Watchdog re-examines 'bullying' claims against Judge Philip Lancaster

A judicial watchdog will re-examine 10 misconduct complaints against Judge Philip Lancaster after a High Court challenge.

According to the BBC, the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office (JCIO) has backed down. It will now reconsider the complaints ahead of a court hearing.

The 10 complaints against Philip Lancaster span a seven-year period. Nine of the complainants are female.

They alleged they suffered bullying, intimidation and excessive interruption during employment tribunal hearings presided over by the Leeds-based judge. The JCIO had previously dismissed most of the allegations. It argued they were "case management" issues beyond its powers to scrutinise.

It also said other complaints were filed without a specific time, though complainants had been denied transcripts of their hearings. This case marks the first time the JCIO will face a High Court examination of its definition of 'judicial misconduct'.

The dramatic U-turn came after three women launched legal action. They argued the watchdog's approach was "procedurally unfair".

"If multiple complaints had been made about the same doctor, that would have raised alarm bells," said Dr Hinaa Toheed, a GP.

"Yet despite repeated concerns about Judge Lancaster's conduct, he continued to preside over cases while complainants were battling simply to be heard."

Another complainant, Alison McDermott, criticised the authorities. She said others may have been "exposed to the same conduct".

The women are now raising serious questions about the role of Judge Barry Clarke, the President of Employment Tribunals.

They said he was repeatedly told of an emerging pattern but took no meaningful action. In a letter, he noted Lancaster's "previous good record."

"I cannot adequately describe the stress of receiving call after call from different women about Judge Lancaster," McDermott explained.

For the unknown, the JCIO's annual report showed 2,394 complaints in 2023-24. A significant 59 per cent were not accepted. Their lawyer Emily Soothill said a "proper and lawful investigation" is now needed so public confidence can be restored.