A Foreword from the President, Judge Walker…
“Employment Tribunals, like the Courts, are subject to the rule of law. Those who sit as judges of the Tribunals are independent judicial office holders, with all the privileges and responsibilities that entails. Decision-making must be impartial, rational, and accurate. Everyone involved in the operation of the Tribunals has a duty to act ethically and uphold standards of conduct that promote the rule of law.”
Who is really running Scotland’s tribunals? Because according to Judge Susan Walker, President of Employment Tribunals (Scotland), it isn’t necessarily the judge sitting on the bench. In her response to formal complaints about the Sandie Peggie case, Walker has inadvertently exposed a ghost-writing culture where unnamed, unaccountable colleagues can insert fabricated legal precedents into official judgments—without ever facing scrutiny or consequence. This isn’t a minor procedural quirk; it’s the admission of an unaccountable shadow judiciary, operating like a modern star chamber. We no longer have a system of named, accountable judges presiding over cases; we have anonymous influencers ghost-writing the law of the land, free from the courtroom’s glare or the public’s oversight.
For context, Sandie Peggie, a dedicated nurse at NHS Fife’s Victoria Hospital, pursued claims of discrimination, harassment, and victimisation against her employer and a transgender colleague, Dr. Beth Upton. The dispute centered on gender-critical beliefs and their protections under the Equality Act 2010—a flashpoint in the ongoing debate over women’s rights and transgender inclusion. Employment Judge Alexander Kemp delivered a 312-page judgment, rejecting most of Peggie’s claims but upholding harassment by NHS Fife on procedural terms. Yet the ruling was marred by invented quotations from key precedents like Forstater v CGD Europe and Lee v Ashers Baking Co Ltd—quotes that simply did not exist in those decisions.
[Visual Evidence: Side-by-Side Comparison – Before and After]
Original (Fabricated Quote – Para. 791, before correction):
Corrected (After Certificate of Correction, 11 December 2025):
Replaced with an actual excerpt from Forstater, supporting the no-hierarchy proposition but without the fabricated wording.
The fallout was swift and damning. Maya Forstater posted a screenshot from the Peggie judgment showing a quote supposedly from her own case, declaring it “completely made up” since the words never appeared in her ruling—sparking widespread coverage. Suspicions of AI involvement arose, given the hallucinatory nature of the errors. The tribunal issued Certificates of Correction on 11 and 23 December 2025, labeling them “clerical mistakes” without altering the verdict. But this defense crumbles under scrutiny. A typo or incorrect date might qualify as clerical; fabricating the legal test for harassment is a fundamental failure of competence. To call the invention of legal precedent a ‘clerical error’ is like a surgeon removing the wrong organ and calling it a ‘procedural hiccup.’ It is professional negligence masquerading as a typo, eroding the very reliability of judicial output.
Retired solicitor Ewan Kennedy submitted a complaint to Judge Walker, seeking clarity. Rev. Stuart Campbell of Wings Over Scotland reinforced this with a comprehensive letter, questioning the origins of the errors, the role of any anonymous input, and potential AI or bias influences. Walker’s reply? A dismissive rejection that evades every core issue. She concedes the quotes stemmed from “an exchange of correspondence” with a judicial colleague uninvolved in the case—but refuses to name them, release the exchanges, or classify it as misconduct.
This was no mere consultation; it was contamination. A judge’s independence is sacrosanct under the Guidance to Judicial Office Holders on Judicial Ethics. By subcontracting key legal reasoning to this phantom advisor, Judge Kemp outsourced his judicial independence, allowing an external source to contaminate the ruling with fabricated material. The result: a breach of core judicial independence, where the named judge on the bench becomes a mere conduit for unverified, unaccountable input.
Compounding the outrage is the ideological tilt. These weren’t neutral slip-ups; the fabricated quotes consistently weakened protections under the Equality Act 2010, disadvantaging gender-critical perspectives in favor of transgender ideology. Incredible, isn’t it, that these ‘random’ errors all leaned in one direction? This isn’t a glitch in the machine; it’s the machine working exactly as intended—echoing the “Stonewall Law” phenomenon, where public bodies and institutions prioritize Stonewall’s internal diversity guidelines over the strict letter of the Equality Act 2010, leading to systemic ideological capture.
Walker’s stonewalling directly contravenes the Guidance to Judicial Office Holders on Judicial Ethics in Scotland, issued by the Lord President. This document mandates upholding public confidence through integrity (”judges must maintain high standards of conduct”), competence and diligence (”ensure accuracy in their work”), and propriety (”avoid even the appearance of impropriety”). It emphasizes openness, requiring judges to disclose potential biases in open court and resist extraneous influences. Yet by refusing to identify the colleague or explain the process, Walker violates these principles—becoming an accessory to the misinformation rather than its corrector. The Lord President’s guidance on “Openness” demands fostering public understanding; here, it’s supplanted by opacity.
Worse, Walker is treating the Employment Tribunal like a private members’ club rather than a public court. Under the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002, public bodies must disclose information where the public interest outweighs any private one. Here, the public’s right to know who is effectively writing our laws—especially when fabrications tilt ideological scales—vastly outweighs any desire to shield a colleague from embarrassment.
The tone of Walker’s response? Judicial gaslighting at its finest—condescending and evasive, reducing profound concerns about judicial integrity to trivial quibbles. The message from the President of Tribunals is clear: The public are too stupid to understand the law, and the judiciary is too elite to be questioned by the public. It is a ‘Shut Up and Deal With It’ manifesto, a final insult that tells the people of Scotland their oversight is unwelcome.
This evasion sets a dire precedent. If anonymous input can corrupt judgments without accountability, bias—ideological or otherwise—becomes unchecked, turning tribunals into echo chambers. In Equality Act cases, where impartiality is paramount, such failures could perpetuate unfairness, silencing dissent and deterring future claimants. Scotland’s devolved institutions, already plagued by perceptions of elite insularity, risk total erosion of the rule of law. Public confidence isn’t optional; it’s the bedrock of justice. Without it, we slide toward a two-tier system where the judiciary protects its phantoms, leaving ordinary citizens in the shadows.
Scotland demands better: Reveal the colleague, publish the correspondence, classify this as misconduct, and realign with the ethical standards binding our judges. Absent that, Holyrood must launch a full inquiry into tribunal governance.
If you believe the Scottish Judiciary is no longer fit for purpose, take action now:
Contact your MSP and demand a formal inquiry into the Employment Tribunal (Scotland) and the conduct of Judge Susan Walker. Find and message your MSP here: https://www.parliament.scot/msps/find-your-msp (enter your postcode to get their contact details—email is often the quickest way to apply pressure).
This isn’t just about one case—it’s about salvaging the soul of Scottish justice before the phantom’s shield engulfs it entirely.
Share this. Demand transparency. The cover-up ends when the scrutiny begins.
The Investigation Team
Lead Investigator & Author: iq2qq — Directed the investigation, conducted primary analysis, and holds final editorial responsibility.
Adversarial Analysis: xAI Grok — Used for real-time data synthesis and stress-testing the case for institutional capture.
Structural Review & Legal Verification: Google Gemini — Provided editorial critique and cross-referencd the Guidance to Judicial Office Holders on Judicial Ethics in Scotland.
The Scottish Judiciary uses 'phantoms' and tech to fabricate the law, while a human/AI team enforces it. They hallucinated; the team audited. Karma is a digital bitch.
References
Wings Over Scotland: “Yelling At The Tide” - https://wingsoverscotland.com/yelling-at-the-tide/
Wings Over Scotland: “Shield Of The Phantom” - https://wingsoverscotland.com/shield-of-the-phantom/
Employment Tribunal Judgment: Sandie Peggie v Fife Health Board and Dr B Upton - https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/sandie-peggie-v-fife-health-board-and-another-judgment-and-summary
Certificate of Correction (11 December 2025) - https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/Peggie-v-Fife-Health-Board-and-another-Certificate-of-Correction.pdf
Certificate of Correction and Corrected Judgment (23 December 2025) - https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/Peggie-v-Fife-Health-Board-and-another-Judgment-and-Certificate-of-Correction-2.pdf
Guidance to Judicial Office Holders on Judicial Ethics in Scotland - https://judiciary.scot/docs/librariesprovider3/judiciarydocuments/guidance-to-johs-on-judicial-ethics.pdf?sfvrsn=25f075aa_0
Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 - https://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2002/13/contents
About the Employment Tribunals (Scotland) - https://www.judiciary.uk/courts-and-tribunals/tribunals/employment-tribunal/employment-tribunal-scotland/about-the-employment-tribunals-scotland
Scottish Legal News: Judicial Office refuses to answer questions over fabricated quotes in Peggie judgment - https://www.scottishlegal.com/articles/judicial-office-refuses-to-answer-questions-over-fabricated-quotes-in-peggie-judgment
The Telegraph: Sandie Peggie judgment contained ‘made-up AI quotes’ - https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/12/11/sandie-peggie-judgment-to-be-revised-over-errors
BBC: Sandie Peggie says ‘I will not give up legal fight’ in trans doctor row - https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cx2pnzwl2r4o
GOV.UK Employment Tribunal Decisions Page (with update history) - https://www.gov.uk/employment-tribunal-decisions/s-peggie-v-fife-health-board-and-dr-b-upton-4104864-slash-2024