When District Judge Claire Gilham raised concerns about courtroom security, workload and administrative failures, she first approached people responsible for running the courts. Years later, one obstacle stood between her and a hearing about how she said she had been treated. Judges hold a statutory office. Who, exactly, was her employer?
The dispute about who could bring the claim
For many people with a job, the starting point is a contract. A judge’s powers, independence and conditions of office have a different foundation. The Supreme Court accepted that Gilham did not have an ordinary worker’s contract and that she was outside Crown employment for this purpose. Earlier courts had treated this as a barrier to her whistleblowing claim.
The justices then asked what happened to freedom of expression if judges alone could be denied protections available to comparable people raising public-interest concerns. Article 10 of the European Convention protects expression. Article 14 addresses discriminatory treatment in the enjoyment of Convention rights. The government offered no adequate justification for the difference arising from judicial office.
What the Supreme Court decided
The court read the whistleblowing provisions so judicial office-holders could claim their protection. It sent the case back to the Employment Tribunal. That ruling opened the tribunal door. It left the tribunal to decide what had been disclosed, how Gilham had been treated and whether the required link between the two was established.
Reconstruct the report before interpreting the response
If a similar issue arises, begin with the earliest report. What information did you give, to whom, on what date, and whom did you believe the risk could affect? Then make a separate record of each later decision and who knew about the report when it was made. Keeping those two sequences distinct can reveal a gap in the evidence as readily as it can reveal a link.
Keep your own lawful records. If a document contains confidential information about someone else, describe it to an adviser before copying or sharing it. Seek timely advice about the deadlines that apply to your circumstances.
Read Gilham v Ministry of Justice [2019] UKSC 44, especially paragraphs 26–46.
For the separate question of a hidden motive behind a dismissal, read the Royal Mail v Jhuti case note. You can also arrange an individual consultation about your own timeline.
Hear why judicial office made a difference
UK Supreme Court · Judgment hand-down · 16 October 2019
Listen for the step from employment status to freedom of expression. The court explains why a judge could pursue this type of claim. The later question of what actually happened at work was for the tribunal.
