Formal Demand to Judge Raquel Agnello for Correction of Record and Judicial Accountability: Two Blatant and Provable Lies

Judge Raquel Agnello KC, Deputy Insolvency and Companies Court – Source

Your Honour,

1. You have a duty to correct the record

1.1  I write to you directly and publicly because what took place before you on 29 July 2025 was not merely a procedural error, it was a miscarriage of justice that has now become a matter of significant public concern.

1.2  Your ruling to uphold the warrant of arrest against Mr Shaun Cooper, despite overwhelming medical and evidential proof to the contrary, was made on the basis of false statements, withheld evidence, and serious breaches of candour by the Deputy Official Receiver, Mr Michael Bint. Those deceptions are now provable on the record. They misled the Court and resulted in a decision that cannot stand uncorrected.

1.3  You are under a judicial duty, moral, legal, and constitutional, to correct the record. Failure to do so would represent not only a personal dereliction of duty but an institutional betrayal of the very principles of justice you are sworn to uphold.

2. Provable Lies and Deception Before the Court

2.1  During the 29 July 2025 hearing, Deputy Official Receiver Michael Bint made statements that were not just misleading but provably false. These were not errors of memory or interpretation; they were calculated deceptions, and you failed to challenge them, despite the fact that the truth was already documented in the case record before you.

a. False statement on “non-cooperation”

Mr Bint claimed that Mr Cooper’s “non-cooperation had been dealt with by Judge Schaffer” [paragraph 10, 29 July 2025]. This is factually false. If you had reviewed the record of those hearings, as was your judicial duty, you would have seen that Judge Schaffer explicitly refused to issue a warrant of arrest and directed an independent medical assessment. Mr Bint’s statement to you was therefore a deliberate distortion of the truth, intended to mislead the Court into believing that Mr Cooper’s medical incapacity had already been adjudicated. Your acceptance of that falsehood without question or reference to the earlier record raises serious concerns about whether you had properly familiarised yourself with the case history prior to presiding on 29 July 2025.  

In addition, the independent assessment Judge Schaffer requested in November 2024, was submitted prior to the February 2025 hearing. 

b. False claim about attendance

Mr Bint also claimed there was “no indication” Mr Cooper would not attend the February hearing. That was another blatant lie. Both the Court and the Insolvency Service had received continuous NHS Med-3 certificates, written submissions, and confirmation that Mr Cooper was overseas under medical and safeguarding instruction, following credible death threats under police investigation. You had access to this record. You either missed it, or ignored it. But you again never challenged it and this action is on record. 

c. Admission of withholding evidence

Mr Bint admitted in open court that the Official Receiver’s report used at the 25 February 2025 hearing, the very report relied upon by ICC Judge Prentis to issue the warrant, was never served to Mr Cooper. Why did you not challenge this? 

2.2  You accepted this admission and yet upheld a warrant founded on unserved material, violating every principle of fairness and due process.

2.3  These are not minor or accidental errors. They are acts of deception and obstruction, and you, as presiding judge, had both the authority and the obligation to challenge and rectify them. Instead, they were allowed to shape the outcome of your judgment.

2.4  Speaking of further errors, it has been confirmed by the Senior Operations Manager of Epiq, the official transcription company, that the transcript of the 29 July 2025 hearing was approved and authorised by Your Honour. That approval, however, included a clear factual error, the misspelling of the Deputy Official Receiver’s name, “Mr Bint”, which was pointed out by myself and subsequently corrected. 

2.5  While a spelling error may appear minor, its significance lies in what it reveals: that the transcript was reviewed and approved by Your Honour without adequate care or scrutiny. If such a basic and obvious inaccuracy could pass uncorrected in an official court record, it raises serious concern about the accuracy, diligence, and oversight applied to far more consequential aspects of the hearing, including the false statements and procedural irregularities now evident on the record. This error, now formally placed on the public record, calls into question the standards of due process and procedural accuracy observed under your authority.

3. Judicial Failure to Protect a Medically Incapacitated Party

3.1  You were presented with official NHS medical certification, the lawful and statutory form of evidence issued under the Social Security (Medical Evidence) Regulations 1976. This documentation confirmed Mr Cooper’s incapacity and included an independent letter from an NHS Psychological Wellbeing Practitioner.

3.2  You dismissed these on the basis that they “did not explain” why Mr Cooper could not attend. Respectfully, this reasoning is legally indefensible.

3.3  A Med-3 certificate is a statutory instrument that carries prima facie evidential weight. It cannot lawfully be disregarded without challenge or medical counter-evidence. To reject it summarily, without independent verification or inquiry, was procedurally improper and unlawful under:

• • Civil Procedure Rule 39.3 (right to fair consideration of absence).
  • Levy v Ellis-Carr [2012] EWCA Civ 1518 (judicial duty to investigate medical incapacity)
  • Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (right to a fair hearing).

3.4  By dismissing unchallenged medical evidence, you denied Mr Cooper the fairness and equality of arms required by law. This was not a discretionary oversight, it was a judicial failure of duty.

3.5  On a humanitarian basis, there is clear and weighty evidence explaining the causes of Mr Cooper’s health condition. For nearly two decades, he has devoted himself to the work of Lighthouse, often at great personal sacrifice. In return, he has endured sustained and hostile attacks (including death threats), online, in the media, and through institutional persecution, despite extensive evidence disproving the slanderous allegations made against him.

3.6  It is vital that the court remembers that justice is not merely a matter of legal formality but of moral duty. A judge’s role, while impartial, still requires the exercise of compassion, humanity, and an appreciation of the serious human consequences of judicial decisions. 

3.7  To understand the weight of this matter, consider this parallel: imagine that a national broadcaster produced hours of material designed to destroy your professional reputation — based on provable falsehoods, half-truths, and deliberate omissions. Your credibility collapses overnight; your income and livelihood are stripped away; and you begin to receive threats to your safety. Under such pressure, would you not expect the justice system to extend to you the same fairness and empathy that every citizen deserves? This is not a plea for sympathy, it is a call for humanity, fairness, and adherence to the rule of law. Mr Cooper’s life and wellbeing have been profoundly affected by this case, and that deserves the full and careful attention of the judiciary.

4. A Case Built on Fabrication

4.1  The deeper truth is this: the Insolvency Service brought a case that should never have reached your courtroom. The original allegations against Lighthouse International Group were baseless, provably false, and supported by no credible evidence whatsoever.

4.2  Repeated formal requests to the Insolvency Service to investigate those provably false accusations (along with their sources) have been ignored. Instead, lies were amplified and presented to the Court as fact. You had the opportunity and responsibility to halt that miscarriage, yet you did not.

4.3  If an injustice has occurred, whether through error or systemic failing, we must question not only the ruling itself but the very processes that gave rise to it. Where the law has been followed but produces harm, where it crushes the innocent, delays fairness, or rewards those who manipulate it, then the issue is not merely the interpretation of the law but the law itself.

In such cases, obedience without scrutiny becomes complicity. It is the duty of every judge, officer, and citizen to ensure that the law serves justice, not that justice be sacrificed to serve the law.

4.4  We are not asking for permission to seek reform. As members of the public, it is not ours to wait for institutional endorsement before speaking truth or advocating change. Where lawyers fear professional consequences and officials are constrained by politics, it falls to us, the people, to intervene, to expose, and to advocate without fear of being struck off, silenced, or ignored. And we will do so.

5. Demand for Correction of the Record

5.1  This letter, therefore, serves as a formal and public demand that you:

a. Correct the record of the 29 July 2025 hearing, recognising that your ruling was based on material misrepresentation and procedural error.

b. Acknowledge the false evidence given by Deputy Official Receiver Michael Bint, whose conduct before your court breached the duty of candour owed to the judiciary.

c. Take immediate steps to ensure that the warrant of arrest against Mr Cooper is vacated, annulled, or stayed pending full review.

5.2  Failure to act on these matters would amount to complicity in misconduct that now stands on the record of your own court.

6. Global Attention and Scrutiny

6.1  This matter is now under review by Citizen Intervention Global, an international civic initiative established to expose and challenge systemic institutional misconduct where national mechanisms have failed to deliver accountability. The case of Mr Cooper has been formally referred for review and documentation as part of Citizen Intervention Global’s 2025 report on judicial integrity and abuse of process.

6.2  The seriousness of this matter is currently being brought to the attention of President Donald J. Trump and his office, who have been fully informed of the procedural failures and systemic misconduct that have occurred. The personal involvement of Your Honour and ICC Judge Prentis will be identified as part of the case report submitted to his office. 

6.3  This is not a threat, Your Honour, but a matter of personal accountability. How you act in response to these findings will define both the record and your professional legacy. Formal correspondence has been prepared requesting the oversight and intervention of President Trump’s office, given the overwhelming public interest, the international human rights implications, and the scale of institutional wrongdoing now evident in this case.

7. Judicial Duty and Accountability

7.1  Judges are not exempt from scrutiny, they are accountable to the law and to the public. When a decision is proven to rest on deception, it is the judge’s duty to set it right, not the citizen’s duty to endure it.

7.2  Justice is not preserved by silence, nor by adherence to procedure when that procedure conceals wrongdoing. To ignore what is now evidenced would be to allow the court itself to become an accessory to falsehood.

7.3  In addition, there are a series of questions which we formally demand be answered. Judicial office does not exempt one from accountability or transparency. This matter is of clear public interest and will be placed on the public record. Failure to provide clarification will likewise be recorded as a refusal to engage in accountability and will form part of the public record.

7.4  We also do not accept the position previously taken by Judge Prentis that “the Court does not deal with substantive matters by correspondence.” That response is wholly inadequate and unacceptable given the gravity of the misconduct, the demonstrable falsehoods placed before the Court, and the profound human consequences that have followed. Where judicial decisions are founded upon provable lies and procedural breaches, silence and deflection cannot substitute for justice. The record must be corrected, and justice must prevail.

7.5  You are now in full possession of the facts. What you choose to do next will either affirm your oath to uphold justice without fear or favour, or expose a breach of that oath and this is your legacy.

7.6  The record must be corrected. The truth must be acknowledged. Those responsible must be held to account. We will not stop until every question is answered, every fact verified, and justice is restored.

Respectfully,
James Mills on behalf of Mr Shaun Cooper

www.lighthouseglobal.media

www.davidvsgoliath.global

www.insolvencyservicecorruption.com

Questions Requiring Immediate Clarification

Falsehoods Before the Court

1. Why did you not challenge Mr Bint’s false claim that “non-cooperation” had been dealt with by Judge Schaffer?

2. Why did you accept his statement that there was “no indication” Mr Cooper would not attend when the record clearly showed otherwise?

3. Did you review the 25 February 2025 transcript confirming ICC Judge Prentis had already recorded Mr Cooper’s medical and safeguarding justification?

Medical Evidence and Safeguarding

4. On what lawful or medical basis did you dismiss NHS Med-3 certificates?

5. Did you seek or obtain independent medical clarification before rejecting statutory Med-3 evidence?

6. If no such clarification was obtained, then in light of the Court of Appeal’s ruling in Levy v Ellis-Carr [2012] EWCA Civ 1518, which affirms a judge’s duty to investigate and verify medical evidence before proceeding in a party’s absence, can Your Honour explain why no inquiry was made into Mr Cooper’s medical incapacity before upholding the warrant of arrest?

7. What assessment was made under Articles 6 and 8 of ECHR to safeguard Mr Cooper’s rights as an unrepresented and medically incapacitated party?

Procedural and Human Rights Failures

8. On what lawful basis can a warrant stand when it was issued using unserved evidence, in this case the Official Report that Michael Bint confirmed was not served to Mr Cooper prior to the February hearing?

9. Why was no remedial order made once that procedural defect was admitted by the Deputy Official Receiver?

10. On what lawful grounds did Your Honour refuse to determine the application on paper under CPR 23.8, contrary to the principles of fairness, proportionality, and access to justice?

Judicial Responsibility

11. Before presiding over the hearing on 29 July 2025, did Your Honour review the full case record in detail and exercise the requisite duty of care, including the hearings of 26 November 2024 before Judge Schaffer and 25 February 2025 before ICC Judge Prentis, as required under the duty of judicial familiarity? 

12. The fact that Your Honour did not challenge Mr Bint’s statement that “Mr Cooper’s non-cooperation had been dealt with by Judge Schaffer,” and further asked whether Mr Cooper had indicated if he would attend, strongly suggests that the case record was not properly reviewed. Can Your Honour clarify why falsehoods were not challenged and such questions were asked if the prior record had been examined?

13. Do you accept that the decision of 29 July 2025 was based on false and incomplete evidence?

14. Will you personally take steps to correct the record?

15. What assurance can you give that justice, not procedural deflection, will prevail in this case?

Legal Notice and Disclaimer:
This document is published strictly in the public interest and for the purposes of transparency and accountability while Mr Cooper’s appeal is ongoing before the Court of Appeal. It does not seek to interfere with the judicial process or prejudice active proceedings.
All statements contained herein are supported by documented evidence already placed on the court record or within formal correspondence disclosed to the Insolvency Service, the Department for Business and Trade, and the courts.