Category: Law

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

Categories
Family Law Law

Sussex Family Justice Board

sussex family justice board
  • Is the Sussex Family Justice Board membership biased in favour of the 1 Crown Office Row barristers chambers based in Brighton Sussex ?
  • How are Judicial Observers selected as this appears unduly biased towards members of the Brighton judiciary ?
  • Why were these judges listed as board members as this is clearly incompatible with the independent position of the judiciary ?
    • Mr Justice Williams – Former Family Division Liaison Judge for the South Eastern Circuit (Kent, Surrey, Sussex & Thames Valley) 
    • HHJ Bedford – Designated Family Judge for Sussex
    • HHJ Farquhar – Lead Judge of the Kent, Surrey & Sussex Financial Remedies Court (FRC)
    • HHJ Lusty – Family Judge
    • DJ Pollard – Family Judge
  • Who are the Sussex Family Justice Board accountable to ?
  • A treasurer is listed as a board member. Where does the money come from and where are the accounts ?
  • Does the Sussex Family Justice Board website comply with UK law ?
  • What is the Cafcass involvement with the Sussex Family Justice Board ?
  • Is “Justice” being done in secret by the Sussex Family Justice Board ?
  • Are there any grounds for suspicion that there has been an improper interference with the course of justice by the Sussex Family Justice Board ? R v Sussex Justices, Ex parte McCarthy [1924] 1 KB 256

There are significant concerns of bias, secrecy and judicial independence, which relate to the operation of the Sussex Family Justice Board.

‘Family justice boards and the like everywhere now panicking as they finally realise what happens on the internet stays on the internet forever!’

Twitter and the Sussex Family Justice Board

Update 21st March 2023 : Sir Andrew McFarlane who is the President of the Family Division [email protected] has been contacted for his response.

Update 3rd April 2023 : HHJ Farquhar denies he has ever been a member of the Sussex Family Justice Board despite clear evidence that shows he has been a member of the SFJB for at least 5 years.

Update 24th April 2023 : HHJ Farquhar, HHJ Lusty and DJ Pollard have mysteriously vanished from the list of board members published on the Sussex Family Justice Board website.

A large number of pages and links have also been removed from the SFJB website. This is believed to have happened on the 18th April 2023 at 20:37.

Is this a cynical attempt at a cover up ? Who removed them and why ?

Update 5th June 2024 : The Sussex Family Justice Board website is offline. Has this highly dubious family justice cartel in Sussex finally been shut down for good by the Ministry of Injustice ?

Were the Lady Chief Justice, Lord Chancellor or President of the Family Division involved in its demise ? I wonder what the Treasurer did with the money ?

Update 28th June 2024: The Sussex Family Justice Board website is back online.

SFJB-List-of-Members.docx dated September 2018 was found in the Google cache and clearly shows that HHJ Bedford, HHJ Farquhar and DJ Pollard were board members.

Update 9th June 2023 – FOI request sent to Ministry of Justice

Update 18th June 2023 – All Sussex Judges and One High Court Judge have now vanished from the SFJB website.

Update 3rd July 2023 – Complaint filed.

Update 4th July 2023 – Ministry of Justice response to FOI request about Sussex Family Justice Board

  • The MoJ is not responsible for the Sussex Family Justice Board. 
  • The MoJ does not fund the Sussex Family Justice Board. 
  • The MoJ does not audit the Sussex Family Justice Board. 
  • The MoJ does not have a Terms of Reference document for the Sussex Family 
    Justice Board. 
  • The MoJ are not the correct authority to ask about this matter. Anything published regarding local roles, responsibilities and processes are locally determined and published by the relevant Local Family Justice Board(s). You may wish to contact Sussex Family Justice Board. Information on how to contact them can be found at: https://www.sussexfamilyjusticeboard.org.uk/
  • To advise and assist you, please note that Local Family Justice Boards are not public authorities under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). They are not named 
    in schedule 1 of FOIA or in an order of the Secretary of State, and are not a wholly owned company, so do not meet the definition under section 3 of FOIA and thus are not subject to Freedom of Information Requests.   
230609011 – FReedom of Information Request (FOI) Ministry of Justice

Update 7th August 2023 – The Sussex Family Justice Board website is now in maintenance mode (since 27th July 2023). Has the family justice cartel in Sussex finally been shut down for good ??

Sussex Family Justice Board (SFJB) RSS Feed XML <lastBuildDate>Thu, 27 Jul 2023 13:04:32 +0000</lastBuildDate>

Update 14th August 2023 – The Sussex Family Justice Board website is now partially back up as of 14th August 12:26. There are now 11 pages in total according to the SFJB XML Sitemap. Notably a Privacy policy is still missing !

*PLEASE NOTE THIS WEBSITE IS CURRENTLY UNDERGOING IMPORTANT UPDATES*

The Sussex Family Justice Board is a subsidiary of the National Family Justice Board and works collaboratively to improve the performance and efficiency of the local family justice system.

Please note that this website is up to date as at June 2023; it will be reviewed periodically by members of the Sussex Family Justice Board but we cannot guarantee that it is up-to-date at the time of reading.

Sussex Family Justice Board 14th August 2023

Four Sussex judges are now listed as observers and the board has a number of new members including 1-6 Crown Office Row ! Is HHJ Farquhar aware that he is now an observer ?

Sussex Family Justice Board Observers 14th August 2023
Sussex Family Justice Board Observers 14th August 2023
Sussex-Family-Justice-Board-Membership-August-2023Download
sussex family justce board rss feed 14th august 2023
Sussex Family Justice Board (SFJB) RSS Feed XML Mon, 14 Aug 2023 12:26:42 +0000

The National sponsor of the SFJB is listed as Tom Glynn Policy Unit Ministry of Justice. What is the real involvement of the MoJ in the SFJB ?

Fortunately, a copy of the Sussex Family Justice Board website was legally taken on the 19th March 2023 using HTTrack software and is safely and securely stored by the MOI as evidence.

A Google Search on the 3rd April 2023 returned the following :-

Google Search 3rd April 2023

A Bing Search on the 3rd April 2023 returned the following :-

Bing Search 3rd April 2023

The Sussex Family Justice Board website showed :-

Sussex Family Justice Board Members 3rd April 2023
Sussex Family Justice Board Judicial Board Members 3rd April 2023

The Sussex Family Justice Board website, according to their public RSS Feed, was updated on the 18th April 2023 at 20:37.

Sussex Family Justice Board (SFJB) RSS Feed XML <lastBuildDate>Tue, 18 Apr 2023 20:37:32 +0000</lastBuildDate>

HHJ Farquhar, HHJ Lusty and DJ Pollard have mysteriously been removed as board members.

Sussex Family Justice Board Judicial Board Members as of 22nd April 2023
Sussex Family Justice Board Judicial Board Members as of 22nd April 2023

The Sussex Family Justice Board website, according to their public RSS Feed, was yet again updated on the 18th June 2023 at 18:16:58. No judges are now listed as board members. It is assumed that all judges were removed as board members on this date.

Is this another cynical attempt at a cover up ? Who removed them and why ?

Sussex Family Justice Board (SFJB) RSS Feed XML <lastBuildDate>Tue, 18 June 2023 18:16:58 +0000</lastBuildDate>
SFJB-List-of-Members.docx dated September 2018
sfjb-board-members-september-2018Download

The open justice principle “that justice must be seen to be done as well as done” is a fundamental principle of the UK legal system.

“…there is a significant and important public interest in our society having and maintaining confidence in the work of the Family Court. Conversely, a largely closed system, where the public are given no account of how the court operates, leads to accusations that this is ‘secret’ justice and that the approach of the court is unsound, unfair or downright wrong….”

Sir Andrew McFarlane – President of the Family Division in his document Confidence and Confidentiality: Transparency in the Family Courts published 28th October 2021

The Guide to Judicial Conduct – Revised March 2018 (Updated September 2020) is clear about bias, in particular :-

“They should also bear in mind that too close a social relationship with a practitioner who is regularly involved in litigation before the officeholder’s court may create a perception of bias.”

Contact with the Legal Profession – The Guide to Judicial Conduct

It is extremely perverse and worrying that a board that supposedly promotes justice has a website that does not comply with UK law.

Multiple requests for information using the Sussex Family Justice Board Contact Us page have not resulted in any response.

A Freedom of Information (FOI) Request Information about the Sussex Family Justice Board (LFJB) was therefore made on the 17th March 2023 on WhatDoTheyKnow ?

Dear Sussex Local Family Justice Board,

Do you have a Terms of Reference document for the Sussex Family Justice Board similar to the Family Justice Board?

gov.uk Family Justice Board

Do you publish minutes and if so where ?

How are members of the Sussex Family Justice Board selected or elected ?

How does the Sussex Family Justice Board ensure there is no bias in the selection or election of board members ?

Do you have an updated members list as the list published and dated November 2020 appears out of date ?

Sussex Family Justice Board

Do 1 Crown Office Row (1COR) still sponsor the Sussex Family Justice Board website ?

1COR sponsor Sussex Family Justice Board

Who is legally responsible for the Sussex Family Justice Board website as this does appear to comply with UK law ?

How are the Judicial Observers selected as this appears biased towards the Brighton judiciary ?

How is the Sussex Family Justice Board funded ?

Do the Sussex Family Justice Board publish accounts and if so where ?

Are roles and responsibilities of the board and other policy documents published and if so where ?

Is the Sussex Family Justice Board audited by the Ministry of Justice or any other government or independent bodies ?

Please provide all relevant documents.

Yours faithfully,

Rev Dominic Watts

Ministry of Injustice
https://ministryofinjustice.co.uk

Information about the Sussex Family Justice Board (LFJB)

The Family Justice Board is the primary forum for setting direction for the family justice system and overseeing performance.

“The judge is not a member of the board as to be so would be incompatible with the independent position of the judiciary.”

Judiciary and the local justice system

Check out our articles on Sussex Police, Chief Constable Jo Shiner Sussex Police, HHJ Farquhar, HHJ Bedford and Fraud in the Justice System.

Read the reviews of Gavin Howe Barrister

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

“Family justice boards” and the like everywhere now panicking as they finally realise what happens on the internet stays on the internet forever!

Twitter
10:39 PM · Mar 18, 2023 14.9K Views
32.6K Views
14.7K Views

Check out our related articles on Rule of Law, Open Justice, Is the Law Black and White ?, Family Justice Board, Civil Justice Council, Youth Justice Board, 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 and Police Impartiality .

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.

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

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

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

R v Sussex Justices

lord chief justice hewart

“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.

R-v-Sussex-Justices-Ex-parte-McCarthy-1924Download

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.

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

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

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 Police

Auditing Britain

Auditing Britain
Auditing Britain

Auditing Britain is a popular YouTube channel that had 399K subscribers and 1k videos (As of 5th August 2026).

Auditors such as Auditing Britain, it is said, use “security concerns surrounding the filming of staff and premises, alongside limited powers to prevent it…..They are also well-versed in their own rights and often cite legislation in their interactions with staff.”

What is the Identity of Auditing Britain ?

The iWiki website assumes the identity of Auditing Britain – “Auditing Britain is the pseudonym of a popular YouTuber, whose name is assumed to be Reda Bouadi-Clifton“

Reda Bouadi-Clifton was convicted of filming in a court in 2022.

In a version of the Britain Times webpage from 2023 archived on the Internet Archive Wayback Machine “According to a Facebook post, Auditing Britain’s real name is Reda Bouadi-Clifton.”

Subscribe and Follow Auditing Britain

Make sure to subscribe to the Auditing Britain YouTube channel.

Auditing Britain is also on X, Facebook and Instagram.

One of Auditing Britain‘s most popular audits with 1.5 Million views, was of Hampshire Police who were powerless to stop him.

Auditing Britain – Hampshire Constabulary Powerless

A petition was raised on the UK Government and Parliament Petitions website “Stop Auditing full stop” but was rejected.

Latest Auditing Britain YouTube Videos

The Looney Bad tunes

The Looney Bad tunes
The Looney Bad tunes
Lady in blue
Lady in blue
Royal National Lifeboat Institution Protest
Royal National Lifeboat Institution Protest
Merch Site https://auditing-britain-shop.fourthwall.com/en-gbp Become ...
You Call The Police I Call The Dentist
You Call The Police I Call The Dentist
Merch Site https://auditing-britain-shop.fourthwall.com/en-gbp Become ...
Busker
Busker
Eastney Portsmouth Aftermath
Eastney Portsmouth Aftermath
Merch Site https://auditing-britain-shop.fourthwall.com/en-gbp Become ...

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.

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

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

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

Fraud and the Justice System

fraud and the justice system

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

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

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

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

Fraud and economic crime – Crown Prosecution Service

Justice Select Committee Report

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

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

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

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

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

HMICFRS Fraud Inspection

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

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

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

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

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

Fraud Strategy

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

#SFJB – Fraud at the Sussex Family Justice Board ?

National Lead Force

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

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

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

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

National Lead Force – City of London Police

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

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

Call 999 if:

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

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

Check out our articles on Policing, Police News, Policing by Consent, Two Tiered Policing, Wasting Police Time, Met Police, Sussex Police, Chief Constable Jo Shiner Sussex Police, What is a Police and Crime Commissioner and a Police and Crime Panel ? 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.

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

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

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

What is the Justice Committee ?

justice committee uk parliament

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

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

Role of the Justice Committee

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

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

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

Role of the Justice Committee – Parliament Website

Subjects of Inquiry

The Justice Committee chooses its own subjects of inquiry. 

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

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

Role of the Justice Committee – Parliament Website

Inquiries

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

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

Contact the Justice Commitee

  • Email: [email protected]
  • Phone: (General Enquiries) 020 7219 7005 (Media Enquiries) 07842 601500
  • Address: House of Commons, London SW1A 0AA
Justice Committee X Feed

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.

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

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

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

What is a Private Prosecution ?

Private prosecution

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

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

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

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

History of Private Prosecution in the UK

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

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

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

There are, however, some limitations: 

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

Legal Framework for Private Prosecution

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

Prosecutions instituted and conducted otherwise than by the Service.

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

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

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

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

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

Issue of summons to accused or warrant for his arrest.

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

Section 1 Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980

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

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

How to bring a Private Prosecution

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

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

The information must contain the following details:

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

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

sp001-eng__1_Download

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

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

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

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

Advantages of a Private Prosecution

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

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

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

Disadvantages of Private Prosecution

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

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

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

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

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

High-Profile Private Prosecutions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

Royal Courts of Justice

Royal Courts of Justice

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

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

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

King Charles III visits the Royal Courts of Justice

About the Royal Courts of Justice

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

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

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

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

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

History of the Building

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

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

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

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

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

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

Visiting the Royal Courts of Justice

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

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

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

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

Going through security at a court or tribunal building 28th March 2023

Surrender and seizure of articles

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

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

(3)The grounds are that the article—

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

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

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

Courts Act 2003 Part 4 Section 54

Spoons at the Royal Courts of Justice

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

Prohibited Items at the Royal Courts of Justice London
Royal-Courts-of-Justice-Prohibited-Items-Ver-103Download

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

Spoon as a Weapon – Fawlty Towers © BBC
Spoon Salesman – Fawlty Towers © BBC
What are Judges Lodgings ?

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.

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

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

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

Photography in Court

photography in court

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

According to the CPS, the penalty on summary conviction is a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale. A Level 3 fine is a maximum of £1,000 and is published on the Sentencing Council website. The CJA 1925, however only provides for a fine not exceeding £50.

(1) No person shall—

(a) take or attempt to take in any court any photograph, or with a view to publication make or attempt to make in any court any portrait or sketch, of any person, being a judge of the court or a juror or a witness in or a party to any proceedings before the court, whether civil or criminal; or

(b) publish any photograph, portrait or sketch taken or made in contravention of the foregoing provisions of this section or any reproduction thereof;

and if any person acts in contravention of this section he shall, on summary conviction, be liable in respect of each offence to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds.

Criminal Justice Act 1925 Section 41

The Criminal Justice Act 1925 comes into effect within the precinct of a Crown Court; whereas the Contempt of Court Act 1981 comes into effect on all other HMCTS sites.

The offence at s41 CJA 1925 can be charged as a criminal offence in accordance with the Director’s Guidance on Charging, or the underlying behaviour can be dealt with by the court as a contempt in accordance with the summary procedure at Rule 48.5 of the Criminal Procedure Rules – see R v D (Contempt of Court: Illegal Photography) [2004] EWCA Crim 1271, or on a later application to the High Court by the Attorney General.

If dealt with by summons or charge normal time limits apply. The decision whether to charge a criminal offence or to bring proceedings for contempt will depend on the facts of the case, including the gravity of the interference with the administration of justice.

In Solicitor General v Cox [2016] EWHC 1241 (QB) the Solicitor General brought proceedings for common law contempt in respect of photos and videos taken in court and posted online along with derogatory comments about the judge. The court found that both the taking and publication of the illegally taken images, accompanied by pejorative comments about a judge, amounted to contempt, in circumstances where the contemnor knew phones were banned and had acted in deliberate defiance of it. The court considered the gravity of the risks and of the interference with the due administration of justice in the case and held that proceedings for contempt, rather than prosecution of the criminal offence, were appropriate.

The case of Cox highlights the extent to which the use of social media can interfere with the administration of justice and the need to take appropriate action. Prosecutors should refer to the Criminal Practice Directions (CPD I General matters 6C. This clarifies the use which may be made of live text-based communications, such as mobile email, social media (including Twitter) and internet-enabled laptops in and from courts).

Where evidence exists of an offence contrary to s.41 CJA 1925 prosecutors should assist the court by reference to the above considerations. The court initially decides on whether action must be taken by application of the summary contempt procedure at Rule 48.5. In the magistrates’ court the summary contempt procedure must be completed that day – see Practice and Procedure below. If the court does not proceed in this manner a decision has to be made on whether to proceed by charge or to refer the matter to the Attorney General having regard to the gravity of the risks and interference with the due administration of justice in the case.

Two options

  1. If the offender is apprehended on the day and the court is sitting advise court that it can deal with it as a contempt of court there and then, using the summary procedure at Rule 48.5 above, or have the police decide whether to charge an offence contrary to s.41 Criminal Justice Act 1925. If a magistrates’ court decides to deal with it there and then it may receive an apology but cannot impose a sanction – see Rule 48.5 procedure above.
  2. If the court does not deal with it there and then the normal police investigation and charge procedure applies. The offence is at s41 Criminal Justice Act 1925. Penalty is a level 3 fine. AG consent is not required so police can charge. Prosecutors note – there is no need to contact AGO when this scenario occurs unless the risks and interference with the due administration of justice was particularly grave. See Solicitor General v Cox where particularly serious issue.
Photography in court – Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) Legal Guidance

Contempt of Court

Contempt of Court is conduct that denotes wilful defiance of, or disrespect towards the court, or that wilfully challenges or affronts the authority of the court or the supremacy of the law itself.

Photography Ban and the Crimes and Courts Act 2013 

According to The Law Society Gazette article Court photography ban under review in transparency drive written by Monidipa Fouzder and published on the 11th May 2023 :-

A ban imposed nearly 100 years ago on photography in courts could be lifted under ideas being floated by the government to make the justice system more transparent.

A call for evidence published by the Ministry of Justice today asks if the 1925 prohibition on photography and 1981 prohibition on sound recording remain fit for purpose.

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

Court photography ban under review in transparency drive

Video of Crown Court and Court of Appeal Cases

The latest cases as captured by Sky News cameras in the Crown Court and Court of Appeal are published on the Sky News – Courts YouTube Channel.

Please be advised that the published videos by Sky News may contain graphic descriptions of serious crimes, including murder and sexual offences.

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

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

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

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

Latest Articles ↓

Most Popular ↓

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

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

Categories
Family Law Law

McKenzie Friend

mckenzie friend

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

Can a McKenzie Friend Help You in Court? Everything* You Need to Know! – Alan Robertshaw Barrister

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

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

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

These are:

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

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

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

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

Role and Responsibilities of McKenzie Friends

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

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

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

Practice Guidance: McKenzie Friends (Civil and Family Courts)

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

mckenzie-friends-practice-guidance-july-2010Download

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

Guidance from the President’s Office- McKenzie Friends

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

pfd-guidance-mckenzie-friendsDownload

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

Reforming the courts’ approach to McKenzie Friends

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

mf-consultation-paper-feb2016-1Download

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

MF-Consultation-LCJ-Response-Final-Feb-2019Download

Notice of McKenzie Friend

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

notice_of_mckenzie_friendDownload

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

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

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

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

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

FAMILY PRACTICE DIRECTION 5C – COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE COURT

Court Refusal of the Request for Assistance from a McKenzie Friend

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

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

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

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

Check out our related articles on Rule of Law, Open Justice, Is the Law Black and White ?, What Does Lady Justice Symbolise ?, McKenzie Friends Rights of Audience, 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.

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

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

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

Libel and Slander

libel and slander

Libel and slander are both forms of defamation, which involve making a false statement about someone that damages their reputation.

Libel is a defamatory statement that is written. Slander is a defamatory statement that is oral.

In the United Kingdom, the laws around libel and slander are governed by the Defamation Act 2013 which replaced the previous common law rules on defamation.

Defamation Act 2013

The Defamation Act 2013 defines defamation as a statement that “causes or is likely to cause serious harm to the reputation of the claimant”. It also sets out the criteria for what constitutes a defamatory statement, including whether the statement would lower the claimant in the estimation of right-thinking members of society or whether it would cause the claimant to be shunned or avoided.

Under the Defamation Act 2013, a claimant has to show that the statement was published to a third party and that it referred to them directly or indirectly. The statement must also be shown to be false, unless it is a statement of opinion, in which case the defence of honest opinion may be used.

One of the key changes introduced by the Defamation Act 2013 was the introduction of a new defence of “truth”. If a defendant can prove that the statement is true, they will not be liable for defamation. The Act also introduced a defence of “honest opinion”, which can be used if the statement was a genuine expression of opinion, based on true facts, and was not malicious.

Another important change introduced by the Defamation Act 2013 was the requirement for claimants to show that they had suffered “serious harm” as a result of the defamatory statement. This was intended to prevent trivial claims from clogging up the courts and to ensure that claimants only pursued cases where there was a genuine loss.

Defamation

The role of solicitors and barristers in defamation cases is crucial. A solicitor will typically be the first point of contact for a potential claimant, and will assess the strength of their case and advise on whether it is worth pursuing. They will also be responsible for drafting the claim form and other legal documents, and for liaising with the defendant’s legal team.

The law says that the victim of libel or slander has just 12 months from the date of publication of the libellous or slanderous statement to start Court proceedings. The 12 month time limit can be varied in some circumstances.

Once the claim has been filed, the case will usually be heard in the High Court, although smaller cases may be heard in the County Court. In some cases, the parties may be able to reach a settlement before the case goes to court, but if the case proceeds to trial, a barrister will typically be instructed to represent the claimant.

Barristers are specialist advocates who are trained in the law and court procedure. They will provide advice on the strength of the case, draft legal arguments and represent the claimant in court. Barristers will also cross-examine witnesses and make closing submissions to the judge or jury.

Defendants in defamation cases will also typically be represented by a solicitor and barrister. Their role will be to defend the claim and argue that the statement was not defamatory, or that a defence applies. The defendant may also bring a counter-claim if they believe that the claimant has defamed them.

One important aspect of defamation law in the UK is the ability to apply for an injunction to prevent the publication of defamatory material. This is known as a “gagging order” and can be used to prevent a defendant from publishing further defamatory material, or to prevent the publication of material that has already been produced.

The role of the court in defamation cases is to balance the right to freedom of expression against the right to protect one’s reputation. The court will consider a range of factors, including the seriousness of the defamatory statement, the context in which it was made, the audience it was intended for, and whether the statement was made in the public interest.

Human Rights Act

The Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA) is an important piece of legislation in the UK that incorporates the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) into domestic law. The HRA has had a significant impact on defamation law in the UK, particularly in relation to the right to freedom of expression.

Under the HRA, individuals have the right to freedom of expression, which includes the freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas. However, this right is not absolute, and can be subject to restrictions that are necessary in a democratic society.

In defamation cases, the HRA has been used to strike a balance between the right to freedom of expression and the right to protect one’s reputation. The courts have recognised that freedom of expression is a fundamental right, but have also recognised that defamatory statements can have a serious impact on an individual’s reputation and can restrict their right to respect for private life under Article 8 of the ECHR.

In some cases, the HRA has been used to strengthen the defences available to defendants in defamation cases. For example, in the case of Reynolds v Times Newspapers Ltd [1999], the House of Lords (now the Supreme Court) developed a new defence of “responsible journalism” based on the right to freedom of expression under the HRA. The defence applies where a publication is on a matter of public interest, the publisher has taken reasonable steps to verify the information, and the publication is in the public interest.

Similarly, in the case of Jameel v Wall Street Journal Europe SPRL [2006], the Court of Appeal (Civil Division) held that the right to freedom of expression under the HRA required a high threshold for proving “serious harm” in defamation cases, and that a claimant must show that the publication had caused or was likely to cause “serious harm” to their reputation.

The HRA has also had an impact on the remedies available in defamation cases. Under Article 10 of the ECHR, individuals have the right to seek a remedy for a violation of their right to freedom of expression. This means that claimants in defamation cases can seek a range of remedies, including damages, injunctions, and apologies.

The Human Rights Act has had a significant impact on defamation law in the UK, particularly in relation to the right to freedom of expression.

The Act has been used to strike a balance between the right to freedom of expression and the right to protect one’s reputation, and has led to the development of new defences and a high threshold for proving “serious harm”.

The Act has also had an impact on the remedies available in defamation cases, and has reinforced the importance of the right to seek a remedy for a violation of the right to freedom of expression.

The law around libel and slander in the UK is complex, but is governed by the Defamation Act 2013. The Act introduced important changes, including a requirement for claimants to show “serious harm”, new defences of “truth” and “honest opinion”, and the ability to apply for an injunction to prevent the publication of defamatory material.

It is worth noting that the internet and social media have had a significant impact on defamation law in recent years.

Online platforms have made it easier for defamatory material to be published and shared, and have made it more difficult for individuals to protect their reputation.

However, the same principles of defamation law apply online as they do offline, and individuals can still take legal action to protect their reputation.

In addition, the Defamation Act 2013 introduced new provisions to address the issue of online defamation.

These include a new defence of publication on a matter of public interest, which can be used if the statement was published in the public interest and the defendant reasonably believed it to be true.

Overall, libel and slander remain important areas of law in the UK, and individuals and organisations need to be aware of their rights and responsibilities when it comes to protecting their reputation or defending against defamatory statements.

The gov.uk website has various help and guidance on Crime, justice and the law.

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.

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

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

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