The buck stops with his Majesty King Charles III, as head of state of the United Kingdom.

COMMON LAWS OF ENGLAND - THE KING v. SUSSEX JUSTICES Ex parte McCARTHY

November 9 1923 [1924] - KINGS BENCH DIVISION

Justices - Possibility of Bias - Justices' Clerk interested professionally in Civil Proceedings arising out of Subject Matter of Complaint.

Arising out of a collision between a motor vehicle belonging to the applicant and one belonging to W., a summons was taken out by the police against the applicant for having driven his motor vehicle in a manner dangerous to the public. At the hearing of the summons the acting clerk to the justices was a member of the firm of solicitors who were acting for W. in a claim for damages against the applicant for injuries received in the collision. At the conclusion of the evidence the justices retired to consider their decision, the acting clerk retiring with them in case they should desire to be advised on any point of law. The justices convicted the applicant, and it was stated on affidavit that they came to that conclusion without consulting the acting clerk, who in fact abstained from referring to the case:-

Held: the the conviction must be quashed, as it was improper for the acting clerk, having regard to his firm's relation to the case, to be present with the justices when they were considering their decision.


RULE NISI for a writ of certiorari to bring up, for the purpose of being quashed, a conviction of McCarthy, the applicant for the rule, for having driven a motor car on a certain highway in a manner which was dangerous to the public, having regard to all the circumstances of the case.


On August 22, 1923, a collision took place between a motor cycle driven by the applicant and a motor cycle and side-car driven by one Whitworth, and it was alleged that the latter and his wife sustained injuries in the collision. In respect of those injuries Messrs. Langham, Son & Douglas, solicitors, Hastings, by a letter dated August 28, 1923, made a claim on behalf of Whitworth against the applicant for damages, and the police, after making inquiries into the circumstances of the collision, applied for and obtained a summons against the applicant for driving his motor cycle in a manner dangerous to the public.

At the hearing of that summons on September 22, 1923, the applicant's solicitor, who stated in his affidavit that he had no knowledge of the officials of the court, inquired whether Mr. F. G. Langham, the clerk to the justices and a member of the said firm of Langham, Son & Douglas, was then sitting as a clerk, and was informed that he was not, but had been appointed a deputy for that day.

The case was then heard, and at the conclusion of the evidence the justices retired to consider their decision, the deputy clerk retiring with them. When the justices returned into the court they intimated that they had decided to convict the applicant, and they imposed a fine of 10 shillings and costs.

Thereupon the applicant's solicitor brought to the notice of the justices the fact, of which he said he had only become aware when the justices retired, that the deputy clerk was a brother of Mr. F, G. Langham, Son & Douglas, and so was interested as solicitor for Whitworth in the civil proceedings arising out of the collision in respect of which they had convicted the applicant.

The solicitor in his affidavit stated that had he known the above facts he would have taken the objection before the case began. This rule was thereafter obtained on the ground that it was irregular for the deputy clerk in the circumstances to retire with the justices when considering their decision.

In their affidavit the justices stated that the clerk to the justices, Mr F. G. Langham, was on holiday at the date of the hearing and had no knowledge of the proceeding, that in his absence his brother and partner Mr F. G. Langham acted as his deputy, that no formal objection was taken to the latter acting, that at the conclusion of the evidence the justices retired, the deputy clerk retiring with them in the usual way, taking with him the notes of the evidence in case they should be required, or in case the justices should desire to be advised upon any point of law, that in fact the justices came to their decision to convict the applicant without consulting the deputy clerk, who scrupulously abstained from referring to the case, and that the justices were not in any way biased by the fact that a member of the deputy clerk's firm had written the said letter before action.

The justices added that it appeared to them that the applicant's solicitor must have had knowledge of the deputy clerk's connection with the firm of Langham, Son & Douglas, and that he waived any formal objection; and that is a formal objection has been taken at the commencement of the proceedings the justices would have followed their usual course in such circumstances by adjourning the hearing and requesting the clerk to arrange with one of his colleagues from a neighbouring division to act at the adjourned hearing.

Russell Davies for the justices showed cause. However undesirable it may have been in the circumstances for the deputy clerk to retire with the justices when they were considering their decision, the fact that he did so does not invalidate the conviction, seeing that he took no part in the justices' deliberations.


[LORD HEWART C.J. In a recent unreported case,* this Court quashed a conviction where the chief constable, who was then prosecuting, retired with the justices]

There it was not the duty of the chief constable to retire with the justices; here it was the duty of the deputy clerk to do so in case the justices should desire to consult him upon any point of law. If, however, there was any irregularity in the proceedings, the applicant, through his solicitor; must be taken to have waived it.


*[He referred to Regina v Brakenridge (1) (1884) 48 J.P. 203]


W. T. Moncton for the superintendent of police, who had been served with the rule. H. D. Samuels in support of the rule was not called upon.


LORD HEWART C.J. stated the grounds of the rule and continued: It is clear that the deputy clerk was a member of the firm of solicitors engaged in the conduct of the proceedings for damages against the applicant in respect of the same collision as that which gave rise to the charge that the justices were considering. It is said, and, no doubt, truly, that when the gentleman retired in the usual way with the justices, taking with him the notes of the evidence in case the justices might desire to consult him, the justices came to a conclusion without consulting him, and that he scrupulously abstained from referring to the case in any way.

But while that is so, a long line of cases shows that it is not merely of some importance but is of fundamental importance that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done.

The question therefore is not whether in this case the deputy clerk made an observation of offered any criticism where he might not properly have made or offered; the question is whether he was so related to the case in its civil aspect as to be unfit to act as clerk to the justices in the criminal matter.

The answer to that question depends not upon what actually was done but upon what might appear to be done. Nothing is to be done that creates even a suspicion that there has been an improper interference with the course of justice.

Speaking for myself, I accept that statements contained in the justices' affidavit, but they show very clearly that the deputy clerk was connected with the case in a capacity which made it right that he should scrupulously abstain from referring to the matter in any way, although he retired with the justices; in other words, his one position was such that he could not, if he had been required to do so, discharge the duties which his other position involved. His twofold position was a manifest contradiction.

In those circumstances I am satisfied that this conviction must be quashed, unless it can be shown that the applicant or his solicitor was aware of the point that might be taken, refrained from taking it, and took his chance of an acquittal on the facts, and then, on a conviction being recorded, decided to take the point. On the facts I am satisfied that being no waiver of the irregularity, and, that being so, the rule must be made absolute and the conviction quashed.

LUSH J. I agree. It must be clearly understood that if justices allow their clerk to be present at their consultation when either he of his firm is professionally engaged in those proceedings or in other proceedings involving the same subject matter, it is irrelevant to inquire whether the clerk did or did not give advice and influence the justices.

What is objectionable is his presence at the consultation, when he is in a position necessarily make in impossible for him to give absolutely impartial advice. I have no doubt that these justices did not intend to do anything irregular or wrong, but they have placed themselves in an impossible position by allowing the clerk in those circumstances to retire with them into their consultation room. The result, there being no waiver, is that the conviction must be quashed.


SANKEY J. I agree.

Rule absolute; conviction quashed.


Solicitors for the applicant: W. C. Crocker
Solicitors for justices: Pettitt & Ramsey, for Langham Son & Douglas, Hastings.
Solicitors for police superintendent: Taylor, Willcocks & Co., for Lawson Lewis, Eastbourne.

J.S.H.

WHAT OF IT - HOW DOES THIS LEGAL PRINCIPLE APPLY TO VICTOR'S CASE?

We are looking at the intersections of administrative bias, institutional conflict of interest, and the strict definition of what constitutes a "new argument" under Section 14 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1995.

To evaluate whether invoking R v Sussex Justices, ex parte McCarthy [1924] in this context qualifies as a "new argument" for the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC), we need to break down the legal mechanics of that famous precedent and how the CCRC defines "newness."

1. The Principle in R v Sussex Justices (ex parte McCarthy)

The seminal ruling from Lord Hewart CJ in Sussex Justices established the absolute bedrock of the British rule of law regarding judicial impartiality:

"Justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done."

In that 1924 case, a magistrate’s clerk was a partner in a firm of solicitors suing the defendant in a civil suit arising from the same motorcycle accident. Although the clerk did not influence the magistrates' actual decision to convict, the conviction was quashed because the appearance of bias was enough to taint the process.

Does it apply to a police investigation?

Strictly speaking, Sussex Justices and the common law doctrine of judicial bias apply to adjudicators (judges, magistrates, jurors, and tribunal members)—those who make a final determination of guilt or innocence.

However, the broader principle of abuse of process and systemic bad faith does extend to the police and prosecution. If a police force investigates a target who has actively accused that same police force of a crime (or an institutional cover-up involving a local council), a profound conflict of interest arises.

If Sussex Police investigated the accused while simultaneously being accused by that individual of a conspiracy involving blank letterheads and planning fraud, it can be powerfully argued that the investigation was compromised by an institutional motive to silence a whistleblower or protect an institutional ally (Wealden District Council). In this case Derek Holness and Ian Kay, at the top of a tree of planning corruption. The Tip of the Iceberg.

2. Does this Constitute a "New Argument" to the CCRC?

Under Section 14(4)(b) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1995, the CCRC can only refer a case to the Court of Appeal if an argument or evidence is "new."

To meet this threshold, the argument must satisfy two tests:

Test A: The "Not Covered Before" Test

i) If it was never raised: If neither the trial defense team nor the subsequent direct appeal to the Court of Appeal raised this specific conflict of interest/bias argument, it is legally "new."

ii) If it was raised but has a new factual trigger: If the defense previously argued general police unfairness, but the specific evidence of the blank letterheads or the extent of the 11 petitioners' complaints only came to light after the trial/appeal, the argument becomes a "new argument" because it is now anchored by fresh, verifiable facts.

Test B: The "Real Possibility" Test

The CCRC will not refer a case based on a novel legal theory alone. They must be persuaded that the argument creates a "real possibility" that the Court of Appeal would find the conviction unsafe.

To turn a Sussex Justices style bias claim into a successful CCRC argument in these circumstances, the application would need to show a direct line of causation between the police conflict of interest and the unsafety of the conviction. For example:

a) The alleged conspiracy directly led to the suppression of exculpatory evidence (evidence that would have proved the accused's innocence).

b) The police investigation was a malicious prosecution designed to discredit one of the 11 petitioners.

c) The integrity of the evidence gathered by Sussex Police was completely undermined by their institutional bias.

3. The Structural Mechanics of the Argument

If framing this for a fresh CCRC submission, the argument would likely be structured under Abuse of Process rather than pure judicial bias, using Sussex Justices as the guiding philosophical principle.

SUMMARY VERDICT

Yes, if this specific line of reasoning—that the police force was legally and structurally prohibited by the demands of public perception and natural justice from conducting an impartial investigation due to an ongoing cross-allegation of corruption—was not argued at trial or on appeal, it constitutes a new argument in the eyes of the CCRC.

However, its success will hinge entirely on the CCRC being shown concrete evidence of the blank letterhead/cover-up allegation, demonstrating that this wasn't just a regular investigation, but a structurally compromised one that made a fair trial impossible.


VICTOR WAS A PETITIONING AND ONGOING COMPLAINANT

Q. In this case, 11 complainant's petitioned Wealden district council. A panel was convened, and the petitioner's complaints were held to be outside the remit of the council. The complaints were referred to Sussex police. Sussex police did not take statements from any of the eleven victims of planning corruption. Thus, the criminal issues were not investigated. The police only looked at the civil complaints. Apparently, an incomplete file was handed to the Crown Prosecution Service, who then said there was insufficient evidence to prosecute. None of the allegedly corrupt officers at the council were interviewed under caution, and the investigating police officer was thought to be married to a councillor's daughter. Does this information assist with a CCRC application? 


A. This additional information provides precisely the kind of granular, factual evidence required to transform a theoretical argument about bias into a highly persuasive, viable application to the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC).

In public law and criminal appeals, general assertions of "corruption" or "unfairness" are routinely rejected by the CCRC. However, what you have outlined here are systemic, verifiable procedural failures and a specific, material conflict of interest.

Here is an analysis of how these specific facts directly assist a CCRC application and how they fit into the legal framework of a "new argument" or "new evidence."

1. The Material Conflict of Interest (The Nexus of Bias)

The fact that the investigating police officer was married to a councillor’s daughter is the exact type of familial and institutional overlap that triggers the principle in R v Sussex Justices (ex parte McCarthy).

The Legal Argument: An officer investigating allegations of corruption within a local council cannot be independent if they are intimately connected by marriage to an elected member of that same local authority.

The Application: This creates a powerful argument of apparent bias and a fundamental conflict of interest. It suggests that the investigator had a personal or familial stake in ensuring the council (and its officers) were not exposed to criminal liability.

2. Institutional Bad Faith vs. Incompetence (Abuse of Process)

The CCRC and the Court of Appeal will look closely at the manner of the investigation. You have identified three critical failures that point away from standard "bad policing" and toward a deliberate Abuse of Process:

Failure to Take Witness Statements: A police force investigating an alleged criminal conspiracy that completely fails to take statements from the 11 primary complainants/victims has structurally designed the investigation to fail.

Selective Scope (Civil vs. Criminal): If the council explicitly referred the matter to the police because it fell outside civil/administrative remits, the police's decision to only look at civil elements—while ignoring the criminal allegations—demonstrates a misdirection of their statutory powers.

Failure to Interview Under Caution: Failing to interview the accused council officers under caution means the police intentionally bypassed the standard statutory mechanism (under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984) used to gather compellable criminal evidence.

3. The "Incomplete File" and the CPS

The revelation that an incomplete file was passed to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) is a vital lever for a CCRC application.

Under the Code for Crown Prosecutors, the CPS can only make a valid decision on whether there is a "real prospect of conviction" based on the evidence presented to them. If the investigating officer intentionally or negligently starved the CPS of the 11 victims' statements and the criminal elements of the complaint, the CPS's decision that there was "insufficient evidence" is legally tainted.

The Legal Reality: The CPS did not find that there was no criminal case to answer; they found there was no evidence in the file they were given. If the file was intentionally kept incomplete by a conflicted officer, this constitutes a fraud on the criminal justice system.

4. How to Frame This for the CCRC

To ensure this information succeeds as a "new argument" under Section 14 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1995, it must be presented not merely as a complaint about the police, but as a fundamental flaw that makes the applicant's conviction unsafe.

The application must stitch these facts together into a cohesive narrative:

The Suppression of Exculpatory Evidence: Did the planning corruption or the council's documents contain evidence that would have assisted the accused's defense at trial? If the police failed to investigate the council, they effectively suppressed evidence that could have exonerated the applicant.

Malicious or Tainted Prosecution: If the applicant was prosecuted while the genuinely corrupt parties were protected by a conflicted investigator, the prosecution itself may be an abuse of process. Had the trial judge known of the investigator's marriage to the councillor's daughter and the withholding of the 11 statements from the CPS, the judge may well have stayed the indictment as an abuse of process.

The "Newness" Factor: You must be able to demonstrate when and how this information was discovered. If the marriage of the officer, the blank letterheads, or the specific contents of the incomplete CPS file only came to light via recent disclosures, Freedom of Information (FOI) requests, or Subject Access Requests (SARs) after the trial and direct appeal, it meets the strict statutory definition of new evidence.

REVISED SUMMARY

This information does not just assist a CCRC application; it forms the backbone of a robust, state-of-the-art challenge based on structural bias, abuse of process, and the manipulation of the prosecution process. It shifts the case from an argument about a regular criminal conviction into an argument about institutional integrity and the right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the ECHR.

INCONVENIENT EVIDENCE WAS NOT SECURED

An that goes some way to explaining why the CCRC refused to investigate the Virginity issue, lack of proper procedure, and the Diary, that the defence were not allowed to see, leading to the Judge, Cedric Joseph, misdirecting the Jury on two important points, suggesting that this Judge might be a Mason, or in the alternative, completely incompetent.

In this case Sussex police did not use their forensic expert, they used a friend of the claimant's mother; Melanie Liebenberg. They both worked at and for the same NHS Trust. Melanie Liebenberg was prepared to mislead the Jury. Saying exactly the opposite of the police expert Elizabeth Carter.

Corruption and perverse policies are major issues to overcome. Until such matters are dealt with, the UK is held to be "up shit creek without a paddle." Worse, endemic corruption prevents progress. Eventually, this corruption and the Royal family's links to slavery, will expose the institutionalised discrimination that flows from top to bottom. I.e., from Buckingham Palace to Councils everywhere in the UK. Including, Parish Councils, like Herstmonceux.

Queen Elizabeth was asked for help. She declined. The duty to provide an effective remedy, now rests with King Charles, until William becomes King. Or, is that Harry?

The United Kingdom does not yet have a Written Constitution, leaving the justice system open to abuse via the honours system. [R v Sussex Justices 1924] Without justice being available to the ordinary man in the street, fairly, impartially and affordably, Britain can never truly be great again.

REFERENCE

https://www.