Tag Archives: judicial conduct investigation office

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

Posted on by
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.

An appeal for ten brave women who want to challenge a bullying employment judge

Posted on by
Judge Philip Lancaster

I don’t usually run appeals for money on my blog but I am making an exception in this case because of the huge injustice in the employment tribunal system that allows some judges to insult, berate and patronise women who come before them.

if you want to donate this is the link. DO NOT CLICK ON THE YELLOW BUTTON ON TOP OF THE PAGE WHERE IT SAYS DONATE – as this will go to the general fund for the Good Law Project and not to the women. INSTEAD SCROLL DOWN AND CLICK ON DONATE BY CARD.

To do so they have to get a judicial review against the Judicial Conduct Investigation Office which is both refusing to investigate their complaints and ironically believes it is above our freedom of information laws so it doesn’t have to answer any questions from the press or the public on simple facts like how many complaints there have been against judges. This view is not shared by the Information Commissioner who ruled it should comply with FOI but the Ministry of Justice is planning to appeal this decision.

The case the women want to bring is not just against the bullying Judge Philip Lancaster – but against the whole employment tribunal system which doesn’t allow access to judges’ notes and does not produce court records for all cases and even when it does makes sure it is very expensive to get hold of them.

The women’s case has been taken up by the Good Law Project but the women still have to raise some £13,OOO to cover legal opinions. So far they have raised just over £5000. The case was covered by me in Byline Times here. Now it has been taken up by the BBC programme Look North.

You can see their report below.

BBC Look North coverage of the complaints against Judge Lancaster with interviews with Alison McDermott and Dr Hinaa Toheed.

The treatment of management and diversity consultant Alison Mcdermott, by Sellafield who spent £750,000 on top flight lawyers to oppose her claim at an employment tribunal presided over by judge Lancaster led to her local MP Anna Dixon to request an apology from Sellafield’s chief Euan Hutton at a recent Parliamentary hearing. None was forthcoming.
Dr Hinnha Toheed, a GP, tells how she was shouted at 16 times by Judge Lancaster during a maternity discrimination hearing
She says: “Judge Lancaster shouted at me 16 times, called my case an “omnishambles” before we had even begun, and showed open bias and contempt throughout the hearing. The experience was devastating. My barrister formally documented his behaviour and submitted a written statement to support my complaint. Yet despite this evidence, the system protected him — and he remains in post to this day.”

She is one of two doctors and a nurse who have put in complaints about Judge Lancaster.

These women need support to get to the position of bringing a judicial review because of the enormous cost of doing so – another barrier against people being able to challenge the judiciary. Their legal team include Emily Soothill of Deighton Pierce Glynn, Dr. Charlotte Proudman, and a prominent King’s Counsel have agreed to capped fees. But they need this money to be able to pay for this advice – and that is why there is a need for this crowdfunder.

II have chosen not to call for any donations for my site on this blog so the money can go direct to the women.

Top judicial body challenged by Information Commissioner to take freedom of information requests over complaints against judges

Posted on by
John Edwards, Information Commissioner

A ground breaking decision by the Information Commissioner which would lead to the end of secrecy around the behaviour of judges will soon be tested in one of the highest tribunals in the country.

For years the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office, which, among other matters investigates complaints against judges, has claimed it is a private independent body which is not subject to the Freedom of Information Act, which covers the rest of Whitehall and the courts. It tells anyone who puts in a request that a reply will be discretionary and refuses to give the information.

And the Ministry of Justice, which is subject to the Freedom of Information Act, if asked the same information sidesteps the issue by saying it doesn’t hold the information.

Now John Edwards, the Information Commissioner, has blown the JCIO’s defence apart by saying it is a public body and like the rest of government should have to answer freedom of information requests.

Information Commissioner backing complainants

By doing so, he is backing at least two complainants who have taken their cases through tribunals plus numerous other people who have sought to get into the public domain how many judges are subject to complaints. The whole matter is going to be settled in an appeal to the Upper Tier Tribunal after a judge ruled that the decision by the Information Commissioner has to be included in the proceedings.

The Ministry of Justice, on behalf of the JCIO, is seeking to squash the decision. No date has been fixed yet for the hearing.

The Information Commissioner’s says: “the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice (now Lady Chief Justice)are jointly responsible for judicial discipline’. The JCIO, therefore supports not just the Lord Chief Justice but also the Lord Chancellor in relation to such matters.

“This highlights how the structure of the JO and JCIO is not simply to support the judiciary, with wider public functions included within its ambit. The Commissioner further notes that the Judicial Appointment and Conduct Ombudsman, the statutory office sitting at the head of the complaints process of which the JCIO is part, was added by parliament to the scope of FOIA. In the Commissioner’s view, it seems unlikely that it would have concluded that the operation of part of this process should fall in scope of FOIA, with others outside of it.”

“Based on the summary above, the Commissioner’s conclusion is that the JCIO is part of the JO, which, while operating at arms length in practice, is still part of the MOJ for the purposes of FOIA.
In light of this, it is not necessary for the JO or JCIO to be listed separately in Schedule 1 FOIA for it to be within scope of the legislation.”

He adds:” Any information request made to the JCIO is effectively a request made to the MOJ and should
be treated as such. This is important in order for the MOJ to carry out its functions under FOIA, and to enable individuals to exercise their statutory right to public information.”

Judge Philip Lancaster

The Information Commissioner’s decision is very important because of its context that judges are being protected by senior members of the judiciary from any scrutiny about their behaviour. The BBC and this blog have already reported that judge Philip Lancaster, an employment judge, has received as many as 12 complaints from women who have appeared before him that he is patronising, biased and rude towards female litigants. See my blog here.

Barry Clarke, President of the Employment Tribunals in England, steadfastly refuses to entertain any criticism of his judges thereby blocking any information about complaints. And Baroness Sue Carr, the Lady Chief Justice, appears to be equally protective.

So this ruling while not likely to see the naming of judges will be able to provide the context of just how many complaints there have been and upheld and show the scope of the problem.

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