District judge sacked

His conduct towards staff ‘involved a very serious failure of integrity’

A district judge has been sacked for gross misconduct after being accused of unwanted physical conduct and sending a highly sexualised image to court staff. Although a disciplinary panel recommended a reprimand — the most serious sanction short of dismissal — the lady chief justice Baroness Carr and the justice secretary David Lammy concluded that the former judge’s conduct was wholly inappropriate and his position as a judicial office holder was no longer tenable.

The former district judge was named was “Andrew Simpson” in a statement from the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office. In line with its standard practice — believed to be based on its understanding of the law — the office provided no further identifying details.

The Royal Courts of Justice, where the investigation office is based

A solicitor named Andrew Simpson was appointed as a district judge in Newcastle in December 2022. His firm congratulated him at the time.¹ But his name is still on the official list of district judges — in contrast to the “Andrew Simpson (former district judge)” referred to in yesterday’s announcement.

District judges are the most junior salaried judges who deal with civil and family cases. They may sit full-time or part-time but cannot continue doing non-judicial work. Those who decide criminal cases are known as district judges (magistrates’ courts).

Background

The Judicial Conduct Investigations Office said it had received a complaint that the district judge

had behaved inappropriately towards a number of staff. It was alleged that he engaged in overly familiar and unprofessional conduct, including contacting staff via text and social media in relation to non-work matters, sending photographs from social events attended outside work, including one that included a highly sexualised image, unwanted physical contact and sending an email from his judicial email account which referred to himself and judicial colleagues in highly inappropriate terms.

In response,

Simpson questioned the motivations of those supporting the complaints. He accepted the substance of some of the allegations but denied any improper intent. He explained that he sought to engage with all staff and that his style was informal but consistently polite and friendly. He provided context for some of the incidents, including that he was attempting to support or cheer up staff during difficult periods. Nonetheless, he acknowledged that certain behaviours were inappropriate, expressed regret and confirmed they would not be repeated.

The disciplinary panel found that

he had communicated inappropriately with the staff concerned and had not recognised the power imbalance inherent in his judicial role. Whilst his intentions were not improper, his actions were seriously misguided and had an adverse impact on the working environment and how he was perceived by staff.

The panel concluded that his conduct was inconsistent with the responsibility of a judge to maintain the dignity of judicial office and to foster a safe and inclusive working environment.

In considering sanction, the panel identified mitigating factors, including Mr Simpson’s positive intentions, his expressions of remorse, his assurances that the conduct would not be repeated, his previously unblemished record and positive feedback from colleagues. The panel recommended that he receive a reprimand.

But Carr and Lammy concluded that

his conduct towards staff was wholly inappropriate and represented a serious failure to meet the standards expected of a judicial office holder. It amounted to gross misconduct which involved a very serious failure of integrity.

They noted that Mr Simpson’s behaviour was repeated, involved an abuse of his position, caused distress to staff and had a detrimental impact on the working environment and on the reputation of the judiciary. His unfounded challenge to the motivation of those supporting the complaint was an aggravating factor. They were also not satisfied that he had demonstrated sufficient insight into the seriousness of his conduct.

In light of the seriousness of the misconduct and taking account of all relevant aggravating and mitigating factors, the lord chancellor and the lady chief justice determined that Mr Simpson’s position as a judicial office holder was no longer tenable and that removal from office was the appropriate and proportionate sanction.

Comment

Lay magistrates are regularly removed from office for failing to meet the required number of sittings. But it is very unusual for a salaried judge to be dismissed for misconduct.

Judges of the High Court and above are almost unsackable as a matter of law but will usually respond if prevailed upon to resign.

What’s particularly striking about this case is the firm line taken by the lady chief justice, in contrast to the disciplinary panel which would have given Simpson one last chance.

1. Update 1800: Mortons Law took down the page earlier today.