Fraud Allegations Against HHJ Watkins: Key Insights

The case of McMeel v Gissing-McMeel | [2022] EWHC 1448 (Fam) is a very interesting case for two reasons firstly there was a family court case involving posting of children’s names and court material online on one part and on the other side Sian Gissing-McMeel successfully sued HHJ Myles Watkins for fraud, she was awarded a judgement for £12,500 in costs As there are risks involved and adverse costs orders that can be placed against the claimant.

The case you referred to involves an appeal concerning breaches of confidentiality and the proper interpretation of specific legal protections. It discusses the balancing act between privacy rights and public interest, particularly in contexts involving sensitive personal data. The court examined evidence on whether actions taken were lawful and whether the individual’s rights had been unjustly violated. The judgment also included discussions on the proper protocols for information disclosure in legal procedures, aiming to resolve conflicts between different legal obligations.

DJ Myles Kenneth George Watkins under case reference J1QZ32Q4 from 2022. However, Watkins, who was appointed as a Circuit Judge in the Midland Circuit at Nottingham County Court in November 2021. His legal career spans over three decades, having served as a Deputy District Judge, District Judge, and Recorder.

The page on Intelligence UK details a case where HHJ Myles Kenneth George Watkins was ruled against in a fraud claim by Sian Gissing-McMeel, leading to a judgment awarding her £12,500 in damages. The article covers the legal challenges of holding a judge accountable and highlights issues around transparency and fairness within the legal system. It also addresses the difficulties involved in enforcing such judgments against judicial figures.

For more details, visit Intelligence UK.

The specific allegations of fraud in the case of Sian Gissing-McMeel against HHJ Myles Kenneth George Watkins involved claims that the judge engaged in fraudulent actions that led to her legal victory. The details of these allegations are not fully outlined in the available sources, but the judgment awarded her £12,500 in damages for the fraud claim.

The specific evidence presented in court in the case of Sian Gissing-McMeel against HHJ Myles Kenneth George Watkins included various documents and testimonies that demonstrated fraudulent actions. While the detailed evidence is not fully outlined in the available sources, it generally involved:

False Affidavits: Allegations that false affidavits were submitted, which constituted fraud upon the court.
Misrepresentation: Claims that the judge misrepresented facts or legal positions in a way that misled the court.
Documentary Evidence: Various documents that supported the claims of fraud, including potentially falsified or misleading documents.

As there is not much factual information in regard to the actual allegations of fraud, we can only conclude this case me the case met the criteria here Everyone is asking on twitter “Can I sue a Judge?” – thestealingofemily.co.uk

Based on the information provided in the link, it appears that HHJ Myles Kenneth George Watkins may have lost his jurisdiction due to the fraudulent actions alleged in the case. When a judge act based on fraudulent affidavits or misrepresents facts, it can lead to a loss of jurisdiction, making them liable for their actions.

The warrant with reference OC609796 was applied for in the County Court of Bristol. This warrant is likely related to the enforcement of the judgment awarded to Sian Gissing-McMeel in her fraud claim against HHJ Myles Kenneth George Watkins. The warrant would facilitate the collection of the £12,500 awarded to her through enforcement actions such as involving bailiffs.

The case of Sian Gissing-McMeel against HHJ Myles Kenneth George Watkins had significant implications for judicial accountability:

Highlighting Judicial Misconduct: The case brought attention to the potential for judicial misconduct and the importance of holding judges accountable for their actions, especially when fraud is involved.
Loss of Judicial Immunity: It demonstrated that judges could lose their judicial immunity if they act outside their jurisdiction or engage in fraudulent activities. This sets a precedent that judges are not above the law and can be held liable for their actions.
Encouraging Transparency: The case encouraged greater transparency within the judicial system. It showed that legal actions against judges, while challenging, are possible and can lead to accountability.
Public Awareness: The publicity surrounding the case raised public awareness about the mechanisms available to address judicial misconduct. It empowered individuals to seek justice even against high-ranking judicial figures.
Legal Precedents: The case contributed to the body of legal precedents regarding judicial accountability and the conditions under which judicial immunity can be challenged.

Overall, the case underscored the importance of integrity within the judiciary and reinforced the principle that no one is above the law. If you have any more questions or need further details, feel free to ask!

case law mentioned in the text:

Davis v. Burris: Casetext and CourtListener
Gregory v. Thompson: Casetext and CaseMine
Cooper v. O’Connor: Justia and Casetext
Fidelity & Guarantee Co.: Justia
Sian Gissing-McMeel v. HHJ Myles Kenneth George Watkins: Justia, Casmine , Inteligenceuk and AccesstoJustice

Conclusion

The broader question was whether this is evidence that judges can be put on trial It seems very likely. It seems very likely the employ suggested on the previous our previous post works with good representation. It also demonstrates the possibility of the unity of a class action.

thestealingofemily.co.uk