The High Court judge who presides over the Competition Appeal Tribunal has been given the most serious sanction short of removal from office over a letter handed to a member of staff. In a disciplinary statement posted yesterday, the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office (JCIO) said Mr Justice Marcus Smith 'had abused his position and crossed lines which should not be crossed'.
According to the statement, the JCIO received a complaint alleging that the judge had passed a handwritten letter to a junior member of staff, 'referring to a number of personal matters and his feelings for the member of staff'.
'The contents of the letter caused the member of staff to feel distressed, angry, let down and devalued,' the statement continued. The complaint was accompanied by a summary document in which the woman described a series of prior events, for example the judge confiding in her about his relationship with his judicial leadership and asking the member of staff to go for walks with him.
'On reading the letter, the member of staff became very distressed. She reported the matter to the CAT management, stating that they did not want to work with the judge again.'
In his response to the complaint, the judge accepted that he had written the letter and acknowledged that it was plainly inappropriate to do so. It had not been his intention to pressure or take advantage of the member of staff. 'On reflection, he realised that he had been ignoring warning signs about his workload and health. He had come to realise that the letter was a poorly framed attempt to reach out to her for support and to discuss his problems,' the statement continued. 'He gave an assurance that there would be no repeat of such behaviour.'
Following an investigation carried out under the Judicial Conduct Rules 2023, a senior nominated judge found that the judge’s actions amounted to serious misconduct. 'By giving the letter to the member of staff, he was clearly expressing his love for her and that he wanted to take things further. He had abused his position and crossed lines which should not be crossed. It was unsurprising that the complainant had been distressed. The impact on her was likely to be lasting.'
In recommending a reprimand, the nominated judge concluded that Smith had shown little insight into why his actions were so wrong. The lady chief justice and the lord chancellor agreed with the nominated judge’s recommendation to issue a reprimand.
