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 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
Criminal Justice Government Law Legal Analysis Legal Professionals

Crown Prosecution Service

crown prosecution service (cps)

The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) plays a crucial role in the criminal justice system of the United Kingdom and was established in 1986.

The CPS is responsible for prosecuting criminal cases that have been investigated by the police and other investigative organisations in England and Wales. The CPS is independent and make decisions independently of the police and government.

Stephen Parkinson is the current Director of Public Prosecutions. He was appointed by the Attorney General and took up post on 1st November 2023. He will step down at the end of October 2028 when his five-year appointment as head of the CPS comes to an end.

The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) is the third most senior public prosecutor after the Attorney General (AG) and the Solicitor General (SG).

HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate (HMCPSI) holds a statutory duty to inspect the operations of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS).

History of the Crown Prosecution Service

The Crown Prosecution Service traces its roots back to the ancient office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), which was created in 1879 by the Prosecution of Offences Act 1879.

It was not until the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 that the CPS officially came into existence. The Act aimed to streamline the prosecution process and create an independent authority responsible for making prosecution decisions.

Functions and Responsibilities

  1. Prosecutorial Decision-Making: One of the primary functions of the CPS is to make fair and independent decisions about whether to prosecute individuals accused of committing criminal offenses. The CPS reviews evidence gathered by the police and decides whether there is sufficient evidence to proceed with a case.
  2. Preparing and Presenting Cases: The CPS is responsible for preparing cases for court and presenting evidence during trials. They work closely with the police, victims, and witnesses to ensure a robust prosecution. Crown Prosecutors present the case on behalf of the state, aiming to secure a conviction and promote public confidence in the justice system.
  3. Victim and Witness Support: The CPS places significant importance on supporting victims and witnesses throughout the criminal justice process. They provide assistance, advice, and information to ensure their voices are heard and their rights are protected. This support helps to build confidence in the justice system and facilitates the fair treatment of all parties involved.

Organisational Structure

The CPS operates in England and Wales, divided into fourteen geographical Areas. Each Area is headed by a Chief Crown Prosecutor (CCP), responsible for managing the prosecution services within their jurisdiction. At the national level, the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) leads the CPS and oversees its operations.

Independence and Accountability

To maintain its independence and impartiality, the CPS operates separately from the police and other law enforcement agencies. Prosecutors must act in the interests of justice and consider the public interest when making prosecution decisions. However, they are also accountable for their decisions and must provide reasons for not prosecuting cases where the evidence is insufficient.

Evolving Challenges and Reforms

The CPS continually adapts to meet the challenges posed by an evolving criminal landscape. It has responded to technological advancements and new types of crime, such as cybercrime and terrorism, by developing specialised units and expertise. Additionally, reforms have aimed to improve efficiency and effectiveness, ensuring timely and fair justice for all.

Key Achievements

Over the years, the CPS has achieved several significant milestones. Notably, it played a pivotal role in implementing the Victims’ Right to Review Scheme, giving victims the right to request a review of a CPS decision not to prosecute. The CPS has also been at the forefront of initiatives to combat hate crime, violence against women, and child exploitation.

The Crown Prosecution Service serves as the backbone of the UK’s criminal justice system. Through its independent and fair decision-making, preparation of cases, and support for victims and witnesses, the CPS upholds the rule of law and ensures justice for all.

As it continues to evolve and adapt to changing circumstances, the CPS remains committed to its fundamental principles of fairness, accountability, and public interest.

Check out our related articles on the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate, Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) Complaints and Feedback, 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.

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

Thought Police

Thought Police

In George Orwell’s seminal novel 1984, the Thought Police represent the ultimate tool of oppression, monitoring and punishing individuals not just for their actions but for their very thoughts. Orwell’s dystopian vision was a warning, a fictional exaggeration meant to provoke reflection on the dangers of authoritarian control. Yet, in 2025, that fiction seems to be inching closer to reality, as evidenced by a disturbing incident in Britain that has reignited debates about free speech, police priorities, and the creeping specter of thought control.

According to the Daily Mail article Knock knock, it’s the Thought Police, published on the 22nd February 2025, Helen Jones, a 54-year-old grandmother from Stockport, found herself on the receiving end of a police visit—not for committing a crime, but for posting criticism of local Labour councillors on Facebook. The councillors in question were embroiled in a scandal uncovered by The Mail on Sunday, involving a WhatsApp group where offensive messages, including a Labour MP’s wish that an elderly constituent would die were shared. Jones’s post called for their resignation, a sentiment many might consider a reasonable exercise of free expression. Yet, within 48 hours of a complaint, two plain-clothes officers knocked on her door.

Greater Manchester Police conceded that Jones had committed no crime. No charges were filed, no laws were broken. Still, the visit left her shaken, too intimidated to post on social media again. “I’ve effectively been silenced,” she told the Daily Mail. Critics have likened the officers’ actions to those of East Germany’s Stasi, the notorious secret police known for stifling dissent through fear and surveillance. The comparison is stark, but it’s hard to ignore the parallels: a citizen targeted not for illegal acts, but for voicing an opinion.

The Daily Mail published a follow up article on the 24th February 2025, Fury deepens over ‘sinister’ Thought Police targeting

This incident raises uncomfortable questions about the state of free speech in Britain. At a time when police resources are stretched thin—thousands of serious crimes, from burglaries to assaults, go uninvestigated due to lack of manpower—why were detectives dispatched to confront a grandmother over a Facebook post?

The speed of the response is particularly jarring. The Daily Mail notes that within two days of the complaint, officers were at Jones’s door, a stark contrast to the often sluggish investigations into violent offenses or property crimes. It suggests a troubling skew in priorities, where policing thoughts takes precedence over policing streets.

The “Hope you Die” WhatsApp scandal itself is a messy affair. It led to the sacking of Health Minister Andrew Gwynne and the suspension of Burnley MP Oliver Ryan and 11 Labour Councillors after their vile messages came to light.

Public outrage was swift, and Jones was far from alone in her criticism. Yet, her case isn’t isolated. The Daily Mail article points to a growing trend of police investigating social media posts, citing examples like columnist Allison Pearson, feminist writer Julie Bindel, and former policeman Harry Miller, whose name was logged in a non-crime hate incident database for his online comments. These cases suggest a pattern: authorities increasingly treating speech as a potential offense, even when it falls short of illegality.

BlackBeltBarrister – Monumental waste of police time (Though Police)

What’s driving this shift? Some argue it’s the fallout of vague hate speech laws, which give police broad discretion to interpret what constitutes an offense. Others point to a cultural shift, where public criticism—especially of those in power—prompts swift complaints from offended parties, triggering police action. In Jones’s case, the complaint’s origin remains unclear, but the response was immediate and intimidating. It’s a tactic that doesn’t need to result in prosecution to be effective; the mere act of a police visit can chill dissent, as it did for Jones.

The implications are profound. If expressing frustration with elected officials online can summon detectives to your doorstep, what’s next? The Daily Mail quotes critics accusing the police of wasting resources on “thought crimes” while real criminals roam free. It’s a sentiment echoed across social media, where users have decried the incident as an overreach of power and a betrayal of public trust. The phrase “Thought Police” has trended, not as a literary allusion, but as a lived experience.

This isn’t to say police shouldn’t investigate genuine threats or incitements to violence—those have clear legal boundaries. But Jones’s post, by all accounts, was neither. It was a call for accountability, not a call to harm. The distinction matters. When authorities blur the line between policing actions and policing opinions, they risk eroding the very freedoms they’re meant to protect.

Orwell’s Thought Police didn’t just punish; they instilled fear, ensuring citizens self-censored to avoid scrutiny. Helen Jones’s story suggests Britain may be flirting with a similar dynamic. As she retreats from social media, silenced by the knock of a detective, one wonders how many others will follow suit. The Daily Mail article serves as both a report and a warning: when the state prioritizes thoughts over crimes, the dystopia Orwell imagined ceases to be fiction. It becomes our reality.

British ‘thought police’ order pensioner to apologise for ‘upsetting’ Facebook post or face investigation

Thames Valley Police – Thought Police for a Facebook Post
Thames Valley Police

Check out our articles on Policing, Police News, Policing by Consent, Police Impartiality, Free Speech Union, Two Tiered Policing, Wasting Police Time, National Security Online Information Team (NSOIT), Counter Disinformation Data Platform (CDDP) and the highly questionable Sussex Family Justice Board.

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

Latest Articles ↓

Most Popular ↓

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

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

Categories
Criminal Justice Law Police

Firearms Amnesty 2025

Firearms Amnesty

In an unprecedented move to tackle the rising threat of converted firearms within the UK, a national amnesty has been initiated for specific types of blank-firing guns, commonly known as top-venting blank firers (TVBFs). The amnesty which started on the 3rd February 2025 and concludes on the 28th February, 2025, targets four Turkish-manufactured models that tests have shown can be readily converted into lethal weapons.

TVBFs are illegal under Section 1(6) of the Firearms Act 1982, meaning that they are prohibited firearms under Section 5 (1) of the Firearms Act 1968.

The National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC), in collaboration with the National Crime Agency (NCA), National Ballistics Intelligence Service and various police forces across the country, has launched this amnesty following alarming evidence that these guns have been implicated in criminal activities, including at least four homicides since 2023. The models in question, produced by Retay, Ekol, Ceonic, and Blow, were initially designed for non-lethal uses such as starting races or theatrical performances. However, their convertibility into functioning firearms has caught the attention of law enforcement.

The top-venting blank firers are used by criminals and can be converted into lethal firearms.

During the last two years, policing and the NCA has identified and disrupted several workshops used to convert these pistols into lethal weapons.

In the same period, large numbers of converted weapons were recovered across multiple locations, alongside thousands of rounds of blank calibre and modified ammunition.

One investigation recovered more than 400 converted weapons from a single crime group. There is a strong demand for them evidenced by the numbers imported and subsequent recovery from criminals.

Stopping the sale of these top-venting blank firers from being converted will go a significant way to help protect the public.

Assistant Chief Constable Tim Metcalfe, National Police Chiefs’ Council Lead for the Criminal Use of Firearms

Check out the article on the National Firearms Amnesty

Why the Amnesty?

The primary aim of this amnesty is to remove these potentially dangerous weapons from the public domain, reducing the risk they pose when falling into the wrong hands. According to the NPCC, while gun crime in the UK remains relatively low compared to other countries, the conversion of these blank-firing guns into lethal weapons presents a significant emerging threat. Since 2021, over 800 converted TVBFs have been recovered in criminal circumstances, highlighting the urgency of this initiative.

How the Gun Amnesty Works

During the amnesty period, individuals who possess any of these four models can surrender them at local police stations without facing prosecution for the illegal possession of these now-banned firearms. This leniency is intended to encourage those who might have these guns for legitimate, non-criminal purposes to hand them over.

The guns will not only be removed from circulation but will also be analysed to see if they have been involved in previous criminal acts, thereby potentially aiding in ongoing investigations.

Public Response and Implications

The response from the public has been cautiously optimistic. Many see this amnesty as a chance to rectify unintended possession of these newly classified illegal firearms. There’s an acknowledgment among communities that while these guns might have been bought legally or even as souvenirs from trips, their potential for misuse is now too significant to ignore.

Law enforcement officials, including Assistant Chief Constable Tim Metcalfe, the NPCC Lead for the Criminal Use of Firearms, have stressed the importance of public cooperation. “This initiative is about protecting our communities by ensuring these firearms don’t end up being used for criminal intent,” Metcalfe stated. “We urge anyone with these weapons to do the responsible thing and surrender them.”

Legal Implications Post Amnesty

Post-amnesty, the possession of these TVBFs will be strictly prohibited, with severe penalties including up to 10 years in prison for those caught with one. This crackdown is part of broader efforts by UK law enforcement to control the proliferation of firearms and reduce gun-related crimes.

The amnesty also serves as a reminder of the broader issue of firearm conversion in the UK, prompting discussions on the need for tighter regulations on the import and sale of blank-firing guns and other similar devices.

Check out our articles on Policing, Police News, Policing by Consent, Two Tiered Policing, Wasting Police Time, Met Police, Sussex Police, R v Sussex Justices and the highly questionable Sussex Family Justice Board.

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

Latest Articles ↓

Most Popular ↓

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

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

Categories
Criminal Justice Judiciary Legal Analysis Legal Professionals

Is the UK Criminal Justice System Broken ?

UK Criminal Justice System


The UK’s criminal justice system is facing significant delays, with some trials being postponed until as late as 2028. A Sky News investigation at Leicester Crown Court revealed a criminal justice system described as chaotic and ineffective, characterised by:

  • Delayed Trials: Victims and defendants are experiencing waits of up to 460 days, with some cases stretched into future years due to a lack of resources like courtrooms, judges, and barristers.
  • Systemic Issues: The backlog in the crown courts is growing weekly. This delay is attributed to insufficient courtrooms, with around 15% to 20% remaining unused daily due to staffing shortages, alongside an increase in charges by the police and early releases from prisons due to overcrowding.
  • Professional Frustration: Barristers are moving away from criminal law to other, less chaotic areas of legal practice. This exodus is partly due to the system’s inefficiencies along with court staff shortages and increasing case volumes compounding the crisis.
  • Public and Legal Outcry: There’s a strong sentiment among legal professionals and the public that justice is being denied due to these delays. The system is criticized for not functioning effectively, with the Criminal Bar Association chair, Mary Prior KC, highlighting the broken nature of the current setup.
  • Infrastructure Problems: The physical state of court buildings is deteriorating, and even basic facilities like computer systems for tracking cases are unreliable, exacerbating the delays.

The judge then takes the unusual step of addressing the crisis to us in open court.

“I have cases day in, day out that I am having put over. It can be years, if you lose a date in 2025 it is 2026.

“All these cases you have to decide who gets priority… fraud cases are being put on the back burner. In my position I have cases put over for months, even years.”

As a rule, judges don’t do interviews, so this is as close as we’ll get to hearing what he thinks.

He is clearly exasperated and remarkably candid: “I don’t know where things are going to go but they aren’t going to get any better,” he says.

Inside the UK’s ‘wild west’ court system where people may have to wait until 2028 for justice to take place – Sky News
‘Justice delayed is justice denied’: UK’s broken legal system

Read the full Sky News article Inside the UK’s ‘wild west’ court system where people may have to wait until 2028 for justice to take place.

“If you think about it, if we don’t have a functioning criminal justice system, we are in a position where you have people roaming the streets who are committing serious offences and there’s no retribution for that.

People aren’t getting justice quick enough and if they’re not… what’s the point in any of it? People will start to give up.”

Barrister Annabel Lenton – Sky News

This situation in the UK’s criminal justice system underscores an urgent need for investment and reform to ensure timely and effective justice.

Check out our related articles on The Courts of England and Wales, Rule of Law, Innocent until Proven Guilty, Open Justice, R v Sussex Justices, Criminal Cases Review Commission, Lady Chief Justice and the highly questionable Sussex Family Justice Board.

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

Latest Articles ↓

Most Popular ↓

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

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

Categories
Criminal Justice Free Speech Law Legal Analysis Police

What is a Non-Crime Hate Incident (NCHI) ?

Non-Crime Hate Incident

A Non-Crime Hate Incident (NCHI) in the UK refers to any incident where an individual or group perceives that they have been subjected to hostility or prejudice based on race, religion, sexual orientation, disability, or transgender identity, even if no criminal activity has taken place. Here are key points about NCHIs:

  • Definition: It is defined as any non-crime incident which is perceived by the victim or any other person to be motivated by hostility or prejudice. This perception does not require evidence or justification from the victim regarding the hostility.
  • Purpose: NCHIs are recorded by the police to monitor community tensions, potential risks of escalation into more serious incidents or crimes, and to provide data for understanding patterns of prejudice or hostility.
  • Recording Criteria: Not all perceived hate incidents are recorded as NCHIs. There are specific criteria:
    • The incident must disturb an individual’s, group’s, or community’s quality of life or cause concern.
    • The incident must meet an additional threshold if personal data is to be recorded, indicating a real risk of significant harm or future criminal offence against individuals or groups with the same characteristic.
  • Legal Implications: While NCHIs do not result in criminal charges, they can appear in enhanced Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks, which might affect employment opportunities, especially in sectors requiring such checks.
  • Freedom of Speech: Recent guidance and legal reviews have emphasized balancing the recording of NCHIs with the protection of free speech, ensuring that trivial, irrational, or malicious reports do not lead to the recording of personal data unless necessary. The Free Speech Union published An Orwellian Society: Non-Crime Hate Incidents and the policing of speech.
  • Public and Legal Scrutiny: There has been scrutiny over NCHIs, with concerns that they might infringe on free speech or be used maliciously. Changes in guidance now aim for a more proportionate approach where NCHIs are only recorded when deemed absolutely necessary and not merely based on someone being offended.

The Home Office published Statutory guidance – Non-Crime Hate Incidents: Code of Practice on the Recording and Retention of Personal Data (accessible)

Allison Pearson, an award-winning writer, is being investigated by Essex Police for allegedly stirring up racial hatred in a social media post last November.

The scale of the investigation has now become clear, with officers from the Metropolitan Police, Sussex Police and Essex Police all having handled the complaint over the past year.

The Telegraph understands that the post was reported to the Metropolitan Police as a potential breach of the Malicious Communications Act in November last year. The case was then passed to Sussex Police, which marked it as a possible non-crime hate incident (NCHI) as well as a potential malicious communication.

Sussex Police passed it to Essex, where Pearson lives.

The Telegraph – Non-Crime Hate Incident (NCHI) or Stirring Up Racial Hatred ?
Non Crime Hate Incident Headlines – The Telegraph

Essex Police sets up ‘gold group’ normally reserved for major crimes to lead Allison Pearson probe

Keir Starmer says police should focus on ‘what matters most’ – amid growing anger over police investigation into Allison Pearson’s tweet

It should be noted that Article 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998 gives the right to freedom of expression.

The Public Order Act 1986, Part III defines Racial Hatred. What is Christophobia ? What is Islamophobia ?

The BlackBelt Barrister published a video Police Will come for YOU Next which examines the right to Free Speech.

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

Attack on Free Speech ? Black Belt Barrister

Incidents such as the Allison Pearson tweet are supposed to be part of a broader effort to address and monitor hate-related issues in society without necessarily involving criminal law and sanctions. They can still have implications for the individuals involved due to the recording of such incidents by the police.

Check out our articles on Policing by Consent, Are the Police for Hire ?, Police Impartiality, Police Surveillance, 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, 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
Criminal Justice Law Legal Analysis

Detention at His Majesty’s Pleasure ?

Detention at His Majesty's Pleasure

Detention at His Majesty’s Pleasure is a term used in the United Kingdom for an indeterminate sentence where the offender is detained for an unspecified period. This kind of sentence is typically used for young offenders or those convicted of particularly serious crimes, where the length of detention is not fixed at the time of sentencing.

Detention during His Majesty’s Pleasure is a mandatory life sentence and will be imposed when a child or young person is convicted or pleads guilty to murder. Schedule 21 of the Sentencing Act 2020 states that the starting point for determining the minimum sentence where the offender is under 18 years of age is 12 years as opposed to 15 years for those over the age of 18.

Types of sentences for children and young people – Sentencing Council
  1. Purpose: The main idea is that the offender should be detained until they are no longer considered a threat to society or until they have been rehabilitated. This could theoretically mean detention for life, or until the offender’s behaviour and development indicate that release is appropriate.
  2. Who It Applies To: Historically, this sentence was often used for juveniles convicted of serious crimes like murder, where an adult would receive a life sentence. However, it can also apply to adults in certain contexts, particularly where mental health issues are involved. The Mental Health Act 1983 allows for the detention of individuals who have committed offenses but are also suffering from mental disorders. When someone is detained at His Majesty’s Pleasure, especially under a mental health context, it’s often because they’ve been found not guilty by reason of insanity or unfit to plead, or they’ve been convicted of an offense where a psychiatric disposal is deemed more appropriate than a penal sentence.
  3. Legal Framework: The phrase “at His Majesty’s Pleasure” reflects the historical power of the monarch to detain subjects. In modern times, this power is exercised through the Home Office or relevant judicial or parole boards who decide when it’s safe to release the individual.
  4. Review and Release: The detention period is subject to periodic review. Decisions regarding release are based on assessments of risk, rehabilitation progress, and changes in the offender’s maturity and mental state.
  5. Differences from Life Sentences: Unlike a life sentence with a tariff (a minimum term to be served before parole can be considered), detention at His Majesty’s Pleasure doesn’t set a minimum term upfront, although in practice, a minimum term might be recommended by the judge.
  6. Criticism and Reform: This type of sentencing has faced criticism for its uncertainty, which can be psychologically challenging for detainees. There have been calls for reform to provide more clarity or to set tariffs in a way similar to life sentences but tailored to the developmental needs of young offenders.
  7. International Perspective: The concept is somewhat unique to the UK legal system, though other countries have similar provisions for indefinite detention for the purposes of rehabilitation or public protection, particularly for juvenile offenders or those with mental health issues.

In 2002 the then The Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales Baron Woolf published a statement Review of Minimum Terms set for Young Offenders detained at her Majesty’s Pleasure.

King Charles III, formerly known as The Prince of Wales, became King on the death of his mother Queen Elizabeth II on 8 September 2022.

Image of King Charles III created by Grok-3

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

Latest Articles ↓

Most Popular ↓

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

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

Categories
Criminal Justice Judiciary Legal Professionals

His Honour Judge Jeremy Richardson KC

HHJ Jeremy Richardson KC

His Honour Judge Jeremy Richardson KC (The Recorder of Sheffield) sentenced Grandfather Peter Lynch, who had pleaded guilty to a charge of violent disorder, to a jail term of two years and eight months on the 22nd August 2024.

“You did not yourself attack any police officer, as far as can be detected, but what you did was encourage by your conduct others to behave violently and you were part of this mob……What a disgraceful example you are as a grandfather.”

HHJ Richardson KC

A Prison Service spokeswoman said on Monday 21st October 2024 “HMP Moorland prisoner Peter Lynch died on October 19 2023.”

“As with all deaths in custody, the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman will investigate.”

There has been an outpouring of public opinion since the death of Peter Lynch including the “harsh sentence” handed down by His Honour Judge Jeremy Richardson KC and the suspected influence of British Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer KC on the criminal justice system.

Kay Burley asked the Lord Chancellor on Sky TV : Should Peter Lynch a first time offender with a poor health record, have been jailed?

Did Keir Starmer Sign a ‘Death Sentence’ for Peter Lynch? HHJ Richardson KC ?
Judge Jeremy Richardson on X
The Recorder of Sheffield HHJ Jeremy Richardson KC
Did He Deserve Three Years In Jail – His Honour Judge Richardson KC ?

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

His Honour Judge Jeremy William Richardson KCNorth East14-05-2018
List of Circuit Judges

HHJ Richardson is shown on the Resident Judges list published on the Courts and Tribunal Judiciary website.

CircuitCourtJudgesDate of appointment
 North EastSheffield Combined Court CentreHHJ Jeremy Richardson KC14-05-18
Resident Judges

His Honour Judge Richardson is a Circuit Judge.

His Honour Judge Jeremy Richardson is a Master of the Bench at the Inner Temple. He has been a Judicial Governing Bencher since the 19th July 2007.

HHJ Richardson is also Master of the Inner Temple LGBTQ+ Society, and member of the Equality, Diversity and Inclusivity Sub-Committee.

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

Authorisation to sit as a High Court Judge

HHJ Richardson may be authorised to sit as a High Court Judge by s9(1) of the Senior Courts Act as amended by the Crime and Courts Act 2013.

According to CRIMINAL PRACTICE DIRECTIONS 2015 DIVISION XII HHJ Richardson should be addressed as “My Lord” in court.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Image of HHJ Richardson : Grimsby Telegraph

Check out our articles on Dodgy Judges, Mr Justice Williams, His Honour Judge Melbourne Inman KC, His Honour Andrew Menary KC, His Honour Judge Guy Kearl, His Honour Now His Dishonour, His Honour Judge Michael Slater, His Honour Judge Martin Davis, HHJ Farquhar, HHJ Bedford, DDJ Nicholes, 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 Judiciary Legal Professionals

His Honour Judge Melbourne Inman KC

His Honour Judge Melbourne Inman KC

His Honour Judge Melbourne Inman KC (The Recorder of Birmingham) sentenced Lucy Connolly at Birmingham Crown Court to two years and seven months in prison for publishing written material that incited racial hatred. Lucy Connolly was ordered to serve 40% of her 31-month sentence in prison before being released on licence.

His Honour Judge Melbourne Donald Inman KC retires as a Senior Circuit Judge with effect from 1 July 2025 – Updated 24th July 2025

HHJ Melbourne Inman KC told Birmingham Crown Court the sentence for these offences was intended to “punish and deter”.

His Honour Judge Melbourne Inman KC – Rex v Lucy Connolly
R-v-Lucy-Connolly – Sentencing Remarks HHJ Inman KCDownload

His Honour Judge Melbourne Inman KC on X !

HHJ Inman was shown on the List of Circuit Judges published on the Courts and Tribunal Judiciary website.

His Honour Judge Inman KCMidlands13-10-2014
List of Circuit Judges

HHJ Inman was shown on the Resident Judges list published on the Courts and Tribunal Judiciary website.

CircuitCourtJudgesDate of appointment
 MidlandBirmingham Crown CourtHHJ Melbourne Inman KC13-10-14
Resident Judges

His Honour Judge Inman was a Circuit Judge.

Companies House listed Melbourne Donald INMAN as a DIRECTOR of  CHIPPING CAMPDEN SCHOOL (07680770) with his occupation listed as High Court Judge.

On the Chipping Campden School Trustees page his bio states “I am a Senior Circuit Judge and have sat as a Judge for seventeen years.”

HHJ Inman – High Court Judge ? – Companies House – 18th October 2024

Update 23rd October 2024 – Following an email sent to HHJ Inman and the Lady Chief Justice on the 21st October 2024 asking for clarification, a CH01 Change of Particulars for Director was filed at Companies House on the 23rd October 2024. Mr Melbourne Donald Inman occupation was changed to “JUDICIARY”. Needless to say HHJ Inman and the Lady Chief Justice did not respond to my email.

HHJ Inman – Change of Occupation to Judiciary – Companies House – 23rd October 2024

(1) It is an offence for a person, without reasonable excuse, to—

(a) deliver or cause to be delivered to the registrar, for any purpose of the Companies Acts, a document that is misleading, false or deceptive in a material particular, or

(b) make to the registrar, for any purpose of the Companies Acts, a statement that is misleading, false or deceptive in a material particular.

Section 1112 of the Companies Act 2006

I did not believe that HHJ Melbourne Inman KC was a High Court Judge so his submission and entry at Companies House was false. I could not find any evidence that he was ever authorised to sit as a Deputy High Court Judge. Regardless of whether HHJ Inman was ever authorised to sit as a High Court Judge, his occupation is still a Circuit Judge (Senior).

Was HHJ Inman listing his occupation as a High Court Judge at Companies House an honest mistake or deliberate dishonesty (Fraud) ?

(1) A person is in breach of this section if he—

(a) dishonestly makes a false representation, and

(b )intends, by making the representation—

(i) to make a gain for himself or another, or

(ii) to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.

(2) A representation is false if—

(a) it is untrue or misleading, and

(b) the person making it knows that it is, or might be, untrue or misleading

Fraud Act 2006 – Section 2 Fraud by false representation

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

If HHJ Melbourne Inman KC is not a High Court Judge then this would normally need to be referred to the Police, JCIO and Companies House to investigate. Can you Email a Judge ? No one is above the law.

The Judicial Press Office was contacted for comment but no response was received.

Authorisation to sit as a High Court Judge

HHJ Inman may have been authorised to sit as a High Court Judge by s9(1) of the Senior Courts Act as amended by the Crime and Courts Act 2013.

According to CRIMINAL PRACTICE DIRECTIONS 2015 DIVISION XII HHJ Inman should be addressed as “My Lord” in court.

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

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

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

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

The Judicial Appointments Commission have published a Section 9(1) Policy which lays out the selection of persons for membership of the pool of judges who are authorised to act as judges of the High Court under s9(1) of the Senior Courts Act, as amended by the Crime and Courts Act 2013.

The Judicial Appointments Commission have also published a document Section 9(1) protocol. This protocol concerns the process by which authorisations for Recorders and Circuit Judges to sit as judges of the High Court under section 9(1) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 should take place.

Section 23 of The Courts Act 1971 covers a Circuit judge or Recorder sitting as High Court Judge.

(1) If requested to do so by or on behalf of the Lord Chancellor, a Circuit judge or Recorder shall sit as a judge of the High Court for the hearing of such case or cases or at such place and for such time as may be specified by or on behalf of the Lord Chancellor.

(2) So long as a Circuit judge or Recorder sits as a judge of the High Court in pursuance of a request under this section he shall be treated, subject to subsection (3) below, for all purposes as, and accordingly may perform any of the functions of, a puisne judge of the High Court.

(3) A Circuit judge or Recorder sitting as a judge of the High Court in pursuance of a request under this section shall not be treated as a judge of the High Court for the purpose of any provision made by or under any enactment and relating to—

(a) the appointment, retirement, removal or disqualification of judges of the High Court,
(b) the tenure of office and oaths to be taken by such judges, or
(c) the remuneration, allowances or pensions of such judges.

HHJ Inman KC (The Recorder of Birmingham) – 29.8K Views

“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’

Check out our articles on Dodgy Judges, Judges Salaries and Fees, Mr Justice Williams, His Honour Andrew Menary KC, His Honour Judge Guy Kearl, His Honour Now His Dishonour, His Honour Judge Michael Slater, His Honour Judge Jeremy William Richardson KC, His Honour Judge Martin Davis, HHJ Farquhar, HHJ Bedford, DDJ Nicholes, 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