Unaware of anonymity protections
A magistrate has been removed from office after disclosing information that risked identifying an alleged victim of sexual abuse.
Magistrates sign a declaration and undertaking on appointment to be careful in their conduct and maintain the dignity, standing and good reputation of the magistracy at all times.
A Conduct Advisory Committee carried out an investigation after it was reported that Mr David Armitage JP had disclosed information which he obtained in his capacity as a magistrate to members of an organisation with which he was connected, concerning proceedings linked to that organisation.
The magistrate’s disclosure risked revealing the identity of an alleged victim in a sexual abuse case, which is prohibited under section one of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992.
The JCIO said that Armitage had informed them that “at the relevant time, he was unaware of the anonymity provisions in the Act”. He also explained that he had obligations to the magistracy and the organisation, but ultimately felt that he had a duty to inform the organisation of an impending risk.
Armitage added that, whilst his sharing of information may not have been the correct thing to do, it was done inadvertently and with the best of intentions.
The JCIO’s published decision does not specify what information the magistrate disclosed or name the organisation he was linked to.
Following an investigation carried out under the Judicial Conduct (Magistrates) Rules 2023, a nominated committee member found that Armitage’s actions amounted to “gross misconduct” and recommended that he be removed from office.
Armitage then chose to refer the matter to a disciplinary panel, which also found his actions amounted to gross misconduct and recommended his removal from office.
In making their recommendation, they acknowledged that he was remorseful, had accepted full responsibility and had no previous findings of misconduct. However, they also took into account that he had acted without seeking advice from his bench leadership or court legal adviser, and that public confidence in the judiciary would be undermined if he were to remain in post after gross misconduct.
The Lady Chief Justice and Lord Chancellor agreed with the disciplinary panel’s recommendation to remove Armitage from office.
(
(
