Judges’ atrocious affront to the law of witness immunity

1. THE CORE PRINCIPLE: WITNESS IMMUNITY IS ABSOLUTE

English law has protected witnesses from retaliation for over 400 years. The principle is simple: anyone who reports crime to police or gives evidence in court has absolute immunity from all civil actions based on that evidence – even if they’re wrong, even if they’re malicious.

The House of Lords in Darker v Chief Constable of West Midlands [2001] 1 AC 435:

“In order to shield honest witnesses from the vexation of having to defend actions against them… the courts have decided that it is necessary to grant absolute immunity to witnesses in respect of their words in court even though this means that the shield covers the malicious and dishonest witness as well as the honest one.”

The Court of Appeal in Sprecher Grier Halberstam v Walsh [2008] EWCA Civ 1324:

“The immunity, in my judgment, is an immunity from any form of civil action.“

Why this matters: Without this protection, criminals could silence witnesses through vexatious lawsuits. The law chooses to protect all witnesses – even dishonest ones – to ensure victims and whistleblowers aren’t intimidated into silence.

2. WHAT HAPPENED TO PAUL MILLINDER

The Investment (2013-2015)

Paul Millinder invested £770,000 into a wind turbine project at Middlesbrough Football Club’s stadium through two companies:

• Empowering Wind MFC Ltd (“EW”) – the subsidiary operating the project
• Earth Energy Investments LLP (“EEI”) – the parent company holding the investment

The project had planning permission, grid connection approval, and was accredited for 20 years of government-guaranteed Feed-in Tariff payments worth approximately £500,000 per year.

3. The Fraud (2015)

On 30 April 2015, Middlesbrough FC refused to facilitate the grid connection – defeating the entire contractual purpose.

On 25 June 2015, the club demanded £256,269.89 claiming:

• £75,000 “rent arrears”
• £181,269.89 “energy supply payments”

Football hooliganism, contracts, law and justice is never a good combination!

Both Middlesbrough FC’s June 2015 claims against EW were obviously false

The rent claim was impossible: The lease had a 365-day rent-free period plus a 14-month force majeure suspension. Simple arithmetic showed the first rent payment wasn’t due until 16 September 2015. The club forfeited the lease on 19 August 2015 – 28 days before any rent was due.

The energy claim was contractually prohibited: The Energy Supply Agreement stated payment was conditional on achieving grid connection. The club had refused connection on 30 April 2015. No connection = no payment due.

On 19 August 2015, Middlesbrough FC fraudulently forfeited Millinder’s 26-year lease based on these false claims.

Millinder’s loss: Over £10 million in lost profits over the 25-year operational life of the turbine.

Millinder Reports the Fraud to Police (2017)

On 9 January 2017, Millinder reported Middlesbrough FC’s fraud to Cleveland Police.

On 20 March 2017, he reported it again to Northumbria Police.

From these dates forward, Millinder had absolute immunity from all civil actions based on his fraud allegations.

 

 

4. THE ILLEGAL CIVIL RESTRAINT ORDERS

Despite Millinder’s absolute immunity, judges imposed escalating “civil restraint orders” to silence him and to conceal MFC’s fraud:

Date	Judge	Order Type	Effect	Duration
28 June 2018	Pelling J	Extended CRO	Can’t issue claims without permission	2 years
11 Nov 2020	Fancourt J	General CRO	Can’t issue claims in ANY court	Indefinite
6 July 2021	Swift J	s.42 order	All claims struck out automatically	Permanent
1 Nov 2022	Andrews LJ	Committal threat	Prison if violates orders	Ongoing

5. Why These Orders Are Illegal

Every single order was based on Millinder’s “allegations of fraud against Middlesbrough FC and the judges.”

But those allegations were witness evidence – first to police (9 Jan 2017), then in court proceedings.

The Court of Appeal confirmed witness immunity covers exactly this situation:

Sprecher Grier Halberstam v Walsh [2008] EWCA Civ 1324, para 41:

“The immunity is an immunity from any form of civil action… It would be surprising if a party could circumvent that immunity by alleging that the statement was made maliciously and then seeking injunctive relief to prevent repetition.”

Translation: You cannot use civil orders (like restraint orders or injunctions) to punish someone for witness evidence – even if you claim they were malicious.

All civil restraint orders against Millinder are therefore void ab initio – they are illegal trespasses on his absolute privilege.

6. THE JUDICIAL CONSPIRACY TO BYPASS IMMUNITY

The Strategy: Never Mention Immunity

AI search of all judgments (2016-2024):

Search Term	Occurrences
“Witness immunity”	0
“Immunity from suit”	0
“Absolute privilege”	0
“Darker v Chief Constable“	0
“9 January 2017” (police report)	0
“20 March 2017” (police report)	0

Not a single judge mentioned witness immunity in 7+ years of proceedings.

The Timeline of Concealment

9 January 2017: Millinder reports fraud to Cleveland Police

• Immunity attaches immediately

28 June 2018: Pelling J imposes Extended Civil Restraint Order

• No mention of immunity
• No mention of police reports
• Certifies Millinder’s applications as “Totally Without Merit”
• Never adjudicates contractual facts proving fraud

11 November 2020: Fancourt J imposes General Civil Restraint Order

• No mention of immunity
• No mention of police reports
• Order prohibits Millinder from issuing claims “alleging fraud”
• Direct violation of witness immunity

6 July 2021: Swift J imposes s.42 Senior Courts Act order

• No mention of immunity
• No mention of police reports
• All Millinder’s claims struck out automatically
• Permanent gag order based on witness evidence

1 November 2022: Andrews LJ threatens committal (prison)

• No mention of immunity
• No mention of police reports
• Threatens prison if Millinder continues “vexatious allegations”
• Those allegations = witness evidence with absolute immunity

7. WHY THE IMMUNITY MATTERS

The Judges’ Motive

Millinder’s witness evidence exposed:

1. Middlesbrough FC’s fraud: £10+ million theft through false rent/energy claims
2. Judicial fraud: 12+ judges systematically bypassed mandatory insolvency set-off law
3. Forgery: High Court Judge Nugee altered a legal document in 3 places
4. Conspiracy: Judges coordinated to wind up Millinder’s companies to prevent fraud trial

If Millinder could continue presenting this evidence in court, the entire conspiracy would unravel.

Solution: Impose civil restraint orders to silence him.

Problem: Witness immunity makes such orders illegal.

Judges’ response: Simply never mention immunity – pretend it doesn’t exist.8. The Precedent This Sets

8.1. Before this case

• Witness immunity = absolute protection from civil retaliation
• Criminals cannot silence witnesses through vexatious lawsuits
• Whistleblowers protected when reporting fraud

8.2. After this case

• Judges can bypass immunity by simply not mentioning it
• Powerful defendants (like football clubs) can silence whistleblowers
• Reporting judicial fraud = career suicide through “vexatious litigant” orders

9. THE COMPARISON: OTHER CASES WHERE IMMUNITY WAS RESPECTED

Bundle-B documents other cases where witness immunity was upheld:

Darker v Chief Constable of West Midlands [2001]:

• Witnesses accused of lying to police about Birmingham pub bombings
• Sued for malicious falsehood
• House of Lords: Absolute immunity – case dismissed
• Even though: Witnesses may have been dishonest

Westcott v Westcott [2008]:

• Wife accused husband of abuse in family proceedings
• Husband sued for malicious falsehood
• Court of Appeal: Absolute immunity – case dismissed
• Even though: Allegations may have been false

Millinder’s Case [2018-2024]:

• Millinder reported fraud to police and gave evidence in court
• Judges imposed civil restraint orders based on those allegations
• 12+ judges: No mention of immunity – orders upheld
• Even though: Immunity is absolute and well-established law

The difference: Millinder’s evidence exposed judicial fraud, not just private wrongdoing.

10. THE CURRENT SITUATION (2026)

What Millinder Has Lost

Loss	Amount/Effect	Status
Investment	£770,000	Not returned
Lost profits	£10+ million	Ongoing loss
Two companies	Wound up (2016, 2018)	Not restored
Legal rights	Cannot issue claims	Permanent
Liberty	Committal threat	Ongoing

 

What the Judges Have Gained

Judge	Position in 2017	Position in 2025	Promotion
Richard Arnold	High Court Judge	Lord Justice of Appeal	Promoted 2019
Christopher Nugee	High Court Judge	Lord Justice of Appeal	Promoted 2019
Geoffrey Vos	Chancellor	Master of the Rolls	Promoted 2021 (retired 2026)
Philip Pelling	Deputy High Court Judge	Retired	Promoted 2023 (retired 2026)

The three judges who committed the most serious fraud were all promoted, whilst other judicial subjects in this case were given early taxpayer sponsored retirement.   

There are many more judges who are seriously and criminally implicated;  Mr Justice Swift, Lady Justice Andrews, Mr Justice Cavanagh, HHJ Fanning, Lord Justice Snowden, Mr Justice Fancourt, Mr Justice Leech, Mr Justice Johnson, Mr Justice Adam Johnson, Chief Registrar Briggs, ICC Judge Barber, ICC Judge Prentis,  ICC Judge Jones, and ICC Judge Baister to name a few.  

Did they have jurisdiction to defeat Mr Millinder’s absolute immunity from all civil actions, whilst relying on the same immunity doctrine to shield themselves?

11. THE LEGAL QUESTIONS

1. Can judges bypass witness immunity by simply not mentioning it?

Answer: No – immunity exists whether acknowledged or not. Orders violating immunity are void ab initio.

1. Can “vexatious litigant” orders be based on witness evidence?

Answer: No – this would allow defendants to silence witnesses through procedural abuse.

1. What happens when judges themselves are accused of fraud?

Answer: Witness immunity becomes even more critical – without it, judges could silence all criticism.

1. Are these civil restraint orders legally enforceable?

Answer: No – they are illegal trespasses on absolute privilege and void from inception.

12. THE CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS

This case reveals a fundamental flaw in the English legal system:

Who polices the judges when the judges are the criminals?

• Millinder reported judicial fraud to police → Police declined to investigate
• Millinder raised it in court → Judges imposed gag orders
• Millinder appealed → Appellate judges (colleagues of accused) upheld orders
• Millinder complained to Judicial Conduct Investigations Office → Complaints dismissed

The result: A closed loop where judges protect judges, and witness immunity – one of the oldest protections in English law – is simply ignored when it threatens judicial power.

13. WHAT’S HAPPENING NOW?

On 21 April 2025, IUK filed its application for a stand-alone declaratory judgment pursuant to CPR 40.20 in the King’s Bench Division declaring orders and judgments void that trespass on Mr Millinder’s absolute immunity from suit.

On 30 April 2025, Mr Justice Eyre, in an affront to justice, ordered that “If the application for permission to appeal is refused, the application will fall away with the appeal”.  It was, without question a contemptuous affront to the very rule on which this Firm’s application for standalone declaratory relief was based. 

CPR 40.20 is this: “The court may make binding declarations whether or not any other remedy is claimed”

Ever since, the King’s Bench Division clerks have been lying, making various easily proven false and contradictory statements by email as excuses to delay and deny justice.   

We’ve been denied justice, for over a year, essentially for the reasons made clear in the table below, showing what happened to Mr Milllinder.

“Justice delayed is justice denied”