Category: Legal Professionals

Legal professionals study, develop and apply law

Categories
Government Law Legal Professionals

Government Legal Profession (GLP)

Government Legal Profession (GLP)

The Government Legal Profession (GLP) is the collective network of qualified lawyers embedded across UK government departments and agencies, providing expert legal advice, litigation support, policy guidance, and compliance services to ensure the government operates within the rule of law.

As of 2025, the GLP operates under the Civil Service umbrella and serves as the government’s primary in-house legal resource. The Government Legal Department (GLD) serves as the principal legal adviser to the UK Government.

The Government Legal Profession (GLP) was formally known as The Government Legal Service (GLS).

Key Roles and Functions

The GLP comprises thousands of qualified lawyers (including solicitors, barristers, and chartered legal executives) embedded across government departments, agencies, and devolved administrations.

The government is our sole client.

Whether the government is creating new laws, buying goods and services, or defending its decisions in court, it needs significant levels of legal advice on a range of complex issues.

To carry out this work, the government needs its own lawyers and legal trainees who understand its business.

Government Legal Profession – About Us

Their work is diverse and spans advisory, legislative, litigation, commercial, and employment law. Unlike private practice, the government’s interests are their sole client, requiring lawyers to balance legal rigor with policy considerations, public interest and political sensitivity.

Area of WorkDescriptionExamples
Advisory & Policy SupportProviding legal advice on policy development, ensuring compliance with existing laws, and assessing risks for new initiatives. Lawyers collaborate with ministers, policymakers, and officials to implement manifesto commitments.Advising on whether policies require new legislation; drafting secondary regulations (e.g., Statutory Instruments) that directly impact communities.
Legislative WorkAssisting in creating and scrutinising bills, guiding them through Parliament, and supporting ministers in debates.Preparing proposals for primary legislation; working with the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel to ensure laws are enforceable and withstand judicial review.
LitigationRepresenting the government in courts and tribunals, from employment disputes to high-profile constitutional cases in the Supreme Court.Handling judicial reviews, human rights claims, national security matters, and public interest immunity cases; managing a high volume of cases with broader policy implications.
Commercial LawAdvising on procurement, contracts, intellectual property, and state aid to maximise value for public money and minimise spending risks.Developing procurement strategies; negotiating supplier contracts for large-scale projects.
Employment LawSupporting HR functions across government, including policy advice, compliance training, and tribunal representation.Handling non-contentious issues like employment policies; litigating in Employment Tribunals and Appeals.

Structure and Leadership

Impact and Unique Aspects

GLP lawyers enable the government to “govern well within the rule of law” by ensuring policies are legally sound, legislation is robust, and disputes are resolved with public interest in mind.

Their work often involves high-stakes, public-facing issues and contributes to delivering public services efficiently. The rebranding from GLS to GLP highlighted a shift toward viewing government legal work as a unified profession, fostering collaboration across government. For more details, including career opportunities, visit the official GOV.UK page: Government Legal Profession.

Government Legal Department careers

Information on the Trainee Solicitor and Pupil Barrister opportunities available within government departments is published in the Legal trainee scheme guidance.

Information regarding the application and assessment process for the legal trainee scheme is published in the guidance Legal trainee scheme: how to apply.

Legal trainee recruitment enquiries
Recruitment Team
11th Floor, Lower Castle Street
Castlemead
Bristol
BS1 3AG
United Kingdom

Email : [email protected] / Tel : 0117 923 4417

The UK Government’s Government Legal Profession (GLP) also recruits qualified lawyers (barristers, solicitors and chartered legal executives) to provide legal services across departments, primarily through the Government Legal Department (GLD). Information regarding career development, flexible working, salaries and training opportunities is also published as guidance Working for GLP.

Qualified lawyer vacancies across government are advertised on the Civil Service Jobs Website.

The Civil Service is an equal opportunities employer.

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

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

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

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

Latest Articles ↓

Most Popular ↓

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

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

Categories
Criminal Justice Government Law Legal Analysis Legal Professionals

Serious Fraud Office (SFO)

Serious Fraud Office (SFO)

The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) serves as a vital independent government department in the United Kingdom, tasked with investigating and prosecuting instances of serious fraud, bribery, and corruption. The SFO is overseen by the Attorney General.

As a dedicated watchdog, it protects public confidence in financial systems and maintains the UK’s position as a leading international financial centre. In today’s interconnected and rapidly evolving economic environment, the SFO addresses threats that span borders and pose significant risks to individuals and the wider economy.

The SFO 2024-2029 Strategy emphasises a bold, pragmatic approach alongside efficient resource management, despite ongoing budgetary challenges. This article outlines the SFO’s historical development, operational framework, leadership structure, key prosecutions, and recent initiatives, illustrating its critical role in upholding justice and economic stability.

The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) fights complex financial crime, delivers justice for victims and protects the UK’s reputation as a safe place to do business.

SFO is a non-ministerial department.

Serious Fraud Office – What We Do

HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate (HMCPSI) holds a statutory duty to inspect the operations of the Serious Fraud Office (SFO).

Historical Development

The establishment of the Serious Fraud Office emerged from the financial turbulence of the 1980s, when major scandals prompted demands for improved corporate governance and criminal accountability. The Guinness share-trading fraud, involving the artificial inflation of share prices during a corporate takeover, highlighted the limitations of conventional police investigations in handling such complexities.

Consequently, the Criminal Justice Act 1987 created the SFO, operational from April 1988, as a specialised entity to identify, investigate, and prosecute the most severe forms of financial misconduct. This initiative drew from the 1986 Roskill Committee’s recommendations, which called for an integrated body combining investigative and legal expertise.

A distinguishing feature of the SFO is its unified model, allowing simultaneous investigation and prosecution under the oversight of the Attorney General, which balances accountability with operational autonomy.

Over more than three decades, the agency has adapted to new challenges, including the aftermath of the 2008 global financial crisis and the rise of international bribery networks.

Its jurisdiction extends to England, Wales, and Northern Ireland, excluding Scotland and the Crown Dependencies, in line with the UK’s devolved legal arrangements. Official records demonstrate how the SFO has transitioned from a primarily reactive role to one focused on proactive prevention.

Mandate, Powers, and Operations

The SFO focuses on offences that cause substantial harm to the public interest, such as economic disruption, damage to the UK’s international reputation, or cases requiring specialised expertise. The Director authorises investigations based on rigorous criteria set out in the Criminal Justice Act 1987, including powers for compulsory interviews (section 2) and the execution of search warrants.

Additional tools include asset recovery through confiscation orders and Deferred Prosecution Agreements (DPAs), which encourage corporate cooperation and remediation.

Beyond domestic efforts, the SFO engages in international collaboration, sharing intelligence on cross-border schemes. During the 2024-2025 fiscal year, it prioritised swift resolutions by closing protracted legacy cases to concentrate on high-potential investigations.

Recent developments, such as the joint SFO-Crown Prosecution Service guidance on corporate prosecutions released in August 2025, strengthen procedures by incorporating provisions like Section 51B of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 for more precise judicial oversight in complex fraud matters. These measures reflect the SFO’s determination to counter an increasingly sophisticated array of economic crimes.

Landmark SFO Cases

The SFO’s record includes pivotal cases that have influenced corporate accountability standards. The 1980s Guinness Share Trading Fraud, involving the manipulation of share prices during a takeover bid, resulted in convictions for insider dealing and false accounting against key figures, including Guinness CEO Ernest Saunders, establishing foundational precedents on market manipulation under the Criminal Justice Act 1987.

In international defence dealings, the 2010 BAE Systems settlement with the SFO imposed a £30 million penalty for accounting irregularities related to a £28 million overpriced military radar system sold to Tanzania in 1999, including undisclosed commission payments; this paralleled a US $400 million fine for Saudi-related issues, marking an early milestone in coordinated global anti-corruption efforts.

Investigations into Barclays Bank, one of the UK’s leading multinational investment banks, have played a prominent role in two major SFO cases.

In the first, concerning the 2008 Qatari fundraising scandal during the global financial crisis, the SFO launched a 2017 prosecution alleging fraud by false representation. This centred on secret £322 million fees linked to a £4 billion emergency capital injection from Qatar.

The case concluded in 2020 with the acquittal of three senior executives, including former CEO John Varley was a significant blow to the SFO.

The second involved Barclays’ role in the Libor manipulation scandal, resulting in the 2016 convictions of three ex-traders—Jonathan Mathew (four years’ imprisonment), Jay Merchant (six-and-a-half years), and Alex Pabon (two-and-a-half years suspended)—for conspiracy to defraud, with total custodial terms surpassing 10 years.

Yet, the September 2025 Supreme Court judgment overturned related convictions of Tom Hayes and Carlo Palombo owing to erroneous jury guidance on dishonesty. In response, the SFO acknowledged that the Barclays outcomes might also be unsafe.

Organisational Structure and Leadership

Headquartered in London, the SFO employs approximately 500 staff, including barristers, solicitors, forensic accountants, and digital specialists, organised into divisions for operations, legal services, intelligence and policy.

Nick Ephgrave QPM, was appointed Director of the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) on the 25th September 2023 and brings extensive experience from senior positions at the Metropolitan Police Service and the Crown Prosecution Service. Nick Ephgrave has prioritised innovation, as highlighted in his February 2024 speech to the Royal United Services Institute, where he advocated for a more assertive institutional culture.

Claire Bassett is the interim Chair of the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) Board.

The SFO Declaration of Interests shows Financial and other interests declared by the Director, Non-Executive Directors and other board members, including details of any recusals.

Serious Fraud Office (SFO)
2-4 Cockspur Street
London
SW1Y 5BS
United Kingdom

Tel : 020 7362 8100 / Email : [email protected]

His Honour Judge Melbourne Inman KC (Retired) – The High Court Judge That Never Was ! Serious Fraud by the Judiciary ? Can you Email a Judge ?

Check out the related articles on the Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate, Crown Prosecution Service, Victims’ Right to Review (VRR), 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.

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

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

Latest Articles ↓

Most Popular ↓

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

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

Categories
Criminal Justice Government Law Legal Analysis Legal Professionals

HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate (HMCPSI)

HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate (HMCPSI)

HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate (HMCPSI) is an independent statutory body established by the Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate Act 1999, becoming fully operational in April 2000.

HMCPSI holds a statutory duty to inspect the operations of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) which is responsible for over 500,000 prosecutions annually in England and Wales and the Serious Fraud Office (SFO), which handles complex fraud and corruption cases.

The purpose of inspection is to drive improvements and build public confidence in the prosecution process. Our inspections do this by providing independently assessed evidence, which:

While we may make recommendations in our reports, we are not a regulator, and do not have any power to enforce compliance.

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

Historical Background

HMCPSI’s origins trace back to the late 1990s amid concerns over the CPS’s performance following its creation in 1986.

The pivotal Glidewell Review of 1998 commissioned by the government, exposed inefficiencies and recommended an independent inspectorate to monitor prosecutorial standards.

This led to the Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate Act 2000, which formalised HMCPSI as a statutory entity in 2000.

Role and Responsibilities

At its core, HMCPSI’s mandate is to inspect the CPS and SFO delivering independent assessments that drive systemic enhancements.

Inspections evaluate case handling, decision-making, and resource allocation, culminating in reports that highlight strengths, weaknesses and actionable recommendations.

While it cannot enforce changes, HMCPSI’s findings empower stakeholders, including Parliament and the Attorney General, to hold agencies accountable. Additionally, it extends expertise to other UK and international prosecution services through collaborative arrangements promoting best practices globally.

Transparency is paramount: methodologies are openly documented, ensuring credibility and fostering trust in the justice process.

We are part of the solution to improving the Criminal Justice System through high quality inspection.

  • We hold the CPS and SFO to account for what they deliver (we make recommendations that drive improvement)
  • Victims will be at the heart of inspection (where we can, we will use victim experience in our inspection)
  • Using our 25 years of experience we will help public prosecutors improve (their legal casework)
  • Inspection will identify and spread best practice
HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate (HMCPSI) Vison Statement

Organisational Structure and Leadership

HMCPSI operates as a lean, specialised organisation, comprising around 40 staff members divided into inspection, policy, and support teams. The inspection division, led by two Deputy Chief Inspectors, conducts fieldwork and compiles evidence-based reports.

At the helm is the Chief Inspector, appointed by the Attorney General for a fixed term. In January 2025, Anthony Rogers, a seasoned prosecutor with extensive CPS experience, assumed this role, bringing fresh perspectives on efficiency and victim support.

Reporting directly to the Attorney General, the leadership ensures strategic direction aligns with evolving justice priorities.

The operational relationship between the Attorney General and the Chief Inspector is set out in a protocol agreed between the Law Officers (the Attorney General and Solicitor General) and the Chief Inspector.

Recent Activities and Impact

HMCPSI’s 2024-2025 annual report underscores ongoing strains on the criminal justice system, including backlogs exacerbated by post-pandemic recovery.

Key outputs include a follow-up inspection on joint CPS-police operations, where progress was noted on two of four recommendations, and an area review of CPS Yorkshire and Humberside, the third in a phased programme, revealing improvements in case progression but gaps in victim communication. These efforts have spurred tangible reforms, such as enhanced training, affirming HMCPSI’s influence despite resource constraints.

The HMCPSI publish the latest press releases and good practice on their website.

You can contact HMCPSI :-

HMCPSI
7th Floor, Tower
102 Petty France
London SW1H 9GL

Tel : 020 4574 3218 / Email : [email protected]

Check out our related articles on the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) Complaints and Feedback, Rule of Law, Open Justice, Victims’ Right to Review (VRR), Is the Law Black and White ?, Abuse of Process, What Does Lady Justice Symbolise ?, McKenzie Friend, Can a Judge Direct a Jury to Find a Defendant Not Guilty ?,Law Society, Law Commission, McKenzie Friend Right of Audience, Solicitors, Solicitors Regulation Authority, Barristers, Bar Council of England and Wales, Bar Standards Board, Contra Mundum, R v Sussex Justices, Police Impartiality and the highly questionable Sussex Family Justice Board.

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

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

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

Latest Articles ↓

Most Popular ↓

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

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

Categories
Government Law Legal Professionals

The Office of the Parliamentary Counsel

The Office of the Parliamentary Counsel

The Office of the Parliamentary Counsel (OPC) is a non-ministerial department within the Cabinet Office and employs specialist government lawyers who draft all government bills presented to Parliament.

The Office of the Parliamentary Counsel converts departmental policy instructions into legislative text that is clear, workable, and designed for enduring use. Subject to parliamentary examination, its output maintains the rule of law by reconciling government intentions with principles of judicial enforceability.

The Office of the Parliamentary Counsel publish guidance about the drafting of legislation, produced by the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel for members of that office.

The Legislative process: taking a bill through Parliament is an overview of the process by which bills become law.

History and Establishment

The origins of the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel (OPC) lie in the mid-19th century, when demands grew for standardised legislative drafting to address inconsistencies in government bills.

Prior to 1869, bill preparation was inconsistent: some were drafted by the Home Office counsel for multiple departments, others by independent counsel or departmental officials, resulting in variations that affected the coherence of the statute book.

The OPC was established on 8 February 1869 by a Treasury Minute as a two-year experiment to settle all departmental bills and draft other government bills (excluding those for Ireland and Scotland). Henry Thring was appointed as the inaugural full-time head, with one assistant. In January 1871, a further Treasury Minute made the arrangement permanent, commending Thring’s improvements to bill preparation.

Initially part of HM Treasury, the OPC expanded gradually with rising legislative demands. By 1901, it comprised one Parliamentary Counsel, an assistant, and support staff. Additional Parliamentary Counsel were appointed in 1914 and 1930. By the 1960s, the office had grown to 16 lawyers and support staff.

In 1969, the OPC transferred to the new Civil Service Department and adopted its current name. Following the department’s dissolution in 1980, it became part of the Cabinet Office, where it remains.

Role and Functions

At its core, the OPC drafts all government bills introduced to Parliament, engaging from policy inception through to enactment. This iterative process involves close collaboration with departments, refining drafts to ensure coherence and workability.

Beyond bills, it prepares amendments, reviews subordinate legislation amending primary Acts, and advises on parliamentary procedure and constitutional matters. A dedicated team partners with the Law Commission on reforms and consolidations.

The OPC also fosters legislative excellence through training for Government Legal Department lawyers and publishing guidance, such as the 2022 Common Legislative Solutions guide on penalties and policy devices.

Its counsel, qualified barristers and solicitors, prioritise “good law”: necessary, effective, coherent, and accessible statutes that withstand scrutiny.

Structure and Operations

Headquartered at 1 Horse Guards Road in London, the OPC operates as a nimble unit of 46 counsel and 7 support staff, led by the First Parliamentary Counsel, currently Jessica de Mounteney.

Email : [email protected]

Telephone : +44 (0)20 7276 6586

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

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

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

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

Latest Articles ↓

Most Popular ↓

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

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

Categories
Judiciary Legal Professionals

District Judge Sam Goozee

District Judge Goozee

Sam Goozée is a District Judge (Magistrates’ Courts) of England and Wales who was appointed on the 23rd March 2016.

District Judge Goozee serves as the Resident District Judge for Berkshire Magistrates’ Courts and the leadership judge for the south east region.

District Judge Sam Goozee was the judge presiding over Tommy Robinson’s terrorism case at Westminster Magistrates’ Court.

DJ Goozee issued rulings on the first day of the trial, including protecting Robinson’s address from publication due to threats and restricting live-tweeting for independent media following a BBC complaint, while allowing mainstream outlets to report. The two-day trial continued on the 14th October 2025.

On the 4th November 2025 at Westminster Magistrates’ Court, Tommy Robinson (defence funded by Elon Musk) was found not guilty by District Judge Sam Goozee of the terror offence.

I cannot put out of my mind that it was actually what you stood for and your political beliefs that acted for the principle reason for this stop.

The stop was not lawful, and I cannot convict you. I find you not guilty.

District Judge Goozee

It is believed, from Companies House data, that Judge Sam Goozée was born on the 31st January 1971 and was a former director of the now dissolved JUSTICES’CLERKS’SOCIETY (00078822).

Who’s Who lists Goozée, Sam Mark (born 31 Jan. 1971), a District Judge (Magistrates’ Courts), since 2016.

Legal Career

District Judge Goozee judicial career stems from a long background in the magistrates’ courts service. After a brief stint in private practice, he spent most of his professional life as a legal advisor in magistrates’ courts, starting in Hampshire before transferring to Dorset.

There, he advanced to legal manager and deputy justice clerk (now known as senior legal manager). He later moved to North and West Yorkshire, where he became Justices Clerk, equivalent to head of legal operations.

While in this senior management role, he applied successfully for a part-time deputy district judge position, sitting a few days a month with Civil Service support for up to 20 days annually, plus additional sittings on his own leave.

This paved the way for his full-time appointment as a district judge in 2016. Apart from two years of defending and prosecuting cases in Bournemouth, his career has been dedicated to advisory and managerial roles in the courts a path he describes as providing an excellent foundation for judicial appointments.

District Judge (MC) Goozee is shown on the District Judges (Magistrates’ Courts) published on the Courts and Tribunal Judiciary website.

District Judge (MC) Goozee 
South East		23-03-16
District Judges (Magistrates’ Courts)

Notable Roles and Contributions

Beyond his judicial duties, District Judge Goozee is passionate about outreach and education. He engages with University of Reading law students through programs that expose them to real courtroom scenarios, such as bail applications and pleas in mitigation, helping them bridge academic learning with practical application.

He highlights the everyday realities of magistrates’ courts, including factors like organised crime and substance issues that lead to cases, to foster a nuanced understanding of the criminal justice system. Students have praised his personable and encouraging approach, noting how he supports career development in a field often seen as rigid.

Notable Cases

District Judge Goozee (MC) has presided over several high-profile matters, including:

Image of DJ Goozee : Microsoft Co-Pilot © Ministry of Injustice 2025

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

Check out our articles on Judiciary, Rule of Law, Open Justice, Judges Salaries and Fees, Dodgy Judges, Mr Justice Williams, 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.

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

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

Latest Articles ↓

Most Popular ↓

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

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

Categories
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.

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

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

Latest Articles ↓

Most Popular ↓

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

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

Categories
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.

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

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

Latest Articles ↓

Most Popular ↓

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

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

Categories
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.

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

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

Latest Articles ↓

Most Popular ↓

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

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

Categories
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.

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

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

Latest Articles ↓

Most Popular ↓

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

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

Categories
Legal 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.

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

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

Latest Articles ↓

Most Popular ↓

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

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

Rule of Law - Open Justice - Policing By Consent