Report comment

Could I suggest that the significance of this case turns on the existence of the transcript ? It is a proof. We cannot rely on handwritten notes neither endorsed
or seen by the parties.

Employment Tribunals have been playing fast and loose with Written Decisions for decades due to the absence of transcription. It has only recently emerged " off record " that JACO had advised Lord Chancellor/s that Tribunals hearings should be recorded. It is not a point that Mr Gove should delegate or overlook. He has been remarkably silent so far. Taylor LCJ said that the system and its participants should have the courage of their convictions. The opportunity now falls to Mr Gove.

My concern relates to clear examples including undisputed disclosures that ET's have been omitting key evidence, dissenting opinions of its panel members, failing to disclose extra-judicial meetings between Judge and Counsel on contested issues of jurisdiction, sitting in hearings against litigants to whom their firms have lost with provisions for costs. Why are these facts omitted from Written Hearing or Investigatory Decisions ? HMCTS, Regional Presidents and JACO Ombudsmen seem to be in mindset of finding any excuse to maintain the headcount ? Why ?

One failure to produce a record said to have been of a hearing that all knew had not taken place, provided a good example of the self-serving culture of indemnity. How can you rely on the decision of a hearing that did not take place ? How can you rely on a document that is not the Written Decision of the hearing that in any event did not take place ? JACO has seemed comfortable not to asking too hard.

Gambits are knowingly undertaken by office holders upon the basis that nobody will do anything. It is the appearance that counts. The appearance is one of supine conceit. The culture that is being maintained is one of selective " fear and favour ". Even in Crown Court there has been the odd occasions when the recording equipment has been turned off..

The system of oversight and Judicial Obedience needs to be robust and enforced from above, in a pitiless fashion. The task of Judge remains onerous whilst being a privilege. A huge investment of trust by State and Society is present ceded in an appointment. It may only be one-half of one percent of cases that are contaminated by the failure to objectively record and investigate or provide simply remedy by Direction. Yet it remains one half of a per cent that is too much.

The best protection for litigant and Judge is the adoption of the inexpensive recording technology that makes review, precise, final and certain in the " interest of justice " albeit some scoff at such a phrase.