Category Archives: justice

Institutional Corruption in Employment Tribunals: Dr Chris Day’s damning letter to top judge

Posted on by
Lord Fairley

Veteran NHS whistleblower campaigner, Dr Chris Day, has written a damning letter to Lord Fairley, President of the Employment Appeal Tribunal, accusing the system of “Institutional Corruption” in the way it has handled his case.

Dr Day, who has just lost an appeal case heard by employment appeal judge Sheldon, compared the way both the employment appeal court and the previous employment tribunal handled the proceedings to the verdict in the infamous Daniel Morgan murder case which has never been solved after a trial of suspects collapsed.

The way this murder was handled by the Metropolitan police led the independent panel to rule: ““Concealing or denying failings, for the sake of an organisation’s public image, is dishonesty on the part of the organisation for reputational benefit. In the Panel’s view, this constitutes a form of institutional corruption.”

Dr Day has emerged bloodied but not unbowed from a judgment that rejected all the detriments he claimed and was surprisingly unconcerned about the defendants Lewisham and Greenwich Health Trust’s chief executive lying on oath about a board meeting and its deputy communications office, Mr Cocke, destroying 90,000 emails that could have been useful to his case during the hearing. The worst the judgment could say was this was ” troubling.” Given this centred on his whistleblowing about the avoidable deaths of two patients in Woolwich hospital’s intensive care unit, which the trust has always tried to deny, this is a remarkably tame comment.

What was particularly hurtful to Dr Day is that at the appeal hearing he was accused in open court of lying about cost threats. He had been clear that he was forced at one stage to try to settle his case because he was told by his barrister that he would face a proposed application from the NHS for £500,000. See my report on his wife’s evidence here.

Effectively he was being called a liar by saying this had happened. Instead there is copious evidence that it did happen.

As he says in his letter: “At my most recent hearing, Mr Justice Sheldon explicitly stated in front of public observers that I was “lying” about being threatened for costs. He did this in circumstances when he knew my belief in cost threats was robustly grounded on written material from by former barrister Chris Milsom. He also knew that this material was enough to convince 2 MPs, the Telegraph and Financial Times that I had been threatened for costs. Accusing me of lying about cost threats in these circumstances was nothing more than a cheap smear to make me look like a liar in public.”

Or as he wrote earlier: “Dishonest or deluded whistleblowers don’t tend to have the support of former health ministers, senior doctors and the BMA to fund a KC.”

Also there is ample evidence in reports by lawyers that attempts to put costs on whistleblowers are commonplace. Indeed some lawyers moan they can’t get enough of them.

Dt Chris Day

His complaint about ” institutional corruption ” is not directed at individual judges but at the legal system where lawyers socialise with each other and don’t want to see a colleague’s reputation or career damaged by having to admit they got it wrong.

As he says in his letter: “My complaint is not directed solely at individual judges but at the institutional handling of this matter. The EAT has placed judges in an impossible position: adjudicating on issues that, if determined on the evidence, would have serious implications for people with whom they admit to having ongoing professional or social relationships including being connected on social media.
“This is precisely the type of reputational self-protection identified as “institutional corruption” in the
Daniel Morgan inquiry. I am not expecting you or the EAT to do anything about this but want to record
my position and the fact that it has been put to you as EAT president. You will note 2 MPs have called
for a public inquiry into this case.”

The full letter is on the internet here. His account of the case on Linked In is on https://lnkd.in/dZuKkTFG.

My view from covering a number of tribunals- both involving whistleblower doctors, nurses and in the world of industry and the arts – is that lawyers are getting too cosy and comfortable with each other. Add to this the loss of media interest in all but the most lurid of court cases, there are precious few journalists left to observe what is happening in the courts.

All this is to the detriment of the ordinary member of the public when they fight their case. Arraigned against them is a club that knows how to fix the outcome. And this is destroying the principle of open justice and why we need radical reform of both the employment tribunal and county court system.

One-Time
Monthly
Yearly

Make a one-time donation

Make a monthly donation

Make a yearly donation

Choose an amount

£5.00
£10.00
£20.00
£5.00
£15.00
£100.00
£5.00
£15.00
£100.00

Or enter a custom amount

£

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

DonateDonate monthlyDonate yearly

Pay via Paypal. Use link below.

https://www.paypal.com/ncp/payment/865JAS3QJ3CGQ

High Drama at Glyndebourne: An extraordinary tale of a sacking, a broken settlement and strange behaviour in the courts

Posted on by
Edward Romain

While opera lovers have been enjoying in blissful sunshine a season of high operatic drama in the prestigious grounds of Glyndebourne in the Sussex countryside, another very different drama has been unfolding quietly inside the organisation itself.

Edward Romain, aged 39, a well-qualified fundraiser and writer whose previous roles included raising money for the Yehudi Menuhin music school, was appointed as a senior fundraiser for Glyndebourne, which relies on high-value donor support to sustain its world-class productions.

He began on a probationary period. Towards the end of that period, in October 2023, he tried to understand how earlier probationers had fared, to improve his own chances of securing a permanent role. In doing so, he came across a file containing previous probation reviews. The file was not password protected and included sensitive personal information, including medical histories.

Alarmed that such information was accessible to staff via an unsecured file, Romain reported the issue to management — raising what he believed to be a serious data protection failure — and effectively becoming a whistleblower.

However, Glyndebourne’s version of events, submitted in legal papers now before the court, tells a very different story.

They state:

“On or around October 2023 the Claimant accessed and read several confidential Probation Review Forms which he found in an unsecure file created by his line manager. The Claimant took screenshots of these Probation Review Forms and sent them to the Defendant’s HR and Head of Governance thereby procuring and committing a data breach. The Claimant subsequently sent repeated emails that were entirely inappropriate in tone and appeared to be blackmailing the Defendant into bringing his probation period to an end and using the alleged data breach as leverage to pass his probation.”

In short, Romain was accused of committing a data breach — rather than reporting one. Glyndebourne dismissed him for “gross misconduct.”

The matter was resolved by a confidential agreement under which Romain resigned, received a financial settlement, and was promised a reference. The agreement, according to court papers, included standard confidentiality and non-disparagement clauses. It also discouraged further escalation, including reporting the breach to the Information Commissioner.

The existence of the incident remained unknown until the High Court proceedings brought it into the open.

All appeared quiet until the following year, when Romain applied for a fundraising position at Bede’s Senior School in Upper Dicker, East Sussex. According to documents filed in court, he was offered the job in April 2024 — but the offer was then revoked. Romain alleges that someone from Glyndebourne contacted the school in breach of the settlement. Glyndebourne denies this.

The school’s letter stated:

“This decision has been made based on the checks that were carried out and the references we received during the final stages of our hiring process being unsatisfactory.”

At that point, Romain took legal action against both Glyndebourne Productions Ltd and Loch Employment Law Ltd, the firm that had drafted the original settlement on Glyndebourne’s behalf. He issued proceedings in the County Court through the Civil National Business Centre.

The litigation followed Glyndebourne’s alleged failure to respond to data subject access requests — with only 34 out of an estimated 500 documents released, according to Romain. When neither Glyndebourne nor Loch responded to the initial claim, their defences were struck out in January 2024. Romain applied for default judgment.

Judge Andrew Worthley

Then things took an unusual turn.

The case was, without his agreement, transferred to Worthing County Court. There, District Judge Andrew Worthley declined to recognise the earlier strike-out, stating there had been no valid default. He also rebuked Romain for continuing to pursue the matter.

Romain appealed to the Circuit Bench. His appeal was dismissed by HHJ Jonathan Simpkiss, the senior circuit judge in Sussex, who held that the claim was without merit.

In May, at a further hearing before Judge Robin Penfold, some of Romain’s claims were struck out and the case was concluded.

Joe Milner, former director of Loch Employment Law, who acted for Glyndebourne

But fresh controversy followed. After the hearing, Romain received what appeared to be court directions from Loch Employment Law — specifically from Joe Milner, a partner in the firm. These were contained in a Word document not issued by the court, and which bore no seal, signature, or court markings.

According to Romain, the unsealed document materially differed from the official sealed order. He says it was then sent to HHJ Simpkiss with a request for a General Civil Restraint Order — despite no formal application appearing to have been made at that time.

When the actual sealed order arrived days later, it did not match the earlier version. The court ultimately issued a three-year General Civil Restraint Order against Romain, on the basis that certain applications made were held to be totally without merit — a decision Romain strongly contests.

Undeterred, Romain launched fresh proceedings in the High Court, where the matter is now before a different judge. He is seeking £350,000 in damages, as well as aggravated or exemplary damages — typically reserved for particularly serious or malicious conduct. He is also seeking recovery of legal costs.

The claim names both Glyndebourne and Loch Employment Law as defendants and includes allegations of malicious falsehood, defamation, breach of contract, and abuse of the court process. Romain maintains that the allegations made against him were false, and repeated without proper basis or legal justification.

Now acting as a litigant in person, Romain says the process has taken a major toll on his life and health. He has moved in with his uncle, David Grossman, and is no longer working.

Grossman wrote in a letter to the court:

“I write this not as a legal expert, but as someone who has stood by and watched my nephew endure something that has gone far beyond a legal dispute. Over the course of this case, I have seen the toll it has taken on him and us as a family — not just financially, but emotionally, physically, and mentally.
What began as a breach of agreement has become something far deeper: a prolonged and destabilising ordeal that has cost him years of peace, stability, and health.”

The Solicitors Regulation Authority declined to take regulatory action against Loch following a referral containing evidence — including the Word document. However, Joe Milner stepped down as a director of the firm in late July. He was ” not available” when I tried to contact him.

Whatever happens next, Romain has established Blind Justice CIC, a community interest company aiming to support others who find themselves failed by the legal system.

“The matter is now before the High Court. I have confidence in the integrity of that process,” he said.

Given the wide readership of this site, and the striking issues raised — from data protection to judicial process — it is likely Romain will receive support from others who believe their own whistleblowing or access to justice has been unfairly shut down.

Glyndebourne has previously declined to comment about the saga when approached by journalists and bloggers. Unfortunately apart from the prestigious New York site of Law 360, none of the other media have written about this case, including to my surprise, Private Eye.

One-Time
Monthly
Yearly

Make a one-time donation

Make a monthly donation

Make a yearly donation

Choose an amount

£5.00
£10.00
£20.00
£5.00
£15.00
£100.00
£5.00
£15.00
£100.00

Or enter a custom amount

£

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

Donate Donate Donate

PAY PAL NEW DONATE BUTTON to Westminster Confidential below

https://www.paypal.com/donate?hosted_button_id=UQQ5RZFCRJK54

Tribunal of the Absurd Part Two: Dr Chris Day loses his whistleblowing appeal

Posted on by
Dr Chris Day

For those with long memories some 32 months ago I wrote a disparaging blog about justice in employment tribunals after sitting through yet another hearing involving Dr Chris Day’s ten year whistleblowing battle against the Lewisham and Greenwich NHS Trust. So shocked I was over the way justice was meted out to Dr Day that I labelled it as the Tribunal of the Absurd – liking it to a Harold Pinter play that could be set in a court room.

This was the tribunal that revealed that lawyers and the Trust had held back evidence which should have been given to him and his lawyers years ago; that the chief executive of the trust, Ben Travis had lied under oath about a virtual board meeting and other matters to discuss his case, and that a senior communications officer of the trust, David Cocke, had gone into the trust’s offices at 5.0 am and destroyed 90,000 emails which could have been relevant to his case. The latter happened while the hearing was taking place and he then failed to appear as a witness.

Yet the judge Anne Martin ignored all this and exonerated the trust’s case against Dr Day. To remind readers the original claim was a serious patient safety issue – two people had died in the intensive care unit of Woolwich Hospital where he was working because of serious mistakes by other staff. Yet the trust for reputational reasons has always denied this really happened.

Now a long time later – the courts take ages to progress issues – a judge at an employment appeal tribunal has largely rubber stamped her decision and found against Dr Day and rejected an application to return legal costs to the British Medical Association to compensate for the extra days of hearing caused by the destruction and concealment of evidence. Worse than that during the hearing Dr Day’s reputation for telling the truth about a previous hearing was called into question. It was like the second house in the theatre of the absurd.

Mr Justice Sheldon who presided over the hearing found only two faults. He thought the tribunal should have ruled on whether the trust was wrong not to remove disparaging comments about Dr Day sent to MPs and the press after concerns were raised by the watchdog body, the Care Quality Commission was a detriment to Dr Day. And it criticised the tribunal for misinterpreting one area of employment law.

But the judgment adds: “The Employment Appeal Tribunal concluded that the errors were immaterial to the outcome, as the Employment Tribunal had correctly found that the protected disclosures did not materially influence the Respondent’s actions. The appeal against the Costs Judgment was also dismissed, with the Employment Tribunal’s reasoning found to be within its discretion and supported by the evidence.”

It refused to return the case to another employment tribunal for reconsideration.

What this means is that the trust’s actions in this case have been exonerated by a higher court. Mr Ben Travis is regarded as a credible witness despite not telling the truth under oath about the board meeting.

And Mr Cocke’s destruction of 90,000 emails while thought to be ” troubling” are largely exonerated setting what could be a dangerous precedent in other whistleblowing cases for people in NHS trusts and private companies to destroy evidence that should be passed under discovery to the claimant. They can now cite this judgment.

What was also amazing and bizarre was that the judge accepted from Daniel Talbot Brown KC , instructed by lawyers Capsticks, an argument used in another legal case which said that tribunals could take a benevolent view of the proceedings and if they did not comment on a finding it did not mean they had not considered it.

This seems to go against forensic testing of arguments put forward at a hearing – where both sides must probe for the truth. If they do this and a judge decides not to comment on the issue, surely this more like a dereliction of duty than anything else.

This judgment marks a bad day for whistleblowers and good day for bureaucrats who want to hide the truth. It shows that even if you have the support of medical experts to back your judgment and the support of two prominent former politicians, Jeremy Hunt, the former health secretary and Norman Lamb, a former health minister, this counts for nothing in the eyes of judges.

Perhaps the judges prefer the judicial theatre of the absurd to life in the real world.

One-Time
Monthly
Yearly

Make a one-time donation

Make a monthly donation

Make a yearly donation

Choose an amount

£5.00
£10.00
£20.00
£5.00
£15.00
£100.00
£5.00
£15.00
£100.00

Or enter a custom amount

£

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

DonateDonate monthlyDonate yearly

Please donate to Westminster Confidential

£10.00

Guest blog: Dr David Ward’s prescription for Wes Streeting’s promised reform to protect whistleblowers

Posted on by
David Ward, retired consultant

Wes Streeting, the health secretary has promised new protections for whistleblowers but do they go far enough? Dr David Ward gives a detailed list of proposals that the NHS should implement and calls for lawyers and courts to play no part in the process.

NHS whistleblowers are obliged by law to raise patient safety concerns and are punished having done so. (Arising out of conversations with other doctors particularly members of Justice For Doctors. https://www.justice4doctors.co.uk ).

1. All “whistleblowing” issues should be formally logged by the Trust (hospital) in which they have arisen and in a statutory, independent central register which is open to scrutiny and auditable. Isn’t an audit trail essential for regulatory and financial reasons?

2.Hospitals should be banned from dismissing a doctor who has raised safety concerns as they are obliged to do by MHPS, Duty of Candour laws and the Hippocratic Oath. This is a simple idea which could be implemented without complex regulatory amendments. Devices such as dismissal by “Some other substantial reason or “SOSR” are convenient for the dismissing Trust to bury all sorts of evidence. NDAs are another trick which could impede investigation of evidence. It reeks of “dodginess”

3.Hospitals and their managements should be compelled by statute to urgently investigate concerns raised by a whistleblower. Failure to do so could be regarded as some sort of Tort because harm to patients could (and probably will) recur. (The concerns cannot be investigated if they are not known, doh!). Investigations should be conducted independently not by internal personnel because these are known to be biased (no, really?). External investigators (whether MHPS or otherwise) can be paid large sums by the Trust. The results are not infrequently “favourable” to the Trust. A new, more open and accountable system should be introduced.

4.The problems reported by a whistleblower should be remedied as soon as possible to reduce the risk of further harm. This hardly needs stating, does it? But a remedial approach (even if it is instigated) nearly always takes second place to hyper-investigation (persecution) of the doctor who has reported the problem. Imagine if such vigour could be directed toward correcting any shortcomings, improving processes, enhancing safety and so on. It could even save money as well as improving patient safety. “A stitch in time….”
5.NHS Trust Managers should be formally regulated by a statutory independent body. They should be subject to regulatory bodies just as the medical professions are – and disciplined if they “manipulate” the truth. There are examples of “wild west behaviour” by managers which would be stopped immediately if regulation were in place.
6.“Maintaining High Professional Standards” (MHPS) investigations are internal and unregulated. (See St Helier Hospital saga on this blog). “Marking one’s own homework” comes to mind. Investigators can be “hired guns” who will produce a report favourable to the Trust for a “fee” (taxpayer funded of course). Corrupted or what? (Let me be clear, I am not suggesting any cause-and-effect relationship between the fees paid and an outcome “favourable to the Trust”). Data about any of these matters which are prevalent all over the NHS is, unsurprisingly, not available (see 1).

7.Stop the wastage of £millions of taxpayers’ money on lawyers defending Trusts at Employment Tribunals against the unfunded “claimant” (the solution is at 2). This egregious inequality of arms should be disallowed but if (2) was implemented it would not arise. Another way of putting this is “stop persecuting whistleblowers who are doing their duty”. It is the Tribunal system which endorses a Trust’s decision to dismiss a doctor (if the dismissed doctor seeks the support of a Tribunal he is unlikely to succeed: see 15) . (How much taxpayer funded money is expended on law firms supporting Trusts against the claims of a dismissed doctor? This is my FOI request February 2023:

Expenditure by NHS Trusts defending allegations by “whistleblowers”

The answer was “DHSC does not hold information relevant to your request”. Perhaps not but I am willing to bet it is kept somewhere.

8.Lawyers and Courts have no place in the investigation of patient safety issues (see 2 and 6). Lawyers have little or no appreciation of health issues and the operation of a hospital. They are not best placed to investigate patient safety issues which are, unsurprisingly, central in whistleblowing cases.

9.Patient safety is prime. There should be no stigmata or detriments attached to raising patient safety concerns. Failure to raise or conceal a concern could be an offence.
10.Non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) about safety issues should be banned. They may be abused to conceal safety evidence. Information which is not disclosed cannot be tested can it. Could this be an intended (or unintended?) consequence of NDAs?
11.PIDA 1996 (section2, 47b (1): “A worker has the right not to be subjected to any detriment by any act, or any deliberate failure to act, by his employer done on the ground that the worker has made a protected disclosure”. So, no whistleblower can be dismissed because they have “made a protected disclosure” as that is forbidden by PIDA. But they can be dismissed (conveniently) “having made such a disclosure” just not for that reason. Usually one of the 5 “fair” reasons for dismissal is invoked including, “committing some form of misconduct” and “SOSR” (see 13). (See the case of Martyn Pitman on this blog). The section of PIDA referred to above is a loophole which is open to (possibly deliberate) misinterpretation. Perhaps it was written like this for a reason, who knows. Shouldn’t the loophole be closed and PIDA updated?

12.Is the Dunning-Kruger effect (qv) relevant?  Yes. It could apply to elements and procedures of the British Establishment – such as the Judiciary and the Employment Tribunal system. “The Dunning–Kruger effect is defined as the tendency of people with low ability in a specific area to give overly positive assessments of this ability”. (Wikipedia). Take a moment to think about D-K in the context of the treatment of whistleblowers. It rings true, doesn’t it.

13.Dismissal of an employee can be for any one of the 5 reasons specified in the Employment Rights Act 1996, Section 98. The last of these is “SOSR” or “some other substantial reason” which need not be specified (obviously) which is very convenient (see 11). Some reasons are specified but these are not exclusive and there is no need to specify a reason – which is why this clause exists, right? I need not enlarge on why this is another fudge but it is open to abuse. The notable observer and blogger, Dr Minh Alexander has ascertained (via an FOI request) that over 10,604 staff were dismissed by the “SOSR” method between 2010 and 2018 (Yes, she does provide a detailed breakdown of the figures, see link). This is a staggering statistic which surely points to a profound failure of process.

The Dismissal of over Ten Thousand NHS Staff via ‘Some Other Substantial Reason’

14.Resurrect the “problems of whistleblower persecution” for debate in Parliament with an emphasis on “protection”. I believe several proposals are under consideration including some by the Rt Hon Wes Streeting MP, Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, who will become a hero to many if he achieves what is required.

The Dismissal of over Ten Thousand NHS Staff via ‘Some Other Substantial Reason’

15.Doctors who have been whistleblowers and subsequently dismissed are well advised to avoid the legal profession. One thing that does emerge from my exploration of this fraught topic is that doctors (as a retired medic I can speak for this profession) who have been “dismissed” should not go anywhere near a law firm or engage the Employment Tribunal process for all the reasons I need not enumerate here. Fewer than 3% who do so will emerge victorious. Some have been bankrupted by the process. Open and fair justice? I don’t think so

Who are the ultimate losers in all this ? You may ask why make such a fuss? I will answer directly. It’s not primarily about the Judiciary, or the Employment tribunal system, or hospital managements, or even doctors and healthcare staff. On the contrary it is fundamentally about sick people, or “patients” when they seek medical advice. It is these “end-users” of the NHS who suffer when doctors (or any HealthCare professionals) who speak up about patient safety (aka whistleblowers) are subjected to kangaroo courts and persecution culminating in their dismissal and whose lives are consequently ruined: loss of a career, loss of self-esteem, disruption of family life, possible financial ruin (lawyers bills really are “astronomical”), and even more extreme consequences. If you think I am exaggerating read the story of Mr Martyn Pitman FRCOG, Consultant Obstetrician a man of high integrity and whistleblower who lost his career at the whim of a Tribunal sitting before a judge who probably has no idea what a Fallopian tube is. The Tribunal stated:

“Our issue was never about the concerns raised by Mr Pitman, but about concerns

raised by others of disruptive behaviour and then a breakdown in working

relationships. These factors are damaging in any workplace, but in a healthcare setting, which is by its nature an intense and pressurised environment, their destabilising effect

is even more serious.” https://www.theguardian.com/money/2023/oct/29/whistleblowing-cost-hampshire-doctor-dearly-after-he-loses-tribunal

The judgment refers to “bullying and undermining behaviour” or similar 6 times but the word “concerns” appears 123 times. Have I made the point?

Anyone who knows anything about the modus operandi of Employment Tribunals will see through this obfuscatory gobbledegook immediately. I doubt even the Tribunal persons who wrote it knew what they were talking about. What is happening to justice in this country?

David Hencke at Westminster Confidential dissects the absurdity of Judge Gray’s “reserved judgment” in this case. https://davidhencke.com/tag/judge-jonathan-gray/

One-Time
Monthly
Yearly

Make a one-time donation

Make a monthly donation

Make a yearly donation

Choose an amount

£5.00
£10.00
£20.00
£5.00
£15.00
£100.00
£5.00
£15.00
£100.00

Or enter a custom amount

£

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

DonateDonate monthlyDonate yearly

Please donate to Westminster Confidential

£10.00

A horrendous tale: How a strapping lad was injured for life at work and then fell victim to corporate power and unfair justice

Posted on by
Happier times. Matthew Reynolds (right) enjoying a drink with his late dad, Howard, before his horrendous accident

Matthew Reynolds was a strong strapping lad who earned good money – £80,000 a year – as a welder at the Tata Steel works in Port Talbot, South Wales. He had already bought his own flat and his future was bright.

Then one day as he was welding steel a large heavy refractory brick in the roof of the works came loose and fell 150 feet hitting him on the side of his back. His injuries confined him at the time to a wheelchair, cost him his well paid job, and damaged his spine so he can’t easily move his neck and caused other painful injuries. He had to sell his flat in Port Talbot at a loss ( it was up a flight of stairs) and move back home with his mother in rural Lincolnshire. Today he can barely hobble around, needs help to dress himself and has very little likelihood of getting another job.

This story is not about his injuries -horrendous as they are – but what happened when he tried to claim compensation from Tata Steel so he could live a reasonable life as a disabled person who would always need expensive help and care.

Any reasonable person would expect a multinational company run by a billionaire to pay substantial compensation, especially as the incident had to be reported to the Health and Safety Executive and the company admitted liability.

But in today’s world corporate responsibility is not that straightforward or even ethical. Tata Steel appear to employ health insurers to assess their responsibility and the offer made to Matthew was less than his annual salary – over £50,000 – for a lifelong injury. The figure based on 6 per cent of his claim was recommended by Tata’s health insurers – either coincidently or in line with initial payments offered to sub postmasters.

Just £9500 initial compensation for being left in a wheelchair

As a result he has had to use the county court system for the last SEVEN years to put in a claim and it remains unpaid at the moment. The only money he has received is an initial interim payment of £9500.

Tata, Dousan Babcock, who were managing the site, and Primetals Technologies Ltd- combined to oppose his claim seem to be relying solely on the initial assessment made at accident and emergency department in October 2018 which found no bones were broken but there was serious damage to soft tissue. However three independent specialist doctors have linked other serious damage to himself to the accident. Three and half years later, Mr Caspar Aytott, of Cheltenham Spine Centre found the severe pain had spread from his lower back into his flank, up to his chest into the shoulder and neck with difficulty raising his left arm. This is despite having physiotherapy and two spine injections which had no effect.

Then a rheumatologist found 20 months later that he still had chronic pain and was suffering from fibromyalgia and post traumatic stress disorder due to the accident. A third independent doctor, Karen Simpson, who examined him found he had damaged nerves and wanted him to have rehabilitation which he never got.

Matthew Reynolds today -now aged 45

What was clear was that he was not returning to full health and getting worse not better. In the meantime his case was dragging on through the slow county court system, which has been heavily exposed by the Commons Justice Committee in a recent report. See my story on this blog here.

During the proceedings that followed his solicitor, supposed to be a family friend who offered to take his case on a ” no win, no fee” basis gave him spectacularly bad advice. This included him cancelling his GMB union subscription, not getting a crucial Health and Safety Executive report on the accident and losing all his original wage slips so a judge could not give him a substantial interim payment at another hearing.

So bad was his role that a judge took a rare decision to remove him from representing Matthew on the grounds of bad communication and mismanagement. There is even an allegation that while representing Matthew he was trying to arrange a dinner with Tata’s leading solicitor in London, Leanne Conisbee.

Matthew and his mother Denniel were meanwhile getting poorer by the minute, racking up the maximum on Matthew’s credit cards, their house faced repossession and a huge bill from their solicitor for handling their case. His mother ended up taking a equity loan on the house. They now rely on food banks to eat and have to pay court fees for every hearing in his case. They have an old Fiat 500 to get around with an adapted front seat as Matthew is in pain if he bends his back.

In desperation Matthew from a wheelchair supervised some men at work to get money for the fees. He did not declare this to court and the lawyers for Tata were tipped off and pounced accusing him of being ” fundamentally dishonest” for not doing so.

After the solicitor had been taken off the case the bundles were returned to Matthew. Included was an email sent to Rodney Fern, a barrister who had tried to prevent the solicitor being removed from the case, which revealed the dirty tricks being prepared by Tata against Matthew.

It read: ” the insurers, as you rightly say, are going to try and starve Matthew Reynolds out. They are not going to withdraw the application on fundamentally dishonesty as this is to be used as a bargaining tool. although it is without any substance.”

Tata’s lawyers said he was ” fundamentally dishonest” in court

I saw it used at Doncaster County Court this year when Matthew tried to get an interim payment. It had to be refused by a sympathetic judge because the law says anybody judged to be ” fundamentally dishonest” cannot be paid. The barrister for Tata was determined he would not get any money.

The situation has now escalated. Last month Matthew asked for a longer period as a litigant in person to prepare for this week’s hearing. He wanted a longer hearing of 10 days, wanted to call 16 extra witnesses including people who witnessed the accident and professional medical people.

All this was refused by both the circuit judge William Hanbury, a former property and local government barrister and senior circuit judge, Mark Gargan. Seven years ago Mark Gargan was found to have given a wrong judgment by the court against a terminally ill claimant in a personal injury claim against a firm when he threw out his case claiming he and his lawyers had ” flagrant disregard” for the rules. The case was reported in the Law Society Gazette here.

Official Portrait: Lee Pitcher MP Pic Credit: Laurie Noble Photography

The judge took the decision despite receiving a letter from Matthew’s new Labour MP, Lee Pitcher, who represents Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme.

In it he points out that Matthew, through no fault of his own, has lost his lawyers and is now fighting three large corporations having to navigate ” complex legal proceedings at significant financial and emotional cost”.

He adds: ” it is difficult to see how this can be viewed as a fair and balanced process. That an individual in such a vulnerable position should be left to fight such a case unaided, while the companies involved have already accepted liability, raises serious questions about access to justice.”

“Mr Reynolds has shown remarkable courage in pursuing this case and deserves to be treated with dignity and fairness without.”

His GP also sent a letter to the court saying Matthew was in no fit state to conduct the case and the hearing should be delayed but this was rejected by the judge. Using rather twisted logic the judge rejected this saying even with a delay Matthew would still be in the same state of health in the future – something the big corporations are trying to deny in their case.

He was sent 1500 pages of evidence from the three corporations and given 10 days to digest it and respond before the hearing. He told the judge: ” OK I’ll give these barristers/ solicitors a welding manual. I’ll set them up, give them the equipment ..you’ve got 5-10 days to go for a perfect weld.”

The hearing never went ahead this week. Both Matthew, who had a week of sleepless nights, and his pensioner mother were too ill to attend and drive to the court in Sheffield. I contacted the clerk to the case to find out what would happen next but was told there was no hearing for the rest of the week.

The only new development is that lead solicitor, Leanne Conisbe from Clyde and Co in the City of London has submitted a 74 page victim impact statement – claiming that she and not Matthew had suffered as a result of organising the case. The judge has ruled out his mother putting in a four page victim impact statement.

One-Time
Monthly
Yearly

Make a one-time donation

Make a monthly donation

Make a yearly donation

Choose an amount

£5.00
£10.00
£20.00
£5.00
£15.00
£100.00
£5.00
£15.00
£100.00

Or enter a custom amount

£

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

DonateDonate monthlyDonate yearly

Please donate to Westminster Confidential

£10.00

Dysfunctional County Courts are a failure for civil justice, damning MPs report

Posted on by

Norwich County Court

Yet another arm of the court system has failed millions of people who want justice because it is totally dysfunctional, a scathing report by MPs warned this week.

The Commons Justice Committee describes the county court system as the ” Cinderella ” of civil justice, a finding that might be similarly applied to readers of this blog to those experiencing the employment tribunal system.

The report calls for an ‘urgent and comprehensive, root-and-branch’ review is required to address systemic delays and entrenched inefficiencies across its operations. It reveals a decade-long digital Reform programme has fallen well short of its ambition, leaving a myriad of incompatible systems and outdated paper-based processes. It still only covers 23 per cent of cases while the rest of the court cases rely on paper or a mixture of digital and paper.

Andrew Slaughter, the Labour chair of the justice committee, described the situation as one of the most serious problems and said the county court system was ” living in another world” compared to the rest of the country.

The scale of the mess is breath taking and it does not surprise me.

The report says: “We found that the situation in the County Court is dire and requires urgent attention. The court estate is in a state of significant disrepair following years of “chronic underfunding,” with regional variation remaining a perennial issue, and the operations of the court having been failed by a
dysfunctional attempt at digital reform. The Committee found that the problems would be all the greater without the commendable efforts of court staff to operate a system that fails to provide access to justice”

The report describes buildings subject to rat infestations and still containing asbestos and wondered if any of the £220 million allocated to rebuilding the court system had been spent on county courts.

Other problems include access to the courts which amounts to a postcode lottery and the retention of staff when facing a big turnover of people. Examples of the first problem included some courts like Barnet and Romford not responding to inquiries and Mansfield County Court; Brentford County Court;
Darlington County Court ;Edmonton County Court; Hertford County Court; Lewes Combined Court Centre; and Taunton Crown,County and Family Court not permitting people in wheelchairs to access the courts.

The report points out that many people bringing cases to court are litigants in person and says the problems people face needed to be addressed.

The report says: “Despite persistent calls, litigants-in-person are not adequately supported through the court process. The language used in court applications is inaccessible, court procedure is not explained, and there is limited support available. The insufficient data collection on the prevalence of litigants-in-person means the Ministry of Justice cannot understand how to direct and provide the support needed.”

The report reveals that five decades ago in the 1970s this issue was raised and still nothing has been done about it.

I am at present monitoring one case at Sheffield County Court involving a young welder, Matthew Reynolds, who got life changing injuries after a heavy refractory brick fell 150 feet from the roof of the steel works at Port Talbot. The case has been going on for five years and he still has not adequate compensation as the case is dragged through the county courts in Doncaster and Sheffield. He is facing as a litigant in person expensively paid KC’s by Tata Steel, Babcock and an insurance company who while admitting liability don’t want to pay anywhere near the money he needs for the rest of his life. I intend to write up the full story as it proceeds through the county court system.

Andrew Slaughter, described his case as ” an extreme one”.

His committee is planning to look at the whole issue of legal aid across the legal and inquiry system after the previous Conservative government slashed billions from the legal aid budget.

Andrew Slaughter MP Pic Credit: Official Portrait Parliament

Andy Slaughter MP said: “The conclusions of our report make for stark reading: the County Court is a dysfunctional system, that has failed adequately to deliver civil justice across England and Wales. It is the ‘Cinderella service’ of the justice system, evidenced by the reviews currently underway into both sentencing and the criminal courts, while there is a fundamental absence of any equivalent process across civil justice.

“With over a million claims each year and a vast jurisdiction, the County Court is where most citizens and businesses encounter the justice system, yet it is beset by unacceptable delays, recruitment and retention issues across frontline staff and the Judiciary, and a complex “patchwork” of paper-based and digital systems.

“The causes of the inefficiencies and delays in the County Court are chronic, following years of underfunding, yet what is unclear is how HM Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS), together with the Judiciary and the Ministry of Justice, intends to address such a serious situation.

“Justice delayed is justice denied. The Justice Committee recommends an urgent and comprehensive, root-and-branch review of the County Court launched by Spring 2026 to establish a sustainable plan for reducing the systemic delays and inefficiencies entrenched across its operations. It is not tenable to continue without fundamental reform.”

One-Time
Monthly
Yearly

Make a one-time donation

Make a monthly donation

Make a yearly donation

Choose an amount

£5.00
£10.00
£20.00
£5.00
£15.00
£100.00
£5.00
£15.00
£100.00

Or enter a custom amount

£

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

DonateDonate monthlyDonate yearly

Please donate to Westminster Confidential

£10.00

Top London coroner faces accusation of tampering with an inquest audio and a judicial review on the handling of her hearing into the death of an ITV journalist

Posted on by
Senior coroner Mary Hassell Pic credit: Archant

Judge blocked her attempt to keep her name secret during the hearing

A highly controversial senior coroner is facing serious allegations that she or her staff removed parts of a transcript and recording of her hearing into the death of a talented and hardworking ITV news editor Teresa McMahon who was found hanged at her home four years ago.

Mary Hassell found that she committed suicide and ruled out that she was subject to ” coercive control” by her ex boyfriend, Robert Chalmers, an NHS estates employee, who had previous convictions for violence. Mary Hassell believed the words of the pathologist ,Dr Mohammed Bashir, who examined the body but kept no photographic evidence and discounted domestic violence and Greater Manchester Police who decided from the start that no crime had been committed and never took any photographs either at the scene of her death.

Throughout the hearing this version was challenged by Teresa’s aunt, Lorna McMahon, who was frequently interrupted by Mary Hassell when she raised questions about the competence of Greater Manchester Police in handling the investigation into her niece’s death.

I was present at the hearing at the hearing with many other journalists. My report on it is here.

Yesterday’s hearing at the Royal Courts of Justice was meant to decide whether the court could give her permission to bring a judicial review into Mary Hassell’s hearing claiming her conduct was irrational and procedurally unfair in coming to her verdict.

Teresa McMahon

But the hearing took a completely different turn under Mr Justice Stephen Morris when Lorna McMahon, having obtained both the transcript and audio recording of the hearing said parts of both, covering descriptions of previous violence against her niece by her ex boyfriend had been omitted.

It also emerged from correspondence I have seen from Mary Hassell’s lawyers and a public ruling by a previous judge Mr Justice Kerr, that the coroner had tried to get her name kept out of the public domain during the hearing.

Her lawyers claimed ” it was customary” to be not named. She wanted it done under ” the slip rule” which meant there would be no hearing about the application. The judge ruled this procedure could not used in this way and rejected her application because it raised issues of ” open justice”.

When Mr Justice Morris heard Lorna McMahon’s evidence he weighed up whether to continue the hearing or adjourn it to allow her complaint to be properly looked at and for her to provide evidence from other people at the original hearing – including members of the public and journalists – to back up her claim.

All sides in the case agreed it was an extremely serious allegation which could be viewed as a criminal case of perverting the cause of justice.

Her own lawyer, Jonathan Glasson KC, agreed as such and but added by adjourning the case until the late autumn it meant that the accusations against the coroner were left hanging over her for some weeks.

The judge also made it clear by adjourning the hearing it did not mean that he was convinced about Lorna’s case and said she would need more evidence.

The directions he gave are worth reporting in full:

IT IS ORDERED THAT

  1. The application for permission to apply for judicial review is adjourned

2. By 4pm on 12 August 2025, the Claimant is to file and serve a witness statement, verified by statement of truth, identifying any and all parts of what was said at the hearing of the inquest by the Defendant on 5 December 2024 (“the Hearing”) which she contends have been omitted from the audio recording of the Hearing provided to the Court and the Claimant by email dated 14 July 2025 at 513pm and sent by Payne Hicks Beach LLP (“the Audio Recording”).

3. At the same time as filing and serving her witness statement pursuant to paragraph 2 above, the Claimant is to file and serve any and all witness statement evidence from others (including witnesses called at the Hearing and/or members of the press and/or members of the public) in support of her contention that parts of what was said at the Hearing have been omitted from the Audio Recording.

4 By 4pm on 9 September 2025, the Defendant is to file and serve a witness statement, verified by statement of truth, in response to the evidence filed and served pursuant to paragraphs 2 and 3 above, to include an explanation as to how the Audio Recording was produced.

5.By 4pm on 23 September 2025, the Claimant, if she so wishes, is to file and serve a written statement stating whether, and if so, why, she seeks a further oral hearing for directions in respect of the matters covered by paragraphs 2 to 4 above.

6.As soon as possible thereafter, the matter is to be placed before a judge (if possible, Mr Justice Morris) on the papers to consider directions for the progress of the case, and in particular whether there should be a further oral hearing dealing with the matters covered by paragraphs 2 to 4 above, taking account of all necessary reasonable adjustments.

7 The case to be reserved to Mr Justice Morris, if possible.

8. Costs of the adjournment and of the matters raised above reserved

This is the second recent case where there has been controversy about Mary Hassell’s handling of inquests.

Earlier that year she held an inquest into the tragic death of Gaia Young,25, who  was rushed to accident and emergency at University College Hospital with severe headaches only to die of an unexplained brain condition and doctors have yet to correctly diagnose what was wrong with her.

Again Mary Hassell  patronised and showed no empathy for her bereaved mother, Lady Dorit Young, who had lost her only child ,Gaia, and failed to properly investigate her death. The full story is on the Truth for Gaia website. She even blocked her from making a statement at the inquest. I reported that hearing and you can read about it here.

The treatment of both relatives led to a protest outside the coroner’s court during Teresa’s inquest. Pictures are below.

One-Time
Monthly
Yearly

Make a one-time donation

Make a monthly donation

Make a yearly donation

Choose an amount

£5.00
£10.00
£20.00
£5.00
£15.00
£100.00
£5.00
£15.00
£100.00

Or enter a custom amount

£

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

DonateDonate monthlyDonate yearly

Please donate to Westminster Confidential

£10.00

Revealed: The ultra Establishment Judge who granted a cost capping order for WASPI without a hearing

Posted on by
Judge Jonathan Swift

There was an unusual procedure in the courts in the long battle between the Department of Work and Pensions and WASPI last week.

The issue was whether WASPI’s legal costs would be capped in their application for a judicial review over the government’s decision not to award compensation for partial maladministration for 50s women who faced a six year delay in getting their pensions. It led to some pretty strong exchanges between Bindman’s solicitors and DWP lawyers, the latter were vehemently opposed to the cost cap, arguing it was not a public interest issue.

Instead of a hearing last Monday to decide the issue – it was suddenly ” vacated” by the parties concerned and a very senior judge in charge of the administrative court decided to grant the cost capping for WASPI in advance when they bring a case to the courts for permission to have a judicial review. CEDAWinLAW applied to be a friend of the court and submitted documents on the substantive issue on discrimination and maladministration.

CEDAWinLAW said: “As friends to the court, CEDAWinLAW’s Amicus Curaie Intervention and Cost Capping Order applications matter to 3.5million 1950s Women whom we uniquely represent: Thus followed, the submission of our legal documents out of relevant expertise and strong interest in the outcome of Case No AC-2025-LON-000811.

Our purpose is to assist the court by offering impartial information, legal arguments and broader public interest perspectives that are not fully represented by the parties in the case.”

They have had no reply from the court. They have put in a complaint and also written to the judge.

What is extraordinary is the CV of this senior judge. Mr Justice Swift who took the decision shows he is no friend of campaigners and has taken a consistently pro government stance over the years.

A large part of his career was spent as the First Treasury Counsel – known as the Treasury Devil – from 2007 to 2014. The current one is James Eadie who played a prominent and a successful role in defending the government in the judicial review against Backto60 , who fought the Department for Work and Pensions. to claim compensation for 3.5 million 50swomen lost pensions on the grounds of discrimination and maladministration. Their case was never looked at by the Supreme Court who claimed it was ” out of time”.

The whole point of the post is to defend the government from NOT paying out people who sought compensation or redress from government departments, hence him taking the prime role for the DWP. The Treasury is never keen to spend too much money.

More recently he took two the Government’s side on two high profile cases – the deportation of refugees to Rwanda – and the fate of Julian Assange, who is now a freeman. As Wikipedia said:

On 10 June 2022, Mr Justice Swift ruled in favour of the UK Government that the deportation flights of unsuccessful asylum seekers in the UK to Rwanda should be allowed to proceed, as there was material public interest in doing so.[5] He added in his ruling that the risk posed to refugees was “in the realms of speculation”.[6]

On 8 June 2023, Swift ruled in favour of the UK Government, and rejected the appeal of political prisoner Julian Assange‘s legal team, which had filed two appeals before the court against the then Home Secretary Priti Patel‘s decision to extradite Wikileaks founder being indicted by the United States under the Espionage Act. He was later released.

So while WASPI did have a friend at the head of the administrative court it is by no means certain that they will get an easy ride when it comes to getting permission for a judicial review which will require a public hearing. If he had refused the organisation would have been set back as the department could try to get all its costs against them if it won.

In the end the ruling means that the case is being regraded in the “public interest” much as the case for a judicial review the Backto60 case was regarded as a public interest case.

What is staring everyone in the face is why not go for mediation rather than have a long drawn out judicial review which could take years if there are appeals and still needs judicial permission to go ahead.

WASPI set its face against this and not only refused but actively opposed CEDAWinLAW’s attempt to do this through the courts, siding with the DWP’s opposition to this.

Looking at the present situation Angela Madden, who runs the WASPI campaign, appears to be accepting, unlike her bold claims of getting £10,000 for everybody at the Labour Party Conference a few years ago, a token payment so the government acknowledge the maladministration found in the Parliamentary Ombudsman’s report. She in her last message suggested she was not looking for compensation for lost pensions but for the government to accept it needed to pay the women after the Parliamentary Ombudsman’s report.

Yet her members have already raised over £227,000 for a legal case and the organisation wants another £43,000 for what they admit will be a complex hearing. At this rate the legal costs may exceed the award.

In the meantime CEDAWinLAW is applying for observer status in the proceedings.

One-Time
Monthly
Yearly

Make a one-time donation

Make a monthly donation

Make a yearly donation

Choose an amount

£5.00
£10.00
£20.00
£5.00
£15.00
£100.00
£5.00
£15.00
£100.00

Or enter a custom amount

£

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

DonateDonate monthlyDonate yearly

Please donate to Westminster Confidential

£10.00

Exclusive: NHS Trust chief executives who persecute whistleblowers on patient safety win prestigious awards

Posted on by

From L to R: Alex Whitfield, Hampshire Ben Travis, Lewisham Daniel Elkeles London Ambulance

Three of the top 50 NHS chief executives chosen by a panel set up by the Health Services Journal in 2024 as the best people to run the NHS have been involved in attempting to cover up patient deaths and persecuting doctors and nurses who raised the issues.

One of the top three NHS awards went to Daniel Elkeles, as chief executive of London Ambulance Service Trust and is now chief executive of NHS Providers. He was chief executive of the Epsom and St Helier Trust when Usha Prasad, a cardiologist, reported the ” avoidable death ” of a heart patient. He told her to drop her case at an employment tribunal or face an internal disciplinary hearing which led to her being sacked.

I have since been told that Mr Elkeles was involved in an alleged cover up at the London Ambulance Service when a paramedic was suspended during the stressful period of the pandemic. He had alleged bullying, Elkeles said he would investigate but got the person to sign a non disclosure agreement. When it was signed it is said any investigation was dropped.

The second chief executive is Alex Whitfield who heads Hampshire Hospitals Foundation Trust, was involved in the sacking of Dr Martyn Pitman, a well respected obstetrician and gynaecologist, who raised patient safety issues in the already nationally stressed maternity services. The former oil executive is rated the 15th best chief executive.

The lack of care at the hospital in Winchester led to one mother and a baby dying, but Alex Whitfield used the tribunal to claim that Dr Pitman was ” putting patients at risk” rather than supporting the doctor and midwives who were helping patients. Lawyers for the trust monstered Dr Pitman claiming he was a bully for raising these issues.

Julie Dawes, the chief nursing officer at the trust, who also pursued Dr Pitman ,has just been awarded an MBE for services to nursing in the King’s Birthday Honours List.

The third award winner is Ben Travis, chief executive of Lewisham and Greenwich NHS Trust, which the Care Quality Commission, say ” requires improvement.”

Ben Travis was heavily involved in the 2022 tribunal hearings brought by Dr Chris Day, who has fought the trust for 10 years after he raised important patient safety concerns that became associated with two avoidable deaths  in the intensive care unit of Woolwich Hospital, run by the trust. The 2022 tribunal ruled against him despite evidence given by Ben Travis which shown to be untrue, the destruction of 90,000 emails during the hearing and the discovery of fresh documents .which should have been released by the trust to him to help his case.

The results of the last hearing is up for appeal on six grounds next week. He won the right to appeal that some of the findings of the judgment were perverse, that the judgment failed to draw any inferences from the destruction of 90,000 emails and the failure to provide documents that would have helped Dr Day’s case. This in particular followed the disclosure in documents that under oath the chief executive, Ben Travis gave an untrue account about a board meeting and had hidden he had contacted other trust chief executives about Dr Day.

Chris Day
Usha Prasad
Martyn Pitman

Yet Mr Travis won the award on his personal performance over the last year; the performance of the organisation he led, given the circumstances it is in; and the contribution made to the wider health and social care system.

Award for Diversity

At the same time the trust has won a second award for its equality, diversity and inclusiveness despite its NHS staff report showing that it has a below average rating for the fair promotion of ethnic minority staff and for racial discrimination inside the trust and from members of the public.

The panel who decided the awards for the best chief executives included Dr Rosie Benneyworth, chief executive, Health Service Safety Investigations Body:Steve Brine, former Tory MP for Winchester and former chair, Commons Health and Social Care Committee,; Matthew Taylor, head of the NHS Confederation;Sir Julian Hartley, former chief executive of NHS Providers; Patricia Marquis, executive director for England, Royal College of Nursing and Dr Vish Sharma, chair, BMA’s consultant committee.

It is inconceivable that many of them did not know about the whistleblower cases. Dr Chris Day’s case is high profile; Dr Martyn Pitman’s case was in the national press and Steve Brine was his local MP. Usha Prasad’s case was a long running one.

There is another issue which is worth pursuing in a later blog – how ethnic minorities are treated in the NHS and the level of racial discrimination and whether black and Asian people have fair promotion prospects. Lewisham and Greenwich NHS Trust is not alone

One-Time
Monthly
Yearly

Make a one-time donation

Make a monthly donation

Make a yearly donation

Choose an amount

£5.00
£10.00
£20.00
£5.00
£15.00
£100.00
£5.00
£15.00
£100.00

Or enter a custom amount

£

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

DonateDonate monthlyDonate yearly

Please donate to Westminster Confidential

£10.00

Lawyers threaten the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office with a judicial review over failure to investigate Judge Lancaster

Posted on by
The logo of the JCIO Pic Credit: Ministry of Justice

The 13 claimants who allege bullying and misogyny by judge Philip Lancaster, most of them women, took their complaints against the JCIO to a new level last week when their all women team of lawyers issued what is known as a ” letter before action” to the investigatory body.

Their lawyers, DFG, standing for Deighton, Pierce and Glynn, have given the JCIO until Monday to reply or face action for a judicial review.

The statement in their letter reads in bold type: “By this Group Complaint, we are therefore requesting the JCIO to open a proper investigation into the cases of all these complainants on the grounds that it is now clear that Judge Lancaster has repeatedly engaged in misconduct in his judicial role over many years.

“The misconduct consists of regular bullying of litigants-in-person and legal representatives, including shouting, harsh and inappropriate personal criticisms, intimidation and interruption of evidence.
We make clear that if this longstanding pattern of Judge Lancaster’s misconduct is not properly investigated by the JCIO we intend to challenge that decision by way of judicial review.

As I reported in Byline Times earlier this year ( see the article here) the Good Law Project first announced it was backing the then ten women who had faced bullying and misogynist comments from the elderly judge. Since then they have been joined by men who say they faced the same bullying tone from the judge who sits on the Leeds employment tribunal.

Judge Lancaster

The campaign began after the treatment of Alison McDermott, the now famous whistleblower, who exposed bullying and harassment at Sellafield nuclear waste facility, only to be bullied and rudely treated herself by judge Lancaster and lawyers representing Sellafield and the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority.

Judge Barry Clarke

Barry Clarke, President of the Employment Tribunal system, claimed she was fit to lodge a complaint — despite having no medical qualifications and ignoring a GP’s note saying she was suffering from severe clinical depression. He used this self-made “diagnosis” to deny her an extension, effectively blocking any investigation into Judge Lancaster, even as serious complaints from others were piling up.

The ramifications of what has happened since are causing serious problems for the nuclear waste plant and the judiciary. MPs on the Public Accounts Committee are now sceptical of claims by the top executives at the plant that there is no bullying or harassment and one MP, Anna Dixon, the new Labour MP for Shipley, and a member of the PAC, demanded in public that the chief executive of Sellafield apologise to her for the way Sellafield has behaved to her.

Harriet Harman Pic Credit:BBC

Meanwhile, Baroness Harriet Harman is conducting a separate investigation, with the support of the Bar Standards Board, into sexual harassment at the bar and in the judiciary — and has reportedly taken a direct interest in the Lancaster complaints.

Lawyers have demanded the JCIO does a complete and thorough investigation into Judge Lancaster.

1 A comprehensive review of all complaints submitted against Judge Lancaster, including those previously dismissed without investigation.
2 Statements from each complainant to ensure their full accounts are properly recorded and considered.
3.Interviews with relevant witnesses — including legal professionals, medical experts, accredited journalists, and public observers who attended the hearings and submitted complaints or documentation.
4 Consideration of the Employment Appeal Tribunal’s formal criticisms of Judge Lancaster’s conduct as part of the evidentiary record.
5 An analysis of Judge Lancaster’s written judgments to identify recurring patterns of reasoning, tone, and language indicating systemic bias. We have found consistent indicators of gender bias in descriptions of female claimants versus male respondents, including demeaning language, unsupported
character judgments, and disparate procedural treatment.

Alison McDermott

The JCIO originally said it did not comment on individual cases but now says it considers complaints carefully.

This is not the view of the complainants, their lawyers, and soon I expect if this gets more coverage, the general public.

One-Time
Monthly
Yearly

Make a one-time donation

Make a monthly donation

Make a yearly donation

Choose an amount

£5.00
£10.00
£20.00
£5.00
£15.00
£100.00
£5.00
£15.00
£100.00

Or enter a custom amount

£

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

DonateDonate monthlyDonate yearly

Please donate to Westminster Confidential

£10.00