A lack of action over reported bullying and intimidation by an employment tribunal judge brings into question how transparently judicial misconduct is handled in the United Kingdom. Alison McDermott, who worked at Sellafield, drew attention to Judge Lancaster’s alleged behaviour when he rejected her whistleblowing detriment claim in 2021. This article was originally published by The Times.
Seven women who claim they were bullied and intimidated by an employment tribunal judge have accused the senior judiciary of trying to cover up their complaints.
The allegation coincides with the Ministry of Justice and Judicial Conduct Investigations Office (JCIO) being referred to the Information Commissioner after failing to disclose the number of complaints made about tribunal judges in response to a freedom of information request.
Both the ministry and the JCIO said that neither holds the information. But a consultation on judicial discipline, published by both bodies two years ago, revealed that the figure is estimated to be between 700 and 800 annually.
Of those complaints — which equate to an average of three every working day — only a fraction result in action.
The women who have spoken to The Times have accused Judge Philip Lancaster of bullying and sexist behaviour at separate hearings before him at the employment tribunal in Leeds — with one claiming that he shouted at her 16 times.
Another two women make similar allegations about other judges at different tribunals around the country.
The women have called for an investigation into Lancaster and the policy around publishing the annual number of complaints about tribunal judges, especially those hearing employment cases.
Alison McDermott, formerly a human resources consultant at the nuclear fuel reprocessing plant at Sellafield, first drew attention to Lancaster’s alleged behaviour after he rejected her claim for whistleblowing detriment in 2021.
McDermott lost the case, but was allowed to appeal on 13 grounds. Although she lost most of her appeal, the judge said that there were errors and problems in the way her case was handled. That judge also criticised as “unsafe” the award of costs against her and said that the tone of Lancaster’s remarks on the issue were “troubling”.
Another woman who did not want to be identified represented her partner, Ion Ionel, before Lancaster in 2021 in a claim for racial discrimination against the company he worked for.
After losing his case, Ionel successfully appealed. The appeal tribunal ruled that Lancaster had intervened to prevent questioning of the respondent’s witnesses on a “significant number of occasions”, which amounted to a “material procedural irregularity”.
Hinaa Toheed, a GP whose claim for maternity discrimination against her former business partner was heard by the judge in 2022, says that her lawyers noted 16 times when he shouted at her. A decision on the outcome of her complaint about the judge has been delayed until the conclusion of her appeal, which is partly based on the judge’s alleged bias and behaviour.
The women, who were originally unknown to each other, all made individual complaints about the judge. Some also wrote to their MPs.
After reading about McDermott’s case in the press, four of the women contacted her and last year wrote a joint letter to Sir Keith Lindblom, the senior president of tribunals, that raised concern over Lancaster’s “bullying and abusive” conduct that they said demonstrates a “consistent and disturbing pattern of abuse and intimidation directed at female claimants”.
They claim that his “intimidating conduct has deprived us of a fair trial and left all of us feeling demeaned and emotionally battered”.
Another woman, who wanted to remain anonymous, and whose case was heard this year, has asked for judgment to be suspended until action is taken over her complaint about Lancaster. She claims that the judge constantly interrupted her and prevented her from asking questions of the respondent’s witnesses.
“I’m so angry to know that so many women have been treated in the same way by the same judge and nothing has been done,” she says.
McDermott adds that the “biggest issue is a disturbing lack of transparency and accountability” as she brands the complaints process “a secretive mess” that allows judges to “operate with impunity”.
Until November audio recordings were not made in employment tribunal cases, and the only official record of hearings was the judge’s notes. That made it difficult for claimants to provide evidence of alleged misconduct or demonstrate errors or omissions in rulings, especially where judges refused to provide their notes.
Even after the rules changed, recordings will not be given to the parties, who must pay for transcripts, unless they can show that they should be provided at public expense.
Before October complaints about tribunal judges were not dealt with by the JCIO, but by tribunal presidents, which it is claimed, enabled senior judges to cover up the complaints.
The change followed a three-month consultation in 2022 on judicial discipline by the Ministry of Justice and judicial office, which recognised the “risk of conflict arising between chamber presidents dealing with complaints and their leadership and pastoral roles”.
Criticism is also made of the way that official statistics about judicial misconduct are published, which give a misleading picture of the volume of complaints.
Katarzyna Paczkowska, who had a successful employment tribunal claim in Manchester, has appealed to the Information Commissioner’s Office after the ministry and complaints office declined to provide the number of complaints in response to a freedom of information request. Both were said to have stated that they did not hold the requested information.
In her statement to the Information Commissioner’s Office, Paczkowska argues that the figures published by the JCIO are “incomplete, misleading and simply rigged” because they do not include the number of complaints about tribunal judges.
Contrary to the assertions of the ministry and the JCIO that they do not have figures for the complaints made about tribunal judges, the information is provided in the judicial discipline consultation.
Yet the 2021-22 report from the JCIO shows that only three tribunal judges were sanctioned for misconduct — and Paczkowska notes that between 2015 and 2022, no employment tribunal judge was given a disciplinary statement.
She suggests that complaints about tribunal judges are “rejected and downplayed”.
A judicial spokeswoman said: “Appeals can be lodged against any judgment where a party believes there is an error of law or they did not receive a fair hearing. Allegations of judicial misconduct can be referred to the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office.”
The judicial office also noted that judges cannot comment on any continuing allegations or on matters of conduct.
The Ministry of Justice was unable to comment because of election purdah.