Judge issued with formal advice for misconduct after excessive sharing of personal anecdotes

A circuit judge has been issued with formal advice for misconduct after he was found to have been ‘overfamiliar in his conversations’ with a member of court staff.

His Honour Judge Martin Davis, who was admitted to the roll in 1994 and appointed a circuit judge in 2022, was alleged to have made overfamiliar and inappropriate comments while working with a member of court staff. The comments made the staff member uncomfortable, the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office said.

Davis, who denied the allegations, claimed the staff member had ‘misremembered or misrepresented his words’. He said he took an interest in his colleagues ‘with whom he enjoys conversations and has built positive relationships’.

A JCIO spokesperson said: ‘Upon reflection, he had learned to be more careful when sharing personal anecdotes and views and to always have regard to the powerful position he holds.’

Following an investigation, the ‘majority’ of allegations against Davis were not established. But the judge was found to have ‘inappropriately and unnecessarily shared his strongly held moral beliefs with the complainant, a female member of staff who was subordinate to him, and therefore unable to object to anything said, and who did not know him’.

The JCIO added: ‘He was overfamiliar in his conversations with her, for example through his ill-judged use of humour and excessive sharing of personal anecdotes. This was intended to be friendly but made the complainant uncomfortable. He was not sufficiently mindful of his position of authority and did not consider the effect of his words and behaviour on the complainant. He therefore did not treat her with respect.’

Davis, an ‘experienced office-holder’, should have been ‘mindful of his position of authority’ and though he had shown ‘insight and reflection,’ he had not offered an apology, the JCIO said.

A formal warning was recommended, the second-least severe sanction. The Lady Chief Justice and Lord Chancellor determined formal advice, the least severe sanction, was appropriate as the misconduct was at the lower end of seriousness.

The JCIO said: ‘In reaching their decision, they took into consideration that HHJ Davis did not intend to cause offence or discomfort to the complainant, and he in fact intended to be friendly and approachable. They also noted that the matter related to a brief period and that HHJ Davis had an unblemished record.’