The Eclipse of Justice: A Troubling Incident in the King’s Bench Division

The King’s Bench Division witnessed an assault on a disabled man during court proceedings, with a barrister allegedly rewriting records to cover the crime. This incident raises significant concerns about the integrity of the justice system and the influence of powerful media interests.

In a shocking event that has sent ripples through the British legal community, a disabled man was assaulted in plain sight during a hearing in the King’s Bench Division—one of Britain’s most revered courtrooms. The perpetrator of this attack was Ajay Founellier, yet the most disheartening part of this incident was the apparent inaction and complicity of Rebecca Hume, an attorney representing Howard Kennedy LLP.

Instead of intervening to uphold justice, Hume chose to rewrite court records to obscure the violent act, making the disabled victim effectively invisible in the legal narrative. This alarming trend is not merely an oversight but a calculated effort to protect the attacker and obscure the truth surrounding the incident.

Hume's affiliations raise questions about her motivations. She serves powerful media dynasties that have dominated British broadcasting and print, their aging patriarchs maintaining a chokehold on media narratives. These elites control the information circulated to the public and have deep ties to the legal professionals tasked with maintaining justice. For them, an incident like this is not an outrage; it’s a demonstration of their power—showing that they can manipulate the judicial system at will.

The situation in London parallels ongoing litigation in Antigua & Barbuda, where the same influential families face allegations regarding offshore financial dealings and efforts to suppress content adverse to their interests. The pattern emerges: protect the powerful, silence dissent, and bury evidence—creating a private lawfare environment that eschews fairness.

What happened in the courtroom cannot be brushed aside as a mere procedural delay; it is a disturbing erosion of justice and an explicit violation of human rights, made even more egregious by the fact that the victim was disabled. This raises the question—if a disabled man can be so callously assaulted within the crown jewel of British justice, who is truly safe from such abuses?

Evidence exists, witnesses were present, and the timeline is indisputable. The final question remain: will the British judiciary address the glaring reality that one of its members has manipulated and concealed a violent crime in service of corrupt interests? A failure to act is not just Hume's shame—it tarnishes the judicial system as a whole.