Exclusive: Lord Hermer’s Office Pleads Ignorance Over Grooming Gang Contempt of Court Scandal

More “two-tier” prosecution?

JJ STARKEY

After initially blocking a Freedom of Information (FOI) request, Attorney General Lord Richard Hermer’s office (AGO) has now confirmed it has not investigated the contempt of court evidence involving relatives of grooming gang convicts.

The original FOI request, submitted in late June, asked whether Hermer’s office was aware of the evidence of contempt and whether it had launched any investigations or assessments in response to the breaches shown in Channel 4’s Groomed: A National Scandal.

Released in May, the documentary showed relatives and friends of grooming gang convicts openly identifying survivors and witnesses who had testified in sexual abuse cases and were subsequently granted lifelong anonymity orders.

The relatives and friends are part of a wider campaign called ‘Fighting For Fair Trials’. They allege that many Pakistani child sex abusers were wrongly convicted due to “racism” in the British justice system.

After infiltrating their private Whatsapp groups, Channel 4 found that not only were they openly identifying survivors and witnesses, but they were also smearing them as “prostitutes”, “cows,” “b*tches,” “liars,” and “dogs.”

The outlet’s investigators also viewed their public livestreams on TikTok. In one incident, Irfan Khan, serving a 12-year sentence for three rapes and one threat to kill, called into the livestream from prison.

Such conduct is categorically against prison rules and shouldn’t be possible.

In another livestream, Khan’s sister named three survivors who had testified in grooming cases that led to the convictions of over 20 men for rape and trafficking offences involving eight young girls between 1999 and 2012.

Lifelong anonymity orders are not made lightly. They are rare and exceptional court injunctions that legally ban the publication of an individual’s identity—by any party.

It is an important barrier of protection for survivors. Some now-freed grooming gang convicts have since been arrested for harassing their victims. Some have even seemingly followed their victims to the supermarket.

Breaching such an order by publishing or sharing identifying information on social media can be considered criminal contempt because it not only potentially puts witnesses at risk but undermines the court’s authority.

The maximum punishment for criminal contempt of court is imprisonment for a fixed term of up to two years, or an unlimited fine, or both, according to the Contempt of Court Act (1981).

For context, the AGO must provide consent for instituting certain contempt proceedings to ensure they align with broader public interests, such as the fair administration of justice.

In July, the AGO blocked the original request nearly a month after it was submitted, citing section 31 of the Freedom of Information Act (2000).

The provision pertains to information that “would likely prejudice the prevention or detection of crime, the apprehension or prosecution of offenders, or the administration of justice”.

Days later, The Brief requested an internal review, arguing that the exemption cited was non-sensical, as it would suggest—using their logic—reporting an act of contempt in itself could “prejudice the prevention or detection of a crime”.

This week, they conceded.

They confirmed that the AGO has “not been made aware” of the contempt of court evidence, and thus, holds no further documentation on any subsequent investigations or assessments.

So we’re meant to believe that the Attorney General of England and Wales is unaware of a major contempt of court scandal—broadcast on national television, seen by millions, and tied to a topic that has dominated headlines since January.

Compare this to the AGO’s swift sign off on the prosecution of Tommy Robinson for contempt after Hope Not Hate—a group with longstanding ties to Hermer—wrote to his office.

In July 2024, after Robinson aired his documentary ‘Silenced’ in defiance of a court order, the Solicitor General, acting for the Attorney General’s Office, filed a formal contempt application within days.

Channel 4 aired their documentary in early May.

For context, Nick Lowles, a former Hope Not Hate secretary, and Hermer sat together on the management committee of Searchlight Information Services, a precursor to Lowles’s Hope Not Hate.

This is just one of many questionable ties Hermer has to progressive and socialist organisations in Britain.

So his office cannot plead ignorance any longer, The Brief is currently drafting a letter to ensure he is, in fact, made aware.

Will keep you updated on any developments, as always.

• Do you believe our best days lie ahead?
• Will you keep watching as our politicians and broadcasters push for yet more surveillance, censorship, and control?
• If you want to push back—if not today, maybe someday—supporting independent journalism can (genuinely) make a real impact.
• In the past year, The Stark Naked Brief reached over 120 million people on X. Sometimes, all it takes is one post—one uncomfortable truth—to wake someone up and put a dent the uniparty’s monopoly.

---

This article (Exclusive: Lord Hermer’s Office Pleads Ignorance Over Grooming Gang Contempt of Court Scandal) was created and published by Stark Naked Brief and is republished here under “Fair Use”

Featured image: Stark Naked Brief

••••

The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)

••••

Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.

••••

Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.

••••

Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of The Liberty Beacon Project.