I don’t usually run appeals for money on my blog but I am making an exception in this case because of the huge injustice in the employment tribunal system that allows some judges to insult, berate and patronise women who come before them.
if you want to donate this is the link. DO NOT CLICK ON THE YELLOW BUTTON ON TOP OF THE PAGE WHERE IT SAYS DONATE – as this will go to the general fund for the Good Law Project and not to the women. INSTEAD SCROLL DOWN AND CLICK ON DONATE BY CARD.
To do so they have to get a judicial review against the Judicial Conduct Investigation Office which is both refusing to investigate their complaints and ironically believes it is above our freedom of information laws so it doesn’t have to answer any questions from the press or the public on simple facts like how many complaints there have been against judges. This view is not shared by the Information Commissioner who ruled it should comply with FOI but the Ministry of Justice is planning to appeal this decision.
The case the women want to bring is not just against the bullying Judge Philip Lancaster – but against the whole employment tribunal system which doesn’t allow access to judges’ notes and does not produce court records for all cases and even when it does makes sure it is very expensive to get hold of them.
The women’s case has been taken up by the Good Law Project but the women still have to raise some £13,OOO to cover legal opinions. So far they have raised just over £5000. The case was covered by me in Byline Times here. Now it has been taken up by the BBC programme Look North.
You can see their report below.
The treatment of management and diversity consultant Alison Mcdermott, by Sellafield who spent £750,000 on top flight lawyers to oppose her claim at an employment tribunal presided over by judge Lancaster led to her local MP Anna Dixon to request an apology from Sellafield’s chief Euan Hutton at a recent Parliamentary hearing. None was forthcoming.
Dr Hinnha Toheed, a GP, tells how she was shouted at 16 times by Judge Lancaster during a maternity discrimination hearing
She says: “Judge Lancaster shouted at me 16 times, called my case an “omnishambles” before we had even begun, and showed open bias and contempt throughout the hearing. The experience was devastating. My barrister formally documented his behaviour and submitted a written statement to support my complaint. Yet despite this evidence, the system protected him — and he remains in post to this day.”
She is one of two doctors and a nurse who have put in complaints about Judge Lancaster.
These women need support to get to the position of bringing a judicial review because of the enormous cost of doing so – another barrier against people being able to challenge the judiciary. Their legal team include Emily Soothill of Deighton Pierce Glynn, Dr. Charlotte Proudman, and a prominent King’s Counsel have agreed to capped fees. But they need this money to be able to pay for this advice – and that is why there is a need for this crowdfunder.
II have chosen not to call for any donations for my site on this blog so the money can go direct to the women.
Westminster Confidential 
Disgraceful, the solicitors are just as bad and will try to talk you out of taking a discrimination case forward…then they slap you with an NDA so you can never speak of it!
LikeLike
happy to donate as no one is above the law including judges.
thank you for posting
LikeLike
Flaws in our legal system run deep but the notion of structural oppression and misogyny that lies at the root of many of these is seldom granted the exposure it deserves, let alone the urgency for reform. Unfortunately, mental health labels are often introduced into proceedings against females, to perpetuate the associated stigma against women for no reason other than to introduce bias and prejudice. Negative stereotypes associated with mental illnesses are deliberately employed as weapons in order to malign, discredit and dismiss through a process of stigmatisation. In this way, in the male dominated legal arena, females are not seen as individuals capable of taking a rational perspective, with clear minds, agency and capacity. Rather, we are seen and understood, described and defined as mentally unwell sinners with very little objectivity or voice and are not to be taken seriously or given any credence.
The “burning injustice” of female discrimination remains a persistent blight for women in the UK and, with the increasing number of female litigants acting for themselves, corporate legal firms continue to resort to this lowly and misogynistic weapon as I found out for myself: https://patientcomplaintdhcftdotcom.wordpress.com/
LikeLike
From the BBC clip it is revealed the Judicial Conduct Investigation Office received 1600 complaints in the year 2022/23 of which about half were investigated and just 36 upheld. That equates to just 2.25%. This figure is comparable with the performance of the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman who also has an uphold rate of about 2% of the complaints received.
I wish these women well with their fight for justice. This is, however, indicative of how complaint systems across the piece are set up to disadvantage the complainants.
LikeLike
David you already know and reported on another Judge – Lord Reed.
https://davidhencke.com/2022/06/11/lord-reed-the-supreme-court-president-backing-the-government-against-the-people/
The one who threw out the Back260 Appeal to the Supreme Court without any reply or reason by him, other than ‘out of time’. Which it was not and with Case Law to prove it was not out of time. He directly opposed his predecessor Lady Hale by this action and with his mean, arbitrary and misogynistic decision-making. It appears misogyny is rife in the highest courts of this land.
Justice please!
Not just-is.
LikeLike