Judge receives formal advice for ‘ill-judged’ humor

Left court staff member “uncomfortable”

A judge has been sanctioned after he was found to have made “overfamiliar and inappropriate comments” to a member of court staff.

His Honour Judge Martin Davis, admitted to the roll of solicitors in 1994 and appointed a circuit judge in 2022, received formal advice for his actions.

According to a statement from the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office (JCIO), the complaints against Davis included allegations that he made “overfamiliar and inappropriate comments” whilst working with a member of the court staff, which made her feel uncomfortable.

Davis denied the allegations, claiming that the complainant had “misremembered or misrepresented” his words, before explaining that he “takes an interest in his colleagues, with whom he enjoys conversations and has built positive relationships.”

But 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”.

Whilst the majority of the allegations were not established, an investigating judge found that Davis had “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 judge cited, in particular, that Davis was “overfamiliar in his conversations”, giving the examples of his “ill-judged use of humour and excessive sharing of personal anecdotes”. Although this was intended to be friendly, the investigating judge said, it 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,” the ruling states. “He therefore did not treat her with respect.”

The investigating judge ultimately advised that Davis receive a formal warning, citing that he is “an experienced office-holder who should have been mindful of his position of authority. Furthermore, while he had shown insight and reflection, he had not offered an apology”.

Lowering the sanction, the Lady Chief Justice and Lord Chancellor determined that formal advice, rather than the more serious formal warning, was more appropriate.

They considered that Davis “did not intend to cause offence or discomfort to the complainant, and that he in fact intended to be friendly and approachable”, adding that the misconduct was at the lower end of seriousness, and that Davis previously had an unblemished record.