Author: Dom Watts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dom is a member of The Free Speech Union

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

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

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

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

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

Categories
Civil Justice Law Legal Analysis

Norwich Pharmacal Orders and Dodgy Fire Sticks

Norwich Pharmacal Orders and Dodgy Fire Sticks

Norwich Pharmacal orders (NPOs) are a form of court-ordered disclosure used in England and Wales and in equivalent jurisdictions such as Ireland.

Norwich Pharmacal orders (NPOs) require a third party to provide information or documents to help identify or locate an unknown wrongdoer when that information is held by an innocent party who has become involved in the relevant wrongdoing.

Unlike standard disclosure in ongoing litigation, Norwich Pharmacal orders target non-parties who have been unwittingly “mixed up” in the misconduct. This allows claimants to pursue justice when the perpetrators hide behind anonymity online or through other means.

Norwich Pharmacal orders are widely used in digital contexts. Common applications include identifying anonymous online infringers in defamation, harassment, or copyright cases, tracing fraudsters through banks or payment providers and supporting intellectual property enforcement actions.

Origin and Legal Basis

The remedy originates from the landmark 1974 House of Lords decision in Norwich Pharmacal Co v Customs and Excise Commissioners [1974] AC 133. In that case, the pharmaceutical company found that counterfeit versions of its patented drug were entering the United Kingdom but could not identify the importers. Customs and Excise held the import records.

The House of Lords ruled that a third party innocently involved in facilitating wrongdoing owes an equitable duty to assist the victim by disclosing relevant information, including the identity of the wrongdoer. This principle forms the basis of Norwich Pharmacal jurisdiction today.

Requirements for Obtaining an Order

To obtain a Norwich Pharmacal order, the applicant must generally satisfy the following key conditions:

  • There is a good arguable case that wrongdoing has occurred (this can include torts, breaches of contract, intellectual property infringement, or other actionable wrongs).
  • The order is necessary to enable the applicant to bring proceedings or obtain legitimate redress against the ultimate wrongdoer. Alternative routes must be unavailable or ineffective.
  • The respondent (third party) has been “mixed up” in the wrongdoing, even innocently, and is able to provide the required information.
  • The court must be satisfied that granting the order is just and proportionate, and that the application is not a mere “fishing expedition”.

Courts exercise discretion and balance the need for justice against privacy and other rights.

The Justice and Security Act 2013

Section 17 of the Justice and Security Act 2013 introduced a statutory restriction on the Norwich Pharmacal jurisdiction. It provides that a court may not make a Norwich Pharmacal order (or similar order) in civil proceedings if the disclosure sought would be damaging to the interests of national security.

The Act was enacted partly in response to cases where claimants sought disclosure of sensitive intelligence material through Norwich Pharmacal applications. It prevents the court from ordering disclosure of “sensitive information” where the Secretary of State certifies that such disclosure would damage national security.

Sky v Revolut – Dodgy Fire Sticks

On the 26th March 2026, Mr Justice Brian Cregan in the Irish High Court granted a Norwich Pharmacal order requiring Revolut Bank UAB to disclose information to Sky.

Sky sought the names and addresses of 304 subscribers and ten resellers who had made payments via Revolut for illegal streaming devices, commonly known as “Dodgy Fire Sticks” or “Dodgy boxes”.

These devices, loaded with unauthorised software, enable access to premium content including Premier League football, TNT Sports, Sky Sports, and Disney+ without legitimate subscriptions. It is said that many UK viewers access Irish-sourced illegal feeds through such devices.

The payments related to services provided by Wexford resident David Dunbar, who was previously ordered to pay Sky €480,000 in damages.

He also faces approximately €100,000 in legal costs and was fined €30,000 for contempt of court after breaching orders to preserve data.Sky confirmed that the information would be used to commence legal proceedings against the resellers and certain users.

The data is to be provided on an encrypted spreadsheet within 28 days. Revolut remained neutral on the application.

Police authorities have repeatedly warned that purchasing such devices can fund organised crime and expose users to risks of data theft and malware.

Check out our related articles on Defendant’s Costs Order, Wasted Costs Order, Public Spaces Protection Order (PSPO), Rule of Law, Open Justice, Is the Law Black and White ?, Abuse of Process, What Does Lady Justice Symbolise ?, McKenzie Friend, Can a Judge Direct a Jury to Find a Defendant Not Guilty ?,Law Society, Law Commission, McKenzie Friend Right of Audience, Solicitors, Solicitors Regulation Authority, Barristers, Bar Council of England and Wales, Bar Standards Board, Contra Mundum, R v Sussex Justices, Police Impartiality and the highly questionable Sussex Family Justice Board.

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

Latest Articles ↓

Most Popular ↓

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

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

Categories
Government Law

What is a Statutory Instrument ?

Statutory Instrument - Parliament

A statutory instrument is the most common form of secondary or delegated legislation in the United Kingdom. It allows Ministers or other authorised bodies to make detailed rules, regulations, orders, or other provisions under the authority of an Act of Parliament (primary legislation), without Parliament having to pass a completely new Act for every technical or updating measure.

Primary vs Secondary Legislation

Acts of Parliament (primary legislation) set out the broad framework and principles of the law. They are fully debated and passed by both Houses of Parliament before receiving Royal Assent.

Many Acts are intentionally framework-style, leaving detailed implementation such as technical standards, fee levels, commencement dates or procedural rules to be filled in later by secondary legislation. Statutory instruments made under these powers have the full force of law, but they derive their authority from the “parent” or “enabling” Act.

Why Use Statutory Instruments?

Parliament relies on SIs for practical reasons:

  • Efficiency — Primary legislation would otherwise become overloaded with technical detail.
  • Flexibility — Governments can respond quickly to changing circumstances (for example, updating penalty levels for inflation or implementing new safety standards).
  • Volume — Between 1,500 and 2,000 SIs are typically made each year in the UK.

SIs govern a wide range of everyday matters, from traffic regulations and immigration rules to environmental standards and tax exemptions.

How Statutory Instruments Are Made

The process is straightforward and governed by the Statutory Instruments Act 1946:

  1. The parent Act grants a specific power to a Minister (or occasionally another body) to make regulations on defined matters.
  2. Government lawyers draft the SI, often following public consultation.
  3. The Minister signs (“makes”) the instrument.
  4. It is numbered in the annual series (e.g., SI 2026/123) and published on the official legislation website.

Parliamentary Scrutiny: Affirmative, Negative and Other Procedures

The level of parliamentary oversight is set by the parent Act:

  • Negative procedure (most common): The SI is laid before Parliament and comes into force automatically after 40 sitting days unless either House passes a motion to annul it (“pray against”). Successful annulments are rare.
  • Affirmative procedure: The SI (often laid in draft) must be actively approved by resolution of both Houses (or the Commons alone for certain financial matters) before it can be made or come into force.
  • No procedure (or “made negative” in some cases): Many technical or minor instruments, such as simple commencement orders, require no further parliamentary step.

All SIs that are subject to procedure are accompanied by an Explanatory Memorandum in plain English. They are scrutinised on technical grounds by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments (JCSI).

Judicial Oversight and Challenges

While Parliament provides the primary political check on SIs, the courts play an important constitutional role through judicial review. Unlike primary legislation (which cannot be struck down by the courts), secondary legislation such as statutory instruments can be declared invalid if it is found to be unlawful.

The main grounds for judicial review of an SI include:

  • Ultra vires (lack of vires / illegality): The instrument goes beyond the powers granted by the parent Act. Courts interpret enabling powers strictly, especially so-called Henry VIII clauses (powers allowing Ministers to amend or repeal primary legislation).
  • Procedural impropriety: Failure to follow mandatory consultation, laying procedures, or other rules set by the parent Act or the Statutory Instruments Act 1946.
  • Irrationality / unreasonableness: The decision is so unreasonable that no reasonable Minister could have made it (applied cautiously).
  • Uncertainty: The instrument is so unclear or vague that it cannot be understood or applied.
  • Incompatibility with Convention rights under the Human Rights Act 1998 (where the parent Act does not prevent removal of the incompatibility).

If a court finds an SIs unlawful, the usual remedy is a quashing order that renders the instrument void from the outset. Parliamentary approval does not prevent judicial review.

Examples of Statutory Instruments

Common examples include regulations updating driving licence rules, housing standards or environmental protections; orders setting or amending penalty levels; and commencement regulations that bring sections of a new Act into force.

In October 2013, the Treasury laid before Parliament a short statutory instrument, in relation to Sir Keir Starmer.

Officially known as The Pensions Increase (Pension Scheme for Keir Starmer QC) Regulations 2013, the measure came into force on the 31st October 2013.

Where to Find Statutory Instruments

You can browse current and historical SIs on the official UK legislation database and Parliament’s dedicated Find a Statutory Instrument website.

Further Reading

Summary

Statutory instruments are a vital and routine part of the UK legislative system. They enable detailed and responsive law-making while remaining grounded in parliamentary authority.

Although they receive less public attention than primary Acts, they constitute the bulk of the rules that affect daily life. They remain subject to both parliamentary scrutiny and judicial oversight to ensure they stay within lawful bounds.

Check out the related articles on the Attorney General, Solicitor General, Lady Chief Justice, Master of the Rolls, Lord Chancellor, Justice Secretary, Rule of Law, Open Justice, Law, Is the Law Black and White ?, Government Legal Department, Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), Abuse of Process, Government Legal Department (GLD), What Does Lady Justice Symbolise ?, McKenzie Friend, Can a Judge Direct a Jury to Find a Defendant Not Guilty ?,Law Society, Law Commission, McKenzie Friend Right of Audience, Solicitors, Solicitors Regulation Authority, Barristers, Bar Council of England and Wales, Bar Standards Board, R v Sussex Justices, Police Impartiality and the highly questionable Sussex Family Justice Board.

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

Latest Articles ↓

Most Popular ↓

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

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

Categories
Government Law Legal Analysis Legal Professionals

The Pensions Increase (Pension Scheme for Keir Starmer QC) Regulations 2013

Sir Kier Starmer

In October 2013, the Treasury laid before Parliament a short statutory instrument, in relation to Sir Keir Starmer, that has since gained unexpected political attention.

Officially known as The Pensions Increase (Pension Scheme for Keir Starmer QC) Regulations 2013 (SI 2013/2588), the measure came into force on the 31st October 2013.

Despite its modest length of just three operative paragraphs, the Regulations addressed a specific technical issue arising from Keir Starmer KC’s departure as Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP).

Made – – – – 8th October 2013
Laid before Parliament 9th October 2013
Coming into force – – 31st October 2013

The Treasury, in exercise of the power conferred by section 5(2) of the Pensions (Increase) Act
1971(a) and now vested in them(b) hereby make the following Regulations:

Citation and commencement

  1. These Regulations may be cited as the Pensions Increase (Pension Scheme for Keir Starmer QC) Regulations 2013, and come into force on 31st October 2013.

    Interpretation
  2. (1) In these Regulations, “the 1971 Act” means the Pensions (Increase) Act 1971.
    (2) For the purposes of these Regulations the time when a pension “begins” is that stated in
    section 8(2) of the 1971 Act(c).

    Pensions to which the 1971 Act shall apply
  3. The 1971 Act shall have effect in relation to any pension payable under the Pension Scheme
    for Keir Starmer QC (being a scheme made under section 1 of the Superannuation Act 1972(d)),
    as if it were a pension specified in Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the 1971 Act.
The Pensions Increase (Pension Scheme for Keir Starmer QC) Regulations 2013

Background

Sir Keir Starmer, who is currently the UK Prime Minister, served as Director of Public Prosecutions from 2008 until 2013, leading the Crown Prosecution Service through a period of major reform.

As with other senior public appointments, his remuneration included a pension arranged under section 1 of the Superannuation Act 1972.

This was a bespoke pension scheme created specifically for the role of DPP, separate from the standard civil service pension arrangements. When Keir Starmer left office, a question arose regarding how his pension would be increased for inflation once it came into payment.

Purpose of The Pensions Increase (Pension Scheme for Keir Starmer QC) Regulations 2013

The 2013 Regulations were made under section 5(2) of the Pensions (Increase) Act 1971. They declared that the 1971 Act “shall have effect” in relation to any pension payable under Keir Starmer’s scheme “as if it were a pension specified in Part 1 of Schedule 2” to that Act.

In simple terms, this ensured that Kier Starmer’s DPP pension would receive the same annual up-rating for inflation as most other public-service pensions. Increases would therefore be linked to the Retail Prices Index (or its successor measures), thereby protecting the pension’s real value over time.

Key Provisions and Scrutiny

Signed by Treasury ministers Desmond Swayne and Stephen Crabb on the 8th October 2013, the instrument was laid before Parliament the next day.

An accompanying explanatory note emphasised its narrow scope, stating that it had “no impact upon the private or voluntary sectors”. A parliamentary joint committee scrutinising statutory instruments noted a minor drafting point concerning the definition of when a pension “begins”. However, the committee accepted the Treasury’s clarification and viewed the Regulations as largely technical in nature.

The underlying pension scheme was tax-unregistered, a common feature for certain high-level public posts at the time. The 2013 Regulations did not create or change this tax status; they simply applied standard indexation rules.

Later Controversy

For nearly a decade, the Regulations attracted little public interest. They resurfaced in March 2023 during debates over the abolition of the lifetime allowance. Some critics portrayed the measure as a “special law” granting Kier Starmer, by then Leader of the Opposition, a personal tax advantage.

Supporters argued that the arrangement was standard practice for the DPP post and that the Regulations merely aligned indexation with other comparable public-sector schemes. Keir Starmer has described the pension as the normal entitlement for the office he held.

Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer has been accused of hypocrisy by Conservatives over a tax exempt pension deal he has from a previous job.

Sir Keir criticised measures in the Budget which scrapped the £1m cap on lifetime pensions savings.

The Telegraph reported that Sir Keir got a special “tax unregistered” pension scheme when he stood down as Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) in 2013.

Labour says it was standard practice for retiring DPPs to get such a deal.

But senior Conservative MP Sir Iain Duncan Smith told The Telegraph it made a “mockery” of Labour’s position on the lifetime pension allowance, and was as “close to hypocrisy as it is possible to get”.

Sir Keir Starmer criticised over tax free pension scheme

Image of The Rt Hon Sir Keir Starmer KCB KC MP – xAI – Grok

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

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

Latest Articles ↓

Most Popular ↓

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

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

Categories
Judiciary

First-tier Tribunal Judge Linda Veloso

Judge Linda Veloso

Judge Linda Veloso is a sitting judge in the United Kingdom’s tribunal system, specifically serving in the First-tier Tribunal, Immigration and Asylum Chamber.

Judge Veloso has gained public attention in recent years due to high-profile decisions in immigration and deportation cases, including one that drew widespread media coverage in March 2026.

Judge Veloso is shown on the First-tier Tribunal Judges published on the Courts and Tribunal Judiciary website.

Judge Veloso Legal Bio

Linda Veloso was called to the Bar by Lincoln’s Inn in 1996, marking the start of her legal career as a barrister. She accumulated significant experience in legal practice before transitioning into judicial roles.

In 2013, she was appointed as a fee-paid (part-time) judge in the First-tier Tribunal’s Social Entitlement Chamber, where she handled cases related to social security, disability benefits, and other welfare matters.

On November 25th 2019, the UK judiciary announced her full appointment as a Judge of the First-tier Tribunal, assigned to the Immigration and Asylum Chamber effective December 6th 2019.

Linda Veloso has been appointed as a Judge of the First-tier Tribunal on the advice of the Senior President of Tribunals, the Right Honourable Sir Ernest Ryder.

The Senior President of Tribunals has assigned her to the Immigration and Asylum Chamber with effect from 6th December 2019.

Linda Veloso, aged 47, will continue to be known as Judge Veloso. She was called to the Bar (L) in 1996. She was appointed as a fee-paid Judge of the First-tier Tribunal in the Social Entitlement Chamber in 2013.

Appointment as a Judge of the First Tier Tribunal, Immigration and Asylum Chamber: Veloso
Judge VelosoImmigration & Asylum
List of First Tier Tribunal Judges

At the time of her appointment, she was 47 years old and continued to be addressed as Judge Veloso.

This role involves adjudicating appeals against Home Office decisions on immigration, asylum, deportation, and human rights claims.

Judge Veloso career progression reflects a common path for many UK tribunal judges: starting with fee-paid judicial experience in one chamber before moving to a salaried position in a specialised area like immigration law.

Notable Case: The 2026 “Chicken Nugget” Ruling

Judge Veloso came under significant public and media scrutiny in March 2026 for her decision in the protracted deportation appeal of Klevis Disha, an Albanian national who had been in the UK since around 2001.

Disha, who had a criminal conviction and faced deportation, contended that his removal would breach his and his family’s rights under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (right to respect for private and family life).

The case focused heavily on Disha’s 11-year-old son (referred to as “C” in court documents), who has complex behavioural issues, sensory processing difficulties, a restricted diet, and struggles with certain food textures.

Evidence indicated that C had lived his entire life in the UK, received specialised support from his school, and was making progress in a “delicate ongoing process”.

The child reportedly did not speak or understand Albanian and had no familiarity with Albania.The Home Office opposed the appeal, including assertions that C spoke Albanian as a first language and lacked a formal autism diagnosis. Judge Veloso rejected several of these claims and ruled in Disha’s favour.

In her determination, she concluded that it was in the child’s best interests to remain in the UK with his family, where he could continue to receive established support.

She stressed that uprooting him would be unduly harsh, given his needs and the fact that the UK was the only country he had ever known. The ruling invoked Article 8 and placed the child’s welfare as a primary consideration.

The decision provoked considerable controversy and media headlines referring to the “chicken nugget migrant” case, arising from earlier arguments about the child’s limited food preferences (including UK-specific chicken nuggets) not being available abroad.

Several news outlets such as The Sun, GB News, and the Evening Standard covered the outcome, with some commentators criticising it as an illustration of human rights law hindering deportations. The Home Office stated that it was actively considering the judgment.

The full judgment in the case of Klevis Disha v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Appeal Number: HU/60457/2023), decided by First-tier Tribunal Judge L Veloso and promulgated around March 2026 (hearing on 26th February 2026, signed 12th March 2026, published 17th March 2026), is publicly available on the official UK Judiciary website.

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

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

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

Image of First Tier Tribunal Judge Veloso : xAI – Grok

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

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

Latest Articles ↓

Most Popular ↓

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

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

Categories
Criminal Justice Government Law Legal Analysis Legal Professionals

Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP)

Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP)

The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) is the head of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS). The Director of Public Prosecutions is responsible for the independent prosecution of criminal cases investigated by the police and other agencies.

This role ensures that decisions to prosecute are taken fairly, free from political interference and guided solely by the evidence and the public interest. Established over a century ago, the office has evolved into one of the most influential positions in British law, overseeing hundreds of thousands of cases each year.

Thank you for contacting the Private Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Chief Operating Officer, at the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS). Your email has been received.

The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) email is [email protected]

Historical Background

The office dates back to the Prosecution of Offences Act 1879, which created the DPP to advise police and handle serious cases. The first holder, Sir John Maule QC, assumed the post in 1880 but operated with limited powers.

After a brief merger with the Treasury Solicitor in 1884, the role regained full independence under the Prosecution of Offences Act 1908. Significant modernisation occurred between 1944 and 1964 under Sir Theobald Mathew QC, who updated regulations, introduced new technology, and expanded staff numbers.

The pivotal moment came in 1986 with the launch of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) under the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985. This transformed the DPP from leading a small department into the chief executive of a national prosecution service.

Role and Responsibilities

The Director of Public Prosecutions is the third most senior public prosecutor, ranking below the Attorney General and Solicitor General. The holder bears personal responsibility for approximately 7,000 CPS staff and around 800,000 prosecutions annually.

Key duties include applying the Full Code Test to decide whether cases should proceed, advising police during investigations, setting charges in complex matters, and issuing legal guidance and policies. The DPP also presents cases in court where necessary and supports victims and witnesses. Crucially, the role demands strict independence; prosecutorial decisions cannot be directed by government.

The DPP reports to the Attorney General, who accounts for the CPS in Parliament, but day-to-day operations remain free from ministerial control.

The Code for Crown Prosecutors (the Code) is issued by the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) under section 10 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985. This is the eighth edition of the Code and replaces all earlier versions and was published on the 26th October 2018. Almost 8 years without an update is quite a long time.

Appointment and Current Leadership

The DPP is appointed by the Attorney General for an initial five-year term following an open competition overseen by the Civil Service Commission. The process emphasises integrity, legal expertise, and leadership.

The current Director of Public Prosecutions is Stephen Parkinson, who took office on the 1st November 2023. A University College London law graduate, Parkinson qualified as a barrister in 1980 and later as a solicitor in 2005.

He began as a junior prosecutor in 1984, rose through CPS ranks, and held senior government posts, including Deputy Head of the Attorney General’s Office. For two decades he practised as a defence solicitor at Kingsley Napley, becoming Senior Partner in 2018. His unique experience on both sides of the courtroom equips him to lead the service effectively.

Stephen Parkinson has been announced as the new Director of Public Prosecutions and head of the Crown Prosecution Service. It is expected that he will take up the appointment in November 2023 for an initial term of five years. He will succeed the outgoing DPP, Max Hill KC.

Chair of the Bar Council, Nick Vineall KC, said: “The Bar Council would like to congratulate and welcome Stephen Parkinson as the new Director of Public Prosecutions and head of the Crown Prosecution Service.  Mr Parkinson practised as a barrister for over 20 years and then qualified as a solicitor and has had a distinguished career in both the public and the private sectors. We very much look forward to meeting and engaging with the new DPP on areas of mutual concern, at a time when the criminal justice sector is under unprecedented pressure, and Crown Court backlogs are at record levels.

“The Bar Council would also like to record its sincere thanks to the outgoing DPP, Max Hill KC, who steered the CPS through the Covid crisis and has always sought to ensure that remuneration for those involved in prosecuting on behalf of the CPS was on a par with criminal defence fees.” 

New DPP Stephen Parkinson announced – Bar Council comment

Stephen Parkinson Legal Experience

Challenges and Future Outlook

Today’s DPP operates under intense pressure. Backlogs, rising caseloads, and high-profile events such as civil disturbances test resources and impartiality.

Maintaining public trust while improving efficiency, supporting victims more effectively, and embracing digital transformation are key priorities. DPP Stephen Parkinson has emphasised collaborative working across the criminal justice system to reduce delays and deliver fair outcomes.

Charlies Prosecution Service (CPS)
Coming Soon at https://cpsgov.uk – Charlie’s Prosecution Service

Image of Stephen Parkinson : PA

Check out our related articles on the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) Complaints and Feedback, HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate (HMCPSI), Rule of Law, Open Justice, Victims’ Right to Review (VRR), Is the Law Black and White ?, Abuse of Process, What Does Lady Justice Symbolise ?, McKenzie Friend, Can a Judge Direct a Jury to Find a Defendant Not Guilty ?,Law Society, Law Commission, McKenzie Friend Right of Audience, Solicitors, Solicitors Regulation Authority, Barristers, Bar Council of England and Wales, Bar Standards Board, Contra Mundum, R v Sussex Justices, Police Impartiality and the highly questionable Sussex Family Justice Board.

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

Latest Articles ↓

Most Popular ↓

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

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

Categories
Civil Justice Criminal Justice Judiciary

Dodgy Magistrates (JP)

Magistrates Justice of the Peace JP

The Judicial Conduct Investigations Office (JCIO) investigates complaints against judicial office holders in England and Wales, including lay magistrates known as Justices of the Peace (JPs).

A “fee-paid magistrate” is usually a Deputy District Judge, which is a different, legally qualified role compared to a Lay Magistrate (JP). 

When misconduct is substantiated, sanctions are imposed by the Lord Chancellor (with agreement from the Lady Chief Justice or delegate) and published as statements on the JCIO website.

Misconduct means personal misbehaviour which is serious enough to require the Lord Chancellor and the Lady Chief Justice to take formal disciplinary action.

Dodgy Judges

As of the 12th February 2026, in the 2025/2026 period, the JCIO issued 83 disciplinary statements in total. Of these, 47 involved Magistrates/Justices of the Peace (JPs) (identified by “JP” in the listings; the remainder include judges, coroners, and tribunal members).

The primary reason for JP discipline is failure, without reasonable excuse, to meet minimum sitting requirements (at least 13 full days or 26 half-days per year, often over three consecutive years), leading to removal via summary process.

Other cases involve social media misuse, failure to report personal legal involvement/convictions, inappropriate conduct/comments, misuse of judicial status, driving offences and other breaches.

Sanctions range from formal advice (mildest; visible 2 years) to formal warning (4 years), reprimand (6 years), or removal from office (5 years for sittings failures; indefinite otherwise).

Some note “would have been removed” if not resigned first.

Below is the complete list of all 47 JP cases, in the order they appear on the JCIO page (most recent first). Each includes the JCIO reference, name (linked to the official statement page), misconduct summary, sanction, and key notes/mitigating factors (based on statement content).

Disciplined Magistrates (2025/2026) as of 12th Feb 2026

  • JCIO 83/25 – Mr Adrian Kermode JP
    Misconduct: Liked a politically sensitive LinkedIn post (August 2025), risking impartiality and reputational harm.
    Sanction: Formal advice.
    Notes: Accepted responsibility, apologised, promptly unliked, provided future conduct assurances; single passive engagement.
  • JCIO 82/25 – Mr Morris Suckall JP
    Misconduct: Three inappropriate Facebook posts (2017) showing bias/ill will toward political figure and minority group.
    Sanction: Formal warning.
    Notes: Historic posts; 13 years unblemished service; no sustained pattern but limited insight.
  • JCIO 80/25 – Ms Michelle Bevan-Margetts JP
    Misconduct: Election leaflet included unauthorised comments on government policy and judiciary effectiveness.
    Sanction: Formal advice.
    Notes: Additions without knowledge; voluntary mitigation; incomplete insight.
  • JCIO 76/25 – Mr Lascelles Haughton JP
    Misconduct: Failure to meet minimum sittings for three years; disengagement and no contact.
    Sanction: Removal from office.
    Notes: No reasonable excuse; work commitments cited but insufficient for prior years.
  • JCIO 75/25 – Mr David Whitehead JP
    Misconduct: Called into LBC radio identifying as magistrate and criticising government policy on deportation.
    Sanction: Formal warning.
    Notes: Claimed private capacity; limited insight into breach of impartiality standards.
  • JCIO 73/25 – Mr John Parfitt JP
    Misconduct: Irregularities in managing bench social fund (inaccurate records, personal account use).
    Sanction: Formal warning.
    Notes: 16-year unblemished record; full responsibility; rectified with payments; personal challenges.
  • JCIO 72/25 – Mrs Roberta Hall JP
    Misconduct: Failure to meet sittings for three consecutive years.
    Sanction: Formal warning.
    Notes: Reasonable excuse for one year; 33 years service including chair roles; improved sittings.
  • JCIO 71/25 – Mr Steven Kinchington JP
    Misconduct: Used position to obtain case information not involved in.
    Sanction: Formal advice.
    Notes: Full responsibility; apologised; basic enquiry for acquaintance; no prior misconduct.
  • JCIO 70/25 – Mrs Nicola Walker JP
    Misconduct: No sittings or training since June 2022 appointment.
    Sanction: Removal from office.
    Notes: Unforeseen circumstances; no engagement with contacts.
  • JCIO 69/25 – Mrs Rebecca Reeves JP
    Misconduct: Failure to meet sittings and complete required training since April 2023.
    Sanction: Removal from office.
    Notes: Personal reasons for postponements; no response to rescheduling.
  • JCIO 68/25 – Mr Sarfraz Uddin JP
    Misconduct: Failure to meet minimum sittings for three years (from April 2022).
    Sanction: Removal from office.
    Notes: No response to requests; no reasonable excuse.
  • JCIO 67/25 – Miss Jennifer Reay JP
    Misconduct: Failure to meet sittings since April 2022.
    Sanction: Removal from office.
    Notes: No response provided.
  • JCIO 65/25 – Miss Angela Cahill JP
    Misconduct: Failure to meet sittings for two years; disengagement.
    Sanction: Removal from office.
    Notes: No response; no prospect of meeting requirements.
  • JCIO 64/25 – Mr Mark Lenderyou JP
    Misconduct: Shouting at court officer; unprofessional conduct.
    Sanction: Formal advice.
    Notes: Accepted unprofessional; apologised; personal factors affected note-taking.
  • JCIO 61/25 – Mr Nick Johnston JP
    Misconduct: Failed to promptly report convictions resulting in nine penalty points.
    Sanction: Formal advice.
    Notes: Full responsibility; ashamed; commitment to role.
  • JCIO 59/25 – Craig Rydqvist JP
    Misconduct: Failure to meet minimum sittings in 2024/25; delayed training.
    Sanction: Reprimand.
    Notes: Training delays; committed to reducing work; on track for current year.
  • JCIO 58/25 – Clive Powell JP
    Misconduct: Disruptive behaviour in training (aggressive criticism, raised voice).
    Sanction: Formal advice.
    Notes: Personal experiences; no contrition but long service.
  • JCIO 57/25 – Evelyn McCann JP
    Misconduct: Failure to meet sittings for three years (2022/23-2024/25).
    Sanction: Reprimand.
    Notes: Genuine mistake for one year; apologised; work/personal issues; unblemished since 2007.
  • JCIO 56/25 – Mrs Jill Clarke JP
    Misconduct: Belatedly reported providing police statement (2019) and accidental JP suffix in reference.
    Sanction: Formal advice.
    Notes: Apologised; resubmitted without suffix; long unblemished service.
  • JCIO 53/25 – Mrs Madeleine Bonser JP
    Misconduct: Requested case papers for mentee despite policy prohibition.
    Sanction: Formal warning.
    Notes: Assumed policy changed; 18-year unblemished record.
  • JCIO 52/25 – Mrs Jane Taylor JP
    Misconduct: Shared YouTube video with potentially transphobic commentary in WhatsApp group.
    Sanction: Reprimand.
    Notes: Defended as non-transphobic; political motivation claimed.
  • JCIO 50/25 – Ms Susan Kelly JP
    Misconduct: Failure to meet sittings for three consecutive years from April 2022.
    Sanction: Removal from office.
    Notes: Representations not accepted as reasonable excuse; personal circumstances; long service.
  • JCIO 49/25 – Ms Kate Waghorn JP
    Misconduct: Inappropriate racially insensitive comment about probation officer.
    Sanction: Formal warning.
    Notes: No malice; remorse; apologised; 30-year record.
  • JCIO 48/25 – Ms Gillian Sebright JP
    Misconduct: Inappropriate accusatory tone to staff; insensitive remark on religious beliefs.
    Sanction: Formal advice.
    Notes: 20-year unblemished record; sincere apology; no intentional offence.
  • JCIO 47/25 – Dr Amy Delicate JP
    Misconduct: Inappropriate behaviour in hearing (desk banging, sighing, swearing).
    Sanction: Formal advice.
    Notes: Stress from bundles; qualified apology; 5-year unblemished record.
  • JCIO 46/25 – Mr Michael Muldoon JP
    Misconduct: Speeding offence (six points); failed to report exceeding six points.
    Sanction: Formal advice.
    Notes: Prompt self-report; regret; clean licence otherwise.
  • JCIO 45/25 – Mr John Garforth JP
    Misconduct: Failure to report internal employment investigation.
    Sanction: Formal advice.
    Notes: Misunderstanding; not deliberate; took responsibility.
  • JCIO 44/25 – Ms Nicola Baldwin JP
    Misconduct: Failed to inform of co-defendant in civil proceedings; used JP status on website/email/social media.
    Sanction: Formal advice.
    Notes: Accepted facts; removed references; no intent to gain; no prior since 2006.
  • JCIO 43/25 – Mr Andrew Dawson JP
    Misconduct: Used magistrate status in election leaflet (“17 years keeping streets safe”).
    Sanction: Formal advice.
    Notes: Intended for campaign; apologised; genuine error.
  • JCIO 42/25 – Mrs Marisa Austin-Knowles JP
    Misconduct: Failure to report involvement in proceedings; mentioned status in court.
    Sanction: Formal warning.
    Notes: Undisputed; misunderstood reporting; apologised.
  • JCIO 38/25 – Mr Ramesh Nayak JP
    Misconduct: Obtained colleague’s medical records without consent.
    Sanction: Formal advice.
    Notes: Intended to help; remorseful; good faith.
  • JCIO 34/25 – Mr David Armitage JP
    Misconduct: Disclosed victim-identifying information from proceedings to organisation.
    Sanction: Removal from office.
    Notes: Unaware of anonymity; best intentions; remorseful.
  • JCIO 33/25 – Mr Joe Bangudu JP
    Misconduct: Failed to promptly report involvement in proceedings (three-month delay).
    Sanction: Reprimand.
    Notes: Serious misconduct; personally affected; remorse; no prior.
  • JCIO 32/25 – Mrs Angela Bradshaw JP
    Misconduct: Offensive comment overgeneralising a cultural group.
    Sanction: Formal advice.
    Notes: Ill-advised; accepted responsibility; direct apology.
  • JCIO 30/25 – Miss Linda Hill JP
    Misconduct: Failure to meet sittings for three years from April 2022; no engagement.
    Sanction: Reprimand.
    Notes: Work/personal commitments; felt unsupported; unblemished since 2007.
  • JCIO 29/25 – Mr Martin Dominique JP
    Misconduct: Rude, aggressive towards litigant; abuse of authority.
    Sanction: Formal warning.
    Notes: Admitted remarks; single instance.
  • JCIO 28/25 – Mrs Shirley Holmes JP
    Misconduct: Conditional caution for altercation (removing headset); breached respect for law.
    Sanction: Formal warning.
    Notes: Provocation; regretful; personal challenges; no prior.
  • JCIO 26/25 – Mr Edmund Sutton JP
    Misconduct: Failure to meet sittings for four years; no engagement.
    Sanction: Removal from office.
    Notes: No response to contacts.
  • JCIO 25/25 – Mr Alfred Bean JP
    Misconduct: Loud, rude complaint about parking; aggressive rant to staff.
    Sanction: Formal advice.
    Notes: Frustration; regret; attempted apology; 12-year record.
  • JCIO 24/25 – Mr Terry Regan JP
    Misconduct: Failed to report motoring convictions timely; multiple offences (nine points, ban).
    Sanction: Formal warning.
    Notes: Misinterpretation; remedial actions; long-serving.
  • JCIO 23/25 – Mr Peter Chapman JP
    Misconduct: Failure to complete five essential e-module trainings.
    Sanction: Formal advice.
    Notes: Claimed completed; not intentional avoidance.
  • JCIO 22/25 – Mrs Sharanjit Sandhu JP
    Misconduct: Rude to magistrate/staff; derogatory emails; car park breach.
    Sanction: Formal warning.
    Notes: Denied rudeness; retaliatory complaint; some complaints dismissed.
  • JCIO 21/25 – Mrs Fiona Jones JP
    Misconduct: Failed to meet minimum sittings (30 half-days for dual jurisdictions) in 2024; repeated failures.
    Sanction: Reprimand.
    Notes: Work/personal; 30 years committed; improving in 2025.
  • JCIO 20/25 – Ms Amie Canham JP
    Misconduct: Adverse findings in civil proceedings not declared; failure to report involvement.
    Sanction: Would have been removed (resigned).
    Notes: Gross misconduct; difficult circumstances; no prior.
  • JCIO 19/25 – Mr Robert Walker JP
    Misconduct: Stern, belittling, intimidating tone to staff.
    Sanction: Formal advice.
    Notes: Negative reception; intended to help; long service.
  • JCIO 14/25 – Ms Abiola Onatade JP
    Misconduct: Failure to report exceeding six penalty points (10 points from speedings).
    Sanction: Formal advice.
    Notes: Responsibility; impact recognition; long record.
  • JCIO 13/25 – Mrs Karen Earnshaw JP
    Misconduct: Accessed court database for relative’s case; mentioned status in call.
    Sanction: Reprimand.
    Notes: Serious misconduct; accepted facts; apologised.
  • JCIO 12/25 – Mrs Jane Greasley JP
    Misconduct: Neglected to report family member’s court involvement.
    Sanction: Formal advice.
    Notes: Misunderstanding of requirements; accepted responsibility; no prior since 2006.
  • JCIO 10/25 – Mrs Susanna Craig JP
    Misconduct: Failure to complete minimum annual sittings (15 days for dual jurisdictions) for last three years; no response to contacts.
    Sanction: Removal from office.
    Notes: Summary process; no reasonable excuse provided; no mitigating factors mentioned.
  • JCIO 08/25 – Dr Charles Jumbo JP
    Misconduct: Expressed personal views on homosexuality during retiring room discussion, offending colleagues and raising impartiality concerns.
    Sanction: Reprimand.
    Notes: Long unblemished record; assurance of fair decisions; entitled to views but must avoid undermining magistracy; lesser sanction than recommended removal.
  • JCIO 06/25 – Mr Anderson Jordan JP
    Misconduct: Failure to complete minimum sittings despite prior warning; failed to access email/rota.
    Sanction: Would have been removed (resigned).
    Notes: Accepted failure, apologised, cited personal difficulties; but explanations insufficient; gross misconduct.
  • JCIO 05/25 – Mrs Christine Parry JP
    Misconduct: Acted rudely and dismissively towards staff member, causing emotional upset.
    Sanction: Formal advice.
    Notes: No malice; reckless rather than intentional; tensions acknowledged.
  • JCIO 04/25 – Mr Andrew York JP
    Misconduct: Failed to report involvement as complainant in criminal trial, leading to abortion due to conflict.
    Sanction: Formal warning.
    Notes: Full responsibility, apologised; informed police/court staff but not bench chair; unblemished record; personal circumstances.

Statistical Breakdown (47 Magistrate Cases in 2025/2026) as of 12th Feb 2026

  • Sanctions Distribution
    • Formal advice: 20 (≈43%) — Common for mitigated or low-harm breaches.
    • Formal warning: 10 (≈21%) — For moderate reputational risks.
    • Reprimand: 8 (≈17%) — For serious but non-removal misconduct.
    • Removal from office: 7 (≈15%) — Mostly sittings failures.
    • Would-have-been-removed (resigned): 2 (≈4%) — Confirmed for JCIO 20/25 and JCIO 06/25.
  • Primary Reasons
    • Failure to meet minimum sittings: 15 (≈32%) — Leads to most removals.
    • Failure to report incidents/convictions/proceedings: 10 (≈21%).
    • Inappropriate conduct/comments: 10 (≈21%).
    • Social media/online misuse: 4 (≈9%).
    • Misuse of judicial status/position: 5 (≈11%).
    • Driving-related offences: 3 (≈6%).
  • Additional Insights
    • Gender: Balanced (≈50% female, 50% male, inferred from names).
    • Mitigation factors: Long service (10–30+ years), remorse, quick correction often cited to reduce severity.
    • Trends: Sittings shortfalls cluster in recent statements; increasing focus on social media and reporting.

Magistrates Disciplined by the JCIO after 12th Feb 2026 (Last updated 1st June 2026)

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

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

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

Latest Articles ↓

Most Popular ↓

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

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

Categories
Civil Justice Criminal Justice Judiciary Law Legal Professionals

United Kingdom Supreme Court Judicial Assistant Recruitment 2026

Supreme Court of the United Kingdom Judicial Assistant

The UK Supreme Court is currently recruiting Judicial Assistants for the 2026/27 legal year, offering a prestigious and intellectually demanding opportunity for talented lawyers and legal researchers.

UK Supreme Court – Judicial Assistant Recruitment 202627 – Job Description – Final.pdf

Up to 11 positions are available, providing successful candidates with unparalleled close-quarters experience supporting the Justices of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom and the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (JCPC).

Judicial Assistants online information event 2026-27

A Unique Role at the Apex of the UK Legal System

The Supreme Court hears cases of the greatest public or constitutional importance affecting the whole population andJudicial Assistants play a vital part in the Court’s day-to-day operations.

Assigned typically to one or more Justices, they engage in high-level legal work that directly contributes to some of the most significant cases in the country.

Core responsibilities include:

  • Undertaking detailed legal research on appeals and applications for permission to appeal.
  • Drafting bench memoranda that summarise applications for permission to appeal.
  • Attending appeal hearings and participating in discussions with the Justices.
  • Preparing plain English press summaries of judgments, which are published on the Court’s website.
  • Responding to enquiries from international judicial networks and comparative law bodies.
  • Providing general assistance to Justices, including support for extra-judicial activities such as speeches, articles, and publications.

Beyond supporting individual Justices, Judicial Assistants contribute to the broader work of the Court. This can involve helping the Registrar with permission applications and appeals, as well as participating in the Court’s educational and outreach programmes.

The role is fixed-term, running from Monday 14 September 2026 to Friday 30 July 2027. It is based at the iconic Middlesex Guildhall building in Parliament Square, London.

Who Should Apply?

The Supreme Court welcomes applications from a diverse range of backgrounds. Whilst many past Judicial Assistants have been qualified solicitors, barristers, or advocates with some practical experience, the Court emphasises that the most important quality is exceptional intellectual ability.

Applications are actively encouraged from candidates who may not yet be qualified to practise but who possess outstanding academic knowledge of the UK legal system and advanced legal research skills.

Competition remains fierce, and all applicants must meet the essential criteria set out in the official Job Description.

A fundamental requirement is that candidates must have the right to work in the UK; the Court does not sponsor visas or work permits.

The full Job Description, which details the person specification and essential criteria, is available to download from the recruitment page.

Why Consider This Opportunity?

Working as a Judicial Assistant at the Supreme Court offers a rare window into the highest level of judicial decision-making in the United Kingdom. It provides:

  • Direct exposure to landmark cases and the reasoning of the country’s most senior judges.
  • The chance to hone advanced legal research, analysis, and writing skills in a demanding yet supportive environment.
  • Valuable insight that is highly regarded by future employers.
Being a Judicial Assistant – 2026

Alumni of the scheme have gone on to enjoy successful careers at the Bar, in leading City law firms, in academia, within the Government Legal Department, and in policy roles across the public and private sectors.For further insight, the Court recommends listening to podcasts featuring current or former Judicial Assistants, which offer behind-the-scenes perspectives on life at the Court.

How to Apply

Applications for the 2026/27 legal year are open now. Interested candidates should visit the dedicated Judicial Assistant recruitment page.

To apply:

  • Review the Job Description carefully to confirm eligibility.
  • Complete the online application form via the “Apply Now” link.

The closing date is midnight on Thursday 26th February 2026. Late applications will not be considered.

Interviews are expected to take place in person at the Court during the week commencing 20th April 2026.

The Court also hosts a free online information event for the 2026/27 recruitment round; registration details are available on the recruitment page.

For any queries, contact the recruitment team at [email protected]

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

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

Latest Articles ↓

Most Popular ↓

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

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

Categories
Criminal Justice Judiciary Legal Professionals

His Honour Judge Amjad Nawaz

His Honour Judge Nawaz

Judge Amjad Nawaz, known as His Honour Judge Amjad Nawaz, is a long-serving Circuit Judge of England and Wales who is assigned to the South East Circuit.

Judge Nawaz was appointed to the Circuit bench on October 24th 2008 (with the formal announcement made by HM The Queen on the advice of the Lord Chancellor).

Detailed public records on Judge Nawaz’s pre-appointment professional background (such as whether he practiced as a barrister or solicitor, chambers affiliation, year of call to the Bar, or areas of specialization) are limited.

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

Beyond his core judicial duties in England and Wales, Judge Nawaz has undertaken additional roles that reflect his engagement in international judicial matters.

Judge Nawaz has been appointed as a Senior Judge of the Senior Judges’ Court in the Sovereign Base Areas of Akrotiri and Dhekelia (British Overseas Territories in Cyprus).

HHJ Nawaz has also participated in judicial exchanges and collaborations. In 2023, he joined discussions and visits (often alongside Her Honour Judge Azmat Nisa) to Nigeria, invited for talks on judicial case management, digitalization of court processes, paperless trials, and exchange programs.

Similar engagements have included visits to the UAE to discuss judicial decision-making, international arbitration, and legal traditions.

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

His Honour Judge NawazSouth East24-10-2008
List of Circuit Judges
Judge Amjad Nawaz

Judge Nawaz Legal Controversy – Chaudhry Zaman spared jail for sexually assaulting 12 year old girl

In February 2026, a sentencing decision by His Honour Judge Amjad Nawaz at Reading Crown Court sparked widespread public outrage and debate over judicial leniency, cultural biases and the protection of child victims in the UK justice system.

Migrant, 70, told 12-year-old girl to ‘cover her head’ during sexual assault – Telegraph

Migrant, 70, who told girl, 12, to ‘cover her head’ before sexually assaulting her on way home from school is spared jail – Daily Mail

The case involved 70-year-old Chaudhry Zaman, a migrant living in Berkshire, who was convicted of sexually assaulting a 12-year-old girl in Slough. What began as a straightforward criminal proceeding quickly escalated into a broader controversy, fuelled by media coverage, social media backlash, and accusations of favouritism.

On the 2nd February 2026 Judge Nawaz handed down a nine-month prison sentence, suspended for 18 months. Additional penalties included 80 hours of unpaid community work, a five-year restraining order barring Zaman from approaching within 200 meters of the girl’s school, and a 10-year registration on the sex offenders’ register.

In his remarks, Judge Nawaz acknowledged the victim’s suffering, stating: “The victim has lost her self-esteem, lost her confidence and lost her friends and that is all down to your actions… That has caused a breakup of friendships which she regrets.”

Judge Nawaz also addressed Zaman directly about the CCTV evidence and the girl’s account of the forced hand-holding and kiss.

Judge Amjad Nawaz justified the suspended sentence by agreeing with the pre-sentence report that Zaman’s risk could be “managed in the community,” considering his age, remorse (despite denying guilt) and assurances it would “never happen again.”

It has prompted calls for reviews of sentencing guidelines for child sexual assaults, particularly when offenders cite age or cultural factors. Supporters of the decision point to the pre-sentence report and overcrowding in UK prisons as practical considerations, but detractors see it as prioritizing the perpetrator over the victim.

This controversy highlights ongoing tensions in the UK over immigration, cultural integration and judicial accountability. While some view the outrage as racially tinged, others insist it’s about ensuring justice for vulnerable children. The debate continues online, with thousands of views and shares amplifying demands for stricter penalties in similar cases.

Authorisation to sit as a High Court Judge

HHJ Nawaz 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 Nawaz should be addressed as “My Lord” in court.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Image of HHJ Nawaz : @BasilTheGreat

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

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

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

Latest Articles ↓

Most Popular ↓

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

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

Categories
Criminal Justice Law Police

National Firearms Amnesty

Firearms Amnesty 2026

Police forces across the country are taking part in a four-week Firearms Amnesty for five types of BRUNI-manufactured side / top-venting blank firers  (TVBFs) which are now illegal to possess following testing by the National Crime Agency and policing.  

The amnesty takes place between February 2nd and 27th 2026, after which anyone in possession of one of the specified TVBFs could be subject to prosecution and up to 10 years’ imprisonment.  

Owners of these TVBFs are being forewarned ahead of the law change, however, and will be given the chance to surrender these weapons to the police without fear of prosecution. 

During the amnesty period, those handing in a BRUNI TVBFs will not face prosecution for the illegal possession and will not have to give their details. However, the history of any live firearms handed in will be checked for evidence  of its use in crime. 

What are TVBFs? 

Top/side venting blank firers (TVBFs) are legal to buy in the UK without a licence by over 18s unless they are readily convertible. Tests by the National Crime Agency and policing have shown that the following BRUNI models are readily convertible and are therefore illegal:  

  • 8mm PAK Bruni BBM New Police blank firing self-loading pistol 
  • 8mm PAK Bruni BBM Model 96 blank firing self-loading pistol 
  • 8mm PAK Bruni BBM Model ‘GAP’ blank firing self-loading pistol 
  • .380R (9mmK) PAK Bruni BBM ME Ranger single-action blank firing revolver 

In their original state TVBFs have a fully blocked barrel designed to discharge only blank cartridges. When discharged, combustion gases vent from the top of the weapon. TVBFs are sold with at least 50 per cent of their visible surface painted a bright colour. However, as well as converting them from blank firers to live firearms, criminals may also paint them black, so they look like an original lethal purpose (OLP) weapon. 

Check out the article on the Firearms Amnesty 2025

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, police or any other law enforcement agencies.

Latest Articles ↓

Most Popular ↓

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

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

Categories
Legal Professionals

What is the Cab Rank Rule for Barristers ?

Cab Rank Rule - Barrister of England and Wales

The cab rank rule constitutes a fundamental ethical obligation for barristers practising in England and Wales and is enshrined in the Bar Standards Board (BSB) Handbook at rule rC29.

Pursuant to rC29, where a self-employed barrister (or, in specified circumstances, an authorised individual within a BSB entity or a BSB entity itself) receives instructions from a professional client such as a solicitor and those instructions are appropriate having regard to the barrister’s experience, seniority, and field of practice, the barrister must accept them.

This obligation applies irrespective of:

  • the identity of the client;
  • the nature of the case;
  • any personal beliefs the barrister may hold concerning the client’s character, reputation, motives, cause, conduct, guilt, or innocence; or
  • any disapproval of the client’s political, moral, social, or other views or causes.

The rule serves to promote access to justice, uphold the rule of law, safeguard barrister independence, and prevent discrimination in the acceptance of professional instructions.

It ensures that representation is available even in controversial, unpopular, or morally challenging matters. The principle is commonly analogised to a taxi at a cab rank, which must accept the next passenger regardless of their identity or destination (subject to reasonable limitations).

The obligation applies principally to self-employed barristers instructed via professional clients. It does not extend in the same manner to direct public access instructions, to solicitors, or to employed barristers outside independent practice.

Rule rC29 is expressly made subject to the exceptions in rC30. These include circumstances where for example:

  • the barrister is required to refuse the instructions under rule rC21 (rC30.1); or
  • acceptance would necessitate working outside ordinary hours, cancelling existing commitments, exceeding available professional indemnity insurance limits, or involve other specified grounds (such as foreign work in certain cases or refusal of standard contractual terms).
  • you are a King’s Counsel, and the acceptance of the instructions would require you to act without a junior in circumstances where you reasonably consider that the interests of the client require that a junior should also be instructed;

Rule rC21 mandates refusal (or, if already accepted, cessation and return) of instructions in various situations, including where:

  • the work would require action contrary to law or the Handbook;
  • the barrister lacks requisite authorisation, competence, or experience (including in relation to vulnerable clients);
  • there is insufficient time to prepare adequately (subject to limited exceptions for urgent matters);
  • a conflict of interest exists;
  • the barrister’s independence would be compromised (rC21.10, linked to Core Duty CD4); or
  • other specified professional obligations would be breached.

Cab Rank Application to Pro Bono Work

The cab rank rule does not require barristers to accept pro bono (unpaid) instructions.

In the article Barrister Starmer led ‘witch-hunt’ against Iraq veterans, Sir Keir Starmer KC chose to work for free (pro bono) alongside the now Attorney General Lord Hermer and the now disgraced solicitor Phil Shiner on a human rights claim in 2007 that reshaped the law governing troops in war zones.

While the current BSB Handbook does not contain an explicit standalone exception for inadequate remuneration, established BSB guidance and interpretations—rooted in prior provisions of the Code of Conduct (e.g., paragraphs 603–606)—confirm that barristers are not obliged to accept instructions where no proper professional fee is offered or where remuneration is inadequate, including unpaid pro bono work.

The rule is predicated on professional (remunerated) practice and is designed to secure representation in paid cases—particularly those involving controversial clients or causes where funding is available but barristers might otherwise decline due to personal views. It does not impose a duty to provide gratuitous services.

Barristers are encouraged to undertake pro bono work voluntarily, and many do so through established schemes such as Advocate (the Bar Pro Bono Unit), which facilitates substantial pro bono assistance annually. Such contributions reflect professional ethos, charitable commitment, and public service, but they remain discretionary rather than mandatory under the cab rank principle.

In conclusion, the cab rank rule compels acceptance of appropriate paid instructions from professional clients irrespective of personal views, subject to the exceptions in rC30 (including those arising under rC21). It remains a vital safeguard of access to justice and barrister independence, while explicitly not extending to compel unpaid or inadequately remunerated engagements.

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

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

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

Latest Articles ↓

Most Popular ↓

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

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

Rule of Law - Open Justice - Policing By Consent