Bar Standards Organisation reviewing complaint into Barrister representing Lancashire police

Mr Lee Bonner was the Barrister who represented Lancashire police in a Civil Application of 2020 to prevent Mr Ponting from blogging about Lancashire police on this website.

It is alleged that Mr Lee Bonner knowingly failed in his Duty of Candour that he owes to the Courts.  The Bar Standards are now investigating the allegations.

Amongst the complaint, Mr Bonner asked a police witness (DC Haribo), on oath, to ‘adopt her witness statement‘ as her evidence.  The statement has since been categorically denied as being a ‘witness statement’ by Lancashire police legal, instead, now declaring it as a Victim Personal Statement (VPS).  The IOPC is currently reviewing this complaint.

Part 32 of the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) broadly prohibit witnesses from giving oral evidence without the prior submission of a Witness Statement. Mr Lee Bonner of course knows the CPR inside out (or should).  Instead, Mr Lee Bonner allowed DC Haribo to ‘pass off’‘ her VPS as a Witness Statement.  This had the effect of deceiving the court.  The statement by DC Haribo was fundamentally and substantially perjured, a current IOPC led investigation is currently underway against the Lancashire chief constable for ‘turning a blind eye‘ to the Perjury.

Furthermore, Mr Lee Bonner was privy to crucial evidence, submitted by Mr Ponting (the respondent) that was of a covert audio recording of a conversation with a Lancashire police Superintendent, who, on the recording stated facts that would prove DC Haribo’s evidence was false, and knowingly so.  This audio recording is available to any media outlet that wish to review it.

Rather than seek the truth, Mr Lee Bonner sought that the judge (more about him later!) exclude conclusive evidence from the trial that would show perjury by one of the witnesses and, show how a Lancashire superintendent himself described this website as completely lawful.

Courts are supposed to seek to find the truth from facts as best they can, they are not to be used as a tool to bias one party or have damaging evidence to one party excluded.  The overriding objective of the CPR are as follows;

The overriding objective 1.1
(1) These Rules are a new procedural code with the overriding objective of enabling the court to deal with cases justly and at proportionate cost.

(2) Dealing with a case justly and at proportionate cost includes, so far as is practicable –

(a) ensuring that the parties are on an equal footing and can participate fully in proceedings, and that parties and witnesses can give their best evidence;

(b) saving expense;

(c) dealing with the case in ways which are proportionate –

(i) to the amount of money involved;

(ii) to the importance of the case;

(iii) to the complexity of the issues; and

(iv) to the financial position of each party;

(d) ensuring that it is dealt with expeditiously and fairly;

(e) allotting to it an appropriate share of the court’s resources, while taking into account the need to allot resources to other cases; and

(f) enforcing compliance with rules, practice directions and orders.

 

QC David Knifton

This brings us on to the judge, ‘crafty’ QC David Knifton who, as the ‘QC’ indicates, is actually a full-time Barrister.  He is only a part-time judge.

Both QC David Knifton and Lee Bonner are barristers, and both in their normal Barrister roles would address each other as ‘my learned friend‘.

It is important to understand that QC Knifton in his full-time role works for Exchange Chambers who are referred to as the ‘go-to chambers for police defence‘ as stated on the legal500.com website.

It is even more important to note the QC Knifton has declared in his own public profile how he personally represents the police in a private capacity?  Making the police, his clients.

QC David Knifton was fuming (spat his dummy) when it was stated by Mr Ponting that he believes Freemasons were ‘not trustworthy‘.

Could QC Knifton be a Freemason?  Why would Knifton be so upset with Mr Ponting’s freedom of expression?

Could Knifton and the police (his clients) be linked by Freemasonry?  Only an independent and transparent investigation would reveal the truth… which is unlikely to take place.

Mr Bonner, representing Lancashire police would know without question that Exchange Chambers was regarded as the go-to for police defence and would either know, or have researched the recorder, QC David Knifton.  He will therefore be well aware that QC David Knifton has represented the police in a private capacity and that would give the applicant, a significant bias in the application.