Soothill: Urgent investigation needed
A group of 10 people are threatening a judicial review against the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office (JCIO) unless it investigates a judge’s alleged misogynistic and bullying behaviour.
The group has demanded the JCIO open “a proper investigation” into all of their complaints about Employment Judge Lancaster in Leeds.
“[I]t is now clear that Judge Lancaster has repeatedly engaged in misconduct in his judicial role over many years,” said a pre-action letter from their solicitors, London firm Deighton Pierce Glynn (DPG).
“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 reported in March that a nearly all-female legal team had been instructed to work out how best to pursue the complaints, which come mostly from female claimants.
The action is supported by the Good Law Project, which is seeking to crowdfund £13,200 for the initial advice. It has so far raised nearly £6,100. The lawyers are working on capped fees.
According to the DPG letter, a complaint from one of the group was submitted in May and remained outstanding.
“The others, which were made by the individuals separately, and for the most part without the benefit of legal representation, have been dismissed summarily for a variety of reasons, but without the complaints ever proceeding to a proper investigation of Judge Lancaster’s conduct.
“For example, as far as we are aware, the JCIO has never obtained or listened to an audio recording of Judge Lancaster’s conduct of a hearing.”
DPG said it understood that at least 13 people have so far come forward with allegations about Judge Lancaster’s conduct during Leeds Employment Tribunal hearings – last year, the BBC put the figure at the time as eight women.
It said Sellafield whistleblower Alison McDermott claimed to have faced “aggressive, rude and hostile behaviour” from the judge but her formal complaint was dismissed by the president of the Employment Tribunal and then by the JCIO, “despite two members of the public and two independent journalists separately filing complaints about the way she was treated”.
DPG argued that there have been “systemic failures by the JCIO in the handling of our clients’ complaints to date”.
It explained: “Officials have failed to recognise an emerging pattern of misconduct by Judge Lancaster requiring investigation, despite near-identical concerns being raised by multiple complainants in different proceedings.
“Treating each complaint over a period of at least seven years (2018-2025) in isolation has resulted in a failure to identify what is clearly a pattern of concerning judicial conduct, and corroborating evidence of each complaint which should have been taken into account…
“The JCIO has thereby missed crucial opportunities for intervention and allowed vulnerable court users to continue experiencing similar treatment.”
DPG said it was “of particular concern” is that Employment Appeal Tribunal judges have formally criticised Judge Lancaster’s conduct in published judgments, but no investigation was commenced.
“When appeal judges’ formal criticisms align with a pattern of complaints from court users, this would appear to present compelling evidence of misconduct requiring urgent investigation.”
DPG partner Emily Soothill added: “The evidence we have seen suggests that this judge has engaged in misconduct in his judicial role over many years, including bullying, intimidation, gender bias and discriminatory conduct.
“Notwithstanding this, none of our clients’ complaints have ever proceeded to a proper investigation by the JCIO.
“We consider that this longstanding pattern of behaviour must now be urgently investigated to prevent other litigants becoming victims of this conduct, and to avoid the judiciary being brought further into disrepute.”
A JCIO spokeswoman said it could not comment on live litigation or cases, but added: “The JCIO considers all complaints which it receives carefully in accordance with regulations approved by parliament and supporting rules.”
Leave a Comment