King’s High Court Judge Mr Justice Eyre affront to the law
November 9, 2025
ICC Judge Barber a danger to the public
November 13, 2025
The tyranny of Newcastle Crown Court lies by Judge Prince
HH (his honour) Judge Prince, AKA Christopher John Prince, was, until 24 October 2024, a ‘judge’ of Newcastle Crown Court.
That was, until we exposed his antics to the new Labour Government’s Attorney General, Lord Hermer KC’s office in August 2024. HH Judge Prince was, it appears, given taxpayer sponsored early retirement, as his gift for effectively perverting the course of public justice.
We wonder who may be responsible for that?
Lord Richard Hermer KC pictured right, took office as Labour’s Attorney General for England and Wales in July 2024, with overall responsibility for the rule of law, the Serious Fraud Office, Government Legal Department and Crown Prosecution Service. Corruption with the King’s brand all over it
Lord Hermer, as Attorney General for England and Wales is essentially a ‘minister for the rule of law’ and that means equality before it.
We expose weaponisation of the courts and justice system.
Instructions are given from the top of governance to cover up, and all fall into line with their common purpose methods of concealment and suppression.
Summary of the case that was put before Judge Prince in Newcastle Crown Court
Mr M was falsely accused of harassing those he was pursuing exclusively during the course of a private criminal investigation and prosecution.
In June 2018, Mr M presented a private criminal prosecution against the defendants at York Magistrates Court. Those defendants appear to have been reversed into ‘witnesses’ whilst the prosecutor, Mr M was reversed into the defendant, to prevent justice being served on the allegedly corrupt government connected lawyers who are alleged to have defrauded him, those ‘witnesses’ / defendants.
Charged in absence of an offence at law
It was a direct violation of the doctrine dating back to the Magna Carta, part of the written English Constitution; nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege (Latin for “no crime, no punishment without law”).
Mr M was charged with section 2 harassment without violence, for sending them emails during the course of litigation and an investigation. It was a ‘purported offence’, that Section 1(3)(a) of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 determined that Mr M did not commit.
Section 1(3) of the Act is this:
“(3) Subsection (1) or 1(A) does not apply to a course of conduct if the person who pursued it shows—
(a) that it was pursued for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime,
(b) that it was pursued under any enactment or rule of law or to comply with any condition or requirement imposed by any person under any enactment, or
(c) that in the particular circumstances the pursuit of the course of conduct was reasonable.”
Arbitrary arrest and detention
So, what happened was, knowing that no crime has been committed, and the emails that were said to have amounted to harassment were sent during the course of civil and a private criminal prosecution, the CPS took the case to Newcastle Magistrates Court intending to prosecute Mr M in absence of production of any such evidence at all.
The evidence, the emails falsely stated to have amounted to harassment, were sent during the course of High Court proceedings referring to criminal offences and containing attachments asking the accused, the lawyers in Newcastle, to respond to the allegations and evidence levelled against them.
During the course of the Magistrates proceedings in absence of evidence of crime, the CPS Northeast ensured that the evidence relied on by the Prosecution was never even disclosed or served, for it undermined their false accusations and proved Mr M’s defence case, that no crime at law was committed as determined by Section 1(3)(a) of the Act.
The CPS Northeast, under the Tory Attorney General’s Office, then Michael Ellis KC MP, sought to jail Mr M in absence of crime.
Lies by Newcastle Magistrates and the CPS about serving the Magistrates prosecution material in May 2020
On 5 May 2020 it was observed by the (allegedly) corrupt Magistrates District Judge, Paul Joseph Currer, that the CPS had brought the case to court in absence of evidence. We exhibit below a copy of the order made:
On 29 May 2020 at 10.04AM GMT North Tyneside Magistrates Court confirmed that the CPS had failed to serve any prosecution material on the accused.
The Court’s email stated precisely this:
Your case remains listed for trial on the 19/6/20.
“The court have made enquiries with the CPS regarding service of the exhibits they intend to rely upon. A problem in serving these items arose as the CPS did not have the details of your legal representative. It is normal practice to serve papers on a defendant’s legal representatives. In the absence of these details the items (a disc with the information downloaded onto it) has been forwarded to your address at 3rd Floor, 277-281 Oxford Street, London, W1C 2DL by the CPS“
The Court and the CPS knew that the accused is legally trained and was representing himself. There was no legal representative’s details to give.
The Court and the CPS were in contact with the accused by email throughout. They knew the accused was non-domiciled, residing in Southeast Asia, and the only plausible means of service was by email.
The Magistrates Court and or the CPS lied, and said a disk had been sent to an office in Oxford Street, when no such proof of service was ever provided and upon enquiring with that office, it was confirmed that no such disk was there.
The CPS had failed to serve on the accused, any material or evidence, in breach of the order to have done so. Even that did not stop them. After all, it was a ‘two-tier justice’ establishment stitch up in absence of law, trial or evidence. The case proceeded irrespectively, under Judge Currer and the CPS orders.
The law on service of evidence
Part 4 of the Criminal Procedure Rules 2025, rule 4.7 is the part that deals with service and rule 4.4(2)(a) states this:
“(2) The address for service under this rule on —
(a) an individual is an address where it is reasonably believed that he or
she will receive it“
The Coronavirus outbreak, lockdown, quarantine and travel bans
40.The UK had been in lockdown for 58 days when the Tory Party’s Downing Street staff gathered for “socially distanced drinks” in the Number 10 garden, on 20 May 2020.
Offices in London were closed for business throughout May 2020, nobody would have possibly received any such disk, even if it was sent, because nobody was permitted to be in the offices anyway due to the emergency Coronavirus legislation.
Neither the CPS nor the Court could possibly come to any rational conclusion that the accused was expected to receive a disk posted to that office in May 2020.
On 18 June 2020, insistent on his right to have ben heard and to have stated his defence, Mr M sought to make use of the Emergency Coronavirus Legislation which provisioned for all summary Magistrates proceedings to have been remote at the time.
District Judge Paul Currer of Newcastle Magistrates Court refused Mr M’s application to attend remotely, preventing him from attending at all.
District Judge Paul Currer knew, or ought to have known, it would have been impossible for anyone to have travelled from Southeast Asia on 18 June 2020 in the height of the Coronavirus lockdown to be at a hearing the next day.
District Judge Paul Currer assisted the CPS in taking the case to trial in absence of evidence, knowing of breach of his own order on service, and that nothing was served, the purported trial in absence of defence or evidence, went forward on 19 June 2020.
Judge Currer purported to find Mr M guilty of a crime that statutory law at Section 1.3(a) of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 determined that he did not commit.
District Judge Paul Currer of Newcastle Magistrates Court was knowingly conflicted
The accused identified links between District Judge Paul Currer and the purported witnesses against Mr M.
After allegedly rigging the trial, and suppressing Mr M’s private criminal prosecution material and evidence of fraud against those witnesses, on 9 September 2020, at 11.20AM GMT, Leslie Moss, the chief legal advisor for Magistrates in Newcastle, said this in her email to Mr M:
On 11 November 2022 the High Court Administrative Court finally determined that service on the accused at the Oxford Street address was defective
We recite below, p.68 – 69 of the Administrative Court judgment in proceedings brought in 2022 by the then Attorney General, Victoria Prentis KC MP:
“68. Mr M contends that this was wrong because of certain observations made by Lord Denning in MacFoy v United Africa Ltd [1962] AC 152, an appeal to the Privy Council from the West African Court of Appeal. The issue in that case was whether a statement of claim, delivered in the long vacation (which in those days was not permitted under the procedural rules) was a nullity. The appellant contended that it was, and that all subsequent proceedings were void. His appeal was dismissed. Lord Denning, delivering the judgment of their Lordships, said at page 160:
“The defendant here sought to say therefore that the delivery of the statement of claim in the long vacation was a nullity and not a mere
irregularity. This is the same as saying that it was void and not merely voidable. The distinction between the two has been repeatedly drawn. 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. You cannot put something on nothing and expect it to stay there. It will collapse.”
69. Lord Denning’s observations, which were obiter, and made in a case which is only of persuasive authority, were directed specifically at the validity of acts by individuals, such as the service of proceedings.
It was finally determined by the High Court that the service on Mr M at the Oxford Street address was defective and that the authority Mr M relied on in proving the void act applies to failure to serve proceedings.
This Firm witnessed the Government Legal Department act with Lady Justice Andrews and Mr Justice Cavanagh within Mr M’s Administrative Court proceedings, impermissibly trespassing on his absolute immunity from suit, purporting to sentence him to prison for 15-months, for breaching an order they had no jurisdiction to make.
There is an established pattern of abuse in those at the Attorney General’s Office targeting the accused through the courts, but there’s much more behind their motives, they appeared desperate to arbitrarily jail the injured party and victim of crime.
Judge Paul Joseph Currer was conflicted & the application under Section 142(1) Magistrates Court Act
Mr M found that Judge Paul Currer used to act as counsel at Trinity Chambers for the accusers (the witnesses), regularly taking instructions from those partners at the law firm concerned.
On 2 May 2020 Mr M laid his private criminal prosecution information at Newcastle Magistrates Court. Judge Currer pretended it did not exist.
On 29 July 2020 Mr M made an application under Section 142(1) of the Magistrates Court Act 1980 to set aside Judge Currer’s obviously void conviction, after he was prevented from attending the summary Magistrates trial on 18 June 2020 and there was no plausible way he could have attended the following day, from over 6,000 miles away during the Coronavirus restrictions.
The deprivation of the right to state a defence and the right to be heard was abusive in itself, but they did it in absence of crime, in absence of evidence, and out of time.
Mr M set out to prosecute Judge Currer, alleging he acted corruptly.
On 9 September 2020 the Magistrates legal advisor herself set out that Judge Paul Currer was conflicted
District Judge Paul Joseph Currer of Newcastle Magistrates Court
In that email to Mr M from Leslie Moss, the chief legal advisor to Magistrates in Durham, Cleveland and Newcastle, this was said:
“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”
The private criminal prosecution information laid by Mr M against the accusers however, remained concealed and never determined by the Court.
How convenient, two-tier justice, yet Mr M was pursuing his allegations against them first.
Summary of the case that was put before Judge Prince in Newcastle Crown Court
The acknowledged conflict of interest, bias in Mr M’s case by Judge Currer, surely, you would have thought, also works the same way insofar as Judge Currer acting as ‘judge of his own cause’.
9-months, 3-weeks and a day since Mr M made his application under S.142 of the Act, Judge Currer appeared with an order, delivered to Mr M in an email on Friday 21 May 2021 at 3PM, containing an order from Judge Currer refusing to set aside his own decision. He really was acting as ‘judge of his own cause’ knowingly conflicted.
The 9 April 2021 Section 142(1) order by Judge Currer was automatically void for failure to comply with the statutory requirements
Mr M’s email said this:
To: NO-Listings <NO-Listings@justice.gov.uk>
Dear Sir / Madam,
As Currer and your legal services team were made abundantly well aware, it is unlawful for Currer to have made an order pursuant to section 142(1) of the MCA 1980, even your own lawyers acknowledged that, mind you, nothing surprises me, Currer is one of the offenders. You knew that also, but that did not stop you allocating him to the application, knowing he is conflicted, by your own admission.
Please find enclosed as filed:
- Appeal_Notice_22_05_2021 – Appeal application notice
- 2. APPEAL-BUNDLE..“
142(1) of the MCA 1980 wherein I refer to CPR Part 44(3)(a) & (b) of which I quote:
Outrageous lies and corruption by Judge Prince and Newcastle Crown Court
n 25 May 2021 the Magistrates Court confirmed they transferred Mr M’s case t the Crown Court for the appeal.
On 10 December 2021, 9-months of ‘justice delayed and justice denied’, following the 9-months of justice delayed and denied by Magistrates, Mr M’s appeal case was listed by HH Judge Prince in Newcastle Crown Court.
Immediately, Mr Walsh of this firm, who had been assisting Mr M in all the other mention hearings, was locked out of the case, which was remove, and so were a few others who wanted to view in the public gallery, it was a private hearing.
The reasons for locking out the public and Mr Walsh soon became very clear. Mr M’s cross examination questions were suppressed and concealed by Newcastle Crown Court.
They refused Mr M the right to cross examine the witnesses and at public expense, Nick Cartmell was factored in by the Court, to ‘cross examine the witnesses in Mr M’s interests’.
Mr Cartmell deliberately failed to answer any of Mr M’s cross examination questions, to conceal the fact that the witnesses are in fact the defendants.
Judge Prince failed to consider any of Mr M’s argument or appeal grounds and rather, conducted ‘a trial de novo’ for the summary only out of time offence, in absence of law.
Judge Prince & Newcastle Crown Court perverted the course of public justice
In knowledge that Mr M’s appeal sought to declare vid and set aside a conviction and trial in absence of evidence and the right to state a defence, and the automatically void section 142 order, HH Judge Prince acted without jurisdiction in conspiracy to pervert with James Palmer, the CPS Crown Prosecutor and lied.
It was not until Mr M appealed to the Court of Appeal in January 2022, that Judge Prince’s lies became clear, when the Court of Appeal confirmed this:
“The sentence imposed by the Magistrates was varied by the Crown Court on appeal. Under the Criminal
Appeal Act 1968 a defendant may appeal against sentence to the Court of Appeal Criminal Division following conviction on indictment (s.9), which does not apply here; or in other cases dealt with at the Crown Court” OTHERWISE THAN ON APPEAL FROM THE MAGISTRATES COURT (s.10).
It is proven beyond doubt there is no magistrates sentence and there cannot possibly have been. Courts don’t make orders on Saturdays and by Tuesday the Magistrates transferred Mr M’s appeal of conviction only to Newcastle.
We were shown all the orders made in the Magistrates, and the last order made was by Judge Currer on 9 April 2021, the void Section 142(1) order.
Silencing with a series of void civil restraint orders to conceal fraud and offences against him and then arbitrary detention by the state to reverse the victim of crime into the defendant with false allegations in absence of crime
Conclusion
There was no magistrates sentence and therefore there was nothing to vary. It was all, we allege, lies by the non-independent and utterly corrupt judiciary led by the Attorney General’s Office.
It was a conscious and premeditated lie intended to, and which did pervert the course of public justice, seeing to it that an innocent man was sent to prison in absence of trial or in absence of stating a defence, for a crime that statutory law determines he did not commit, and in absence of service of any evidence or prosecution material on him whatsoever. It was gross human rights above, that has been covered up ever since.
The Attorney General’s Office failed to deal with Mr M’s complaint in November last year despite being made absolutely aware of these circumstances.
Lord Hermer KC, Newcastle Crown Court, the Administrative Court, the Lady Chief Justice, Secretary of State and the Prime Minister’s anti-corruption minister have been invited to comment, along with Northumbria Police.
Help us to help you. Like, and share this article far and wide.
We’ve taken the Government to Court – we need your support. Please kindly consider a small secure donation towards our fighting fund.
