Aberdeen sheriff Jack Brown is set to be struck off after being found to have behaved “entirely inappropriately” towards a female lawyer.
In a report issued to the Scottish Parliament today, a judicial tribunal has found, due to his “misbehaviour”, Sheriff Jack Brown is “unfit for judicial office.”
In his findings for the Scottish Parliament, tribunal chairman Lord Malcolm recommends Sheriff Brown should lose his £160,000-a-year job.
He states, in the unanimous view of the four-person panel, “his continuance in office would be likely to impact on public trust in the due administration of justice in our courts and bring it into disrepute.”
The Scottish Government has accepted the report and Parliament now has 28 days to consider the recommendation.
The female lawyer, who cannot be named for legal reasons, decided to sue the sheriff over his repeated behaviour towards her in 2018.
Identified during the action as X – but referred to as Miss D in the report – the woman made allegations he had acted inappropriately on four different occasions – hugging her in his chambers without consent, patting her bottom and referring to “your pretty face”.
Sheriff Brown denies any “wrongful conduct”.
He was arrested and charged by police in relation to the allegations in January 2019 but prosecutors dropped the case three months later.
Sheriff Brown – who sat at Aberdeen Sheriff Court – has been suspended on full pay since the allegations were made.
Allegations established
The tribunal, ordered by former First Minister Nicola Sturgeon, considered claims made by three women, known as B, C and X, on five grounds, two of which – one by B and one by X – were not established.
The redacted report states they upheld allegations:
- Ground 2) in late 2001 or early 2002 at court he kissed C on the lips and in 2004 at court he squeezed her buttocks;
- Ground 3) in 2018 in the court he touched X on the cheek;
- Ground 4) in 2018 at court when he was alone in his chambers with X he made an inappropriate remark by saying to her “much as I would love to chat to your pretty face all day, I’m sure you have better things to do” and hugged her inappropriately, causing his face to linger on her shoulder.
Lord Malcolm stated Sheriff Brown “took advantage of his greater seniority to assert his dominant position”.
He wrote: “We do not accept (Sheriff Brown’s) minimisation of the seriousness of his conduct towards (X).
“In the privacy of his chambers he abused the trust of (X) in a manner which caused her alarm and distress.”
He continued: “Our findings on grounds 2 and 4 raise manifest and serious concerns as to the character and integrity of (Sheriff Brown).
“They are wholly contrary to the standards of conduct and probity expected of anyone holding judicial office.
“The public rightly expect that the considerable powers vested in a judge will be exercised by people with high personal standards.
“Standing the nature and gravity of our findings we cannot say that (he) would have the confidence of those appearing before him.
“In our view his continuance in office would be likely to impact on public trust in the due administration of justice in our courts and bring it into disrepute.”
Unfit for office
Lord Malcolm said the tribunal accepts the passage of time since the claims of the assaults on C and the fact he was not then a sheriff are relevant factors.
“However he was a mature adult at the time.
“The conduct reflects extremely badly on his character and trustworthiness, and if known of would surely have been an impediment to appointment.
“We do not consider that the impact on his fitness for office is significantly diminished by the factors relied on by (him).
“Indeed we regard the upholding of both parts of ground 2 as sufficient in itself for a finding of unfitness for judicial office.
“In our unanimous view (Sheriff Brown’s) misbehaviour renders him unfit for judicial office and we report accordingly.”
Twisting legal background
The disciplinary hearing is the second hearing to investigate X’s claims after the original tribunal – the first of its kind against a sheriff to be carried out in Scotland – upheld one claim against him, stating although he had acted inappropriately towards her, it did not justify his removal from office.
On appeal, another judge ruled allegations of inappropriate conduct towards another two women, not been placed before the original tribunal, were relevant.
Judge Lord Woolman said the original tribunal had proceeded in “ignorance of the availability of other evidence”.
The new tribunal was constituted by then First Minister Nicola Sturgeon at the request of the Lord President and took place over five days in January this year, with Lord Malcolm’s findings published today.
It is understood the Scottish Government has funded Sheriff Brown’s estimated £1 million legal fees and he has continued drawing his full salary while being suspended for six years.
It is not yet known whether he will receive a full pension following the ruling.
X had also tried to sue Lord Advocate Dorothy Bain KC but that was dismissed on appeal in February.
Scottish Government response
A Scottish Government spokesperson said: “The First Minister accepts the Tribunal’s findings and, following receipt of its report, is considering removal of the sheriff as a judicial office holder, which must be done by an order laid before Parliament.
“We will update Parliament on this matter as soon as possible.”
A decision will be made within 28 days, according to the report.
Jack Brown set up his own legal practice in Dundee in 1996 and has been a sheriff since 2005.
He was appointed to the sheriffdom of Aberdeen in 2016 and worked for two years before his suspension.
The overall fees for the case against him are likely to exceed £1 million.
