Magistrate’s misconduct
JP claimed not to know that sexual abuse complainants have anonymity
A magistrate has been sacked for gross misconduct after disclosing details that could have identified an alleged victim of sexual abuse. The judicial office-holder was found to have “disclosed information which he obtained in his capacity as a magistrate to members of an organisation with which he was affiliated concerning proceedings connected to that organisation”.
No further explanation was provided by the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office in its statement on Friday. It’s not known what proceedings the unidentified organisation might be connected to, what information the magistrate had or what was disclosed.
The former magistrate was named as David Armitage. No information that might distinguish him from other serving or former magistrates of a similar name was provided in the statement.1
As advised, I called the judicial press office to ask for further details — such as Armitage’s full name, the date of his disclosure, the date on which it was investigated and by which advisory committee, the date on which his subsequent application to a disciplinary panel was dismissed, the court or at least the area where he sat, his age, occupation or the locality in which he lived.
The press office did what they could to help but had not been provided with any further material for release. Press officers have been unable to obtain any more information since my enquiry during court hours on Friday afternoon.
What’s particularly shocking about the case is that Armitage, despite his appointment as a justice of the peace, said he was unaware that anyone claiming to have been the victim of a wide range of sexual offences is entitled to lifelong anonymity as a complainant. Broadly speaking, that has been the law in England and Wales for nearly 50 years.
Armitage said he had obligations to the magistracy and to the organisation but ultimately felt he had a duty to inform the organisation of an impending risk. While he accepted that sharing the information “may not have been the correct thing to do, it was done inadvertently and with the best of intentions”.
According to the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office,
the disciplinary panel concluded that Mr Armitage’s actions amounted to gross misconduct and recommended his removal from office. In making their recommendation, they acknowledged that Mr Armitage was remorseful, had accepted full responsibility and had no previous findings of misconduct.
However, the disciplinary panel also took into account that Mr Armitage had acted without seeking advice from his bench leadership or court legal adviser and that the public confidence in the judiciary would be undermined if Mr Armitage were to remain in post after gross misconduct.
The lady chief justice and the lord chancellor agreed with the disciplinary panel’s recommendation to remove Armitage from office.
Update 19 August at 1250: the statement has now been updated to show the former magistrate’s name as John William David Armitage and his local justice area as South London.
Comments are disabled for this piece but I shall update it online if more information is received from the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office or from Armitage.
Readers hoping I would be writing about the acquittal of Ricky Jones should read this excellent analysis by the Secret Barrister, with a postscript by Matthew Scott. I agree and have nothing to add.
The Secret Barrister has a first novel out next week. I plan to review it on publication day.
See update above.