Copyright owner challenges Attorney General’s: Attacks on judges ‘dangerous’
Lord Hermer said that, some attacks on judges are dangerous, when he delivered his Attorney General Speech - "The Rule of Law: Powering Growth " at an event hosted by The Sheriffs of the City of London on 16 September 2025. But Victor Lilley, Independent Information Systems Consultant, thinks such verbal attacks are necessary and that failing to hold the Judiciary to account, has caused damage already, as evidenced by his extensive experience of tyranny.
He sees the Attorney General, empowering the Judiciary, to continue to fail to uphold the Rule of Law, in particular for Copyright, Natural Justice, Fraud and Treason, causing a loss of growth. It is also contrary to Kier Starmer’s, and the Government’s, commitment to uphold the Rule of Law, and pursue growth: ‘A contract will be respected’. But not Victor Lilley’s copyright licences. So an empty promise.
He comments, ‘Lord Hermer KC, wants ‘appropriate’ scrutiny of the Judiciary, banning; undermining them by portraying them a partisans, and personal attacks on individual judges by the Media and British politicians. But that is so watered down, as to not be scrutiny. Plus, judges are partisan. Their cause is; taking over, and ‘Upholding as lawful, that which is unlawful’, see below, which Lord Bingham called ‘the ultimate treason’, and recruiting, the likes of the Attorney General, to do it. Undermining the Constitution, is worse than undermining individual judges.’
Regarding the facts, Mr Lilley finds, Lord Hermer saying that Judges, are not partisan but the World’s finest and incorruptible, is untrue. He challenges Lord Hermer to give adequate reasons for his representations, or retract them, otherwise it is inferred, he knows they are untrue, or might be. This is because, the Consultant has been unable to get a fair hearing from the Judiciary, to enforce £3,300m in damages, for 15m copyright infringements on the World Wide Web, for 16 claims, since 2012. This is regarding his printed articles, published in UK business and trade magazines.
He says, ‘Judges are not incorruptible (upholding the Rule of law). See Chartered Institute of Management Accountants, the seminal case, by searching ‘Victor Lilley’ on BAILII. P25-26: Where is it established in EMI Records EWHC that you have to claim damages for downloading? It doesn’t say that. It can’t, because it is an injunction, not a damages, claim. It is contrary to General Tire and Rubber Company v. Firestone Tyre and Rubber Company Ltd [1976] UKHL RPC 197, Group 2, based on actual publication (the result of uploads) licences, which says nothing about downloads, trumps EMI Records EWHC, and is the leading case for copyright damages. This was claimed but not heard. It is also contrary to claimed Copyright Design and Patents Act 1988 (CDPA) s20 which states, ‘may access’ not must access (download). Further, it is untrue for the High Court when damages are disproportionately low. I didn’t claim for downloads because the damages were disproportionately low: £91 v £452m. Yet Roth J ordered me to claim for downloads. But I didn’t because it would have been struck out for being disproportionately low. So I disobeyed an unlawful order. But the Order was upheld by Vos LJ, now Master of the Rolls. Then Birss J struck my claim out, for not claiming downloading, without hearing my publication claim. A clever device to shut down claims. This is outrageously contrary to the Rule of Law. For UK only, see P24. S16(1) of the CDPA does not constitute infringement, only 16(2) does. Infringement is World Wide by vicarious liability, as claimed. For no postponement by mistake, see s31. The action is for relief for the consequences of a mistake, cannot mean, mistake must be an essential ingredient of the cause of action, Irrational. Rewriting the Act. Ultra. Vires. Etc.’ The other 15 claims, mainly climbed on the, disputed in vain, CIMA bandwagon.
He continues, ‘I find the Judiciary fail to uphold the Rule of law, supported by; Advocate (formerly the Bar Pro Bono), the Executive, the Legislative (House of Commons) and Regulators. Regulators; the Bar Standards Board and SRA (Solicitors Regulation Authority). The Executive; JCIO (Judicial Complaints Information Office), JACO (Judicial Appointments and Complaints Ombudsman), HMCS (His/Her Majesty’s Court Service), IPO (Intellectual Property Office), the Cabinet Office, the PHSO (Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman) and the MOJ (Ministry of Justice). The Legislative; HOC (House of Commons) Administration; PACAC (Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee), Select Committee Team, Enquiry Service, Customer Service Team, Library, Information Compliance Service. HOC Legislation; John McDonnell (my) MP, PACAC Members, and the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards.
Lord Hermer has shown himself to be, yet another part of the Executive, who fails to hold the Judiciary to account. It is not promoting the Rule of Law, like he is supposed to, by promoting a corrupt Judiciary. Plus he fails to uphold the Rule of Law himself, by his ‘words of advice or persuasion’ and by failing to disclose his legal authority, when requested. Also, by advising the Legislative (Parliament), as well as, the Executive (according to Google AI), he is undermining Parliament’s role as a separate power, in holding the Executive to account. Parliament needs its own advisor. He needs replacing by a Constitutional Guardian, who will advise the Executive, like the Intellectual Property Office (IPO), the Minister for Intellectual Property, and the Cabinet Office (responsible for Executive Agency Guidelines). This is to hold the Judiciary to account; to support IP Enforcement, which the IPO say they do, but don’t.
Parliament needs to hold the Attorney General, and the rest of the Executive (e.g., the IPO) to account. The Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee (PACAC) is supposed to do this, via the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO), or otherwise, but doesn’t. The PHSO is corrupt. Its 22/23 report shows it rejecting 99.27% of complaints. PACAC disregards Submissions for its purported PHSO Annual Scrutiny, like mine at https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/125911/pdf/. Further, PACAC will not deal with individual cases because they have decided not to, for no Rule of Law. This is from Mike Winter JP (Judiciary), the Clerk to PACAC (Legislative). The Judiciary do not just want independence, they want, and have, tyranny. I have tried to get him removed by writing to the Ministry of Justice but this has been disregarded. HOC FOI (Freedom of Information) refuse to disclose who appointed him, & when.’
It is not an attack on the rule of law to disagree with the particular decision of a particular judge, nor even to consider whether that judge may have been influenced by considerations outside the strict interpretation of the law. A fortiori, we may respect the law, and still disagree with the politically appointed Attorney General. Certainly it is demonstrably true that the rule of law, and respect for property rights, are necessary but not sufficient conditions for a successful economy. However. the AG betrays his motivation when he pleads the rule of law in support a most contentious piece of proposed legislation.
The UK became a financial centre, argues Lord Hermer, because people trust our legal system. Agreed.
What does it say, then, that we are losing our place as a financial centre? People don’t trust our legal system as much as they once did. That is because the rule of law is not the same as the rule of judges. Power has been handed from law, generated by politicians, to discretionary decisions made by the courts under the guise of vague principles.
Do we really need judicial review of a decision to build another runway at Heathrow? It’s literally an asphalt strip, but somehow red tape makes it cost £14B and a few decades. I wouldn’t invest if I were worried that my investment would just be given the “No” stamp by a judge.
Return power back to Parliament and we will restore trust in our legal system. Then we will grow as a financial centre once again.
Copyright owner challenges Attorney General’s: Attacks on judges ‘dangerous’
Lord Hermer said that, some attacks on judges are dangerous, when he delivered his Attorney General Speech - "The Rule of Law: Powering Growth " at an event hosted by The Sheriffs of the City of London on 16 September 2025. But Victor Lilley, Independent Information Systems Consultant, thinks such verbal attacks are necessary and that failing to hold the Judiciary to account, has caused damage already, as evidenced by his extensive experience of tyranny.
He sees the Attorney General, empowering the Judiciary, to continue to fail to uphold the Rule of Law, in particular for Copyright, Natural Justice, Fraud and Treason, causing a loss of growth. It is also contrary to Kier Starmer’s, and the Government’s, commitment to uphold the Rule of Law, and pursue growth: ‘A contract will be respected’. But not Victor Lilley’s copyright licences. So an empty promise.
He comments, ‘Lord Hermer KC, wants ‘appropriate’ scrutiny of the Judiciary, banning; undermining them by portraying them a partisans, and personal attacks on individual judges by the Media and British politicians. But that is so watered down, as to not be scrutiny. Plus, judges are partisan. Their cause is; taking over, and ‘Upholding as lawful, that which is unlawful’, see below, which Lord Bingham called ‘the ultimate treason’, and recruiting, the likes of the Attorney General, to do it. Undermining the Constitution, is worse than undermining individual judges.’
Regarding the facts, Mr Lilley finds, Lord Hermer saying that Judges, are not partisan but the World’s finest and incorruptible, is untrue. He challenges Lord Hermer to give adequate reasons for his representations, or retract them, otherwise it is inferred, he knows they are untrue, or might be. This is because, the Consultant has been unable to get a fair hearing from the Judiciary, to enforce £3,300m in damages, for 15m copyright infringements on the World Wide Web, for 16 claims, since 2012. This is regarding his printed articles, published in UK business and trade magazines.
He says, ‘Judges are not incorruptible (upholding the Rule of law). See Chartered Institute of Management Accountants, the seminal case, by searching ‘Victor Lilley’ on BAILII. P25-26: Where is it established in EMI Records EWHC that you have to claim damages for downloading? It doesn’t say that. It can’t, because it is an injunction, not a damages, claim. It is contrary to General Tire and Rubber Company v. Firestone Tyre and Rubber Company Ltd [1976] UKHL RPC 197, Group 2, based on actual publication (the result of uploads) licences, which says nothing about downloads, trumps EMI Records EWHC, and is the leading case for copyright damages. This was claimed but not heard. It is also contrary to claimed Copyright Design and Patents Act 1988 (CDPA) s20 which states, ‘may access’ not must access (download). Further, it is untrue for the High Court when damages are disproportionately low. I didn’t claim for downloads because the damages were disproportionately low: £91 v £452m. Yet Roth J ordered me to claim for downloads. But I didn’t because it would have been struck out for being disproportionately low. So I disobeyed an unlawful order. But the Order was upheld by Vos LJ, now Master of the Rolls. Then Birss J struck my claim out, for not claiming downloading, without hearing my publication claim. A clever device to shut down claims. This is outrageously contrary to the Rule of Law. For UK only, see P24. S16(1) of the CDPA does not constitute infringement, only 16(2) does. Infringement is World Wide by vicarious liability, as claimed. For no postponement by mistake, see s31. The action is for relief for the consequences of a mistake, cannot mean, mistake must be an essential ingredient of the cause of action, Irrational. Rewriting the Act. Ultra. Vires. Etc.’ The other 15 claims, mainly climbed on the, disputed in vain, CIMA bandwagon.
He continues, ‘I find the Judiciary fail to uphold the Rule of law, supported by; Advocate (formerly the Bar Pro Bono), the Executive, the Legislative (House of Commons) and Regulators. Regulators; the Bar Standards Board and SRA (Solicitors Regulation Authority). The Executive; JCIO (Judicial Complaints Information Office), JACO (Judicial Appointments and Complaints Ombudsman), HMCS (His/Her Majesty’s Court Service), IPO (Intellectual Property Office), the Cabinet Office, the PHSO (Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman) and the MOJ (Ministry of Justice). The Legislative; HOC (House of Commons) Administration; PACAC (Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee), Select Committee Team, Enquiry Service, Customer Service Team, Library, Information Compliance Service. HOC Legislation; John McDonnell (my) MP, PACAC Members, and the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards.
Lord Hermer has shown himself to be, yet another part of the Executive, who fails to hold the Judiciary to account. It is not promoting the Rule of Law, like he is supposed to, by promoting a corrupt Judiciary. Plus he fails to uphold the Rule of Law himself, by his ‘words of advice or persuasion’ and by failing to disclose his legal authority, when requested. Also, by advising the Legislative (Parliament), as well as, the Executive (according to Google AI), he is undermining Parliament’s role as a separate power, in holding the Executive to account. Parliament needs its own advisor. He needs replacing by a Constitutional Guardian, who will advise the Executive, like the Intellectual Property Office (IPO), the Minister for Intellectual Property, and the Cabinet Office (responsible for Executive Agency Guidelines). This is to hold the Judiciary to account; to support IP Enforcement, which the IPO say they do, but don’t.
Parliament needs to hold the Attorney General, and the rest of the Executive (e.g., the IPO) to account. The Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee (PACAC) is supposed to do this, via the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO), or otherwise, but doesn’t. The PHSO is corrupt. Its 22/23 report shows it rejecting 99.27% of complaints. PACAC disregards Submissions for its purported PHSO Annual Scrutiny, like mine at https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/125911/pdf/. Further, PACAC will not deal with individual cases because they have decided not to, for no Rule of Law. This is from Mike Winter JP (Judiciary), the Clerk to PACAC (Legislative). The Judiciary do not just want independence, they want, and have, tyranny. I have tried to get him removed by writing to the Ministry of Justice but this has been disregarded. HOC FOI (Freedom of Information) refuse to disclose who appointed him, & when.’
For further information contact Victor Lilley: vlilley@lilleyinfosys.co.uk
It is not an attack on the rule of law to disagree with the particular decision of a particular judge, nor even to consider whether that judge may have been influenced by considerations outside the strict interpretation of the law. A fortiori, we may respect the law, and still disagree with the politically appointed Attorney General. Certainly it is demonstrably true that the rule of law, and respect for property rights, are necessary but not sufficient conditions for a successful economy. However. the AG betrays his motivation when he pleads the rule of law in support a most contentious piece of proposed legislation.
The UK became a financial centre, argues Lord Hermer, because people trust our legal system. Agreed.
What does it say, then, that we are losing our place as a financial centre? People don’t trust our legal system as much as they once did. That is because the rule of law is not the same as the rule of judges. Power has been handed from law, generated by politicians, to discretionary decisions made by the courts under the guise of vague principles.
Do we really need judicial review of a decision to build another runway at Heathrow? It’s literally an asphalt strip, but somehow red tape makes it cost £14B and a few decades. I wouldn’t invest if I were worried that my investment would just be given the “No” stamp by a judge.
Return power back to Parliament and we will restore trust in our legal system. Then we will grow as a financial centre once again.
Time for these principles to be embedded in a written constitution