Judging the Judges

Gender identity ideology is a powerful force to distort reality. When its adherents include the judiciary, then we really are in trouble.

Let me tell you a story about a uniquely bizarre interaction with a Judge which I think has much wider and serious ramifications than simply an unpleasant encounter between two individuals.

After 30 years at the Bar, I have met more Judges than many. Most in a professional context where (with a few memorable exceptions) they show themselves to be wise, compassionate and hardworking. Some in more social settings at drinks and conferences where I try to avoid them as I still find dealing with Judges divorced from the court room context discombobulating. But I have never had an experience before like the one I had with Master McCloud. I hope I never will again.

Some context and a brief precis. Master McCloud is a trans identifying male and one of the youngest people to have been appointed a Master in 2010. A Master is a type of High Court Judge. They are appointed by the King, and they swear a judicial oath … I will do right to all manner of people after the laws and usages of this realm, without fear or favour, affection or ill will. It is essential, as with the police, that we can trust our Judges to act without ‘fear or favour’. Justice must not only be done but be seen to be done.

This principle has been well defended for centuries. In 1999 Lord Hoffman was subject to stinging criticism from other law lords for flouting this basic principle by failing to disclose his links with Amnesty International when he sat with four other judges to decide whether the Chilean dictator, Augusto Pinochet, was immune from arrest and extradition.

But in 2024, as I survey the antics of McCloud and the lack of any action to restrain him, I wonder if adherence to this crucial principle might now be slipping - yet another victim of gender identity ideology, which seems to distort everything it touches.

McCloud and I apparently overlapped in a London Chambers for a few months in 2010. I have no memory of this. In the summer of 2022, ostensibly with the intention of inviting me to come and ‘shadow’ him as a Judge I was contacted directly by McCloud via the social media site LinkedIn. His account identified him as a serving Judge. We had a short exchange about issues around gender identity. I expressed my surprise and concern that he appeared to be unaware of the serious issues this raised for women. I said I was concerned about the safety of children when ‘gender identity’ is pushed as a more salient organising category than sex - a concern now completely vindicated by the final report of the Cass Review, published on April 10 2024.

This comment led him to declare me ‘beyond the pale’ and to block me on LinkedIn. I was very troubled by this behaviour from an identifiable and serving Judge and made formal complaint to the Judicial Complaints Investigation Office. This was rejected on the basis that McCloud was expressing his ‘personal views’. I found this a surprising justification for rejecting my complaint; it was the very essence of it. A serving Judge should not be contacting barristers via social media to tell them their lawful and protected views were ‘'beyond the pale’. Anyhow. I chalked it up to just another one of those irritating failures by those in authority to do their jobs, and focused on one of the many other more pressing issues of the gender wars.

But McCloud popped up again February 2024. He decided to resign from the judiciary and ‘someone’ leaked his resignation letter, where he asserted he had been driven from his role by transphobia and compared himself to Rosa Parks. This garnered widespread sympathy and concern from the profession. When it was reported that a ‘barrister’ (me) had made a complaint about him previously, a KC and part time Judge declared on line that I ought to hang my head in shame.

I wrote about my own experiences for the Critic here on 26th February 2024. I did not know it at the time, but my reference to my 2022 complaint being dismissed is apparently a breach of section 139 of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 and McCloud can bring an action against me in tort for breach of a statutory duty.

I rather hope he does as I think this matter deserves a lot more sunlight. McCloud then popped up again in my emails again, to invite me to his leaving drinks and explaining he had been so horrified by our earlier LinkedIn exchanges that he reported himself to the JCIO, asserting that I had accused him of being a paedophile and a danger to women. I had of course, done no such thing and such hysterical lack of reading comprehension would be a matter of deep concern for any professional - for a Judge it is beyond bizarre.

Further, I began to learn a lot more about McCloud’s approaches to other ‘gender critical’ people, as well as his public pronouncements about matters of gender identity which were wrong in law and discriminatory against those with a protected belief. All of this of course is completely unacceptable for any Judge, but it seems that different rules apply to those who have a trans identity.

On 1st April 2024 Maya Forstater published a summary of her complaints against McCloud which included his application to intervene in a Supreme Court case to determine the meaning of ‘woman’, assisted by the Good Law Project. A particular nasty example of his public misbehaviour was mocking a member of the public who had made a complaint against him, with reference to section 139.

But he’s retired! I hear you cry, what’s the problem? The problem is that McCloud has repeatedly and publicly announced his attention to return and sit part time after his retirement.

McCloud continued to escalate. On March 28th 2024 I was compelled to make a further complaint after McCloud set up a ‘X’ account to ‘monitor’ me and proceeded to publish various of my emails. It was very clear that the account was operated by McCloud as he published an email sent from me to him in 2010.

On the morning of 28th March 2024 I read that Master McCloud was applying to intervene in the Supreme Court appeal brought by the campaign group For Women Scotland about the legal definition of “woman”. As a matter of public interest, I then posted on the social media site 'X' the messages sent to me by Master McCloud in August 2022 and my replies. These messages were the subject of a previous complaint, which you rejected on the basis that Master McCloud was communicating personal views. In my view it was important to show that Master McCloud demonstrated little by way of understanding or insight into the issues which the Supreme Court will examine, and concerning which Master McCloud wishes to intervene.

Master McCloud responded by setting up a an account on 'X' with the explicit purpose of 'monitoring' me. The account is @standardby4. I know this is Master McCloud as the account posts a variety of my emails. I find the whole thing remarkable and bizarre but two posts in particular cause me concern. The post I quote below contains a screen shot of email I sent in my previous Chambers to McCloud in 2010. The post reads as follows [an archived link is here https://archive.ph/8JANZ] "I have approximately 23 emails between us on my personal account alone from when we knew each other, as you well know, working to create our Chambers Mediation Group. Heres one. I note also you omit our recent emails? Shall I post them?"

A second post followed [an archived link is here https://archive.ph/l1elK] "Or shall I post what you already know, which is that due to your implication that I was or had been a threat to woment and children, I self-referred to the JCIO, and obtained police DBA checks, such is the seriousness when a senior lawyer implies such a thing?"

I have never at any time made any such implication, nor ever would. To state so publicly, with a threat to make public further of my email communications, is in my view conduct that is unbecoming to judicial office. I have requested that Master McCloud apologise and delete this serious and false accusation. I have had no response. The post at the time of writing (19.35) has been published for about 5 hours and has been seen 4,800 times. Although Master McCloud is shortly retiring as a full time judge I understand that his intention is to return to sitting part time.

I am very concerned by the behaviour which Master McCloud has publicly exhibited today. In my view it demonstrates very poor judgment and cements the concerns I expressed to you in 2022 about Master McCloud's ability to show the necessary impartiality as a serving Judge.

This complaint was also rejected on April 11th on the basis that McCloud had retired.

I responded to ask

Before I take this matter further, please would you confirm the process for applying to sit in retirement? This person has stated clearly and frequently that he will be sitting. 

Will any of the complaints about McCloud be considered if he embarks on such process?

If not can you explain why not? Your answers will inform my decision to proceed further. 

I received this reply

As the JCIO has no involvement in the appointments process, we are unable to help with your query around the process for applying to sit in retirement.

I can confirm that a complaint must be closed as soon as a judge ceases to hold judicial office.  If a judge chooses to apply to sit in retirement at a later date and is successful, then it is possible that they may again fall within the remit of the disciplinary process at the point when their appointment starts.  However, complaints which have been previously closed will not be reopened.

A complainant would be expected to submit a new complaint about a judge who is appointed to sit in retirement and the JCIO would consider the matter in accordance with the Rules and Regulations.

Of course, by the time McCloud returns part time, my complaint will be out of time. As Maya says:

In my complaint I asked that the JCIO do not exercise its discretion to cease consideration of cases where a judge leaves office. I said that it cannot be right that any outstanding complaints should be dismissed and that Dr McCloud can then start again as a fee-paid (part-time) judge with a clean slate, especially given the the lack of contrition or remorse demonstrated and the repeated flouting of the rules which clearly raise issues as to Dr McCloud’s willingness to comply with the obligations placed on judges, and suitability to be a judge at all.

My only option appears to be now to refer this to the Ombudsman. I do not for a moment think anything will happen. McCloud will return to sitting part time and will no doubt now be empowered to exhibit even more bizarre behaviour which risks bringing the judicial office into serious disrepute. And I have now breached section 139 of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 multiple times. I will await to see what the consequences are. I am ready to face them.

Yet another brick falls from the wall of trust and confidence in our essential professionals. How many more before the whole wall falls down? I had hoped the final report of the Cass Review would be the corrective needed to restore sanity regarding ‘gender identity’ but the groundswell of dishonest misrepresentations and distortions about its recommendations has shocked even me, who thought I had seen it all in terms of dishonestly and deflection in these ‘discussions’.

This is either the ‘dead cat bounce’ of an ideology which knows its end is near, or a terrifying indication of its continued vigour and suffocation of our essential institutions. I guess we will have to wait and see. If McCloud returns to the judiciary, I will have my answer.