Anti-Christian bias has been exposed in employment tribunals in the UK where a complaint of unfair dismissal by a Christian teacher had to be abandoned at great cost after a former union officer who was on the tribunal panel assessing her case, was caught posting anti-Christian comments on social media. He received a formal warning for misconduct over his comments.
The case involved was brought by a teacher, known only as Hannah to protect the identity of a pupil, against a primary school and Nottinghamshire County Council. She was suspended for refusing to affirm the gender identity of a biologically female pupil and was later sacked for gross misconduct after sharing information about the child with her lawyers. The teacher was claiming victimisation for whistleblowing, unfair dismissal and discrimination on the grounds of her Christian beliefs.
Christian Concern writes that: “On day six of Hannah’s trial, comments made by panel member Jed Purkis were unearthed. He describes himself as a lifelong socialist and trade unionist. On his social media accounts, which at the time of the hearing were accessible globally but have now been made private, he described British Conservative Party members as “tumours” and said his social media timelines were “clogged up with right-wing nutjobs.”
In response to comments that “only atheists should be in public office” and “Christians are worse than woke,” Mr. Purkis agreed. Many of his profanity-riddled posts were derogatory of Christians and conservative people.
Following the discovery, Hannah’s lawyer, Pavel Stroilov, made an application for the judges and panels recusal, stating: “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.”
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.
It was revealed that Mr. Purkis was presiding over the case alongside Employment Judge Victoria Butler. In 2023 both had sat in the same court on the case of school chaplain Reverend Dr. Bernard Randall who was also challenging his sacking, and had subsequently ruled against him on every ground. Commenting on the link between the presiding panel and the case of Dr. Randall, Judge Butler said she was: “Not persuaded that Randall had any bearing on this tribunal, however we are aware that [Hannah] may not have confidence.”
Christian Concern reports that the revelations about Mr. Purkis’s social media comments and anti-Christian views followed the double recusal in another high-profile Christian Legal Centre case involving sacked school assistant Kristie Higgs. Weeks after Hannah’s hearing collapsed another panel member was recused in the case of Felix Ngole for a “real possibility of bias.”
A ruling this month from the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office (JCIO) on the Hannah case said that the recusal of the panel had come “at significant cost and inconvenience to the parties and the public purse”. It said Mr. Purkis’s online comments had “called into question his impartiality, integrity and propriety as a judicial office holder” while sitting on a “strongly disputed and politically sensitive case”.
The JCIO asserted 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. Mr. Purkis explained that rather than an attack on organised religion his tweet was intended as a light-hearted comment on the misuse of religion by politicians to fuel conflict. He fully accepted that his intention was unclear in the comment and open to misinterpretation and he offered his apologies for the expense and any potential disrepute that his actions caused to the Tribunal Service.”
It concluded: “The Senior President of Tribunals and the Lord Chancellor agreed with advice from the JCIO and decided Mr. Purkis’s actions amounted to judicial misconduct. In issuing Mr. Purkis with a formal warning, they took into consideration his explanation and apology.”
Andrea Williams, chief executive of the Christian Legal Centre which is supporting Hannah, said the incident pointed to “a lack of training and scrutiny of the judges and panel members sitting on these important cases”, and was “the tip of the iceberg of anti-Christian bias within the judiciary and trade unions. 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.”
“For many years we have experienced bias in the courtroom and in subsequent rulings and this case has revealed and exposed it. 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. [Her] story exposes the confusion and untruths being embedded in primary schools over human sexuality and identity which are developing into a public health crisis.”
