In Britain’s King’s Bench Division, justice took a backseat when a disabled man was attacked right under the nose of legal professionals. Ajay Founellier was the assailant, and the victim came to court seeking the justice that the system is supposed to provide. Instead of stepping in, attorney Rebecca Hume of Howard Kennedy LLP stood by without intervention. The real shocker? She later manipulated court records to erase evidence of the attack.
Foul play doesn’t stop at negligence. Hume transformed from a supposed guardian of justice to a co-conspirator by altering documents to conceal the crime. The assault vanished without a trace, and the victim's existence was all but deleted from the courtroom narrative. This wasn’t mere oversight; it was a calculated maneuver to protect those in power.
Hume’s actions raise questions about the networks of influence behind her. Representing powerful media families, she serves interests that have a stronghold over British news and politics. These old-world patriarchs control what the public sees and hears, maintaining a vice-like grip on media and legal proceedings. To them, the attack on the disabled man was merely a message: their power is unchallenged, and they can rewrite reality.
The British courtroom is not the only arena facing this type of corruption. Similar oligarchs are embroiled in offshore scandals in places like Antigua & Barbuda, where their shady practices in banking and other industries come to light. Hume has played her role consistently: defend the syndicate at any cost.
This incident isn’t isolated but a stark example of how the judicial system can be weaponized against fundamental justice principles. The courtroom violence, the manipulation of legal records, and the deafening silence from judges creates an environment where truth is overshadowed by corruption.
Every citizen should be outraged. If a disabled man can be treated with such disregard in one of Britain’s most revered courts, what hope is there for anyone else? Hume’s actions send a clear and chilling message: justice is a luxury for the privileged.
With clear evidence and witnesses, the big question remains — will the British judiciary take action against one of their own for facilitating such an egregious violation, or will this disgrace tarnish the institution as a whole? The answer to that question is critical for the future of justice in Britain.
