A former court legal adviser has commenced an employment tribunal claim against the Ministry of Justice, alleging unfair dismissal following reports of a magistrate presiding over criminal cases from Portugal.

一名原法院法律顧問就不公平解雇向司法部提起就業法庭申索，指控其在舉報一名地方法官於葡萄牙主持刑事案件後遭解雇。

The dispute originates from the discovery that Magistrate Phil Taylor conducted Single Justice Procedure (SJP) hearings via remote link from a residence in Portugal. The claimant, Chris John, asserts that this arrangement, which reportedly persisted for several years, may have rendered thousands of convictions and sentences legally invalid. While the Senior Presiding Judge has advised that judicial participation from outside the United Kingdom is prohibited to avoid jurisdictional conflicts with foreign states, Courts Minister Sarah Sackman maintained that such remote hearings do not necessitate the nullification of court orders, as these remain binding absent a successful appeal.

這場爭議源於發現地方法官 Phil Taylor 在葡萄牙的住所，透過遠端連結主持單一法官程序 (SJP) 聆訊。申索人 Chris John 主張，據報導此安排已持續數年，可能導致數千宗定罪與判刑在法律上失效。儘管高級首席法官建議，為避免與外國政府產生司法管轄權衝突，禁止法官在英國境外參與司法工作，但法院大臣 Sarah Sackman 主張，此類遠端聆訊並不必然導致法院命令失效，因為在未成功上訴的情況下，命令依然具有約束力。

Parallel to the jurisdictional concerns, the claimant alleges a systemic failure regarding the legal basis for remote SJP hearings. He contends that while pandemic-era legislation permitted MS Teams proceedings, these provisions were rescinded in 2022, yet the practice persisted. Furthermore, the claimant alleges that he was subjected to professional marginalization and bullying after challenging these practices and reporting the imposition of daily case quotas.

除了管轄權疑慮外，申索人亦指控遠端 SJP 聆訊的法律依據存在系統性失效。他認為，雖然疫情期間的立法允許使用 MS Teams 進行程序，但這些規定已於 2022 年廢止，然而該做法仍持續。此外，申索人指控他在對此類做法提出質疑並舉報每日案件配額制度後，遭受了專業上的邊緣化與欺凌。

Regarding the termination of employment, the Ministry of Justice cites a physical altercation involving the claimant and a youth defendant as the primary catalyst for dismissal. Although the claimant received commendation from the Surrey Police Chief Constable for his intervention, the Ministry maintains that the conduct constituted an assault on a member of the public, justifying the dismissal. The claimant argues that the disciplinary process was retaliatory and noted that the hearing proceeded despite his request for an adjournment due to a familial medical crisis. An employment judge has formally recognized the claimant's status as having made 'protected disclosures,' although interim relief for immediate reinstatement was denied due to an insufficient demonstrated causal link between the disclosures and the dismissal at this preliminary stage.

關於終止僱用，司法部將申索人與一名青少年被告之間的肢體衝突視為解雇的主要導火線。儘管申索人因介入而獲得薩里郡警察局局長的表揚，但司法部堅持認為該行為構成對公眾成員的襲擊，足以證明解雇之正當性。申索人則辯稱紀律程序具有報復性質，並指出儘管其因家庭醫療危機請求延期，聆訊仍照常進行。一名就業法官已正式認定申索人具有「受保護披露」的身分，但由於在初步階段未能證明披露與解雇之間存在足夠的因果關係，因此否決了立即復職的臨時救濟申請。

The tribunal has declined interim relief but will proceed to a full hearing to determine if the dismissal was motivated by the claimant's whistleblowing activities.

法庭拒絕了臨時救濟申請，但將進行全面聆訊，以判定解雇是否由申索人的舉報活動所驅使。