The body which appoints judges has promoted someone adjudicating a case involving it and a south Asian justice, Eastern Eye can reveal.
The same judge also had a complaint upheld against her two months before her appointment.
Judge Lynne Griffin is the chair of the tribunal panel which is hearing the case of Abbas Mithani against the Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC).
Mithani is fighting the JAC to disclose three freedom of information requests [FOI] he made in March 2021.
Now some judges are questioning whether the JAC is trying to influence the outcome of that case by promoting Griffin.
“There’s something rotten in the state of Demark,” said one judge who wished to remain anonymous, as they quoted Shakespeare’s Hamlet.
“If you were a judge, and you were judging a case involving BP, and you were going to get a job with BP a few weeks later, you’d declare it and recuse yourself from the case.
“Otherwise, it smells of corrupt practices.”
Griffin took up her £147, 388 per year post last week (13).
Judges are surprised, and some are angry, because of her record immediately before her appointment.
The Judicial Conduct Investigations Office (JCIO) sanctioned her in October 2024 after investigating Griffin for delaying a judgement.
“One of the criteria for becoming a judge is making decisions speedily and under pressure,” a south Asian judge told this newspaper.
“Here we have a case of a judge who’s had a complaint upheld and had words of advice because she failed to make a ruling for 17 months.
“I’m telling you, if you were a brown applicant, you wouldn’t have made the paper sift never mind the short list.”
‘Errant nonsense’
The judiciary told Eastern Eye that it was the king who appointed the judge.
But judges said the monarch’s role is a formality because the job offer comes “on the advice of the lord chancellor and lady chief justice”.
One said, “It’s errant nonsense to think King Charles personally appoints judges.
“Anyone with an ounce of common sense knows it’s the JAC which makes the real decisions.
“Now, the question is this – knowing she was handling a case involving the JAC, knowing she had just been admonished, how did she get promoted?”
Judges who have spoken to this newspaper suggested that we examine the timeline to promotion.
Eastern Eye has seen a message to those who carry out what is called a sift to identify potential candidates.
From documents and other sources, we can reveal that:
- this recruitment process began in July 2023, with the closing date for application just over three weeks later.
- the JAC asked judiciary staff to identify 52 candidates who could be appointed as circuit judges to sit in crown, county and family courts.
- 40 were for judges for criminal hearings – where Griffin is now.
- a ‘member of the public’ complained about the judge in April 2024.
- the JCIO made its ruling in October 2024.
- the JAC/king appointed her in December 2024.
- Griffin took up her post on 13 January 2025.
Under scrutiny
Why is this scrutiny important?
Because Griffin started to hear the case concerning the JAC and Mithani in April 2023.
She also held a further hearing with both parties in September 2023.
That means Griffin must have known that she had a conflict of interest, said judges who spoke to Eastern Eye.
They said the 2001 House of Lords ruling in a case called Porter v Magill, the so-called “homes for votes scandal” in Westminster, set out rules about when judges should remove themselves from cases.
“The question is whether the fair-minded and informed observer, having considered the facts, would conclude that there was a real possibility that the tribunal was biased,” ruled the law lords in 2001.
One judge told Eastern Eye, “It’s the perception that’s going to damn her.
“No-one’s suggesting that this could’ve been anything more than an oversight on Lynn’s part, but it raises important questions.
“The most important thing is that she should have let her presider [lead judge], and all the parties involved, know, and that meant letting Abbas know.
“She’s dug herself in a big hole, if she hasn’t.”
But one judge suggested that Griffin was not at fault.
“It’s very likely the system never helped this judge or educated her in how to handle this.
“It’s the culture of ‘see one, do one’, then leave the judge to get on with it alone.”
Important questions
Eastern Eye asked a series of questions of both the JAC and the judiciary.
They included whether Griffin disclosed her JCIO sanction, whether she would have to let Mithani know that she had applied for promotion while judging his case, and if she let anyone know of a potential conflict of interest.
The JAC never responded.
The judiciary pointed out that the Mithani case was ongoing, and Eastern Eye can confirm that Griffin could hold a hearing next month.
It provided this update hours after our email enquiry – 16 months after September 2023 hearing and days before Griffin was due to start her new job.
This story does not pass “the sniff test”, judges have told this newspaper, by which they mean that they are suspicious about the process of the appointment.
“If it were the case that the JAC did not reveal that it was processing a judge’s application for promotion whilst the same judge was determining a case seeing information about the JAC's systems, and challenging its transparency, hence a case affecting its reputation and interests and in which it was a party, then that would add to the concerns over other aspects of judicial recruitment,” said a senior retired judge.
Secret soundings
Many current and past judges have shared their experiences with Eastern Eye, and they described the entire appointments process as “corrupt, with panels appointing cronies, jobs for old mates and anyone who tows the judicial line”.
It centres on so-called “secret soundings”, where judges give their opinion on applicants without candidates knowing what is being said about them or whether the information is true.
In 2021, Eastern Eye revealed that judges were being taught how to stop candidates of colour from succeeding in getting a post using this method.
“We’ve got a situation where it seems to demonstrate that what the JAC want, the JAC get,” said another south Asian judge.
“It doesn’t matter what those sifting say or do, you’ll find people they’ve discounted pushed through, interviewed and given promotions.”
What this story showed, said one unnamed judge, was the shambolic nature of the appointments system.
"What this really shows is that the question of judicial recruitment and promotion is one which demands real scrutiny from outside the judiciary now,” they said.
“It needs proper input from grass-roots judges, witnesses who have experienced the process, and full transparency.
“We cannot sensibly have a system where a judge can find themselves hearing a case where one of the parties, the JAC, is at the same time running the process for promotion of that judge yet the JAC may not have disclosed that, ironically in a case which is itself about transparency in the JAC.
“Was the chair of the JAC aware?
“Some colleagues think it is time for parliament to investigate."
JAC chair
The chair of the JAC is Helen Pitcher.
Last week (14), she resigned as the chair of the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC), which investigates potential miscarriages of justice.
In July 2024 (18), an independent review criticised the CCRC for the way it handled the case of Andy Malkinson, who spent 17 years in jail for a rape he did not commit.
At the time, the justice secretary and lord chancellor, Shabana Mahmood said, “It is my firm view that Helen Pitcher is unfit to fulfil her duties as chair of the CCRC.
“I have therefore begun the process to seek her removal from that position.”
Now, the GMB union, which represents some judges, has written to Mahmood calling for Pitcher to be sacked.
“The JAC takes secret references when judges apply for promotion which outweigh assessments of their ability and their open references,” wrote senior organiser, Stuart Fegan.
“Candidates are not told what is in them and so cannot comment or correct errors.
“A senior judge in the Court of Appeal, Sir Geoffrey Vos criticised this as unfair in June 2024, in a case brought by District Judge Kate Thomas.
“This practice contributes to an atmosphere of intimidation in the judiciary.”
Some judges are questioning the entire culture of appointments under the JAC’s current leadership.
“Diversity statistics for the judiciary suggest that there must be high flyers, especially from minority groups, who make no career progress,” remarked a senior retired judge.
“The lack of transparency is therefore even more troubling at a time when the court system and judiciary are already troubled in many other ways.
“Ultimately it is the chair of the JAC, responsible with her colleagues for governance, who must address questions as to what is happening in judicial recruitment.”
Eastern Eye approached Mithani, but he refused to comment.
