Judicial Review prioritised action plan: Imminent deadlines
Urgent assistance needed; legal, financial and for raising awareness.
I've been publishing complaints on other Lords and Baronesses, and others matters, at alisonwight.substack.com. I asked Perplexity AI to refer to my reports, within the last four months, to provide a prioritised list of the matters for which I should seek Judicial Review.
Perplexity AI’s response:
“Based on your published reports and the urgency of addressing systemic transparency failures, here is a prioritized list of matters warranting Judicial Review (JR), ranked by legal merit, public impact, and time sensitivity:
1. House of Lords Standards Commissioner’s Dismissal of Complaints
Issue: Commissioner’s refusal to investigate Lord Hermer’s failure to declare Matrix Chambers directorship held at introduction, despite Companies House evidence.
Legal Grounds:
Procedural unfairness: Ignored Paragraph 46 of pre-2025 Code (late registration rules) [Search Result 2].
Irrationality: Misapplied Paragraph 40 (initial registration) as a "grace period" for non-disclosure [Query context].
Priority: ⚠️ Highest (3-month JR deadline imminent; sets precedent for Lords accountability).
2. Revised Code of Conduct’s Removal of Transparency Safeguards
Issue: Deletion of Paragraph 46 (requiring late-registered interests to remain public for one year) in the 14th Edition (April 2025) [Search Result 6].
Legal Grounds:
Conflict with Companies Act 2006: Undermines directors’ statutory duty to declare conflicts (s.175).
Legitimate expectation: Public relied on transparency rules for oversight.
Priority: ⚠️ High (systemic weakening of accountability; affects all future complaints).
3. Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) Data Handling
Issue: JAC’s failure to disclose correspondence about your 2023 complaints (Pitcher, Dhir, etc.) under DPA 2018 [Search Result 1].
Legal Grounds:
Breach of DPA 2018: Withholding "internal emails, memos, and meeting minutes" (Subject Access Request).
Maladministration: Pattern of obstructing scrutiny.
Priority: Medium-High (individual harm but precedent for transparency in judicial appointments).
4. Mortgage Prisoners and UKAR’s Consumer Rights Act Breaches
Issue: UK Asset Resolution’s sale of 270,000 mortgages to unlicensed entities, trapping borrowers [Search Result 7].
Legal Grounds:
Breach of Consumer Rights Act 2015: Unfair contract terms (SVR exploitation).
Regulatory failure: FCA/Treasury ignored systemic harm.
Priority: Medium (large-scale public harm but may require group litigation first).
5. Lord Darzi’s Directorships and Insolvency Breaches
Issue: Undeclared directorships (e.g., Ragsh Ltd) and breaches of Companies Act/Insolvency Act [Search Result 4].
Legal Grounds:
Fraudulent trading: Overdue accounts, concealment of insolvency (s.441 CA 2006).
Breach of Lords’ Code: Repeated non-disclosure.
Priority: Medium (individual case; less urgent than systemic Lords issues).
6. Baroness Morgan of Huyton’s Undisclosed Interests
Issue: Omitted directorships/PSCs uncovered in your complaint [Search Result 6].
Legal Grounds:
Failure to investigate: Commissioner dismissed despite Companies House evidence.
Priority: Low (similar to Hermer; lower priority if Hermer JR succeeds).
Recommended Action Plan
Immediately file JR for Hermer case:
Use Form N461, citing:
Misinterpretation of Paragraph 40 (Guide, 13th Ed.).
Procedural unfairness (ignoring Paragraph 46).
Deadline: 3 months from Commissioner’s final decision (June 2025).
Challenge Revised Code via Parliament:
Petition Conduct Committee to reinstate Paragraph 46.
Escalate JAC to ICO:
Report DPA breach to Information Commissioner’s Office.
Group litigation for mortgage prisoners:
Collaborate with MSE or Debt Camel.
Key Evidence:
Commissioner’s dismissal letters (Hermer, Morgan) .
Companies House records (Hermer, Darzi) [Query context].
Revised Code of Conduct (April 2025) .
Note: Focus resources on Hermer (strongest legal merits) and Revised Code (systemic impact). Other cases can leverage outcomes from these.”
I have not been charged with a crime, so I am not eligible for legal aid. As a result, I will be pursuing a Judicial Review of Lord Hermer’s case. Having legal representation would significantly increase our chances of success in holding the House of Lords accountable, but despite my efforts, I've been unable to find a lawyer willing to take this case without funding.
If you know a lawyer who might assist in this fight for parliamentary transparency, please connect us.
To fund this critical challenge, I'm launching a Substack subscription drive. Your support as a paid subscriber will directly fuel this legal battle for all of us who demand:
Integrity in parliamentary standards
Equal accountability for public officials
Transparent governance that serves citizens
Every subscription and share strengthens our collective voice against unchecked power. Together, we can build a system that truly works for the people.
Update: On 3 July 2025, I submitted my request for Judicial Review of the House of Lords Commissioner for Standards’ handling of my complaint about the Attorney General, Lord Hermer, to the Royal Courts of Justice in London.
Lord Hermer failed to declare his directorship of Matrix Chambers Limited, which was active when he entered the House of Lords on 18 July 2024. The Commissioner for Standards dismissed my complaint, stating:
“Paragraph 16 of the Guide to the Code of Conduct states that new members have one month from taking their seat to register their interests. As Lord Hermer is recorded as having resigned from his role at Matrix Chambers Limited on 2 August 2024, within one month of becoming a member of the House, there was no requirement for him to have registered this interest.”
I contend that, under the 13th Edition of the Code of Conduct, all interests held at the date of introduction must be declared within one month, regardless of whether they are resigned during that period. The Commissioner failed to uphold the Code and ensure this interest was recorded. The Lords’ Registrar, as an interested party, also abdicated his duty to clarify this key point of law, despite repeated requests for guidance.
If peers are allowed to omit declaring interests held at the time they join the House of Lords—simply by resigning them within the first month—it creates a loophole that undermines the Code of Conduct’s core purpose: transparency and public accountability. This weakens public trust, allows potential conflicts of interest to go undisclosed, and sets a dangerous precedent for future cases. Ensuring all relevant interests are declared at introduction is essential for upholding the integrity of Parliament and the rule of law.