folarin oyebola

24 comments By folarin oyebola

  • If the CCRC fails in it public duty then the victim can judicial review the said failure of public duty. Personally the unspoken problem is the Administrative Court. After so many attempts at the Administrative Court without success it took a Crown Court Judge to dismantle 3 judgements of the Administrative Court in which the above CCRC failings made known. This has led to a hearing on 10 June 2025 before VPCACD. The Administrative Court is got worst since the removal of a front desk

    Commented on: 23 May 2025

    Karen Kneller and Amanda Pearce, Criminal Cases Review Commission, House of Commons justice committee justice committee

    CCRC chief must go, say MPs

  • As someone who has been in litigation since 2008 initially with qualified Advocates but decided to be a Litigant in Person speaking from experience I cannot wait to get out of the Criminal Justice System. I have encountered to many bad eggs within the CJS whom if employed as train drivers would have been sacked. The CJS breeds mediocrity. The idea that one day a person can be a Prosecuting Barrister and the next day a Defence Barrister in my view contributes to the mediocrity of Barristers that later become Judges. From experience Judges are hostile to holding the public authorities in the CJS to account that may lead to financial compensation or loss of jobs in the said public authorities. The public suffers with the failings of the CJS.

    Commented on: 10 January 2025

    HMCTS

    Complaints about courts service rocket

  • Whats the point of making a complaint to the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office (JCIO) when part of their rules state that Judicial decisions made in court are not within the parameters of the JCIO to investigate and most perceived misconduct offence given by a Judge will be during a court proceeding.
    If a train driver drives through a red light the said driver will be made to account for such an act, but if a Judge gives a decision contrary to an Act of Parliament in a proceeding at the CoA there is no misconduct offence and you need the permission of the said Judge at the CoA before a redress can be sought at the Supreme Court

  • Standards needs to be raised. It was incomprehensible hence shocking when judgment was received that: four members of the current Judiciary in paragraph 12 of the [2018] EWCA Crim 246 judgment (reducing accrued interest of £144,013.84p to nil) gave a decision contrary to section 12 (4) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.

  • The article states: "The" new disciplinary regime allows for judges to be subject to disciplinary proceedings for the content of their judicial decisions". There must be a solution to Judges who knowingly or recklessly or negligently give judicial decisions that are contrary to laws of the land because it happens even here in the United Kingdom.

  • Anonymous @12.35 and @19.35 I believed prior to being before the Courts that Judges in UK give decisions in accordance with Acts of Parliaments and Procedure Rules. That belief was a mirage when faced with some well known Judges in the RCJ. From my experience a Court judgment allows the public to know what the decision maker wants the Public to know.

  • The Media is quick to report Lips that are being made an example of by the Courts but the same Media will remain un-interested where an Lip has compelling evidence of Judicial Abuse that resulted in the giving of a GCRO.

  • An iconic building with a resonance name to match which definitely needs not only building modernisation but also modernisation of the decision making process of the the powers within to curb the increase in abuse of Judicial Powers which if care is not taken will make Parliamentary expense scandal small fry

  • @Mark Heywood the Judiciary don't find it difficult to deal with Litigants In Persons (LiP) in the RCJ. The said Judiciary have the armoury to issue Civil Restraint Orders to the said LiP's even with meritorious applications after-all who has the time to go an investigate the facts presented to the Judiciary before the said Restraint order is issued. Furthermore its Lawyers that should be careful and lay a solid foundation for up and coming defenders of the rule of law because the profession is being squeezed out of a living wage before if you are lucky to be appointed a High Court Judge where the ££'s for a living wage will be. The Cab rule is a myth because Barristers who operate direct access scheme are mysteriously unable to take a case that has no date fixed but it is noted that the said case that has not being taken up via direct access will put some of these Highly paid Judges decisions into the rank of incompetence or knowingly malicious in decision making.

  • When every part of Public Service is making the same statement ("insufficient funds" ) the onus is on persons who see the demise of the Public sectors within which they operate to inform the public of consequences of "insufficient funding". Within the CJS the insufficient funding issue has been highlighted even to the extent that the Justice Select committee recommendation for more funds to the CCRC was not implemented my the current government. Lack of funding within the CJS leads to miscarriage of Justice. The shocking issue (shocking because current government ignored CCRC recommendation above) about persons with access to media reach such as Journalist and legal commentators is that they expect government to put more money into the CJS without giving good examples of how lack of funding has allowed innocent persons to be imprisoned. If as a legal commentator or legal journalist and you have media reach and care about the demise of the CJS due to lack of funding then change tactics, there are cases that can fill this space

    Commented on: 29 September 2018

    Monidipa Fouzder 2018

    Magistrates' courts: a legal sausage factory

  • "Lawyers warned to uphold 'duty of candour' in court". The law society should also write to the Lord Chancellor and Lord Chief Justice (and publish the said letter) that Judges as well have an obligation to the said "duty of candour" in court and foremost of the said duty of candour in court is for Judges is not to "KNOWINGLY" give decisions contrary to Acts of Parliament

  • The CBA and SRA fell asleep while Parliament undermined the mantra "innocent until proven guilty". If you are innocent until proven guilty you should have access to all your money to defend your self as an innocent person that has not yet been found guilty but Parliament passed section 41 of POCA right under the noses of the mentioned regulatory bodies. Then even if you are found not guilty in court and spent money to defend your self, as an innocent person you are not recompensed for legal expenses spent in the process. The CBA recently did a survey on disclosure on members and found out that: there is a major problem but the said CBA has kept quiet bar making noise at Justice select committee hearing. As a Litigant in Person who found it difficult to get a Barrister that will stand up strictly for the rule of law and not prejudicial nonsense in a court judgment: The CBA and SRA falling asleep is 50% the cause of decay in the CJS in which unlawful conduct is treated as a norm

  • The Judiciary has a shortage of Judges not through the lack of understanding of the Job or shortage of competent persons within the legal profession. I say the above having faced about 10% of current High Court Judges and LJ of Appeals. Bar one of the said Judges encountered, the judgments of these Judges will cannot withstand scrutiny of facts and laws considered by the said Judges if an independent minded law abiding person looked at the same facts and law.

  • Gazette where is your "expose" on the state of the CJS and not this mouth piece for another set of un-accountable Judges? Un-accountable because if these COA Judges decides not to give reasons for refusal of an application for certification of a point of law of public importance then currently there is nothing an applicant can do in UK. There are materials out there that will show that some of the current COA Judges would have been fired if there decision making was made in a private company hence get your reporters to inform the public

    Commented on: 28 June 2018

    Nicola Davies QC

    Solicitor among seven new CoA judges

  • Teach Judges to give decisions in accordance with Acts of Parliament

    Commented on: 22 June 2018

    Sir Geoffrey Vos, chancellor of the High Court

    Teach judges to be techies, says Vos

  • ‘likely to diminish the trust and confidence which the public places in the profession’ is a misconduct charge that can be evidently be made against about 10% of the current Judicial Office Holders in the Royal Court of Justice but the JCIO terms most complaints on such paraphrased as "decisions made in case management or a Judicial decision" . The mantra: "one rule for the Judges and another rule for the Advocates" comes to mind hence how can Advocates get their clients a fair hearing with different level of culpability being attached to an offence that can be committed by a Judge and an Advocate

  • "Why sack the only people propping up our justice system?". When you have been a victim (twice and MOJ offering £100.0 compensation on both occasions) of HMCTS Court staff covering up unlawful conduct of CPS: Then you say good riddance hopefully to those who covered up the said unlawful conduct. You then hope that these said persons are not given a gaging order to spill the beans

  • The Politicians are stating that the "legal services are great" in the UK. The said Politicians have a free reign to state this because the outside world such as Singapore do not see demonstrations on the street of UK on there TV Screens about the state of affairs of the UK legal services. Today for example the right to die application was heard on majority of the UK news network sent abroad and on the back of this how will a Politician not have credibility selling the UK legal services abroad. Now put an allegation of abuse of judicial discretion by Judges who preside these legal services being championed by Politicians on this platform, rarely will any so called arm chair campaigners on this platform try to get information from the person asserting the abuse of judicial discretion. If we do not join human forces to highlight a course that can explain the abuse of access to justice in UK then status quo will remain. If you want my support for your course or want to support my course google my name I am easy to locate.

  • "Empower prisoners to use the law" sounds and looks like a good idea if put into practice. However when put into practice and without judicial reform it will just be another headline grabbing exercise that will eventually lead to the said prisoners being frustrated by the criminal Justice system (CJS). The more your awareness of the law as a prisoner the better you are at understanding the case against you as a prisoner (adding that you can also have other prisoners empowered that will assist in your case) and this practice of empowering prisoners to use the law will more than likely lead to an increase in Litigants in Persons (Lip) at the courts. From experience as an Lip there are so many laws and procedure rules that a judge can use to stop an arguable case from progressing the Administrative Court and Court of Appeal Criminal Division (CACD). If your case will lead to floodgates of other cases or an embarrassment to the CJS and the media is not present then Judges at these courts above will use judicial discretion to frustrate an Lip and if you push to much you get a General Civil Restraint Order at the Administrative Court even without a hearing. In the CACD if you manage to slip through section 20 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 and progress to a single judge: An arguable case can also be refused not on merit but on other issues which will not be put on the single Judges SJ Form. The single judge can refuse a permission to appeal application and give reasons which he/she sees fit (Judicial discretion) and at the renewed application of this said case the presiding judge can use his or her judicial discretion not to allow you to present your case in person at the oral hearing (This Judicial discretion is contrary to Article 6 (3) (c) of the European Convention on Human Rights which is the right to defend your self in person) and sadly there is nothing you can do. I you tell your problems to most people on the outside you get the response: "get a lawyer"
    So empowering prisoners to use the law without judicial reform in the manner in which judges use Judicial discretion: sounds and looks like a good idea if put into practice that can lead to more frustrations of prisoners. Even defence lawyers complain on the manner in which judges strenuously apply the Criminal Procedure Rules to defence lawyers but appear to be light touched on the CPS

  • @Matthew Coxall Even if defendants in criminal proceedings accused of "allegedly" making money from criminal activities want to pay: (1) Procceds of Crime Act 2002 will not allow that (2) Lots of Advocates claim to be the "defenders of the oppressed" give some of the said Advocates a clear cut case that can implode the CJS: they run a mile even if you are willing to pay