The Inns of Court are professional associations for barristers in England and Wales. They are responsible for the training and qualification of barristers, who are the specialised courtroom advocates in the British legal system. Every barrister must belong to one of these Inns.
London’s Four Inns of Court are renowned for their rich history, prestigious legal education and significant role in shaping the British legal system.
During the 12th and early 13th centuries, law was primarily taught by the clergy in the City of London. However, a papal bull in 1218 prohibited the clergy from practicing in secular courts. Laymen gradually took over legal practice and teaching. Guilds of law, modelled on trade guilds, eventually evolved into the Inns of Court.
The Four Inns of Court
Lincoln’s Inn
History: Established in the 14th century, The Honourable Society of Lincoln’s Inn is one of the oldest Inns of Court. It takes its name from the area of London where it is located. The Inn’s origins can be traced back to the legal lectures and apprenticeships that took place here in the medieval period. Over time, Lincoln’s Inn became a hub for legal education and practice, attracting aspiring lawyers from across England.
Notable Features: Lincoln’s Inn boasts impressive architectural heritage, with its stunning Great Hall dating back to the 15th century. The Chapel, Library, and Gardens further enhance its historic appeal.
Key Figures: Many distinguished legal minds have been associated with Lincoln’s Inn, including Thomas More, Lord Mansfield, and Lord Denning.
Gray’s Inn
History: The Honourable Society of Gray’s Inn, situated near Holborn, has origins dating back to at least the 14th century. Like other Inns, Gray’s Inn served as a place of legal study and networking for aspiring lawyers. Its members played significant roles in the legal and political spheres throughout history.
Notable Features: The Gray’s Inn Hall, built in 1560, is a highlight of this institution. The Walks, a serene garden area, provide a tranquil retreat in the heart of bustling London.
Key Figures: Francis Bacon, one of England’s most famous philosophers and statesmen, was associated with Gray’s Inn.
Inner Temple
History: The Honourable Society of Inner Temple, located in the Temple area of London, traces its roots to the Knights Templar, who originally owned the land. By the 14th century, it had become a significant legal centre. The Inns of Court played essential roles in legal education and fostering professional standards.
Notable Features: The Inner Temple Hall, completed in 1572, is an architectural gem with historical significance. The tranquil Inner Temple Gardens offer a serene escape amidst London’s bustling streets.
Key Figures: Sir Edward Coke, a renowned jurist and parliamentarian, was associated with Inner Temple.
Middle Temple
History: The Honourable Society of Middle Temple, adjacent to Inner Temple, also has medieval origins and was associated with the Knights Templar. It became a distinct legal institution by the late 14th century. Middle Temple has played a crucial role in legal education and professional development.
Notable Features: Middle Temple Hall, completed in 1573, is renowned for its grandeur and historic significance. The buildings and gardens of Middle Temple offer a captivating glimpse into London’s legal and architectural heritage.
Key Figures: Notable members include Sir Walter Raleigh and Lord Eldon.
In the late 20th century, many barristers’ chambers moved outside the Inns’ precincts due to growth in the legal profession and a desire for more modern accommodations. However, the Inns of Court continue to play a vital role in legal education and professional development.
In summary, the Inns of Court are not merely historical relics; they remain essential institutions for barristers, shaping legal practice and tradition to this day.
A Direct Access Barrister, also known as a Public Access Barrister, enables members of the public to directly instruct a… Read more: Direct Access Barrister
A Notary is a qualified lawyer and a member of the oldest branch of the legal profession in the United Kingdom. In this article we explore the role, qualifications and historical context of notaries.
Role of a Notary
Authentication and Certification:
Notaries specialise in authenticating and certifying signatures, authority, and capacity related to documents for use abroad.
They ensure the validity and reliability of legal documents in international transactions.
General Legal Practice:
Notaries are authorised to conduct general legal practice, excluding court proceedings.
Their work spans various areas, including conveyancing (property transactions) and probate (handling wills and estates).
Commissioner for Oaths:
Notaries can exercise the powers of a Commissioner for Oaths.
They administer oaths and affirmations for legal purposes.
A Direct Access Barrister, also known as a Public Access Barrister, enables members of the public to directly instruct a… Read more: Direct Access Barrister
The Guide to Judicial Conduct – Revised July 2023, published by the judiciary, is intended to assist judges, tribunal members, coroners and magistrates, in relation to their conduct.
The Guide to Judicial Conduct, amongst other things, states that judicial office holders are expected to display diligence and care in the discharge of judicial duties.
The Guidance is based on the principle that responsibility for deciding whether or not a particular activity or course of conduct is appropriate rests with each individual judicial office holder.
The Guide is therefore not a code, nor does it contain rules other than where clearly stated. It contains a set of core principles which will help judicial office holders reach their own decisions.
Every court should have a Code of Judicial Conduct that sets out the standards of ethical conduct to be expected of the Court. Such a Code serves a number of purposes. It provides guidance to the members of the Court. It informs those who use the Court of the standards that they can reasonably expect of its judges. It explains to members of the public how judges behave and should help to secure their respect and support for the judiciary.
The Judicial Conduct Investigations Office (JCIO) is responsible for investigating complaints about the personal conduct of judges, as well as their professional conduct. It has the power to investigate complaints made by members of the public, legal professionals, and other judges.
The JCIO’s investigations are carried out by a team of investigators who are independent of the judiciary.
You can check if a a judge has had any disciplinary action against them as Disciplinary statements are published on the JCIO website and are sorted by year.
The JCIO publication policy states that a statement will normally be published when a disciplinary sanction has been issued to a judicial office-holder for misconduct.
The Lady Chief Justice and Lord Chancellor may decide jointly to:
issue a statement in any case;
decline to issue a statement in any case;
delete a statement prior to the expiration of the relevant publication period.
Misconduct by Senior Judiciary
These people are expected to be addressed as “Your Honour”! In a real business they would have been fired ! Can you Criticise a Judge ?
“The Lady Chief Justice, with the Lord Chancellor’s agreement, has issued Recorder Simon Myerson with formal advice for misconduct after he posted inappropriately on Twitter (now known as X).”
“The Lady Chief Justice and Lord Chancellor agreed with the nominated judge that HHJ Gerald’s actions fell short of the standards expected of a judge and that his actions amounted to judicial misconduct.”
A Direct Access Barrister, also known as a Public Access Barrister, enables members of the public to directly instruct a… Read more: Direct Access Barrister
The President of the King’s Bench Division (KBD) is responsible for the deployment and organisation of the work of the largest of the three High Court Divisions. At its full complement the King’s Bench Division has 71 High Court Judges and has the most varied jurisdiction. By the nature of the office the President is a judge of the Court of Appeal.
Dame Victoria succeeded Sir Brian Leveson and is the first woman to hold the position of President of the Queen’s Bench Division and subsequently is the first woman to hold the position of President of the King’s Bench Division.
History of the King’s Bench Division
The King’s Bench Division has a long and intricate history, tracing back to the time of William the Conqueror.
As established by the Magna Carta, the Royal Court (known as coram rege) had jurisdiction over cases heard before the king. These cases could be held anywhere the king was located, whether around the country or at Westminster. Over time, the King’s Bench became a central institution for legal proceedings, handling various matters.
The selection panel comprises the Lady Chief Justice as Chair, a nominee of the Lady Chief Justice, the Chair of the JAC Helen Pitcher OBE, a lay member of the JAC and a nominee of the JAC Chair agreed with the Lady Chief Justice.
The panel reports to the Lord Chancellor, who can then accept the selection, reject it, or require the panel to reconsider. If practical the panel must consult the current holder of the office for which a selection is being made.
A Direct Access Barrister, also known as a Public Access Barrister, enables members of the public to directly instruct a… Read more: Direct Access Barrister
A solicitor is a qualified legal professional who plays a crucial role in the legal system of England and Wales. Let’s explore what solicitors do, their qualifications and the essential skills.
Role of a Solicitor
Legal Advice and Representation:
Solicitors provide specialist legal advice across various areas of law.
They represent and defend clients’ legal interests.
Clients can be individuals, groups, public sector organizations, or private companies.
Client Liaison:
As a solicitor, you work closely with clients and are often their first point of contact.
You take instructions from clients and advise them on necessary legal actions.
Diverse Areas of Practice:
Solicitors handle a wide range of issues:
Personal matters: Wills, divorces, and family law.
Commercial work: Mergers, acquisitions, and business transactions.
Work Settings:
Once qualified, solicitors can work in various settings:
Private practice: Running their own law firms.
In-house: Advising commercial or industrial organizations.
Government: Local or central government roles.
Court service: Participating in legal proceedings.
Qualifications for Becoming a Solicitor
Solicitors Qualifying Exam (SQE):
Introduced in September 2021, the SQE is the new centralized assessment for solicitor qualification.
It replaces the traditional Legal Practice Course (LPC) route.
The SQE consists of four stages:
Degree: Obtain a degree (or equivalent) in any subject.
SQE1 and SQE2 assessments: Pass these assessments.
Qualifying Work Experience (QWE): Complete a minimum of two years of relevant work experience.
Character and suitability: Demonstrate satisfactory character.
Non-Law Graduates:
Non-law graduates acquire foundational legal knowledge through conversion courses:
Postgraduate Diploma in Law (PGDL).
Master of Arts in Law (MA Law Conversion).
Master of Arts in Law (MA Law SQE1).
SQE Law Essentials Online.
Essential Skills for Solicitors
Professionalism:
Approach work with integrity and respect for confidentiality.
Problem-Solving:
Analyse complex legal issues and find practical solutions.
Research and Analysis:
Conduct thorough legal research to support cases.
Communication:
Excellent written and oral communication skills are vital.
In summary, solicitors are legal professionals who combine legal expertise with client-focused service, ensuring justice and legal protection for individuals and organizations alike
A Direct Access Barrister, also known as a Public Access Barrister, enables members of the public to directly instruct a… Read more: Direct Access Barrister
The King’s Counsel (KC) is a prestigious title awarded to senior barristers and advocates who have rights of audience in the higher courts of England and Wales who have also demonstrated the competencies in the Competency Framework to a standard of excellence.
King’s Counsel are appointed from amongst practising advocates – both barristers and solicitors.
The selection process for KC’s is rigorous and selective, and candidates must meet specific criteria to be eligible for consideration.
In this article, we will examine the history, qualifications, and benefits of being appointed as a King’s Counsel in the UK, as well as the process of recommendation and appointment.
History of King’s Counsel
The title of King’s Counsel (KC) has a long and rich history in the legal profession in the UK. It was first introduced in the 16th century during the reign of King Elizabeth I. At that time, the title was conferred upon lawyers who were appointed by the monarch to act as legal advisors and advocates in court.
In the 19th century, the title of King’s Counsel became more closely associated with the legal profession. It was recognized as a mark of excellence in the field, and those who were appointed to the position were seen as being among the most skilled and experienced lawyers in the country.
Qualifications for King’s Counsel
To be considered for appointment as a King’s Counsel, a lawyer must meet a strict set of criteria.
First and foremost, they must have a minimum of ten years’ experience practicing law, and they must have demonstrated exceptional skill and expertise in their field.
They must also have a strong record of advocacy and be able to demonstrate that they have achieved outstanding results for their clients.
In addition to these qualifications, a lawyer must also be nominated for the position by the Lord Chancellor.
The Lord Chancellor invites nominations from a range of sources, including judges, other senior lawyers, and professional bodies such as the Bar Council and Law Society.
Once a nomination has been made, the candidate must submit an application that includes detailed information about their legal career and achievements.
This will typically include information on their education, professional experience, notable cases, and any other relevant information that demonstrates their skill and expertise in the field of law.
Benefits of being a King’s Counsel
Being appointed as a King’s Counsel is a significant achievement in the legal profession. It is a mark of excellence that is recognized both within the legal profession and outside of it. It is also a title that comes with a number of benefits.
One of the main benefits of being a King’s Counsel is that it provides lawyers with increased opportunities to work on high-profile and complex cases. As one of the most respected titles in the legal profession, those who hold the position of King’s Counsel are often sought out by clients who are looking for the best possible representation.
Another benefit of being a King’s Counsel is that it can lead to increased earnings. Lawyers who hold this title are often able to command higher fees for their services, as clients are willing to pay a premium for the expertise and experience that comes with the position.
In addition to these benefits, being a King’s Counsel is also an opportunity to give back to the legal profession. Those who hold this title are often involved in mentoring and training younger lawyers, helping to ensure that the next generation of legal professionals is well-prepared to take on the challenges of the profession.
Recommendation and Appointment Process
The process of appointing a KC in the UK is overseen by the King’s Counsel Appointments (KCA) committee. The KCA is an independent body that is responsible for recommending candidates for appointment as KCs to the Lord Chancellor.
The process typically begins with nominations made by judges, other senior lawyers, and professional bodies such as the Bar Council and Law Society. The Lord Chancellor may also invite nominations from other sources, including members of the public.
Once a nomination has been made, the candidate must submit an application that includes detailed information about their legal career and achievements. The KCA committee will then review the application and consider a range of factors when making their recommendation, including the candidate’s skill, experience, and professional conduct.
The KCA also considers diversity and inclusion when making their recommendations. They are committed to ensuring that the legal profession is representative of the communities it serves, and they actively seek out candidates from a diverse range of backgrounds.
Once the KCA has made their recommendation, it is then up to the Lord Chancellor to make the final decision on whether to appoint the candidate as a KC. The Lord Chancellor typically follows the recommendation of the KCA, but they are not bound to do so.
Being appointed as a King’s Counsel is a significant achievement in the legal profession in the UK. It is a title that is recognized both within the legal profession and outside of it, and it comes with a range of benefits.
Overall, the appointment of KCs is a rigorous and selective process that ensures that only the most skilled and experienced lawyers in the UK are awarded this prestigious title.
It is a mark of excellence that is highly respected within the legal profession and serves as a testament to a lawyer’s skill and expertise in the practice of law.
Read the reviews of Gavin Howe Barrister, who in my opinion, is unlikely to ever receive KC.
“He is awful, underhanded and should not be practising law!”
A Direct Access Barrister, also known as a Public Access Barrister, enables members of the public to directly instruct a… Read more: Direct Access Barrister
“It is not merely of some importance but is of fundamental importance that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done”
Lord Hewart
In the case of R v Sussex Justices, Ex parte McCarthy [1924] 1 KB 256, Mr. McCarthy was convicted of dangerous driving by two justices of the peace sitting in petty sessions.
It later emerged that one of the justices had a personal interest in the outcome of the case, as he was the chairman of the local road transport committee and was therefore responsible for road safety in the area.
This raised concerns of bias, as the justice’s involvement in road safety could have influenced his decision-making in the case.
Mr. McCarthy sought to have his conviction quashed on the grounds of bias, and the case eventually reached the King’s Bench Division of the High Court of Justice.
“It is not merely of some importance, but is of fundamental importance that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done.“
Lord Hewart
This principle became known as the rule against bias, and it established that justice must not only be impartial, but must also be seen to be impartial.
In other words, a decision-maker must be free from any personal interest or bias that could affect their judgment, and the appearance of impartiality is just as important as the reality of impartiality.
“Nothing is to be done that creates even a suspicion that there has been an improper interference with the course of justice.“
Lord Hewart
The significance of the Rex (The King) v Sussex Justices case lies in its establishment of the principle of natural justice and the rule against bias.
The case set an important precedent for future cases, and it remains a cornerstone of the UK legal system to this day.
The case also highlighted the importance of procedural fairness and transparency in the legal system, which ensures that justice is not only done, but is also seen to be done.
COMMON LAWS OF ENGLAND – THE KING v. SUSSEX JUSTICES Ex parte McCARTHY
November 9 1923 [1924] – KINGS BENCH DIVISION
Justices – Possibility of Bias – Justices’ Clerk interested professionally in Civil Proceedings arising out of Subject Matter of Complaint.
Arising out of a collision between a motor vehicle belonging to the applicant and one belonging to W., a summons was taken out by the police against the applicant for having driven his motor vehicle in a manner dangerous to the public. At the hearing of the summons the acting clerk to the justices was a member of the firm of solicitors who were acting for W. in a claim for damages against the applicant for injuries received in the collision. At the conclusion of the evidence the justices retired to consider their decision, the acting clerk retiring with them in case they should desire to be advised on any point of law. The justices convicted the applicant, and it was stated on affidavit that they came to that conclusion without consulting the acting clerk, who in fact abstained from referring to the case:-
Held: the the conviction must be quashed, as it was improper for the acting clerk, having regard to his firm’s relation to the case, to be present with the justices when they were considering their decision.
RULE NISI for a writ of certiorari to bring up, for the purpose of being quashed, a conviction of McCarthy, the applicant for the rule, for having driven a motor car on a certain highway in a manner which was dangerous to the public, having regard to all the circumstances of the case.
On August 22, 1923, a collision took place between a motor cycle driven by the applicant and a motor cycle and side-car driven by one Whitworth, and it was alleged that the latter and his wife sustained injuries in the collision. In respect of those injuries Messrs. Langham, Son & Douglas, solicitors, Hastings, by a letter dated August 28, 1923, made a claim on behalf of Whitworth against the applicant for damages, and the police, after making inquiries into the circumstances of the collision, applied for and obtained a summons against the applicant for driving his motor cycle in a manner dangerous to the public.
At the hearing of that summons on September 22, 1923, the applicant’s solicitor, who stated in his affidavit that he had no knowledge of the officials of the court, inquired whether Mr. F. G. Langham, the clerk to the justices and a member of the said firm of Langham, Son & Douglas, was then sitting as a clerk, and was informed that he was not, but had been appointed a deputy for that day.
The case was then heard, and at the conclusion of the evidence the justices retired to consider their decision, the deputy clerk retiring with them. When the justices returned into the court they intimated that they had decided to convict the applicant, and they imposed a fine of 10 shillings and costs.
Thereupon the applicant’s solicitor brought to the notice of the justices the fact, of which he said he had only become aware when the justices retired, that the deputy clerk was a brother of Mr. F, G. Langham, Son & Douglas, and so was interested as solicitor for Whitworth in the civil proceedings arising out of the collision in respect of which they had convicted the applicant.
The solicitor in his affidavit stated that had he known the above facts he would have taken the objection before the case began. This rule was thereafter obtained on the ground that it was irregular for the deputy clerk in the circumstances to retire with the justices when considering their decision.
In their affidavit the justices stated that the clerk to the justices, Mr F. G. Langham, was on holiday at the date of the hearing and had no knowledge of the proceeding, that in his absence his brother and partner Mr F. G. Langham acted as his deputy, that no formal objection was taken to the latter acting, that at the conclusion of the evidence the justices retired, the deputy clerk retiring with them in the usual way, taking with him the notes of the evidence in case they should be required, or in case the justices should desire to be advised upon any point of law, that in fact the justices came to their decision to convict the applicant without consulting the deputy clerk, who scrupulously abstained from referring to the case, and that the justices were not in any way biased by the fact that a member of the deputy clerk’s firm had written the said letter before action.
The justices added that it appeared to them that the applicant’s solicitor must have had knowledge of the deputy clerk’s connection with the firm of Langham, Son & Douglas, and that he waived any formal objection; and that is a formal objection has been taken at the commencement of the proceedings the justices would have followed their usual course in such circumstances by adjourning the hearing and requesting the clerk to arrange with one of his colleagues from a neighbouring division to act at the adjourned hearing.
Russell Davies for the justices showed cause. However undesirable it may have been in the circumstances for the deputy clerk to retire with the justices when they were considering their decision, the fact that he did so does not invalidate the conviction, seeing that he took no part in the justices’ deliberations.
[LORD HEWART C.J. In a recent unreported case,* this Court quashed a conviction where the chief constable, who was then prosecuting, retired with the justices]
There it was not the duty of the chief constable to retire with the justices; here it was the duty of the deputy clerk to do so in case the justices should desire to consult him upon any point of law. If, however, there was any irregularity in the proceedings, the applicant, through his solicitor; must be taken to have waived it.
*[He referred to Regina v Brakenridge (1) (1884) 48 J.P. 203]
W. T. Moncton for the superintendent of police, who had been served with the rule. H. D. Samuels in support of the rule was not called upon.
LORD HEWART C.J. stated the grounds of the rule and continued: It is clear that the deputy clerk was a member of the firm of solicitors engaged in the conduct of the proceedings for damages against the applicant in respect of the same collision as that which gave rise to the charge that the justices were considering. It is said, and, no doubt, truly, that when the gentleman retired in the usual way with the justices, taking with him the notes of the evidence in case the justices might desire to consult him, the justices came to a conclusion without consulting him, and that he scrupulously abstained from referring to the case in any way.
But while that is so, a long line of cases shows that it is not merely of some importance but is of fundamental importance that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done.
The question therefore is not whether in this case the deputy clerk made an observation of offered any criticism where he might not properly have made or offered; the question is whether he was so related to the case in its civil aspect as to be unfit to act as clerk to the justices in the criminal matter.
The answer to that question depends not upon what actually was done but upon what might appear to be done. Nothing is to be done that creates even a suspicion that there has been an improper interference with the course of justice.
Speaking for myself, I accept that statements contained in the justices’ affidavit, but they show very clearly that the deputy clerk was connected with the case in a capacity which made it right that he should scrupulously abstain from referring to the matter in any way, although he retired with the justices; in other words, his one position was such that he could not, if he had been required to do so, discharge the duties which his other position involved. His twofold position was a manifest contradiction.
In those circumstances I am satisfied that this conviction must be quashed, unless it can be shown that the applicant or his solicitor was aware of the point that might be taken, refrained from taking it, and took his chance of an acquittal on the facts, and then, on a conviction being recorded, decided to take the point. On the facts I am satisfied that being no waiver of the irregularity, and, that being so, the rule must be made absolute and the conviction quashed.
LUSH J. I agree. It must be clearly understood that if justices allow their clerk to be present at their consultation when either he of his firm is professionally engaged in those proceedings or in other proceedings involving the same subject matter, it is irrelevant to inquire whether the clerk did or did not give advice and influence the justices.
What is objectionable is his presence at the consultation, when he is in a position necessarily make in impossible for him to give absolutely impartial advice. I have no doubt that these justices did not intend to do anything irregular or wrong, but they have placed themselves in an impossible position by allowing the clerk in those circumstances to retire with them into their consultation room. The result, there being no waiver, is that the conviction must be quashed.
SANKEY J. I agree.
Rule absolute; conviction quashed.
Solicitors for the applicant: W. C. Crocker
Solicitors for justices: Pettitt & Ramsey, for Langham Son & Douglas, Hastings.
Solicitors for police superintendent: Taylor, Willcocks & Co., for Lawson Lewis, Eastbourne.
A Direct Access Barrister, also known as a Public Access Barrister, enables members of the public to directly instruct a… Read more: Direct Access Barrister
2,878 online reports and calls were received between November 2022 and February 2024 in relation to officers and staff at the Metropolitan Police Service. It has resulted in 728 Met Police led investigations.
‘Its success has been a very positive step for our communities in London and we are pleased that all the other forces have decided to adopt it and we will see a national roll out……..It’s vital that the public know there are clear systems in place where appalling behaviours will be challenged and addressed robustly and that those within policing know they can trust their colleagues.’
The Police Anti-Corruption and Abuse Reporting Service gives people an easy way to report information about a police officer, member of police staff or volunteer who they believe are taking advantage of their role and abusing their position of power. This abuse may be for financial or sexual motivation, or their conduct could be motivated by hatred or prejudice.
You can contact the national Police Anti-Corruption and Abuse Reporting Service on 0800 085 0000 or online24/7, 365 days a year to provide any information you may have about a Police Service, police officer, member of police staff or police volunteer who engage in the following :-
Provides information or influence in return for money or favours.
Uses their policing position for personal advantage – whether financial or otherwise.
Crosses professional boundaries for sexual purposes.
Abuses or controls their partner, or those they have a relationship with.
Engages in racist, homophobic or misogynistic conduct, on or off duty, in person or online.
Call 999 if:
a serious offence is in progress or has just been committed
someone is in immediate danger or harm
property is in danger of being damaged
a serious disruption to the public is likely
Call 101 for non-emergency enquiries. You can also Report a Crime online.
‘We do not underestimate the impact recent events have had on trust and confidence in policing, including the appalling findings of the Angiolini report……The vast majority of police officers and staff act professionally and with integrity in the fulfilment of their duties to protect the public’
A Direct Access Barrister, also known as a Public Access Barrister, enables members of the public to directly instruct a… Read more: Direct Access Barrister
Sussex Police serves East and West Sussex and the city of Brighton & Hove which is an area of about 3,780km. A resident population of 1.65m people grows significantly with millions of visitors, holidaymakers, students, seasonal workers and the 46 million passengers who travel annually through Gatwick Airport.
For the latest Sussex Police news please see out Police News pages.
Sussex Police officers, staff and volunteers work together to deliver the strategic priorities set within the Sussex Police and Crime Plan and the Sussex Police priorities which are as follows :-
Protect our communities.
Catch criminals.
Deliver an outstanding service.
If you have arrived at the Ministry of Injustice from sussexpolice.uk (a MOI domain) you may well have been looking for sussex.police.uk which is the official website for Sussex Police.
For the avoidance of doubt this website is not run by Sussex Police nor is it associated in any way with Sussex Police.
Call 999 if:
a serious offence is in progress or has just been committed
someone is in immediate danger or harm
property is in danger of being damaged
a serious disruption to the public is likely
Call 101 for non-emergency enquiries. You can also Report a Crime online.
A Sussex Police Community Support Officer (PCSO) was shown refusing to respond to an alleged assault in a supermarket, in a video posted on TikTok.
The video shows a man telling the officer about a fight in the Co-op store in Lancing which had been reported to the police.
The PCSO said: “I’m not a response unit.”
Sussex Police said it had launched an investigation.
The man who was filmed in conversation with the PCSO said members of the public were trying to stop a shoplifter.
He said to the PCSO: “You need to get round to the Co-op. There’s just been a fight round there, because people are trying to stop the shoplifter that you’re doing nothing about.”
He said: “People have called the police and you’re sitting here.”
The officer responded: “I’m not a response unit unfortunately.”
The man said the sight of the police car would “make them scatter”.
The officer replied: “Yeah, but then I have to deal with it.”
“That’s why I’m here and not round there.”
In a statement, Sussex Police said: “We are aware of video footage of a single-crewed Police Community Support Officer being approached by a member of the public to report an incident in Lancing.
“The matter was reported to us and a police officer attended the incident as an emergency. The PCSO also then attended the scene.”
Supt Nick Dias said: “We are sorry for the clumsy language used by the PCSO in this exchange and acknowledge the public’s concern. A police unit was dispatched to the scene as a matter of priority. Our response to this incident is being reviewed.”
Katy Bourne, Sussex Police and Crime Commissioner, said she shared “the public’s disappointment and understandable concern” with the video.
“A member of the public sent me the video and I immediately shared it with the Chief Constable who referred the incident to the Sussex professional standards department.”
She added: “This is not the sort of response that I would expect and the public deserve.”
The report PEEL 2021/22 – An inspection of Sussex Police graded Sussex Police’s performance across nine areas of policing and found the force was ‘good’ in two areas, ‘adequate’ in four areas, ‘requires improvement’ in one area, and ‘inadequate’ in two areas.
Sussex Police urgently needs to improve how it responds to the public, and how it records crime.
Its recording of reports of violent crime is inadequate, and the force is also missing opportunities to safeguard vulnerable people. It needs to improve the way it assesses initial calls to the force so that vulnerable people and repeat callers are routinely identified.
As a result of my concerns I have already been in contact with the chief constable and the police and crime commissioner.
I am pleased with the way the force has responded so far and I will continue to check the force’s progress in addressing areas for improvement in the coming months.
His Majesty’s Inspector of Constabulary – Roy Wilsher
Sussex Police and Surrey Police failed to use people’s personal data lawfully by recording hundreds of thousands of phone calls without their knowledge. People have the right to expect that when they speak to a police officer, the information they disclose is handled responsibly. We can only estimate the huge amount of personal data collected during these conversations, including highly sensitive information relating to suspected crimes.
The reprimand reflects the use of the ICO’s wider powers towards the public sector as large fines could lead to reduced budgets for the provision of vital services. This case highlights why the ICO is pursuing a different approach, as fining Surrey Police and Sussex Police risks impacting the victims of crime in the area once again.
This case should be a lesson learned to any organisation planning to introduce an app, product or service that uses people’s personal data. Organisations must consider people’s data protection rights and implement data protection principles from the very start.
Sussex Police do not tolerate any hateful comments towards their gender identity regardless of crimes committed. This is irrelevant to the crime that has been committed and investigated.
Sussex Police Twitter 27th September 2022
Please see our statement below in relation to the recent sentencing of a historic sex offender. pic.twitter.com/7ZcwkT7yEt
.@Sussex_police have done well to put a dangerous criminal behind bars. But they’ve got it wrong by playing identity politics and denying biology. Focus on catching criminals not policing pronouns. #commonsensepolicinghttps://t.co/19U1Qf77F7
Home Secretary’s Comment About Sussex PoliceSussex Police Twitter Account
Sussex Police and Crime Commissioner Priorities
“As your PCC, my job is to hold the Chief Constable of Sussex Police to account and ensure that the police focus on local priorities. I believe every citizen has a right to feel safe on the streets and in their homes.
“In consultation with the Chief Constable and the people of Sussex, I have published a Police & Crime Plan setting out the priorities and local objectives that local people and business say are important to them.
With your support, I am determined that Sussex Police will operate effectively and efficiently and that the values I have embraced during my professional career – hard work, integrity and fairness – underpin everything we do together.”
Police typically are responsible for maintaining public order and safety, enforcing the law, and preventing, detecting, and investigating criminal activities.
Sussex Police should concentrate on doing the job that they are paid to do.No wonder the public have no faith in the Police !
A Direct Access Barrister, also known as a Public Access Barrister, enables members of the public to directly instruct a… Read more: Direct Access Barrister
In short, the answer is yes anyone can criticise a judge or court.
The judiciary and courts are quite rightly not immune to public criticism and comment. The rule of law applies to everyone and no one should be above the law.
Scandalising the judiciary, also known as scandalising the court or scandalising judges, was historically considered a form of contempt of court in the common law of England and Wales.
It involved any publication or speech that would undermine public confidence in the judiciary or its officers, such as judges and magistrates.
However, the Crime and Courts Act 2013 abolished the offence of scandalising the judiciary under the common law of England and Wales.
Section 33 of the Act specifically states
“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.”
The decision to abolish the offence was controversial, with supporters of the change arguing that it was necessary to ensure that freedom of expression was protected and that the judiciary were not immune to criticism.
While the offence of scandalising the judiciary no longer exists under the common law of England and Wales, other forms of contempt of court still apply.
These include disobedience to court orders, interference with court proceedings, and publication of material that could prejudice ongoing legal proceedings.
In conclusion, scandalising the judiciary was once considered a form of contempt of court in England and Wales, but this offence was abolished by the Crime and Courts Act 2013.
It should however be noted that libel and slander are both forms of defamation, which involve making a false statement about someone that damages their reputation.
In the United Kingdom, the laws around libel and slander are governed by the Defamation Act 2013, which replaced the previous common law rules on defamation.
The JCIO are an independent office which supports the Lord Chancellor and Lady Chief Justice in considering complaints about the personal conduct of judicial office holders.
The JCIO cannot accept complaints about a judge’s decision or the way a judge has managed a case.
A Direct Access Barrister, also known as a Public Access Barrister, enables members of the public to directly instruct a… Read more: Direct Access Barrister
Lady Justice, often depicted as a graceful figure holding a sword, scales, and sometimes wearing a blindfold, is an iconic… Read more: What does Lady Justice Symbolise ?
The Legal Services Board (LSB) is an independent regulatory body that oversees the legal services sector in England and Wales.… Read more: What is the Legal Services Board ?
A Direct Access Barrister, also known as a Public Access Barrister, enables members of the public to directly instruct a… Read more: Direct Access Barrister
A Public Spaces Protection Order (PSPO) is a powerful tool introduced in 2014 under the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing… Read more: What is a Public Spaces Protection Order (PSPO)?
