Written by A growing chorus of whistleblowers, doctors, and legal professionals is calling for urgent action against Employment Judge Lancaster, who faces mounting allegations of bullying, bias, and judicial misconduct in the UK’s Employment Tribunal system. Despite a string of complaints, overturned judgments, and media exposés, the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office (JCIO) has so far refused to launch a full investigation—prompting campaigners to take the matter to court.
A Pattern Too Serious to Ignore
The campaign, led by sellafield whistleblower Alison McDermott FCIPD and supported by leading human rights lawyers Deighton Pierce Glynn, highlights a troubling pattern: 13 formal complaints, five judgments overturned on appeal with damning criticism, and three BBC reports detailing “bullying and misogyny” in Judge Lancaster’s courtroom. Yet, to date, there has been no official investigation into his conduct.
The majority of complainants are women and ethnic minority professionals, raising further concerns about systemic injustice within the tribunal system.
Doctors Speak Out: “This Is Not Justice”
In a recent video, two doctors shared their experiences of appearing before Judge Lancaster. Dr Hinaa Toheed, a GP, described being shouted at 16 times in three days—a fact corroborated by her barrister, who is also a judge. “He was shocked at what he had witnessed and therefore released his notes, and we made a complaint about him. Regardless of that, the Senior President of the Employment Tribunal did nothing about it,” Dr Toheed said.
Dr B, a consultant cardiologist, recounted how his whistleblowing on multiple patient deaths was met with hostility. “Judge Lancaster willfully ignored evidence of false death certificates and cover-up by the Trust. I’m now forced to take legal action to address this injustice,” he said. Dr B added, “If this was a doctor, they would have been investigated by the GMC by now, but because it was a judge, nothing has been done”.
Both doctors allege that Judge Lancaster blocked and ignored evidence, treated claimants in a hostile manner, and that complaints about his conduct have been piling up for years. “We all went to the Employment Tribunal to seek justice, and instead, we found Employment Judge Lancaster. He shouted at us, he blocked and ignored evidence, and treated the claimants in a hostile manner. For seven years, complaints have been piling up about Employment Judge Lancaster, and it was after we went to the BBC that more people came forward,” Dr B said.
A System Without Scrutiny
Campaigners argue that the lack of audio recordings in tribunal hearings allows judges’ notes to stand as the official record, making it nearly impossible to prove when evidence is ignored or unfairness occurs. “We were horrified to discover that our hearings were not recorded. The Justice Secretary told my MP that if there is no audio recording the judge’s notes stand as the official court record. Yet Judge Lancaster, facing multiple charges of misconduct, is being allowed to block the evidence that could prove it. This is not justice — it’s a travesty that strips us of the right to a fair trial,” said Alison McDermott, a Sellafield whistleblower.
Taking the Fight to Court
With the JCIO refusing to investigate, campaigners are now seeking a judicial review to compel the watchdog to act. They argue that the case is about more than individual grievances: it is about protecting the 35,000 tribunal users each year from unaccountable judges and ensuring that those who risk their careers to expose wrongdoing are not silenced.
The legal team, which includes barristers from Blackstone, Doughty Street, and Goldsmith Chambers, has already slashed its fees to support the case. However, campaigners must raise £30,000 to bring the matter before the courts. If the campaign does not reach its initial target, all donations will be returned.
A Call for Public Support
“This case is bigger than us: if this can happen to multiple whistleblowers, it can happen to you and your loved ones,” the campaign states. “They have the power. With your help, we’ll have justice.”
The campaigners have set a deadline of November to file their judicial review application, warning that every day counts in their fight for accountability.
For more information, or to support the campaign, visit the official fundraising page.
Legal Disclaimer
This article is published for public interest commentary and educational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice, nor does it target or defame any specific individual. Any references to judicial conduct, institutions, or systemic failures are based on publicly available information, reported cases, and fair comment. Readers should seek independent legal advice for any personal matters.
Thank you for this article, I have only ascertained the gist of the story as my knowledge of my mental health impairment disabilities prevent me from reading in full due to concentration issues and triggering impairments. Via Open Letter (i.e. released to press, but response awaiting) to my MP and a Regional Employment Judge of yesterday (18/12/2025). I thought it appropriate to inform of the 13 questions that I have asked my MP to table to the Minister for answering my Secretary of State for Justice. Not only is JCIO dismissing misconduct complaint by misconstruction of a Judicial Conduct Rule, there is a conflict of interest when Judges are Crown Servants and Respondent is government department.
Q1. What assessment has been made of the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office’s interpretation of
Rule 23(c) of the Judicial Conduct Rules 2023.
Q2. Is the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office’s interpretation of Rule 23(c) consistent with its
statutory remit.
Q3. What publicly available authority, rule, guidance, or other source supports the Judicial Conduct
Investigations Office’s position that misconduct is limited to judges’ personal behaviour.
Q4. If the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office’s interpretation of Rule 23(c) of the Judicial Conduct
Rules 2023 is consistent with its statutory remit, what steps will be taken to assure consistency across guidance and rules.
Q5. Whether the Government will legislate to make the Equal Treatment Bench Book a mandatory
standard in Equality Act 2010 and Human Rights Act 1998 proceedings.
Q6. Whether the Government will amend tribunal procedure rules to make the Equal Treatment
Bench Book a mandatory standard in Equality Act 2010 and Human Rights Act 1998 proceedings.
Q7. How many disability discrimination claims have been struck out by the Employment Tribunal or
Employment Appeal Tribunal between 1 December 2023 and 30 November 2025 on the basis that
the tribunal considered the evidence insufficient to establish that a claimant was unfit to attend a
hearing.
Q8. Under what statutory or procedural authority Employment Tribunal judges may determine that
evidence is insufficient to establish that a claimant with a mental health disability is unfit to attend a
hearing.
Q9. What safeguards exist to ensure that determinations about the fitness of claimants with mental
health disabilities to attend hearings respect the principle that such individuals manage their own
conditions and lifestyle.
Q10. What safeguards exist to ensure that determinations about the fitness of claimants with mental
health disabilities to attend hearings are not based on judicial or medical assumptions about
capability.
Q11. What mechanisms are available to Parliament to validate that judges are acting impartially and
independently in accordance with the Lord Chancellor’s duty under the Constitutional Reform Act
2005.
Q12. What steps are being taken to remove conflicts of interest in Employment Tribunal and
Employment Appeal Tribunal proceedings where the respondent is a government department and
the judges are also servants of the Crown.
Q13. What steps are being taken to mitigate conflicts of interest in Employment Tribunal and
Employment Appeal Tribunal proceedings where the respondent is a government department and
the judges are also servants of the Crown
My other observation is that Government, Parliament and Judicial Office Holders are exploiting Foucalt overarching principle that“ Power and knowledge directly imply one another.” — Discipline and Punish (1975) Michel Foucault (1926–1984) was a French philosopher and historian best known for analyzing how power and knowledge intertwine to shape society.
Footnotes
1. Illusory Truth Effect – Repetition of a statement increases its perceived truth, even when false. See: Hasher, L., Goldstein, D., & Toppino, T. (1977). “Frequency and the conference of referential validity.” *Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior*, 16(1), 107–112.
2. Learned Helplessness – When repeated failure or uncontrollable events lead individuals to stop trying. See: Seligman, M.E.P. (1972). “Learned helplessness.” *Annual Review of Medicine*, 23, 407–412.
3. Epistemic Injustice – When someone’s testimony is discredited due to prejudice or identity. See: Fricker, M. (2007). *Epistemic Injustice: Power and the Ethics of Knowing.* Oxford University Press.
4. Cognitive Dissonance – Psychological discomfort from holding contradictory beliefs, leading to rationalisation. See: Festinger, L. (1957). *A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance.* Stanford University Press.e