A group of ten women is challenging the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office (JCIO), arguing that the body fails to hold judges accountable for misconduct.
The legal action, led by Sellafield whistleblower Alison McDermott and GP Dr Hinaa Toheed, is backed by Good Law Project. The group is demanding an investigation into Judge Philip Lancaster, alleging a pattern of bullying, misogynistic and biased behaviour in employment tribunal hearings.
The claimants include two doctors, a nurse and multiple whistleblowers who have all appeared before Judge Lancaster in separate employment tribunal cases. They say they experienced similar conduct, describing it as intimidating, sexist and discriminatory.
Misconduct Allegations
Dr Hinaa Toheed’s barrister recorded that Lancaster shouted at her at least 16 times during a hearing in February 2022.
Later that year, Jackie Moore, who was representing her daughter in a disability discrimination case, described how Lancaster systematically “blocked or challenged” her questions and spoke to her in a manner described as aggressive and dismissive.
Concerns about Lancaster’s conduct have been reinforced by multiple successful employment appeal tribunal challenges against his rulings. In one case, a High Court judge described his comments about a woman as “troubling,” adding further weight to claims that his behaviour has gone unchecked.
‘Crushing Dismissal’ of Complaints
The group argues that their cases highlight serious flaws in the employment tribunal system, particularly the lack of transparency. In many cases, there is no official court record – only Lancaster’s personal notes, which he has refused to release.
The Judicial Conduct Investigations Office has also declined to disclose how many complaints have been made against employment judges, making it difficult to assess the scale of the issue. The claimants believe that this lack of accountability allows judicial misconduct to go unchallenged.
Alison McDermott argued that the JCIO is failing to ensure judicial accountability. “They’ve chosen to protect a system that lets judges abuse their power against women without consequence. One woman after another has reached out to me with the same appalling accounts of Judge Lancaster’s conduct – and the crushing dismissal of their complaints,” she said. “We will not remain silent and stand by as more women are harmed.”
Calls for Greater Oversight of Judicial Conduct
Good Law Project, which is supporting the case, has raised concerns about the broader issue of judicial oversight. Executive Director Jo Maugham said, “Judges are made from the same crooked timber as the rest of us.
“What’s different about them is that their enormous power amplifies the consequences of their failures. So they must be subject to proper oversight and accountability – and we are concerned that that has not happened here.”
The case has drawn attention to the processes governing judicial conduct investigations and whether they offer sufficient safeguards against bias and misconduct. The outcome of this challenge could have implications for how complaints against judges are handled in the future.
Alessandra Pacelli is a journalist and author contributing to HRreview, an HR news and opinion publication, where she covers topics including labour market trends, employment costs, and workplace issues. She is a journalism graduate and self-described lifelong dog lover who has also written for Dogs Today magazine since 2014.
- Alessandra Pacelli
- Alessandra Pacelli
- Alessandra Pacelli
- Alessandra Pacelli
