After reading this article, please vote in the poll below
David Knifton is a current and full-time, private and fee-earning barrister at Exchange Chambers.
Knifton is an experienced barrister and works on cases of significant value, and generally only accepts cases with a value in excess of £1 million.
David Knifton is also a ‘part-time judge (a recorder), however, it is stressed that David Knifton is still a full-time, private fee-earning barrister who makes significant sums of money by representing his clients.
David Knifton, by his own admission on his ‘Exchange Chambers public profile’, confirmed he has acted on a private fee-earning basis, his clients being the police, no doubt Knifton received a vast sum of money for his services.
It is known how David Knifton adopts an extremely personal relationship with his clients as noted in one of his cases;
“Knifton pointed out that the case had emphasised the importance of spending time getting to know and understanding the needs of a client and their family in order to ensure that the proposals for compensation were properly supported by evidence”
It can only be assumed that Knifton adopts the same level of personal contact with all clients, this would include, the police!
In 2019, Lancashire police brought a claim against me, this was heard in the Liverpool County Court in March 2020. QC David Knifton happened to be the judge who presided over this case, sitting alone.
Not surprising, after the 3-day hearing, in which QC David Knifon was extremely ‘selective’ with evidence that the defence could present (evidence that would be devastating to the police). Knifton also made remarks apparently affirming his allegiance to the Freemasons before he gave a damning judgement against me, ordering me to pay £30,000 to cover the legal costs for Lancashire police. At no time during the unlawful pursuit of a claim was a cost schedule even mentioned.
The point of this article is that QC ‘devious’ David Knifton failed to declare a conflict of interest. A conflict of interest that potentially puts QC David Knifton firmly in bed with the police, and a conflict that raises serious concerns over the case in question.
To put this into context;
The police (‘the claimants’) brought a claim against me, the claim was confirmed to have been brought unlawfully (without notice).
QC David Knifton, (the judge) has ‘benefited financially’ from the claimants while acting on a private basis for them in a position that he still holds.
QC David Knifton failed to declare this glaring conflict of interest between himself (the judge) and the claimants in the case.
A complaint was raised to the JCIO (Judicial Conduct Investigations Office). The complaint fundamentally suggested that QC David Knifton had failed to declare a conflict of interest.
It was said in the complaint
…he clearly publishes his personal public profile that he is still a fee earning barrister and undertakes work, FOR THE POLICE. How can this possibly be seen as a fair and impartial judge in such a case?
going on the say,
…It is inconceivable how this ‘part-time judge’ who takes payment from the Police on a private fee-paying basis can be seen as fair & unbiased, acting as a judge when one party is the Police, David Knifton’s paying clients!
The JCIO said that the complaint was dismissed, quoting 21(b) of the Judicial Conduct
on the following grounds;
the complaint referred to a ‘judicial decision or judicial case management”
and that the “complaint raises no question of misconduct“
However, further on in the complaint outcome, the JCIO said;
“Please note that part-time or fee paid judges can continue to practice law, providing there are no conflicts of interest.” (my emphasis)
I see this as a clear conflict of interest when the judge has acted for the claimants in a hearing on a private fee-earning basis.
The JCIO incorrectly interpreted the complaint and failed to identify the conflict of interest raised within the complaint.
I responded to the JCIO notifying them of their error, they just ignored my comment so I took this to the Legal Ombudsman.
The Legal Ombudsman has responded, however, their response was flawed, so much so they have agreed to review it. I will refrain from publishing anything from the Legal Ombudsman until this review has taken place.
Ironically, this lying officer gave evidence in the hearing conducted by QC David Knifton. Knifton was well aware of the lie this officer was accused of and still allowed live evidence.
Please use the poll