Judge Wins Landmark Whistleblowing Case In Uk Supreme Court – TheNigerialawyer

A judge who says she was bullied and suffered a breakdown after
raising concerns about Government cuts has won a landmark appeal at
the UK’s highest court.

District Judge Claire Gilham has been involved in a lengthy
legal wrangle to have a “whistleblowing” claim aired at an
employment tribunal.

A unanimous ruling by five Supreme Court justices on Wednesday
means that her case can now proceed at a tribunal.

The judge, who sat at Warrington County Court in Cheshire, says
she was “treated detrimentally as a result of raising concerns
about systemic failings in the court administration”.

“I can reach no other conclusion than that the
Employment Rights Act should be read and given effect so as to
extend its whistleblowing protection to the holders of judicial
office” ..Supreme Court president Lady Hale

But to date she had suffered defeat in her battle to bring a
whistleblowing claim against the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) in the
employment tribunal, losing a test case at the Court of Appeal in
December 2017.

At the heart of the case are findings that judges are not
afforded the legal protections given to whistleblowers under
employment legislation because they are not classed as “workers”
but are office-holders.

In February 2015, Ms Gilham presented claims to the employment
tribunal of “public interest disclosure detriments” –
whistleblowing – and disability discrimination.

The disclosures concerned what were said to be poor and unsafe
working conditions and an excessive workload in the courts where
she was based, affecting herself and other judges.

The MoJ contested the tribunal’s jurisdiction to entertain the
whistleblowing claim because she was not a “worker” within the
meaning of the 1996 Employment Rights Act.

The Act says: “A worker has the right not to be subjected to any
detriment by any act, or any deliberate failure to act, by his
employer, done on the ground that the worker has made a protected
disclosure.”

Supreme Court justices ruled that the judge, and other judicial
office-holders, were entitled to claim the protection given to
whistleblowers under the 1996 Act.

Allowing her challenge against the earlier Court of Appeal
decision, the justices remitted her case back to the employment
tribunal “on the basis that the appellant is entitled to claim the
protection given to whistleblowers under the Act.”

Supreme Court president Lady Hale announced: “I can reach no
other conclusion than that the Employment Rights Act should be read
and given effect so as to extend its whistleblowing protection to
the holders of judicial office.”

During the 2017 proceedings, a QC representing the judge said
her case was that “she was bullied and overloaded with work to the
extent that she suffered a breakdown which led to her being unable
to work for years”.

Judge Gilham said after the ruling: “Winning is a great relief
after these seven long years.

“Ethically I always knew that my point was right: that judges
should have human rights protections.

“You can’t have justice without independent and unafraid judges,
and if judges can’t speak out to protect the court system, then
justice suffers and the people caught up in the system suffer
too.

“I look forward to my claims being heard in the employment
tribunal.”

Emilie Cole, a partner at law firm Irwin Mitchell, who has
represented District Judge Gilham since the start of the litigation
in 2014, said: “This judgment is a great win for my client, Judge
Gilham.

“She has fought hard for many years to achieve recognition for
whistleblowing protection.

“Widening the scope of whistleblowing protection is
fundamentally in the public interest and benefits wider
society.

“The recognition by the Supreme Court that an occupational
classification is capable of protection as a ‘status’ under Article
14 of ECHR (European Convention on Human Rights) has far reaching
consequences.

“Non-contractual office holders are now capable of claiming
legal protection for blowing the whistle … this is a massive step
forward in equality law and will have wide implications for the
greater good. Justice has finally prevailed.”

The Supreme Court ruled that the failure to extend
whistleblowing protections to judicial office-holders was a
“violation” of District Judge Gilham’s right not to be
discriminated against “in her enjoyment of the rights” under the
European Convention on Human Rights.

The court said she had been treated less favourably than others
who make responsible public interest disclosures protected by the
Employment Rights Act.

Lady Hale said: “There is no evidence that either the Government
or Parliament addressed their minds to this difference in
treatment, nor has any legitimate aim been put forward for it.”

She explained that the object of the protection “was to give
workers the confidence to raise malpractice within their
organisation rather than placing them in a position where they feel
driven to raise concerns externally”.

She added: “It is just as important that members of the
judiciary have that confidence. They are just as vulnerable to
certain types of detriment as are others in the workplace.

“To give the judiciary such protection might be thought to
enhance their independence by reducing the risk that they might be
tempted to ‘go public’ with their concerns, because of the fear
that there was no other avenue available to them, and thus
unwillingly be drawn into what might be seen as a political
debate.”

Culled from countypress.co.uk