By Lucy Caulkett
A former employment judge escaped the shame of dismissal , and would have been removed from judicial office after an investigation found that he engaged in a prolonged course of unwanted sexual conduct towards junior female tribunal staff, including inappropriately touching one member of staff.
Christopher Gaskell retired from judicial office before the disciplinary process against him was completed. However, the Lord Chancellor and Lady Chief Justice exercised their discretion to continue the proceedings and concluded that, had he remained in office, removal would have been the appropriate sanction.
AD: Capeesh Restaurant
The findings are particularly serious because the allegations did not concern an isolated incident or a misunderstanding between colleagues. An investigating judge found that Gaskell had engaged in “a course of unwanted conduct of a sexual nature”, involving inappropriate physical contact, repeated unnecessary physical proximity and sexualised behaviour towards multiple female staff members over an extended period. The complainants’ evidence was found to be credible and reliable.
The investigation was triggered after concerns about Gaskell’s conduct towards several junior female tribunal staff were brought by HM Courts and Tribunals Service to the attention of the President of the Employment Tribunals and subsequently referred to the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office (JCIO).
Gaskell denied the allegations. He maintained that any physical contact had been inadvertent or misinterpreted, rejected suggestions that his behaviour had been sexually motivated and raised concerns about the fairness of the investigation. He also argued that the evidence was insufficient to establish misconduct
AD: Oysterian Sea Food Restaurant And Bar
Those arguments were rejected. The investigating judge concluded that the behaviour amounted to gross misconduct, involving an abuse of Gaskell’s position and authority, causing distress and emotional harm and creating a risk of further harm. The conduct was considered incompatible with the standards expected of someone holding judicial office. Removal was recommended.
The final decision is significant because the disciplinary authorities did not simply treat retirement as bringing the matter to an end. Under the Judicial Discipline (Prescribed Procedures) Regulations 2023, the Lady Chief Justice and Lord Chancellor have discretion to continue disciplinary proceedings after a judicial office-holder has retired. They exercised that power in Gaskell’s case and agreed that removal would have been justified had he still been sitting.
The JCIO said the decision reflected several aggravating factors: the highly improper nature of the conduct, its repetition, the emotional harm caused to those involved, the abuse of authority, the reputational risk to the judiciary, and Gaskell’s failure to accept responsibility.
The case was not ultimately about whether a judge had simply behaved in a way that colleagues considered awkward or overly familiar. The finding was that a person exercising judicial authority repeatedly engaged in unwanted conduct of a sexual nature towards junior members of staff. The power imbalance is central to understanding the seriousness of the case.
Further, the Statement of Expected Behaviour provides that judicial office holders should treat others fairly and respectfully, be mindful of the authority they have and be careful not to abuse it, be aware of how their words and behaviour may affect others, and act professionally and courteously.
There is also a wider question about whether conduct of this kind should have resulted in a criminal prosecution rather than being dealt with solely through judicial disciplinary proceedings.
The answer, on the information currently available, is not necessarily. The JCIO investigation established misconduct to the civil/disciplinary standard applicable to judicial proceedings, but that does not automatically mean the evidence established a criminal offence to the standard required for prosecution and conviction.
“Inappropriate touching” can potentially amount to a criminal sexual offence, depending on precisely what happened, the nature and location of the contact, whether it was intentional and whether it was sexual. But the JCIO’s published findings do not provide sufficient detail about the specific touching incident to conclude that a particular criminal offence was committed.
Nor does the statement say that the police investigated the allegations, that a report was made to police, or that prosecutors considered a charging decision. It would therefore be inappropriate to suggest that a prosecution should definitely have followed.
There is, however, a legitimate question about why criminal proceedings did not follow if the touching was sufficiently serious to constitute a criminal offence. The published JCIO material does not answer that question.
It is entirely possible that the conduct was never reported to police, that the available evidence did not meet the evidential test for a criminal charge, or that the conduct, while clearly amounting to gross misconduct, did not satisfy the legal ingredients of a sexual offence. The disciplinary finding alone cannot establish which of those explanations applies.
What is much clearer is that the judicial system itself regarded the behaviour as sufficiently serious to justify the ultimate professional sanction. The fact that Gaskell had already retired prevented an actual removal from office, but did not prevent the authorities from formally establishing that removal would have been warranted.
The case also has a striking contemporary comparison. Just three months earlier, District Judge Andrew Simpson was actually removed from judicial office after an investigation into inappropriate conduct towards court staff.
His behaviour included unwanted physical contact, inappropriate communications with staff and sending photographs from social events, including one containing a highly sexualised image. The JCIO found gross misconduct and the Lord Chancellor and Lady Chief Justice concluded that his position was no longer tenable.
The Simpson case is particularly relevant because it demonstrates that retirement is the crucial distinction between the two outcomes. In Simpson’s case, the judge remained subject to the disciplinary process and could therefore be removed. In Gaskell’s case, the authorities could only record that removal would have been the appropriate sanction because he had already retired.
There have also been other recent cases demonstrating that the judiciary will impose severe sanctions for misconduct falling short of criminal prosecution. In 2025, Recorder Paul Kirtley received a formal warning after admitting to a consensual sexual encounter with his then partner in his judicial chambers more than 15 years earlier.
The investigating judge regarded the incident as misconduct but took account of the fact that it was a one-off, consensual event, its age and Kirtley’s acceptance of responsibility.
The contrast is revealing. Gaskell’s case involved multiple female staff members, repeated conduct over an extended period, unwanted physical contact, an abuse of authority and a finding of emotional harm. Kirtley’s case involved a single historic and consensual encounter, accompanied by an admission and apology. The different sanctions therefore reflect fundamentally different circumstances.
The principle underlying the disciplinary system is straightforward: judges are not exempt from standards of workplace conduct simply because of the authority attached to their office. Indeed, that authority makes inappropriate behaviour towards junior staff potentially more serious because those on the receiving end may feel unable to challenge it.
The JCIO’s own guidance states that judicial office-holders must treat others fairly and respectfully, remain conscious of the authority they hold and avoid abusing it. They are also expected to understand how their words and behaviour may affect others and to act professionally and courteously.
Gaskell’s case therefore raises two separate but important issues. The first is whether the disciplinary system reached the right conclusion. On the published findings, the answer appears to be yes: an independent investigating judge found credible evidence of repeated unwanted sexual conduct and recommended removal, and the two senior constitutional figures responsible for the final decision agreed.
The second is whether the criminal justice system should also have been involved. That cannot responsibly be answered from the disciplinary decision alone. If the alleged touching amounted to a criminal sexual offence, a police investigation and potential prosecution could plainly have been appropriate. But the available public material does not establish whether the matter was referred to police, whether a criminal investigation took place or whether prosecutors concluded that the evidential or public-interest tests for prosecution were not met.
That unanswered question should not obscure the significance of the disciplinary finding. A judge entrusted with administering employment law has himself been found to have seriously breached the standards expected of someone exercising judicial authority over others.
And although retirement meant that Gaskell could not actually be removed, the conclusion reached by the judiciary is unambiguous: had he still been in office, his conduct would have cost him his position.
.
AD: Heritage And Restaurant Lounge Bar