Category: Criminal Justice

Criminal justice is the system through which society identifies, prosecutes, and punishes criminal behaviour while attempting to prevent crime and rehabilitate offenders.

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.

“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’

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.

“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’

Latest Articles ↓

Most Popular ↓

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

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

Categories
Criminal Justice Government Law Legal Analysis Legal Professionals

Serious Fraud Office (SFO)

Serious Fraud Office (SFO)

The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) serves as a vital independent government department in the United Kingdom, tasked with investigating and prosecuting instances of serious fraud, bribery, and corruption. The SFO is overseen by the Attorney General.

As a dedicated watchdog, it protects public confidence in financial systems and maintains the UK’s position as a leading international financial centre. In today’s interconnected and rapidly evolving economic environment, the SFO addresses threats that span borders and pose significant risks to individuals and the wider economy.

The SFO 2024-2029 Strategy emphasises a bold, pragmatic approach alongside efficient resource management, despite ongoing budgetary challenges. This article outlines the SFO’s historical development, operational framework, leadership structure, key prosecutions, and recent initiatives, illustrating its critical role in upholding justice and economic stability.

The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) fights complex financial crime, delivers justice for victims and protects the UK’s reputation as a safe place to do business.

SFO is a non-ministerial department.

Serious Fraud Office – What We Do

HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate (HMCPSI) holds a statutory duty to inspect the operations of the Serious Fraud Office (SFO).

Historical Development

The establishment of the Serious Fraud Office emerged from the financial turbulence of the 1980s, when major scandals prompted demands for improved corporate governance and criminal accountability. The Guinness share-trading fraud, involving the artificial inflation of share prices during a corporate takeover, highlighted the limitations of conventional police investigations in handling such complexities.

Consequently, the Criminal Justice Act 1987 created the SFO, operational from April 1988, as a specialised entity to identify, investigate, and prosecute the most severe forms of financial misconduct. This initiative drew from the 1986 Roskill Committee’s recommendations, which called for an integrated body combining investigative and legal expertise.

A distinguishing feature of the SFO is its unified model, allowing simultaneous investigation and prosecution under the oversight of the Attorney General, which balances accountability with operational autonomy.

Over more than three decades, the agency has adapted to new challenges, including the aftermath of the 2008 global financial crisis and the rise of international bribery networks.

Its jurisdiction extends to England, Wales, and Northern Ireland, excluding Scotland and the Crown Dependencies, in line with the UK’s devolved legal arrangements. Official records demonstrate how the SFO has transitioned from a primarily reactive role to one focused on proactive prevention.

Mandate, Powers, and Operations

The SFO focuses on offences that cause substantial harm to the public interest, such as economic disruption, damage to the UK’s international reputation, or cases requiring specialised expertise. The Director authorises investigations based on rigorous criteria set out in the Criminal Justice Act 1987, including powers for compulsory interviews (section 2) and the execution of search warrants.

Additional tools include asset recovery through confiscation orders and Deferred Prosecution Agreements (DPAs), which encourage corporate cooperation and remediation.

Beyond domestic efforts, the SFO engages in international collaboration, sharing intelligence on cross-border schemes. During the 2024-2025 fiscal year, it prioritised swift resolutions by closing protracted legacy cases to concentrate on high-potential investigations.

Recent developments, such as the joint SFO-Crown Prosecution Service guidance on corporate prosecutions released in August 2025, strengthen procedures by incorporating provisions like Section 51B of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 for more precise judicial oversight in complex fraud matters. These measures reflect the SFO’s determination to counter an increasingly sophisticated array of economic crimes.

Landmark SFO Cases

The SFO’s record includes pivotal cases that have influenced corporate accountability standards. The 1980s Guinness Share Trading Fraud, involving the manipulation of share prices during a takeover bid, resulted in convictions for insider dealing and false accounting against key figures, including Guinness CEO Ernest Saunders, establishing foundational precedents on market manipulation under the Criminal Justice Act 1987.

In international defence dealings, the 2010 BAE Systems settlement with the SFO imposed a £30 million penalty for accounting irregularities related to a £28 million overpriced military radar system sold to Tanzania in 1999, including undisclosed commission payments; this paralleled a US $400 million fine for Saudi-related issues, marking an early milestone in coordinated global anti-corruption efforts.

Investigations into Barclays Bank, one of the UK’s leading multinational investment banks, have played a prominent role in two major SFO cases.

In the first, concerning the 2008 Qatari fundraising scandal during the global financial crisis, the SFO launched a 2017 prosecution alleging fraud by false representation. This centred on secret £322 million fees linked to a £4 billion emergency capital injection from Qatar.

The case concluded in 2020 with the acquittal of three senior executives, including former CEO John Varley was a significant blow to the SFO.

The second involved Barclays’ role in the Libor manipulation scandal, resulting in the 2016 convictions of three ex-traders—Jonathan Mathew (four years’ imprisonment), Jay Merchant (six-and-a-half years), and Alex Pabon (two-and-a-half years suspended)—for conspiracy to defraud, with total custodial terms surpassing 10 years.

Yet, the September 2025 Supreme Court judgment overturned related convictions of Tom Hayes and Carlo Palombo owing to erroneous jury guidance on dishonesty. In response, the SFO acknowledged that the Barclays outcomes might also be unsafe.

Organisational Structure and Leadership

Headquartered in London, the SFO employs approximately 500 staff, including barristers, solicitors, forensic accountants, and digital specialists, organised into divisions for operations, legal services, intelligence and policy.

Nick Ephgrave QPM, was appointed Director of the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) on the 25th September 2023 and brings extensive experience from senior positions at the Metropolitan Police Service and the Crown Prosecution Service. Nick Ephgrave has prioritised innovation, as highlighted in his February 2024 speech to the Royal United Services Institute, where he advocated for a more assertive institutional culture.

Claire Bassett is the interim Chair of the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) Board.

The SFO Declaration of Interests shows Financial and other interests declared by the Director, Non-Executive Directors and other board members, including details of any recusals.

Serious Fraud Office (SFO)
2-4 Cockspur Street
London
SW1Y 5BS
United Kingdom

Tel : 020 7362 8100 / Email : [email protected]

His Honour Judge Melbourne Inman KC (Retired) – The High Court Judge That Never Was ! Serious Fraud by the Judiciary ? Can you Email a Judge ?

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

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

“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’

Latest Articles ↓

Most Popular ↓

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

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

Categories
Criminal Justice Government Law Legal Analysis Legal Professionals

HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate (HMCPSI)

HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate (HMCPSI)

HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate (HMCPSI) is an independent statutory body established by the Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate Act 1999, becoming fully operational in April 2000.

HMCPSI holds a statutory duty to inspect the operations of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) which is responsible for over 500,000 prosecutions annually in England and Wales and the Serious Fraud Office (SFO), which handles complex fraud and corruption cases.

The purpose of inspection is to drive improvements and build public confidence in the prosecution process. Our inspections do this by providing independently assessed evidence, which:

While we may make recommendations in our reports, we are not a regulator, and do not have any power to enforce compliance.

HMCPSI has a statutory duty to inspect the operation of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) and the Serious Fraud Office (SFO).

Historical Background

HMCPSI’s origins trace back to the late 1990s amid concerns over the CPS’s performance following its creation in 1986.

The pivotal Glidewell Review of 1998 commissioned by the government, exposed inefficiencies and recommended an independent inspectorate to monitor prosecutorial standards.

This led to the Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate Act 2000, which formalised HMCPSI as a statutory entity in 2000.

Role and Responsibilities

At its core, HMCPSI’s mandate is to inspect the CPS and SFO delivering independent assessments that drive systemic enhancements.

Inspections evaluate case handling, decision-making, and resource allocation, culminating in reports that highlight strengths, weaknesses and actionable recommendations.

While it cannot enforce changes, HMCPSI’s findings empower stakeholders, including Parliament and the Attorney General, to hold agencies accountable. Additionally, it extends expertise to other UK and international prosecution services through collaborative arrangements promoting best practices globally.

Transparency is paramount: methodologies are openly documented, ensuring credibility and fostering trust in the justice process.

We are part of the solution to improving the Criminal Justice System through high quality inspection.

  • We hold the CPS and SFO to account for what they deliver (we make recommendations that drive improvement)
  • Victims will be at the heart of inspection (where we can, we will use victim experience in our inspection)
  • Using our 25 years of experience we will help public prosecutors improve (their legal casework)
  • Inspection will identify and spread best practice
HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate (HMCPSI) Vison Statement

Organisational Structure and Leadership

HMCPSI operates as a lean, specialised organisation, comprising around 40 staff members divided into inspection, policy, and support teams. The inspection division, led by two Deputy Chief Inspectors, conducts fieldwork and compiles evidence-based reports.

At the helm is the Chief Inspector, appointed by the Attorney General for a fixed term. In January 2025, Anthony Rogers, a seasoned prosecutor with extensive CPS experience, assumed this role, bringing fresh perspectives on efficiency and victim support.

Reporting directly to the Attorney General, the leadership ensures strategic direction aligns with evolving justice priorities.

The operational relationship between the Attorney General and the Chief Inspector is set out in a protocol agreed between the Law Officers (the Attorney General and Solicitor General) and the Chief Inspector.

Recent Activities and Impact

HMCPSI’s 2024-2025 annual report underscores ongoing strains on the criminal justice system, including backlogs exacerbated by post-pandemic recovery.

Key outputs include a follow-up inspection on joint CPS-police operations, where progress was noted on two of four recommendations, and an area review of CPS Yorkshire and Humberside, the third in a phased programme, revealing improvements in case progression but gaps in victim communication. These efforts have spurred tangible reforms, such as enhanced training, affirming HMCPSI’s influence despite resource constraints.

The HMCPSI publish the latest press releases and good practice on their website.

You can contact HMCPSI :-

HMCPSI
7th Floor, Tower
102 Petty France
London SW1H 9GL

Tel : 020 4574 3218 / Email : [email protected]

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

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

“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’

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 Judiciary Legal Professionals

How to Complain about a Magistrate ?

Complain about a Magistrate

Magistrates (justice of the peace or JP) are essential to the UK’s justice system and preside over cases in magistrates’ courts.

Magistrates hear less serious criminal cases (summary offence and some either-way offences) like minor assaults, motoring offenses, theft, and minor criminal damage but they can also hear civil cases such as those involving council tax and child maintenance, and family court proceedings. Magistrates deal with the majority of criminal cases.

If you believe a magistrate’s conduct was inappropriate, you can make a complaint. The process is governed by specific legislation and rules, ensuring total transparency and accountability.

Members of the judiciary should seek to be courteous, patient, tolerant and punctual and should respect the dignity of all. They should ensure that no one is exposed to any display of bias or prejudice on grounds which include but are not to be limited to “race, colour, sex, religion, national origin, caste, disability, age, marital status, sexual orientation, social and economic status and other like causes

Guide to Judicial Conduct

This article provides a comprehensive guide to complaining about lay magistrates and district judges (magistrates’ courts) in the UK.

The Role of Magistrates

Magistrates include lay magistrates and district judges. Lay magistrates, per the Courts Act 2003, are unpaid community volunteers trained to handle minor criminal, family and civil cases.

District judges, appointed under the same Act, are salaried, legally qualified professionals managing complex cases full-time.

Complaints typically address conduct, not judicial decisions, which are subject to appeal under the Criminal Justice Act 2003 or Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 etc.

Grounds for a Complaint

The Judicial Conduct (Magistrates) Rules 2023 govern lay magistrate conduct, while district judges, as judicial officeholders, are subject to the Judicial Conduct Rules 2023 and the Judicial Discipline (Prescribed Procedures) Regulations 2023.

Both must adhere to the Guide to Judicial Conduct (revised July 2023), which sets ethical standards like impartiality and integrity. Complaints about either can include:

  • Rudeness, unprofessionalism, or dismissive behaviour in court breaching the Guide’s principles.
  • Apparent bias, prejudice, or discriminatory remarks potentially violating the Equality Act 2010.
  • Inappropriate personal conduct during hearings, such as failing to maintain decorum.
  • For district judges, additional concerns may include misuse of judicial authority or failure to uphold the professional standards in the Judicial Conduct Rules 2023.

Complaints about judicial decisions or case outcomes are not permitted; these require appeals to higher courts, such as the Crown Court or High Court, under the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 or Senior Courts Act 1981.

Complaints Process

Step 1: Gather Evidence

A robust complaint requires:

  • Details of the incident (date, time, court location).
  • The magistrate’s name (lay or district judge) or description.
  • A factual account of the behaviour.
  • Witness names and contact details.

The need for clear evidence aligns with guidelines from the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office (JCIO) and Advisory Committees.

Step 2: Submit to the Correct Authority

The complaints process varies by magistrate type, per the Constitutional Reform Act 2005.

  • Lay Magistrates: Complaints go to the local Advisory Committee under the Judicial Conduct (Magistrates) Rules 2023. Find contact details via the magistrates’ court or gov.uk. Submit a formal letter or email with your name, contact details, incident description, evidence, and desired outcome (e.g., investigation or apology). Complaints should be lodged within three months.
  • District Judges: Complaints are submitted directly to the JCIO under the Judicial Conduct Rules 2023 and Judicial Discipline (Prescribed Procedures) Regulations 2023, via their online portal (complaints.judicialconduct.gov.uk) or post, with the same detailed requirements.

Ensure submissions are polite and concise.

Step 3: Investigation Process

For lay magistrates, the Advisory Committee investigates under the Judicial Conduct (Magistrates) Rules 2023, reviewing records and interviewing parties confidentially.

For district judges, the JCIO investigates under the Judicial Conduct Rules 2023.

Outcomes, which may include retraining or removal, are authorised by the Lord Chancellor and Lord Chief Justice under the Constitutional Reform Act 2005.

Step 4: Escalating the Complaint

For lay magistrates, if dissatisfied with the Advisory Committee’s response, request a JCIO review within 28 days (or sooner if the process exceeds six months), per the Judicial Conduct (Magistrates) Rules 2023. You should submit prior correspondence via the JCIO’s portal.

For district judges, the JCIO’s decision is final, though clarification can be sought.

Additionally, if you believe the JCIO mishandled the process (e.g., procedural errors, delays, or failure to follow the Regulations), you can escalate to the Judicial Appointments and Conduct Ombudsman (JACO) within 28 days of the JCIO’s decision.

Step 5: Seek Legal Advice

For complex issues or case outcome impacts, consult a solicitor about appeals or judicial review under the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 or Senior Courts Act 1981.

Judicial Complaints Disciplinary Outcomes

The Judicial Conduct Investigations Office (JCIO) publishes statements on its website when a disciplinary sanction is issued to a judicial office holder. 

Complaints about lay magistrates from 2025/2026 are below (as of 21st October 2025).

For other judicial holders and up to date disciplinary statements visit the JCIO Disciplinary Statements page or the Dodgy Judges article on this site.

Summary

Complaints about lay magistrates follow the Judicial Conduct (Magistrates) Rules 2023, while district judge complaints adhere to the Judicial Conduct Rules 2023 and Judicial Discipline (Prescribed Procedures) Regulations 2023, with both guided by the Guide to Judicial Conduct.

Submit lay magistrate complaints to the Advisory Committee and district judge complaints to the JCIO. Provide clear evidence and act promptly. Check gov.uk or the JCIO website for details.

Check out our related articles on Chief Magistrate, Judiciary, Dodgy Magistrates, Rule of Law, Open Justice, Is the Law Black and White ?, 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.

“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’

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 Professionals Police

What is the Criminal Justice Secure eMail (CJSM) System ?

Criminal Justice Secure eMail (CJSM) System

The Criminal Justice Secure eMail (CJSM) is a secure group email service available to any justice organisation or practitioner that needs to send or receive sensitive information.

A typical CJSM secure email address might have the format [email protected].

CJSM has been in operation for over 20 years and enables information up to the “OFFICIAL” and “OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE” classification levels to be communicated between assured organisations, both in the public and private sector, such as the Crown Prosecution Service, victim support organisations, the police, probation, legal representatives, healthcare, private prisons and others.

The CJSM (Criminal Justice Secure eMail) service has over 660,000 users, 8,000+ organisations and handles over 50 million messages annually across the UK justice system.

It also offers:

  • a direct connection to central government departments, police and NHS
  • an onboarding and assurance process to provide high levels of security
  • the most complete directory of justice professionals
  • administration tools so organisations can manage their own users
  • a dedicated helpdesk
CJSM – Secure, seamless communication across the justice community

As of the 1st October 2025, Egress Software Technologies (often referred to as Egress Systems or Egress) continues to run the Criminal Justice Secure Mail (CJSM) service for the Ministry of Justice.

Egress have managed the platform since taking over from Vodafone in 2019 and they handle operational delivery, support, and integrations for secure communications in the UK criminal justice system.

It is believed that the Criminal Justice Secure Mail (CJSM) service relies on a combination of proprietary and standard software components including the open source Haraka SMTP Server. The MoJ tender reveals that the existing CJSM service is hosted on MS Azure and hosted mailboxes are on Dovecot.

CJSM used to publish a number of useful guides for the Criminal Justice Secure Mail (CJSM) service. Webmail quick reference guide, Multi-factor authentication guide, CJSM Defend guide and CJSM Website Enhancements 2025 were removed in February 2026

The Ministry of Justice maintains an open microsite for CJSM at: https://github.com/ministryofjustice/cjsm

  • This repo includes various guides/documents under the /training or /downloads folders

You can contact the CJSM Helpdesk on 020 7604 5598. Lines are open every weekday 8am-7pm. Or email [email protected]

The Judiciary of England and Wales use Microsoft 365 for email. Can you Email a Judge ?

How to Get a CJSM Account ?

To obtain a Criminal Justice Secure Mail (CJSM) account, you must be part of an organization involved in the UK criminal justice system, as the service is not available to the general public. You can request access at the CJSM website at https://cjsm.net.

The CJSM application was rejected for the Ministry of Injustice so I setup my own CJSM email address [email protected]

If you have arrived at the Ministry of Injustice from https://cjsm.uk (MOI domain) you may well have been looking for https://cjsm.net which is the official website for The Criminal Justice Secure eMail (CJSM).

Is CJSM Secure ?

The Criminal Justice Secure Mail (CJSM) service is designed to be secure for its intended purpose, transmitting sensitive information up to the “OFFICIAL” and “OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE” classification levels within the UK criminal justice system.

However, its security has been debated due to historical issues and the evolving nature of cyber threats.

Security Strengths
  • End-to-End Encryption: CJSM uses dedicated servers to encrypt emails and attachments (up to 10MB) between registered users, ensuring data confidentiality during transmission. This aligns with UK government standards for handling sensitive justice-related data.
  • Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA): Access to the CJSM portal requires MFA, reducing the risk of unauthorized logins.
  • Restricted Access: Only approved organizations (e.g., police, courts, legal firms) can register, with strict vetting processes. This limits exposure to external threats.
  • Operational Oversight by Egress: Since Egress took over in 2019, they’ve addressed some legacy vulnerabilities (e.g., outdated protocols like RC4 and SSLv3 used under Vodafone). Egress’s expertise in secure email and compliance with ISO 27001 and Cyber Essentials Plus bolsters trust.
  • No Major Breaches Reported: Despite past concerns, no significant data breaches have been publicly documented, indicating functional security for its scope.
  • Policy Safeguards: CJSM prohibits storing emails on unapproved cloud services and restricts overseas access, minimizing data leakage risks.
Historical Security Issues (Pre-2019)

When Vodafone managed CJSM, security flaws were flagged in 2015, raising concerns that persist in discussions about the system’s legacy:

  • Outdated Encryption: Reliance on RC4 (a weak cipher) and SSLv2/SSLv3 protocols, vulnerable to attacks like POODLE.
  • Weak Certificates: Use of a self-signed 1024-bit RSA key, inadequate for modern standards.
  • Poor SSL/TLS Rating: An “F” grade from SSL Labs due to insecure cipher suites, prompting some organizations to block CJSM traffic.
  • Audit Gaps: Ineffective penetration testing failed to address these vulnerabilities promptly. While Egress has likely mitigated these (e.g., upgrading to stronger TLS protocols), specific technical details post-2019 are not publicly disclosed, as is typical for government systems.

Tender and the Transition to Cross Justice Secure Mail (CJSM Replacement)

While Egress operates the current CJSM, the UK Ministry of Justice (MoJ) is actively procuring a new system called Cross Justice Secure Mail to replace it. This upgrade aims to modernise secure email, file encryption and disaster recovery across justice partners.

The tender for Cross Justice Secure Mail (CJSM), the replacement for the existing Criminal Justice Secure Mail (CJSM) service, was issued by the UK Ministry of Justice (MoJ).

It aims to procure a modernized secure email, file encryption, and disaster recovery platform to support over 500,000 users across the criminal justice system in England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland.

The procurement follows a selective restricted procedure under the Procurement Act 2023, with submissions via the MoJ’s Jaggaer eSourcing Portal.

Key Timeline
  • Procurement Launch: November 8th 2024
  • Tender Submission Deadline: December 13th 2024 (bids closed)
  • Contract Award: Expected in late 2025
  • Implementation Phase: Up to 12 months, starting October 27th 2025
  • Live Service Phase: 60 months (5 years), from October 2026 to October 2031
  • Extensions: Up to 24 months (two 12-month periods), for a maximum total of 8 years
Contract Value
  • Estimated Total: £26–30 million (depending on final scope)
  • Influencing Factors:
    • Tendered prices and implementation plans
    • Uptake of optional services
    • Extension options exercised
    • Participation by additional contracting authorities (e.g., police, courts, probation services)

As of the 1st October 2025, the evaluation phase is ongoing with no award of contract announced yet.

Check out our related articles on Rule of Law, Open Justice, Is the Law Black and White ?, What Does Lady Justice Symbolise ?, Can a Judge Direct a Jury to Find a Defendant Not Guilty ?,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.

“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’

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 Defendant’s Costs Order ?

Defendants Costs Order

A Defendant’s Costs Order (DCO) under Section 16 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985, is a court order that enables a defendant who is found not guilty (or whose case is dismissed) to reclaim reasonable expenses they incurred while defending themselves in court.

These costs can include legal fees, travel expenses or other out-of-pocket costs directly related to the case.

Key Provisions of Section 16 Prosecution of Offences Act 1985

Section 16 of the Act provides the legal framework for courts to award costs to acquitted defendants. The main points are:

  1. Eligibility:
    • The defendant must be acquitted of the charges or have the case against them discontinued/dismissed.
    • The order typically applies to defendants who privately funded their defense. If legal aid was used, a DCO is generally not applicable, as the state already covered legal costs.
  2. Types of Costs Recoverable:
    • Legal costs: Fees paid to solicitors or barristers for representation.
    • Out-of-pocket expenses: Costs like travel to court, accommodation (if necessary), or loss of earnings due to court attendance.
    • Costs must be deemed reasonable and directly related to the defense.
  3. Court’s Discretion:
    • The court has the authority to decide whether to grant a DCO and how much to award.
    • Factors considered include:
      • Whether the prosecution acted unreasonably in bringing or conducting the case (e.g., insufficient evidence or procedural errors).
      • The financial impact on the defendant.
      • The reasonableness of the costs claimed.
    • If the prosecution’s case was reasonable, even if it failed, the court may refuse to award costs.
  4. Funding Source:
    • Costs awarded under a DCO are typically paid from central funds (government funds), not by the prosecution directly unless specific misconduct by the prosecution is identified.

Criminal Practice Directions

The Criminal Practice Directions 2023 (CPD) provide guidance on the application of the Criminal Procedure Rules in England and Wales, including how costs, such as a Defendant’s Costs Order (DCO) under Section 16 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985, are handled in criminal cases.

Specifically, Practice Direction (Costs in Criminal Proceedings) 2015 sections 2.1 (Magistrates Court), 2.2 (Crown Court), 2.3 (High Court) and 2.4 (Court of Appeal – Criminal Division) addresses the principles for awarding costs from central funds in criminal proceedings.

Application Process

  • When to Apply: The application for a DCO is usually made by the defendant or their legal representative at the end of the trial, immediately after the acquittal.
  • Evidence Required: The defendant must provide evidence of costs, such as invoices for legal fees, travel receipts, or proof of lost earnings.
  • Court Decision: The magistrates will review the application and decide whether to grant the order and what amount is reasonable. The awarded amount may not cover all expenses if some are deemed excessive.

Limitations

  • Not Automatic: A DCO is not guaranteed, even if acquitted. The court may refuse if it believes the prosecution acted appropriately or if costs are not sufficiently justified.
  • Reasonable Costs Only: The court will only cover costs considered proportionate and necessary. Extravagant legal fees or unrelated expenses are unlikely to be reimbursed.
  • No Punitive Element: The DCO is meant to compensate, not punish the prosecution, so awards are limited to actual losses.

Practical Considerations

  • Privately Funded Defendants: Those who paid for their own defense are the primary beneficiaries. If you used legal aid, you typically cannot claim additional costs under a DCO.
  • Magistrates’ Court Context: In magistrates’ courts, where cases are often less complex than in Crown Courts, the costs claimed are usually lower, but the principles of Section 16 still apply.
  • Appeals: If a DCO is refused or the amount awarded is insufficient, there may be limited grounds to appeal, typically requiring evidence of a legal error by the court.

Example Scenario

If you were charged with a minor offense (e.g., a traffic violation) in a magistrates’ court, hired a private solicitor, and were acquitted, you could apply for a DCO to recover your solicitor’s fees and travel costs to court.

If the court finds that the prosecution’s case was weak or improperly brought, they may award costs from central funds, but only up to an amount they deem reasonable.

Additional Notes

  • Time Limits: Applications for a DCO should be made promptly, typically at the hearing where the acquittal is granted, though courts may allow later applications in exceptional cases.
  • Legal Advice: A solicitor can help calculate and justify costs to maximize the chances of a successful DCO application.
  • Other Jurisdictions: This explanation applies to England and Wales. Rules in Scotland, Northern Ireland, or other jurisdictions may differ.

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

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

“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’

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 Youth Justice Board for England and Wales ?

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales

The Youth Justice Board (YJB) for England and Wales is dedicated to overseeing and improving youth justice services.

We are an organisation of around 100 people and our headquarters is in London.

Our vision is for a youth justice system that sees children as children, treats them fairly and helps them to build on their strengths so they can make a constructive contribution to society. This will prevent offending and create safer communities with fewer victims.

Youth Justice Board – About Us

Established under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, the YJB is a non-departmental public body sponsored by the Ministry of Justice. Its primary role is to ensure that the youth justice system effectively prevents offending and reoffending by children and young people under 18, while safeguarding their welfare.

Below, we explore the YJB’s purpose, structure, and key functions.

Leadership

The Youth Justice Board (YJB) for England and Wales is led by a board of experts and a chief executive, with oversight from the Ministry of Justice.

  • Chair: The YJB is chaired by Keith Fraser. The chair leads the board, providing strategic direction and ensuring effective governance. Keith Fraser, appointed in 2020, brings experience from policing and public sector leadership, with a focus on diversity and inclusion in justice systems.
  • Chief Executive: Steph Roberts-Bibby serves as the Chief Executive, overseeing day-to-day operations and implementing the board’s strategies. Sturt, who joined in 2020, has a background in criminal justice, having previously held senior roles in the prison and probation services.

The Board has corporate responsibility for ensuring that the YJB fulfils its strategic objectives, which are agreed with the Secretary of State for Justice, and for ensuring the efficient and effective use of staff and other resources.

The Chair and board members are appointed by the Secretary of State for Justice.

Purpose and Objectives

The YJB aims to create a youth justice system that is fair, effective, and focused on rehabilitation. Its core mission is to prevent crime by young people through early intervention, robust supervision, and tailored support. The board strives to balance accountability with the welfare of young offenders, recognising that many have complex needs, such as mental health issues or disadvantaged backgrounds. By promoting positive outcomes, the YJB seeks to reduce reoffending rates and help young people reintegrate into society as law-abiding citizens.

A key objective is to ensure the system is child-centred. This means decisions prioritise the best interests of the child, aligning with the principles of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. The YJB also works to address disparities, ensuring equitable treatment for all young people, regardless of background.

  • using information and evidence to form an expert view of how to get the best outcomes for children who offend and for victims of crime
  • advising the Secretary of State for Justice, government departments, local authorities, those working in youth justice services and other organisations about how well the system is operating, and how improvements can be made
  • identifying and sharing best practice
  • promoting the voice of the child, including taking advice from our youth advisory panel of children and young adults who have current or previous experience of the youth justice system
  • commissioning research and publishing information in connection with good practice
  • monitoring the youth justice system and the provision of youth justice services
  • making grants, with the approval of the Secretary of State, for the purposes of the operation of the youth justice system and services
  • providing information technology related assistance for the operation of the youth justice system and services
Youth Justice Board – Our Responsibilities

Structure and Governance

The YJB is led by a board of experts appointed by the Secretary of State for Justice. This board includes professionals with expertise in youth justice, social work, policing, and education, ensuring a multidisciplinary approach. The organisation is chaired by an appointed leader, with a chief executive overseeing day-to-day operations. It operates independently but collaborates closely with government departments, local authorities, and youth offending teams (YOTs).The YJB is headquartered in London but works nationally, engaging with regional services to implement its strategies. It reports to Parliament through the Ministry of Justice and is subject to scrutiny to ensure transparency and accountability.

Key Functions

The YJB’s responsibilities are wide-ranging. It sets standards for youth justice services, monitors their performance, and provides guidance to YOTs, which are local multi-agency teams managing young offenders. The board also oversees the secure estate, ensuring safe and rehabilitative environments for young people in custody, such as young offender institutions.

Additionally, the YJB promotes evidence-based practices by commissioning research and sharing best practices. It advises ministers on youth justice policy and advocates for systemic improvements. The board also allocates funding to YOTs and other initiatives, ensuring resources are used effectively to support prevention and rehabilitation.

Impact and Challenges

Since its inception, the YJB has contributed to a significant decline in youth offending rates, with fewer young people entering the justice system. However, challenges remain, including addressing over-representation of minority groups and supporting young people with complex needs. By fostering collaboration and innovation, the YJB continues to shape a more effective and compassionate youth justice system.

For more information, visit the Youth Justice Board for England and Wales official page on the UK government website.

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

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

“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’

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

What is a Wasted Costs Order ?

Wasted Costs Order

In the legal system of England and Wales, a wasted costs order is a mechanism used by courts to address improper, unreasonable, or negligent conduct by legal representatives that results in unnecessary costs in criminal, civil or family proceedings.

This article explains what a wasted costs order is, how it applies and its significance in ensuring fairness and efficiency in the judicial process.

Definition of a Wasted Costs Order

A wasted costs order is a court order that requires a legal representative—such as a solicitor, barrister, or other advocate—to personally bear the costs incurred due to their improper, unreasonable, or negligent conduct.

These costs may be payable to the opposing party, their own client, or, in criminal cases, sometimes to public funds (e.g., the Legal Aid Agency).

The concept is governed by Section 19A of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 for criminal cases, Section 51(6) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 for civil cases and family cases.

Further guidance provided by the Criminal Procedure Rules 2010 (CrimPR 45.8 and CrimPR 45.9), Civil Procedure Rules (CPR 46.8 and Practice Direction 46) and Family Procedure Rules (FPR 28.1), which incorporate CPR 46.8.

“Wasted costs” refer to expenses incurred unnecessarily as a direct result of a legal representative’s conduct, which could have been avoided had they acted appropriately.

This distinguishes wasted costs orders from standard cost orders, which typically arise from the outcome of a case rather than the behaviour of legal professionals.

When Can a Wasted Costs Order Be Made ?

The court has discretion to issue a wasted costs order in both civil and criminal proceedings, but it must satisfy a strict two-stage test, as established in Ridehalgh v Horsefield [1994] Ch 205 for civil cases and reflected in criminal case law such as R v P [2011] EWCA Crim 1130. The two stages are:

  1. Improper, Unreasonable, or Negligent Conduct: The court must determine that the legal representative’s actions were improper, unreasonable, or negligent. For example:
    • Improper conduct includes dishonest or unethical behaviour, such as deliberately misleading the court or pursuing a baseless case.
    • Unreasonable conduct involves actions that are vexatious or misguided, such as persisting with a hopeless defence or prosecution in a criminal case.
    • Negligent conduct refers to failing to meet the standard of care expected of a competent legal professional, such as missing court deadlines or failing to prepare adequately.
  2. Causation of Wasted Costs: The court must be satisfied that the conduct directly caused unnecessary costs. For instance, if a barrister’s failure to advise a defendant properly in a criminal case leads to an unnecessary hearing, the costs of that hearing may be deemed “wasted.”

Courts exercise significant caution when issuing wasted costs orders due to their serious professional and financial implications for legal representatives. The burden of proof lies with the party seeking the order (or the court, if acting on its own initiative), and the threshold for proving misconduct is high.

Making an Application in Criminal, Civil and Family Proceedings

Criminal Proceedings

In criminal cases, wasted costs orders are addressed under Section 19A of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 and CrimPR 45.8 (which covers costs resulting from unnecessary or improper acts or omissions) and CrimPR 45.9 (which specifically deals with applications for wasted costs orders against legal representatives). These orders can apply to both prosecution and defence counsel and may involve costs payable to the opposing party, the client, or public funds (e.g., legal aid). Examples of conduct leading to wasted costs in criminal cases include:

  • A prosecution lawyer pursuing a case without sufficient evidence, causing unnecessary court hearings.
  • A defence lawyer failing to advise a client properly, leading to a trial that could have been avoided through a guilty plea or withdrawal.
  • Missing procedural deadlines, resulting in wasted court time or resources.

For instance, in R v Farooqi [2013] EWCA Crim 1649, the Court of Appeal considered a wasted costs order against a barrister whose conduct was deemed improper, though the order was ultimately not imposed due to procedural issues.

The Criminal Procedure Rule Committee and Ministry of Justice publish the Application for a wasted, etc. costs order under CrimPR 45.8, 45.9 or 45.10 form which must be served on the court and other parties.

Civil Proceedings

In civil cases, wasted costs orders are governed by CPR 46.8 and Section 51(6) of the Senior Courts Act 1981. They are typically sought by the opposing party who has incurred unnecessary costs due to the other side’s legal representative’s conduct or by a client against their own lawyer. Examples include pursuing a claim with no reasonable prospect of success or failing to comply with court orders, leading to adjournments.

  • A party can apply for a wasted costs order by filing an application notice in accordance with Part 23 of the CPR or by making an oral application during a hearing.
  • The court can also make a wasted costs order of its own initiative. 
Family Proceedings

There is no specific form titled “Application for a Wasted Costs Order” for family proceedings, just as in civil proceedings. Instead, applications are made under FPR Part 18 (Applications in Family Proceedings), which mirrors CPR Part 23.

In family proceedings, the Form C2 is typically used for applications within existing proceedings (e.g., children’s cases), while Form N244 (the standard civil application form) is used for financial remedy proceedings or where no specific family form applies.

Who Can Apply for a Wasted Costs Order ?

A wasted costs order can be sought by:

  • The opposing party in criminal, civil or family proceedings, who has incurred unnecessary costs due to the other side’s legal representative’s conduct.
  • The legal representative’s own client, if they have suffered financial loss as a result of their lawyer’s actions (e.g., wasted legal fees or costs of unnecessary proceedings).
  • The court itself, which can initiate a wasted costs order on its own motion (suo motu) if it identifies egregious conduct during proceedings.

In criminal cases, the court may also consider the impact on public funds, particularly where legal aid is involved.

The court may require written submissions or a hearing to determine whether the order is justified. Appeals against wasted costs orders in criminal proceedings follow CrimPR Part 34 (for magistrates’ courts to the Crown Court) or CrimPR Part 39 (for Crown Court to the Court of Appeal).

Examples of Conduct Leading to Wasted Costs Orders

Some examples of conduct that might lead to a wasted costs order in civil or criminal proceedings include:

  • Pursuing a case (civil or criminal) with no realistic prospect of success, such as a baseless civil claim or a criminal defence lacking any evidential foundation.
  • Failing to comply with court orders or procedural rules, leading to adjournments or additional hearings.
  • Providing misleading information to the court or failing to disclose relevant facts, such as withholding key evidence in a criminal trial.
  • Acting in a way that unnecessarily prolongs proceedings, such as making frivolous applications or failing to prepare adequately for trial.

Implications and Considerations

Wasted costs orders serve as a deterrent against poor professional conduct and promote fairness and efficiency in both civil and criminal proceedings. They protect parties from bearing the financial burden of their opponent’s or their own lawyer’s misconduct and, in criminal cases, safeguard public funds.

However, courts are cautious about issuing such orders for several reasons:

  • Professional Consequences: A wasted costs order can harm a lawyer’s reputation and financial standing, so courts ensure the evidence is robust and the conduct sufficiently serious.
  • Access to Justice: Courts avoid discouraging lawyers from taking on challenging cases or acting fearlessly, particularly in criminal defence work, where robust advocacy is essential.
  • Proportionality: The costs claimed must be proportionate to the misconduct, and minor errors or oversights are unlikely to justify an order.

Legal representatives are typically given an opportunity to respond to allegations of misconduct before an order is made, ensuring fairness and due process. In criminal cases, the court may also consider the public interest and the impact on legal aid budgets.

Conclusion

In England and Wales, a wasted costs order is a vital tool to address improper, unreasonable, or negligent conduct by legal representatives in criminal, civil and proceedings.

Governed by statute and procedural rules, these orders ensure accountability, protect parties from unnecessary costs, and uphold the integrity of the judicial process.

While rarely used due to their high threshold and significant implications, wasted costs orders play a crucial role in maintaining professionalism and efficiency in the legal system. Legal representatives must act with diligence and integrity to avoid the serious consequences of such an order.

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

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

“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’

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 Police

Police Surveillance

Police Surveillance

The case of R v Sutherland & Others [2002] EW Misc 1 (EWCC) stands as a seminal case that highlights the critical importance of transparency in criminal investigations and the protection of defendants’ rights to a fair trial under Article 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998.

This high-profile murder trial collapsed due to improper police conduct, leaving a lasting impact on the application of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 (CPIA) and the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA).

The case serves as a stark reminder of the boundaries of lawful surveillance and the necessity of proper disclosure in criminal proceedings.

Background of the Case

The case involved Robert Sutherland and four co-defendants, charged with murder and conspiracy to murder following a fatal incident in the Midlands.

The prosecution’s case hinged on evidence obtained through covert surveillance, including audio recordings made at Grantham and Sleaford police stations.

However, it was revealed that the police had secretly recorded privileged conversations between the defendants and their legal advisors, violating the defendants’ right to confidential legal consultation.

This misconduct led to an application to stay the proceedings on the grounds of abuse of process, arguing that the surveillance had fatally undermined the trial’s fairness.

The High Court judge agreed, ruling that the police had “made a mockery of the police caution” and “undermined the statutory right of a defendant to confer with a solicitor in private.” As a result, the case was dismissed, and all defendants were acquitted.

Impact on Disclosure Obligations

R v Sutherland & Others [2002] significantly clarified disclosure obligations under the CPIA 1996. The Act requires the prosecution to disclose all material that might undermine their case or assist the defence.

The case established that even non-incriminating surveillance evidence, such as recordings yielding no useful evidence, must be disclosed. The court emphasised that the existence of surveillance itself is material, as it may support defence arguments questioning the investigation’s thoroughness or integrity.

For example, extensive surveillance producing no incriminating results could strengthen a claim of innocence. This ruling has shaped how prosecution teams manage evidence, stressing meticulous record-keeping and transparency to ensure fairness.

Implications for Surveillance Practices

The case also exposed serious issues with police surveillance under RIPA 2000, which governs covert investigative techniques.

The unauthorised recording of privileged communications breached RIPA’s requirements for lawful, proportionate, and authorised surveillance.

The court’s strong condemnation highlighted the risks of overreach in surveillance operations and their potential to derail prosecutions.

This aspect of the case has led to increased scrutiny of police practices and reinforced the importance of independent oversight, such as by Surveillance Commissioners, to ensure compliance with RIPA.

Directed Surveillance Authority under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000

The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA) provides the legal framework for authorising directed surveillance in the UK, which involves covert monitoring of individuals’ activities in non-intrusive settings, such as public places, to gather intelligence for investigations.

Directed Surveillance Authority (DSA) under RIPA requires that such operations be necessary, proportionate, and approved by a designated senior officer within a public authority, such as the police or intelligence services.

The DSA ensures compliance with strict criteria to prevent abuse, safeguarding individuals’ privacy while enabling lawful investigations. Oversight by the Investigatory Powers Commissioner’s Office (IPCO) ensures adherence to RIPA’s guidelines, with failures to comply, as seen in cases like R v Sutherland & Others [2002], potentially leading to evidence being deemed inadmissible and undermining prosecutions.

As per the requirements of R v SUTHERLAND, if the task has a RIPA / DSA authorisation, NPAS will require a full copy of the DSA authorisation detailing exactly what is (and isn’t) authorised and the means by which it can be obtained, details of the authorising officer, date authorised and the review / expiry dates before that tasking can be actioned.

National Police Air Service – NPAS – OPERATIONS CENTRE FORM – REQUEST FOR PRE-PLANNED AIR SUPPORT

Broader Consequences and Legacy

The collapse of the trial raised concerns about public confidence in the criminal justice system. The acquittal, while legally justified, left the victim’s family feeling “completely let down,” underscoring the human cost of investigative failures.

The case has been widely cited in discussions about the ethical limits of covert operations and the need for robust training for law enforcement.

The Signature Brand have integrated the case into training on disclosure and covert tactics, highlighting its practical implications. For defence lawyers, it provides a powerful tool to challenge prosecution cases by scrutinising disclosure completeness, particularly in surveillance-heavy cases.

Conclusion

R v Sutherland & Others [2002] remains a cornerstone of UK case law, reinforcing the principles of fairness, transparency, and accountability in criminal proceedings.

Its legacy continues to influence how surveillance evidence and disclosure are handled, ensuring defendants’ rights are protected while upholding judicial integrity. The case serves as a cautionary tale that procedural missteps, even if well-intentioned, can have profound consequences, highlighting the delicate balance between effective policing and adherence to the rule of law.

Check out our articles on Policing by Consent, Are the Police for Hire ?, Police Impartiality, Police Professional Standards, Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC),Police Public Confidence and Engagement, Crime Reporting, What is a Police and Crime Commissioner ?, Sussex Police, Policing, Police News, Two Tiered Policing, Thought Police, Wasting Police Time, Police Community Support Officers (PCSO), Met Police, Free Speech Union, 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.

“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’

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