A member of an employment tribunal who made anti-Christian comments and described Tories as ‘tumours’ has been formally rebuked after being dramatically recused from a Christian teacher case.
A ruling from the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office this week, supported by the senior president of the tribunals and the Lord Chancellor, said that Mr Jed Purkis’ comments amounted to misconduct.
The ruling noted that social media guidance for the judiciary states that judges “should be aware of the risk of undermining trust and confidence in the judiciary by expressing, or appearing to endorse, views which could cast doubt on their objectivity”.
It said that Purkis was at the time hearing a “strongly disputed and politically sensitive case”.
In March 2024, supported by the Christian Legal Centre, a primary school teacher, ‘Hannah’, who remained anonymous to protect the identity of a pupil, was suing Nottinghamshire County Council and one of its primary schools for victimisation for whistleblowing, unfair dismissal and discrimination on the grounds of her Christian beliefs.
Mr Purkis was part of the panel presiding over the case alongside Employment Judge Victoria Butler. In 2023 both Purkis and Butler had sat in the same court on the case of Rev. Dr Bernard Randall and had subsequently ruled against him on every ground.
On day six of Hannah’s trial, the comments made by Mr Purkis, who describes himself as lifelong socialist and trade unionist, were unearthed.
On his social media accounts, which at the time of the hearing were accessible globally but have now been made private, he described Conservatives as ‘tumours’ and said his social media timelines were ‘clogged up with right wing nutjobs.’
In response to a comment that only atheists should be in public office, Mr Purkis said: ‘Damn right, you won’t catch us killing in the name of our non-god.’
In response to social media comments from a user that they find ‘Christians worse than woke’, Mr Purkis had said: ‘If they are so f***ing super how comes there is so much s**t going on in the world’, and added, ‘I need no higher power to tell me the right way to treat people and behave.’
Posting in response to Professor Mark Barber OBE saying the ‘woke bullying’ of former Conservative MP, Lee Anderson, by the ‘Marxist BBC must stop’, Mr Purkis said: “If you lead with your chin expect to get hit.’
Mr Purkis had also ‘liked’ posts which suggested: ‘There is no opposite of “woke”, because there is no definition of “woke”. It’s just a fresh dollop of ethereal stupidity, invented to provide a new bogeyman for the bewildered…now the equally ethereal Brexit has turned into something tangible…and that tangible thing is s**t.’
Mr Purkis also liked a post picturing Suella Braverman which said: “nowhere on God’s green earth would you find a politician as evil, stupid and repulsive as this f*****g ghoul.”
Furthermore, Mr Purkis had ‘liked’ posts questioning the existence of cancel culture which ‘alt right cranks keep bleating about’.
The recusal
Following the discovery, Hannah’s lawyer, Pavel Stroilov, made an application for recusal, stating: “You will be well aware of the legal test. You have to look at the post from an assumed standpoint of a fair-minded and informed observer. That observer needs to consider whether there is a possibility of bias, including subconscious bias. In this social media exchange Mr Purkis appears to agree with a view which expressly advocates for religious discrimination in public life. The post remains visible to all and it is easy to establish that Mr Purkis is a judicial office holder. This is not a passing comment and has remained public since January 2023.”
Mr Stroilov argued it would not be sufficient only for Mr Purkis to step down, since the other two judges had presided over the trial together over 6 days and would be perceived as influenced by his view of the case.
Following an adjournment to consider the application, the Tribunal ruled that the whole panel had to step down, acknowledging that ‘doubt would arise in the mind of a fair-minded and informed observer’ as to their impartiality in the case.
Commenting on the link between the presiding panel and the case of Dr Randall, Employment Judge Victoria Butler said she was: “Not persuaded that Randall had any bearing on this tribunal, however we are aware that [Hannah] may not have confidence.”
The revelations followed the double recusal in another the high-profile Christian Legal Centre case involving sacked school assistant Kristie Higgs.
Weeks after Hannah’s hearing had ended another panel member was recused in the case of Felix Ngole for a ‘real possibility of bias.’
Bias exposed
Andrea Williams, chief executive of the Christian Legal Centre, said: “This issue has revealed the mindset within the judiciary where there is a lack of training and scrutiny of the judges and panel members sitting on these important cases.
“Mr Purkis’ views on Christians is but the tip of the iceberg of anti-Christian bias within the judiciary and trade unions. For many years we have experienced bias in the courtroom and in subsequent rulings and this case has revealed and exposed it.
“This is the latest in a series of high-profile Christian cases where it has transpired that panel members have a vocal and active bias against Christians and about the key issues involved.
“You cannot have a panel presiding over a serious case involving a Christian who has lost their career because of their beliefs, that includes panel members who appear to hold significant prejudice against Christians and conservative beliefs. They often appear to lack any understanding of what it means to be a person of faith.
“While we are pleased to have exposed this, justice delayed is justice denied, not just for Hannah but for vulnerable children who are being harmed by transgender ideology.
“Hannah’s story exposes the confusion and untruths being embedded in primary schools over human sexuality and identity which are developing into a public health crisis.”
Hannah’s case
Supported by the Christian Legal Centre, ‘Hannah’, who cannot be identified to protect the identity of ‘Child X’ had brought the case against Nottinghamshire County Council and a primary schools where she had worked without issue for five years.
Hannah is making claims of victimisation for whistleblowing, unfair dismissal, and discrimination on the grounds of her Christian beliefs.
She has alleged that the school dismissed her, and reported her to a raft of regulators, for blowing the whistle on the school’s ‘trans affirming’ policy practice which she believed endangered ‘Child X’ and their peers.
The policies appeared to allow any child at the school, without medical evidence, to be affirmed in whichever gender they choose.
Promoted with staff training under the direction of a Stonewall Champion working at the local authority, the policies did not include any detail on the risks a ‘trans affirming’ approach has to children.
Under the policy, Hannah was told ahead of the new school year in 2021, that an 8-year-old joining her class must be addressed by the child’s new name and pronouns and therefore would be treated as ‘transgender’, be ‘affirmed’ in the belief that they were ‘born in a wrong body’ and be allowed to use toilets and changing room facilities of the opposite sex.
Hannah said that she could not go against her conscience and Christian beliefs in affirming what she believed would cause Child X, and potentially other children, short and long-term harm.
Following all the correct safeguarding procedures and backed by expert evidence, Hannah raised safeguarding concerns which were repeatedly ignored by school bosses, governors and the local authority.
Faced with no option but to pursue a judicial review of the school and council’s refusal to properly act on her concerns, Hannah was dismissed for accessing, and divulging with her lawyers, information which the school argued was confidential.
Transgender guidance for schools
Hannah’s case comes following the government’s December 2023 publication and consultation of its draft transgender guidance for schools, which makes a number of significant points in relation to her case.
The guidance says that schools and colleges now have specific legal duties that are framed by a child’s biological sex, and that there is no general duty to allow a child to ‘social transition’.
The draft guidance adds that teachers should not be compelled to go against their conscience and use a pupils’ preferred pronouns which are contrary to their biological sex.
Section 6.3 of the draft guidance says: “No teacher or pupil should be compelled to use these preferred pronouns and it should not prevent teachers from referring to children collectively as ‘girls’ or ‘boys,’ even in the presence of a child that has been allowed to change their pronouns.”
Furthermore, the guidance says that allowing a child to transition is not a neutral act and that safeguarding obligations must be taken into account, not only for the pupil wanting to ‘transition’, but for all children.
Telling schools that they must always protect single-sex spaces with regard to toilets, showers and changing rooms, the guidance also says that no child should be allowed on a school trip to share a room with a child of the opposite sex.
A Policy Exchange report published last year has also concluded that a ‘generation of children are being let down, because well-established safeguarding standards are being compromised.”’
The report went on to say regarding sex and gender issues that:
“Safeguarding principles are being routinely disregarded in many secondary schools, which are neglecting their safeguarding responsibilities in favour of a set of contested beliefs in a way that risk jeopardising child wellbeing and safety.”
