Lancashire District Judge Thompson faces Judicial Review

DJ Richard Thompson

Lancashire District Judge Richard Thompson has been put on notice that a member of the public is seeking a Judicial Review of a decision he made.

DJ Thompson made ‘a decision‘ in relation to an allegation of Perjury made against serving Lancashire police Inspector Iain Carr.

Inspector Carr made an application to the Magistrates’ Courts to seek a bail extension against an alleged suspect. The application was made in compliance with the Criminal Procedure Rules, rr.14.19 & 14.20; sections 47ZF – 47ZJ, Police & Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE)

It has been shown that Carr lied in the application and that the lies were knowingly and wilfully made.

Carr signed the declaration of truth as was mandatory for the application.

Lancashire police were notified of the alleged crime commited by Carr that is contrary to s5 of the Perjury Act 1911. This section of the perjury act specifically relates to False statutory declarations and other false statements without oath.

In a decision made by DJ Thompson when rejecting the application for a private prosecution against Carr, DJ Thompson stated

I’ve considered the application. It is refused.
The application to institute proceedings for perjury under section 5 of the Perjury Act 1911 is refused. The evidence provided, even if accepted, does not engage any of the provisions in subsections a to c of the section.

DJ Thompson made no determination of the supplied evidence relating to the falsified statement by Carr, and relied entirely on the assertion that no provision under s5 (subsection a to c) is engaged.

S5 of the Perjury Act 1911 is as follows (

5. False statutory declarations and other false statements without oath.

If any person knowingly and wilfully makes (otherwise than on oath) a statement false in a material particular, and the statement is made—
(a)in a statutory declaration; or

(b)in an abstract, account, balance sheet, book, certificate, declaration, entry, estimate, inventory, notice, report, return, or other document which he is authorised or required to make, attest, or verify, by any public general Act of Parliament for the time being in force; or

(c)in any oral declaration or oral answer which he is required to make by, under, or in pursuance of any public general Act of Parliament for the time being in force,

he shall be guilty of a misdemeanour and shall be liable on conviction thereof on indictment to imprisonment, . . . F1, for any term not exceeding two years, or to a fine or to both such imprisonment and fine.

Provision (b) of the Act, when broken down into its core elements, says

In a declaration or other document which he is required to make by any public general Act of Parliament for the time being in force

DJ Thompson has been given an opportunity to rectify his decision ahead of a proposed appliction to appeal by way of case stated, and for permission to seek a Judicial Review.

Instead, DJ Thompson has dug in his heels, saying (of the signed declaration made by Inspector Carr)

These were simply representations, or submissions, made to the court in support of the application to extend bail.

This is clearly an attempt by a District Judge to play down an act of Perjury of a serving Police officer and one which is to be challenged by the High Court.


  1. Ex Police Commissionerwas part of this aswell blocking IOPC.
    Mark Menzies pushing for answers only to end up in the Media himself.
    Ex Police Commissioner going for his Job.
    Attempted Cover up.

  2. Well done keep up the fight !
    Do take time out it’s designed around the syndicated corruption within the system .
    We are many they a few !

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.