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 Police

Police Impartiality

Police Impartiality

A High Court ruling by Mr Justice Linden KC has determined that Northumbria Police breached their duty of impartiality by allowing uniformed officers to march in a Newcastle Pride parade, displaying symbols like the Progress flag associated with transgender ideology.

The case was brought by Linzi Smith, against the Chief Constable of Northumbria Police (Vanessa Jardine), who argued that the police’s participation compromised their professional oath to act impartially.

The judge ruled that such actions could undermine public trust in the police’s ability to handle disputes fairly, particularly in conflicts involving gender-critical individuals and transgender rights supporters.

This landmark decision may lead to a ban on police marching in Pride parades across the UK and could impact their involvement in other events, such as Remembrance parades or religious festivals, prompting concerns among police chiefs about maintaining impartiality while engaging with communities.

Police officers face being banned from participating in Pride parades after a court ruled that one of Britain’s largest forces breached impartiality by marching at an LGBT+ rights event.

Police face ban from marching in Pride parades after court rules it breaches impartiality – Daily Mail
National Stalking Awareness Week – Sussex Police
Sussex Police, the King and High Sheriff

Legal Framework – The Duty of Impartiality

Mr Justice Linden in his judgment Lindsey Smith, R (on the application of) v The Chief Constable of Northumbria Police. Neutral Citation Number[2025] EWHC 1805 (Admin) Paras 61 to 67 outlines the duty of impartiality for all Police Officers.

By section 29 of the Police Act 1996 every member of a police force maintained for a police area is required, on appointment, to be attested as a constable by making the following declaration before a justice of the peace (see Schedule 4 to the 1996 Act):


‘I………………..of………………..do solemnly and sincerely declare and affirm that I
will well and truly serve the King in the office of constable, with fairness,
integrity, diligence and impartiality, upholding fundamental human rights and according equal respect to all people; and that I will, to the best of my power, cause the peace to be kept and preserved and prevent all offences against people and property; and that while I continue to hold the said office I will, to the best of my skill and knowledge, discharge all the duties thereof faithfully according to law”

The Police Regulations 2003 were made pursuant to, amongst other things, section 50 of the 1996 Act which provides that “the Secretary of State may ..make regulations as to the government, administration and conditions of service of police forces”. In effect, the 2003 Regulations therefore set out the terms and conditions which govern police officers as office holders. The matters to which regulations may relate include,
at section 50(2)(e), “the conduct, efficiency and effectiveness of members of police forces and the maintenance of discipline”. Paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to the Police Regulations 2003, read with Regulation 6, provides as follows:

“Restrictions on the private life of members of police forces
(1) A member of a police force shall at all times abstain from any activity which is likely to interfere with the impartial discharge of his duties or which is likely to give rise to the impression amongst members of the public that it may so interfere.
(2) A member of a police force shall in particular–
(a) not take any active part in politics;
(b) not belong to any organisation specified or described in a determination of the Secretary of State.”

The Police (Conduct) Regulations 2020 also require that police officers act with impartiality. They were made pursuant to section 50 of the Police Act 1996 and paragraph 29 of Schedule 3 to the Police Reform Act 2002. Regulation 4 provides that the 2020 “Regulations apply where an allegation comes to the attention of an appropriate authority which indicates that the conduct of a police officer may amount to misconduct, gross misconduct or practice requiring improvement”. In broad terms,
the 2020 Regulations require the appropriate authority to decide whether misconduct proceedings should be brought against the officer. Under Regulation 2, “misconduct” includes “a breach of the Standards of Professional Behaviour that is so serious as to justify disciplinary action”. Regulation 5 then provides that “the Standards of Professional Behaviour established are the standards of professional behaviour described in Schedule 2”. Schedule 2 includes the following:


Honesty and Integrity
Police officers are honest, act with integrity and do not compromise or abuse their position.
Equality and Diversity
Police officers act with fairness and impartiality. They do not discriminate
unlawfully or unfairly.
Orders and Instructions
Police officers only give and carry out lawful orders and instructions. Police officers abide by police regulations, force policies and lawful orders.
Discreditable Conduct
Police officers behave in a manner which does not discredit the police service or undermine public confidence in it, whether on or off duty.”

Lindsey Smith, R (on the application of) v The Chief Constable of Northumbria Police. Neutral Citation Number[2025] EWHC 1805 (Admin) – Mr Justice Linden

Are the Police Impartial ?

The impartiality of the police in England and Wales is a complex issue, with evidence suggesting both strengths and challenges. The principle of impartiality is central to policing, as outlined in the Peelian Principles, which emphasises policing by consent and fairness.

The College of Policing’s Code of Ethics (2014) explicitly requires officers to act with integrity, impartiality, and respect for all. However, public perception and specific incidents raise questions about consistency.

Data from the 2023/24 Crime Survey for England and Wales shows 56% of respondents had confidence in their local police, but trust varies significantly by demographic. For example, Black respondents (49%) reported lower confidence than White respondents (58%).

High-profile cases, like the 2021 murder of Sarah Everard by a serving police officer and the 2023 Casey Review into the Metropolitan Police, highlighted systemic issues, including institutional racism, misogyny, and bias in stop-and-search practices.

The review found disproportionate stops of Black individuals (2.5 times more likely than White individuals per 1,000 people in 2022/23).

Conversely, oversight mechanisms like the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) and community scrutiny panels aim to ensure accountability. The IOPC investigated 1,472 complaints in 2022/23, with 23% related to discriminatory behaviour, though only a fraction led to formal misconduct findings.

Police forces also undergo regular inspections by His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary, which often praises operational fairness but flags inconsistencies in diversity training and community engagement.

Social media reflect polarized views with some users praising local policing efforts, while others cite personal experiences of bias, particularly in urban areas. These anecdotes, while not statistically robust, align with survey trends showing declining trust in the police.

In short, while the legal framework for impartiality exists, systemic issues and public scepticism suggest it’s not universally achieved.

Check out our articles on Policing by Consent, Are the Police for Hire ?, Police Surveillance, Police Public Confidence and Engagement, Police Professional Standards Department, IOPC, Crime Reporting, What is a Police and Crime Commissioner ?, Policing, Police News, Two Tiered Policing, Thought Police, Police Digital Service, Knowledge Hub – Police Digital Service, Wasting Police Time, Police Community Support Officers (PCSO), Met Police, Sussex Police, Chief Constable Jo Shiner, R v Sussex Justices and the highly questionable Sussex Family Justice Board.

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

Latest Articles ↓

Most Popular ↓

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

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

Categories
Law Legal Analysis

Contra Mundum Injunction

Contra Mundum Injunction

A contra mundum (against everyone in the world) privacy injunction was granted to the Ministry of Defence on 1st September 2023 at the High Court by THE HON MR JUSTICE ROBIN KNOWLES CBE, the terms of which prevented the publication of the following  

(a) the fact of the release by someone working for the UK Government of a dataset containing personal information and contact details of persons who applied for relocation to the UK from Afghanistan following the Taliban coup in 2021; and

(b) the existence of the injunction itself.

On the 15th July 2025, THE HON. MR JUSTICE CHAMBERLAIN KC discharged the contra mundum privacy injunction.

Open justice is a cardinal constitutional principle, from which derogations can be justified only in exceptional circumstances.

THE HON. MR JUSTICE CHAMBERLAIN KC

Previous judgments of the High Court and the Court of Appeal in these proceedings were also published today with the High Court imposing a more limited injunction on an interim basis:

Ruling (01 September 2023)

Judgment 1 (23 November 2023)

Judgment 2 (15 February 2024)

Judgment 3 (21 May 2024)

Court of Appeal Judgment (26 July 2024)

Continuing Injunction (15 July 2025)

High Court discharges Government super-injunction after almost two years – John Bethell @ 11KBW Chambers

I wonder how many more super injunctions there are in existence ?!

Media Coverage

Inside the £7bn secret scramble to save lives after MoD data breach

After a leak at the Ministry of Defence, officials faced a race to keep up to 100,000 Afghans from the Taliban’s clutches – with two years of court fights and rescue plans projected to cost billions, all hidden from MPs and the public. Now, after the lifting of an unprecedented superinjunction, the full story can finally be told.

Holly Bancroft @ Independent

MoD blunder leads to £7billion government cover-up of Taliban ‘kill-list’

The government spent nearly two years using an unprecedented superinjunction to prevent the public from learning about a catastrophic Ministry of Defence data breach that exposed the personal details of thousands of Afghans who had worked with UK forces.

EJ Ward @ LBC

Thousands of Afghans relocated to UK under secret scheme after data leak

Conservative government used superinjuction to hide error that put Afghans at risk and led to £2bn mitigation scheme. The judge in the initial trial, Mr Justice Knowles, granted the application “contra mundum” – against the world – and ruled that its existence remain secret

The Guardian

Revealed after the Daily Mail’s two-year battle against superinjunction, the Government’s £7billion secret airlift as 18,500 Afghans are brought to Britain

A secret operation smuggling migrants TO Britain is being run by ministers who signed off the projected £7billion cost while a ‘superinjunction’ kept taxpayers and MPs in the dark.

SAM GREENHILL CHIEF REPORTER and DAVID WILLIAMS and MARK NICOL and MARTIN ROBINSON @ Daily Mail

Is a Contra Mundum Injunction Enforceable Against a “Foreign” Individual ?

A contra mundum injunction in England and Wales is an exceptional court order that applies to “the world at large” rather than specific named parties, binding anyone who has notice of it.

However, its enforceability against a foreign individual outside the jurisdiction of England and Wales is complex and limited.

Nature of a Contra Mundum Injunction
  • A contra mundum injunction is designed to prohibit certain actions (e.g., publishing specific information) by anyone who is aware of the order, regardless of whether they are a named party. It is typically used in rare cases, such as to protect privacy, prevent harm, or safeguard public interest (e.g., protecting the identities of individuals at risk, as in Venables v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2001] Fam 430).
  • The injunction operates in personam (against the person) and relies on the court’s authority to enforce compliance through contempt of court proceedings.
Jurisdictional Limits
  • Territorial Scope: The courts of England and Wales have jurisdiction primarily within their own territory. A contra mundum injunction is fully enforceable against individuals or entities within England and Wales who have notice of the order. However, enforcement against a foreign individual outside this jurisdiction is not straightforward.
  • Foreign Individuals: For a foreign individual to be bound, they must either:
    • Be physically present in England and Wales at the time the order is made or served.
    • Have a sufficient connection to the jurisdiction (e.g., assets, business operations, or voluntary submission to the court’s jurisdiction).
    • Be served with the injunction in a manner recognised by English law or the foreign jurisdiction’s laws.
Enforcement Abroad
  • No Direct Enforcement: English courts cannot directly enforce a contra mundum injunction in a foreign jurisdiction because their authority does not extend beyond England and Wales. Enforcement abroad depends on the cooperation of the foreign jurisdiction’s legal system.
  • Recognition of Judgments: For a contra mundum injunction to have effect against a foreign individual, the foreign court must recognise and enforce the English court’s order. This typically requires:
    • Reciprocal Agreements: Enforcement is easier in countries with reciprocal arrangements, such as Commonwealth nations under the Administration of Justice Act 1920 or the Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1933, or EU member states (pre-Brexit) under the Brussels Regulation. However, these regimes primarily apply to monetary judgments, not non-monetary orders like injunctions.
    • Common Law Recognition: In jurisdictions without reciprocal agreements (e.g., the USA), the foreign individual would need to be sued in their local court to obtain a new judgment based on the English injunction. The foreign court would assess whether the English court had jurisdiction and whether the order complies with local laws and public policy.
  • Non-Monetary Nature: Contra mundum injunctions are non-monetary (e.g., prohibiting publication or disclosure), which makes them unenforceable under common law or reciprocal enforcement regimes that typically cover monetary judgments only.
  • Public Policy and Comity: A foreign court may refuse to enforce the injunction if it conflicts with local laws, public policy, or principles of freedom of expression (especially in jurisdictions like the USA with strong First Amendment protections).
Practical Challenges
  • Notice Requirement: A contra mundum injunction binds those who have notice of it. Serving notice to a foreign individual can be difficult, especially if they are not easily identifiable or located. Even if served, the foreign individual may ignore the order if they are outside the reach of English courts.
  • Contempt of Court: If a foreign individual breaches the injunction while in England and Wales or through actions affecting the jurisdiction (e.g., publishing prohibited material accessible in England), they could face contempt proceedings if they enter the jurisdiction later. However, if they remain abroad, practical enforcement is unlikely unless the foreign jurisdiction cooperates.
  • Spycatcher Principle: Under the Spycatcher principle, third parties (including foreign individuals) who knowingly breach an injunction after receiving notice can be held in contempt. However, this is only effective if the individual is within the court’s reach or if the foreign jurisdiction recognises the contempt proceedings.

5. Examples and Precedents

  • In cases like Persons formerly known as Winch [2021] EWHC 1328, a contra mundum injunction was granted to protect the identities of a police informant and their family. The court emphasised its global effect but did not address enforcement abroad, focusing instead on notifying media within the jurisdiction.
  • In SAS Institute Inc v World Programming Ltd [2020] EWHC 2481, the English Court of Appeal granted an anti-enforcement injunction to prevent a US company from enforcing a US judgment in a way that interfered with English jurisdiction, showing that English courts can act to protect their authority but only within specific limits.
Conclusion

A contra mundum injunction from England and Wales is theoretically binding on a foreign individual if they have notice of it, but its practical enforceability abroad is highly limited.

Enforcement depends on the foreign jurisdiction’s willingness to recognise and uphold the order, which is unlikely for non-monetary injunctions unless there is a reciprocal agreement or the individual has a connection to England and Wales (e.g., presence, assets, or actions affecting the jurisdiction).

To pursue enforcement, the claimant would typically need to initiate new legal proceedings in the foreign jurisdiction, subject to local laws and public policy.

Check out our related articles on What Does Lady Justice Symbolise ?, Law Society, Law Commission, Solicitors, Solicitors Regulation Authority, Barristers, Bar Council of England and Wales, Bar Standards Board, Rule of Law, Open Justice, 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
Law Legal Analysis

Implied Right of Access

Implied Right of Access

The implied right of access refers to a presumed permission for individuals or entities to enter private property for specific purposes, even without formal consent.

Implied rights of access is not explicitly granted but arises from necessity, custom, or legal provisions. It is distinct from explicit rights, such as those granted by easements or licences, which are formally documented.

It should be noted that Implied right of access is a common law principle derived from established legal precedent, rather than a specific law. 

Examples of Implied Right of Access

  1. Utility Companies: Utility providers (e.g., water, gas, electricity, or telecommunications) may have an implied right to access private property to maintain infrastructure, such as meters or cables, often supported by statutory powers.
  2. Emergency Services: Police, fire services, or paramedics may access private property in emergencies to ensure public safety, as authorised by law.
  3. Delivery Personnel: Postal workers or delivery couriers may have an implied right to approach a property’s entrance to deliver mail or packages.
  4. Visitors or Neighbours: Neighbours or visitors may have an implied right to use a pathway or driveway to reach a front door, particularly if it’s the only practical route.
  5. Statutory Authorities: Local authority officials, such as building inspectors or environmental health officers, may have implied access for regulatory purposes under specific legislation.

Legal Basis in England and Wales

The implied right of access in England and Wales is grounded in:

What is Trespass ?

Trespassing is when someone enters or remains on land that belongs to someone else without their permission or legal right. 

Trespass is generally a civil matter, not a criminal one, unless specific circumstances like causing significant damage or disruption are involved. 

Aggravated trespass is a criminal offence under Section 68 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994

Why Revoke the Implied Right of Access ?

Property and land owners may seek to revoke implied access for reasons such as:

  • Privacy: To prevent unauthorised entry by strangers.
  • Security: To reduce risks, especially in rural or secluded properties.
  • Disputes: To resolve conflicts with neighbours or utility providers.

How to Revoke the Implied Right of Access

Revoking an implied right of access in England and Wales requires clear communication and, in some cases, legal steps to ensure enforceability.

Revoking is also known as “WOIRA” which means Withdrawing Implied Right of Access.

Understand the Scope of Access:
  • Identify who is accessing the property (e.g., utility workers, neighbours) and the legal basis for their access (e.g., statutory rights or common law).
  • Consult a solicitor to confirm whether statutory or easement-based rights apply, as these may limit revocation.
Display Clear Signage
  • Install “No Trespassing” or “Private Property” signs at entry points. Under English law, clear signage provides notice that implied access is not permitted.
  • Ensure signs are visible and comply with any local regulations.
Provide a Written Notice
  • Send a formal written notice to individuals or entities with implied access (e.g., utility companies, neighbours) revoking permission to enter. Use recorded delivery to document the notice. A number of templates are available online.
Install Physical Barriers
  • Erect gates, fences, or locks to restrict access, ensuring compliance with local planning laws and regulations.
  • For deliveries, provide alternative instructions, such as a designated drop-off point.
Communicate with Relevant Parties
  • Contact utility companies or local authorities to negotiate alternative access arrangements if statutory rights apply.
  • Discuss boundary issues with neighbours to clarify that access is no longer permitted without agreement.
Address Implied Easements
  • If the implied right stems from an easement (e.g., long-term use or necessity), consult a solicitor. Revoking an implied easement may require a legal process, such as a claim to the Land Registry or a court action to quiet title.
  • For prescriptive easements (gained through long use under the Prescription Act 1832), formal steps may be needed to interrupt use.
Document Actions
  • Keep records of notices, communications, and physical measures taken.
  • This documentation is essential for resolving disputes or defending against any legal claims.

Limitations on Revoking Implied Access

Revoking implied access is subject to certain limitations:

  • Statutory Rights: Utility companies and emergency services may have non-negotiable access rights. Complete revocation may not be possible, but access can often be restricted to specific purposes or times.
  • Easements: Implied or prescriptive easements (e.g., for access to a landlocked property) cannot be revoked without legal action, such as applying to the Land Registry or court.
  • Public Safety: Emergency services retain access rights in urgent situations, regardless of notices or barriers.
  • Planning Laws: Physical barriers must comply with planning regulations, and blocking statutory access (e.g., for utilities) could lead to legal consequences.

Check out our related articles on What Does Lady Justice Symbolise ?, Law Society, Law Commission, Solicitors, Solicitors Regulation Authority, Barristers, Bar Council of England and Wales, Bar Standards Board, Rule of Law, Open Justice, 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
Law Legal Analysis Legal Professionals

Can a Solicitor or Barrister Mislead a Court ?

Can a Solicitor or Barrister Mislead a Court

In England and Wales, the legal system demands integrity and truth from all legal professionals involved in court proceedings. Solicitors and barristers are bound by strict professional rules and legal obligations that prohibit misleading the court, whether deliberately or recklessly. Such conduct is a serious breach, potentially leading to professional misconduct charges, contempt of court or criminal sanctions.

Professional Duties of Solicitors and Barristers

Solicitors, regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) under the SRA Standards and Regulations 2019, are designated as officers of the court under the Solicitors Act 1974.

The SRA Code of Conduct mandates that solicitors act with honesty and integrity (Principle 1) and uphold public trust in the legal profession (Principle 2). Paragraph 1.4 explicitly prohibits knowingly or recklessly misleading the court, including presenting false evidence, allowing misleading information to go uncorrected, or fabricating documents.

Barristers, regulated by the Bar Standards Board (BSB) under the BSB Handbook, are not formally officers of the court but owe a primary duty to the court above their duty to clients (Core Duty 3).

Core Duty 1 requires honesty, and Rule rC3 prohibits barristers from knowingly or recklessly misleading the court, such as by making false statements, concealing material facts, or drafting misleading documents.

The principle, affirmed in cases like Rondel v Worsley [1969] 1 AC 191, underscores barristers’ obligation to the administration of justice.

Both solicitors and barristers must prioritise their duty to the court over client interests. If a client instructs them to present false evidence or withhold key information, they must refuse and may need to withdraw from the case to avoid breaching their professional obligations.

Legal Consequences of Misleading a Court

Misleading the court can violate several laws. Under the Perjury Act 1911, knowingly giving false evidence under oath is a criminal offence, punishable by up to seven years’ imprisonment. If a solicitor or barrister encourages or assists perjury, they may face liability as an accessory or for perverting the course of justice, a common law offence with a maximum penalty of seven years.

Contempt of court is another serious consequence. The Contempt of Court Act 1981 allows courts to penalize conduct that interferes with justice, such as presenting false evidence, with fines or imprisonment. Cases like R v Farooqi [2013] EWCA Crim 1649 highlight the severe repercussions for lawyers who mislead courts.

Professional disciplinary action is also a risk. The SRA and BSB can impose sanctions, including fines, suspensions, or striking off. For instance, in SRA v Wingate [2016], a solicitor was struck off for presenting fabricated documents to the court.

Practical Implications of Misleading a Court

Solicitors and barristers must exercise diligence to avoid inadvertently misleading the court. This includes verifying client instructions, correcting errors promptly, and ensuring submissions are evidence-based.

If a lawyer discovers they or their client has misled the court, they must take steps to rectify the situation, subject to legal professional privilege considerations. A solicitor or barrister may also be invited to correct a misleading statement.

If you think a solicitor or firm might have breached the SRA rules, you should report your concerns to the SRA.

The public can Report concerns about barristers at the BSB. Barristers also have a duty to report their own serious misconduct or that of another barrister.

Check out our articles on Rule of Law, Open Justice, Justice System, Criminal Justice, Criminal Cases Review Commission, R v Sussex Justices, Litigants in Person, McKenzie Friend, Reasonable Person Test, What is Bail ?, 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 Legal Analysis

What is the Forensic Science Regulator ?

Forensic Science Regulator

Forensic science is a cornerstone of modern criminal justice, providing critical evidence that can make or break a case. However, the reliability and accuracy of forensic evidence are paramount to ensuring justice is served.

In the United Kingdom, the Forensic Science Regulator (FSR) plays a pivotal role in maintaining the integrity of forensic science services across England and Wales.

Established in 2007 and granted statutory powers through the Forensic Science Regulator Act 2021, the FSR ensures that forensic science providers adhere to rigorous scientific quality standards, safeguarding the criminal justice system from errors that could lead to miscarriages of justice.

The FSR’s primary mission is to establish and enforce quality standards for forensic science activities, from crime scene analysis to courtroom testimony. Operating as an independent public appointee, sponsored by but separate from the Home Office, the FSR collaborates with stakeholders across the criminal justice system, including police forces, forensic providers, prosecutors, and defense teams.

Its overarching goal is to ensure that all forensic science activities—whether conducted by large organizations, small private firms, or individual practitioners—meet consistent, high-quality standards. This applies equally to prosecution and defense experts, fostering a level playing field and enhancing public confidence in the justice system.

The Forensic Science Regulator Act 2021 marked a significant milestone, transforming the FSR from a non-statutory body into a statutory one with enhanced authority. Prior to 2021, the FSR relied on voluntary compliance, which led to inconsistent adoption of standards, particularly among smaller providers and police forces.

The Act empowered the FSR to publish a statutory Code of Practice, first enforced in October 2023, which outlines requirements for 51 defined forensic science activities (FSAs), with 34 currently subject to the Code. This Code mandates quality management systems (QMS) and, for many FSAs, accreditation to international standards like ISO/IEC 17025, assessed by the United Kingdom Accreditation Service (UKAS).

The FSR can now investigate non-compliance and issue compliance notices, with the power to halt forensic activities that risk prejudicing criminal proceedings.

The FSR’s work extends beyond enforcement. It collaborates with specialist working groups and the Forensic Science Advisory Council (FSAC) to develop standards for disciplines such as DNA analysis, fingerprint examination, and digital forensics.

These groups review existing standards, propose improvements, and ensure ongoing research supports advancements in forensic science. The FSR also publishes technical guidance, newsletters, and annual reports to keep practitioners informed and foster a culture of continuous improvement. For instance, its 2023 annual report emphasised the importance of coordinated proficiency testing and highlighted challenges in implementing the statutory Code, such as resource constraints and the complexity of regulating over 100 organizations.

Despite its successes, the FSR faces challenges. Critics argue that its “light touch” approach before 2021 left gaps in regulation, with some providers failing to achieve accreditation. Resource limitations and austerity measures have strained the FSR’s capacity to oversee a diverse forensic landscape, particularly as new technologies and methods emerge.

The 2023 conference underscored the FSR’s commitment to proportionate regulation, encouraging self-reporting of errors to build a robust quality culture without overburdening providers. However, achieving full compliance across all FSAs remains a work in progress, with ongoing efforts to balance regulatory rigor with practical implementation.

The Forensic Science Regulator established several specialist working groups to advise on specific areas of forensic science and to undertake studies within their areas of expertise.

  1. Forensic Science Advisory Council
  2. Contamination Specialist Group
  3. Biology Specialist Group
  4. Fingerprint Quality Specialist Group
  5. Digital Forensics Specialist Group
  6. DNA Analysis Specialist Group
  7. End User Specialist Group
  8. Forensic Pathology Specialist Group
  9. Medical Forensics Specialist Group
  10. Quality Standards Specialist Group
  11. Evidence Assessment Specialist Group
  12. Incident Examination Specialist Group
  13. Firearms Specialist Group
  14. Interpretation Specialist Group
  15. Drugs and Toxicology Specialist Group

The FSR’s impact is undeniable. By setting clear standards, promoting accreditation, and fostering stakeholder collaboration, it ensures forensic evidence is reliable and admissible in court. Its statutory powers have strengthened its ability to address quality failures, protecting the integrity of criminal investigations and trials. As forensic science evolves, the FSR’s role in adapting standards and supporting innovation will be crucial to maintaining public trust in the justice system.

The email address for general inquiries to the Forensic Science Regulator is [email protected]. 

Check out our articles on Rule of Law, Open Justice, Justice System, Criminal Justice, Criminal Cases Review Commission, R v Sussex Justices, Litigants in Person, McKenzie Friend, Reasonable Person Test, What is Bail ?, 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 Legal Analysis

What is the Criminal Cases Review Commission ?

Criminal Cases Review Commission - CCRC

The Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) stands as a vital institution within the criminal justice system, dedicated to investigating potential miscarriages of justice.

Established in 1997 under the Criminal Appeal Act 1995, the CCRC was created in response to high-profile cases, such as the Birmingham Six and Guildford Four, which exposed systemic flaws in the justice system. Its primary role is to review cases where individuals believe they have been wrongfully convicted or sentenced, offering a crucial safety net for those failed by the courts.

Applications and investigations (April 1997 – April 2025)
  • 33,299 applications received (including all ineligible cases)
  • 32,157 cases completed
  • 937 cases under review
    205 awaiting consideration
Referrals and decisions (April 1997 – April 2025)
  • 873 cases referred to appeal courts
  • 844 appeals heard by the courts
  • 591 successful appeals
    235 decisions upheld
    18 abandoned by applicant
Criminal Cases Review Commission – Facts and Figures

Is the UK Criminal Justice System Broken ?

The CCRC operates independently of the government, courts, and police, ensuring impartiality in its investigations. Based in Birmingham, England, it serves England, Wales, and Northern Ireland, while Scotland has its own equivalent, the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission.

The commission comprises a team of case reviewers, legal experts, and investigators who meticulously examine applications to determine whether there is new evidence or arguments that could warrant referring a case back to the appeal courts.

The process begins when an individual, or their representative, submits an application to the CCRC. Applicants must have already exhausted the standard appeal process, as the commission does not function as a secondary appeal court. Instead, it focuses on identifying cases where there is a “real possibility” that a conviction or sentence would not be upheld if new evidence or legal arguments were considered. This high threshold ensures that only cases with substantial grounds for review are referred to the Court of Appeal or, in some instances, the Crown Court.

The Criminal Cases Review Commission powers are extensive, allowing it to access documents, interview witnesses, and commission forensic tests or expert reports. For example, it can request DNA analysis or re-examine witness statements that may have been overlooked or misinterpreted during the original trial. Since its inception, the commission has reviewed thousands of cases, with over 700 referrals leading to overturned convictions or modified sentences by 2023. Notable successes include the quashing of convictions in cases like those of Sally Clark, wrongly convicted of murdering her children, and Victor Nealon, whose conviction was overturned after DNA evidence pointed to another suspect.

Despite its achievements, the CCRC faces challenges. Limited funding and resources can lead to delays in case reviews, with some applicants waiting years for a resolution. Critics argue that the “real possibility” test sets too high a bar, potentially excluding cases where miscarriages of justice may have occurred but lack definitive new evidence. Additionally, the commission has no authority to overturn convictions itself; it can only refer cases to the appeal courts, which may uphold the original decision.

The Criminal Cases Review Commission work is particularly significant in an era where public trust in the justice system is often tested. High-profile cases, such as the Post Office Horizon scandal, have underscored the need for an independent body to address systemic failures.

The commission’s ability to adapt to emerging technologies, like advanced forensic techniques, has also strengthened its role in uncovering truths that were previously inaccessible.

Public awareness of the CCRC remains relatively low, and many eligible individuals may not know they can apply for a review. To address this, the commission engages in outreach efforts, including working with legal professionals and advocacy groups to ensure that those who need its services are informed.

Its commitment to transparency is evident in its detailed annual reports, which outline its activities and highlight significant cases.In conclusion, the Criminal Cases Review Commission plays an indispensable role in safeguarding justice in the UK.

By providing a mechanism to correct wrongful convictions and sentences, it upholds the principle that no one should suffer unjustly under the law. While challenges remain, the CCRC’s dedication to fairness and its ability to evolve with the times ensure it remains a cornerstone of the criminal justice system, offering hope to those who have been let down by the courts.

The email address for general inquiries to the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) is [email protected].

Check out our articles on Rule of Law, Open Justice, Justice System, Criminal Justice, R v Sussex Justices, Forensic Science Regulator, Litigants in Person, McKenzie Friend, Reasonable Person Test, What is Bail ?, 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 Free Speech Law Legal Analysis Police

Did Bobby Vylan and the BBC break the law at Glastonbury 2025 ?

Bobby Vylan

The performance by Bob Vylan at Glastonbury 2025, where frontman Bobby Vylan (reportedly Pascal Robinson-Foster) led chants of “death, death to the IDF” and “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free,” has prompted an investigation by Avon and Somerset Police to determine if any criminal offences were committed.

In any investigation by the police, it is vitally important that there should no suggestion of two tier policing or two tier justice.

His Honour Judge Melbourne Inman KC (The Recorder of Birmingham and The High Court Judge that never was) sentenced Lucy Connolly at Birmingham Crown Court to two years and seven months in prison for publishing written material that incited racial hatred.

Can you email a judge such as the Lady Chief Justice of England and Wales about a dishonest judge such as HHJ Melbourne Inman ?

Potential Offenses Under UK Law

  1. Incitement to Racial or Religious Hatred (Public Order Act 1986, Section 18)
    • Description: This section makes it an offense to use threatening, abusive, or insulting words or behaviour with the intent to stir up racial or religious hatred, or where such hatred is likely to be stirred up. The maximum penalty is seven years in prison.
    • Relevance to Bob Vylan: UK Lawyers for Israel (UKLI) have suggested that Bobby Vylan’s chants, particularly “death, death to the IDF,” may breach this section by causing harassment, alarm, or distress and potentially stirring up racial or religious hatred, given the reference to the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF). The phrase “from the river to the sea” is contentious, with some interpreting it as a call for the elimination of Israel, which could be seen as targeting Jewish self-determination or inciting hatred against Jewish people. However, others argue it is a call for Palestinian liberation, and its interpretation depends heavily on context.
    • Analysis: For a conviction, prosecutors must prove intent to stir up hatred or that hatred was likely to result. The performance context—a music festival with a politically charged atmosphere—may complicate proving intent, as artistic expression often enjoys some legal protection. However, the explicit call for “death” to a specific group (the IDF) could be seen as crossing into threatening language, especially if interpreted as targeting Israeli nationals or Jewish people broadly. The lack of immediate violence following the performance might weaken the case for “likelihood” of hatred being stirred up, but public reaction and the broadcast’s reach could be considered aggravating factors.
  2. Incitement to Violence (Common Law or Public Order Act 1986, Section 4)
    • Description: Incitement to violence is an offense under common law or Section 4 of the Public Order Act, which addresses threatening or abusive behaviour intended to cause fear of violence or provoke immediate unlawful violence. The maximum penalty under Section 4 is six months in prison.
    • Relevance to Bob Vylan: Bobby Vylan’s statement, “We are the violent punks, because sometimes you have to get your message across with violence because that is the only language some people speak,” alongside the “death to the IDF” chant, has been cited as potential incitement to violence. Shadow Home Secretary Chris Philp and former Home Secretary Baroness Smith have argued that the chant constitutes incitement, with Philp calling for prosecution.
    • Analysis: The threshold for incitement requires a clear intention to provoke violence and a likelihood of it occurring. The chant’s violent imagery could be interpreted as incitement, particularly in a charged political context. However, the festival setting, where provocative rhetoric is common in punk performances, and the absence of immediate violence may suggest the statement was performative rather than a direct call to action. Bobby Vylan’s broader comments about using violence to communicate could be scrutinised, but artistic expression and political protest often blur legal lines, making prosecution challenging without evidence of specific intent or immediate harm.
  3. Causing Harassment, Alarm, or Distress (Public Order Act 1986, Section 5)
    • Description: This section criminalises threatening or abusive words or behaviour within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm, or distress. It carries a fine as the maximum penalty.
    • Relevance to Bob Vylan: UKLI has claimed that the chant “death, death to the IDF” could breach Section 5 by causing distress to audience members or viewers, particularly those who identify with Israel or the Jewish community.
    • Analysis: This offense has a lower threshold than Section 18, as it does not require intent to stir up hatred, only that the behaviour was threatening or abusive and likely to cause distress. The chant’s explicit call for “death” could meet this threshold, especially given its broadcast to a wide audience. However, the festival context and Bob Vylan’s history of provocative performances (e.g., addressing racism and political issues) might frame the chant as artistic or political expression, potentially protected under free speech principles. The subjective nature of “distress” makes this offense plausible but less severe.
  4. Broadcasting Material Stirring Up Racial Hatred (Public Order Act 1986, Section 22)
    • Description: This section makes it an offense for a broadcaster to transmit material that is likely to stir up racial hatred, particularly if it was reasonably practicable to remove the content before broadcast. The maximum penalty is seven years in prison.
    • Relevance to Bob Vylan and the BBC: The BBC’s live broadcast of Bob Vylan’s performance has been criticised for potentially breaching this section, as the chant was aired without being cut. UKLI and former BBC Director Danny Cohen have argued that the BBC’s failure to intervene constitutes a criminal offense, especially given prior antisemitism training for staff.
    • Analysis: While this offense primarily applies to the BBC, it indirectly implicates Bob Vylan as the source of the content. The BBC issued an on-screen warning about “very strong and discriminatory language” during the livestream, suggesting awareness of the content’s potential impact. However, the decision to continue broadcasting for over 40 minutes before removing the performance from iPlayer could be seen as a failure to exercise due diligence. For Bob Vylan, this offense would only apply if they were complicit in ensuring the broadcast, which seems unlikely. The focus here is more on the BBC’s editorial decisions than the band’s actions.

Additional Context and Considerations

  • Police Investigation: Avon and Somerset Police are reviewing video footage to assess whether any offenses were committed. This indicates that no charges have been filed as of June 30, 2025, and the investigation is ongoing. The police’s focus is on both Bob Vylan’s and Kneecap’s performances, suggesting a broader scrutiny of politically charged acts at Glastonbury.
  • Political and Public Reaction: The performance has drawn condemnation from Prime Minister Keir Starmer, Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy, and Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch, who labeled it “grotesque” and “hate speech.” The Israeli Embassy criticised the chants as advocating for the dismantling of Israel, raising concerns about normalising extremist language. Conversely, civil liberties groups have warned that prosecuting such performances risks blurring the line between censorship and accountability, highlighting the tension between free speech and hate speech laws.
  • Festival and BBC Response: Glastonbury organisers, including Emily Eavis, condemned the chants as “appalling” and emphasised that they do not endorse performers’ views. The BBC removed the performance from iPlayer and issued a statement calling the comments “deeply offensive,” but faced criticism for not cutting the live feed sooner.
  • Bob Vylan’s Statement: Bobby Vylan (reportedly Pascal Robinson-Foster) stood by his comments in a social media post, framing them as a call for a change in foreign policy and expressing solidarity with Palestinians. He acknowledged receiving both support and hatred but did not retract his statements.
  • Context of the Performance: Bob Vylan’s set included a screen displaying “Free Palestine – United Nations have called it a genocide – the BBC calls it a ‘conflict,’” reflecting their broader critique of26 of UK and US foreign policy. Their punk-rap style often involves provocative political commentary, which may argue for the chants being artistic expression.

Critical Perspective

The case highlights a tension between free speech, artistic expression, and legal boundaries around hate speech and incitement. UK hate speech laws, particularly under the Public Order Act, are designed to prevent harm but can be vague, leading to debates about their application to political or artistic statements. The phrase “from the river to the sea” is particularly contentious—interpreted by some as a legitimate call for Palestinian rights and by others as antisemitic or genocidal. The legal outcome may hinge on whether the chants are deemed to target a racial or religious group (e.g., Jewish people) or a military institution (the IDF), as well as the intent and context of the performance.

The BBC’s role raises questions about media responsibility. The broadcaster’s failure to cut the feed, despite prior antisemitism training, suggests a lapse in editorial judgment, but prosecuting a broadcaster for live content is rare and would require clear evidence of intent or negligence. The broader political context—intense public and governmental scrutiny of Israel-Palestine rhetoric—may amplify the case’s visibility but also risks politicising legal enforcement, potentially chilling free expression at cultural events like Glastonbury.

Conclusion

Bob Vylan’s performance may potentially breach Sections 5, 18, or 4 of the Public Order Act 1986, depending on interpretations of intent, context, and impact. The “death to the IDF” chant is the most likely basis for any charges due to its explicit violent imagery, though proving incitement or hatred in a festival setting is challenging. The ongoing police assessment suggests no immediate charges, and any prosecution would need to balance legal thresholds with free speech considerations. The BBC faces separate scrutiny under Section 22, but this is less directly tied to Bob Vylan’s actions.

Other legislation may also apply and be considered by the Avon and Somerset Police and the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS).

Image of Bobby Vylan – Yui Mok/PA

Check out our articles on the  Foul and Absuive Language, Justice System, Open Justice, Rule of Law, R v Sussex Justices, Victims’ Right to Review, Litigants in Person, McKenzie Friend, Do you Have to Bow to a Judge ?, Can you Email a Judge ?, Can you Criticise a Judge ? and the highly dubious Sussex Family Justice Board.

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

Latest Articles ↓

Most Popular ↓

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

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

Categories
Police

Police Public Confidence and Engagement

Police Public Confidence and Engagement

The Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) undertake regular surveys to assess the public’s perceptions of the police, as well as their confidence in the police complaints system and the IOPC. 

The IOPC also seek regular feedback from their stakeholders to understand what is working well and where improvement may be needed.

This feedback helps shape and inform the IOPC’s wider work to influence changes in policing, ensure accountability and encourage best practice and high standards of service. The surveys are an important tool for measuring the progress of the IOPC. 

The IOPC/Police Public Perceptions Tracker Report 2024/25 published on the 17th June 2025 by the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) presents findings from a survey conducted by YouGov, tracking public attitudes towards policing and the IOPC in England and Wales.

IOPC-police-public-perceptions-tracker-report-2024-25Download
  • Half of the pubic say they feel positive towards the police (49%) and this sentiment has remained stable over the last three years.
  • 48% of the public say they were not confidence in the police dealing fairly with complaints made against them (versus 42% who were confident).
  • A majority of the public say that they would complain if unhappy about an officer’s behaviour towards them.
  • Awareness of the IOPC is at the highest level since we were created but remains below the level when we were the IPCC.
  • A majority of the public think that the IOPC is completely or somewhat independent of the police (70%).
Public Perceptions Tracker Key findings for 2024/25 – IOPC

Must Read ! Sussex Police, the King and High Sheriff

Overview of the Police Public Perceptions Tracker Report 2024/25

  • Purpose: The report tracks public awareness of the IOPC, perceptions of its independence, confidence in the police complaints system, and attitudes towards the police, providing insights to improve policing oversight.
  • Methodology: Data was collected through online surveys conducted in four waves (April, July, November, December 2024, and January 2025) with a sample of more than 4,000 adults, weighted to represent the UK adult population. The data was gathered by YouGov.

Other Key Findings

  1. Awareness of the IOPC:
    • Awareness of the IOPC remains high, with 70% of respondents having heard of the organization, consistent with recent years.
    • However, detailed knowledge remains low, with 54% of respondents unsure about the IOPC’s specific role or activities.
  2. Perception of IOPC Independence:
    • 43% of respondents believe the IOPC is independent from of the police, a slight increase from previous years.
    • Perceptions vary by demographic: older respondents (65+) and white respondents are more likely to view the IOPC as independent, while Black respondents and younger people (18–24) are more skeptical.
  3. Confidence in the IOPC:
    • Confidence in the IOPC doing a “good job” job increased marginally to 47%**, up from 44% in 2023/24.
    • 52% believe the IOPC can help improve policing by identifying areas for learning, though only 38% are confident it holds police accountable.
  4. Likelihood of Making a Police Complaint:
    • 56% of respondents would likely make a complaint if dissatisfied with police conduct, stable compared to prior years.
    • Barriers to complaining include lack of trust in the process (34%) and fear of repercussions (22%), particularly among minority groups.
  5. Public Views on Police:
    • Negative sentiment towards the police has risen, with 28% expressing negative feelings in January 2025, up from 14% in January 2020.
    • Confidence in how police handle complaints dropped to 35%, influenced by high-profile cases like the Sarah Everard murder and other police misconduct scandals.
    • 44% believe police are effective at maintaining law and order, but only 30% trust them to act fairly.
  6. Demographic Variations:
    • Black and Asian respondents report lower confidence in the IOPC and police compared to white respondents.
    • Younger people (18–34) are less likely to trust the complaints system or feel positive about the police.
    • Women are slightly more likely than men to express concerns about police fairness and accountability.
  7. Contextual Challenges:
    • The report notes a challenging context for policing, with trust eroded by recent misconduct cases and media coverage.
    • The IOPC’s role in addressing systemic issues, like race discrimination and violence against women, is seen as critical but faces public skepticism.

Implications and Recommendations

  • Enhancing Awareness: The IOPC should focus on increasing public understanding of its role to boost trust and engagement.
  • Addressing Barriers: Targeted outreach to minority and younger groups could reduce barriers to making complaints.
  • Improving Trust: Strengthening transparency and communication about how complaints are handled may improve perceptions of police accountability.
  • Learning Opportunities: The IOPC’s work in identifying police learning opportunities is valued, but more visible outcomes could enhance public confidence.

Conclusion

The 2024/25 Public Perceptions Tracker highlights steady IOPC awareness but persistent challenges in public trust towards both the IOPC and the police. While slight improvements in confidence and perceptions of independence are noted, negative views of policing and scepticism about complaint handling underscore the need for continued reform and engagement to rebuild trust.

Check out our articles on Policing by Consent, Police Impartiality, Police Professional Standards Department, Are the Police for Hire ?, Crime Reporting, What is a Police and Crime Commissioner ?, Sussex Police, Policing, Police News, Two Tiered Policing, Thought Police, Police Digital Service, Knowledge Hub – Police Digital Service, Wasting Police Time, Police Community Support Officers (PCSO), Met Police, Chief Constable Jo Shiner, R v Sussex Justices and the highly questionable Sussex Family Justice Board.

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

Latest Articles ↓

Most Popular ↓

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

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

Categories
Legal Professionals Police

Knowledge Hub – Police Digital Service

Knowledge Hub - Police Digital Service

The Knowledge Hub is a specialised digital platform designed to foster collaboration, knowledge sharing, and innovation within UK policing and its select public and private sector partners. Managed by the Police Digital Service (PDS), this secure, UK-hosted platform serves as a vital tool for professionals in policing to connect, share critical information, and drive efficiency.

Must Read ! Sussex Police, the King and High Sheriff

The Knowledge Hub’s security page confirms that the platform is hosted within two UK-based data centres in the London area, using a secure cloud hosting service supported by AWS (Amazon Web Services). This service is managed by PlaceCube, an ISO/IEC 27001-certified supplier, ensuring compliance with UK Government standard ‘Official’ for information up to the “Official” classification level.

Knowledge Hub’s underlying software, Liferay DXP, is regularly penetration tested and verified by Veracode.

Liferay (the software underlying TeamWorXX) follows the OWASP Top 10 (2013) and CWE/SANS Top 25 lists to ensure that Liferay Portal is as secure as possible. Following these recommendations protects the portal against known kinds of attacks and security vulnerabilities. For example, Liferay Portal’s persistence layer is generated and maintained by the Service Builder framework which prevents SQL Injection using Hibernate and parameter based queries.

Police Digital Service Knowledge Hub Software

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

The Purpose of the Knowledge Hub

The Knowledge Hub is a mobile, web-based platform created to enhance collaboration across UK policing and its partners. Its primary goal is to reduce duplication, save time, and promote effective information exchange by providing a secure environment for professionals to discuss ideas, share best practices, and work together on projects. The platform supports a growing community of over 30,000 members across 800 groups, enabling the storage and sharing of information up to the “Official Sensitive” classification level, as assured by the National Police Information Risk Management Team (NPIRMT).

Key features include group spaces with tiered access to ensure sensitive information is shared only with authorised individuals, collaboration tools like chat and forums, and the ability to store and share key files, roadmaps, and supplier information. The platform is designed to be flexible, supporting a range of group types—from large communities of practice to small, time-limited project teams or training programs. Users can access open, restricted, or private groups, depending on their roles and permissions.

The Knowledge Hub also encourages user feedback to continuously improve its functionality. Dipesh Parmar, the Knowledge Manager, plays a central role in facilitating communities, managing the platform, and incorporating member suggestions to enhance collaboration. Users can reach out via the platform or by emailing [email protected] (mailto:[email protected]).

Knowledge Hub Domains

The Knowledge Hub operates across several whitelisted domains, each serving a specific purpose within the ecosystem of policing and public sector collaboration. Below is a detailed description of each domain referenced in relation to the Knowledge Hub:

  1. knowledgehub.group
    This is the primary domain for the Knowledge Hub, hosting the platform’s core features and content tailored for UK policing and its partners. It provides a secure space for professionals to join groups, share information, and collaborate on initiatives. Registration is free but subject to approval, particularly for users outside policing or its public sector partners. The platform is hosted in a UK-based private cloud data center in the London area, ensuring robust security.
  2. khub.net
    Operated by Placecube Limited, a digital service provider with over 20 years of experience in the public sector, this domain hosts a broader version of the Knowledge Hub aimed at the global public service community. It connects over 150,000 public service professionals and their partners, offering free or low-cost digital tools for collaboration, knowledge sharing, and innovation. Features include flexible group spaces for communities of practice, project groups, or training programs, as well as branded network options for organisations.
  3. pds.police.uk
    This domain belongs to the Police Digital Service, the organisation behind the Knowledge Hub’s creation and management. PDS is dedicated to advancing police IT through partnership and collaboration, with the Knowledge Hub as a key component of its mission to deliver business benefits and savings for policing. The domain provides information about PDS’s broader initiatives and links to the Knowledge Hub for user access.

Features and Benefits of the Knowledge Hub

The Knowledge Hub offers a range of tools to support policing professionals, including:

  • Collaboration Spaces: Open, restricted, or private groups cater to diverse needs, from large-scale communities to small project teams.
  • Secure File Sharing: Users can store and share files, roadmaps, and supplier information up to Official Sensitive classification.
  • Communication Tools: Chat, forums, and messaging features enable two-way communication with colleagues, suppliers, and partners.
  • Customisable Access: Group facilitators and network administrators manage permissions to ensure information security.
  • Feedback-Driven Development: The platform evolves based on user input, with Dipesh Parmar actively engaging members to refine features.

These tools help users find the right contacts, share what works, and develop new ways of thinking, ultimately driving innovation in policing.

How to Join the Knowledge Hub

Joining the Knowledge Hub is straightforward but requires registration with a work email address and approval for non-policing applicants. The process takes just a minute, and upon approval, users gain full access to the platform’s features. Members must adhere to the platform’s Terms and Conditions and Acceptable Use Policy, available for review during registration.

See the Whitelisted domains page for the full, up-to-date whitelist of approved organisations on the Knowledge Hub.

Summary

The Knowledge Hub, accessible at https://knowledgehub.group/about-us, is a powerful platform for UK policing and its partners, enabling secure, efficient collaboration and knowledge sharing.

By offering flexible group spaces, robust security, and user-driven improvements, the Knowledge Hub is a cornerstone of modern policing collaboration, helping professionals save time, reduce duplication, and innovate for a safer future.

Check out our articles on Policing by Consent, Are the Police for Hire ?, Police Impartiality, Police Public Confidence and Engagement, Police Professional Standards Department, IOPC, Crime Reporting, What is a Police and Crime Commissioner ?, Sussex Police, Policing, Police News, Two Tiered Policing, Thought Police, Police Digital Service, Wasting Police Time, 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
Law Legal Analysis

What is the Open Justice Licence ?

Open Justice Licence

The Open Justice Licence, as outlined on the UK National Archives website, represents a significant step in making UK court judgments more accessible to the public, researchers, and legal professionals.

This initiative managed by The National Archives, who are the guardians of over 1,000 years of iconic national documents., promotes transparency in the justice system by allowing free reuse of court judgments under specific terms in the interests of Open Justice.

Open justice is a fundamental constitutional principle and necessary for the rule of law. The purpose of this licence is to support open justice.

The National Archives – Purpose of the Open Justice licence

What is the Open Justice Licence?

The Open Justice Licence is a permissive licensing framework that governs the reuse of court judgments and tribunal decisions published on the National Archives’ Case Law website. It enables individuals, organizations, and businesses to copy, publish, distribute, and adapt these judgments for both non-commercial and commercial purposes, provided they adhere to the licence’s conditions. The licence aligns with the UK government’s commitment to open data and transparency in the judicial process, ensuring that legal information is accessible to a wide audience.

Key Features of the Open Justice Licence

The Open Justice Licence is designed to be straightforward and user-friendly. Its main provisions include:

  1. Free Reuse: Users are permitted to copy, publish, distribute, and transmit court judgments without needing to seek explicit permission, as long as they comply with the licence terms.
  2. Commercial and Non-Commercial Use: The licence allows both types of use, meaning that judgments can be incorporated into commercial products (e.g., legal databases or analytical tools) or used for academic, journalistic, or personal purposes.
  3. Attribution Requirement: Users must acknowledge the source of the judgments by including a specific attribution statement: “Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Justice Licence v1.0.” For judgments from specific courts, such as the UK Supreme Court, additional attribution to the relevant court is required.
  4. No Endorsement Implication: Users must not imply that their reuse of the judgments is officially endorsed by The National Archives or the judiciary unless explicitly authorized.
  5. No Modifications to Meaning: While users can adapt or summarize judgments, they must ensure that the meaning or interpretation of the original content is not distorted.
  6. Compliance with Other Laws: The licence does not override other legal obligations, such as data protection laws (e.g., GDPR) or copyright restrictions on third-party content embedded within judgments, such as images or excerpts from other works.

Scope of the Licence

The Open Justice Licence applies to judgments and decisions published on The National Archives’ Case Law website. This includes a wide range of documents from courts and tribunals across the UK, such as the Supreme Court, Court of Appeal, High Court, and various tribunals. However, the licence only covers content owned by the Crown or created by judicial officers in their official capacity. Any third-party material within judgments (e.g., copyrighted images or quoted texts) is not covered and requires separate permission for reuse.

Why the Open Justice Licence Matters

The Open Justice Licence is a cornerstone of the UK’s commitment to open justice, a principle that emphasizes transparency, accountability, and public access to the workings of the legal system. By making court judgments freely available, the licence serves several critical purposes:

  • Public Access to Justice: It ensures that citizens can access and understand legal decisions that affect society, fostering trust in the judicial process.
  • Support for Legal Research: Academics, students, and legal professionals can analyze case law to study legal trends, precedents, and societal impacts without financial or bureaucratic barriers.
  • Innovation in Legal Tech: The licence enables developers to create tools like legal databases, AI-powered case analysis platforms, or educational resources, driving innovation in the legal sector.
  • Global Transparency: By aligning with open data standards, the licence positions the UK as a leader in judicial transparency, potentially inspiring similar initiatives worldwide.

Practical Applications

The Open Justice Licence opens up numerous possibilities for individuals and organizations. For example:

  • Journalists can publish excerpts of judgments to report on high-profile cases, enhancing public understanding of legal outcomes.
  • Legal Tech Companies can integrate judgments into platforms that offer case law analysis or predictive tools for legal professionals.
  • Academics and Students can use judgments for research, teaching, or coursework without worrying about copyright restrictions.
  • Civic Organizations can leverage judgments to advocate for policy changes or raise awareness about legal issues.

Limitations and Responsibilities

While the Open Justice Licence is permissive, it comes with responsibilities. Users must ensure that their reuse complies with the licence terms, particularly regarding attribution and avoiding misrepresentation. Additionally, users must be cautious about third-party content within judgments, as this may require separate permissions. For instance, a judgment might include a copyrighted photograph or a lengthy excerpt from a book, which would not fall under the Open Justice Licence.

Users should also be mindful of data protection laws. Judgments may contain personal data, such as names of individuals involved in cases. Any reuse must comply with applicable privacy regulations, such as the UK GDPR, to avoid legal repercussions.

Broader Implications

The Open Justice Licence reflects a broader global movement towards open access to public sector information. By removing barriers to the reuse of court judgments, the UK is fostering a more informed society and encouraging innovation in how legal information is disseminated and analyzed. This initiative complements other open data efforts by The National Archives, such as the UK Government Licensing Framework, which promotes the reuse of public sector information.

Moreover, the licence underscores the importance of balancing transparency with responsibility. By requiring proper attribution and prohibiting misrepresentation, it ensures that the integrity of judicial documents is maintained while still promoting widespread access.

Conclusion

The Open Justice Licence is a powerful tool for advancing transparency and accessibility in the UK’s legal system. By allowing free reuse of court judgments under clear and fair terms, it empowers individuals, organizations, and businesses to engage with the law in meaningful ways. Whether for research, journalism, legal practice, or technological innovation, the licence opens up a wealth of opportunities while upholding the principles of open justice. For anyone looking to explore or utilize UK case law, the Open Justice Licence is a gateway to a more transparent and inclusive legal landscape.

For more details, visit the official Open Justice Licence page.

Check out our articles on Open Justice, Justice System, Rule of Law, R v Sussex Justices, Litigants in Person, McKenzie Friend, Reasonable Person Test, What is Bail ?, 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.

Rule of Law - Open Justice - Policing By Consent