A senior judge has quashed a decision allowing a sheriff to continue in post despite behaving inappropriately towards a female lawyer. 

Aberdeen sheriff Jack Brown was subject to a fitness for office tribunal after the allegations came to light in 2018. 

The hearing found that he had acted “entirely inappropriately” and had “failed to respect proper professional boundaries”, however it did not meet the test to justify removing him from office. 

The woman, known as X, went on to seek a judicial review of the decision at the Court of Session and has now won her case. 

The finding was overturned as the evidence of two other women – who also complained about inappropriate behaviour – was not presented to the tribunal. 

Lord Woolman quashed the decision and suggested that a new fitness for office tribunal be convened. However, it will be up to the Lord President and First Minister Nicola Sturgeon to decide how to proceed. 

In his judgment, published on Tuesday, Lord Woolman said that “X did not receive a ‘fair crack of the whip’”. 

He added: “The tribunal proceeded in ignorance of the availability of other evidence. That fact is not contentious. X and her advisers were not responsible for the mistake. It did have an impact on the reasoning. Accordingly I shall quash the tribunal’s decision.” 

Mr Brown, who was appointed as a sheriff in 2016, was arrested and charged in relation to the allegations in January 2019, but prosecutors dropped the case three months later. 

During the police investigation, a further two complainers, known as C1 and C2, also gave statements, with one claiming that the sheriff put his hand down her bra and another stating that he had kissed her in a courtroom and touched her bottom. 

X alleged inappropriate and unwelcome physical contact towards her, including a claim that he touched her bottom. 

However, the tribunal upheld just one allegation that Mr Brown had hugged her and made a remark towards her. 

It said the other allegations had not been established on the balance of probabilities. But it was not aware of the statements of the other two women. 

Lord Woolman added: “There is a real possibility that the allegations of C1 and C2 might have altered the decision on the merits.”