Categories
Police

What is the Police Digital Service (PDS)

The Police Digital Service (PDS) is the UK organisation responsible for coordinating, developing, delivering, and managing digital services and solutions that enable UK policing to safely harness technology to improve public safety. 

Funded by policing and the Home Office, PDS works with law enforcement organisations, private industry, charities, public bodies, and government to deliver digital services and solutions with policing, for policing. The PDS are NOT a police force.

In 2022-23, Police Digital Service turnover was £74m and it made a profit of £2.4m. It runs cloud services for UK law enforcement as well as cybersecurity and IT support.

If you have arrived at the Ministry of Injustice from pdspolice.uk (MOI domain) you may well have been looking for pds.police.cuk which is the official website for the Police Digital Service. Odd that the Police Digital Service didn’t think to register the domain ?

For the avoidance of doubt this website is not run by the Police Digital Service nor is it associated in any way with the Police Digital Service.

Crime at the Police Digital Service ?

Police Digital Service leaders arrested
“The City of London police are leading a criminal investigation into allegations made against two individuals employed by the company Police Digital Service. The suspects have been arrested for fraud, bribery and misconduct in a public office.” Read the PDS article in full.
The Guardian 5th July 2024

History of the Police Digital Service

  1. National Policing Improvement Agency (NPIA): In July 2010, the UK government outlined its vision for the future of policing in the White Paper “Policing in the 21st Century.” This document paved the way for the creation of the PDS. The NPIA played a crucial role in identifying areas for efficiency gains, encouraging collaboration, and realizing economies of scale through national procurement frameworks.
  2. Transition from NPIA: In December 2011, Home Secretary Theresa May announced plans to replace the NPIA with two new organizations: the College of Policing (a police professional body) and the Police ICT Company (responsible for procuring IT for police forces).
  3. Police ICT Company: In 2012, the Police ICT Company was incorporated as a private company limited by guarantee. Over time, it evolved to address the changing landscape of cyber threats and technology.
  4. Becoming the Police Digital Service: In 2021, the Police ICT Company rebranded itself as the Police Digital Service (PDS). Today, both the PDS and the College of Policing play critical roles in supporting UK policing.

“We are huge supporters of PDS at the Home Office. They are doing critical work on behalf of the policing community.” 

Rt.Hon Chris Philp MP. Minister for Policing, Crime, and Fire. Sept 2023.

The National Management Centre (NMC)

The National Management Centre (NMC), part of the PDS, is the national centre of expertise dedicated to protecting UK police forces against cybercrime. Here are key points about the NMC:

  • Mission: The NMC focuses on mitigating the risk of cyber threats to sensitive police data and infrastructure. It operates 24/7, providing nationally coordinated and locally delivered cybersecurity services to police forces across the UK.
  • Services Offered:
    1. Protection: The NMC offers services designed to safeguard police infrastructures.
    2. Detection: It actively monitors and detects cyber activity.
    3. Response: In case of incidents, the NMC responds swiftly to mitigate damage.
  • Evolving Threat Landscape: As cyber threats continue to evolve, the NMC remains vigilant, adapting its strategies to protect police forces effectively.

Police Digital Service NMC Wins Cyber Award

The Police Digital Service’s National Management Centre (NMC) was awarded a National Cybercrime Programme Chief Superintendent’s Commendation for its role in protecting UK law enforcement against cyber threats.

The award to the National Management Centre (NMC) was presented at the annual National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC) National Cybercrime Programme, Commissioners, and Chief Superintendents’ Awards.

 “This commendation is a testament to the dedication and hard work of the entire team at the National Management Centre. We are honoured to be recognised by the NPCC for our contributions to tackling cyber crime and ensuring the security of our digital landscape.”

Stephen Reid, Director of NMC

Knowledge Hub Platform

The Knowledge Hub, managed by the Police Digital Service (PDS), is a specialised digital platform designed to foster collaboration, knowledge sharing, and innovation within UK policing and its select public and private sector partners.

For more detailed information, you can explore the official PDS website and read their e-brochure on the NMC.

The PDS and the NMC play crucial roles in ensuring the safety and security of our communities through digital innovation and cybersecurity efforts

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


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


Latest Articles


Most Popular


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

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

Categories
Family Law

What is the Family Justice Board ?

The Family Justice Board in England and Wales plays a crucial role in shaping the family justice system and ensuring positive outcomes for children. Here are the key points:

  1. Purpose and Role:
    • The Family Justice Board aims to improve the performance of the family justice system.
    • It ensures the best possible outcomes for children who interact with the system.
    • The Board takes a cross-system approach and is jointly chaired by Ministers from the Ministry of Justice and the Department for Education.
  2. Membership:
  3. Sub-Groups:
    • The Board has sub-groups:
      • Family Justice Council: Provides independent expert advice.
      • FJYPB: Represents young people’s perspectives.
      • Performance Improvement Sub-Group: Analyzes performance data and recommends improvements.
  4. Open Letters:
  5. Monitoring and Direction:

For more details, you can refer to the official GOV.UK page.

Relationship with the Family Justice Council

The Family Justice Council operates independently of the Family Justice Board. As a critical friend to the Family Justice Board it provide it with expert advice, from an inter-disciplinary perspective, on the operation and reform of the family justice system in England and Wales.

Members

The Family Justice Board in England and Wales comprises senior stakeholders from across the family justice system. Here are some of the current members as of 28th June 2024:

  1. Lord Bellamy KC (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State at the Ministry of Justice) – Co-Chair
  2. David Johnston MP (Minister for Children and Families) – Co-Chair
  3. Nigel Brown (Chief Executive, Cafcass Cymru)
  4. Nick Goodwin (Chief Executive, HMCTS)
  5. Albert Heaney (Director, Social Services, Welsh Government)
  6. Sally Jenkins (Head of Children’s Services, Association of Directors of Social Services Cymru)
  7. Sophie Langdale and Fram Oram (Director, Children’s Social Care – Practice and Workforce, DfE)
  8. Ed Lidington (Director, Court Recovery, Criminal and Family Justice, MOJ)
  9. Helen Lincoln (Executive Director for Children, Families & Education, Essex County Council)
  10. Yvette Stanley (National Director, Social Care, Ofsted)
  11. Jacky Tiotto (Chief Executive, Cafcass)
  12. Isabelle Trowler (Chief Social Worker for Children and Families)
  13. Sir Andrew McFarlane (President of the Family Division) – Observer
  14. A representative from the Family Justice Young People’s Board also participates.

Please note that this list includes key members, and there may be additional stakeholders involved.

Local Family Justice Boards (LFJB)

There are several Local Family Justice Boards (LFJB) including the Sussex Family Justice Board which is the largest. A highly dubious family justice cartel that operates in Sussex.

Local Family Justice Boards (LFJB) were established to support the work of the Family Justice Board by bringing together the key local agencies, including decision makers and front-line staff, to achieve significant improvement in the performance of the family justice system in their local areas.

To contact an LFJB or for more information, please email LFJB Enquiries.

Family Justice Board

Minutes of the Family Justice Board

Check out our related articles on Rule of Law, Open Justice, Is the Law Black and White ?, Civil Justice Council, Youth Justice Board, Abuse of Process, What Does Lady Justice Symbolise ?, McKenzie Friend, Wasted Costs Order, 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

Gambling Act 2005

The Gambling Act 2005 is an act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. Its primary purpose is to regulate and control all forms of gambling within England, Wales, and Scotland. Enacted in 2005, this legislation aimed to consolidate existing gambling laws while introducing essential updates to address the evolving gambling industry.

Key Concepts and Licensing Objectives

  1. Licensing Objectives:
    • The Act outlines four key licensing objectives:
      • Preventing gambling from being a source of crime or disorder
      • Ensuring gambling is conducted fairly and openly
      • Protecting children and vulnerable individuals
      • Preventing gambling from being used to support crime
  2. Types of Gambling Covered:
    • The Act covers various forms of gambling, including:
      • Gaming: This includes both games of chance and equal chance gaming.
      • Betting: General betting, spread bets, prize competitions, pool betting, and betting intermediaries.
      • Lotteries: Both commercial and non-commercial lotteries fall under its purview.
      • Cross-Category Activities: Addressing the intersection of betting, gaming, and lotteries.
  3. The Role of the Gambling Commission:
    • The Act established the Gambling Commission, responsible for regulating and overseeing gambling activities.
    • The Commission ensures compliance with licensing objectives, issues operating licenses, and provides guidance to local authorities.
  4. Protection of Children and Young Persons:
    • The Act prohibits gambling-related harm to children and young individuals.
    • It defines offenses related to inviting children to gamble, entering gambling premises, and providing facilities for gambling.
  5. Operating Licenses:
    • The Act outlines procedures for obtaining operating licenses.
    • It covers remote gambling, general conditions imposed by the Commission, and the nature of licenses.

Impact and Ongoing Relevance

The Gambling Act 2005 has significantly shaped the gambling industry in the UK. It addressed online gambling, casino regulations, and Fixed Odds Betting Terminals (FOBTs). Its provisions continue to guide responsible gambling practices and protect consumers.

Gambling Commission

The Gambling Commission is a crucial regulatory body in the United Kingdom, responsible for overseeing and supervising gambling activities within Great Britain. Here are the key details about this organization:

  1. Role and Responsibilities:
    • The Gambling Commission licenses, regulates, advises, and provides guidance to individuals and businesses involved in gambling.
    • Its remit covers various aspects of the gambling industry, including arcades, betting, bingo, casinos, slot machines, lotteries, and remote gambling (online and by phone).
    • Notably, spread betting falls outside its jurisdiction.
  2. Functions and Focus Areas:
    • Licensing: The Commission issues operating licenses to gambling businesses, ensuring compliance with legal requirements.
    • Consumer Protection: It safeguards consumers by enforcing standards, promoting fair play, and preventing harm.
    • Transparency and Accountability: The Commission publishes research, statistics, and transparency reports to maintain openness and accountability.
  3. Key Initiatives and Guidance:
    • Safer Gambling: The Commission emphasizes responsible gambling practices, aiming to protect vulnerable individuals.
    • Financial Verification: It ensures that gambling operators verify customers’ age, identity, and financial details.
    • Industry Standards: The Commission works to raise industry standards, keep crime out of gambling, and protect children.
  4. Contact and Resources:
    • If you need information, support, or want to check a licensed gambling business, visit the official Gambling Commission website.
    • You can also explore their published statistics, research, and guidance.

Criminal Penalties

  1. Cheating at Gambling:
  2. Failure to Comply with Licensing Terms:
  3. Providing Facilities for Gambling Illegally:
  4. Investigation and Prosecution:

Remember that these penalties aim to maintain integrity and fairness in the gambling industry while safeguarding consumers and licensed operators alike.

General Election Gambling Scandal 2024

The Met Police are to take the lead in investigations into some of the allegations about bets placed by politicians on the general election 2024.

Industry regulator the Gambling Commission will continue to lead inquiries into cases “where the alleged offending is limited to breaches of the Gambling Act only”, a Metropolitan Police spokesperson told the BBC.

But detectives would be in charge of “a small number of cases” where other offences might also be involved, such as misconduct in public office, the spokesperson added.

BBC News

The Gambling Act 2005 remains a legislative framework that balances industry growth with social responsibility. As the gambling landscape evolves, its principles continue to guide regulators, operators, and players alike.

For the full text of the Act, you can refer to the official legislation document.

If you’re worried about how gambling makes you or someone else feel, GambleAware can help, visit their website or call 0808 8020 133 (Free).


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


Latest Articles


Most Popular


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

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

Categories
Family Law Legal Analysis

What is the Family Justice Council (FJC) ?

The Family Justice Council (FJC) is a non-departmental public body in the United Kingdom that plays a crucial role in improving family court outcomes.

A list of members is published on the FJC website. The Chair is Sir Andrew McFarlane, President of the Family Division.

The link to the Code of Practice for FJC Members does not work. The FJC have been emailed to obtain a copy.

The Family Justice Council will operate independently of the Family Justice Board but will, as a critical friend to the Family Justice Board; provide it with expert advice, from an inter-disciplinary perspective, on the operation and reform of the family justice system in England and Wales.

Family Justice Council Terms of Reference

I am not sure that the FJC would or should have been friends with the Sussex Family Justice Board. A highly dubious family justice cartel that operates in Sussex.

  1. Purpose and Function of the FJC:
    • The FJC’s primary mission is to promote an inter-disciplinary approach to family justice. It recognizes that family law involves various aspects, including legal, social, and emotional considerations.
    • It monitors the family justice system across the UK, keeping a close eye on its functioning, challenges, and areas for improvement.
    • By advising on reforms and providing guidance, the FJC aims to enhance the overall experience for families navigating the court system.
  2. Composition and Influence:
    • The FJC benefits from input from 30 locally based Family Justice Committees (FJCs) spread throughout the country. These committees provide valuable insights and perspectives from diverse regions.
    • As an advisory body, the FJC collaborates with the Ministry of Justice to ensure that family justice policies and practices align with the best interests of families.
    • It also contributes to the work of the Family Justice Board and the Single Family Court, fostering cooperation and coherence within the family justice system.
  3. Areas of Focus:
    • The FJC addresses a wide range of issues, including child custody, divorce, adoption, and domestic violence. Its recommendations aim to streamline processes, improve access to justice, and safeguard the well-being of families.
    • It actively engages with legal professionals, social workers, psychologists, and other experts to create a holistic understanding of family law challenges.
    • Through its policy papers and consultations, the FJC advocates for evidence-based reforms that benefit families and promote fairness.
  4. Website:
    • The FJC maintains a dedicated website where it shares news, policy updates, and consultation outcomes. This platform serves as a valuable resource for legal practitioners, researchers, and the public.
    • Whether it’s addressing expert evidence quality or exploring innovative approaches, the FJC’s work is transparently documented on its website.

Family Justice Council minutes of meetings are also published on their website.

The Family Justice Council will hold its tenth Open Meeting on Monday 22 July 2024 from 11.00am until 1.30pm.  The meeting will be held remotely via MS Teams.

The open meeting provides an opportunity for members of the public to see first-hand the Council at work. Guests will be able to observe the meeting, which will conclude with a question-and-answer session. All questions will need to be submitted to the Council in advance.

To register to attend the meeting and to submit a question to the Council, please complete the following form: FJC Open Meeting Registration form

Family Justice Council Latest News

The Family Justice Council can be contacted :

Family Justice Council
WG26
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London
WC2A 2LL

Email: The Family Justice Council Secretariat ([email protected])

Check out our related articles on Civil Justice Council, Rule of Law, Innocent until Proven GuiltyOpen Justice, R v Sussex Justices and the highly questionable Sussex Family Justice Board.


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


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

What is an Immigration Tribunal Judge ?

An Immigration Tribunal Judge plays a crucial role in the UK legal system, specifically within the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum). Let’s delve into their responsibilities, qualifications, and the process of handling appeals.

Role and Responsibilities

The First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum) is administered by HM Courts & Tribunals Service. Its primary functions include:

  1. Appeals Against Decisions: Immigration Tribunal Judges hear appeals related to decisions made by the Home Office. These decisions pertain to:
    • Permission to Stay in the UK
    • Deportation from the UK
    • Entry Clearance to the UK
  2. Immigration Detention Bail: The tribunal also handles applications for immigration bail from individuals held by the Home Office on immigration matters.

The Judge’s Role

  • Independence: The judge remains independent of both parties involved in the appeal.
  • No Wig or Gown: Unlike other court settings, the judge does not wear a wig or gown.
  • Listening and Decision-Making: The judge listens to evidence presented by all parties before making a decision. Deliberation time is often necessary.

First-tier Tribunal Judges

A list of all First Tier Tribunal judges is published on the Courts and Tribunals Judiciary website.

Qualifications to be an Immigration Tribunal Judge

To become an Immigration Tribunal Judge, you’ll need to meet specific qualifications and gain relevant experience. Here are the key points:

  1. Legally-Qualified Appointments:
    • Most legally-qualified judges have either:
      • Five or Seven Years of Post-Qualification Experience: This experience is typically gained after obtaining legal qualifications as a solicitor or barrister.
      • Eligibility for Non-Traditional Legal Backgrounds: The Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act (2007) expanded eligibility to include professionals from The Chartered Institute of Legal Executives (CILE)Institute of Trade Mark Attorneys (ITMA), and Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys (CIPA)Non-traditional legal backgrounds (e.g., legal academics) are also considered.
  2. Non-Legal Appointments:
  3. Basic Requirements:

Remember that appointments to tribunals are mainly through the Judicial Appointments Commission, which considers both statutory requirements and the qualities needed for a good judge.

Diversity amongst Immigration Tribunal Judge

As of April 2021, Immigration Tribunal Judges in the UK exhibit varying levels of diversity. Here are the key points:

  1. Gender:
  2. Ethnicity:

While progress has been made, efforts continue to enhance diversity within the judiciary.

Immigration Judge imprisoned for Fraud

Barrister/Immigration tribunal judge jailed for legal aid scam
Part-time immigration tribunal judge and barrister Rasib Ghaffar was convicted of conspiracy to commit a £1.8m legal aid fraud and was sentenced to three years imprisonment.
Law Society Gazette 25th June 2024

In summary, an Immigration Tribunal Judge ensures fairness, impartiality, and adherence to legal principles in immigration-related cases. Their decisions significantly impact individuals’ lives, making their role both challenging and essential.

For more information, you can visit the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum) website.

You may also be interested in Upper Tribunal Judge Sarah Pinder, Dodgy Judges and Legal News.


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


Latest Articles


Most Popular


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

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

Categories
Judiciary Legal Professionals

Chief Magistrate

The title Chief Magistrate holds historical and contemporary significance in various legal and governmental systems across the world.

The Senior District Judge (Chief Magistrate) of England and Wales, as they are known, has a leadership responsibility for the 300-or-so District Judges (Magistrates’ Court) (DJMCs), and Deputy DJMCs across England and Wales.

The Chief Magistrate has no authority over lay magistrates, or over the several hundreds of district judges who sit in the county courts of England and Wales.

The current Chief Magistrate of England and Wales is Senior District Judge Paul Goldspring.

The current Deputy Chief Magistrate of England and Wales is Senior Deputy District Judge Tanweer Ikram CBE.

The position of Chief Magistrate, often laden with authority and responsibility, embodies the essence of governance, justice, and leadership within a jurisdiction.

The Chief Magistrate is responsible for:

  • hearing many of the most sensitive or complex cases in the magistrates’ courts and in particular extradition and special jurisdiction cases.
  • supporting and guiding district judge (magistrates’ court) colleagues.
  • liaising with the senior judiciary and Presiding Judges on matters relating to magistrates’ courts and district judges (magistrates’ courts).

The Chief Magistrate’s Office is also responsible for arranging sittings of Deputy DJMCs across England and Wales, and managing the hearings of disciplinary adjudications in prisons. Where a disciplinary offence by a prisoner merits additional days of imprisonment, full-time district judges are deployed to prisons to hear the cases. Requests come from prisons throughout the country – a list of cases is then built up, and when a sufficient number of cases has been generated, a judge attends the prison to hear them.

Chief Magistrate Courts and Tribunal Judiciary

Deputy Chief Magistrate of England and Wales Controvesy

Three women convicted of terror offence for ‘celebrating’ Hamas attack on Israel by displaying images of paragliders at pro-Palestinian march were spared jail as the Deputy Chief Magistrate of England and Wales, Senior Deputy District Judge Tanweer Ikram CBE says he ‘decided not to punish’ them after ’emotions ran very high’.

For this offence, Section 13(1) of the Terrorism Act 2000 allows for :-

(a)imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months,
(b)a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or
(c)both.

Why did the Deputy Chief Magistrate “let them off” so lightly ?

On the 11th June 2024 Deputy Senior District Judge Tanweer Ikram CBE was issued with a formal warning for misconduct by the JCIO.

The Deputy Chief Magistrate of England and Wales inadvertent ‘liking’ of a post had resulted in a perception of bias. The Lord Chancellor and the Lady Chief Justice were not satisfied that a sanction of formal advice was sufficient in this case as he had caused “significant reputational damage to the judiciary”.

A row has broken out after a judge who decided to let three women wearing parachute images at a pro-Palestine march walk free admitted to liking a social media post branding Israel a ‘terrorist’.

Tanweer Ikram is facing calls to be investigated for a conflict of interest after he liked a LinkedIn post calling for a ‘free Palestine ‘ by a barrister who had previously promoted conspiracy theories claiming that Israel allowed the October 7 attack.

The senior district judge admitted to liking the post ‘by mistake’ three weeks ago, but was told by the Judicial Office that the matter would not be investigated further.

Daily Mail – Senior Deputy District Judge Tanweer Ikram

History of the Chief Magistrate

From ancient times to modern democracies, the chief magistrate has played a pivotal role in upholding the rule of law, ensuring the administration of justice, and maintaining social order.

Historically, the term “magistrate” finds its roots in ancient Rome, where magistrates held considerable power in the Roman Republic.

They were responsible for the administration of justice, overseeing public ceremonies, and enforcing laws. The chief magistrate, known as the “consul,” was the highest-ranking official elected to lead the republic for a term of one year. Their authority was balanced by the Senate and other governmental bodies, reflecting a system of checks and balances.

When the first Chief Magistrate began sitting at Bow Street in 1735, the title wasn’t confusing at all – at the time, magistrates in London were paid judicial office-holders, and magistrates’ courts in London were presided over by Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrates.  All magistrates – paid and unpaid – are Justices of the Peace. Nowadays the word magistrate is more commonly used for the unpaid judicial office holders, also commonly known as JPs.

Early holders of the post also had responsibility for the Bow Street Runners, until they were replaced by the Metropolitan Police in the 19th century.

Chief Magistrate’s Office

The Chief Magistrate’s Office provides administrative support both to the Chief Magistrate and to district judges sitting at all the magistrates’ courts in England and Wales.

The Chief Magistrate’s Office is based at:

181 Marylebone Road
London
NW1 5BR

DX 120551, Marylebone 9

Email addresses:

Chief Magistrates’ Office enquiries mailbox: [email protected]

Judicial Deployment mailbox: [email protected]

Independent Adjudication mailbox : [email protected]

Chief Magistrate’s Office
ContactPosition
Paul GoldspringSenior District Judge (Chief Magistrate)
Tanweer Ikram CBEDeputy Senior District Judge (Deputy Chief Magistrate)
Stephen SmithPA and Business Support to the Senior District (Chief Magistrate) and Deputy Senior District (Chief Magistrate)
Claire-Louise ManningLegal Adviser and Researcher for the Chief Magistrate
Rahat SiddiqiDelivery Manager
Khalilur RahmanAdmin officer – Deployment Section
Jabir AhmedAdmin officer – Deployment Section
Karen JenningsTeam Leader – Prison Section
Karolina ZukauskaiteAdmin officer – Prison Section
Gold Fax 01264 887 396
Contacts at the Chief Magistrates Office

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


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


Latest Articles


Most Popular


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

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

Categories
Judiciary Legal Professionals

Dodgy Judges

Here are a few examples of dodgy judges of England and Wales, otherwise known as rogue judges, that have been dismissed, disciplined, resigned or just been badly behaved. Some judges even managed to get criminal convictions.

“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 BenthamMr Justice Cobb: ‘Justice must be seen to be done’

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

HHJ Helen Lusty

Someone sent a little legal valentines love by post ❤️ Is HHJ Helen Lusty corrupt ? Sussex Family Justice Board ?

In my opinion, these judges are almost as questionable as His Honour Judge Melbourne Inman KC, Mr Justice Williams, Sussex Family Justice Board and the Sussex judges HHJ Farquhar, HHJ Bedford and HHJ Lusty !

  1. Judge Constance Briscoe was dismissed from the judiciary in 2014 after being found guilty of perverting the course of justice. She was sentenced to 16 months in prison for lying to the police during an investigation into former cabinet minister Chris Huhne’s speeding points.

Reference: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28675376

  1. Judge Peter Smith resigned in 2016 after the JCIO began investigating Smith’s conduct in July 2015 about a matter involving British Airways and his luggage.

Reference : https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/law/conduct-probe-into-high-court-judge-ends-with-retirement/5063448.article

  1. Judge Beatrice Bolton. The Crown Court judge who was convicted of failing to control a dangerous dog will face no further disciplinary action after she handed in her resignation..

Reference : https://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/judge-beatrice-bolton-quits-after-1340889

4. Judge Heather Perrin was dismissed from the judiciary in 2012 after being found guilty of professional misconduct for deceiving a client in a property deal.

Reference: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-20525832

5.  Deputy Senior District Judge Tanweer Ikram CBE was issued with a formal warning for misconduct by the JCIO.

The Deputy Chief Magistrate of England and Wales inadvertent ‘liking’ of a post had resulted in a perception of bias. The Lord Chancellor and the Lady Chief Justice were not satisfied that a sanction of formal advice was sufficient in this case as he had caused “significant reputational damage to the judiciary”.

JCIO Disciplinary Statements 2026/2027

JCIO Disciplinary Statements 2025/2026

JCIO Disciplinary Statements 2024/2025

JCIO Disciplinary Statements 2023/2024

JCIO Disciplinary Statements are published by year on the JCIO website

A statement will normally be published when a disciplinary sanction has been issued to a judicial office-holder for misconduct.

The Lord Chief Justice and Lord Chancellor may decide jointly to:

  • issue a statement in any case;
  • decline to issue a statement in any case;
  • delete a statement prior to the expiration of the relevant publication period.

Publication Periods

Statements published before 22 August 2022

Statements about cases which resulted in a sanction below removal from office will be deleted after one year. Statements about cases which resulted in removal from office will be deleted after five years.

Statements published from 22 August 2022

The following publication periods apply to statements published from 22 August 2022. Following the outcome of the 2020-22 review of the disciplinary system, statements now contain more detail. The JCIO privacy notice has been updated to reflect this change.

Sanction ImposedPublication Period
Formal AdviceTwo Years
Formal WarningFour Years
ReprimandSix Years
Removal from Office (except for failure to meet minimum sitting requirements)Indefinite
Removal from Office for failure to meet minimum sitting requirementsFive years
JCIO Sanctions and Publication Period

Requesting a Copy of a Deleted Statement

A copy of any statement which has been deleted following expiration of its publication period can be requested by emailing: [email protected]

Requesters must state the name of the office-holder. It will also help to locate statements if requesters give as much information as possible about the nature of the conduct for which the office-holder received a disciplinary sanction, and the year in which they believe the statement was published.

JCIO aims to reply to all requests for deleted statements within 10 working days.

Disciplinary Statements – JCIO

These example only represent a small fraction of judicial misconduct cases in the UK. These cases demonstrate the importance of judicial ethics and the need for accountability within the justice system.

The importance of maintaining high ethical standards in the UK judiciary cannot be overstated, and the consequences that judges may face if they engage in misconduct.

While it is important to hold judges accountable for their actions, instances of judges being dismissed for misconduct are relatively rare.

It is worth noting that the vast majority of judges in the UK are ethical and diligent in carrying out their duties. When instances of misconduct do occur, they are usually dealt with through disciplinary proceedings or other forms of corrective action.

Complain about a judge to the JCIO ?

The Judicial Conduct Investigations Office (JCIO) are an independent office which supports the Lord Chancellor and Lord Chief Justice in considering complaints about the personal conduct of judicial office holders.

JCIO Complaint

Here is the complaint I made to the JCIO in November 2020 against DDJ Mills (Deputy District Judge Mills) that was unfortunately dismissed.

a) Was “rude and condescending” and spelt out his name M-I-L-L-S, he:
• “Appeared to have superiority complex by the language used”. He spelt out his name in “an incredibly patronising way”.
• Stated, “I suggest you continue your studies in English Law Mr Watts as you appear to know nothing“.

Amnesia ?

DDJ Mills and Miss Eleanor Harriet Battie of 1 Crown Office Reach (1COR) both appear to have suffered from amnesia. Deputy District Judge Chris Mills continues to sit (fee paid) and inflict himself on the public.

Fortunately for both of them the Court failed in its legal duty to record the hearing. How convenient ! Hearings at the Crown Court and at civil and family courts are always recorded.

“Having searched all the BT Meet Me recordings for the 1st of October it is unfortunate that I have to advise you that there must have been a technical glitch on that day and your hearing was not recorded.

Brighton County and Family Courts Court Clerk and Court Usher manager

“a particular burden on the court and herself, as an officer of the court, to ensure that everyone involved understood clearly what was being said.”

Eleanor Battie Barrister JCIO

This statement is clearly untrue and misleading

“In the UK, barristers are not officers of the court unlike solicitors”.

It is possible that the JCIO misquoted Miss Battie, but as a barrister Eleanor Battie is bound by the Bar Standards Board (BSB) rules and code of conduct. Ms Battie, I believe, had a duty to immediately apologise for misleading the JCIO and to correct the record. I do not believe that this ever happened.

In my opinion, this is shameful behaviour or legal ignorance by the barrister Eleanor Battie and no doubt in breach of the Bar Standards Handbook 5.0

Check out the articles on Judges Salaries and Fees, Lady Chief Justice, Mr Justice Williams, His Honour Now His Dishonour, His Honour Judge Michael Slater, His Honour Judge Martin Davis, His Honour Judge Guy Kearl, Can you Criticise a Judge, Can you Email a Judge ? and the highly dubious Sussex Family Justice Board.

His Honour Judge Melbourne Inman KC on X !

Fair dealing for criticism, review or quotation is allowed for any type of copyright work. All sources acknowledged. Article updated 16th April 2025 to update latest JCIO Disciplinary Statements.


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


Latest Articles


Most Popular


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

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

Categories
Legal Analysis

Solicitors from Hell

Solicitors from Hell (www.solicitorsfromhell.co.uk) was a website that gained notoriety for allowing users to post negative reviews and complaints about solicitors and legal professionals.

Created by Rick Kordowski, the site became a platform for airing grievances and sharing experiences related to legal services. However, it also faced legal challenges due to its controversial content.

Mr. Justice Tugendhat ordered the immediate removal of the entire Solicitors from Hell website in November 2011, but it is still available on the Wayback Machine from the Internet Archive.

The Internet Archive (archive.org) is believed to be hosted outside of England and Wales and is therefore not subject to the injunction.

It should be noted – What happens on the internet stays on the internet forever !

The last version of the Solicitors from Hell (www.solicitorsfromhell.co.uk) website was captured by the Internet Archive on the 12th November 2011.

https://solicitorsfromhell.co.uk now leads to a blank WordPress site.

Please Note : This article is for educational purposes and contains information freely available on the Internet. Solicitors are regularly named or shamed on the Internet.

Background and Purpose of the Website

  • The Solicitors from Hell website was established in 2005. It allowed individuals to anonymously share their experiences with specific solicitors and law firms.
  • Contributors were required to pay a fee (ranging from £1 to £100) based on the prominence of their posting.
  • The website also charged solicitors a £299 “administration fee” to have their names removed from the site.
  • The website aimed to expose wrongdoing and “blacklist” firms and solicitors to avoid.

The Website’s Impact

The Solicitors From Hell website allowed users to anonymously share their experiences with specific solicitors and law firms. While some saw it as a valuable resource for holding legal professionals accountable, others criticized it for its lack of verification and potential for defamation.

  • Being included on a website purporting to list “solicitors from hell” was considered defamatory in itself.
  • The website caused serious damage to the reputations of solicitors, firms, and others listed, resulting in loss, embarrassment, anxiety, and distress.
  • By publishing and republishing such material, the website operator knowingly harassed those listed, as the information was widely disseminated via search engines.

Legal Battles

  1. High Court Victory for Rick Kordowski
    • Rick Kordowski, the founder of Solicitors From Hell, faced numerous lawsuits related to the website. In most cases, he lost.
    • Rick Kordowski was sued 18 times in relation to the Solicitors from Hell website he founded.
    • However, there was one unexpected victory.
    • In December 2014, Mr. Kordowski successfully applied to set aside a judgment in default and an injunction imposed on him by Mr. Justice Stuart-Smith. Representing himself, he argued that he had nothing to do with the construction and publication of certain websites, including a Solicitors From Hell successor referred to as XYZ.net.
    • Although it was “highly improbable” that Mr. Kordowski had no involvement with XYZ.net, the judge acknowledged that his arguments could succeed. The court concluded that he had a “real prospect of successfully defending the claim”.
  2. Interim Injunctions Against the Website Owner
    • In October 2010, a second High Court judge issued an interim injunction banning Rick Kordowski from publishing or republishing defamatory material about a lawyer from a London firm. This was the second time in less than a month that a court had issued such an order against him.
  3. Defamatory Statements and Damages
    • A law firm, described as “shameless, corrupt, fraudulent, dishonest, unethical, incompetent, and oppressive,” sued the operators of a spin-off of the Solicitors From Hell website. The judge ruled that the comments made were defamatory, and damages were awarded.
  4. Class Action Lawsuit
    • Brett Wilson LLP brought a claim on behalf of the Law Society, Hine Solicitors, and Kevin McGrath against Rick Kordowski. The lawsuit aimed to address the impact of the Solicitors From Hell website on legal professionals.
    • Mr. Justice Tugendhat handed down a judgment in a claim brought by Brett Wilson LLP on behalf of the Law Society, Hine Solicitors, and Kevin McGrath against Rick Kordowski, the operator and publisher of the Solicitors from Hell website.
    • Mr. Justice Tugendhat ordered the immediate removal of the entire Solicitors from Hell website.
    • An injunction granted on November 2, 2011, preventing the defendant from transferring data related to the website, continued.
    • Further orders prohibited the defendant from publishing or establishing similar websites inviting negative comments about legal professionals, where such comments could lead to harassment or unlawful processing of personal data.

The class action highlighted the delicate balance between freedom of expression and the potential harm caused by unverified online content related to legal professionals.

The Solicitors From Hell website stirred controversy and legal battles, highlighting the delicate balance between freedom of expression and the potential harm caused by unverified online content. While it provided an outlet for grievances, it also faced criticism for its lack of accountability.

  • Do you think solicitors and other legal professionals should be held to account ?
  • Was the Solicitors From Hell website published in the public interest ?
  • Would the legal profession succeed, in the Courts in 2024, to stifle legitimate criticism and concerns ?
  • Was your solicitor or legal professional ever listed on Solicitors From Hell ?

Check out our articles on Solicitors, Mayo Wynne Baxter Solicitors, Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT), Barristers, Direct Access Barristers, Bar Standards Board, Bar Council, Law Society, Legal Services Board, Rule of Law and the highly questionable Sussex Family Justice Board.


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


Latest Articles


Most Popular


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

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

Categories
Family Law Law

Sussex Family Justice Board

  • Is the Sussex Family Justice Board membership biased in favour of the 1 Crown Office Row barristers chambers based in Brighton Sussex ?
  • How are Judicial Observers selected as this appears unduly biased towards members of the Brighton judiciary ?
  • Why were these judges listed as board members as this is clearly incompatible with the independent position of the judiciary ?
    • Mr Justice Williams – Former Family Division Liaison Judge for the South Eastern Circuit (Kent, Surrey, Sussex & Thames Valley) 
    • HHJ Bedford – Designated Family Judge for Sussex
    • HHJ Farquhar – Lead Judge of the Kent, Surrey & Sussex Financial Remedies Court (FRC)
    • HHJ Lusty – Family Judge
    • DJ Pollard – Family Judge
  • Who are the Sussex Family Justice Board accountable to ?
  • A treasurer is listed as a board member. Where does the money come from and where are the accounts ?
  • Does the Sussex Family Justice Board website comply with UK law ?
  • What is the Cafcass involvement with the Sussex Family Justice Board ?
  • Is “Justice” being done in secret by the Sussex Family Justice Board ?
  • Are there any grounds for suspicion that there has been an improper interference with the course of justice by the Sussex Family Justice Board ? R v Sussex Justices, Ex parte McCarthy [1924] 1 KB 256

There are significant concerns of bias, secrecy and judicial independence, which relate to the operation of the Sussex Family Justice Board.

‘Family justice boards and the like everywhere now panicking as they finally realise what happens on the internet stays on the internet forever!’

Twitter and the Sussex Family Justice Board

Update 21st March 2023 : Sir Andrew McFarlane who is the President of the Family Division [email protected] has been contacted for his response.

Update 3rd April 2023 : HHJ Farquhar denies he has ever been a member of the Sussex Family Justice Board despite clear evidence that shows he has been a member of the SFJB for at least 5 years.

Update 24th April 2023 : HHJ Farquhar, HHJ Lusty and DJ Pollard have mysteriously vanished from the list of board members published on the Sussex Family Justice Board website.

A large number of pages and links have also been removed from the SFJB website. This is believed to have happened on the 18th April 2023 at 20:37.

Is this a cynical attempt at a cover up ? Who removed them and why ?

Update 5th June 2024 : The Sussex Family Justice Board website is offline. Has this highly dubious family justice cartel in Sussex finally been shut down for good by the Ministry of Injustice ?

Were the Lady Chief Justice, Lord Chancellor or President of the Family Division involved in its demise ? I wonder what the Treasurer did with the money ?

Update 28th June 2024: The Sussex Family Justice Board website is back online.

SFJB-List-of-Members.docx dated September 2018 was found in the Google cache and clearly shows that HHJ Bedford, HHJ Farquhar and DJ Pollard were board members.

Update 9th June 2023FOI request sent to Ministry of Justice

Update 18th June 2023 – All Sussex Judges and One High Court Judge have now vanished from the SFJB website.

Update 3rd July 2023 – Complaint filed.

Update 4th July 2023Ministry of Justice response to FOI request about Sussex Family Justice Board

  • The MoJ is not responsible for the Sussex Family Justice Board. 
  • The MoJ does not fund the Sussex Family Justice Board. 
  • The MoJ does not audit the Sussex Family Justice Board. 
  • The MoJ does not have a Terms of Reference document for the Sussex Family 
    Justice Board. 
  • The MoJ are not the correct authority to ask about this matter. Anything published regarding local roles, responsibilities and processes are locally determined and published by the relevant Local Family Justice Board(s). You may wish to contact Sussex Family Justice Board. Information on how to contact them can be found at: https://www.sussexfamilyjusticeboard.org.uk/
  • To advise and assist you, please note that Local Family Justice Boards are not public authorities under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). They are not named 
    in schedule 1 of FOIA or in an order of the Secretary of State, and are not a wholly owned company, so do not meet the definition under section 3 of FOIA and thus are not subject to Freedom of Information Requests.   
230609011 – FReedom of Information Request (FOI) Ministry of Justice

Update 7th August 2023 – The Sussex Family Justice Board website is now in maintenance mode (since 27th July 2023). Has the family justice cartel in Sussex finally been shut down for good ??

Sussex Family Justice Board (SFJB) RSS Feed XML <lastBuildDate>Thu, 27 Jul 2023 13:04:32 +0000</lastBuildDate>

Update 14th August 2023 – The Sussex Family Justice Board website is now partially back up as of 14th August 12:26. There are now 11 pages in total according to the SFJB XML Sitemap. Notably a Privacy policy is still missing !

*PLEASE NOTE THIS WEBSITE IS CURRENTLY UNDERGOING IMPORTANT UPDATES*

The Sussex Family Justice Board is a subsidiary of the National Family Justice Board and works collaboratively to improve the performance and efficiency of the local family justice system.

Please note that this website is up to date as at June 2023; it will be reviewed periodically by members of the Sussex Family Justice Board but we cannot guarantee that it is up-to-date at the time of reading.

Sussex Family Justice Board 14th August 2023

Four Sussex judges are now listed as observers and the board has a number of new members including 1-6 Crown Office Row ! Is HHJ Farquhar aware that he is now an observer ?

Sussex Family Justice Board Observers 14th August 2023
Sussex Family Justice Board Observers 14th August 2023
sussex family justce board rss feed 14th august 2023
Sussex Family Justice Board (SFJB) RSS Feed XML Mon, 14 Aug 2023 12:26:42 +0000

The National sponsor of the SFJB is listed as Tom Glynn Policy Unit Ministry of Justice. What is the real involvement of the MoJ in the SFJB ?

Fortunately, a copy of the Sussex Family Justice Board website was legally taken on the 19th March 2023 using HTTrack software and is safely and securely stored by the MOI as evidence.

A Google Search on the 3rd April 2023 returned the following :-

Google Search 3rd April 2023

A Bing Search on the 3rd April 2023 returned the following :-

Bing Search 3rd April 2023

The Sussex Family Justice Board website showed :-

Sussex Family Justice Board Members 3rd April 2023
Sussex Family Justice Board Judicial Board Members 3rd April 2023

The Sussex Family Justice Board website, according to their public RSS Feed, was updated on the 18th April 2023 at 20:37.

Sussex Family Justice Board (SFJB) RSS Feed XML <lastBuildDate>Tue, 18 Apr 2023 20:37:32 +0000</lastBuildDate>

HHJ Farquhar, HHJ Lusty and DJ Pollard have mysteriously been removed as board members.

Sussex Family Justice Board Judicial Board Members as of 22nd April 2023
Sussex Family Justice Board Judicial Board Members as of 22nd April 2023

The Sussex Family Justice Board website, according to their public RSS Feed, was yet again updated on the 18th June 2023 at 18:16:58. No judges are now listed as board members. It is assumed that all judges were removed as board members on this date.

Is this another cynical attempt at a cover up ? Who removed them and why ?

Sussex Family Justice Board (SFJB) RSS Feed XML <lastBuildDate>Tue, 18 June 2023 18:16:58 +0000</lastBuildDate>
SFJB-List-of-Members.docx dated September 2018

The open justice principle “that justice must be seen to be done as well as done” is a fundamental principle of the UK legal system.

“…there is a significant and important public interest in our society having and maintaining confidence in the work of the Family Court. Conversely, a largely closed system, where the public are given no account of how the court operates, leads to accusations that this is ‘secret’ justice and that the approach of the court is unsound, unfair or downright wrong….”

Sir Andrew McFarlane – President of the Family Division in his document Confidence and Confidentiality: Transparency in the Family Courts published 28th October 2021

The Guide to Judicial Conduct – Revised March 2018 (Updated September 2020) is clear about bias, in particular :-

“They should also bear in mind that too close a social relationship with a practitioner who is regularly involved in litigation before the officeholder’s court may create a perception of bias.”

Contact with the Legal Profession – The Guide to Judicial Conduct

It is extremely perverse and worrying that a board that supposedly promotes justice has a website that does not comply with UK law.

Multiple requests for information using the Sussex Family Justice Board Contact Us page have not resulted in any response.

A Freedom of Information (FOI) Request Information about the Sussex Family Justice Board (LFJB) was therefore made on the 17th March 2023 on WhatDoTheyKnow ?

Dear Sussex Local Family Justice Board,

Do you have a Terms of Reference document for the Sussex Family Justice Board similar to the Family Justice Board?

gov.uk Family Justice Board

Do you publish minutes and if so where ?

How are members of the Sussex Family Justice Board selected or elected ?

How does the Sussex Family Justice Board ensure there is no bias in the selection or election of board members ?

Do you have an updated members list as the list published and dated November 2020 appears out of date ?

Sussex Family Justice Board

Do 1 Crown Office Row (1COR) still sponsor the Sussex Family Justice Board website ?

1COR sponsor Sussex Family Justice Board

Who is legally responsible for the Sussex Family Justice Board website as this does appear to comply with UK law ?

How are the Judicial Observers selected as this appears biased towards the Brighton judiciary ?

How is the Sussex Family Justice Board funded ?

Do the Sussex Family Justice Board publish accounts and if so where ?

Are roles and responsibilities of the board and other policy documents published and if so where ?

Is the Sussex Family Justice Board audited by the Ministry of Justice or any other government or independent bodies ?

Please provide all relevant documents.

Yours faithfully,

Rev Dominic Watts

Ministry of Injustice
https://ministryofinjustice.co.uk

Information about the Sussex Family Justice Board (LFJB)

The Family Justice Board is the primary forum for setting direction for the family justice system and overseeing performance.

“The judge is not a member of the board as to be so would be incompatible with the independent position of the judiciary.”

Judiciary and the local justice system

Check out our articles on Sussex PoliceChief Constable Jo Shiner Sussex Police, HHJ FarquharHHJ Bedford and Fraud in the Justice System.

Read the reviews of Gavin Howe Barrister

“He is awful, underhanded and should not be practising law!”

“Family justice boards” and the like everywhere now panicking as they finally realise what happens on the internet stays on the internet forever!

Twitter
10:39 PM · Mar 18, 2023 14.9K Views
32.6K Views
14.7K Views

Check out our related articles on Rule of Law, Open Justice, Is the Law Black and White ?, Family Justice Board, Civil Justice Council, Youth Justice Board, Abuse of Process, What Does Lady Justice Symbolise ?, McKenzie Friend, Wasted Costs Order, 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 and Police Impartiality .


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

R v Sussex Justices

“It is not merely of some importance but is of fundamental importance that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done”

Lord Hewart

In the case of R v Sussex Justices, Ex parte McCarthy [1924] 1 KB 256, Mr. McCarthy was convicted of dangerous driving by two justices of the peace sitting in petty sessions.

It later emerged that one of the justices had a personal interest in the outcome of the case, as he was the chairman of the local road transport committee and was therefore responsible for road safety in the area.

This raised concerns of bias, as the justice’s involvement in road safety could have influenced his decision-making in the case.

Mr. McCarthy sought to have his conviction quashed on the grounds of bias, and the case eventually reached the King’s Bench Division of the High Court of Justice.

In his judgment made almost 100 years ago, Lord Chief Justice Hewart established the principle that :-

It is not merely of some importance, but is of fundamental importance that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done.

Lord Hewart

This principle became known as the rule against bias, and it established that justice must not only be impartial, but must also be seen to be impartial.

In other words, a decision-maker must be free from any personal interest or bias that could affect their judgment, and the appearance of impartiality is just as important as the reality of impartiality.

Nothing is to be done that creates even a suspicion that there has been an improper interference with the course of justice.

Lord Hewart

The significance of the Rex (The King) v Sussex Justices case lies in its establishment of the principle of natural justice and the rule against bias.

The case set an important precedent for future cases, and it remains a cornerstone of the UK legal system to this day.

The case also highlighted the importance of procedural fairness and transparency in the legal system, which ensures that justice is not only done, but is also seen to be done.

COMMON LAWS OF ENGLAND – THE KING v. SUSSEX JUSTICES Ex parte McCARTHY

November 9 1923 [1924] – KINGS BENCH DIVISION

Justices – Possibility of Bias – Justices’ Clerk interested professionally in Civil Proceedings arising out of Subject Matter of Complaint.

Arising out of a collision between a motor vehicle belonging to the applicant and one belonging to W., a summons was taken out by the police against the applicant for having driven his motor vehicle in a manner dangerous to the public. At the hearing of the summons the acting clerk to the justices was a member of the firm of solicitors who were acting for W. in a claim for damages against the applicant for injuries received in the collision. At the conclusion of the evidence the justices retired to consider their decision, the acting clerk retiring with them in case they should desire to be advised on any point of law. The justices convicted the applicant, and it was stated on affidavit that they came to that conclusion without consulting the acting clerk, who in fact abstained from referring to the case:-

  Held: the the conviction must be quashed, as it was improper for the acting clerk, having regard to his firm’s relation to the case, to be present with the justices when they were considering their decision.

RULE NISI for a writ of certiorari to bring up, for the purpose of being quashed, a conviction of McCarthy, the applicant for the rule, for having driven a motor car on a certain highway in a manner which was dangerous to the public, having regard to all the circumstances of the case.

On August 22, 1923, a collision took place between a motor cycle driven by the applicant and a motor cycle and side-car driven by one Whitworth, and it was alleged that the latter and his wife sustained injuries in the collision. In respect of those injuries Messrs. Langham, Son & Douglas, solicitors, Hastings, by a letter dated August 28, 1923, made a claim on behalf of Whitworth against the applicant for damages, and the police, after making inquiries into the circumstances of the collision, applied for and obtained a summons against the applicant for driving his motor cycle in a manner dangerous to the public.

At the hearing of that summons on September 22, 1923, the applicant’s solicitor, who stated in his affidavit that he had no knowledge of the officials of the court, inquired whether Mr. F. G. Langham, the clerk to the justices and a member of the said firm of Langham, Son & Douglas, was then sitting as a clerk, and was informed that he was not, but had been appointed a deputy for that day.

The case was then heard, and at the conclusion of the evidence the justices retired to consider their decision, the deputy clerk retiring with them. When the justices returned into the court they intimated that they had decided to convict the applicant, and they imposed a fine of 10 shillings and costs.

Thereupon the applicant’s solicitor brought to the notice of the justices the fact, of which he said he had only become aware when the justices retired, that the deputy clerk was a brother of Mr. F, G. Langham, Son & Douglas, and so was interested as solicitor for Whitworth in the civil proceedings arising out of the collision in respect of which they had convicted the applicant.

The solicitor in his affidavit stated that had he known the above facts he would have taken the objection before the case began. This rule was thereafter obtained on the ground that it was irregular for the deputy clerk in the circumstances to retire with the justices when considering their decision.

In their affidavit the justices stated that the clerk to the justices, Mr F. G. Langham, was on holiday at the date of the hearing and had no knowledge of the proceeding, that in his absence his brother and partner Mr F. G. Langham acted as his deputy, that no formal objection was taken to the latter acting, that at the conclusion of the evidence the justices retired, the deputy clerk retiring with them in the usual way, taking with him the notes of the evidence in case they should be required, or in case the justices should desire to be advised upon any point of law, that in fact the justices came to their decision to convict the applicant without consulting the deputy clerk, who scrupulously abstained from referring to the case, and that the justices were not in any way biased by the fact that a member of the deputy clerk’s firm had written the said letter before action.

The justices added that it appeared to them that the applicant’s solicitor must have had knowledge of the deputy clerk’s connection with the firm of Langham, Son & Douglas, and that he waived any formal objection; and that is a formal objection has been taken at the commencement of the proceedings the justices would have followed their usual course in such circumstances by adjourning the hearing and requesting the clerk to arrange with one of his colleagues from a neighbouring division to act at the adjourned hearing.

Russell Davies for the justices showed cause. However undesirable it may have been in the circumstances for the deputy clerk to retire with the justices when they were considering their decision, the fact that he did so does not invalidate the conviction, seeing that he took no part in the justices’ deliberations.

[LORD HEWART C.J. In a recent unreported case,* this Court quashed a conviction where the chief constable, who was then prosecuting, retired with the justices]

There it was not the duty of the chief constable to retire with the justices; here it was the duty of the deputy clerk to do so in case the justices should desire to consult him upon any point of law. If, however, there was any irregularity in the proceedings, the applicant, through his solicitor; must be taken to have waived it.

*[He referred to Regina v Brakenridge (1) (1884) 48 J.P. 203]

W. T. Moncton for the superintendent of police, who had been served with the rule. H. D. Samuels in support of the rule was not called upon.

LORD HEWART C.J. stated the grounds of the rule and continued: It is clear that the deputy clerk was a member of the firm of solicitors engaged in the conduct of the proceedings for damages against the applicant in respect of the same collision as that which gave rise to the charge that the justices were considering. It is said, and, no doubt, truly, that when the gentleman retired in the usual way with the justices, taking with him the notes of the evidence in case the justices might desire to consult him, the justices came to a conclusion without consulting him, and that he scrupulously abstained from referring to the case in any way.

But while that is so, a long line of cases shows that it is not merely of some importance but is of fundamental importance that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done.

The question therefore is not whether in this case the deputy clerk made an observation of offered any criticism where he might not properly have made or offered; the question is whether he was so related to the case in its civil aspect as to be unfit to act as clerk to the justices in the criminal matter.

The answer to that question depends not upon what actually was done but upon what might appear to be done. Nothing is to be done that creates even a suspicion that there has been an improper interference with the course of justice.

Speaking for myself, I accept that statements contained in the justices’ affidavit, but they show very clearly that the deputy clerk was connected with the case in a capacity which made it right that he should scrupulously abstain from referring to the matter in any way, although he retired with the justices; in other words, his one position was such that he could not, if he had been required to do so, discharge the duties which his other position involved. His twofold position was a manifest contradiction.

In those circumstances I am satisfied that this conviction must be quashed, unless it can be shown that the applicant or his solicitor was aware of the point that might be taken, refrained from taking it, and took his chance of an acquittal on the facts, and then, on a conviction being recorded, decided to take the point. On the facts I am satisfied that being no waiver of the irregularity, and, that being so, the rule must be made absolute and the conviction quashed.

LUSH J. I agree. It must be clearly understood that if justices allow their clerk to be present at their consultation when either he of his firm is professionally engaged in those proceedings or in other proceedings involving the same subject matter, it is irrelevant to inquire whether the clerk did or did not give advice and influence the justices.

What is objectionable is his presence at the consultation, when he is in a position necessarily make in impossible for him to give absolutely impartial advice. I have no doubt that these justices did not intend to do anything irregular or wrong, but they have placed themselves in an impossible position by allowing the clerk in those circumstances to retire with them into their consultation room. The result, there being no waiver, is that the conviction must be quashed.

SANKEY J. I agree.

Rule absolute; conviction quashed.

Solicitors for the applicant: W. C. Crocker

Solicitors for justices: Pettitt & Ramsey, for Langham Son & Douglas, Hastings.

Solicitors for police superintendent: Taylor, Willcocks & Co., for Lawson Lewis, Eastbourne.

J.S.H.

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


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


Latest Articles


Most Popular


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

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

Rule of Law - Open Justice - Policing By Consent