Author: Dom Watts

Dom Watts founded the Ministry of Injustice in July 2021. Dom is an IT Professional with 30+ years experience in Tier 1 Banking, Government, Defence, Healthcare and Global Blue Chips. Dom has no legal training and is not a lawyer but has previously consulted for a Magic Circle Law Firm. You can find Dom on X or Google.

Dom Watts publishes the Ministry of Injustice as a citizen journalist. The journalism exemption is detailed in the Data protection and journalism code of practice published by the ICO and Section 124 of the Data Protection Act 2018.

Section 2 of the Defamation Act 2013 sets out the defence of truth. Section 3 of the Defamation Act 2013 sets out the defence of honest opinion. Section 4 of the Defamation Act 2013 sets out the defence of public interest. Section 8 of the Defamation Act 2013 sets out the single publication rule.

Section 4a of The Limitation Act 1980 defines the time limit for actions for defamation or malicious falsehood as one year from the date on which the cause of action accrued.

Article 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998 gives the right to freedom of expression. "This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers."

"Free speech encompasses the right to offend, and indeed to abuse another." - Para 43 Scottow v CPS [2020] EWHC 3421 (Admin)

"Free speech is a fundamental common law right" - Para 21 R v Shayler [2002] UKHL 11 [2003] 1 AC 247 per Lord Bingham and Para 42 Phillips -v- Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs [2024] EWHC 32 (Admin)

Dom is a member of The Free Speech Union

“A key issue here is the need to distinguish between conduct which, however objectionable, does not justify invoking the criminal law and conduct which crosses the line and results in criminal liability" - Para 31 R v O’Neill [2016] EWCA Crim 92 [2016]

“Harassment is generally understood to involve improper oppressive and unreasonable conduct that is targeted at an individual and calculated to produce alarm and distress” - Para 38 R v O’Neill [2016] EWCA Crim 92 [2016]

"The behaviour said to amount to harassment must reach a level of seriousness passing beyond irritations, annoyances....The gravity of the misconduct must be of an order which would sustain criminal liability" - Paras [40-44] Hayden v Dickenson [2020] EWHC 3291 (QB)

"If you tell the truth, you don't have to remember anything"

In 2002 Dom Watts was an unlikely consumer champion. The dad of three from Croydon took on the power and might of Kodak – and won...Dom on BBC Working Lunch

Categories
Criminal Justice Judiciary Legal Professionals

Judges Behaving Badly and His Honour Judge Simon Oliver

His Honour Judge Simon Oliver

On the 27th August 2026 the Crown Prosecution Service announced in a post, More jail time for benefit cheat in prison for stalking judge, that Javed Shaikh had been sentenced to an additional three years’ imprisonment for housing-benefit fraud.

Javed Shaikh was already serving an eight-year sentence imposed in January 2024 for online stalking of circuit judge His Honour Judge Simon Oliver.

Housing Benefit Fraud

On the 17th August 2026, at Kingston-upon-Thames Crown Court, Javed Shaikh pleaded guilty to seven counts of fraud by false representation.

Between 2015 and 2022 he made 51 successful housing-benefit claims totalling £313,043 from 32 councils in England. He used the identities of nine people without their knowledge and also claimed in his own name money to which he was not entitled.

The largest payments came from Barnet (£44,471), Brent (£41,244), Islington (£28,242), Lambeth (£25,312), Hackney (£24,715), Ealing (£24,362) and Colchester (£22,806).The CPS said he used false documents, including birth certificates, tenancy agreements, benefit letters and bank statements, and had the money paid into accounts he controlled.

On arrest in 2022 he had £13,500 in cash and three bank cards in other names. A safety-deposit box searched in 2024 contained £200,000. Investigators also used cashpoint CCTV and files on his phone and laptop.

The Department for Work and Pensions investigated. The CPS charged him. Confiscation proceedings are to follow.

Online Stalking of HHJ Oliver

Javed Shaikh was a trainee cardiac physiologist at Harefield Hospital from March 2007 until his dismissal for gross misconduct in June 2009. An employment tribunal dismissed his claim in 2010.

The Independent Safeguarding Authority later placed him on the Adults’ Barred List and the Children’s Barred List. He appealed those decisions to the Upper Tribunal. Judge Oliver sat on that appeal with two specialist members in June 2014. The appeal was dismissed on 31 July 2014.

The courts later found that, after those challenges failed, Javed Shaikh ran an online campaign against Judge Oliver from 2016 to 2021 through a blog called Judges Behaving Badly which is archived online at the Internet Archive.

The blog Judges Behaving Badly published false allegations of bribery and corruption against Judge Oliver, photographs of his home and family, threats including an anthrax attack and the taking of hostages, and material about his private life.

In December 2019 Mr Justice Julian Knowles gave Judge Oliver summary judgment on a harassment claim and granted an injunction requiring specified material to be taken down. He described a “malicious and damaging vendetta.”

Javed Shaikh denied running the site. The courts rejected that denial. He did not obey the order.

On the 24 August 2020 after a hearing on the 27th July 2020 in Oliver v Shaikh, Mr Justice Nicklin found to the criminal standard that the injunction had been broken on twenty occasions. He called the denials false and the breaches “deliberate, calculated and flagrant.”

On the 26th August 2020, Legal Futures published an article Former trainee doctor in contempt for online campaign against judge

In January 2024, after a trial at Bristol Crown Court, he was convicted of aggravated stalking. On the 30th January 2024 Mr Justice Saini sentenced him to eight years and made an indefinite restraining order.

On the 31st January 2024, the Law Gazette published an article Judge’s online stalker sentenced to eight years in prison.

Judge Oliver came out as a gay man in 2015 and separated from his wife. The Blog heavily implied that, because of his sexual orientation, he used male prostitutes and was a paedophile. I will return to this point later.

Para 12 Sentencing remarks of the Honourable Mr Justice Saini At Bristol Crown Court On Tuesday 30 January 2024

Those facts entered the public record because the blog used his private life as a weapon. The same remarks describe the practical effects on the household: a panic alarm, police rapid-response listing, checking the street before leaving home, withdrawal from social media, and a request at a family wedding that guests not post photographs.

The court found that the allegations made against Judge Oliver were false and that the campaign went beyond lawful criticism of judicial decisions. The Court of Appeal refused permission to appeal.

HHJ Simon Oliver

Simon Jonathan Oliver was born on 9 May 1958 in Reading. He was educated at Reading School and read law at the University of Exeter. He joined Guildford Chambers in 1983, practising family and education law, and was Head of Chambers from 2002 to 2007.

Judge Oliver became a chairman of the Special Educational Needs Tribunal in 1994, sat on the Care Standards Tribunal from 2000, and was appointed a Recorder in 2002.

In 2007 he became Deputy President of the Care Standards Tribunal. Judge Oliver was appointed a circuit judge in 2010.

He first sat at Isleworth Crown Court and later sat mainly at the Central Family Court in London, while continuing to sit in crime.

He also sits as a visiting judge of the Upper Tribunal’s Administrative Appeals Chamber.

He joined the Worshipful Company of Founders in 1985 and later served as Master. He has written two books, Special Educational Needs and the Law and Enforcing Family Finance Orders.

HHJ Oliver is shown on the List of Circuit Judges published on the Courts and Tribunal Judiciary website.

His Honour Judge OliverSouth East05-10-2010
List of Circuit Judges

Authorisation to sit as a High Court Judge

HHJ Oliver may be authorised to sit as a High Court Judge by s9(1) of the Senior Courts Act as amended by the Crime and Courts Act 2013.

According to CRIMINAL PRACTICE DIRECTIONS 2015 DIVISION XII His Honour Judge Oliver should be addressed as “My Lord” in court.

Modes of Address B.1 – The following judges, when sitting in court, should be addressed as ‘My Lord’ or ‘My Lady’

(b) any Circuit Judge sitting as a judge of the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) or the High Court under section 9(1) of the Senior Courts Act 1981;
(d) any Senior Circuit Judge who is an Honorary Recorder.

Description B.3 – In cause lists, forms and orders members of the judiciary should be described as follows:

(a) Circuit Judges, as ‘His [or Her] Honour Judge A’. When the judge is sitting as a judge of the High Court under section 9(1) of the Senior Courts Act 1981, the words ‘sitting as a judge of the High Court’ should be added;

The three key values which are central to the role of judicial office holders (JOHs) in England and Wales are:
• Independence
• Impartiality
• Integrity

“Publicity is the very soul of justice. . . . It keeps the judge himself, while trying, under trial….Where there is no publicity there is no justice”

Jeremy Bentham – Mr Justice Cobb: ‘Justice must be seen to be done’

Image of HHJ Oliver : Photoshot

The High Court Judge that never was – His Honour Judge Melbourne Inman KC

Check out our articles on Rule of Law, Open Justice, Judges Salaries and Fees, Dodgy Judges, R v Sussex Justices, Mr Justice Williams, His Honour Now His Dishonour, His Honour Judge Stuart Farquhar, Do you Have to Bow to a Judge ?, Can you Email a Judge ?, Can you Criticise a Judge ? and the highly dubious Sussex Family Justice Board.

The Ministry of Injustice is not the Ministry of Justice nor is it affiliated in any way with the justice system, legal profession, police or any other law enforcement agencies.

“Publicity is the very soul of justice. . . . It keeps the judge himself, while trying, under trial….Where there is no publicity there is no justice”

Jeremy Bentham – Mr Justice Cobb: ‘Justice must be seen to be done’

Latest Articles ↓

Most Popular ↓

You should always seek formal legal advice from a qualified and reputable lawyer (solicitor or barrister).

There are a number of links to Free and Paid For Legal Resources and Legal Organisations on the Free Legal Advice , Legal Aid and Pro Bono pages.

Categories
Criminal Justice Legal Professionals

Jo Morris Barrister

Jo Morris Barrister

Jo Morris is a practising criminal barrister of Drystone Chambers and a member of the Honourable Society of the Middle Temple.

On the 29th May 2026 a five-person disciplinary tribunal of the Bar Tribunals and Adjudication Service found her guilty of professional misconduct arising from remarks made at Snaresbrook Crown Court on the 3rd January 2024. The tribunal reprimanded her, imposed a fine of £3,000 and ordered her to pay costs of £3,810. She was neither suspended nor disbarred and remains entitled to practise.

An experienced criminal law barrister has been reprimanded and fined for an “outburst of racist language” when talking to a trainee police officer at Snaresbrook Crown Court.

Barrister Jo Morris fined for racist “goat farmer” remarks – Legal Futures

The words recorded by the Bar Standards Board were spoken in conference to an attending police officer. They were not uttered in open court, nor were they addressed to the complainant.

“she only wants a visa so that she doesn’t have to go back to her little goat farm where she is from”

and

“yeah, a fucking little goat farmer.”

The complainant was a woman from Pakistan who had made allegations of domestic abuse.

Barrister Johanna Morris Disciplinary FindingsDownload

Professional background

Jo Morris was called to the Bar by Middle Temple in November 2003. The Bar Standards Board register records her current status as dual capacity. A dual-capacity barrister in England and Wales works in both an employed and a self-employed capacity at the same time. Her primary practice address is Drystone Chambers, 1 Bedford Row, London.

Her practising certificate is valid from 1st April 2026 to 30th April 2027. She holds full rights of audience and is authorised to accept public access instructions. The register lists her areas of practice as crime and “other.” She is not registered for youth court work. The May 2026 finding is recorded on her public register entry.

Johanna Morris is a Grade 4 prosecutor for the Crown Prosecution Service and has been ranked as a leading junior. A Grade 4 prosecutor (Level 4) is the highest ranking on the Crown Prosecution Service Advocate Panel, reserved for experienced barristers and solicitors who handle the most serious, complex, and high-profile criminal cases.

Jo is also on the RASSO, counter terrorism and serious crime panels. She is also on the disclosure panel of the Serious Fraud Office.

Her practice encompasses serious criminal work, including homicide, sexual offences, terrorism, firearms and fraud, together with military justice and aspects of international criminal law. She is an advocacy trainer for Middle Temple and a pupil supervisor.

The incident at Snaresbrook Crown Court

On the 3rd January 2024 Morris was instructed at short notice to appear for the Crown on a bail application. The defendant was the former partner of the complainant. A trainee detective constable attended court and expressed concern for the complainant’s safety if bail were granted.

The officer informed Morris that the defence had advanced, as a ground for bail, the proposition that the defendant could assist the complainant with an application for leave to remain in the United Kingdom. The officer also made clear that the complainant did not wish the defendant to be released.

The tribunal found that the reference to the visa played a “material part” in the remarks that followed. It considered that the comments appeared to reflect a provisional view that the complainant was “playing the system” by associating allegations of domestic violence with her immigration status.

The remarks were not made in the complainant’s presence. The officer later described them as offensive and said that she felt extremely uncomfortable. Screenshots of messages she sent to a colleague formed part of the evidential record.

The charge and the tribunal’s conclusions

The allegation was one of professional misconduct contrary to Core Duty 5 of the Code of Conduct of the Bar of England and Wales (9th Edition, Version 4.7): behaving in a manner likely to diminish the trust and confidence which the public places in a barrister or in the profession.

The tribunal characterised the language as “extremely rude with obvious racist themes” and “gratuitous.”

It found “a discriminatory element,” the motivation for the conduct arising from “animosity or hostility to a person from a protected characteristic group.”

It also identified an imbalance of seniority between Morris and the trainee officer, “emphasised by the use of offensive language.”

In the tribunal’s view, the public would regard her conduct at court, in the presence of an officer concerned for the welfare of a domestic-abuse complainant, as “wholly inappropriate, unprofessional and inexcusable.”

Jo Morris initially denied using the words attributed to her but upon being shown the officer’s messages, she accepted that she must have said something to that effect.

In her statement she said that she was not a racist, but accepted that she is at times irritable and expresses herself in an “overtly robust” manner without appreciating the impact of her words.

She also allowed that the remarks may have been “some sort of off-colour and misjudged joke.” She had no recollection of the precise language, but accepted the officer’s evidence and expressed deep regret for the offence caused.

Mitigation, sanction and publication

In mitigation, the tribunal accepted that Jo Morris had “stepped into the breach” at short notice and had thereafter conducted the hearing professionally, securing onerous and appropriate bail conditions. Testimonials from judges, King’s Counsel and other practitioners indicated that the episode was, on balance, isolated.

The panel found “no indication whatsoever” in those testimonials of “racist tendencies” and described the conduct as “a complete aberration.”

Jo Morris subsequently completed an eight-week Open University course on diversity. The tribunal concluded that the misconduct did not indicate an ongoing risk to the public or a likelihood of repetition.

Jo Morris continues to practise from Drystone Chambers. Should she have been disbarred ?

Read the reviews of Junior Sussex Barrister Gavin Howe and Legal 500 Junior Barrister Eleanor Battie.

Check out our related articles on Rule of Law, Open Justice, What is Law, Is the Law Black and White ?, Branches of Law, Bullying, Harassment and Discrimination at the Bar, Blackbelt Barrister, The Secret Barrister, Barristers, Direct Access Barrister, Barristers Behaving Badly, Inns of Court, Council of the Inns of Court, Bar Standards Board, Bar Tribunal and Adjudication Services, Bar Council, Innocent until Proven Guilty and the highly questionable Sussex Family Justice Board.

The Ministry of Injustice is not the Ministry of Justice nor is it affiliated in any way with the justice system, legal profession, police or any other law enforcement agencies.

“Publicity is the very soul of justice. . . . It keeps the judge himself, while trying, under trial….Where there is no publicity there is no justice”

Jeremy Bentham – Mr Justice Cobb: ‘Justice must be seen to be done’

Latest Articles ↓

Most Popular ↓

You should always seek formal legal advice from a qualified and reputable lawyer (solicitor or barrister).

There are a number of links to Free and Paid For Legal Resources and Legal Organisations on the Free Legal Advice , Legal Aid and Pro Bono pages.

Categories
Law Legal Analysis Legal Professionals

Good Law Project

Good Law Project

The Good Law Project is a UK campaigning organisation that uses litigation, investigations and public mobilisation to challenge government decisions and other concentrations of power.

We use the law to stop hate and bring hope – injustice is not inevitable

Good Law Project

Founded in January 2017 by tax barrister Jolyon Maugham KC, the Good Law Project Limited was established as a company limited by guarantee under English law (Company Registration Number 10556197). The Registered office address is 3 East Point High Street, Seal, Sevenoaks, Kent, United Kingdom, TN15 0EG

The Good Law Project is a not-for-profit company that has never been a registered charity. Jo Maugham deliberately chose this form to secure the public-interest features of a charity with no ability to pay dividends and an asset lock preventing assets being transferred at undervalue whilst remaining outside the regulatory reach of the Charity Commission, which the organisation has described as imposing “moving political guardrails.”

The Good Law Project is widely regarded as left-wing / progressive in orientation.

Jolyon Maugham KC

Jolyon Toby Dennis Maugham KC (born 1st July 1971) is the founder and executive director. Born in London and raised largely in New Zealand, he attended Wellington High School before returning to the UK. He graduated with a first-class LLB in European Legal Studies from Durham University (Hatfield College) in 1995, studied at KU Leuven in Belgium, and later completed an MA at Birkbeck, University of London.

Jo Maugham specialised in taxation law, practised from Devereux Chambers, and was appointed Queen’s Counsel in 2015. He has advised both Labour and Conservative politicians on tax policy and written for national newspapers.

In 2023 he published the Sunday Times bestseller Bringing Down Goliath. He left full-time practice at the Bar around the end of 2020 to focus on the organisation and has stated that his salary is capped at the level of a backbench MP.

He is an Honorary Professor at the University of Durham and remains the dominant public face of the group. Supporters view him as a determined advocate for accountability; critics regard him as a polarising campaigner whose messaging about case outcomes has sometimes drawn formal complaints.

Mission and Methods

The Good Law Project stated aims are to hold power to account, protect the environment and ensure “no one is left behind.” In practice this has involved judicial reviews, procurement challenges, environmental cases and campaigns on issues including protest rights, media regulation and transgender healthcare.

The organisation combines court action with investigative work and crowdfunding-driven public campaigns.

The 2026 Move to Jersey

On the 8th May 2026 the Good Law Project changed its ownership structure. The GLP announced that Jo Maugham had been replaced as owner by a Jersey “purpose” trust holding the membership interest in the UK company.

The operating company remains registered in England (still company 10556197), UK-resident for tax purposes, subject to the same articles and asset lock, and still unable to declare dividends.

The stated reason was that English law does not recognise non-charitable purpose trusts, while Jersey law does. The change was presented as completing the original design by making the organisation exist for a purpose rather than being owned by an individual and also allowing a future multi-trustee board.

In the short term the sole trustee is a company owned by Jo Maugham, who remains the person with significant control.

Controversies Around the Jersey Restructuring

The move attracted accusations of hypocrisy. The organisation and Maugham had previously criticised offshore arrangements and tax havens. Critics highlighted the optics of using a Jersey structure while campaigning against secrecy and elite financial arrangements.

The group maintains there is no tax advantage and that the purpose is structural and regulatory.

Funding and Financials

The vast majority of funding of the Good Law Project comes from regular and one-off donations by members of the public, which the organisation says keeps it independent. It also receives grants and high-value donations from supporters including the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust, Lund Trust, Avaaz, 38 Degrees, Necessity and Dale Vince (Ecotricity).

For the year ended 31 January 2025, total income was approximately £4.44 million (down slightly from £4.65 million the previous year). Roughly 70–80% came from regular and general donations, with the balance from crowdfunding, grants and other sources.

Expenditure was around £4.67 million, producing a modest deficit. Cash at bank stood at about £4.25 million and net assets at roughly £4.20 million.

The Good Law Project maintains a Legal Defence Fund (around £850,000 at that date) to cover potential adverse costs. Staff costs form a significant part of spending; average headcount has been in the mid-30s in recent years. As a non-profit company limited by guarantee it does not pay corporation tax on its core activities. Full accounts and filings are available via the Companies House page for company 10556197.

Success Rate and Criticisms

The Good Law Project claims a positive outcome, defined as a full or partial legal win or a useful campaigning result in more than two-thirds of its cases. Its own assessments have typically shown roughly 45 per cent legal wins, around 20 per cent mixed results and 35 per cent losses among classifiable legal outcomes.

Independent observers have challenged these figures. Government data showed the organisation winning fewer matters than it lost or withdrew and paying substantially more in costs than it received. Critics argue that many claimed “wins” are minor procedural points or cases spun after clear defeats.

Analyses in The Critic, The Times and elsewhere have accused the group of exaggerating its record.

Bad Law Project? – The good, the bad, and the ugly of crowdfunding legal cases. The miseries of Maugham – What is the Good Law Project accomplishing?

Landmark Cases

Several Landmark Case are listed on the “Our Story” page of the Good Law Project.

In 2019 the Good Law Project supported the successful Supreme Court challenge to Boris Johnson’s prorogation of Parliament. Earlier Brexit litigation (Miller on Article 50 and Wightman on revocation) established important constitutional principles.

During the pandemic it litigated the “VIP lane” for PPE contracts; the High Court ruled the lane itself unlawful. Environmental work produced a High Court win (with Friends of the Earth and ClientEarth) requiring the government to revise its net-zero strategy, plus a Supreme Court intervention on water-company sewage liability.

Later cases on Partygate, tax policy and transgender rights have been more mixed or unsuccessful.

Good Law Project and Professor Jason Arday

In July 2026 the Good Law Project published and promoted an open letter and petition in support of Cambridge University sociology professor Jason Arday, who faced allegations of plagiarism in his PhD thesis and other academic work, as well as questions about aspects of his personal biography and achievements.

The organisation described the claims as a “vile” or “right-wing smear campaign” and gathered thousands of signatures, including from politicians, academics and public figures (some of whom later withdrew their names).

Jason Arday resigned from Cambridge and Jesus College on the 5th August 2026; the Good Law Project hosted and published his resignation statement on its website.

After Jason Arday’s death on the 14th August 2026, the group launched a further campaign and petition calling for a public inquiry into alleged media harassment, arguing that intense press scrutiny had contributed to the tragedy and that racism played a role.

Some of our supporters will have seen a statement on the corrections page of the BBC’s website.

I’m afraid the truth is complicated. Although we got the important things right, we also got some things wrong…

Statement about the BBC and our fundraising – Jo Maugham

The Good Law Project has maintained that universities and journals had cleared Jason Arday of wrongdoing, while critics have pointed to substantial evidence of textual overlap and disputed biographical claims, and questioned the Good Law Project’s involvement and framing of the case.

Summary

The Good Law Project has grown from a one-person crowdfunding vehicle into a professionally staffed organisation with multi-million-pound annual income and substantial cash reserves.

Its highest-profile successes remain the 2019 prorogation judgment and the PPE VIP-lane ruling.

The Good Law Project continues to attract strong support from donors who share its priorities and sharp criticism from those who question its methods, messaging, financial transparency and governance choices.

Check out our related articles on Rule of Law, Open Justice, Is the Law Black and White ?, What Does Lady Justice Symbolise ?, Can a Judge Direct a Jury to Find a Defendant Not Guilty ?,Law Society, Law Commission, Solicitors, Solicitors Regulation Authority, Barristers, Bar Council of England and Wales, Bar Standards Board, Contra Mundum, R v Sussex Justices, Police Impartiality and the highly questionable Sussex Family Justice Board.

The Ministry of Injustice is not the Ministry of Justice nor is it affiliated in any way with the justice system, legal profession, police or any other law enforcement agencies.

“Publicity is the very soul of justice. . . . It keeps the judge himself, while trying, under trial….Where there is no publicity there is no justice”

Jeremy Bentham – Mr Justice Cobb: ‘Justice must be seen to be done’

Latest Articles ↓

Most Popular ↓

You should always seek formal legal advice from a qualified and reputable lawyer (solicitor or barrister).

There are a number of links to Free and Paid For Legal Resources and Legal Organisations on the Free Legal Advice , Legal Aid and Pro Bono pages.

Categories
Police

Police Federation of England and Wales (PFEW)

Police Federation of England and Wales (PFEW)

The Police Federation of England and Wales (PFEW) is the statutory staff association for police officers in the federated ranks across the 43 territorial forces in England and Wales.

It represents about 145,000 constables, sergeants, inspectors, chief inspectors, and special constables. Unlike a traditional trade union, the PFEW operates under specific legal constraints and focuses on welfare, efficiency, pay, conditions and professional support for its members.

Police Federation History and Origins

The Police Federation was established by the Police Act 1919 in the aftermath of the 1918–1919 police strikes, particularly in London, where large numbers of officers refused duty to demand better pay, pensions, and recognition of their union.

The government, under Prime Minister David Lloyd George, conceded on pay but outlawed police trade unions and the right to strike due to public safety concerns. The Federation was created as a formal alternative mechanism for representation and negotiation.

Its structure and operations remained largely unchanged for nearly a century until reforms following an independent review in 2014. Rules and regulations were updated in 2017 to improve governance, financial management, conduct standards, elections, and representation of under-represented groups. The core purpose was also revised in 2014 to balance accountability to members with acting in the public interest.

Police officers remain prohibited from joining ordinary trade unions or taking industrial action under the Police Act 1996.

Police Federation Role, Aims, and Objectives

The Police Federation’s core purpose is to represent and promote the interests and welfare of its members while supporting professional standards and the efficiency of the police service. It has a statutory duty to relay members’ views to government, opinion formers, and stakeholders.

Key aims include:

  • Representing members on discipline, diversity, health and safety, welfare, pensions, claims, and other issues.
  • Influencing decision-makers at local and national levels on pay, conditions, operational matters, and legislation.
  • Negotiating collectively on pay, allowances, hours, leave, and pensions (primarily through the Police Remuneration Review Body).
  • Providing training on equality, promotion, discipline, and health and safety.
  • Offering advice, legal representation, and support when officers face allegations, accidents on duty, or workplace issues.

It is non-political, controlled by serving officers, and has no power to call strikes. Membership subscriptions fund its activities, and full benefits (including legal support) require payment of subscriptions.

Police Federation Structure and Membership

The Federation operates at local and national levels:

  • Local level: Each of the 43 forces has a Branch Council of elected workplace representatives (who serve alongside their policing duties). A Branch Board (including Chair, Secretary, and Treasurer) handles force-level negotiations with chief constables and Police and Crime Commissioners.
  • National level: Branch Chairs and Secretaries, plus representatives from protected characteristic groups, form the National Council. From this, a National Board is elected as a key decision-making body. There are also eight regional groupings.

The PFEW Headquarters are at Federation House in Leatherhead, Surrey, which also provides training and accommodation facilities.

Membership is open to eligible officers and is optional for full benefits (though all eligible ranks are officially members).

Subscriptions are £26.31 per month with effect from the 1st January 2026. A 50% first-year discount for probationary constables continued to apply to existing student officers but was withdrawn for all new members joining from that date.

Tax relief is available on subscriptions. Special constables have been eligible since 2022.

Police Federation Services, Campaigns, and Recent Focus

The Federation provides practical support through local reps trained in Police Regulations, legal assistance, welfare services, and member benefits such as discounted accommodation. It campaigns on pay, recruitment and retention, officer wellbeing, and operational issues.

Recent activity highlighted on polfed.org includes concerns over officer numbers (nearly 25,000 resignations since 2021), pay awards falling short of independent recommendations, high levels of officers considering leaving the service, and the launch of an independent Integrity Line (operated by Safecall) for confidential reporting of concerns about the Federation itself. It has also sought involvement in police accountability reviews and supported training programmes for representatives.

In 2025–2026 the organisation has been undergoing a transformation programme addressing governance, finances, culture, and member services, including the planned appointment of independent non-executive directors.

Police Federation Fraud and Bribery Investigation

The Police Federation has been the subject of a high-profile investigation by the City of London Police’s domestic corruption unit into suspected fraud and bribery. The probe, described by police as complex and high-profile, has been ongoing for more than a year.

In early March 2026, three men who currently or previously held senior roles in the Federation’s governance and operational structure were arrested on suspicion of fraud by abuse of position.

They were a 46-year-old man from Surrey (understood to be chief executive Mukund Krishna), a 51-year-old man from Wales, and a 55-year-old man from Bristol.

Search warrants were executed at Federation House in Leatherhead and residential addresses in Wales, Somerset, London, and Surrey. All three were interviewed and released on conditional bail. Days later, the Federation confirmed Krishna’s suspension “due to an ongoing police investigation.” The organisation stated it was cooperating fully with authorities.

On the 18th August 2026, four more people including two men (one in his 40s, one in his 50s) and two women (both in their 50s), were arrested at an address in Leatherhead, Surrey. This included two serving police officers.

All four were questioned on suspicion of fraud by abuse of position of trust. One of the women and the man in his 50s were also held on suspicion of bribery and fraud by failing to disclose information. They were taken to a police station for questioning. This brought the total number of arrests in the investigation to seven.

Detective Superintendent Jim Halkett of the City of London Police said the investigation “continues to make significant progress, with officers working through a number of lines of inquiry to establish the full facts and circumstances surrounding this case.” No specific financial amounts have been publicly detailed in relation to the current investigation, and no charges have been reported at the time of writing. The case remains active.

Conclusion

The Police Federation of England and Wales continues to serve as the primary voice for the vast majority of frontline officers in England and Wales, balancing statutory representation with practical support on the issues that affect officers’ working lives.

While it navigates ongoing challenges around pay, retention, and internal governance which includes the active fraud investigation, it remains a key institution in British policing, rooted in more than a century of history and focused on both member welfare and the efficiency of the service.

What is Policing by Consent ?
Lawful Use of Handcuffs by the Police

Check out our articles on Policing by Consent, Police Professional Standards, Policing Performance System, Police Misconduct Hearings, Police Impartiality, Police Leadership Commission, Police Surveillance, Are the Police for Hire ?, Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC),Police Public Confidence and Engagement, Crime Reporting, What is a Police and Crime Commissioner ?, Sussex Police, Policing, Police News, Two Tiered Policing, Thought Police, Wasting Police Time, Police Community Support Officers (PCSO), Met Police, Chief Constable Jo Shiner, R v Sussex Justices and the highly questionable Sussex Family Justice Board.

The Ministry of Injustice is not the Ministry of Justice nor is it affiliated in any way with the justice system, legal profession, police or any other law enforcement agencies.

“Publicity is the very soul of justice. . . . It keeps the judge himself, while trying, under trial….Where there is no publicity there is no justice”

Jeremy Bentham – Mr Justice Cobb: ‘Justice must be seen to be done’

Latest Articles ↓

Most Popular ↓

You should always seek formal legal advice from a qualified and reputable lawyer (solicitor or barrister).

There are a number of links to Free and Paid For Legal Resources and Legal Organisations on the Free Legal Advice , Legal Aid and Pro Bono pages.

Categories
Criminal Justice Legal Professionals Police

What is the Criminal Justice System (CJS) Common Platform ?

Criminal-Justice-System-Common-Platform (CJSCP)

The Criminal Justice System Common Platform (also known as HMCTS Common Platform or CJSCP) is the national digital case management system for criminal cases in the Crown Courts and magistrates’ courts of England and Wales.

Designed and developed by HM Courts & Tribunals Service (HMCTS) as part of its Reform Programme (which began in earnest around 2016, building on earlier modernisation efforts dating back to 2011), it replaces multiple outdated “heritage” or legacy systems such as Libra, Xhibit, and the Digital Case System (DCS).

The platform creates a single, shared source of case information that professional users across the criminal justice system can access securely and in near real time.

Purpose and Key Benefits

The HMCTS CJS Common Platform allows Police, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), judiciary, court staff, defence solicitors and barristers, Legal Aid Agency, prisons, probation, and other agencies to view, update and share case materials digitally.

The CJS Common Platform is the official digital record of case progress, results and structured hearing outcomes in magistrates and crown courts

Core functions include:

  • Case creation, progression, and resulting (recording outcomes, orders, warrants, and notices).
  • Self-service of Initial Details of the Prosecution Case (IDPC) and digital forms such as the Preparation for Effective Trial (PET) or Better Case Management forms.
  • Association of defence firms/chambers with specific defendants or cases (marking them “on record”).
  • Hearing check-in for advocates.
  • Real-time notifications and updates.
  • Support for Single Justice Procedure (SJP) cases, postal requisitions, and summons via Automated Track Case Management (ATCM).

By February 2025, more than 2.3 million criminal cases had been managed on the platform. It is live in all criminal courts in England and Wales (full national rollout completed around August 2023), handling thousands of hearings daily and supporting tens of thousands of concurrent users. Benefits include reduced paper handling, fewer errors, faster information sharing, greater resilience (remote access), and better data for performance analysis.

The system uses Unique Reference Numbers (URNs) which are typically 11-character case identifiers that link records across partners.

CJS Common Platform Technology Stack

Common Platform is a cloud-native, microservices-based system hosted primarily on Microsoft Azure. Key technical elements include:

  • Architecture: Microservices framework supporting CQRS (Command Query Responsibility Segregation) and event sourcing (public GitHub repositories under CJSCommonPlatform/microservice-framework show a Java-based core). It uses a service-oriented approach with Docker containers.
  • Backend: Heavily Java-based services; some Node.js components for front-end gateways. PostgreSQL databases (with migrations to managed instances noted in backlogs), Redis for sessions/caching.
  • Frontend / User Interface: Angular-based single-page applications in related HMCTS services, with GOV.UK Design System influences; accessible via modern browsers (Chrome, Edge, Firefox, Safari — Internet Explorer is unsupported).
  • Identity and Access Management (Crime IdAM): Central to secure login. Uses ForgeRock now Ping Identity (AM, IDM, IG, DS/LDAP components) integrated with Microsoft Entra ID (formerly Azure Active Directory). Supports Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA) via Microsoft Authenticator app (Time-based One-Time Password / TOTP), Single Sign-On (SSO), and Role-Based Access Control (RBAC). Environments include production (PRD), pre-production (PRP), system integration testing (SIT), non-functional testing (NFT), and an internal BAE (PR) environment (an HMCTS technical label for a specific identity instance, unrelated to the defence company BAE Systems).
  • Infrastructure: Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS) for container orchestration, Azure Key Vault for secrets, Application Insights / Dynatrace for monitoring, Jenkins for CI/CD, Terraform for infrastructure-as-code, Docker, Nginx, Tomcat, and Ubuntu (with migrations from RHEL). Platform-as-a-Service databases and auto-scaling have reduced costs and improved resilience.

Emails for account activation come from Azure-hosted servers ([email protected]). The domain name is cjscp.org.uk (Criminal Justice System Common Platform).

If you have arrived at the Ministry of Injustice from https://cjscp.uk (MOI domain) you may well have been looking for https://cjscp.org.uk which is the official website for The Criminal Justice System (CJS) Common Platform

CJS Common Platform Contract Values and Suppliers

Development and ongoing support for the CJS Common Platform (and its related Crime IdAM identity layer) have involved multiple suppliers working under Crown Commercial Service (CCS) frameworks.

Key confirmed examples include:

  • Digital Outcomes (and related Digital Marketplace frameworks) — used for the larger HMCTS Crime Programme Design, Development and Testing Managed Service (indicative budget up to £12.75 million), with Scrumconnect later becoming a primary supplier for ongoing development work.
  • RM6100 Technology Services 3 was used for the HMCTS Crime IdAM Product Enhancement Team Managed Service awarded to CGI IT UK Limited (value ~£5.19 million).

CJSCP development contracts

This was the large development contract for the Common Platform itself (indicative budget up to £12.75 million).

Scrumconnect was later reported as a key (and in some periods sole) supplier for ongoing design, development, testing, automation features, and maintenance work. Subsequent related contracts and extensions have supported continued enhancement of the platform.

Other supporting contracts cover broader MoJ identity work (e.g., Entra ID configuration) and platform operations.

Primary Crime IdAM document

How to Access the Common Platform

Access is restricted to authorised professional users and organisations. Members of the public cannot log in directly.

Defendants in certain cases (e.g. Single Justice Procedure) may submit online pleas or receive information through other channels, but they do not access the Common Platform itself.

Organisation Registration

  • Defence firms/chambers: An organisation administrator completes the official registration spreadsheet (Excel or CSV, available on GOV.UK) with organisation and user details (including mobile numbers — shared/landline/CJSM emails are not allowed). Accept terms and conditions and email the form to [email protected].
  • Prosecuting organisations: Complete a questionnaire covering address, volumes, offence codes, etc.
  • HMCTS validates and onboards the organisation.

Individual Account Activation

  • Each user receives an email from [email protected] (check spam; links expire after 28 days).
  • Follow the link, accept terms, verify mobile number with a one-time code, create a strong password (8+ characters, mixed case, numbers, specials and change every 90 days), and set up Microsoft Authenticator by scanning a QR code.
  • Activation must be completed before first court use.

Login and Use

  • Main sign-in: https://prosecuting.cjscp.org.uk (or role-specific portals).
  • Subdomains such as https://login.bae.cjscp.org.uk point to specific internal environments (e.g., the BAE identity instance).
  • Use a supported browser on desktop/laptop/tablet. You need your registered phone for MFA but cannot access the platform solely via mobile.
  • After login: Associate with cases (using defendant details or URN), self-serve IDPC, manage materials, check in to hearings, etc.
  • Help: Courts and Tribunals Service Centre (CTSC) on 0330 808 4407 or [email protected]; organisation administrators handle day-to-day user management.

Full official guides are published on GOV.UK under “How to use HMCTS Common Platform” and related administrator documents.

HMCTS Common Platform for defence administrators is a guide for legal defence administrators on creating user accounts, assigning roles, and other system tasks.

Summary

The CJS Common Platform represents one of the largest digital transformations in the UK justice system.

Built on modern Azure cloud microservices technology with robust identity controls (ForgeRock + Microsoft Entra ID), it has processed millions of cases.

Ongoing contracts with the CGI-managed IdAM service and Scrumconnect’s development work, ensure continued enhancement.

Access to the Common Platform is tightly controlled through organisational registration and multi-factor authentication to protect sensitive criminal justice data.

Check out our related articles on Criminal Justice Secure Mail, Rule of Law, Open Justice, Is the Law Black and White ?, What Does Lady Justice Symbolise ?, Can a Judge Direct a Jury to Find a Defendant Not Guilty ?,Law Society, Law Commission, Solicitors, Solicitors Regulation Authority, Barristers, Bar Council of England and Wales, Bar Standards Board, Contra Mundum, R v Sussex Justices, Police Impartiality and the highly questionable Sussex Family Justice Board.

The Ministry of Injustice is not the Ministry of Justice nor is it affiliated in any way with the justice system, legal profession, police or any other law enforcement agencies.

“Publicity is the very soul of justice. . . . It keeps the judge himself, while trying, under trial….Where there is no publicity there is no justice”

Jeremy Bentham – Mr Justice Cobb: ‘Justice must be seen to be done’

Latest Articles ↓

Most Popular ↓

You should always seek formal legal advice from a qualified and reputable lawyer (solicitor or barrister).

There are a number of links to Free and Paid For Legal Resources and Legal Organisations on the Free Legal Advice , Legal Aid and Pro Bono pages.

Categories
Civil Justice Law Legal Analysis Legal Professionals

Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPPs)

Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPPs)

Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation, or SLAPPs, are legal actions brought primarily to silence, intimidate or financially exhaust critics rather than to vindicate genuine rights.

In the UK they most often take the form of defamation claims, though privacy, data protection, confidentiality and harassment actions are also frequently used.

SLAPPs are considered an abuse of the legal process, where the primary objective is to harass, intimidate and financially and psychologically exhaust one’s opponent via improper and costly legal intervention.

The impact of strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs) – House of Commons Research Briefing

These cases typically involve a significant imbalance of resources: well-funded individuals, corporations or organisations pursue claims against journalists, academics, campaigners or private citizens who lack comparable means to defend themselves.

The Chilling Effect on Free Speech

SLAPPs create a powerful chilling effect on public debate. Even when a claim is weak or ultimately unsuccessful, the mere threat of litigation, combined with the high cost of defending it, can force defendants to retract statements, settle, or avoid publishing in the first place.

A 2022 Foreign Policy Centre report found that at least 70 per cent of documented UK SLAPP cases were linked to financial crime or corruption.

Investigative reporting on Russian oligarchs, tax avoidance schemes, environmental issues and corporate misconduct has been particularly vulnerable.

Publishers and individual writers have sometimes chosen to settle or alter content simply to avoid the financial and emotional burden of a full trial, even when they believed their reporting was accurate and in the public interest.

Existing Legal Safeguards

English law already contains several important safeguards.

The Defamation Act 2013 introduced a “serious harm” threshold, abolished the presumption of damage for most corporations, strengthened the public interest defence, and restricted “libel tourism” by requiring claimants to show that England and Wales is the most appropriate jurisdiction.

Despite these reforms, the cost of defending a defamation action remains extremely high. Success fees are no longer recoverable from the losing side, and the inequality of arms between wealthy claimants and ordinary defendants continues to distort the process.

The 2023 Economic Crime Reforms

In response to growing concern, particularly after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 introduced limited anti-SLAPP measures (sections 194 and 195).

These provisions came into force on the 18th June 2025. They allow courts to strike out claims at an early stage where the claim seeks to restrict freedom of expression under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the speech concerns public-interest disclosures relating to economic crime, and the claimant’s behaviour indicates an improper purpose.

Early dismissal and costs protection for defendants are available under these rules. However, the protection is deliberately narrow and applies only to economic-crime related cases.

Risks for Solicitors and Law Firms

The Law Society has drawn attention to the reputational risks that SLAPP related work can pose for solicitors and their firms. Lawyers instructed in high-profile cases have faced criticism in Parliament and the media, even when they have acted within the professional rules.

Law firms Mishcon de Reya, Schillings, Harbottle & Lewis, CMS and Carter-Ruck were criticised…..for pursuing cases that were deemed SLAPPs.

SLAPPs and reputational risks – Law Society

The Law Society maintains that existing Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) standards, combined with more rigorous judicial case management and costs control, offer the most practical immediate way to reduce abusive litigation without the need for extensive new primary legislation.

A Recent Example – Carter Ruck and Jason Arday

A recent illustration of the continuing problem of potential SLAPPs emerged in August 2026.

The Free Speech Union highlighted a letter sent by the law firm Carter-Ruck to Times Higher Education. The letter appeared intended to deter further journalistic questions about the academic record of Professor Jason Arday.

At the same time, police complaints were made against Jack Grove, a journalist at Times Higher Education, and David Harris, a former/emeritus professor.

The Met Police investigated journalist Jack Grove for harassment after he emailed Cambridge professor Jason Arday questions about apparent plagiarism in his work and other claims regarding his academic and charity record; officers later told Grove to stop contacting Arday because it had affected the professor’s mental health, though the four-month inquiry was closed with no action taken and Grove was never interviewed.

Arday contacted the Metropolitan Police to lodge a complaint of harassment against Harris. Because Harris is based in Plymouth, the matter was referred to Devon and Cornwall Police, which declined to pursue it.

Jason Arday reported academic critic to police after questions over his research – Committee For Academic Freedom

Although the complaints were later dropped, the episode raised serious concerns that powerful individuals or institutions may still use legal threats and police involvement to discourage legitimate scrutiny.

Conclusion

The anti-SLAPP measures that took effect in June 2025 represent a meaningful first step.

Nevertheless, their restriction to economic-crime cases leaves a significant gap. Journalists, academics and citizens remain exposed whenever the disputed speech concerns other matters of public interest.

Broader, carefully balanced legislation, together with stronger judicial scrutiny of costs and purpose, would provide more effective protection for public participation while still allowing genuine claimants access to the courts.

Until such reforms are enacted, the threat of strategic litigation will continue to cast a long shadow over free expression and investigative journalism in the United Kingdom.

Check out our related articles on Rule of Law, Open Justice, What is Law, Is the Law Black and White ?, Branches of Law, Bullying, Harassment and Discrimination at the Bar, The Secret Barrister, Barristers, Direct Access Barrister, Barristers Behaving Badly, Inns of Court, Council of the Inns of Court, Bar Standards Board, Bar Tribunal and Adjudication Services, Bar Council, Innocent until Proven Guilty and the highly questionable Sussex Family Justice Board.

The Ministry of Injustice is not the Ministry of Justice nor is it affiliated in any way with the justice system, legal profession, police or any other law enforcement agencies.

“Publicity is the very soul of justice. . . . It keeps the judge himself, while trying, under trial….Where there is no publicity there is no justice”

Jeremy Bentham – Mr Justice Cobb: ‘Justice must be seen to be done’

Latest Articles ↓

Most Popular ↓

You should always seek formal legal advice from a qualified and reputable lawyer (solicitor or barrister).

There are a number of links to Free and Paid For Legal Resources and Legal Organisations on the Free Legal Advice , Legal Aid and Pro Bono pages.

Categories
Criminal Justice Judiciary Legal Professionals

His Honour Judge Tony Baumgartner – Recorder of Westminster

His Honour Judge Tony Baumgartner

Judge Tony Alan Walter Baumgartner, known as His Honour Judge Tony Baumgartner, is a long-serving Senior Circuit Judge of England and Wales who is assigned to the South East Circuit.

Tony Alan Walter Baumgartner was born on the 9th August 1971. Judge Baumgartner grew up and studied in Queensland, Australia, obtaining an LLB from Queensland University of Technology (1993–1997) and an LLM from University College London (1997–1998). He is also admitted as a solicitor in Queensland, Australia, and in Ireland.

In London he practised at Rowe & Maw (later part of Mayer Brown) and Clyde & Co, specialising in political and war risks insurance as well as fine art and specie matters. He became a partner at Clyde & Co in 2011 and developed a broader commercial disputes practice.

His judicial appointments began with appointment as a Recorder of the Crown Court in 2009.

He served as a Tribunal Judge in the Health, Education and Social Entitlement Chamber (including the Restricted Patients Panel) from 2018 and was appointed a Circuit Judge in 2019.

In 2022 he became authorised to sit as a Deputy High Court Judge in the Chancery Division.

On the 1st August 2023 His Honour Judge Tony Baumgartner was appointed Senior Circuit Judge and Resident Judge at Southwark Crown Court; he is also the Honorary Recorder of Westminster.

Judge Baumgartner additionally sits as a Senior Judge of the Sovereign Base Areas of Akrotiri and Dhekelia in Cyprus.

In a 2022 conversation marking Pride month, Judge Baumgartner spoke openly about his experiences as a gay lawyer. He described the UK legal profession as increasingly inclusive and accommodating, noting that acceptance of LGBT+ people had progressed faster there than in many other parts of society and encouraged lawyers to use their privileged position to promote broader inclusion.

Judge Baumgartner was made an Honorary Bencher of Middle Temple on the 4th February 2025. This is an honour that can be (and often is) conferred on distinguished solicitors and others who were never called to the Bar by the Inn.

HHJ Baumgartner is shown on the List of Circuit Judges published on the Courts and Tribunal Judiciary website.

His Honour Judge BaumgartnerSouth East01-04-2019
List of Circuit Judges

Judge Baumgartner – The Big Ben Climb and Sentencing July 2026

On the 8th March 2025, Daniel Day climbed over railings near the Houses of Parliament and scaled the Elizabeth Tower barefoot. He displayed a Palestinian flag, remained on a ledge for around 15–17 hours, and livestreamed parts of the protest.

In sentencing, Judge Baumgartner described the offending as “well-planned” and said Day “knew precisely what you were doing.”

He noted that Day had “foolishly” climbed high enough to risk “very serious harm to you and possibly others if you fell.” While finding “little insight into your offending or any real remorse,” the judge took into account the absence of further offences since the incident and strong personal mitigation, including the defendant’s failing eyesight.

Day was ordered to complete up to 20 rehabilitation activity days and was made subject to electronic monitoring for four months.

You, and people like you, must understand that like everyone else you are subject to the laws of this country.

You and others like you do not get to decide which laws you will follow and which laws you will break.

If that were to happen, the rule of law would break down

His Honour Judge Tony Baumgartner

Authorisation to sit as a High Court Judge

HHJ Baumgartner is authorised to sit as a High Court Judge by s9(1) of the Senior Courts Act as amended by the Crime and Courts Act 2013.

According to CRIMINAL PRACTICE DIRECTIONS 2015 DIVISION XII His Honour Judge Baumgartner should be addressed as “My Lord” in court.

Modes of Address B.1 – The following judges, when sitting in court, should be addressed as ‘My Lord’ or ‘My Lady’

(b) any Circuit Judge sitting as a judge of the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) or the High Court under section 9(1) of the Senior Courts Act 1981;
(d) any Senior Circuit Judge who is an Honorary Recorder.

Description B.3 – In cause lists, forms and orders members of the judiciary should be described as follows:

(a) Circuit Judges, as ‘His [or Her] Honour Judge A’. When the judge is sitting as a judge of the High Court under section 9(1) of the Senior Courts Act 1981, the words ‘sitting as a judge of the High Court’ should be added;

The three key values which are central to the role of judicial office holders (JOHs) in England and Wales are:
• Independence
• Impartiality
• Integrity

“Publicity is the very soul of justice. . . . It keeps the judge himself, while trying, under trial….Where there is no publicity there is no justice”

Jeremy Bentham – Mr Justice Cobb: ‘Justice must be seen to be done’

Image of HHJ Baumgartner : The Lord Mayor of Westminster

The High Court Judge that never was – His Honour Judge Melbourne Inman KC

Check out our articles on Rule of Law, Open Justice, Judges Salaries and Fees, Dodgy Judges, Mr Justice Williams, His Honour Now His Dishonour, His Honour Judge Stuart Farquhar, Do you Have to Bow to a Judge ?, Can you Email a Judge ?, Can you Criticise a Judge ? and the highly dubious Sussex Family Justice Board.

The Ministry of Injustice is not the Ministry of Justice nor is it affiliated in any way with the justice system, legal profession, police or any other law enforcement agencies.

“Publicity is the very soul of justice. . . . It keeps the judge himself, while trying, under trial….Where there is no publicity there is no justice”

Jeremy Bentham – Mr Justice Cobb: ‘Justice must be seen to be done’

Latest Articles ↓

Most Popular ↓

You should always seek formal legal advice from a qualified and reputable lawyer (solicitor or barrister).

There are a number of links to Free and Paid For Legal Resources and Legal Organisations on the Free Legal Advice , Legal Aid and Pro Bono pages.

Categories
Judiciary Legal Professionals

New Protocol for Legal Professionals to Raise Informal Concerns About Judges Behaviour

Protocol Judicial Behaviour

On the 8th July 2026, the Courts and Tribunals Judiciary published a new Protocol for legal professionals wishing to raise concerns informally about judicial behaviour which is designed to help legal professionals raise concerns informally about a judge’s behaviour.

The document issued by the Lady Chief Justice of England and Wales and the Senior President of Tribunals, formalises long-standing practices, offering greater clarity and confidence for solicitors, barristers, and legal executives working in the courts and tribunals.

Purpose and Scope of the Protocol

The protocol aims to address less serious issues, such as perceived discourtesy, minor procedural unfairness, or exclusionary conduct through early and proportionate resolution.

It encourages informal dialogue as the preferred first step, allowing concerns to be resolved quickly without damaging professional relationships or resorting to formal processes.

This approach does not replace the formal complaints system. The protocol explicitly directs that more serious allegations, patterns of behaviour, or unresolved informal matters should be referred to the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office (JCIO). The JCIO is the independent body responsible for investigating formal complaints against judicial office holders in England and Wales.

It examines whether conduct breaches judicial guidelines and recommends outcomes to the Lord Chancellor and Lady Chief Justice, ranging from advice and training to suspension or removal in extreme cases.

Broader Context and Supporting Measures

The protocol forms part of a comprehensive package of reforms aimed at tackling bullying, harassment, discrimination, and exclusionary behaviour. Key accompanying initiatives include:

  • A published Statement of Expected Behaviour that sets clear standards for judicial conduct.
  • Mandatory training for leadership judges on identifying and addressing inappropriate behaviour.
  • Wider training programmes for all judicial office holders.
  • Improved access to reporting routes, advice, and wellbeing resources.

These efforts are supported by a joint statement from the Lady Chief Justice, the Senior President of Tribunals, and the Bar Council’s Commissioner for Conduct. The reforms respond directly to evidence from the Judicial Attitude Survey, the Bar Council’s 2023 report on bullying at the Bar, and Baroness Harriet Harman’s 2025 Independent Review.

Statement from Lady Justice Whipple

“The judiciary is committed to upholding the highest standards of integrity, fairness and respect. While the majority of judicial office holders behave professionally and courteously, we take concerns about bullying, harassment and discrimination very seriously and are committed to providing clear, accessible routes for legal professionals working in our courts and tribunals to raise and resolve concerns about a judge’s behaviour. This protocol formalises and improves a process that has long existed – giving legal professionals clarity about how they can raise concerns informally.”

Lady Justice Whipple, Lead Judge for Diversity and Inclusion, Leadership, Development and Wellbeing

Practical Guidance and Next Steps

The detailed Protocol for legal professionals wishing to raise
concerns informally about judicial behaviour for legal professionals wishing to raise concerns informally about judicial behaviour should be consulted.

The protocol clearly outlines the process, including options for direct or indirect approaches, expected responses and timelines.

Legal professionals are encouraged to consult this guidance before deciding whether to pursue informal resolution or escalate directly to the JCIO.

Protocol for legal professionals wishing to raise concerns informally about coroner behaviour

On the 22nd July 2026, following the Lady Chief Justice and Senior President of Tribunals issuing the protocol setting out an informal resolution route if legal professionals have a concern about a judge’s behaviour, the Chief Coroner issued the Protocol for Legal Professionals Wishing to Raise Concerns Informally About
Coroner Behaviour.

The Chief Coroner is unable to investigate complaints relating to the personal conduct of a coroner or any other judicial office holder. As with all judges, matters concerning personal conduct fall within the remit of the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office (JCIO). Information about the complaints process and how to make a complaint is available via the JCIO website.

What is the Judicial College ?
Dodgy Judges

Check out our articles on Rule of Law, Open Justice, Judicial Conduct Investigations Office (JCIO), R v Sussex Justices, Judges Salaries and Fees, Dodgy Judges, Do you Have to Bow to a Judge ?, Can you Email a Judge ?, Can you Criticise a Judge ? and the highly dubious Sussex Family Justice Board.

The Ministry of Injustice is not the Ministry of Justice nor is it affiliated in any way with the justice system, legal profession, police or any other law enforcement agencies.

“Publicity is the very soul of justice. . . . It keeps the judge himself, while trying, under trial….Where there is no publicity there is no justice”

Jeremy Bentham – Mr Justice Cobb: ‘Justice must be seen to be done’

Latest Articles ↓

Most Popular ↓

You should always seek formal legal advice from a qualified and reputable lawyer (solicitor or barrister).

There are a number of links to Free and Paid For Legal Resources and Legal Organisations on the Free Legal Advice , Legal Aid and Pro Bono pages.

Categories
Police

The Policing Performance System

The Policing Performance System

In April 2026, His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services (HMICFRS) has introduced the Policing Performance System (PPS) to strengthen how police performance is monitored and improved across England and Wales.

The Policing Performance System is a joint approach between the policing sector and government to assess, support and improve police performance across England and Wales. It provides transparent, consistent assessment and enables earlier support where improvement is needed, helping forces achieve better outcomes for communities.

Latest police performance levels – HMICFRS

Background

The PPS forms part of the government’s January 2026 white paper From local to national: a new model for policing. It replaces the previous HMICFRS “Scan” and “Engage” monitoring arrangements and works alongside the new Police Performance Framework.

The goal is to identify issues early, offer targeted support and ensure sustainable progress rather than relying solely on reactive inspections.

How the Policing Performance System Works ?

Every one of the 43 police forces in England and Wales is assigned to one of four performance levels. Assignment reflects a force’s current performance, the extent of support required, and its expected engagement with improvement processes.

Forces are continually assessed, with all encouraged to engage proactively with support tools. The system draws on PEEL inspections, force management statements, and other data sources to promote consistency and early intervention.

The Four Performance Levels

Police forces are assigned to one of four performance levels. Each level has associated degrees of support and intervention. The level assigned to a police force reflects:

  • its current performance;
  • the extent of support required; and
  • the expected level of interaction with the support and intervention process.

Level One is the default position for most forces. It applies where there is an overall positive trajectory, even with minor, mitigated concerns. No formal intervention is required, although chief constables and police and crime commissioners may request local support.

Level Two provides enhanced support to prevent deterioration. This level suits forces with enduring low-level, non-systemic issues, receding problems needing oversight, or multiple minor concerns. Forces can self-access or request additional help.

Level Three involves targeted support and intervention. It applies to forces facing a single critical and lasting issue, widespread or systemic concerns, or insufficient progress on existing problems. Chief constables must develop improvement plans and receive bespoke assistance, often from the College of Policing. Lincolnshire Police was placed in Level Three in the first assessments due to issues with call attendance times and child abuse investigations.

Level Four (Special Measures) is the highest level of concern. It is reserved for very serious failings where there is insufficient confidence in current improvement efforts. Forces face statutory requirements to follow HMICFRS recommendations and may be subject to Home Secretary intervention powers.

Oversight and Monitoring

All levels are overseen by the Policing Performance Monitoring Group (PPMG). Chaired by His Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Constabulary, the group includes senior representatives from the Home Office, HMICFRS, the College of Policing, the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners, the National Police Chiefs’ Council and the Independent Office for Police Conduct.

The PPMG meets regularly to review performance, hold forces to account, identify good practice, and ensure consistent decision-making. Forces in higher levels are typically required to conduct root cause analysis and share improvement plans.

Latest Developments

On the 16th July 2026, HMICFRS published the first police performance levels under the new system.

While the majority of forces were placed in Level One, a small number received Level Two. Lincolnshire Police was placed in Level Three of the Policing Performance System.

This initial rollout highlights the system’s emphasis on proportionate and supportive intervention.

What is Policing by Consent ?
Lawful Use of Handcuffs by the Police

Check out our articles on Policing by Consent, Police Professional Standards, Police Misconduct Hearings, Police Impartiality, Police Leadership Commission, Police Surveillance, Are the Police for Hire ?, Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC),Police Public Confidence and Engagement, Crime Reporting, What is a Police and Crime Commissioner ?, Sussex Police, Policing, Police News, Two Tiered Policing, Thought Police, Wasting Police Time, Police Community Support Officers (PCSO), Met Police, Chief Constable Jo Shiner, R v Sussex Justices and the highly questionable Sussex Family Justice Board.

The Ministry of Injustice is not the Ministry of Justice nor is it affiliated in any way with the justice system, legal profession, police or any other law enforcement agencies.

“Publicity is the very soul of justice. . . . It keeps the judge himself, while trying, under trial….Where there is no publicity there is no justice”

Jeremy Bentham – Mr Justice Cobb: ‘Justice must be seen to be done’

Latest Articles ↓

Most Popular ↓

You should always seek formal legal advice from a qualified and reputable lawyer (solicitor or barrister).

There are a number of links to Free and Paid For Legal Resources and Legal Organisations on the Free Legal Advice , Legal Aid and Pro Bono pages.

Categories
Judiciary

What is the Judicial College ?

Judicial College

The Judicial College serves as the central pillar of professional training and development for the judiciary across England and Wales. By providing structured, high-quality education, it ensures that judges, magistrates, tribunal members, coroners and legal advisers maintain the highest standards of competence, impartiality and fairness.

Established on the 1st April 2011, the Judicial College replaced the earlier Judicial Studies Board and unified training arrangements under a single organisation. This move strengthened consistency and efficiency while fully respecting judicial independence.

Historical Background and Governance

The College traces its roots to the Judicial Studies Board, created in 1979. The 2011 reorganisation enabled all judicial office holders under the responsibility of the Lady Chief Justice and Senior President of Tribunals to receive training from one body. Coroners and their officers joined in 2013.

Governance rests on statutory foundations, including the Constitutional Reform Act 2005, the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, and the Coroners and Justice Act 2009.

The College operates within the Judicial Office. Its Board, chaired by a Court of Appeal judge which is currently the Right Honourable Lady Justice Eleanor King DBE who sets strategic direction, agrees business plans, and monitors delivery.

Supporting committees address courts, tribunals, Wales (including Welsh language needs), and international training. The Judicial College Faculty, launched in 2016, focuses on educational best practice and curriculum innovation. A defining feature remains that training is led by the judiciary, for the judiciary.

Scale and Scope of Training

The College supports approximately 24,000 judicial office holders, including around 14,600 magistrates. It organises roughly 1,700 live training courses annually, alongside extensive digital resources such as e-learning modules, webinars, bench books, and guidance materials.

Key Training Areas

  • Criminal Jurisdiction: Practical courses featuring mock trials and hearings, together with updates on sentencing, evidence, and procedural developments.
  • Civil and Family Jurisdictions: Continuing education on procedure, substantive law, and sensitive issues involving children and vulnerable parties.
  • Tribunals and Magistrates: Specialised induction and continuation programmes.
  • Coroners: Dedicated courses on inquests and investigations.
  • Senior and Cross-Jurisdictional: Seminars for High Court and appellate judges, plus flexible deployment training.

International programmes allow judicial office holders to share expertise and support capacity-building overseas.

The 2026–2030 Judicial College Strategy

Published in early 2026, the Judicial College Strategy 2026–2030 sets an ambitious path to remain a world leader in judicial education. It identifies three core priorities:

  1. High-Quality Education in the Contemporary Judicial Role – covering substantive law, judgecraft, domestic abuse awareness, trauma-informed practice, leadership, and artificial intelligence.
  2. Strong Educational Practice and Support – focusing on accessibility, inclusion, and trainer development.
  3. External Engagement and Relationships – promoting transparency and international partnerships.

Recent Initiatives and Resources

The annual Judicial College Prospectus 2026–2027 details available courses and learning outcomes. A new public summary on judicial education in domestic abuse highlights training on coercion, control, and safe participation.

Other key publications include the Guidelines for the Assessment of General Damages in Personal Injury Cases, the Equal Treatment Bench Book and the Crown Court Compendium.

Conclusion

Well-trained judicial office holders contribute to efficient case handling, fair outcomes, and public trust. In an era of increasing case volumes, technological change, and societal expectations, the College equips its participants to respond effectively while supporting diversity, inclusion, and wellbeing.

The Judicial College represents a vital investment in the quality and integrity of justice in England and Wales. Through comprehensive, judiciary-led training and a clear strategic vision, it ensures those who deliver justice are equipped for the demands of today and tomorrow.

Check out our articles on Rule of Law, Open Justice, R v Sussex Justices, Judges Salaries and Fees, Dodgy Judges, Do you Have to Bow to a Judge ?, Can you Email a Judge ?, Can you Criticise a Judge ? and the highly dubious Sussex Family Justice Board.

The Ministry of Injustice is not the Ministry of Justice nor is it affiliated in any way with the justice system, legal profession, police or any other law enforcement agencies.

“Publicity is the very soul of justice. . . . It keeps the judge himself, while trying, under trial….Where there is no publicity there is no justice”

Jeremy Bentham – Mr Justice Cobb: ‘Justice must be seen to be done’

Latest Articles ↓

Most Popular ↓

You should always seek formal legal advice from a qualified and reputable lawyer (solicitor or barrister).

There are a number of links to Free and Paid For Legal Resources and Legal Organisations on the Free Legal Advice , Legal Aid and Pro Bono pages.

Rule of Law - Open Justice - Policing By Consent