Category: Legal Analysis

Legal Analysis by an amateur. This is not legal advice !

Categories
Criminal Justice Legal Analysis Police

What is Two Tier Policing ?

Two Tier Policing

The BBC describes so-called “two-tier policing” as where right-wing protests are considered to be dealt with more harshly than left-wing ones by the police. This explanation is simply not true.

The most simplistic and accurate explanation of two tier policing is that there’s one rule for one person and another rule for another. The publicly shown bias and discrimination by the Police is manifesting itself irrespective of politics, sexuality, race or colour.

The police should and must operate independently under the law without fear or favour. The Rule of Law applies to everyone regardless of who they are. Policing in this country and around the world is by consent. There should no bias by the police or by anyone in the justice system.

Lawful Use of Handcuffs by the Police

The debate over two-tiered policing has significant implications for public trust in law enforcement. If the perception of biased policing persists, it can erode confidence in the police and exacerbate social divisions. On the other hand, dismissing legitimate concerns about unequal treatment can also harm community relations and hinder efforts to address systemic issues within law enforcement.

Two-tiered policing remains a contentious issue, with strong arguments on both sides. While some see it as a reflection of systemic biases within law enforcement, others view it as a necessary differentiation based on the nature of the protests or other lawlessness.

Regardless of where one stands on the issue, it is crucial to continue scrutinising police practices to ensure fairness and accountability in all aspects of law enforcement.

The State of Policing Report 2022 and the Loss of Public Trust by HMICFRS said amongst other things “The public’s trust and confidence are unacceptably low. The fundamental principle of policing by consent, upon which the service is built, is at risk.”

What is Policing by Consent ?

The discussion of #TwoTierPolicing #TwoTierJustice and #TwoTierKeir along with Free Speech is very much alive on X.

Sir Keir Starmer stated “there is no two-tier policing“ and said it is a “non-issue”.

Elon Musk calls out Sir Keir Starmer as #TwoTierKeir

Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley has called accusations of two-tier policing “complete nonsense”.

They are hardly going to agree that there is Two Tier Policing ?! Maybe the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) should investigate ? Is the accusation of Police bias worthy of Judicial Review ?

Do you have evidence of two tier policing by the Met Police, West Midlands Police or any other UK police forces ? Contact Us

Met Police Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley demonstrates violent thuggery and Two Tiered Policing without Fear or Favour.
Superintendent Emlyn Richards of West Midlands Police explains Two Tier Policing in simple language.
The Guardian have been telling people about two-tier policing based on race and sexuality for decades

Adam Brooks calls out MORE two-tier policing

Adam Brooks calls out more two-tier policing as roads were closed for Pakistan Independence Day, but England fans were ...
Adam Brooks calls out MORE two-tier policing
Adam Brooks calls out MORE two-tier policing
Adam Brooks calls out more two-tier policing as roads were closed for ...
BREAKING: Protests ERUPT In UK Against Starmer's Anti-White Police
BREAKING: Protests ERUPT In UK Against Starmer's Anti-White Police
Use promo code YT20 to get 20% Tousi TV+ Annual Memberships at ...
Two tier policing in the uk
Two tier policing in the uk
The policy is clear: priority is given to anyone but the British. Have ...
Two tier policing 'BLATANTLY VISIBLE'
Two tier policing 'BLATANTLY VISIBLE'
Leo Kearse hits out at two tier policing, which he says is 'blatantly ...
Two-tier policing AT ITS FINEST 👮 #ukpolitics #israel #palestine
Two-tier policing AT ITS FINEST 👮 #ukpolitics #israel #palestine
Police told 'DON'T treat Brits the same' as protest FURY erupts over Henry Nowak 'two-tier' murder
Police told 'DON'T treat Brits the same' as protest FURY erupts over Henry Nowak 'two-tier' murder
Labour have promised to review and change police guidance that was ...

Check out our related articles on Policing by Consent, Thought Police, Sussex Police, Met Police, Chief Constable Jo Shiner Sussex Police, , What is a Police and Crime Commissioner and a Police and Crime Panel ?, Rule of Law, Open Justice, Innocent until Proven Guilty, R v Sussex Justices and the highly questionable Sussex Family Justice Board.

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

Latest Articles ↓

Most Popular ↓

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

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

Categories
Civil Justice Law Legal Analysis

Norwich Pharmacal Orders and Dodgy Fire Sticks

Norwich Pharmacal Orders and Dodgy Fire Sticks

Norwich Pharmacal orders (NPOs) are a form of court-ordered disclosure used in England and Wales and in equivalent jurisdictions such as Ireland.

Norwich Pharmacal orders (NPOs) require a third party to provide information or documents to help identify or locate an unknown wrongdoer when that information is held by an innocent party who has become involved in the relevant wrongdoing.

Unlike standard disclosure in ongoing litigation, Norwich Pharmacal orders target non-parties who have been unwittingly “mixed up” in the misconduct. This allows claimants to pursue justice when the perpetrators hide behind anonymity online or through other means.

Norwich Pharmacal orders are widely used in digital contexts. Common applications include identifying anonymous online infringers in defamation, harassment, or copyright cases, tracing fraudsters through banks or payment providers and supporting intellectual property enforcement actions.

Origin and Legal Basis

The remedy originates from the landmark 1974 House of Lords decision in Norwich Pharmacal Co v Customs and Excise Commissioners [1974] AC 133. In that case, the pharmaceutical company found that counterfeit versions of its patented drug were entering the United Kingdom but could not identify the importers. Customs and Excise held the import records.

The House of Lords ruled that a third party innocently involved in facilitating wrongdoing owes an equitable duty to assist the victim by disclosing relevant information, including the identity of the wrongdoer. This principle forms the basis of Norwich Pharmacal jurisdiction today.

Requirements for Obtaining an Order

To obtain a Norwich Pharmacal order, the applicant must generally satisfy the following key conditions:

  • There is a good arguable case that wrongdoing has occurred (this can include torts, breaches of contract, intellectual property infringement, or other actionable wrongs).
  • The order is necessary to enable the applicant to bring proceedings or obtain legitimate redress against the ultimate wrongdoer. Alternative routes must be unavailable or ineffective.
  • The respondent (third party) has been “mixed up” in the wrongdoing, even innocently, and is able to provide the required information.
  • The court must be satisfied that granting the order is just and proportionate, and that the application is not a mere “fishing expedition”.

Courts exercise discretion and balance the need for justice against privacy and other rights.

The Justice and Security Act 2013

Section 17 of the Justice and Security Act 2013 introduced a statutory restriction on the Norwich Pharmacal jurisdiction. It provides that a court may not make a Norwich Pharmacal order (or similar order) in civil proceedings if the disclosure sought would be damaging to the interests of national security.

The Act was enacted partly in response to cases where claimants sought disclosure of sensitive intelligence material through Norwich Pharmacal applications. It prevents the court from ordering disclosure of “sensitive information” where the Secretary of State certifies that such disclosure would damage national security.

Sky v Revolut – Dodgy Fire Sticks

On the 26th March 2026, Mr Justice Brian Cregan in the Irish High Court granted a Norwich Pharmacal order requiring Revolut Bank UAB to disclose information to Sky.

Sky sought the names and addresses of 304 subscribers and ten resellers who had made payments via Revolut for illegal streaming devices, commonly known as “Dodgy Fire Sticks” or “Dodgy boxes”.

These devices, loaded with unauthorised software, enable access to premium content including Premier League football, TNT Sports, Sky Sports, and Disney+ without legitimate subscriptions. It is said that many UK viewers access Irish-sourced illegal feeds through such devices.

The payments related to services provided by Wexford resident David Dunbar, who was previously ordered to pay Sky €480,000 in damages.

He also faces approximately €100,000 in legal costs and was fined €30,000 for contempt of court after breaching orders to preserve data.Sky confirmed that the information would be used to commence legal proceedings against the resellers and certain users.

The data is to be provided on an encrypted spreadsheet within 28 days. Revolut remained neutral on the application.

Police authorities have repeatedly warned that purchasing such devices can fund organised crime and expose users to risks of data theft and malware.

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

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

Latest Articles ↓

Most Popular ↓

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

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

Categories
Government Law Legal Analysis Legal Professionals

The Pensions Increase (Pension Scheme for Keir Starmer QC) Regulations 2013

Sir Kier Starmer

In October 2013, the Treasury laid before Parliament a short statutory instrument, in relation to Sir Keir Starmer, that has since gained unexpected political attention.

Officially known as The Pensions Increase (Pension Scheme for Keir Starmer QC) Regulations 2013 (SI 2013/2588), the measure came into force on the 31st October 2013.

Despite its modest length of just three operative paragraphs, the Regulations addressed a specific technical issue arising from Keir Starmer KC’s departure as Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP).

Made – – – – 8th October 2013
Laid before Parliament 9th October 2013
Coming into force – – 31st October 2013

The Treasury, in exercise of the power conferred by section 5(2) of the Pensions (Increase) Act
1971(a) and now vested in them(b) hereby make the following Regulations:

Citation and commencement

  1. These Regulations may be cited as the Pensions Increase (Pension Scheme for Keir Starmer QC) Regulations 2013, and come into force on 31st October 2013.

    Interpretation
  2. (1) In these Regulations, “the 1971 Act” means the Pensions (Increase) Act 1971.
    (2) For the purposes of these Regulations the time when a pension “begins” is that stated in
    section 8(2) of the 1971 Act(c).

    Pensions to which the 1971 Act shall apply
  3. The 1971 Act shall have effect in relation to any pension payable under the Pension Scheme
    for Keir Starmer QC (being a scheme made under section 1 of the Superannuation Act 1972(d)),
    as if it were a pension specified in Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the 1971 Act.
The Pensions Increase (Pension Scheme for Keir Starmer QC) Regulations 2013

Background

Sir Keir Starmer, who is currently the UK Prime Minister, served as Director of Public Prosecutions from 2008 until 2013, leading the Crown Prosecution Service through a period of major reform.

As with other senior public appointments, his remuneration included a pension arranged under section 1 of the Superannuation Act 1972.

This was a bespoke pension scheme created specifically for the role of DPP, separate from the standard civil service pension arrangements. When Keir Starmer left office, a question arose regarding how his pension would be increased for inflation once it came into payment.

Purpose of The Pensions Increase (Pension Scheme for Keir Starmer QC) Regulations 2013

The 2013 Regulations were made under section 5(2) of the Pensions (Increase) Act 1971. They declared that the 1971 Act “shall have effect” in relation to any pension payable under Keir Starmer’s scheme “as if it were a pension specified in Part 1 of Schedule 2” to that Act.

In simple terms, this ensured that Kier Starmer’s DPP pension would receive the same annual up-rating for inflation as most other public-service pensions. Increases would therefore be linked to the Retail Prices Index (or its successor measures), thereby protecting the pension’s real value over time.

Key Provisions and Scrutiny

Signed by Treasury ministers Desmond Swayne and Stephen Crabb on the 8th October 2013, the instrument was laid before Parliament the next day.

An accompanying explanatory note emphasised its narrow scope, stating that it had “no impact upon the private or voluntary sectors”. A parliamentary joint committee scrutinising statutory instruments noted a minor drafting point concerning the definition of when a pension “begins”. However, the committee accepted the Treasury’s clarification and viewed the Regulations as largely technical in nature.

The underlying pension scheme was tax-unregistered, a common feature for certain high-level public posts at the time. The 2013 Regulations did not create or change this tax status; they simply applied standard indexation rules.

Later Controversy

For nearly a decade, the Regulations attracted little public interest. They resurfaced in March 2023 during debates over the abolition of the lifetime allowance. Some critics portrayed the measure as a “special law” granting Kier Starmer, by then Leader of the Opposition, a personal tax advantage.

Supporters argued that the arrangement was standard practice for the DPP post and that the Regulations merely aligned indexation with other comparable public-sector schemes. Keir Starmer has described the pension as the normal entitlement for the office he held.

Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer has been accused of hypocrisy by Conservatives over a tax exempt pension deal he has from a previous job.

Sir Keir criticised measures in the Budget which scrapped the £1m cap on lifetime pensions savings.

The Telegraph reported that Sir Keir got a special “tax unregistered” pension scheme when he stood down as Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) in 2013.

Labour says it was standard practice for retiring DPPs to get such a deal.

But senior Conservative MP Sir Iain Duncan Smith told The Telegraph it made a “mockery” of Labour’s position on the lifetime pension allowance, and was as “close to hypocrisy as it is possible to get”.

Sir Keir Starmer criticised over tax free pension scheme

Image of The Rt Hon Sir Keir Starmer KCB KC MP – xAI – Grok

Check out our related articles on Statutory Instruments, Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), Rule of Law, Crown Prosecution Service, Open Justice, What is Law, Is the Law Black and White ?, Branches of Law, Bullying, Harassment and Discrimination at the Bar, The Secret Barrister, Barristers, Direct Access Barrister, Barristers Behaving Badly, Inns of Court, Council of the Inns of Court, Bar Standards Board, Bar Tribunal and Adjudication Services, Bar Council, Innocent until Proven Guilty and the highly questionable Sussex Family Justice Board.

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

Latest Articles ↓

Most Popular ↓

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

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

Categories
Criminal Justice Government Law Legal Analysis Legal Professionals

Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP)

Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP)

The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) is the head of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS). The Director of Public Prosecutions is responsible for the independent prosecution of criminal cases investigated by the police and other agencies.

This role ensures that decisions to prosecute are taken fairly, free from political interference and guided solely by the evidence and the public interest. Established over a century ago, the office has evolved into one of the most influential positions in British law, overseeing hundreds of thousands of cases each year.

Thank you for contacting the Private Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Chief Operating Officer, at the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS). Your email has been received.

The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) email is [email protected]

Historical Background

The office dates back to the Prosecution of Offences Act 1879, which created the DPP to advise police and handle serious cases. The first holder, Sir John Maule QC, assumed the post in 1880 but operated with limited powers.

After a brief merger with the Treasury Solicitor in 1884, the role regained full independence under the Prosecution of Offences Act 1908. Significant modernisation occurred between 1944 and 1964 under Sir Theobald Mathew QC, who updated regulations, introduced new technology, and expanded staff numbers.

The pivotal moment came in 1986 with the launch of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) under the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985. This transformed the DPP from leading a small department into the chief executive of a national prosecution service.

Role and Responsibilities

The Director of Public Prosecutions is the third most senior public prosecutor, ranking below the Attorney General and Solicitor General. The holder bears personal responsibility for approximately 7,000 CPS staff and around 800,000 prosecutions annually.

Key duties include applying the Full Code Test to decide whether cases should proceed, advising police during investigations, setting charges in complex matters, and issuing legal guidance and policies. The DPP also presents cases in court where necessary and supports victims and witnesses. Crucially, the role demands strict independence; prosecutorial decisions cannot be directed by government.

The DPP reports to the Attorney General, who accounts for the CPS in Parliament, but day-to-day operations remain free from ministerial control.

The Code for Crown Prosecutors (the Code) is issued by the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) under section 10 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985. This is the eighth edition of the Code and replaces all earlier versions and was published on the 26th October 2018. Almost 8 years without an update is quite a long time.

Appointment and Current Leadership

The DPP is appointed by the Attorney General for an initial five-year term following an open competition overseen by the Civil Service Commission. The process emphasises integrity, legal expertise, and leadership.

The current Director of Public Prosecutions is Stephen Parkinson, who took office on the 1st November 2023. A University College London law graduate, Parkinson qualified as a barrister in 1980 and later as a solicitor in 2005.

He began as a junior prosecutor in 1984, rose through CPS ranks, and held senior government posts, including Deputy Head of the Attorney General’s Office. For two decades he practised as a defence solicitor at Kingsley Napley, becoming Senior Partner in 2018. His unique experience on both sides of the courtroom equips him to lead the service effectively.

Stephen Parkinson has been announced as the new Director of Public Prosecutions and head of the Crown Prosecution Service. It is expected that he will take up the appointment in November 2023 for an initial term of five years. He will succeed the outgoing DPP, Max Hill KC.

Chair of the Bar Council, Nick Vineall KC, said: “The Bar Council would like to congratulate and welcome Stephen Parkinson as the new Director of Public Prosecutions and head of the Crown Prosecution Service.  Mr Parkinson practised as a barrister for over 20 years and then qualified as a solicitor and has had a distinguished career in both the public and the private sectors. We very much look forward to meeting and engaging with the new DPP on areas of mutual concern, at a time when the criminal justice sector is under unprecedented pressure, and Crown Court backlogs are at record levels.

“The Bar Council would also like to record its sincere thanks to the outgoing DPP, Max Hill KC, who steered the CPS through the Covid crisis and has always sought to ensure that remuneration for those involved in prosecuting on behalf of the CPS was on a par with criminal defence fees.” 

New DPP Stephen Parkinson announced – Bar Council comment

Stephen Parkinson Legal Experience

Challenges and Future Outlook

Today’s DPP operates under intense pressure. Backlogs, rising caseloads, and high-profile events such as civil disturbances test resources and impartiality.

Maintaining public trust while improving efficiency, supporting victims more effectively, and embracing digital transformation are key priorities. DPP Stephen Parkinson has emphasised collaborative working across the criminal justice system to reduce delays and deliver fair outcomes.

Charlies Prosecution Service (CPS)
Coming Soon at https://cpsgov.uk – Charlie’s Prosecution Service

Image of Stephen Parkinson : PA

Check out our related articles on the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) Complaints and Feedback, 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 ↓

Most Popular ↓

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

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

Categories
Criminal Justice Government Law Legal Analysis Legal Professionals

Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) Complaints and Feedback

Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) Complaints and Feedback

The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) plays a vital role in the UK’s criminal justice system, ensuring offenders are brought to justice while supporting victims and witnesses.

However, like any public organisation, the CPS may occasionally fall short of expectations. This article explores the CPS’s guidance on providing feedback or making a complaint based on their official policy.

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

Charlies Prosecution Service (CPS)
Coming Soon at https://cpsgov.uk – Charlie’s Prosecution Service

The CPS’s Commitment to High Standards

The CPS is dedicated to upholding principles of independence, fairness, honesty, openness, respect, and professional excellence. Their complaints handling is guided by standards such as the CPS Complaints Handling Standard, the Code of Practice for Victims of Crime, and the Principles of Good Complaints Handling from the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO).

All complaints are managed confidentially by trained Complaints Coordinators, ensuring fair and sensitive treatment without discrimination based on gender, sexual orientation, race, ethnicity, disability, religion, or belief. Defendants’ complaints are treated equally to those from victims or witnesses.

External oversight is provided by the Independent Assessor of Complaints (IAC), who scrutinises the process to maintain high service levels.

For more on the IAC’s role, visit the CPS website.

What the CPS Complaints and Feedback Policy Covers

Feedback includes positive or negative comments on CPS policies, procedures, services, or performance. Anyone can provide it at any time, with no restrictions. Examples might include praising a new policy or expressing dissatisfaction with a case outcome reported in the media.

Feedback is acknowledged, recorded, and analysed to improve services and promote best practices.

Complaints are expressions of dissatisfaction from those directly involved in a CPS service. They can be:

  • Legal: Related to decisions, such as charging choices.
  • Service: Concerning conduct, like not allowing a victim to read their personal statement in court.
  • Mixed: Combining both elements.

Professional disagreements (e.g., between police and prosecutors) are excluded.

Exclusions from the Policy

Certain matters fall outside the policy:

  • Victims’ Right to Review (VRR): For decisions not to charge or to end proceedings. This stems from the 2011 Killick case and is handled separately. Dissatisfaction with VRR outcomes cannot become a formal complaint. Learn more about VRR on the CPS VRR page.
  • Defence Applications or Appeals: Not for dropping cases or overturning convictions; seek independent legal advice.
  • Ongoing Proceedings: Responses may be limited to avoid prejudice.
  • Civil Claims: Complaints pause if civil action is initiated.
  • Abusive or Persistent Complaints: May be declined.
  • Other Organisations: Direct complaints about police, courts, or judiciary to them (contacts below).
  • Recruitment or Employment: Handled under separate policies.

CPS Complaints Procedure

Complaints can be made by the affected individual or a nominated representative (with written consent).

The process has three stages for service/mixed complaints, but legal complaints end at Stage Two.

Early Resolution

Contact your local CPS office first for informal resolution within three working days, possibly via explanation or apology.

Stage One: Local Review

Submit formally to the originating CPS office. A relevant manager investigates and responds within 20 working days (or notifies of delays).

Stage Two: Senior Review

If unsatisfied, escalate to the Deputy Chief Crown Prosecutor or equivalent within one month. Response within 20 working days.For legal complaints, this concludes the process.

Stage Three: Independent Review

For service complaints, refer to the IAC within one month of Stage Two. The IAC, independent of CPS, reviews service quality and procedure adherence, responding within 40 working days.

Contact: Independent Assessor of Complaints, 102 Petty France, London SW1H 9EA; Email: [email protected] (mailto:[email protected]); Phone: 020 3357 0893 (10am-4pm, Monday-Friday).

If involving Victims’ Code breaches, victims can escalate to the PHSO via an MP after IAC review.

PHSO details: Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman.

How to Provide Feedback to the CPS

There is no time limit, and feedback can be submitted via:

  • Online: Use the CPS Feedback Form.
  • Email: Download the form and email to your local CPS Area (addresses on the CPS Areas page).
  • Post: Send written feedback or the form to local CPS addresses.
  • Telephone: Call local CPS offices (numbers on the website).

All feedback helps refine services for the public.

Handling and Outcomes

Complaints are handled confidentially and fairly. You’ll be informed if upheld (wholly/partly) or not. If justified, expect an apology, corrective action and prevention measures.

In rare cases of severe distress or loss due to maladministration, a consolatory payment may be offered.

Check out our related articles on the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), 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 ↓

Most Popular ↓

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

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

Categories
Law Legal Analysis

What is International Law ?

International Law

International law consists of rules, norms and principles governing relations between sovereign states and other international entities.

It promotes peaceful interactions, dispute resolution and cooperation on transnational issues. Unlike domestic law, it primarily relies on state consent and voluntary compliance.

Historical Development of International Law

The concept of law governing relations between nations dates back to ancient times, but modern terminology emerged in the late 18th century. Jeremy Bentham, the English philosopher and jurist (1748–1832), coined the term “international law” in his 1789 work An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation. He proposed replacing the older phrase “law of nations” (jus gentium) with “international law” to better describe law between nations rather than within them.

Bentham wrote several essays between 1786 and 1789, later compiled as Principles of International Law. He advocated codification of international rules, proposed an international court for dispute resolution, and outlined a plan for universal and perpetual peace based on utilitarian principles, maximising happiness and minimising harm across nations.

Sources of International Law

These are specified in Article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice (ICJ):

  • Treaties and conventions, such as the United Nations Charter, prohibiting the use of force except in self-defence or with Security Council authorisation.
  • Customary international law, from consistent state practice accepted as binding (e.g., prohibition of genocide).
  • General principles of law recognised by nations (e.g., pacta sunt servanda—agreements must be honoured).
  • Judicial decisions and scholarly writings as subsidiary sources.

It covers human rights Universal Declaration of Human Rights, humanitarian law, environmental protection Paris Agreement, trade and maritime issues.

Enforcement of International Law

Enforcement is challenging without a central authority. The UN Security Council can impose sanctions or authorise force, but permanent members (China, France, Russia, UK, US) hold veto power. The ICJ resolves disputes between consenting states.

The International Criminal Court (ICC) prosecutes individuals for grave crimes, though major powers like the US are not parties.

US Military Action in Venezuela (January 2026) – International Law

On the 3rd January 2026, the United States conducted airstrikes in Venezuela, including targets in Caracas, and captured former Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife Cilia Flores.

They were extradited to the US to face drug trafficking and narco-terrorism charges. Maduro pleaded not guilty in a New York federal court on the 5th January 2026.

The operation has faced widespread international criticism as a violation of state sovereignty and the UN Charter’s prohibition on the use of force.

The UN held emergency meetings, with allies and others condemning it as unlawful aggression. This illustrates tensions between unilateral actions by powerful states and core principles of international law.

Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer, a former barrister and KC, has refused to be drawn on whether or not US President Donald Trump’s military action against Venezuela may have broken international law.

Additional Examples of International Law

International law features in ongoing conflicts, such as Russia-Ukraine (ICC probes into war crimes; ICJ on territorial integrity) and South China Sea disputes under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).

Significance and Challenges

International law establishes a framework for global order but struggles with enforcement and geopolitical influences. Jeremy Bentham’s vision of codified rules and institutions remains influential, yet events like the Venezuela incident highlight persistent vulnerabilities when compliance is uneven.

Adherence remains essential for addressing shared challenges like security and climate change.

Check out our related articles on Rule of Law, Open Justice, What is Law, Is the Law Black and White ?, Branches of Law, Bullying, Harassment and Discrimination at the Bar, The Secret Barrister, Barristers, Direct Access Barrister, Barristers Behaving Badly, Inns of Court, Council of the Inns of Court, Bar Standards Board, Bar Tribunal and Adjudication Services, Bar Council, Innocent until Proven Guilty and the highly questionable Sussex Family Justice Board.

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

Latest Articles ↓

Most Popular ↓

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

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

Categories
Civil Justice Criminal Justice Family Law Law Legal Analysis Legal Professionals

Art of Law

Art of Law

Art of Law is a Youtube channel run by Alan Robertshaw who is an experienced barrister of England and Wales.

This channel provides you with free legal guidance and explains different aspects of law, legal principles, and, procedures for media and art law. Legal advice can be very expensive and you will usually have no knowledge when you encounter a legal problem.

Art of Law

Alan Robertshaw was Called to the Bar in October 1997 (Middle Temple). He has Full Rights of Audience and his areas of practice are Defamation, Intellectual property, Other and Other common law.

Alan is authorised by the Bar Standards Board to accept direct public access work and to conduct litigation.

Alan was formerly at 1 Dr Johnson’s Buildings and then Goldsmith Chambers where he still remains a door tenant.

Art of Law should should not be confused with The BlackBelt Barrister or the Secret Barrister.

Art of Law is not a replacement for formal legal advice but it is highly informative and may help you to understand more about the law.

Highly Recommended ★★★★★

Latest Art of Law YouTube Videos

What is an "Article 2" inquest; and why a jury?

Bit more on all this: https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/Chapter-20-Article-2-inquests-2.pdf


Disclaimer: Neither this nor any other video, may be taken as legal advice. I accept no liability whatever for any reliance placed upon it.
What is an "Article 2" inquest; and why a jury?
What is an "Article 2" inquest; and why a jury?
Bit more on all this: ...
Who decides how long a murderer serves in prison? And what offences can police officers commit?
Who decides how long a murderer serves in prison? And what offences can police officers commit?
The Sentencing Council: ...
How does the law decide who is an ethnic group?
How does the law decide who is an ethnic group?
The test: https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1982/7.html The 'Who is ...
What can you do if someone shoves a camera in your face?
What can you do if someone shoves a camera in your face?
Disclaimer: Neither this nor any other video, may be taken as legal ...
Just how accurate is media anyway?
Just how accurate is media anyway?
Disclaimer: Neither this nor any other video, may be taken as legal ...
Why no retrial in the Manchester Airport assault case?
Why no retrial in the Manchester Airport assault case?
Also, why can't judges tell juries about the sentence? Disclaimer: ...

Read the reviews of Junior Sussex Barrister Gavin Howe and Legal 500 Junior Barrister Eleanor Battie.

Check out our related articles on Rule of Law, Open Justice, What is Law, Is the Law Black and White ?, Branches of Law, Bullying, Harassment and Discrimination at the Bar, The Secret Barrister, Barristers, Direct Access Barrister, Barristers Behaving Badly, Inns of Court, Council of the Inns of Court, Bar Standards Board, Bar Tribunal and Adjudication Services, Bar Council, Innocent until Proven Guilty and the highly questionable Sussex Family Justice Board.

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

Latest Articles ↓

Most Popular ↓

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

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

Categories
Criminal Justice Judiciary Law Legal Analysis Legal Professionals

What is the Parole Board ?

Parole Board

The Parole Board for England and Wales is an independent executive non-departmental public body sponsored by the Ministry of Justice.

Established in its modern form by the Criminal Justice Act 1967, it is responsible for deciding whether prisoners serving certain types of sentences in England and Wales are safe to be released into the community under licence and, if already released, whether they should be recalled to prison.

It does not cover Scotland or Northern Ireland, which have separate arrangements.

Legal Framework

The Parole Board’s primary powers derive from:

It deals with three main categories of prisoner:

  • Life sentence prisoners (mandatory, discretionary and automatic life sentences, and imprisonment/detention for public protection (IPP))
  • Prisoners serving extended determinate sentences (EDS)
  • Certain determinate sentence prisoners who are assessed as dangerous and subject to Parole Board release (e.g. extended sentences under older legislation or those moved to parole release by executive decision)

For most standard determinate sentence prisoners, release is automatic at the halfway or two-thirds point and the Parole Board has no role.

Role and Functions

The Board’s core functions are:

  • To conduct risk assessments and decide whether prisoners can be safely released on licence before the end of their sentence
  • To set licence conditions
  • To decide whether released prisoners who have breached their licence should be recalled to custody
  • To advise the Secretary of State on transfer of life sentence and IPP prisoners to open conditions
  • To consider applications for early release on compassionate grounds in exceptional circumstances (rare)

All decisions must prioritise the protection of the public while giving the prisoner a fair hearing.

Composition and Membership

The Parole Board consists of over 300 members, appointed by the Secretary of State for Justice. Members include:

  • Judicial members (serving or retired judges)
  • Psychiatrist members
  • Psychologist members
  • Probation officer members
  • Independent members (from a wide range of professional and lay backgrounds)

Members sit part-time and are supported by a permanent secretariat based in London.

Cecilia French was appointed Chief Executive of the Parole Board in October 2024 and The Chair Alexandra Marks CBE was appointed in 2025.

Members serve fixed terms typically of five years.

Types of Parole Hearing

  • Oral hearings: held when the case is complex or contested. Conducted either in prison or, increasingly, by video link. The prisoner, victim (if participating via the Victim Contact Scheme), and witnesses give evidence. A panel (usually three members) questions all parties.
  • Paper hearings: for less complex recall cases or some determinate sentence reviews, decided “on the papers” without a live hearing.

Since 2022, most oral hearings for serious offenders have been open to the public or victims upon application, following a rule change intended to increase transparency.

The Release Test

For indeterminate sentence prisoners (life, IPP, etc.), the statutory release test is: “whether it is no longer necessary for the protection of the public that the prisoner should be confined.”

For determinate extended sentence prisoners and certain others, the test is whether the Board is satisfied that “it is no longer necessary on the grounds that [the prisoner] would not present a significant risk to members of the public of serious harm occasioned by the commission of further specified offences.”

The burden of proof lies on the prisoner to show they are safe for release.

Reconsideration Mechanism

Since 2019, prisoners (or the Secretary of State) may apply for a decision refusing release to be reconsidered if there has been an error of law or fact, or if new information could have changed the outcome. This replaced the previous judicial review route for most cases.

Key Reforms (2022–2025)

  • The Root and Branch Review (2022): led to greater ministerial oversight of release decisions for the most serious offenders.
  • Victims and Prisoners Act 2024: introduced a “public protection” top-down decision-making approach, a power for the Secretary of State to veto release of certain high-profile prisoners, and greater victim involvement.
  • Increased transparency: summary reasons for release decisions are now published online for top-tier cases.

Criticism and Controversy

The Parole Board has faced significant criticism over the years:

  • The 2018 John Worboys case (initial decision to release the “black cab rapist”) led to the then-Chair’s resignation and prompted major rule changes.
  • Ongoing concerns about the continued detention of prisoners on abolished IPP sentences (over 2,800 still in custody as of 2025, many years past tariff).
  • Delays in hearings, partly due to prison overcrowding and staff shortages.

Current Statistics (as at Dec 2025)

  • Approximately 12,000–14,000 parole reviews conducted annually
  • Around 3,000 oral hearings per year
  • Release rate for indeterminate sentence prisoners hovers between 25–35 % at first review, rising with subsequent reviews
  • Over 99 % of those released on parole do not commit a serious further serious offence during their licence period

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

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

Latest Articles ↓

Most Popular ↓

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

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

Categories
Criminal Justice Law Legal Analysis Legal Professionals

What is a Jury ?

Jury

In the criminal justice system of England and Wales, the jury is one of the oldest and most distinctive features of the common law tradition. Twelve ordinary people, randomly selected, sit in judgment of their peers and decide whether a defendant is guilty or not guilty.

This system places enormous trust in the collective common sense of lay people rather than leaving the decision solely to professional judges.

History and Origins

The jury system in its modern form traces its roots to the 12th century.

The Assize of Clarendon in 1166, issued by Henry II, required groups of 12 lawful men in each hundred and 4 in each township) to present (report or accuse) people they believed had committed serious crimes.

These 12 men were not yet deciding guilt or innocence in a trial, they were acting as accusers or witnesses, reporting suspected criminals to the King’s itinerant judges.

By the 14th and 15th centuries, juries had evolved from being witnesses themselves into impartial triers of fact who listened to evidence presented in court.

The principle of trial by jury was firmly enshrined in English law through Magna Carta (1215), particularly clause 39, which stated that no free man should be imprisoned or deprived of property “except by the lawful judgement of his peers or by the law of the land”. Over centuries, the role shifted from local notables to ordinary citizens, and the jury became a cornerstone of democratic justice.

Who Can Serve on a Jury ?

In England and Wales, almost everyone aged 18–75 who is on the electoral register is liable for jury service. You are automatically disqualified if:

  • You have been sentenced to imprisonment for life, or for five years or more
  • You have served a prison sentence (or suspended sentence) of any length in the last 10 years
  • You are currently on bail in criminal proceedings

Certain people can be excused or deferred, including full-time serving members of the armed forces, medical professionals, and MPs.

Since 2004, judges, lawyers, and police officers are no longer automatically exempt and may serve.

Jury service normally lasts two weeks, though serious cases (e.g., murder or major fraud) can last many months.

How Jurors Are Selected ?

Potential jurors are chosen at random from the electoral roll by a computer at the Jury Central Summoning Bureau. If summoned, you must attend unless you have a valid reason to be excused or deferred.

Once at court, and once a judge indicates that a trial is ready to start, those who have been summoned are once again randomly selected by a computer system to form a panel to go into court.

From this panel usually 12 are then selected at random, in court, by the court clerk to form a jury on each trial. Those not selected will return to the waiting area to be available for selection for the next panel.

The Role of the Jury

In Crown Court trials the jury has two main functions:

  1. Deciding guilt: After hearing all the evidence and the judge’s directions on the law, the jury retires to consider its verdict. The verdict should normally be unanimous, but after at least two hours (longer in complex cases) the judge may accept a majority verdict of 11–1 or 10–2.
  2. Occasionally deciding other issues: In some defamation cases (now rare) or coroner’s inquests, juries may still be used.

Jurors must decide the case solely on the evidence heard in court. They are not allowed to conduct their own research, talk about the case outside the jury room, or look up information online. Contempt of court charges and even imprisonment can follow if they do so.Judge vs Jury

The division of responsibility is clear:

  • The judge decides questions of law (admissibility of evidence, legal directions, sentencing if guilty).
  • The jury decides questions of fact (what happened, whether witnesses are credible, and ultimately guilt or innocence).

This separation is seen as a vital safeguard against state power: a professional judge controls the law, but ordinary citizens decide whether the state has proved its case.Advantages and CriticismsAdvantages often cited:

  • Democratic participation in justice
  • Protection against overreach by the state or biased judges
  • Collective wisdom of twelve diverse minds
  • Verdicts seen as legitimate because they come from peers

Criticisms include:

  • Jurors may not fully understand complex evidence (e.g., in long fraud trials)
  • Risk of perverse verdicts or prejudice
  • Burden on jurors (loss of earnings, childcare issues, trauma from horrific evidence)
  • Occasional high-profile cases of jury misconduct (e.g., using social media)

Jury Trials

Jury trial remains compulsory for serious crimes tried in the Crown Court (murder, rape, robbery, etc.). Magistrates’ courts and youth courts do not use juries. In civil cases, jury trial is now extremely rare, limited mainly to defamation, false imprisonment, and malicious prosecution claims and even then a judge may order trial without jury.

Jury trials to be scrapped ?

On the 2nd December 2025, the government announced the most significant restriction on jury trials in centuries. For the first time, defendants charged with offences carrying a maximum sentence of less than three years will no longer have the automatic right to be tried by a jury in the Crown Court.

“The right to trial by jury is an important factor in the delicate balance between the power of the state and the freedom of the individual. The further it is restricted, the greater the imbalance. Despite the inevitable increase in costs, the Haldane Society urges that there be a right of trial by jury in all criminal cases.”

Sir Keir Starmer writing for the Socialist Lawyer magazine 1992

The change, recommended by retired Court of Appeal judge Sir Brian Leveson in the report Independent Review of the Criminal Courts: Part 1, is intended to tackle a backlog that has reached almost 78,000 cases and is projected to hit 100,000 within a few years.

“Dispensing with juries will damage our democracy”

David Lammy MP (Labour, then Shadow Secretary of State for Justice)
writing in the Telegraph in June 2020

Under the new rules, jury trials will be reserved for the most serious indictable offences such as murder, rape, robbery, serious violence, people trafficking, and major drug crimes involving drugs or firearms.

Mid-level offences previously tried in the Crown Court, including many thefts, lower-level assaults and some sexual offences, will now be heard either by a single judge or by expanded panels of magistrates who will gain new powers to impose sentences of up to 18 months (or two years in reserve).

The reforms also remove the defendant’s historic right to “elect” jury trial in “either-way” cases, a choice often used to cause delay.

Complex fraud and financial trials, long criticised for bewildering juries, will move to judge-only hearings. The government says the measures will clear cases up to five times faster in some instances and prevent the criminal justice system from “total collapse”.

Critics, including the Bar Council, Criminal Bar Association, opposition parties, and civil-rights groups, have condemned the changes as an attack on a cornerstone of British justice dating back to Magna Carta. They argue that juries provide essential protection against state power and are often seen as fairer, especially by ethnic-minority defendants, than magistrates or professional judges sitting alone.

Supporters insist the right to jury trial is being preserved where it matters most, while allowing swifter justice for less serious matters and for victims who currently wait years for resolution.

Is the UK Criminal Justice System Broken ?

Legislation to enact the reforms is expected in preparation, and the full Leveson follow-up report on court efficiency is due shortly.

Conclusion

The jury system in England and Wales, though not perfect, is regarded by many as a fundamental constitutional safeguard and a powerful expression of the idea that ordinary people should play a direct role in the administration of justice. Will Jury trials be scrapped ?

Check out our related articles on What is a Hung Jury ?, Rule of Law, Open Justice, Is the Law Black and White ?, What Does Lady Justice Symbolise ?, Law Society, Law Commission, Solicitors, Solicitors Regulation Authority, Barristers, Bar Council of England and Wales, Bar Standards Board, Contra Mundum, R v Sussex Justices, Police Impartiality and the highly questionable Sussex Family Justice Board.

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

Latest Articles ↓

Most Popular ↓

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

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

Categories
Judiciary Legal Analysis Legal Professionals

Judicial Guidance on Artificial Intelligence

Judicial Guidance on Artificial Intelligence

On the 1st October 2025, the Courts and Tribunals Judiciary published an updated version of its Artificial Intelligence (AI) Guidance for Judicial Office Holders.

This document refreshes the initial guidance that was issued in April 2025 and is available on the official judiciary website Artificial Intelligence (AI) – Judicial Guidance (October 2025) and as a downloadable PDF Artificial-Intelligence-AI-Guidance-for-Judicial-Office-Holders-2.pdf.

The guidance applies to all judicial office holders, including judges, tribunal members, clerks, judicial assistants, and support staff under the authority of the Lady Chief Justice and the Senior President of Tribunals.

Lord Justice Birss, who is the Chancellor of the High Court and Lead Judge for Artificial Intelligence, emphasised in the document’s forward the role in maintaining judicial integrity:

“The use of AI by the judiciary must be consistent with its overarching obligation to protect the integrity of the administration of justice and uphold the rule of law.”

This update reflects rapid advancements in AI technology and responds to emerging challenges, such as the proliferation of generative AI tools. It aims to promote responsible use while ensuring compliance with legal and ethical standards.

Do you think AI replace Judges ? or AI replace Lawyers ?

Background and Purpose

The guidance emerges amid growing AI adoption across public sectors, including the justice system. It builds on prior consultations and aligns with broader UK government initiatives, such as the AI Safety Summit outcomes from 2023. The document’s primary purpose is to provide clear, practical advice on AI’s integration into judicial work without compromising core principles like impartiality, accuracy, and confidentiality.

It addresses the dual nature of AI: as an efficiency enhancer for routine tasks and a potential risk for decision-making processes. The scope extends beyond judiciary staff to interactions with legal representatives and unrepresented litigants, who may increasingly use AI tools for case preparation.

By publishing the guidance online, the judiciary underscores its commitment to open justice, allowing public scrutiny and fostering trust in AI-assisted processes.

Key Principles

The guidance is structured around four core principles, each designed to guide ethical and effective AI use.

  1. Understanding AI Capabilities and Limitations: AI systems, particularly large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT or Google Gemini, process data probabilistically rather than through true comprehension. They can generate plausible but inaccurate outputs, known as “hallucinations,” such as fabricated case law or statistics. The guidance mandates that users familiarise themselves with these tools’ training data—often skewed towards US-centric or historical sources—and verify all outputs against primary legal sources.
  2. Upholding Confidentiality: Judicial work involves sensitive information protected under data protection laws, including the UK GDPR. The document prohibits inputting confidential details into public AI platforms, as providers may retain data for model improvement. Where feasible, users must disable chat histories and treat any accidental disclosures as data breaches, reportable via the judiciary’s incident management system.
  3. Ensuring Accuracy and Accountability: Personal responsibility remains paramount. Any document or decision attributed to a judicial office holder must reflect their independent judgement, even if AI assisted summarisation or drafting. The guidance stresses cross-verification: for example, AI-generated summaries of precedents require manual review of originals.
  4. Addressing Bias: AI inherits biases from its datasets, potentially exacerbating inequalities in areas like sentencing or evidence evaluation. Users are directed to the Equal Treatment Advisory Committee (ETAC) Bench Book for bias mitigation strategies, including diverse data prompts and regular audits of AI outputs.

Practical Applications

The guidance categorises AI uses into permissible administrative roles and restricted judicial functions.

Permitted applications include:

  • Document Management: Technology-assisted review (TAR) for e-disclosure, where AI flags relevant documents in large datasets, subject to human oversight.
  • Administrative Support: Drafting routine correspondence, prioritising emails, or transcribing non-sensitive meetings.
  • Research Aids: Summarising public domain materials, provided results are not relied upon without verification.

Prohibited or high-risk uses encompass:

  • Legal Analysis: AI cannot substitute for judges’ interpretation of law or facts; direct engagement with evidence is required.
  • Drafting Judgements: Core reasoning must originate from the office holder, not algorithmic generation.

For tribunal settings, AI may assist in scheduling or case triage but not in assessing witness credibility. The document includes checklists for safe deployment, such as logging AI use in case files for transparency.Risks and MitigationsSeveral risks are explicitly outlined. “Hallucinations” pose the most immediate threat, with examples of AI inventing non-existent statutes leading to miscarriages of justice in other jurisdictions. Deepfakes and manipulated evidence—such as altered audio or “white text” in images invisible to the human eye—demand forensic authentication protocols.

Mitigations include:

  • Training programmes for judiciary staff on AI literacy.
  • Procurement guidelines favouring secure, UK-hosted AI solutions over public tools.
  • Protocols for litigants: Judges should inquire about AI use in submissions and may require disclosure of generated content.

In cases of AI misuse, sanctions mirror those for traditional errors, potentially including costs orders or professional referrals.

Ethical Considerations and Future Implications

Ethics form a cross-cutting theme. The guidance aligns with the Judicial Oath and Guide to Judicial Conduct, reinforcing duties of fairness and diligence. It anticipates evolving threats, such as AI in predictive justice tools, and calls for ongoing reviews—potentially annually.

For unrepresented parties, the document advises sensitivity: AI-generated advice may mislead, so courts should promote verified resources like Citizens Advice. Broader implications include enhancing access to justice through AI transcription for hearings, balanced against equity concerns.

Conclusion

The October 2025 guidance represents a measured approach to AI in the judiciary, prioritising safeguards over unchecked innovation. By embedding accountability and verification, it ensures technology amplifies rather than erodes judicial authority.

As AI integrates further, perhaps in virtual hearings or automated small claims, the judiciary’s proactive stance will be crucial. This framework not only protects the rule of law but also positions the UK courts as leaders in ethical AI governance.

Check out the related articles on the Judiciary, Government Legal Department (GLD), Attorney General, Solicitor General, Lady Chief Justice, Lord Chancellor, Justice Secretary, Rule of Law, Open Justice, Law, Is the Law Black and White ?, Government Legal Department, Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), Abuse of Process, What Does Lady Justice Symbolise ?, McKenzie Friend, Law Society, Law Commission, McKenzie Friend Right of Audience, Solicitors, Solicitors Regulation Authority, Barristers, Bar Council of England and Wales, Bar Standards Board, R v Sussex Justices, Police Impartiality and the highly questionable Sussex Family Justice Board.

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

Latest Articles ↓

Most Popular ↓

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

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

Rule of Law - Open Justice - Policing By Consent