What we did today

Who we contacted. The CJA Awards team, to request due diligence and a route to submit a short evidence brief. Justice Is Now, Release Mates, and Sentencing Academy, the other nominees in TRJ’s category, to share a brief transparency note.

What those emails say. Congratulations on their shortlist. A simple notice that we informed CJA we would notify fellow nominees. Headlines only, kept factual, with an offer to provide an evidence-based brief.

This is not a smear. It is simple sunlight. We prefer receipts over drama.

Why this matters

Awards are reputational signals. If a nominee carries unresolved issues that touch equality, safeguarding, or data protection, judges and peers should know before they decide. Transparency protects the process, the sector, and the public. It also protects participants and staff who do good work and should not be tainted by leadership choices.

Key facts in brief

• Reasonable adjustment. I requested one adjustment, written communication only. I am entitled to more, however I limited my request to that straightforward measure.
• Abrupt withdrawal of support. After respectful feedback on a standardised CV template and withholding consent to its use in my name, support was withdrawn in about 20 minutes and contact was blocked.
• Harassment allegation. After my respectful initial email following the withdrawal, a harassment allegation about me was passed to Probation. I categorically deny it. Nothing in my conduct meets the criminal threshold for harassment. I hold contemporaneous evidence.
• ACAS early conciliation. TRJ declined to engage. Early conciliation closed. I am proceeding through the Employment Tribunal route.
• Pre-action letter. My pre-action protocol letter was returned to sender rather than handled by trustees or legal advisers. A County Court claim is prepared.
• Data rights sequence. I issued a limited Right to Erasure on 7 July 2025 for specific sensitive categories, including prosecution files and right to work documentation. I issued a wide-scope SAR on 11 July 2025 seeking internal correspondence and records in which I am discussed. The CEO later claimed all my data was deleted on 8 July while the SAR was outstanding.
• Governance point. My complaint to the Chair of Trustees was handled by the CEO, which raises independence and oversight concerns.

What we asked of CJA

1. Confirm due diligence steps for nominees, including checks for live equality, safeguarding, data protection, ACAS, and pre-action conduct.
2. Provide a route for judges to receive a short, referenced brief so they are not blindsided.
3. Consider pausing or flagging TRJ’s nomination pending review, or ensure judges are alerted to these concerns so the process remains credible and fair to others.

What we told fellow nominees

We are not asking them to take a position. We are sharing context so the awards process is fair for everyone. We can provide a concise brief, timeline, and references on request.

Next steps

• Submit the concise evidence brief to CJA if requested.
• Continue ET proceedings.
• Hold the prepared County Court claim in reserve and use if proportionate.
• Publish further documents where appropriate, after redaction and legal checks.

Our standard line on fairness

We do not attack staff or participants. We challenge leadership decisions and governance where they conflict with stated values and law. If an independent reconciliation process is offered that centres disability rights and data protection, we will engage.