A fact is a fact and can be obvious and in the case of Sheppard v Sheppard, it is obvious.
Yet the legal establishment doesn’t seem to be able to cope with this breakdown in their system.
Which explains why lawyers have felt at ease exploiting the failure of oversight to peddle lies for their clients, supported by false evidence.
If the truth did come out it could prove to be an embarrassment for the legal establishment in England / the UK – for the RCJ (colluding judges); the SRA (solicitor knowingly applying a range of litigation tactics to a version of events he knows to be false); and so on.
The lawyers have Superpowers that make them a lot of money yet the system run by senior lawyers and judges, and regulators (who are themselves lawyers) should be providing oversight and acting when rules have been broken.
All too often they don’t do this. They don’t respond to clear cases of abuse, they don’t even want to look at the evidence. They are so stuck in their ways.
Allowing a case such as Sheppard v Sheppard to be show such corruption of the profession could prove the thin end of a wedge that could change things in favour of the Rule of Law.
Clearly lawyers and judges don’t want this; they want to have the final say!
This has weakened the Rule of Law to a laughable level in this country.
The first step is to have a proper Complaints Handling System. You cannot expect someone who has presented a true case, and lost due to corrupt lawyers and judges, including refusal of permission to appeal thanks to those same colluding judges who deliberately ignore the evidence, to pick up the pieces to reapply at great cost and effort.
The system is so broken it’s stunning; the Legal Establishment needs to work out a system of investigating and fixing failures in cases; miscarriages of justice in the civil system, whereby there is currently no redress.
And asking the police or criminal system to show any interest is a non-starter; also, with the higher burden of proof it is a domain the corrupt lawyers and judges can be pretty sure of avoiding, through further muddying of the waters.
the burden needs to be on the system that administered civil cases which are obviously flawed to say ‘No’ as otherwise things will get worse and worse, and lawyers will enhance their litigation Superpowers more and more to the detriment of those who don’t want to lie and present false evidence.
The truth should will out and the authorities need to sit up and work out how this is a key priority; litigants should be so terrified of perjury that they wouldn’t dare lie and present fake evidence. But what the actions of Margaret Sheppard in Sheppard v Sheppard show, given her uncle was a High Court judge who could pull strings for her, the system is not beyond failing and furthermore it doesn’t have any answer to judges fixing cases. It won’t even consider allegations backed up by clear evidence.
It’s time we had non-lawyer oversight of Access to Justice and the Rule of Law in civil cases, and have sanctions through a Civil Litigation Act that imposes criminal sanctions for the worst abuses.