The legal establishment v Charlotte Proudman: An extraordinary exposure of misogyny and arrogant male entitlement in family courts

Posted on May 6, 2025 by davidhencke

Charlotte Proudman Pic Credit:charlotteproudman.com

Last week I attended with Janice Chapman from CEDAWinLAW the launch of barrister Charlotte Proudman’s book He Said, She Said in London.

She is an extraordinary brave woman who stands up for sexually abused women and children in one of the most secretive parts of the judicial system – the family court – where estranged couples fight for custody of their children following a marriage breakdown. Most hearings are in private, ostensibly to protect the children, though a few can be reported in public following recent reforms.

For those familiar with my reporting of judgments in employment tribunals where whistleblowers stand only a 4 per cent chance of success this may not be such a surprise. Hearings such as those conducted by Leeds employment judge Philip Lancaster who has received 16 complaints from women he has insulted, belittled and patronised during hearings fit a pattern that seems rife in the family court system.

Janice Chapman and me with Charlotte Proudman at her book launch on the roof garden at Carmelite House. Janice asked her as a patron of CEDAWinLAW about the convention for the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women and why it needed to become law here.. Evidently the UK has not had a representative on the Geneva based committee under the last government and Baroness Helena Kennedy did not know whether the present government had to done anything to rectify this.

The book is a shocking eye opener into what goes on these largely secretive area of justice and exposes the appalling treatment of women in family courts – both by husbands and judges and ends with a failed attempt by the Bar Standards Board to end Charlotte’s career because she was exposing the mentality of the “boys club” world by both some male barristers and judges.

Among these is the case of a judge -Judge Scarratt – who threatened a woman who had been raped by her abusive partner and had been forced by him to take drugs to take away her daughter and put her in care and report her to social services for taking drugs. He made it clear that he was going to allow her abusive husband to have unsupervised contact with her daughter and said the whole proceedings were a waste of time. Charlotte Proudman managed to get his decision reversed by the Court of Appeal but by then the woman was traumatised as she says ” forcing even those who win to crawl over broken glass, leaving wounds that may never heal.”

Other highly disturbing material in the book includes the role of parental alienation used against women by men to say that women are turning their children against them. Extraordinarily these claims are backed up by so called experts – some who have no qualifications – who seem to be making a business out of the family court system.

Husband made wife sign a written contract allowing him to sexually assault his wife whenever he wanted

The most disgusting stuff is in a chapter on abortion and and reproductive coercion. It includes two contracts one before a woman became pregnant – which men forced on their partners. One insisted the husband would not have to give his sporting hobbies while she had to agree to shop for clothes in charity shops and ” keep the house as tidy as possible” and included the phrase ” I will entertain all sex requests- whenever and whatever -with a smile on my face and as a willing participant. It went to specify conditions for oral sex. As she comments; “It was, in effect, a charter for a man to rape and sexually assault his wife whenever he chose – a disgusting power fantasy.”

Two other chapters deal with a tragic case that involved the Hague Convention which is so limited in its scope that a woman fleeing her partner in Australia with her child because of domestic abuse was forced to return to him – as the issue of domestic abuse could not be used as a reason under the Hague Convention as it would have to be decided in Australia. The man then broke all his promises to the court.

Another case involved the hostile environment against child asylum seekers who faced female genital mutilation in their own country. Though the practice is illegal in the UK, the Home Office decided to split two sisters – allowing an 11 year old to stay but to deport her 14 year old sister on the wrong grounds she was too old to have FGM. After a desperate battle Charlotte managed to prevent the 14 year old from being deported.

The final part of the book turns the tables on Charlotte herself when she finds herself facing a tribunal at the Bar Standards Board for bringing the judiciary into disrepute – while far worse attacks are made against her on line by other barristers and men who lost their cases.

The tribunal decides that the justice system is robust enough to accept her on line criticisms of it – and board loses the case. The arguments put by the board to discredit her frankly look pathetic.

What this devastating book shows is that we still have along way to go to reform the judiciary and end the outdated boys club mentality. But Charlotte Proudman is on the right side of history and I am sure will prevail.

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

Please donate to Westminster Confidential

£10.00

Ministry of Justice and Lady Chief Justice Dame Sue Carr refuse to explain the lawfulness of withholding official ET court records

Posted on September 23, 2024 by davidhencke

05/07/2024. London, United Kingdom.Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, Shabana Mahmood. poses for a photograph following her appointment to Cabinet by Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer in 10 Downing Street. Picture by Lauren Hurley / No 10 Downing Street

By David Hencke and Alison McDermott

Direct complaint to the Lord Chancellor signed by 150 people is being blocked by officials at the Ministry of Justice

Whitehall and the judiciary are engaged in an extraordinary exercise to block, obfuscate and deny there is a legal issue over the public release of judge’s notes where they amount to an official record in employment tribunals.

We are now in the absurd position of Barry Clarke, the President of Employment Tribunals in England and Wales, both admitting the judge’s notes where tribunals are not recorded are the only official record but saying at the same they must remain private because they are personal notes under the Data Protection Act.

Employment tribunals are already in transition. After a new practice ruling the aim is that all hearings will be recorded but that is not happening yet in many cases. Also transcripts of the hearings can be made available but litigants have to buy them at huge cost and are not provided before the six weeks deadline to appeal. So what’s the point of them ?

But for a majority of tribunals the only official record is the judge’s notes – which can be used by appeal judges when they are adjudicating on an appeal to guide them. Barry Clarke has recently ruled that they are the official record but the public, press and both parties involved in a case cannot see them.

Thus the one vital official record of what the judge has recorded about the case is kept secret – contrary to any policy of transparency and open justice. It also means judges are not open to scrutiny, could be biased against either the claimant or defendant, are out of step with other European court systems and in the days of digital recordings, keep an archaic system of hand written notes. It also means if there are complaints against judges – the secrecy of the notes means the judge can withhold the information to prove it which is very helpful to an errant judge.

So what is legal position of this which allows this type of official record to be withheld? This is the question that led Alison McDermott, a former ET complainant against Sellafield, and 150 other people to wrote to the Lord Chancellor demanding an explanation, using the examples I have quoted and many more.

The letter is here. But guess what? You can’t send it direct to the Lord Chancellor’s Office or even to the Lord Chancellor as an MP unless you are a constituent in Birmingham, Ladywood. Instead you can only write to the ministry of justice and hope it can be passed on.

So Alison McDermott and I decided another tack. I put questions into the Ministry of Justice press office to ask for explanations. Alison had previously been told by Dame Sue Carr, the Lady Chief Justice that the only way she would get answers was to go to the Appeal Courts – an incredibly expensive business. This is also absurd as it puts the onus on the claimant to get a ruling to clarify the law and makes a lot of money for lawyers. Most people are not involved in tribunals so why should they be denied from knowing where the law stands?.

These are the questions I put to the Ministry of Justice which it refused to answer:

1.Does the MoJ agree that an official record of legal proceedings, including Employment Tribunal hearings, must be made available to parties and the public?

2.Which specific law or authority allows judges to withhold their notes from ET proceedings, given that ET President Barry Clarke has recently confirmed that these notes serve as the official record where no other record exists?

3. If no such law or authority exists will the MoJ commit to releasing all judges’ notes?

4.. If not, does the MoJ acknowledge that judges’ notes cannot be considered the official record, as official records must be accessible?

5. In the absence of an accessible official record, does the MoJ agree this breaches the right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the Human Rights Act? If not, what is the justification?

6. Why is the MOJ suggesting that this can be resolved by individual appeals, as proposed by the Lady Chief Justice to Ms McDermott, rather than providing a clear policy response that would benefit all ET users?

Answer came there none. The ministry declined to answer any questions and said it was a matter for the Judicial Office to answer the questions.

I put the same questions to the Judicial Office press office. I heard nothing for a week and then sent them a reminder. The initial response was to refer them back to the Ministry of Justice until they suddenly realised I had already contacted them.

The office then sent a reply. This is it.

“We have answered the questions we can from a judicial perspective (see below) but other questions are for not for us and you may wish to ask other parts of Government.

Parties involved in an Employment Tribunals are given decisions following a hearing. If the decision is a judgment, the Tribunal will either give an oral judgment with reasons or reserve its decision and give a written decision at a later date. ” It goes on to quote existing rules and procedures.

So here we have it. They haven’t answered my questions. There is a failure to confirm what the lawful basis is for a judge to withhold the official record of an ET hearing and they have side stepped whether the refusal to do so breaches the right to a fair trial.

Judge Barry Clarke, president of the England Wales employment tribunals- an outlier with Europe advocating secrecy

Alison using AI found how outdated and Nethanderal this is compared to other advanced democracies. In France, Germany, Spain, the Netherlands, Sweden, Belgium and Italy all parties have access to the judges’ notes. This leaves the UK as an outlier, failing to provide basic transparency in proceedings that can have life-altering consequences. .

It added: “The practices in these European countries generally support greater transparency and access to court records, including judges’ notes, in employment cases. This trend aligns with principles of fair trial and effective appeal rights, as parties are given the opportunity to fully understand and, if necessary, challenge the basis of decisions made against them.”

The conclusions using AI are very powerful;

“The current state of the UK’s employment tribunal system is untenable and legally questionable. It operates on a contradiction that undermines the very principles of justice it’s meant to uphold. The solution is clear, legally grounded, and non-negotiable:

Judges’ notes must be released to all parties.
All hearings must be recorded.
These records must be made accessible to all parties involved.
These steps are essential for maintaining the integrity of the UK’s legal system, ensuring compliance with human rights law, and upholding the principles of natural justice and open courts. The time for obfuscation and delay is over. It’s time to resolve this legal paradox and restore faith in our justice system. Release the notes, record the hearings, and let justice be truly seen to be done.”

Only in the UK do we pursue a policy of secrecy masquerading as privacy to cover up official records, frustrating claimants and respondents in employment tribunals, and protecting judges from any scrutiny that could effectively challenge them. What a backward country we are. A judicial review can change this and looking at procedures in Europe eventually lead to a well deserved adverse ruling against the UK in the European Court of Human Rights. We understand that the Lord Chancellor holds the copyright to all court records so she can decide to release them.