Category: Legal Analysis

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

Categories
Criminal Justice Law Legal Analysis

McKenzie Friends and Right of Audience in a Magistrates or Crown Court

McKenzie Friends and Right of Audience in a Magistrates or Crown Court

A McKenzie Friend can provide moral support, take notes, help organise case papers, and offer quiet advice on the conduct of the case. They do not have an automatic right to act as an advocate, conduct litigation, or address the court.

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

Right of Audience

In criminal proceedings, McKenzie Friends generally do not have a right of audience. This means they cannot speak on behalf of the litigant, make oral submissions or examine witnesses unless the court explicitly grants permission.

The court may grant a right of audience in exceptional circumstances, but this is rare. The decision is at the discretion of the presiding magistrate or judge, guided by the interests of justice.

Examples of exceptional circumstances may include:

  • The litigant has health issues preventing them from effectively addressing the court.
  • The litigant lacks the ability to articulate their case (e.g., due to language barriers or intellectual limitations).
  • The complexity of the case requires assistance to ensure a fair hearing.

Criminal vs Family and Civil Procedure

Unlike civil and family proceedings, where guidance like the Practice Guidance: McKenzie Friends (Civil and Family Courts) (2010) applies, criminal proceedings are not explicitly covered by this guidance.

Courts in criminal cases are more cautious about granting rights of audience due to the serious nature of criminal proceedings, which involve public interest and potential penalties like imprisonment.

The Legal Services Act 2007 (sections 12–19 and Schedule 3) makes it a criminal offense for an unqualified person to exercise rights of audience or conduct litigation unless authorised by the court on a case-by-case basis.

Court’s Discretion and Restrictions

A litigant must request permission for a McKenzie Friend to have a right of audience at the start of the hearing. The court will consider factors such as:

  • The litigant’s ability to represent themselves.
  • The complexity of the legal issues.
  • Whether the McKenzie Friend’s involvement would impede the administration of justice.

The court may refuse or revoke permission if the McKenzie Friend disrupts proceedings, acts improperly, or breaches confidentiality.

The court may also require the McKenzie Friend to provide their name, contact details, and a statement confirming they understand their role and duties, including confidentiality.

Court Denying a McKenzie Friend the Right of Audience

A judge is expected to provide reasons when denying a McKenzie friend the right of audience (permission to speak on behalf of a litigant in person).

This aligns with principles of fairness and transparency under Legal Services Act 2007 (c. 29), specifically under sections 208, 210, 211, Schedule 21 paragraph 84(d), and Schedule 23, which gives courts discretion to grant such rights only for “good reason,” typically in exceptional circumstances.

The Practice Guidance on McKenzie Friends (Civil and Family Courts) [2010] 1 WLR 1881 emphasises that decisions should be justified to ensure litigants understand the basis for refusal, allowing for potential appeals by the litigant (not the McKenzie friend).

Practical Considerations

In magistrates’ courts, where proceedings are often faster-paced and less formal than in higher courts, magistrates may be more reluctant to allow a McKenzie Friend to speak, as the litigant is normally expected to represent themselves.

If a McKenzie Friend is granted a right of audience, their role is still limited to specific tasks (e.g., addressing a point of law or cross-examining a witness) rather than acting as a full advocate throughout the hearing.

Fee-charging McKenzie Friends are viewed with caution, and courts may scrutinise their involvement to ensure they are not acting as unqualified legal representatives.

Relevant Guidance and Rules

While the Practice Guidance: McKenzie Friends (Civil and Family Courts) (2010) does not apply to criminal cases, it provides a framework that courts may refer to analogously.

The Criminal Procedure Rules 2010 do not specifically address McKenzie Friends but emphasise the court’s overriding objective to deal with cases justly, which includes ensuring a fair hearing for unrepresented defendants.

Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (incorporated into UK law via the Human Rights Act 1998) supports the right to a fair trial, which may bolster a litigant’s request for assistance from a McKenzie Friend.

Case Law and Precedents

McKenzie v McKenzie [1970] 3 WLR 472 CA: Established the principle that litigants in person have a right to reasonable assistance.

Clarkson v Gilbert [2000] 2 FLR 839: Clarified that the court has unfettered discretion to grant a right of audience, and such decisions should not be limited to “exceptional” circumstances but depend on the case’s specifics.

Re N (A Child) (McKenzie Friend: Rights of Audience) [2008] EWHC 2042 (Fam): Emphasised that granting a right of audience should serve the interests of justice and that courts should consider the practical realities of limited legal aid availability.

Limitations and Risks of McKenzie Friends

McKenzie Friends are not regulated like solicitors or barristers, so there is no guarantee of their competence or accountability. Courts may exclude a McKenzie Friend if they undermine the efficient administration of justice (e.g., by providing improper advice or disrupting proceedings).

Litigants using a McKenzie Friend cannot recover costs for their services from the opposing party, even if successful, as costs are limited to those of a litigant in person.

Explanation of Clarkson v Gilbert

Clarkson v Gilbert [2000] 2 FLR 839 is a significant Court of Appeal case in England and Wales that clarified the principles governing the granting of a right of audience to a non-lawyer, such as a McKenzie Friend or a close relative, under section 27(2)(c) of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990.

The case is particularly relevant to litigants in person who seek assistance from unqualified individuals to represent them in court proceedings, including in criminal, civil, or family matters.

Factual and Procedural Background

Parties and Context: The claimant, Petruska Clarkson, a psychotherapist, initiated legal proceedings against multiple defendants (also psychotherapists) alleging conspiracy, inducement to breach contract, and libel. These claims arose after her suspension from the Gestalt Psychotherapy Training Institute.

McKenzie Friend: Clarkson’s husband, Vincent Keter, who had a law degree and had completed Bar finals but was not yet called to the Bar, sought to represent her in court. He applied for a right of audience to act as her advocate in the litigation, including at trial and interlocutory hearings.

Initial Order: On 14 May 1999, Morland J granted Keter an ex parte order (without notice to the defendants) allowing him rights of audience under section 27(2)(c) of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990, citing Clarkson’s ill health (an angina attack and depression) and her lack of financial means to hire legal representation.

Challenge: The defendants applied to set aside Morland J’s order, arguing insufficient evidence (e.g., outdated medical reports) and Keter’s questionable conduct, including misrepresenting himself as an advocate. On 16 December 1999, Eady J set aside the order, prompting Clarkson’s appeal to the Court of Appeal.

Appeal: The Court of Appeal, presided over by Lord Woolf CJ, alongside Waller LJ and Clarke LJ, heard the appeal on 14 June 2000. The key issue was whether Keter, as a close relative and non-lawyer, should be granted a right of audience to represent Clarkson.

Legal Issues

The court addressed the following legal questions:

  • Whether a close relative, such as a spouse, should be granted a right of audience under section 27(2)(c) of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990.
  • Whether “exceptional circumstances” are required to grant such rights to an unqualified person, particularly a family member.
  • The appropriate exercise of judicial discretion in such cases, balancing the interests of justice with the proper administration of the courts.
  • Court’s Reasoning and Decision: The Court of Appeal allowed Clarkson’s appeal, restoring Morland J’s order granting Keter rights of audience.
  • Judicial Discretion Under Section 27(2)(c): Section 27(2)(c) of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 allows courts to grant a right of audience to a person not otherwise entitled, in relation to specific proceedings, at the court’s discretion.
  • The court emphasised that this discretion is unfettered but must be exercised in light of the statutory objective in section 17(1) (to develop legal services while maintaining the proper administration of justice) and section 17(3) (general principles governing professional advocates).
  • Distinction Between Professional and Family Advocates: The court distinguished between unqualified individuals offering advocacy services generally (e.g., professional McKenzie Friends) and close relatives assisting a family member.

    For professional McKenzie Friends, the court typically requires exceptional circumstances to grant a right of audience, as established in D v S (Rights of Audience) [1997] 1 FLR 724. This is because such individuals may lack professional regulation and accountability. For close relatives, such as a spouse, the test is less stringent.

    The court held that the question is whether there is good reason to grant the right of audience, based on the specific circumstances of the case, rather than requiring exceptional circumstances.
  • Factors Justifying a Right of Audience: Lord Woolf CJ noted that the overriding objective is to ensure justice is done. With legal aid less readily available, litigants in person may need assistance to present their case effectively.

    Relevant factors include the litigant’s health (e.g., Clarkson’s angina and depression) and financial means (e.g., inability to afford legal representation after unsuccessful attempts to secure conditional fee arrangements or pro bono assistance).

    In this case, the court found that Clarkson’s health issues and lack of means justified allowing Keter to act as her advocate, as there was a risk she would be deprived of a fair hearing otherwise.
  • Critique of the Lower Court: The court held that Eady J erred by applying the “exceptional circumstances” test from D v S to a case involving a close relative.

    Clarke LJ clarified that the discretion under section 27(2)(c) is not fettered by a requirement for exceptional circumstances in such cases. Instead, the court must consider whether it is just to permit the advocate, based on the case’s facts.
  • Practical Considerations: The court acknowledged that litigants in person have a right to conduct their own litigation but may need assistance due to practical difficulties. A McKenzie Friend’s role (e.g., giving advice or taking notes) does not automatically extend to advocacy unless the court grants permission.

    The court noted concerns about Keter’s conduct (e.g., describing himself as an advocate) but found these insufficient to deny the right of audience, given the need to ensure justice for Clarkson.

    The court emphasised that the litigant should generally apply in person for such permission at the start of the hearing, allowing the court to assess the need directly.
  • Statutory Framework: The court highlighted the tension between allowing a close relative to act as an advocate and the statutory duties under section 27(2A) of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990, which require advocates to act with independence and comply with professional conduct rules. A family member may struggle to maintain such independence, but this did not preclude granting the right in this case.
  • Holding and Implications: The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, restoring Keter’s right of audience to represent Clarkson in the litigation.

    The court found that her ill health and lack of means constituted good reason for granting the right, and the decision was necessary to ensure justice.
    • Implications: The case clarified that the test for granting a right of audience to a close relative is whether there is good reason, not necessarily exceptional circumstances, distinguishing such cases from those involving professional McKenzie Friends.

    It recognised the practical reality of reduced legal aid availability, increasing the need for assistance for litigants in person.

    The decision reinforced the court’s discretion to balance the interests of justice with the need to maintain proper administration, particularly in cases where the litigant’s ability to represent themselves is impaired.

    The case remains a key authority in determining when McKenzie Friends or relatives may be granted rights of audience, especially in civil and family proceedings, and its principles are often applied analogously in criminal proceedings (though courts are more cautious in criminal cases due to their seriousness).

Conclusion

While Clarkson v Gilbert was a civil case, its principles are relevant to magistrates’ and crown courts in criminal proceedings:

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

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

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

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

Latest Articles ↓

Most Popular ↓

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

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

Categories
Family Law Judiciary Law Legal Analysis Legal Professionals

HM Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) Dishonest Coverup ?

HMCTS Coverup IT Bug

A serious IT glitch in the HM Courts & Tribunals Service (HMCTS) system in England and Wales has sparked allegations of a cover-up, raising concerns about the integrity of judicial rulings.

The software – known variously as Judicial Case Manager, MyHMCTS or CCD – is used to manage evidence and track cases before the courts. It is used by judges, lawyers, case workers and members of the public.

Courts service HMCTS ‘covered up’ IT bug that caused evidence to go missing – BBC

A leaked internal report revealed that a software flaw, present for several years before its discovery in 2023, caused critical evidence to go missing, be overwritten, or appear lost in civil, family, and tribunal courts.

This issue, which potentially affected thousands of cases, has led to accusations that HMCTS failed to act promptly or transparently, leaving judges to make rulings based on incomplete evidence. The scandal has drawn sharp criticism from legal experts and raised fears of widespread miscarriages of justice, particularly in sensitive family court cases involving child protection.

A briefing prepared for the chief executive of HMCTS (Nick Goodwin)- dated March 2024 – reveals the risk to proceedings was initially categorised as “high” with the possibility of court outcomes being adversely affected assessed as “very likely”, resulting in “severe reputational impact to HMCTS“.

Courts service HMCTS ‘covered up’ IT bug that caused evidence to go missing – BBC

Specific details about the development team or external contractors involved in the the case-management software, referred to as Judicial Case Manager, MyHMCTS, or Common Components Division (CCD)are not publicly disclosed or available.

Sources

HMCTS Bug and Coverup

The IT bug, embedded in software introduced in 2018, was not addressed until 2023, despite internal awareness of data loss issues. Sources within HMCTS, as reported by the BBC, claim that HMCTS did not inform judges or lawyers about the fault, even after it was identified.

One alarming instance highlighted in the report involved over 4,000 documents vanishing from hundreds of public family law cases, including those related to child protection.

The failure to disclose the issue has fuelled allegations of a deliberate cover-up, with one HMCTS source stating, “There is a culture of cover-ups. They’re not worried about risk to the public, they’re worried about people finding out about the risk to the public.”

The internal report, obtained by the BBC, revealed that HMCTS did not conduct a comprehensive investigation into the extent of the data corruption or its impact on case outcomes.

Of the 609 cases identified with potential issues, only 109 were selected for further review, with just one deemed to have a “potentially significant impact.”

Critics, including Sir James Munby, former President of the Family Division, have called the incident “shocking” and “a scandal,” arguing that the lack of a thorough investigation undermines trust in the judicial system. Munby emphasised that the absence of a formal legal review of affected cases makes it impossible to confidently assert that no miscarriages of justice occurred.

The software’s flawed design has also come under scrutiny. Sources described it as “not designed properly or robustly,” with a history of data loss that was inadequately addressed. This has led to broader concerns about the reliability of digital systems in critical public services.

The irony of HMCTS’s claim that its internal investigation found “no evidence” of affected case outcomes was not lost on commentators, with some, like a user on Singletrack World Magazine, noting the darkly humorous implication of an evidence-losing system finding no evidence of harm.

HMCTS has since stated that the IT bug was fixed in 2023, though specific details about the timeline of the fix or the measures taken to prevent future issues remain sparse. HMCTS maintains that its internal investigation found no significant impact on case outcomes, but this claim has been met with scepticism due to the limited scope of the review.

Miscarriage of Justice ? – Art of Law

Conclusion

The fallout from this scandal has broader implications for public trust in the UK’s judicial system. Social media platforms have seen users express dismay, with one stating, “There seems to be a chronic lack of accountability in the UK state at the moment. And if you can’t trust the courts, where do you even start?” The incident has also reignited discussions about the risks of over-reliance on digital infrastructure in critical sectors, particularly when systems are not rigorously tested or maintained.

Families and individuals affected by the data loss may face significant challenges in seeking justice. Researching Reform, a legal advocacy group, noted that many families had previously complained about missing evidence in their cases, suggesting that the IT bug may have contributed to wrongful rulings. As calls grow for a formal inquiry, the HMCTS scandal serves as a stark reminder of the need for transparency, accountability, and robust technological systems in the administration of justice.

The High Court Judge that never was – His Honour Judge Melbourne Inman KC !

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

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

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

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

Latest Articles ↓

Most Popular ↓

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

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

Categories
Free Speech Legal Analysis

The Free Speech Union

The Free Speech Union

The Free Speech Union (FSU) is a prominent advocate for freedom of expression in the UK, founded in 2020 by journalist Toby Young. He is a current member of the House of Lords and known as Lord Young of Acton.

It aims to protect individuals from censorship or retribution for expressing lawful opinions, especially in settings like workplaces and universities where cancel culture is seen as a growing concern.

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

As of early 2025, the FSU boasts over 25,000 members, reflecting significant growth from previous years, and operates with a non-partisan, member-funded model.

As a member, you gain access to an array of resources and support, ensuring you can speak your mind without fear of being cancelled. Our experienced team provides guidance, support, and if necessary, discretionary legal support to defend your right to free speech. We will stand by our members, however unorthodox their views provided they’re not unlawful.

Join the Free Speech Union

The FSU has silver and gold membership with monthly or annual payments options.

Background and Mission of The Free Speech Union

The FSU emerged in response to growing concerns about the erosion of free expression in democratic societies, particularly amid rising instances of cancel culture and ideological conformity. It describes itself as a non-partisan, not-for-profit, member-funded organisation dedicated to defending the right to express lawful opinions without fear of censorship or retribution.

Its mission, as articulated on its official website, is to protect free speech as the “bedrock of all other freedoms,” especially in contexts like workplaces, universities, and public forums where dissent is increasingly penalised.

This mission is rooted in the belief that free speech enables the exchange of ideas, challenges orthodoxies, and fosters the pursuit of truth. Without it, the FSU argues, societies risk sliding into authoritarianism, where intellectual freedom is curtailed, and dissent is silenced.

Membership and Growth

As of January 23, 2025, the FSU announced on X that its membership had surpassed 25,000, marking a significant milestone. This represents more than a 100% increase from the 3rd January 2024, when membership stood at 12,151 reflecting rapid growth driven by heightened concerns over free speech restrictions.

Membership benefits include access to legal advice, representation, and advocacy for those facing repercussions for their speech, with an annual fee providing peace of mind for individuals worried about potential censorship.

Core Activities and Support

The FSU’s core function is providing practical support to its members, which includes legal referrals, crowdfunding for court costs, and public campaigns to raise awareness of free speech violations.

It has assisted over 2,000 people facing issues like job loss, academic sanctions, or social media backlash for expressing controversial but lawful opinions. Examples include supporting teachers sanctioned for questioning ideological teachings and workers penalised for political posts outside work.

Beyond individual cases, the FSU engages in broader advocacy, lobbying policymakers to strengthen legal protections for free expression.

It has been vocal in critiquing legislation like the UK’s Online Safety Act, arguing it could inadvertently restrict lawful speech under the guise of combating misinformation or harm.

Its newsletter and podcast further amplify its message, fostering a community dedicated to free thought and expression.

Criticisms and Counterarguments

The FSU’s approach has not been without controversy. Criticsargue that it sometimes defends individuals whose views are divisive or offensive, potentially amplifying harmful rhetoric.

They contend that the organisation’s focus on “free speech absolutism” overlooks the need to balance free expression with protections against hate speech or harassment.

The FSU counters that it does not endorse the views of those it defends, only their right to express them within the law. It emphasises that open debate, even on contentious issues, is essential for societal progress, arguing that suppressing speech risks driving harmful ideas underground where they fester unchallenged.

This stance reflects a broader philosophical debate about the limits of free expression, with the FSU positioning itself as a defender of intellectual resilience against cancel culture.

International Presence and Impact

The FSU’s influence extends beyond the UK, with a growing international presence including branches in New Zealand, Australia, Canada, South Africa, Switzerland, and efforts to establish new unions in other countries.

This global network, coordinated under the Free Speech Union International formed in early 2025, aims to defend free speech in international bodies like the UN and foster a culture of free expression worldwide.

Conclusion

The Free Speech Union stands as a vital advocate for free expression, with over 25,000 members and a robust suite of activities aimed at countering censorship and supporting individuals.

While it faces criticism for potentially amplifying divisive views, its emphasis on open debate and legal protections reflects a commitment to fostering a culture of intellectual resilience.

As debates over free speech continue to evolve, the FSU’s work remains relevant, ensuring diverse voices can be heard.

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

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

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

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

Latest Articles ↓

Most Popular ↓

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

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

Categories
Law Legal Analysis Police

Are the Police for Hire ?

Police for Hire

A chief officer of police may, at the request of any individual or entity, provide special police services at specific premises or within any locality in the force’s jurisdiction, subject to charges set by the police authority on a scale determined by that authority. So yes the Police are available for hire !

Police forces have historically recovered costs for “special police services”. These services include policing events like football matches, concerts, or private functions where organisers request additional police presence beyond standard public duties.

Drawing on key documents from UK Parliament, National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC) and HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC), this article explores the legal framework, implications, and controversies surrounding charging for police services.

Legislative Framework: The Foundation of Charging

The legal basis for charging for police services is rooted in Section 25 of the Police Act 1996 which allows police authorities to provide “special police services” at the request of any person, subject to payment. These services encompass additional policing beyond core public duties, such as securing commercial events like football matches, concerts, or private functions.

Section 26 of the Police Act 1996 applies similar requirements to the provision of police services overseas.

The 2008-09 UK Parliament report by the Home Affairs Committee details how this provision enables forces to recover costs for deploying officers, vehicles, and equipment.

Section 25, however, is not prescriptive about which events should incur charges or how fees should be calculated, leading to significant variation across forces. The Parliament report highlights cases where event organisers faced unexpected costs due to inconsistent application.

To address this, Section 15 of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 later clarified the role of Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs) in overseeing charging policies, ensuring greater accountability.

NPCC Guidelines: Standardising the Approach

The NPCC’s National Policing Guidelines on Charging for Police Services aim to standardise practices across England and Wales. The guidelines categorise chargeable services into three types: special police services (e.g., policing commercial events like music festivals), mutual aid (where one force assists another), and additional services (e.g., training or consultancy for external organisations).

Charges are based on the full economic cost, including officer salaries, overtime, vehicles, and administrative overheads.

For example, policing a large-scale event like Glastonbury Festival could cost organisers tens of thousands of pounds, calculated by officer hours and resources deployed.

The guidelines emphasise transparency, requiring forces to publish charging rates and consult with event organisers in advance. They also allow exemptions for non-commercial events, such as charitable fundraisers, if they serve the public interest.

However, the discretion granted to individual forces can lead to inconsistencies. A small community group organising a charity run might face charges for road closures in one force area but not another, raising concerns about fairness.

Special Police Services Costs

As an example, in the Fees and Charges for the Supply of Goods & Services 2025 document published by Sussex Police, on page 14 they publish the costs for special police services.

  SurreySussex
Uniform and CID 2025 Rates Hourly RatesDaily RatesHourly RatesDaily Rates
  ££££
  Chief SuperintendentNORMAL165.911,202.85164.911,195.58
BANK HOLIDAYN/AN/AN/AN/A
BH < 8 days’ noticeN/AN/AN/AN/A
  SuperintendentNORMAL144.541,047.93143.541,040.66
BANK HOLIDAYN/AN/AN/AN/A
BH < 8 days’ noticeN/AN/AN/AN/A
  Chief InspectorNORMAL117.12849.08116.11841.81
BANK HOLIDAYN/AN/AN/AN/A
BH < 8 days’ noticeN/AN/AN/AN/A
  InspectorNORMAL110.47800.94109.47793.67
BANK HOLIDAYN/AN/AN/AN/A
BH < 8 days’ noticeN/AN/AN/AN/A
  SergeantNORMAL114.34828.99113.34821.72
BANK HOLIDAY139.541,011.65138.541,004.38
BH < 8 days’ notice181.841,318.36180.841,311.09
  ConstableNORMAL91.10660.4590.09653.18
BANK HOLIDAY111.33807.15110.33799.88
BH < 8 days’ notice143.721,041.93142.711,034.66
Charging of special policing services provided at commercial events

Please refer to the Fees and Charges for the Supply of Goods & Services 2025 for all fees and charges for special police services.

Sussex Police also publish an Income Generation and Charging Policy.

This policy is required to ensure there is a consistent and transparent method for calculating the appropriate fees for the use of police services and/or goods that are provided by Sussex Police to outside agencies so that the ‘users’ of the service have a clear understanding of how the charges have been calculated.

Income Generation and Charging Policy (490/2024) – Sussex Police

The amount of money Brighton and Hove Albion paid to Sussex Police for special police services from 2015 to 2024 was obtained via a Freedom of Information request by Richard Lemmer.

Further to a FOI request about the provision of Metropolitan Police officers under private hire arrangements such as those specified under S.25 of the Police Act 1996, The Met Police Published the response Private hire or provision of officers under special services provisions of Police Act 1996

Football clubs are currently only legally obliged to pay for the policing on their “footprint”, usually inside the stadium and surrounding car parks; the provision of “consequential policing” outside a football match, for example at a railway station or in the city centre, is currently the responsibility of the police and is provided at their discretion and at a cost to them.

The Cost of Policing Football Matches – Home Affairs Committee

HMRC and VAT

HMRC’s VATGPB5270 guidance clarifies the tax implications of charging for police services. Core policing duties, such as responding to emergencies or maintaining public order, are classified as non-business activities and exempt from VAT, reflecting their status as statutory obligations.

In contrast, special police services provided to commercial entities, such as policing a corporate event, are considered business activities and subject to VAT.

This ensures forces recover costs without generating profit. For example, a private company hiring police for a product launch would pay the full cost plus VAT, while a community event might qualify for an exemption if deemed non-commercial.

This distinction aligns with HMRC’s broader aim to balance fiscal responsibility with the principle that core policing remains a public good.

However, the complexity of determining which services are VAT-liable could create administrative burdens for forces, particularly when dealing with mixed-purpose events.

Implications and Controversies

The “police for hire” model, grounded in the Police Act 1996 and refined by the NPCC guidelines, reflects a pragmatic response to financial pressures. Yet, it raises profound questions about the nature of policing in a resource-constrained era.

Charging for police services has practical benefits but also significant drawbacks. Charging allows forces to prioritise public safety while recouping costs from those who directly benefit, such as commercial event organisers.

However, critics argue that this practice risks creating a two-tier policing system, where wealthier organisations or individuals can afford enhanced protection, while smaller groups struggle.

This raises ethical concerns about whether access to police services is being commodified, undermining the principle of policing by consent established by Sir Robert Peel. Moreover, inconsistent application of charges across forces can erode public trust.

The NPCC guidelines aim to mitigate this, but their reliance on local discretion leaves room for variation.

Check out our articles on Policing by Consent, Police Impartiality, Police Public Confidence and Engagement, Police Professional Standards Department, IOPC, Crime Reporting, What is a Police and Crime Commissioner ?, Policing, Police News, Two Tiered Policing, Thought Police, Police Digital Service, Knowledge Hub – Police Digital Service, What is the National Police Coordination Centre (NPoCC) ?, Wasting Police Time, Police Community Support Officers (PCSO), Met Police, Sussex Police, Chief Constable Jo Shiner, R v Sussex Justices and the highly questionable Sussex Family Justice Board.

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

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

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

Latest Articles ↓

Most Popular ↓

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

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

Categories
Law Legal Analysis Police

Sussex Police and Brighton Pride 2025

Sussex Police and Brighton Pride

Brighton Pride, officially Brighton & Hove Pride, is often cited as the UK’s largest and most popular Pride festival, drawing significant crowds and generating substantial economic impact.

Sources indicate it attracts over 300,000 attendees, with some estimates as high as 500,000 over the Pride weekend, contributing around £30.5 million to the city’s economy. The event features a major parade, a festival in Preston Park, and various parties, making it a cornerstone of Brighton’s cultural calendar.

Pride On The Park supported by Hayu is the official Brighton & Hove Pride fundraiser for our local LGBTQIA+ community groups. A glittering and truly inclusive community celebration that delivers an unforgettable day of Pride, it is unique community fundraising event that has enjoyed amazing performances from international stars including Britney Spears, Kylie Minogue, Dua Lipa, Ray,  Nile Rogers & Chic, Clean Bandit, Pet Shop Boys, Grace Jones, Years and Years, Sister Sledge, Carly Rae Jepsen, Fatboy Slim, Paloma Faith, The Human League,  Ella Elre, Jessie J amongst others.

The UK’s Biggest LGBTQ Pride Festival – Brighton Pride

Brighton Pride this year is being held between the 2nd and 3rd August 2025. Mariah Carey is the headline act for Brighton & Hove Pride 2025, performing at Pride On The Park on Saturday 2nd August. The Sugababes will headline on Sunday 3rd August.

Should the NHS take part in Pride (LGBTQIA+) Events ?

Police and Impartiality at Pride

Mr Justice Linden in Smith v Chief Constable of Northumbria Police [2025] EWHC 1805 (Admin) ruled that Northumbria Police breached their duty of impartiality by allowing uniformed officers to actively participate in the Newcastle Pride in the City 2024 event, displaying symbols like the Progress Pride flag.

The court found that such participation gave the impression of endorsing a contested ideological position—specifically, gender ideology—potentially undermining public trust in the police’s ability to act impartially, particularly in disputes involving gender-critical individuals and transgender rights supporters.

Sussex Police and Brighton Pride 2025

Sussex Police Media Team were contacted on the 31st July 2025. The Sussex Police’s responses are in bold :-

  1. Has the Chief Constable/Sussex Police decided if they will allow uniformed  officers to actively take part in Brighton Pride on the 2nd – 3rd AUGUST 2025 ?

A decision was taken in June that Sussex Police would not take part in the parade in 2025.

  1. Will the Sussex Police Pride Car and other Sussex Police vehicles have the PRIDE and other symbols removed ? 

We have a police vehicle which has LGBTQ+ inclusion livery. This is a response vehicle used all year round within the Brighton division. We cannot say at this point whether it will be operational at the weekend.

  1. Has any guidance been issued to officers in relation to PRIDE Brighton 2025 and other events ? For example,  Sussex police officers can only attend Brighton Pride 2025 events on a voluntary basis and not in uniform unless policing the event.

Sussex Police is not taking part in the parade this year.

Check out our articles on Sussex Police, Policing by Consent, Police Impartiality, Police Public Confidence and Engagement, Police Professional Standards Department, IOPC, Crime Reporting, What is a Police and Crime Commissioner ?, Policing, Police News, Two Tiered Policing, Are the Police for Hire ?, Thought Police, Police Digital Service, Knowledge Hub – Police Digital Service, Wasting Police Time, Police Community Support Officers (PCSO), Met Police, Chief Constable Jo Shiner, R v Sussex Justices and the highly questionable Sussex Family Justice Board.

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

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

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

Latest Articles ↓

Most Popular ↓

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

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

Categories
Legal Analysis

Should the NHS take part in Pride (LGBTQIA+) Events ?

NHS and Pride

The judgment by Mr Justice Linden in Smith v Chief Constable of Northumbria Police [2025] EWHC 1805 (Admin) ruled that Northumbria Police breached their duty of impartiality by allowing uniformed officers to actively participate in the Newcastle Pride in the City 2024 event, displaying symbols like the Progress Pride flag.

The court found that such participation gave the impression of endorsing a contested ideological position specifically, gender ideology, potentially undermining public trust in the police’s ability to act impartially, particularly in disputes involving gender-critical individuals and transgender rights supporters.

This ruling has implications for other public bodies, like the NHS, which are also expected to maintain impartiality in their public-facing activities. The judgment suggests that public institutions should avoid actions that could be perceived as aligning with one side of a polarising debate, even under the guise of inclusivity.

For the NHS, this could mean reconsidering participation in Pride (LGBTQIA+) events if it involves official branding, uniformed staff, or symbols like the Progress Pride flag, which the court noted is associated with trans activism and may exclude those with gender-critical views.

However, the ruling does not outright ban participation in Pride events. It emphasises that public bodies must ensure their actions do not create a perception of bias. The NHS could still engage with Pride in a neutral capacity, such as providing health services or safety support, as long as it avoids endorsing specific ideological positions. For example, staffing informational stalls without Pride insignia or ensuring staff participate in a personal capacity (not in uniform or with official branding) could align with the impartiality requirement.

There are broader considerations. Some argue that Pride has become politicised, particularly with slogans and symbols tied to contested issues like transgender rights, which could complicate NHS involvement. Others contend that supporting Pride is about promoting inclusivity for marginalised groups, like the LGBT+ community, and withdrawing could harm community trust, especially among those who feel underserved by healthcare systems.

The judgment, however, prioritises impartiality over these community engagement goals, suggesting that public bodies must tread carefully to avoid legal challenges.

The NHS may wish to reassess its approach to Pride participation, ensuring any involvement is strictly neutral, avoids ideological symbols, and prioritises its core mission of equitable healthcare delivery. It’s worth noting that the ruling’s scope is specific to the police, and no direct legal precedent applies to the NHS yet, but the principle of impartiality likely extends to other public bodies.

The NHS might also consider public consultation or clear guidelines to balance inclusivity with neutrality, especially given the ruling’s broader implications for public institutions.

Ultimately, the decision depends on how the NHS interprets its impartiality obligations and whether it can engage with Pride in a way that doesn’t signal taking sides in ideological debates.

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

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

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

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

Latest Articles ↓

Most Popular ↓

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

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

Categories
Law Legal Analysis

What is a Hung Jury ?

What is a Hung Jury

A hung jury refers to a situation in a criminal trial where the jury cannot reach a unanimous or majority verdict as required by law, resulting in a failure to deliver a conclusive decision on the defendant’s guilt or innocence.

Explanation of a Hung Jury

In England and Wales, juries in criminal trials typically consist of 12 jurors, though this number can reduce to as few as 9 due to illness or other exceptional circumstances.

For a verdict to be reached, the jury must either deliver a unanimous verdict (all jurors agree) or, after a minimum period of deliberation (usually at least two hours and ten minutes, as specified by the court), a majority verdict.

A majority verdict requires at least 10 jurors to agree (e.g., 10-2 or 11-1) when 12 jurors remain, or 9-1 if only 10 jurors remain, as outlined in the Juries Act 1974. A hung jury occurs when the jurors, even after extended deliberation, cannot achieve the required level of agreement. This deadlock means the jury is discharged by the judge without delivering a verdict, and the trial does not result in a conviction or acquittal.

Implications of a Hung Jury

When a jury is hung, the court typically discharges the jurors, and the case is referred back to the prosecution, usually the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS). The CPS then decides whether to pursue a retrial, based on factors such as the strength of the evidence, the seriousness of the offense, and the public interest.

According to CPS guidelines, a retrial is often sought if the prosecution believes a conviction is still likely and it serves the interests of justice CPS Retrial Guidance.

In some cases, if the evidence is weak or a retrial is deemed unlikely to succeed, the prosecution may choose not to proceed further, effectively halting the case. Alternatively, if a retrial is ordered, a new jury is empanelled, and the trial process begins anew, with the same or adjusted evidence presented.

Frequency and Causes of a Hung Jury

Hung juries are relatively rare in England and Wales due to the allowance of majority verdicts, which reduces the likelihood of deadlock compared to jurisdictions requiring unanimous verdicts.

Hung juries occur in a small percentage of cases, though exact figures vary year to year. Common reasons for a hung jury include conflicting evidence, complex legal issues, or differing juror perspectives on the case.

Legal Framework and Procedure

The process for handling juries, including hung juries, is governed by the Juries Act 1974 and supplemented by guidance in the Crown Court Compendium.

The Crown Court Compendium is a resource published by the Judicial College for judges presiding over criminal trials. The Compendium includes directions on jury management, such as how to handle deadlocked juries and when to give a “majority direction” or a “Watson direction” (based on R v Watson [1988] QB 650), which encourages jurors to reach a verdict without coercion.

Judges may provide additional directions to encourage jurors to reach a verdict, such as a “majority direction” after sufficient deliberation time, but they must avoid pressuring jurors unduly.

If a hung jury is declared, the judge discharges the jury, and the case is reviewed for further action. The Courts and Tribunals Service manages the procedural aspects of scheduling retrials or other proceedings.

In addition to the Juries Act 1974, which is the primary legislation governing jury composition, deliberations, and majority verdicts in England and Wales, other relevant legislation and legal frameworks may apply to the context of hung juries or related jury processes.

  • Criminal Justice Act 2003
    • This act introduced reforms to the criminal justice system, including provisions affecting jury trials. While it primarily focuses on evidence admissibility and sentencing, it also contains provisions that can influence retrials following a hung jury, such as rules on double jeopardy (Part 10, Sections 75–97). In rare cases, a hung jury in a serious offense may lead to a retrial under relaxed double jeopardy rules for certain offenses if new and compelling evidence emerges.
    • Relevance to Hung Juries: If a hung jury occurs and a retrial is pursued, the Criminal Justice Act 2003 may govern aspects of the retrial process, particularly for serious crimes.
  • Criminal Procedure Rules 2020
    • The Criminal Procedure Rules, issued by the Ministry of Justice, provide detailed procedural guidance for criminal trials, including jury management and the handling of hung juries. Part 25 of the Rules outlines procedures for trial conduct, including jury deliberations and what happens when a jury cannot reach a verdict.
    • Relevance to Hung Juries: These rules ensure that the court follows consistent procedures when discharging a hung jury and scheduling a retrial.
  • Contempt of Court Act 1981
    • This act regulates juror conduct and protects the integrity of jury deliberations. It prohibits jurors from disclosing details of their deliberations, which is relevant to hung juries as it ensures confidentiality even when a jury fails to reach a verdict. Breaches of this act (e.g., jurors researching cases online) can contribute to a hung jury or lead to a mistrial.
    • Relevance to Hung Juries: Misconduct by jurors, such as improper research or external influence, can result in a hung jury or jury discharge, governed by this legislation.
  • Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994
    • This act includes provisions related to jury tampering and juror intimidation (Sections 51–52), which can lead to a hung jury if jurors feel unable to deliberate freely. If tampering is suspected, the court may discharge the jury, effectively resulting in a hung jury scenario.
    • Relevance to Hung Juries: Ensures that external pressures do not improperly influence jury decisions, which could otherwise lead to a deadlock.

Impact on Defendants and Victims

A hung jury can be emotionally and financially taxing for all parties involved. Defendants may face prolonged uncertainty, while victims and witnesses may need to prepare for a retrial, potentially reliving traumatic experiences. The CPS considers these factors when deciding whether to pursue a retrial, balancing justice with practicality.

Conclusion

A hung jury in England and Wales represents a rare but significant outcome in criminal trials, reflecting the challenges of achieving consensus in complex cases.

Governed by clear legal frameworks like the Juries Act 1974 and CPS guidelines, the system ensures that hung juries are handled methodically, with retrials or case discontinuations decided in the interest of justice. For further information on jury processes or retrials, refer to the following resources:

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

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

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

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

Latest Articles ↓

Most Popular ↓

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

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

Categories
Law Legal Analysis Legal Professionals

Can a Judge Direct a Jury to Find a Defendant Not Guilty ?

Can a Judge Direct a Jury to Find a Defendant Not Guilty

In England and Wales, a judge in a crown court trial can decide on their own or direct a jury to find a defendant not guilty in specific circumstances, primarily when there is insufficient evidence to support a conviction. This is known as a directed acquittal.

Legal Basis and Crown Court Procedure

Pre-Trial Dismissal

Under Section 6 of the Criminal Justice Act 1987 (for serious or complex fraud cases) or Schedule 3 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (for other indictable offenses), the judge reviews written evidence and submissions without a hearing and may dismiss the charges, resulting in an acquittal.

The judge acts alone, without a jury, and the acquittal is formally recorded, barring further prosecution for the same offense (subject to the double jeopardy rule).

During Trial

A judge can direct an acquittal under Section 17 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 if, after the prosecution presents its case, the judge finds “no case to answer” because the evidence is so weak that no reasonable jury could convict. This often follows a defense submission at the close of the prosecution’s case.

  • The judge assesses whether the evidence is sufficient for a jury to properly convict. If it’s deemed insufficient (e.g., lacks key elements of the offense or is unreliable), the judge can direct the jury to return a not guilty verdict.
  • This is often seen in cases where the prosecution fails to establish a prima facie case or the evidence is legally inadmissible or too weak.
Abuse of Process

A judge may also dismiss a case if continuing it would be an abuse of process (e.g., due to unfairness or procedural irregularities), leading to a stay or acquittal.

Key Case Law

The test for a directed acquittal is based on R v Galbraith [1981] 1 WLR 1039, which sets out that a case should be stopped if:

  1. There is no evidence that the defendant committed the offense, or
  2. The prosecution’s evidence is so tenuous or inconsistent that a conviction would be unsafe.

Judge’s Role

The judge cannot direct a not guilty verdict simply because they personally believe the defendant is innocent. The decision must be based on the legal sufficiency of the evidence. If there’s enough evidence for a jury to consider, the case proceeds, and the jury decides the verdict.

Limitations

A judge cannot direct a jury to find a defendant guilty, as this would infringe on the jury’s role as the arbiter of facts (R v Wang [2005] UKHL 9).

  • Directed acquittals are rare and typically occur in clear-cut cases of evidential deficiency.

In summary, a judge in England and Wales can direct a jury to find a defendant not guilty if the prosecution’s case is legally insufficient, but this is a procedural safeguard rather than a subjective judgment on guilt or innocence.

What about a Magistrate ?

In England and Wales, a magistrate (or magistrates, as they often sit in panels of 3 in magistrates’ courts), or district judge does not direct a jury in the same way a judge does in a Crown Court, as magistrates’ courts do not have juries.

Instead, magistrates act as both the trier of law and fact in summary trials (less serious offenses). However, the concept of a directed acquittal or dismissing a case due to insufficient evidence still applies in magistrates’ courts, adapted to their context. Here’s a concise explanation:

Magistrates’ Role in Dismissing a Case

Magistrates or District Judge can dismiss a case if they find there is no case to answer, similar to a directed acquittal in a Crown Court. This happens when the prosecution’s evidence, at the close of their case, is insufficient for a conviction.

  • The defense may make a submission of no case to answer, arguing that the prosecution has failed to present enough evidence to prove the offense. The magistrates or District Judge then assess whether the evidence is sufficient to proceed.

Magistrate Legal Test

The same principles from R v Galbraith [1981] 1 WLR 1039 apply:

  1. If there is no evidence that the defendant committed the offense, the case must be dismissed.
  2. If the evidence is so weak, inconsistent, or unreliable that a conviction would be unsafe, the magistrates or district judge can stop the case.

Magistrates Court Procedure

In a magistrates’ court, if the prosecution’s case is deemed insufficient after their evidence is presented, the magistrates can dismiss the case without requiring the defense to present their case.

  • This is effectively equivalent to a judge directing a not guilty verdict in a Crown Court, but since magistrates or district judge are the decision-makers, they simply dismiss the case or acquit the defendant directly.

Key Differences from Crown Court

There is no jury in magistrates’ court cases, so magistrates do not “direct” a jury. They decide the outcome themselves.

  • Magistrates’ courts handle less serious offenses, so the threshold for dismissing a case may be applied more frequently due to simpler evidential issues.
  • Cases in a magistrates court are heard by either three magistrates or a district judge. 

Magistrate and District Judge Limitations

Like Crown Court judges, magistrates cannot dismiss a case based on their personal belief in the defendant’s innocence. The decision must be based on the legal insufficiency of the prosecution’s evidence.

  • If the evidence is sufficient to proceed, magistrates will hear the defense’s case and make a final decision on guilt or innocence.

In summary, a magistrate or district judge in England and Wales can effectively “direct” a not guilty outcome by dismissing a case or acquitting a defendant if the prosecution’s evidence is insufficient, following the same legal principles as in a directed acquittal in a Crown Court.

Check out our related articles on What is a Jury ?, 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.

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

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

Latest Articles ↓

Most Popular ↓

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

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

Categories
Law Legal Analysis

Is the Law Black and White ?

Is the Law Black and White

The binary phrase “black and white” suggests clarity, simplicity, and unambiguous boundaries. When applied to the law, it implies a system where rules are clear-cut, leaving no room for interpretation or debate.

However, the legal system is far from this binary ideal. While the law strives for certainty, its application often reveals a complex interplay of statutes, judicial discretion, and societal context, creating shades of grey that challenge the notion of absolute clarity.

At its core, the legal system of England and Wales is built on a foundation of statutes and common law.

Statutes, passed by Parliament, are designed to provide clear rules. For example, the Theft Act 1968 explicitly defines theft as the dishonest appropriation of property belonging to another with the intention to permanently deprive. On paper, this appears black and white: either an act meets these criteria, or it does not. Similarly, road traffic laws, such as the requirement to stop at a red light under the Road Traffic Act 1988, seem unequivocal. These laws aim to create predictability, ensuring citizens understand what is permissible.

Yet, the application of these laws reveals their complexity. Statutory interpretation often introduces ambiguity. Judges, tasked with applying laws to real-world cases, rely on principles like the literal rule, golden rule, or mischief rule to interpret statutes.

In R v Allen (1872) LR 1 CCR 367, the courts grappled with the meaning of “marriage” in the context of bigamy laws, showing how even seemingly clear terms can spark debate.

The Human Rights Act 1998 further complicates matters by requiring laws to align with European Convention rights, sometimes leading to reinterpretations that blur statutory clarity. This suggests the law is not a monolith but a living framework, shaped by judicial reasoning and societal values.

Common law, developed through judicial precedents, adds further nuance. Unlike statutes, common law evolves through case law, where judges interpret and adapt principles to new circumstances.

For example, in Donoghue v Stevenson (1932), the House of Lords established the modern law of negligence, introducing the “neighbour principle.” This precedent has since been refined across countless cases, demonstrating how the law adapts to changing societal norms. However, this flexibility can lead to uncertainty, as outcomes depend on judicial discretion and the specific facts of a case.

Discretion is another factor that undermines the black-and-white narrative. Judges, magistrates, and even police officers exercise discretion in interpreting and enforcing the law. Sentencing guidelines, for instance, provide ranges rather than fixed penalties, allowing judges to consider mitigating or aggravating factors.

In R v Dudley and Stephens (1884), a case involving shipwrecked sailors who resorted to cannibalism, the court weighed moral and legal questions, highlighting how context can complicate clear legal rules. Similarly, prosecutors decide whether to pursue charges based on public interest, adding another layer of subjectivity.

The influence of societal context further erodes the idea of a binary legal system. Laws reflect the values of their time, and as society evolves, so does the law. The legalisation of same-sex marriage under the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 illustrates how legal frameworks shift to align with changing norms. Public opinion, political pressures, and cultural shifts all influence how laws are drafted, interpreted, and enforced, introducing fluidity that defies rigid categorisation.

Moreover, the adversarial nature of the legal system in England and Wales ensures that opposing interpretations of the law are tested in court.

Barristers argue over the meaning of words, the intent of legislation, or the applicability of precedents, revealing the law’s inherent malleability. Even seemingly clear laws, like those governing murder, can lead to complex debates over defenses like provocation or diminished responsibility.

Statutory Interpretation Principles

In England and Wales, judges use statutory interpretation principles to clarify the meaning of legislation when applying it to cases. These principles, namely the literal rule, golden rule, and mischief rule, guide courts in resolving ambiguities in statutes. Below is an explanation of each:

  • Literal Rule:
    • Definition: The literal rule requires judges to apply the plain, ordinary, and literal meaning of the words in a statute, regardless of the outcome.
    • Purpose: Ensures judicial impartiality by sticking closely to the text as written by Parliament, respecting legislative intent.
    • Example: In Whiteley v Chappell (1868), the defendant was charged with impersonating a voter under a statute that prohibited impersonating “any person entitled to vote.” The defendant impersonated a deceased voter. The court applied the literal rule, finding that a deceased person is not “entitled to vote,” so the defendant was not guilty.
    • Criticism: This rule can lead to absurd or unjust outcomes if the literal meaning fails to account for practical realities or legislative intent.
  • Golden Rule:
    • Definition: The golden rule modifies the literal rule by allowing judges to depart from the literal meaning of words to avoid an absurd or unreasonable result, while still adhering closely to the text.
    • Purpose: Balances fidelity to statutory wording with preventing outcomes that defy common sense or the statute’s purpose.
    • Example: In Adler v George (1964), the defendant was charged under the Official Secrets Act 1920 for obstructing a guard “in the vicinity of” a prohibited place. The defendant argued he was inside, not “in the vicinity.” The court applied the golden rule, interpreting “in the vicinity” to include being within the place itself, avoiding an absurd loophole.
    • Types: The narrow approach adjusts the meaning to avoid absurdity; the broader approach (less common) considers the statute’s overall purpose.
  • Mischief Rule:
    • Definition: The mischief rule focuses on the problem or “mischief” the statute was intended to remedy. Judges interpret the statute to achieve its purpose, even if this means departing from the literal wording.
    • Purpose: Prioritises the legislative intent behind the law, ensuring it addresses the issue Parliament aimed to fix.
    • Example: In Smith v Hughes (1960), prostitutes soliciting from balconies were charged under a law prohibiting solicitation “in a street.” The court applied the mischief rule, finding that the law aimed to prevent public nuisance from solicitation, so the location (balcony or street) was irrelevant, and the defendants were guilty.
    • Framework (from Heydon’s Case (1584)): Courts consider (1) the common law before the statute, (2) the mischief the law failed to address, (3) the remedy Parliament intended, and (4) how to apply that remedy.

These rules are not mutually exclusive and are often used in conjunction, alongside other tools like the purposive approach (emphasising the statute’s broader purpose, especially in EU-related cases) or external aids (e.g., Hansard, law commission reports).

The choice of rule depends on the case and the need to balance clarity, fairness, and legislative intent. The literal rule prioritises textual fidelity, the golden rule avoids absurdity, and the mischief rule emphasises purpose, collectively ensuring the law adapts to real-world complexities while respecting parliamentary sovereignty.

Conclusion

While the law in England and Wales aspires to clarity, it is far from black and white. Statutes provide a framework, but judicial interpretation, common law evolution, discretion, and societal context introduce shades of grey. This complexity ensures the law remains adaptable but also underscores its inherent uncertainty. Rather than a rigid code, the law is a dynamic system, balancing predictability with the flexibility to address the nuances of human behaviour.

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

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

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

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

Latest Articles ↓

Most Popular ↓

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

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

Categories
Law Legal Analysis

Contra Mundum Injunction

Contra Mundum Injunction

A contra mundum (against everyone in the world) privacy injunction was granted to the Ministry of Defence on 1st September 2023 at the High Court by THE HON MR JUSTICE ROBIN KNOWLES CBE, the terms of which prevented the publication of the following  

(a) the fact of the release by someone working for the UK Government of a dataset containing personal information and contact details of persons who applied for relocation to the UK from Afghanistan following the Taliban coup in 2021; and

(b) the existence of the injunction itself.

On the 15th July 2025, THE HON. MR JUSTICE CHAMBERLAIN KC discharged the contra mundum privacy injunction.

Open justice is a cardinal constitutional principle, from which derogations can be justified only in exceptional circumstances.

THE HON. MR JUSTICE CHAMBERLAIN KC

Previous judgments of the High Court and the Court of Appeal in these proceedings were also published today with the High Court imposing a more limited injunction on an interim basis:

Ruling (01 September 2023)

Judgment 1 (23 November 2023)

Judgment 2 (15 February 2024)

Judgment 3 (21 May 2024)

Court of Appeal Judgment (26 July 2024)

Continuing Injunction (15 July 2025)

High Court discharges Government super-injunction after almost two years – John Bethell @ 11KBW Chambers

I wonder how many more super injunctions there are in existence ?!

Media Coverage

Inside the £7bn secret scramble to save lives after MoD data breach

After a leak at the Ministry of Defence, officials faced a race to keep up to 100,000 Afghans from the Taliban’s clutches – with two years of court fights and rescue plans projected to cost billions, all hidden from MPs and the public. Now, after the lifting of an unprecedented superinjunction, the full story can finally be told.

Holly Bancroft @ Independent

MoD blunder leads to £7billion government cover-up of Taliban ‘kill-list’

The government spent nearly two years using an unprecedented superinjunction to prevent the public from learning about a catastrophic Ministry of Defence data breach that exposed the personal details of thousands of Afghans who had worked with UK forces.

EJ Ward @ LBC

Thousands of Afghans relocated to UK under secret scheme after data leak

Conservative government used superinjuction to hide error that put Afghans at risk and led to £2bn mitigation scheme. The judge in the initial trial, Mr Justice Knowles, granted the application “contra mundum” – against the world – and ruled that its existence remain secret

The Guardian

Revealed after the Daily Mail’s two-year battle against superinjunction, the Government’s £7billion secret airlift as 18,500 Afghans are brought to Britain

A secret operation smuggling migrants TO Britain is being run by ministers who signed off the projected £7billion cost while a ‘superinjunction’ kept taxpayers and MPs in the dark.

SAM GREENHILL CHIEF REPORTER and DAVID WILLIAMS and MARK NICOL and MARTIN ROBINSON @ Daily Mail

Is a Contra Mundum Injunction Enforceable Against a “Foreign” Individual ?

A contra mundum injunction in England and Wales is an exceptional court order that applies to “the world at large” rather than specific named parties, binding anyone who has notice of it.

However, its enforceability against a foreign individual outside the jurisdiction of England and Wales is complex and limited.

Nature of a Contra Mundum Injunction
  • A contra mundum injunction is designed to prohibit certain actions (e.g., publishing specific information) by anyone who is aware of the order, regardless of whether they are a named party. It is typically used in rare cases, such as to protect privacy, prevent harm, or safeguard public interest (e.g., protecting the identities of individuals at risk, as in Venables v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2001] Fam 430).
  • The injunction operates in personam (against the person) and relies on the court’s authority to enforce compliance through contempt of court proceedings.
Jurisdictional Limits
  • Territorial Scope: The courts of England and Wales have jurisdiction primarily within their own territory. A contra mundum injunction is fully enforceable against individuals or entities within England and Wales who have notice of the order. However, enforcement against a foreign individual outside this jurisdiction is not straightforward.
  • Foreign Individuals: For a foreign individual to be bound, they must either:
    • Be physically present in England and Wales at the time the order is made or served.
    • Have a sufficient connection to the jurisdiction (e.g., assets, business operations, or voluntary submission to the court’s jurisdiction).
    • Be served with the injunction in a manner recognised by English law or the foreign jurisdiction’s laws.
Enforcement Abroad
  • No Direct Enforcement: English courts cannot directly enforce a contra mundum injunction in a foreign jurisdiction because their authority does not extend beyond England and Wales. Enforcement abroad depends on the cooperation of the foreign jurisdiction’s legal system.
  • Recognition of Judgments: For a contra mundum injunction to have effect against a foreign individual, the foreign court must recognise and enforce the English court’s order. This typically requires:
    • Reciprocal Agreements: Enforcement is easier in countries with reciprocal arrangements, such as Commonwealth nations under the Administration of Justice Act 1920 or the Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1933, or EU member states (pre-Brexit) under the Brussels Regulation. However, these regimes primarily apply to monetary judgments, not non-monetary orders like injunctions.
    • Common Law Recognition: In jurisdictions without reciprocal agreements (e.g., the USA), the foreign individual would need to be sued in their local court to obtain a new judgment based on the English injunction. The foreign court would assess whether the English court had jurisdiction and whether the order complies with local laws and public policy.
  • Non-Monetary Nature: Contra mundum injunctions are non-monetary (e.g., prohibiting publication or disclosure), which makes them unenforceable under common law or reciprocal enforcement regimes that typically cover monetary judgments only.
  • Public Policy and Comity: A foreign court may refuse to enforce the injunction if it conflicts with local laws, public policy, or principles of freedom of expression (especially in jurisdictions like the USA with strong First Amendment protections).
Practical Challenges
  • Notice Requirement: A contra mundum injunction binds those who have notice of it. Serving notice to a foreign individual can be difficult, especially if they are not easily identifiable or located. Even if served, the foreign individual may ignore the order if they are outside the reach of English courts.
  • Contempt of Court: If a foreign individual breaches the injunction while in England and Wales or through actions affecting the jurisdiction (e.g., publishing prohibited material accessible in England), they could face contempt proceedings if they enter the jurisdiction later. However, if they remain abroad, practical enforcement is unlikely unless the foreign jurisdiction cooperates.
  • Spycatcher Principle: Under the Spycatcher principle, third parties (including foreign individuals) who knowingly breach an injunction after receiving notice can be held in contempt. However, this is only effective if the individual is within the court’s reach or if the foreign jurisdiction recognises the contempt proceedings.

5. Examples and Precedents

  • In cases like Persons formerly known as Winch [2021] EWHC 1328, a contra mundum injunction was granted to protect the identities of a police informant and their family. The court emphasised its global effect but did not address enforcement abroad, focusing instead on notifying media within the jurisdiction.
  • In SAS Institute Inc v World Programming Ltd [2020] EWHC 2481, the English Court of Appeal granted an anti-enforcement injunction to prevent a US company from enforcing a US judgment in a way that interfered with English jurisdiction, showing that English courts can act to protect their authority but only within specific limits.
Conclusion

A contra mundum injunction from England and Wales is theoretically binding on a foreign individual if they have notice of it, but its practical enforceability abroad is highly limited.

Enforcement depends on the foreign jurisdiction’s willingness to recognise and uphold the order, which is unlikely for non-monetary injunctions unless there is a reciprocal agreement or the individual has a connection to England and Wales (e.g., presence, assets, or actions affecting the jurisdiction).

To pursue enforcement, the claimant would typically need to initiate new legal proceedings in the foreign jurisdiction, subject to local laws and public policy.

Check out our related articles on What Does Lady Justice Symbolise ?, Law Society, Law Commission, Solicitors, Solicitors Regulation Authority, Barristers, Bar Council of England and Wales, Bar Standards Board, Rule of Law, Open Justice, 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.

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

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

Latest Articles ↓

Most Popular ↓

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

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

Rule of Law - Open Justice - Policing By Consent