JCIO 47/24

A spokesperson for the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office Said:

The Senior President of Tribunals, on behalf of the Lady Chief Justice and with the Lord Chancellor’s agreement, has issued Tribunal Member Dr Simon Ward with a formal warning for misconduct.

Facts

The Guide to Judicial Conduct requires judicial office holders to seek to be courteous, patient, tolerant and to respect the dignity of all. A member of HMCTS staff complained that Dr Ward made racist comments to her during a work social event. She alleged that he questioned her about her heritage, made remarks about India as a whole, and asked her whether she had negative sentiments about British people due to the colonial past. She also alleged that he accused her of inadequacy in her role and was angry and hostile in his tone and body language.

Dr Ward’s representations

In his representations, Dr Ward explained that they had spoken about his Art History diploma studies, during which he had been learning about the British in India, Colonialism, and the Raj. He said he was keen to discuss India and the outcomes of the difficult events of that period on individuals. He believed the conversation was innocent and showed his genuine interest in the matters discussed. He denied accusing the complainant of inadequacy in her role or being hostile or angry in his tone or body language. However, he apologised for the distress caused by the conversation.

Nominated judge’s findings

Following an investigation under the Judicial Conduct Rules 2023, a nominated judge found that the complainant’s account of the conversation was largely accurate. He found that Dr Ward’s questions and comments had an element of race discrimination inherent in them because they referred to the British and Indian in a way that could imply that the complainant was not, or was not accepted to be, British, and that she was an Indian national, or closely related to current Indian nationals. However, the nominated judge found that Dr Ward did not accuse the complainant of inadequacy in her role, and that there was no hostility or anger in his presentation. The judge found that his comments and questions were clumsy attempts at making conversation and there was no intention to cause distress. However, his conduct constituted harassment on the grounds of race. It undermined the complainant’s dignity, and this amounted to misconduct. In considering the appropriate sanction, the nominated judge acknowledged Dr Ward’s unblemished record, his expression of remorse and the fact that this was an isolated incident. However, in recommending a formal warning, he took into account the fact that the harassment related to a protected characteristic, and that Dr Ward had not shown insight into how his comments might have caused offence.

Decision

Having considered the mitigation offered by Dr Ward, the Senior President of Tribunals and Lord Chancellor agreed with the judge’s recommendation.

Notes for Editors

Media queries in relation to the JCIO should be made in the first instance to the Judicial Press Office - telephone 020 7073 4852 or via email - press.enquiries@judiciary.gsi.gov.uk

Sanctions for misconduct by judicial office-holders are set out in the Constitutional Reform Act 2005. They are, in order of severity: formal advice, formal warning, reprimand and removal from office.

For more information about the Office, including details on how to make a complaint against a judicial office holder, you can visit the JCIO website at: Judicial Conduct Investigations website