District judge Andrew Simpson has been sacked for gross misconduct after a complaint that he behaved inappropriately toward court staff, including unwanted physical contact and sending a highly sexualised image. The decision ends a disciplinary case that senior judicial leaders concluded could not be met with anything short of removal from office.
His name now sits at the centre of a search that turns on one question: what conduct pushed a judge out of the role. Simpson, a solicitor appointed as a district judge in Newcastle in December 2022, was accused of overly familiar and unprofessional behaviour with staff, including contact by text and social media about non-work matters, photographs from social events and an email from his judicial account that referred to himself and colleagues in highly inappropriate terms.
The Judicial Conduct Investigations Office said it received a complaint that the judge had behaved inappropriately toward a number of staff. In its account, Simpson accepted the substance of some of the allegations but denied any improper intent. He said he was trying to engage with staff, that his style was informal but consistently polite and friendly, and that in some cases he was attempting to support or cheer people up during difficult periods. He also acknowledged that certain behaviours were inappropriate, expressed regret and said they would not be repeated.
That acknowledgement did not save him. The disciplinary panel accepted mitigating factors, including his stated positive intentions, remorse, assurances that the conduct would not be repeated, his previously unblemished record and positive feedback from colleagues. Even so, it recommended only a reprimand. Baroness Carr, the lady chief justice, and justice secretary David Lammy took a harder line. They concluded that his conduct toward staff was wholly inappropriate, that his position was no longer tenable and that it amounted to gross misconduct involving a very serious failure of integrity.
The split between the panel and the final decision matters because it shows how far the case was judged to cross the line. District judges are the most junior salaried judges and deal with civil and family cases, while those who hear criminal matters sit as district judges in magistrates’ courts. The Judicial Conduct Investigations Office said it was not providing further identifying details in line with standard practice, leaving the dismissal itself as the final public word on the case.
For Simpson, that means the issue is settled in the most formal way available: he has been removed from judicial office. What remains unanswered is not whether the conduct was serious, but how a judge who admitted some of the behaviour and expressed regret still reached the point where senior figures decided only dismissal would protect the standards of the bench.
