A FIGHT FOR JUSTICE AND HEALTH: THE BATTLE AGAINST A MYSTERIOUS ILLNESS.
This timeline documents the deeply troubling series of events surrounding the case of Joseph—a survivor of systemic failure and discrimination by the UK criminal justice system. After enduring a wrongful conviction in 2016, Joseph continued to face harassment, unlawful treatment, and institutional neglect. This timeline outlines critical moments in our ongoing campaign to expose the miscarriage of justice and demand accountability from the police, Crown Prosecution Service, the courts, the Prison services, and the Ministry of Justice. The fight for justice continues.
Chronology of Events
- 19 September 2023
Around 2 p.m., two identifiable individuals were caught entering Joseph’s flat using a spare key, without his knowledge or consent. These same individuals had been secretly accessing his home and poisoning his food since 2020, shortly after his release from prison. As a result, Joseph experienced a range of unexplained and debilitating medical symptoms. The matter was reported to the police immediately. - April 2024
Joseph contacted the police to follow up on the report. He was shocked to learn that the case had been closed. The police had recorded the incident as Joseph reported himself as having a mental health breakdown, rather than a serious criminal matter involving unlawful entry and poisoning. No investigation had been conducted. This mistreatment echoes his unlawful arrest in April 2015 and the subsequent miscarriage of justice in April 2016. - 30 April 2024
We filed a judicial review to challenge the broader criminal justice process. The application cited procedural misconduct and discriminatory practices by authorities since April 2015, which culminated in Joseph’s wrongful conviction in April 2016. It detailed numerous breaches of mandatory procedures and statutory duties by the police, Crown Prosecution Service, criminal courts, and prison services. - 16 August 2024
The High Court dismissed our application for judicial review. - 4 September 2024 – 8 January 2025
We submitted the case to the Court of Appeal. However, on 8 January 2025, the Civil Division of the Court of Appeal refused to process the appeal, citing a lack of jurisdiction—despite the case clearly involving both criminal and public law matters. We were even kind enough to filed an application seeking the court to transfer any part of the case it claims it has no jurisdiction or referring the part of the matter between civil and criminal to the High Court, the court failed to do so claiming it has no jurisdiction, and went on to cite that even if it does transfer it, the criminal court too will not entertain the appeal with no jurisdiction. The legal question is posed, which is not even a question at all because the law is clearly defined: Who has jurisdiction in mixed cases involving both criminal and public law matters? – Is it the Civil Division or the Criminal Division, of the Court of Appeal? - February 2025 – Present
We escalated the matter to the Supreme Court, challenging the Ministry of Justice for its failure to ensure proper legal treatment of the case. Our argument asserts that, due to its mixed public and criminal law elements, the Civil Appeal Court does indeed have jurisdiction. This application is still awaiting a hearing. - June 2025. However, we have made the Supreme Court aware of our dissatisfaction with the supreme court review of our application “to show up some and ignored the others” on their website. https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2025-0036 . Because:
- Joseph Maxwell Spencer’s appeal to the UK Supreme Court (Case ID: UKSC/2025/0036) challenges the Court of Appeal’s decision to dismiss his application for judicial review against the Secretary of State for Justice. Spencer contends that his conviction for sexual offences in 2016 and the subsequent imposition of a Notification Requirement Order were unjust, citing issues such as reliance on opinion evidence, destruction of exculpatory materials, and interference with his appeal process. He also alleges systemic failures within the criminal justice system, including police misconduct and prison service neglect, leading to severe physical and mental health deterioration during his incarceration. The Supreme Court’s review is limited to the criminal elements of his case, specifically the jurisdictional question of whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing his appeal for lack of jurisdiction under section 18(1) of the Senior Courts Act 1981. This focus excludes the civil aspects of his claims, such as alleged failures to investigate CPS and Police failures leading to his prosecution in 2015, recent poisoning incidents and mistreatment in prison between 2015 and 2020, which Spencer argues undermines the comprehensiveness of his legal redress.
- On the ‘Narrative of the Fact” on the Supreme Court application, stated as follows: The Appellant initially brought judicial review proceedings in the High Court (Administrative Court) challenging the entire criminal justice process, citing procedural misconduct and discriminatory practice that led to his criminal conviction on 11 April 2016 and the discriminatory events that follows. The application asserts numerous breaches of mandatory procedures by the police, CPS, criminal courts, and prison services, which collectively resulted in the Appellant’s prosecution, conviction, sentencing, and fear of foreboding till date. Whilst the Appellant’s Application does not primarily challenge the decision of the 2016 conviction itself, because the criminal conviction is merely a material consequence of the various procedural misconduct alleged in the application and not pirimary to it, but in raising procedural misconduct, discriminatory practices, and breaches of statutory duties between 2015 and 2024 ( and ongoing in 2025) by various public bodies within the criminal justice system, brought into focus the unlawfulness of the Crown Prosecution Service’s (CPS) reliance on opinion evidence contrary to the opinion rule at common law in his criminal prosecution and the subsequent imposition of the Sexual Offences Notification Requirement Order. These are matters of public law rather than strictly criminal law.
- We are committed to update the findings of this case.