Supreme Court rules that breach of human rights not to allow judges whistleblower protection
New Judgment in Gilham (Appellant) v Ministry of Justice (Respondent)
From the Summary -
[ Edited: 16 Oct 2019 at 10:14 am by Daphne ]
The imposition of detriments, such as the bullying, victimisation and failure to take complaints seriously which the appellant alleges, would be an interference with her right to freedom of speech under article 10 ECHR . A claim under the Human Rights Act 1998 (‘the HRA’) would not enable the appellant to seek the wider relief that a worker could under Part IVA of the 1996 Act [27, 30]. The failure to extend the Part IVA protections to judicial office-holders is a violation of the appellant’s right under article 14 not to be discriminated against in her enjoyment of the rights under the ECHR: (i) the facts of her case are within the ambit of article 10; (ii) she has been treated less favourably than other employees and workers who make responsible public interest disclosures; (iii) her occupational classification is clearly a ‘status’ within the meaning of article 14; and (iv) exclusion of judges is not a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. There is no evidence that either the executive or Parliament addressed their minds to the exclusion of the judiciary from the protection of Part IVA and no legitimate aim has been put forward [28-37].