You’re offline. This is a read only version of the page.
JCIO 53/26
Date: 22 September 2026
A spokesperson for the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office said:
Mr Justice Keehan, on behalf of the Lady Chief Justice and with the Lord Chancellor’s agreement, has issued Mr Martin Savage JP with formal advice for misconduct.
Facts
All magistrates, upon appointment, sign a declaration and undertaking that includes a commitment to conduct themselves with circumspection and to uphold the reputation and good standing of the magistracy. The Guide to Judicial Conduct reminds judicial office holders to display diligence and care in the discharge of judicial duties and discretion in personal relationships, social contacts and activities. The Statement of Expected Behaviour provides that judicial office holders all have a responsibility to help foster a positive working environment, where diversity is recognised and valued, and everyone is treated with dignity and respect.
Mr Savage, as chair of the Berkshire branch of the Magistrates’ Association, was alleged to have improperly interfered in the Berkshire Bench Chair Election by circulating candidates’ responses to questions he had asked them to only some eligible voters without the candidates’ prior knowledge or consent.
Mr Savage’s representations
Mr Savage explained that, as chair of the Berkshire branch of the Magistrates’ Association, he was seeking to obtain and share the candidates’ views with Magistrates’ Association members and did not intend to influence the election. He accepted that he should have obtained the candidates’ consent before sharing their responses and stated that he was unaware of the relevant rules and guidance at the time. He apologised for any problems that he had inadvertently caused.
Nominated committee member’s findings
The nominated committee member found that Mr Savage’s actions were not malicious and were intended to inform local Magistrates’ Association members. However, the circulation of the information to only a proportion of those eligible to vote was unfair and carried a risk of improperly influencing the election process and undermining its integrity.
Mr Savage’s conduct breached the standards expected of a judicial office holder and amounted to judicial misconduct. In recommending formal advice, the nominated committee member considered as aggravating factors Mr Savage’s significant experience as a magistrate and his leadership role as chair of the Berkshire branch of the Magistrates’ Association. As mitigating factors, the nominated committee member took into account Mr Savage’s expression of remorse, his previously unblemished record, his long-standing service to the magistracy, and the High Sheriff Award he received in 2026.
Decision
Mr Justice Keehan and the Lord Chancellor agreed that a sanction of formal advice was reasonable and proportionate in the circumstances.
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
