Comments on the legal aspects of the case from an anonymous Judge

This message was relayed by a Member of the House of Lords seemingly from an anonymous judge who had seen correspondence with Lord Justice Simon Brown, but was not privy to earlier correspondence with the key Group Litigation Judges, Master Miller and Judge Morland, to whom he refers.
It would be surprising if the anonymous writer would take kindly to receiving such advice were he in a similar position having his health, employment prospects, pensions, benefits, and reputation taken from him as the result of the negligence, dishonesty, and unlawful actions of the type seen in Mr Bruce's case.


Mr Bruce plainly believes he has had a very raw deal from the courts and the legal profession, as well as from a number of other official bodies. The matter appears to be extremely complex. Without reading all the papers it is impossible for anyone to offer comprehensive and sensible advice as to what Mr Bruce should now do.
As a serving judge I cannot properly offer any advice to Mr Bruce, whom I do not know and have never met. All I can do is to offer the following thoughts to the person I do know who has asked for my comments on some recent correspondence involving Mr Bruce.

Disclosure -there are rules about disclosure as between parties to civil litigation (e.g. in broad terms there must be openness about documents relevant to the case but there is normally no obligation to reveal solicitor/client correspondence). There are separate rules about disclosure as between solicitors and their own clients (e.g., solicitors are not normally bound to send their clients copies of every single document they receive in a case), and between parties to civil litigation and the courts (e.g. where the parties are attempting to settle a case by the use of without prejudice negotiations that means, there is no obligation to send copies to the court). I have the impression that Mr Bruce does not appreciate the differences.

There is no point in my view in continuing to seek to persuade Simon Brown LJ to take action. It is open to a judge having dealt with a case to express a view about follow-up action or to direct that papers be sent, e.g. to the DPP for investigation, but it must be a matter for his discretion and I would have thought there was no point in continuing to go down this avenue. He regards himself as functus officio and that, I think, is that.

Mr Bruce is plainly not prepared to let the matter rest, but I do not think he does himself any good by ranging so far and wide in his complaints, or by citing so many principles or authorities. The effect, I suspect, is the opposite of what he seeks, namely that someone should take him seriously and take action to investigate his complaints.
Whether it is too late for him to have a realistic chance of persuading anyone in authority to take him seriously I do not know, but I suspect it is. I will explain why.

Inviting a Lord Justice of Appeal to arrange for affidavits to be taken from a fellow-member of the Court of Appeal and a High Court Master , for example, is so unrealistic and unreasonable as to cause the recipient to regard the person making the invitation as a vexatious litigant.

The only hope for Mr Bruce is to persuade someone who has real clout and the time, energy and expertise to take his case over and put forward compelling arguments on his behalf that will persuade people in authority (e.g. the police) that an official investigation must be carried out. But I fear that to much damage may have been done already by Mr Bruce to his own cause.

Comment - The message here seems to be that if the State damages the life of an individual by dishonest means he should keep silent and accept the dishonesty or face accusations of vexatious behaviour.