You’re offline. This is a read only version of the page.
JCIO 46/26
Date: 09 September 2026
A spokesperson for the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office said:
Former Employment Judge Christopher Gaskell (“EJ Gaskell”) was the subject of a disciplinary investigation under the Judicial Conduct Rules 2023 concerning allegations of inappropriate conduct towards junior female tribunal staff. The Lord Chancellor and the Lady Chief Justice agreed that, had he not retired before the conclusion of the disciplinary process, he would have been removed from office.
Facts
The Guide to Judicial Conduct states that members of the judiciary should seek to be courteous, patient, tolerant and punctual and should respect the dignity of all.
Further, the Statement of Expected Behaviour provides that 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.
Concerns about EJ Gaskell’s conduct towards several junior female tribunal staff members were brought to the attention of the President of Employment Tribunals by HMCTS and were subsequently referred to the JCIO in the form of a complaint. The allegations included inappropriate physical contact, maintaining unnecessary physical proximity and inappropriate sexualised behaviour.
EJ Gaskell’s Representations
EJ Gaskell denied the allegations. He stated that any physical contact had been inadvertent or misinterpreted, rejected suggestions of sexual motivation, raised concerns about the fairness of the investigative process and maintained that the evidence was insufficient to establish misconduct.
Investigating Judge’s Findings
An investigating judge appointed by the Lady Chief Justice found that the complainants’ evidence was credible and reliable. They concluded that EJ Gaskell had 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 investigating judge concluded that the conduct amounted to gross misconduct. In reaching that conclusion, they found that the behaviour involved an abuse of position and authority, 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. They recommended removal from office as the appropriate sanction.
Decision
EJ Gaskell retired from judicial office before the conclusion of the disciplinary process. In accordance with Regulation 22(2) of the Judicial Discipline (Prescribed Procedures) Regulations 2023, the Lord Chancellor and the Lady Chief Justice exercised their discretion to continue to deal with the case. After careful consideration, they agreed with the investigating judge’s recommendation and confirmed that, had EJ Gaskell not already retired, he would have been removed from office. 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.
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
