An employment judge would have been removed from office for inappropriately touching a female member of staff had he not retired, the judicial conduct office has found.
Former employment judge Christopher Gaskell was alleged to have behaved inappropriately toward several junior female tribunal staff members. The behaviour was brought to the attention of the employment tribunals president by HMCTS and referred to the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office.
A spokesperson for the JCIO said: ‘The allegations included inappropriate physical contact, maintaining unnecessary physical proximity and inappropriate sexualised behaviour.
‘Judicial office holders should treat others fairly and respectfully, be mindful of the authority they have and be careful not to abuse it, be aware of how their words and behaviour may affect others, and act professionally and courteously.’
Gaskell denied the allegations against him. He stated any physical contact had been ‘inadvertent or misinterpreted’ and ‘rejected suggestions of sexual motivation’. The JCIO said Gaskell ‘raised concerns about the fairness of the investigative process and maintained that the evidence was insufficient to establish misconduct’.
Read more
An investigation found the complainants’ evidence was ‘credible and reliable’.
Gaskell was found to have engaged in a course of ‘unwanted conduct of a sexual nature, including inappropriate touching of a member of staff, repeated inappropriate physical proximity and inappropriate sexualised behaviour towards multiple female staff members over an extended period’.
The former judge’s conduct was found to amount to gross misconduct and the behaviour an abuse of position and authority which ‘caused distress and emotional harm, created a risk of further harm and was incompatible with the standards of behaviour expected of a judicial office holder’.
Gaskell retired from judicial office before the disciplinary process had finished.
The lady chief justice and lord chancellor exercised their discretion to continue to deal with the case despite Gaskell’s retirement. They found had Gaskell not already retired, he would have been removed from office.
The JCIO said: ‘In reaching their decision, they considered that the highly improper nature of the conduct, its repetition across multiple instances, the emotional harm to those concerned, the abuse of authority, the reputational risk to the judiciary, and EJ Gaskell’s failure to accept any responsibility together elevated this to a case of considerable seriousness, for which removal from judicial office would have been the appropriate disciplinary outcome.’
