Categories
Criminal Justice Government Law Legal Analysis Legal Professionals

Crown Prosecution Service

crown prosecution service (cps)

The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) plays a crucial role in the criminal justice system of the United Kingdom and was established in 1986.

The CPS is responsible for prosecuting criminal cases that have been investigated by the police and other investigative organisations in England and Wales. The CPS is independent and make decisions independently of the police and government.

Stephen Parkinson is the current Director of Public Prosecutions. He was appointed by the Attorney General and took up post on 1st November 2023. He will step down at the end of October 2028 when his five-year appointment as head of the CPS comes to an end.

The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) is the third most senior public prosecutor after the Attorney General (AG) and the Solicitor General (SG).

HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate (HMCPSI) holds a statutory duty to inspect the operations of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS).

History of the Crown Prosecution Service

The Crown Prosecution Service traces its roots back to the ancient office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), which was created in 1879 by the Prosecution of Offences Act 1879.

It was not until the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 that the CPS officially came into existence. The Act aimed to streamline the prosecution process and create an independent authority responsible for making prosecution decisions.

Functions and Responsibilities

  1. Prosecutorial Decision-Making: One of the primary functions of the CPS is to make fair and independent decisions about whether to prosecute individuals accused of committing criminal offenses. The CPS reviews evidence gathered by the police and decides whether there is sufficient evidence to proceed with a case.
  2. Preparing and Presenting Cases: The CPS is responsible for preparing cases for court and presenting evidence during trials. They work closely with the police, victims, and witnesses to ensure a robust prosecution. Crown Prosecutors present the case on behalf of the state, aiming to secure a conviction and promote public confidence in the justice system.
  3. Victim and Witness Support: The CPS places significant importance on supporting victims and witnesses throughout the criminal justice process. They provide assistance, advice, and information to ensure their voices are heard and their rights are protected. This support helps to build confidence in the justice system and facilitates the fair treatment of all parties involved.

Organisational Structure

The CPS operates in England and Wales, divided into fourteen geographical Areas. Each Area is headed by a Chief Crown Prosecutor (CCP), responsible for managing the prosecution services within their jurisdiction. At the national level, the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) leads the CPS and oversees its operations.

Independence and Accountability

To maintain its independence and impartiality, the CPS operates separately from the police and other law enforcement agencies. Prosecutors must act in the interests of justice and consider the public interest when making prosecution decisions. However, they are also accountable for their decisions and must provide reasons for not prosecuting cases where the evidence is insufficient.

Evolving Challenges and Reforms

The CPS continually adapts to meet the challenges posed by an evolving criminal landscape. It has responded to technological advancements and new types of crime, such as cybercrime and terrorism, by developing specialised units and expertise. Additionally, reforms have aimed to improve efficiency and effectiveness, ensuring timely and fair justice for all.

Key Achievements

Over the years, the CPS has achieved several significant milestones. Notably, it played a pivotal role in implementing the Victims’ Right to Review Scheme, giving victims the right to request a review of a CPS decision not to prosecute. The CPS has also been at the forefront of initiatives to combat hate crime, violence against women, and child exploitation.

The Crown Prosecution Service serves as the backbone of the UK’s criminal justice system. Through its independent and fair decision-making, preparation of cases, and support for victims and witnesses, the CPS upholds the rule of law and ensures justice for all.

As it continues to evolve and adapt to changing circumstances, the CPS remains committed to its fundamental principles of fairness, accountability, and public interest.

Check out our related articles on the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate, Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) Complaints and Feedback, 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.

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

Victims’ Right to Review – Crown Prosecution Service (CPS)

Victims’ Right to Review (VRR) - Crown Prosecution Service (CPS)

The Victims’ Right to Review (VRR) Scheme, established by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) in England and Wales, is a pivotal mechanism designed to ensure transparency and accountability in the criminal justice system.

Launched in June 2013 it gives effect to the principles set out in the case of Killick (R v Christopher Killick EXCA 1608 [2011]).

Killick v Regina [2011] EWCA Crim 1608Download

The scheme allows victims of crime to request a review of certain CPS decisions not to prosecute or to discontinue a case.

This article explores the purpose, scope, eligibility, process, and significance of the Victims’ Right to Review Scheme, as outlined on the CPS website.

Purpose of the VRR Scheme

The Victims’ Right to Review (VRR) Scheme was introduced to enhance public confidence in the CPS by providing victims with a clear and accessible way to challenge decisions they believe are incorrect. It reflects the CPS’s commitment to fairness, ensuring that victims’ voices are heard and that decisions not to proceed with a case are thoroughly scrutinized. The scheme aligns with the broader principles of the Code of Practice for Victims of Crime emphasising victims’ rights to fair treatment and justice.

Scope of the Scheme

The VRR Scheme applies to specific CPS decisions, including:

  1. Decisions not to bring charges after a police investigation.
  2. Decisions to discontinue or withdraw criminal proceedings in court.
  3. Decisions where no evidence is offered, leading to the case being dropped.

However, the scheme does not cover:

  • Cases where the CPS advises the police against charging due to insufficient evidence early in the investigation.
  • Decisions to accept a guilty plea to a lesser charge or fewer offenses.
  • Cases involving only minor offenses, such as summary-only offenses (unless they involve domestic abuse or hate crimes).
  • Cases where the victim has died or cannot be identified.

Who Can Request a Review?

The VRR Scheme is primarily designed for victims, as defined under the Code of Practice for Victims of Crime. Eligible victims include:

  • Individuals directly affected by the crime.
  • Close relatives of a deceased victim.
  • Parents or guardians of victims under 18.
  • Businesses or charities, in certain circumstances, if they are victims of the crime.

In some cases, a representative, such as a family member or advocate, may request a review on behalf of the victim, provided they have the victim’s consent or act in their best interests.

The Review Process

The VRR process is structured to be straightforward and transparent, with two main stages:

  1. Local Resolution: The first step involves a review by a prosecutor independent of the original decision-maker, typically from the same CPS area. This stage aims to resolve concerns quickly, often within 20 working days. The reviewing prosecutor examines whether the original decision was correct based on the evidence and the CPS’s legal tests, which include:
    • The evidential test: Is there a realistic prospect of conviction?
    • The public interest test: Is prosecution in the public interest?
  2. Independent Review: If the victim remains dissatisfied with the local resolution outcome, they can request an independent review by the CPS Appeals and Review Unit or another senior prosecutor from a different CPS area. This stage ensures an impartial reassessment of the case.

Victims are informed of the outcome in writing, with clear explanations of the decision. If the review finds the original decision was wrong, the CPS may resume proceedings, provided it is legally possible (e.g., within time limits for certain offenses or before a trial concludes).

How to Request a Review

Victims can request a review by contacting the CPS directly, typically within three months of the original decision. The CPS provides multiple channels for submitting a request, including:

  • Online: Via the CPS website or email.
  • In Writing: By sending a letter to the relevant CPS office.
  • Through the Police: Victims can ask the police to liaise with the CPS on their behalf.

The CPS encourages victims to provide specific reasons for their request, such as perceived errors in the decision-making process, to help focus the review.

Significance of the VRR Scheme

The VRR Scheme plays a critical role in promoting accountability within the CPS. By allowing victims to challenge decisions, it ensures that prosecutorial errors or oversights can be corrected, potentially leading to justice being served. The scheme also empowers victims, giving them a voice in a system where they may otherwise feel marginalized. Since its inception, thousands of victims have used the VRR Scheme, with a small but significant number of cases resulting in overturned decisions and resumed prosecutions.

Moreover, the scheme contributes to continuous improvement within the CPS. Reviews often highlight areas for training or policy refinement, ensuring that future decisions are more robust and victim-centered.

Challenges and Considerations

While the VRR Scheme is a vital tool, it has limitations. Not all decisions can be reviewed, and the scheme cannot guarantee that a case will proceed to prosecution. Victims may also find the process emotionally challenging, particularly if the outcome remains unchanged. The CPS acknowledges these challenges and strives to communicate outcomes sensitively, offering support resources where appropriate.

Conclusion

The Victims’ Right to Review Scheme is a cornerstone of the CPS’s commitment to victim-centered justice. By providing a clear, accessible, and transparent process for challenging prosecutorial decisions, the scheme ensures that victims have a meaningful opportunity to seek accountability. While it is not a guarantee of prosecution, it reinforces trust in the criminal justice system and underscores the importance of victims’ rights. For those seeking to learn more or initiate a review, the CPS website article Victims’ Right to Review Scheme offers comprehensive guidance and resources to navigate the process.

By empowering victims and fostering accountability, the VRR Scheme continues to uphold the principles of fairness and justice in England and Wales.

Check out our related articles on the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), 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.

Latest Articles ↓

Most Popular ↓

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

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

Categories
Law Legal Analysis Police

What is Bail ?

What is Bail in England and Wales ?

Bail is a fundamental aspect of the criminal justice system in England and Wales, allowing individuals accused of a crime to remain out of custody while awaiting trial or further legal proceedings. This article explains what bail is, how it works, the types of bail, and the conditions that may be imposed, providing a clear overview for those seeking to understand the process.

What is Bail?

Bail is the temporary release of a person accused of a crime, granted by a court, police, or other authorized body, with the expectation that they will attend future court hearings or comply with specific requirements. It ensures that individuals are not unnecessarily detained before their guilt or innocence is determined, balancing the rights of the accused with public safety and the integrity of the judicial process.

In England and Wales, bail is governed primarily by the Bail Act 1976, which establishes a general presumption in favour of granting bail unless specific exceptions apply. The decision to grant or deny bail depends on factors such as the nature of the offense, the risk of the accused absconding, or the potential for further offenses.

Types of Bail

There are two main types of bail in England and Wales:

  1. Police Bail:
    • Pre-Charge Bail: After an arrest, the police may release a suspect on bail while they continue their investigation. This is often referred to as “released under investigation” (RUI) if no bail conditions are imposed. The Policing and Crime Act 2017 introduced reforms to limit the duration of pre-charge bail to 28 days initially, with extensions subject to oversight, to prevent prolonged uncertainty for suspects.
    • Post-Charge Bail: If the police charge a suspect, they may grant bail for the individual to appear at court at a later date.
  2. Court Bail:
    • Once a case reaches the courts (Magistrates’ Court, Crown Court, or higher courts), a judge or magistrate decides whether to grant bail. This typically occurs during an initial hearing or when a case is adjourned. Court bail may come with stricter conditions than police bail, depending on the circumstances.

The Bail Decision Process

When deciding whether to grant bail, the court or police consider several factors under the Bail Act 1976, including:

  • The likelihood of the defendant attending court.
  • The risk of the defendant committing further offenses while on bail.
  • The potential for the defendant to interfere with witnesses or obstruct justice.
  • The nature and seriousness of the alleged offense.
  • The defendant’s character, past conduct, and community ties.

For certain serious offenses (e.g., murder or specific firearms offenses), the presumption in favor of bail is reversed, meaning the defendant must demonstrate why bail should be granted.

If bail is denied, the defendant is remanded in custody, meaning they are held in prison until their next court appearance or trial. However, courts must justify their reasons for refusing bail, ensuring decisions align with the principles of fairness and necessity.

Bail Conditions

Bail is often granted with conditions to ensure compliance and protect the public. Common conditions in England and Wales include:

  • Reporting: Requiring the defendant to report to a police station at regular intervals.
  • Residence: Mandating that the defendant live at a specific address.
  • Curfew: Restricting the defendant to their home during certain hours, sometimes enforced with an electronic tag.
  • No-Contact Orders: Prohibiting contact with specific individuals, such as victims or witnesses.
  • Surety or Security: Requiring a third party (a surety) to guarantee the defendant’s compliance, or the payment of a sum of money as a security deposit (rarely used).

Failure to comply with bail conditions can result in arrest, revocation of bail, or additional charges.

Conditional vs. Unconditional Bail

  • Unconditional Bail: The defendant is released with no specific restrictions, only the requirement to attend court as directed.
  • Conditional Bail: The defendant must comply with specific conditions, as outlined above, tailored to the case’s circumstances.

Appeals and Variations

If bail is refused, defendants can appeal the decision to a higher court, such as the Crown Court (for Magistrates’ Court decisions) or the High Court (for Crown Court decisions). Similarly, defendants or prosecutors can request a variation of bail conditions if they are deemed too restrictive or insufficient.

Special Considerations

  • Youth Defendants: For individuals under 18, the courts prioritize alternatives to custody, such as release to a responsible adult or youth-specific bail conditions, reflecting their vulnerability.
  • Immigration Cases: Defendants who are not UK citizens may face additional scrutiny, with immigration status potentially influencing bail decisions.
  • Domestic Abuse Cases: Courts may impose stricter conditions, such as no-contact orders, to protect victims.

Why is Bail Important?

Bail serves as a cornerstone of justice in England and Wales, upholding the principle that individuals are innocent until proven guilty. By allowing defendants to remain in the community, it minimizes disruption to their lives while ensuring accountability through conditions and oversight. However, it also protects society by enabling authorities to impose restrictions or detain those deemed a significant risk.

Conclusion

In England and Wales, bail is a critical mechanism that balances individual rights with public safety. Governed by the Bail Act 1976 and shaped by subsequent reforms, the system ensures that decisions are fair, transparent, and proportionate. Whether granted by the police or courts, bail reflects the justice system’s commitment to due process, allowing defendants to prepare for their case while meeting necessary obligations to the court and society.

Check out our articles on Justice System, Open Justice, Rule of Law, R v Sussex Justices, Litigants in Person, McKenzie Friend, Reasonable Person Test, Do you Have to Bow to a Judge ?, Can you Email a Judge ?, Can you Criticise a Judge ? and the highly dubious Sussex Family Justice Board.

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

Latest Articles ↓

Most Popular ↓

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

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

Categories
Police

Sussex Police, the King and High Sheriff

Sussex Police, the King and High Sheriff

A High Sheriff is the King’s representative for law and order and the administration of justice in a county. Philippa Mary Gogarty of Bosham was the High Sheriff for West Sussex 2024–2025.

I have been disappointed in the response of the police to a number of community meetings I have held in West Sussex….Going forward if the police do not want to be involved in these meetings or cannot attend I would prefer to know in advance please.

Philippa Gogarty – Former High Sheriff for West Sussex

Read the following email, sent to the Ministry of Injustice, dated the 31st October 2024 and decide for yourself how rude and disrespectful Sussex Police and the Sussex Police Senior Leadership team were to the former High Sheriff of West Sussex and ultimately His Majesty King Charles III.

Sussex Police Chief Constable Jo Shiner and West Sussex High Sheriff EmailDownload

The email has no Government Security Classification. The Surrey Police and Sussex Police Information Security Policy (722/2023) provides an overarching protective security for Surrey Police and Sussex Police information assets and overall strategy for information security throughout both Forces. It forms the framework and outlines the security measures adopted in order to safeguard the integrity and confidentiality of Force information and information systems.

Thank you for the clarity and for outlining the circumstances which I am frankly mortified about and offer my sincere apologies. I am also very disappointed in those who have let you down and I have asked for that/them to be addressed.

Chief Constable Jo Shiner – Sussex Police

I wonder how the Sussex Police Officers disgraceful behaviour was addressed by the Sussex Police Chief Constable Jo Shiner ?

Check out the Sussex Police Senior Leadership and others implicated in this email !

Chief Constable Jo Shiner
Assistant Chief Constable Dave Mclaren
Temporary Assistant Chief Constable Rosie Royce (not listed on Sussex Police Senior Leadership)

Temp Chief Superintendent Nick Dias (East Sussex Divisional Commander
Superintendent Imran Ashgar (Crawley and Mid Sussex)
Chief Inspector Will Keating Jones (District Commander of Chichester and Arun in West Sussex)
Chief Inspector James Davidson (District Commander of Adur, Worthing and Horsham)

Inspector Rob Hart

DC Loader
Molly O’Mailey
Daniel West
Stu Hale

The latest His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services (HMICFRS) Sussex Police PEEL Assessment – PEEL 2021/22 dated 13th April 2023 stated that Sussex Police Investigating Crime Requires Improvement and Recording data about crime was Inadequate.

Sussex Police refused to record an allegation of stalking as a crime….hardly policing without fear of favour. Check out the article National Stalking Awareness Week – Sussex Police.

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

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

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
Police

National Stalking Awareness Week – Sussex Police

Sussex Police Stalking

This week (April 25-29) is National Stalking Awareness Week – an annual campaign developed by the Suzy Lamplugh Trust to raise awareness about the severity of stalking and focus on different issues related to the crime.

Stalking and harassment is when someone repeatedly behaves in a way that makes you feel scared, distressed or threatened. Stalking and harassment is a criminal offence.

Sussex PCC Katy Bourne looks at how Sussex is leading the way in tackling stalking. “We take stalking seriously in Sussex”

Sussex Police and Crime Commissioner Katy Bourne

I have reported a stalker on several occasions to Sussex Police. Strangely Sussex Police Constable Vinh Tran EB131 or was it Sussex Police Sergeant James Poll EA193 refused to record this as a crime or explain themselves.

Seems odd that Sussex Police promote National Stalking Awareness Week when they don’t deal with a crime that they have evidence of ?

Crawley Police National Stalking Awareness Week
Sussex Police National Stalker Awareness Week

The UK Home Office released an updated version of the Crime Recording Rules for Frontline Officers and Staff, effective April 26th 2025. This 47-page document outlines the standardised procedures for recording crimes, ensuring consistency and accuracy across police forces in England and Wales.

Crime Reporting Steps

If you are or have been a victim of stalking you should report it to the police.

The latest His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services (HMICFRS) Sussex Police PEEL Assessment – PEEL 2021/22 dated 13th April 2023 stated that Sussex Police Investigating Crime Requires Improvement and Recording data about crime was Inadequate.

Do Sussex Police take stalking seriously in Sussex ?

123.4K Views

Check out our articles on Policing by Consent, Police Impartiality, Two Tiered Policing, What is a Police and Crime Commissioner ?, Sussex Police, Policing, Police News, Thought Police, Wasting Police Time, Police Community Support Officers (PCSO), Met Police, Chief Constable Jo Shiner, R v Sussex Justices and the highly questionable Sussex Family Justice Board.

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

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
Police

New Crime Recording Rules for UK Frontline Police Officers and Staff

New Crime Recording Rules for UK Frontline Police Officers and Staff

The UK Home Office has released an updated version of the Crime Recording Rules for Frontline Officers and Staff, effective April 26th 2025. This 47-page document outlines the standardised procedures for recording crimes, ensuring consistency and accuracy across police forces in England and Wales. The guidelines aim to improve data integrity, enhance public trust, and support effective policing by providing clear instructions for officers and staff on the front lines.

crime-recording-rules-for-frontline-police-officers-and-staff-2025_26-april-2025-updateDownload

Key Updates and Objectives

The 2025 update builds on previous frameworks, refining the rules to reflect evolving crime trends, technological advancements, and feedback from law enforcement. It emphasizes the importance of recording crimes based on victim reports and available evidence, adhering to the National Crime Recording Standard (NCRS). The primary goal remains unchanged: to ensure crime data is victim-focused, transparent, and consistent, enabling better resource allocation and policy-making.

Core Principles

  • Victim-Centered Approach: Crimes must be recorded when a victim reports an incident, unless there is credible evidence to the contrary. The threshold for recording remains “on the balance of probabilities.”
  • Timeliness: Officers are required to log crimes within 24 hours of the report, barring exceptional circumstances.
  • Accuracy: The rules specify how to classify offenses, from violent crimes to cybercrimes, ensuring alignment with legal definitions under UK law.

Notable Changes in 2025

While the document retains much of its foundational structure, updates include:

  • Digital and Cybercrime: Expanded guidance on recording online offenses, such as fraud, harassment, and data breaches, reflecting their growing prevalence.
  • Hate Crimes: Strengthened emphasis on identifying and flagging hate-motivated incidents, with clearer criteria for officers.
  • Outcome Recording: Enhanced rules for documenting investigation outcomes, aiming to improve accountability and public reporting.

Practical Guidance for Officers

The document provides detailed scenarios and examples to assist frontline staff. For instance, it clarifies how to handle cases involving multiple victims or offenders, and when to record a crime as “attempted” versus “completed.” It also addresses common challenges, such as distinguishing between civil disputes and criminal acts.

Implications for Policing

These rules are part of a broader effort to modernize crime recording in the UK. By standardizing processes, the Home Office seeks to reduce administrative burdens on officers, allowing more time for active policing. The updates also respond to public and governmental calls for greater transparency in crime statistics, particularly amid debates over policing priorities and funding.

The Crime Recording Rules for Frontline Officers and Staff 2025 is a critical resource for law enforcement, balancing operational practicality with the need for reliable data. As crime continues to evolve, this framework ensures police forces are equipped to adapt while maintaining public confidence.

Check out our articles on What is a Police and Crime Commissioner ?, Sussex Police, Policing, Police News, Policing by Consent, Police Professional Standards Department, Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC), Two Tiered Policing, Thought Police, Wasting Police Time, Police Community Support Officers (PCSO), Met Police, Chief Constable Jo Shiner, R v Sussex Justices and the highly questionable Sussex Family Justice Board.

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

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

Upper Tribunal Judge Sarah Pinder

Upper Tribunal Judge Sarah Pinder

Immigration and Asylum Judge Sarah Pinder has come under scrutiny for her contributions to Free Movement, a website widely regarded as advocating for open borders, and her history of controversial rulings in immigration cases.

The Daily Mail published an article Immigration judge behind series of controversial rulings contributed dozens of articles to ‘open borders’ website on the 27th February 2025.

GB News published on the same day Immigration judge behind controversial rulings wrote articles for pro-open borders website: ‘Truly abhorrent’.

Immigration judge wrote for pro-open borders website was published by The Telegraph.

Judge Pinder’s past writings and judicial decisions have quite rightly raised questions about the impartiality of the UK’s immigration and asylum judiciary and its alignment with public sentiment on border control.

Biography of Judge Sarah Pinder

Sarah Pinder is an immigration judge whose career trajectory has placed her at the center of contentious legal and political discussions. Before ascending to the bench she practised in immigration and asylum law as a senior caseworker for a not-for-profit organisation in South London.

Check out the article What is an Immigration Tribunal Judge ?

Judge Pinder established herself as an immigration barrister at Goldsmith Chambers, a prominent legal practice in London known for its work in human rights and immigration law. Her tenure as a barrister honed her expertise in navigating the complexities of the UK’s immigration system, a foundation that later informed her judicial role.

Sarah practises in the fields of immigration law with some family law (children).  She has been recommended as a Leading Junior barrister (Band 4) in immigration by the Legal 500 2017 edition, whose ‘standout qualities are how approachable, level-headed, smart and patient she is.’  

Sarah was first listed in the 2014 edition as a “real rising star”. Prior to joining the Bar, Sarah practised in immigration and asylum law as a senior caseworker in a not-for-profit organisation in South London. This has given her the advantage of experience in preparing cases before they reach appeal stage, which she has pooled with her wealth of experience in court hearings as a barrister.

Sarah is committed to publicly funded work and ensuring access to justice for those most vulnerable. She is naturally friendly and approachable as well as meticulous and creative in her approach to cases.

Sarah Pinder – Border Criminologies – University of Oxford

While specific details about her early life, education, and personal background remain limited in public records, her professional journey reflects a deep engagement with immigration policy and practice. Pinder’s transition from barrister to judge positioned her to adjudicate some of the most challenging and high-profile immigration cases in the UK, a role she has fulfilled with decisions that have often defied conventional expectations.

The King has appointed Sarah Pinder to be a salaried Judge of the Upper Tribunal on the advice of the Lord Chancellor, the Right Honourable Alex Chalk KC MP and the Senior President of Tribunals, the Right Honourable Sir Keith Lindblom.        

The Senior President of Tribunals has assigned her to the Immigration and Asylum Chamber with effect from 2 September 2024.

Sarah Pinder will be known as Upper Tribunal Judge Pinder. She was called to the Bar (Middle Temple) in 2006. She was appointed as a Fee-paid Judge of the First-tier Tribunal, Immigration and Asylum Chamber in 2019, and as a Deputy District Judge in 2022. 

Judge of the Upper Tribunal, Immigration and Asylum Chamber Appointment: Pinder

Judge Pinder is shown on the Upper Tribunal Judges published on the Courts and Tribunal Judiciary website.

Judge PinderImmigration & Asylum
List of Upper Tribunal Judges

Human Rights Lawyers Association / Immigration Law Practitioners Association / Bar Human Rights Committee

Judge Pinder Memberships – Legal 500

Contributions to Free Movement

Judge Pinder’s association with Free Movement, a publication dedicated to immigration law and policy, has drawn significant attention. The Daily Mail highlights that she authored dozens of articles for the site, including one notable piece where she described immigration detention centres as “abhorrent” This stance aligns with Free Movement’s broader editorial line, which critics argue promotes a liberal, open-borders agenda. Her writings suggest a philosophical opposition to stringent immigration enforcement, a perspective that appears to have carried over into her judicial rulings.

Free Movement is known for providing legal analysis and commentary that often challenges government policies on deportation and detention. Pinder’s contributions to the platform indicate a pre-judicial career marked by advocacy, raising questions about whether her past writings reflect a bias that influences her current role on the bench.

Controversial Rulings Stir Backlash

Judge Pinder’s judicial record includes several decisions that have ignited public and political backlash. One notable case involved her ruling to allow a Jamaican drug dealer to remain in the UK. The individual, facing deportation, argued that his removal would be “unduly harsh” on his children, one of whom was transgender. Pinder dismissed the government’s appeal, prioritizing the emotional needs of the children over the Home Office’s push for deportation. Critics, including Tory justice spokesman Robert Jenrick, have pointed to this ruling as evidence of a judiciary out of step with public expectations for robust immigration enforcement.

Another controversial decision saw Pinder block the deportation of a gay Zimbabwean paedophile, citing the “hostility” he would face in his home country. This ruling further fuelled accusations that Pinder’s judicial philosophy leans toward leniency and human rights considerations over criminal accountability and border security.

Political and Public Reaction

The overlap between Judge Pinder’s writings and her judicial outcomes has not gone unnoticed. Robert Jenrick, in his critique, emphasised the expectation that “judges are trusted to park their political beliefs at the door” He argued that when “a judge’s open borders political views seamlessly overlap with their expansionist judicial decisions, it’s hard to escape the conclusion that they have been compromised” This sentiment reflects a broader frustration among conservative voices who see the judiciary as an obstacle to stricter immigration policies.

Public discourse, as reflected on social media posts, echoes this discontent. Users have labelled Pinder an “activist judge” unfit for her role, with some calling for systemic reform to address perceived liberal biases within the judiciary. The media articles amplifies these concerns, framing Pinder’s actions as part of a larger narrative of judicial overreach in immigration matters.

Implications for the Judiciary

The case of Judge Sarah Pinder underscores a tension at the heart of the UK’s legal system: the balance between judicial independence and public accountability. Her bio—from barrister to judge—illustrates a career steeped in immigration law, yet her alignment with Free Movement and her rulings suggest a consistent ideological thread that critics argue undermines impartiality.

Defenders might counter that her decisions reflect a commitment to human rights, a cornerstone of British law, rather than political activism.

The three key values which are central to the role of judicial office holders (JOHs) in England and Wales are:
• Independence
• Impartiality
• Integrity

The controversy surrounding Pinder shows no signs of abating. Her story raises broader questions about how judges’ personal beliefs shape their rulings and whether the UK’s immigration judiciary can maintain public trust amid polarizing debates over borders and sovereignty.

“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’

Image of Upper Tribunal Judge Pinder : The Telegraph

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

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

Latest Articles ↓

Most Popular ↓

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

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

Categories
Law Legal Analysis Police

Counter Disinformation Data Platform (CDDP)

Counter Disinformation Data Platform (CDDP)

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

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

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

The Counter Disinformation Data Platform: Scope and Ambiguity

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

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

A £2.3 Million Investment in Control?

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

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

Free Speech Under Siege ?

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

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

The Slippery Slope of “Concerning” Content

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

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

A Crossroads for Liberty ?

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

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

Check out our articles on Office for Communications Data Authorisations, National Security Online Information Team (NSOIT), Thought Police, Policing, Police News, Policing by Consent, Two Tiered Policing, Wasting Police Time, 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 Police

Thought Police

Thought Police

In George Orwell’s seminal novel 1984, the Thought Police represent the ultimate tool of oppression, monitoring and punishing individuals not just for their actions but for their very thoughts. Orwell’s dystopian vision was a warning, a fictional exaggeration meant to provoke reflection on the dangers of authoritarian control. Yet, in 2025, that fiction seems to be inching closer to reality, as evidenced by a disturbing incident in Britain that has reignited debates about free speech, police priorities, and the creeping specter of thought control.

According to the Daily Mail article Knock knock, it’s the Thought Police, published on the 22nd February 2025, Helen Jones, a 54-year-old grandmother from Stockport, found herself on the receiving end of a police visit—not for committing a crime, but for posting criticism of local Labour councillors on Facebook. The councillors in question were embroiled in a scandal uncovered by The Mail on Sunday, involving a WhatsApp group where offensive messages, including a Labour MP’s wish that an elderly constituent would die were shared. Jones’s post called for their resignation, a sentiment many might consider a reasonable exercise of free expression. Yet, within 48 hours of a complaint, two plain-clothes officers knocked on her door.

Greater Manchester Police conceded that Jones had committed no crime. No charges were filed, no laws were broken. Still, the visit left her shaken, too intimidated to post on social media again. “I’ve effectively been silenced,” she told the Daily Mail. Critics have likened the officers’ actions to those of East Germany’s Stasi, the notorious secret police known for stifling dissent through fear and surveillance. The comparison is stark, but it’s hard to ignore the parallels: a citizen targeted not for illegal acts, but for voicing an opinion.

The Daily Mail published a follow up article on the 24th February 2025, Fury deepens over ‘sinister’ Thought Police targeting

This incident raises uncomfortable questions about the state of free speech in Britain. At a time when police resources are stretched thin—thousands of serious crimes, from burglaries to assaults, go uninvestigated due to lack of manpower—why were detectives dispatched to confront a grandmother over a Facebook post?

The speed of the response is particularly jarring. The Daily Mail notes that within two days of the complaint, officers were at Jones’s door, a stark contrast to the often sluggish investigations into violent offenses or property crimes. It suggests a troubling skew in priorities, where policing thoughts takes precedence over policing streets.

The “Hope you Die” WhatsApp scandal itself is a messy affair. It led to the sacking of Health Minister Andrew Gwynne and the suspension of Burnley MP Oliver Ryan and 11 Labour Councillors after their vile messages came to light.

Public outrage was swift, and Jones was far from alone in her criticism. Yet, her case isn’t isolated. The Daily Mail article points to a growing trend of police investigating social media posts, citing examples like columnist Allison Pearson, feminist writer Julie Bindel, and former policeman Harry Miller, whose name was logged in a non-crime hate incident database for his online comments. These cases suggest a pattern: authorities increasingly treating speech as a potential offense, even when it falls short of illegality.

BlackBeltBarrister – Monumental waste of police time (Though Police)

What’s driving this shift? Some argue it’s the fallout of vague hate speech laws, which give police broad discretion to interpret what constitutes an offense. Others point to a cultural shift, where public criticism—especially of those in power—prompts swift complaints from offended parties, triggering police action. In Jones’s case, the complaint’s origin remains unclear, but the response was immediate and intimidating. It’s a tactic that doesn’t need to result in prosecution to be effective; the mere act of a police visit can chill dissent, as it did for Jones.

The implications are profound. If expressing frustration with elected officials online can summon detectives to your doorstep, what’s next? The Daily Mail quotes critics accusing the police of wasting resources on “thought crimes” while real criminals roam free. It’s a sentiment echoed across social media, where users have decried the incident as an overreach of power and a betrayal of public trust. The phrase “Thought Police” has trended, not as a literary allusion, but as a lived experience.

This isn’t to say police shouldn’t investigate genuine threats or incitements to violence—those have clear legal boundaries. But Jones’s post, by all accounts, was neither. It was a call for accountability, not a call to harm. The distinction matters. When authorities blur the line between policing actions and policing opinions, they risk eroding the very freedoms they’re meant to protect.

Orwell’s Thought Police didn’t just punish; they instilled fear, ensuring citizens self-censored to avoid scrutiny. Helen Jones’s story suggests Britain may be flirting with a similar dynamic. As she retreats from social media, silenced by the knock of a detective, one wonders how many others will follow suit. The Daily Mail article serves as both a report and a warning: when the state prioritizes thoughts over crimes, the dystopia Orwell imagined ceases to be fiction. It becomes our reality.

British ‘thought police’ order pensioner to apologise for ‘upsetting’ Facebook post or face investigation

Thames Valley Police – Thought Police for a Facebook Post
Thames Valley Police

Check out our articles on Policing, Police News, Policing by Consent, Police Impartiality, Free Speech Union, Two Tiered Policing, Wasting Police Time, National Security Online Information Team (NSOIT), Counter Disinformation Data Platform (CDDP) 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

His Honour Andrew Menary KC

His Honour Judge Menary KC

His Honour Judge Andrew Gwyn Menary is a Circuit Judge and the Recorder of Liverpool. He is the most senior judge at Liverpool Crown Court.

HHJ Menary was a judge involved in the trial and sentencing of the Southport rioters.

Paul Doyle who drove into a crowd at Liverpool FC’s Premier League victory parade on the 26th May 2025 was today (16th December 2025) sentenced by His Honour Judge Andrew Menary KC to 21 years and six months in prison.

Former footballer Joey Barton was handed a suspended sentence, at Liverpool Crown Court on the 8th December 2025, by His Honour Judge Andrew Menary KC for social media posts about broadcaster Jeremy Vine and TV football pundits Lucy Ward and Eni Aluko.

His Honour Menary presided over the Pre Trial Plea Hearing on the 13th February 2025 of the two brothers accused of seriously assaulting GMP officers at Manchester Airport.

Mr Amaaz denied two counts of causing actual bodily harm; one count of assaulting an emergency worker; and one of common assault.

Muhammad Amaad, 25, also from Rochdale, pleaded not guilty to one count of causing actual bodily harm.

They were granted BAIL by Judge Menary until the trial held by HHJ Flewitt…….Man guilty of airport attack on police officers

His Honour Judge Menary Pre Trial Plea Hearing – Manchester Airport Brothers

HHJ Menary claims to be a Christian in an article Hope at Christmas published on the judiciary website on the 21st December 2023.

In a BBC news article Judge tells of ‘unpleasant threats’ after riot sentencing, HHJ Menary is quoted as saying “There have been some twits online who have posted all sorts of daft things about me“

Twits is surprising and unbecoming language from an honourable judge such as HHJ Menary.

His Honour Judge Menary, may therefore wish as a Christian, to read and reflect on Matthew 7:1-3

“Do not judge, or you too will be judged…For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you….Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?”

The judiciary, including Judge Menary, are quite rightly not immune to public criticism and comment. The rule of law applies to everyone and no one is above the law.

Criticising judges, was historically considered a form of contempt of court in England and Wales.

“Scandalising the judiciary (also referred to as scandalising the court or scandalising judges) is abolished as a form of contempt of court under the common law of England and Wales.”

Crime and Courts Act 2013 Section 33

You may want to check out the articles on Dodgy Judges and His Honour Judge Melbourne Inman KC (The Recorder of Birmingham).

His Honour Judge Menary KC Bio

Andrew Gwyn Menary, KC born in March 1959, was appointed a circuit judge, assigned to the Midland Circuit, based at Birmingham Crown Court, with effect from July 18, 2013. Judge Menary, at the time 54, was called to the Bar in 1982 and took silk in 2003. He was appointed as a recorder in 2002.

HHJ Menary is shown on the List of Circuit Judges published on the Courts and Tribunal Judiciary website.

His Honour Judge Manary KCNorth West01-07-2013
List of Circuit Judges
CircuitCourtJudgesDate of appointment
 North WestLiverpool Combined Court CentreHis Honour Judge Menary KC09-04-19
Resident Judges

His Honour Judge Menary is a Circuit Judge.

HHJ Menary is shown on the Resident Judges list published on the Courts and Tribunal Judiciary website.

Andrew Menary is listed at Companies House with 5 appointments.

The three key values which are central to the role of judicial office holders (JOHs) in England and Wales are:
• Independence
• Impartiality
• Integrity

HHJ Menary KC jailing men for violent disorder condemns ‘twisted ideology’ behind Southport rioting

Authorisation to sit as a High Court Judge

HHJ Menary may be authorised to sit as a High Court Judge by s9(1) of the Senior Courts Act as amended by the Crime and Courts Act 2013.

According to CRIMINAL PRACTICE DIRECTIONS 2015 DIVISION XII His Honour Judge Menary should be addressed as “My Lord” in court.

Modes of Address B.1 – The following judges, when sitting in court, should be addressed as ‘My Lord’ or ‘My Lady’

(b) any Circuit Judge sitting as a judge of the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) or the High Court under section 9(1) of the Senior Courts Act 1981;
(d) any Senior Circuit Judge who is an Honorary Recorder.

Description B.3 – In cause lists, forms and orders members of the judiciary should be described as follows:

(a) Circuit Judges, as ‘His [or Her] Honour Judge A’. When the judge is sitting as a judge of the High Court under section 9(1) of the Senior Courts Act 1981, the words ‘sitting as a judge of the High Court’ should be added;

“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’

Image of HHJ Menary : Liverpool Echo

Check out our articles on Dodgy Judges, Judges Salaries and Fees, 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, Judge Pinder, 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