Category: Legal Professionals

Legal professionals study, develop and apply law

Categories
Civil Justice Criminal Justice Family Law Judiciary Legal Professionals

How to Complain about a Magistrate ?

Complain about a Magistrate

Magistrates (justice of the peace or JP) are essential to the UK’s justice system and preside over cases in magistrates’ courts.

Magistrates hear less serious criminal cases (summary offence and some either-way offences) like minor assaults, motoring offenses, theft, and minor criminal damage but they can also hear civil cases such as those involving council tax and child maintenance, and family court proceedings. Magistrates deal with the majority of criminal cases.

If you believe a magistrate’s conduct was inappropriate, you can make a complaint. The process is governed by specific legislation and rules, ensuring total transparency and accountability.

Members of the judiciary should seek to be courteous, patient, tolerant and punctual and should respect the dignity of all. They should ensure that no one is exposed to any display of bias or prejudice on grounds which include but are not to be limited to “race, colour, sex, religion, national origin, caste, disability, age, marital status, sexual orientation, social and economic status and other like causes

Guide to Judicial Conduct

This article provides a comprehensive guide to complaining about lay magistrates and district judges (magistrates’ courts) in the UK.

The Role of Magistrates

Magistrates include lay magistrates and district judges. Lay magistrates, per the Courts Act 2003, are unpaid community volunteers trained to handle minor criminal, family and civil cases.

District judges, appointed under the same Act, are salaried, legally qualified professionals managing complex cases full-time.

Complaints typically address conduct, not judicial decisions, which are subject to appeal under the Criminal Justice Act 2003 or Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 etc.

Grounds for a Complaint

The Judicial Conduct (Magistrates) Rules 2023 govern lay magistrate conduct, while district judges, as judicial officeholders, are subject to the Judicial Conduct Rules 2023 and the Judicial Discipline (Prescribed Procedures) Regulations 2023.

Both must adhere to the Guide to Judicial Conduct (revised July 2023), which sets ethical standards like impartiality and integrity. Complaints about either can include:

  • Rudeness, unprofessionalism, or dismissive behaviour in court breaching the Guide’s principles.
  • Apparent bias, prejudice, or discriminatory remarks potentially violating the Equality Act 2010.
  • Inappropriate personal conduct during hearings, such as failing to maintain decorum.
  • For district judges, additional concerns may include misuse of judicial authority or failure to uphold the professional standards in the Judicial Conduct Rules 2023.

Complaints about judicial decisions or case outcomes are not permitted; these require appeals to higher courts, such as the Crown Court or High Court, under the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 or Senior Courts Act 1981.

Complaints Process

Step 1: Gather Evidence

A robust complaint requires:

  • Details of the incident (date, time, court location).
  • The magistrate’s name (lay or district judge) or description.
  • A factual account of the behaviour.
  • Witness names and contact details.

The need for clear evidence aligns with guidelines from the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office (JCIO) and Advisory Committees.

Step 2: Submit to the Correct Authority

The complaints process varies by magistrate type, per the Constitutional Reform Act 2005.

  • Lay Magistrates: Complaints go to the local Advisory Committee under the Judicial Conduct (Magistrates) Rules 2023. Find contact details via the magistrates’ court or gov.uk. Submit a formal letter or email with your name, contact details, incident description, evidence, and desired outcome (e.g., investigation or apology). Complaints should be lodged within three months.
  • District Judges: Complaints are submitted directly to the JCIO under the Judicial Conduct Rules 2023 and Judicial Discipline (Prescribed Procedures) Regulations 2023, via their online portal (complaints.judicialconduct.gov.uk) or post, with the same detailed requirements.

Ensure submissions are polite and concise.

Step 3: Investigation Process

For lay magistrates, the Advisory Committee investigates under the Judicial Conduct (Magistrates) Rules 2023, reviewing records and interviewing parties confidentially.

For district judges, the JCIO investigates under the Judicial Conduct Rules 2023.

Outcomes, which may include retraining or removal, are authorised by the Lord Chancellor and Lord Chief Justice under the Constitutional Reform Act 2005.

Step 4: Escalating the Complaint

For lay magistrates, if dissatisfied with the Advisory Committee’s response, request a JCIO review within 28 days (or sooner if the process exceeds six months), per the Judicial Conduct (Magistrates) Rules 2023. You should submit prior correspondence via the JCIO’s portal.

For district judges, the JCIO’s decision is final, though clarification can be sought.

Additionally, if you believe the JCIO mishandled the process (e.g., procedural errors, delays, or failure to follow the Regulations), you can escalate to the Judicial Appointments and Conduct Ombudsman (JACO) within 28 days of the JCIO’s decision.

Step 5: Seek Legal Advice

For complex issues or case outcome impacts, consult a solicitor about appeals or judicial review under the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 or Senior Courts Act 1981.

Judicial Complaints Disciplinary Outcomes

The Judicial Conduct Investigations Office (JCIO) publishes statements on its website when a disciplinary sanction is issued to a judicial office holder. 

Complaints about lay magistrates from 2025/2026 are below (as of 21st October 2025).

For other judicial holders and up to date disciplinary statements visit the JCIO Disciplinary Statements page or the Dodgy Judges article on this site.

Summary

Complaints about lay magistrates follow the Judicial Conduct (Magistrates) Rules 2023, while district judge complaints adhere to the Judicial Conduct Rules 2023 and Judicial Discipline (Prescribed Procedures) Regulations 2023, with both guided by the Guide to Judicial Conduct.

Submit lay magistrate complaints to the Advisory Committee and district judge complaints to the JCIO. Provide clear evidence and act promptly. Check gov.uk or the JCIO website for details.

Check out our related articles on Chief Magistrate, Judiciary, Dodgy Magistrates, Rule of Law, Open Justice, Is the Law Black and White ?, Abuse of Process, What Does Lady Justice Symbolise ?, McKenzie Friend, Law Society, Law Commission, McKenzie Friend Right of Audience, Solicitors, Solicitors Regulation Authority, Barristers, Bar Council of England and Wales, Bar Standards Board, R v Sussex Justices, Police Impartiality and the highly questionable Sussex Family Justice Board.

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

Latest Articles ↓

Most Popular ↓

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

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

Categories
Judiciary Legal Professionals

Social Media Guidance and the Judiciary

Social Media Guidance and the Judiciary

Having read the disciplinary statement from the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office in relation to Ms Nicola Baldwin JP JCIO 44/25 dated 3rd October 2025, the statement includes :-

“The Social Media Guidance 2024 advises judicial office holders not to use their official title or disclose their judicial role on any platform or account with unrestricted public access.”

The complaint also alleged that Ms Baldwin referred to her position as a magistrate on her employer’s website, her email signature, and her social media account for personal gain.”

Mr Justice Keehan, on behalf of the Lady Chief Justice, and the Lord Chancellor agreed with advice from the JCIO that Ms Baldwin’s actions could have risked reputational damage to the magistracy.

Why do numerous judges and magistrates still maintain publicly accessible LinkedIn profiles that display their judicial titles and roles, despite the advice contained in the Social Media Guidance for the Judiciary ?

LinkedIn is widely considered to be a social media platform.

Allegedly (according to Grok) The Social Media Guidance for the Judiciary explicitly lists LinkedIn as a social media platform

A quick google search for linkedin district judge or linkedin circuit judge or linkedin tribunal judge or linkedin magistrate returns numerous judges and magistrates not following the guidance.

For example the top 2 results for each judiciary search :-

Grok says there are 28 verified judges (salaried or fee-paid) from England and Wales with active, public LinkedIn profiles as of the 7th October 2025.

This number does not seem accurate as the google searches above return additional results. Needless to say the number of judiciary that don’t follow the guidance is quite high. What other rules or guidance is not followed by members of the judiciary ?

NameJudicial RoleLocationLinkedIn ProfileNotes
Chris MillsDeputy District JudgeUnited Kingdomhttps://uk.linkedin.com/in/chris-mills-84630718Ministry of Justice; civil and family law focus; limited public details.
Alexander JacobsCircuit Judge (Crown Court at Wood Green)United Kingdomhttps://www.linkedin.com/in/alexander-jacobs-a2442834/Ministry of Justice UK; 499 connections; criminal law focus.
Peter CookeCircuit Judge (Derby Crown Court)United Kingdomhttps://uk.linkedin.com/in/peter-cooke-6a07111bHandles criminal and civil matters; experienced in Crown Court.
Mushtaq KhokharHis Honour JudgeGreater Leeds Areahttps://www.linkedin.com/in/mushtaq-khokhar-56290848/Ministry of Justice UK; 64 connections.
Michael Evans KCHis Honour JudgeUnited Kingdomhttps://www.linkedin.com/in/michael-evans-kc-b9337b4a/Judicial Office; King’s Counsel in serious crime cases.
Petey WrightHis Honour Judge WrightHemel Hempsteadhttps://www.linkedin.com/in/petey-wright-30987031/UK Department of Justice; 1 connection; limited activity.
Geoffrey PayneCircuit Judge (Bencher, Inner Temple)Londonhttps://www.linkedin.com/in/geoffrey-payne-89306964/Ministry of Justice UK; Inns of Court alum.
Amy SevierDistrict JudgeUnited KingdomRemoved 08/07/26Ministry of Justice UK; Durham University alum; 310 connections.
John LinwoodDeputy Master (Chancery Division, High Court)Londonhttps://www.linkedin.com/in/john-linwood-454320a8/Ministry of Justice UK; Newcastle University alum.
Helen RimingtonDistrict Judge & Tribunal Judge (Mental Health Tribunal)Greater LondonRemoved 29/04/26Ministry of Justice; 11 connections.
Julian AllsopDeputy District Judge (Civil)United Kingdomhttps://www.linkedin.com/in/julian-allsop-923b9264/Ministry of Justice UK; employment law specialist.
Morris, HH JudgeHis Honour Judge (H.M. Circuit Judge)Cardiffhttps://www.linkedin.com/in/morris-hhjudge-80a98823/1 connection; limited details.
John WoollardDistrict Judge (Magistrates’ Courts) & RecorderUnited Kingdomhttps://uk.linkedin.com/in/john-woollard-8202815Highbury Corner Magistrates’ Court & Barnet Family Court; mental health tribunal work.
Ross JohnsonCircuit Judge (Crown Court at Luton)LondonRemoved 08/05/26Former District Judge (MC) and Recorder; 128 connections; criminal defence background.
Jonathan RoseCircuit JudgeUnited Kingdomhttps://uk.linkedin.com/in/jonathan-rose-5b688587Ministry of Justice (MOJ); civil and family jurisdiction.
Peter HuntDeputy Circuit JudgeUnited Kingdomhttps://uk.linkedin.com/in/peter-hunt-283832abMinistry of Justice; focuses on tribunal and county court cases.
Mark BrownCircuit JudgeUnited Kingdomhttps://uk.linkedin.com/in/mark-brown-7a924463UK Department of Health (judicial role via MOJ); health and social care tribunals.
Rebecca FryHead Judicial Assistant (Supreme Court; former judge support role)Londonhttps://uk.linkedin.com/in/rebecca-fry-52127324UK Supreme Court; barrister with judicial advisory experience; Oxford alum; 500+ connections.
Niko PavlopoulosJudicial Assistant (Supreme Court)United Kingdomhttps://www.linkedin.com/in/niko-pavlopoulos/UK Supreme Court; UCL alum; 500+ connections; supports Justices on appeals.
Kamran ChoudhryCircuit Judge (St Albans Crown Court)United KingdomRemoved 11/05/26Recent appointment (2025); South Eastern Circuit; former barrister at Garden Court Chambers.
Abbas MithaniCircuit JudgeUnited KingdomRemoved 09/06/26Specialist in commercial and insolvency; Queen’s Counsel background.
David Hodge KCSpecialist Civil Senior Circuit JudgeLeedsRemoved 19/03/26Business & Property Courts; appointed 2005; Leeds-based.
Paul AyersDistrict Judge (Magistrates’ Courts)United Kingdomhttps://uk.linkedin.com/in/paul-ayers-104b991a9Ministry of Justice UK; focuses on criminal cases in magistrates’ courts.
Karen Walden-SmithDesignated Civil Judge & Deputy High Court JudgeUnited KingdomRemoved 27/05/26Circuit Judge with High Court authorisation; civil jurisdiction specialist.
Anne MolyneuxCircuit JudgeNorth West EnglandRemoved 08/07/26Recorder background; featured in JAC case studies on judicial careers.
Joanne CloughDeputy Upper Tribunal Judge (Administrative Appeals Chamber)United KingdomRemoved 03/08/26Fee-paid First-tier Tribunal Judge; social entitlement chamber focus.
Ayesha SiddiqiRecorder & Solicitor JudgeManchesterRemoved 11/05/26Diversity in judiciary advocate; featured in Law Society webinars.

What is the Social Media Guidance for the Judiciary ?

The Social Media Guidance for the judiciary is unpublished externally but referenced in the Guide to Judicial Conduct published by the Courts and Tribunal Judiciary.

There does not appear to be a copy available in the public domain. Why ?

Media Guidance and Social Media Guidance for the judiciary have been updated with the latest versions

Guide to Judicial Conduct – Revised July 2023

Page 16 of the Guide to Judicial Conduct dated July 2023 has a URL for the Social Media Guidance for the Judiciary published on the judiciary intranet

https://intranet.judiciary.uk/2021/05/11/launch-of-new-socialmedia-guidance-for-the-judiciary/

Page 22 of the Guide to Judicial Conduct states :-

“judicial office holders should not use their judicial title on social media and it is most unlikely to be appropriate to disclose the fact of their judicial role on any platform or account with unrestricted public access.”

The Social Media Guidance for the Judiciary guidance was updated and circulated in October 2024 (replacing the 2021 version) to address evolving risks from social media use by judicial office holders, including salaried judges, tribunal members, coroners, and magistrates.

The Social Media Guidance for the Judiciary guidance was prompted by recent disciplinary cases, such as the formal warning issued to Deputy Senior District Judge Tanweer Ikram in June 2024 for breaching social media rules by liking a post on LinkedIn, which led to widespread complaints and reputational harm to the judiciary.

The nominated judge found that Judge Ikram had breached the Social Media Guidance for the judiciary by identifying himself as a judge on LinkedIn.

STATEMENT FROM THE JUDICIAL CONDUCT INVESTIGATIONS OFFICE –  Deputy Senior District Judge Tanweer Ikram

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

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

Latest Articles ↓

Most Popular ↓

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

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

Categories
Criminal Justice Law Legal Professionals Police

What is the Criminal Justice Secure eMail (CJSM) System ?

Criminal Justice Secure eMail (CJSM) System

The Criminal Justice Secure eMail (CJSM) is a secure group email service available to any justice organisation or practitioner that needs to send or receive sensitive information.

A typical CJSM secure email address might have the format [email protected].

CJSM has been in operation for over 20 years and enables information up to the “OFFICIAL” and “OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE” classification levels to be communicated between assured organisations, both in the public and private sector, such as the Crown Prosecution Service, victim support organisations, the police, probation, legal representatives, healthcare, private prisons and others.

The CJSM (Criminal Justice Secure eMail) service has over 660,000 users, 8,000+ organisations and handles over 50 million messages annually across the UK justice system.

It also offers:

  • a direct connection to central government departments, police and NHS
  • an onboarding and assurance process to provide high levels of security
  • the most complete directory of justice professionals
  • administration tools so organisations can manage their own users
  • a dedicated helpdesk
CJSM – Secure, seamless communication across the justice community

As of the 1st October 2025, Egress Software Technologies (often referred to as Egress Systems or Egress) continues to run the Criminal Justice Secure Mail (CJSM) service for the Ministry of Justice.

Egress have managed the platform since taking over from Vodafone in 2019 and they handle operational delivery, support, and integrations for secure communications in the UK criminal justice system.

It is believed that the Criminal Justice Secure Mail (CJSM) service relies on a combination of proprietary and standard software components including the open source Haraka SMTP Server. The MoJ tender reveals that the existing CJSM service is hosted on MS Azure and hosted mailboxes are on Dovecot.

CJSM used to publish a number of useful guides for the Criminal Justice Secure Mail (CJSM) service. Webmail quick reference guide, Multi-factor authentication guide, CJSM Defend guide and CJSM Website Enhancements 2025 were removed in February 2026

The Ministry of Justice maintains an open microsite for CJSM at: https://github.com/ministryofjustice/cjsm

  • This repo includes various guides/documents under the /training or /downloads folders

You can contact the CJSM Helpdesk on 020 7604 5598. Lines are open every weekday 8am-7pm. Or email [email protected]

The Judiciary of England and Wales use Microsoft 365 for email. Can you Email a Judge ?

How to Get a CJSM Account ?

To obtain a Criminal Justice Secure Mail (CJSM) account, you must be part of an organization involved in the UK criminal justice system, as the service is not available to the general public. You can request access at the CJSM website at https://cjsm.net.

The CJSM application was rejected for the Ministry of Injustice so I setup my own CJSM email address [email protected]

If you have arrived at the Ministry of Injustice from https://cjsm.uk (MOI domain) you may well have been looking for https://cjsm.net which is the official website for The Criminal Justice Secure eMail (CJSM).

Is CJSM Secure ?

The Criminal Justice Secure Mail (CJSM) service is designed to be secure for its intended purpose, transmitting sensitive information up to the “OFFICIAL” and “OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE” classification levels within the UK criminal justice system.

However, its security has been debated due to historical issues and the evolving nature of cyber threats.

Security Strengths
  • End-to-End Encryption: CJSM uses dedicated servers to encrypt emails and attachments (up to 10MB) between registered users, ensuring data confidentiality during transmission. This aligns with UK government standards for handling sensitive justice-related data.
  • Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA): Access to the CJSM portal requires MFA, reducing the risk of unauthorized logins.
  • Restricted Access: Only approved organizations (e.g., police, courts, legal firms) can register, with strict vetting processes. This limits exposure to external threats.
  • Operational Oversight by Egress: Since Egress took over in 2019, they’ve addressed some legacy vulnerabilities (e.g., outdated protocols like RC4 and SSLv3 used under Vodafone). Egress’s expertise in secure email and compliance with ISO 27001 and Cyber Essentials Plus bolsters trust.
  • No Major Breaches Reported: Despite past concerns, no significant data breaches have been publicly documented, indicating functional security for its scope.
  • Policy Safeguards: CJSM prohibits storing emails on unapproved cloud services and restricts overseas access, minimizing data leakage risks.
Historical Security Issues (Pre-2019)

When Vodafone managed CJSM, security flaws were flagged in 2015, raising concerns that persist in discussions about the system’s legacy:

  • Outdated Encryption: Reliance on RC4 (a weak cipher) and SSLv2/SSLv3 protocols, vulnerable to attacks like POODLE.
  • Weak Certificates: Use of a self-signed 1024-bit RSA key, inadequate for modern standards.
  • Poor SSL/TLS Rating: An “F” grade from SSL Labs due to insecure cipher suites, prompting some organizations to block CJSM traffic.
  • Audit Gaps: Ineffective penetration testing failed to address these vulnerabilities promptly. While Egress has likely mitigated these (e.g., upgrading to stronger TLS protocols), specific technical details post-2019 are not publicly disclosed, as is typical for government systems.

Tender and the Transition to Cross Justice Secure Mail (CJSM Replacement)

While Egress operates the current CJSM, the UK Ministry of Justice (MoJ) is actively procuring a new system called Cross Justice Secure Mail to replace it. This upgrade aims to modernise secure email, file encryption and disaster recovery across justice partners.

The tender for Cross Justice Secure Mail (CJSM), the replacement for the existing Criminal Justice Secure Mail (CJSM) service, was issued by the UK Ministry of Justice (MoJ).

It aims to procure a modernized secure email, file encryption, and disaster recovery platform to support over 500,000 users across the criminal justice system in England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland.

The procurement follows a selective restricted procedure under the Procurement Act 2023, with submissions via the MoJ’s Jaggaer eSourcing Portal.

Key Timeline
  • Procurement Launch: November 8th 2024
  • Tender Submission Deadline: December 13th 2024 (bids closed)
  • Contract Award: Expected in late 2025
  • Implementation Phase: Up to 12 months, starting October 27th 2025
  • Live Service Phase: 60 months (5 years), from October 2026 to October 2031
  • Extensions: Up to 24 months (two 12-month periods), for a maximum total of 8 years
Contract Value
  • Estimated Total: £26–30 million (depending on final scope)
  • Influencing Factors:
    • Tendered prices and implementation plans
    • Uptake of optional services
    • Extension options exercised
    • Participation by additional contracting authorities (e.g., police, courts, probation services)

As of the 1st October 2025, the evaluation phase is ongoing with no award of contract announced yet.

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.

Latest Articles ↓

Most Popular ↓

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

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

Categories
Criminal Justice Law Legal Analysis Legal Professionals

What is a Defendant’s Costs Order ?

Defendants Costs Order

A Defendant’s Costs Order (DCO) under Section 16 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985, is a court order that enables a defendant who is found not guilty (or whose case is dismissed) to reclaim reasonable expenses they incurred while defending themselves in court.

These costs can include legal fees, travel expenses or other out-of-pocket costs directly related to the case.

Key Provisions of Section 16 Prosecution of Offences Act 1985

Section 16 of the Act provides the legal framework for courts to award costs to acquitted defendants. The main points are:

  1. Eligibility:
    • The defendant must be acquitted of the charges or have the case against them discontinued/dismissed.
    • The order typically applies to defendants who privately funded their defense. If legal aid was used, a DCO is generally not applicable, as the state already covered legal costs.
  2. Types of Costs Recoverable:
    • Legal costs: Fees paid to solicitors or barristers for representation.
    • Out-of-pocket expenses: Costs like travel to court, accommodation (if necessary), or loss of earnings due to court attendance.
    • Costs must be deemed reasonable and directly related to the defense.
  3. Court’s Discretion:
    • The court has the authority to decide whether to grant a DCO and how much to award.
    • Factors considered include:
      • Whether the prosecution acted unreasonably in bringing or conducting the case (e.g., insufficient evidence or procedural errors).
      • The financial impact on the defendant.
      • The reasonableness of the costs claimed.
    • If the prosecution’s case was reasonable, even if it failed, the court may refuse to award costs.
  4. Funding Source:
    • Costs awarded under a DCO are typically paid from central funds (government funds), not by the prosecution directly unless specific misconduct by the prosecution is identified.

Criminal Practice Directions

The Criminal Practice Directions 2023 (CPD) provide guidance on the application of the Criminal Procedure Rules in England and Wales, including how costs, such as a Defendant’s Costs Order (DCO) under Section 16 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985, are handled in criminal cases.

Specifically, Practice Direction (Costs in Criminal Proceedings) 2015 sections 2.1 (Magistrates Court), 2.2 (Crown Court), 2.3 (High Court) and 2.4 (Court of Appeal – Criminal Division) addresses the principles for awarding costs from central funds in criminal proceedings.

Application Process

  • When to Apply: The application for a DCO is usually made by the defendant or their legal representative at the end of the trial, immediately after the acquittal.
  • Evidence Required: The defendant must provide evidence of costs, such as invoices for legal fees, travel receipts, or proof of lost earnings.
  • Court Decision: The magistrates will review the application and decide whether to grant the order and what amount is reasonable. The awarded amount may not cover all expenses if some are deemed excessive.

Limitations

  • Not Automatic: A DCO is not guaranteed, even if acquitted. The court may refuse if it believes the prosecution acted appropriately or if costs are not sufficiently justified.
  • Reasonable Costs Only: The court will only cover costs considered proportionate and necessary. Extravagant legal fees or unrelated expenses are unlikely to be reimbursed.
  • No Punitive Element: The DCO is meant to compensate, not punish the prosecution, so awards are limited to actual losses.

Practical Considerations

  • Privately Funded Defendants: Those who paid for their own defense are the primary beneficiaries. If you used legal aid, you typically cannot claim additional costs under a DCO.
  • Magistrates’ Court Context: In magistrates’ courts, where cases are often less complex than in Crown Courts, the costs claimed are usually lower, but the principles of Section 16 still apply.
  • Appeals: If a DCO is refused or the amount awarded is insufficient, there may be limited grounds to appeal, typically requiring evidence of a legal error by the court.

Example Scenario

If you were charged with a minor offense (e.g., a traffic violation) in a magistrates’ court, hired a private solicitor, and were acquitted, you could apply for a DCO to recover your solicitor’s fees and travel costs to court.

If the court finds that the prosecution’s case was weak or improperly brought, they may award costs from central funds, but only up to an amount they deem reasonable.

Additional Notes

  • Time Limits: Applications for a DCO should be made promptly, typically at the hearing where the acquittal is granted, though courts may allow later applications in exceptional cases.
  • Legal Advice: A solicitor can help calculate and justify costs to maximize the chances of a successful DCO application.
  • Other Jurisdictions: This explanation applies to England and Wales. Rules in Scotland, Northern Ireland, or other jurisdictions may differ.

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

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

Latest Articles ↓

Most Popular ↓

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

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

Categories
Legal Professionals

Should a Barrister of England and Wales that Lies on their CV be Disbarred ?

Barrister CV Liar

In England and Wales, barristers are regulated professionals bound by strict ethical standards outlined in version 5.0 of the Bar Standards Board (BSB) Handbook.

Lying on a CV by a barrister risks serious professional and criminal consequences, but whether such misconduct warrants disbarment depends on the nature, intent and impact of the deception.

This article examines whether a barrister who falsifies their CV should be disbarred.

What is Disbarment ?

Disbarment is the formal process by which a barrister is stripped of their professional status and prohibited from practising as a barrister in England and Wales.

It is overseen by the Bar Standards Board (BSB), the regulatory body for barristers, through its Disciplinary Tribunal. When a barrister is disbarred, their name is removed from the Bar’s register, and they lose the right to represent clients in court, provide legal advice as a barrister, or hold themselves out as a member of the profession.

Disbarment is permanent unless the barrister successfully appeals or applies for readmission after a significant period, which is rare and subject to stringent conditions.

Ethical Standards and Duties

Barristers are governed by the Bar Standards Board Core Duties, particularly Core Duty 3 (acting with honesty and integrity) and Core Duty 5 (not behaving in a way that diminishes public trust in the profession).

Falsifying a CV, whether to secure pupillage, tenancy in chambers, or client instructions, breaches these duties. The severity of the lie determines the sanction. Minor exaggerations, such as overstating involvement in a case or inflating academic grades, may lead to disciplinary measures like fines, reprimands or suspension.

However, significant falsehoods, such as fabricating academic qualifications, professional credentials, or Bar membership are considered grave misconduct, potentially justifying disbarment especially if they enable unqualified practice or harm clients.

Bar Standards Board Disciplinary Process

The BSB Disciplinary Process is designed to investigate complaints against barristers and impose sanctions for breaches of the BSB Handbook, particularly Core Duties like honesty and integrity (Core Duty 3) and maintaining public trust (Core Duty 5).

Misconduct, such as falsifying a CV, can trigger this process if it undermines a barrister’s fitness to practise or the profession’s reputation.

The process is transparent, independent, and aims to protect the public while ensuring fairness for the barrister. It involves several stages, from receiving a complaint to potential tribunal hearings and sanctions, including disbarment for serious cases.

Stage 1: Receiving and Assessing Complaints

The process begins when the BSB receives a complaint, which may come from clients, colleagues, employers, courts, or the public.

For example, a complaint might allege a barrister misrepresented qualifications on their CV to secure pupillage or tenancy. The BSB’s Professional Conduct Department assesses whether the complaint raises a potential breach of the BSB Handbook.

Minor issues may be resolved informally or dismissed if they lack evidence.

If the complaint suggests serious misconduct, such as fabricating credentials, it proceeds to investigation. The BSB may also initiate investigations without a formal complaint if it becomes aware of potential misconduct such as through media reports or regulatory checks.

Complaint made to Bar Standards Board about a Barrister Lying on Their CV – 18th September 2025
Stage 2: Investigation

During the investigation, the BSB gathers evidence, which may include documents, witness statements or the barrister’s response.

For a CV-related lie, this could involve verifying academic records, professional qualifications, or employment history. The BSB may contact universities, employers, or chambers to confirm the accuracy of the barrister’s claims.

The barrister is given an opportunity to respond to the allegations. The investigation determines whether there is sufficient evidence to refer the case to a Disciplinary Tribunal or resolve it through alternative means, such as an administrative sanction (e.g., a fine or warning for minor breaches).

Stage 3: Disciplinary Tribunal

If the investigation finds evidence of serious misconduct, the case is referred to an independent Disciplinary Tribunal, administered by the Bar Tribunals and Adjudication Service (BTAS).

The tribunal, typically comprising a legally qualified chair and lay members, hears evidence from both the BSB and the barrister. For a CV lie, the tribunal assesses factors like the severity of the deception (e.g., exaggerating case experience versus fabricating a degree), intent, harm caused (to clients, courts, or competitors) and the barrister’s remorse or corrective actions.

The BSB Sanctions Guidance treats dishonesty as an aggravating factor, and tribunals may impose sanctions ranging from reprimands to disbarment.

Sanctions and Outcomes

Sanctions depend on the misconduct’s severity. Minor CV exaggerations might result in fines, reprimands, or temporary suspension, while serious falsehoods, like practising without qualifications, could lead to disbarment, removing the barrister from the profession.

The tribunal’s decision balances proportionality with the need to protect the public and uphold professional standards. Decisions are often published on the BSB and BTAS websites, reinforcing transparency.

Barristers can appeal to the High Court, but successful appeals are rare without procedural errors or new evidence.

Impact of the Lie

The consequences of the lie are critical in determining the sanction or criminal proceedings for fraud.

If the falsehood directly affects the administration of justice, for example, by misleading courts or clients about expertise, it is more likely to result in severe penalties, including disbarment.

Even if the lie is confined to a CV used to secure pupillage or employment, it remains serious, as it may deprive others of opportunities and undermine trust in the selection process.

(1) A person is in breach of this section if he—

(a) dishonestly makes a false representation, and

(b) intends, by making the representation—

(i) to make a gain for himself or another, or

(ii) to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.

(2) A representation is false if—

(a) it is untrue or misleading, and

(b) the person making it knows that it is, or might be, untrue or misleading.

Fraud by false representation – Fraud Act 2006 – Section 2

Public confidence in the legal profession is paramount, and the BSB prioritises protecting this trust. Dishonesty, even outside direct practice, risks tarnishing the profession’s reputation particularly if it becomes public knowledge.

Precedents and Proportionality

BSB disciplinary findings provide examples of outcomes. In severe cases, such as a barrister practising without proper qualifications, disbarment is common to safeguard the public and uphold professional standards. Less egregious cases, where no direct harm occurs, might result in suspension or conditions on practice.

Barrister Anurag Mohindru KC a ‘brilliantly successful’ barrister has been disbarred for lying that he studied at Oxford – Daily Mail – 15/09/25

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

Tribunals aim to balance proportionality with deterrence, ensuring sanctions reflect the misconduct’s severity while discouraging future breaches.

Conclusion

A barrister who lies on their CV should face disbarment if the deception is serious, intentional, and undermines their fitness to practise or public trust in the profession.

Minor or unintentional misrepresentations are more likely to attract lesser sanctions, such as fines or suspension. The BSB Disciplinary Tribunal makes the final determination based on evidence and context.

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

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

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

Latest Articles ↓

Most Popular ↓

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

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

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

What is a Wasted Costs Order ?

Wasted Costs Order

In the legal system of England and Wales, a wasted costs order is a mechanism used by courts to address improper, unreasonable, or negligent conduct by legal representatives that results in unnecessary costs in criminal, civil or family proceedings.

This article explains what a wasted costs order is, how it applies and its significance in ensuring fairness and efficiency in the judicial process.

Definition of a Wasted Costs Order

A wasted costs order is a court order that requires a legal representative—such as a solicitor, barrister, or other advocate—to personally bear the costs incurred due to their improper, unreasonable, or negligent conduct.

These costs may be payable to the opposing party, their own client, or, in criminal cases, sometimes to public funds (e.g., the Legal Aid Agency).

The concept is governed by Section 19A of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 for criminal cases, Section 51(6) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 for civil cases and family cases.

Further guidance provided by the Criminal Procedure Rules 2010 (CrimPR 45.8 and CrimPR 45.9), Civil Procedure Rules (CPR 46.8 and Practice Direction 46) and Family Procedure Rules (FPR 28.1), which incorporate CPR 46.8.

“Wasted costs” refer to expenses incurred unnecessarily as a direct result of a legal representative’s conduct, which could have been avoided had they acted appropriately.

This distinguishes wasted costs orders from standard cost orders, which typically arise from the outcome of a case rather than the behaviour of legal professionals.

When Can a Wasted Costs Order Be Made ?

The court has discretion to issue a wasted costs order in both civil and criminal proceedings, but it must satisfy a strict two-stage test, as established in Ridehalgh v Horsefield [1994] Ch 205 for civil cases and reflected in criminal case law such as R v P [2011] EWCA Crim 1130. The two stages are:

  1. Improper, Unreasonable, or Negligent Conduct: The court must determine that the legal representative’s actions were improper, unreasonable, or negligent. For example:
    • Improper conduct includes dishonest or unethical behaviour, such as deliberately misleading the court or pursuing a baseless case.
    • Unreasonable conduct involves actions that are vexatious or misguided, such as persisting with a hopeless defence or prosecution in a criminal case.
    • Negligent conduct refers to failing to meet the standard of care expected of a competent legal professional, such as missing court deadlines or failing to prepare adequately.
  2. Causation of Wasted Costs: The court must be satisfied that the conduct directly caused unnecessary costs. For instance, if a barrister’s failure to advise a defendant properly in a criminal case leads to an unnecessary hearing, the costs of that hearing may be deemed “wasted.”

Courts exercise significant caution when issuing wasted costs orders due to their serious professional and financial implications for legal representatives. The burden of proof lies with the party seeking the order (or the court, if acting on its own initiative), and the threshold for proving misconduct is high.

Making an Application in Criminal, Civil and Family Proceedings

Criminal Proceedings

In criminal cases, wasted costs orders are addressed under Section 19A of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 and CrimPR 45.8 (which covers costs resulting from unnecessary or improper acts or omissions) and CrimPR 45.9 (which specifically deals with applications for wasted costs orders against legal representatives). These orders can apply to both prosecution and defence counsel and may involve costs payable to the opposing party, the client, or public funds (e.g., legal aid). Examples of conduct leading to wasted costs in criminal cases include:

  • A prosecution lawyer pursuing a case without sufficient evidence, causing unnecessary court hearings.
  • A defence lawyer failing to advise a client properly, leading to a trial that could have been avoided through a guilty plea or withdrawal.
  • Missing procedural deadlines, resulting in wasted court time or resources.

For instance, in R v Farooqi [2013] EWCA Crim 1649, the Court of Appeal considered a wasted costs order against a barrister whose conduct was deemed improper, though the order was ultimately not imposed due to procedural issues.

The Criminal Procedure Rule Committee and Ministry of Justice publish the Application for a wasted, etc. costs order under CrimPR 45.8, 45.9 or 45.10 form which must be served on the court and other parties.

Civil Proceedings

In civil cases, wasted costs orders are governed by CPR 46.8 and Section 51(6) of the Senior Courts Act 1981. They are typically sought by the opposing party who has incurred unnecessary costs due to the other side’s legal representative’s conduct or by a client against their own lawyer. Examples include pursuing a claim with no reasonable prospect of success or failing to comply with court orders, leading to adjournments.

  • A party can apply for a wasted costs order by filing an application notice in accordance with Part 23 of the CPR or by making an oral application during a hearing.
  • The court can also make a wasted costs order of its own initiative. 
Family Proceedings

There is no specific form titled “Application for a Wasted Costs Order” for family proceedings, just as in civil proceedings. Instead, applications are made under FPR Part 18 (Applications in Family Proceedings), which mirrors CPR Part 23.

In family proceedings, the Form C2 is typically used for applications within existing proceedings (e.g., children’s cases), while Form N244 (the standard civil application form) is used for financial remedy proceedings or where no specific family form applies.

Who Can Apply for a Wasted Costs Order ?

A wasted costs order can be sought by:

  • The opposing party in criminal, civil or family proceedings, who has incurred unnecessary costs due to the other side’s legal representative’s conduct.
  • The legal representative’s own client, if they have suffered financial loss as a result of their lawyer’s actions (e.g., wasted legal fees or costs of unnecessary proceedings).
  • The court itself, which can initiate a wasted costs order on its own motion (suo motu) if it identifies egregious conduct during proceedings.

In criminal cases, the court may also consider the impact on public funds, particularly where legal aid is involved.

The court may require written submissions or a hearing to determine whether the order is justified. Appeals against wasted costs orders in criminal proceedings follow CrimPR Part 34 (for magistrates’ courts to the Crown Court) or CrimPR Part 39 (for Crown Court to the Court of Appeal).

Examples of Conduct Leading to Wasted Costs Orders

Some examples of conduct that might lead to a wasted costs order in civil or criminal proceedings include:

  • Pursuing a case (civil or criminal) with no realistic prospect of success, such as a baseless civil claim or a criminal defence lacking any evidential foundation.
  • Failing to comply with court orders or procedural rules, leading to adjournments or additional hearings.
  • Providing misleading information to the court or failing to disclose relevant facts, such as withholding key evidence in a criminal trial.
  • Acting in a way that unnecessarily prolongs proceedings, such as making frivolous applications or failing to prepare adequately for trial.

Implications and Considerations

Wasted costs orders serve as a deterrent against poor professional conduct and promote fairness and efficiency in both civil and criminal proceedings. They protect parties from bearing the financial burden of their opponent’s or their own lawyer’s misconduct and, in criminal cases, safeguard public funds.

However, courts are cautious about issuing such orders for several reasons:

  • Professional Consequences: A wasted costs order can harm a lawyer’s reputation and financial standing, so courts ensure the evidence is robust and the conduct sufficiently serious.
  • Access to Justice: Courts avoid discouraging lawyers from taking on challenging cases or acting fearlessly, particularly in criminal defence work, where robust advocacy is essential.
  • Proportionality: The costs claimed must be proportionate to the misconduct, and minor errors or oversights are unlikely to justify an order.

Legal representatives are typically given an opportunity to respond to allegations of misconduct before an order is made, ensuring fairness and due process. In criminal cases, the court may also consider the public interest and the impact on legal aid budgets.

Conclusion

In England and Wales, a wasted costs order is a vital tool to address improper, unreasonable, or negligent conduct by legal representatives in criminal, civil and proceedings.

Governed by statute and procedural rules, these orders ensure accountability, protect parties from unnecessary costs, and uphold the integrity of the judicial process.

While rarely used due to their high threshold and significant implications, wasted costs orders play a crucial role in maintaining professionalism and efficiency in the legal system. Legal representatives must act with diligence and integrity to avoid the serious consequences of such an order.

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

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

Latest Articles ↓

Most Popular ↓

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

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

Categories
Judiciary Legal Professionals

Independent Review of Bullying, Harassment and Discrimination at the Bar

Independent Review of Bullying, Harassment and Discrimination at the Bar

An Independent Review of Bullying, Harassment and Discrimination at the Bar was published on the on the 8th September 2025 by Baroness Harriet Harman KC . The review had been commissioned by the Bar Council in June 2024.

Independent Review of Bullying Harassment and Discrimination at the BarDownload

The review addresses the prevalence, causes, and impact of bullying, harassment, and sexual harassment at the Bar and proposes 36 recommendations, for the Bar Council, Judiciary and other bodies to consider to tackle these issues.

The report emphasises the need for “decisive and radical” reforms to address a “culture of impunity” and “collusive bystanding” that allows misconduct to persist.

This is a moment of reckoning for the Bar.

Baroness Harriet Harman KC

The BBC published an article He put his hand down my tights’: Sexual harassment widespread among barristers, review finds in relation to the Independent Review of Bullying, Harassment and Discrimination at the Bar report.

Prevalence of Misconduct

The review confirms systemic bullying, harassment, and sexual harassment within the Bar, occurring in chambers, courtrooms, and behind closed doors.

Over 170 written submissions and consultations with pupils, junior and senior barristers, and chambers staff revealed disturbing accounts, including groping, sexual propositions, and bullying by senior barristers and judges.

Research from 2023 showed 44% of barristers experienced or witnessed bullying, harassment, or discrimination over two years, with women from ethnic minorities particularly affected.

Junior barristers, pupils, and those on work experience are especially vulnerable due to power imbalances, with reporting perceived as “career suicide.”

Judicial Bullying

The report highlights “abundant, disturbing, and compelling” accounts of judicial bullying, including judges shouting, banging desks, or belittling barristers in court.

Certain judges are “widely known” for making barristers’ lives miserable, yet complaints are rare due to fear of repercussions.

The judiciary’s failure to acknowledge this issue contributes to a lack of accountability.

The Lady Chief Justice’s response to the Independent Review of Bullying, Harassment and Discrimination at the Bar was also published on the 8th September 2025.

While the majority of judges behave professionally and courteously, Baroness Harman’s review refers to too many examples of judicial bullying.

Such behaviour is unacceptable and should have no place in our justice system.

I am clear that the senior judiciary does not seek to excuse or minimise bullying by judges. I am absolutely committed to a modern, diverse and inclusive judiciary that upholds our values of integrity, fairness and respect to all.

We have clear standards of behaviour expected from all judicial office holders, which is supported by training and support for judges at all levels, particularly those with leadership responsibilities. We have been focussing on judicial conduct in and out of court for many years.  

The Rt Hon the Baroness Carr of Walton-on-the-Hill, Lady Chief Justice of England and Wales

Culture of Impunity

A “culture of denial” and fear of career repercussions discourage victims from reporting, leaving perpetrators, particularly those in senior positions, unaccountable.

The complaints system lacks transparency and efficacy, with delays (e.g., the Jo Sidhu KC case took two years) and lenient sanctions undermining confidence.

Impact

Victims experience humiliation, isolation, and career damage, with some leaving the profession.

Misconduct undermines the Bar’s reputation and the rule of law, which relies on high ethical standards.

Judicial bullying can distort case outcomes, affecting justice delivery.

Key Recommendations

  1. Code of Conduct and Training (Recommendations 1–4, 12):
    • Clarify the Bar Standards Board (BSB) Code of Conduct to explicitly address bullying, harassment, and sexual harassment, including personal vs. professional relationships.
    • Mandate anti-bullying and anti-harassment training for all barristers.
  2. Complaints System Overhaul (Recommendations 5–8, 15–20):
    • Introduce time limits for processing complaints, provide victim support services, and ensure regular updates for complainants.
    • Train BSB staff in handling vulnerable witnesses and review case handling, especially when criminal investigations are involved.
    • Improve transparency and consistency in complaints processes across the Inns of Court.
  3. Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups (Recommendation 11):
    • Proscribe sexual relationships between barristers/employees and pupils, mini-pupils, or work experience students as serious misconduct.
  4. Judicial Accountability (Recommendations 30–35):
    • Remove time limits for complaints to the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office (JCIO).
    • Introduce independent court monitors to observe judicial behavior and provide audio recordings of proceedings to professional court users.
    • Include an independent person in judicial misconduct sanction decisions alongside the Lady Chief Justice and Lord Chancellor to address perceptions of leniency.
  5. Commissioner for Conduct (Recommendation 36):
    • Appoint a Commissioner for Conduct to oversee efforts to tackle bullying, harassment, and sexual harassment.
  6. Sanctions and Deterrence (Recommendations 25–26, 29):
    • Implement “career-limiting or career-ending” sanctions to deter misconduct, with prior findings considered in career progression (e.g., silk or judicial appointments).
    • Chambers’ constitutions should outline sanctions for misconduct.
  7. Online Abuse (Recommendation 24):
    • Regulate online bullying, harassment, and sexual harassment, including inappropriate behavior on platforms like LinkedIn.
What can you do when a barrister or judge bullies or harasses you? – Art of Law

Conclusion

The report underscores that bullying, harassment, and sexual harassment are systemic issues at the Bar, driven by power imbalances and a lack of accountability.

It calls for transformative changes to protect victims, restore trust in the complaints system, and uphold the Bar’s ethical standards and reputation. The proposed reforms aim to shift the “jeopardy” from victims to perpetrators, ensuring a safer and more equitable working environment for all legal professionals

A Statement of Expected Behaviour sets standards expected of all judicial office holders. This is included in the Judicial Guide to Conduct and the Equal Treatment Bench Book.  

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

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

Latest Articles ↓

Most Popular ↓

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

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

Categories
Government Judiciary Legal Professionals

Secretary of State for Justice

Alex Norris

Alex Norris was appointed Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor on the 20th July 2025.

Alex was previously Minister of State at the Home Office between 6th September 2025 and July 20th 2026.

He was previously Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government between 9 July 2024 and 6 September 2025.

Alex Norris has been the MP for Nottingham North and Kimberley (and its predecessor Nottingham North) since June 2017.

You may also be interested in our article on the Lord Chancellor, Lady Chief Justice, Master of the Rolls and the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 which explains the transfer of some powers from the Lord Chancellor to the Lord Chief Justice.

What is the role of the Secretary of State for Justice ?

According to the gov.uk webpage for the Secretary of State for Justice, it lists the ministerial roles as follows :-

Responsibilities

  1. Oversight of all portfolios and Ministry of Justice strategy
  2. Oversight of departmental COVID-19 response supported by other ministers according to portfolio
  3. Oversight of international business and future relations with the EU
  4. MoJ support for the Union
  5. Resourcing of the department
  6. Functions of the Lord Chancellor
  7. Judicial policy including pay, pensions and diversity (these and other operational decisions affecting the judiciary are reserved to the Lord Chancellor)
  8. Corporate services

Previous Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice

  1. The Rt Hon David Lammy MP 2025 to 2026
  2. The Rt Hon Shabana Mahmood MP 2024 to 2025
  3. The Rt Hon Alex Chalk KC 2023 to 2024
  4. The Rt Hon Dominic Raab MP 2022 to 2023
  5. The Rt Hon Brandon Lewis CBE MP 2022 to 2022
  6. The Rt Hon Dominic Raab MP 2021 to 2022
  7. The Rt Hon Robert Buckland KC MP 2019 to 2021
  8. The Rt Hon David Gauke 2018 to 2019
  9. The Rt Hon David Lidington CBE 2017 to 2018
  10. The Rt Hon Elizabeth Truss MP 2016 to 2017
  11. The Rt Hon Michael Gove MP 2015 to 2016
  12. The Rt Hon Chris Grayling MP 2012 to 2015
  13. The Rt Hon Kenneth Clarke KC 2010 to 2012

David Lammy the Lord Chancellor and Justice Secretary, has made several critical statements about US President Donald Trump in the past, particularly when he was a backbench MP.

In 2018, Lammy wrote in a TIME magazine article that Trump was a “woman-hating, neo-Nazi-sympathising sociopath” and a “profound threat to the international order.” He also called Trump a “tyrant in a toupee” and vowed to protest against the UK government’s “capitulation” to Trump during his visit to the UK.

In 2017, Lammy tweeted that Trump was a “racist KKK and Nazi sympathiser” and pledged to protest on the streets if Trump visited the UK.

In 2019, responding to Trump’s claim that he had been treated badly as president, Lammy tweeted, “4 US Presidents have been assassinated snowflake,” a comment criticized for its tone.

The Rt Hon David Lammy MP on US President Donald Trump

Photo Credit : David Lammy

Check out our articles on Lady Chief Justice, Lord Chancellor, Attorney General, Solicitor General, Government Legal Department, Rule of Law, R v Sussex Justices, and the highly questionable Sussex Family Justice Board.

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

Latest Articles ↓

Most Popular ↓

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

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

Categories
Civil Justice Criminal Justice Judiciary Legal Professionals

Watch UK Court Proceedings Online

Court Proceedings Videos

The latest cases in the Crown Court and Court of Appeal are available on the Sky News Courts YouTube channel. These videos are a real opportunity to see justice in action.

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

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

See Photography in Court for more information.

High Profile Cases Videos

Lady Chief Justice gives judgment in the Court of Appeal – Shamima Begum
High Court Judge Mr Justice Goss imposed life sentences with whole-life orders – Lucy Letby

Latest Court Proceedings Videos

Please be advised that videos may contain graphic descriptions of serious crimes, including murder and sexual offences.

IN FULL: Disgraced funeral director jailed for 20 years

A funeral director who failed to bury or cremate people and gave bereaved relatives the ashes of strangers was jailed for 20 years.

Some 35 bodies and more than 100 sets ...of ashes were found by police raiding Legacy Independent Funeral Directors in Hull in March 2024.

Robert Bush, 48, admitted 67 offences, including denying 30 people a decent and proper burial, theft from 12 charities, and fraudulent trading over a period of almost 12 years.

Sentencing him at Hull Crown Court, Mr Justice Hilliard told the former undertaker he had "caused anguish and pain on a scale beyond comprehension".

The court heard Bush defrauded nearly 200 families out of £562,117 and had acted out of "financial greed".

Hilliard warned that unless a body was one of those recovered by police in 2024 and properly identified, no-one who had used Legacy's cremations services "at any time can be absolutely certain they received the ashes of their loved one".

"He must have a heartless side to him - which allowed him to treat the living and the dead in the way he did, and he was very confident he would get away with what he was doing."

The judge added: "I don't think I have ever known offences affecting so many people and so deeply."

The court was told relatives of 46 people who were cremated between 2017 and 2024 were given the wrong ashes and the loved ones of another 11 never received any.

"How betrayed they now feel," said the judge.

"Husbands and wives, partners, parents, children, grandchildren, now discovering that they are left with nothing, or in some cases we heard, an empty plastic bag or a teaspoonful of ash which the police managed to recover for them."

The judge's sentencing remarks can be read in full at: https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/r-v-robert-bush/

SUBSCRIBE to our YouTube channel for more videos: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCF3HqeLrCkZgARQfyqj1m-g?view_as=subscriber

Follow Sky News on Twitter: https://twitter.com/skynews and https://twitter.com/skynewsbreak

Like us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/skynews

Follow us on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/skynews

For more content go to http://news.sky.com and download our apps:

Apple https://itunes.apple.com/gb/app/sky-news/id316391924?mt=8

Android https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.bskyb.skynews.android&hl=en_GBShow More
IN FULL: Disgraced funeral director jailed for 20 years
IN FULL: Disgraced funeral director jailed for 20 years
A funeral director who failed to bury or cremate people and gave ...
Whole life order for triple killer
Whole life order for triple killer
A triple killer who murdered and dismembered the bodies of two of his ...
TikTok killers' appeals dismissed
TikTok killers' appeals dismissed
Four people convicted over the deaths of two men in a high-speed car ...
Friend of Manchester synagogue attacker jailed over military base terror plot
Friend of Manchester synagogue attacker jailed over military base terror plot
A "committed jihadist" who planned an attack on a military base with ...
Teen hackers jailed over £29m TfL cyber attack
Teen hackers jailed over £29m TfL cyber attack
Two hackers who livestreamed themselves carrying out a cyber attack on ...
Brothers jailed for 1984 murder during violent spree against men they thought were gay
Brothers jailed for 1984 murder during violent spree against men they thought were gay
Two brothers were jailed for murdering a civil servant in 1984 during ...

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

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

Latest Articles ↓

Most Popular ↓

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

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

Categories
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.

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