Sarah Phillips – Solicitor

September 3, 2018

NOTE: The contents of this page are true and published because they are in the public interest.  My opinions are clearly stated as such and should not be taken as fact.  My opinions are formed on the basis of my observations and some are my deductions based on what I saw, read and heard.  A draft copy of this page was sent to the subject for comment.

This website would not be complete without comment on the part played in this miscarriage of justice by solicitor Sarah Phillips of the Cheshire constabulary.  The evidence certainly to my mind indicates that she violated solicitors’ ethical standards.

The standard of behaviour required of solicitors is laid out in the website of the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA).  The relevant parts are the PRINCIPLES and the CODE OF CONDUCT.

The Principles are mandatory for all, meaning that every solicitor must comply.  There are 10 principles in all.  The evidence leads me to believe that Sarah Phillips violated the first two, which are in some ways the most important.  They are:

  1. uphold the rule of law and the proper administration of justice;
  2. act with integrity;

Pretty obvious you would think.  Exactly what you would expect of any professional, especially a legal one.

The Code of Conduct consists of 15 Chapters.  By my reckoning her violations are covered by Chapter 5 entitled “Your client and the court” because this is the chapter that covers responsibilities to the client, the court and the public.  Of particular interest in Chapter 5 are:

Outcomes that must be achieved{

  • O(5.1) you do not attempt to deceive or knowingly or recklessly mislead the court;
  • O(5.2) you are not complicit in another person deceiving or misleading the court;

And Indicative Behaviours that may tend to show that you have achieved these outcomes and therefore complied with the Principles:

  • IB(5.4) immediately informing the court, with your client’s consent, if during the course of proceedings you become aware that you have inadvertently misled the court, or ceasing to act if the client does not consent to you informing the court;
  • IB(5.5) refusing to continue acting for a client if you become aware they have committed perjury or misled the court, or attempted to mislead the court, in any material matter unless the client agrees to disclose the truth to the court;

Then there are Indicative Behaviours that may tend to show that you have not achieved these outcomes and therefore not complied with the Principles:

  • IB(5.7) constructing facts supporting your client’s case or drafting any documents relating to any proceedings containing: (a) any contention which you do not consider to be properly arguable;
  • IB(5.9) calling a witness whose evidence you know is untrue;
  • IB(5.11) tampering with evidence or seeking to persuade a witness to change their evidence;



The Ministry of Justice issues Practice Directions for the efficient and fair management of the justice system.  One of these Practice Directions is to lay down how the parties to a dispute must behave before court action commences.  The objectives are:

(a) understand each other’s position;
(b) make decisions about how to proceed;
(c) try to settle the issues without proceedings;
(d) consider a form of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) to assist with settlement;
(e) support the efficient management of those proceedings; and
(f) reduce the costs of resolving the dispute.

Unfortunately Sarah Phillips committed multiple violations of the Practice Direction, I believe to take advantage of my lack of experience as a litigant in person to increase the chances of winning.  Unfortunately the nasty judge Pearce did not take this into account, even though the practice direction states “16. The court will consider the effect of any non-compliance when deciding whether to impose any sanctions which may include – (a) an order that the party at fault pays the costs of the proceedings, or part of the costs of the other party or parties;”  Judge Richard William Pearce just wasn’t interested – he was so eager to stick the knife in that he refused to discuss it and awarded all the crooked police costs against me.

Anyway, as required by the Practice Direction, I laid out the facts to Sarah Phillips and provided conclusive evidence that the police statements of crooked PCs Eoin Anderson and Nicola Rimmer were false.  That evidence was that they both signed statements purporting to be true that I made use of a hard shoulder to turn when there was no hard shoulder for 3 to 4 times the distance they said I was along the slip road.  I also pointed out the impossibility of Rimmer’s statement that there were two vehicles ahead of them when she was alerted to my car on the slip road when my car was just two cars ahead of theirs when I started to turn.

Sarah Phillips was required to respond per the following quote from the Practice Direction:

“6.(b) the defendant responding within a reasonable time – 14 days in a straight forward case and no more than 3 months in a very complex one. The reply should include confirmation as to whether the claim is accepted and, if it is not accepted, the reasons why, together with an explanation as to which facts and parts of the claim are disputed and whether the defendant is making a counterclaim as well as providing details of any counterclaim; …”

For a start she refused to respond in the requested time, saying that she would respond after 90 days – and she didn’t even achieve that and only sent an inadequate response after I reminded her.



  • Evidence that she was given conclusive proof that the witness statements were untrue;
  • Evidence that she submitted to the court witness statements that she knew to be untrue:
  • Evidence that she signed and submitted to the court a statement of defence that she knew to be untrue;
  • Probability that she conspired with the witnesses to deceive the court by submitting, as part of a witness statement, a diagram that was not in accord with the written statement but that was in accord with the change to their testimony in court in order to increase the chance that the further false testimony would be believed;
  • She didn’t advise me ahead of the trial that the witnesses were going to change their testimony.


There is some question in my mind as to whether Sarah Phillips was the architect of this deception, or merely a willing participant – dancing to the tune of David Bryan, the head of legal services at the Cheshire constabulary.  I shall add some information and discussion of that information that indicates to me that maybe David Bryan was the organ grinder and Sarah Phillips the monkey dancing to his tune.  Let the SRA decide.