A male circuit judge faced allegations of being overfamiliar with a junior female staff member.
- The Judicial Conduct Investigations Office (JCIO) found some allegations of inappropriate behaviour to be credible.
- The judge was accused of making the staff member uncomfortable through inappropriate comments.
- The Lady Chief Justice, in consultation with the Lord Chancellor, decided on a sanction of formal advice.
- The decision reflects the lower end seriousness of the misconduct and the judge’s otherwise unblemished record.
The Judicial Conduct Investigations Office (JCIO) recorded a case involving a male circuit judge accused of misconduct for being overly familiar with a junior female staff member. This follows numerous allegations primarily concerning inappropriate comments made by the judge while working alongside the staff member, which reportedly made her feel uneasy.
The judge in question, His Honour Judge Martin Davis, categorically denied these allegations, suggesting that the complainant might have misremembered or misrepresented his statements. Despite his denial, the JCIO’s investigative process led to some findings, establishing that Judge Davis shared his strongly held moral beliefs unnecessarily and inappropriately with the complainant, which could have made her uncomfortable due to the disparity in their professional roles.
The investigation acknowledged that Judge Davis, appointed in 2022 and holding judicial experience since 2010, was overfamiliar in his interactions. It was noted that his ill-judged attempts at humour and sharing personal anecdotes were intended to be friendly but had unintended effects. More critically, it was recognised that Judge Davis did not sufficiently consider the implications of his words and actions, nor did he treat the subordinate staff member with the necessary respect.
An experienced office-holder, Judge Davis was reminded by the Lady Chief Justice and the Lord Chancellor of the importance of mindfulness concerning his authoritative position. The investigation did not uphold most allegations against him, recognising his insight and reflection on the matter, though it was pointed out that no formal apology was offered.
Ultimately, the Lady Chief Justice and Lord Chancellor assessed the situation, deciding not to issue a formal warning as initially recommended. Instead, Judge Davis received formal advice, deemed more consistent with the investigation’s findings, which highlighted the low seriousness of the misconduct and the brief period it concerned. His previous unblemished record also influenced this outcome.
The case underscores the importance of judicial awareness and the need for respectful professional interactions.
