Judge Prince, AKA Christopher John Prince of Newcastle Crown Court was instructed by the Attorney General’s Office to originate “something on nothing” a spin of legal trickery and deceit designed to detract away from the overwhelming public interest in prosecuting corrupt lawyers for conspiracy to defraud, all based in the North East.
Instead, they targeted the private prosecutor, who had investigated the suspects, maliciously prosecuting for alleged “harassment” when law determines no offence was committed. This is why the English justice system does not work, the judges are fake actors, part of a taxpayer funded criminal racketeering enterprise.
PART 1 in this sequel exposing systemic corruption and collusion within the English justice system caused by political interference; Judge Currer in North Tyneside Magistrates Court delivers on his orders
The stitch up & malicious prosecution by Judge Currer & North Tyneside Magistrates Court
Judge Currer, AKA Paul Joseph Currer in North Tyneside Magistrates Court concealed and deliberately evaded the Prosecutor’s applications for warrants of arrest, concealing evidence of serious criminality by corrupt lawyers of whom he is personally acquainted in the North East, whilst affronting the law in every way imaginable.
As one of the good and honourable judges of England’s past, Lord Denning famously said “You cannot put something on nothing and expect it to stay there. It will collapse“. Unfortunately in today’s English judiciary, integrity and impartiality in the administration of law and justice is seriously lacking.
“If an act is void, then it is in law a nullity. It is not only bad, but incurably bad. There is no need for an order of the court to set it aside. It is automatically null and void without more ado, though it is sometimes convenient to have the court declare it to be so. And every proceeding which is founded on it is also bad and incurably bad”Lord Justice Denning in MacFoy v United Africa Company Limited  3 All ER 1169
Political coercion, degradation of English constitutional principles and abomination of the rule of law prevails. Civil and criminal law designed to protect the people is administered selectively, a case of “justice subject to status“, not what you know, but who you know.
Members of the UK’s systemic corruption network of politicians, lawyers, judges, insolvency practitioners, police and regulatory authorities are made “above the law”, whilst anyone that goes against their fraudulent narrative is penalised, or silenced. Compliance for following orders is rewarded with promotions and other perks. Effectual bribery at the expense of the public purse.
Judge Prince, Judge Currer & Newcastle Crown Court – The systemic corruption machine runs on both sides of the fence
Judge Currer, a District Judge of the Magistrates Court and Judge Prince, a Crown Court Judge, both know one another, they sit in the same Newcastle Combined Court Centre.
When the case was brought to Newcastle Crown Court Judge Price allocated himself to the case which sought to deal with Judge Currer’s criminal misconduct, so he could fail to deal with it. Both worked to prevent justice being served on fellow corrupt lawyers based in Newcastle.
Lesley Moss – The corrupt Magistrates Court Legal Advisor from Teesside
Long after Judge Currer performed his task, prosecuting the prosecutor for alleged harassment in absence of any evidence whatsoever, and off the back of a nullity, on the 29th October 2020 Lesley Moss, the legal team manager sought to keep the applications dealing with corrupt public officials within their jurisdiction.
Moss knew that any such application falls in the exclusive jurisdiction of the Chief Magistrate, who resides at Westminster Magistrates Court.
Snippet of the email from Lesley Moss of 29th October 2020 at 17.08PM
“I will refer your applications to one of the local District Judges for consideration. There is no requirement to have it dealt with by a Senior District Judge, by which I take it you mean the Chief Magistrate who is the senior DJ for Magistrates’ Courts“
The Criminal Practice Directions 2015 is law that governs how criminal justice is to be administered. Law determines that any application to prosecute corrupt public officials must be heard by the Chief Magistrate.
Lesley Moss affronted the law to keep the applications in Newcastle, enabling the corrupt North East CPS and Judge Currer to ensure that the applications for warrants of arrest were suppressed and never determined. They were concealing the offending by corrupt Newcastle based lawyers, and the fact that C had committed no offence.
Don’t get us wrong, Labour is equally tied to the same taxpayer funded criminal racketeering enterprise of bent judges, CPS crown prosecutors, police and regulatory authorities, but the head of the snake is, without question, the highest echelons of Tory governance.
The systemic corruption machine has its tentacles deeply embedded throughout UK government. Inter-agency collusion is the norm, secrecy, concealment rooted in the spread of the cancer, the corruptors (members of the network of colluding public officials, lawyers & judges) have engulfed both sides, distributed throughout all the public authorities.
The long and short is that those who should protect the people from tyranny, have become the tyrants. We conclude, Judge Prince is most certainly one of those, and Judge Currer is another, but they are two of many.
The prosecutor became the prosecuted courtesy of Judge Currer and Judge Prince working for the offenders
The Prosecutor and Complainant (“C“) was accused of harassment without violence (S.2 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1977) for sending emails during the course of private criminal and civil prosecution proceedings against the corrupt lawyers, who had committed criminal offences against him.
It was said in the police report that the emails were “unwanted”. Naturally they would be when they contained evidence of serious criminal offences committed by those lawyers, evidence that both Judge Currer and Judge Prince concealed, to prevent justice being served on those lawyers for the criminal offences they are proven to have committed.
The law – section 2 harassment offence
The statutory defence to section 2 harassment applied on all 3 grounds in law
C was pursuing the course of conduct in sending emails containing evidence on which he relied in a private civil and criminal prosecution against the accused, who were reversed by the establishment into the “Witnesses” when law (above) affirms that the private prosecutor had not committed any offence of harassment.
Section 3(1)(a), 3(1)(b) and section 3(1)(c), as highlighted yellow, affirmed in law that C never committed any offence. Any ordinary informed lay observer could reach that verdict with the blatantly obvious material that was before Judge Currer.
CPS North East brought the case to North Tyneside Magistrates Court in absence of presentation of any evidence of harassment whatsoever.
The lawless human rights abuse inflicted upon C was a flagrant and gross violation of Article 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998. The corrupt English State has a duty to provide restitution for such abuse, but in C’s case, those tasked with administering justice just continued the cover up.
Fundamental human rights violations by corrupt English judges
“Article 6(1): In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law”
Everyone has the following minimum rights:
- to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him
- to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence
- to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require
- to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him
Judge Currer of North Tyneside Magistrates Court – “No evidence in court whatsoever“
On the 15th of January 2020 the case came before Judge Paul Currer, AKA District Judge Paul Joseph Currer in North Tyneside Magistrates Court.
The politically controlled Northumbria Police never produced any evidence when requested to have done so by C and then, unsurprisingly, after CPS North East took the case to court without any evidence, Judge Currer first commented that there was no prosecution evidence on the court file whatsoever.
In corrupt modern England nobody is safe. C’s case proves that anyone can be prosecuted and targeted, stitched up for an offence they did not commit and be fitted up for that offence if the “powers that be” engineer it, without any need for production of any proof or evidence whatsoever.
Naturally, C entered a not guilty plea to the allegation of harassment, and enquired what was being done about the far more serious criminal offences committed against him, those enquiries fell on deaf ears.
C had by then, submitted a skeleton argument containing counter allegations of substantive serious fraud. Those counter allegations long predated the fabricated allegation of harassment leveled against him. The case was adjourned for directions.
Judge Currer: Directions Order dated 5th of March 2020
After first ordering that the CPS were to file and serve all the evidence and material on which they rely by 5th of February 2020. No such evidence was filed by 5th March 2020, CPS North East had already breached the order and their disclosure obligations.
On the 5th of March 2020 Judge Currer made a further directions order which sent the case for trial. It was specifically ordered that:
“CPS are to serve all e-mails that they seek to rely upon by 5th April 2020 and to disclose all e-mails by the 5th April 2020“
The 5th of April 2020 came and went and no evidence or submissions were served on C whatsoever. C referred the matter to Judge Currer for directions, he ignored the directions, as by then, he had substantive evidence in his possession proving that his associates, the corrupt lawyers that C was prosecuting, had indeed committed serious criminal offences against C.
The statutory 70-day timeframe in which the prosecution must have served evidence from when a case was sent for trial
The statutory 70-day limitation timeframe commence on the 5th of March 2020 when Judge Currer sent the case for trial, with the 70th day expiring on the 14th of May 2020.
After 14th May 2020, in absence of compliance with the order of 5th March 2020, the prosecution was void through failure to comply with statute, rendering the prosecution fundamentally defective, and therefore the decision of the judicial office holder was a nullity.
By 29th of May 2020 North Tyneside Magistrates Court admitted that no prosecution evidence or submissions were served
15-days beyond the statutory limitation period of 70-days from the date the case was sent for trial, on the 29th of May 2020 North Tyneside Magistrates Court lied and fabricated a story to try to cover up the fact that the CPS had failed to serve any evidence on C whatsoever.
North Tyneside Magistrates Court, undoubtedly under instruction of Judge Currer stated that “A disk containing the evidence has been forwarded to your address in (London).
The Court were aware that C was non domicile and had no address for service in the UK. Additionally, offices, which the address in London was, were all closed due to the Covid restrictions, everyone worked from home. When C made enquiries to see if there was a disk delivered to his London office, it was confirmed by staff there that no disk was there.
In breach of the 5th March 2020 directions order, 54-days past the order directing that the CPS were to serve all evidence and emails they relied on by the 30th April 2020, by 29th May 2020 North Tyneside Magistrates Court admitted in writing that there was no service.
Knowing that C was representing himself, as he did when he attended Court on 15th January 2020, they stated:
“A problem serving these items arose as the CPS did not have details of your legal representative”
C was in communication with both the Court and the CPS, the only method of service, given that he was overseas, was by email only. No single piece of evidence or any submission was ever served during the Magistrates Court proceedings.
Failure to serve, in breach of the court order and in breach of the law renders the prosecution fundamentally defective and void, yet that did not stop Judge Currer from targeting the prosecutor to protect the criminals from being prosecuted.
In Re Pritchard (deceased) , Lord Justice Upjohn said:
“I do not think that the earlier cases or the later dicta upon them prevent me from saying that, in my judgment, the law when properly understood is that Ord. 70 applies to all defects in procedure unless it can be said that the defect is fundamental to the proceedings. A fundamental defect will make it a nullity“
The authorities establish one or two classes of nullity such as the following. There may be others, though for my part I would be reluctant to see much extension of the classes. (i) Proceedings which ought to have been served but have never come to the notice of the defendant at all. This, of course, does not include cases of substituted service, or ser-B vice by filing in default, or cases where service has properly been dispensed with: see e.g. Whitehead v. Whitehead (1962) 3 W.L.R. 884. (ii) Proceedings which have never started at all owing to some fundamental defect in issuing the proceedings. (iii) Proceedings which appear to be duly issued but fail to C comply with a statutory requirement: see e.g. Finnegan v. Cementation Co. Ltd. (1953) 1 Q.B. 688.
Service of prosecution evidence and submissions is indisputably a statutory requirement. Compliance by the prosecution with orders compelling it to disclose and serve evidence by a longstop date, which, in this case, was in fact by 5th of February 2020, is likewise.
By the 29th May 2020 C, acting as private prosecutor, had filed an information to prosecute the corrupt lawyers based in Newcastle. The only jurisdiction Judge Currer had was to determine the private criminal prosecution against his associates, he failed to do so, just as he failed to recuse (remove himself from the case), knowing he was conflicted.
On the 19th of June 2020 Judge Currer went ahead and tried the offence of harassment that was extinguished in law by the statutory defence
Acting in excess of jurisdiction, Judge Currer prevented C from attending the summary trial remotely, knowing that there was no way he could attend as there were flight restrictions due to Corona.
The 2020 emergency Covid legislation provided that summary magistrates trials could be held remotely, but Judge Currer wanted to prevent C from the right to a fair trial, knowing that he would be advancing counter allegations, and knowing that there was never any evidence served, as he himself directed.
C made an application to attend the summary trial remotely, as there were no flights. On the 18th June 2020 Judge Currer made an order (based upon the void prosecution), which was void ab initio (void from the outset). In his own order he quoted what C told him:
“I am not a UK resident. I am in XXXXXX and will not be returning to the UK cesspool of corruption that works to assist criminals in defrauding me and then reserving me into the defendant. I will not tolerate corruption, diminishment of the rule of law and human rights abuse”
In his purported rationale, Judge Currer stated this:
“I am concerned that the trial, if conducted over a link from private premises, would not maintain the dignity of the court room. I am also concerned that there would be no way of satisfactorily ensuring the Defendant provide his evidence evidence without the help or assistance of others in what would be a completely uncontrolled and indeed unknown environment. In all the circumstances and for the reasons I have explained in this document the application is refused as it would not be in the interests of justice to allow the Defendant to attend the hearing by video link“
Judge Currer contradicted the law and stated that it would not be in the interests of justice for C to be heard, knowing that he had committed no offence and that the prosecution against him was void.
Judge Currer altogether concealed the application for warrants of arrest for multiple counts of criminal fraud against the corrupt Newcastle based lawyers. Back when he was a barrister, he regularly took instructions from that very same firm of lawyers, a close knit fraternity.
The Coronavirus Act 2020 made provision for summary magistrates proceedings to take place remotely when people could not get to court
“Expansion of availability of live links in criminal proceedings: Section 53 and Schedule 23 Criminal Justice Act 2003 amends the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (CJA 2003) in order to extend the circumstances in which a criminal court can use audio and live links during hearings. Paragraph 3 of schedule 23 extends the list of “eligible criminal proceedings” to include:
Eligible criminal proceedings may be conducted wholly as video proceedings only if the proceedings meet one of the following conditions:
(8)Condition G:— (a) the proceedings are a summary trial in a magistrates’ court, (b) a written procedure notice has been served on the defendant but the offence is not being tried in accordance with section 16A of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980, and (c) the parties agree to the proceedings being conducted wholly as video proceedings.
(9) Condition H: the proceedings are a hearing under section 142(1) or (2) of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980
Judge Currer wanted to conduct his acts of corruption in private, inflicting gross human rights abuse on C, denying his right to be heard, his right to state his defence, his right to cross examine the accusers, and moreover, his right to examine the evidence used against him.
Currer knew all along that there had been no service of any evidence whatsoever on C. He proceeded irrespectively, acting in excess of jurisdiction only to assist the true offenders (perverting the course of justice). In truth, it was only because he knew that C would advance his counter allegations, and all attempts were made to silence him, denying him the right to be heard, knowing that he was innocent.
In his absence, Judge Currer found C guilty of harassment, but passed no sentence. Currer had “founded something upon nothing” in absence of any evidence whatsoever, yet where there was substantive evidence against his associated Newcastle lawyers, he covered it up.
The Complainant, a private criminal prosecutor fights back
It is one’s right, ex debito justitiae (by way of obligation of justice) to set aside any void order. The prosecution against C was indisputably void on several obvious grounds.
On 29th of July 2020 C made an application under section 142(1) of the Magistrates Court Act 1980 to set aside the void prosecution and further made a formal criminal misconduct complaint against Judge Currer for allegedly perverting the course of justice. The complaint was evaded, along with the private criminal prosecutions against the corrupt Newcastle based lawyers.
Section 142(1): “A magistrates’ court may vary or rescind a sentence or other order imposed or made by it when dealing with an offender if it appears to the court to be in the interests of justice to do so“
On the 9th September 2020 at 11.20AM Lesley Moss wrote to C and her email affirmed that the Court acknowledged that Judge Currer was conflicted
“You also seek to have individuals prosecuted for alleged criminal offences, including District Judge Currer”
“Please be advised that the magistrates’ courts in Cleveland, Durham and Northumbria will not be able to consider any request to have one of the local District Judges prosecuted. I am sure you can appreciate that there is a need to avoid any perception of bias wherever a decision like this has to be made which means that any such application would need to be pursued in a different court area“
After a spin of lies and delaying tactics – North Tyneside Magistrates Court allowed Judge Currer to be “judge of his own cause” acting in conflict
It took 9-months and 22-days (296-days) for the compromised Court to determine C’s application to set aside the void prosecution. The application was refused by the corrupt Judge Currer, on the 21st of May 2021!
So much for “the need to avoid any perception of bias“, that only works one way. They sought at all times to keep the application they claimed must be made in a different court area, within theirs, so they could cover up. They did precisely the same with the application against the Newcastle lawyers alleged to have originated the case through their offending in the first place.
Law affirms that it is mandatory that any section 142 applicant be afforded the right to attend a hearing – Judge Currer prevented one happening, yet again
On 16th of November 2020 at 13.13PM Lesley Moss wrote to C and confirmed that:
“An application to re-open a case under s142 Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 can not be dealt with over the telephone unfortunately. Paragraph 4(2), Schedule 3A of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 precludes you from taking part in such proceedings by audio means”
Once again, by November 2020 the UK was in the second phase lockdown “from Thursday 5 November, everyone must stay at home“. The Coronavirus Act 2020 provided for the section 142 application to be heard remotely: “Condition H: the proceedings are a hearing under section 142(1) or (2) of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980“.
It was proven once again that Lesley Moss was lying, obstructing the course of justice, depriving C of his right to be heard in all circumstances, knowing that no offence was committed and that the prosecution against him was a nullity for failure to serve.
The applications by C for a private criminal prosecution against the Newcastle lawyers and the corrupt public officials they colluded with remain outstanding, and do to this day.
Law determined that Judge Currer was precluded from making an order under section 142 of the Magistrates Court unless the order is the one proposed by C, or that the party (C) first had an opportunity to make representations at a hearing.
Judge Currer, who was knowingly conflicted and acting in excess of jurisdiction, deliberately prevented C from his democratic right to be heard, because he was concealing fraud committed against him by his fellow corrupt Newcastle lawyer associates.
Currer knew that there was no service of evidence, he knew he had no jurisdiction and that the prosecution against C was void, and that no offence was committed, but he steamrollered ahead and refused the section 142 application anyway when law precluded him from doing so.
The rules of natural justice were violated, no prosecution evidence or submissions were ever served on C, and moreover, law affirmed that in the circumstances, C is precluded from the alleged offence of harassment.
Judge Currer and North Tyneside Magistrates Court public officials held back the order made by Currer on the 9th of April 2021 and did not disclose it to C until the 21st of May 2021 in an attempt to run him out of time to appeal, which is 21-days from the date the order was made.
Lies and procrastination around listing the section 142 application for a hearing which never happened
On 31st of March 2021 at 16.11PM Ashley Orr, the team leader for North Tyneside Magistrates Court wrote to C and confirmed:
“The s142 application is currently being looked at to find a suitable listing date and the court will contact Mr XXXXXXXX as soon as that is done – that’s as much information as I currently have”
On the 16th of April 2021 Ashley Orr once again wrote to C, not to confirm the listing date for the remote application hearing under section 142 of the Magistrates Court Act as intended by the law, but instead to confirm this:
“I can confirm that the application was dealt with last week by the Judge we are waiting on his reasons then the legal team will be in touch with you”
The application was once again dealt with illegally by Judge Currer, who had perverted the course of justice, and was knowingly conflicted by the Court’s own prior admission.
Currer was acting in excess of his jurisdiction knowing that nothing whatsoever had ever been served on C, as he himself had directed on 3 occasions from 15th January 2020.
The private criminal prosecution against the corrupt Newcastle lawyers, the alleged offenders was left in limbo.
Knowing that C was pursuing the course of conduct because Currer’s associates had committed serious criminal offences against him and that therefore the statutory defence proved that C had not committed any harassment, Currer suppressed that evidence to assist the offenders.
It was not until 21st May 2021 that the Magistrates notified C of the void order made by Judge Currer himself:
On the 22nd of May 2021 C filed an appeal of the decision to refuse the section 142 application in Newcastle Crown Court. This is where the next corruptor in the conspiracy came into play, “His Honour”, the dishonourable Judge Prince.
Part 2 in this sequel evidences how Judge Prince perverted the course of justice, originating “something on nothing“.
When asked by C about the fact that there was no service of evidence whatsoever in the Magistrates Court, Prince replied, “You knew about it“, implying, for example, that a person could be convicted of murder, in absence of being heard at a trial, in absence of any evidence to prove guilt whatsoever, as long as the accused “knew about it”. Of course, the position is nothing other than nonsense.
The people have a right to know that those who are paid by the taxpayer to administer justice according to the law “without fear, favour, affection or illwill“, deliberately fail in their duty to do so.
Judge Prince and Judge Currer remain in office after perverting the course of justice. The corrupt Northumbria Police and the Attorney General’s Office who put them up to it in the first place covered up their crimes.
We sent this article to Dominic Raab, the Minister for Justice also asking for his comment in relation to this corruption, human rights abuse and degradation of the law.
Is Raab, the Lord Chancellor “respecting the rule of law” and “maintaining the independence of the judiciary” like he swore to do? We think not.
There’s a cure for corruption, and that is transparency. Please help us to help you, like, comment and share this investigatory article far and wide.