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
Judiciary

His Honour Judge Hiddleston

His Honour Judge Hiddleston

Adam Wallace Hiddleston, known as His Honour Judge Hiddleston was born on the 1st April 1965.

HHJ Hiddleston is currently a Circuit Judge in the London Circuit. He was previously a judge in the First-Tier Tribunal’s Health, Education and Social Care Chamber (Mental Health).

Early Life and Education

HHJ Hiddleston was born in the UK and attended Loretto School in Scotland, graduating in 1981. Specific details about his higher education are not publicly documented, but he qualified as a barrister, developing expertise in criminal and administrative law before his judicial appointments.

Legal Career

His Honour Hiddleston began his career as a barrister at the 3 PB chambers in Greater London, specialising in criminal law and regulatory matters as noted in legal directories like The Law Pages. His practice involved representing clients in court, often in cases involving vulnerable individuals.

He was appointed as a Recorder in 2012 and as a Fee-paid Judge of the First-tier Tribunal assigned to the Health, Education and Social Care Chamber in 2014.This role involves hearing appeals under the Mental Health Act 1983, reviewing detentions and treatment orders to ensure compliance with legal and human rights standards.

In 2015, The Queen appointed Adam Hiddleston to be a Circuit Judge and he was deployed to the South Eastern Circuit based at Croydon Crown Court.

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

His Honour Judge Hiddleston London16-10-2015
List of Circuit Judges

Legal Controversy

On the 13th February 2025, Moussa Kadri, a 59-year-old Muslim man, attacked Hamit Coskun, a 51-year-old Kurdish-Armenian man, outside the Turkish consulate in London’s Knightsbridge after Coskun burned a Quran and made inflammatory statements like “Islam is religion of terrorism.”

Kadri, who pleaded guilty to assault and possessing a bladed article, slashed at Coskun with a knife, later claiming he was protecting his religion.

Attacker of Quran-burning protestor is spared jail – BBC News

At Southwark Crown Court, Judge Adam Hiddleston condemned Kadri’s actions as “disgraceful” and the use of blades as a “curse on our community,” but sentenced him to a 20-week suspended prison term for 18 months, plus 150 hours of unpaid work and 10 days of rehabilitation.

Coskun was convicted of a religiously aggravated public order offence for his “highly provocative” and hate-motivated actions, though he insisted his protest targeted Islam as an ideology, not Muslims.

REX v. Moussa KADRI Sentencing Remarks – HHJ Hiddleston

Anyone can Ask for a Crown Court sentence to be reviewed using the online service to send a request to the Attorney General’s Office. They’ll review it and decide whether to send it to the Court of Appeal, who can make a decision about the sentence.

The incident sparked debate on the two tier justice system and blasphemy laws.

This sentence will do nothing to dispel the suspicion that Britain has a two-tier criminal justice system. Had a knife-wielding white male pleaded guilty to attacking a Muslim for breaching a Christian blasphemy code, you can bet your bottom dollar he would have gone to prison.

Free Speech Union on X

The UK government reaffirmed that no blasphemy laws exist in England and Wales and they have no plans to introduce them.

This decision sends a green light to any Muslim who wants to enforce an Islamic blasphemy by taking the law into their own hands. The court is effectively saying that if you attack a blasphemer with a knife, he will be convicted of causing you harassment, alarm or distress and you won’t have to spend a day behind bars.

The Free Speech Union on X

Authorisation to sit as a High Court Judge

HHJ Hiddleston 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 Hiddleston 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 Hiddleston : Microsoft Co-Pilot

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 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
Judiciary Legal Professionals

Independent Review of Bullying, Harassment and Discrimination at the Bar

Independent Review of Bullying, Harassment and Discrimination at the Bar

An Independent Review of Bullying, Harassment and Discrimination at the Bar was published on the on the 8th September 2025 by Baroness Harriet Harman KC . The review had been commissioned by the Bar Council in June 2024.

Independent Review of Bullying Harassment and Discrimination at the BarDownload

The review addresses the prevalence, causes, and impact of bullying, harassment, and sexual harassment at the Bar and proposes 36 recommendations, for the Bar Council, Judiciary and other bodies to consider to tackle these issues.

The report emphasises the need for “decisive and radical” reforms to address a “culture of impunity” and “collusive bystanding” that allows misconduct to persist.

This is a moment of reckoning for the Bar.

Baroness Harriet Harman KC

The BBC published an article He put his hand down my tights’: Sexual harassment widespread among barristers, review finds in relation to the Independent Review of Bullying, Harassment and Discrimination at the Bar report.

Prevalence of Misconduct

The review confirms systemic bullying, harassment, and sexual harassment within the Bar, occurring in chambers, courtrooms, and behind closed doors.

Over 170 written submissions and consultations with pupils, junior and senior barristers, and chambers staff revealed disturbing accounts, including groping, sexual propositions, and bullying by senior barristers and judges.

Research from 2023 showed 44% of barristers experienced or witnessed bullying, harassment, or discrimination over two years, with women from ethnic minorities particularly affected.

Junior barristers, pupils, and those on work experience are especially vulnerable due to power imbalances, with reporting perceived as “career suicide.”

Judicial Bullying

The report highlights “abundant, disturbing, and compelling” accounts of judicial bullying, including judges shouting, banging desks, or belittling barristers in court.

Certain judges are “widely known” for making barristers’ lives miserable, yet complaints are rare due to fear of repercussions.

The judiciary’s failure to acknowledge this issue contributes to a lack of accountability.

The Lady Chief Justice’s response to the Independent Review of Bullying, Harassment and Discrimination at the Bar was also published on the 8th September 2025.

While the majority of judges behave professionally and courteously, Baroness Harman’s review refers to too many examples of judicial bullying.

Such behaviour is unacceptable and should have no place in our justice system.

I am clear that the senior judiciary does not seek to excuse or minimise bullying by judges. I am absolutely committed to a modern, diverse and inclusive judiciary that upholds our values of integrity, fairness and respect to all.

We have clear standards of behaviour expected from all judicial office holders, which is supported by training and support for judges at all levels, particularly those with leadership responsibilities. We have been focussing on judicial conduct in and out of court for many years.  

The Rt Hon the Baroness Carr of Walton-on-the-Hill, Lady Chief Justice of England and Wales

Culture of Impunity

A “culture of denial” and fear of career repercussions discourage victims from reporting, leaving perpetrators, particularly those in senior positions, unaccountable.

The complaints system lacks transparency and efficacy, with delays (e.g., the Jo Sidhu KC case took two years) and lenient sanctions undermining confidence.

Impact

Victims experience humiliation, isolation, and career damage, with some leaving the profession.

Misconduct undermines the Bar’s reputation and the rule of law, which relies on high ethical standards.

Judicial bullying can distort case outcomes, affecting justice delivery.

Key Recommendations

  1. Code of Conduct and Training (Recommendations 1–4, 12):
    • Clarify the Bar Standards Board (BSB) Code of Conduct to explicitly address bullying, harassment, and sexual harassment, including personal vs. professional relationships.
    • Mandate anti-bullying and anti-harassment training for all barristers.
  2. Complaints System Overhaul (Recommendations 5–8, 15–20):
    • Introduce time limits for processing complaints, provide victim support services, and ensure regular updates for complainants.
    • Train BSB staff in handling vulnerable witnesses and review case handling, especially when criminal investigations are involved.
    • Improve transparency and consistency in complaints processes across the Inns of Court.
  3. Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups (Recommendation 11):
    • Proscribe sexual relationships between barristers/employees and pupils, mini-pupils, or work experience students as serious misconduct.
  4. Judicial Accountability (Recommendations 30–35):
    • Remove time limits for complaints to the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office (JCIO).
    • Introduce independent court monitors to observe judicial behavior and provide audio recordings of proceedings to professional court users.
    • Include an independent person in judicial misconduct sanction decisions alongside the Lady Chief Justice and Lord Chancellor to address perceptions of leniency.
  5. Commissioner for Conduct (Recommendation 36):
    • Appoint a Commissioner for Conduct to oversee efforts to tackle bullying, harassment, and sexual harassment.
  6. Sanctions and Deterrence (Recommendations 25–26, 29):
    • Implement “career-limiting or career-ending” sanctions to deter misconduct, with prior findings considered in career progression (e.g., silk or judicial appointments).
    • Chambers’ constitutions should outline sanctions for misconduct.
  7. Online Abuse (Recommendation 24):
    • Regulate online bullying, harassment, and sexual harassment, including inappropriate behavior on platforms like LinkedIn.
What can you do when a barrister or judge bullies or harasses you? – Art of Law

Conclusion

The report underscores that bullying, harassment, and sexual harassment are systemic issues at the Bar, driven by power imbalances and a lack of accountability.

It calls for transformative changes to protect victims, restore trust in the complaints system, and uphold the Bar’s ethical standards and reputation. The proposed reforms aim to shift the “jeopardy” from victims to perpetrators, ensuring a safer and more equitable working environment for all legal professionals

A Statement of Expected Behaviour sets standards expected of all judicial office holders. This is included in the Judicial Guide to Conduct and the Equal Treatment Bench Book.  

Check out our related articles on 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
Judiciary

The Hon Mr Justice Jay

Mr Justice Jay

Sir Robert Maurice Jay, styled The Hon. Mr Justice Jay, is a prominent figure in the English judiciary, known for his intellectual rigor, sharp legal mind, and a career marked by both acclaim and controversy.

Born on the 20th September 1959, Mr Justice Jay has served as a High Court judge in the King’s Bench Division since June 2013, following a distinguished career as a barrister and his high-profile role as Leading Counsel to the Leveson Inquiry into press ethics.

Mr Justice Jay is married to Deborah, an author, and they have a daughter. He is known for his intellectual pursuits outside the courtroom, with interests in history, art, classical music (particularly Wagner’s Ring Cycle), chess, cookery, golf and cycling. These hobbies reflect the same meticulous and analytical approach that supposedly characterizes his legal work.

While Judge Jay’s legal acumen is widely respected, his judicial conduct has faced significant scrutiny, particularly in the high-profile libel case of Serafin v Malkiewicz and also wishing an al-Qaeda 7/7 terrorist kingpin ‘all the best’.

Early Life and Education

Robert Jay was born to Professor Barrie Samuel Jay, a consultant surgeon at Moorfields Eye Hospital, and Marcelle Ruby Jay, a geneticist. Educated at King’s College School in Wimbledon, Jay excelled academically, earning an Open Scholarship to New College, Oxford, where he obtained a first-class degree in jurisprudence.

A contemporary of actor Hugh Grant, Jay’s intellectual prowess was evident early on. He undertook pupillage under Simon D. Brown (later Baron Brown of Eaton-Under-Heywood) and was called to the Bar at Middle Temple in 1981.

Legal Career and Rise to Prominence

Jay’s early career as a barrister focused on public law, general common law, group litigation, and public inquiries. He was appointed Queen’s Counsel (now King’s Counsel) in 1998 and served as a Recorder from 1999 and a Deputy High Court Judge from 2008.

In 2011, he was elected Head of Chambers at 39 Essex Chambers, cementing his reputation as a leading legal mind. His appointment as Leading Counsel to the Leveson Inquiry (2011–2012) brought him into the public eye. The inquiry, which investigated the culture, practices, and ethics of the British press following the phone-hacking scandal, showcased Jay’s incisive questioning and command of complex legal and ethical issues. His use of esoteric vocabulary—words like “condign,” “pellucidly,” and “adumbrate”, and memorable asides, such as describing evidence as “light refracted through two intermediate prisms,” earned him both admiration and amusement.

In 2013, Jay was appointed a High Court judge, sitting in the King’s Bench Division, where he has presided over a range of cases, including defamation, fraud, and immigration appeals as a member of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission.

His judicial decisions have been praised for their intellectual depth, such as in the libel case of Serafin v Malkiewicz, where the Supreme Court commended his 70-page judgment as “intricately constructed and beautifully written.”

The Serafin v Malkiewicz Controversy

Despite his accolades, Mr Justice Jay’s judicial career has not been without controversy. The most significant criticism arose from his handling of the 2017 libel case Serafin v Malkiewicz, involving Jan Serafin, a Polish businessman and litigant in person, who sued the Polish-language magazine Nowy Czas over defamatory allegations. Jay dismissed Serafin’s claim after a seven-day trial, but his conduct during the proceedings drew sharp rebuke from higher courts.

The Court of Appeal, in a 2019 ruling, Serafin v Malkiewicz & Ors [2019] EWCA Civ 852 , described Mr Justice Jay’s behaviour as “threatening, overbearing, and, frankly, bullying” noting that he had “cast off the mantle of impartiality” by aggressively cross-examining Serafin and accusing him of lying. The court found that Jay’s interventions rendered the trial unfair, particularly given Serafin’s lack of legal representation and limited English proficiency.

The Supreme Court, in a unanimous 2020 ruling, Serafin (Respondent) v Malkiewicz and others (Appellants) UKSC/2019/0156, led by Lord Wilson, went further, stating that Jay had “harassed and intimidated” Serafin with “immoderate, ill-tempered and at times offensive language.” The trial was declared unfair, and a retrial was ordered, with the Supreme Court expressing “deep regret” that the justice system had failed both parties.

The Serafin case highlighted broader issues about judicial conduct toward litigants in person, particularly those navigating complex legal proceedings without representation. Critics argued that Jay’s approach failed to accommodate Serafin’s vulnerabilities, raising questions about impartiality and fairness in the judiciary.

The case also had implications for defamation law, as the Supreme Court clarified aspects of the public interest defense under the Defamation Act 2013, emphasizing that journalists need not always seek pre-publication comment from claimants.

Controversy Surrounding Mr Justice Jay’s Remarks in Haroon Aswat Case

On September the 8th 2025, a report by The Sun “Judge sparks fury after wishing 7/7 kingpin ‘all the best’ as he prepares to walk free despite fears he’s still a threat” sparked outrage after it revealed that High Court judge Sir Robert Jay, styled Mr Justice Jay, wished “all the best” to Haroon Aswat, a convicted terrorist linked to al-Qaeda, during a hearing at London’s Royal Courts of Justice.

Aswat, a 50-year-old British man from Batley, West Yorkshire, is due to be released from a psychiatric hospital and return to live with his family, prompting significant concern from counter-terrorism officials and the public. This article examines the details of the case, Jay’s controversial remarks, and the broader implications, drawing on available information and critically assessing the situation.

Judge “Best Wishes” to a terrorist ? – BlackBelt Barrister
Background on Haroon Aswat

Haroon Rashid Aswat, born on September 22, 1974, in Yorkshire to a Muslim family with roots in Gujarat, India, has a long history of association with extremist activities. In the 1990s, he was linked to radical cleric Abu Hamza al-Masri and the Finsbury Park Mosque, where he helped organize groups to engage in terrorism in Jammu and Kashmir and Bosnia. Aswat was convicted in the United States in 2015 for conspiring to establish a terrorist training camp in Oregon in 1999, alongside Abu Hamza, to train recruits for al-Qaeda. He pleaded guilty to terrorism charges and was sentenced to 20 years, later reduced to seven years due to time served in UK custody.

Aswat’s connection to the July 7, 2005, London bombings, which killed 52 people and injured over 770, has been particularly contentious. Although never charged in connection with the attacks, police traced 20 calls from the suicide bombers to a phone linked to Aswat. He has also claimed involvement in both the 7/7 bombings and the 9/11 attacks in the US, describing himself as a “terrorist” and “foot soldier” of al-Qaeda who does not “shy away from responsibility.” These statements, made while in US custody, raised alarms about his ongoing extremist ideology.

Aswat was deported to the UK in 2022 after serving his sentence and has since been detained under the Mental Health Act at Bethlem Royal Hospital (often referred to as Bedlam) due to a diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia. His release, expected in the near future following effective psychiatric treatment, has sparked concern due to a legal loophole preventing full risk assessments for psychiatric patients.

The Hearing and Mr Justice Jay’s Remarks

During a High Court hearing on the 1st April 2025, Mr Justice Jay approved a terrorist notification order for Aswat, requiring him to regularly inform police of details such as his address, foreign travel, and vehicle registration. This order was intended to allow authorities to monitor Aswat, who has been assessed by police, including Detective Inspector Karen Bradley, as posing a “risk to national security.” Despite these concerns, no formal terrorist risk assessment has been conducted since his return to the UK, largely due to restrictions on assessing individuals under psychiatric care.

According to a court transcript obtained by The Sun, Jay concluded the hearing with remarks that have drawn widespread criticism:

“I have to wish you all the best and say to you that the way forward is to keep on your medication, listen to the advice you are going to get, and keep out of the sort of things you were doing.”

These comments, directed at a man with a history of terrorist activities and expressed extremist views, were perceived as overly lenient and inappropriate particularly given warnings from counter-terrorism officials.

Detective Chief Superintendent Gareth Rees of the Metropolitan Police’s Counter Terrorism Command highlighted Aswat’s positive reflections on his time with al-Qaeda and his aspirations to reconnect with the group, underscoring the ongoing threat he poses.

Public and Official Reaction

The remarks triggered a firestorm of criticism. The Sun and Daily Mail reported public and official “fury,” with Shadow Justice Secretary Robert Jenrick stating,

“This despicable man was behind one of the most deadly attacks in modern history. He should never experience freedom again.”

Jenrick’s comments reflect a broader sentiment that Aswat’s release, particularly without robust surveillance such as GPS monitoring or an ankle tag, is a failure of the justice system. A 2022 psychiatric report by Dr. Richard Taylor noted that Aswat continued to express “violent extremist Islamic ideology” despite being mentally stable, further fueling concerns about his release.

The Home Office responded by emphasising that “protecting the British public is the very first priority” and that “robust counter-terrorism risk management measures” are in place. However, the absence of a full risk assessment and the reliance on a notification order—rather than more stringent monitoring—has raised doubts about the adequacy of these measures. A government source claimed Aswat would be subject to “robust monitoring” for 30 years, but critics argue this falls short given his history and the legal constraints on surveillance due to his psychiatric status.

Image of Mr Justice Jay : Getty Images

Check out our articles on Rule of Law, Open Justice, Judges Salaries and Fees, Dodgy Judges, Mr Justice Williams, His Honour Judge Melbourne Inman KC, 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
Government Judiciary Legal Professionals

Secretary of State for Justice

Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice David Lammy

David Lammy was appointed Secretary of State for Justice, Lord Chancellor and Deputy Prime Minister on the 5th September 2025.

He was previously Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs between 5 July 2024 and 5 September 2025. David was first elected as Labour MP for Tottenham at the age of 27 in June 2000.

As the Secretary of State for Justice, The Rt Hon David Lammy MP, heads the Ministry of Justice.

David studied law at the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) Law School and Harvard Law School. He was admitted to the Bar of England and Wales in 1994.

The Rt Hon David Lammy MP – Legal Experience

You may also be interested in our article on the Lord Chancellor, Lady Chief Justice, Master of the Rolls and the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 which explains the transfer of some powers from the Lord Chancellor to the Lord Chief Justice.

What is the role of the Secretary of State for Justice ?

According to the gov.uk webpage for the Secretary of State for Justice, it lists the ministerial roles as follows :-

Responsibilities

  1. Oversight of all portfolios and Ministry of Justice strategy
  2. Oversight of departmental COVID-19 response supported by other ministers according to portfolio
  3. Oversight of international business and future relations with the EU
  4. MoJ support for the Union
  5. Resourcing of the department
  6. Functions of the Lord Chancellor
  7. Judicial policy including pay, pensions and diversity (these and other operational decisions affecting the judiciary are reserved to the Lord Chancellor)
  8. Corporate services

Previous Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice

  1. The Rt Hon Shabana Mahmood MP 2024 to 2025
  2. The Rt Hon Alex Chalk KC 2023 to 2024
  3. The Rt Hon Dominic Raab MP 2022 to 2023
  4. The Rt Hon Brandon Lewis CBE MP 2022 to 2022
  5. The Rt Hon Dominic Raab MP 2021 to 2022
  6. The Rt Hon Robert Buckland KC MP 2019 to 2021
  7. The Rt Hon David Gauke 2018 to 2019
  8. The Rt Hon David Lidington CBE 2017 to 2018
  9. The Rt Hon Elizabeth Truss MP 2016 to 2017
  10. The Rt Hon Michael Gove MP 2015 to 2016
  11. The Rt Hon Chris Grayling MP 2012 to 2015
  12. The Rt Hon Kenneth Clarke KC 2010 to 2012

David Lammy the Lord Chancellor and Justice Secretary, has made several critical statements about US President Donald Trump in the past, particularly when he was a backbench MP.

In 2018, Lammy wrote in a TIME magazine article that Trump was a “woman-hating, neo-Nazi-sympathising sociopath” and a “profound threat to the international order.” He also called Trump a “tyrant in a toupee” and vowed to protest against the UK government’s “capitulation” to Trump during his visit to the UK.

In 2017, Lammy tweeted that Trump was a “racist KKK and Nazi sympathiser” and pledged to protest on the streets if Trump visited the UK.

In 2019, responding to Trump’s claim that he had been treated badly as president, Lammy tweeted, “4 US Presidents have been assassinated snowflake,” a comment criticized for its tone.

The Rt Hon David Lammy MP on US President Donald Trump

Photo Credit : David Lammy

Check out our articles on Lady Chief Justice, Lord Chancellor, Attorney General, Solicitor General, Government Legal Department, Rule of Law, 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
Judiciary Legal Analysis

Do Retired Judges Keep Their Title ?

Retired Judge

In the United Kingdom, judicial titles such as “His Honour,” “Her Honour,” or “Lord/Lady Justice” carry significant prestige, reflecting the authority and responsibility of judges during their tenure.

But what happens to these titles after retirement? Do retired judges, from circuit judges to High Court judges and beyond retain their honorifics?

This article explores the conventions, relevant legislation, and practical examples surrounding the use of judicial titles post-retirement across various judicial roles in the UK by drawing on guidance from the Incorporated Council of Law Reporting (ICLR) article What Do I Call the Judge and the HM Courts and Tribunals Judiciary article What do I call a judge?.

Judicial Titles During Active Service

Judicial titles in the UK vary by court level. Circuit judges, appointed under the Courts Act 1971, are addressed as “Your Honour” in court and styled “His Honour Judge [Surname]” or “Her Honour Judge [Surname]” (with KC added if applicable).

High Court judges, also under the Courts Act 1971, are addressed as “My Lord” or “My Lady” and styled “The Honourable Mr/Mrs Justice [Surname].” Court of Appeal judges, often referred to as Lords or Ladies Justices, carry the title “Lord/Lady Justice [Surname].” Supreme Court Justices are styled “Lord/Lady [Surname]” and addressed as “My Lord/Lady.”

Judges such as Deputy District Judges and Tribunal Judges are referred to as “Judge”.

Magistrates are referred to as “Your Worship, or Sir or Madam”

The ICLR and Judiciary guidance confirm these conventions for active judges, with correspondence typically beginning “Dear Judge” or “Dear Sir/Madam” depending on the role.

Post-Retirement Title Usage

Upon retirement, judges cease to hold their judicial office, raising questions about title retention. The answer varies by judicial level and context, formal legal settings, professional correspondence or social interactions.

Formal Legal Contexts

Legally, judicial titles are tied to the office held. The Courts Act 1971 and Senior Courts Act 1981 establish judicial roles but do not address post-retirement titles.

The Public Service Pensions and Judicial Offices Act 2022 allows retired judges, including circuit, High Court, and Court of Appeal judges, to be recalled for “sitting in retirement” roles, such as deputy circuit or High Court judges.

When serving in these capacities, they are addressed with their former titles in court (e.g., “Your Honour” for circuit judges, “My Lord/Lady” for High Court judges). Outside such roles, retired judges do not officially retain their titles in formal legal proceedings. Using titles like “His Honour” or “Mr Justice” in court documents for non-serving retired judges may be inappropriate.

Professional and Social Contexts

In practice, retired judges are often addressed with their former titles as a courtesy.

The ICLR guidance notes that retired circuit judges may be styled “His Honour [Full Name]” in correspondence, with letters beginning “Dear Judge.” Similarly, retired High Court judges may be addressed as “Sir [First Name]” or “Dame [First Name]” if knighted or appointed DBE, or simply “Mr/Mrs Justice [Surname] (Retired).” Retired Court of Appeal or Supreme Court judges often retain “Lord/Lady [Surname]” due to peerages, which are lifelong.

The Judiciary’s guidance does not prohibit these practices, suggesting flexibility in non-judicial settings. For example, a retired judge speaking at a legal event might be introduced with their former title, such as “Her Honour Judge [Surname] (Retired)” or “Lord Justice [Surname] (Retired).”

Practical Examples

Consider His Honour Judge Melbourne Inman KC, a retired circuit judge often referenced with his title in professional contexts, suggesting its use post-retirement as a courtesy.

Retired High Court judges, like Sir John Mummery, are frequently styled “Sir John” or “Mr Justice Mummery (Retired)” in legal publications. Lord Dyson, a former Supreme Court Justice, retains his title due to his peerage, as seen in public appearances.

Retired judges serving as arbitrators or mediators, common roles post-retirement are often introduced with their former titles in professional settings.

Conventions and Nuances

Title retention is largely customary. In legal and professional circles, using “His Honour,” “Mr Justice,” or “Lord/Lady” for retired judges is common, particularly in correspondence or when referencing their judicial contributions.

Peerages, like those for Supreme Court or Court of Appeal judges, are retained for life, ensuring continued use of “Lord/Lady.”

The Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1993, which governs judicial pensions, does not address titles but reinforces the retirement age of 75, after which judges may serve in limited capacities.

Conclusion

Retired UK judges do not officially retain their titles in formal legal contexts unless recalled to judicial roles under the Public Service Pensions and Judicial Offices Act 2022.

However, conventions outlined by the ICLR and Judiciary allow titles like “His Honour,” “Mr Justice,” or “Lord/Lady” to be used as a courtesy in professional and social settings. This practice reflects respect for their service, with variations by judicial level and context. For formal situations, clarity on a judge’s status is essential to ensure accuracy.

Check out our articles on Judges Salaries and Fees, Dodgy Judges, Lady Chief Justice, Mr Justice Williams, His Honour Judge Melbourne Inman KC, 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 Judiciary Legal Professionals

Watch UK Court Proceedings Online

Court Proceedings Videos

The latest cases in the Crown Court and Court of Appeal are available on the Sky News Courts YouTube channel. These videos are an opportunity to see justice in action.

Section 41 of the Criminal Justice Act 1925 (CJA 1925) makes it an offence to take any photograph, make or attempt to make any portrait or sketch of a justice or a witness in, or a party to, any proceedings before the court, either in the courtroom or its precincts.

The Crimes and Courts Act 2013 allows the ban to be disapplied in certain circumstances by secondary legislation. For instance, the Court of Appeal and Competition Appeal Tribunal can broadcast proceedings. The Crown court can broadcast sentencing remarks. The Supreme Court is excluded from the two bans because cases heard by the UK’s highest court, which was established in 2009, would have previously been heard in the House of Lords where broadcasting was allowed.

See Photography in Court for more information.

High Profile Cases Videos

Lady Chief Justice gives judgment in the Court of Appeal – Shamima Begum
High Court Judge Mr Justice Goss imposed life sentences with whole-life orders – Lucy Letby

Latest Court Proceedings Videos

Please be advised that videos may contain graphic descriptions of serious crimes, including murder and sexual offences.

UK Athletics fined £350,000 over death of Paralympian hit by falling metal cage

UK Athletics was fined £350,000 over the "wholly avoidable" death of a Paralympian who was killed when a shot-put cage collapsed during training.

Abdullah Hayayei, 36, who represented the United Arab ...Emirates, was killed at Newham Leisure Centre, east London, during a practice session in 2017.

The father-of-five was preparing to represent his country in the F34 class discus, javelin and shot put at the World Para Athletics Championships in London when part of a 31st throwing cage fell on him.

He was left with a severe head injury after the 5ft high cage toppled over because it was put up incorrectly and without its base plate, in an "accident waiting to happen".

The national governing body for athletics was charged with causing the death of Mr Hayayei by "supplying for use... a discus/shot put cage which it used and operated without its base structure and which collapsed" into the Paralympian while he was practising shot putting.

UK Athletics Ltd admitted corporate manslaughter and was ordered to pay nearly £400,000 over six years - made up of a fine of £350,000 and legal costs of £44,000, as well as a statutory surcharge.

Keith Davies, who was the head of sport for the 2017 World Para Athletics Championships, also pleaded guilty to a health and safety charge.

The 79-year-old was handed a community order to do 175 hours of unpaid work, to be carried out in the next 12 months.

Sentencing, Judge Richard Marks KC said Mr Hayayei's death was "tragic, untimely and wholly avoidable".

He noted failings by UK Athletics were not a "one-off" but said any financial penalty would "weaken" its ability to support individual athletes and athletics in the community.

He told Davies, a retired PE teacher, that he knew, or ought to have known, base plates were an "integral part" of the cage construction.

He was "on notice" following an earlier collapse of an identical cage, the judge said, adding: "This was an accident which sooner or later was waiting to happen."

In the five years since UK Athletics acquired two identical cages originally used in the 2012 Olympics, they had never been properly assembled with the base plates attached, the court heard.

Davies had claimed UK Athletics had never been supplied with base plates, but this proved not to be true, the court was told.

The judge's sentencing remarks can be read in full at: https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/metropolitan-police-v-uk-athletics-limited-and-keith-davies/

SUBSCRIBE to our YouTube channel for more videos: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCF3HqeLrCkZgARQfyqj1m-g?view_as=subscriber

Follow Sky News on Twitter: https://twitter.com/skynews and https://twitter.com/skynewsbreak

Like us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/skynews

Follow us on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/skynews

For more content go to http://news.sky.com and download our apps:

Apple https://itunes.apple.com/gb/app/sky-news/id316391924?mt=8

Android https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.bskyb.skynews.android&hl=en_GBShow More
UK Athletics fined £350,000 over death of Paralympian hit by falling metal cage
UK Athletics fined £350,000 over death of Paralympian hit by falling metal cage
UK Athletics was fined £350,000 over the "wholly avoidable" death of a ...
Mother and ex-boyfriend jailed for total of 27 years over death of boy, 4
Mother and ex-boyfriend jailed for total of 27 years over death of boy, 4
A mother’s ex-boyfriend has been jailed for the manslaughter of her ...
Woman jailed for murdering sister and taking Rolex
Woman jailed for murdering sister and taking Rolex
A woman who stabbed her film director sister to death before stealing ...
Teens detained for killing man they branded a paedophile
Teens detained for killing man they branded a paedophile
Three teenagers who lured a man they believed to be a paedophile to a ...
Life sentence for man who raped woman in her home
Life sentence for man who raped woman in her home
A man who raped a Sikh woman in her home while subjecting her to a ...
Conviction quashed for church warden jailed over murder of university lecturer
Conviction quashed for church warden jailed over murder of university lecturer
A former church warden who was jailed for life for the murder of a ...

Check out our related articles on 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
Judiciary

Recorder Annabel Darlow KC

Recorder Annabel Darlow KC

Annabel Charlotte Darlow KC, born on the 19th March 1970, is a highly respected figure in the British legal system, known for her exceptional advocacy, strategic brilliance, and extensive expertise in complex criminal and civil cases.

As a King’s Counsel (KC) since 2015 and a Recorder of the Crown Court since 2009, Darlow has built an illustrious career marked by high-profile cases, judicial appointments, and recognition as a leading silk in crime by both The Legal 500 and Chambers & Partners.

In court, Ms Annabel Darlow KC – The Honorary Recorder of Redbridge, should be addressed as “Your Honour.”

Annabel Darlow is apparently Security Cleared at the highest level.

Controversy

On the 5th August 2025, Annabel Darlow KC, sitting as a Recorder at Isleworth Crown Court, delivered sentence in a case involving racially aggravated harassment and threats to kill aboard a Virgin Atlantic flight from London Heathrow to Lahore. The defendant, Salman Iftikhar, a 37-year-old recruitment executive, was sentenced to just 15 months in prison for his actions.

On the 12th August 2025, The Rt Hon Chris Philp MP, as Shadow Home Secretary, referred Salman Iftikhar’s case to Attorney General Lord Hermer for review under the Unduly Lenient Sentence scheme, following Iftikhar’s 15-month sentence for racially aggravated harassment and threats to kill on a Virgin Atlantic flight. He claims this is evidence of a two tier justice system.

Chris Philp Letter to Attorney General Lord Hermer Unduly Lenient Sentence Recorder Annabel Darlow KC

Legal Career

Annabel Darlow was called to the Bar (Middle Temple) in 1993 and quickly established herself as a formidable barrister at 6 King’s Bench Walk (6KBW) College Hill, one of the UK’s leading chambers.

Her practice spans a wide range of legal disciplines, with particular emphasis on homicide, terrorism, fraud, corporate advisory, confiscation and asset forfeiture, public and administrative law, and extradition. Her ability to navigate complex legal issues with precision and her reputation as a “forensic pugilist with brains” have earned her widespread acclaim.

Since taking silk in 2015, Darlow has been consistently recognised as a Leading Silk in Crime. The Legal 500 has praised her “understated advocacy style” as “very effective with judges and jurors alike,” while Chambers & Partners has lauded her as “a phenomenal cross-examiner” and “a very strong advocate” who “stands up to judges with confidence and clarity.” Her tactical ability, meticulous preparation, and spellbinding courtroom presence have made her a sought-after barrister for both prosecution and defense in high-stakes cases.

Annabel Darlow was appointed a Deputy High Court Judge in the King’s Bench Division under section 9(1) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 on the 1st April 2022.

Annabel Darlow’s CV is available to download at 6KBW.

Notable Cases

Recorder Annabel Darlow’s caseload reflects her versatility and depth of expertise. She has acted in numerous high-profile cases, many of which have set legal precedents or attracted significant public attention. Below are some highlights of her recent work:

  • Murder and Violent Crime: Darlow has successfully prosecuted and defended in murder, manslaughter, and attempted murder trials. Notable cases include R v Broughton and others ([2020] EWCA Crim 1093), an appellate case involving a death from a drug overdose at a music festival, and R v TN and others, where she prosecuted nine defendants charged with murder in a revenge attack linked to a county lines drug gang. Her expertise in contested medical and psychiatric evidence has been particularly noted in cases involving issues like diminished responsibility and self-defense.
  • Terrorism: Darlow has a long history of handling terrorism-related cases, covering groups such as the Provisional IRA, Al Qaeda, ISIS, and right-wing extremists. She prosecuted R v BZ, an Islamic extremist who plotted to behead a British soldier, and R v SW and others, involving right-wing extremists constructing a 3D-printed firearm for terrorist purposes. Her landmark case R v Kahar and others ([2016] EWCA Crim 568) helped establish sentencing guidelines for terrorism trials.
  • Fraud and Corporate Advisory: Darlow has been involved in major fraud cases, including the Serious Fraud Office’s (SFO) prosecution of Barclays Bank and its senior executives for fraud related to the 2008 financial crisis, described as a “blockbuster” trial. She also handled R v Kallakis and Williams, one of Britain’s largest mortgage fraud cases, and advised corporations like News International and Hewlett Packard/Autonomy in sensitive investigations.
  • Judicial Review and Human Rights: Darlow regularly acts in judicial review proceedings, including cases involving bail refusals and claims that the criminal courts charge breached defendants’ human rights. Her work in this area demonstrates her commitment to ensuring fairness in the legal process.

Companies House Appointments

Annabel Charlotte Darlow is listed as a Director of 2 Active Companies and 1 Dissolved Company.

6KBW NOMINEE LIMITED (07872677)
6KBW NOMINEE 2 LIMITED (07872709)
6 KING’S BENCH WALK LIMITED (07787605)

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 Recorder Annabel Darlow KC : 6KBW Copyright: Brian Lloyd Duckett 2017

Check out our articles on Rule of Law, Open Justice, Judges Salaries and Fees, Dodgy Judges, Mr Justice Williams, His Honour Judge Melbourne Inman KC, 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
Judiciary

Her Honour Judge Rosa Dean

Her Honour Judge Rosa Dean - Recorder of Redbridge

Her Honour Judge Rosa Mary Dean is a Senior Circuit Judge and the Resident Judge at Snaresbrook Crown Court in England.

HHJ Dean was appointed as a Senior Circuit Judge and Resident Judge at Snaresbrook Crown Court, effective 19th September 2022, by the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales at the time, the Right Honourable The Lord Burnett of Maldon.

Her Honour Judge Rosa Dean is also the Honorary Recorder of Redbridge, a ceremonial role that recognises her position as the senior judge at Snaresbrook Crown Court. 

HHJ Dean is the presiding judge in the case of Ricky Jones, a suspended Labour councillor charged with encouraging violent disorder.

Ricky Jones, aged 57, was charged by the CPS in connection to a speech he made on the 7th August 2024, in Walthamstow, where he allegedly made inflammatory remarks

“They are disgusting Nazi fascists. We need to cut all their throats and get rid of them all.”

On the 15th August 2025 the Labour councillor Ricky Jones who called for far-right protesters’ throats to be cut at an anti-racism rally was found not guilty of encouraging violent disorder.

Are Ricky Jones Comments Legal Now ?
HH Judge Rosa Dean Introduces Live Link Room

HHJ Dean Legal Bio

Her Honour Judge Dean was called to the Bar (Gray’s Inn) in 1994 and began her judicial career as a Deputy District Judge (Magistrates’ Court) in 2006, followed by appointments as a Recorder in 2009 and a Circuit Judge in 2011. She served as Resident Judge at Harrow Crown Court from 2017 before her appointment to Snaresbrook Crown Court in September 2022.

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

Her Honour Judge Rosa Mary Dean London18-10-2011
List of Circuit Judges

Her Honour Judge Rosa Dean is shown on the Resident Judges list published on the Courts and Tribunal Judiciary website.

HHJ Dean attended Brighton & Hove High School from the age of 8 to 16 (1977 to 1985)

Her Honour Judge Rosa Dean is a Master of the Bench (commonly referred to as a Bencher) at Gray’s Inn. She was elected as a Master of the Bench at the Trinity 2015 Election.

As a senior member of the Inn, this role reflects her significant contributions to the legal profession and the governance of Gray’s Inn, which is one of the four Inns of Court in London.

Authorisation to sit as a High Court Judge

HHJ Dean 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 Her Honour Judge Dean should be addressed as “My Lady” 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;

Diversity and Community Relations Judge (DCRJ)

Her Honour Judge Dean is listed as a Diversity and Community Relations Judge (DCRJ), a role that involves promoting diversity and community engagement in the judicial system.

HHJ Dean covers the area around Snaresbrook Crown Court. She has also supported diversity efforts, such as assisting with visits from Diversity and Community Relations Magistrates at Harrow Crown Court. Additionally, her participation in events like the London Law Collective, where she delivered a keynote speech, highlights her role in inspiring diversity in the legal profession.

Diversity and Community Relations Judges across England and Wales undertake a huge amount of community engagement in a voluntary capacity. They also seek to encourage legal professionals from under-represented groups to consider a judicial career.

Diversity and Community Relations Judges – Courts and Tribunals Judiciary

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 Dean : You & Co

Check out our articles on Rule of Law, Open Justice, Judges Salaries and Fees, Dodgy Judges, Mr Justice Williams, His Honour Judge Melbourne Inman KC, 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
Family Law Judiciary Law Legal Analysis Legal Professionals

HM Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) Dishonest Coverup ?

HMCTS Coverup IT Bug

A serious IT glitch in the HM Courts & Tribunals Service (HMCTS) system in England and Wales has sparked allegations of a cover-up, raising concerns about the integrity of judicial rulings.

The software – known variously as Judicial Case Manager, MyHMCTS or CCD – is used to manage evidence and track cases before the courts. It is used by judges, lawyers, case workers and members of the public.

Courts service HMCTS ‘covered up’ IT bug that caused evidence to go missing – BBC

A leaked internal report revealed that a software flaw, present for several years before its discovery in 2023, caused critical evidence to go missing, be overwritten, or appear lost in civil, family, and tribunal courts.

This issue, which potentially affected thousands of cases, has led to accusations that HMCTS failed to act promptly or transparently, leaving judges to make rulings based on incomplete evidence. The scandal has drawn sharp criticism from legal experts and raised fears of widespread miscarriages of justice, particularly in sensitive family court cases involving child protection.

A briefing prepared for the chief executive of HMCTS (Nick Goodwin)- dated March 2024 – reveals the risk to proceedings was initially categorised as “high” with the possibility of court outcomes being adversely affected assessed as “very likely”, resulting in “severe reputational impact to HMCTS“.

Courts service HMCTS ‘covered up’ IT bug that caused evidence to go missing – BBC

Specific details about the development team or external contractors involved in the the case-management software, referred to as Judicial Case Manager, MyHMCTS, or Common Components Division (CCD)are not publicly disclosed or available.

Sources

HMCTS Bug and Coverup

The IT bug, embedded in software introduced in 2018, was not addressed until 2023, despite internal awareness of data loss issues. Sources within HMCTS, as reported by the BBC, claim that HMCTS did not inform judges or lawyers about the fault, even after it was identified.

One alarming instance highlighted in the report involved over 4,000 documents vanishing from hundreds of public family law cases, including those related to child protection.

The failure to disclose the issue has fuelled allegations of a deliberate cover-up, with one HMCTS source stating, “There is a culture of cover-ups. They’re not worried about risk to the public, they’re worried about people finding out about the risk to the public.”

The internal report, obtained by the BBC, revealed that HMCTS did not conduct a comprehensive investigation into the extent of the data corruption or its impact on case outcomes.

Of the 609 cases identified with potential issues, only 109 were selected for further review, with just one deemed to have a “potentially significant impact.”

Critics, including Sir James Munby, former President of the Family Division, have called the incident “shocking” and “a scandal,” arguing that the lack of a thorough investigation undermines trust in the judicial system. Munby emphasised that the absence of a formal legal review of affected cases makes it impossible to confidently assert that no miscarriages of justice occurred.

The software’s flawed design has also come under scrutiny. Sources described it as “not designed properly or robustly,” with a history of data loss that was inadequately addressed. This has led to broader concerns about the reliability of digital systems in critical public services.

The irony of HMCTS’s claim that its internal investigation found “no evidence” of affected case outcomes was not lost on commentators, with some, like a user on Singletrack World Magazine, noting the darkly humorous implication of an evidence-losing system finding no evidence of harm.

HMCTS has since stated that the IT bug was fixed in 2023, though specific details about the timeline of the fix or the measures taken to prevent future issues remain sparse. HMCTS maintains that its internal investigation found no significant impact on case outcomes, but this claim has been met with scepticism due to the limited scope of the review.

Miscarriage of Justice ? – Art of Law

Conclusion

The fallout from this scandal has broader implications for public trust in the UK’s judicial system. Social media platforms have seen users express dismay, with one stating, “There seems to be a chronic lack of accountability in the UK state at the moment. And if you can’t trust the courts, where do you even start?” The incident has also reignited discussions about the risks of over-reliance on digital infrastructure in critical sectors, particularly when systems are not rigorously tested or maintained.

Families and individuals affected by the data loss may face significant challenges in seeking justice. Researching Reform, a legal advocacy group, noted that many families had previously complained about missing evidence in their cases, suggesting that the IT bug may have contributed to wrongful rulings. As calls grow for a formal inquiry, the HMCTS scandal serves as a stark reminder of the need for transparency, accountability, and robust technological systems in the administration of justice.

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

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

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

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

His Honour Judge Neil Flewitt KC

His Honour Judge Neil Flewitt KC

His Honour Judge Neil Flewitt KC is a Circuit Judge. He is a senior judge based at Liverpool Crown Court.

In July 2025, Judge Flewitt oversaw the trial of two brothers, Mohammed Fahir Amaaz and Muhammed Amaad, accused of assaulting police officers at Manchester Airport.

On Friday 25th July 2025, the jury were sent home for the weekend. Judge Flewitt told members of the jury to put the case out of their minds until they return.

Verdicts were reached on Wednesday 30th July 2025 and were as follows:-

Count 1: Mohammed Fahir Amaaz is charged with assault by beating Abdulkareem Hamzah Abbas Ismaeil. Verdict: GUILTY

Count 2: Mohammed Fahir Amaaz and Muhammed Amaad are are charged with assaulting PC Zachary Marsden occasioning actual bodily harm. Verdicts: Mohammed Fahir Amaaz: NO VERDICT REACHED. Muhammed Amaad: NO VERDICT REACHED

Count 3: Mohammed Fahir Amaaz is charged with assaulting PC Lydia Ward occasioning her actual body harm. Verdict: GUILTY

Count 4: Mohammed Fahir Amaaz is charged with assaulting an emergency worker PC Ellie Cook by beating her. Verdict: GUILTY

Man convicted of assaulting two female police officers and a member of the public – Greater Manchester Police Statement

The retrial for the Manchester Airport brothers Mohammed Fahir Amaaz and Muhammad Amaad started on Monday 13th April 2026 at Liverpool Crown Court before His Honour Judge Neil Flewitt KC

On the 20th May 2026, the retrial jury was discharged after it failed to reach verdicts over allegations that the two brothers assaulted police officer PC Zachary Marsden at Manchester Airport. The case was adjourned until 29 May to give the Crown Prosecution Service time to decide whether it wanted to seek a third trial.

On the 29th May 2026, the Crown Prosecution Service said it would not be ordering a further hearing for Muhammad Amaad, 26, and Mohammed Fahir Amaaz, 21, after two previous juries failed to reach verdicts at Liverpool Crown Court.

An attempt to persuade Judge Neil Flewitt to ‘recuse‘ himself from the retrial on grounds which included alleged ‘intimidation’ of female barristers also failed.

He ruled that his own interventions during the first trial had been ‘reasonable’ and ‘balanced’ and refused to step aside for the retrial.

Revealed – How lawyers for the brothers filmed brawling with police at Manchester Airport tried to derail case against them – Daily Mail

His Honour Judge Flewitt KC Bio

Neil Flewitt was born in 1960 and called to the Bar (Middle Temple) in 1981. He quickly established himself as a skilled barrister, specialising in criminal law.

His expertise and advocacy led to his appointment as Queen’s Counsel (QC, now King’s Counsel or KC) in 2003, a prestigious designation recognising his excellence in the legal profession.

Before his judicial appointment, Judge Flewitt served as an Assistant Recorder (1999) and Recorder (2000), roles that allowed him to gain experience presiding over cases in the Crown Court.

In 2015, on the advice of the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice, Her Majesty The Queen appointed Flewitt as a Circuit Judge, assigning him to the Northern Circuit, based at Liverpool Crown Court. Since then, he has been known as His Honour Judge Neil Flewitt KC, reflecting his status as a senior judge.

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

His Honour Judge Flewitt KCNorth West09-06-2015
List of Circuit Judges

HHJ Flewitt Other Notable Cases

In 2024, Judge Flewitt presided over cases related to the violent disorder in Southport, Merseyside, following the tragic stabbing of three young girls. One significant case involved Luke Moran, who was sentenced to three years for smashing a police vehicle’s window with a chunk of concrete during the riots.

HHJ Flewitt KC described the incident as one of the worst cases of disorder he had seen, emphasising the harm caused to the community and the police.

In another case tied to the same unrest, Andrew McIntyre was sentenced to seven years for posting racially motivated content on social media that incited violence.

Judge Flewitt condemned McIntyre’s actions, stating they were “motivated by racial hatred” and had encouraged others to commit violent offenses.

An escaped prisoner who was found with a nail bomb, two imitation firearms and a knife was planning to blow up a bank after watching a Netflix documentary.

He was jailed for 15 years at Liverpool Crown Court on Thursday and given an extended licence period of five years after Judge Neil Flewitt KC ruled he was a dangerous offender the public required protection from.

Judge Flewitt – Sky News

A mother thanked the Judge Neil Flewitt KC who jailed her two sons for burgling a library that was set on fire and looted during riots in Liverpool – before warning others to stay at home

A relative of the teenager accused of murdering schoolboy Rhys
Jones has refused to answer questions in court. He was asked several questions by Neil Flewitt QC, prosecuting, but said he was “too scared” to answer. The judge held him in contempt of court and told him to report back to court on Monday with legal representation.”

BBC News, 28 October 2008

The judiciary, including Judge Flewitt, are quite rightly not immune to public criticism and comment. The rule of law applies to everyone and no one is above the law.

Criticising judges, was historically considered a form of contempt of court in England and Wales.

“Scandalising the judiciary (also referred to as scandalising the court or scandalising judges) is abolished as a form of contempt of court under the common law of England and Wales.”

Crime and Courts Act 2013 Section 33

You may want to check out the articles on Dodgy Judges and His Honour Judge Melbourne Inman KC (The Former Recorder of Birmingham).

HHJ Flewitt Controversy

Judge Flewitt’s decisions have not been without controversy, particularly in high-profile cases that have attracted public scrutiny. Posts on social media following the Manchester Airport assault trial criticised HHJ Flewitt for allegedly describing the defendants as being of “good character” due to their lack of prior convictions, with some users accusing him of bias.

However, others defended his approach, noting that it is standard judicial practice to inform juries of a defendant’s lack of prior convictions, and praised His Honour Judge Flewitt as an “excellent judge” doing his duty. These polarised views highlight the challenges judges face in balancing legal impartiality with public sentiment.

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 Flewitt : Patrick Christys Appreciation Group – Helping To Put The Great Back

Check out our articles on Dodgy Judges, Judges Salaries and Fees, Mr Justice Williams, His Honour Judge Melbourne Inman KC, 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.

Rule of Law - Open Justice - Policing By Consent