The conclusions that can be drawn from examining this case of Sheppard v Sheppard are as follows:
The Defendants presented lies and false evidence over a period of 3 years in litigation, including to the High Court at the Royal Courts of Justice.
In Fact the hearing was in all likelihood staged with the help of two senior judges, since retired. One judge was known to the Defendant, the other his close friend.
The Defendant’s solicitor helped to construct a fake version of events and broke many ethical and legal rules in supporting it, even pushing people to lie, present false evidence and ‘Block’ the Claimant from obtaining evidence.
Lawyers and judges are therefore, to a great extent, ‘untouchables’. They also have warped attitudes where they accept the situation, perhaps because it serves them well.
Since 2009, things have changed little. Some reforms have been made but as usual it is lip service to deflect criticism of the legal profession. Talk but little substance.
Senior lawyers and judges overseeing the (English) Legal System are disingenuous – while promoting ‘do-gooder’ codes and the Civil Procedure Rules etc, the reality is they turn a blind eye when litigants may have faced serious injustice. To them it’s hard luck, water under the bridge.
It’s an archaic system where there are few checks and balances.
Even the bodies overseeing solicitors, barristers, judges etc try to deflect any complaints, trying to find a reason to push a complainant to another body.
KEY RECOMMENDATION:
The Legal System in the UK should not be overseen by lawyers, it must have independent oversight. The system struggles to deal with lawyers abusing it.
A Civil Litigation Bill should be introduced in Parliament to outlaw Litigation tactics long applied by lawyers (a set of tactics that is being continuously adapted and honed like a secret code*).
- Examples are data-gatekeeping (even stopping litigants access their own records through threats that it would affect their client); witness ring-fencing (scaring witnesses into not testifying or simply persuading them not to get involved, or in some cases persuading them to ‘bend’ facts for their client); and Pre-emptive narrative planting (where lies and fake evidence are pushed out early to give it a strong chance of being accepted as the truth – on the Balance of Probabilities). [Note of course this was failing in Sheppard v Sheppard which is why the ‘friendly judge’ was critical in the end to them getting their lies accepted as truth via corruption!)
Quote:
“The aspect that stands out more than anything is that the system doesn’t care if you are telling the truth and have good evidence and would have won; or that you were steamrollered by underhand tactics by a party that was presenting fake evidence and lies, having also interfered with evidence that would have weakened their own case.
“But incredibly the system doesn’t seem to care if you ended up with a blatantly biased judge that ignored all the lies and illegal behaviour.
“There is a total lack of controls to protect litigants from these illegal practices, even after the event when it’s all obvious.
“On top of that they almost destroyed an individual who was fighting a legitimate cause to prove the TRUTH, which the Defendant once said was ‘relative’.
“Their illegal and unethical tactics were designed to drive costs to the extent that a sub-standard settlement had to be accepted.
“I refused to settle on sub-standard terms and forced them to walk into the Courtroom so they had to commit perjury – trusting that the judge would see the truth.
“But to then find the judge was ‘arranged’ (being a friend of the Defendant’s relative) was incredibly frustrating.
“A massive amount of time, effort, and money was wasted because the judge was biased and the system has no way of stopping this or dealing with it.
“On top of that is the huge amount of stress endured through litigation, exacerbated by an opponent who clearly had the backing of a senior judge so knew their fake evidence could win the day.”
“Then the same parties managed to ensure permission to appeal was refused by fixing another friendly judge, who made it obvious by backing a witness who clearly wasn’t present!
“It just shows the state of our legal system.
“Lawyers and judges staging a trial in this way shows that some lawyers can do what they want and not face any consequences.
– Ian Sheppard