Andrew Simpson

Introduction

Andrew Simpson was a District Judge in England and Wales until June 2026, when the Lord Chancellor, with the Lady Chief Justice’s agreement, removed him from office for gross misconduct. The Judicial Conduct Investigations Office found that Simpson had behaved inappropriately toward a number of court staff — overly familiar and unprofessional conduct that included texting staff about non-work matters, sending photographs from social events including one containing a highly sexualised image, unwanted physical contact, and a judicial email referring to himself and colleagues in highly inappropriate terms. Removal from office is the most severe sanction available under the Constitutional Reform Act 2005, and it ends a judicial career outright.

Background Information

Simpson sat as a District Judge, a salaried judicial office holder dealing with civil and (in many listings) family work in county courts. The Guide to Judicial Conduct and the Statement of Expected Behaviour for the judiciary emphasise the importance of fostering a positive working environment and treating people with dignity and respect; judges are advised to be mindful of the authority they hold, careful not to abuse it, and aware of how their words and behaviour affect others. The JCIO received a complaint alleging that Simpson had done the opposite with members of his own court staff — the people whose working lives depended on his temperament and over whom he held significant positional power. He had, according to the disciplinary panel, an otherwise unblemished record and positive feedback from colleagues.

The Controversy or Incident That Led to Their Cancellation

Allegations. The claims in this section are findings of a judicial disciplinary panel under the Judicial Conduct Rules 2023, at which Simpson gave oral evidence. They were never criminally charged and never adjudicated in court. Simpson accepted the substance of some allegations but denied any improper intent.

It was alleged that Simpson engaged in overly familiar and unprofessional conduct toward a number of staff: contacting them via text and social media about non-work matters, sending photographs from social events attended outside work — including one that included a highly sexualised image — unwanted physical contact, and sending an email from his judicial email account which referred to himself and judicial colleagues in highly inappropriate terms. At the outset Simpson questioned the motivations of those supporting the complaints. He accepted the substance of some allegations but denied improper intent, explaining that his style was informal but consistently polite and friendly and that he had been attempting to support or cheer up staff during difficult periods. He acknowledged certain behaviours were inappropriate, expressed regret, and confirmed they would not be repeated.

Following an investigation in which Simpson gave oral evidence, the disciplinary panel found that he had communicated inappropriately with the staff concerned and had not recognised the power imbalance inherent in his judicial role. While his intentions were not improper, his actions were “seriously misguided,” had an adverse impact on the working environment and on how he was perceived by staff, and were inconsistent with the responsibility of a judge to maintain the dignity of judicial office. The panel — pointing to his positive intentions, remorse, previously unblemished record and positive colleague feedback — recommended only a reprimand.

Public Reaction and Consequences

The Lord Chancellor and the Lady Chief Justice overrode the panel’s reprimand recommendation and removed Simpson from office. They concluded that his conduct toward staff was “wholly inappropriate” and represented “a very serious failure of integrity.” They noted that the behaviour was repeated, involved an abuse of his position, caused distress to staff, damaged the working environment and the reputation of the judiciary, and that his unfounded challenge to the motivations of those supporting the complaint was an aggravating factor. They were also not satisfied he had demonstrated sufficient insight into the seriousness of his conduct: “Mr Simpson’s position as a judicial office holder was no longer tenable.” The JCIO published statement 14/26 announcing the removal on 3 June 2026.

Current Status

Simpson has been removed from office — the end of his judicial career, and the most severe sanction in the UK judicial disciplinary framework, above formal advice, formal warning and reprimand. The JCIO’s public statement confirms the removal is final; there is no reported appeal against a decision of the Lord Chancellor and Lady Chief Justice in this matter. No criminal proceedings were reported. The sanction’s escalation — from a panel-recommended reprimand to removal — turned on the factors the decision-makers listed: repetition, abuse of position, distress to staff, and the insufficient insight shown in his responses.

Impact on Their Career/Life

A judgeship — typically the capstone of a legal career built over decades — ended not through criminal conduct but through the day-to-day treatment of colleagues. The case is a data point in a visible tightening of judicial accountability around workplace behaviour: the same office that removed Simpson has handled a series of high-profile conduct cases, and the decision shows that decision-makers will override lenient panel recommendations where they judge insight to be lacking. For court staff, the public statement itself is the consequence that matters: it records, officially and on the record, that a judge’s “informal style” does not excuse a sexualised image, unwanted physical contact, or retaliation-by-insinuation against the staff who complained.

Sources

• Judicial Conduct Investigations Office, “Statement JCIO 14/26 — District Judge Andrew Simpson,” 3 June 2026 — source