A prominent solicitor advocate has been hit with over £105,000 in wasted costs for demonstrating ‘vexatiousness’ when pursuing a private prosecution.
Robin Makin runs the Liverpool-based criminal defence firm Liverpool Legal, the successor to E. Rex Makin & Co., and has acted in many high-profile cases. He is best known for acting in the James Bulger murder case as the representative of the victim’s father. He also represented serial killer Ian Brady, the Moors murderer, and was famously the last person to see him before his death.
Last year, the Gazette revealed Makin had been unmasked as an anonymous solicitor known as ‘AB/X’ who was at the centre of a misconduct row. The Solicitors Regulation Authority is investigating that matter.
But the Gazette can now reveal how Makin has separately been rebuked by a judge for using court proceedings ‘to justify withholding his payment of service charges’ at a property he owns near Hampstead Heath in north London.
Documents obtained by the Gazette show Makin had, on 4 April 2022, applied for a summons - in an ex-parte hearing - to bring a private prosecution against 15 West Heath Road Ltd and two of its directors for alleged offences under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
District Judge McDonagh, who awarded costs against Makin, said he had ‘failed to adopt a duty of candour’ and disclose the full details of the correspondence between himself and the defendants within his application for a summons. The sections of the correspondence he relied upon had been ‘carefully crafted’ to support his case, the judge found.
Makin failed to disclose within the application the fact he had brought three previous failed private prosecutions in his personal capacity, the judge added.
On 29 June last year, a judge ordered disclosure of all previous private prosecutions instituted by Makin and an anonymised copy of a limited civil restraint order to which he is subject. A two-day contested hearing was listed from 13 September, but Makin emailed the court the day before requesting the prosecution be discontinued.
The defence claimed Makin had used the proceedings to ‘inappropriately justify his ongoing refusal to pay service charges of £17,545.10’ and applied to the court for costs to be awarded against him. On 19 June, District Judge McDonagh ordered Makin to pay £105,500 within three weeks.
Explaining her decision, District Judge McDonagh said Makin had continued the prosecution despite ‘critical flaws in his case’. His conduct throughout proceedings was flawed in that he failed to comply with court directions, failed to comply with his duty of disclosure until directed by court order and failed to engage with the defendants to confirm what documents were outstanding to facilitate an effective inspection, the judge said.
‘The detailed correspondence disclosed to me during these proceedings highlighted that Mr Makin was evasive throughout in his responses to the defendants. He pursued this prosecution with a high level of persistence and a determination to proceed with the prosecution irrespective of the prospect of its success. He lacked objectivity and continuing the prosecution in this manner demonstrated a level of vexatiousness.’
The judge said the proceedings had continued for almost two years ‘as a direct result of Mr Makin’s actions’. She added: 'As a solicitor of 30 years standing, it should have been obvious to him that there wasn’t a prima facie case and that the prosecution would not succeed irrespective of his persistence.'
The judge also revealed that once the proceedings had concluded, the defendants had sought recovery of the service charges in the courts, but Makin had made a ‘clear attempt to mislead the civil courts as to the nature of his proceedings at the magistrates' court’, District Judge McDonagh said.
Makin and Liverpool Legal have been contacted for comment.
The SRA confirmed it was investigating Makin after the High Court lifted his anonymity last June over his misconduct during costs proceedings. It is understood the SRA investigation will also look at the Willesden case.
An SRA spokesperson said: ‘Our investigation work continues. While we do not comment of the detail of our investigations while they are on-going, we can confirm that there are a range of issues that we are looking at.’
