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.

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

R v O’Neill [2016] EWCA Crim 92, [2016]

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

Judiciary

Upper Tribunal Judge Sarah Pinder

Post author By Dom Watts
Post date 28th February 2025
Categories In Judiciary

Immigration and Asylum Judge Sarah Pinder has come under scrutiny for her contributions to Free Movement, a website widely regarded as advocating for open borders, and her history of controversial rulings in immigration cases.

The Daily Mail published an article Immigration judge behind series of controversial rulings contributed dozens of articles to ‘open borders’ website on the 27th February 2025.

GB News published on the same day Immigration judge behind controversial rulings wrote articles for pro-open borders website: ‘Truly abhorrent’.

Immigration judge wrote for pro-open borders website was published by The Telegraph.

Judge Pinder’s past writings and judicial decisions have quite rightly raised questions about the impartiality of the UK’s immigration and asylum judiciary and its alignment with public sentiment on border control.

Biography of Judge Sarah Pinder

Sarah Pinder is an immigration judge whose career trajectory has placed her at the center of contentious legal and political discussions. Before ascending to the bench she practised in immigration and asylum law as a senior caseworker for a not-for-profit organisation in South London.

Check out the article What is an Immigration Tribunal Judge ?

Judge Pinder established herself as an immigration barrister at Goldsmith Chambers, a prominent legal practice in London known for its work in human rights and immigration law. Her tenure as a barrister honed her expertise in navigating the complexities of the UK’s immigration system, a foundation that later informed her judicial role.

Sarah practises in the fields of immigration law with some family law (children). She has been recommended as a Leading Junior barrister (Band 4) in immigration by the Legal 500 2017 edition, whose ‘standout qualities are how approachable, level-headed, smart and patient she is.’

Sarah was first listed in the 2014 edition as a “real rising star”. Prior to joining the Bar, Sarah practised in immigration and asylum law as a senior caseworker in a not-for-profit organisation in South London. This has given her the advantage of experience in preparing cases before they reach appeal stage, which she has pooled with her wealth of experience in court hearings as a barrister.

Sarah is committed to publicly funded work and ensuring access to justice for those most vulnerable. She is naturally friendly and approachable as well as meticulous and creative in her approach to cases.
Sarah Pinder – Border Criminologies – University of Oxford

While specific details about her early life, education, and personal background remain limited in public records, her professional journey reflects a deep engagement with immigration policy and practice. Pinder’s transition from barrister to judge positioned her to adjudicate some of the most challenging and high-profile immigration cases in the UK, a role she has fulfilled with decisions that have often defied conventional expectations.

The King has appointed Sarah Pinder to be a salaried Judge of the Upper Tribunal on the advice of the Lord Chancellor, the Right Honourable Alex Chalk KC MP and the Senior President of Tribunals, the Right Honourable Sir Keith Lindblom.

The Senior President of Tribunals has assigned her to the Immigration and Asylum Chamber with effect from 2 September 2024.

Sarah Pinder will be known as Upper Tribunal Judge Pinder. She was called to the Bar (Middle Temple) in 2006. She was appointed as a Fee-paid Judge of the First-tier Tribunal, Immigration and Asylum Chamber in 2019, and as a Deputy District Judge in 2022.
Judge of the Upper Tribunal, Immigration and Asylum Chamber Appointment: Pinder

Judge Pinder is shown on the Upper Tribunal Judges published on the Courts and Tribunal Judiciary website.

Judge Pinder

Immigration & Asylum

List of Upper Tribunal Judges

Human Rights Lawyers Association / Immigration Law Practitioners Association / Bar Human Rights Committee
Judge Pinder Memberships – Legal 500

Contributions to Free Movement

Judge Pinder’s association with Free Movement, a publication dedicated to immigration law and policy, has drawn significant attention. The Daily Mail highlights that she authored dozens of articles for the site, including one notable piece where she described immigration detention centres as “abhorrent” This stance aligns with Free Movement’s broader editorial line, which critics argue promotes a liberal, open-borders agenda. Her writings suggest a philosophical opposition to stringent immigration enforcement, a perspective that appears to have carried over into her judicial rulings.

Free Movement is known for providing legal analysis and commentary that often challenges government policies on deportation and detention. Pinder’s contributions to the platform indicate a pre-judicial career marked by advocacy, raising questions about whether her past writings reflect a bias that influences her current role on the bench.

Controversial Rulings Stir Backlash

Judge Pinder’s judicial record includes several decisions that have ignited public and political backlash. One notable case involved her ruling to allow a Jamaican drug dealer to remain in the UK. The individual, facing deportation, argued that his removal would be “unduly harsh” on his children, one of whom was transgender. Pinder dismissed the government’s appeal, prioritizing the emotional needs of the children over the Home Office’s push for deportation. Critics, including Tory justice spokesman Robert Jenrick, have pointed to this ruling as evidence of a judiciary out of step with public expectations for robust immigration enforcement.

Another controversial decision saw Pinder block the deportation of a gay Zimbabwean paedophile, citing the “hostility” he would face in his home country. This ruling further fuelled accusations that Pinder’s judicial philosophy leans toward leniency and human rights considerations over criminal accountability and border security.

Political and Public Reaction

The overlap between Judge Pinder’s writings and her judicial outcomes has not gone unnoticed. Robert Jenrick, in his critique, emphasised the expectation that “judges are trusted to park their political beliefs at the door” He argued that when “a judge’s open borders political views seamlessly overlap with their expansionist judicial decisions, it’s hard to escape the conclusion that they have been compromised” This sentiment reflects a broader frustration among conservative voices who see the judiciary as an obstacle to stricter immigration policies.

Public discourse, as reflected on social media posts, echoes this discontent. Users have labelled Pinder an “activist judge” unfit for her role, with some calling for systemic reform to address perceived liberal biases within the judiciary. The media articles amplifies these concerns, framing Pinder’s actions as part of a larger narrative of judicial overreach in immigration matters.

Implications for the Judiciary

The case of Judge Sarah Pinder underscores a tension at the heart of the UK’s legal system: the balance between judicial independence and public accountability. Her bio—from barrister to judge—illustrates a career steeped in immigration law, yet her alignment with Free Movement and her rulings suggest a consistent ideological thread that critics argue undermines impartiality.

Defenders might counter that her decisions reflect a commitment to human rights, a cornerstone of British law, rather than political activism.

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

The controversy surrounding Pinder shows no signs of abating. Her story raises broader questions about how judges’ personal beliefs shape their rulings and whether the UK’s immigration judiciary can maintain public trust amid polarizing debates over borders and sovereignty.

“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 Upper Tribunal Judge Pinder : The Telegraph

Check out our articles on Dodgy Judges, Mr Justice Williams, His Honour Judge Melbourne Inman KC, His Honour Judge Richardson, His Honour Now His Dishonour, His Honour Judge Michael Slater, His Honour Judge Martin Davis, HHJ Farquhar, HHJ Bedford, DDJ Nicholes, 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.

Justice System and the Constitution in the UK — Justice System

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

Most Popular ↓

What is Policing by Consent ? What is Two Tier Policing ?

Latest Articles ↓

Upper Tribunal Judge Sarah Pinder
Immigration and Asylum Judge Sarah Pinder has come under scrutiny for her contributions to Free Movement, a website widely regarded as advocating for open borders,… Read more: Upper Tribunal Judge Sarah Pinder
Counter Disinformation Data Platform (CDDP)
In a move that has sparked alarm among civil liberties advocates, the Labour government in the United Kingdom is reportedly advancing plans to deploy artificial… Read more: Counter Disinformation Data Platform (CDDP)
Thought Police
In George Orwell’s seminal novel 1984, the Thought Police represent the ultimate tool of oppression, monitoring and punishing individuals not just for their actions but… Read more: Thought Police
His Honour Andrew Menary KC
His Honour Judge Andrew Gwyn Menary is a Circuit Judge and the Recorder of Liverpool. He is the most senior judge at Liverpool Crown Court.… Read more: His Honour Andrew Menary KC

All Articles can be found in the Legal Blog or Sitemap.

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

‘Justice delayed is justice denied’
William Ewart Gladstone

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.

Law Legal Analysis

Counter Disinformation Data Platform (CDDP)

Post author By Dom Watts
Post date 26th February 2025
Categories In Law, Legal Analysis

In a move that has sparked alarm among civil liberties advocates, the Labour government in the United Kingdom is reportedly advancing plans to deploy artificial intelligence (AI) to monitor social media for what it deems “concerning” content.

According to a recent article from the Free Speech Union (FSU), this initiative involves a £2.3 million contract awarded to Faculty AI by the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT).

The goal ? To develop a sophisticated system capable of trawling through online posts to detect potential threats to “public safety” and “national security.” While the government frames this as a necessary step to counter disinformation and foreign interference, critics warn it could herald a chilling new era of state-sponsored censorship.

The Counter Disinformation Data Platform: Scope and Ambiguity

At the heart of this initiative is the Counter Disinformation Data Platform (CDDP), a tool originally developed under the auspices of the Counter Disinformation Unit (CDU), now rebranded as the National Security Online Information Team (NSOIT). The platform is designed to identify “foreign interference,” detect deepfakes, and analyse social media narratives. DSIT insists its current focus is narrow—targeting threats like election meddling by hostile states. However, documents obtained through Freedom of Information (FoI) requests by Big Brother Watch reveal a broader potential. An executive summary notes that while the CDDP’s present emphasis is on national security, it “has the ability to be pivoted to focus on any priority area.” This flexibility has raised red flags among those who fear it could easily be turned toward domestic dissent or controversial opinions.

The Labour government’s stated justification hinges on protecting the public from misinformation—a term that, historically, has proven slippery in its application. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the CDU was criticized for compiling dossiers on journalists, academics, and MPs who questioned official narratives, even when their speech was lawful. Past targets included voices skeptical of lockdown policies, vaccine mandates, or alternative treatments like hydroxychloroquine—later validated to some extent by research from Oxford University. This precedent fuels concerns that “concerning” could become a catch-all label for anything that challenges the government’s preferred storyline.

A £2.3 Million Investment in Control?

The £2.3 million contract with Faculty AI underscores the scale of Labour’s ambitions. The London-based firm, once backed by Matt Clifford—until recently the Prime Minister’s AI opportunities adviser—promises a system that can sift through vast amounts of online data to flag posts for “action.” What that action entails remains vague. Will it involve reporting to policymakers? Pressuring social media platforms to remove content? Or even direct intervention by law enforcement? The lack of transparency only deepens suspicions.

Jake Hurfurt of Big Brother Watch has accused the government of dodging accountability, noting that it continues to withhold “huge swathes of information” about the CDDP despite inquiries from Parliament and the Intelligence and Security Committee. This opacity echoes criticisms leveled at the NSOIT’s earlier incarnations, which leveraged ties to intelligence agencies to operate beyond public scrutiny. For a government led by Sir Keir Starmer, who once built his reputation as a human rights lawyer, the irony of such secrecy is not lost on observers.

Free Speech Under Siege ?

The FSU, a staunch defender of expression rights, sees this as part of a broader Labour assault on free speech. Lord Young, a prominent voice within the organization, has called the move “politically unwise,” especially given the timing. Across the Atlantic, the incoming Trump-Vance administration has signaled a rollback of censorship efforts, with figures like JD Vance decrying threats to “basic liberties” at the Munich Security Conference. Meanwhile, the UK appears to be doubling down, targeting platforms—many of them American-owned—like X, which has already clashed with European regulators over content moderation.

The implications for ordinary citizens are stark. Posts on X reflect growing unease, with users labeling the plan “Orwellian” and likening it to “thought crime policing.” One grandmother in Greater Manchester recently faced police questioning over a Facebook post calling for Labour councillors to resign—a chilling anecdote cited by civil liberties groups. If AI-driven surveillance scales up, such incidents could become routine, with algorithms casting a wide net over political critique, satire, or even casual venting.

The Slippery Slope of “Concerning” Content

What exactly constitutes “concerning” content? FoI documents reveal past CDU preoccupations with “anti-vaxx rhetoric,” criticism of COVID-19 vaccines, and discussions around 5G or alternative cancer treatments—topics that, while divisive, often fall within the realm of lawful debate. The CDDP’s ability to pivot suggests it could just as easily target climate skepticism, gender-critical views, or anti-government sentiment. Without clear boundaries, the risk of overreach looms large.

Critics argue this aligns with Labour’s broader regulatory agenda, including the Online Safety Act, which empowers Ofcom to fine tech giants for failing to curb “harmful” but legal speech. The FSU has long warned that such measures incentivize platforms to preemptively censor, stifling dissent under the guise of safety. The CDDP could supercharge this trend, marrying human bias with algorithmic efficiency to silence voices at scale.

A Crossroads for Liberty ?

The Labour government stands at a crossroads. Its AI surveillance push could position the UK as a leader in combating digital threats—or as a cautionary tale of authoritarian creep. For now, the balance between security and freedom hangs in the air, with civil liberties groups like the FSU vowing to fight back. Whether through public pressure, legal challenges, or international backlash, the battle over this technology’s use will shape the future of free expression in Britain.

The question remains: can a government that prides itself on progressive values justify peering into the thoughts of its citizens? Or will this £2.3 million experiment prove a step too far, even for those who champion safety over liberty?

Check out our articles on Thought Police, Policing, Police News, Policing by Consent, Two Tiered Policing, Wasting Police Time, National Security Online Information Team (NSOIT) 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 or any law enforcement agencies.

Most Popular ↓

What is Policing by Consent ? What is Two Tier Policing ?

Latest Articles ↓

Upper Tribunal Judge Sarah Pinder
Immigration and Asylum Judge Sarah Pinder has come under scrutiny for her contributions to Free Movement, a website widely regarded as advocating for open borders,… Read more: Upper Tribunal Judge Sarah Pinder
Counter Disinformation Data Platform (CDDP)
In a move that has sparked alarm among civil liberties advocates, the Labour government in the United Kingdom is reportedly advancing plans to deploy artificial… Read more: Counter Disinformation Data Platform (CDDP)
Thought Police
In George Orwell’s seminal novel 1984, the Thought Police represent the ultimate tool of oppression, monitoring and punishing individuals not just for their actions but… Read more: Thought Police
His Honour Andrew Menary KC
His Honour Judge Andrew Gwyn Menary is a Circuit Judge and the Recorder of Liverpool. He is the most senior judge at Liverpool Crown Court.… Read more: His Honour Andrew Menary KC

All Articles can be found in the Legal Blog or Sitemap.

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

‘Justice delayed is justice denied’
William Ewart Gladstone

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.

Criminal Justice Policing

Thought Police

Post author By Dom Watts
Post date 24th February 2025
Categories In Criminal Justice, Policing

In George Orwell’s seminal novel 1984, the Thought Police represent the ultimate tool of oppression, monitoring and punishing individuals not just for their actions but for their very thoughts. Orwell’s dystopian vision was a warning, a fictional exaggeration meant to provoke reflection on the dangers of authoritarian control. Yet, in 2025, that fiction seems to be inching closer to reality, as evidenced by a disturbing incident in Britain that has reignited debates about free speech, police priorities, and the creeping specter of thought control.

According to the Daily Mail article Knock knock, it’s the Thought Police, published on the 22nd February 2025, Helen Jones, a 54-year-old grandmother from Stockport, found herself on the receiving end of a police visit—not for committing a crime, but for posting criticism of local Labour councillors on Facebook. The councillors in question were embroiled in a scandal uncovered by The Mail on Sunday, involving a WhatsApp group where offensive messages, including a Labour MP’s wish that an elderly constituent would die were shared. Jones’s post called for their resignation, a sentiment many might consider a reasonable exercise of free expression. Yet, within 48 hours of a complaint, two plain-clothes officers knocked on her door.

Greater Manchester Police conceded that Jones had committed no crime. No charges were filed, no laws were broken. Still, the visit left her shaken, too intimidated to post on social media again. “I’ve effectively been silenced,” she told the Daily Mail. Critics have likened the officers’ actions to those of East Germany’s Stasi, the notorious secret police known for stifling dissent through fear and surveillance. The comparison is stark, but it’s hard to ignore the parallels: a citizen targeted not for illegal acts, but for voicing an opinion.

The Daily Mail published a follow up article on the 24th February 2025, Fury deepens over ‘sinister’ Thought Police targeting

This incident raises uncomfortable questions about the state of free speech in Britain. At a time when police resources are stretched thin—thousands of serious crimes, from burglaries to assaults, go uninvestigated due to lack of manpower—why were detectives dispatched to confront a grandmother over a Facebook post?

The speed of the response is particularly jarring. The Daily Mail notes that within two days of the complaint, officers were at Jones’s door, a stark contrast to the often sluggish investigations into violent offenses or property crimes. It suggests a troubling skew in priorities, where policing thoughts takes precedence over policing streets.

The “Hope you Die” WhatsApp scandal itself is a messy affair. It led to the sacking of Health Minister Andrew Gwynne and the suspension of Burnley MP Oliver Ryan and 11 Labour Councillors after their vile messages came to light.

Public outrage was swift, and Jones was far from alone in her criticism. Yet, her case isn’t isolated. The Daily Mail article points to a growing trend of police investigating social media posts, citing examples like columnist Allison Pearson, feminist writer Julie Bindel, and former policeman Harry Miller, whose name was logged in a non-crime hate incident database for his online comments. These cases suggest a pattern: authorities increasingly treating speech as a potential offense, even when it falls short of illegality.

BlackBeltBarrister – Monumental waste of police time (Though Police)

What’s driving this shift? Some argue it’s the fallout of vague hate speech laws, which give police broad discretion to interpret what constitutes an offense. Others point to a cultural shift, where public criticism—especially of those in power—prompts swift complaints from offended parties, triggering police action. In Jones’s case, the complaint’s origin remains unclear, but the response was immediate and intimidating. It’s a tactic that doesn’t need to result in prosecution to be effective; the mere act of a police visit can chill dissent, as it did for Jones.

The implications are profound. If expressing frustration with elected officials online can summon detectives to your doorstep, what’s next? The Daily Mail quotes critics accusing the police of wasting resources on “thought crimes” while real criminals roam free. It’s a sentiment echoed across social media, where users have decried the incident as an overreach of power and a betrayal of public trust. The phrase “Thought Police” has trended, not as a literary allusion, but as a lived experience.

This isn’t to say police shouldn’t investigate genuine threats or incitements to violence—those have clear legal boundaries. But Jones’s post, by all accounts, was neither. It was a call for accountability, not a call to harm. The distinction matters. When authorities blur the line between policing actions and policing opinions, they risk eroding the very freedoms they’re meant to protect.

Orwell’s Thought Police didn’t just punish; they instilled fear, ensuring citizens self-censored to avoid scrutiny. Helen Jones’s story suggests Britain may be flirting with a similar dynamic. As she retreats from social media, silenced by the knock of a detective, one wonders how many others will follow suit. The Daily Mail article serves as both a report and a warning: when the state prioritizes thoughts over crimes, the dystopia Orwell imagined ceases to be fiction. It becomes our reality.

Check out our articles on Policing, Police News, Policing by Consent, Two Tiered Policing, Wasting Police Time, National Security Online Information Team (NSOIT), Counter Disinformation Data Platform (CDDP) 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 or any law enforcement agencies.

Most Popular ↓

What is Policing by Consent ? What is Two Tier Policing ?

Latest Articles ↓

Upper Tribunal Judge Sarah Pinder
Immigration and Asylum Judge Sarah Pinder has come under scrutiny for her contributions to Free Movement, a website widely regarded as advocating for open borders,… Read more: Upper Tribunal Judge Sarah Pinder
Counter Disinformation Data Platform (CDDP)
In a move that has sparked alarm among civil liberties advocates, the Labour government in the United Kingdom is reportedly advancing plans to deploy artificial… Read more: Counter Disinformation Data Platform (CDDP)
Thought Police
In George Orwell’s seminal novel 1984, the Thought Police represent the ultimate tool of oppression, monitoring and punishing individuals not just for their actions but… Read more: Thought Police
His Honour Andrew Menary KC
His Honour Judge Andrew Gwyn Menary is a Circuit Judge and the Recorder of Liverpool. He is the most senior judge at Liverpool Crown Court.… Read more: His Honour Andrew Menary KC

All Articles can be found in the Legal Blog or Sitemap.

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

‘Justice delayed is justice denied’
William Ewart Gladstone

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.

Judiciary

His Honour Andrew Menary KC

Post author By Dom Watts
Post date 13th February 2025
Categories In Judiciary

His Honour Judge Andrew Gwyn Menary is a Circuit Judge and the Recorder of Liverpool. He is the most senior judge at Liverpool Crown Court.

HHJ Menary was a judge involved in the trial and sentencing of the Southport rioters.

His Honour Menary presided over the Pre Trial Plea Hearing on the 13th February 2025 of the two brothers accused of seriously assaulting GMP officers at Manchester Airport.

Mr Amaaz denied two counts of causing actual bodily harm; one count of assaulting an emergency worker; and one of common assault.

Muhammad Amaad, 25, also from Rochdale, pleaded not guilty to one count of causing actual bodily harm.

Their trial will take place on June 30th and they were granted BAIL by Judge Menary until the trial

Brothers accused of seriously assaulting GMP officers at Manchester Airport appear at Liverpool Crown Court today for PTPH. pic.twitter.com/dnWVPdSJzn
— Magistrates' Blog (@MagistratesBlog) February 13, 2025

His Honour Judge Menary Pre Trial Plea Hearing – Manchester Airport Brothers

HHJ Menary claims to be a Christian in an article Hope at Christmas published on the judiciary website on the 21st December 2023.

In a BBC news article Judge tells of ‘unpleasant threats’ after riot sentencing, HHJ Menary is quoted as saying “There have been some twits online who have posted all sorts of daft things about me“

Twits is surprising and unbecoming language from an honourable judge such as HHJ Menary.

His Honour Judge Menary, may therefore wish as a Christian, to read and reflect on Matthew 7:1-3

“Do not judge, or you too will be judged…For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you….Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?”

The judiciary, including Judge Menary, are quite rightly not immune to public criticism and comment. The rule of law applies to everyone and no one is above the law.

Criticising judges, was historically considered a form of contempt of court in England and Wales.

“Scandalising the judiciary (also referred to as scandalising the court or scandalising judges) is abolished as a form of contempt of court under the common law of England and Wales.”
Crime and Courts Act 2013 Section 33

You may want to check out the articles on Dodgy Judges and His Honour Judge Melbourne Inman KC (The Recorder of Birmingham).

His Honour Judge Menary KC Bio

Andrew Gwyn Menary, KC born in March 1959, was appointed a circuit judge, assigned to the Midland Circuit, based at Birmingham Crown Court, with effect from July 18, 2013. Judge Menary, at the time 54, was called to the Bar in 1982 and took silk in 2003. He was appointed as a recorder in 2002.

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

His Honour Judge Manary KC

North West

01-07-2013

List of Circuit Judges

Circuit	Court	Judges	Date of appointment
North West	Liverpool Combined Court Centre	His Honour Judge Menary KC	09-04-19

Resident Judges

His Honour Judge Menary is a Circuit Judge.

HHJ Menary is shown on the Resident Judges list published on the Courts and Tribunal Judiciary website.

Andrew Menary is listed at Companies House with 5 appointments.

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

HHJ Menary KC jailing men for violent disorder condemns ‘twisted ideology’ behind Southport rioting

Authorisation to sit as a High Court Judge

HHJ Menary 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 Menary 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;

“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 Menary : Liverpool Echo

Check out our articles on Dodgy Judges, Mr Justice Williams, His Honour Judge Melbourne Inman KC, His Honour Judge Richardson, His Honour Now His Dishonour, His Honour Judge Michael Slater, His Honour Judge Martin Davis, HHJ Farquhar, HHJ Bedford, DDJ Nicholes, Judge Pinder, 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 or any law enforcement agencies.

Most Popular ↓

What is Policing by Consent ? What is Two Tier Policing ?

Latest Articles ↓

Upper Tribunal Judge Sarah Pinder
Immigration and Asylum Judge Sarah Pinder has come under scrutiny for her contributions to Free Movement, a website widely regarded as advocating for open borders,… Read more: Upper Tribunal Judge Sarah Pinder
Counter Disinformation Data Platform (CDDP)
In a move that has sparked alarm among civil liberties advocates, the Labour government in the United Kingdom is reportedly advancing plans to deploy artificial… Read more: Counter Disinformation Data Platform (CDDP)
Thought Police
In George Orwell’s seminal novel 1984, the Thought Police represent the ultimate tool of oppression, monitoring and punishing individuals not just for their actions but… Read more: Thought Police
His Honour Andrew Menary KC
His Honour Judge Andrew Gwyn Menary is a Circuit Judge and the Recorder of Liverpool. He is the most senior judge at Liverpool Crown Court.… Read more: His Honour Andrew Menary KC

All Articles can be found in the Legal Blog or Sitemap.

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

‘Justice delayed is justice denied’
William Ewart Gladstone

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.

Criminal Justice Law Policing

Firearms Amnesty

Post author By Dom Watts
Post date 5th February 2025
Categories In Criminal Justice, Law, Policing

In an unprecedented move to tackle the rising threat of converted firearms within the UK, a national amnesty has been initiated for specific types of blank-firing guns, commonly known as top-venting blank firers (TVBFs). The amnesty which started on the 3rd February 2025 and concludes on the 28th February, 2025, targets four Turkish-manufactured models that tests have shown can be readily converted into lethal weapons.

TVBFs are illegal under Section 1(6) of the Firearms Act 1982, meaning that they are prohibited firearms under Section 5 (1) of the Firearms Act 1968.

The National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC), in collaboration with the National Crime Agency (NCA), National Ballistics Intelligence Service and various police forces across the country, has launched this amnesty following alarming evidence that these guns have been implicated in criminal activities, including at least four homicides since 2023. The models in question, produced by Retay, Ekol, Ceonic, and Blow, were initially designed for non-lethal uses such as starting races or theatrical performances. However, their convertibility into functioning firearms has caught the attention of law enforcement.

The top-venting blank firers are used by criminals and can be converted into lethal firearms.

During the last two years, policing and the NCA has identified and disrupted several workshops used to convert these pistols into lethal weapons.

In the same period, large numbers of converted weapons were recovered across multiple locations, alongside thousands of rounds of blank calibre and modified ammunition.

One investigation recovered more than 400 converted weapons from a single crime group. There is a strong demand for them evidenced by the numbers imported and subsequent recovery from criminals.

Stopping the sale of these top-venting blank firers from being converted will go a significant way to help protect the public.
Assistant Chief Constable Tim Metcalfe, National Police Chiefs’ Council Lead for the Criminal Use of Firearms

Why the Amnesty?

The primary aim of this amnesty is to remove these potentially dangerous weapons from the public domain, reducing the risk they pose when falling into the wrong hands. According to the NPCC, while gun crime in the UK remains relatively low compared to other countries, the conversion of these blank-firing guns into lethal weapons presents a significant emerging threat. Since 2021, over 800 converted TVBFs have been recovered in criminal circumstances, highlighting the urgency of this initiative.

How the Gun Amnesty Works

During the amnesty period, individuals who possess any of these four models can surrender them at local police stations without facing prosecution for the illegal possession of these now-banned firearms. This leniency is intended to encourage those who might have these guns for legitimate, non-criminal purposes to hand them over.

The guns will not only be removed from circulation but will also be analysed to see if they have been involved in previous criminal acts, thereby potentially aiding in ongoing investigations.

Public Response and Implications

The response from the public has been cautiously optimistic. Many see this amnesty as a chance to rectify unintended possession of these newly classified illegal firearms. There’s an acknowledgment among communities that while these guns might have been bought legally or even as souvenirs from trips, their potential for misuse is now too significant to ignore.

Law enforcement officials, including Assistant Chief Constable Tim Metcalfe, the NPCC Lead for the Criminal Use of Firearms, have stressed the importance of public cooperation. “This initiative is about protecting our communities by ensuring these firearms don’t end up being used for criminal intent,” Metcalfe stated. “We urge anyone with these weapons to do the responsible thing and surrender them.”

Legal Implications Post Amnesty

Post-amnesty, the possession of these TVBFs will be strictly prohibited, with severe penalties including up to 10 years in prison for those caught with one. This crackdown is part of broader efforts by UK law enforcement to control the proliferation of firearms and reduce gun-related crimes.

The amnesty also serves as a reminder of the broader issue of firearm conversion in the UK, prompting discussions on the need for tighter regulations on the import and sale of blank-firing guns and other similar devices.

Check out our articles on Policing, Police News, Policing by Consent, Two Tiered Policing, Wasting Police Time, Met Police, Sussex Police, 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 or any law enforcement agencies.

Most Popular ↓

What is Policing by Consent ? What is Two Tier Policing ?

Latest Articles ↓

Upper Tribunal Judge Sarah Pinder
Immigration and Asylum Judge Sarah Pinder has come under scrutiny for her contributions to Free Movement, a website widely regarded as advocating for open borders,… Read more: Upper Tribunal Judge Sarah Pinder
Counter Disinformation Data Platform (CDDP)
In a move that has sparked alarm among civil liberties advocates, the Labour government in the United Kingdom is reportedly advancing plans to deploy artificial… Read more: Counter Disinformation Data Platform (CDDP)
Thought Police
In George Orwell’s seminal novel 1984, the Thought Police represent the ultimate tool of oppression, monitoring and punishing individuals not just for their actions but… Read more: Thought Police
His Honour Andrew Menary KC
His Honour Judge Andrew Gwyn Menary is a Circuit Judge and the Recorder of Liverpool. He is the most senior judge at Liverpool Crown Court.… Read more: His Honour Andrew Menary KC

All Articles can be found in the Legal Blog or Sitemap.

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

‘Justice delayed is justice denied’
William Ewart Gladstone

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.

Judiciary

Mr Justice Goose

Post author By Dom Watts
Post date 23rd January 2025
Categories In Judiciary

Mr Justice Goose is a British High Court judge in the King’s Bench Division. Sir Julian Nicholas Goose is known as The Honourable Mr Justice Goose and should be addressed in court as “My Lord”.

Mr Justice Julian Nicholas Goose, a respected figure in the British judiciary, has made significant contributions to the legal system through his roles as a High Court judge, a senior circuit judge, and the Presiding Judge of the Northern Circuit. Born on the 26th July 26 1961, Judge Goose’s legal career spans several decades, marked by landmark cases and judicial advancements.

Judge Julian Goose, honorary recorder of Sheffield, talks about the role of judges in the Crown Court

Early Life and Education

Julian Goose was educated at the prestigious Birkdale and Silverdale Schools. He pursued his legal education at the University of Leeds, where he earned an LLB. His early exposure to the rigors of legal study set the foundation for his future career in law. After completing his education, Goose was called to the bar at Lincoln’s Inn in 1984, a significant step that would lead him through various roles in the legal profession.

Legal Career

Recorder and Silk: Goose began his judicial career as a recorder in 1998, a position he held until 2013. He took silk in 2002, becoming a Queen’s Counsel, which is a testament to his expertise in law. His tenure as head of chambers at Zenith Chambers from 2004 to 2013 further underscored his leadership and legal acumen.
Circuit Judge: From 2013 to 2017, Goose served as a senior circuit judge and resident judge at Sheffield Combined Court Centre. During this period, he was also the honorary recorder of Sheffield, roles that involved extensive case management and judicial decision-making at the circuit level.
High Court Judge: In October 2017, Goose was appointed to the High Court, specifically assigned to the King’s Bench Division. This appointment came with the traditional knighthood, and he became known as The Honourable Mr Justice Goose. His work in the High Court has included some of the most high-profile criminal cases in the UK.
Presiding Judge: From January 2022, he has served as the Presiding Judge of the Northern Circuit, a role where he oversees judicial operations and ensures the effective administration of justice across the region. This position reflects his deep commitment to the justice system and his leadership within it.

Notable Cases

Mr Justice Goose has presided over several notable cases including:

Axel Rudakubana was sentenced on the 23rd Jan 2025 for the murder of three girls in Southport last July, and the attempted murder of 10 other people. “These proceedings are being conducted under my control Mr Rudakubana – do you understand? Not yours!”.
Axel Rudakubana was jailed for a minimum of 52 years and told it was “highly likely” he will never be released.

Mr Justice Goose – Southport child killer Axel Rudakubana locked up for at least 52 years

Mr Justice Goose Sentencing Error
“The purpose of this hearing is to correct a technical error….I’m satisfied to amend the sentence to detention under His Majesty’s pleasure” – Mr Justice Goose on the 4th Feb 2025.

Ashley Dale’s Killers: In a case that garnered significant media attention, Mr Justice Goose sentenced four men convicted of murdering Ashley Dale. His sentences were broadcast, highlighting his role in delivering justice in complex and emotionally charged cases.

Judge Mr Justice Goose – Four jailed for at least 173 years for murder of Ashley Dale

Graham Mansfield: In a heart-wrenching scenario involving a failed suicide pact, Mr Justice Goose handed down a suspended sentence to Graham Mansfield for manslaughter. His judgement was based on compassionate legal interpretation, reflecting the complexities of human behaviour and law.
Other Significant Trials: Mr Justice Goose has also dealt with cases involving drug-related murders and other serious crimes, demonstrating his ability to navigate legal nuances with a fair and balanced approach.

Mr Justice Goose – Teens detained over fatal revenge stabbing of boy, 16

The Honourable Mr Justice Goose – ‘Body in woods’ killer jailed for at least 37 years

Contributions to the Law

Beyond his judicial duties, Mr Justice Goose was a member of the Sentencing Council from 2014 to 2020. This role allowed him to influence sentencing policies and practices, contributing to a more uniform and fair judicial system in England and Wales.

Personal Life

Married to Susan Bulmer since 1987, Mr Justice Goose is a father to two sons and one daughter, balancing his personal life with his demanding judicial career.

“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’

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

Image of Mr Justice Goose : BBC

Check out our articles on Dodgy Judges, Mr Justice Williams, His Honour Judge Melbourne Inman KC, His Honour Andrew Menary KC, His Honour Judge Guy Kearl, His Honour Now His Dishonour, His Honour Judge Michael Slater, His Honour Judge Martin Davis, HHJ Farquhar, HHJ Bedford, DDJ Nicholes, Judge Pinder, 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 or any law enforcement agencies.

Most Popular ↓

What is Policing by Consent ? What is Two Tier Policing ?

Latest Articles ↓

Upper Tribunal Judge Sarah Pinder
Immigration and Asylum Judge Sarah Pinder has come under scrutiny for her contributions to Free Movement, a website widely regarded as advocating for open borders,… Read more: Upper Tribunal Judge Sarah Pinder
Counter Disinformation Data Platform (CDDP)
In a move that has sparked alarm among civil liberties advocates, the Labour government in the United Kingdom is reportedly advancing plans to deploy artificial… Read more: Counter Disinformation Data Platform (CDDP)
Thought Police
In George Orwell’s seminal novel 1984, the Thought Police represent the ultimate tool of oppression, monitoring and punishing individuals not just for their actions but… Read more: Thought Police
His Honour Andrew Menary KC
His Honour Judge Andrew Gwyn Menary is a Circuit Judge and the Recorder of Liverpool. He is the most senior judge at Liverpool Crown Court.… Read more: His Honour Andrew Menary KC

All Articles can be found in the Legal Blog or Sitemap.

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

‘Justice delayed is justice denied’
William Ewart Gladstone

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.

Law Legal Analysis

Open Justice

Post author By Dom Watts
Post date 15th January 2025
Categories In Law, Legal Analysis

The Open Justice Principle refers to the idea that justice should be administered openly, transparently and in a manner that is accessible to the public. Here are the key aspects of this principle:

Public Access to Courts: Legal proceedings, especially criminal trials, should generally be open to the public. This allows citizens to observe how justice is administered, ensuring accountability and fostering trust in the judicial system.
Transparency: Information about court proceedings, including judgments, should be available to the public to ensure transparency. This includes not only the outcomes but also the reasoning behind judicial decisions.
Media Reporting: The media plays a crucial role by reporting on court cases, which helps inform the public about legal proceedings. Media access to courts is often seen as an extension of the public’s right to know.
Fairness and Impartiality: By conducting trials openly, there’s an added layer of scrutiny which can help ensure that the process is fair and impartial. The knowledge that proceedings are public might also encourage all parties involved to act more responsibly.
Exceptions: While the principle advocates for openness, there are recognised exceptions where privacy or security concerns might necessitate closed sessions. Examples include cases involving minors, national security, or sensitive personal information where privacy rights might override the principle of open justice.
Educational Role: Open courts serve an educational function, allowing the public, including future generations of legal professionals, to learn about the law in practice, the rights of citizens, and how justice is served.
Legislative and Policy Impact: The principle can influence legislation and policy-making, ensuring that laws are not only made in the public interest but are seen to be applied in the public interest as well.

The Open Justice Principle is fundamental in democratic societies as it underpins the rule of law and democratic governance by ensuring that justice is not only done but is seen to be done. However, the balance between openness and necessary privacy or security is continually debated and adjusted through legal frameworks around the world.

The principle of open justice are enshrined in Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 14 of the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights. which protects the right to a fair trial. These inalienable protections should not be breached to render public scrutiny void.

Open justice serves several important purposes

Firstly, it ensures that Justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done. This is important because the public must have confidence in the justice system. If court proceedings were held behind closed doors, it would be difficult for the public to know whether justice was being served. The transparency of open justice allows the public to see that the court is conducting proceedings fairly, and that justice is being done.

Secondly, open justice promotes accountability. The media and the public can attend court proceedings, and they can report on what happens in court. This means that the legal system is subject to public scrutiny, and that any problems or injustices are likely to be exposed. This is important because it helps to prevent abuses of power, and ensures that the justice system is accountable to the public.

Open justice helps to promote the rule of law. When the legal system is transparent and accountable, people are more likely to obey the law. This is because they have confidence that the legal system is fair, and that justice will be served if they are accused of a crime. This also helps to ensure that society is orderly and peaceful.

Notable Cases

There have been several notable cases in which the principle of open justice has been violated.

A notable case where justice was not open was the trial of the Guildford Four, who were wrongly convicted of bombings in Guildford, Surrey, in 1974. The trial of the Guildford Four was held in camera, and the defendants were not allowed to have legal representation.

The trial was held in secret because the judge was concerned that the defendants might be targeted by terrorists if their identities were made public.

However, the decision to hold the trial in secret was widely criticised, and the Guildford Four were eventually cleared of all charges in 1989.

The importance of open justice was also highlighted in the Hillsborough disaster, where 96 football fans were killed in a crush at the Hillsborough stadium in Sheffield in 1989.

The initial inquest into the disaster was heavily criticised for its lack of transparency and accountability. The families of the victims were denied access to evidence and were not allowed to question witnesses.

The inquest was widely seen as a cover-up, and it was eventually quashed in 2016, paving the way for a new inquest that was held in a much more open and transparent manner.

Secret trials

In recent years, there have been concerns that the principle of open justice is being undermined. One issue is the increasing use of secret trials. These trials are held behind closed doors, and the evidence is not made public.

Secret trials are used in cases where national security is at stake, but critics argue that they are being used too frequently, and that they undermine the principle of open justice.

Reporting Restrictions

Another issue is the use of reporting restrictions, which prevent the media from reporting on certain aspects of a trial or other court proceedings. Critics argue that these restrictions can be used to protect the powerful, and that they limit the public’s right to know.

Sara Sharif judge who gave father custody will not be named

Mr Justice Williams, a Family High Court judge, has been widely criticised for his Reporting Restriction Order. The order prohibits the press from publishing “the name of any third parties referred to in the historic proceedings for the avoidance of doubt including social worker, guardian other named professionals and experts instructed in the proceedings and any judge who heard the historic proceedings”.

Banning the press from identifying judges is said to be unprecedented.

Tuesday 14 – Wednesday 15 January 2025

Before The Master of the Rolls Lady Justice King Lord Justice Warby

By Appellant’s Notice lodged on 16 December 2024, on behalf of Louise Tickle and Hannah Summers (journalists), this is an appeal from an order made by Williams J, sitting in the High Court Family Division on 9 December 2024 (perfected on 11 December 2024), regarding the historic family court cases involving Sara Sharif.

In particular, the appellants challenge the decision to restrain the naming of “any Judge who heard the historic proceedings” concerning Sara Sharif and her siblings.
Court of Appeal – Williams J Sharif Case

Did Mr Justice Williams attempt a cover up for “his mates” in the South East Circuit ?

Open Justice around the world

Open justice is not just a UK principle, but a principle that is upheld in many countries around the world. It is a fundamental aspect of a democratic society, and one that is essential to upholding the rule of law and protecting the rights of citizens.

Open Justice Conclusion

It is important to ensure that the principle of open justice is upheld, and that the legal system remains transparent and accountable. This requires a commitment from the government, the judiciary, and the legal profession to ensure that court proceedings are held in public, that the media and the public are allowed to attend trials, and that court documents are accessible. It also requires a commitment to addressing any violations of the principle of open justice, such as the use of secret trials and reporting restrictions.

Check out our related articles on Rule of Law, 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 or any law enforcement agencies.

Most Popular ↓

What is Policing by Consent ? What is Two Tier Policing ?

Latest Articles ↓

Upper Tribunal Judge Sarah Pinder
Immigration and Asylum Judge Sarah Pinder has come under scrutiny for her contributions to Free Movement, a website widely regarded as advocating for open borders,… Read more: Upper Tribunal Judge Sarah Pinder
Counter Disinformation Data Platform (CDDP)
In a move that has sparked alarm among civil liberties advocates, the Labour government in the United Kingdom is reportedly advancing plans to deploy artificial… Read more: Counter Disinformation Data Platform (CDDP)
Thought Police
In George Orwell’s seminal novel 1984, the Thought Police represent the ultimate tool of oppression, monitoring and punishing individuals not just for their actions but… Read more: Thought Police
His Honour Andrew Menary KC
His Honour Judge Andrew Gwyn Menary is a Circuit Judge and the Recorder of Liverpool. He is the most senior judge at Liverpool Crown Court.… Read more: His Honour Andrew Menary KC

All Articles can be found in the Legal Blog or Sitemap.

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

‘Justice delayed is justice denied’
William Ewart Gladstone

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.

Judiciary Law

Justice System and the Constitution in the United Kingdom

Post author By Dom Watts
Post date 14th January 2025
Categories In Judiciary, Law

The United Kingdom has three separate legal systems; one each for England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. This system operates within a constitutional framework where the powers are distributed among three branches: the Judiciary, the Legislature (Parliament), and the Executive (Government).

This reflects its historical origins and the fact that both Scotland and Ireland, and later Northern Ireland, retained their own legal systems and traditions under the Acts of Union 1707 and 1800.
The Justice system and the Constitution – Courts and Tribunals Judiciary

1. The Judiciary

Role: Judges and magistrates interpret and apply the law, making decisions in both civil and criminal matters. They ensure laws are applied fairly and impartially.
Structure:
- Magistrates’ Courts: Handle minor criminal cases and some civil matters.
- Crown Courts: Deal with more serious criminal cases.
- High Court: Handles complex civil cases, judicial reviews, and appeals.
- Court of Appeal: Reviews decisions from lower courts.
- Supreme Court: The highest court, deciding on significant legal issues and constitutional matters.
Independence: Judicial independence is protected by law to maintain impartiality. Judges are appointed through a process involving the Judicial Appointments Commission, and once appointed, they can only be removed for misconduct or incapacity.
Function in the Constitutional Framework: The Judiciary interprets statutes, develops common law, and can review the actions of the other branches for compliance with human rights and other legal principles.

2. The Legislature (Parliament)

Composition: Comprises the House of Commons (elected MPs), the House of Lords (appointed members, including life peers, bishops, and hereditary peers), and the Monarch (in practice, the role is mostly ceremonial).
Legislative Power: Parliament has the authority to create, amend, or repeal laws. This sovereignty is fundamental to the UK’s unwritten constitution.
Checks and Balances: While Parliament can pass any law, the judiciary can interpret these laws in ways that ensure they comply with broader legal principles, including human rights.
Interaction with Judiciary: Parliament can change laws in response to judicial interpretations or declarations of incompatibility under the Human Rights Act.

3. The Executive (Government)

Role: The government proposes legislation, administers justice through departments like the Ministry of Justice, and enforces laws through agencies like the police and prosecution services.
Accountability: The Executive is accountable to Parliament, which can scrutinize and censure government actions.
Influence on Judiciary: While the Executive has no direct control over judicial decisions, it influences the legal system through policy-making, resource allocation, and sometimes through the appointment to judicial positions.
Constitutional Conventions: These are unwritten practices like ministerial responsibility, which guide how the government interacts with the Judiciary and Parliament.

Constitutional Framework

Unwritten Constitution: The UK’s constitution is not codified but consists of statutes, court judgments, conventions, and treaties. This allows for flexibility but can also lead to ambiguities.
Rule of Law: A foundational principle where all are subject to the law, including government officials.
Common Law: Much of the law derives from judicial precedents, allowing for the legal system to evolve with society.

Challenges and Developments

Modernization: Efforts include digital transformation of court processes, enhancing access to justice, and reducing backlogs.
Human Rights: The Human Rights Act 1998 has integrated the European Convention on Human Rights into UK law, affecting how laws are interpreted and applied.
Judicial Review: This process checks the legality of government decisions, ensuring they do not overstep constitutional bounds.

Conclusion

The justice system in England and Wales, interacting within this tripartite structure, balances power to maintain democracy and the rule of law. The Judiciary’s independence, the legislative sovereignty of Parliament, and the administrative functions of the Government together form a dynamic yet stable constitutional environment. This interplay ensures that the system can adapt to societal changes while safeguarding individual rights and justice.

Check out our articles on Dodgy Judges, Mr Justice Williams, His Honour Judge Melbourne Inman KC, His Honour Judge Richardson, His Honour Now His Dishonour, His Honour Judge Michael Slater, His Honour Judge Martin Davis, HHJ Kearl KC, HHJ Farquhar, HHJ Bedford, DDJ Nicholes, 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 or any law enforcement agencies.

Most Popular ↓

What is Policing by Consent ? What is Two Tier Policing ?

Latest Articles ↓

Upper Tribunal Judge Sarah Pinder
Immigration and Asylum Judge Sarah Pinder has come under scrutiny for her contributions to Free Movement, a website widely regarded as advocating for open borders,… Read more: Upper Tribunal Judge Sarah Pinder
Counter Disinformation Data Platform (CDDP)
In a move that has sparked alarm among civil liberties advocates, the Labour government in the United Kingdom is reportedly advancing plans to deploy artificial… Read more: Counter Disinformation Data Platform (CDDP)
Thought Police
In George Orwell’s seminal novel 1984, the Thought Police represent the ultimate tool of oppression, monitoring and punishing individuals not just for their actions but… Read more: Thought Police
His Honour Andrew Menary KC
His Honour Judge Andrew Gwyn Menary is a Circuit Judge and the Recorder of Liverpool. He is the most senior judge at Liverpool Crown Court.… Read more: His Honour Andrew Menary KC

All Articles can be found in the Legal Blog or Sitemap.

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

‘Justice delayed is justice denied’
William Ewart Gladstone

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.

Judiciary Legal Professionals

His Honour Judge Guy Kearl KC

Post author By Dom Watts
Post date 7th January 2025
Categories In Judiciary, Legal Professionals

His Honour Judge Kearl is a Circuit Judge and the Recorder of Leeds. He is the most senior judge at Leeds Crown Court.

On the 5th of January 2025, Elon Musk re-posted on X an image/post of HHJ Kearl KC and commented “This clown looks like he bought that wig from the Party City liquidation sale 🤣🤣”

This clown looks like he bought that wig from the Party City liquidation sale 🤣🤣 https://t.co/LTPZWfGK2v
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) January 5, 2025

Elon Musk X post about HHJ Kearl KC (Recorder of Leeds)

Under the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, Elon Musk is legally entitled to call HHJ Guy Kearl a clown.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States

In the United Kingdom, Article 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998 allows for Freedom of expression. Yet again, Elon Musk is entitled to call His Honour Judge Kearl a clown.

“Everyone has 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. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.”
Article 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998

The judiciary, including Judge Kearl, are quite rightly not immune to public criticism and comment. The rule of law applies to everyone and no one is above the law.

Criticising judges, was historically considered a form of contempt of court in England and Wales.

“Scandalising the judiciary (also referred to as scandalising the court or scandalising judges) is abolished as a form of contempt of court under the common law of England and Wales.”
Crime and Courts Act 2013 Section 33

Party City was a major retailer specialising in party supplies and decorations in the United States.

It is not the first time that Judge Guy Kearl attire has been mocked.

That’s a lovely wig you’ve got on there — do they make them in black?”
HHJ Kearl – The Sun

In 2018 Charles Bronson, who is the UK’s most notorious prisoner, also told Judge Kearl to hurry up so he didn’t miss his fish and chip supper.

You may want to check out the articles on Dodgy Judges and His Honour Judge Melbourne Inman KC (The Recorder of Birmingham).

His Honour Judge Kearl KC Bio

His Honour Judge Guy Alexander Kearl became a Circuit Judge on the North Eastern Circuit in 2011. Judge Kearl became a Senior Circuit Judge in 2018.

In 2001, HHJ Kearl acted as junior legal counsel for the Great Train robber Ronnie Biggs,

Mr Kearl, 52, was instructed as junior counsel for Biggs and supervised his return back to the UK from Brazil in May 2001 and his subsequent appearance in court.

He also drafted representations to the Home Office and Criminal Cases Review Commission prior to Biggs’s subsequent release on health grounds in 2009. Married with two children, Judge Kearl is an enthusiastic sportsman who ran marathons and is a keen skier and tennis player.
Ronnie Biggs’ barrister become judge on the North Eastern Circuit

Judge Kearl was called to the Bar in 1982 (Inns of Court unknown), and was appointed assistant Recorder in May 2000 and Recorder in July 2020. Two years later he took silk (Kings Counsel) .

Prior to becoming a judge, Guy Kearl KC, was head of St Pauls Chambers in Leeds.

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

His Honour Judge Kearl KC

North East

04-06-2018

List of Circuit Judges

HHJ Kearl is shown on the Resident Judges list published on the Courts and Tribunal Judiciary website.

Circuit	Court	Judges	Date of appointment
North East	Leeds Combined Court Centre	His Honour Judge Kearl KC	04-06-18

Resident Judges

His Honour Judge Kearl is a Circuit Judge.

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

HHJ Kearl sentencing a self-styled paedophile hunter after he admitted racially abusing pro-Palestinian demonstrators in Leeds.

Authorisation to sit as a High Court Judge

HHJ Kearl 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 Kearl 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’

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

“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 Kearl : Sky News Courts

Check out our articles on Dodgy Judges, Mr Justice Williams, His Honour Judge Melbourne Inman KC, His Honour Andrew Menary KC, His Honour Judge Richardson, His Honour Now His Dishonour, His Honour Judge Michael Slater, His Honour Judge Martin Davis, HHJ Farquhar, HHJ Bedford, DDJ Nicholes, Judge Pinder, 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 or any law enforcement agencies.

Most Popular ↓

What is Policing by Consent ? What is Two Tier Policing ?

Latest Articles ↓

Upper Tribunal Judge Sarah Pinder
Immigration and Asylum Judge Sarah Pinder has come under scrutiny for her contributions to Free Movement, a website widely regarded as advocating for open borders,… Read more: Upper Tribunal Judge Sarah Pinder
Counter Disinformation Data Platform (CDDP)
In a move that has sparked alarm among civil liberties advocates, the Labour government in the United Kingdom is reportedly advancing plans to deploy artificial… Read more: Counter Disinformation Data Platform (CDDP)
Thought Police
In George Orwell’s seminal novel 1984, the Thought Police represent the ultimate tool of oppression, monitoring and punishing individuals not just for their actions but… Read more: Thought Police
His Honour Andrew Menary KC
His Honour Judge Andrew Gwyn Menary is a Circuit Judge and the Recorder of Liverpool. He is the most senior judge at Liverpool Crown Court.… Read more: His Honour Andrew Menary KC

All Articles can be found in the Legal Blog or Sitemap.

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

‘Justice delayed is justice denied’
William Ewart Gladstone

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.

Judiciary

Mr Justice Williams

Post author By Dom Watts
Post date 21st December 2024
Categories In Judiciary

Mr Justice Williams is a British High Court judge in the Family Division. Sir David Basil Williams is known as The Honourable Mr Justice Williams and should be addressed in court as “My Lord”.

Mr Justice Williams was born on the 18th June 1964 in Bedford and was educated at Cedars Upper School in Leighton Buzzard. He completed his LLB at the University of Leicester and the BVC at the Inns of Court School of Law. From 1986 to 1989, he worked as an executive officer at the Legal Aid Board.

Mr Justice Williams was called to the bar at the Inner Temple in 1990, specialising in family law. He practiced from 3 Dr Johnson’s Buildings from 1990 to 2000 and then from 4 Paper Buildings until 2017.

David Williams took Silk in 2013, was appointed a Recorder in 2016 and a High Court Judge of the Family Division in 2017. Mr Justice Williams took the customary knighthood the same year.

Mr Justice Williams has been appointed as the Family Division Liaison Judge for the South Eastern Circuit (Kent, Surrey, Sussex & Thames Valley) with effect from 30 September 2020 where he will succeed Mr Justice Moor.
Appointment of Family Division Liaison Judges – June 2020

On the 4th September 2024 a New Family Presiding Judge Appointed for the South Eastern Circuit (Kent, Surrey, Sussex & Thames Valley) was announced.

The Lady Chief Justice, with the concurrence of the Lord Chancellor, has announced the appointment of a Family Presiding Judge.

Ms Justice Henke has been appointed for a period of four years, with effect from 1 October 2024, to the South Eastern Circuit (Kent, Surrey, Sussex & Thames Valley) where she will succeed Mr Justice Williams.
Mr Justice Williams succeeded by Ms Justice Henke

Sara Sharif Case and Open Justice

Open justice is a fundamental principle which means that Justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done. Open justice ensures that the public can have confidence in the fairness and transparency of the legal system.

Sara Sharif judge who gave father custody will not be named

Banning the press from identifying judges is said to be unprecedented.

It has been reported that it was a senior judge at Guildford that presided over the case in 2019. The designated and most senior family judge at Guildford is/was HHJ Alison Raeside who was appointed on 01-01-19 and remains in office. The gov.uk website contradicts the judiciary website ““Judge Alison Raeside…and was the Designated Family Judge for Surrey from 2019 until 2024”. What happened to HHJ Raeside ? HHJ Raeside now confirmed as being involved.

Shocking on all levels…”Judges cannot be anonymous” – Art of Law

Mr Justice Williams judgment from a hearing on the 9th December 2024 was handed down remotely at 10.30am on the 20th December 2024. The judgment explains Mr Justice Williams reasoning behind his decision.

Mr Justice Williams Judgment – Disclosure of the papers from historic Family Court proceedings – FD23P00425Download

The High Court judge who controversially blocked the identification of professionals in the Sara Sharif case was accused of an ‘unjustified’ attack on the Press last night after suggesting that the media cannot be trusted to report fairly.

In an extraordinary broadside, Mr Justice Williams said he imposed an anonymity order to prevent a ‘virtual lynch mob’ because he did not believe the media could be trusted to report matters in a fair, accurate and responsible way.
Fury as Sara Sharif judge says the Press can’t be trusted to be fair as he controversially blocked the identification of professionals – Daily Mail

On the 19th December 2024, Media organisations including the Daily Mail won the right to challenge Mr Justice Williams’s order. The Master of the Rolls, who is a Court of Appeal judge, granted permission to appeal as the open justice arguments have a realistic prospect of success. The appeal over naming the judges will be heard on 14th and 15th January in front of three Court of Appeal judges.

It seems highly suspicious that Mr Justice Williams was succeeded by Ms Justice Henke on the 1st October 2024 (although this could be a coincidental 4 year appointment) and HHJ Alison Raeside, it appears is no longer the the designated and most senior family judge at Guildford.

Was it appropriate that Mr Justice Williams heard the case FD23P00425 which involved judges that reported to him as the Family Presiding Judge for the South East Circuit ?

Did Mr Justice Williams attempt a cover up for “his mates” in the South East Circuit ? Oh My Lord !

Update 24th Jan 2025 : Appeal won to name Sara Sharif’s family court judges

Update 31st Jan 2025 : Sara Sharif family court judges named after appeal – Her Honour Alison Raeside – who sat on most of the hearings – HHJ Peter Nathan and HHJ Sally Williams. HHJ Alison Raeside sat on the earliest hearings involving Sara, the last one, and most of the hearings in between.

Why open justice is NOT served by shoving the name of a judge under the carpet – “However, we can’t let Mr Justice Williams off the hook…..Mr Justice Williams may have had chivalrous motives”

Para 63 : I have, however, concluded that the judge was wrong.

Para 71 : In the circumstances of this case, the judge had no jurisdiction to anonymise the historic judges either on 9 December 2024 or thereafter. He was wrong to do so, and the Order must be varied accordingly.

Para 78 : The mistake the judge made was to think that he could properly trawl through his own experiences to create a case for anonymising the judges. He should not have done so.

Para 79 : It is not necessary to decide whether the judge’s inappropriate and unfair remarks about the press and the journalists amounted to actual or apparent bias. He undoubtedly behaved unfairly towards the journalists and Channel 4…..The judge lost sight of the importance of press scrutiny to the integrity of the justice system.

Para 80 : I would deprecate the judge’s use of anecdotal material and his own experiences to create a case for anonymising the judges.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF ENGLAND AND WALES (CIVIL DIVISION) ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE FAMILY DIVISION Mr Justice Williams: [2024] EWHC 3330 (Fam) – Appeal Nos: CA-2024-002784 and CA-2025-000083 Case No: FD23P00425

Court of Appeal – Mr Justice Williams – ewca_civ_2025_42Download

Sussex Family Justice Board

Mr Justice Williams was listed as member of the Sussex Family Justice Board which is a highly dubious “family justice” cartel operating in Sussex. Mr Justice Williams membership was against the rules and incompatible with the independent position of the judiciary

Mr Justice Williams was the Family Division Liaison Judge for the South Eastern Circuit from September 2020 to September 2024 and was “the boss” of HHJ Farquhar, HHJ Bedford and other dubious judges in Sussex such as DDJ Nicholes.

The Lady Chief Justice, Lord Chancellor, or President of the Family Division should shut down the Sussex Family Justice Board as it is an embarrassment to justice and the law.

Could Mr Justice Williams be Removed as High Court Judge ?

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’

If Mr Justice Williams was party in an attempt a cover up for his judges, then in my opinion, he should be removed from office.

Both Houses of Parliament have the power to petition The King for the removal of a judge of the High Court or the Court of Appeal.

This power originates in the 1701 Act of Settlement and is now contained in section 11(3) of the Senior Courts Act 1981.

It has never had to be exercised in England and Wales. It has in fact only been exercised once, when Sir Jonah Barrington was removed from office as a judge of the Irish High Court of Admiralty in 1830 for corruption: he misappropriated funds due to litigants. No English High Court or Court of Appeal judge has ever been removed from office under these powers. Circuit and District Judges can be removed by the Lord Chancellor. However, they can only do so if the Lord Chief Justice agrees.
Judges and Parliament – HM Courts and Tribunal Judiciary

Image of Mr Justice Williams : avalon.red

Check out our articles on Dodgy Judges, Mr Justice Goose, His Honour Judge Melbourne Inman KC, His Honour Andrew Menary KC, His Honour Judge Guy Kearl, His Honour Now His Dishonour, His Honour Judge Michael Slater, His Honour Judge Martin Davis, HHJ Farquhar, HHJ Bedford, DDJ Nicholes, Judge Pinder, 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 or any law enforcement agencies.

Most Popular ↓

What is Policing by Consent ? What is Two Tier Policing ?

Latest Articles ↓

Upper Tribunal Judge Sarah Pinder
Immigration and Asylum Judge Sarah Pinder has come under scrutiny for her contributions to Free Movement, a website widely regarded as advocating for open borders,… Read more: Upper Tribunal Judge Sarah Pinder
Counter Disinformation Data Platform (CDDP)
In a move that has sparked alarm among civil liberties advocates, the Labour government in the United Kingdom is reportedly advancing plans to deploy artificial… Read more: Counter Disinformation Data Platform (CDDP)
Thought Police
In George Orwell’s seminal novel 1984, the Thought Police represent the ultimate tool of oppression, monitoring and punishing individuals not just for their actions but… Read more: Thought Police
His Honour Andrew Menary KC
His Honour Judge Andrew Gwyn Menary is a Circuit Judge and the Recorder of Liverpool. He is the most senior judge at Liverpool Crown Court.… Read more: His Honour Andrew Menary KC

All Articles can be found in the Legal Blog or Sitemap.

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

‘Justice delayed is justice denied’
William Ewart Gladstone

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.