A district judge has been removed from office for gross misconduct after he was found to have communicated inappropriately with staff.
Andrew Simpson was alleged to have behaved inappropriately toward a number of people. He was accused of engaging in ‘overly familiar and unprofessional conduct’. This allegedly included 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.
Simpson ‘questioned the motivations of those supporting the complaints’, but accepted the ‘substance of some of the allegations’. He denied any improper intent.
In mitigation, he said he sought to engage with all staff and his ‘style’ was ‘informal but consistently polite and friendly’. Providing context for some of the incidents, he said he was attempting to support or cheer up staff during difficult periods.
Simpson, who expressed regret, acknowledged that ‘certain’ behaviours were inappropriate and said they would not be repeated.
A disciplinary panel found that he had communicated inappropriately with the staff concerned and had not recognised the power imbalance inherent in his judicial role.
While his intentions were not improper, said the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office, his actions were seriously misguided and had an adverse impact on the working environment and how he was perceived by staff.
The JCIO added: ‘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. The guide to judicial conduct and statement of expected behaviour for the judiciary emphasise the importance of helping to foster a positive working environment and treating people with dignity and respect. Judges are advised to be mindful of the authority they have and careful not to abuse it, and to be aware of how their words and behaviour can affect others.’
The disciplinary panel recommended that Simpson be reprimanded, but the lord chancellor, with the lady chief justice’s agreement, disagreed.
They found Simpson’s conduct toward staff amount to gross misconduct which involved a ‘very serious failure of integrity’ and described his conduct as ‘wholly inappropriate and represented a serious failure to meet the standards expected of a judicial office holder’.
Simpson’s behaviour was ‘repeated’, involved an abuse of his position as a district judge, caused distress to staff and had a ‘detrimental impact’ on the working environment and the judiciary’s reputation, the lord chancellor and lady chief justice found.
Simpson’s ‘unfounded challenge’ of the motivation of those supporting the complaint was considered an aggravating factor. Both the lord chancellor and lady chief justice were ‘not satisfied that he had demonstrated sufficient insight into the seriousness of his conduct’.
Removing Simpson from office, they found his position as a judicial office-holder was no longer tenable and removal was the ‘appropriate and proportionate sanction’.
