The integrity of our justice system depends not only on the judges who preside in courtrooms, but on every official who acts on its behalf. The public must be able to trust that these officials will act honestly.
A serious case from Preston Magistrates’ Court, however, appears to show a failure to uphold this basic standard, followed by a systemic refusal to address it.
The sequence of events, as detailed in official correspondence, is clear and deeply concerning:
-
Blocked Access: On the day in question, a member of the public arrived at the court for an application hearing on 25th March 2024. At approximately 10:20am, he was denied access from entering Courtroom 1 by a female court usher named Ms Cherie Rossall. The complainant states that other members of the public were permitted to enter, including a Lancashire police officer who was the defendant in a prosecution. It was noted that the court was in session and had been from 10am as was usual.
-
The Audio Recorded Admission: The complainant left the building and about 20 minutes later, Cherie Rossall called him on his mobile phone. This telephone call was recorded. In the recording, the complainant stated he had left because Rossall had denied him lawful entry to a public court room in the matter he had brought, which was a private prosecution against the police officer. Ms Rossall said , I stopped you because the courtroom was closed and not in session. This was a lie. The court room was in session. (This audio recording is available to main stream media on request and will be made public in due course).
-
The Lie to the Judge: A formal complaint was made and the matter was brought to the attention of District Judge Thompson. DJ Thompson asked the Ms Rossall if she had told the complainant he could not enter the court room, she said she didn’t. Lie no 2. Based on her word alone, DJ Thompson formed a view that cast the complainant as dishonest in his judgment and that Ms Rossall was telling the truth.
-
The Irrefutable Proof: The complainant then provided the audio recording to the court. This evidence proved conclusively that Ms Rossall had lied to the complainant and to DJ Thompson
The Lie by Cherie Rossall
DJ Thompson was notified of the matter, which he addressed in a judgment of 27th March 2024.
There is no doubt that DJ Thompson is aware of the matter being complained off and has heard the audio which was sent to the court for his attention.
This should have been a pivotal moment. A court official was shown to have given an intentional false statement to a judge, an action that may have had influenced judicial proceedings. One would expect a swift and transparent investigation into this serious misconduct that could amount to a criminal offence.
Instead, the internal complaints machinery of HM Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) failed entirely. The official responses have been characterised by a pattern of avoidance and what appears to be a cover-up:
-
Ignoring Core Evidence: The complaints process has systematically refused to properly engage with the audio evidence. The official responses declares the matter is “concluded” without explaining how the proven lie was addressed.
-
Providing Misleading Information: In one response, HMCTS claimed a “court recording” had been listened to, a statement in itself false, as magistrates’ courts do not make recordings. This creates the false impression of a thorough investigation, but opening the door to allegations of further intentional deception.
-
A Culture of Inertia: The complainant was passed between departments, with promised responses from managers that never materialised. The system appears designed to exhaust the individual, not to investigate the misconduct of a member of staff at Preston Magistrates Court.
The initial wilful lie by Ms Rossall to a court user is a serious matter for an officer of the court. But her further lie to a District Judge in a court that is designated to find the truth makes it farcical. It suggests a misuse of powers protecting the court’s internal reputation over upholding its fundamental duty to integrity.
Richard Redgrave of HM Courts & Tribunals Service (HMCTS) User Investigations Team tried tried to fob the complaint off with an offer of £50 on 30 October 2025. Oddly, sending a complaint outcome ‘without prejudice’ seems like an attempt to keep this matter under wraps. This is not an attempt to settle a negotiation, this is a blanket refusal to brush a serious complaint under the carpet, even making DJ Thompson complicit stating DJ Thompson is aware of the complaint.
If this is the case, why isn’t DJ Thompson doing something about the lies in his Court? Could it be that DJ Thompson is happy to ‘turn a blind eye‘ to court staff lying?
By closing the complaint without any investigation of the facts and evidence, Richard Redgrave is sending a message that court officials are not held to the same standard of honesty expected of any member of the public who stands before them, swearing on oath to tell the truth.
When the mechanism for accountability is used to block accountability public confidence in the entire system is shattered.
This case now threatens to escalate to a Judicial Review, where a higher court will be asked to rule on the lawfulness of HMCTS’s own conduct. The question is no longer just about what a court usher said, but about whether the court service itself is willing to be held accountable.
Preston Magistrates Court are already facing civil action that will be published in due course.
This article exposes a grave breach of public trust. When a court official lies not once, but twice—first to a court user, then to a sitting judge—and the system responds by burying the evidence and shielding misconduct, it’s not just a failure of procedure. It’s a betrayal of justice.
The refusal by HMCTS to investigate, acknowledge, or act on irrefutable proof of dishonesty sends a chilling message: that truth is negotiable, and accountability optional. If court staff can lie with impunity and judges turn a blind eye, then the very foundation of our legal system is at risk.
This case demands more than quiet resolution—it demands public reckoning. Integrity must be enforced from the usher’s desk to the judge’s bench, or the courtroom becomes a theatre of injustice.