This article is replicated from The Times: Catherine Baksi and Jonathan Ames
A whistleblowing policy will gag the judiciary and put judges who speak out at risk of being sacked for misconduct, The Times has been told.
Proposals in a draft document, which has been seen by this newspaper, are “potentially unlawful”, according to a senior lawyer.
The policy, which is set to be unveiled this month, comes amid allegations of sexism, racism and bullying of junior judges by those at senior levels.
The row over the whistleblowing policy emerged as a former Court of Appeal judge claimed to have been the victim of misogyny during her early days on the bench.
Baroness Hallett, 71, who retired as vice-president of the criminal division of the appeal bench in 2019, told Desert Island Discs on Radio 4 yesterday that a former senior judge harassed her and suggested he should father her child.
The whistleblowing policy was drafted after the Supreme Court ruled two years ago that a formal process was needed. The draft will allow senior judges, instead of an independent body, to look into claims raised by junior judges about colleagues.
The policy states that raising a concern outside the routes listed in the procedure — by speaking to the media, campaign groups, on social media or with political parties — “might be regarded as a misconduct issue”.
The Times showed the draft policy to Claire Gilham, 62, the district court judge in Manchester whose Supreme Court case in 2019 won whistleblowing protection rights for the judiciary.
Gilham criticised the proposed regime as being “authoritarian” and “repressive”. She claimed the policy would “gag” current and retired judges, placing a “straitjacket” on them and creating a fear of speaking out.
She said that far from encouraging judges to speak out, if implemented the draft policy would have “a freezing effect on the freedom of speech of the judiciary, with serious implications for the public interest”.
Gilham criticised the document for being produced “in secrecy” by a few senior judges and without wide consultation with the junior judiciary.
Under current plans, the policy was designed to remain secret. The draft states that “judicial office HR policies are internal documents and, as such, the judicial whistleblowing policy is only published on the judicial intranet”.
Gilham said that the policy’s requirement for whistleblowing claims to be made to designated judges who would be obliged immediately to report to the judicial office raised “substantial fears of reprisals” for speaking out, as she claims happened to her.
“I can’t see anything in this policy to prevent the backlash that I received after speaking out,” she said.
A senior solicitor — who asked not to be identified — told The Times that the “unduly restrictive” policy, which provides for a “self-policing approach” by the judiciary, was potentially “unlawful”.
A spokesman for the judiciary said that “judges and magistrates representing all levels of the judiciary have been part of the group discussing and producing the policy”, which “is still in draft and changing”.
The spokesman added: “The Judicial Conduct Guidelines which all judges and magistrates follow — and are public — have not changed.”