Category: Law

The King’s Counsel (KC) is a prestigious title awarded to senior barristers and advocates who have rights of audience in the higher courts of England and Wales who have also demonstrated the competencies in the Competency Framework to a standard of excellence.

King’s Counsel are appointed from amongst practising advocates – both barristers and solicitors.

The selection process for KC’s is rigorous and selective, and candidates must meet specific criteria to be eligible for consideration.

In this article, we will examine the history, qualifications, and benefits of being appointed as a King’s Counsel in the UK, as well as the process of recommendation and appointment.

History of King’s Counsel

The title of King’s Counsel (KC) has a long and rich history in the legal profession in the UK. It was first introduced in the 16th century during the reign of King Elizabeth I. At that time, the title was conferred upon lawyers who were appointed by the monarch to act as legal advisors and advocates in court.

In the 19th century, the title of King’s Counsel became more closely associated with the legal profession. It was recognized as a mark of excellence in the field, and those who were appointed to the position were seen as being among the most skilled and experienced lawyers in the country.

Qualifications for King’s Counsel

To be considered for appointment as a King’s Counsel, a lawyer must meet a strict set of criteria.

First and foremost, they must have a minimum of ten years’ experience practicing law, and they must have demonstrated exceptional skill and expertise in their field.

They must also have a strong record of advocacy and be able to demonstrate that they have achieved outstanding results for their clients.

In addition to these qualifications, a lawyer must also be nominated for the position by the Lord Chancellor.

The Lord Chancellor invites nominations from a range of sources, including judges, other senior lawyers, and professional bodies such as the Bar Council and Law Society.

Once a nomination has been made, the candidate must submit an application that includes detailed information about their legal career and achievements.

This will typically include information on their education, professional experience, notable cases, and any other relevant information that demonstrates their skill and expertise in the field of law.

Benefits of being a King’s Counsel

Being appointed as a King’s Counsel is a significant achievement in the legal profession. It is a mark of excellence that is recognized both within the legal profession and outside of it. It is also a title that comes with a number of benefits.

One of the main benefits of being a King’s Counsel is that it provides lawyers with increased opportunities to work on high-profile and complex cases. As one of the most respected titles in the legal profession, those who hold the position of King’s Counsel are often sought out by clients who are looking for the best possible representation.

Another benefit of being a King’s Counsel is that it can lead to increased earnings. Lawyers who hold this title are often able to command higher fees for their services, as clients are willing to pay a premium for the expertise and experience that comes with the position.

In addition to these benefits, being a King’s Counsel is also an opportunity to give back to the legal profession. Those who hold this title are often involved in mentoring and training younger lawyers, helping to ensure that the next generation of legal professionals is well-prepared to take on the challenges of the profession.

Recommendation and Appointment Process

The process of appointing a KC in the UK is overseen by the King’s Counsel Appointments (KCA) committee. The KCA is an independent body that is responsible for recommending candidates for appointment as KCs to the Lord Chancellor.

The process typically begins with nominations made by judges, other senior lawyers, and professional bodies such as the Bar Council and Law Society. The Lord Chancellor may also invite nominations from other sources, including members of the public.

Once a nomination has been made, the candidate must submit an application that includes detailed information about their legal career and achievements. The KCA
committee will then review the application and consider a range of factors when making their recommendation, including the candidate’s skill, experience, and professional conduct.

The KCA also considers diversity and inclusion when making their recommendations. They are committed to ensuring that the legal profession is representative of the communities it serves, and they actively seek out candidates from a diverse range of backgrounds.

Once the KCA has made their recommendation, it is then up to the Lord Chancellor to make the final decision on whether to appoint the candidate as a KC. The Lord Chancellor typically follows the recommendation of the KCA, but they are not bound to do so.

Complaints

King’s Counsel Appointments does not deal with complaints about KCs. Those are dealt with by the Legal Ombudsman; or by the Bar Standards Board for barristers or the Solicitors Regulations Authority for solicitor KCs.

Conclusion

Being appointed as a King’s Counsel is a significant achievement in the legal profession in the UK. It is a title that is recognized both within the legal profession and outside of it, and it comes with a range of benefits.

Overall, the appointment of KCs is a rigorous and selective process that ensures that only the most skilled and experienced lawyers in the UK are awarded this prestigious title.

It is a mark of excellence that is highly respected within the legal profession and serves as a testament to a lawyer’s skill and expertise in the practice of law.

Read the reviews of Gavin Howe Barrister, who in my opinion, is unlikely to ever receive KC.

“He is awful, underhanded and should not be practising law!”

Latest Articles

• 
  What is a Paralegal ?
  A paralegal is a legal professional who performs tasks that require knowledge of legal concepts but does not hold the… Read more: What is a Paralegal ?
• 
  What is a Judgment ?
  A judgment, also known as a judicial decision or court ruling, is the final decision made by a court of… Read more: What is a Judgment ?
• 
  What is an Adverse Inference ?
  Adverse inference is a legal principle that plays a significant role in various areas of law, including criminal, civil, and family law. It arises… Read more: What is an Adverse Inference ?
• 
  Barristers
  A barrister is anyone who has been Called to the Bar in England and Wales. For a barrister to offer… Read more: Barristers

All articles can be found in our Sitemap

“It is not merely of some importance but is of fundamental importance that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done”

Lord Hewart

In the case of R v Sussex Justices, Ex parte McCarthy [1924] 1 KB 256, Mr. McCarthy was convicted of dangerous driving by two justices of the peace sitting in petty sessions.

It later emerged that one of the justices had a personal interest in the outcome of the case, as he was the chairman of the local road transport committee and was therefore responsible for road safety in the area.

This raised concerns of bias, as the justice’s involvement in road safety could have influenced his decision-making in the case.

Mr. McCarthy sought to have his conviction quashed on the grounds of bias, and the case eventually reached the King’s Bench Division of the High Court of Justice.

In his judgment made almost 100 years ago, Lord Chief Justice Hewart established the principle that

“It is not merely of some importance, but is of fundamental importance that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done.“

Lord Hewart

This principle became known as the rule against bias, and it established that justice must not only be impartial, but must also be seen to be impartial.

In other words, a decision-maker must be free from any personal interest or bias that could affect their judgment, and the appearance of impartiality is just as important as the reality of impartiality.

“Nothing is to be done that creates even a suspicion that there has been an improper interference with the course of justice.“

Lord Hewart

The significance of the Rex (The King) v Sussex Justices case lies in its establishment of the principle of natural justice and the rule against bias.

The case set an important precedent for future cases, and it remains a cornerstone of the UK legal system to this day.

The case also highlighted the importance of procedural fairness and transparency in the legal system, which ensures that justice is not only done, but is also seen to be done.

COMMON LAWS OF ENGLAND – THE KING v. SUSSEX JUSTICES Ex parte McCARTHY

November 9 1923 [1924] – KINGS BENCH DIVISION

Justices – Possibility of Bias – Justices’ Clerk interested professionally in Civil Proceedings arising out of Subject Matter of Complaint.

Arising out of a collision between a motor vehicle belonging to the applicant and one belonging to W., a summons was taken out by the police against the applicant for having driven his motor vehicle in a manner dangerous to the public. At the hearing of the summons the acting clerk to the justices was a member of the firm of solicitors who were acting for W. in a claim for damages against the applicant for injuries received in the collision. At the conclusion of the evidence the justices retired to consider their decision, the acting clerk retiring with them in case they should desire to be advised on any point of law. The justices convicted the applicant, and it was stated on affidavit that they came to that conclusion without consulting the acting clerk, who in fact abstained from referring to the case:-

  Held: the the conviction must be quashed, as it was improper for the acting clerk, having regard to his firm’s relation to the case, to be present with the justices when they were considering their decision.

RULE NISI for a writ of certiorari to bring up, for the purpose of being quashed, a conviction of McCarthy, the applicant for the rule, for having driven a motor car on a certain highway in a manner which was dangerous to the public, having regard to all the circumstances of the case.

On August 22, 1923, a collision took place between a motor cycle driven by the applicant and a motor cycle and side-car driven by one Whitworth, and it was alleged that the latter and his wife sustained injuries in the collision. In respect of those injuries Messrs. Langham, Son & Douglas, solicitors, Hastings, by a letter dated August 28, 1923, made a claim on behalf of Whitworth against the applicant for damages, and the police, after making inquiries into the circumstances of the collision, applied for and obtained a summons against the applicant for driving his motor cycle in a manner dangerous to the public.

At the hearing of that summons on September 22, 1923, the applicant’s solicitor, who stated in his affidavit that he had no knowledge of the officials of the court, inquired whether Mr. F. G. Langham, the clerk to the justices and a member of the said firm of Langham, Son & Douglas, was then sitting as a clerk, and was informed that he was not, but had been appointed a deputy for that day.

The case was then heard, and at the conclusion of the evidence the justices retired to consider their decision, the deputy clerk retiring with them. When the justices returned into the court they intimated that they had decided to convict the applicant, and they imposed a fine of 10 shillings and costs.

Thereupon the applicant’s solicitor brought to the notice of the justices the fact, of which he said he had only become aware when the justices retired, that the deputy clerk was a brother of Mr. F, G. Langham, Son & Douglas, and so was interested as solicitor for Whitworth in the civil proceedings arising out of the collision in respect of which they had convicted the applicant.

The solicitor in his affidavit stated that had he known the above facts he would have taken the objection before the case began. This rule was thereafter obtained on the ground that it was irregular for the deputy clerk in the circumstances to retire with the justices when considering their decision.

In their affidavit the justices stated that the clerk to the justices, Mr F. G. Langham, was on holiday at the date of the hearing and had no knowledge of the proceeding, that in his absence his brother and partner Mr F. G. Langham acted as his deputy, that no formal objection was taken to the latter acting, that at the conclusion of the evidence the justices retired, the deputy clerk retiring with them in the usual way, taking with him the notes of the evidence in case they should be required, or in case the justices should desire to be advised upon any point of law, that in fact the justices came to their decision to convict the applicant without consulting the deputy clerk, who scrupulously abstained from referring to the case, and that the justices were not in any way biased by the fact that a member of the deputy clerk’s firm had written the said letter before action.

The justices added that it appeared to them that the applicant’s solicitor must have had knowledge of the deputy clerk’s connection with the firm of Langham, Son & Douglas, and that he waived any formal objection; and that is a formal objection has been taken at the commencement of the proceedings the justices would have followed their usual course in such circumstances by adjourning the hearing and requesting the clerk to arrange with one of his colleagues from a neighbouring division to act at the adjourned hearing.

Russell Davies for the justices showed cause. However undesirable it may have been in the circumstances for the deputy clerk to retire with the justices when they were considering their decision, the fact that he did so does not invalidate the conviction, seeing that he took no part in the justices’ deliberations.

[LORD HEWART C.J. In a recent unreported case,* this Court quashed a conviction where the chief constable, who was then prosecuting, retired with the justices]

There it was not the duty of the chief constable to retire with the justices; here it was the duty of the deputy clerk to do so in case the justices should desire to consult him upon any point of law. If, however, there was any irregularity in the proceedings, the applicant, through his solicitor; must be taken to have waived it.

*[He referred to Regina v Brakenridge (1) (1884) 48 J.P. 203]

W. T. Moncton for the superintendent of police, who had been served with the rule. H. D. Samuels in support of the rule was not called upon.

LORD HEWART C.J. stated the grounds of the rule and continued: It is clear that the deputy clerk was a member of the firm of solicitors engaged in the conduct of the proceedings for damages against the applicant in respect of the same collision as that which gave rise to the charge that the justices were considering. It is said, and, no doubt, truly, that when the gentleman retired in the usual way with the justices, taking with him the notes of the evidence in case the justices might desire to consult him, the justices came to a conclusion without consulting him, and that he scrupulously abstained from referring to the case in any way.

But while that is so, a long line of cases shows that it is not merely of some importance but is of fundamental importance that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done.

The question therefore is not whether in this case the deputy clerk made an observation of offered any criticism where he might not properly have made or offered; the question is whether he was so related to the case in its civil aspect as to be unfit to act as clerk to the justices in the criminal matter.

The answer to that question depends not upon what actually was done but upon what might appear to be done. Nothing is to be done that creates even a suspicion that there has been an improper interference with the course of justice.

Speaking for myself, I accept that statements contained in the justices’ affidavit, but they show very clearly that the deputy clerk was connected with the case in a capacity which made it right that he should scrupulously abstain from referring to the matter in any way, although he retired with the justices; in other words, his one position was such that he could not, if he had been required to do so, discharge the duties which his other position involved. His twofold position was a manifest contradiction.

In those circumstances I am satisfied that this conviction must be quashed, unless it can be shown that the applicant or his solicitor was aware of the point that might be taken, refrained from taking it, and took his chance of an acquittal on the facts, and then, on a conviction being recorded, decided to take the point. On the facts I am satisfied that being no waiver of the irregularity, and, that being so, the rule must be made absolute and the conviction quashed.

LUSH J. I agree. It must be clearly understood that if justices allow their clerk to be present at their consultation when either he of his firm is professionally engaged in those proceedings or in other proceedings involving the same subject matter, it is irrelevant to inquire whether the clerk did or did not give advice and influence the justices.

What is objectionable is his presence at the consultation, when he is in a position necessarily make in impossible for him to give absolutely impartial advice. I have no doubt that these justices did not intend to do anything irregular or wrong, but they have placed themselves in an impossible position by allowing the clerk in those circumstances to retire with them into their consultation room. The result, there being no waiver, is that the conviction must be quashed.

SANKEY J. I agree.

Rule absolute; conviction quashed.

Solicitors for the applicant: W. C. Crocker

Solicitors for justices: Pettitt & Ramsey, for Langham Son & Douglas, Hastings.

Solicitors for police superintendent: Taylor, Willcocks & Co., for Lawson Lewis, Eastbourne.

J.S.H.

Check out our articles on Rule of Law, Litigants in Person, Horsham County Court, HHJ Farquhar, HHJ Bedford and the highly dubious Sussex Family Justice Board.

We have a number of links to Free Legal Resources and Legal Organisations on our Free Legal Advice , Legal Aid and Pro Bono pages.

Read the reviews of Sussex Barrister Gavin Howe

“He is awful, underhanded and should not be practising law!”

Latest Articles

• 
  What is a Paralegal ?
  A paralegal is a legal professional who performs tasks that require knowledge of legal concepts but does not hold the… Read more: What is a Paralegal ?
• 
  What is a Judgment ?
  A judgment, also known as a judicial decision or court ruling, is the final decision made by a court of… Read more: What is a Judgment ?
• 
  What is an Adverse Inference ?
  Adverse inference is a legal principle that plays a significant role in various areas of law, including criminal, civil, and family law. It arises… Read more: What is an Adverse Inference ?
• 
  Barristers
  A barrister is anyone who has been Called to the Bar in England and Wales. For a barrister to offer… Read more: Barristers

All articles can be found in our Sitemap or Legal Blog pages.

The concept of “innocent until proven guilty” is a fundamental principle of the justice system in many countries around the world. The principle is that an individual is considered innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. It is also known as “The presumption of innocence”.

This principle is enshrined in the Human Rights Act 1998 and the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights.

What is the concept of innocent until proven guilty ?

The concept of innocent until proven guilty dates back to ancient Roman law. It is a cornerstone of the justice system in many countries around the world. The principle is based on the idea that an individual is presumed innocent until the prosecution proves otherwise. This principle is essential because it protects the rights of the accused and ensures that justice is served.

The Human Rights Act 1998

The Human Rights Act 1998 is a piece of legislation in the United Kingdom that incorporates the European Convention on Human Rights into UK law. The act is intended to protect the rights and freedoms of individuals in the UK. One of the most important rights protected by the Human Rights Act 1998 is the right to a fair trial.

The right to a fair trial includes the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. This means that the prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. The right to a fair trial also includes the right to legal representation, the right to examine witnesses, and the right to a public trial.

(1) In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interest of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice.

(2) Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.

(3) Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights:

(a)to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him;

(b)to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence;

(c)to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require;

(d)to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him;

(e)to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court.

Right to a Fair Trial Article 6 Human Rights Act 1998

The United Nations Declaration of Human Rights

The United Nations Declaration of Human Rights is a document adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1948. The declaration sets out a range of fundamental human rights that should be protected around the world. The declaration includes the right to a fair trial.

Article 11 of the declaration states that “Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.” This article emphasizes the importance of the presumption of innocence and the right to a fair trial.

Trial by media

The issue of trial by media has become increasingly prevalent in recent years. Trial by media refers to the situation where an individual is tried and convicted in the court of public opinion before they have had a chance to defend themselves in a court of law. This situation is often exacerbated by sensationalist media coverage and the use of social media.

Trial by media can have a significant impact on the accused, including damage to their reputation and public humiliation. In some cases, trial by media can even lead to the denial of a fair trial.

Examples of trial by media

One example of trial by media occurred in the case of Amanda Knox, an American student who was accused of murdering her roommate in Italy in 2007. The case received extensive media coverage, with many media outlets portraying Knox as guilty before the trial even began. Knox was eventually acquitted, but the media coverage had a significant impact on her reputation.

Another example of trial by media occurred in the case of Barry George, who was accused of murdering British television presenter Jill Dando in 1999. The media coverage of the case was highly sensationalised, and George was portrayed as guilty before the trial even began. George was eventually acquitted, but the media coverage had a lasting impact on his reputation.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the principle of innocent until proven guilty is a fundamental aspect of the justice system in many countries around the world. It is essential to protect the rights of the accused and ensure that justice is served.

The issue of trial by media must be addressed to ensure that individuals are not unfairly tried and convicted in the court of public opinion. The media has a responsibility to report fairly and objectively on legal proceedings, and individuals have the right to a fair trial, including the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty.

We recommend you should always seek formal legal advice if required, from a qualified and reputable lawyer (solicitor or barrister).

We have a number of links to Free Legal Resources and Legal Organisations on our Free Legal Advice , Legal Aid and Pro Bono pages.

Check out our related articles on Rule of Law, Open Justice, R v Sussex Justices, HHJ Farquhar, HHJ Bedford and the highly questionable Sussex Family Justice Board.

Read the reviews of Gavin Howe Barrister

“He is awful, underhanded and should not be practising law!”

Latest Articles

• 
  What is a Paralegal ?
  A paralegal is a legal professional who performs tasks that require knowledge of legal concepts but does not hold the… Read more: What is a Paralegal ?
• 
  What is a Judgment ?
  A judgment, also known as a judicial decision or court ruling, is the final decision made by a court of… Read more: What is a Judgment ?
• 
  What is an Adverse Inference ?
  Adverse inference is a legal principle that plays a significant role in various areas of law, including criminal, civil, and family law. It arises… Read more: What is an Adverse Inference ?
• 
  Barristers
  A barrister is anyone who has been Called to the Bar in England and Wales. For a barrister to offer… Read more: Barristers

All articles can be found in our Sitemap

Fraud is a criminal offence in the UK and can result in serious penalties. The relevant legislation in the UK is the Fraud Act 2006.

Under this Act, it is an offense to dishonestly make a false representation with the intention of causing a gain or loss. This could include making a false statement or providing false documents in order to obtain a court order.

Fraud is the act of gaining a dishonest advantage, often financial, over another person. It is now the most commonly experienced crime in England and Wales, with an estimated 3.4 million incidents in the year ending March 2017.

More than half of these were cyber-related and the number of fraud and forgery cases dealt with by the CPS has risen by almost a third since 2011.

Fraud and economic crime – Crown Prosecution Service

A future MOI article will examine alleged “fraud and organised crime” in the justice system and legal profession.

Justice Select Committee Report

In February 2022, the Justice Committee began examining the ability of the Justice System to effectively prosecute fraud cases.

The Committee was particularly interested in how the system is set up to tackle lower-level frauds, that are often not serious enough to be considered by the Serious Fraud Office but have a significant impact on the public.

They committee also sort to understand the plans that the Government and bodies working in the Justice System had to tackle rising instances of fraud.

The Justice select committee published a full report Fraud and the Justice System on the 18th October 2022.

• UK justice system ‘ill-equipped’ for rise in fraud
• Action Fraud ‘unfit for purpose’ as number of victims rises 25% in two years
• Only 2% of police funding was dedicated to combating fraud despite it accounting for 40% of reported crime
• The Office for National Statistics disclosed last month that the number of people falling victim to fraud had risen by 25% in the past two years, with 4.5m offences in a 12-month period
• The committee chair Sir Bob Neill, said fraud was expected to increase, but that the justice system had not reacted to the change. “People are losing their life savings and suffering lasting emotional and psychological harm,” he said. “But the level of concern from law enforcement falls short of what is required.
• “Fraud prevention, investigation and prosecution too often has seemed like an afterthought, last in the queue for resources, monitoring and even court time. We need the criminal justice system to have the resources and focus to be able to adapt to new technologies and emerging trends.”

UK justice system ‘ill-equipped’ for rise in fraud, say MPs – The Guardian

HMICFRS Fraud Inspection

His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services (HMICFRS) published A review of ‘Fraud: Time to choose’

In 2018, the Home Secretary commissioned Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services (HMICFRS) to carry out a thematic inspection of fraud.

We conducted our inspection between March and July 2018. In April 2019, we published Fraud: Time to choose – An inspection of the police response to fraud. In that report, we made 16 recommendations and identified 5 areas for improvement (AFIs).

We have revisited our previous inspection to see how the police service has responded to the recommendations and AFIs we made in that report. This report presents our findings on the progress that has been made.

A review of ‘Fraud: Time to choose’ – HMICFRS

Fraud Strategy

The government published a policy paper Fraud Strategy on the 3rd May 2023 which sets out a plan to reduce fraud by 10% on 2019 levels by December 2024.

#SFJB – Fraud at the Sussex Family Justice Board ?

National Lead Force

The City of London Police are the National Police Chiefs’ Council Lead for Economic and Cyber Crime and National Lead Force for Fraud. They operate Action Fraud and the National Fraud Intelligence Bureau.

Working with City of London Police and local forces is the National Economic Crime Centre (NECC), which sits within the National Crime Agency (NCA).

We investigate some of the country’s most complex cases of fraud, set the national strategy and coordinate the operational response. We also host Action Fraud, the national reporting centre for fraud and cybercrime, on behalf of policing.

With over 40 per cent of all crime reported in the UK being fraud related, the National Lead Force (NLF), as part of the City of London Police, serves a crucial role in the coordination of the policing response: identifying, disrupting and prosecuting fraud and economic crime across the country.

National Lead Force – City of London Police

If you have arrived at the Ministry of Injustice from https://cityoflondonpolice.uk (a MOI domain) you may well have been looking for https://cityoflondon.police.uk which is the official website for City of London Police.

For the avoidance of doubt this website is not run by City of London Police nor is it associated in any way with City of London Police.

Call 999 if:

• a serious offence is in progress or has just been committed
• someone is in immediate danger or harm
• property is in danger of being damaged
• a serious disruption to the public is likely

Call 101 for non-emergency enquiries. You can also Report a Crime online.

Check out our articles on Sussex Police, Police News, Policing By Consent, Innocent until Proven Guilty, HHJ Farquhar, HHJ Bedford and the highly questionable Sussex Family Justice Board.

Read the reviews of Gavin Howe Barrister

Latest Articles

• 
  What is a Paralegal ?26th April 2024
  A paralegal is a legal professional who performs tasks that require knowledge of legal concepts but does not hold the… Read more: What is a Paralegal ?
• 
  What is a Judgment ?23rd April 2024
  A judgment, also known as a judicial decision or court ruling, is the final decision made by a court of… Read more: What is a Judgment ?
• 
  What is an Adverse Inference ?20th April 2024
  Adverse inference is a legal principle that plays a significant role in various areas of law, including criminal, civil, and family law. It arises… Read more: What is an Adverse Inference ?
• 
  Barristers19th April 2024
  A barrister is anyone who has been Called to the Bar in England and Wales. For a barrister to offer… Read more: Barristers

All articles can be found in our Sitemap

The rule of law is a fundamental principle of democratic societies that underpins the concept of justice and fairness.

It refers to the idea that all individuals and institutions are subject to the same set of laws and procedures, regardless of their position or status.

This means that the law should be applied equally to everyone, without discrimination, and that no one should be above the law.

Origins of the Rule of Law

The origins of the rule of law can be traced back to ancient civilizations such as Greece and Rome, where it was seen as a key component of a just and stable society.

In ancient Greece, the philosopher Aristotle wrote about the importance of the rule of law in preventing the abuse of power and promoting the common good.

Similarly, in ancient Rome, the idea of the rule of law was embodied in the concept of “equal protection under the law,” which was enshrined in the Roman legal system.

In more recent times, the rule of law has been a central tenet of modern democratic societies.

It was first articulated as a formal principle during the Enlightenment, when thinkers such as Hobbes, Locke, Montesquieu, and Rousseau argued that the power of the state should be limited by law, and that citizens should have certain rights and freedoms that were protected by the law.

Importance of the Rule of Law

The rule of law is important for several reasons. First and foremost, it helps to ensure that everyone is treated fairly and equally under the law. This means that no one can be arbitrarily deprived of their rights or subjected to unfair treatment by those in positions of power.

Secondly, the rule of law is crucial for maintaining social order and stability. When people believe that the law is just and that it is being applied fairly, they are more likely to respect it and to comply with it voluntarily. This helps to prevent social unrest and disorder, and ensures that conflicts are resolved through peaceful means.

Thirdly, the rule of law is essential for protecting individual freedoms and rights. By providing a framework of laws and procedures that are designed to protect individual rights, such as freedom of speech, assembly, and religion, the rule of law helps to prevent abuses of power and ensures that people are able to live their lives in accordance with their own values and beliefs.

The Rule of Law in the UK

The rule of law is a fundamental principle of the UK’s constitutional system. It is enshrined in a number of key legal documents, including the Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights 1689, and the Human Rights Act 1998.

In practice, the rule of law is upheld by the judiciary, which is independent of the government and other branches of the state. The courts are responsible for interpreting and applying the law, and for ensuring that the government and other public bodies act in accordance with the law.

The rule of law is also central to the UK’s relationship with the European Union. As a member of the EU, the UK was bound by EU law and subject to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice.

This helped to ensure that the UK government and other public bodies acted in accordance with EU law and that citizens were able to enforce their rights under EU law.

The Rule of Law around the World

The rule of law is also an important principle in the international arena. It is enshrined in the United Nations Charter and in a number of other international agreements and treaties.

One of the key functions of international law is to promote the rule of law in relations between states, by providing a framework for the peaceful resolution of disputes and the protection of human rights. International law also helps to promote cooperation and collaboration between states, by setting out common standards and norms for behaviour.

However, the rule of law is not always respected in the international arena. In some parts of the world, governments and other institutions may be corrupt or lack the capacity to enforce the law effectively. This can lead to human rights abuses, social unrest, and conflict.

In addition, there are concerns about the erosion of the rule of law in some countries, as governments may seek to restrict the rights and freedoms of their citizens in the name of national security or other interests.

The Importance of Upholding the Rule of Law

The rule of law is a fundamental principle of democratic societies, and its importance cannot be overstated. When the rule of law is respected, it helps to ensure that all individuals and institutions are held accountable, and that everyone is treated fairly and equally under the law.

The rule of law is also essential for maintaining social order and stability, protecting individual freedoms and rights, and promoting cooperation and collaboration between states.

In order to uphold the rule of law, it is essential that governments and other institutions act in accordance with the law, and that the judiciary is independent and impartial. It is also important for citizens to be informed about their rights and responsibilities under the law, and to be able to enforce those rights through the courts if necessary.

Conclusion

The rule of law is a fundamental principle of democratic societies, and its importance cannot be overstated. It helps to ensure that all individuals and institutions are held accountable, and that everyone is treated fairly and equally under the law.

In the UK, the rule of law is enshrined an unwritten constitution made up of various sources, including statutes, case law, and conventions which is upheld by an independent judiciary. The principle of the rule of law is an important aspect of the UK’s constitutional framework.

The UK’s longstanding commitment to the Rule of Law is under grave threat according to the landmark report The State We’re In: Addressing Threats & Challenges to the Rule of Law written by the legal charity JUSTICE.

In the world, the rule of law is an important principle in international relations, and is enshrined in a number of international agreements and treaties. However, there are concerns about the erosion of the rule of law in some countries, and the need to promote and protect the rule of law globally.

Ultimately, the rule of law is essential for promoting justice, fairness, and equality in societies around the world, and for ensuring that human rights and freedoms are protected and respected.

Check out our related articles on Innocent until Proven Guilty, Open Justice, R v Sussex Justices, HHJ Farquhar, HHJ Bedford and the highly questionable Sussex Family Justice Board.

Read the reviews of Gavin Howe Barrister

“He is awful, underhanded and should not be practising law!”

Latest Articles

• 
  What is a Paralegal ?
  A paralegal is a legal professional who performs tasks that require knowledge of legal concepts but does not hold the… Read more: What is a Paralegal ?
• 
  What is a Judgment ?
  A judgment, also known as a judicial decision or court ruling, is the final decision made by a court of… Read more: What is a Judgment ?
• 
  What is an Adverse Inference ?
  Adverse inference is a legal principle that plays a significant role in various areas of law, including criminal, civil, and family law. It arises… Read more: What is an Adverse Inference ?
• 
  Barristers
  A barrister is anyone who has been Called to the Bar in England and Wales. For a barrister to offer… Read more: Barristers

All articles can be found in our Sitemap or Legal Blog pages.

The Justice Committee is a cross-party group of MPs appointed by the House of Commons to examine the policies and spending of the Ministry of Justice and associated public bodies.

This includes the courts, legal aid, prisons, probation and the rule of law. It also advises on sentencing guidelines. The Justice Committee is chaired by Sir Bob Neill MP.

Role of the Justice Committee

Sir Bob Neill MP, Chair of the Justice Committee, explained the role of the Justice Committee and how to get involved in the Committee’s work

The Justice Committee was appointed by the House of Commons to examine the expenditure, administration and policy of the Ministry of Justice and associated public bodies, (to include the work of staff provided for the administrative work of courts and tribunals, but excluding consideration of individual cases and appointments, and excluding the work of the Scotland and Wales Offices and of the Advocate General for Scotland); and administration and expenditure of the Attorney General’s Office, the Treasury Solicitor’s Department, the Crown Prosecution Service and the Serious Fraud Office (but excluding individual cases and appointments and advice given within government by Law Officers).

The Justice Committee is one of the 19 Select Committees related to Government Departments, established by the House of Commons under Standing Order No. 152.

Role of the Justice Committee – Parliament Website

Subjects of Inquiry

The Justice Committee chooses its own subjects of inquiry. 

Depending on the subject, external deadlines, and the amount of oral evidence the Committee decides to take, an inquiry may last for several months and give rise to a report to the House; other inquiries may simply consist of a single day’s oral evidence which the Committee may publish without making a report.

When the Committee has chosen an inquiry it normally issues a press notice outlining the main themes of inquiry and inviting interested parties to submit written evidence. It may also identify possible witnesses and issue specific invitations to them to submit written evidence.

Role of the Justice Committee – Parliament Website

Membership

As of the 19th January 2024, the current members of the Justice Committee published on the Parliament website were :-

Name	Party or affiliation	Constituency or type
Sir Robert Neill MP	Conservative	Bromley and Chislehurst
Tahir Ali MP	Labour	Birmingham, Hall Green
Rob Butler MP	Conservative	Aylesbury
James Daly MP	Conservative	Bury North
Rt Hon Maria Eagle MP	Labour	Garston and Halewood
Rachel Hopkins MP	Labour	Luton South
Paul Maynard MP	Conservative	Blackpool North and Cleveleys
Dr Kieran Mullan MP	Conservative	Crewe and Nantwich
Chris Stephens MP	Scottish National Party	Glasgow South West
Edward Timpson KC MP	Conservative	Eddisbury
Karl Turner MP	Labour	Kingston upon Hull East

Inquiries

Inquiries allow committees to consider oral and written evidence on a particular topic. They usually result in the publication of a report.

All inquires of the Justice Committee past and present are published and can be searched for on the Parliament website.

Contact the Justice Commitee

• Email: justicecom@parliament.uk
• Phone: (General Enquiries) 020 7219 7005 (Media Enquiries) 07842 601500
• Address: House of Commons, London SW1A 0AA

Tweets by CommonsJustice

Check out our article on the highly questionable Sussex Family Justice Board and make up your own mind.

We recommend you should always seek formal legal advice if required, from a qualified and reputable lawyer (solicitor or barrister).

We have a number of links to Free Legal Resources and Legal Organisations on our Free Legal Advice , Legal Aid and Pro Bono pages.

Read the reviews of Gavin Howe Barrister

“He is awful, underhanded and should not be practising law!”

Latest Articles

• 
  What is a Paralegal ?
  A paralegal is a legal professional who performs tasks that require knowledge of legal concepts but does not hold the… Read more: What is a Paralegal ?
• 
  What is a Judgment ?
  A judgment, also known as a judicial decision or court ruling, is the final decision made by a court of… Read more: What is a Judgment ?
• 
  What is an Adverse Inference ?
  Adverse inference is a legal principle that plays a significant role in various areas of law, including criminal, civil, and family law. It arises… Read more: What is an Adverse Inference ?
• 
  Barristers
  A barrister is anyone who has been Called to the Bar in England and Wales. For a barrister to offer… Read more: Barristers

All articles can be found in our Sitemap

Private prosecution refers to the initiation of criminal proceedings by a private individual or organisation rather than a public authority such as the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) in the UK.

In the UK, private prosecutions have a long history and are enshrined in common law, allowing individuals and organisations to bring criminal charges against others for a wide range of offenses.

Private prosecutions are relatively rare in the UK, but they are allowed under section 6(1) of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985.

This article will provide an overview of private prosecution in the UK, including its history, the legal framework, and the process of bringing a private prosecution. It will also discuss the advantages and disadvantages of private prosecution and some high-profile cases.

History of Private Prosecution in the UK

Private prosecution has a long history in the UK, dating back to medieval times. Before the establishment of a professional police force and public prosecution service, private individuals or organisations were responsible for investigating and prosecuting criminal offenses.

In the 19th century, the power to prosecute criminal offenses was gradually transferred to public authorities such as the Crown Prosecution Service. However, private individuals or organisations retained the right to bring private prosecutions, and this right was enshrined in common law.

Today, private prosecution is governed by the Prosecution of Offenses Act 1985 and the Criminal Procedure Rules.

There are, however, some limitations: 

• the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) has power under section 6(2) POA 1985 to take over private prosecutions;
• in some cases, the private prosecutor must seek the consent of the Attorney General or of the DPP before the commencement of proceedings.

Legal Framework for Private Prosecution

The legal framework for private prosecution in the UK is set out in the Prosecution of Offenses Act 1985, Criminal Procedure Rules and the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980.

Prosecutions instituted and conducted otherwise than by the Service.

(1)Subject to subsection (2) below, nothing in this Part shall preclude any person from instituting any criminal proceedings or conducting any criminal proceedings to which the Director’s duty to take over the conduct of proceedings does not apply.

Section 6(1) of the Prosecution of Offenses Act 1985

The Criminal Procedure Rules 2020 Part 7 “Starting a Prosecution in a Magistrates’ Court” apply to private prosecutions in the UK.

CPR Part 7 contains specific provisions on the procedure to be followed in private prosecutions, including the requirements for the service of documents, the conduct of preliminary hearings, and the transfer of cases to the Crown Court. These rules provide a clear framework for the conduct of private prosecutions and ensure that they are conducted fairly and efficiently.

Section 1 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 (MCA 1980) applies to a laying of information at a Magistrates Court :-

Issue of summons to accused or warrant for his arrest.

On an information being laid before a justice of the peace that a person has, or is suspected of having, committed an offence, the justice may issue—
(a)a summons directed to that person requiring him to appear before a magistrates’ court to answer the information, or
(b)a warrant to arrest that person and bring him before a magistrates’ court

Section 1 Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980

In order to bring a private prosecution, the individual or organisation must have sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case against the defendant. This means that there must be enough evidence to suggest that the defendant has committed the offense, and that there is a reasonable prospect of conviction.

The process of bringing a private prosecution is similar to that of a public prosecution. The CPS publish legal guidance about Private Prosecutions on their website.

How to bring a Private Prosecution

To bring a private prosecution, an individual must first lay an information.

This is a document that sets out the details of the alleged offense and provides evidence to support the claim. The information must be laid before a magistrate or a judge, who will decide whether or not to issue a summons.

The information must contain the following details:

• The name and address of the accused
• The details of the offense, including the date, time, and location
• The evidence supporting the claim
• The name and address of the individual or organization bringing the prosecution
• The name and address of any witnesses

The gov.uk website have published a word document SP001 dated May 2019 Application for summons or warrant for arrest for alleged offence under Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 section 1, CrimPR 7.2(6) which captures all the relevant information to “lay an information” at a Magistrates Court.

You can find a Magistrates Court using the Find a court or tribunal service.

Once the information is laid, the magistrate or judge will consider the evidence and decide, using it’s discretion, whether or not to issue a summons or warrant of arrest.

If the summons is issued, the accused will be required to attend court to answer the charges.

If a warrant of arrest is issued under Section 125 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980, then this will be directed to “any constable acting within his police area”.

Advantages of a Private Prosecution

There are several advantages to bringing a private prosecution rather than relying on the public prosecution service.

One of the main advantages is that the individual or organisation has greater control over the proceedings. They can choose the lawyers and experts who will represent them, and they can decide which charges to bring.

Another advantage is that private prosecution can be a more effective way of holding individuals or organisations to account, particularly in cases where the public prosecution service has declined to prosecute. Private prosecutions can also be quicker than public prosecutions, as they are not subject to the same bureaucratic processes.

Disadvantages of Private Prosecution

However, there are also some disadvantages to private prosecution. One of the main disadvantages is the cost.

Private prosecutions can be expensive, as the individual or organisation is responsible for paying for the legal representation and other costs associated with the case. This can be a particular problem for individuals or organisations who do not have significant financial resources.

Private Prosecutions can be seen as a way for individuals and organizations to take the law into their own hands and there is a risk of retaliation, including legal action or harassment.

Private prosecutions can be difficult to win, as the accused person has the right to a fair trial.

If you are considering bringing a private prosecution, it is important to seek legal advice to ensure that you are aware of the risks and potential benefits.

High-Profile Private Prosecutions

In recent years, there have been several high-profile private prosecutions in the United Kingdom that have garnered significant attention. These cases have demonstrated the potential power and impact of private prosecutions in bringing justice to victims and holding individuals accountable for their actions. Let’s explore a few notable examples:

1. R v. Gary Dobson and David Norris (Stephen Lawrence Case): One of the most prominent private prosecutions in recent UK history was the private prosecution brought by Stephen Lawrence’s family. Stephen Lawrence, a black teenager, was murdered in a racially motivated attack in 1993. Despite strong evidence, the initial investigation failed to secure a conviction. In 1999, Stephen’s parents, Doreen and Neville Lawrence, utilized the private prosecution route to pursue justice. The private prosecution ultimately led to the conviction of Gary Dobson and David Norris for Stephen’s murder in 2012.
2. R v. John Downey (Hyde Park Bombing Case): In 2013, a private prosecution was initiated against John Downey, who was accused of the 1982 Hyde Park bombing in London, which killed four soldiers and injured many others. The prosecution was launched by the families of the victims after the criminal trial against Downey collapsed due to an error in his prosecution. In 2014, the private prosecution was halted by a judge who ruled that Downey could not face trial again due to an official assurance given to him by the government.
3. R v. Dale Cregan (Mark Short and David Short Case): Dale Cregan, a notorious criminal, was involved in the murders of Mark Short and his father David Short in 2012 as part of a gangland feud. The Short family decided to pursue a private prosecution against Cregan after the criminal trial against him commenced. However, during the trial, Cregan admitted to the charges, and the private prosecution was discontinued. Nevertheless, this case highlighted the potential for private prosecutions in high-profile criminal matters.

These recent high-profile private prosecutions demonstrate the ability of private individuals to bring justice to victims and hold perpetrators accountable, even in cases where the state prosecution may have faltered or faced challenges. Private prosecutions can play a crucial role in ensuring that no crime goes unpunished.

Conclusion

Private prosecutions are an important part of the legal system in the UK, as they allow individuals to seek justice in the UK legal system.

While there are advantages to bringing a private prosecution, such as control over the case and closure for the victim, there are also several disadvantages.

Nicola Sharp who is a Partner at Rahman Ravelli Solicitors has published a useful article Private Prosecutions: The Process, Defendants’ Options and Mixed Motives.

Check out our articles on HHJ Farquhar, HHJ Bedford and the highly questionable Sussex Family Justice Board.

We recommend you should always seek formal legal advice if required, from a qualified and reputable lawyer (solicitor or barrister).

We have a number of links to Free Legal Resources and Legal Organisations on our Free Legal Advice , Legal Aid and Pro Bono pages.

Read the reviews of Gavin Howe Barrister

“He is awful, underhanded and should not be practising law!”

Latest Articles

• 
  What is a Paralegal ?
  A paralegal is a legal professional who performs tasks that require knowledge of legal concepts but does not hold the… Read more: What is a Paralegal ?
• 
  What is a Judgment ?
  A judgment, also known as a judicial decision or court ruling, is the final decision made by a court of… Read more: What is a Judgment ?
• 
  What is an Adverse Inference ?
  Adverse inference is a legal principle that plays a significant role in various areas of law, including criminal, civil, and family law. It arises… Read more: What is an Adverse Inference ?
• 
  Barristers
  A barrister is anyone who has been Called to the Bar in England and Wales. For a barrister to offer… Read more: Barristers

All articles can be found in our Sitemap

The Royal Courts of Justice are a grand court building situated in The Strand London England which are located opposite to the Temple Bar Memorial Pillar.

The Royal Courts of Justice serves as the central court of the High Court of Justice and the Court of Appeal.

His Majesty King Charles III visited the Royal Courts of Justice (RCJ) on the 14th December 2023 for a historic event which celebrated the relationship between the monarchy and the judiciary. The King was met by Lady Carr, Lady Chief Justice of England and Wales (LCJ), who hosted his visit, as well as many judges and magistrates, and Judicial Office and HM Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) staff.

King Charles III visits the Royal Courts of Justice

About the Royal Courts of Justice

The High Court of Justice in London, known properly as His Majesty’s High Court of Justice in England, together with the Court of Appeal and the Crown Court, are the Senior Courts of England and Wales.

Its name is abbreviated as EWHC (England and Wales High Court) for legal citation purposes.

It deals at first instance with all high value and high importance civil law (non-criminal) cases, and also has a supervisory jurisdiction over all subordinate Courts and Tribunals, with a few statutory exceptions.

The High Court consists of 3 divisions: the King’s Bench Division, the Family Division, and the Chancery Division.

The Central London County Court deals with civil cases of varying complexity and value, including disputes between individuals, businesses, and organisations and is one of the largest County Courts in England and Wales. The County Court is located in the Thomas More Building.

History of the Building

The Royal Courts of Justice building, located on The Strand, was designed by architect George Edmund Street and completed in 1882.

Its impressive Victorian Gothic architecture, grandeur and history make it one of the most recognizable landmarks in London, attracting thousands of tourists and legal professionals every year.

The Royal Courts of Justice was built to address the need for a larger, more centralised court system in London. Prior to its construction, there were several different courts throughout the city that were responsible for different types of cases. This led to confusion and inefficiency, and it was decided that a new, purpose-built courthouse was needed.

The building of the Royal Courts of Justice began in 1873 and took nearly a decade to complete. The cost of construction was substantial, with estimates suggesting that it was around £1.2 million, which was a significant sum of money at the time. The building’s design was based on Gothic architecture, which was popular during the Victorian era.

The Royal Courts of Justice was officially opened by Queen Victoria in 1882. Since then, it has played a central role in the British legal system, serving as the site of many significant cases over the years.

The Royal Courts of Justice is a fascinating and impressive court building that is steeped in history. Its grand architecture and impressive design reflect the importance of the legal system in British society, and it is a must-visit destination for anyone interested in law and history.

Visiting the Royal Courts of Justice

If you are planning on visiting the Royal Courts of Justice you should read the Royal Courts of Justice webpage on the Find a Court or Tribunal service.

Court and tribunal hearings in England and Wales usually take place in public. This means you can observe a court or tribunal hearing whether you’re a journalist, academic or member of the public.

The Royal Courts of Justice daily cause list lists all cases for trial in the Royal Courts of Justice and its outlying buildings.

If you are attending any court, it is important to be aware of what you are allowed to bring with you, as well as what is prohibited. The general rules Going through security at a court or tribunal building should be referred to.

Surrender and seizure of articles

(1)If a court security officer acting in the execution of his duty reasonably believes that an article in the possession of a person who is in, or seeking to enter, a court building ought to be surrendered on any of the grounds given in subsection (3), he must ask the person to surrender the article.

(2)If the person refuses to surrender the article, the officer may seize it.

(3)The grounds are that the article—

(a)may jeopardise the maintenance of order in the court building (or a part of it),

(b)may put the safety of any person in the court building at risk, or

(c)may be evidence of, or in relation to, an offence.

Courts Act 2003 Part 4 Section 54

Spoons at the Royal Courts of Justice

The Royal Courts of Justice appear to have different prohibited item rules to other courts as detailed in Version 1.03 of a Ministry of Justice (MoJ) document (with obligatory spelling mistakes) obtained on the 2nd November 2022. This document may have been updated since.

As you will notice, Metal cutlery is prohibited but Spoons are explicitly allowed ! They can clearly be used as weapon. How and why are they allowed ?

Read the reviews of Gavin Howe Barrister

Latest Articles

• 
  What is a Paralegal ?
  A paralegal is a legal professional who performs tasks that require knowledge of legal concepts but does not hold the… Read more: What is a Paralegal ?
• 
  What is a Judgment ?
  A judgment, also known as a judicial decision or court ruling, is the final decision made by a court of… Read more: What is a Judgment ?
• 
  What is an Adverse Inference ?
  Adverse inference is a legal principle that plays a significant role in various areas of law, including criminal, civil, and family law. It arises… Read more: What is an Adverse Inference ?
• 
  Barristers
  A barrister is anyone who has been Called to the Bar in England and Wales. For a barrister to offer… Read more: Barristers

All articles can be found in our Sitemap or Legal Blog pages.

Here are a few examples of dodgy judges, otherwise known as rogue judges, that have been dismissed, disciplined or resigned. Some judges even managed to get criminal convictions.

In my opinion, these judges are almost as questionable as the Sussex Family Justice Board.

1. Judge Constance Briscoe was dismissed from the judiciary in 2014 after being found guilty of perverting the course of justice. She was sentenced to 16 months in prison for lying to the police during an investigation into former cabinet minister Chris Huhne’s speeding points.

Reference: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28675376

2. Judge Peter Smith resigned in 2016 after the JCIO began investigating Smith’s conduct in July 2015 about a matter involving British Airways and his luggage.

Reference : https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/law/conduct-probe-into-high-court-judge-ends-with-retirement/5063448.article

3. Judge Beatrice Bolton. The Crown Court judge who was convicted of failing to control a dangerous dog will face no further disciplinary action after she handed in her resignation..

Reference : https://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/judge-beatrice-bolton-quits-after-1340889

4. Judge Heather Perrin was dismissed from the judiciary in 2012 after being found guilty of professional misconduct for deceiving a client in a property deal.

Reference: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-20525832

JCIO Disciplinary Statements 2023

• Elisabeth Oats JP – JCIO Investigation Statement 31/23
• Lord Justice Clive Lewis – JCIO Investigation Statement 30/23
• Mr Justice Derek Sweeting – JCIO Investigation Statement 29/23
• Dr Christopher Pearson – JCIO Investigation Statement 28/23
• Jennifer Larkin JP – JCIO Investigation Statement 27/23
• Mr Richard Curry JP- JCIO Investigation Statement 25/23
• Judge Martin Brewer – JCIO Investigation Statement 24/23
• Nic Woods JP – JCIO Investigation Statement 23/23
• His Honour Judge Michael Slater – JCIO Investigation Statement 22/23
• Shushil Rai JP – JCIO Investigation Statement 21/23
• Dr John Stevens – JCIO Investigation Statement 20/23
• Jaganmohan Ramachandran JP – JCIO Investigation Statement 19/23
• Deputy District Judge Adam Tear – JCIO Investigation Statement 18/23
• Joanne Varley JP – JCIO Investigation Statement 17/23
• District Judge Sarah Walker – JCIO Investigation Statement 16/23
• Richard Goodwin JP – JCIO Investigation Statement 15/23
• Adrian Tasker JP – JCIO Investigation Statement 14/23
• Dr John Bennett– JCIO Investigation Statement 13/23
• Sasere Obaseki JP – JCIO Investigation Statement 12/23
• Jennifer Denton JP – JCIO Investigation Statement 11/23
• Abigail Buckingham JP – JCIO Investigation Statement 10/23
• Fiona Western JP – JCIO Investigation Statement 09/23
• His Honour Judge Andrew Easteal – JCIO Investigation Statement 08/23
• Mrs Olive Leighton JP – JCIO Investigation Statement 07/23
• Danny Goodchild JP– JCIO Investigation Statement 06/23
• Ken Stammers JP – JCIO Investigation Statement 05/23
• Ansar Hussain JP– JCIO Investigation Statement 04/23
• Jeb Singh JP– JCIO Investigation Statement 03/23
• Yu Tan JP– JCIO Investigation Statement 02/23
• Neale Murphy JP– JCIO Investigation Statement 01/23

JCIO Disciplinary Statements are published by year on the JCIO website

A statement will normally be published when a disciplinary sanction has been issued to a judicial office-holder for misconduct.

The Lord Chief Justice and Lord Chancellor may decide jointly to:

• issue a statement in any case;
• decline to issue a statement in any case;
• delete a statement prior to the expiration of the relevant publication period.

Publication Periods

Statements published before 22 August 2022

Statements about cases which resulted in a sanction below removal from office will be deleted after one year. Statements about cases which resulted in removal from office will be deleted after five years.

Statements published from 22 August 2022

The following publication periods apply to statements published from 22 August 2022. Following the outcome of the 2020-22 review of the disciplinary system, statements now contain more detail. The JCIO privacy notice has been updated to reflect this change.

Sanction Imposed	Publication Period
Formal Advice	Two Years
Formal Warning	Four Years
Reprimand	Six Years
Removal from Office (except for failure to meet minimum sitting requirements)	Indefinite
Removal from Office for failure to meet minimum sitting requirements	Five years

Requesting a Copy of a Deleted Statement

A copy of any statement which has been deleted following expiration of its publication period can be requested by emailing: general.enquiries@judicialconduct.gov.uk

Requesters must state the name of the office-holder. It will also help to locate statements if requesters give as much information as possible about the nature of the conduct for which the office-holder received a disciplinary sanction, and the year in which they believe the statement was published.

JCIO aims to reply to all requests for deleted statements within 10 working days.

Disciplinary Statements – JCIO

These example only represent a small fraction of judicial misconduct cases in the UK. These cases demonstrate the importance of judicial ethics and the need for accountability within the justice system.

The importance of maintaining high ethical standards in the UK judiciary cannot be overstated, and the consequences that judges may face if they engage in misconduct.

While it is important to hold judges accountable for their actions, instances of judges being dismissed for misconduct are relatively rare.

It is worth noting that the vast majority of judges in the UK are ethical and diligent in carrying out their duties. When instances of misconduct do occur, they are usually dealt with through disciplinary proceedings or other forms of corrective action.

Complain about a judge to the JCIO ?

The Judicial Conduct Investigations Office (JCIO) are an independent office which supports the Lord Chancellor and Lord Chief Justice in considering complaints about the personal conduct of judicial office holders.

JCIO Complaint

Here is the complaint I made to the JCIO in November 2020 against DDJ Mills (Deputy District Judge Mills) that was unfortunately dismissed.

a) Was “rude and condescending” and spelt out his name M-I-L-L-S, he:
• “Appeared to have superiority complex by the language used”. He spelt out his name in “an incredibly patronising way”.
• Stated, “I suggest you continue your studies in English Law Mr Watts as you appear to know nothing“.

Amnesia ?

DDJ Mills and Miss Eleanor Harriet Battie of 1 Crown Office Reach (1COR) both appear to have suffered from amnesia. Deputy District Judge Chris Mills continues to sit (fee paid) and inflict himself on the public.

Fortunately for both of them the Court failed in its legal duty to record the hearing. How convenient ! Hearings at the Crown Court and at civil and family courts are always recorded.

“Having searched all the BT Meet Me recordings for the 1st of October it is unfortunate that I have to advise you that there must have been a technical glitch on that day and your hearing was not recorded.“

Brighton County and Family Courts Court Clerk and Court Usher manager

“a particular burden on the court and herself, as an officer of the court, to ensure that everyone involved understood clearly what was being said.”

Eleanor Battie Barrister JCIO

This statement is clearly untrue and misleading

“In the UK, barristers are not officers of the court unlike solicitors”.

It is possible that the JCIO misquoted Miss Battie, but as a barrister Eleanor Battie is bound by the Bar Standards Board (BSB) rules and code of conduct. Ms Battie, I believe, had a duty to immediately apologise for misleading the JCIO and to correct the record. I do not believe that this ever happened.

In my opinion, this is shameful behaviour or legal ignorance by the barrister Eleanor Battie and no doubt in breach of the Bar Standards Handbook 4.7

Read our article and analysis of Eleanor Battie Barrister

Read the reviews of Gavin Howe Barrister

“He is awful, underhanded and should not be practising law!”

Fair dealing for criticism, review or quotation is allowed for any type of copyright work. All sources acknowledged. Article updated 7th October 2023 to include link to BSB Handbook 4.7 and latest JCIO Disciplinary Statements.

Latest Articles

• 
  What is a Paralegal ?
  A paralegal is a legal professional who performs tasks that require knowledge of legal concepts but does not hold the… Read more: What is a Paralegal ?
• 
  What is a Judgment ?
  A judgment, also known as a judicial decision or court ruling, is the final decision made by a court of… Read more: What is a Judgment ?
• 
  What is an Adverse Inference ?
  Adverse inference is a legal principle that plays a significant role in various areas of law, including criminal, civil, and family law. It arises… Read more: What is an Adverse Inference ?
• 
  Barristers
  A barrister is anyone who has been Called to the Bar in England and Wales. For a barrister to offer… Read more: Barristers

All articles can be found in our Sitemap

The term McKenzie Friend stems from the landmark case of McKenzie v McKenzie in 1970 (McKenzie v McKenzie [1970] 3 WLR 472 CA), where a husband sought assistance from a non-legally qualified friend to represent him in court during divorce proceedings.

The Court of Appeal, in their judgment made in 1970, recognised that litigants, especially those without legal representation, could benefit from such support. Consequently, the role of McKenzie Friends was officially acknowledged, allowing individuals to accompany and assist Litigants in Person (LIP) in court.

In 2005 the Court of Appeal, in the matter of the children of Mr O’Connell, Mr Whelan and Mr Watson, further clarified the role of McKenzie friends.

Article 6 of the ECHR is engaged in any application by a litigant in person for the assistance of a McKenzie friend. Furthermore, in our judgment, two clear propositions stand out from the authorities as they apply to family proceedings.

These are:

(1) that the presumption in favour of the litigant being allowed the assistance of a McKenzie friend is a strong one; and

(2) that such a request should not be refused without good reason, even where the proceedings relate to a child and are being heard in private.

[2005] EWCA Civ 759 – LORD JUSTICE THORPE and LORD JUSTICE WALL

Article 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 makes it unlawful for a public authority to act in a way that is incompatible with a person’s rights under the European Convention on Human Rights.

Role and Responsibilities of McKenzie Friends

McKenzie Friends are volunteers, friends, family members, or sometimes paid advisors, who assist litigants in various ways. They are not lawyers, but their involvement can be valuable.

A McKenzie Friend can help litigants by providing emotional support, taking notes during proceedings, offering practical advice, and helping with case preparation.

However, it is essential to note that McKenzie Friends cannot address the court directly or act as legal representatives.

Practice Guidance: McKenzie Friends (Civil and Family Courts)

In July 2010, the role of McKenzie Friends was formalised through the issuance of Practice Guidance by the then Master of the Rolls and the President of the Family Division.

The guidance aims to ensure a consistent and fair approach across the civil and family courts when dealing with McKenzie Friends. This Practice Guidance is essential in establishing the parameters and responsibilities of McKenzie Friends in court proceedings.

Guidance from the President’s Office- McKenzie Friends

A guidance document was published by the then President of the Family Division in 2005.

The Courts and Tribunal Judiciary list both guidance documents on their McKenzie Friend webpage.

Reforming the courts’ approach to McKenzie Friends

A consultation paper entitled Reforming the courts’ approach to McKenzie Friends was published by the Lord Chief Justice in February 2016.

A Consultation Response Reforming the courts’ approach to McKenzie Friends was published by the Lord Chief Justice in February 2019

Notice of McKenzie Friend

Here is a an example Notice of McKenzie friend which should be completed and handed to the usher before the hearing starts. If you are attending a remote hearing, then you should email the court before the start of the hearing.

There is no legal requirement to share this form with the other party (Family or Civil Proceedings).

(2) Paragraph (1) applies to any communication in which any representation is made to the court on a matter of substance or procedure but does not apply to communications that are purely routine, uncontentious and administrative.

FAMILY PROCEDURE RULE 5.7 – PART 5: FORMS, START OF PROCEEDINGS AND COMMUNICATION WITH THE COURT

This practice direction supplements Part 5 of the Family Procedure Rules 2010

1. Rule 5.7(1) FPR 2010 makes provision in relation to the requirement to disclose and, if in writing, to copy any communication with the court to the other parties or their representatives. Exceptions to the requirement are specified in rule 5.7(2), (3) and (7) FPR 2010. This practice direction supplements rule 5.7(7) FPR 2010.

FAMILY PRACTICE DIRECTION 5C – COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE COURT

Court Refusal of the Request for Assistance from a McKenzie Friend

The purpose of allowing a litigant in person the assistance of a McKenzie friend is to further the interests of justice by achieving a level playing field and ensuring a fair hearing.

We endorse the proposition that the presumption in favour of allowing a litigant in person the assistance of a McKenzie friend is very strong, and that such a request should only be refused for compelling reasons.

Furthermore, should a judge identify such reasons, (s)he must explain them carefully and fully to both the litigant in person and the would-be McKenzie friend.

[2005] EWCA Civ 759 – LORD JUSTICE THORPE and LORD JUSTICE WALL

Check out our articles on Litigants in Person, Horsham County Court, HHJ Farquhar, HHJ Bedford, R v Sussex Justices, Rule of Law and the highly dubious Sussex Family Justice Board.

We have a number of links to Free Legal Resources and Legal Organisations on our Free Legal Advice , Legal Aid and Pro Bono pages.

Read the reviews of Gavin Howe Barrister

“He is awful, underhanded and should not be practising law!”

Latest Articles

• 
  What is a Paralegal ?
  A paralegal is a legal professional who performs tasks that require knowledge of legal concepts but does not hold the… Read more: What is a Paralegal ?
• 
  What is a Judgment ?
  A judgment, also known as a judicial decision or court ruling, is the final decision made by a court of… Read more: What is a Judgment ?
• 
  What is an Adverse Inference ?
  Adverse inference is a legal principle that plays a significant role in various areas of law, including criminal, civil, and family law. It arises… Read more: What is an Adverse Inference ?
• 
  Barristers
  A barrister is anyone who has been Called to the Bar in England and Wales. For a barrister to offer… Read more: Barristers

All articles can be found in our Sitemap