Claire Gilham is suing Ministry of Justice, saying budget cuts and slashed legal aid put pressure on legal system and even expose judiciary to violence

A district judge who is suing the Ministry of Justice after whistleblowing her complaints about courtroom dangers – death threats, violent claimants and hostage-taking – has spoken out for the first time about her experience of an under-resourced justice system.



The challenge mounted by Claire Gilham, formerly deputy director of the Independent Police Complaints Commission, highlights the position of judges who – because they are deemed not to be workers – are exempt from certain employment protections.



Her case is now understood to be before the justice secretary, Michael Gove, and is being appealed to the upper employment tribunal. Her experience of the worst strains inside the family court system reflect wider concerns about the pressure imposed by an influx of unrepresented claimants.



Gilham, 57, was appointed a full-time district judge in 2006 and transferred to Warrington county court in 2009. Two years later, Runcorn county court was closed as part of an MoJ austerity drive and its work transferred to Warrington.



Gilham wrote to a senior judge expressing concern about lack of appropriate courtroom accommodation, the impact on district judges’ workloads and dangers for judges and court staff.



Gilham believes her complaints should be covered by whistleblowing protections but instead said it resulted in her being bullied, overworked and put under additional stress. She eventually suffered a nervous breakdown and has not returned to court since 2013.

Court closures and mergers coincided with cuts to legal aid. Fewer claimants in family cases were entitled to be represented by a solicitor. “[The cuts] fell disproportionately on areas of social stress,” Gilham said.



“When they closed Runcorn court, they promised the resources but they didn’t [appear]. The big inner city courts were protected; they didn’t look at the needs of the court user but the needs of professionals.



“I was working longer hours and had a larger caseload. I was booked up solid for cases three months ahead; I was under constant stress.” Staff at Warrington, she said, organised a vote of no confidence in the courts and tribunals service, HMCTS.



Top judge says justice system is now unaffordable to most Read more

“When they merged the court they cut back staff. There wasn’t any physical space. One person walked into my four-metre-square office [where cases were also heard] and launched herself at me; she had to be restrained. The hearing continued with her suspended in the air.”

Gilham requested better courtroom accommodation but was turned down. “I asked for my own room to be reconfigured because the door was behind the [claimants so she could not get out]. I was under a great deal of stress and feeling at risk.



“Many cases involved drugs and domestic violence. I was contacted by the police who said someone had a settled intention to kill me.” There were concerns he could smuggle in a ceramic knife unnoticed through the security scanner.



“He knew how to get into my room. I was off sick for a time. The police came and put a protection plan in place for my home but there was no risk plan for work.”



Gilham said there was occasionally hostage-taking inside the courts when family cases erupted into angry disputes. Once she had to hide in a locked court room because someone accused of domestic violence was loose in the building.



“We often sat late [because of the caseload], once until 10pm. We had to get through the case. You have to engage with people.”



Earlier this month the lord chief justice, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, in his annual report to parliament pointed out that “there has been a considerable increase of litigants in person for whom our current court system is not really designed”.



Thomas, the head of the judiciary in England and Wales, added that judges felt their burden of work had grown and “are having to handle an ever-increasing quantity of challenging and emotionally charged cases in family and crime … ”



Gilham was on call at weekends and sometimes had to come into court to sentence for breaches of injunctions. She had to work through her lunch hours because there was no other time to draft judgments.

The majority of family cases are dealt with by county court judges. “Workloads are uneven,” Gilham observed. “The higher courts are heavily resourced and people who do that work are protected.



“I would be dealing with sexual abuse cases in my room and sometimes there wouldn’t be a lawyer. I’d be unaccompanied [apart from the warring couple]. You learn to deliver judgments in half an hour. It’s extremely stressful.



Number of female applicants for QC still stubbornly low, selectors say Read more

“Although judges are not employees, they have terms and conditions which include obeying management. They started issuing instructions which were more detailed and directing how we should deal with cases.”



Gilham demanded to see evidence on renewal of interim care orders because she was aware of past mistakes. She insisted on seeing evidence. “There was a danger of miscarriages of justice. I was told I had no discretion but to accept an email. So I defied them.



“Care orders are not routine. Every time we had to renew a care order, we had to have a certificate that it had been agreed. I was being asked to renew orders where there had been no certificate and I wouldn’t. I was told I was unreasonable and difficult … but judicial independence was being undermined.”



Her legal claim – for disability discrimination and denial of her whistleblowing rights – highlights the lack of resources in the court system where “to preserve measurable performance” some staff indulge in “hiding letters in cupboards to avoid dealing with them or not attempting to place documents in files”.



Gilham’s claim – drawn up by her solicitor, Emilie Cole, a partner at the law firm Bindmans – says she was “seriously overworked as a result of the failure to ensure there was sufficient cover for district judges and other judges to hear the cases set out in listings following the [courts] merger”.



It asserts that she should be considered a normal worker because the relationship between a judge and the MoJ involves a “mutuality of obligation” and is effectively contractual.



Under the 1996 Employment Rights Act, workers are entitled “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 [whistleblowing] protected disclosure”.



Gilham told HMCTS that there had to be changes. “But the changes didn’t happen,” she recalled. “I felt very much forced out. I came off sick in 2013.



“They are now threatening to take away my pension for bringing the judiciary into disrepute,” she told the Guardian. “I can’t walk away from all this without there being some change.



“The [MoJ] has relied for too long on the idea that a courtroom includes a dock and that there’s always people around, but that’s not how it is these days.”



Although Gilham’s experiences may sound extreme, many judges have experienced threats and assaults. In 2013, the MoJ confirmed that there had been 26 incidents in the previous year of attacks, attempted assaults or threatening letters directed at judges mainly in family courts.

Last December, the Ministry of Justice released figures, asked for by the Labour shadow justice minister, Andy Slaughter, showing nearly 7,000 knives were confiscated in magistrates courts in England and Wales last year. Warrington county court is one of those now facing closure in the latest round of cuts.

The MoJ denies that Gilham has been subject to disability discrimination or suffered through her whistleblowing. An MoJ spokesperson said: “There are robust security and safety measures in place to protect judges and everyone else who attends court. These include mandatory bag searches, the use of modern searching equipment and surveillance cameras, as well as security officers with the powers to restrain and remove people from the building should there be a need.”

The spokesperson added: “Judges are not in a contractual relationship with the MoJ but hold office on appointment by Her Majesty, the lord chancellor [justice secretary Michael Gove] or the lord chief justice. This stems from the executive having no control or direction over judicial office holders in certain fundamental areas, most clearly in relationship to how particular cases are decided. The circumstances under which judges can be removed from office are restricted by legislation. The lord chancellor and lord chief justice make sure policies are in place to protect the welfare of judicial office holders.”