Category: Legal Professionals

Legal professionals study, develop and apply law

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 4.8 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

Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice David Lammy

David Lammy was appointed Secretary of State for Justice, Lord Chancellor and Deputy Prime Minister on the 5th September 2025.

He was previously Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs between 5 July 2024 and 5 September 2025. David was first elected as Labour MP for Tottenham at the age of 27 in June 2000.

As the Secretary of State for Justice, The Rt Hon David Lammy MP, heads the Ministry of Justice.

David studied law at the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) Law School and Harvard Law School. He was admitted to the Bar of England and Wales in 1994.

The Rt Hon David Lammy MP – Legal Experience

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

UK Athletics fined £350,000 over death of Paralympian hit by falling metal cage

UK Athletics was fined £350,000 over the "wholly avoidable" death of a Paralympian who was killed when a shot-put cage collapsed during training.

Abdullah Hayayei, 36, who represented the United Arab ...Emirates, was killed at Newham Leisure Centre, east London, during a practice session in 2017.

The father-of-five was preparing to represent his country in the F34 class discus, javelin and shot put at the World Para Athletics Championships in London when part of a 31st throwing cage fell on him.

He was left with a severe head injury after the 5ft high cage toppled over because it was put up incorrectly and without its base plate, in an "accident waiting to happen".

The national governing body for athletics was charged with causing the death of Mr Hayayei by "supplying for use... a discus/shot put cage which it used and operated without its base structure and which collapsed" into the Paralympian while he was practising shot putting.

UK Athletics Ltd admitted corporate manslaughter and was ordered to pay nearly £400,000 over six years - made up of a fine of £350,000 and legal costs of £44,000, as well as a statutory surcharge.

Keith Davies, who was the head of sport for the 2017 World Para Athletics Championships, also pleaded guilty to a health and safety charge.

The 79-year-old was handed a community order to do 175 hours of unpaid work, to be carried out in the next 12 months.

Sentencing, Judge Richard Marks KC said Mr Hayayei's death was "tragic, untimely and wholly avoidable".

He noted failings by UK Athletics were not a "one-off" but said any financial penalty would "weaken" its ability to support individual athletes and athletics in the community.

He told Davies, a retired PE teacher, that he knew, or ought to have known, base plates were an "integral part" of the cage construction.

He was "on notice" following an earlier collapse of an identical cage, the judge said, adding: "This was an accident which sooner or later was waiting to happen."

In the five years since UK Athletics acquired two identical cages originally used in the 2012 Olympics, they had never been properly assembled with the base plates attached, the court heard.

Davies had claimed UK Athletics had never been supplied with base plates, but this proved not to be true, the court was told.

The judge's sentencing remarks can be read in full at: https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/metropolitan-police-v-uk-athletics-limited-and-keith-davies/

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
UK Athletics fined £350,000 over death of Paralympian hit by falling metal cage
UK Athletics fined £350,000 over death of Paralympian hit by falling metal cage
UK Athletics was fined £350,000 over the "wholly avoidable" death of a ...
Mother and ex-boyfriend jailed for total of 27 years over death of boy, 4
Mother and ex-boyfriend jailed for total of 27 years over death of boy, 4
A mother’s ex-boyfriend has been jailed for the manslaughter of her ...
Woman jailed for murdering sister and taking Rolex
Woman jailed for murdering sister and taking Rolex
A woman who stabbed her film director sister to death before stealing ...
Teens detained for killing man they branded a paedophile
Teens detained for killing man they branded a paedophile
Three teenagers who lured a man they believed to be a paedophile to a ...
Life sentence for man who raped woman in her home
Life sentence for man who raped woman in her home
A man who raped a Sikh woman in her home while subjecting her to a ...
Conviction quashed for church warden jailed over murder of university lecturer
Conviction quashed for church warden jailed over murder of university lecturer
A former church warden who was jailed for life for the murder of a ...

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
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.

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.

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 Solicitor or Barrister Mislead a Court ?

Can a Solicitor or Barrister Mislead a Court

In England and Wales, the legal system demands integrity and truth from all legal professionals involved in court proceedings. Solicitors and barristers are bound by strict professional rules and legal obligations that prohibit misleading the court, whether deliberately or recklessly. Such conduct is a serious breach, potentially leading to professional misconduct charges, contempt of court or criminal sanctions.

Professional Duties of Solicitors and Barristers

Solicitors, regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) under the SRA Standards and Regulations 2019, are designated as officers of the court under the Solicitors Act 1974.

The SRA Code of Conduct mandates that solicitors act with honesty and integrity (Principle 1) and uphold public trust in the legal profession (Principle 2). Paragraph 1.4 explicitly prohibits knowingly or recklessly misleading the court, including presenting false evidence, allowing misleading information to go uncorrected, or fabricating documents.

Barristers, regulated by the Bar Standards Board (BSB) under the BSB Handbook, are not formally officers of the court but owe a primary duty to the court above their duty to clients (Core Duty 3).

Core Duty 1 requires honesty, and Rule rC3 prohibits barristers from knowingly or recklessly misleading the court, such as by making false statements, concealing material facts, or drafting misleading documents.

The principle, affirmed in cases like Rondel v Worsley [1969] 1 AC 191, underscores barristers’ obligation to the administration of justice.

Both solicitors and barristers must prioritise their duty to the court over client interests. If a client instructs them to present false evidence or withhold key information, they must refuse and may need to withdraw from the case to avoid breaching their professional obligations.

Legal Consequences of Misleading a Court

Misleading the court can violate several laws. Under the Perjury Act 1911, knowingly giving false evidence under oath is a criminal offence, punishable by up to seven years’ imprisonment. If a solicitor or barrister encourages or assists perjury, they may face liability as an accessory or for perverting the course of justice, a common law offence with a maximum penalty of seven years.

Contempt of court is another serious consequence. The Contempt of Court Act 1981 allows courts to penalize conduct that interferes with justice, such as presenting false evidence, with fines or imprisonment. Cases like R v Farooqi [2013] EWCA Crim 1649 highlight the severe repercussions for lawyers who mislead courts.

Professional disciplinary action is also a risk. The SRA and BSB can impose sanctions, including fines, suspensions, or striking off. For instance, in SRA v Wingate [2016], a solicitor was struck off for presenting fabricated documents to the court.

Practical Implications of Misleading a Court

Solicitors and barristers must exercise diligence to avoid inadvertently misleading the court. This includes verifying client instructions, correcting errors promptly, and ensuring submissions are evidence-based.

If a lawyer discovers they or their client has misled the court, they must take steps to rectify the situation, subject to legal professional privilege considerations. A solicitor or barrister may also be invited to correct a misleading statement.

If you think a solicitor or firm might have breached the SRA rules, you should report your concerns to the SRA.

The public can Report concerns about barristers at the BSB. Barristers also have a duty to report their own serious misconduct or that of another barrister.

Check out our articles on Rule of Law, Open Justice, Justice System, Criminal Justice, Criminal Cases Review Commission, R v Sussex Justices, Litigants in Person, McKenzie Friend, Reasonable Person Test, What is Bail ?, 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.

Rule of Law - Open Justice - Policing By Consent