Courts: Judge’s conduct constituted an abuse of position
A district judge has been removed from office over his “wholly inappropriate” behaviour towards staff, including unwanted physical contact.
The Judicial Conduct Investigations Office (JCIO) said the Lady Chief Justice, Baroness Carr, and Lord Chancellor David Lammy considered that Andrew Simpson’s position as a judicial office holder was “no longer tenable and that removal from office was the appropriate and proportionate sanction”.
The disciplinary panel that investigated the matter had recommended only a reprimand.
The JCIO said it received a complaint that Mr Simpson 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.”
Initially, the JCIO reported, Mr 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.”
A disciplinary panel was convened, to which Mr Simpson gave oral evidence. It 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 the JCIO said the Lord Chancellor and the Lady Chief Justice concluded that Mr Simpson’s 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”.
Further, the 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.”
They concluded that Mr Simpson should be removed from office.
