Please sign letter by whistleblower to Shabana Mahmood
Two years ago some 317 people agreed to sign a letter to Sir Keith Lindblom, senior president of the tribunals, calling for transcripts and recordings of employment tribunal cases to be made available.
Employment tribunals appeared to be one of the few legal proceedings where records were not kept and claimants and whistleblowers – often appearing as a litigant in person – were put at a big disadvantage against big corporate companies, NHS trusts, powerful public bodies like Sellafield, who employed expensive barristers, often using taxpayer’s money, to discredit employees and whistleblowers bringing cases against them.
The companies and public bodies could afford – unlike a litigant in person – to employ notetakers or paralegals – so they had their own records – so if a person appealed against a tribunal verdict – he or she was at a big disadvantage.
Within just seven days we had backing from well over 300 people – from a former economic adviser to No Ten Downing Street, Sir Adam Ridley, 80 medical consultants, numerous GPs, nurses, teachers, to a former deputy groundsman at the Chelsea Pensioners hospital, a lorry driver, an actor, writer and a poet. This suggests there is a wide ranging feeling that there is something wrong in the justice system.
Barry Clarke, the head of the employment tribunals in England, responded to the letter by announcing, where possible, employment tribunal proceedings would be recorded, so they would be transcripts of the proceeding.
But now two years later this has proved to be a Pyrrhic victory – hence the need for a fresh letter. It has also reached an impasse with the top judges in the employment tribunal digging their heels in to prevent further change. Thus only an appeal to the Lord Chancellor can remove this obstacle.
What has happened is that where tribunals have recorded proceedings, obtaining a transcript, if a judge allows it, costs thousands of pounds, well beyond the means of most claimants.
Where there is no recording the only record of proceedings is the judge’s notes. Judges have jealously guarded releasing this to the public – but it is the only record a judge covering an appeal in the case will see.
First it took a considerable time for the judiciary to concede this was the official record – arguing it was a private and personal note. Now Barry Clarke has conceded this is an official record of the case but does not want this released to the claimant, the public or the press. This hardly fits with the image that Britain’s legal system is proud of its reputation for ” open justice.”
Alison McDermott, a whistleblower who challenged Sellafield over its toxic culture towards its employees, has drafted a letter to go to the Lord Chancellor. You can read her blog and the text of the letter here . All you have to do is text Yes to Alison if you want to sign.
Last time the strength of feeling of the need for change was very high. My blog on the campaign is here. It also lists the 317 who signed. This time Alison is not planning to publish all the names.
Make a one-time donation
Make a monthly donation
Make a yearly donation
Choose an amount
Or enter a custom amount
Your contribution is appreciated.
Your contribution is appreciated.
Your contribution is appreciated.
DonateDonate monthlyDonate yearlyPlease donate to Westminster Confidential
£10.00
Westminster Confidential 
YES
LikeLike
I have already drawn the attention of our allegation, of the former ET President’s attempt to block a Subject Access Request, for an ET judge’s hand written notes. ET Judge’s notes-being the record of proceedings as there is no other, hearings being unrecorded) We eventually got them after 4 years. Of course they did not match his judgment, mainly because he left out a page and a half of evidence in our favour, ensuring the Respondents won!
Despite the ICO being aware for the past 10 years, including the Lord Chief Justice, 5 x Justice Secretaries, and numerous others to no avail. Since 2020 this also includes the Met Police who have refused to investigate this act of Misconduct in Public Office and or fraud, forgery in order to deceive, but no criminal action has been taken against him.
The JCIO deemed an email, sent by the ET President, via his PA to a manager in HMCTS, for use in a letter to us, was a “judicial decision” in order to protect him!
Unfortunately we don’t have a few million £ in order to challenge the MoJ/MPS.
We now have a labour MP as well as a Labour Government, a Barrister (should know about the law) as Justice Secretary, lets just see if they sort out this 2 tier system and of course not what you know but who you know.
LikeLike
The legal system is inaccessible to most. The cost is restrictive the employment tribunal is so far removed from what was intended that it has become the most unfair part of the whole legal framework. I won’t say justice because there is none. Huge amounts of money paid to law firms that pursue process rules with defending the claim. Judges who don’t have to declare conflicts of interest. Allow the law firm to write skeleton argument and submit summary but not the litigant in person. How corrupt is this?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Corrupt, doesn’t even begin to cover it. Even if you spend thousands on very good representation, no amount of money can account for the corruption. Friends in the judiciary, backed up by corruption across and up to the highest levels. What was the original “Industrial Tribunal” in order to help the ordinary person against rogue employers, has turned into a gravy train for lawyers, he who has the most money wins and step out of line, you will find yourself with an unfounded costs judgment against you into the bargain, to teach you a lesson for criticising he judge!
There needs to be a Public Inquiry into the entire employment tribunal system, starting with HM Courts and Tribunals Service and the Judiciary for blocking access to the judge’s hearing notes. If they had nothing to hide, you would be free to view them. Smacks of the Post Office scandal….
LikeLike
Yes there is a big problem with the recording of employment tribunal hearings but the MASSIVE problem is the inconsistent standard of employment tribunal judges. Sure their are exceptions: the brilliant employment tribunal judge Daniel Dyal and my relative, the wise and now retired employment tribunal appeals Sir Peter Gibson but, and it is a big and too common but, is the fact that many employment tribunal judges are grumpy, lazy, misogynistic, biased and incompetent people who should not be allowed into to an employment tribunal hearing let alone bench one.
LikeLiked by 1 person