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:

1. Does he accept that judges’ notes are the official record, as stated by the Justice Secretary?
2. If yes, what legal authority allows Lancaster to withhold them?
3. 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/

You can donate via PayPal via this link

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