Scandalising a Judge or “it is vital that public confidence in the judiciary is protected”

In my observation of UK courts over a number of years from the point of view of victims of white collar crimes, public confidence can only be restored, if culprits admit to their shortcomings, ask for forgiveness and offer compensation. A kind of “Courts Jubilee”.

Meanwhile, however, David Dunlop, a smart barrister defends Peter Hain MP in an Irish court against the Northern Ireland Attorney General John Larkin. The former Northern Ireland Secretary of State Peter Hain is being prosecuted for critical comments about a Hight Court judge in his autobiography.

But his barrister is suggesting:

  1. Does the “archaic” offence of ‘scandalising the court’ still exist?
  2. Criticism of judges or of judicial decisions does not in itself constitute contempt of court.
  3. The fair criticism of judges and judicial decisions is not only quite clearly a right, there are also occasions when there may be a duty to do it.
  4. “Citizens are entitled to have confidence in the administration of justice, they should not be improperly deprived of this entitlement or have it endangered.”

As reported by the Press Association, the full case will be heard on June 19.

On his website, Peter Hain MP says that bigotry and discrimination under apartheid inspired him to get involved in politics. His commitment to social justice and equality made him join Labour.

In Parliament, Conservative David Davis MP has tabled Freedom of Speech for Hon. Members as EDM 2984 in support of Peter Hain MP. To date, it has been signed by 151 MPs! Support them to defend the House’s rights against such attacks!!!

And maybe ask why Article 1 of the EU Convention on Human Rights is missing of the UK version. For that would, in theory, offer protection. In reality, it seems that the Rule of Money has replaced the Rule of Law completely.

Remarkable what wigs make out of men: the right to be above everybody else who’d be in ‘contempt of court’, if they dare to question their ‘wisdom’. They even like to ‘section’ or label them ‘vexatious litigant’, even if they were the accused, like Geoffrey Scriven in 1999 as an abuse of their wig power.

No wonder Caul Grant claims Judiciary Guilty of Criminal Acts. And he is far from alone, as all the victims do have their evidence. They may just not be able to present it as well as a trained barrister…


About Sabine Kurjo McNeill

I'm a mathematician and system analyst formerly at CERN in Geneva and became an event organiser, software designer, independent web publisher and online promoter of Open Justice. My most significant scientific contribution is
This entry was posted in Law Enforcement, Ministry of Justice, Rule of Law, Rule of Money, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, White-Collar Crimes and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

19 Responses to Scandalising a Judge or “it is vital that public confidence in the judiciary is protected”

  1. Colin Peters says:

    I was the victim of lawyers and professionals who aided and abetted their clients deceptions to my detriment and to their own enrichment.

    When the case reached a court it is quite clear from a perusal of his printed judgement that the judge’s main concern was in covering up for his professional peers.

    These were an expert witness who had issued a report that was a complete and utter fabrication, and proven to be, and a barrister, who is now a judge, who remained mute whilst his client put a pack of lies to the court that were in conflict with the pack of lies which he had authored as being the pleaded case.

    The proof and the truth of my claims are there for all to see and yet I made it
    through to the court of appeal in London with no success and I also managed to appear before another judge in a local court with no success.

    Your words Sabine, “They may just not be able to present it as well as a trained barrister.” should be closer to, “They may just not be LISTENED TO as well as a trained barrister.

    As I and so many others have found, judges who always have the last word in our so called court of law, – in their outcome driven judgements, – only hear what they want to hear and are deaf to the truth.

    The attitude of our unelected judiciary was summed up perfectly by Denning when he proclaimed words to the effect of, ” It is preferable that innocent men remain in prison rather than the integrity of the judiciary be impugned.”

    How can a judiciary with this kind of a mind set administer justice to those who have the misfortune to have no other access to justice than to appear before them?

    I repeat a truth that I realised many years ago.

    “For whatever reason, when the interests of lawyers (judges included) conflict with the interests of justice, then injustice is inevitable.”

    The names of all concerned can be found on my website.

    • Well put, Colin! Thanks!

      I think we need to add Maurice Kirk ‘s statement “The law is only as good as the integrity of those who are entrusted to administer it.”

      This was about 25 years ago, when he sprayed it on the wall of his surgery. Now he’s been in prison for “mental health issues” but without proper charges…

  2. peter oakes says:

    Dear Peter Hain MP.
    Why have British dishonest judges been allowed
    to deceive the British Public who are European Citizens ?

    They have constantly used judicial decisions to be-little and to ridicule
    Human Rights in order to discredit ECHR Fundamental Rights and Freedoms
    especially concerning released murders & terrorists ! But at the same time
    they are in Full Knowledge the UK is Not a signatory to the European
    Convention because Article 1. has been removed from the Human Rights
    Act. 1998. and there is No Article 13.

    As a Member of Parliament Yourself and Other MPs passed this Statutory Act
    that deceives the British Public ! was this due to gross negligence or
    wilful blindness in a conspiracy against British European Citizens ?

    You and other MPs have surrendered your Parliamentary Privilege to the
    legal mafia

    Members of Parliament have acted like Turkeys Voting
    for Christmas in passing the 1998 Human Rights Act !

    And Now Peter Hain you have NO Remedy as required in the European
    Convention of Human Rights because legal mafia judges removed Article 13.

    You have No Human Rights re: no Article 1. and You have No Remedy
    as required in Article 13. And a bent judge is now defying you
    Article 10. Freedom of Expression

    This is of extreme significance for yourself MP Hain. as Article 10. says

    ” The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it DUTIES and RESPONSIBILITIES, may be subjected to such formalities, conditions, restrictions, or penalties as are prescribed by Law and are necessary
    in a Democratic Society in the interests of national security,territorial integrity and or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or CRIME, for the prosecution of health or morals, for the protection for the Rights of OTHERS,
    etc. etc. ”

    Seems to me Peter Hain MP. You owe a Duty of Care to myself and Your
    Constituents as the only Elected Protectors of Democracy that has allowed
    an un-elected corrupted judiciary to control the Country via. a Legal Mafia
    and You are no doubt the intended Victim of Conservative Judges !

    Will you join VICTIMS UNITE and expose these judicial criminals as required
    by the Common Law R-V- Sharpe R-V- Stringer 1936-7

    Or are you committing the offence of “Obstructing the Course of Public Justice”

    We have loads of evidence for your defence and You have the Right (may-be) to Summon Witness,s Article 6 (d) ECHR.

    England and WALES Expects You to do your Duty.
    Yours Sincerely Peter Oakes.

  3. Colin Peters says:

    Very well put Peter.

  4. Sabine,

    I suggest you catch-up on Interviews with “Drake” and how it pertains
    to the U.K., rest of the world. Their official website is Beware of “other” websites popping up, but not related.

    The new radio broadcasts can be found on the website.
    Recent archived interviews can be found under “Freedom_Reigns” section:-

    The bottom line is each person is responsible for their own choices. I hope this will help you see.
    We do not need “courts” per se. Please read “Under God” for a better understanding of The Law.

  5. peter oakes says:

    ” Citizens are entitled to have confidence in the Administration of Justice .
    They should not be improperly deprived of this Entitlement or have it Endangered ” He said a lawyer defending Peter Hain MP.


    Well Nueberger Master of the rolls and criminal The Law is coming to get
    You for stealing Eberts home and The Royal Masonic Hospital.

  6. Pingback: “Scandalising a Judge” may be out of date, suggests Peter Hain MP’s lawyer | Flying Vet challenges South Wales Police

  7. londonhillclimbs says:

    Expert witnesses harm family courts cases?

    Monday 30 April 2012 .A special report by Channel 4 News raises more questions about the role and influence of experts used by family courts to decide the fate of children and their families.

  8. Colin Peters says:

    Harking back to your original posting Sabine wherein you state, “If culprits – (judges) – admit to their shortcomings, ask for forgiveness and offer compensation etc”, — Do you really believe this?

    Hell will freeze over first!

    These self opinated, self worshipping and self serving creatures are in charge of a legal system which is administered by themselves to serve themselves and it works perfectly ——- (but only for themselves)

    Your wish is the epitome of futile optimism.

    There’s only one way to challenge them and that is through the exposure of their corruption via the internet

    But, then again, who is there with the power to do anything about it, who will do anything about it?

    No one!!!

    With the best will in the world, the odd honest and decent MP here and there will not be allowed to make much impact on the rest of the crowd.

    It has got to be a rebellion by the public, but in this I’m alright Jack society in which we live, where are the numbers?

    • There are 151 MPs who have so far signed the EDM re ‘Freedom of Speech for Hon. Members’ without fear of judicial attacks! So we are not altogether alone, Colin!

      It doesn’t hurt to have utopian dreams…

  9. peter oakes says:

    The first question in the intro. to this item was Does ” The archaic offence
    of scandalising the judiciary exist ” ????.

    Well YES it does along with the equally archaic offence of Treason
    mis-prison of treason, abuse of process, perverting justice, concealing
    offences etc. etc.

    It is evident that corrupt judges re: Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss can kidnap
    children, pervert justice, falsify the public record. Master of the Rolls Nueberger. can be an accessory after the fact to the theft of the Royal
    Masonic Hospital, 11. Cranbourne Gdns. NW. home of Mr. Ebert & family

    Members of Parliament re: Edward Timpson ( bent barrister) etc. and no doubt
    one who would not sign the EDM concerning Free Speech. can break the
    Law, Assist Offenders, etc.etc.

    With Impunity, given a licence by bent judges & police CPS etc.

    Now I reckon the above is Scandalising the Judiciary ! When are you
    going to charge Me with this offence Mr. Attorney General of N.Ireland ?

    Bring it on.

    Peter Oakes.

    PS. Remember The Commander Wollongong.

  10. Pingback: Police State Britain: the Law, its Administration and its Enforcement « Victims Unite!

  11. peter oakes says:

    As Expected All charges have been dropped ! These criminal judges now
    realise they have been caught out and want to end this fiasco with as
    little publicity as possible, m Long live Article 10 Freedom of Expression.

  12. Pingback: Calling All Media Professionals Interested in Fair Trials « Publicity Online

  13. Pingback: The citizen is entitled to resist unlawful action as a matter of right and to live under the rule of law | This Nigerian Family wants to go Home – WITH their Six Kidnapped Children!

  14. Pingback: BBC IV: PR for English Law by Prison Chaplain and Scottish Barrister Harry Potter (!) « Victims Unite!

  15. Tony Butler says:

    When Judges granted themselves immunity from prosecution from any misconduct during a trial, including negligence, or allow the nobbling of a jury, by jury selection, thereby rending the entire random jury selection process worthless, they have set themselves above the rest of us.
    Fortunately, we can be critical of anyone, with impunity and the wiggery may not like it, they may section harmless eighty-year-plus critics and jail them, but only unlawfully.
    ‘Nemo iudex in causa sua (No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, because his interest would certainly bias his judgment, and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity.
    And what are, ‘Contempt of Court’ proceedings other than a man judging his own case?
    It is forbidden in, Magna Carta

    “…here is a law which is above the King and which even he must not break. This reaffirmation of a supreme law and its expression in a general charter is the great work of Magna Carta; and this alone justifies the respect in which men have held it.”
    Winston Churchill

    Do judges put themselves, and their wigs, above Kings? Apparently.

  16. Pingback: “The fair criticism of judges and judicial decisions is not only quite clearly a right, there are also occasions when there may be a duty to do it” « Victims Unite!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s