Category Archives: Featured

The Football Banning Order (guest blog by Amanda Jacks of FSF)

This blog is by Amanda Jacks of the  Football Supporters Federation

What do paedophiles, terrorists and football supporters have in common? 

 The State has the power to remove their passports and in the case of supporters, they can do so in two different ways: either by application on conviction of a football related offence or by a civil application made by a Police Chief Constable to a magistrates court. 

 In both cases the surrender comes under the terms and conditions of a Football Banning Order (FBO) and occur when either the supporters’ club or country play abroad. Ahead of last year’s World Cup, passports had to be handed over to police some ten days ahead of the tournament and, regardless of how far England progressed, would be kept until it was over. It’s been calculated that if your team are in a European competition and England are playing qualifiers or friendlies, you could be without your passport for 90 days in a year. Whether you’ve ever followed club or country, outside of these shores is immaterial, it’s a blanket condition. Ahead of the recent Ireland v England friendly played in Dublin, not only did those serving FBOs have to surrender their passports, they also had to report to their local police station the morning of the match – just so the police could be doubly sure they hadn’t managed to sneak out the country.

An FBO can impose severe restrictions on movement preventing you from being within a certain radius of a football stadium (upto 5 miles) or in some cases prevent you using the rail network. Given a court has to be satisfied that granting an application for an FBO will contribute towards the reduction of football related violence, you’d be forgiven for thinking that applications on conviction are only made if a supporter has been found guilty of violent disorder or affray but it’s our experience that the police/CPS will submit an application regardless of the offence with which the supporter has been charged and whether or not they’ve got a criminal record, let alone previous convictions for football related offences. In one of the more questionable cases we’ve been involved in, a supporter was charged with missile throwing after chucking his fancy dress trousers in the air. He had a clean record yet would have faced an FBO application had he been convicted but thanks to vigorous efforts by his solicitor the charge was dropped.

 When it comes to civil applications, the Police may present evidence to the Court upto ten years old in the hope that the court will be persuaded that granting the application will prevent individuals from causing or contributing to disorder. The supporters may not necessarily have a criminal conviction. I’ve attended court on several occasions to observe proceedings and the strength of the evidence varies. In some cases, the police are able to present strong cases, including CCTV footage of fans being involved or in close proximity to disorder but in just as many cases, the applications are based on little more than association with other ‘risk’ fans and ejections from stadiums for breaking ground regulations. In fact, some of the applications beg the question why individuals haven’t been arrested and charged with a criminal offence.

When supporters are served with a civil application approach us for advice, the one thing they all have in common is the account they give when the police turn up at their doorstep with legal papers. I’ve been told time and time again that the police tell fans not to bother taking legal advice, it’ll be too costly, they won’t get legal aid, if they contest the application, it’ll cost them thousands, or the original application for a three year ban will become a five year ban. Thankfully, this “advice” isn’t always adhered to and fans contact us and are advised – free of charge – on the merit of contesting the application.

It’s a frequent boast by the authorities that FBOs have transformed the behaviour of the English fan both here abroad and played a major part in the more or less complete reduction of ugly scenes that so tarnished the reputation of our supporters. However, there are three notable academics in the field of football policing and legislation (Messrs Pearson, Stott and James) and if you read their work – all freely available online – it paints a somewhat different picture. None of them say that FBOs haven’t played their part but the true picture takes into account many other factors, primarily policing, conditions and the changing demographic of fans. They will also argue that the effectiveness of the banning order has never been properly measured.  

For whatever reason, the narrative of the authorities that banning orders work in preventing ‘hooliganism’ (let alone the draconian implications of serving a ban) is very rarely challenged by the media or even those who champion civil liberties meaning there is little scrutiny in their application. It’s also the case, again as I’ve witnessed, that the judiciary doesn’t always apply the proper tests when considering applications for Football Banning Orders. Thankfully the FSF are able to rely on an excellent legal team who will give initial advice free of charge; we can’t though prevent football fans being subjected to the same reach of the state as terrorists and paedophiles. / 07703 519555

Pledge For Justice

The following pledge can be signed by any PPC in the 2016 Election if they care about Justice and support Legal Aid

LEGAL AID PLEDGE  For a just and fair society 

The most recent You-Gov poll on access to justice found that 84% of people said legal aid and a fair trial were fundamental rights. I agree!

If elected as an MP I pledge that :- 

1.    I will seek to ensure that the principle of access to justice for all will be upheld and protected

2.     I will ensure that the integrity of an independent justice system is maintained and promoted

3.    I will not support any further cuts to the legal aid budget in the next Parliament

4.    I will support a review of access to justice within the first year of a new parliament to consider the effect of cumulative cuts and changes to legal aid funding.





1 The Vote For Justice campaign was first organised by the LCCSA, for the 2015 election, and backed by Justice Campaigners and Legal Aid Supporters. It is non-Party Political, but campaigners will actively promote candidates of any party who sign (for example in Haringey at the last election, we supported Catherine West who signed the pledge, unseating incumbent Lynne Featherstone who did not)

2 See Here for covering letter inviting PPCs to sign the Justice Pledge.


Book Review: Sexual Offences- a Practitioners Guide (Richardson/Clark)

Book Review: 

Richardson and Clark: Sexual Offences – A Practitioners Guide  (Publ. Bloomsbury )

Many LCCSA practitioners will have benefited from the recent CPD talk “everything you wanted to know about sex but were afraid to ask”.

Richardson and Clarks book sets out not only to provide the basic information you need to know, but how to put it into practice.

LCCSA member Nigel Richardson heads the criminal department at HJA and sits as a deputy District Judge.

Peter Clark is a barrister at 187 Fleet St. who specialises in sex cases. There is no doubting their combined experience, but knowledge doesn’t always translate into a good book. 

Thankfully, this time, the authors have accomplished exactly what is set out in the sub-title: a “practitioners guide”.

This book comes at the right time. The government have confirmed their intention to enact as policy what has been a much-trailed and anticipated policy announcement relating to compulsory training for advocates undertaking sex cases. 

This development is to be welcomed, as poorly conducted cases lead to trauma for victims and witnesses, miscarriages of justice, and bring the profession into disrepute. 

The foundation of any training is knowledge of the law, procedure and practice, and this text serves as a useful refresher, a summary of current legislation and case-law, and a guide on every aspect of both litigation and case preparation.

This guide covers every aspect up to and including sentence and the new guidelines, SOPOs and the sex offenders register.

I haven’t read the book from cover to cover-it’s not that kind of book- but the guide Set out clearly, well indexed,And extensively referenced.

Any practitioners guide has to be user friendly, and I was able to put this to the test as I was reviewing this book whilst defending in a sex case at Woolwich Crown Court. 

The evidence against a Co-Defendant by the key witness departed substantially from anticipated evidence and left a question mark on whether there was a case to answer on a Sex Assault Count. The issue became whether the touching was “sexual”,  and this book had the relevant provisions in a distinct chapter (chapter 2) together with discussion and comment. It passed the test, going beyond the basic definition which Archbold provided, and led to the foundation of a submission of no case to answer.


Part A of the book divides the law into concepts (consent, sexual, penetration, intoxication) which are relevant to the numerous offences, each offence is then considered individually in parts B and C.

What distinguishes this from other text books and makes it truly a “practitioner” guide is the inclusion of additional topics such as how to deal with PII, medical evidence and toxicology, DNA, previous inconsistent statements and so on. 

There is also guidance for “historic” sex offences, examples of which seem to be in the news so frequently at the moment. There seems to be little prospect of using abuse of process to stay sex cases for delay, following a case the book cites from 2013 (R v RD ) where proceedings were started after a delay of 63 years. Given the difficulties for witnesses recalling facts and dates after the passage of many years (think of Rolf Harris who tried to run alibi for one charge but didn’t remember that he had ever been filmed for a TV programme in that very location at the relevant time) the  authors are understandably troubled by the prospect that a chance of acquittal may depend on whether or not a Defendant has “hoarded” a diary or documentary evidence.

The DPP has recently  issued new guidance and protocols for prosecuting historic sex cases: they are not referenced in this book and should be examined in addition by anyone advising on historic abuse. What this guide does have however is chapters dealing with offences under previous legislation such as the 1956 sex Offences Act, which need to be revisited in historic allegations.

Another subject (contributed by LCCSA member Samira Noor-Khan) as a distinct topic is police station attendances Advocates will know that often cases are won or lost in the police station, and arguably in sex cases more than others the decision whether to answer questions or make no comment has potentially huge ramifications for cases that inevitably end up before a jury. 

In the days of the “old” caution (before adverse inferences) when every adviser in almost every case advised “No Comment” raising “Consent” as an issue was considered an honourable exception. But then, as now, each case is fact specific and suspects deserve proper advice from experienced lawyers. I recently saw a firm of solicitors seeking an agent to attend a police station late at night to advise a 15 year old accused of rape. The fee offered was £100. I hope they found someone who knew what they were doing. Whoever attended, it would have done no harm to have this practitioners guide for reference, (along with Ed Cape’s indispensable guide to police stations)

Like all books, this guide is stronger in some areas than others. The section on “false statements” (and s41 YJ&CEA generally) is excellent and user friendly.

A section on “bail” by contrast is not informative, and there is for example no advice or commentary on excessive bail periods, so prevalent in sex-case investigations (and currently quote topical, with promised legislation following high-profile investigations such as Paul Gambicinni) 

I would also have liked to see a section about advocacy, particularly as a framework for the forthcoming compulsory training referred to above).

But these are minor niggles in what is generally a useful asset to the lawyers armoury:- in short a concise, practical guide to the labyrinthine legislation and the over-riding topics. 

One omission that members who attended Prof Ormerods presentation at the LCCSA conference in Alicante may spot is the case of Thompson (2014) about sexual touching (the appellant with aspergers touching a minor in circumstances where he may not have realised it to be “sexual”)

There is also no mention of the recently reported case of R v Kamki [2013] EWCA Crim 2335 which deals with lack of consent in intoxication cases, and publication was too early for an important case dealing with consent and mental capacity (Avanzi 2014). These cases and others demonstrate the area of sex-crime is ever-evolving, and only this month we learned of proposals trumpeted by the MOJ  specifically to deal with “revenge-porn” , which many of us were foolish to think was already illegal. No doubt, in due course we will need a second edition of this guide.

Until then, there should be a copy in the library of every criminal firm, and if there is not, you will have to buy your own or risk being caught out next time you are advising or representing in this area.



A Practitioner’s Guide to Judicial Review in the Criminal Justice System and Related Areas

Publ. By HART

Various Authors (General Editor Piers con Berg)

Perhaps surprisingly, this is the first book exclusively devoted to the topic of Criminal Judicial Review.

Do we need one?

Having read this, I think the answer is yes.

Those of us who practice exclusively in criminal law know that there is JR and associated remedies, but not necessarily the range of areas that Public Law can cover, or how to properly bring a review where appropriate.

In other words, you need to spot the point, to take the point.

In an era of increasing specialism, many Criminal Practitioners retain only a hazy idea of the principles of Judicial Review, leaving JR to the “experts”, many of whom are not criminal lawyers. 

LCCSA members may therefore be interested in this book, which brings together areas of both Criminal and Public Law and presents them in a practitioner guide which should equip any practitioner to access the relevant materials and prepare the relevant arguments.

The book is thematically arranged, with topics tackled by different authors (many from 36 Bedford Row) setting out the key principles and identifying grounds arising from conduct of (amongst others) the police, the Courts and Prisons.

Judicial Review allows claims to be made against any Public Authority which has acted unlawfully, including the IPPC or even the LAA.

As members will know, the LCCSA  used JR to challenge the flawed consultation imposed on criminal lawyers by the Ministry of Justice. Although the MOJ ultimately won that at the Appeal Court, there have been ten successful Judicial Reviews against the Ministry of Justice under Grayling’s tenure.

An over-riding concept in Criminal Judicial Review is “serious abuse of power”, and the scope includes police investigations and prosecutorial decisions, as well as oversight of the Courts.  These topics are ably covered in this book.

As a practitioner guide, the book rightly covers the mechanisms for bringing JR., the forms, procedures and timetables that apply, and equally important the availability of legal aid and  the way in which cases can be billed (including costs orders). The editor makes the point that at a time of huge cuts in legal aid funding, costs in some JR cases can be claimed at commercial rates.

Commendably, the book does not steer clear of controversy, suggesting for example possible challenges following the recent appellate decision in DAVIS.

Both Counsel and solicitors have contributed and each has brought their own area of expertise.

All appear enthused by the subject, which really comes to life and takes the novice through all the relevant steps from taking instructions to grant of submission and beyond. 

The chapter on Procedure by Grainne Mellon (Garden Court) is particularly helpful.

The book has a clear and simple style, is easy to use and will meet the needs of the practitioner.

In my view it will become the “go-to” book for Judicial Review.

Modern Slavery Act – a synopsis (Guest Blog by Ben Ticehurst)

The following is a guest blog by solicitor Ben Ticehurst of  E.M.M. Solicitors  

The Modern Slavery Act 2015


The Modern Slavery Bill received Royal Assent on the 26th March 2015. Following the announcement of Royal Assent, Unicef Director David Bull said:

The passing of the Modern Slavery Bill into law is an historic moment in the fight against modern slavery and human trafficking. Unicef UK is proud that the UK has committed to stamping out these horrific crimes and, in particular, to protecting vulnerable children.

Why the need for new legislation?

The Global Slavery Index 2014 reported that over 35 million people are trapped in slavery across the world today. Modern slavery takes multiple forms including forced labour and human trafficking, and is found across the economic sphere in domestic servitude, the sex trade, on farms, building sites and in factories. Many are working in terrible conditions for extremely long hours, for little or no pay, and are vulnerable to verbal and physical abuse.

The National Crime Agency suggests that the number of victims of trafficking in the UK rose by 22 per cent from 2012 to 2013 and these numbers are continually on the rise globally as well.

In the UK, around 60% of children rescued from trafficking have gone missing from social services. Those working as foreign domestic workers on a tied visa (about 15,000 each year), meaning that they are tied to one employer for the duration of their stay, are unable to leave their houses unaccompanied or find alternative jobs to escape abusive employers without becoming criminalised. 

Until now, there were three pieces of legislation on slavery and trafficking that are scattered, impractical and therefore difficult to use. As a result, there were only 8 convictions of human trafficking in the UK in 2011. There have been calls for the law was to be on the side of victims of slavery and trafficking and so the new Modern Slavery Bill, has been hugely welcomed as it is pivotal to ensuring victims of abuse are found, cared for and receive justice for crimes committed against them.

A Home Office spokesperson recently said the bill was 

an historic opportunity to get legislation on the statute books that will , for the very first time, address slavery and trafficking in the 21st Century”

Summary of the Act

The Modern Slavery Act brings together current offences of trafficking and slavery, introduces tougher sentences (up to a maximum of life imprisonment) for traffickers, and creates an independent anti-slavery commissioner, likely to be a former police officer. It contains provisions for seizing traffickers’ assets and allows for confiscation proceedings (section 7) under the Proceeds of Crime act 2002 (POCA 2002). It also allows for the channelling of traffickers money towards victims, by way of compensation payments (section 9).

It is hoped the Act will provide greater protection for victims and improve the prospects for prosecuting perpetrators

The Act includes provision to defend those that have been forced to commit crimes as victims of slavery or exploitation (section 45). This includes a defence for child victims against prosecution for crimes committed directly as a consequence of their trafficking.

The provisions to protect children are continued in that Section 48 creates ‘Child Trafficking Advocates’ who will support and represent any child that has been the victim of human trafficking. The Act also sets out a ‘presumption about age’ (section 51) which means that where is it unclear as to the age of the victim and they could be under 18 years of age then they will be treated as under 18 until it is know otherwise.

The Act will also make a development in relation to corporate responsibility and accountability in an attempt to improve transparency in supply chains (section 54). This will require companies to make a statement detailing the steps they have taken to ensure that slavery and human trafficking is not taking place within the company or supply chains, or that no such actions have been taken. This step follows the USA, Brazil and Australia who have already made efforts to address modern slavery in supply chains.


There have ben some criticisms of the Bill in that it concentrates on enforcement and prosecution of traffickers as opposed to focusing more on victim protection.

Former conservative MP Anthony Steen has said: 

the prime minister said he wants to drive slavery out of Britain; I am convinced he is committed to doing something about it, but you are not going to catch traffickers unless you have evidence, and you are not going to have any evidence unless you support the victims. The reason why we have so few convictions in Britain is that police scare the living daylights out of victims.”

Barrister Parosha Chandran has commented that the section of the bill that deals with transparency in supply chains does not extend to wholly owned subsidiaries of UK companies abroad. 

She has stated that 

“…the modern slavery bill represents a huge step forward in the development of corporate accountability. Yet we will never really begin to tackle modern slavery unless we ensure that the supply chains of all our companies, whether doing business in the UK or overseas, are not tainted by trafficking, exploitation or abuse.

Andrew Wallis, chief executive of Unseen, a charity that works with the survivors of trafficking and modern slavery, was more inclined to be positive. 

Whilst no legislation is ever perfect it must now be matched by a concerted and collaborative effort to put the provisions of this law into full effect”.

“Many have contributed to the process of drafting this legislation and we have arrived at an

Act that the UK can and should be proud of. There is and always will be more to be done

but it was crucial that this legislation reached the statute books before this parliament ended

so that we have a good foundation upon which to build.”

Grayling Day- the Save Legal Aid Demo 07/03/14

The demonstration on 07 March 2014 in support of Legal Aid in Old Palace Yard, Westminster (outside Houses of Parliament) was possibly the largest gathering of protesting Legal Aid Criminal Lawyers and Supporters ever assembled, and became known as “Grayling Day”, after the man responsible for the cuts, MP Chris Grayling.

The demo raised the profile of the fight against Legal aid cuts. Guardian report here

Legal Aid Playlist here.   Highlights in this short film on YouTube

The Fight to Save Legal Aid

Justice Secretary Chris Grayling (a butcher posturing as Lord Chancellor) introduced further cuts to Legal Aid which threatened to destroy the ability of firms or individual lawyers to properly represent clients if reliant on legal aid.
The demo was not about Lawyers livelihoods. This was about equal access to justice for all, not just those who can afford to pay privately. No action was taken to stop wealthy defendants getting Legal Aid because their assets are “restrained” so they can’t use them to pay legal fees (as Martin Bentham  pointed out here)
I had the privilege of compering the demo, organised by LCCSA and the Justice Alliance, supported by revolting lawyers, inspirational speakers, MPs, and an effigy of Grayling. Many Legal Aid Lawyers were not working on the first ever full “strike” (day of action.) Concerns about the justice system were the theme. (BBC coverage here)

A full list of speakers with a summary of their contributions HERE.

I had previously blogged about a Legal Aid day of action in the New Year, (January 2014) but this demo was the first ever full-day National day of Action (aka a strike) by Criminal Lawyers.



Sadly, a year later the fight was ongoing, and we were back again.

We  kept fighting until Grayling had his day. Chris Grayling was demoted after the election, and replaced by Michael Gove,, who was in turn replaced by Liz Truss and two further changes.

Now, with disclosure issues, further funding problems, and a prison crisis, perhaps it is time to once more gear up to fight, campaign, demonstrate and if necessary take action once again.

Drug Driving (guest blog by Tim Huestis)

Drug Driving

This blog is by Tim Huestis of Shearman Bowen and Co.


As of 2 March 2015 new drug driving laws come into effect.  Drug driving is prohibited by a new s5A Road Traffic Act 1988.

Drivers can be subjected to a roadside ‘drugalyser’ test that can detect the presence of cannabis and cocaine in a driver’s saliva.  Drivers can also be subjected to a field impairment test.  

A failure of either roadside test can lead to an arrest whereby a suspect is taken to a police station to undergo a blood or urine test.  The blood or urine test will test for 8 illegal drugs: cocaine, cannabis, ketamine, LSD, methylamphetamine, heroin, benzoylecgonine, and MDMA. 

It is also now illegal to drive with certain prescription drugs, however the legal limits have been set above normal doses and drivers who take their medication in accordance with the advice of their doctor should fall below the limits. 

Drivers convicted of drug driving face imprisonment (up to 26 weeks currently as a summary only offence, although 51 weeks allowable if the legislation increasing Magistrates sentencing powers comes into effect) together with disqualification, level 5 fine and anywhere between 3-11 points.


Certain procedural aspects surrounding the enforcement of drug driving laws remain unclear.  Indeed, Greater Manchester Police have issued a statement confirming that they will not be prosecuting suspected drug drivers until the new laws and procedures have been scrutinised by the Courts.

There will inevitably be legal challenges to the procedures, practice and evidence, and myself and the Shearman Bowen team look forward to putting the legislation under rigorous scrutiny.

Tim Huestis, Solicitor, Shearman Bowen & Co.

2nd March 2015

Thanks Tim!


1 Official guidance on Govt. Website 

2 Drugs playlist 

3 The legislative amendments to the Road Traffic Acts were enacted by SI 733 (publ. March 2015)

Likely Defences

Not the driver, exclusion of evidence under s78 PACE following alleged  breaches of police powers, testing carried out incorrectly, false positives, post driving consumption (the drug equivalent of “hip flask defenc even”, defective testing devices, prescription drugs or other lawful reason (expert evidence needed)

Not Magna Carta: Grayling’s Legal Summit

2015 marked the 800th anniversary of the signing of Magna Carta, where we should have celebrated the cherished ideals of Equality before the Law, right to a jury trial, and the principle that  Justice should not be for sale. Instead, the Government, with it’s legally illiterate Lord Chancellor Chris Grayling, held (on February 23rd) an invite only “Legal Summit” with tickets priced at £1500 per head.
It has been said , “In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets, and steal loaves of bread.” (Anatole France, see here for more on equality before the law)
But only the rich could afford to attend Grayling’s fat-cat jamboree, hypocritically masquerading as a Magna Carta celebration. Some invited to speak chose to boycott the event.
Many with integrity indicated their opposition, and set out why as recoreded in this blog

I attended the alternative “Not the Great Law Summit”  protest, demonstrating outside the official event. A write-up is here in the Justice Gap.

Speakers included  Maxine Peake (Pictured below), Debora Coles from Inquest,  Marcia Rigg, Karl Turner MP, Andy Worthington and  Jon Black (President of LCCSA)

There was an impeachment hearing for “King John” Christopher Grayling. 

There was also a walk from Runnymede to Westminster over the weekend of 21st-23rd February (“Relay for Rights“)


Anyone who would like to learn more about the issues raised in this blog, may like to look at the website of the Justice Alliance
You can also catch up on events as they happened on Twitter using hashtags  #RelayforRights and #NotGLS2015


1 Check out this excellent article in the New Statesman by Anthony Barnett (founding editor of Open Democracy) who spoke at the start of the March at Runnymede, and joined the walk and demo. 

2 This Article in the Islington Tribune features Ruth Hayes of Islington Law Centre, who also spoke at the Runnymeade gathering and joined both walk and demo. My letter in the same paper is here


The Impeachment of “King John” Christopher Grayling

0n 21st February 2015 the Justice Alliance met in Runnymede and set out for Westminster as part of a JA event called Relay for Rights.

This finished on 23rd February with the “NOT THE GREAT LEGAL SUMMIT” In Westminster.

This was organised as a direct response to the hypocritical “Great” Legal Summit, which in the name of Magna Carta, was being used to promote the kind of law that in fact has no resemblance to the principles still celebrated from that historic document.

At the alternative event, on the inspiration of Justice Alliance member Rhona Friedman, I was asked to seek impeachment of the Justice Secretary Chris Grayling by asking the assembled crowd to vote on “articles of impeachment” .

The Articles put to the crowd, and their responses, are recorded below:-


                                                 ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT 


                                    The People


                     King John Christopher Grayling”


SummaryOne Resolution consisting of four articles of impeachment. 

The articles will be debated and voted on individually




The original King John  had ruled using the principle of “force and will”, taking executive and sometimes arbitrary decisions, justified on the basis that a king was above the law.

800 years later, Chris Grayling, a man posturing as Lord Chancellor, takes executive and arbitrary decisions, and by seeking to remove the rights to Judicial Review attempts to place himself above the Law. 



As Secretary of State, King John Christopher Grayling provided false and misleading evidence to the House of Commons regarding Judicial Review Reform, having either knowingly lied in order to try to get his bill past the Commons or fundamentally misunderstanding his own legislation.


The Secretary of State further provided false and misleading evidence to the Commons about probation privatisation projects in that G4S and Serco confirmed they had been granted new government work during a period when Grayling had told MPs that contracts would not be awarded   Remember SERCO are the robber barons who claimed for supervising the dead!  



 The People voted AYE 




The Secretary of State has obstructed and diminished Justice by :


Reducing the number of people who took mental health cases from 42,000 to 523 in one year 


-Removing legal aid from family cases so that 2/3 of people face court alone 


Pricing peoplout of Employment Tribunals so that unfair employees know that they can sack their staff unlawfully 


Banning books in prisons until Court Action forced  him to stop 


Creating a two tier criminal justice



The people voted AYE 



 Article 3       ABUSE OF POWER


The Secretary of State misused and abused his office and impaired the administration of justice, in that


1. He forced through a privatisation of  Probation Service with no proper impact-assessment and at great risk
2. He has brought the Ministry of Justice into disrepute by “Flogging to the floggers” (contracting with the selling of legal services to Saudi Arabia, which has despotic judicial and barbaric punishment systems)
3. Whilst holding the title of Justice Secretary, he has practiced,supported and embodied INJUSTICE, and has been defeated repeatedly in the Courts.



The people voted AYE




AS Lord Chancellor King John Grayling is charged with upholding the Rule of Law  We the people have by the above articles found him guilty of misleading Parliament , obstructing justice and abuse of power.

 Do you the people therefore think he has properly discharged his constitutional duty in accordance with his oath of office to ensure the provision of services  for the efficient and effective support of the courts?


The People voted AYE

Lastly do we the people on this fake anniversary of the Great Charter find him to be an Upholder OF THE RULE OF LAW?  AYE OR NO ? 

The People voted No



He was then conveyed, in stocks, amidst a jeering crowd,  to the “Great Legal Summit” , wherapon the Crowd did chant “Failing Grayling -out, out, out!”

But alas, he stayed in, and the will of the people once again was overborne.

800 years after it was sealed, people still remember the Magna Carta.

Grayling, if recalled in history at all, will be remembered about as fondly as his medieval predessor, the hated King John.