District Judge Wendy Lloyd has made what was alleged to have been a malicious ‘wrong judgement‘ in Sefton Magistrates court.
It must be embarrassing for a judge to sit there, all high and mighty, all important and supposedly ‘knowledgeable of the criminal offence being heard, only to find that a layman prosecutor actually had a better understanding of the law in question!
When a private prosecution was brought before DJ Wendy Lloyd by a member of the public (a litigant in person), seeking an application for a court summons for a person who had committed an act of malicious communications, Judge Wendy Lloyd said the crime was ‘out of time‘.
DJ Judge Wendy Lloyd fell at the first hurdle for incorrectly interpreting the legislation!
When the ‘layman’ (litigant in person) prosecutor politely informed DJ Judge Wendy Lloyd that she was incorrect and that the crime was, in fact, an ‘either-way offence‘ with a 2 year time limit, she argued that it was out of time as it had surpassed 6 months but not 2 years.
Flushed at being gazumped by a civilian, DJ Wendy Lloyd continued to angrily argue that it was out of time, not knowing that she was in front of other legal professionals.
When pushed by the layman prosecutor as to the legislation and the date in which it became ‘indictable’, she reluctantly ‘retired’ to the Judges Chambers at the advice of the court clerk, 10 minutes later, the layman prosecutor was called back before the judge who then admitted he was correct, BUT, DJ Judge Wendy Lloyd then changed her mind said the crime “did not have a realistic prospect of conviction“…
Gazumped again, DJ Wendy Lloyd used the “realistic prospect of conviction” test which is part of the CPS full code test, (read about it here) it is not to be used by a Judge, and most certainly not in a private prosecution which has nothing to do with the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) who use this test, and has no such threshold test in a private prosecution case (unless the CPS get involved which they did not)
Judge Wendy Lloyd, twice in one hearing made what could likely be described as law school errors. She stood by her second decision even though it was totally wrong and the layman prosecutor was denied justice by DJ Wendy Lloyd who, in this case, did not have an understanding of the law for which she was making the decision!
UK Judges are not above the law. They only interpret it as written in legislation.