Category: Law

Law articles mainly focussed on law and legal matters in England and Wales.

Categories
Criminal Justice Government Law Legal Analysis Legal Professionals

HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate (HMCPSI)

HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate (HMCPSI)

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

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

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

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

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

Historical Background

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

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

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

Role and Responsibilities

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

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

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

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

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

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

Organisational Structure and Leadership

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

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

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

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

Recent Activities and Impact

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

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

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

You can contact HMCPSI :-

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

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

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

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

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 Law Legal Professionals

The Office of the Parliamentary Counsel

The Office of the Parliamentary Counsel

The Office of the Parliamentary Counsel (OPC) is a non-ministerial department within the Cabinet Office and employs specialist government lawyers who draft all government bills presented to Parliament.

The Office of the Parliamentary Counsel converts departmental policy instructions into legislative text that is clear, workable, and designed for enduring use. Subject to parliamentary examination, its output maintains the rule of law by reconciling government intentions with principles of judicial enforceability.

The Office of the Parliamentary Counsel publish guidance about the drafting of legislation, produced by the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel for members of that office.

The Legislative process: taking a bill through Parliament is an overview of the process by which bills become law.

History and Establishment

The origins of the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel (OPC) lie in the mid-19th century, when demands grew for standardised legislative drafting to address inconsistencies in government bills.

Prior to 1869, bill preparation was inconsistent: some were drafted by the Home Office counsel for multiple departments, others by independent counsel or departmental officials, resulting in variations that affected the coherence of the statute book.

The OPC was established on 8 February 1869 by a Treasury Minute as a two-year experiment to settle all departmental bills and draft other government bills (excluding those for Ireland and Scotland). Henry Thring was appointed as the inaugural full-time head, with one assistant. In January 1871, a further Treasury Minute made the arrangement permanent, commending Thring’s improvements to bill preparation.

Initially part of HM Treasury, the OPC expanded gradually with rising legislative demands. By 1901, it comprised one Parliamentary Counsel, an assistant, and support staff. Additional Parliamentary Counsel were appointed in 1914 and 1930. By the 1960s, the office had grown to 16 lawyers and support staff.

In 1969, the OPC transferred to the new Civil Service Department and adopted its current name. Following the department’s dissolution in 1980, it became part of the Cabinet Office, where it remains.

Role and Functions

At its core, the OPC drafts all government bills introduced to Parliament, engaging from policy inception through to enactment. This iterative process involves close collaboration with departments, refining drafts to ensure coherence and workability.

Beyond bills, it prepares amendments, reviews subordinate legislation amending primary Acts, and advises on parliamentary procedure and constitutional matters. A dedicated team partners with the Law Commission on reforms and consolidations.

The OPC also fosters legislative excellence through training for Government Legal Department lawyers and publishing guidance, such as the 2022 Common Legislative Solutions guide on penalties and policy devices.

Its counsel, qualified barristers and solicitors, prioritise “good law”: necessary, effective, coherent, and accessible statutes that withstand scrutiny.

Structure and Operations

Headquartered at 1 Horse Guards Road in London, the OPC operates as a nimble unit of 46 counsel and 7 support staff, led by the First Parliamentary Counsel, currently Jessica de Mounteney.

Email : [email protected]

Telephone : +44 (0)20 7276 6586

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

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

Latest Articles ↓

Most Popular ↓

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

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

Categories
Free Speech Law Legal Analysis

Free Speech and the Law

Free Speech and the Law

Freedom of speech is a fundamental human right that allows individuals and communities to express their opinions, ideas, and information without fear of retaliation, censorship, or punishment particularly from government authorities.

In England and Wales, this right is enshrined in law but operates within a framework of balances and restrictions. Unlike the absolute protections in some jurisdictions, UK free speech is a qualified right.

The primary safeguard for free speech in England and Wales is Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), incorporated via the Human Rights Act 1998.

Article 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998 gives the right to freedom of expression. “This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.”

The Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023 mandates that universities uphold free speech for students, academics, and guest speakers, countering “cancel culture” and deplatforming.

Education Providers must ensure lawful events proceed without undue hindrance, with the Office for Students empowered to investigate complaints and impose fines.

The Free Speech Union is a non-partisan, mass membership public interest body that stands up for the speech rights of its members and campaigns for free speech more widely. We champion the right of people from all walks of life to express themselves without fear of punishment or persecution. We often come to the defence of our members who get into trouble for exercising their right to lawful free speech, whether in the workplace, at university or on social media.

The Free Speech Union

Origins of Free Speech

The concept of free speech traces its roots to ancient Athens in the late 6th or early 5th century BCE, where democracy fostered the principle of parrhesia, the right to speak candidly about politics, religion, and government without fear of retaliation. This allowed philosophers, playwrights, and citizens to criticise leaders openly, though it was limited to certain public forums and did not extend to slaves or women.

In contrast, ancient Rome had more restricted speech under laws like the Lex Julia Majestatis which punished insults to the emperor.

During the Middle Ages, speech was heavily controlled by the Catholic Church and monarchies with censorship intensifying after the invention of the Gutenberg printing press around 1440.

The 18th century saw philosophical defences of free speech as essential for progress and governance. John Locke advocated toleration (excluding atheists), Baruch Spinoza pushed for universal expression, and Voltaire praised England’s relative freedoms in his 1733 Letters on the English, coining the spirit of “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it” (attributed later by biographer Evelyn Beatrice Hall).

Modern Free Speech

Globally, Free Speech is recognised in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) : “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.“

In the United States, Free Speech is enshrined in the First Amendment to the Constitution, which states : “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.“

Limitations and Challenges

Free speech in England and Wales is curtailed where it veers into hate speech. The Public Order Act 1986 and related laws prohibit expressions intended or likely to stir up hatred based on race, religion, or sexual orientation with penalties up to seven years’ imprisonment.

Legal action remains a potent tool for silencing critics, through the Defamation Act 2013.

Section 2 of the Defamation Act 2013 sets out the defence of truth. Section 3 of the Defamation Act 2013 sets out the defence of honest opinion. Section 4 of the Defamation Act 2013 sets out the defence of public interest. Section 8 of the Defamation Act 2013 sets out the single publication rule.

Online platforms face pressures under the Online Safety Act 2023 to remove harmful content, raising fears of over-censorship.

Anti-protest legislation, including bans on demonstrations in abortion buffer zones punishable by fines or imprisonment, adds further restrictions.

Cases like comedian Graham Linehan’s September 2025 arrest for tweets alleged to incite violence against trans individuals underscore chilling effects. With over 12,000 annual arrests for speech-related offences in England and Wales, enforcement remains contentious.

Case Law

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

“Free speech is a fundamental common law right” – Para 21 R v Shayler [2002] UKHL 11 [2003] 1 AC 247 per Lord Bingham and Para 42 Phillips -v- Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs [2024] EWHC 32 (Admin)

We live in a liberal democracy. One of the precious rights that affords us is to express our own views and read, hear and consider ideas without the state intervening to stop us doing so.

The price we pay for that is having to allow others to exercise the same rights, even if that upsets, offends or shocks us.

Mr Justice Bennathan – Southwark Crown Court 10th October 2025
“We’ve had free speech for a very long time here…” – Sir Keir Starmer

Check out our related articles on the Free Speech Union, Judiciary, Rule of Law, Open Justice, Is the Law Black and White ?, Abuse of Process, What Does Lady Justice Symbolise ?, McKenzie Friend, Law Society, Law Commission, McKenzie Friend Right of Audience, Solicitors, Solicitors Regulation Authority, Barristers, Bar Council of England and Wales, Bar Standards Board, R v Sussex Justices, Police Impartiality and the highly questionable Sussex Family Justice Board.

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

Latest Articles ↓

Most Popular ↓

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

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

Categories
Law Police

National Hate Crime Awareness Week

National Hate Crime Awareness Week

National Hate Crime Awareness Week (NHCAW) 2025 starts on the 11th October 2025. This week-long campaign, organised by the 17-24-30 charity, calls on communities, organisations and individuals to confront the scourge of hate crime head-on.

Founded by Mark Healey and Ryan Perkins in 2009 to commemorate the 10th anniversary of the 1999 London nail bombings, a series of far-right terrorist attacks by neo-Nazi David Copeland, targeting Black, Bangladeshi, and LGBTQ+ communities that claimed three lives and injured over 140 people.

At its core, NHCAW operates under the H.O.P.E. framework: Highlighting the impact of hate crimes, Optimising operational responses from police and councils, Preventing future incidents through education, and Engaging affected communities in solutions.

Sussex Police are taking part in National Hate Crime Awareness Week 2025 which starts on Saturday 11th October.

A hate crime is when someone commits a crime which is motivated by hostility or prejudice based on the victim’s race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, transgender identity, or any other perceived difference.

Policing teams and partners across the force will carry out engagements with partner agencies and talks and visits to schools and universities, as officers look to educate and ensure our communities know if they are affected by hate crime and how to report it.

Chief Superintendent Nick Dias, force lead for Hate Crime, said: “We work extremely hard as a force to raise awareness of what hate crime is, and to give victims the confidence to come forward to report it.

“We understand the huge impact it can have on individual victims and wider communities across Sussex and in the country. There have been recent incidents both locally and nationally which have caused concern.

“It’s vital that hate crimes and incidents of that nature are reported so that we can support those affected and look to bring the offenders to justice.

“Throughout the week, we are working with our partners and holding events where you can come and talk to us and find out more about the work we’re doing. But our work doesn’t stop there, we are here all year round to help keep the community safe.

“You can find where we will be and when on our social media channels so if you have any questions across the week, feel free to chat to our officers in your town or city.

“Our message is clear: Sussex Police takes a zero-tolerance approach to hate crime and there is no place for hate and division in our county.”

Sussex Police – Sussex Police takes part in National Hate Crime Awareness Week
Crawley Police World Samosa Day 2024
Chief Superintendent Nick Dias Sussex Police
Sussex Police, the King and High Sheriff

Check out our articles on National Stalking Awareness Week, Policing by Consent, Police Impartiality, Two Tiered Policing, Free Speech Union, What is a Police and Crime Commissioner ?, Sussex Police, Policing, Police News, Thought Police, Wasting Police Time, Police Community Support Officers (PCSO), Met Police, Chief Constable Jo Shiner, R v Sussex Justices and the highly questionable Sussex Family Justice Board.

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

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
Law Legal Analysis

Bizarre Laws of England and Wales

Bizarre Laws of England and Wales

The legal system of England and Wales is a fascinating blend of modern rigor and historical eccentricity.

While contemporary laws tackle issues like cybercrime and environmental issues, a collection of peculiar statutes, which are still legally binding, hark back to times of royal prerogatives, Victorian decorum and other oddities.

Handling Salmon Suspiciously

Legislation: Salmon Act 1986, Section 32

“It is an offence for any person to handle any salmon in suspicious circumstances.”

This anti-poaching measure’s vague wording invites amusement, with fines possible for those caught with fishy intentions.

Wear Armour inside Parliament

Legislation: A Statute forbidding Bearing of Armour (1313)

“The King forbids the coming armed to Parliament…that every Man shall come without all Force and Armour, well and peaceably…”

This medieval rule, still in force, prevents armed clashes in Westminster, a quirky nod to its rowdy past.

Gavin Howe Barrister
Shining Knight in Armour Gavin Howe (Barrister)
Drunk in a Pub

Legislation: Licensing Act 1872, Section 12

“Every person found drunk… on any licensed premises, shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding forty shillings.”

This ironic rule could fine overzealous pub-goers up to £200 in modern terms, though enforcement is rare.

Carrying a Plank in London

Legislation: Metropolitan Police Act 1839, Section 54

“Every person who shall… carry or place any cask, tub, hoop, wheel, ladder, plank, or other bulky article, in any street or public place… shall be liable to a penalty.”

Aimed at preventing obstructions, this could net a £500 fine for careless carpenters in London.

Drunk with Cattle

Legislation: Licensing Act 1872, Section 12

“Every person who is drunk while in charge on any highway or other public place of any… cattle… shall be liable to a penalty.”

Aimed at Victorian drovers, this could fine tipsy herdsmen handling livestock today.

Street Sledding

Legislation: Metropolitan Police Act 1839, Section 54

“Every person who shall… slide upon ice or snow… in any street or other thoroughfare, to the danger of any person, shall be liable to a penalty.”

Fines up to £500 target reckless winter sledding that endangers urban pedestrians.

Importing Polish Potatoes

Legislation: Polish Potatoes (Notification) Order 2004

“No person shall… import into England potatoes… originating in Poland unless… written notification is given to an inspector.”

Non-compliance risks fines, making undeclared Polish spud imports a surprisingly risky venture.

Singing Profane Songs

Legislation: Metropolitan Police Act 1839, Section 54

“Every person who shall… sing any profane, indecent, or obscene song or ballad… in any street or public place, shall be liable to a penalty.”

This Victorian rule could fine bawdy buskers up to £500.

Selling Firearms to Drunks

Legislation: Firearms Act 1968, Section 25

“A person who… supplies a firearm or ammunition to a person whom he knows or has reasonable cause to believe to be drunk… commits an offence.”

This ensures sober firearm transactions with penalties for non-compliance.

Royal Whales and Sturgeons

Legislation: Prerogativa Regis 1324

“The King shall have… whales and sturgeons taken in the sea or elsewhere within the realm.”

This medieval perk claims beached whales and sturgeons for the Crown, barring you from claiming maritime treasures.

Drunk on a Bicycle

Legislation: Licensing Act 1872, Section 12

“Every person who is drunk while in charge on any highway or other public place of any carriage… shall be liable to a penalty.”

Interpreted to include bicycles, this could fine wobbly cyclists.

Check out our related articles on the Rule of Law, Branches of Law, Open Justice, What is Law, Is the Law Black and White ?, Abuse of Process, What Does Lady Justice Symbolise ?, McKenzie Friend, Law Society, Law Commission, McKenzie Friend Right of Audience, Solicitors, Solicitors Regulation Authority, Barristers, Bar Council of England and Wales, Bar Standards Board, R v Sussex Justices, Police Impartiality and the highly questionable Sussex Family Justice Board.

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

Latest Articles ↓

Most Popular ↓

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

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

Categories
Law Legal Analysis Police

Public Interest Immunity

Public Interest Immunity

Public Interest Immunity (PII) enable UK police forces to withhold sensitive information from disclosure in legal proceedings when its release would harm the public interest.

Rooted in common law and refined by cases like Conway v Rimmer (1968), Public Interest Immunity balances the need for fair trials with the protection of critical public interests, such as informant safety or national security.

Governed by the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 (CPIA) in criminal cases, Public Interest Immunity is frequently invoked by the UK police to safeguard operational integrity.

What is Public Interest Immunity ?

  • Definition: Public Interest Immunity permits the non-disclosure of documents or information in court if revealing them would damage the public interest (e.g., national security, public safety, or police operations) more than withholding them would affect justice.
  • Legal Basis: Rooted in cases like Conway v Rimmer (1968), which replaced the older “Crown Privilege” term. Governed by the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 (CPIA) for criminal cases and civil procedure rules for other matters.
  • Court Oversight: Courts decide Public Interest Immunity claims through a “balancing exercise,” weighing disclosure’s benefit to justice against potential harm. Judges may review materials in camera (privately).

Police Use of Public Interest Immunity

UK police forces commonly invoke Public Interest Immunity to protect:

  • Informant Identities: To safeguard covert human intelligence sources (CHIS) whose exposure could endanger lives or deter future cooperation (e.g., in organized crime or terrorism cases).
  • Operational Methods: Details of surveillance, undercover tactics, or intelligence-gathering to prevent criminals from adapting.
  • National Security: Information linked to counter-terrorism or sensitive investigations, as seen in cases like R v Yam (2008), where parts of a trial were held in secret to protect MI5/MI6 sources.
  • Examples:
    • In terrorism trials, police may withhold intelligence reports to avoid compromising ongoing operations.
    • During the Matrix Churchill case (1990s), PII misuse to conceal arms export details led to the Scott Inquiry, prompting reforms for transparency.

In the UK, police forces submit a Public Interest Immunity (PII) claim to withhold sensitive information from disclosure in legal proceedings when its release would harm the public interest (e.g., compromising informant safety, police operations, or national security).

The process is governed by the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 (CPIA) for criminal cases and civil procedure rules for other matters.

Police Criminal intelligence reports are disseminated on a 5 x 5 x 5 Information Intelligence Report Form and explicitly mention Public Interest Immunity.

“A Risk Assessment Form ‘C’ will be required in respect of the information concerned and that if it is subsequently used in court, an application for Public Interest Immunity will be sought.”

College of Policing – How to Complete a 5x5x5 Form and Relevant Supplements

Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 and Public Interest Immunity

CPIA Section 3 – Primary Disclosure

  • This section requires the prosecution (often working with the police) to disclose to the defence any material that might reasonably undermine the prosecution’s case or assist the defence.
  • Relevance to PII: Police must review all material gathered during an investigation. If material meets the disclosure test but is sensitive (e.g., informant identities or surveillance methods), they may consider a PII claim to withhold it.

CPIA Section 7A – Continuing Duty of Disclosure

  • This imposes an ongoing obligation on the prosecution to review and disclose relevant material throughout the proceedings.
  • Relevance to PII: If new sensitive material emerges (e.g., additional intelligence), police can initiate a PII claim at any stage, ensuring continuous assessment of public interest concerns.

CPIA Section 8 – Defence Application for Disclosure

  • Allows the defence to apply to the court for disclosure of material they believe was wrongly withheld.
  • Relevance to PII: If police claim PII, the defence can challenge it, prompting a judicial review of the claim, often in camera, to assess whether withholding is justified.

CPIA Section 14 -Public Interest Immunity Applications

  • This section specifically addresses PII, allowing the prosecution (or police via the CPS) to apply to the court to withhold material on public interest grounds.
  • Key Process: The police submit a PII application, often with a certificate or submission detailing the harm of disclosure (e.g., risk to informants or national security). The court conducts a balancing exercise, weighing public interest in non-disclosure against fair trial rights.

Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act Code of Practice

The CPIA Code of Practice is critical for police handling of sensitive material:

  • Paragraph 2.1: Defines sensitive material as that which, if disclosed, could harm the public interest (e.g., compromising national security, informant safety, or police operations).
  • Paragraph 6.12–6.14: Requires police to list sensitive material on a separate “sensitive schedule” (MG6D form) and notify the CPS if PII is sought. Examples include:
    • Identities of covert human intelligence sources (CHIS).
    • Details of surveillance or undercover tactics.
    • National security-related intelligence.
  • The CPS then applies for PII under Section 14, with police providing supporting evidence (e.g., a PII certificate or submission).

How do the Police Submit a Public Interest Immunity (PII) Claim ?

  1. Identify Sensitive Material:
    • During an investigation or case preparation, police identify documents or information (e.g., informant identities, surveillance methods, intelligence reports) that, if disclosed, could harm the public interest.
    • This typically arises under the CPIA, which requires police to disclose material that might assist the defense or undermine the prosecution unless PII applies.
  2. Assess Public Interest Harm:
    • Senior officers (e.g., a detective inspector or above) or the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) evaluate the material to determine if disclosure would:
      • Endanger lives (e.g., informants or undercover officers).
      • Compromise ongoing investigations or operational tactics.
      • Harm national security or public safety.
    • The harm must be specific and substantial, not speculative, per cases like R v H and C (2004).
  3. Prepare the PII Application:
    • Documentation: Police compile the sensitive material and prepare a detailed justification, often in a PII certificate or written submission. This outlines:
      • The nature of the material (e.g., informant details, surveillance logs).
      • The specific public interest harm if disclosed.
      • Why alternatives (e.g., redaction, summaries) are insufficient.
    • Involvement of Senior Officials: In high-stakes cases (e.g., terrorism or national security), a minister (typically the Home Secretary) may sign the PII certificate, though police or CPS often initiate claims.
    • The application distinguishes between “contents” claims (entire document withheld) and “class” claims (category of documents, e.g., all intelligence reports, withheld).
  4. Notify the Court:
    • The police or CPS inform the court of the PII claim, usually before trial or during pre-trial disclosure hearings.
    • This is done ex parte (without the defense present) to avoid revealing the sensitive material. However, the court may later allow defense input in a limited capacity.
  5. Submit to Judicial Review:
    • The police provide the sensitive material to the court for in camera review (private examination by the judge).
    • The judge conducts a balancing exercise, weighing:
      • The public interest in non-disclosure (e.g., protecting informants).
      • The public interest in a fair trial (e.g., defense access to relevant evidence).
    • The court may request additional details from the police or CPS to justify the claim.
  6. Court Decision:
    • The judge rules on the PII claim:
      • Upheld: The material is withheld entirely or partially (e.g., redacted versions disclosed).
      • Partially Upheld: Summaries or anonymized versions may be provided to the defense.
      • Rejected: The police must disclose the material, or the prosecution may drop the case if disclosure is deemed too damaging.
    • Courts follow guidelines from cases like R v Chief Constable of West Midlands Police, ex parte Wiley (1994), ensuring claims are not “lightly made.”
  7. Safeguards and Alternatives:
    • Police may propose alternatives to full non-disclosure, such as:
      • Redacting sensitive parts (e.g., names, locations).
      • Providing gist statements summarizing the material without compromising details.
    • In rare cases, special advocates (security-cleared lawyers) represent the defense’s interests in closed hearings, especially in national security cases.

Challenges and Criticisms

While PII is vital for police operations, it faces significant scrutiny. Critics argue it can undermine fair trials by restricting defence access to potentially exculpatory evidence, as highlighted in R v H and C (2004) which set stricter scrutiny standards.

The Scott Inquiry (1996), following the Matrix Churchill case, exposed PII misuse to conceal government errors, prompting reforms for transparency. Police must justify claims specifically, avoiding blanket assertions, and courts are vigilant to prevent abuse, such as hiding misconduct.

The tension between operational secrecy and open justice remains a contentious issue, with ongoing debates about proportionality and oversight.

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

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

Latest Articles ↓

Most Popular ↓

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

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

Categories
Criminal Justice Law Legal Professionals Police

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

Criminal Justice Secure eMail (CJSM) System

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

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

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

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

It also offers:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How to Get a CJSM Account ?

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

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

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

Is CJSM Secure ?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Latest Articles ↓

Most Popular ↓

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

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

Categories
Criminal Justice Law Legal Analysis Legal Professionals

What is a Defendant’s Costs Order ?

Defendants Costs Order

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

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

Key Provisions of Section 16 Prosecution of Offences Act 1985

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

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

Criminal Practice Directions

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

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

Application Process

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

Limitations

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

Practical Considerations

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

Example Scenario

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

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

Additional Notes

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

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

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

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
Law Legal Analysis

What are the Branches of Law ?

Branches of Law

The United Kingdom’s legal system is a rich and intricate framework that governs society through a variety of legal branches. These branches, each with distinct purposes and applications, reflect the UK’s unique blend of common law traditions, statutory provisions, and historical practices.

Understanding these branches is essential for grasping how justice is administered in the UK, from resolving private disputes to regulating state power.

Constitutional Law

Constitutional law forms the foundation of the UK’s governance, defining the structure and powers of the state, its institutions, and their relationship with citizens.

Unlike countries with a single written constitution, the UK’s constitution is uncodified, comprising statutes, conventions, judicial precedents, and historical documents such as the Magna Carta 1215 and the Bill of Rights 1689.

Key legislation, like the Human Rights Act 1998, incorporates protections from the European Convention on Human Rights into domestic law. Constitutional law governs the roles of Parliament, the monarchy, the government, and the judiciary, ensuring a balance of power.

It also addresses devolution, defining the powers of the Scottish Parliament, Welsh Senedd, and Northern Ireland Assembly. Landmark cases, such as R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (2017), highlight its role in resolving disputes over governmental authority, particularly during Brexit.

Administrative Law

Closely linked to constitutional law, administrative law regulates the actions of public bodies, ensuring they operate within legal boundaries. It provides mechanisms, such as judicial review, to challenge decisions by government departments, local authorities, or public institutions if they are unlawful, irrational, or procedurally unfair.

For example, a citizen might seek judicial review if a local council’s planning decision violates statutory requirements. Key principles, like natural justice and fairness, underpin this branch, with cases such as Ridge v Baldwin (1964) shaping its development. Administrative law is vital for maintaining accountability, especially in an era of expanding government functions.

Criminal Law

Criminal law addresses offences against society, such as theft, assault, murder, or fraud. Its primary aim is to maintain public order by defining prohibited conduct and prescribing punishments, ranging from fines to imprisonment.

Governed by statutes like the Theft Act 1968, the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, and the Criminal Justice Act 2003, criminal law operates under a high burden of proof, “beyond reasonable doubt.”

The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) decides whether to prosecute based on evidence and public interest. Criminal law also evolves through case law, with precedents clarifying issues like intent or self-defence. Its societal impact is profound, balancing punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation.

Civil Law

Civil law governs disputes between private individuals or entities, such as businesses, organisations, or citizens. Unlike criminal law, its focus is on resolving disputes rather than punishing wrongdoing, often through remedies like compensation or injunctions.

Civil law encompasses areas like contract disputes, property issues, and personal injury claims. The standard of proof is lower than in criminal cases, “on the balance of probabilities.”

Statutes like the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 guide civil litigation, ensuring fair and efficient resolution. Civil law’s breadth makes it a cornerstone of everyday legal interactions.

Family Law

Family law regulates personal relationships, including marriage, divorce, child custody, adoption, and domestic violence. It seeks to balance legal, emotional, and social considerations, with the welfare of children being paramount, as outlined in the Children Act 1989.

The Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 governs divorce and financial settlements, while recent reforms, like the Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Act 2020, introduced “no-fault” divorce to reduce conflict. Family courts handle sensitive cases, often involving mediation to minimise adversarial proceedings, reflecting the branch’s focus on practical resolutions.

Tort Law

Tort law, a subset of civil law, addresses civil wrongs where one party’s actions cause harm to another, such as negligence, defamation, or nuisance.

Its goal is to compensate the injured party, typically through damages. Landmark cases like Donoghue v Stevenson (1932) established the modern principle of negligence, introducing the “duty of care” concept. Statutes like the Defamation Act 2013 also shape this branch.

Tort law is dynamic, adapting to societal changes, such as addressing online defamation or environmental harm.

Contract Law

Contract law governs legally binding agreements between parties, ensuring obligations are fulfilled.

It covers issues like breaches of contract, misrepresentation, or unfair terms, with principles derived from statutes like the Sale of Goods Act 1979 and common law. Cases such as Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co (1893) illustrate foundational principles like offer and acceptance.

Contract law underpins commercial and personal transactions, fostering economic stability.

Property Law

Property law regulates the ownership, use, and transfer of assets, divided into real property (land and buildings) and personal property (e.g., goods or intellectual property).

Statutes like the Land Registration Act 2002 and the Law of Property Act 1925 govern land ownership, leases, and mortgages. Property law also intersects with inheritance and trusts, ensuring clarity in asset distribution.

Its complexity reflects the economic and social importance of property in the UK.

Equity and Trusts

Equity and trusts law addresses fairness in legal remedies, originating from historical courts of equity.

It includes trusts, where one party holds property for another’s benefit, governed by statutes like the Trustee Act 2000. Equity provides flexible remedies, such as injunctions or specific performance, complementing common law.

Its principles ensure justice in cases where strict legal rules may produce unfair outcomes.

European and International Law

Despite Brexit, international law and retained EU law significantly influence the UK. The European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 incorporates certain EU regulations into domestic law, particularly in trade, employment, and environmental standards.

International law encompasses treaties, customary law, and obligations under organisations like the United Nations. Examples include:

  • Trade Law: The UK adheres to World Trade Organization (WTO) rules, governing tariffs and trade disputes. Post-Brexit trade agreements, such as the UK-EU Trade and Cooperation Agreement 2020, regulate economic relations with the EU.
  • Human Rights Law: The UK is party to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), enforced through the Human Rights Act 1998. Cases like Hirst v UK (2005) at the European Court of Human Rights challenged UK prisoner voting laws.
  • Environmental Law: The Paris Agreement 2015 commits the UK to reducing carbon emissions, influencing domestic policies like the Environment Act 2021. The Aarhus Convention ensures public access to environmental justice.
  • Maritime Law: The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) governs UK maritime boundaries. The 2016 Philippines v China arbitration, though not directly involving the UK, illustrates UNCLOS’s role in resolving territorial disputes, relevant to UK interests in global shipping lanes.
  • International Humanitarian Law: The Geneva Conventions regulate UK military conduct, ensuring protections for civilians and prisoners during conflicts, such as in Iraq or Afghanistan.
  • Sanctions and International Criminal Law: The UK uses UN and domestic sanctions to target regimes or individuals, as seen in measures against Russia post-2022 Ukraine invasion. The International Criminal Court (ICC), to which the UK is a signatory, prosecutes war crimes though enforcement challenges persist.

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

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

Latest Articles ↓

Most Popular ↓

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

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

Categories
Criminal Justice Law Legal Analysis

What is the Youth Justice Board for England and Wales ?

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales

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

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

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

Youth Justice Board – About Us

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

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

Leadership

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

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

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

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

Purpose and Objectives

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

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

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

Structure and Governance

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

Key Functions

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

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

Impact and Challenges

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

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

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

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

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