UK Judge Retired Before He Could Be Removed Over Touching Female Staff and 'Sexualised Behaviour'

A Birmingham employment judge retired while under investigation for inappropriate conduct towards female staff and would have been removed from judicial office had he remained in the judiciary, according to a ruling published by the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office (JCIO) on Wednesday.

The investigation found that Christopher Gaskell inappropriately touched a junior staff member and engaged in repeated 'sexualised behaviour' towards women working alongside him.

The news came after Gaskell retired in March, before the disciplinary investigation into his conduct had concluded. His departure did not bring the process to an end, and the subsequent inquiry found that his behaviour amounted to gross misconduct and was incompatible with the standards expected of a judicial office holder.

What the Investigation Found About Christopher Gaskell

Concerns about Gaskell were initially raised with the President of Employment Tribunals by HM Courts and Tribunals Service before being referred to the JCIO. The allegations included inappropriate physical contact, unnecessary physical proximity and inappropriate sexualised behaviour towards female staff.

The JCIO said Gaskell denied the allegations. He maintained that any physical contact with female staff had been 'inadvertent or misinterpreted' and denied that his behaviour had been sexually motivated. He also raised concerns about the fairness of the investigative process and maintained that the evidence was insufficient to establish misconduct.

Those denials were considered during the investigation, but the women who made the complaints were found to be 'credible and reliable', according to the JCIO.

The investigating judge concluded that Gaskell had engaged in 'a course of unwanted conduct of a sexual nature'. This included inappropriate touching of a member of staff, repeated inappropriate physical proximity and sexualised behaviour towards multiple female staff members over an extended period.

The finding went beyond a single incident. The investigation described a pattern of conduct involving several women and said it had continued over an extended period.

The investigating judge concluded that the behaviour constituted gross misconduct. It was also found to have involved an abuse of Gaskell's position and authority, caused distress and emotional harm, and created a risk of further harm.

Why Gaskell Would Have Been Sacked

The disciplinary process continued despite Gaskell's retirement, meaning the investigation could still reach a formal conclusion about conduct that occurred while he was a judicial office holder.

The JCIO said the Lady Chief Justice and the Lord Chancellor considered the case to be particularly serious because of the nature and repetition of the conduct, the emotional harm caused to those involved and the abuse of authority.

They also considered the potential reputational risk to the judiciary and Gaskell's failure to accept responsibility for the conduct described in the findings.

The ruling therefore made clear what would have happened had Gaskell remained in office. The JCIO said he would have been removed from judicial office.

The Judicial Office had not mentioned the ongoing investigation when Gaskell retired in March. It was only through the ruling published on Wednesday that details of the disciplinary process and the findings became public.

Gaskell first became a judge in 1995 and later held senior positions within the tribunal system. He served as a Diversity and Community Relations Judge for the Midlands from 2015 until 2025.

The case was investigated after concerns were referred to the JCIO, with the inquiry ultimately finding that the complaints made by women working with Gaskell were credible and reliable. Gaskell, however, denied the allegations and disputed aspects of the process.

The ruling leaves a formal finding of gross misconduct against a former employment judge whose conduct, according to the investigation, fell well short of the standards expected of someone holding judicial office.