Report comment

My case was not in family law but defamation. The judges behaved prejudicially against this LIP. I now have a barrister's opinion confirming that at a Part 24 strike out hearing instead of the judges requiring evidence from me to rebut the application of better than arguable, or better than practically moonshine, they asked for, or endorsed, previous lower decisions that required a level of proof that was better than beyond reasonable doubt, as found in criminal trials. Let's say that again, they asked for, in a Part 24 hearing a level of proof that is harder to realise than in any civil court in any jurisdiction, possibly even in places known for their fairness such as Russia and China. Using defamation language, the judges could not have honestly believed what they said to be true, and if proved, if the judges were in a position like the rest of us that they could be put on trial, then, the jury assessing their behaviour would, to a high degree of probability, find that the judges acted dishonestly and with express malice, or even, acted with malfeasance in public office.