Episode 2 of ‘The Other Night’ investigative documentary exposes collaboration between two judges and a third party relating to a case about fraudulent costs submitted by a lawyer’s firm.

When questioned about a meeting between one of the judges and the third party, who was a barrister who was unconnected with the case, the Judicial Press Office said the two had met at a dinner and that it was usual for judges and barristers to meet at dinners.

The problem with the Judicial Press Office’s response is that this supposed dinner took place during covid lockdowns, when the Government had stopped all gatherings.

Let’s not lose touch…Your Government and Big Tech are actively trying to censor the information reported by The Exposé to serve their own needs. Subscribe now to make sure you receive the latest uncensored news in your inbox…

In this two-part video series, ‘The Other Night’, Hunt & Gather investigates the behaviour of judges in London.  The investigations were conducted over four years. In the view of the investigators, it reveals apparent and blatant abuse of process by some high-ranking judges in London’s High Court. “Since it was published on X and YouTube, the evidence it sets out has not been challenged by anyone involved,” they say.

Episode 1 was released in 2023.  The description reads: “Sir Stephen Males is a Lord Justice in London’s Court of Appeal and Mrs. Justice Sara Cockerill is a judge in the Commercial Court. This programme sets out evidence that they were both in covert contact with a third party outside of court, about a case, without the knowledge of the parties.”

While they were still working on their investigation, Hunter & Gather released a preview of Episode 2 in 2024. The description reads: “We believe Appeal Court Judge Lord Justice Stephen Males broke the law in 2022. He was asked to provide copies of all the data he held about one of our journalists but altered one of the emails that formed part of his response. In this preview of Episode 2, we explain why we think that’s a crime.”

Episode 2 was released on Saturday.  The video description reads:

“Britain’s judges are often referred to as ‘incorruptible’… but since we presented evidence of the absurdity of this, the mask has been slipping.  We know the truth, and so do increasing numbers of you.

“We revealed eighteen months ago how decisions are really made in the corridors of so-called justice. Today, we reveal the explosive witness statement from global accounting powerhouse Smith & Williamson, which shows why two senior judges broke the law and why the Ministry of Justice lied to ITV. Watch Episode 2 of our documentary The Other Night.”

Episode 1 detailed the behaviour of two senior UK judges: Lord Justice Stephen Males and Mrs. Justice Sara Cockerill.  These judges’ behaviour goes against their own rule and, it is believed, goes against the law as well.

“What we have uncovered raises serious questions about the impartiality and the integrity of Britain’s justice system,” Hunt & Gather said.

Judicial independence is a cornerstone of the UK’s constitution.  It ensures that judges can administer justice impartially and free from external pressures, including from the executive, legislature, media or powerful individuals.  This principle is fundamental to upholding the rule of law, protecting individual rights and maintaining public confidence in the legal system.

Related:

• The judiciary, The Constitution Society
• Three Is: Independence, Impartiality and Integrity, Courts and Tribunals Judiciary
• The Lord Chancellor, the independence of the judiciary and the rule of law, UK Constitutional Law Association, 19 December 2023

The Courts and Tribunals Judiciary webpage on ‘Independence’ acknowledges the importance of judicial independence.  It states (emphasis added):

It is vitally important in a democracy that individual judges and the judiciary as a whole are impartial and independent of all external pressures and of each other so that those who appear before them and the wider public can have confidence that their cases will be decided fairly and in accordance with the law.

As well as in fact being independent in this way, it is of vital importance that judges are seen to be both independent and impartial. Justice must not only be done – it must be seen to be done.

In direct contradiction to the statements above, Hunt & Gather have uncovered communications between Lord Justice Males, Justice Cockerill and a third party about a case Justice Cockerill was hearing at the time.

The case was brought by members of the King family against their former business partner, Primekings, and its lawyers, Teacher Stern (read more HERE).  The family members were accusing Teacher Stern of fraudulent bills relating to costs for the case; numerous fraudulent entries had inflated the bills to more than £2.2 million, Hunt & Gather said.  “Some of those entries were for expert witness work by Smith and Williamson, one of the UK’s oldest, largest, and most prestigious accounting firms.”

Hunt & Gather presented a Teacher Stern bill and said, “According to this bill, some of that work took place in 2016 and some in 2017. But the Kings were given a witness statement by Smith and Williamson that says they didn’t start work on the case until 2017. Though one of their partners did meet with Teacher Stern’s Rod Cowper in 2016, Smith and Williamson seem keen to point out there was no work done or time billed until the following year.”

However, at a subsequent consequences hearing, Justice Cockerill said that the Kings’ “claim lacked rational basis at the very first stage” and she would “going to certify this case as having been totally without merit.” It followed that, in her judgment, Justice Cockrill found in favour of the Defendants. 

Her judgment was also very critical of the Claimant’s legal team.  Consequently, the Claimant’s legal team filed a Subject Act Request (“SAR”).  It was through this SAR that the legal team obtained correspondence relating to the case.  “One of these emails, which we obtained from the claimant, forms the basis for our investigation,” Hunt & Gather said. 

The email was sent from Justice Cockrill, six minutes after she handed down judgment.   She sent the email to Duncan Matthews, a barrister, who had no professional involvement with the case. The purpose of the email was to send Matthews her judgment.  It had the subject line, “A heads up.”

The previous working day, the Kings had already indicated, in writing, to Justice Cockrill that they were preparing to appeal her ruling.  “So, as she typed the email to Mr. Matthews, she knew that the case was ongoing,” Hunt & Gather said. “When you lose a legal case, the right to appeal isn’t automatic. You have to get permission to do so from a judge. And in this case, Lord Justice Males was selected to decide whether the Kings would get that permission.”

The unlawful collaboration on the case continued. Hunt & Gather explained, “Clear separation is vital between the initial presiding judge, Mrs. Justice Cockrill, and the appeal court judge, Lord Justice Males. But we believe that in this case, that separation did not exist because shortly before he refused permission to appeal on the 26th of July 2021, Lord Justice Males had some sort of meeting with Duncan Matthews and they talked about this case.”

This second collaboration is also evidenced by another email.  This time from Lord Justice Males to Matthews.  The email said, “It was a pleasure to see you the other night and to catch up on your in Chambers news.  I did not want to say much then about the case of King vs. Stiefel as I was conscious that I had an application for permission to appeal to deal with and wanted to ensure that I approached it with an open mind.”

Lord Justice Males’ email continued, “I have now refused permission to appeal” and he attached a draft copy of his decision.

Hunt & Gather asked the Judicial Press Office to explain this apparent triangle of contact between these two judges and a third party, Matthews.  “The story that we were given gave us serious cause for concern.”

The Judicial Press Office said that Lord Justice Male and Matthews had attended a dinner together, which is not usual.  However, what is unusual and was totally missed by the Judicial Press Office is that this supposed dinner took place during restrictions on gatherings in response to covid. “This was still covid time. Dinners and other gatherings of all sizes just weren’t happening,” Hunt & Gather said.

When asked, members of the London Bar Association said the dinner that the Judicial Press Office mentioned couldn’t possibly have taken place.

Why did the Ministry of Justice lie?  We don’t know.  But “those who sit in judgment on their fellow citizens must themselves be above reproach and not give rise to any situation that can raise questions about their integrity,” Hunt & Gather said.  “Now those questions in relation to these two judges undermine their role not only in the King case but in any case that they have heard since.”

You can watch Hunt & Gather’s ‘The Other Night Episode 2’ below.

Featured image: Dame Sara Cockerill (left).  Source: Wikipedia. Lord Justice Stephen Males (right). Source: Law Gazette

The Expose Urgently Needs Your Help…

Can you please help to keep the lights on with The Expose’s honest, reliable, powerful and truthful journalism?

Your Government & Big Tech organisations
try to silence & shut down The Expose.

So we need your help to ensure
we can continue to bring you the
facts the mainstream refuses to.

The government does not fund us
to publish lies and propaganda on their
behalf like the Mainstream Media.

Instead, we rely solely on your support. So
please support us in our efforts to bring
you honest, reliable, investigative journalism
today. It’s secure, quick and easy.

Please choose your preferred method below to show your support.