Government commissioned research reveals whistleblowers have no faith in the system to protect them

Posted on November 20, 2025 by davidhencke

Glum whistleblower at an Employment tribunal. Picture created through AI

A research report published this July by the new Labour government has painted a devastating picture of the failure of the culture of the whistleblower system in the United Kingdom.

The report, originally commissioned by the Tories under Rishi Sunak, and undertaken by researchers at Grant Thornton, one of the big accountancy firms, pulls no punches. It reveals how whistleblowers, whether in industry, the NHS and other public bodies, see a failure by the courts, employers, and even those appointed to help them, to protect them.

The sad news is the report, commissioned by the Department of Business and Trade, looks like remaining on the shelf – and the one improvement planned by the justice ministry could make matters worse. It plans to appoint 50 new employment tribunal judges to handle an increase in whistleblowing cases, among other issues, following the implementation of the new Employment Rights Act. For those who follow my blogs, they will know, they are more than often part of the problem, not the solution.

For a start whistleblowers found the terms used to describe whistleblowers as vague and confusing.

The report notes that terms like “reasonable belief,” “public interest,” and “worker” are seen as subjective, vague, inconsistent, and narrow, creating uncertainty about whether protections actually apply. One whistleblower expressed surprise when an Employment Tribunal decided their concerns didn’t meet legislative requirements despite their employer telling them they did.

The majority of whistleblower participants reported feeling victimized by their employer after blowing the whistle. The research found that many whistleblowers believed the framework doesn’t provide effective protection in practice. The “protection” offered is essentially just the right to seek redress after harm has already occurred, not proactive prevention of retaliation.

Multiple barriers for whistleblowers

Multiple barriers existed for whistleblowers when their case came before an employment tribunal. These included:

Resource imbalance: They lacked time, money, knowledge, and skills compared to their employers Mental toll: The process was described as complex, draining, and requiring resilience many didn’t have Evidential burden: Proving detriment was directly related to their disclosure was extremely challenging Delays: Tribunals experience significant delays

Time limits: Strict deadlines created additional barriers

Unfair treatment: Limited access to evidence and risks around non-disclosure agreements

Lack of trust: Many didn’t believe tribunals would be balanced or deliver meaningful

Nor did whistleblowers find people designated to help them such as regulators much good.

They found they could not protect them from detriments or victimisation. Some were conflicted particularly where there had been regulatory failure.

Several whistleblowers stated it was “not easy” to blow the whistle internally: They found:

Little faith in the process based on previous experience
Fear of retaliation after hearing stories from others
Restrictions from non-disclosure agreements
Conflicts of interest when those receiving reports were implicated
Lack of independence in investigations
Concerns not being properly investigated or addressed
No feedback or perceived remedies

The report describes the huge tolls on whistleblowers. At employment tribunals,phrases from whistleblowers included: public execution,exhausting, beyond difficult, miserable. complex, ardous, horrible and abusive, soul destroying,toxic and unsafe.

Litigants in person fared worse with descriptions that they were not treated respectfully by judges, lawyers and other parties and that they were not impartial.

Many stated they would not blow the whistle again due to negative experiences

Cases that involved international jurisdictions were even more complicated with slow co-operation from countries and regulators abroad.

The report makes suggestions for change. These are:

create a central body for whistleblowing
ongoing engagement and research to assess and monitor all aspects of the GB
framework
efforts to improve effectiveness should be multifaceted and monitored
improved mental health support for individuals
legal advice and a degree of financial security while the claim progresses
consideration of disincentives and incentives, for example implementation of a United
States style reward system

I contacted the ministry about the report:

A Government spokesperson said:

“The Employment Rights Bill will strengthen protections for whistleblowers reporting sexual harassment at work and extend time limits for bringing tribunal claims from three to six months.

“We are also fixing the employment tribunal system by ensuring more cases are resolved before reaching them and recruiting more Employment Judges.”

They said that didn’t regard the report’s conclusions as firm recommendations and many of the suggestions were outside the remit of the ministry.

The full report can be read here.

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.

Donate Donate monthly Donate yearly

You can donate by PayPal using the link below

https://www.paypal.com/ncp/payment/865JAS3QJ3C

Ten brave women still need your help to bring a ground breaking court case that could change employment tribunals forever

Posted on October 16, 2025 by davidhencke

Stormy scene around tilted scales of justice as judges avoid complaints

Remember the ten brave women I wrote about who are challenging the bullying behaviour of Employment Judge Philip Lancaster? See my blog here. The ones the justice system refused to investigate despite overwhelming evidence?

They’re now in a race against time – and the Judicial Conduct Information Office is playing its oldest trick: delay, delay, delay until they run out of money or miss their deadline.

Here’s what’s happening:

The women issued their Letter Before Action to the Judicial Conduct Investigation Office (JCIO) in September. The JCIO’s deadline to respond under the pre-action protocol was 8 October. They missed it. The women waited another week. They missed that too.

Now the JCIO says they won’t respond until 20 October – leaving barely two weeks before the women must file at court in early November or lose their right to bring these proceedings forever.

Classic establishment tactics. Unlimited taxpayer funding and government lawyers versus women running on crowdfunding and determination.

But here’s why this matters more than ever:

In September 2025, Baroness Harriet Harman KC published a damning report on judicial misconduct. Her conclusions are devastating:

“The problem is the culture of impunity for those at the top who commit misconduct. Those in powerful positions whether at the Bar or in the judiciary who choose to engage in bullying, harassment or sexual harassment can be pretty confident that nothing will be done about it. And that is what must change.”

She identified a “cohort of untouchables” amongst the judiciary and “particular judges who are widely known for making everyone’s lives a misery.”

This is EXACTLY what these women are fighting to expose.

The women need £40,000 total to see this through

They’ve raised £17,335 so far – incredible progress from 472 supporters. But they need £40,000 in total to get this case into court and finish what they’ve started.

Their legal team of outstanding women lawyers at Deighton Pierce Glynn has already slashed fees dramatically. But even at reduced rates, taking on the government is expensive.

What’s at stake:

35,000+ employment tribunal users face these tribunals every year
If this judicial review succeeds, the JCIO will be forced to properly investigate judicial misconduct
Judges who egregiously abuse their power and block the release of the court record will finally face consequences
Whistleblowers will be better protected

This isn’t about these women and whistleblowers getting compensation – their chance at justice has been lost forever. If they win the judicial reivew there won’t be any compensation – just the knowledge that they exposed a corrupt complaint system. And showing judges that they are not above the law.

How to donate:

Go to: https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/exposing-judge-lancaster/

Every pound counts. They cannot let the judicial establishment win by simply outlasting them financially. Not when they’re this close.

Please help them as they have shown remarkable courage and integrity to do this for the greater good but they can’t do it without further financial help.

The Black Hole of Accountability: Employment Judges Block Evidence in Their Own Misconduct Cases

Posted on September 15, 2025 by davidhencke

Judge Barry Clarke who is president of employment tribunals in England and Wales

The English and Welsh Employment Tribunal system is operating under an extraordinary contradiction that strikes at the heart of judicial accountability: judges accused of misconduct can legally withhold the only evidence that exists against them.

This isn’t a bureaucratic quirk. It’s a fundamental breach of justice that’s destroying lives and making a mockery of the complaints system.

The Case That Exposes Everything

Employment Judge Philip Lancaster faces multiple misconduct complaints from whistleblowers, including Sellafield Whistleblower, Alison McDermott, and many others. The evidence needed to investigate these complaints? The judge’s own handwritten notes from the hearings in question.

Here’s where it gets explosive: Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood has confirmed to MPs that where no audio recording exists, these judges’ notes constitute the official court record.

Yet Lancaster refuses to release the official court record. The very judicial notes that the Justice Secretary says are the official record. The only evidence that exists of what happened in his courtroom.

In other words, the judge accused of multiple breaches of misconduct and betraying his judicial oath has become the sole gatekeeper of the evidence against himself.

A System Designed to Block Scrutiny

Let’s be absolutely clear about what’s happening here. No other professional under investigation could do this:

Police officers can’t withhold bodycam footage when under investigation
Civil servants can’t lock away departmental emails
Politicians can’t refuse to release official documents
Doctors can’t refuse to release patient notes

But Employment Tribunal judges can — and do — withhold their notes – the only record of proceedings, even when facing serious misconduct allegations and even though the Justice Secretary has categorically confirmed that the judicial notes are the official court record.

The President’s Defensive Wall

When I pressed Judge Barry Clarke, President of the Employment Tribunal, for answers to this blatant unfairness, the response was revealing. I asked direct questions:

Does he accept that judges’ notes are the official record, as stated by the Justice Secretary?
If yes, what legal authority allows Lancaster to withhold them?
If no, who can intervene?

Instead of answers, I received pages of case law about judicial independence — a concept that was never meant to shield judges from accountability when facing misconduct investigations. Clarke’s office has chosen to defend a practice that subverts open justice rather than confront a shocking flaw that undermines the entire tribunal system.

Clarke defended the practice as a matter of “judicial discretion.” But this is precisely the problem: access to the official court record should never be discretionary. It should be an absolute right. In every other court in the land, parties can obtain transcripts, recordings, or official records of proceedings. But in the Employment Tribunal, Clarke has normalised a system where individual judges become personal owners of public records, free to release or suppress them as they see fit. This isn’t about protecting judicial independence — it’s about placing judges above the law.

The fact that Clarke sees nothing wrong with a judge under investigation controlling access to evidence against himself reveals how deeply this corruption has infected the tribunal system. When the President himself cannot grasp that court records belong to the public, not to individual judges, we’re no longer talking about reform. We’re talking about a system that needs to be torn down and rebuilt from scratch.

“This Is Not Justice — It’s a Travesty”

For Alison McDermott, the Sellafield whistleblower, who is leading a judicial review against Employment Judge Lancaster, the situation is both personal and devastating:

“I was horrified to discover my hearing was not recorded. No audio, no video — nothing. Judge Lancaster, who is facing multiple charges of misconduct, is refusing to release the very evidence that could prove it. In any other profession, this would be seen as obstructing evidence. In the Employment Tribunal, they call it standard practice. We’re not asking for special treatment. We’re simply asking for the official court record of our own hearing. But in Britain’s tribunals, the accused judge gets to be the gatekeeper. When judges can keep secret notes, and then withhold those notes when under investigation, we don’t have a justice system. We have a closed shop where judges police themselves. .This is not justice. It is disgusting perversion of justice and a travesty that denies any possibility of a fair trial.”

The Deeper Rot

This scandal reveals three interconnected failures that should alarm anyone who believes in the rule of law:

First, many Employment Tribunals don’t record their proceedings. In an age where every high street shop has CCTV, our tribunals rely solely on judges’ handwritten notes — notes taken by people who receive no training in accurate record-keeping and face no monitoring of their note-taking abilities.

Second, these unverified notes become the official court record. Your career, your reputation, your access to justice — all hang on a judge’s personal scribbles. Yet you are denied access to them.

Third, when that judge faces investigation, they alone decide whether anyone can see those notes. The accused becomes the gate keeper of the very evidence needed to prove misconduct.

Why This Matters Beyond One Case

This isn’t simply about Judge Lancaster. It’s about a system that has abandoned its most basic principle: open justice. The latest annual report from the Judicial Appointments and Conduct Ombudsman – see here – show that there were 424 complaints against judges last financial year where people contacted the Ombudsman because they were dissatisfied. Of course only a few – 23 – were investigated – the vast majority being thrown out often because it breached the three month time limit for complaints to be heard.

Regional Judges and the President of the Employment Tribunal have also applied this three month deadline rigidly, striking out cases before their substance can even be tested. Campaigners say the effect is to silence victims and protect those in positions of power. And now Baroness Harriet Harman agrees.

Harriet Harman’s Independent Review of Bullying, Harassment and Sexual Harassment at the Bar [see here]was blunt about the flaws. In paragraph 34 she wrote: “There is no benefit in restricting complaints arbitrarily. Indeed, the only practical benefit it has is to protect those engaging in misconduct.” She added it was “surprising that the judiciary confirmed the reasonableness of this time limit after reviewing it as part of the consultation on judicial discipline in 2023.”

Courts must be open to scrutiny. Proceedings must be transparent. The court record. must be accessible. These aren’t optional extras — they’re the key foundations that separate justice from an abuse of arbitrary power.

The Question That Demands an Answer

Either the Justice Secretary is right that judges’ notes are the official court record — in which case Lancaster’s refusal to release them is a scandal that should trigger immediate intervention — or she has misled MPs about how the tribunal system actually works.

There is no third option.

The government cannot claim these notes are the official record while simultaneously allowing judges to treat them as private property, especially when facing misconduct investigations.

A System in Crisis

A tribunal system that allows judges to withhold evidence against themselves cannot command public confidence. A President who defends this practice rather than reforming it has failed in his duty. A Justice Secretary who knows this is happening but doesn’t act has abandoned her responsibility.

The principle is devastatingly simple: without access to the court record, there can be no proper appeals, no effective complaints process, and no real justice.

Until this changes, the Employment Tribunal will remain what it has become: a system where judges facing serious allegations can simply make the evidence disappear.

That’s not judicial independence. It’s judicial impunity.

And in a democracy that claims to value the rule of law, it’s completely unacceptable.

The full letter from his office is here if you want to read it.

Also it is essential to help fund the judicial review so it can reach its £30,000 target. The link to donate is https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/exposing-judge-lancaster/