James Colton - Justice Online

English Justice is Injustice

Nemo tenetur prodere seipsum

(‘no one is obliged to accuse himself)

youyube icon

Youtube Channel

email: jamescolton1943@hotmail.com


Explaining my case by video.

I have thousands of documents some of which I have not scanned and catalogued. Asking someone to read each document would be asking for the impossible. I have therefore only published sections or first pages of some documents (Affidavits & Police Statements) as a means of clarity. This is a work in progress as I keep finding more relevant pages daily.

Most of these documents are now in digital form making it easier for someone to receive them.


There are 4 main videos. Running times vary from 26 minutes through to 36 minutes (click to see). Short videos made to clarify certain points with a running time of just a few minutes can be seen Throughout this website.

Christopher Wing - Barrister

This turd was hired to represent me at trial. He with solicitor Paul Booty purposely stitched me up. Together they will rot in a prison cell.


In Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd the rule was established that irrespective of contract, if someone who  possesses a special skill undertakes to apply that skill for the  assistance of another person who relies upon that skill, a duty of care  will arise. The fact that the barrister did not enter into a contract  with his solicitor or client ceased to be a ground of justification for  the immunity.

Nevertheless, in a unanimous decision, Lord Reid said in Rondel v Worsley (1969) 1 AC 191 at 227 that the ancient immunity should be continued on considerations of "public policy [which are] not immutable." (see  Roxburgh: 1968). In Saif Ali v Sydney Smith Mitchell & Co. (1980) AC 198 the scope of the immunity was considered. Lord Wilberforce said at 213 that "...barristers . . . have a special status, just as a  trial has a special character: some immunity is necessary in the public  interest, even if, in some rare cases, an individual may suffer loss."  (see Hill: 1986) When s51 Supreme Court Act 1981 (substituted by s4 Courts and Legal Services Act 1990) introduced the power to make wasted costs orders against legal practitioners, Ridehalgh v Horsefield (1994) Ch 205 ruled that orders could be made against barristers  personally.

As to criminal trials, prosecuting counsel owes no duty of  care to a defendant: Elguzouli-Daf v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis (1995) QB 335. If a defendant is convicted after a full and fair trial, the remedy is to appeal. An attempt to challenge the convictions by  suing the defence advocate would be an abuse of process: Hunter v Chief Constable of the West Midlands Police (1982) AC 529. If any challenge is to be made following an unsuccessful appeal, the only legitimate avenue would be the Criminal Cases Review  Commission even though the body is under-resourced. But the question  remained as to whether a civil action might be maintained if the appeal  was successful (see Cane: 1996).

In Arthur J.S Hall and Co. v Simons (2000) 3 AER 673,[1] the Lords re-evaluated the public policy issues. The critical factor  was the duty of a barrister to the court under ss27(2A) and 28(2A)  Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 (inserted by s42 Access to Justice  Act 1999). The question was whether the immunity is needed to ensure  that barristers will respect their duty to the court.

In 1967, the  answer was that assertions of negligence would tend to erode this duty  and accorded a special status to barristers. Nowadays a comparison with  other professionals demonstrated that barristers' immunity against being sued in negligence was anomalous. Allowing civil action was unlikely to produce a flood of claims and, even if some claims did emerge, a  claimant alleging that poor advocacy resulted in an unfavourable outcome would face the very great difficulty of showing that a better standard  of advocacy would have resulted in a more favourable outcome. 

Unmeritorious and vexatious claims against barristers are simply struck  out. Thus, it was no longer in the public interest that the immunity in  favour of barristers should remain in either civil or criminal cases.  This did not imply that Rondel v Worsley was wrongly decided. But in today's world, that decision no longer correctly reflected public  policy. The basis of the immunity of barristers has gone. And exactly  the same reasoning is applied to solicitor advocates.

Home | About | Probation | Dorset Police | Downloads | Disclaimer | CPS | Big Lie | Theresa May | My Case | Sheela Hagan | Tracey Gore | FleurThompson | Mark Thompson | Jimmy Gore | Tracy Fawcett | Paul Booty | Christopher Wing | Judge Jarvis | Judge Wiggs | Justice Beatson | Kate Brown | Gary Self | Fern Russell | Martin Baker | Tracey Watson | Andrew Allenby |