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
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.

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.

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.

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 Leadership Commission Report

Police Leadership Commission Report

An independent review by the Police Leadership Commission has concluded that police leadership across England and Wales falls short of the consistently high standards the public and officers deserve, calling for a fundamental modernisation of how leaders are recruited, trained and promoted.

Titled Professionalism and performance – police leadership for the future, the report was published on the 6th July 2026 by the College of Policing.

The report was commissioned in October 2025 with Home Office support, and represents the most comprehensive examination of police leadership in England and Wales in a generation.

Key Findings

The report paints a concerning picture of inconsistent leadership standards. His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary, Fire and Rescue Services (HMICFRS) graded no force as “outstanding” for leadership, with nearly a third requiring improvement and two deemed inadequate.

Police leadership is not consistently of a high enough standard and requires a fundamental overhaul, a landmark independent review has warned.

The report by the Police Leadership Commission, published on Monday, found the system for identifying and developing leaders was too weak, with chief constable roles in England and Wales often attracting a single suitable candidate.

Police leadership needs fundamental overhaul, review finds – BBC

Frontline pressures are acute as almost a third of officers have fewer than five years’ experience, morale is low, and many cite resource shortages, excessive bureaucracy and risk-averse cultures that leave staff unsupported. Eight former or serving chief constables are currently subject to disciplinary investigations or awaiting outcomes.

Public confidence has also declined, with only 49% rating their local police as good or excellent in 2025, compared with 62% a decade earlier.

Central funding for leadership development currently accounts for just 0.02% of the overall police budget which is significantly lower than in other public services such as the NHS or the military.

Core Recommendations

The commission sets out 27 recommendations designed to reset the culture, raise standards and prepare policing for future challenges. Key proposals include:

  • Establishing a National Academy of Police Leadership with a dedicated centre, digital platform and nationwide presence to deliver consistent, high-quality training.
  • Introducing a new senior constable rank to recognise and reward experienced frontline officers who mentor colleagues and uphold standards.
  • Creating a police leadership fast stream open to both internal talent and external candidates, with the aim of developing up to 400 future leaders a year towards superintendent level.
  • Overhauling promotion processes to sergeant and inspector ranks, replacing the outdated examination with nationally accredited training and fairer, more transparent selection.
  • Introducing mandatory annual performance reviews supported by digital professional passports, alongside routine secondments, targeted direct entry from other sectors, and equal development opportunities for police staff.

The complete list of recommendations presented in the police leadership commission report is published on the College of Policing Website.

The full report Professionalism and performance – police leadership for the future is also published on the College of Policing Website.

Reactions and Next Steps

Policing Minister Sarah Jones welcomed the findings, stating that the recommendations would inform the government’s broader police reform programme. She acknowledged that too many examples of leadership have failed to meet expected standards and emphasised the need for consistent, high-quality training and development for every officer.

Lord Blunkett highlighted the importance of an “ethical reset”, while Sir Andy Marsh, Chief Executive of the College of Policing, described the report as a once-in-a-generation opportunity to invest properly in the service’s people.

A Path Forward

The proposals align closely with the government’s white paper on police reform – From Local to National: A New Model for Policing and aim to create a more professional, ethical and inclusive leadership culture capable of tackling modern threats such as online crime and technological change.

While the report celebrates pockets of outstanding leadership, it makes clear that systemic weaknesses must be addressed if trust and effectiveness are to be rebuilt. Coordinated implementation by the Home Office, College of Policing and forces will be essential in the months ahead.

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 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.

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
Government Law Legal Analysis

Repeal a Law

Repeal a Law

Repealing a law in the United Kingdom does not mean the original law was bad, defective or mistaken. It means Parliament has decided the law is no longer required or useful.

Under the principle of parliamentary sovereignty, Parliament may repeal any legislation without implying criticism of the earlier law or the Parliament that passed it. Repeal is a normal and necessary part of maintaining an effective legal system.

The Process to Repeal a Law

The process of repealing a law in the UK usually follows these steps:

  1. Proposal – Repeal can be proposed by the government, individual MPs or peers (through Private Members’ Bills), or recommended by the Law Commission.
  2. Inclusion in a Bill – Most repeals are included in a larger bill (e.g., a reform bill or a dedicated Statute Law (Repeals) Bill). The bill must go through all stages in both the House of Commons and the House of Lords.
  3. Parliamentary Scrutiny – The bill is debated, amended if necessary, and voted on in both Houses.
  4. Royal Assent – Once passed by Parliament, the bill receives Royal Assent and becomes an Act.
  5. Commencement – The repeal may take effect immediately, on a future date, or when brought into force by secondary legislation (commencement regulations).

For routine technical repeals, the Law Commission prepares reports and draft bills that are usually passed with little debate.

Why Laws Are Repealed ?

Laws are repealed for a variety of reasons. Societal values and economic conditions change over time. Rules that were once appropriate can become obsolete as technology, daily life, or public priorities evolve. Some laws are repealed because they are redundant or have been replaced by clearer, modern legislation. Others are removed as part of routine maintenance of the statute book to reduce complexity and improve accessibility.

Routine Repeals: The Law Commission

Much repeal work is technical and non-controversial. The Law Commission plays a central role in this process. It systematically identifies enactments that are no longer of practical utility. Its goal is to reduce the size of the statute book, save time and costs for lawyers and the public, and prevent confusion caused by outdated rules that have no current application.

The Statute Law (Repeals) Act 1969 was the first in a series of modern repeal Acts. It removed numerous old enactments, including certain medieval statutes and most remaining provisions of Magna Carta 1297 (while carefully preserving the four most important articles). The Act was not a judgment on the quality of those ancient laws. It simply recognised that they had become obsolete after centuries.

Another example is the Statute Law (Repeals) Act 1993, which repealed a wide range of obsolete laws covering areas such as justice, agriculture, companies, and ecclesiastical matters, while also correcting a mistake from an earlier repeal Act.

This was followed by the Statute Law (Repeals) Act 1998, which carried out a large-scale clean-up across many different fields.

In 2008, the Statute Law (Repeals) Act 2008 removed numerous old colonial and Indian-related statutes, helping to clear post-empire legislation from the statute book.

More recently, the Statute Law (Repeals) Act 2013 focused on obsolete provisions relating to transport, local government, and finance. These Acts demonstrate the continuing, methodical work of modernising and simplifying the law.

Since 1965, Parliament has passed 19 Statute Law (Repeals) Acts, leading to the complete repeal of more than 3,000 statutes. These are standard “tidying-up” measures designed to keep the law clear and manageable.

Recent Repeal: The Vagrancy Act 1824

Not all repeals are routine. Some reflect significant shifts in social attitudes or government policy. A prominent example is the Vagrancy Act 1824, which criminalised rough sleeping and begging. This Act was repealed by section 81 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, with the repeal brought into force on the 29th June 2026.

Originally introduced in 1824, the Vagrancy Act has been found to punish people simply for not having a home. As a result, it has pushed vulnerable people away from support, increased the risk of fines or criminal records and made it harder for people to rebuild their lives.

Repealing the Act is a vital step in ending a system that has failed to address the causes of rough sleeping and in shifting the focus towards prevention, support and long-term solutions.

Rough sleeping no longer a crime as Vagrancy Act repealed

The repeal was not proposed by the Law Commission as part of its Statute Law (Repeals) programme. Instead, it resulted from government policy, parliamentary debate, and long-running campaigns by homelessness organisations.

The Vagrancy Act, originally passed in response to post-Napoleonic War conditions and rising homelessness after the Industrial Revolution, was increasingly viewed as outdated and punitive rather than supportive. Its removal marks a clear shift toward addressing homelessness through prevention, support and long-term solutions instead of criminal penalties.

Other Reasons for Repeal

Political or policy changes frequently lead to repeals. A new government may remove or amend measures introduced by its predecessor. In some cases, a law produces unintended consequences or is replaced by better drafting. Repeal then forms part of legislative improvement and modernisation.

Technical consolidation exercises also involve repeal. Older fragmented laws are removed and replaced by single, clearer Acts that are easier to understand and apply.

Conclusion

Repeal does not erase the historical context or the original purpose of the legislation. Many repealed laws were reasonable and effective in their time. The willingness to repeal them demonstrates a mature legal system that adapts to new circumstances rather than preserving outdated rules indefinitely.

Parliament’s power to repeal legislation is an essential feature of UK democracy. It allows the law to remain relevant and responsive. The Law Commission’s ongoing repeal programme handles technical obsolescence, while broader policy repeals, such as the Vagrancy Act, reflect changing societal values and priorities.

In summary, repealing a law is a neutral act of law-making. It reflects current needs rather than a verdict on the quality or wisdom of earlier legislation. Whether through routine tidying by the Law Commission or deliberate policy change, repeal helps keep the statute book clear, accessible and fit for purpose in a modern society.

Check out our articles on Rule of Law, Open Justice, Lady Chief Justice, Judges Salaries and Fees, Dodgy Judges, Magistrates, Chief Magistrate, Do you Have to Bow to a Judge ?, Can you Email a Judge ?, Can you Criticise a Judge ?, Crown Prosecution Service, Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) 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.

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 are Judges Lodgings ?

Judges Lodgings

The provision of judges’ lodgings is a longstanding feature of the British legal system, rooted in the medieval assize circuits.

For centuries, High Court judges have travelled from London to preside over serious criminal and civil cases in provincial courts. To uphold their independence and ensure their safety while away from home, successive governments have provided official residences.

The reason why lodgings, as distinct from hotels, are considered essential is that the judge must be provided, if necessary, with a high degree of personal security and privacy… It is absolutely vital for the administration of justice…”

Judges’ Lodgings – House of Lords Debate Wednesday 4 April 1973

These properties, often elegant historic buildings or carefully appointed townhouses, have offered judges a secure and dignified environment in which to carry out their duties.

This arrangement reflects a fundamental constitutional principle, that the judiciary must be protected from external influence and practical inconvenience so that justice may be administered impartially.

There is no fully up-to-date public official list of remaining permanent judges’ lodgings published by the Ministry of Justice after 2014–2015.

Many historic “Judges’ Lodgings” buildings (e.g., in York, Lancaster, Presteigne, Gloucester) are now museums or boutique hotels and are no longer used for active judicial accommodation.

Modern use Judges’ Lodgings

A reduced network of judges’ lodgings supports High Court judges when they sit on circuit. Permanent residences exist in major centres including Birmingham, Leeds, Manchester, Cardiff, Bristol and (occasionally) Swansea, with additional hotels or hired accommodation used as required. Judges may stay for several weeks at a time, benefiting from private living quarters, secure transport and facilities that allow them to prepare cases effectively in the evenings.

Spouses or civil partners are permitted to stay, sharing the same suite of accommodation. A weekly allowance (historically £310 per judge) covers food and drink for the judge, clerk and any accompanying spouse or partner.

While High Court judges use these lodgings, circuit and district judges more commonly rely on hotels or claim standard subsistence payments. The Ministry of Justice maintains that this system serves an important purpose, particularly in cases involving sensitive or high-profile matters where security and discretion are essential.

Judges’ Lodgings Cost

The financial cost of judges’ lodgings has been a recurring subject of parliamentary and public debate.

In 2000, parliamentary records showed that chauffeur-driven cars for judges at lodgings cost £557,066 in 1999–2000, with Birmingham having the highest annual car hire cost at £50,641. By 2009, High Court judges’ accommodation was reported to cost taxpayers more than £5 million a year.

More recent figures from a 2021 Freedom of Information request revealed that £8.7 million was spent over four years. The Swansea lodging attracted particular attention, averaging £2,727 per night in one period, largely due to a one-off £56,000 repair bill and variable occupancy. In 2013/14, running costs for 15 permanent lodgings totalled £2.8 million, with Leeds the most expensive at £363,642.

Critics argue that many lodgings are under-used for large parts of the year, representing poor value for taxpayers at a time when public spending is under pressure. They suggest that modern hotels could provide adequate alternatives at a lower cost.

The Case for Retention of Judges’ Lodgings

Supporters of the current arrangements emphasise considerations that extend beyond simple nightly rates. Security remains a primary concern: judges presiding over trials involving organised crime, terrorism or significant public interest require protection that standard hotels may not reliably guarantee. Equally important is the need for privacy. Judges must avoid unintended encounters with legal professionals, witnesses or members of the public that could give rise to any perception of bias.

Furthermore, the lodgings provide a suitable setting for focused work, with space for legal papers and quiet reflection which are conditions that contribute to the quality of judicial decision-making.

Successive reviews by the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice have concluded that, when all relevant factors are taken into account, the system represents a reasonable and necessary investment in the effective administration of justice.

Reforms and Efficiency Measures

Over the past two decades, significant steps have been taken to modernise the system. The number of permanent lodgings has been reduced (from 17 to 15 by 2015), with several properties sold or replaced by “pay as you go” hotel hires. Luxury elements have been curtailed.

In 2015, the Labour Party proposed the sale of the entire portfolio for an estimated £26 million, projecting annual savings approaching £3 million through greater reliance on hotel accommodation. Although not fully adopted, this proposal reflected a broader drive towards greater efficiency.

The Ministry of Justice continues to monitor usage and explore hybrid models that combine a smaller core of permanent residences with high-quality, secure hotel provision where appropriate.

The Future of Judges’ Lodgings

Judges’ lodgings illustrate a delicate balance within the justice system: the need to preserve judicial independence and dignity while demonstrating careful stewardship of public resources. As courts face ongoing pressures from case backlogs and budgetary constraints, further rationalisation appears likely.

A pragmatic approach of retaining select historic properties where they deliver clear value, while adopting flexible modern alternatives, may offer the most sustainable path. Ultimately, the purpose of these arrangements is not judicial comfort but the fair and effective delivery of justice across England and Wales.

Whether housed in grand surroundings or more modest settings, High Court judges must be supported in carrying out their vital constitutional role without distraction or compromise.

Any further decisions on the future of the remaining lodgings are likely to be made following internal reviews by the Ministry of Justice and the Lord Chief Justice.

Can you Email a Judge ?
Dodgy Judges
Do Retired Judges Keep Their Title ?
Can you Buy a Judge ?

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, Do you Have to Bow to a Judge ?, Can you Email a Judge ?, Can you Criticise a Judge ?, Judicial Guidance on Artificial Intelligence 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.

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 Analysis Police

What is Two Tier Policing ?

Two Tier Policing

The BBC describes so-called “two-tier policing” as where right-wing protests are considered to be dealt with more harshly than left-wing ones by the police. This explanation is simply not true.

The most simplistic and accurate explanation of two tier policing is that there’s one rule for one person and another rule for another. The publicly shown bias and discrimination by the Police is manifesting itself irrespective of politics, sexuality, race or colour.

The police should and must operate independently under the law without fear or favour. The Rule of Law applies to everyone regardless of who they are. Policing in this country and around the world is by consent. There should no bias by the police or by anyone in the justice system.

Lawful Use of Handcuffs by the Police

The debate over two-tiered policing has significant implications for public trust in law enforcement. If the perception of biased policing persists, it can erode confidence in the police and exacerbate social divisions. On the other hand, dismissing legitimate concerns about unequal treatment can also harm community relations and hinder efforts to address systemic issues within law enforcement.

Two-tiered policing remains a contentious issue, with strong arguments on both sides. While some see it as a reflection of systemic biases within law enforcement, others view it as a necessary differentiation based on the nature of the protests or other lawlessness.

Regardless of where one stands on the issue, it is crucial to continue scrutinising police practices to ensure fairness and accountability in all aspects of law enforcement.

The State of Policing Report 2022 and the Loss of Public Trust by HMICFRS said amongst other things “The public’s trust and confidence are unacceptably low. The fundamental principle of policing by consent, upon which the service is built, is at risk.”

What is Policing by Consent ?

The discussion of #TwoTierPolicing #TwoTierJustice and #TwoTierKeir along with Free Speech is very much alive on X.

Sir Keir Starmer stated “there is no two-tier policing“ and said it is a “non-issue”.

Elon Musk calls out Sir Keir Starmer as #TwoTierKeir

Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley has called accusations of two-tier policing “complete nonsense”.

They are hardly going to agree that there is Two Tier Policing ?! Maybe the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) should investigate ? Is the accusation of Police bias worthy of Judicial Review ?

Do you have evidence of two tier policing by the Met Police, West Midlands Police or any other UK police forces ? Contact Us

Met Police Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley demonstrates violent thuggery and Two Tiered Policing without Fear or Favour.
Superintendent Emlyn Richards of West Midlands Police explains Two Tier Policing in simple language.
The Guardian have been telling people about two-tier policing based on race and sexuality for decades

Adam Brooks calls out MORE two-tier policing

Adam Brooks calls out more two-tier policing as roads were closed for Pakistan Independence Day, but England fans were ...
Adam Brooks calls out MORE two-tier policing
Adam Brooks calls out MORE two-tier policing
Adam Brooks calls out more two-tier policing as roads were closed for ...
Two-Tier Police Ignore Warden's Assault & Threatening Behaviour, Then Question ME! ⚠️
Two-Tier Police Ignore Warden's Assault & Threatening Behaviour, Then Question ME! ⚠️
Two-Tier Police Ignore Warden's Assault & Threatening Behaviour, Then ...
‘Two-tier policing’: UK police under fire over man’s arrest
‘Two-tier policing’: UK police under fire over man’s arrest
GB News host Alex Armstrong weighs in on the most recent case of ...
Two tier policing in the uk
Two tier policing in the uk
The policy is clear: priority is given to anyone but the British. Have ...
"Completely And Utterly UNACCEPTABLE!" | Reform UK's Richard Tice Blasts Two-Tier Policing Of Riots
"Completely And Utterly UNACCEPTABLE!" | Reform UK's Richard Tice Blasts Two-Tier Policing Of Riots
Tom Tugendhat said he did not believe there was a two-tier approach to ...
Two tier policing 'BLATANTLY VISIBLE'
Two tier policing 'BLATANTLY VISIBLE'
Leo Kearse hits out at two tier policing, which he says is 'blatantly ...

Check out our related articles on Policing by Consent, Thought Police, Sussex Police, Met Police, Chief Constable Jo Shiner Sussex Police, , What is a Police and Crime Commissioner and a Police and Crime Panel ?, Rule of Law, Open Justice, Innocent until Proven Guilty, 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.

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

Lawful Use of Handcuffs by the Police

Lawful Use of Handcuffs by the Police

Handcuffs are a standard restraint tool used by police officers across the United Kingdom to help maintain control, prevent escape, protect the public, or reduce the immediate risk of harm.

Any intentional application of force to the person of another is an assault.
The use of handcuffs amounts to such an assault and is unlawful unless it can be justified.
Justification is achieved through establishing not only a legal right to use handcuffs, but also good objective grounds for doing so in order to show that what the officer did was a reasonable, necessary and proportionate use of force

College of Policing – Handcuffing Module Personal Safety

The use of handcuffs is not automatic and is strictly governed by the legal requirement that any force must be lawful, necessary, proportionate and subject to continuous review.

Legal Basis

There is no dedicated legislation that deals solely with handcuffs. Their use is authorised under general provisions governing the use of force.

Section 3 of the Criminal Law Act 1967 states that a person may use “such force as is reasonable in the circumstances” in the prevention of crime or in effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of an offender or suspected offender.

Section 117 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) permits a constable to use reasonable force when exercising powers conferred by the Act, including powers of arrest.

Applying handcuffs constitutes a trespass to the person (technically an assault or battery) unless it is justified by these provisions.

Officers must have an objective, reasonable belief that the individual presents a risk of escape, violence towards officers or others, self-harm, or damage to property. Routine handcuffing, for example during every stop-and-search or low-level arrest, is not permitted. The individual police officer remains personally accountable for the decision.

The Human Rights Act 1998 is engaged where prolonged or unjustified restraint occurs. Unnecessary handcuffing may breach Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) or Article 5 (right to liberty and security). Courts judge reasonableness on the basis of the information available to the officer at the time, not with the benefit of hindsight.

College of Policing and Force Guidance

The College of Policing’s Authorised Professional Practice (APP) on Personal Safety and Use of Force requires officers to assess each situation individually. Relevant risk factors include the person’s behaviour, demeanour, level of intoxication, known medical conditions and any available intelligence regarding previous violence.

The Metropolitan Police Service Handcuffing procedures – Policy and Handcuffing procedures – Policy FAQ, released under Freedom of Information, makes clear that “the justification to handcuff a person is a use of force and it is up to the officer to justify his/her reasons for handcuffing.” Key procedural requirements include:

  • Double-locking the cuffs to prevent overtightening;
  • Regular checks for circulation and signs of distress;
  • Removal as soon as the risk has sufficiently subsided;
  • Particular caution with vulnerable groups (children, elderly, pregnant individuals, or those with visible injuries or medical conditions).

Rigid “speedcuffs” are the standard issue in most UK forces. They are usually applied with hands behind the back for high-risk subjects.

Body-worn video is routinely used to capture both the decision and the application, supporting accountability. Similar risk-based principles apply in all UK police forces.

The Henry Nowak Case

The death of 18-year-old Henry Nowak in Southampton on the 3rd December 2025 highlighted the critical importance of accurate scene assessment when using handcuffs.

Henry Nowak, a first-year Polish-born finance student at the University of Southampton, was stabbed five times by 23-year-old Vickrum Digwa using a 21 cm (approximately 8-inch) Sikh kirpan ceremonial knife. One wound to the chest was fatal. Digwa chased the unarmed Nowak before the attack.

When Hampshire Police officers arrived in the Portswood area, Vickrum Digwa falsely claimed that Nowak had racially abused him and started a fight.

Officers, acting on this information, treated Nowak as the suspect, handcuffed him, and arrested him while he was bleeding. Body-worn camera footage later showed Nowak repeatedly telling officers he had been stabbed and that he could not breathe. He pleaded for help. The handcuffs were removed only after he collapsed. First aid was attempted, but he was pronounced dead at the scene.

Newly released footage shows the teenager saying four times, ‘I’ve been stabbed’, to which one policeman replies, ‘I don’t think you have mate’.

Officers pull Mr Nowak along the ground as he continues to beg for help, telling them he cannot breathe at least seven times before he is ordered to place his hands in the cuffs.

The injured student was then arrested as he lay dying on the ground, drowning in his own blood.

Moment Henry Died Alone – Daily Mail

Following his conviction for murder at Southampton Crown Court, Vickrum Singh Digwa was sentenced on the 1st June 2026 to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 21 years by His Honour Judge William Mousley KC, the Honorary Recorder of Southampton and Resident Judge.

Police officers honestly believed that there were reasonable grounds for suspecting Henry had committed an offence and arrested him with the consequence he was handcuffed for about a minute before his condition further deteriorated and the arresting officer began CPR.

Judge William Mousley KC sentencing remarks in the case of The King v Vickrum Singh Digwa
Statement from DCC Robert France after man convicted of murdering student Henry Nowak in Southampton

“I am really sorry that Henry was arrested and handcuffed just before he lost consciousness.”

Temporary Deputy Chief Constable Robert France of Hampshire and Isle of Wight Constabulary Apology

The Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) is independently investigating the officers’ actions, including the decision to handcuff, the assessment of his injuries, and the first aid provided. Officers are currently treated as witnesses. Nowak’s family, including his father Mark, has called for a “full, fearless and transparent” investigation, stating that Henry “did not die with dignity.”

On the 15th June 2026, The Solicitor General Ellie Reeves KC referred the sentence of Vickrum Digwa, convicted of the murder of Henry Nowak, to the Court of Appeal under the Unduly Lenient Sentence scheme.

Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC)

Training and Accountability

Officers receive regular conflict management training that includes restraint techniques, de-escalation, and situational awareness. Handcuffing forms part of personal protective equipment (PPE) programmes. Misuse can lead to internal misconduct proceedings, IOPC investigation, civil claims for assault or false imprisonment, and, in the most serious cases, criminal liability.

What is Two Tier Policing ?

Conclusion

Handcuffs remain a lawful and often essential tool in modern policing when used correctly. UK law and policy rightly demand individual risk assessment rather than blanket application.

The tragic death of Henry Nowak illustrates the immense difficulty officers can face when dealing with fast-moving incidents involving conflicting accounts and life-threatening injuries. It also reinforces the need for continual training, effective scene management and public confidence in policing decisions made under pressure.

Check out our articles on Policing by Consent, Police Professional Standards, Police Misconduct Hearings, Police Impartiality, 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.

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 Nicholas Rowland

His Honour Judge Nicholas Rowland

Judge Nicholas Edward Rowland, known as His Honour Judge Nicholas Rowland, is a long-serving Circuit Judge of England and Wales who is assigned to the South West Circuit.

His Honour Judge Nicholas Edward Rowland was called to the Bar in 1988 and practised as a barrister for over 25 years before becoming a full-time judge.

He was appointed a Recorder (part-time judge) in 2005 and sat at Southampton Crown Court, before being appointed a Circuit Judge on the 23rd June 2014 on the South West Circuit, where he has served as a permanent judge based at Southampton Combined Court Centre ever since.

We are pleased to announce that His Honour Judge Nicholas Rowland, a former member, has been appointed to the Crown Court bench to be based in Southampton.

3PB Barristers Autumn 2014 News

Detailed public records on Judge Rowland’s pre-appointment professional background (such as whether he practiced as a barrister or solicitor, chambers affiliation (3 Paper Buildings (3PB) is one of the UK’s oldest chambers), year of call to the Bar, or areas of specialization) are limited.

Unlike some judges whose biographies appear on chambers websites, judicial profiles, or in appointment announcements with full career histories, Judge Rowland’s pre-bench career is not extensively documented in open sources.

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

His Honour Judge Nicholas Edward RowlandSouth West23-06-2014
List of Circuit Judges

Judge Rowland Legal Controversy – Judge Praises Behaviour of Teenage Rapists

A gang of three teenage boys from the traveller community in Hampshire have avoided custodial sentences after being convicted of multiple rapes against two schoolgirls in separate attacks in Fordingbridge.

In November 2024, two boys aged 14 lured a 15-year-old girl via Snapchat to a riverside underpass, where they raped her while laughing and filming the assault on their phones. Just two months later, the same pair, joined by a 13-year-old boy, subjected a 14-year-old girl to a knife-point gang rape in a park, again recording the attack and encouraging each other to degrade her further.

On the 5th March 2026, following a five-week trial at Southampton Crown Court, the three boys were convicted. The two older boys, now aged 15, were found guilty of multiple counts of rape and taking indecent images of a child. The youngest boy, now aged 14, was convicted of two counts of rape. They were sentenced on the 21st May 2026.

Despite the seriousness of the offences which included filming and the use of a knife in one attack, His Honour Judge Nicholas Rowland sentenced all three to youth rehabilitation orders rather than prison. The two older boys received three-year orders with intensive supervision, while the youngest received an 18-month order.

Judge Rowland cited the defendants’ young age, low intellectual capacity, ADHD issues, vulnerability to peer pressure and limited understanding of consent as key mitigating factors.

Judge Rowland told them: “None of you need to go to prison today,” and praised their good behaviour during the trial “You have all done very well with the restrictions put in place throughout the trial. (The second boy) and (the third boy) your problems are quite bad.“ stating he wished to avoid “criminalising these children unnecessarily” and focus on their rehabilitation.

Judge Rowland’s lenient sentence has sparked significant public outrage and political criticism, with senior politicians describing it as “soft justice” and calling for tougher penalties for such serious sexual offences against children.

The full transcript of judge Nicholas Rowlands sentencing remarks were made publicly available after the BBC requested they be transcribed.

The case has reignited debate over the sentencing of young offenders in England and Wales, particularly in cases involving extreme violence and the filming of sexual assaults.

On Friday 22nd May 2026, a government spokesperson said that the Attorney General’s office had received “multiple” requests for the sentences to be reviewed under the Unduly Lenient Sentence (ULS) scheme.

The Unduly Lenient Sentence (ULS) scheme allows anyone to ask for certain Crown Court sentences to be reviewed by the Attorney General’s Office (AGO) if they think the sentence is too lenient. 

The review is ultimately conducted by the Law Officers (Attorney General or Solicitor General) and if they consider the sentence appears unduly lenient, they can ask the Court of Appeal to review the sentence.

On Tuesday 26th May 2026, the Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer announced that the sentences will be referred to the Court of Appeal.

On the 12th June 2026 the BBC published Boys’ sentences for rape to be reviewed in July

The sentences of three teenage boys who were spared custody over the rape of two girls will now be considered by senior judges at the Court of Appeal during a two-day hearing starting on 1st July 2026.

Court of Appeal cases fixed for hearing (Criminal Division) – 1st July 2026

Tom Little KC, for the attorney general, told the court: “It is submitted that the extent and nature of the offending was so serious such that the only appropriate sentence for [the boys] was detention.”

Tom Little KC also said that Judge Nicholas Rowland was “wrong to conclude that a community sentence could be justified for any of them”.

Judge ‘wrong’ to spare boy rapists from custody, court told – BBC News

Judge Nicholas Rowland was accused of being “unduly lenient” to the rapists by lawyers representing the Attorney General at the Court of Appeal.

On the 2nd July 2026, two teenage boys were given four years’ detention after the Court of Appeal changed the sentence. The third boy did not have his sentence changed. The Lady Chief Justice Baroness Carr, Lord Justice Edis, and Justice Norton presided over the case.

The Lady Chief Justice said courts have to follow sentencing guidelines, which together require the sentencing judge to assess the seriousness of the offence, and whether they pass the custody threshold.

The assessment of seriousness was at the heart of the appeal, Carr says – recognising the difficulty of the case due to the ages of everyone involved.

Carr says a deeper analysis of the sentencing guidelines and of the two separate incidents was undertaken, adding that it was then “concluded that the judge had erred in his assessment of the seriousness of the offences“.

Judge Rowland erred in his assessment of the seriousness – Lady Chief Justice

Authorisation to sit as a High Court Judge

HHJ Rowland 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 Rowland 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 Rowland : Microsoft Copilot

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.

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 Barred and Advisory Lists

Police Barred and Advisory Lists

The police barred and advisory lists, which are managed by the College of Policing, were introduced under the Police Barred List and Police Advisory List Regulations 2017. They record officers, special constables, and police staff who have been dismissed for serious misconduct or performance failings.

These Regulations are made under Part 4A of the Police Act 1996 (the “1996 Act”), which was inserted by section 30 of, and Schedule 8 to, the Policing and Crime Act 2017. Part 4A of the 1996 Act requires the College of Policing to maintain two lists; the police barred list (see section 88B) and the police advisory list (see section 88J). These Regulations are made under various powers in Part 4A to make provision supplementing the regime established under that Part.

Explanatory Note – Police Barred List and Police Advisory List Regulations 2017

Working alongside the advisory list, it prevents unsuitable individuals from re-entering policing roles while enhancing transparency and public trust.

Purpose and Background

The barred and advisory lists were established as part of the government’s commitment to raising standards in policing. They increase accountability for those dismissed and make the discipline system more transparent by publishing details where appropriate.

Both lists are administered by the College of Policing, which receives reports from forces following dismissals under the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2020 and Police (Performance) Regulations 2020.

Individuals remain on the barred list indefinitely unless they successfully appeal their dismissal or have their case reviewed after the minimum waiting period. This framework deters poor behaviour and supports a culture of high professional standards.

What the Police Barred List Contains

The barred list includes all officers, special constables, and staff dismissed after formal investigations. For public entries – primarily conduct-related dismissals of warranted officers and special constables – the College publishes the individual’s name, former force, rank, number, date of dismissal, and reason for dismissal.

Police staff and PCSOs appear on an internal version but are not published publicly. The College decides on publication after considering national security, ongoing investigations, or potential harm to individuals. In the vast majority of cases, details are made public.

Public Access and Updates

The police public barred list is searchable and updated monthly, with new names added by the end of the month following dismissal. Entries remain visible for five years from the date of publication before automatic removal from the public version (though the internal record continues).

Dismissals for gross incompetence follow a three-year public visibility period in some contexts, aligned with review rules.

The Advisory List

The advisory list covers individuals who resigned, retired, or left during an investigation, or before allegations came to light. It also includes volunteers whose designated status was withdrawn for conduct or performance reasons. There is no public access to this list.

Forces must consult the advisory list during vetting. While it does not automatically bar employment, hiring organisations must carefully consider the information as part of the recruitment and vetting process.

How the Lists Are Used

All Home Office police forces in England and Wales, Offices of Police and Crime Commissioners, His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services, and the Independent Office for Police Conduct are required to check both lists before appointing or employing anyone.

Anyone on the barred list must not be employed in policing roles.

Reviews and Removal from the Barred List

Barred individuals may apply for a review after three years for gross incompetence dismissals or five years for gross misconduct dismissals. Applications are submitted by email to the College of Policing with supporting evidence. The relevant force provides a recommendation, but the College makes the final decision.

Reviews consider the individual’s current suitability, the original circumstances, and the potential impact on public confidence. A successful review does not guarantee re-employment; the applicant must still apply for a role and pass full vetting. The process does not re-examine the original dismissal.

Impact on Policing

By publicly recording dismissals and preventing re-entry of unsuitable personnel, the barred list plays a significant role in maintaining discipline and rebuilding public confidence. Annual statistics published by the College show hundreds of officers added each year, demonstrating the system’s active use.

Overall, the barred and advisory lists represent a balanced approach with firm accountability combined with a structured route for rehabilitation where appropriate.

Lawful Use of Handcuffs by the Police

Check out our articles on Policing by Consent, Police Professional Standards, Police Misconduct Hearings, Police Impartiality, 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.

Dodgy Magistrates (JP)
Dodgy Judges

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.

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