Written by The integrity of Britain’s legal system is under the microscope, as concerns grow over unethical behaviour in courtrooms, challenges to vulnerable litigants, and the influence of hidden networks within public institutions. Recent commentary, including that of Professor Richard Moorhead and legal experts, highlights the need for judges to take a more proactive stance in calling out misconduct during legal proceedings.
From the Post Office Horizon scandal to the enduring secrecy surrounding Freemasonry in the judiciary, the message is clear: transparency and ethical leadership are essential to restoring public trust in the justice system.
A Legal Culture in Crisis?
Professor Richard Moorhead, writing recently in The Law Society Gazette, painted a stark picture of modern litigation. He described a “can we get away with it” culture among some lawyers—tactics designed to obscure the truth rather than reveal it. His call to action was equally pointed: judges must actively confront unethical behaviour in the courtroom.
The Post Office Horizon scandal exemplifies the devastating impact of unchecked misconduct. Hundreds of sub-postmasters were prosecuted based on flawed IT evidence, and the judiciary’s failure to question this evidence sooner allowed the injustice to persist for years. Moorhead’s critique suggests that judges need to move beyond passive oversight and take an active role in ensuring fairness.
The Hidden Cost to Vulnerable Litigants
In my own commentary on LinkedIn, I’ve argued that systemic reform is essential to protect the most vulnerable litigants in our society. These individuals—often lacking the financial resources or legal expertise to challenge misconduct—are disproportionately affected by unethical practices. Without judicial intervention, they are left to navigate a system that can feel impenetrable and unfair.
The judiciary has a duty to ensure these individuals are not sidelined. Judges must act decisively to prevent powerful parties from exploiting procedural advantages or relying on questionable tactics. Failure to do so risks perpetuating a two-tier justice system, where the powerful prevail, and the vulnerable are left behind.
Freemasonry and Hidden Networks
Another challenge to public trust in the legal system lies in the enduring influence of secretive organisations such as Freemasonry. In an article I authored on the subject, I explored how the lack of transparency around Masonic affiliations within the judiciary and police continues to raise questions about impartiality.
This issue is not new. As far back as 1997, the Home Affairs Committee recommended that judges and police officers disclose Masonic membership to address concerns about conflicts of interest. Yet, decades later, the implementation of these recommendations remains inconsistent at best. Judges, as stewards of the justice system, should lead the way by embracing transparency and advocating for mandatory disclosures across the board.
A Turning Point for the Judiciary?
These challenges—unethical litigation tactics, systemic disadvantages for vulnerable litigants, and hidden networks—demand more than piecemeal reforms. The judiciary itself must take the lead in driving change. By calling out misconduct, ensuring fairness for the vulnerable, and promoting transparency, judges can rebuild public confidence in a system that is under strain.
Practical steps include:
- Sanctioning Misconduct: Judges must act decisively against litigators who prioritise strategy over ethics, setting a clear example for others.
- Championing Access to Justice: Vulnerable litigants need tailored support, and judges should ensure the courtroom is a level playing field.
- Demanding Transparency: Disclosure of affiliations, such as Freemasonry, should be mandatory for all judicial and law enforcement officials.
Conclusion
The judiciary’s role is not just to interpret the law but to embody its spirit. In an age where public confidence in institutions is waning, judges have a critical opportunity—and duty—to lead the charge in restoring trust. By tackling misconduct openly, protecting the vulnerable, and promoting transparency, they can reinforce the principle that justice must not only be done but must also be seen to be done.
What the system desperately needs is for judges to call out the nonsense, hypocrisy, and outright deception that often pervades proceedings—much like Karl Pilkington’s comically astute “Bullshit Man,” cutting through the noise with a sharp and unflinching honesty. The question is: will the judiciary step up, or will these systemic issues continue to chip away at the very foundations of justice?
It’s time for decisive action, grounded in fairness and truth. Anything less would simply be unacceptable.
Disclaimer
The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any organisation or institution.