I tried Google but AI is now a serious obstacle to getting sensible
answers, at least it says "AI responses may include mistakes."

I thought that in the mid 1990's there was a widening of the categories of people allowed to address an English court and the role of Solicitor
Advocate was introduced.

Have I remembered incorrectly? Is it set out in legislation or code
somewhere?

--
Jeff Gaines Dorset UK
That's an amazing invention but who would ever want to use one of them? (President Hayes speaking to Alexander Graham Bell on the invention of the telephone)

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 24/05/2025 12:21, Jeff Gaines wrote:

I tried Google but AI is now a serious obstacle to getting sensible
answers, at least it says "AI responses may include mistakes."

I thought that in the mid 1990's there was a widening of the categories
of people allowed to address an English court and the role of Solicitor Advocate was introduced.

Have I remembered incorrectly? Is it set out in legislation or code somewhere?

A litigant in person can of course present his/her case in court and
address the court - there is never a requirement to use a lawyer.

Barristers and solicitors have the right of audience. Some solicitors
choose to be advocates.

The Law Society advises as follows: To become a solicitor advocate, you
must meet standards set by the SRA and pass a rights of audience course.

However, whilst that would apply to advocacy before a High Court judge
in a full trial, it is normal for any solicitors without the need for
any additional course, to represent their clients in interlocutory
matters, applications for disclosure etc before a District Judge or High
Court Master.

Apart from those categories you can have a friend (a McKenzie friend) to
assist you in court but they aren't allowed to address the court, just
to provide you with emotional support, help you find the documents that
you are looking for, maybe even draft a speech for you but that speech
is entirely your responsibility. Some unscrupulous people charge for
this form of friendship and give the impression that their
pseudo-legalistic phrases are likely to impress a judge.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

"Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote in message news:xn0p66gf9dovwtd00p@news.individual.net...

I tried Google but AI is now a serious obstacle to getting sensible answers, at least
it says "AI responses may include mistakes."

I thought that in the mid 1990's there was a widening of the categories of people
allowed to address an English court and the role of Solicitor Advocate was introduced.

Have I remembered incorrectly? Is it set out in legislation or code somewhere?

The terms you need to use are "Right of Audience" UK Courts

There are plenty of links from official sources

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/41/part/II/crossheading/rights-of-audience-and-rights-to-conduct-litigation/enacted

https://www.judiciary.uk/guidance-and-resources/guidance-on-the-grant-of-rights-of-audience-by-the-business-and-property-courts-in-leeds/

and summaries from firms of solicitors

https://helix-law.co.uk/vocabulary/right-of-audience/

https://helix-law.co.uk/

(So helix law do apparently exist)

IMHO AI isn't an obstacle at all. All sources need to be verified
in some way; even print sources sometimes need to be cross
referenced even regarding supposedly uncontested matters of fact

Anyone who accepts AI at face value is an idiot at best.

However.

If all the relevant evidence was fed into an AI system in the cases
of both Aurial Gray and Lucy Letby, then the AI system would doubtless
find them *Not Guilty*.

Humans could then examine that evidence for themselves and conclude
that indeed that both are indeed *Not Guilty*

So that people who dismiss AI out of hand are just as stupid as are
those who accept everything it says at face value.


bb

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 24/05/2025 in message <100scbs$mii1$1@dont-email.me> billy bookcase
wrote:

"Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote in message >news:xn0p66gf9dovwtd00p@news.individual.net...

I tried Google but AI is now a serious obstacle to getting sensible >>answers, at least
it says "AI responses may include mistakes."

I thought that in the mid 1990's there was a widening of the categories of >>people
allowed to address an English court and the role of Solicitor Advocate was >>introduced.

Have I remembered incorrectly? Is it set out in legislation or code >>somewhere?

The terms you need to use are "Right of Audience" UK Courts

There are plenty of links from official sources

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/41/part/II/crossheading/rights-of-audience-and-rights-to-conduct-litigation/enacted

https://www.judiciary.uk/guidance-and-resources/guidance-on-the-grant-of-rights-of-audience-by-the-business-and-property-courts-in-leeds/

and summaries from firms of solicitors

https://helix-law.co.uk/vocabulary/right-of-audience/

https://helix-law.co.uk/

(So helix law do apparently exist)

IMHO AI isn't an obstacle at all. All sources need to be verified
in some way; even print sources sometimes need to be cross
referenced even regarding supposedly uncontested matters of fact

[snipped]

Many thanks :-)

The question I put to Google was "who has the right to address an English court", I'm surprised it didn't pick this legislation up.

--
Jeff Gaines Dorset UK
This is as bad as it can get, but don't bet on it

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sat, 24 May 2025 12:53:38 +0100, The Todal wrote:

Apart from those categories you can have a friend (a McKenzie friend) to assist you in court but they aren't allowed to address the court,

Isn't there a whole class of "professional" McKenzie friends that has
arisen.

Sort of AirBnB for courts ?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 24/05/2025 13:46, Jethro_uk wrote:

On Sat, 24 May 2025 12:53:38 +0100, The Todal wrote:

Apart from those categories you can have a friend (a McKenzie friend) to
assist you in court but they aren't allowed to address the court,

Isn't there a whole class of "professional" McKenzie friends that has
arisen.

Sort of AirBnB for courts ?

see
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/1999/2004.html

https://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NICA/2025/14.html

Quote from that case:

This court, without hesitation and for the reasons provided, refuses the application. This is a gravely defective and thoroughly unmeritorious application. We conclude that Mr Edward Ward is not a fit and proper
person to act as the second appellant’s McKenzie Friend or in any
related capacity.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sat, 24 May 2025 15:19:19 +0000, Jon Ribbens wrote:

On 2025-05-24, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:

On 24/05/2025 13:46, Jethro_uk wrote:

On Sat, 24 May 2025 12:53:38 +0100, The Todal wrote:

Apart from those categories you can have a friend (a McKenzie friend)
to assist you in court but they aren't allowed to address the court,

Isn't there a whole class of "professional" McKenzie friends that has
arisen.

Sort of AirBnB for courts ?

see https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/1999/2004.html

https://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NICA/2025/14.html

Quote from that case:

This court, without hesitation and for the reasons provided, refuses
the application. This is a gravely defective and thoroughly
unmeritorious application. We conclude that Mr Edward Ward is not a
fit and proper person to act as the second appellant’s McKenzie Friend
or in any related capacity.

Things clearly moved on in the quarter-century between those cases.
In the first one, litigants basically have a right to have their choice
of McKenzie friend present, unless the judge specifically orders that
they don't. By the time of the second one the test is basically reversed
and McKenzie friends are not allowed unless specifically authorised.

My very vague recollection was that there was starting to be a trend of
people who wanted to be paid for being a "McKenzie friend". In a way I'm pleased that it's no longer the case if it ever were.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2025-05-24, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:

On 24/05/2025 13:46, Jethro_uk wrote:

On Sat, 24 May 2025 12:53:38 +0100, The Todal wrote:

Apart from those categories you can have a friend (a McKenzie friend) to >>> assist you in court but they aren't allowed to address the court,

Isn't there a whole class of "professional" McKenzie friends that has
arisen.

Sort of AirBnB for courts ?

see
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/1999/2004.html

https://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NICA/2025/14.html

Quote from that case:

This court, without hesitation and for the reasons provided, refuses the application. This is a gravely defective and thoroughly unmeritorious application. We conclude that Mr Edward Ward is not a fit and proper
person to act as the second appellant’s McKenzie Friend or in any
related capacity.

Things clearly moved on in the quarter-century between those cases.
In the first one, litigants basically have a right to have their
choice of McKenzie friend present, unless the judge specifically
orders that they don't. By the time of the second one the test is
basically reversed and McKenzie friends are not allowed unless
specifically authorised.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2025-05-24, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:

On Sat, 24 May 2025 15:19:19 +0000, Jon Ribbens wrote:

On 2025-05-24, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:

On 24/05/2025 13:46, Jethro_uk wrote:

On Sat, 24 May 2025 12:53:38 +0100, The Todal wrote:

Apart from those categories you can have a friend (a McKenzie friend) >>>>> to assist you in court but they aren't allowed to address the court,

Isn't there a whole class of "professional" McKenzie friends that has
arisen.

Sort of AirBnB for courts ?

see https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/1999/2004.html

https://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NICA/2025/14.html

Quote from that case:

This court, without hesitation and for the reasons provided, refuses
the application. This is a gravely defective and thoroughly
unmeritorious application. We conclude that Mr Edward Ward is not a
fit and proper person to act as the second appellant’s McKenzie Friend >>> or in any related capacity.

Things clearly moved on in the quarter-century between those cases.
In the first one, litigants basically have a right to have their choice
of McKenzie friend present, unless the judge specifically orders that
they don't. By the time of the second one the test is basically reversed
and McKenzie friends are not allowed unless specifically authorised.

My very vague recollection was that there was starting to be a trend of people who wanted to be paid for being a "McKenzie friend". In a way I'm pleased that it's no longer the case if it ever were.

That is still happening.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

"Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote in message news:xn0p66jfydsywx000q@news.individual.net...

On 24/05/2025 in message <100scbs$mii1$1@dont-email.me> billy bookcase wrote:

"Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote in message >>news:xn0p66gf9dovwtd00p@news.individual.net...

I tried Google but AI is now a serious obstacle to getting sensible answers, at least
it says "AI responses may include mistakes."

I thought that in the mid 1990's there was a widening of the categories of people
allowed to address an English court and the role of Solicitor Advocate was introduced.

Have I remembered incorrectly? Is it set out in legislation or code somewhere?

The terms you need to use are "Right of Audience" UK Courts

There are plenty of links from official sources

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/41/part/II/crossheading/rights-of-audience-and-rights-to-conduct-litigation/enacted
https://www.judiciary.uk/guidance-and-resources/guidance-on-the-grant-of-rights-of-audience-by-the-business-and-property-courts-in-leeds/

and summaries from firms of solicitors

https://helix-law.co.uk/vocabulary/right-of-audience/

https://helix-law.co.uk/

(So helix law do apparently exist)

IMHO AI isn't an obstacle at all. All sources need to be verified
in some way; even print sources sometimes need to be cross
referenced even regarding supposedly uncontested matters of fact

[snipped]

Many thanks :-)

The question I put to Google was "who has the right to address an English court", I'm
surprised it didn't pick this legislation up.

Indeed. However thinking about it, "Right of Audience" is already a fairly specific technical term, which isn't even mentioned on these links

https://www.gov.uk/represent-yourself-in-court

https://www.lawsociety.org.uk/topics/advocacy/crown-court-advocacy-procedure-tips

So it seems anyone not already familiar with the term, is already at
a considerable disadvantage, if not totally stuffed.

As "Address" and "Court" mainly brings up forms of address, while "Address
and "Solictor" brings up the addresses of Solicitors


bb

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 24/05/2025 14:15, Jeff Gaines wrote:

The question I put to Google was "who has the right to address an
English court", I'm surprised it didn't pick this legislation up.

I'm not. It seems to me that Google search isn't very good any more:
first it was infested with paid advertising, now it's infested with AI
results which may or may not be delusional.

I'm just not sure what is better - Duckduckgo?


--
Clive Page

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sat, 24 May 2025 16:17:03 +0100, Clive Page <usenet@page2.eu> wrote:

On 24/05/2025 14:15, Jeff Gaines wrote:

The question I put to Google was "who has the right to address an
English court", I'm surprised it didn't pick this legislation up.

I'm not. It seems to me that Google search isn't very good any more:
first it was infested with paid advertising, now it's infested with AI >results which may or may not be delusional.

I'm just not sure what is better - Duckduckgo?

DuckDuckGo has, for a while now, been better at normal keyword search. So,
for that matter, is Bing. DDG also has the advantage of not being AI-encumbered. Google's advanced search syntax, though, is still by far the most powerful and flexible. So I use DDG as the default search engine on my browser, but switch to Google if I need to be more precise.

Mark

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 24 May 2025 at 16:38:44 BST, Jethro_uk wrote:

On Sat, 24 May 2025 15:19:19 +0000, Jon Ribbens wrote:

On 2025-05-24, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:

On 24/05/2025 13:46, Jethro_uk wrote:

On Sat, 24 May 2025 12:53:38 +0100, The Todal wrote:

Apart from those categories you can have a friend (a McKenzie friend) >>>>> to assist you in court but they aren't allowed to address the court,

Isn't there a whole class of "professional" McKenzie friends that has
arisen.

Sort of AirBnB for courts ?

see https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/1999/2004.html

https://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NICA/2025/14.html

Quote from that case:

This court, without hesitation and for the reasons provided, refuses
the application. This is a gravely defective and thoroughly
unmeritorious application. We conclude that Mr Edward Ward is not a
fit and proper person to act as the second appellant’s McKenzie Friend >>> or in any related capacity.

Well, the substantial reason was that Mr Ward hadn't completed the required form. Or at least presented the form to the court. The court had nowhere to
go. But the court did find the time to present a very wordy summary, and make sure that Mr Ward's humiliation was there on the record.

Things clearly moved on in the quarter-century between those cases.
In the first one, litigants basically have a right to have their choice
of McKenzie friend present, unless the judge specifically orders that
they don't. By the time of the second one the test is basically reversed
and McKenzie friends are not allowed unless specifically authorised.

From my reading the big change is the McKenzie Friend's right to address the court directly on behalf of the applicant in certain exceptional

circumstances. That's what Mr Ward was angling towards, and it sounded like he made a bit of a (pompous) nuisance of himself in the process. I wonder why he didn't simply submit the form?

My very vague recollection was that there was starting to be a trend of people who wanted to be paid for being a "McKenzie friend". In a way I'm pleased that it's no longer the case if it ever were.

Disclosing the amount of any payment is a required part of the form. It does make me think that it could in some way prejudice the court's consideration of an application to be a McKenzie Friend. Otherwise, why ask?

Similarly, why ask for a CV?

The reasons for refusing the MF request appear to be set out here, in section 13:

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/mckenzie-friends-practice-guidance-july-2010.pdf

So, pretty vague, and I suspect having gone to Eton might well help the application.

--
Cheers, Rob, Sheffield UK

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

In message <100sp64$3kofa$15@dont-email.me>, at 15:38:44 on Sat, 24 May
2025, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> remarked:

On Sat, 24 May 2025 15:19:19 +0000, Jon Ribbens wrote:

On 2025-05-24, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:

On 24/05/2025 13:46, Jethro_uk wrote:

On Sat, 24 May 2025 12:53:38 +0100, The Todal wrote:

Apart from those categories you can have a friend (a McKenzie friend) >>>>> to assist you in court but they aren't allowed to address the court,

Isn't there a whole class of "professional" McKenzie friends that has
arisen.

Sort of AirBnB for courts ?

see https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/1999/2004.html

https://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NICA/2025/14.html

Quote from that case:

This court, without hesitation and for the reasons provided, refuses
the application. This is a gravely defective and thoroughly
unmeritorious application. We conclude that Mr Edward Ward is not a
fit and proper person to act as the second appellant’s McKenzie Friend >>> or in any related capacity.

Things clearly moved on in the quarter-century between those cases.
In the first one, litigants basically have a right to have their choice
of McKenzie friend present, unless the judge specifically orders that
they don't. By the time of the second one the test is basically reversed
and McKenzie friends are not allowed unless specifically authorised.

My very vague recollection was that there was starting to be a trend of >people who wanted to be paid for being a "McKenzie friend". In a way I'm >pleased that it's no longer the case if it ever were.

My late wife was a McKenzie friend for a whole series of ladies who were applying for things like non-molestation orders against their ex.

Such ladies had no funds to employ a solicitor, and the evidence
collection and arguments needing to be made were pretty straightforward.

She didn't charge anything, which was instrumental in her having to give
up that work, as even the travelling expenses were a drain on our
household income, let alone the hours on the phone and in court to get
each case prepared and heard.
--
Roland Perry

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)