This article is replicated from The Times: Catherine Baksi
More than 20 tribunal, district and circuit judges have joined the GMB union, enabling the creation of a judges’ branch
Alleged failures by the senior judiciary to address complaints about bullying, racism and concerns over court safety are driving judges to join a trade union.
Six months ago judges began signing up to the GMB union, says Stuart Fegan, a senior organiser for its southern region. So far more than 20 tribunal, district and circuit judges have joined, enabling the creation of a judges’ branch. To retain their obligation of independence, the judges opt out of paying the political levy, an option that is available to other members.
“I’ve been a trade union rep for 23 years and I’ve been shocked by some of the stories I’ve heard about the treatment of judges,” Fegan says.
Kaly Kaul QC, a 60-year-old circuit judge at Wood Green crown court who founded the Judicial Support Network in March, is among those who have joined the union. “I and a number of other judges in different jurisdictions, from different backgrounds and levels of seniority have requested help or support and found the judiciary to be lacking,” she says.
Kaul, who was called to the Bar in 1983 and went to the bench in 2009, says judges have reported health and safety concerns, including Covid-related issues, physical attacks, bullying and discrimination.
However, she says that Robert Buckland QC, the justice secretary, Lord Burnett of Maldon, the lord chief justice, and Ministry of Justice officials deny any duty of care to judges who report health and safety concerns.
One judge, who wanted to remain anonymous, reports that on the day before the first lockdown a senior judge at a tribunal centre engaged in a stand-up row with another judge, who had become concerned over the number of people waiting in the corridors and told them to leave and wait for notices of new court dates to be sent.
When judges complain, Kaul says the senior judiciary seek to “shut us up, shut us down or shut us out”. She blames the “lack of adequate and sufficiently independent support structures” for causing health problems, as well as “expensive and damaging litigation” — most notably the district judge Claire Gilham’s seven-year battle to win whistleblowing protections for judges.
Gilham’s case ended with victory in the Supreme Court in 2019, but, Kaul says, she “nearly lost her home” and had to fight for years without support from the judiciary.
Union membership, she says, would help to “protect judges who are under attack for complaining”, providing support, advice and representation from “an organisation that is actually on our side” as well as legal expenses cover and life insurance.
A spokeswoman for the judicial office, which represents the senior judiciary, says that “the image of the judiciary which is being portrayed is misleading”. She points out that the body “provides the judiciary with access to six free counselling sessions a year with a trained professional”. She adds that judicial welfare support includes access to trauma support and treatments based on clinical assessment.
Kaul dismisses the judiciary’s support policies, likening them to diet books. “They only work if they are properly implemented. If diets worked by writing about them, there would be no issue with obesity.”
Emilie Cole, an employment solicitor at Cole Khan who acted for Gilham, says her firm hears of “many issues of bullying, harassment, discrimination and whistleblowing detriment from judges”. She supports the idea of union membership as a “big step forwards in tackling and actively supporting judicial diversity and inclusion”.
The “old boys’ network might have protected the interests of the judiciary of yesteryear”, Cole says, but a “radical shift is needed to tackle the issues faced by judges today”.
The whistleblowing charity Protect also welcomes the support for judges raising public interest concerns, adding that unions are “well placed” to do it.
The judicial office said that “when deciding whether to join any club or association, judges need to be satisfied that membership would not have implications for their actual or perceived independence and impartiality”.