You’re offline. This is a read only version of the page.
JCIO 14/26
Date: 3 June 2026
A spokesperson for the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office said:
The Lord Chancellor, with the Lady Chief Justice’s agreement, has removed Andrew Simpson (former District Judge) from office for gross misconduct.
Facts
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 JCIO 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.
Mr Simpson’s representations
At the outset, 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.
Disciplinary panel’s findings and recommendation
Following an investigation under the Judicial Conduct Rules 2023, in which Mr Simpson gave oral evidence, 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.
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.
Decision
The Lord Chancellor and the Lady Chief Justice considered the matter carefully, including the panel’s report and Mr Simpson’s representations. They concluded that his 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.
They noted that Mr Simpson’s 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.
In light of the seriousness of the misconduct and taking account of all relevant aggravating and mitigating factors, the Lord Chancellor and the Lady Chief Justice determined that Mr Simpson’s position as a judicial office holder was no longer tenable and that removal from office was the appropriate and proportionate sanction.
Sanctions for misconduct by judicial office-holders are set out in the Constitutional Reform Act 2005. They are, in order of severity: formal advice, formal warning, reprimand and removal from office.
For more information about the Office, including details on how to make a complaint against a judicial office holder, you can visit the JCIO website at: Judicial Conduct Investigations website
