A WHISTLEBLOWING judge was bullied and suffered a breakdown after speaking out over government cuts.
District judge Claire Gilham - who sat at Warrington County Court, which has since closed - says she has been ‘treated detrimentally as a result of raising concerns about systemic failings in the court administration’.
She will appear at the Supreme Court in London today, Wednesday, in a bid to have her claims aired at an employment tribunal.
Warrington County Court
Judge Gilham, who expressed concerns about the dangers she says are posed to courts as a result of cuts, went on sick leave in January 2013 but recently began working again.
‘Bullying and being overloaded with work’ led to her suffering a breakdown and unable to work for several years.
Lawyers acting on behalf of judge Gilham issued a statement ahead of the Supreme Court appeal, stating that she is ‘determined to get clarity on the law and to ensure that judges benefit from legal protection against unfair treatment for blowing the whistle’.
Emilie Cole, a partner in law firm Irwin Mitchell's employment team, said: “Everyone should have the right to blow the whistle, safe in the knowledge that they will be protected from harm for doing so.
“Anything that stands in the way of an individual expressing concerns about health and safety and breaches of the law can't be in the public interest or benefit wider society.”
District judge Claire Gilham
Judge Gilham has already endured a lengthy legal battle to have her case heard, losing a test case against the Ministry of Justice in December 2017.
She first presented claims to the employment tribunal of ‘public interest disclosure detriments’ and disability discrimination in February 2015.
Poor and unsafe working conditions and an excessive workload in the courts were cited in these disclosures.
But legally, judges are not afforded protections given to whistleblowers under employment legislation because they are classed as office holders and not workers.
Supreme Court justices – including president Lady Brenda Hale – are being asked to decide whether the judge worked under a contract of employment, and is therefore defined as a worker.
Judge Gilham’s lawyers will argue that the failure to extend whistleblowing protections to justices breaches their human rights.
The appeal will be heard over two days, with justices expected to reserve the previous decision.
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel