Category: Judiciary

The judiciary which is also known as the judicial system, judicature, judicial branch, judiciative branch, and court or judiciary system) is the system of courts that adjudicates legal disputes/disagreements and interprets, defends, and applies the law in legal cases.

Categories
Criminal Justice Judiciary Legal Professionals

His Honour Judge Fuller KC

His Honour Judge Fuller KC

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

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

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

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

B (2013-12-18)

SE (2012-12-14)


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

Ryan Ian Woodmansey (2013-06-26)

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

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

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

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

Legal Controversy

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

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

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

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

Luke Yarwood

The posts were only viewed 33 times.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Authorisation to sit as a High Court Judge

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

According to CRIMINAL PRACTICE DIRECTIONS 2015 DIVISION XII His Honour Judge Fuller should be addressed as “My Lord” in court.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Image of HHJ Fuller : Grok

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

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

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

Latest Articles ↓

Most Popular ↓

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

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

Categories
Criminal Justice Judiciary Law Legal Analysis Legal Professionals

What is the Parole Board ?

Parole Board

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

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

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

Legal Framework

The Parole Board’s primary powers derive from:

It deals with three main categories of prisoner:

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

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

Role and Functions

The Board’s core functions are:

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

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

Composition and Membership

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

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

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

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

Members serve fixed terms typically of five years.

Types of Parole Hearing

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

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

The Release Test

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

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

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

Reconsideration Mechanism

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

Key Reforms (2022–2025)

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

Criticism and Controversy

The Parole Board has faced significant criticism over the years:

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

Current Statistics (as at Dec 2025)

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

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

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

Latest Articles ↓

Most Popular ↓

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

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

Categories
Criminal Justice Judiciary Legal Professionals

Joshua Radcliffe Barrister

Joshua Radcliffe Barrister

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Barrister Joshua Radcliffe – New Walk Chambers

Controversy Defending Two Afghan Rapists

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

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

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

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

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

In England and Wales, barristers are regulated professionals bound by strict ethical standards outlined in version 4.8 of the Bar Standards Board (BSB) Handbook.

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

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

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

Latest Articles ↓

Most Popular ↓

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

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

Categories
Criminal Justice Judiciary Legal Professionals

Robert Holt Barrister

Robert Holt Barrister

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

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

From Solicitor to Barrister

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

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

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

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

Barrister John Halt – Citadel Chambers

Controversy Defending Two Afghan Rapists

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

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

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

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

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

In England and Wales, barristers are regulated professionals bound by strict ethical standards outlined in version 4.8 of the Bar Standards Board (BSB) Handbook.

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

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

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

Latest Articles ↓

Most Popular ↓

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

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

Categories
Civil Justice Judiciary Law Legal Professionals

Deputy Head of Civil Justice

Deputy Head of Civil Justice

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

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

Current Holder

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

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

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

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

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

Statutory Basis and Appointment Process

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

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

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

Principal Responsibilities

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

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

Former Deputy Head of Civil Justice

Image of Lady Justice Cockerill – HM Courts and Tribunals Judiciary

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

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

Latest Articles ↓

Most Popular ↓

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

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

Categories
Judiciary Legal Analysis Legal Professionals

Judicial Guidance on Artificial Intelligence

Judicial Guidance on Artificial Intelligence

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Background and Purpose

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

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

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

Key Principles

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

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

Practical Applications

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

Permitted applications include:

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

Prohibited or high-risk uses encompass:

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

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

Mitigations include:

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

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

Ethical Considerations and Future Implications

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

Check out the related articles on the Judiciary, Government Legal Department (GLD), Attorney General, Solicitor General, Lady Chief Justice, Lord Chancellor, Justice Secretary, Rule of Law, Open Justice, Law, Is the Law Black and White ?, Government Legal Department, Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), Abuse of Process, What Does Lady Justice Symbolise ?, McKenzie Friend, Law Society, Law Commission, McKenzie Friend Right of Audience, Solicitors, Solicitors Regulation Authority, Barristers, Bar Council of England and Wales, Bar Standards Board, R v Sussex Justices, Police Impartiality and the highly questionable Sussex Family Justice Board.

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

Latest Articles ↓

Most Popular ↓

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

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

Categories
Judiciary Law Legal Professionals

Chancellor of the High Court

Chancellor of the High Court Sir Colin Birss

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

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

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

Current Chancellor of the High Court

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

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

Lady Chief Justice

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

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

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

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

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

Chancellor of the High Court Sir Colin Birss

Historical Development

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

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

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

Responsibilities

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

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

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

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

Notable Former Chancellors of the High Court

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

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

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

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

Latest Articles ↓

Most Popular ↓

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

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

Categories
Judiciary Law Legal Analysis Legal Professionals

What is a Coroner ?

Coroner

A coroner is an independent judicial officer responsible for investigating sudden, violent or unexplained deaths.

The office of the coroner was formally established in 1194, originally as a form of tax gatherer. In the centuries since this has evolved and now the role of the Coroner is to investigate deaths if they have reason to suspect that;

  • The death was violent or unnatural; or
  • The cause of death is unknown; or
  • The deceased died while in state detention.
Coroners – Courts & Tribunals Judiciary

Governed by the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 overseen by the Chief Coroner, their work meticulously establishes who died, how, when, and where, without assigning blame. This preventive role aids in avoiding future incidents and provides closure to bereaved families.

Operating across 74 local areas, coroners blend legal and medical expertise to maintain public trust. They also conduct Treasure inquests under the Treasure Act 1996, safeguarding archaeological heritage.

Each coroner area is led by a Senior Coroner. Some local authorities also appoint one or more Area Coroners to support the Senior Coroner in addition to the appointment of a number of Assistant Coroners.

The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) publish Annual National Statistics on deaths reported to coroners, including inquests and post-mortems held, inquest conclusions recorded and finds reported to coroners under treasure legislation.

Also published by the MoJ is the Guide to coroners statistics which provides a background overview of coroners, focusing on concepts and definitions published in Ministry of Justice statistics. It also covers policy background and changes, statistical publication revision policies, data sources, quality and dissemination.

The Chief Coroner’s Role

The Chief Coroner Her Honour Judge Alexia Durran is the judicial head of the coroner system, providing national leadership for coroners in England and Wales. The role of Chief Coroner was only established in 2009 and the first appointment in 2010.

The appointment of the Chief Coroner is made by the Lady Chief Justice in consultation with the Lord Chancellor.

Key duties of the Chief Coroner :-

  • Provide support, leadership and guidance for coroners in England and Wales;
  • In conjunction with the Judicial College, put in place suitable training arrangements for coroners and coroners’ officers;
  • Approve coroner appointments;
  • Keep a register of coroner investigations lasting more than 12 months;
  • Publish Prevention of Future Death reports and responses;
  • Monitor investigations into the deaths of service personnel;
  • Exercise global case management powers (including directing transfers of inquests between coroner areas in certain circumstances, and requesting the Lord Chief Justice and Lord Chancellor to appoint judges in certain high-profile or complex inquests); Provide an annual report on the coroner system to the Lord Chancellor, to be laid before Parliament;
  • By convention, the Chief Coroner also sits in the High Court hearing some of the most important judicial and statutory review cases concerning coroners.

Appointment and Qualifications

Coroners are appointed by their local authority, with consent from the Lord Chancellor and Chief Coroner. These permanent roles last until age 75, ensuring stability and independence from external influences.

Candidates require at least five years’ experience as solicitors, barristers, or registered medical practitioners specialising in pathology or forensics. This expertise enables effective navigation of legal-medical intersections. The Chief Coroner’s oversight guarantees selections prioritise integrity and competence.

The Investigation Process

Investigations start with the coroner assuming temporary custody of the body, ordering a post-mortem—often forensic for suspected unnatural causes—to establish the medical facts. Family input on cultural sensitivities is sought, with non-invasive options like CT/MRI scans available to lessen distress.

An inquest follows if required: a public hearing, ideally within six months, reviewing evidence from witnesses, reports, and experts.

Article 2(2) of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) inquests are enhanced inquests held in cases where the State or ‘its agents’ have ‘failed to protect the deceased against a human threat or other risk’ or where there has been a death in custody. Cases where the deceased has been under the care or responsibility of social services or healthcare professionals are also often included in this category of inquest.

‘Jamieson’ and ‘Middleton’ inquests as they are sometimes known, consider neglect on the part on of an individual, and system neglect, under Article 2, respectively.

Juries are used in custody deaths, notifiable accidents, or police actions, issuing verdicts like ‘accidental’, ‘misadventure’, ‘unlawful killing’, or narratives without blame.

Treasure inquests similarly assemble experts to verify criteria, notifying the British Museum for preservation.

Powers and Impact

Coroners possess extensive statutory powers to ensure thorough and transparent investigations. They can summon witnesses to give evidence under oath, compel the production of documents or objects, and even enter premises if necessary for inquiries.

Inquests may be suspended or adjourned pending criminal proceedings, public inquiries, or the gathering of evidence from abroad, preventing overlap and preserving evidential integrity.

Practical support includes issuing interim death certificates to facilitate urgent administrative needs, such as insurance claims or funerals, while full registration awaits conclusion. Delays in investigations, those surpassing 12 months, are reported to the Chief Coroner, who can intervene to expedite processes and maintain efficiency.

The Ministry of Justice have produced ‘A Guide to Coroner Services for Bereaved People’

Contact the Chief Coroner’s Office
Royal Courts of Justice
London
WC2A 2LL

Email: [email protected]

Coroners’ Society of England & Wales

The Coroners’ Society of England and Wales is the principal professional association and representative body for coroners operating in England and Wales.

Membership is primarily restricted to serving coroners, area coroners, and assistant coroners with corresponding membership open to equivalent judicial office-holders abroad.

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

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

Latest Articles ↓

Most Popular ↓

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

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

Categories
Judiciary Legal Professionals

District Judge Sam Goozee

District Judge Goozee

Sam Goozée is a District Judge (Magistrates’ Courts) of England and Wales who was appointed on the 23rd March 2016.

District Judge Goozee serves as the Resident District Judge for Berkshire Magistrates’ Courts and the leadership judge for the south east region.

District Judge Sam Goozee was the judge presiding over Tommy Robinson’s terrorism case at Westminster Magistrates’ Court.

DJ Goozee issued rulings on the first day of the trial, including protecting Robinson’s address from publication due to threats and restricting live-tweeting for independent media following a BBC complaint, while allowing mainstream outlets to report. The two-day trial continued on the 14th October 2025.

On the 4th November 2025 at Westminster Magistrates’ Court, Tommy Robinson (defence funded by Elon Musk) was found not guilty by District Judge Sam Goozee of the terror offence.

I cannot put out of my mind that it was actually what you stood for and your political beliefs that acted for the principle reason for this stop.

The stop was not lawful, and I cannot convict you. I find you not guilty.

District Judge Goozee

It is believed, from Companies House data, that Judge Sam Goozée was born on the 31st January 1971 and was a former director of the now dissolved JUSTICES’CLERKS’SOCIETY (00078822).

Who’s Who lists Goozée, Sam Mark (born 31 Jan. 1971), a District Judge (Magistrates’ Courts), since 2016.

Legal Career

District Judge Goozee judicial career stems from a long background in the magistrates’ courts service. After a brief stint in private practice, he spent most of his professional life as a legal advisor in magistrates’ courts, starting in Hampshire before transferring to Dorset.

There, he advanced to legal manager and deputy justice clerk (now known as senior legal manager). He later moved to North and West Yorkshire, where he became Justices Clerk, equivalent to head of legal operations.

While in this senior management role, he applied successfully for a part-time deputy district judge position, sitting a few days a month with Civil Service support for up to 20 days annually, plus additional sittings on his own leave.

This paved the way for his full-time appointment as a district judge in 2016. Apart from two years of defending and prosecuting cases in Bournemouth, his career has been dedicated to advisory and managerial roles in the courts a path he describes as providing an excellent foundation for judicial appointments.

District Judge (MC) Goozee is shown on the District Judges (Magistrates’ Courts) published on the Courts and Tribunal Judiciary website.

District Judge (MC) Goozee 
South East		23-03-16
District Judges (Magistrates’ Courts)

Notable Roles and Contributions

Beyond his judicial duties, District Judge Goozee is passionate about outreach and education. He engages with University of Reading law students through programs that expose them to real courtroom scenarios, such as bail applications and pleas in mitigation, helping them bridge academic learning with practical application.

He highlights the everyday realities of magistrates’ courts, including factors like organised crime and substance issues that lead to cases, to foster a nuanced understanding of the criminal justice system. Students have praised his personable and encouraging approach, noting how he supports career development in a field often seen as rigid.

Notable Cases

District Judge Goozee (MC) has presided over several high-profile matters, including:

Image of DJ Goozee : Microsoft Co-Pilot © Ministry of Injustice 2025

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

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

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

Latest Articles ↓

Most Popular ↓

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

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

Categories
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.

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