Judicial Conduct Investigations Office | Westminster Confidential

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Judge Lancaster – the same judge who vilified the now vindicated Alison McDermott- a Sellafield whistleblower over bullying and nuclear safety issues

Judge Philip Lancaster – the controversial employment judge – already facing 16 complaints – nearly all from women – about his handling of their tribunal cases – has now been revealed as having helped a health trust to cover up patient deaths.

An investigation by Michael Buchanan, the BBC’s social affairs correspondent, released yesterday revealed that police are investigating heart patient deaths at Castle Hill Hospital near Hull. His full report which contains disturbing treatment of patients and a “cover up” of the circumstances of their deaths from relatives is here.

The employment tribunal case heard by Judge Lancaster centred around the safety of a procedure called Trans-Catheter-Aortic Valve Implantation (TAVI) – a keyhole surgery method to replace a defective aortic valve in the heart to predominately elderly patients,

The case had been bought against Hull University Teaching Hospitals Trust by consultant cardiologist Dr Thanjavur Bragadeesh, then clinical director of the hospital’s cardiology department, because he had raised safety concerns about the implementation of the procedure which had led to patients deaths.

He had first raised the issue in 2020 to little effect and took the trust to the tribunal as a whistleblower in 2023. In fact he was demoted following raising the issues.

Ranged against him were the trust’s chief medical officer, Dr Makani Purva and three consultant colleagues, Dr.Joseph John, Dr Kumar Chelliah and Dr Manish Ramlall.

He brought 29 claims of detriment and 13 protective disclosures. All detriment claims were dismissed by Judge Lancaster as either being out of time or failed claims which were legally irrelevant.

As a result it was never publicly revealed until yesterday by the BBC that at least 11 patients died following procedural failures, with some death certificates failing to mention the surgery at all. Families were never told the truth. Independent reviews confirmed catastrophic decision-making and a mortality rate three times the national average.

Despite Dr. Bragadeesh’s concerns being validated by external reviews, including those by the Royal College of Physicians, the tribunal did not adequately engage with this substantive evidence. The failure to consider corroborative findings from reputable bodies suggests a potential bias in favour of the employer and a reluctance to hold the institution accountable.

Certainly the Judge Lancaster’s judgement reflects this highlighting similar omissions and gas lighting of whistleblowers as seen in other judgements – notably Judge Tony Hyams Parish ignoring the General Medical Council’s revalidation of whistleblower Dr Usha Prasad, then a cardiologist at Epsom and St Helier Trust and the avoidable death of a heart patient. And Dr Bragadeesh is described as having a ” bullying and undermining attitude” to other consultants – just as Dr Martyn Pitman, the obstetrician, who raised patient safety issues in the maternity services at Hampshire Hospitals NHS trust, was portrayed when he lost his tribunal case.

Yesterday also saw the damning findings of the Commons Public Accounts committee on Sellafield which showed that Sellafield had paid out £377,000 to staff to end labour disputes and had issued 16 non disclosure agreements to staff to cover up complaints. This vindicated Alison McDermott’s portrayal of the place at risk over nuclear safety and a bullying culture.

Still Sellafield and the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority are using the findings of Judge Lancaster’s flawed judgements to gaslight her.

In a joint public statement they said: “This case has been thoroughly litigated through an Employment Tribunal, Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) and the Court of Appeal. It was found that the claims made against Sellafield Ltd in this case were entirely without substance, and there was no basis for claims against the NDA.”

Try telling that to the MPs who wrote the report on Sellafield who say they are not convinced by claims that everything is OK or to the Department for Energy who admonished both organisations and said they must crack down on bullying.

There is a much wider issue to all of this. It is the question of the public accountability. Judge Lancaster is being protected by the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office. Despite a growing pile of complaints from women and from Dr Bragadeesh about his behaviour at tribunal hearings, it refuses to act on any of them. It is also fighting the Information Commissioner to prevent the public and press being able to put in any freedom of information requests.

By doing so they risk bringing the judicial system into disrepute and in my view they lack a moral compass.

If they continue to do this, they are acting as a party to suppressing patient safety in the National Health Service and in the case of Sellafield, because it is such a contaminated and dangerous place, putting the general public at risk.

Baroness Sue Carr, the Lady Chief Justice, and Shabana Mahmood, the Lord Chancellor, who both receive advice from the JCIO, should be wary about ignoring these developments, because at some stage they are going to come back and bite them.