made a procedural request (possibly not a correct one) which was denied and they apologised.

From my reading it seems they did not have the prerogatives or rights to ask this, it was an illegal demands but the apology was enough.

Yes, it sounds like this was inappropriate but possibly not illegal. Normally the strongest sanction the judge could take here would be to find them in contempt of court, but he let them off with a warning/admonishment which also seems fine.

> IPT secretary Susan Cobb wrote back to say: "It was inappropriate for your staff to seek to intervene in ongoing legal proceedings..."

> Lord Justice Singh told the room: "The tribunal's secretary acted entirely appropriately in responding the way she did and by drawing these matters to my attention. In March 2019, it was recognised that the direct communication was inappropriate."

There was nothing illegal about their request. They shouldn't have done it, but they didn't break any laws in doing so.

It not being illegal is not a good thing. Apparently evidence tampering is cool in the UK?

I never said it was a good thing — of course evidence tampering is utterly unacceptable. The systems here simply hew closely to expected standards of behaviour from institutions, and in any event there are a range of mechanisms to address the behaviour without needing to criminalise it.

My understanding is that expate communication with the judge or a judges staff in a court case is not legal (unless allowed under very specific situations).