This article is replicated from The times: Catherine Baksi
Judges often adjudicate on claims involving allegations of bullying and discrimination — but when they face problems, they have a tougher time resolving disputes.
Claire Gilham, a district judge who says she was bullied, ignored and undermined after speaking out about the impact of cuts to the justice budget, received a payout from the Ministry of Justice for allegations of harassment and disability discrimination.
Gilham, 62, who was appointed as a judge in 2006, raised concerns about unsafe courts and administrative failings leading to potential miscarriages of justice in 2011, before settling her case this year for a “substantial sum”.
Speaking to The Times last week, Gilham revealed the toll or her ten-year fight, stating: “I was extremely close to suicide on several occasions.”
She says it took more than three years before her grievance was considered, after which she was told that her desire to challenge bullying, racism and sexism showed she had “unreasonable expectations” of life on the bench because of her background as a public-sector solicitor. Gilham claimed that as a result she had a breakdown and was signed off work with stress, during which time she was unlawfully sacked, before being reinstated.
The ministry claimed that the employment status of judges meant they were not entitled to whistleblowing protections enjoyed by other workers. The Supreme Court disagreed, ruling in 2019 that judges were protected by legislation for whistleblowers.
This was not the first time that judges had been forced to pursue lengthy litigation against the ministry to fight for their rights. It took Dermod O’Brien QC 14 years — with trips to the Supreme Court and the Court of Justice of the EU — before winning his fight to show that it was unlawful to deny pension rights to part-time judges, and to get his entitlement backdated to when he took office.
A group of 200 judges led by the High Court master Victoria McCloud, comprising six High Court judges, including Sir Rabinder Singh, who now sits in the Court of Appeal, had a four-year legal battle over transitional arrangements for pension reforms. In 2019 the Court of Appeal agreed with the employment tribunal that the reforms gave rise to unlawful age discrimination, and refused permission to appeal to the Supreme Court.
Gilham accuses the ministry of resorting to “lengthy and expensive” litigation, rather than addressing judges’ concerns. But, she says: “Judges are taking territory inch by inch.”
Several serving and former judges told The Times that they have experienced or witnessed bullying and racism. One said that Gilham’s experiences represent “the tip of the iceberg” and another claimed there is “bullying on an industrial scale”.
Answering written questions from Claudia Webbe, a Labour MP, the justice minister Chris Philp was not able to confirm how many employment claims or other proceedings had been brought against the judiciary or ministry in the past five years. He said that no record is kept of the diversity profile of complainants or judges who are subject to disciplinary action.
A spokesman for the judiciary added that it plans to keep such data, and confirmed that there are two judges with “live” cases against the ministry. One of those is Peter Herbert, a black judge who retired last year. He accuses the ministry of racism, bullying and victimisation after being disciplined for a speech he gave in 2015 and unlawfully suspended. “The ministry’s reaction is to deny everything and fight everything. There is no attempt at mediation or conciliation,” says Herbert, suggesting the strategy is designed to deter others from complaining.
In the wake of claims of bullying, a group of judges led by the circuit judge Kaly Kaul QC, today launch the Judicial Support Network. “Some of us have faced unexpected challenges and have found that there is little help available to judicial office holders,” says Kaul, who sits at Wood Green crown court. She hopes the network will be a “safe place for judges to raise concerns confidentially, to support and to be a voice for those who fear raising theirs”.
An early day motion laid by Webbe “laments the absence of adequate bullying, harassment and antidiscrimination policies and practices”.
Webbe also questions the lord chancellor’s position that he has “no responsibility for the health” of judges and contention that the “actions of the senior judiciary in respect of disciplinary and grievance proceedings are covered by judicial immunity”.
The judicial spokesman said that it was for a minister to respond to the matters raised by Webbe’s motion. He added that the “judiciary already has its own strong support mechanisms” with judges appointed to look after the welfare of others, mentors, human resources advisers, judicial associations, helplines and other support groups.
He pointed out that formal complaints can be made to the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office and a whistleblowing policy is “is in its final stage of development”.