![]() |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions |
||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions >> Ellis v HM Solicitor General [2023] EWCA Civ 585 (03 May 2023) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2023/585.html Cite as: [2023] EWCA Civ 585 |
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
ON APPEAL FROM THE KINGS BENCH DIVISION
Mr Justice Kerr
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL |
||
B e f o r e :
LORD JUSTICE COULSON
____________________
Edward Ellis |
Appellant |
|
- and - |
||
His Majesty's Solicitor General |
Respondent |
____________________
Aidan Eardley KC (instructed by GDC) for the Respondent
Hearing Date: 3 May 2023
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
LORD JUSTICE COULSON:
1. Introduction
2. The Factual Background
3. The Fresh Contempts Alleged
3.1 Haztunc
3.2 Sood
3.3 The Application for a Committal Order
3.4 The Judgment of Kerr J
(a) The judge was content to proceed on the basis that the alleged contempts bore the character of a criminal rather than a civil contempt: see [23]-[29].
(b) The relevant mens rea was that, first, the appellant had to have knowledge of the terms of the GCRO and what it prohibited (which could be inferred from the circumstances) and that, secondly, there was an intention to act in a manner which breached those terms. If necessary, an intention to interfere with the administration of justice could be inferred from the circumstances. It was not a defence if the contemnor honestly believed that what he did was not a contempt: see [30]-[32];
(c) The judge was satisfied so that he was sure that the two alleged breaches of the GCRO had been proved to the necessary standard. He relied on the particular features of the drafting which I have noted above, and also the rather more straightforward fact that, despite being asked directly, the appellant did not deny authorship of the two applications. He found that the necessary mens rea had also been established: see [22]-[48];
(d) In all the circumstances, the threshold of seriousness for a criminal contempt had been met: see [49].
(e) The judge dealt with sanction in detail from [51]-[69]. As I have indicated, he concluded that only a sentence of immediate custody was justified. I review the issue of the appropriate sanction in greater detail below.
4. The Issues on Appeal
"The 2022 Parliament Sessions Priority is Corruption Remedy Special Measures against the State, Profession Authorities and Law Courts. It needs Personal Responsibility Proof against Identifiable Judges for Known Court Frauds. Hearing Denial Frauds by Top Judges created a need for issue of Claim 2022 003098 by the Cabinet against Equity Lawyer Mr Ellis to get Forced Hearings and Audio Records that are Trial Fraud Proof against Identifiable Judges. It validates Old Case Re-Openings and New Criminal Investigations"
In case it is thought that I have extracted a particularly obscure part of the Appellant's Notice, the entirety of the 2 page document is attached to this judgment as Appendix A.
"Without Prejudice To Invalidity Arguments The Stay Arguments are in the Grounds and the Draft Order. Court Motion Fee Waiver Demand for this Equity Lawyer against the State for the REASON the Restraint Order is Crime Proceeds and a Fee Payment would get Money Launderer status for the Ministry of Justice and the Cabinet"
5. The Preliminary Objections
6. The Appeal Against The Judge's Findings
6.1 The Nature of the Contempt
6.2 Actus Reus
6.3 Mens Rea
a) The appellant was fully aware of the terms of the order. He is an ex-solicitor who has been on the wrong end of this GCRO for 5 years. Not only is he well aware of its terms, but he knows precisely what he is not allowed to do in consequence of those terms.
b) The appellant intentionally breached its terms when preparing and filing the Haztunc and the Sood applications. His actions were deliberate.
6.4 Sufficiently Serious
7. Sanction
LORD JUSTICE LEWISON