Category: Law

Owning an Electric Scooter (e-scooter) in the UK is legal, but riding one on public roads or pavements remains illegal unless it’s part of a government-approved rental scheme. These rental schemes are operational in various cities under trial conditions, allowing users to rent and ride e-scooters legally on certain roads and cycle lanes but not on pavements.

Study reveals ‘alarming number’ of e-scooter riders and cyclists ignoring law in London

E-Scooter Law

It is against the law to use a privately owned Electric Scooter (e-scooter) on public land. If you use an e-scooter illegally :-

• you could face a fine
• you could get penalty points on your licence
• the e-scooter could be impounded

E-scooters are classed as motor vehicles (Powered Transporter) under Section 165 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 which means the rules that apply to motor vehicles, also apply to e-scooters including the need to have a licence, insurance and tax. Electric scooters are also classed as Personal Light Electric Vehicles (PLEVs) under UK law.

If you’re using an e-scooter in public in an antisocial manner, you can also risk the e-scooter being seized under Section 59 of the Police Reform Act 2002.

It is an offence to use e-scooters on the pavement. In Section 72 of the Highway Act 1835 it is an offence to ride on, or to lead or draw a carriage on a pavement. This rule applies almost all vehicles, with only legal exceptions for mobility scooters and wheelchairs.

If you cause serious harm to another person whilst riding an e-scooter the incident will be investigated in the same way it would if you were riding a motorcycle or driving a car. 

E-scooter Trials

The government has begun trials of e-scooters. Trials are for approved rental e-scooters only. The existing rules for private e-scooters and other powered transporters have not changed.

E-scooter trials are taking place in these areas:

• Bournemouth and Poole
• Buckinghamshire (Aylesbury, High Wycombe and Princes Risborough)
• Cambridge
• Essex (Basildon, Braintree, Chelmsford and Colchester)
• Gloucestershire (Cheltenham and Gloucester)
• Liverpool
• London (participating boroughs)
• Milton Keynes
• Newcastle
• North and West Northamptonshire (Northampton, Kettering, Corby, Wellingborough, Rushden and Higham Ferrers)
• North Devon
• Norwich
• Oxfordshire (Oxford)
• Salford
• Slough
• Solent (Isle of Wight, Portsmouth and Southampton)
• Somerset (Taunton, Minehead and Yeovil)
• West Midlands (Birmingham)
• West of England Combined Authority (Bristol and Bath)

The maximum speed for an e-scooter is 15.5mph.

Trial e-scooters are limited to this speed and in some areas e-scooters may be limited to a lower maximum speed.

E-scooter trials: guidance for users

E-scooters must have motor insurance, but you do not need to arrange this as this will be provided by your e-scooter rental operator.

You may use a trial e-scooter on the road (except motorways) and in cycle lanes.

You must not use an e-scooter on the pavement.

E-scooters do not need to be registered, display registration plates or pay vehicle excise duty.

Licence Requirements

You must have the category Q entitlement on your driving licence to use an e-scooter. A full or provisional UK licence for categories AM, A or B includes entitlement for category Q. If you have one of these licences, you can use an e-scooter.

If you have a provisional licence, you do not need to show L plates when using a rental e-scooter.

If you have an overseas driving licence, you can use an e-scooter if you:

• have a valid full licence from an EU or European Economic Area (EEA) country (so long as this does not prohibit you from driving low-speed mopeds and motorcycles)
• have a valid full licence from another country that entitles you to drive a small vehicle (for example, cars, mopeds or motorcycles) and you entered the UK within the last 12 months

E-Scooter Guidance and Links

The Department for Transport (DOT) has published Guidance E-scooter trials.

The Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency (DVSA) and DOT have also published Guidance on Powered Transporters.

City of London Police published Advice on using e-scooters.

The Metropolitan Police has also published Advice on using e-scooters.

Halfords, who are a major retailer of e-scooters, published Are Electric Scooters Legal?.

E-Scooters and Drug Dealers

Drugs are being openly sold on the streets by drug dealers with seemingly little to no action being taken by the Police to deal with this. See our article Drug Dealing on the Street.

Drug Dealers are usually illegally riding a speed modified e-scooter or e-bike and have their face covered. An e-scooter, it would seem, are the perfect means of transport to evade arrest.

No one should be above the law. Everyone, no matter how wealthy or powerful, are subject to the Rule of Law.

Check out our articles on Policing,Police News, Policing by Consent,Two Tiered Policing,Drug Dealing on the Street,Wasting Police Time,Met Police,Sussex Police,Chief Constable Jo Shiner Sussex Police 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 ↓

• 
  What is Two Tier Policing ?
  The BBC describes so-called “two-tier policing” as where right-wing protests… Read more: What is Two Tier Policing ?
• 
  Lawful Use of Handcuffs by the Police
  Handcuffs are a standard restraint tool used by police officers… Read more: Lawful Use of Handcuffs by the Police
• 
  His Honour Judge Nicholas Rowland
  Judge Nicholas Edward Rowland, known as His Honour Judge Nicholas… Read more: His Honour Judge Nicholas Rowland
• 
  Police Barred and Advisory Lists
  The police barred and advisory lists, which are managed by… Read more: Police Barred and Advisory Lists
• 
  President of the Family Division
  The President of the Family Division is a highly esteemed… Read more: President of the Family Division
• 
  Is Crimestoppers Anonymous ?
  Crimestoppers is widely promoted as the United Kingdom’s leading provider… Read more: Is Crimestoppers Anonymous ?
• 
  What is a Court Legal Adviser ?
  In magistrates’ courts across England and Wales, lay justices (magistrates… Read more: What is a Court Legal Adviser ?
• 
  What is a Skeleton Argument ?
  A skeleton argument is a concise written document prepared by… Read more: What is a Skeleton Argument ?
• 
  Can you Buy a Judge ?
  His Honour Judge Martin John Cook was for sale, in… Read more: Can you Buy a Judge ?
• 
  Norwich Pharmacal Orders and Dodgy Fire Sticks
  Norwich Pharmacal orders (NPOs) are a form of court-ordered disclosure… Read more: Norwich Pharmacal Orders and Dodgy Fire Sticks
• 
  What is a Statutory Instrument ?
  A statutory instrument is the most common form of secondary… Read more: What is a Statutory Instrument ?
• 
  The Pensions Increase (Pension Scheme for Keir Starmer QC) Regulations 2013
  In October 2013, the Treasury laid before Parliament a short… Read more: The Pensions Increase (Pension Scheme for Keir Starmer QC) Regulations 2013

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.

Misconduct in public office is a common law offence in the United Kingdom that is defined as an individual who, being a public officer, acting in that capacity or under the pretence of such office, wilfully neglects to perform his duty and/or wilfully misconducts himself to such a degree as to amount to an abuse of the public’s trust in the office holder.

This offence carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment and is considered to be one of the most serious offences that a public official can commit.

Where there is clear evidence of one or more statutory offences, they should usually form the basis of the case, with the ‘public office’ element being put forward as an aggravating factor for sentencing purposes.

The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) prosecutes criminal cases that have been investigated by the police and other investigative organisations in England and Wales.

What is a Public Officer ?

The prosecution must have evidence to show that the suspect is a ‘public officer’. There is no simple definition and each case must be assessed individually, taking into account the nature of the role, the duties carried out and the level of public trust involved.

The courts have been reluctant to provide a detailed definition of a public officer. The case law contains an element of circularity, in that the cases tend to define a public officer as a person who carries out a public duty or has an office of trust. 

It is extremely difficult to extract from the cases any general identifying features of public officers in a contemporary context. A person may fall within the meaning of a ‘public officer’ where one or more of the following characteristics applies to a role or function that they exercise with respect to the public at large: 

• Judicial or quasi-judicial
• Regulatory
• Punitive
• Coercive
• Investigative
• Representative (of the public at large)
• Responsibility for public funds 

CPS Misconduct in Public Office

Types of Public Office

The following have been accepted as holding a public office by the courts over several centuries: 

• Coroner (1675) Parker 2 Lev 140
• Constable (1703) Wyatt 1 Salk 380
• Accountant in the office of the Paymaster General (1783) Bembridge 3 Doug
• K.B. 32
• Justice of the Peace (1791) Sainsbury 4 T.R 451
• Executive or ministerial officer (1819) R v Friar 1 Chit.Rep (KB) 702
• Gaoler (1827) Cope 6 A%E 226
• Mayor or burgess (1828) Henly v Mayor of Lyme 5 Bing 91
• Magistrates Pinney (1832) 110 ER 349
• Overseer of the poor (1891) Hall 1 QB 747
• Army officer (1914) Whitaker 10 Cr.App.R.245
• County Court registrar (district judge) (1968) Llewellyn-Jones 1 Q.B.429
• Police officer (1979) Dytham 69 Cr.App.R.387
• Local authority employees (1995) Bowden 4 All E.R 505
• DVLA employees Att Gen’s Ref (No 140 of 2004) [2004] EWCA Crim 3525
• Police Community Support Officer Amar Iqbal [2008] EWCA Crim 2066
• Immigration officers John-Ayo [2009] 1 Cr App R (S) 71
• Those in charge of police computer systems Gallagher [2010] EWCA Crim 3201
• Nurses working within a prison Cosford [2014] QB 81
• Church of England clergy James (1850) 2 Den 1, 169 ER 393 though its authority was doubted in the unreported case of Ball (8 September 2015) in which Wilkie J ruled that a Church of England Bishop was a public office holder.
• Local councillor (2004) R v Speechley [2004] EWCA Crim 3067
• Member of the Independent Monitoring Board for prisons (2010) R v Belton [2010] EWCA Crim 2857 

CPS Misconduct in Public Office

History of Misconduct in Public Office

The offence of misconduct in public office was first recognized by the English courts in the 18th century.

The earliest known case is that of Lord Ferrers in 1760, where he was charged with and found guilty of the murder of his steward, whom he had dismissed. Lord Ferrers was executed for his offence, and his case set the precedent for the use of the offence of misconduct in public office in cases involving abuse of power by public officials.

Elements of Misconduct in Public Office

The offence of misconduct in public office is comprised of three key elements. Firstly, the defendant must be a public officer. This includes anyone who holds public office, regardless of whether they are elected, appointed, or employed by the state.

Secondly, the defendant must have acted in their capacity as a public officer or under the pretence of such office. The courts have held that this element is satisfied if the defendant’s misconduct is in some way connected to their public office, even if it does not involve the direct exercise of their official duties.

Thirdly, the defendant must have wilfully neglected to perform their duty and/or wilfully misconducted themselves to such a degree as to amount to an abuse of the public’s trust in the office holder. The courts have held that wilfulness is an essential ingredient of this offence. This means that the defendant must have intended to neglect their duty or to act in a way that amounts to an abuse of the public’s trust.

Application of Misconduct in Public Office in Case Law

Misconduct in public office has been used in a variety of contexts, including cases involving police officers, politicians, and civil servants.

One high-profile case involving misconduct in public office is that of R v Dytham. In this case, a police officer who failed to intervene when he witnessed a murder was found guilty of this offence.

Another notable case is that of R v Chaytor, where a Member of Parliament who had claimed false expenses was found guilty of this offence.

Modern Significance of Misconduct in Public Office

The offence of misconduct in public office is still relevant in the modern legal system. In 2021, two Metropolitan Police officers were charged with misconduct in public office in connection with the investigation into the disappearance of Sarah Everard. The charges related to allegations that the officers had taken photographs of Ms. Everard’s body and shared them with others.

Misconduct in public office is a serious offence that is used in cases involving public officials who abuse their power. The offence has a long history in the UK legal system, and it remains relevant in modern times. The elements of the offence are well established, and it has been applied in a variety of contexts, including cases involving police officers, politicians, and civil servants. While the offence carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment, the courts have been careful to ensure that it is only used in cases where the defendant’s conduct is truly egregious and amounts to a serious abuse of the public’s trust.

It is worth noting that the offence of misconduct in public office is not without controversy. Some commentators have argued that the offence is too vague and open-ended, and that it can be used to prosecute individuals for conduct that is not clearly criminal. There have also been concerns that the offence is disproportionately used against public officials, and that it is not used often enough in cases involving private sector individuals who engage in similar conduct.

Despite these criticisms, the offence of misconduct in public office remains an important tool for prosecutors in cases where public officials have abused their power. As with all criminal offences, it is important that the offence is applied in a fair and consistent manner, and that individuals are not prosecuted for conduct that does not clearly amount to an abuse of the public’s trust.

If you are facing allegations of misconduct in public office, it is important to seek legal advice as soon as possible. A qualified criminal defence lawyer can help you to understand the charges against you and develop a strategy for defending yourself in court.

• CPS Guidance on Misconduct in Public Office
• R v Dytham
• R v Chaytor
• News of the World phone hacking scandal
• Sarah Everard case

Check out our related articles on the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate (HMCPSI), 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 ↓

• 
  What is Two Tier Policing ?
  The BBC describes so-called “two-tier policing” as where right-wing protests… Read more: What is Two Tier Policing ?
• 
  Lawful Use of Handcuffs by the Police
  Handcuffs are a standard restraint tool used by police officers… Read more: Lawful Use of Handcuffs by the Police
• 
  His Honour Judge Nicholas Rowland
  Judge Nicholas Edward Rowland, known as His Honour Judge Nicholas… Read more: His Honour Judge Nicholas Rowland
• 
  Police Barred and Advisory Lists
  The police barred and advisory lists, which are managed by… Read more: Police Barred and Advisory Lists
• 
  President of the Family Division
  The President of the Family Division is a highly esteemed… Read more: President of the Family Division
• 
  Is Crimestoppers Anonymous ?
  Crimestoppers is widely promoted as the United Kingdom’s leading provider… Read more: Is Crimestoppers Anonymous ?
• 
  What is a Court Legal Adviser ?
  In magistrates’ courts across England and Wales, lay justices (magistrates… Read more: What is a Court Legal Adviser ?
• 
  What is a Skeleton Argument ?
  A skeleton argument is a concise written document prepared by… Read more: What is a Skeleton Argument ?
• 
  Can you Buy a Judge ?
  His Honour Judge Martin John Cook was for sale, in… Read more: Can you Buy a Judge ?
• 
  Norwich Pharmacal Orders and Dodgy Fire Sticks
  Norwich Pharmacal orders (NPOs) are a form of court-ordered disclosure… Read more: Norwich Pharmacal Orders and Dodgy Fire Sticks
• 
  What is a Statutory Instrument ?
  A statutory instrument is the most common form of secondary… Read more: What is a Statutory Instrument ?
• 
  The Pensions Increase (Pension Scheme for Keir Starmer QC) Regulations 2013
  In October 2013, the Treasury laid before Parliament a short… Read more: The Pensions Increase (Pension Scheme for Keir Starmer QC) Regulations 2013

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.

“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 related articles on Rule of Law, Open Justice, Is the Law Black and White ?, Lady Chief Justice, Lord Chancellor, 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 ↓

• 
  What is Two Tier Policing ?
  The BBC describes so-called “two-tier policing” as where right-wing protests… Read more: What is Two Tier Policing ?
• 
  Lawful Use of Handcuffs by the Police
  Handcuffs are a standard restraint tool used by police officers… Read more: Lawful Use of Handcuffs by the Police
• 
  His Honour Judge Nicholas Rowland
  Judge Nicholas Edward Rowland, known as His Honour Judge Nicholas… Read more: His Honour Judge Nicholas Rowland
• 
  Police Barred and Advisory Lists
  The police barred and advisory lists, which are managed by… Read more: Police Barred and Advisory Lists
• 
  President of the Family Division
  The President of the Family Division is a highly esteemed… Read more: President of the Family Division
• 
  Is Crimestoppers Anonymous ?
  Crimestoppers is widely promoted as the United Kingdom’s leading provider… Read more: Is Crimestoppers Anonymous ?
• 
  What is a Court Legal Adviser ?
  In magistrates’ courts across England and Wales, lay justices (magistrates… Read more: What is a Court Legal Adviser ?
• 
  What is a Skeleton Argument ?
  A skeleton argument is a concise written document prepared by… Read more: What is a Skeleton Argument ?
• 
  Can you Buy a Judge ?
  His Honour Judge Martin John Cook was for sale, in… Read more: Can you Buy a Judge ?
• 
  Norwich Pharmacal Orders and Dodgy Fire Sticks
  Norwich Pharmacal orders (NPOs) are a form of court-ordered disclosure… Read more: Norwich Pharmacal Orders and Dodgy Fire Sticks
• 
  What is a Statutory Instrument ?
  A statutory instrument is the most common form of secondary… Read more: What is a Statutory Instrument ?
• 
  The Pensions Increase (Pension Scheme for Keir Starmer QC) Regulations 2013
  In October 2013, the Treasury laid before Parliament a short… Read more: The Pensions Increase (Pension Scheme for Keir Starmer QC) Regulations 2013

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.