Mr Justice Soole (pictured) is head of the King’s Bench Division civil list. Intelligence UK Investigations uncovers widespread judicial gross violations of Article 6.1 Human Rights Act 1998 – Preventing justice being served by covering up wrongdoings with restraint orders
King’s Bench Division High Court Judges are accused of violating the law on “Totally Without Merit” (TWM) by failing to adhere to the strict legal standards established by the Court of Appeal. The report argues these certifications were used not to filter out genuinely hopeless cases, but to improperly obstruct a valid claim, and that the corrupt practice is widespread.
Perseus Ventures Limited is in Court on 17 June 2026 – alleging a widespread judicial fraud cover up
The case of Perseus Ventures Limited (PVL) originates by a multifaceted dispute against Barclays Bank PLC, its lawyers at Addleshaw Goddard LLP, and their Joint LPA Receivers, Mr Foskett & Mr Alford of Copping Joyce.
PVL alleges that following the sale of its London property, the defendants embezzled the net proceeds of over £353,000.
The core of the claim is that the bank and its lawyers embezzled these funds and created fraudulent accounting documents, including a fictitious loan, to conceal the act and justify a non-existent outstanding balance.
Compounding this, PVL asserts that the LPA Receivers committed a fraudulent breach of their fiduciary duty for years by failing to collect approximately £675,000 in rental income from the property, which, if collected, would have redeemed the bank’s loan in full long before the property was sold.
False accounting and a fake Barclays Bank loan
The property was sold for £841,000, which should have left net proceeds of over £353,000 for PVL after the £456,547 loan was redeemed. Instead of PVL receiving this money, the bank’s lawyers transferred it out of PVL’s account, claiming it was a “normal transaction.” To justify this and claim PVL still owed money, the bank allegedly created fraudulent documents for a fictitious loan of £102,970.90—the exact difference between the original loan and the proceeds—and backdated it to January 2022, a loan which had never existed.
The judicial conspiracy, extortion and a cover up – making elites and powerful corporations ‘above the law’
Intelligence UK Investigations, claims judges have weaponized “Totally Without Merit” (TWM) rulings to suppress evidence and deny a fair hearing. PVL’s case is the classic example of easily proven fraud and tortious wrongdoings, being covered up.
As defined by the Court of Appeal leading judgments on the public policy issue of ‘TWM’; Grace and Wasif, has two core principles:
- “Bound to Fail”: A case or application can only be certified as TWM if it is truly “bound to fail.” This is a high threshold.
- “Peculiar Care”: When certifying an application as TWM, a judge must take “peculiar care” to ensure that all arguments raised by the applicant are properly and fully addressed in their reasoning.
The report alleges several judges violated these principles, constituting gross violations of Section 6.1 Human Rights Act 1998, in the following ways:
1. Mrs Justice Collins-Rice
Mrs Justice Collins-Rice is accused of wrongfully certifying an application as TWM by focusing on procedural issues rather than the substance of the claim itself.
Mrs Justice Collins Rice – AKA Rowena Collins Rice DBE – Former Director General of the Attorney General’s Office turned High Court Judge
- Violation: The report claims she attached the TWM label because the applications “did not comply with the rules of court or properly address the tests they set out.” However, she explicitly stated that her decision had “nothing whatever to do with the rights and wrongs of any future claim by Perseus.”
- How this Violates TWM Law: According to the document, this contradicts the principle established in Grace, which states that a TWM certification applies to the case being “bound to fail,” not just a procedurally flawed interim application. By her own admission, her TWM certification was not based on an assessment of the underlying merits of PVL’s claim, which the report argues is an improper use of the TWM power.
2. Mr Justice Murray
Mr Justice Murray is accused of evading the substance of a formal application by instead certifying a related letter as TWM.
Mr Justice Murray (pictured) purported to determine not the application itself (he went nowhere near that) but a letter to the Judge, as “TWM” but without reasoning
- Violation: On June 26, 2025, PVL filed a formal application to set aside an order made by Master Brown. Subsequently, on June 30, PVL sent a letter to the President of the King’s Bench Division requesting directions. Mr Justice Murray allegedly ignored the formal application and instead treated the letter as the application, which he then certified as TWM.
- How this Violates TWM Law: This is presented as a clear violation of the “peculiar care” principle from the Wasif case. By not addressing the actual grounds laid out in the formal application to set aside the order, and instead dismissing a letter, he allegedly failed to engage with or properly address the legal arguments being made, thereby abusing the TWM process to dispose of the matter without a proper hearing.
3. Mr Justice Soole
Mr Justice Soole is accused of the most serious violations, certifying an application as TWM by ignoring a fundamental legal rule and then using a series of these allegedly void TWM certifications to impose an Extended Civil Restraint Order (ECRO).
Mr Justice Soole apepars to have been covering up easily proven false accounting offences and false representations by Addleshaw Goddard LLP- Representative of Barclays Bank PLC
Violation 1 (Ignoring the Law): PVL had applied to set aside an order made by Master Brown, arguing the Master had no jurisdiction under Practice Direction 2B because the case involved “criminal matters” (fraud and embezzlement). Mr Justice Soole dismissed this, stating there was “no basis for the contention” that the Master’s order was void. He then certified the application as TWM.
How this Violates TWM Law: The report argues that an application to set aside an order on the grounds of a lack of jurisdiction is a serious legal challenge and cannot be “plainly and obviously unarguable.” By certifying the law itself—the statutory rule limiting a Master’s jurisdiction—as “Totally Without Merit,” Mr Justice Soole is accused of taking “peculiar care” to evade the crucial argument, not address it.
Violation 2 (Imposing an ECRO): Mr Justice Soole then used the TWM certifications from himself, Mrs Justice Collins-Rice, and Mr Justice Murray as the basis to grant an ECRO against PVL, effectively barring them from further litigation without permission.
How this Violates TWM Law: A civil restraint order requires two or more applications to have been correctly certified as TWM. The report’s central argument is that since the foundational TWM certifications were themselves void acts made in violation of established legal principles, the subsequent ECRO based upon them was made without jurisdiction and constituted a “wholly improper exercise of judicial powers.”
What’s happening now?
Working alongside this Firm, PVL has instructed counsel to attend Court all day on 17 June 2026 to argue that the imposition of an ECRO based on ‘TWM’ certifications that affront the final public policy decisions by the Court of Appeal on the issue of ‘TWM’ is void ab initio, and it is PVL’s right, ex debito justitiae, to have void orders declared to be so and set aside.
Reporting on this case
In the public interest Intelligence UK Investigations will obtain the official transcripts and will be reporting on this case during and after proceedings.
Barclays Bank PLC, via Addleshaw Goddard LLP, and the Lord Chancellor, Minister for Justice, David Lammy MP have been invited to comment.
