For the Post Office - read the SRA

This article in The Times of 21 March 2024 by Richard Moorhead, Professor of Law & Ethics at the University of Exeter is spot on. It relates to the appalling lack of integrity shown by the Post Office and their lawyers in the Postmasters prosecutions scandal - citing 'aggressive litigation, misleading and mismanaged evidence and scorched earth tactics' and 'where the culture of some lawyers is to take any vaguely arguable point, "handle" any inconvenient fact, create any obstruction, steamroller any opponent, when clients are willing to pay for it'. But Mr Moorhead blames too the judges at the Court of Appeal who covered up these iniquities when dismissing appeals or refusing applications for permission to appeal.

This Post Office scenario applies equally to the SRA's prosecuting lawyers and investigators in my case, in particular Chris Boyce working for the SRA on my Charles Russell Speechlys LLP complaint and barrister Rory Mulchrone, an effete SRA bigot, working for the SRA. Using other people's money, they cheated me.

The Times article below of 24 October 2024 cites academics who expose the lack of ethics and the underhand methods frequently used by lawyers in litigation - not just when acting for the Post Office in the Sub-postmasters' Horizon scandal, but also in general. Clients' interests should not be paramount - there is also an overriding duty to the Court and the interests of justice to ensure the truth comes out and is not covered up. The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) who regulate Solicitors and the Bar Standards Board (BSB) who regulate barristers often turn a blind eye to their members sleight of hand when covering up the truth. Indeed, the administrators at the SRA and BSB when investigating complaints against their members frequently excuse the dirty tricks employed in litigation on the grounds that the lawyers have 'a duty to represent their client's best interests.