Category: Legal Analysis

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

Categories
Law Legal Analysis

Counter Disinformation Data Platform (CDDP)

Counter Disinformation Data Platform (CDDP)

In a move that has sparked alarm among civil liberties advocates, the Labour government in the United Kingdom is reportedly advancing plans to deploy artificial intelligence (AI) to monitor social media for what it deems “concerning” content.

According to a recent article from the Free Speech Union (FSU), this initiative involves a £2.3 million contract awarded to Faculty AI by the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT).

The goal ? To develop a sophisticated system capable of trawling through online posts to detect potential threats to “public safety” and “national security.” While the government frames this as a necessary step to counter disinformation and foreign interference, critics warn it could herald a chilling new era of state-sponsored censorship.

The Counter Disinformation Data Platform: Scope and Ambiguity

At the heart of this initiative is the Counter Disinformation Data Platform (CDDP), a tool originally developed under the auspices of the Counter Disinformation Unit (CDU), now rebranded as the National Security Online Information Team (NSOIT). The platform is designed to identify “foreign interference,” detect deepfakes, and analyse social media narratives. DSIT insists its current focus is narrow—targeting threats like election meddling by hostile states. However, documents obtained through Freedom of Information (FoI) requests by Big Brother Watch reveal a broader potential. An executive summary notes that while the CDDP’s present emphasis is on national security, it “has the ability to be pivoted to focus on any priority area.” This flexibility has raised red flags among those who fear it could easily be turned toward domestic dissent or controversial opinions.

The Labour government’s stated justification hinges on protecting the public from misinformation—a term that, historically, has proven slippery in its application. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the CDU was criticized for compiling dossiers on journalists, academics, and MPs who questioned official narratives, even when their speech was lawful. Past targets included voices skeptical of lockdown policies, vaccine mandates, or alternative treatments like hydroxychloroquine—later validated to some extent by research from Oxford University. This precedent fuels concerns that “concerning” could become a catch-all label for anything that challenges the government’s preferred storyline.

A £2.3 Million Investment in Control?

The £2.3 million contract with Faculty AI underscores the scale of Labour’s ambitions. The London-based firm, once backed by Matt Clifford—until recently the Prime Minister’s AI opportunities adviser—promises a system that can sift through vast amounts of online data to flag posts for “action.” What that action entails remains vague. Will it involve reporting to policymakers? Pressuring social media platforms to remove content? Or even direct intervention by law enforcement? The lack of transparency only deepens suspicions.

Jake Hurfurt of Big Brother Watch has accused the government of dodging accountability, noting that it continues to withhold “huge swathes of information” about the CDDP despite inquiries from Parliament and the Intelligence and Security Committee. This opacity echoes criticisms leveled at the NSOIT’s earlier incarnations, which leveraged ties to intelligence agencies to operate beyond public scrutiny. For a government led by Sir Keir Starmer, who once built his reputation as a human rights lawyer, the irony of such secrecy is not lost on observers.

Free Speech Under Siege ?

The FSU, a staunch defender of expression rights, sees this as part of a broader Labour assault on free speech. Lord Young, a prominent voice within the organization, has called the move “politically unwise,” especially given the timing. Across the Atlantic, the incoming Trump-Vance administration has signaled a rollback of censorship efforts, with figures like JD Vance decrying threats to “basic liberties” at the Munich Security Conference. Meanwhile, the UK appears to be doubling down, targeting platforms—many of them American-owned—like X, which has already clashed with European regulators over content moderation.

The implications for ordinary citizens are stark. Posts on X reflect growing unease, with users labeling the plan “Orwellian” and likening it to “thought crime policing.” One grandmother in Greater Manchester recently faced police questioning over a Facebook post calling for Labour councillors to resign—a chilling anecdote cited by civil liberties groups. If AI-driven surveillance scales up, such incidents could become routine, with algorithms casting a wide net over political critique, satire, or even casual venting.

The Slippery Slope of “Concerning” Content

What exactly constitutes “concerning” content? FoI documents reveal past CDU preoccupations with “anti-vaxx rhetoric,” criticism of COVID-19 vaccines, and discussions around 5G or alternative cancer treatments—topics that, while divisive, often fall within the realm of lawful debate. The CDDP’s ability to pivot suggests it could just as easily target climate skepticism, gender-critical views, or anti-government sentiment. Without clear boundaries, the risk of overreach looms large.

Critics argue this aligns with Labour’s broader regulatory agenda, including the Online Safety Act, which empowers Ofcom to fine tech giants for failing to curb “harmful” but legal speech. The FSU has long warned that such measures incentivize platforms to preemptively censor, stifling dissent under the guise of safety. The CDDP could supercharge this trend, marrying human bias with algorithmic efficiency to silence voices at scale.

A Crossroads for Liberty ?

The Labour government stands at a crossroads. Its AI surveillance push could position the UK as a leader in combating digital threats—or as a cautionary tale of authoritarian creep. For now, the balance between security and freedom hangs in the air, with civil liberties groups like the FSU vowing to fight back. Whether through public pressure, legal challenges, or international backlash, the battle over this technology’s use will shape the future of free expression in Britain.

The question remains: can a government that prides itself on progressive values justify peering into the thoughts of its citizens? Or will this £2.3 million experiment prove a step too far, even for those who champion safety over liberty?

Check out our articles on Thought Police, Policing, Police News, Policing by Consent, Two Tiered Policing, Wasting Police Time, National Security Online Information Team (NSOIT) and the highly questionable Sussex Family Justice Board.

Email a Judge
Email a Judge ?
Justice System and the Constitution in the UK
Justice System
Dodgy Judges
Dodgy Judges
Bar Standards Board Justice
Bar Standards Board Justice
Section 35
Section 35
The Secret Barrister
The Secret Barrister

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

Most Popular ↓

Metropolitan Police
Sussex Police
Police News
Police News

What is Policing by Consent ? What is Two Tier Policing ?

Latest Articles ↓

All Articles can be found in the Legal Blog or Sitemap.

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

‘Justice delayed is justice denied’

 William Ewart Gladstone

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

Open Justice

Open Justice Principle

The Open Justice Principle refers to the idea that justice should be administered openly, transparently and in a manner that is accessible to the public. Here are the key aspects of this principle:

  1. Public Access to Courts: Legal proceedings, especially criminal trials, should generally be open to the public. This allows citizens to observe how justice is administered, ensuring accountability and fostering trust in the judicial system.
  2. Transparency: Information about court proceedings, including judgments, should be available to the public to ensure transparency. This includes not only the outcomes but also the reasoning behind judicial decisions.
  3. Media Reporting: The media plays a crucial role by reporting on court cases, which helps inform the public about legal proceedings. Media access to courts is often seen as an extension of the public’s right to know.
  4. Fairness and Impartiality: By conducting trials openly, there’s an added layer of scrutiny which can help ensure that the process is fair and impartial. The knowledge that proceedings are public might also encourage all parties involved to act more responsibly.
  5. Exceptions: While the principle advocates for openness, there are recognised exceptions where privacy or security concerns might necessitate closed sessions. Examples include cases involving minors, national security, or sensitive personal information where privacy rights might override the principle of open justice.
  6. Educational Role: Open courts serve an educational function, allowing the public, including future generations of legal professionals, to learn about the law in practice, the rights of citizens, and how justice is served.
  7. Legislative and Policy Impact: The principle can influence legislation and policy-making, ensuring that laws are not only made in the public interest but are seen to be applied in the public interest as well.

The Open Justice Principle is fundamental in democratic societies as it underpins the rule of law and democratic governance by ensuring that justice is not only done but is seen to be done. However, the balance between openness and necessary privacy or security is continually debated and adjusted through legal frameworks around the world.

The principle of open justice are enshrined in Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 14 of the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights. which protects the right to a fair trial. These inalienable protections should not be breached to render public scrutiny void.

Open justice serves several important purposes

Firstly, it ensures that Justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done. This is important because the public must have confidence in the justice system. If court proceedings were held behind closed doors, it would be difficult for the public to know whether justice was being served. The transparency of open justice allows the public to see that the court is conducting proceedings fairly, and that justice is being done.

Secondly, open justice promotes accountability. The media and the public can attend court proceedings, and they can report on what happens in court. This means that the legal system is subject to public scrutiny, and that any problems or injustices are likely to be exposed. This is important because it helps to prevent abuses of power, and ensures that the justice system is accountable to the public.

Open justice helps to promote the rule of law. When the legal system is transparent and accountable, people are more likely to obey the law. This is because they have confidence that the legal system is fair, and that justice will be served if they are accused of a crime. This also helps to ensure that society is orderly and peaceful.

Notable Cases

There have been several notable cases in which the principle of open justice has been violated.

A notable case where justice was not open was the trial of the Guildford Four, who were wrongly convicted of bombings in Guildford, Surrey, in 1974. The trial of the Guildford Four was held in camera, and the defendants were not allowed to have legal representation.

The trial was held in secret because the judge was concerned that the defendants might be targeted by terrorists if their identities were made public.

However, the decision to hold the trial in secret was widely criticised, and the Guildford Four were eventually cleared of all charges in 1989.

The importance of open justice was also highlighted in the Hillsborough disaster, where 96 football fans were killed in a crush at the Hillsborough stadium in Sheffield in 1989.

The initial inquest into the disaster was heavily criticised for its lack of transparency and accountability. The families of the victims were denied access to evidence and were not allowed to question witnesses.

The inquest was widely seen as a cover-up, and it was eventually quashed in 2016, paving the way for a new inquest that was held in a much more open and transparent manner.

Secret trials

In recent years, there have been concerns that the principle of open justice is being undermined. One issue is the increasing use of secret trials. These trials are held behind closed doors, and the evidence is not made public.

Secret trials are used in cases where national security is at stake, but critics argue that they are being used too frequently, and that they undermine the principle of open justice.

Reporting Restrictions

Another issue is the use of reporting restrictions, which prevent the media from reporting on certain aspects of a trial or other court proceedings. Critics argue that these restrictions can be used to protect the powerful, and that they limit the public’s right to know.

Sara Sharif judge who gave father custody will not be named

Mr Justice Williams, a Family High Court judge, has been widely criticised for his Reporting Restriction Order. The order prohibits the press from publishing “the name of any third parties referred to in the historic proceedings for the avoidance of doubt including social worker, guardian other named professionals and experts instructed in the proceedings and any judge who heard the historic proceedings”.

Banning the press from identifying judges is said to be unprecedented.

Tuesday 14 – Wednesday 15 January 2025

Before The Master of the Rolls Lady Justice King Lord Justice Warby

By Appellant’s Notice lodged on 16 December 2024, on behalf of Louise Tickle and Hannah Summers (journalists), this is an appeal from an order made by Williams J, sitting in the High Court Family Division on 9 December 2024 (perfected on 11 December 2024), regarding the historic family court cases involving Sara Sharif.

In particular, the appellants challenge the decision to restrain the naming of “any Judge who heard the historic proceedings” concerning Sara Sharif and her siblings.

Court of Appeal – Williams J Sharif Case

Did Mr Justice Williams attempt a cover up for “his mates” in the South East Circuit ?

Open Justice around the world

Open justice is not just a UK principle, but a principle that is upheld in many countries around the world. It is a fundamental aspect of a democratic society, and one that is essential to upholding the rule of law and protecting the rights of citizens.

Open Justice Conclusion

It is important to ensure that the principle of open justice is upheld, and that the legal system remains transparent and accountable. This requires a commitment from the government, the judiciary, and the legal profession to ensure that court proceedings are held in public, that the media and the public are allowed to attend trials, and that court documents are accessible. It also requires a commitment to addressing any violations of the principle of open justice, such as the use of secret trials and reporting restrictions.

Check out our related articles on Rule of Law, Innocent until Proven Guilty, R v Sussex Justices and the highly questionable Sussex Family Justice Board.

The Secret Barrister
The Secret Barrister
Email a Judge
Email a Judge ?
Section 35
Section 35
Bar Standards Board Justice
Bar Standards Board Justice
Justice System and the Constitution in the UK
Justice System
Dodgy Judges
Dodgy Judges

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

Most Popular ↓

Sussex Police
Metropolitan Police
Police News
Police News

What is Policing by Consent ? What is Two Tier Policing ?

Latest Articles ↓

All Articles can be found in the Legal Blog or Sitemap.

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

‘Justice delayed is justice denied’

 William Ewart Gladstone

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 Legal Analysis Legal Professionals

Is the UK Criminal Justice System Broken ?

UK Criminal Justice System


The UK’s criminal justice system is facing significant delays, with some trials being postponed until as late as 2028. A Sky News investigation at Leicester Crown Court revealed a criminal justice system described as chaotic and ineffective, characterised by:

  • Delayed Trials: Victims and defendants are experiencing waits of up to 460 days, with some cases stretched into future years due to a lack of resources like courtrooms, judges, and barristers.
  • Systemic Issues: The backlog in the crown courts is growing weekly. This delay is attributed to insufficient courtrooms, with around 15% to 20% remaining unused daily due to staffing shortages, alongside an increase in charges by the police and early releases from prisons due to overcrowding.
  • Professional Frustration: Barristers are moving away from criminal law to other, less chaotic areas of legal practice. This exodus is partly due to the system’s inefficiencies along with court staff shortages and increasing case volumes compounding the crisis.
  • Public and Legal Outcry: There’s a strong sentiment among legal professionals and the public that justice is being denied due to these delays. The system is criticized for not functioning effectively, with the Criminal Bar Association chair, Mary Prior KC, highlighting the broken nature of the current setup.
  • Infrastructure Problems: The physical state of court buildings is deteriorating, and even basic facilities like computer systems for tracking cases are unreliable, exacerbating the delays.

The judge then takes the unusual step of addressing the crisis to us in open court.

“I have cases day in, day out that I am having put over. It can be years, if you lose a date in 2025 it is 2026.

“All these cases you have to decide who gets priority… fraud cases are being put on the back burner. In my position I have cases put over for months, even years.”

As a rule, judges don’t do interviews, so this is as close as we’ll get to hearing what he thinks.

He is clearly exasperated and remarkably candid: “I don’t know where things are going to go but they aren’t going to get any better,” he says.

Inside the UK’s ‘wild west’ court system where people may have to wait until 2028 for justice to take place – Sky News
‘Justice delayed is justice denied’: UK’s broken legal system

Read the full Sky News article Inside the UK’s ‘wild west’ court system where people may have to wait until 2028 for justice to take place.

“If you think about it, if we don’t have a functioning criminal justice system, we are in a position where you have people roaming the streets who are committing serious offences and there’s no retribution for that.

People aren’t getting justice quick enough and if they’re not… what’s the point in any of it? People will start to give up.”

Barrister Annabel Lenton – Sky News

This situation in the UK’s criminal justice system underscores an urgent need for investment and reform to ensure timely and effective justice.

Check out our related articles on The Courts of England and Wales, Rule of Law, Innocent until Proven Guilty, Open Justice, R v Sussex Justices, Lady Chief Justice and the highly questionable Sussex Family Justice Board.

Justice System and the Constitution in the UK
Justice System
Dodgy Judges
Dodgy Judges
The Secret Barrister
The Secret Barrister
Bar Standards Board Justice
Bar Standards Board Justice
Section 35
Section 35
Email a Judge
Email a Judge ?

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

Most Popular ↓

Police News
Police News
Metropolitan Police
Sussex Police

What is Policing by Consent ? What is Two Tier Policing ?

Latest Articles ↓

All Articles can be found in the Legal Blog or Sitemap.

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

‘Justice delayed is justice denied’

 William Ewart Gladstone

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 Law Legal Analysis

What is is Sub Judice ?

Sub Judice

Sub judice is a Latin term meaning “under judgment.” In legal contexts, it refers to a case or matter that is currently under judicial consideration and has not yet been decided. Here are some key points:

  • Legal Principle: It’s a principle in many legal systems that matters under court consideration should not be publicly commented on or discussed in a way that could prejudice the judicial proceedings.
  • Purpose: The purpose is to prevent any influence on the judicial process, ensuring fairness and impartiality in legal outcomes. This includes avoiding prejudicial publicity or influencing potential jurors, witnesses, or even the judge or judges involved.
  • Restrictions:
    • In some jurisdictions, there might be strict rules prohibiting publication or discussion of certain details of the case while it is sub judice.
    • This can apply to media, individuals, and sometimes even legislative bodies discussing the case in detail.
  • Application:
    • In common law countries like the UK, it’s often cited in contempt of court laws where discussing a case publicly might be seen as contempt if it could influence the case’s outcome.
    • The rule helps maintain the integrity of the judicial process by ensuring decisions are based purely on evidence and law, not on public opinion or external commentary.
    • This principle underscores the separation between judicial proceedings and public or political influence, aiming for an unbiased legal process.

The sub judice rule prevents MPs or Lords from referring to a current or impending court case. Although the House is entitled under parliamentary privilege to discuss any subject, sub judice applies to avoid the House from debating a subject and possibly influencing the legal outcome of a case. 

4.68 The privilege of freedom of speech in Parliament places a corresponding duty on members to use the freedom responsibly. This is the basis of the sub judice rule. Under the rule both Houses abstain from discussing the merits of disputes about to be tried and decided in the courts of law.

4.69 The Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege recommended that the two Houses should adopt a resolution on sub judice set out in the committee’s report.[155] The House of Lords did this on 11 May 2000. The resolution is as follows:

“That, subject to the discretion of the Lord Speaker,[156] and to the right of the House to legislate on any matter or to discuss any delegated legislation, the House in all its proceedings (including proceedings of committees of the House) shall apply the following rules on matters sub judice:

(1) Cases in which proceedings are active in United Kingdom courts shall not be referred to in any motion, debate or question.

(a) (i) Criminal proceedings are active when a charge has been made or a summons to appear has been issued, or, in Scotland, a warrant to cite has been granted.
(ii) Criminal proceedings cease to be active when they are concluded by a verdict and sentence or discontinuance, or, in cases dealt with by courts martial, after the conclusion of the mandatory post-trial review.

(b) (i) Civil proceedings are active when arrangements for the hearing, such as setting down a case for trial, have been made, until the proceedings are ended by judgment or discontinuance.

(ii) Any application made in or for the purposes of any civil proceedings shall be treated as a distinct proceeding.

(c) Appellate proceedings, whether criminal or civil, are active from the time when they are commenced by application for leave to appeal or by notice of appeal until ended by judgment or discontinuance.

But where a ministerial decision is in question, or in the opinion of the Lord Speaker a case concerns issues of national importance such as the economy, public order or the essential services, reference to the issues or the case may be made in motions, debates or questions.

(2) Specific matters which the House has expressly referred to any judicial body for decision and report shall not be referred to in any motion, debate or question, from the time when the Resolution of the House is passed, until the report is laid before the House.

(3) For the purposes of this Resolution—

(a) Matters before Coroners Courts or Fatal Accident Inquiries shall be treated as matters within paragraph (1)(a); and
(b) “Question” includes a supplementary question.

4.70 The House has agreed that the practice governing motions and questions relating to matters sub judice should be similar in both Houses of Parliament.[157] It is desirable that each House should be in the same position to debate a sub judice matter when the circumstances warrant it.

4.71 The rules governing sub judice do not apply to bills, Measures or delegated legislation or to proceedings on them. Nor do they apply to matters being considered by departmental inquiries and the like; but it is recognised that Parliament should not generally intervene in matters where the decision has been delegated to others by Parliament itself.

4.72 A case is deemed to be sub judice from the moment a petition for leave to appeal is presented to the House of Lords.[158]

4.73 The Lord Speaker must be given at least 24 hours’ notice of any proposal to refer to a matter which is sub judice. The exercise of the Speaker’s discretion may not be challenged in the House.[159]

Companion to the Standing Orders and guide to the Proceedings of the House of Lords

Check out our related articles on What is a Non Crime Hate Incident ?, What is a Cover Up ?, Rule of Law, Open Justice, Policing by Consent, Innocent until Proven Guilty, R v Sussex Justices and the highly questionable Sussex Family Justice Board.

Dodgy Judges
Dodgy Judges
Section 35
Section 35
Bar Standards Board Justice
Bar Standards Board Justice
Email a Judge
Email a Judge ?
The Secret Barrister
The Secret Barrister
Justice System and the Constitution in the UK
Justice System

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

Most Popular ↓

Sussex Police
Metropolitan Police
Police News
Police News

What is Policing by Consent ? What is Two Tier Policing ?

Latest Articles ↓

All Articles can be found in the Legal Blog or Sitemap.

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

‘Justice delayed is justice denied’

 William Ewart Gladstone

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 Policing

What is a Non-Crime Hate Incident (NCHI) ?

Non-Crime Hate Incident

A Non-Crime Hate Incident (NCHI) in the UK refers to any incident where an individual or group perceives that they have been subjected to hostility or prejudice based on race, religion, sexual orientation, disability, or transgender identity, even if no criminal activity has taken place. Here are key points about NCHIs:

  • Definition: It is defined as any non-crime incident which is perceived by the victim or any other person to be motivated by hostility or prejudice. This perception does not require evidence or justification from the victim regarding the hostility.
  • Purpose: NCHIs are recorded by the police to monitor community tensions, potential risks of escalation into more serious incidents or crimes, and to provide data for understanding patterns of prejudice or hostility.
  • Recording Criteria: Not all perceived hate incidents are recorded as NCHIs. There are specific criteria:
    • The incident must disturb an individual’s, group’s, or community’s quality of life or cause concern.
    • The incident must meet an additional threshold if personal data is to be recorded, indicating a real risk of significant harm or future criminal offence against individuals or groups with the same characteristic.
  • Legal Implications: While NCHIs do not result in criminal charges, they can appear in enhanced Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks, which might affect employment opportunities, especially in sectors requiring such checks.
  • Freedom of Speech: Recent guidance and legal reviews have emphasized balancing the recording of NCHIs with the protection of free speech, ensuring that trivial, irrational, or malicious reports do not lead to the recording of personal data unless necessary. The Free Speech Union published An Orwellian Society: Non-Crime Hate Incidents and the policing of speech.
  • Public and Legal Scrutiny: There has been scrutiny over NCHIs, with concerns that they might infringe on free speech or be used maliciously. Changes in guidance now aim for a more proportionate approach where NCHIs are only recorded when deemed absolutely necessary and not merely based on someone being offended.

The Home Office published Statutory guidance – Non-Crime Hate Incidents: Code of Practice on the Recording and Retention of Personal Data (accessible)

Allison Pearson, an award-winning writer, is being investigated by Essex Police for allegedly stirring up racial hatred in a social media post last November.

The scale of the investigation has now become clear, with officers from the Metropolitan Police, Sussex Police and Essex Police all having handled the complaint over the past year.

The Telegraph understands that the post was reported to the Metropolitan Police as a potential breach of the Malicious Communications Act in November last year. The case was then passed to Sussex Police, which marked it as a possible non-crime hate incident (NCHI) as well as a potential malicious communication.

Sussex Police passed it to Essex, where Pearson lives.

The Telegraph – Non-Crime Hate Incident (NCHI) or Stirring Up Racial Hatred ?
Non Crime Hate Incident Headlines – The Telegraph

Essex Police sets up ‘gold group’ normally reserved for major crimes to lead Allison Pearson probe

Keir Starmer says police should focus on ‘what matters most’ – amid growing anger over police investigation into Allison Pearson’s tweet

It should be noted that Article 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998 gives the right to freedom of expression.

The Public Order Act 1986, Part III defines Racial Hatred. What is Christophobia ? What is Islamophobia ?

The BlackBelt Barrister published a video Police Will come for YOU Next which examines the right to Free Speech.

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

Attack on Free Speech ? Black Belt Barrister

Incidents such as the Allison Pearson tweet are supposed to be part of a broader effort to address and monitor hate-related issues in society without necessarily involving criminal law and sanctions. They can still have implications for the individuals involved due to the recording of such incidents by the police.

Check out our related articles on What is Sub Judice ?, What is a Cover Up ?, Rule of Law, Open Justice, Policing by Consent, Innocent until Proven Guilty, R v Sussex Justices and the highly questionable Sussex Family Justice Board.

Justice System and the Constitution in the UK
Justice System
Dodgy Judges
Dodgy Judges
Email a Judge
Email a Judge ?
Section 35
Section 35
Bar Standards Board Justice
Bar Standards Board Justice
The Secret Barrister
The Secret Barrister

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

Most Popular ↓

Metropolitan Police
Sussex Police
Police News
Police News

What is Policing by Consent ? What is Two Tier Policing ?

Latest Articles ↓

All Articles can be found in the Legal Blog or Sitemap.

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

‘Justice delayed is justice denied’

 William Ewart Gladstone

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
Legal Analysis

What is a Cover Up ?

Cover Up

A coverup is an attempt to conceal wrongdoing, mistakes, or embarrassing information, usually by those in positions of power or authority. It involves:

  1. Suppression or Destruction of Evidence: Hiding, altering, or destroying documents, footage, or other evidence that could reveal the truth.
  2. Misinformation: Spreading false or misleading information to divert attention or to create a narrative that distracts from or contradicts the real events.
  3. Silence or Intimidation: Preventing individuals from speaking out through threats, bribes, or other coercive measures.
  4. Limited Hangout: Admitting to minor faults to distract from the more severe issues, making it seem like the problem has been addressed when it hasn’t.
  5. Official Secrecy: Using legal or procedural means like classification or ‘national security’ claims to keep information under wraps.

Coverups can occur in various contexts, from government and corporate sectors to personal or organisational levels, often aiming to protect reputations, avoid legal consequences, or maintain power.

Here are some notable examples of coverups in the UK…

  1. Hillsborough Disaster (1989):
    • Initially, there was an attempt to blame the tragedy on Liverpool fans. It took years, multiple investigations, and the persistence of the victims’ families to reveal the police’s role and their subsequent coverup of their errors and mistakes during the event.
  2. Bloody Sunday (1972):
    • The initial Widgery Report largely exonerated the British soldiers involved in the shooting of 13 unarmed civilians in Derry, attributing some blame to the victims. It wasn’t until the Saville Inquiry in 2010 that a more truthful account was acknowledged, terming the actions of the soldiers as “unjustified and unjustifiable.”
  3. The Birmingham Six and Guildford Four:
    • These were high-profile miscarriages of justice where individuals were wrongly convicted for IRA bombings in the 1970s. There’s been significant critique and evidence suggesting that judicial processes failed, with police and prosecution potentially withholding evidence that could have proven their innocence. The convictions were eventually overturned, but not before those involved served years in prison.
  4. The Profumo Affair (1963):
    • John Profumo, the Secretary of State for War, initially denied having an affair with Christine Keeler, who was also linked to a Soviet naval attaché. His deceit led to a political scandal and his resignation. The coverup attempt involved misleading statements to Parliament and the public.
  5. Carl Beech Case (Operation Midland):
    • This case involved allegations of a VIP paedophile ring which were later proven to be fabrications by Carl Beech. The police and the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) faced criticism for their handling of the case, including possibly overlooking evidence that could have discredited Beech sooner, thereby indirectly facilitating a coverup of the truth about the allegations.
  6. The Post Office Horizon IT Scandal:
    • Over many years, sub-postmasters were wrongly prosecuted due to faults in the Horizon IT system. The Post Office maintained the system’s integrity, leading to wrongful convictions, financial ruin, and jail time for many. The coverup involved denial of system errors, aggressive legal tactics against sub-postmasters, and suppression of whistleblower information. The judicial system’s role in prosecuting sub-postmasters based on flawed evidence from the Horizon system can also be seen as part of a broader coverup.
  7. Child Abuse in Care Homes:
    • There have been numerous instances where abuse in children’s homes was covered up. For example, the Rotherham child sexual exploitation scandal saw widespread abuse that was known to authorities but not adequately acted upon for many years due to fear of being labelled racist or due to incompetence.
  8. Kincora Boys’ Home:
    • Allegations have persisted that abuse at Kincora was known to authorities, including MI5, who allegedly used one of the abusers for intelligence purposes. The lack of thorough investigation or prosecution for years could be seen as a form of coverup, although direct judicial involvement in hiding the truth has not been conclusively proven.
  9. Undercover Police Scandals:
    • Undercover police infiltrated various protest groups, forming long-term relationships with activists under false pretenses. The extent of these operations, including fathering children with activists without revealing their true identity, was hidden from public knowledge for decades.
  10. Royal Sussex County Hospital:
    • The hospital and trust are well known for scandal, controversy and medical negligence. It has also been accused of bullying whistle-blowers and turning a blind eye to serious complaints about nursing staff.

These examples highlight a spectrum of coverup activities from misdirection and denial to active suppression of information, illustrating the complexities and implications of such actions in public and legal spheres.

Check out our related articles on Rule of Law, Open Justice, Policing by Consent, Innocent until Proven Guilty, R v Sussex Justices, What is Sub Judice ?, What is a Non-Crime Hate Incident (NCHI) ?, What is Christophobia ?, What is Islamophobia ? and the highly questionable Sussex Family Justice Board.

Section 35
Section 35
Bar Standards Board Justice
Bar Standards Board Justice
Email a Judge
Email a Judge ?
The Secret Barrister
The Secret Barrister
Justice System and the Constitution in the UK
Justice System
Dodgy Judges
Dodgy Judges

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

Most Popular ↓

Metropolitan Police
Police News
Police News
Sussex Police

What is Policing by Consent ? What is Two Tier Policing ?

Latest Articles ↓

All Articles can be found in the Legal Blog or Sitemap.

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

‘Justice delayed is justice denied’

 William Ewart Gladstone

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 the Civil Justice Council ?

Civil Justice Council

The Civil Justice Council (CJC) is a non-departmental public body in the United Kingdom, specifically for England and Wales. Its primary role is to advise the Lord Chancellor, the Judiciary, and the Civil Procedure Rule Committee on matters related to civil justice and civil procedure. Here are some key points about the CJC:

  • Establishment: It was established under the Civil Procedure Act 1997, specifically section 6, to help keep the civil justice system under review.
  • Functions:
    • To keep the civil justice system under review.
    • To consider how to make the civil justice system more accessible, fair, and efficient.
    • To advise on the development of the civil justice system.
    • To refer proposals for changes in the civil justice system to the Lord Chancellor and the Civil Procedure Rules Committee.
    • To make proposals for research into civil justice matters.
  • Structure:
    • The Council is chaired by the Sir Geoffrey Vos, Master of the Rolls, who is also one of the senior judges in England and Wales.
    • It includes members from the judiciary, civil servants, legal professionals, and others representing various perspectives within the civil justice system. Current CJC membership January 2024
  • Recent Activities: The CJC has been involved in various initiatives like reviewing the role and potential future of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) in civil justice, examining the impact of legislative changes like the Litigation Funding Agreements (Enforceability) Bill, and looking into issues like costs in civil litigation.
  • Public Engagement: The CJC often seeks public and professional input on its reviews and projects, indicating an open process for stakeholder engagement in shaping civil justice reforms.

Civil Justice Council 13th National Forum

The Civil Justice Council (CJC) announced that registration is now open for its 13th National Forum ‘Access to Justice: Working Together’. The Forum will take place on Friday 29 November 2024 at Friends House, London and online. 

Full details of speakers, the event’s agenda and how to register can be found here.

The CJC announce the following speakers (in order of appearance): 

“This year’s National Forum promises to be the best ever. We have an excellent line-up of speakers addressing the theme of working together, and discussing the CJC’s exciting work programme including civil case data, enforcement, litigation funding, mental capacity and digital disadvantage. I very much hope you will join us.” 

Sir Geoffrey Vos – Master of the Rolls

The Civil Justice Council 2023-24 Annual Report is available online.

Minutes and Synopsis of CJC meetings are also available online.

Check out our related articles on Family Justice Council, Rule of Law, Innocent until Proven Guilty, Open Justice, R v Sussex Justices and the highly questionable Sussex Family Justice Board.

Email a Judge
Email a Judge ?
Bar Standards Board Justice
Bar Standards Board Justice
Dodgy Judges
Dodgy Judges
Justice System and the Constitution in the UK
Justice System
The Secret Barrister
The Secret Barrister
Section 35
Section 35

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

Most Popular ↓

Metropolitan Police
Police News
Police News
Sussex Police

What is Policing by Consent ? What is Two Tier Policing ?

Latest Articles ↓

All Articles can be found in the Legal Blog or Sitemap.

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

‘Justice delayed is justice denied’

 William Ewart Gladstone

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
Legal Analysis

Weaponization and Politicisation of Justice ?

Weaponization and Politicisation of Justice
Justice

The concept of the “weaponization and politicisation of justice” generally refers to the misuse of legal systems or judicial processes for political ends.

In the UK :

  • Perceived Political Influence: There have been allegations that the justice system in the UK has been influenced by political agendas.
  • Selective Enforcement: Discussions online have pointed to a perceived disparity in how laws are enforced. For instance, there are sentiments that certain protests or groups receive preferential treatment over others based on political leanings or affiliations. This is often called Two Tier Justice and Two Tier Policing.
  • Legislation for Political Gain: There’s criticism regarding laws created that might serve to benefit legal professionals or align with specific political ideologies, potentially skewing justice towards those who can afford legal representation or align with the political narrative.

It is vitally important in a democracy that individual judges and the judiciary as a whole are impartial and independent of all external pressures and of each other so that those who appear before them and the wider public can have confidence that their cases will be decided fairly and in accordance with the law. When carrying out their judicial function they must be free of any improper influence. Such influence could come from any number of sources. It could arise from improper pressure by the executive or the legislature, by individual litigants, particular pressure groups, the media, self-interest or other judges, in particular more senior judges.

Judicial Independence

Data released today (16 August 2024) confirms 460 people arrested in connection with the violent disorder earlier this month have faced their day in court and at least 99 have already been sentenced.

Hundreds more people continue appearing in court following violent disorder
Violent Disorder – Suspended Sentence ?

Around the World :

  • United States: The concept of “lawfare” has been discussed, where legal battles are seen as strategic tools in political warfare. The FBI’s investigations, especially those touching on high-profile political figures, have been accused of being politically motivated, either to protect or persecute, depending on the political lens through which one views the actions.
  • Global Trends:
    • Censorship and Control: There’s a growing concern about the use of legal systems to suppress dissent or free speech, often under the guise of combating misinformation or hate speech. This is not just a Western issue; in many countries, laws against “fake news” have been criticised for being tools for political control.
    • Selective Prosecution: Various nations have faced accusations of using their legal systems to target opposition leaders, activists, or minorities. This includes high-profile cases where legal actions seem disproportionate or politically motivated, aimed at silencing criticism or dissent.
    • International Influence: The influence of international bodies or agreements (like the European Convention on Human Rights) in domestic legal decisions has been contentious, with some arguing it leads to a form of justice that might not reflect national interests or public sentiment.

Perspectives :

  • Conservative Viewpoints: Some conservative voices argue that progressive politics have influenced the justice system, leading to what they perceive as an unfair targeting of conservative figures or movements. They might point to investigations or legal actions against high-profile conservative politicians or supporters as examples.
  • Liberal Viewpoints: Conversely, liberals might argue that conservative administrations have historically attempted to manipulate justice processes to shield allies or undermine political adversaries. The use of terms like “lawfare” in some discussions highlights this perspective, where legal battles are seen as warfare by other means.
  • Neutral Observations: Many analysts advocate for a justice system that operates independently of political pressures. The concern here is not about which side is doing the weaponizing but that any such action undermines the integrity of legal institutions, public trust in these institutions, and the democratic process itself.

Implications :

  • Erosion of Trust: When justice is perceived as a tool for political ends, it significantly erodes public trust in legal and governmental institutions. This can lead to broader societal distrust and polarization.
  • Legal System Integrity: The politicisation of justice can compromise the rule of law, where laws are applied not uniformly but selectively based on political affiliations or influence.
  • Impact on Democracy: A politicized justice system can deter political participation, especially among those who feel targeted, and can skew political accountability, potentially allowing corruption or misconduct to go unchecked.

Counteractions :

  • Judicial Independence: Strengthening judicial independence is often cited as a countermeasure, ensuring that judges can make decisions free from political pressure.
  • Transparency and Accountability: Increasing transparency in legal proceedings and accountability for judicial and prosecutorial decisions can help mitigate perceptions of bias.
  • Public and Media Scrutiny: An active civil society and media can play roles in highlighting and challenging instances where justice appears to be misused for political ends.

The discussion around the weaponization and politicisation of justice underscores a critical challenge for democratic societies: ensuring that justice remains impartial and free from political manipulation.

Addressing these concerns often requires robust checks and balances, transparency, and sometimes, reforms to reinforce the independence of judicial institutions. This ongoing debate reflects broader tensions about governance, power, and fairness in legal systems globally.

Check out our related articles on Rule of Law, Innocent until Proven Guilty, Open Justice, R v Sussex Justices, His Honour Judge Jeremy Richardson KC, His Honour Judge Melbourne Inman KC, and the highly questionable Sussex Family Justice Board.

The Secret Barrister
The Secret Barrister
Bar Standards Board Justice
Bar Standards Board Justice
Email a Judge
Email a Judge ?
Dodgy Judges
Dodgy Judges
Justice System and the Constitution in the UK
Justice System
Section 35
Section 35

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

Most Popular ↓

Sussex Police
Metropolitan Police
Police News
Police News

What is Policing by Consent ? What is Two Tier Policing ?

Latest Articles ↓

All Articles can be found in the Legal Blog or Sitemap.

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

‘Justice delayed is justice denied’

 William Ewart Gladstone

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

Detention at His Majesty’s Pleasure ?

Detention at His Majesty's Pleasure

Detention at His Majesty’s Pleasure is a term used in the United Kingdom for an indeterminate sentence where the offender is detained for an unspecified period. This kind of sentence is typically used for young offenders or those convicted of particularly serious crimes, where the length of detention is not fixed at the time of sentencing.

Detention during His Majesty’s Pleasure is a mandatory life sentence and will be imposed when a child or young person is convicted or pleads guilty to murder. Schedule 21 of the Sentencing Act 2020 states that the starting point for determining the minimum sentence where the offender is under 18 years of age is 12 years as opposed to 15 years for those over the age of 18.

Types of sentences for children and young people – Sentencing Council
  1. Purpose: The main idea is that the offender should be detained until they are no longer considered a threat to society or until they have been rehabilitated. This could theoretically mean detention for life, or until the offender’s behaviour and development indicate that release is appropriate.
  2. Who It Applies To: Historically, this sentence was often used for juveniles convicted of serious crimes like murder, where an adult would receive a life sentence. However, it can also apply to adults in certain contexts, particularly where mental health issues are involved. The Mental Health Act 1983 allows for the detention of individuals who have committed offenses but are also suffering from mental disorders. When someone is detained at His Majesty’s Pleasure, especially under a mental health context, it’s often because they’ve been found not guilty by reason of insanity or unfit to plead, or they’ve been convicted of an offense where a psychiatric disposal is deemed more appropriate than a penal sentence.
  3. Legal Framework: The phrase “at His Majesty’s Pleasure” reflects the historical power of the monarch to detain subjects. In modern times, this power is exercised through the Home Office or relevant judicial or parole boards who decide when it’s safe to release the individual.
  4. Review and Release: The detention period is subject to periodic review. Decisions regarding release are based on assessments of risk, rehabilitation progress, and changes in the offender’s maturity and mental state.
  5. Differences from Life Sentences: Unlike a life sentence with a tariff (a minimum term to be served before parole can be considered), detention at His Majesty’s Pleasure doesn’t set a minimum term upfront, although in practice, a minimum term might be recommended by the judge.
  6. Criticism and Reform: This type of sentencing has faced criticism for its uncertainty, which can be psychologically challenging for detainees. There have been calls for reform to provide more clarity or to set tariffs in a way similar to life sentences but tailored to the developmental needs of young offenders.
  7. International Perspective: The concept is somewhat unique to the UK legal system, though other countries have similar provisions for indefinite detention for the purposes of rehabilitation or public protection, particularly for juvenile offenders or those with mental health issues.

In 2002 the then The Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales Baron Woolf published a statement Review of Minimum Terms set for Young Offenders detained at her Majesty’s Pleasure.

King Charles III, formerly known as The Prince of Wales, became King on the death of his mother Queen Elizabeth II on 8 September 2022.

Image of King Charles III created by Grok-3

Email a Judge
Email a Judge ?
Dodgy Judges
Dodgy Judges
Justice System and the Constitution in the UK
Justice System
Bar Standards Board Justice
Bar Standards Board Justice
The Secret Barrister
The Secret Barrister
Section 35
Section 35

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

Most Popular ↓

Metropolitan Police
Sussex Police
Police News
Police News

What is Policing by Consent ? What is Two Tier Policing ?

Latest Articles ↓

All Articles can be found in the Legal Blog or Sitemap.

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

‘Justice delayed is justice denied’

 William Ewart Gladstone

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

Can you Email a Judge ?

Email a Judge

The Judiciary of England and Wales use Microsoft 365 for email using the ejudiciary.net domain. This domain is connected to the Internet and accepts email via MX ejudiciary-net.mail.protection.outlook.com. This is public information.

ejudiciary.net M365
ejudiciary.net – Microsoft 365

The rule of law is a fundamental constitutional principle which underpins an open, fair and peaceful society, where citizens and businesses can prosper. Our judges and magistrates are its cornerstone.

Lady Chief Justice on the public ejudiciary.net page

I sent an email lawfully requesting information about his “occupation” to His Honour Judge Melbourne Inman KC copying the The Lady Chief Justice of England and Wales (LCJ) on the 21st October 2024.

To: hhj.melbourne.inman@ejudiciary.net
Cc: mrsjustice.carr@ejudiciary.net
Subject: HHJ Melbourne Inman KC – Media Enquiry
Importance: High

Dear Judge

cc The Right Honourable The Lady Chief Justice of England and Wales

I asked the Judiciary Press Office for comment (as below) on Friday 18th October 2024 but they have not replied.

Could you please answer the following questions :-

  1. Are you a Circuit Judge or High Court Judge ?
  2. Are you authorised to sit as a High Court Judge ?
  3. Should your occupation at  Companies House be shown as High Court Judge ?

An article was published at noon on the 18th October 2024 https://ministryofinjustice.co.uk/his-honour-judge-melbourne-inman-kc/. It has received a considerable amount of worldwide attention.

The Lady Chief Justice states as a co-signatory of the document Judicial Discipline –  Misconduct and recommending sanctions (https://www.complaints.judicialconduct.gov.uk/rulesandregulations/MisconductandRecommendingSanctions)

“As Lord Chancellor and Lady Chief Justice, we are jointly responsible for judicial discipline………The public has a right to expect that on the rare occasions when judicial office holders do not meet the high standards of conduct expected of them, action will be taken.”

I do not believe that the JCIO will accept a complaint concerning “misrepresentation” hence the cc to The Right Honourable The Lady Chief Justice to deal with and action.

Regards

Email to HHJ Inman and The Lady Chief Justice

An autoreply was received from the LCJ’s former High Court email address.

From: Archived Mail Address – Carr LJ <mrsjustice.carr@ejudiciary.net>
Subject: Automatic reply: HHJ Melbourne Inman KC – Media Enquiry

Dame Sue Carr has now been appointed as the Lady Chief Justice of England and Wales, please direct any queries to LCJ.Office@Judiciary.uk

So yes you can email a judge…however

Sending threatening or malicious messages using a public electronic communication, such as via email, may amount to an offence. Do not do it.

The relevant legislation of England and Wales includes :-

Malicious Communications Act 1988 Section 1
Communications Act 2003 Section 127
Part 10 of the Online Safety Act 2023
Protection from Harassment Act 1997
Computer Misuse Act 1990

The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) publish legal guidance on Communications Offences.

Judicial Email Format

Judges are by their very nature public figures. Open justice is a fundamental principle at the very heart of the justice system and vital to the rule of law.

‘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’

R v Sussex Justices –  Lord Hewart

Judicial email addresses, including High Court Judges, are widely published on the internet and easily found by a simple Google search. This article only contains publicly and readily available information.

The format for most judicial email addresses are as follows :-

Sent an Email to the Wrong Person ?

“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’

Check out our articles on Dodgy Judges, Can you Criticise a Judge, Do you Have to Bow to a Judge ?, His Honour Now His Dishonour, His Honour Melbourne Inman KC, His Honour Judge Jeremy Richardson KC, His Honour Judge Michael Slater, His Honour Judge Martin Davis, HHJ Farquhar, HHJ Bedford, DDJ Nicholes and the highly dubious Sussex Family Justice Board.

Section 35
Section 35
Bar Standards Board Justice
Bar Standards Board Justice
Justice System and the Constitution in the UK
Justice System
Dodgy Judges
Dodgy Judges
The Secret Barrister
The Secret Barrister
Email a Judge
Email a Judge ?

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

Most Popular ↓

Metropolitan Police
Police News
Police News
Sussex Police

What is Policing by Consent ? What is Two Tier Policing ?

Latest Articles ↓

All Articles can be found in the Legal Blog or Sitemap.

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

‘Justice delayed is justice denied’

 William Ewart Gladstone

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.

Equal Justice Under Law
Access To Justice Is A Right Not A Privilege
Rule of Law - Open Justice - Policing By Consent

Ministry of Injustice - Server Monitor