What use is a judge who deliberately fails to judge one asks?

The gothic, almost satanic looking facade of the face, a shrine of terror dealt from within, hiding something rather sinister and much more widespread then most realise, the judges that do not judge.

Recently presiding over the Prince Harry phone hacking trial, behind those dark doors hide a lot of skeletons in the closet and these two, Mr Justice Fancourt (No.10) and Mr Justice Miles (No.11) are two of a kind.

When 10 and 11 come together, it’s blackjack, the whole house of cards go down. We expose the double dealing…

Mr Justice Fancourt – AKA Timothy Miles Fancourt (No.10)

It was 6 November 2020 in the Millinder v Middlesbrough FC case and Judge Fancourt was under a public interest judicial duty to have conducted a diligent review of the material that Mr Millinder alleged that the Club and their lawyers were said to have fraudulently withheld from an ex-parte financial injunction hearing to refrain Mr Millinder from presenting a winding up petition against them for over £1.2 million.

Fancourt said he could not open Millinder’s PDF containing his 863-page trial bundle. However, we had no problem opening it, a simple click and open, just like any other PDF.

Approximately 2 minutes later into the hearing of 6 November 2020:

Mr Millinder: We have got a list here of, which is a non exhaustive list, may I add, of material documentation that was withheld by the Defendants at this last ex parte hearing, and paragraph (d) of seventy, 73(d) is that report dated 2 June 2020, and that is my 54 page report that I condense all of the issues, and that report, at page 1 (break in connection) 1, all, have you seen (break in connection) —Fancourt J: I cannot access —
Mr Millinder: Have you seen —
Fancourt J: That on this.
Mr Millinder: The report? Have you seen —
Fancourt J: I —
Mr Millinder: The report, My Lord?
Fancourt J: I cannot access that.
Mr Millinder: Well, it is, it is on the CE-File and it has been, it is actually on the CE-File as a separate document as well. Let me just log on to the CE-File. You should be able to see the report dated 2 June 2020.
(pause)

Approximately 6-minutes later into the hearing:

Fancourt J: All right, so I have got (1) and (2) we have covered, (3) they withheld the report of 2018 showing fraud, (4) they did not refer the judge to the ex turpi causa defence, no claim arising from, from –
Mr Millinder: Well, no, there is —
Fancourt J: Illegality.

QUESTIONS: If Fancourt really could not access a PDF or the report on the court file, and he really wanted to do justice, why did he not adjourn so that he could judge on both side’s evidence rather than just the alleged fraudster’s?

What purpose does a judge have who cannot open a PDF, because it contains one side’s evidence?

THE RECUSAL APPLICATION

Judge Fancourt concealed the entirety of Mr Millinder’s 863-page trial bundle, his only response to the evidence being “I can’t access that”.

On 10 November 2020 Millinder’s application to recuse (remove Fancourt from the case) was issued.

Millinder’s recusal application set out that Fancourt acted with bias by suppressing evidence and crucial facts. This obviously had merit, given that the transcript proves he only considered the Defendant’s evidence, and shut Millinder down.

Fancourt had certified Millinder’s case as “Totally Without Merit” but yet, failed to even look at any of his evidence. Actual bias? What about the rule Audi alteram partem. There can be no fair hearing arising out of discounting Mr Millinder’s evidence, but did that stop Fancourt?

Without touching on the recusal grounds, but knowing of the issued application to recuse him, Fancourt came back into the case, on 11 November 2020, presiding over the application.

Millinder told us that “Fancourt pretended the application to recuse him was not even there. He steamrollered ahead to create a General Civil Restraint Order after concealing crucial evidence and facts, and fraudulently failing to judge on 6 November 2020“.

Mr Justice Miles – AKA Robert John Miles (No.11)

Miles was miles out of time, when on 27 November 2020, Miles was also miles out of jurisdiction, when he purported to determine Millinder’s application to recuse Fancourt, from the application hearing Fancourt failed to recuse himself from.

That had all been and gone, by 11 November 2020, when Fancourt determined the application in the proceeding he was being recused from. Miles, came in and certified Millinder’s case as ‘Totally Without Merit‘, he must have known that Fancourt had concealed all Millinder’s evidence, lying and saying he could not open the PDF containing his trial bundle. That was what was before him.

In Millinder’s case, we found untried fraud. What jurisdiction did any judge have to conceal fraud with a restraint order?

In R (Wasif ) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] EWCA Civ 82 The Court of Appeal said this:

“Where a claim is certified as “totally without merit” then “peculiar care must be taken to ensure that all the arguments raised in the grounds are properly addressed” when the judge gives reasons for coming to his or her decision. Separate reasons should be given for the certification (as opposed to the refusal of permission), even if those separate reasons rest on what has been said previously. The reasoning need not be lengthy, but it should be structured.“

There was no reasoning in either Miles or Fancourt’s purported determinations.

33-months later – Miles finds fraud in the case he said was hopeless

33-months and 24-days later, to be precise, after Millinder had sold his right of action to Scottish firm, Deuda Ltd, Miles made this order of 20 September 2023:

“The application is highly contentious, involves serious allegations (including of fraud), and depends on a long and complicated history. The application notice seeks a substantial hearing. The usual position is that hearings of this length are heard in person. In the exercise of my discretion I do not consider that it is appropriate to depart from this and allow a remote hearing. I have taken into account the reasons given in box 11 of the application notice for seeking a remote hearing. These do not justify a remote hearing and are in any case without substance. The allegations of political interference and that the claimant cannot rely on the courts in the UK to act fairly are wholly without merit. In any case the claimant is bringing this application before the courts in the UK and is therefore invoking their jurisdiction.”

In the same case, Millinder’s case, after consideration of the evidence, Miles ordered a 12-hour in person fraud trial. If there was no fraud, why would Miles have done that?

55-months before that – Chancellor of the High Court – Sir Geoffrey Vos – now Master of the Rolls lied to conceal the fraud

Knowing that the fraud was in dishonest deprivation of statutory rights that Millinder, a company creditor was entitled, while Chancellor of the High Court, Vos concealed crucial evidence and facts, resorting to outright lies in his public judgment:

“103. I can say at once that I have been through all the papers in this case in meticulous detail, and I have seen no evidence of any kind for any of the allegations of fraud, conspiracy or misdealing that Mr Millinder has made. He has made these allegations when he became frustrated by his seeming inability to find a forum in which he would vindicate what he saw as his companies’ irrebuttable claims.”