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
Law Legal Analysis

What is International Law ?

International Law

International law consists of rules, norms and principles governing relations between sovereign states and other international entities.

It promotes peaceful interactions, dispute resolution and cooperation on transnational issues. Unlike domestic law, it primarily relies on state consent and voluntary compliance.

Historical Development of International Law

The concept of law governing relations between nations dates back to ancient times, but modern terminology emerged in the late 18th century. Jeremy Bentham, the English philosopher and jurist (1748–1832), coined the term “international law” in his 1789 work An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation. He proposed replacing the older phrase “law of nations” (jus gentium) with “international law” to better describe law between nations rather than within them.

Bentham wrote several essays between 1786 and 1789, later compiled as Principles of International Law. He advocated codification of international rules, proposed an international court for dispute resolution, and outlined a plan for universal and perpetual peace based on utilitarian principles, maximising happiness and minimising harm across nations.

Sources of International Law

These are specified in Article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice (ICJ):

  • Treaties and conventions, such as the United Nations Charter, prohibiting the use of force except in self-defence or with Security Council authorisation.
  • Customary international law, from consistent state practice accepted as binding (e.g., prohibition of genocide).
  • General principles of law recognised by nations (e.g., pacta sunt servanda—agreements must be honoured).
  • Judicial decisions and scholarly writings as subsidiary sources.

It covers human rights Universal Declaration of Human Rights, humanitarian law, environmental protection Paris Agreement, trade and maritime issues.

Enforcement of International Law

Enforcement is challenging without a central authority. The UN Security Council can impose sanctions or authorise force, but permanent members (China, France, Russia, UK, US) hold veto power. The ICJ resolves disputes between consenting states.

The International Criminal Court (ICC) prosecutes individuals for grave crimes, though major powers like the US are not parties.

US Military Action in Venezuela (January 2026) – International Law

On the 3rd January 2026, the United States conducted airstrikes in Venezuela, including targets in Caracas, and captured former Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife Cilia Flores.

They were extradited to the US to face drug trafficking and narco-terrorism charges. Maduro pleaded not guilty in a New York federal court on the 5th January 2026.

The operation has faced widespread international criticism as a violation of state sovereignty and the UN Charter’s prohibition on the use of force.

The UN held emergency meetings, with allies and others condemning it as unlawful aggression. This illustrates tensions between unilateral actions by powerful states and core principles of international law.

Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer, a former barrister and KC, has refused to be drawn on whether or not US President Donald Trump’s military action against Venezuela may have broken international law.

Additional Examples of International Law

International law features in ongoing conflicts, such as Russia-Ukraine (ICC probes into war crimes; ICJ on territorial integrity) and South China Sea disputes under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).

Significance and Challenges

International law establishes a framework for global order but struggles with enforcement and geopolitical influences. Jeremy Bentham’s vision of codified rules and institutions remains influential, yet events like the Venezuela incident highlight persistent vulnerabilities when compliance is uneven.

Adherence remains essential for addressing shared challenges like security and climate change.

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

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

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 Fuller KC

His Honour Judge Fuller KC

Jonathan Paul Fuller, known as His Honour Judge Jonathan Paul Fuller KC was born on the 27th February 1954.

His Honour Judge Jonathan Fuller KC was appointed as a Circuit Judge on the 3rd October 2014 and sits primarily on the South West Circuit at Bournemouth Crown Court.

As a Circuit Judge, Judge Fuller is authorised to hear serious criminal cases in the Crown Court, as well as certain civil and family matters.

Name:Jonathan Paul Fuller KC
Position:Self Employed Barrister
Year of Call:1977
Chambers:187 Chambers
Contact Chambers:Greater London
Profile:www.187fleetstreet.com
Practising Status:Bar Standards Board
Criminal Cases:Defending:
RW (2014-02-14)

B (2013-12-18)

SE (2012-12-14)


Prosecuting:
Donna Louise Chalk (2013-06-26)

Ryan Ian Woodmansey (2013-06-26)

Andrew William Christopher Dwyer-Skeats (2013-06-26)

Lee Matthew Nicholls (2013-06-26)
Jonathan Paul Fuller KC on Lawpages

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

His Honour Judge Fuller KCSouth West03-10-2014
List of Circuit Judges

Legal Controversy

Luke Yarwood who posted two anti-immigration tweets on X was handed a 18-month jail sentence by Judge Fuller at Bournemouth Crown Court on the 17th December 2025.

Head for the hotels housing them and burn them to the ground

I think it’s time for the British to gang together, hit the streets and start the slaughter.

Violence and murder is the only way now. Start off burning every migrant hotel then head off to MPs’ houses and Parliament, we need to take over by FORCE.

Luke Yarwood

The posts were only viewed 33 times.

His barrister argued the posts had 33 views between them and were the ‘impotent rantings of a socially isolated man’ that had no ‘real-world’ consequences.

But Judge Jonathan Fuller said Yarwood’s ‘odious’ tweets were designed to stir up racial hatred and incite violence, and jailed him.

Twitter user is jailed by Judge Fuller for 18 months for two anti-immigration tweets made after Christmas market car attack that were viewed just 33 times – Daily Mail

His case has been compared with Lucy Connolly, who pleaded guilty inciting racial hatred after sending the X post on the day of the Southport attacks. She was sentenced by Judge Melbourne Inman.

This is not a court of politics but law. You are entitled to express your views, but freedom of speech is not an absolute right, it’s a qualified one. 

What the law prohibits is the stirring up of racial hatred.

The continuing safety and stability of our communities are undermined by actions such as yours.

The tweets speak for themselves, they are odious in the extreme. There could be few clearer examples of words specifically designed to stir up racial hatred and incite violence.

They are serious offences that could have had serious consequences and can only be marked by a sentence of immediate imprisonment.

His Honour Judge Fuller KC
Nick Dickson about Judge Fuller on X

Authorisation to sit as a High Court Judge

HHJ Fuller KC 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 Fuller 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 Fuller : Grok

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
Civil Justice Criminal Justice Family Law Law Legal Analysis Legal Professionals

Art of Law

Art of Law

Art of Law is a Youtube channel run by Alan Robertshaw who is an experienced barrister of England and Wales.

This channel provides you with free legal guidance and explains different aspects of law, legal principles, and, procedures for media and art law. Legal advice can be very expensive and you will usually have no knowledge when you encounter a legal problem.

Art of Law

Alan Robertshaw was Called to the Bar in October 1997 (Middle Temple). He has Full Rights of Audience and his areas of practice are Defamation, Intellectual property, Other and Other common law.

Alan is authorised by the Bar Standards Board to accept direct public access work and to conduct litigation.

Alan was formerly at 1 Dr Johnson’s Buildings and then Goldsmith Chambers where he still remains a door tenant.

Art of Law should should not be confused with The BlackBelt Barrister or the Secret Barrister.

Art of Law is not a replacement for formal legal advice but it is highly informative and may help you to understand more about the law.

Highly Recommended ★★★★★

Latest Art of Law YouTube Videos

Is Broadmoor REALLY a softer option than prison?

The relevant legislation: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1983/20/contents

Disclaimer: Neither this nor any other video, may be taken as legal advice. I accept no liability whatever for any reliance placed upon it.
Is Broadmoor REALLY a softer option than prison?
Is Broadmoor REALLY a softer option than prison?
The relevant legislation: ...
Why are some Inquests held behind closed doors?
Why are some Inquests held behind closed doors?
Disclaimer: Neither this nor any other video, may be taken as legal ...
Lady Chief Justice has real dig at Lord Hermer. But why?
Lady Chief Justice has real dig at Lord Hermer. But why?
Check this out! ...
Why won't Prince Harry have to pay the newspaper's £30,000,000 costs?
Why won't Prince Harry have to pay the newspaper's £30,000,000 costs?
The costs judgment: ...
Prince Harry to pay £Millions?
Prince Harry to pay £Millions?
The full judgment: ...
Why is a dirty river worth more than a clean one?
Why is a dirty river worth more than a clean one?
Also, can the PM call a general election? More here: ...

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, 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 Law Legal Analysis Legal Professionals

What is the Parole Board ?

Parole Board

The Parole Board for England and Wales is an independent executive non-departmental public body sponsored by the Ministry of Justice.

Established in its modern form by the Criminal Justice Act 1967, it is responsible for deciding whether prisoners serving certain types of sentences in England and Wales are safe to be released into the community under licence and, if already released, whether they should be recalled to prison.

It does not cover Scotland or Northern Ireland, which have separate arrangements.

Legal Framework

The Parole Board’s primary powers derive from:

It deals with three main categories of prisoner:

  • Life sentence prisoners (mandatory, discretionary and automatic life sentences, and imprisonment/detention for public protection (IPP))
  • Prisoners serving extended determinate sentences (EDS)
  • Certain determinate sentence prisoners who are assessed as dangerous and subject to Parole Board release (e.g. extended sentences under older legislation or those moved to parole release by executive decision)

For most standard determinate sentence prisoners, release is automatic at the halfway or two-thirds point and the Parole Board has no role.

Role and Functions

The Board’s core functions are:

  • To conduct risk assessments and decide whether prisoners can be safely released on licence before the end of their sentence
  • To set licence conditions
  • To decide whether released prisoners who have breached their licence should be recalled to custody
  • To advise the Secretary of State on transfer of life sentence and IPP prisoners to open conditions
  • To consider applications for early release on compassionate grounds in exceptional circumstances (rare)

All decisions must prioritise the protection of the public while giving the prisoner a fair hearing.

Composition and Membership

The Parole Board consists of over 300 members, appointed by the Secretary of State for Justice. Members include:

  • Judicial members (serving or retired judges)
  • Psychiatrist members
  • Psychologist members
  • Probation officer members
  • Independent members (from a wide range of professional and lay backgrounds)

Members sit part-time and are supported by a permanent secretariat based in London.

Cecilia French was appointed Chief Executive of the Parole Board in October 2024 and The Chair Alexandra Marks CBE was appointed in 2025.

Members serve fixed terms typically of five years.

Types of Parole Hearing

  • Oral hearings: held when the case is complex or contested. Conducted either in prison or, increasingly, by video link. The prisoner, victim (if participating via the Victim Contact Scheme), and witnesses give evidence. A panel (usually three members) questions all parties.
  • Paper hearings: for less complex recall cases or some determinate sentence reviews, decided “on the papers” without a live hearing.

Since 2022, most oral hearings for serious offenders have been open to the public or victims upon application, following a rule change intended to increase transparency.

The Release Test

For indeterminate sentence prisoners (life, IPP, etc.), the statutory release test is: “whether it is no longer necessary for the protection of the public that the prisoner should be confined.”

For determinate extended sentence prisoners and certain others, the test is whether the Board is satisfied that “it is no longer necessary on the grounds that [the prisoner] would not present a significant risk to members of the public of serious harm occasioned by the commission of further specified offences.”

The burden of proof lies on the prisoner to show they are safe for release.

Reconsideration Mechanism

Since 2019, prisoners (or the Secretary of State) may apply for a decision refusing release to be reconsidered if there has been an error of law or fact, or if new information could have changed the outcome. This replaced the previous judicial review route for most cases.

Key Reforms (2022–2025)

  • The Root and Branch Review (2022): led to greater ministerial oversight of release decisions for the most serious offenders.
  • Victims and Prisoners Act 2024: introduced a “public protection” top-down decision-making approach, a power for the Secretary of State to veto release of certain high-profile prisoners, and greater victim involvement.
  • Increased transparency: summary reasons for release decisions are now published online for top-tier cases.

Criticism and Controversy

The Parole Board has faced significant criticism over the years:

  • The 2018 John Worboys case (initial decision to release the “black cab rapist”) led to the then-Chair’s resignation and prompted major rule changes.
  • Ongoing concerns about the continued detention of prisoners on abolished IPP sentences (over 2,800 still in custody as of 2025, many years past tariff).
  • Delays in hearings, partly due to prison overcrowding and staff shortages.

Current Statistics (as at Dec 2025)

  • Approximately 12,000–14,000 parole reviews conducted annually
  • Around 3,000 oral hearings per year
  • Release rate for indeterminate sentence prisoners hovers between 25–35 % at first review, rising with subsequent reviews
  • Over 99 % of those released on parole do not commit a serious further serious offence during their licence period

Check out the related articles on the Attorney General, Solicitor General, Lady Chief Justice, Lord Chancellor, Chancellor of the High Court,Justice Secretary, Rule of Law, Open Justice, Law, Is the Law Black and White ?, Government Legal Department, Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), Government Legal Department (GLD), 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, 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
Criminal Justice Judiciary Legal Professionals

Joshua Radcliffe Barrister

Joshua Radcliffe Barrister

Joshua Radcliffe is a barrister practising from New Walk Chambers in Leicester and also Equity Chambers in Birmingham. Joshua is a graduate of the University of Birmingham and a former investment professional.

Barrister Josh Radcliffe represented one of the teenage defendants in a high-profile rape case heard at Warwick Crown Court. The case involved two asylum-seeking minors who had pleaded guilty to the rape of a 15-year-old girl in a Warwickshire park.

Josh Radcliffe has appeared before the Court of Appeal in respect of appeals against both sentence and conviction, as well as representing the successful appellant in the leading case on social media hearsay (Bracher v Crown Prosecution Service [2023] EWHC 3500 (Admin).

Josh Radcliffe, as a barrister, specialises primarily in criminal law, with particular experience in:

  • Defence work across the full range of criminal offences
  • Public Access instructions (accepting direct instructions from members of the public in suitable cases)
  • Advisory work and representation in regulatory matters and inquests

Josh Radcliffe is authorised to conduct litigation in Public Access cases and regularly appears in the Crown Court, Magistrates’ Court and Youth Court.

Joshua Radcliffe is a member of the The Criminal Appeal Lawyers Association.

Barrister Details – Mr Joshua Radcliffe
Date of Call :
Inn of Court : Lincoln’s Inn
Areas of practice : Chancery contentious ,  Chancery non-contentious ,  Crime ,  Family – children ,  Family – other

Barrister Joshua Radcliffe – New Walk Chambers

Controversy Defending Two Afghan Rapists

Two teenage Afghan migrants were filmed by their victim as they “forcefully” walked her through a dark park before raping her. The harrowing footage was thankfully recorded by the 15-year-old victim.

Jan Jahanzeb and Israr Niazal, both aged 17, were sentenced to youth detention terms of 10 years and eight months and nine years and 10 months respectively.

Barristers for Jan Jahanzeb and Israr Niazal, Robert Holt and Joshua Radcliffe, had unsuccessfully tried to stop their names being made public, saying it could lead to “widespread public disorder”.

Barrister Joshua Radcliffe said “I have no doubt that if the general public were exposed to that, we would have disorder on our hands.”. He also suggested Israr Niazal may still be able to “make a life for himself in this country” when he is released.

At Warwick Crown Court, Her Honour Judge Sylviade de Bertodano, lifted reporting restrictions banning the media from naming the pair as it was in the public interest for them to be named.

In England and Wales, barristers are regulated professionals bound by strict ethical standards outlined in version 5.0 of the Bar Standards Board (BSB) Handbook.

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

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

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

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

Robert Holt Barrister

Robert Holt Barrister

Robert John Holt is a barrister specialising in criminal defence, based at Citadel Chambers in Birmingham, England. He joined the Bar relatively recently, transitioning from a long career as a solicitor and has quickly established himself in the field of criminal law.

Barrister Robert Holt represented one of the teenage defendants in a high-profile rape case heard at Warwick Crown Court. The case involved two asylum-seeking minors who had pleaded guilty to the rape of a 15-year-old girl in a Warwickshire park.

From Solicitor to Barrister

Admitted as a solicitor in 1998, Robert Holt built an extensive career in criminal defence. He gained higher rights of audience in the Crown Courts in 2006, allowing him to advocate in higher courts while still qualified as a solicitor. Over the years, he rose to become a partner in Stevens Solicitors, one of the UK’s largest criminal defence firms, handling cases across Magistrates’ Courts, Crown Courts, and appeals.

Prior roles included positions at firms such as Atticus Solicitors Limited and Stevens Solicitors. His experience as a solicitor-advocate provided a strong foundation in defence work, focusing on representing clients in serious criminal matters.

In November 2024, Holt made the transition to the Bar, joining Citadel Chambers which is a set known for its expertise in criminal law. This move brought his wide-ranging defence experience to the barristerial side, where he continues to appear in Magistrates’ Courts, Crown Courts and the Court of Appeal.

Barrister Details – Mr Robert John Holt
Date of Call : Oct 2024
Inn of Court : Gray’s Inn
Areas of practice : Crime

Barrister John Halt – Citadel Chambers

Controversy Defending Two Afghan Rapists

Two teenage Afghan migrants were filmed by their victim as they “forcefully” walked her through a dark park before raping her. The harrowing footage was thankfully recorded by the 15-year-old victim.

Jan Jahanzeb and Israr Niazal, both aged 17, were sentenced to youth detention terms of 10 years and eight months and nine years and 10 months respectively.

Barristers for Jan Jahanzeb and Israr Niazal, Robert Holt and Joshua Radcliffe, had unsuccessfully tried to stop their names being made public, saying it could lead to “widespread public disorder”.

Barrister Robert Holt, representing Jan Jahanzeb, asked Her Honour Judge Sylviade de Bertodano to ban the media from saying the pair were Afghan asylum seekers.

At Warwick Crown Court, Her Honour Judge Sylviade de Bertodano, lifted reporting restrictions banning the media from naming the pair as it was in the public interest for them to be named.

In England and Wales, barristers are regulated professionals bound by strict ethical standards outlined in version 5.0 of the Bar Standards Board (BSB) Handbook.

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

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

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

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 Legal Analysis Legal Professionals

What is a Jury ?

Jury

In the criminal justice system of England and Wales, the jury is one of the oldest and most distinctive features of the common law tradition. Twelve ordinary people, randomly selected, sit in judgment of their peers and decide whether a defendant is guilty or not guilty.

This system places enormous trust in the collective common sense of lay people rather than leaving the decision solely to professional judges.

History and Origins

The jury system in its modern form traces its roots to the 12th century.

The Assize of Clarendon in 1166, issued by Henry II, required groups of 12 lawful men in each hundred and 4 in each township) to present (report or accuse) people they believed had committed serious crimes.

These 12 men were not yet deciding guilt or innocence in a trial, they were acting as accusers or witnesses, reporting suspected criminals to the King’s itinerant judges.

By the 14th and 15th centuries, juries had evolved from being witnesses themselves into impartial triers of fact who listened to evidence presented in court.

The principle of trial by jury was firmly enshrined in English law through Magna Carta (1215), particularly clause 39, which stated that no free man should be imprisoned or deprived of property “except by the lawful judgement of his peers or by the law of the land”. Over centuries, the role shifted from local notables to ordinary citizens, and the jury became a cornerstone of democratic justice.

Who Can Serve on a Jury ?

In England and Wales, almost everyone aged 18–75 who is on the electoral register is liable for jury service. You are automatically disqualified if:

  • You have been sentenced to imprisonment for life, or for five years or more
  • You have served a prison sentence (or suspended sentence) of any length in the last 10 years
  • You are currently on bail in criminal proceedings

Certain people can be excused or deferred, including full-time serving members of the armed forces, medical professionals, and MPs.

Since 2004, judges, lawyers, and police officers are no longer automatically exempt and may serve.

Jury service normally lasts two weeks, though serious cases (e.g., murder or major fraud) can last many months.

How Jurors Are Selected ?

Potential jurors are chosen at random from the electoral roll by a computer at the Jury Central Summoning Bureau. If summoned, you must attend unless you have a valid reason to be excused or deferred.

Once at court, and once a judge indicates that a trial is ready to start, those who have been summoned are once again randomly selected by a computer system to form a panel to go into court.

From this panel usually 12 are then selected at random, in court, by the court clerk to form a jury on each trial. Those not selected will return to the waiting area to be available for selection for the next panel.

The Role of the Jury

In Crown Court trials the jury has two main functions:

  1. Deciding guilt: After hearing all the evidence and the judge’s directions on the law, the jury retires to consider its verdict. The verdict should normally be unanimous, but after at least two hours (longer in complex cases) the judge may accept a majority verdict of 11–1 or 10–2.
  2. Occasionally deciding other issues: In some defamation cases (now rare) or coroner’s inquests, juries may still be used.

Jurors must decide the case solely on the evidence heard in court. They are not allowed to conduct their own research, talk about the case outside the jury room, or look up information online. Contempt of court charges and even imprisonment can follow if they do so.Judge vs Jury

The division of responsibility is clear:

  • The judge decides questions of law (admissibility of evidence, legal directions, sentencing if guilty).
  • The jury decides questions of fact (what happened, whether witnesses are credible, and ultimately guilt or innocence).

This separation is seen as a vital safeguard against state power: a professional judge controls the law, but ordinary citizens decide whether the state has proved its case.Advantages and CriticismsAdvantages often cited:

  • Democratic participation in justice
  • Protection against overreach by the state or biased judges
  • Collective wisdom of twelve diverse minds
  • Verdicts seen as legitimate because they come from peers

Criticisms include:

  • Jurors may not fully understand complex evidence (e.g., in long fraud trials)
  • Risk of perverse verdicts or prejudice
  • Burden on jurors (loss of earnings, childcare issues, trauma from horrific evidence)
  • Occasional high-profile cases of jury misconduct (e.g., using social media)

Jury Trials

Jury trial remains compulsory for serious crimes tried in the Crown Court (murder, rape, robbery, etc.). Magistrates’ courts and youth courts do not use juries. In civil cases, jury trial is now extremely rare, limited mainly to defamation, false imprisonment, and malicious prosecution claims and even then a judge may order trial without jury.

Jury trials to be scrapped ?

On the 2nd December 2025, the government announced the most significant restriction on jury trials in centuries. For the first time, defendants charged with offences carrying a maximum sentence of less than three years will no longer have the automatic right to be tried by a jury in the Crown Court.

“The right to trial by jury is an important factor in the delicate balance between the power of the state and the freedom of the individual. The further it is restricted, the greater the imbalance. Despite the inevitable increase in costs, the Haldane Society urges that there be a right of trial by jury in all criminal cases.”

Sir Keir Starmer writing for the Socialist Lawyer magazine 1992

The change, recommended by retired Court of Appeal judge Sir Brian Leveson in the report Independent Review of the Criminal Courts: Part 1, is intended to tackle a backlog that has reached almost 78,000 cases and is projected to hit 100,000 within a few years.

“Dispensing with juries will damage our democracy”

David Lammy MP (Labour, then Shadow Secretary of State for Justice)
writing in the Telegraph in June 2020

Under the new rules, jury trials will be reserved for the most serious indictable offences such as murder, rape, robbery, serious violence, people trafficking, and major drug crimes involving drugs or firearms.

Mid-level offences previously tried in the Crown Court, including many thefts, lower-level assaults and some sexual offences, will now be heard either by a single judge or by expanded panels of magistrates who will gain new powers to impose sentences of up to 18 months (or two years in reserve).

The reforms also remove the defendant’s historic right to “elect” jury trial in “either-way” cases, a choice often used to cause delay.

Complex fraud and financial trials, long criticised for bewildering juries, will move to judge-only hearings. The government says the measures will clear cases up to five times faster in some instances and prevent the criminal justice system from “total collapse”.

Critics, including the Bar Council, Criminal Bar Association, opposition parties, and civil-rights groups, have condemned the changes as an attack on a cornerstone of British justice dating back to Magna Carta. They argue that juries provide essential protection against state power and are often seen as fairer, especially by ethnic-minority defendants, than magistrates or professional judges sitting alone.

Supporters insist the right to jury trial is being preserved where it matters most, while allowing swifter justice for less serious matters and for victims who currently wait years for resolution.

Is the UK Criminal Justice System Broken ?

Legislation to enact the reforms is expected in preparation, and the full Leveson follow-up report on court efficiency is due shortly.

Conclusion

The jury system in England and Wales, though not perfect, is regarded by many as a fundamental constitutional safeguard and a powerful expression of the idea that ordinary people should play a direct role in the administration of justice. Will Jury trials be scrapped ?

Check out our related articles on What is a Hung Jury ?, Rule of Law, Open Justice, Is the Law Black and White ?, What Does Lady Justice Symbolise ?, Law Society, Law Commission, Solicitors, Solicitors Regulation Authority, Barristers, Bar Council of England and Wales, Bar Standards Board, Contra Mundum, R v Sussex Justices, Police Impartiality and the highly questionable Sussex Family Justice Board.

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

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 Judiciary Law Legal Professionals

Deputy Head of Civil Justice

Deputy Head of Civil Justice

The Deputy Head of Civil Justice is a senior judicial leadership post responsible for the strategic direction, reform and day-to-day administration of civil justice in England and Wales.

The role works closely with the Head of Civil Justice (currently Sir Geoffrey Vos, who holds that position ex officio as Master of the Rolls and President of the Court of Appeal Civil Division).

Current Holder

The Lady Chief Justice, following consultation with the Lord Chancellor duly appointed Mrs Justice Cockerill as the new Deputy Head of Civil Justice. Her appointment took effect from the 1st November 2025 for a term of three years.

Lady Justice Cockerill was called to the Bar (Lincoln’s Inn) in 1990 and took silk in 2011. She specialised in commercial law from 1990 to 2017.

She was appointed a Deputy High Court Judge in 2016, and a High Court Judge in the-then Queen’s Bench Division in 2017. From 2020 to 2022, she served as the Judge in Charge of the Commercial Court.

Lady Justice Sara Cockerill was sworn in as a Lady Justice of the Court of Appeal in October 2025.

The Salary of the Deputy Head of Civil Justice from from 1st April 2025 to 31st March 2026 is £266,556

Statutory Basis and Appointment Process

The office of Deputy Head of Civil Justice was established by the Courts Act 2003 (section 62), which amended the Senior Courts Act 1981 to create structured leadership roles for civil justice. The key provisions are as follows:

  • The Lord Chief Justice appoints the Deputy Head of Civil Justice, following consultation with the Lord Chancellor (now the Secretary of State for Justice).
  • Eligible appointees are typically a puisne judge of the High Court or a Lord/Lady Justice of Appeal.
  • The appointment is for a fixed term (usually three years) and on terms agreed at the time of appointment.
  • It is not tied automatically to any other judicial office, such as the Vice-Presidency of the King’s Bench Division.

This contrasts with the Head of Civil Justice, which is held automatically by the Master of the Rolls as President of the Court of Appeal (Civil Division).

Principal Responsibilities

The Deputy Head of Civil Justice has a broad and influential remit, including:

  • Providing judicial leadership for civil justice policy and reform across the County Court, High Court, and specialist lists.
  • Co-chairing (with the Head of Civil Justice) the Civil Justice Council.
  • Leading judicial input into the Civil Procedure Rule Committee (CPRC) in practice, though the Master of the Rolls remains the statutory chair.
  • Overseeing major HMCTS reform projects, including the Damages Claims Portal, Online Civil Money Claims, and broader court digitisation.
  • Acting as the primary judicial liaison with government and HMCTS on civil justice operational matters.
  • Contributing to judicial deployment and welfare in the civil jurisdiction.

Former Deputy Head of Civil Justice

Image of Lady Justice Cockerill – HM Courts and Tribunals Judiciary

Check out the related articles on the Attorney General, Solicitor General, Lady Chief Justice, Lord Chancellor, Chancellor of the High Court,Justice Secretary, Rule of Law, Open Justice, Law, Is the Law Black and White ?, Government Legal Department, Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), Government Legal Department (GLD), 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, 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
Judiciary Legal Analysis Legal Professionals

Judicial Guidance on Artificial Intelligence

Judicial Guidance on Artificial Intelligence

On the 1st October 2025, the Courts and Tribunals Judiciary published an updated version of its Artificial Intelligence (AI) Guidance for Judicial Office Holders.

This document refreshes the initial guidance that was issued in April 2025 and is available on the official judiciary website Artificial Intelligence (AI) – Judicial Guidance (October 2025) and as a downloadable PDF Artificial-Intelligence-AI-Guidance-for-Judicial-Office-Holders-2.pdf.

The guidance applies to all judicial office holders, including judges, tribunal members, clerks, judicial assistants, and support staff under the authority of the Lady Chief Justice and the Senior President of Tribunals.

Lord Justice Birss, who is the Chancellor of the High Court and Lead Judge for Artificial Intelligence, emphasised in the document’s forward the role in maintaining judicial integrity:

“The use of AI by the judiciary must be consistent with its overarching obligation to protect the integrity of the administration of justice and uphold the rule of law.”

This update reflects rapid advancements in AI technology and responds to emerging challenges, such as the proliferation of generative AI tools. It aims to promote responsible use while ensuring compliance with legal and ethical standards.

Do you think AI replace Judges ? or AI replace Lawyers ?

Background and Purpose

The guidance emerges amid growing AI adoption across public sectors, including the justice system. It builds on prior consultations and aligns with broader UK government initiatives, such as the AI Safety Summit outcomes from 2023. The document’s primary purpose is to provide clear, practical advice on AI’s integration into judicial work without compromising core principles like impartiality, accuracy, and confidentiality.

It addresses the dual nature of AI: as an efficiency enhancer for routine tasks and a potential risk for decision-making processes. The scope extends beyond judiciary staff to interactions with legal representatives and unrepresented litigants, who may increasingly use AI tools for case preparation.

By publishing the guidance online, the judiciary underscores its commitment to open justice, allowing public scrutiny and fostering trust in AI-assisted processes.

Key Principles

The guidance is structured around four core principles, each designed to guide ethical and effective AI use.

  1. Understanding AI Capabilities and Limitations: AI systems, particularly large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT or Google Gemini, process data probabilistically rather than through true comprehension. They can generate plausible but inaccurate outputs, known as “hallucinations,” such as fabricated case law or statistics. The guidance mandates that users familiarise themselves with these tools’ training data—often skewed towards US-centric or historical sources—and verify all outputs against primary legal sources.
  2. Upholding Confidentiality: Judicial work involves sensitive information protected under data protection laws, including the UK GDPR. The document prohibits inputting confidential details into public AI platforms, as providers may retain data for model improvement. Where feasible, users must disable chat histories and treat any accidental disclosures as data breaches, reportable via the judiciary’s incident management system.
  3. Ensuring Accuracy and Accountability: Personal responsibility remains paramount. Any document or decision attributed to a judicial office holder must reflect their independent judgement, even if AI assisted summarisation or drafting. The guidance stresses cross-verification: for example, AI-generated summaries of precedents require manual review of originals.
  4. Addressing Bias: AI inherits biases from its datasets, potentially exacerbating inequalities in areas like sentencing or evidence evaluation. Users are directed to the Equal Treatment Advisory Committee (ETAC) Bench Book for bias mitigation strategies, including diverse data prompts and regular audits of AI outputs.

Practical Applications

The guidance categorises AI uses into permissible administrative roles and restricted judicial functions.

Permitted applications include:

  • Document Management: Technology-assisted review (TAR) for e-disclosure, where AI flags relevant documents in large datasets, subject to human oversight.
  • Administrative Support: Drafting routine correspondence, prioritising emails, or transcribing non-sensitive meetings.
  • Research Aids: Summarising public domain materials, provided results are not relied upon without verification.

Prohibited or high-risk uses encompass:

  • Legal Analysis: AI cannot substitute for judges’ interpretation of law or facts; direct engagement with evidence is required.
  • Drafting Judgements: Core reasoning must originate from the office holder, not algorithmic generation.

For tribunal settings, AI may assist in scheduling or case triage but not in assessing witness credibility. The document includes checklists for safe deployment, such as logging AI use in case files for transparency.Risks and MitigationsSeveral risks are explicitly outlined. “Hallucinations” pose the most immediate threat, with examples of AI inventing non-existent statutes leading to miscarriages of justice in other jurisdictions. Deepfakes and manipulated evidence—such as altered audio or “white text” in images invisible to the human eye—demand forensic authentication protocols.

Mitigations include:

  • Training programmes for judiciary staff on AI literacy.
  • Procurement guidelines favouring secure, UK-hosted AI solutions over public tools.
  • Protocols for litigants: Judges should inquire about AI use in submissions and may require disclosure of generated content.

In cases of AI misuse, sanctions mirror those for traditional errors, potentially including costs orders or professional referrals.

Ethical Considerations and Future Implications

Ethics form a cross-cutting theme. The guidance aligns with the Judicial Oath and Guide to Judicial Conduct, reinforcing duties of fairness and diligence. It anticipates evolving threats, such as AI in predictive justice tools, and calls for ongoing reviews—potentially annually.

For unrepresented parties, the document advises sensitivity: AI-generated advice may mislead, so courts should promote verified resources like Citizens Advice. Broader implications include enhancing access to justice through AI transcription for hearings, balanced against equity concerns.

Conclusion

The October 2025 guidance represents a measured approach to AI in the judiciary, prioritising safeguards over unchecked innovation. By embedding accountability and verification, it ensures technology amplifies rather than erodes judicial authority.

As AI integrates further, perhaps in virtual hearings or automated small claims, the judiciary’s proactive stance will be crucial. This framework not only protects the rule of law but also positions the UK courts as leaders in ethical AI governance.

Check out the related articles on the Judiciary, Government Legal Department (GLD), Attorney General, Solicitor General, Lady Chief Justice, 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, What Does Lady Justice Symbolise ?, McKenzie Friend, 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
Judiciary Law Legal Professionals

Chancellor of the High Court

Chancellor of the High Court Sir Colin Birss

The Chancellor of the High Court is head of the Chancery Division and is the judge with day to day responsibility for the Business and Property Courts. 

The Chancellor of the High Court is based in the Rolls Building in the City of London along with seven centres in major cities in England and Wales, the Business and Property Courts, including the Chancery Division, deal with the resolution of business disputes and cases involving property in all its forms. 

This important work includes commercial, competition, financial, insolvency and companies, technology, digital assets, intellectual property, trusts, partnerships, mortgages and land law.

Current Chancellor of the High Court

The latest Chancellor of the High Court, Sir Colin Birss, was sworn in, by the Lady Chief Justice, at a ceremony in the Royal Courts of Justice on Monday 3 November.

I am – we all are – delighted to welcome Colin as he takes up appointment. The Chancery Division is in extremely safe and able hands. I am in no doubt that he will make a fine Chancellor… With the utmost warmth we wish him well as he takes up his important duties.

Lady Chief Justice

The Rt Hon Lord Justice Colin Birss was called to the Bar in 1990 and took Silk in 2008.

He started his judicial career as a Deputy Chairman of the Copyright Tribunal in 2009.

He was later appointed as a Senior Circuit Judge in 2010, as a High Court Judge assigned to the Chancery Division in 2013 and as a Judge of the Court of Appeal in 2021.

He became the Deputy Head of Civil Justice in 2020 and is currently Lead Judge for Artificial Intelligence.

I am honoured to be sworn in as Chancellor of the High Court and I am excited to bring the experience I have gained as Deputy Head of Civil Justice to this unique role. I look forward to working with all the judges of the Business and Property Courts to provide access to justice and ensure timely and fair resolution of the disputes in these courts, promoting the rule of law.

Chancellor of the High Court Sir Colin Birss

Historical Development

The position originated in the medieval Court of Chancery, established in the 14th century to provide equitable remedies beyond common law limitations, such as trusts and specific performance. The Lord Chancellor led this court, but inefficiencies led to reforms.

The Chancery Act 1851 created vice-chancellors to assist. The Judicature Acts 1873–1875 merged law and equity into the High Court, abolishing the separate Chancery court.

The role revived in 1971 as Vice-Chancellor under the Administration of Justice Act 1970. The Senior Courts Act 1981 designated it vice-president of the Chancery Division. The Constitutional Reform Act 2005 renamed it Chancellor of the High Court, effective 1st October 2005, to enhance judicial independence.

Responsibilities

The Chancellor manages the Chancery Division, which handles civil cases in business, property, intellectual property, probate, trusts, insolvency, and competition law.

Principal duties:
  • Administrative oversight: Case allocation and policy with the Lord Chief Justice.
  • Judicial functions: Hearing appeals in the Court of Appeal (Civil Division) requiring Chancery expertise.
  • Governance: Participation as a Privy Counsellor.

Appointments are made by the King on Prime Minister’s advice from Court of Appeal judges.

Case CategoryExamples
Business & CommercialShareholder disputes, partnerships
PropertyMortgages, land boundaries
Intellectual PropertyPatents, trademarks
Trusts & InsolvencyWills, bankruptcies

Notable Former Chancellors of the High Court

  • Sir Raymond Evershed (1971–1977): Former Master of the Rolls.
  • Sir Robert Megarry (1977–1985): Author of property law texts.
  • Sir Richard Scott (1994–2000): Led arms-to-Iraq inquiry.
  • Sir Andrew Morritt (2000–2011): Managed digital reforms.
  • Sir Geoffrey Vos (2016–2021): Introduced online resolution; later Master of the Rolls.
  • Sir Julian Flaux (2021–2025): Retired 1 November 2025.

Image of Chancellor of the High Court Sir Colin Birss – Courts and Tribunals Judiciary

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.

Rule of Law - Open Justice - Policing By Consent