Categories
Judiciary Legal Professionals

His Honour Judge Martin Davis

His Honour Judge Martin Davis was accused by a member of court staff of numerous allegations, primarily that HHJ Davis made overfamiliar and inappropriate comments while they worked together which made her uncomfortable.

The complaint was subsequently investigated by the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office who issued a disciplinary statement 5224 on the 3rd October 2024.

HHJ Michael Slater, was admitted to the Roll of Solicitors in 1994. He was appointed as a Deputy District Judge in 2010, as a Tribunal Judge in 2011, as a District Judge in 2014 and as a Recorder in 2019. The then Lord Chief Justice deployed him to the Western Circuit, based at Taunton Crown, County and Family Court with effect from 11 July 2022

A spokesperson for the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office said:

The Lady Chief Justice, with the Lord Chancellor’s agreement, has issued His Honour Judge (HHJ) Martin Davis with formal advice for misconduct.

Facts
The Guide to Judicial Conduct reminds judicial office-holders to be courteous and to respect the dignity of all. It also reminds them to treat others fairly and respectfully, be mindful of their authority, and aware of how their words and behaviour can affect others.

A complaint was made about HHJ Davis by a member of court staff. She made numerous allegations, primarily that he made overfamiliar and inappropriate comments while they worked together, which made her uncomfortable.

HHJ Davis’ representations
HHJ Davis denied the allegations. He claimed the complainant had misremembered or misrepresented his words. He explained that he takes an interest in his colleagues, with whom he enjoys conversations and has built positive relationships. However, 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.

Investigating judge’s findings
Following an investigation carried out under the Judicial Conduct (Judicial and other office holders) Rules 2014, the investigating judge found that the majority of the allegations were not established. However, she found that HHJ Davis 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. He was overfamiliar in his conversations with her, for example through his ill-judged use of humour and excessive sharing of personal anecdotes. This was intended to be friendly but 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. He therefore did not treat her with respect.

In recommending a formal warning, the investigating judge considered the fact that HHJ Davis 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.

Decision
Having considered the investigating judge’s findings and the mitigation offered by HHJ Davis, the Lady Chief Justice and Lord Chancellor determined that the issue of formal advice, rather than a formal warning, was appropriate. A sanction of formal advice was more consistent with the findings made. In reaching their decision, they took into consideration that HHJ Davis did not intend to cause offence or discomfort to the complainant, and that he in fact intended to be friendly and approachable. They agreed with the investigating judge that the misconduct was at the lower end of seriousness. They also noted that the matter related to a brief period and that HHJ Davis had an unblemished record.

STATEMENT FROM THE JUDICIAL CONDUCT OFFICE JCIO 52/24

Had His Honour Judge Martin Davis been in any other profession would he have been fired ?

A list of all Circuit Judges is published on the Courts and Tribunal Judiciary website.

“Publicity is the very soul of justice. . . . It keeps the judge himself, while trying, under trial….Where there is no publicity there is no justice”

Jeremy BenthamMr Justice Cobb: ‘Justice must be seen to be done’

Check out our articles on Dodgy JudgesMr Justice Williams, His Honour Now His Dishonour, His Honour Judge Melbourne Inman KC, His Honour Andrew Menary KC, His Honour Judge Jeremy William Richardson KC, His Honour Judge Guy Kearl, His Honour Judge Michael Slater, HHJ Farquhar, HHJ Bedford, DDJ Nicholes, Do you Have to Bow to a Judge ?, Can you Email a Judge ?, Can you Criticise a Judge ? and the highly dubious Sussex Family Justice Board.

The Ministry of Injustice is not the Ministry of Justice nor is it affiliated in any way with the justice system, legal profession or any law enforcement agencies.


Most Popular

What is Policing by Consent ? What is Two Tier Policing ?

Latest Articles

All Articles can be found in the Legal Blog or Sitemap.


You should always seek formal legal advice from a qualified and reputable lawyer (solicitor or barrister).

‘Justice delayed is justice denied’

 William Ewart Gladstone

There are a number of links to Free and Paid For Legal Resources and Legal Organisations on the Free Legal Advice , Legal Aid and Pro Bono pages.

His Honour Judge Martin Davis was last updated on the 27th March 2025

By Dom Watts

Dom Watts founded the Ministry of Injustice in July 2021. Dom is an IT Professional with 30+ years experience in Tier 1 Banking, Government, Defence, Healthcare and Global Blue Chips. Dom has no legal training and is not a lawyer but has previously consulted for a Magic Circle Law Firm. You can find Dom on X or Google.

Dom Watts publishes the Ministry of Injustice as a citizen journalist. The journalism exemption is detailed in the Data protection and journalism code of practice published by the ICO and Section 124 of the Data Protection Act 2018.

Section 2 of the Defamation Act 2013 sets out the defence of truth. Section 3 of the Defamation Act 2013 sets out the defence of honest opinion. Section 4 of the Defamation Act 2013 sets out the defence of public interest. Section 8 of the Defamation Act 2013 sets out the single publication rule.

Section 4a of The Limitation Act 1980 defines the time limit for actions for defamation or malicious falsehood as one year from the date on which the cause of action accrued.

Article 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998 gives the right to freedom of expression.

"Free speech encompasses the right to offend, and indeed to abuse another." Para 43 Scottow v CPS [2020] EWHC 3421 (Admin)

R v O’Neill [2016] EWCA Crim 92, [2016]

In 2002 Dom Watts was an unlikely consumer champion. The dad of three from Croydon took on the power and might of Kodak – and won………

Dom on BBC Working Lunch

Equal Justice Under Law
Access To Justice Is A Right Not A Privilege
Rule of Law - Open Justice - Policing By Consent

Ministry of Injustice - Server Monitor