20 Jan High Court grants permission for judicial review to proceed against the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office amidst sanctioning of Employment Judge
For the first time in its history, the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office (“JCIO”) will have its interpretation of “judicial misconduct” scrutinised by the High Court, in a case concerning allegations of bullying and inappropriate conduct against Employment Judge Lancaster.
On 15 January 2026, a group of three women, Susannah Hickman‑Gray, Alison McDermott and Dr Hinaa Toheed, were granted permission to bring a claim for judicial review against the JCIO by the High Court. They form part of a wider group of 10 complainants, each claiming to have suffered bullying, intimidation, banging of the table and/or excessive interruption from Judge Lancaster during the course of their Employment Tribunal hearings over the last 7 years. The number of those impacted has grown so large that the BBC has reported on his conduct and the complaints about him on several occasions.
The JCIO refused to investigate all but one of their complaints, primarily on the basis that their complaints could not amount to misconduct as they took place within the context of “case management”, which, the JCIO says, is an untouchable part of the judicial function that it cannot scrutinise. Others were rejected on the basis that a specific time stamp for the alleged misconduct had not been provided, despite the fact that all complainants were denied transcripts of their hearings, and many did not have lawyers. The JCIO dismissed the one complaint it did investigate on the basis that there was insufficient evidence of misconduct. One complaint, raised by Dr Toheed, was held in abeyance pending her appeal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal. As a consequence, Judge Lancaster has remained in post, and his conduct has continued to adversely affect litigants who have come before him.
In adopting this approach, the JCIO has exemplified the exact problems identified by Harriet Harman in her “Independent review of bullying and harassment at the Bar”, published on 8 September 2025. She stated that she was concerned “by the rejection of some … allegations on the grounds that ‘case management’ is out of scope. Bullying can still take place in the context of case management decisions”. She also raised concerns that the requirement “to identify the exact or approximate timings of the alleged misconduct” was an “unreasonable threshold”.
The women brought a claim for judicial review against the JCIO’s decision. They argue that:
- The JCIO incorrectly excludes all issues of “case management” from its definition of misconduct. The Judicial Conduct Rules 2023 and common sense make clear that misconduct can take place within judicial case management.
- The requirement to identify the timing of the alleged misconduct was procedurally unfair in circumstances where complainants are routinely refused access to audio records or transcripts of their hearings, and may be unrepresented.
- Individual incidents should not be isolated from each other, and instead their cumulative effect should be considered.
In granting permission in full for the Claimants to proceed to a substantive hearing (most likely later this year), Mr Justice Johnson observed:
“It is arguable that although there is a conceptual difference between misconduct and judicial case management, they are not mutually exclusive, such that complaints of misconduct may be investigated under the 2023 Rules even if the alleged conduct took place in the context of judicial case management.”
The Court has directed that Judge Lancaster be joined as an Interested Party, enabling him to participate in the proceedings, and has granted the Claimants a costs‑capping order, recognising that the claim raises issues of wider public importance. The Claimants are Crowdfunding for the case here.
On the same date that permission was granted, the JCIO announced that the Lady Chief Justice, with the agreement of the Lord Chancellor, had issued Judge Lancaster with “formal advice for misconduct”. This finding was in respect of a complaint by Dr Toheed which was made almost four years ago, after Dr Toheed’s barrister recorded that during her employment tribunal hearing in February 2022 Judge Lancaster shouted at her at least 16 times.
Dr. Toheed, whose story has been reported widely, stated: “I came to court because I was being bullied by a man only to be bullied by another man”. In upholding Dr Toheed’s complaint, the President of the Employment Tribunals found that Judge Lancaster had “raised his voice on several occasions” and interrupted Dr Toheed’s evidence during cross-examination “to an extent which was inappropriate, and which created a hostile environment”. However, the lowest level of sanction was recommended and issued to Judge Lancaster, partly based on his “20-year unblemished conduct record as a judge”.
Emily Soothill, partner and solicitor at Deighton Pierce Glynn, has said: “We are pleased that Dr Toheed has finally been vindicated, especially when the vast majority of complaints against judges are dismissed. However, the level of sanction given to Judge Lancaster was lessened on account of his “20-year unblemished conduct record as a judge” when we are aware that numerous complaints of judicial bullying and inappropriate conduct have been raised against this same judge over at least seven years. It is very concerning that the Lady Chief Justice and the Lord Chancellor were not made aware of this and we consider that this is indicative of the systemic issues within the judicial complaints system which our clients have raised.
It is fitting, therefore, that on the same day as this sanction against Judge Lancaster was announced, the High Court granted permission on all grounds for our clients to proceed to a substantive hearing in their claim for judicial review against the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office regarding its handling of their complaints against Judge Lancaster. This decision recognises the seriousness of the potential failings in how complaints against the judiciary are investigated and the importance of the public being able to have confidence in those processes”.
Emily Soothill, Catherine Dowle and Öykü Aktaş of Deighton Pierce Glynn are instructed by the Claimants. Counsel instructed in the claim are Charlotte Kilroy KC of Blackstone Chambers and Finnian Clarke of Doughty Street Chambers.
You can read further press-coverage of the case here: https://www.thetimes.com/uk/law/article/shouting-judge-humiliated-me-at-my-sex-discrimination-tribunal-khr7x8585?gaa_at=eafs&gaa_n=AWEtsqdpWp2CUf4tBDIp6427ntYclREokeoehy3TXaTt-2jA7VKzl3ppD8ra&gaa_ts=696f5d66&gaa_sig=z-6FxadnGskFxSVYP30qmRsCfRo0LEXZOIzq_jTXMZ5KoWhpc9fmK6mBUmatIc5igGrrYgqrQsc-2N9qxK8ykg%3D%3D
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce3vwzd01n5o
For further information please contact mail@dpglaw.co.uk
Share this story
