Categories
Criminal Justice Law Legal Analysis

What is the Youth Justice Board for England and Wales ?

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales

The Youth Justice Board (YJB) for England and Wales is dedicated to overseeing and improving youth justice services.

We are an organisation of around 100 people and our headquarters is in London.

Our vision is for a youth justice system that sees children as children, treats them fairly and helps them to build on their strengths so they can make a constructive contribution to society. This will prevent offending and create safer communities with fewer victims.

Youth Justice Board – About Us

Established under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, the YJB is a non-departmental public body sponsored by the Ministry of Justice. Its primary role is to ensure that the youth justice system effectively prevents offending and reoffending by children and young people under 18, while safeguarding their welfare.

Below, we explore the YJB’s purpose, structure, and key functions.

Leadership

The Youth Justice Board (YJB) for England and Wales is led by a board of experts and a chief executive, with oversight from the Ministry of Justice.

  • Chair: The YJB is chaired by Keith Fraser. The chair leads the board, providing strategic direction and ensuring effective governance. Keith Fraser, appointed in 2020, brings experience from policing and public sector leadership, with a focus on diversity and inclusion in justice systems.
  • Chief Executive: Steph Roberts-Bibby serves as the Chief Executive, overseeing day-to-day operations and implementing the board’s strategies. Sturt, who joined in 2020, has a background in criminal justice, having previously held senior roles in the prison and probation services.

The Board has corporate responsibility for ensuring that the YJB fulfils its strategic objectives, which are agreed with the Secretary of State for Justice, and for ensuring the efficient and effective use of staff and other resources.

The Chair and board members are appointed by the Secretary of State for Justice.

Purpose and Objectives

The YJB aims to create a youth justice system that is fair, effective, and focused on rehabilitation. Its core mission is to prevent crime by young people through early intervention, robust supervision, and tailored support. The board strives to balance accountability with the welfare of young offenders, recognising that many have complex needs, such as mental health issues or disadvantaged backgrounds. By promoting positive outcomes, the YJB seeks to reduce reoffending rates and help young people reintegrate into society as law-abiding citizens.

A key objective is to ensure the system is child-centred. This means decisions prioritise the best interests of the child, aligning with the principles of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. The YJB also works to address disparities, ensuring equitable treatment for all young people, regardless of background.

  • using information and evidence to form an expert view of how to get the best outcomes for children who offend and for victims of crime
  • advising the Secretary of State for Justice, government departments, local authorities, those working in youth justice services and other organisations about how well the system is operating, and how improvements can be made
  • identifying and sharing best practice
  • promoting the voice of the child, including taking advice from our youth advisory panel of children and young adults who have current or previous experience of the youth justice system
  • commissioning research and publishing information in connection with good practice
  • monitoring the youth justice system and the provision of youth justice services
  • making grants, with the approval of the Secretary of State, for the purposes of the operation of the youth justice system and services
  • providing information technology related assistance for the operation of the youth justice system and services
Youth Justice Board – Our Responsibilities

Structure and Governance

The YJB is led by a board of experts appointed by the Secretary of State for Justice. This board includes professionals with expertise in youth justice, social work, policing, and education, ensuring a multidisciplinary approach. The organisation is chaired by an appointed leader, with a chief executive overseeing day-to-day operations. It operates independently but collaborates closely with government departments, local authorities, and youth offending teams (YOTs).The YJB is headquartered in London but works nationally, engaging with regional services to implement its strategies. It reports to Parliament through the Ministry of Justice and is subject to scrutiny to ensure transparency and accountability.

Key Functions

The YJB’s responsibilities are wide-ranging. It sets standards for youth justice services, monitors their performance, and provides guidance to YOTs, which are local multi-agency teams managing young offenders. The board also oversees the secure estate, ensuring safe and rehabilitative environments for young people in custody, such as young offender institutions.

Additionally, the YJB promotes evidence-based practices by commissioning research and sharing best practices. It advises ministers on youth justice policy and advocates for systemic improvements. The board also allocates funding to YOTs and other initiatives, ensuring resources are used effectively to support prevention and rehabilitation.

Impact and Challenges

Since its inception, the YJB has contributed to a significant decline in youth offending rates, with fewer young people entering the justice system. However, challenges remain, including addressing over-representation of minority groups and supporting young people with complex needs. By fostering collaboration and innovation, the YJB continues to shape a more effective and compassionate youth justice system.

For more information, visit the Youth Justice Board for England and Wales official page on the UK government website.

Check out our related articles on Rule of Law, Open Justice, Is the Law Black and White ?, Family Justice Board, Civil Justice Council, 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
Civil Justice Criminal Justice Family Law Law Legal Analysis Legal Professionals

What is a Wasted Costs Order ?

Wasted Costs Order

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

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

Definition of a Wasted Costs Order

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

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

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

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

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

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

When Can a Wasted Costs Order Be Made ?

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

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

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

Making an Application in Criminal, Civil and Family Proceedings

Criminal Proceedings

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

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

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

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

Civil Proceedings

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

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

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

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

Who Can Apply for a Wasted Costs Order ?

A wasted costs order can be sought by:

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

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

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

Examples of Conduct Leading to Wasted Costs Orders

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

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

Implications and Considerations

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

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

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

Latest Articles ↓

Most Popular ↓

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

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

Categories
Law Police

Police Misconduct Hearings

Police Misconduct Hearings

Across the United Kingdom, police forces strive to maintain public trust by upholding high standards of professionalism and integrity. A key mechanism for achieving this is the misconduct hearing process designed to address allegations of misconduct or gross misconduct by police officers and staff.

These hearings, detailed on police websites such as the Sussex Police misconduct hearings page, provide a transparent framework for accountability.

This article explores the purpose, structure, and public accessibility of police misconduct hearings across UK forces by highlighting their role in fostering trust and how the public can engage with the process.

Purpose and Structure of Misconduct Hearings

Misconduct hearings are convened when there is evidence that a police officer or staff member has breached the Standards of Professional Behaviour, a code governing police conduct detailed in The Police (Conduct) Regulations 2008.

These standards encompass principles such as honesty, integrity, respect, and the responsible use of authority. Misconduct hearings address less severe breaches, while gross misconduct hearings tackle actions serious enough to potentially warrant dismissal.

The process ensures allegations are thoroughly investigated, with the officer or staff member given an opportunity to explain their actions. Hearings are typically chaired by a senior police officer, such as a Chief Constable or Assistant Chief Constable (a requirement in many forces since May 2024 – The Police (Conduct) (Amendment) Regulations 2024), and include independent panel members, often with a legally qualified person to ensure impartiality.

The panel reviews evidence, hears from witnesses, and determines whether misconduct has occurred, with outcomes ranging from written warnings to dismissal without notice.

Transparency and Public Access

Transparency is a cornerstone of public confidence in UK policing.

Since the 1st May 2015, gross misconduct hearings for police officers are required to be held in public, unless there’s a compelling reason to exclude the public, a significant change brought about by the Police (Conduct) (Amendment) Regulations 2015 to improve transparency and public confidence in the police disciplinary system.

This openness allows the public to scrutinise how police forces handle allegations, reinforcing accountability. However, the Chair of a hearing may hold parts or all of a hearing in private if sensitive issues, such as national security, operational tactics, or personal confidentiality, are involved.

In such cases, the public may be temporarily excluded to ensure fairness and protect sensitive information, but these decisions are made carefully to balance transparency with operational needs. The commitment to public access demonstrates that police forces take breaches of conduct seriously and are willing to be held accountable.

How the Public Can Attend

Public attendance at misconduct hearings is actively encouraged across UK police forces, reflecting their commitment to openness. Members of the public aged 18 or over can attend as observers, though they cannot participate in the proceedings. The process for attending varies slightly between forces but generally involves registering in advance, often through an online form or by contacting the force’s Professional Standards Department.

For example, Sussex Police provides a dedicated section on their website listing upcoming hearings, including the officer’s name, hearing dates, and registration details.

Date(s): 15 – 19 September 2025

Time: 10:00

Location: Sussex Police Headquarters, Church Lane, Lewes, BN7 2DZ

It is alleged that PS Day, who was based at Brighton, sexually harassed a subordinate member of staff. If proved this matter would amount to gross misconduct.

The allegation amounts to a breach of the Standards of Professional Behaviour relating to (a) Authority, respect and courtesy; and (b) Discreditable conduct.

Public notification of misconduct hearing – Former PS Day – Sussex Police

Places are allocated on a first-come, first-served basis, with priority often given to complainants, other interested parties, and representatives of the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC).

The media are also allocated seats to ensure public reporting, further enhancing transparency.

Practical Considerations for Attendees

To attend a hearing, prospective attendees should check their local police force’s website for details of upcoming hearings and registration processes. Forces typically publish hearing details at least five days in advance, though short-notice cancellations can occur due to legal or operational reasons. Attendees are advised to confirm arrangements with the force, as notifications of cancellations may not always be possible.

Most forces, like Sussex Police, note that they cannot cover travel or other expenses for attendees. Accessibility is prioritised, with venues chosen to accommodate attendees where possible, though public parking and refreshments are not always available. Attendees must adhere to conditions set by the Chair, such as prohibitions on recording or broadcasting to maintain the integrity of the process. Texting or using social media may be permitted unless specific restrictions are imposed.

Check out our articles on Police Professional Standards, Policing by Consent, Police Impartiality, Police Surveillance, Are the Police for Hire ?, Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC),Police Public Confidence and Engagement, Crime Reporting, What is a Police and Crime Commissioner ?, Sussex Police, Policing, Police News, 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 Legal Professionals

Independent Review of Bullying, Harassment and Discrimination at the Bar

Independent Review of Bullying, Harassment and Discrimination at the Bar

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

Independent Review of Bullying Harassment and Discrimination at the BarDownload

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

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

This is a moment of reckoning for the Bar.

Baroness Harriet Harman KC

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

Prevalence of Misconduct

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

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

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

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

Judicial Bullying

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Culture of Impunity

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

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

Impact

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

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

Judicial bullying can distort case outcomes, affecting justice delivery.

Key Recommendations

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

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

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

Latest Articles ↓

Most Popular ↓

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

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

Categories
Judiciary

The Hon Mr Justice Jay

Mr Justice Jay

Sir Robert Maurice Jay, styled The Hon. Mr Justice Jay, is a prominent figure in the English judiciary, known for his intellectual rigor, sharp legal mind, and a career marked by both acclaim and controversy.

Born on the 20th September 1959, Mr Justice Jay has served as a High Court judge in the King’s Bench Division since June 2013, following a distinguished career as a barrister and his high-profile role as Leading Counsel to the Leveson Inquiry into press ethics.

Mr Justice Jay is married to Deborah, an author, and they have a daughter. He is known for his intellectual pursuits outside the courtroom, with interests in history, art, classical music (particularly Wagner’s Ring Cycle), chess, cookery, golf and cycling. These hobbies reflect the same meticulous and analytical approach that supposedly characterizes his legal work.

While Judge Jay’s legal acumen is widely respected, his judicial conduct has faced significant scrutiny, particularly in the high-profile libel case of Serafin v Malkiewicz and also wishing an al-Qaeda 7/7 terrorist kingpin ‘all the best’.

Early Life and Education

Robert Jay was born to Professor Barrie Samuel Jay, a consultant surgeon at Moorfields Eye Hospital, and Marcelle Ruby Jay, a geneticist. Educated at King’s College School in Wimbledon, Jay excelled academically, earning an Open Scholarship to New College, Oxford, where he obtained a first-class degree in jurisprudence.

A contemporary of actor Hugh Grant, Jay’s intellectual prowess was evident early on. He undertook pupillage under Simon D. Brown (later Baron Brown of Eaton-Under-Heywood) and was called to the Bar at Middle Temple in 1981.

Legal Career and Rise to Prominence

Jay’s early career as a barrister focused on public law, general common law, group litigation, and public inquiries. He was appointed Queen’s Counsel (now King’s Counsel) in 1998 and served as a Recorder from 1999 and a Deputy High Court Judge from 2008.

In 2011, he was elected Head of Chambers at 39 Essex Chambers, cementing his reputation as a leading legal mind. His appointment as Leading Counsel to the Leveson Inquiry (2011–2012) brought him into the public eye. The inquiry, which investigated the culture, practices, and ethics of the British press following the phone-hacking scandal, showcased Jay’s incisive questioning and command of complex legal and ethical issues. His use of esoteric vocabulary—words like “condign,” “pellucidly,” and “adumbrate”, and memorable asides, such as describing evidence as “light refracted through two intermediate prisms,” earned him both admiration and amusement.

In 2013, Jay was appointed a High Court judge, sitting in the King’s Bench Division, where he has presided over a range of cases, including defamation, fraud, and immigration appeals as a member of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission.

His judicial decisions have been praised for their intellectual depth, such as in the libel case of Serafin v Malkiewicz, where the Supreme Court commended his 70-page judgment as “intricately constructed and beautifully written.”

The Serafin v Malkiewicz Controversy

Despite his accolades, Mr Justice Jay’s judicial career has not been without controversy. The most significant criticism arose from his handling of the 2017 libel case Serafin v Malkiewicz, involving Jan Serafin, a Polish businessman and litigant in person, who sued the Polish-language magazine Nowy Czas over defamatory allegations. Jay dismissed Serafin’s claim after a seven-day trial, but his conduct during the proceedings drew sharp rebuke from higher courts.

The Court of Appeal, in a 2019 ruling, Serafin v Malkiewicz & Ors [2019] EWCA Civ 852 , described Mr Justice Jay’s behaviour as “threatening, overbearing, and, frankly, bullying” noting that he had “cast off the mantle of impartiality” by aggressively cross-examining Serafin and accusing him of lying. The court found that Jay’s interventions rendered the trial unfair, particularly given Serafin’s lack of legal representation and limited English proficiency.

The Supreme Court, in a unanimous 2020 ruling, Serafin (Respondent) v Malkiewicz and others (Appellants) UKSC/2019/0156, led by Lord Wilson, went further, stating that Jay had “harassed and intimidated” Serafin with “immoderate, ill-tempered and at times offensive language.” The trial was declared unfair, and a retrial was ordered, with the Supreme Court expressing “deep regret” that the justice system had failed both parties.

The Serafin case highlighted broader issues about judicial conduct toward litigants in person, particularly those navigating complex legal proceedings without representation. Critics argued that Jay’s approach failed to accommodate Serafin’s vulnerabilities, raising questions about impartiality and fairness in the judiciary.

The case also had implications for defamation law, as the Supreme Court clarified aspects of the public interest defense under the Defamation Act 2013, emphasizing that journalists need not always seek pre-publication comment from claimants.

Controversy Surrounding Mr Justice Jay’s Remarks in Haroon Aswat Case

On September the 8th 2025, a report by The Sun “Judge sparks fury after wishing 7/7 kingpin ‘all the best’ as he prepares to walk free despite fears he’s still a threat” sparked outrage after it revealed that High Court judge Sir Robert Jay, styled Mr Justice Jay, wished “all the best” to Haroon Aswat, a convicted terrorist linked to al-Qaeda, during a hearing at London’s Royal Courts of Justice.

Aswat, a 50-year-old British man from Batley, West Yorkshire, is due to be released from a psychiatric hospital and return to live with his family, prompting significant concern from counter-terrorism officials and the public. This article examines the details of the case, Jay’s controversial remarks, and the broader implications, drawing on available information and critically assessing the situation.

Judge “Best Wishes” to a terrorist ? – BlackBelt Barrister
Background on Haroon Aswat

Haroon Rashid Aswat, born on September 22, 1974, in Yorkshire to a Muslim family with roots in Gujarat, India, has a long history of association with extremist activities. In the 1990s, he was linked to radical cleric Abu Hamza al-Masri and the Finsbury Park Mosque, where he helped organize groups to engage in terrorism in Jammu and Kashmir and Bosnia. Aswat was convicted in the United States in 2015 for conspiring to establish a terrorist training camp in Oregon in 1999, alongside Abu Hamza, to train recruits for al-Qaeda. He pleaded guilty to terrorism charges and was sentenced to 20 years, later reduced to seven years due to time served in UK custody.

Aswat’s connection to the July 7, 2005, London bombings, which killed 52 people and injured over 770, has been particularly contentious. Although never charged in connection with the attacks, police traced 20 calls from the suicide bombers to a phone linked to Aswat. He has also claimed involvement in both the 7/7 bombings and the 9/11 attacks in the US, describing himself as a “terrorist” and “foot soldier” of al-Qaeda who does not “shy away from responsibility.” These statements, made while in US custody, raised alarms about his ongoing extremist ideology.

Aswat was deported to the UK in 2022 after serving his sentence and has since been detained under the Mental Health Act at Bethlem Royal Hospital (often referred to as Bedlam) due to a diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia. His release, expected in the near future following effective psychiatric treatment, has sparked concern due to a legal loophole preventing full risk assessments for psychiatric patients.

The Hearing and Mr Justice Jay’s Remarks

During a High Court hearing on the 1st April 2025, Mr Justice Jay approved a terrorist notification order for Aswat, requiring him to regularly inform police of details such as his address, foreign travel, and vehicle registration. This order was intended to allow authorities to monitor Aswat, who has been assessed by police, including Detective Inspector Karen Bradley, as posing a “risk to national security.” Despite these concerns, no formal terrorist risk assessment has been conducted since his return to the UK, largely due to restrictions on assessing individuals under psychiatric care.

According to a court transcript obtained by The Sun, Jay concluded the hearing with remarks that have drawn widespread criticism:

“I have to wish you all the best and say to you that the way forward is to keep on your medication, listen to the advice you are going to get, and keep out of the sort of things you were doing.”

These comments, directed at a man with a history of terrorist activities and expressed extremist views, were perceived as overly lenient and inappropriate particularly given warnings from counter-terrorism officials.

Detective Chief Superintendent Gareth Rees of the Metropolitan Police’s Counter Terrorism Command highlighted Aswat’s positive reflections on his time with al-Qaeda and his aspirations to reconnect with the group, underscoring the ongoing threat he poses.

Public and Official Reaction

The remarks triggered a firestorm of criticism. The Sun and Daily Mail reported public and official “fury,” with Shadow Justice Secretary Robert Jenrick stating,

“This despicable man was behind one of the most deadly attacks in modern history. He should never experience freedom again.”

Jenrick’s comments reflect a broader sentiment that Aswat’s release, particularly without robust surveillance such as GPS monitoring or an ankle tag, is a failure of the justice system. A 2022 psychiatric report by Dr. Richard Taylor noted that Aswat continued to express “violent extremist Islamic ideology” despite being mentally stable, further fueling concerns about his release.

The Home Office responded by emphasising that “protecting the British public is the very first priority” and that “robust counter-terrorism risk management measures” are in place. However, the absence of a full risk assessment and the reliance on a notification order—rather than more stringent monitoring—has raised doubts about the adequacy of these measures. A government source claimed Aswat would be subject to “robust monitoring” for 30 years, but critics argue this falls short given his history and the legal constraints on surveillance due to his psychiatric status.

Image of Mr Justice Jay : Getty Images

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

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

Latest Articles ↓

Most Popular ↓

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

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

Categories
Government Judiciary Legal Professionals

Secretary of State for Justice

Alex Norris

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Responsibilities

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

Previous Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice

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

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

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

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

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

The Rt Hon David Lammy MP on US President Donald Trump

Photo Credit : David Lammy

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

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

Latest Articles ↓

Most Popular ↓

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

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

Categories
Judiciary Legal Analysis

Do Retired Judges Keep Their Title ?

Retired Judge

In the United Kingdom, judicial titles such as “His Honour,” “Her Honour,” or “Lord/Lady Justice” carry significant prestige, reflecting the authority and responsibility of judges during their tenure.

But what happens to these titles after retirement? Do retired judges, from circuit judges to High Court judges and beyond retain their honorifics?

This article explores the conventions, relevant legislation, and practical examples surrounding the use of judicial titles post-retirement across various judicial roles in the UK by drawing on guidance from the Incorporated Council of Law Reporting (ICLR) article What Do I Call the Judge and the HM Courts and Tribunals Judiciary article What do I call a judge?.

Judicial Titles During Active Service

Judicial titles in the UK vary by court level. Circuit judges, appointed under the Courts Act 1971, are addressed as “Your Honour” in court and styled “His Honour Judge [Surname]” or “Her Honour Judge [Surname]” (with KC added if applicable).

High Court judges, also under the Courts Act 1971, are addressed as “My Lord” or “My Lady” and styled “The Honourable Mr/Mrs Justice [Surname].” Court of Appeal judges, often referred to as Lords or Ladies Justices, carry the title “Lord/Lady Justice [Surname].” Supreme Court Justices are styled “Lord/Lady [Surname]” and addressed as “My Lord/Lady.”

Judges such as Deputy District Judges and Tribunal Judges are referred to as “Judge”.

Magistrates are referred to as “Your Worship, or Sir or Madam”

The ICLR and Judiciary guidance confirm these conventions for active judges, with correspondence typically beginning “Dear Judge” or “Dear Sir/Madam” depending on the role.

Post-Retirement Title Usage

Upon retirement, judges cease to hold their judicial office, raising questions about title retention. The answer varies by judicial level and context, formal legal settings, professional correspondence or social interactions.

Formal Legal Contexts

Legally, judicial titles are tied to the office held. The Courts Act 1971 and Senior Courts Act 1981 establish judicial roles but do not address post-retirement titles.

The Public Service Pensions and Judicial Offices Act 2022 allows retired judges, including circuit, High Court, and Court of Appeal judges, to be recalled for “sitting in retirement” roles, such as deputy circuit or High Court judges.

When serving in these capacities, they are addressed with their former titles in court (e.g., “Your Honour” for circuit judges, “My Lord/Lady” for High Court judges). Outside such roles, retired judges do not officially retain their titles in formal legal proceedings. Using titles like “His Honour” or “Mr Justice” in court documents for non-serving retired judges may be inappropriate.

Professional and Social Contexts

In practice, retired judges are often addressed with their former titles as a courtesy.

The ICLR guidance notes that retired circuit judges may be styled “His Honour [Full Name]” in correspondence, with letters beginning “Dear Judge.” Similarly, retired High Court judges may be addressed as “Sir [First Name]” or “Dame [First Name]” if knighted or appointed DBE, or simply “Mr/Mrs Justice [Surname] (Retired).” Retired Court of Appeal or Supreme Court judges often retain “Lord/Lady [Surname]” due to peerages, which are lifelong.

The Judiciary’s guidance does not prohibit these practices, suggesting flexibility in non-judicial settings. For example, a retired judge speaking at a legal event might be introduced with their former title, such as “Her Honour Judge [Surname] (Retired)” or “Lord Justice [Surname] (Retired).”

Practical Examples

Consider His Honour Judge Melbourne Inman KC, a retired circuit judge often referenced with his title in professional contexts, suggesting its use post-retirement as a courtesy.

Retired High Court judges, like Sir John Mummery, are frequently styled “Sir John” or “Mr Justice Mummery (Retired)” in legal publications. Lord Dyson, a former Supreme Court Justice, retains his title due to his peerage, as seen in public appearances.

Retired judges serving as arbitrators or mediators, common roles post-retirement are often introduced with their former titles in professional settings.

Conventions and Nuances

Title retention is largely customary. In legal and professional circles, using “His Honour,” “Mr Justice,” or “Lord/Lady” for retired judges is common, particularly in correspondence or when referencing their judicial contributions.

Peerages, like those for Supreme Court or Court of Appeal judges, are retained for life, ensuring continued use of “Lord/Lady.”

The Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1993, which governs judicial pensions, does not address titles but reinforces the retirement age of 75, after which judges may serve in limited capacities.

Conclusion

Retired UK judges do not officially retain their titles in formal legal contexts unless recalled to judicial roles under the Public Service Pensions and Judicial Offices Act 2022.

However, conventions outlined by the ICLR and Judiciary allow titles like “His Honour,” “Mr Justice,” or “Lord/Lady” to be used as a courtesy in professional and social settings. This practice reflects respect for their service, with variations by judicial level and context. For formal situations, clarity on a judge’s status is essential to ensure accuracy.

What are Judges Lodgings ?

Check out our articles on Judges Salaries and Fees, Dodgy Judges, Lady Chief Justice, 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
Free Speech Law Legal Analysis

Domain Squatting and Cyber Security ?

Domain Squatting and Cyber Security

Domain squatting, commonly referred to as cybersquatting, is the act of registering, trafficking or using an internet domain name with the intent to profit from the goodwill associated with a trademark, brand, or name belonging to another entity.

In the UK, where businesses, organisations, government departments and individuals increasingly depend on their online presence, domain squatting poses significant legal, ethical, and commercial challenges. It can undermine brand integrity, confuses consumers, and threatens the trustworthiness of the digital marketplace.

Addressing this issue requires a robust combination of legal frameworks, industry mechanisms, and proactive strategies, including guidance from authoritative sources such as the National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC).

The National Cyber Security Centre, a part of GCHQ, helps businesses, the public sector and individuals protect the online services and devices that we all depend on.

National Cyber Security Centre

How Domain Squatting Works

The mechanics of domain squatting are deceptively simple yet highly damaging. Squatters target well-known brands, public figures, or trending terms, registering domain names that closely resemble or incorporate these names. For example, a squatter might secure “brandnameuk.com” or a misspelled variant like “bradnname.com” before the legitimate owner can claim it.

Their objectives typically include selling the domain to the rightful owner at an exorbitant price, redirecting traffic to competing websites, or hosting misleading content to generate advertising revenue.

A related tactic, typosquatting, exploits common typing errors to divert users from their intended destinations, further eroding trust in online navigation. These practices not only harm brand owners but also create confusion and potential financial loss for consumers who may encounter fraudulent or misleading websites.

Legal and Industry Mechanisms in the UK

In the UK, domain squatting is addressed through a combination of legal and industry mechanisms designed to protect brand owners.

For .uk domains, the Nominet Dispute Resolution Service (DRS) offers a specialized, efficient process tailored to the .uk namespace. The DRS allows brand owners to resolve disputes by proving abusive registration or bad-faith use, making it a cornerstone of domain protection in the UK. Beyond these mechanisms, UK law provides additional recourse.

The Trade Marks Act 1994 enables trademark holders to pursue legal action against domains that infringe on their registered marks. The tort of “passing off” can also apply when a squatter’s actions mislead consumers into believing the domain is associated with the legitimate brand, causing reputational or financial harm. High-profile cases, such as those involving major brands like Marks & Spencer or Premier League football clubs, illustrate the courts’ commitment to protecting brand owners from cybersquatting.

The Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP), established by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), provides a global framework for trademark owners to challenge bad-faith domain registrations. To succeed under the UDRP, complainants must demonstrate that the domain is identical or confusingly similar to their trademark, that the registrant has no legitimate interest in the domain, and that it was registered or used in bad faith.

Government Guidance on Defensive Domain Registration

The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) security guidance on Defensive domain registrations emphasises defensive domain registration as a proactive strategy to combat cybersquatting. This approach involves registering multiple domain variations, including common misspellings, alternative extensions (e.g., .co.uk, .uk), and related terms, to prevent squatters from acquiring them.

The guidance advises securing domains early in the branding process, particularly for organisations with valuable intellectual property or high public visibility. It also recommends ongoing monitoring of domain registrations to detect suspicious activity, enabling swift action through Nominet’s DRS or legal channels. This proactive stance is critical for businesses seeking to safeguard their online presence and avoid costly disputes.

Some domain registrars have methods to detect malicious registrations of overtly government-associated domains through the use of misspellings and so on.

Unless there are strong justifications as to why misspellings must be covered, organisations should only defensively register .uk and .co.uk top-level domain variants and visual manipulations.

For example, the removal of one dot from justice.gov.uk leads to justicegov.uk which could be a registerable domain and one that looks a lot like justice.gov.uk during a casual inspection.

Defensive domain registrations – Ministry of Justice Security Guidance

The National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC) publishes Protecting your public domain name – NCSC.GOV.UK and many other articles on cyber security.

Ethical and Practical Implications

The ethical debate surrounding domain squatting is complex. Squatters often argue they are engaging in legitimate entrepreneurial activity by securing available digital assets in an open market.

However, their actions frequently exploit brand goodwill, mislead consumers, and undermine trust in the online ecosystem. Small businesses, in particular, are vulnerable, as they may lack the resources to pursue expensive legal battles or pay exorbitant fees to reclaim domains.

The financial and reputational damage caused by squatters can be significant, particularly when consumers encounter fraudulent websites or lose trust in a brand’s online presence.

Proactive Prevention and Solutions

Preventing domain squatting requires a multifaceted approach. Defensive domain registration, as recommended by cyber security professionals, is a critical first step. Businesses should also leverage monitoring services to track new registrations that may infringe on their brand.

Nominet’s DRS and other registry tools facilitate rapid detection and resolution of disputes, while legal action can reclaim hijacked domains when necessary.

However, prevention remains the most effective strategy. Public awareness, robust enforcement by Nominet, and adherence to government guidance play vital roles in mitigating the risks of cybersquatting.

Cyber Security Failure of MI5 and SIS (MI6) ?

For reasons unknown, MI5 – The Security Service (mi5.gov.uk) didn’t register the domain mi5gov.uk. CI5/MOI registered it to protect MI5 from domain squatting and other cyber attacks.

For reasons unknown, MI6 (sis.gov.uk) didn’t register the domain sisgov.uk. CI5 / MOI registered it to protect MI6 from domain squatting and other cyber attacks.

The mi5gov.uk domain registration did not trigger the expected domain suspension whereas the sisgov.uk domain registration did.

Thank you for registering the domain name sisgov.uk. We are writing to let you know that this domain has been temporarily deactivated and what you can do to reactivate it. You should be able to find all the information you need below but if you need any help, please contact our Customer Support team on 0330 236 9477.

The domain sisgov.uk has triggered a score that requires us to verify some additional information. This domain is still registered in your name – simply follow the steps below to reactivate it.

To reactivate your domain, we need the following details:

• Tell us what this domain will be used for.
• You will need to verify your identity, we use Mitek an identity verification service to complete this. This will involve taking a live picture, similar to a passport photo, via your device and uploading your identification documents for photo ID and proof of address.

Nominet Customer Support– 9:17am

Nominet publishes Terms And Conditions of Domain Name Registration. Specifically 6.1.5 states that you will not use the domain name for any unlawful purpose.

Hi,

Thank you for your email and completing the Mitek verification.

I can confirm the domain name is now active.

Thank you again.

Kind regards,

Nominet UK
Registry Compliance Advisor

Nominet Registry Compliance Advisor – 10:39am

As with all the MOI domains, these domains will continue to be used for a lawful purpose.

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

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

Latest Articles ↓

Most Popular ↓

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

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

Categories
Criminal Justice Law Legal Analysis Police

Police Surveillance

Police Surveillance

The case of R v Sutherland & Others [2002] EW Misc 1 (EWCC) stands as a seminal case that highlights the critical importance of transparency in criminal investigations and the protection of defendants’ rights to a fair trial under Article 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998.

This high-profile murder trial collapsed due to improper police conduct, leaving a lasting impact on the application of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 (CPIA) and the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA).

The case serves as a stark reminder of the boundaries of lawful surveillance and the necessity of proper disclosure in criminal proceedings.

Background of the Case

The case involved Robert Sutherland and four co-defendants, charged with murder and conspiracy to murder following a fatal incident in the Midlands.

The prosecution’s case hinged on evidence obtained through covert surveillance, including audio recordings made at Grantham and Sleaford police stations.

However, it was revealed that the police had secretly recorded privileged conversations between the defendants and their legal advisors, violating the defendants’ right to confidential legal consultation.

This misconduct led to an application to stay the proceedings on the grounds of abuse of process, arguing that the surveillance had fatally undermined the trial’s fairness.

The High Court judge agreed, ruling that the police had “made a mockery of the police caution” and “undermined the statutory right of a defendant to confer with a solicitor in private.” As a result, the case was dismissed, and all defendants were acquitted.

Impact on Disclosure Obligations

R v Sutherland & Others [2002] significantly clarified disclosure obligations under the CPIA 1996. The Act requires the prosecution to disclose all material that might undermine their case or assist the defence.

The case established that even non-incriminating surveillance evidence, such as recordings yielding no useful evidence, must be disclosed. The court emphasised that the existence of surveillance itself is material, as it may support defence arguments questioning the investigation’s thoroughness or integrity.

For example, extensive surveillance producing no incriminating results could strengthen a claim of innocence. This ruling has shaped how prosecution teams manage evidence, stressing meticulous record-keeping and transparency to ensure fairness.

Implications for Surveillance Practices

The case also exposed serious issues with police surveillance under RIPA 2000, which governs covert investigative techniques.

The unauthorised recording of privileged communications breached RIPA’s requirements for lawful, proportionate, and authorised surveillance.

The court’s strong condemnation highlighted the risks of overreach in surveillance operations and their potential to derail prosecutions.

This aspect of the case has led to increased scrutiny of police practices and reinforced the importance of independent oversight, such as by Surveillance Commissioners, to ensure compliance with RIPA.

Directed Surveillance Authority under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000

The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA) provides the legal framework for authorising directed surveillance in the UK, which involves covert monitoring of individuals’ activities in non-intrusive settings, such as public places, to gather intelligence for investigations.

Directed Surveillance Authority (DSA) under RIPA requires that such operations be necessary, proportionate, and approved by a designated senior officer within a public authority, such as the police or intelligence services.

The DSA ensures compliance with strict criteria to prevent abuse, safeguarding individuals’ privacy while enabling lawful investigations. Oversight by the Investigatory Powers Commissioner’s Office (IPCO) ensures adherence to RIPA’s guidelines, with failures to comply, as seen in cases like R v Sutherland & Others [2002], potentially leading to evidence being deemed inadmissible and undermining prosecutions.

As per the requirements of R v SUTHERLAND, if the task has a RIPA / DSA authorisation, NPAS will require a full copy of the DSA authorisation detailing exactly what is (and isn’t) authorised and the means by which it can be obtained, details of the authorising officer, date authorised and the review / expiry dates before that tasking can be actioned.

National Police Air Service – NPAS – OPERATIONS CENTRE FORM – REQUEST FOR PRE-PLANNED AIR SUPPORT

Broader Consequences and Legacy

The collapse of the trial raised concerns about public confidence in the criminal justice system. The acquittal, while legally justified, left the victim’s family feeling “completely let down,” underscoring the human cost of investigative failures.

The case has been widely cited in discussions about the ethical limits of covert operations and the need for robust training for law enforcement.

The Signature Brand have integrated the case into training on disclosure and covert tactics, highlighting its practical implications. For defence lawyers, it provides a powerful tool to challenge prosecution cases by scrutinising disclosure completeness, particularly in surveillance-heavy cases.

Conclusion

R v Sutherland & Others [2002] remains a cornerstone of UK case law, reinforcing the principles of fairness, transparency, and accountability in criminal proceedings.

Its legacy continues to influence how surveillance evidence and disclosure are handled, ensuring defendants’ rights are protected while upholding judicial integrity. The case serves as a cautionary tale that procedural missteps, even if well-intentioned, can have profound consequences, highlighting the delicate balance between effective policing and adherence to the rule of law.

Check out our articles on Policing by Consent, Are the Police for Hire ?, Police Impartiality, Police Professional Standards, Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC),Police Public Confidence and Engagement, Crime Reporting, What is a Police and Crime Commissioner ?, Sussex Police, Policing, Police News, Two Tiered Policing, Thought Police, Wasting Police Time, Police Community Support Officers (PCSO), Met Police, Free Speech Union, 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
Criminal Justice Law Legal Analysis

What is an Abuse of Process in Criminal Law ?

Abuse of Process in Criminal Law

In criminal law an abuse of process occurs when the criminal justice system is misused in a way that undermines fairness, justice or the integrity of legal proceedings.

It involves actions that exploit the judicial process for improper purposes, such as harassing a defendant, causing unjust delays, or pursuing a case without legitimate grounds.

The concept is enshrined in the court’s inherent jurisdiction to protect its processes, as guided by the Criminal Procedure Rules 2020(CrimPR) and established case law.

Defining Abuse of Process

An abuse of process arises when the prosecution’s conduct or case circumstances render a fair trial impossible or unjust.

CPR Rule 3.28, part of the case management framework, empowers courts to give directions to ensure proceedings are conducted efficiently and fairly, which includes identifying and addressing potential abuses of process.

This rule supports the overriding objective in CPR 1.1 to deal with cases justly, ensuring fairness, efficiency, and compliance with the European Convention on Human Rights and Human Rights Act 1998, particularly Article 6 (right to a fair trial). Examples of abuse of process include:

  1. Improper Motives: Prosecuting to harass or intimidate rather than seek justice.
  2. Unreasonable Delay: Excessive delays that prejudice the defendant’s defence, such as faded memories or lost evidence.
  3. Non-Disclosure: Failing to disclose exculpatory evidence, breaching the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996.
  4. Entrapment: Inducing a defendant to commit a crime they would not otherwise have committed.
  5. Bad Faith Prosecutions: Pursuing a case without sufficient evidence or for ulterior motives, like political pressure.

Legal Framework

The Criminal Procedure Rules 2020 (CrimPR) are a comprehensive set of rules governing the practice and procedure of criminal courts in England and Wales. They provide a framework to ensure criminal cases are managed justly, efficiently, and fairly, as mandated by the Courts Act 2003, which empowers the Criminal Procedure Rule Committee to make these rules.

CrimPR 1.1, the overriding objective, requires courts to manage cases to avoid unfairness, inefficiency, or prejudice. Unlike specific statutory provisions in other contexts, criminal abuse of process relies on judicial discretion and precedent.

1.1.—(1) The overriding objective of this procedural code is that criminal cases be dealt with justly.

(2) Dealing with a criminal case justly includes―

(a) acquitting the innocent and convicting the guilty;

(b) treating all participants with politeness and respect;

(c) dealing with the prosecution and the defence fairly;

(d) recognising the rights of a defendant, particularly those under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights;

(e) respecting the interests of witnesses, victims and jurors and keeping them informed of the progress of the case;

(f) dealing with the case efficiently and expeditiously;

(g) ensuring that appropriate information is available to the court when bail and sentence are considered; and

(h) dealing with the case in ways that take into account―

(i) the gravity of the offence alleged,

(ii) the complexity of what is in issue,

(iii) the severity of the consequences for the defendant and others affected, and

(iv) the needs of other cases.

The Criminal Procedure Rules 2020 – 1.1 The Overriding Objective

CrimPR 1.2 outlines the duty of all participants in a criminal case to actively assist the court in achieving the overriding objective.

1.2.—(1) Each participant, in the conduct of each case, must―

(a) prepare and conduct the case in accordance with the overriding objective;

(b) comply with these Rules, practice directions and directions made by the court; and

(c) at once inform the court and all parties of any significant failure (whether or not that participant is responsible for that failure) to take any procedural step required by these Rules, any practice direction or any direction of the court. A failure is significant if it might hinder the court in furthering the overriding objective.

(2) Anyone involved in any way with a criminal case is a participant in its conduct for the purposes of this rule.

The Criminal Procedure Rules 2020 – 1.2 The duty of the participants in a criminal case

CrimPR 3.28 allows courts to give directions for the effective management of criminal cases, which includes addressing abuses of process. While the rule itself focuses on case progression, it enables judges to scrutinise proceedings for potential misuse, ensuring they align with the overriding objective of fairness.

3.28.—(1) This rule applies where a defendant wants the Crown Court to stay the case on the grounds that the proceedings are an abuse of the court, or otherwise unfair.

(2) Such a defendant must—

(a) apply in writing—

(i) as soon as practicable after becoming aware of the grounds for doing so,

(ii) at a pre-trial hearing, unless the grounds for the application do not arise until trial, and

(iii) in any event, before the defendant pleads guilty or the jury (if there is one) retires to consider its verdict at trial;

(b) serve the application on—

(i) the court officer, and

(ii) each other party; and

(c) in the application—

(i) explain the grounds on which it is made,

(ii) include, attach or identify all supporting material,

(iii) specify relevant events, dates and propositions of law, and

(iv) identify any witness the applicant wants to call to give evidence in person.

(3) A party who wants to make representations in response to the application must serve the representations on—

(a) the court officer; and

(b) each other party,

not more than 10 business days after service of the application.

The Criminal Procedure Rules 2020 – 3.28 Application to stay case for abuse of process

The landmark case R v Horseferry Road Magistrates’ Court, ex parte Bennett [1994] 1 AC 42 established that courts can stay or dismiss proceedings deemed abusive. Rule 3.28 supports this by providing a mechanism for courts to intervene when proceedings risk unfairness or oppression.

Unlike specific statutory provisions in other contexts, criminal abuse of process relies on judicial discretion, with Rule 3.28 facilitating proactive case management to prevent or remedy abuses. Courts assess whether continuing a case would undermine public confidence or violate defendants’ rights.

Judicial Response

Courts have broad powers to address abuse of process, including:

  • Staying Proceedings: Halting a case if a fair trial is impossible or unjust, as supported by CrimPR Rule 3.28 directions.
  • Dismissing Charges: Dropping charges due to prosecutorial misconduct.
  • Excluding Evidence: Suppressing improperly obtained evidence under Section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.

For instance, in R v Beckford [1996] 1 Cr App R 94, non-disclosure of evidence was deemed an abuse, prompting judicial intervention. Similarly, R v Maxwell [2010] UKSC 48 clarified that remedies depend on the abuse’s severity and impact on fairness.

Importance of Preventing Abuse of Process

Preventing abuse of process, as facilitated by CrimPR Rule 3.28, is vital to maintaining public trust in the criminal justice system. It protects defendants from oppressive treatment, ensures efficient use of court resources, and upholds the integrity of proceedings.

Check out our related articles on Rule of Law, Open Justice, Is the Law Black and White ?, What Does Lady Justice Symbolise ?, Wasted Cost Orders, 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.

Rule of Law - Open Justice - Policing By Consent