Solicitor, Kevin Winters: A Valuable State Asset
Kevin Winters, of KRW Law, Belfast, is an active state asset with absolute immunity from criminal liability and accountability. Normally, it is a criminal offence to knowingly and intentionally mislead a court in order to obtain judgments by deceit. Kevin Winters has not only sabotaged his own client’s case but he has also obtained multiple judgments by deceit.
I do not know the full extent of Kevin Winters role as a state asset but I do know that he has had clandestine meetings that I was not supposed to have known about (according to him “sometimes on a daily basis”), he has discussed matters that ought to have been protected under lawyer/client privilege. His overall conduct has been to act in the interests of the state, which has included the destruction/concealment of crucial evidence. He has been permitted to unlawfully withhold his own client’s legal files because they contain incriminating evidence. The fact that he appears to have absolute immunity from accountability confirms that the State values his services as a state asset.
In 2015, I provided irrefutable documentary evidence to Mr Justice Weatherup which confirmed that both Kevin Winters and the DoJ had used deceit to intentionally mislead him. On 29th July, I received the following response from the Court Services informing me that the Lord Chief Justice had appointed Mr Justice Deeny to conduct a judicial enquiry, as follows:
“You wrote to The Honourable Mr Justice Weatherup by letter of 22 June 2015 with a number of enclosures. His Lordship referred the matter to the Lord Chief Justice who requested The Honourable Mr Justice Deeny to look at the papers. I am directed by him to write to you.”
Deeny J advised me that I could obtain a remedy for the damage caused to me if I lodged a formal civil action against Kevin Winters. In addition, that would be the only way to force Kevin Winters to return my legal files.
I subsequently lodged a legal action against Kevin Winters by December 2015 and on 17th May 2017, the Court reserved judgment until 12th June 2017. Ultimately, the judgment had obvious defects that I assumed were easily fixed. I learned that Court had actually prematurely determined the outcome of the case and uploaded its conclusions onto the court’s central database on 10th April 2017. That was a full 37 days before the Court had actually heard all the arguments and the actual proceedings had concluded. The public aspect of the proceedings were purely cosmetic because the court had already determined the outcome.
Successive NI Courts have improperly endorsed, by omission, Kevin Winters act of obtaining judgments by deceit. The Court of Appeal upheld the use of deceit and perversely concluded that the deceit “was done to the court and no misrepresentation was made to the plaintiff with the intention that he act upon it.” In oral hearing before the Court I challenged the impropriety of allowing a party to deceive and mislead the court: “What the Court is saying is that it is prepared to allow deceit so long as it is me who takes the hit? It’s me who suffers the consequences of the deceit?” One Lord Justice replied, “Yes.” In other words, so long as a plaintiff is not misled by any deceit it is ok to misled the Court even though the plaintiff will ultimately be the party who suffers the consequences of any lies.
The Law Society:
Significantly, I had a marquee witness of impeccable credentials who repeatedly confirmed that Kevin Winters had lied and misrepresented himself before the Courts. Every Court, up to and including the UKSC, has endeavoured to suppress the value of the evidence that the Law Society brought in exposing Kevin Winters dishonesty.
Mr John Mackin, Chair of the Law Society’s Professional Conduct Committee has repeatedly confirmed that Kevin Winters has lied to the Courts and thus obtained multiple judgments by deceit. In fact, it was Mr Mackin, and not me, who referred Kevin Winters’ professional misconduct to the Law Society’s internal Regulation Department which “shall in due course be considered by the Society’s Professional Ethics and Home Charter Committee.” Ultimately however, the Ethics Committee was undermined and constrained by the Courts which was consistently endorsing or tolerating the misconduct. If the Courts did not object to Kevin Winters dishonesty in obtaining court judgments by deceit then the Law Society seem to have been discouraged to do so. On that basis, on 12th February 2021, the Law Society was compelled to concede that:
“The Committee noted in particular that the Court had not made any adverse comment in relation to the solicitor’s conduct nor had the Presiding Judge made a report to the Society under Article 44 (3) of the Solicitors’ (Northern Ireland) Order 1976 as amended.”
Despite the NI Courts resistance to take action against Kevin Winters, the Society continued to maintain that I could still pursue a civil remedy for the unlawful withholding of my legal files. Given that access to justice through the NI Courts had been exhausted by 12th February 2021, the Society can only have had application to the UKSC in mind when it advised me that, “you may wish to seek independent legal advice in relation to the civil remedies which may be available to you with regards to any client papers held by your former solicitor.” Regardless of how the NI Judiciary have strapped the Law Society with a known and confirmed disreputable solicitor within its membership, it appears to be defiantly letting me know that I am still entitled to access my own legal files regardless of the NI Judiciary’s protection of Kevin Winters.
Discriminatory Double Standards:
It is a matter of fact that Kevin Winters’ knowingly and intentionally obtained multiple judgments by deceit in his service to the state. On 16th November 2021, Lord Briggs, Lord Hamblen, and Lord Stephens of the UKSC perversely ruled that Kevin Winters obtaining multiple judgments by deceit “does not raise a point of principle or practice of general public importance or arguable point of law.” Whereas, Lord Thomas leaves no ambiguity about how Kevin Winters would be treated had he obtained judgments by deceit in England and Wales, as follows:
111. The reason why that is so important is that misleading the court is regarded by the court and must be regarded by any disciplinary tribunal as one of the most serious offences that an advocate or litigator can commit. It is not simply a breach of a rule of a game, but a fundamental affront to a rule designed to safeguard the fairness and justice of proceedings. Such conduct will normally attract an exemplary and deterrent sentence. That is in part because our system for the administration of justice relies so heavily upon the integrity of the profession and the full discharge of the profession’s duties and in part because the privilege of conducting litigation or appearing in court is granted on terms that the rules are observed not merely in their letter but in their spirit. Indeed, the reputation of the system of the administration of justice in England and Wales and the standing of the profession depends particularly upon the discharge of the duties owed to the court.
112. Where an advocate or other representative or a litigator puts before the court matters which he knows not to be true or by omission leads the court to believe something he knows not to be true, then as an advocate knows of these duties, the inference will be inevitable that he has deceived the court, acted dishonestly and is not fit to be a member of any part of the legal profession.
Brett v SRA [2014] EWHC 2974 (Admin)
Senior members of the NI Judiciary have taken a very unethical view about deceit before the NI Courts, they feel that it is OK so long as it is “done to the court and no misrepresentation was made to the plaintiff with the intention that he act upon it.” Why does a lawyer obtaining multiple judgments by deceit in the North of Ireland “not raise a point of principle or practice of general public importance or arguable point of law.”? Whereas, if a lawyer in England and Wales obtained a single judgment by deceit that would “raise a point of principle or practice of general public importance or arguable point of law”?
Public Risk:
The administration of justice in NI does not afford the same accountability as the UKSC upholds for the public of England and Wales. In his 2 page ‘Notice of Objection’ to the UKSC, Kevin Winters did not deny or challenge that he has obtained multiple court judgments by deceit. Instead, he brazenly asked the UKSC to leave those judgments, undisturbed. Inexplicably, the UKSC did so without regard to the risk Mr Winters posed to other vulnerable members of the public and the administration of justice in Northern Ireland.
The UKSCs lack of concern or exercise of supervisory jurisdiction over Kevin Winters, as an officer of the Court, runs contrary to the concern expressed in an English case, Solicitors Regulation Authority v Dennison, wherein, Lord Justice Maurice Kay, Lord Justice Hooper and Lord Justice Moore-Bick unanimously concluded that the judiciary must not be seen to unduly tolerate or excuse the professional misconduct of lawyers:
The fact that the Tribunal was satisfied that no member of the public would be put at risk if he continued to practise likewise does little to ensure confidence in the profession, since it would tend to reinforce the perception that the profession was willing to tolerate seriously dishonest practitioners. (Solicitors Regulation Authority v Anthony Dennison [2012] EWCA Civ 421, at §16)
The evidence against Kevin Winters in my case is irrefutable, and I believe that he may be actively working to undermine or sabotage other controversial legacy cases. I have never been a passive participant in legal proceedings that affect my life. My proactive involvement in my own case has allowed me to spot irregularities or shortcomings in the integrity of Kevin Winters professional representations. Kevin Winters’ treachery might not be immediately obvious to most clients, he need only frustrate seemingly run of the mill court hearings to cause irreparable harm to his clients; or ensure that solid cases against the MoD/RUC never achieve their full potential; or he prevents state accountability traveling up the chain of command so long as he only picks off the low ranking scapegoats.
Immunity From Accountability:
I do not know when Kevin Winters was first recruited as a state asset but I think he may have become one as far back as 2011 if not before then. In 2011 Kevin Winters was caught red-handed sending highly improper and malicious emails about the then Justice Minister, David Ford. The evidence against Kevin Winters was so overwhelming and serious that it was a certainty that he would be struck off as a practicing solicitor. I suspect that he was recruited at this time or else David Ford learned that he was already an untouchable asset. Whichever scenario is true, it is inexplicable how Kevin Winters escaped accountability for sending inappropriate and malicious emails about David Ford. He brought his profession into disrepute then and he has done so again by obtaining multiple judgments by deceit. His dishonesty poses an ongoing serious risk to vulnerable members of the public and the fair and proper administration of justice.
Integrity of the UKSC:
On 7th March 2022, I was erroneously informed by a Deputy Support Registrar of the Supreme Court that there is no mechanism to re-list a case, specifically: “The Supreme Court’s Rules make no provision for decisions to be re-opened.” The Deputy is contradicting the general principle of the UK’s unwritten constitution which holds that nothing is unlawful unless it is specifically prohibited in law. However, unless it is specified in law disreputable Solicitors, like Kevin Winters, are no more exempt for perverting the course of justice as the average citizen would be.
I do not believe that the UKSC would wish to trash its own integrity and leave Kevin Winters free to continue to misrepresent members of the public, many of whom are elderly and vulnerable and are similarly involved in controversial legacy cases against the State. I would humbly and respectfully appeal to the UKSC to reconsider the Deputy’s incorrect decision. It is perverse to conclude that a disreputable Solicitor who has obtained multiple court judgments by deceit on the grounds that it “does not raise any point of principle or practice of general public importance or arguable point of law”. The UKSC, as was its predecessor the House of Lords, have a reputation of grasping difficult legal nettles, where legal technicality or scandal were no reason to avoid them.
The Deputy Support Registrar is demonstrably wrong because the Civil Procedure Rules provide, at Rule 52.30.1, that applications can be re-opened or re-listed where: “(a) it is necessary to do so in order to avoid real injustice; (b) the circumstances are exceptional and make it appropriate to reopen the appeal; and (c) there is no alternative effective remedy.” In addition, in a recent unrelated UKSC case in December 2021, Lady Arden correctly observed that: “The inherent jurisdiction of this court must be no less than that of the Court of Appeal.” Ultimately, all 5 Law Lords in that case observed that the UKSC retains the inherent jurisdiction to re-list an application:
“The inherent jurisdiction of the Supreme Court enables it, in certain circumstances, to revisit and if necessary vary or rescind decisions of the court. This court inherited the inherent jurisdiction of the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords.” AG v Crosland (2021) at paras 131 and 135.
The opinion of a Deputy Support Registrar at the UKSC has no authority over 5 Law Lords who have ruled that the UKSC retains inherent jurisdiction to reopen or relist exceptional cases. It is not in the interests of the administration of justice to leave vulnerable members of the public exposed to a dishonest and disreputable Solicitor like Kevin Winters. It is equally not in the interest of the administration of justice to allow Kevin Winters to practice law when it is known that he is a liar and has misrepresented himself to obtain multiple judgments by deceit.
Signed: John Christopher Walsh
Comments
Post a Comment