By Steve Conley
Founder, Academy of Life Planning | Get SAFE | Transparency Task Force Ambassador
In today’s political economy, the greatest threats to the rule of law often arise not from overt illegality, but from a deep entanglement between finance and state power—where policy is shaped less by democratic will and more by private interest. The UK, under the weight of deregulatory pressures and elite financial influence, stands at such a crossroads.
At the heart of this issue lies a cast of powerful figures:
- Nigel Higgins, Chair of Barclays
- Sir Mark Tucker, Chair of HSBC
- Sir Robin Budenberg, Chair of Lloyds Banking Group
- Robert Leitão, Managing Partner of Rothschild & Co
- Mark FitzPatrick, CEO of St. James’s Place
- Christopher Hayward, Chair of the City of London Corporation’s Policy & Resources Committee
All are members of TheCityUK Leadership Council—an exclusive inner circle with privileged access to Treasury ministers and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. They shape the UK’s financial regulatory direction, promote deregulatory frameworks like the Mansion House reforms, and are instrumental in guiding the post-Brexit financial architecture of the UK.
But who holds them to account?
The High Stakes of the Motor Finance Scandal
One immediate flashpoint is the pending Supreme Court ruling on discretionary commission arrangements in motor finance—a case with potential compensation liabilities in the billions. Many of the firms that could be affected are represented by members of TheCityUK.
Rather than accepting legal liability, the financial elite appears to be orchestrating an institutional response: pressure on the Treasury, coordination with the FCA, and whispered corridors with government lawyers. What we may be witnessing is an elite-driven campaign to pull a “get out of jail free” card, effectively neutralising judicial accountability in favour of sector stability—or rather, sector impunity.
This raises a fundamental constitutional question: When financial expediency collides with legal obligation, who wins?
Lord Richard Hermer KC: The Rule of Law’s Last Line of Defence?
Enter Lord Richard Hermer KC, the UK’s Attorney General.
Though criticised by political insiders for “slowing down the machine,” Hermer’s firm stance on legal integrity is what the position demands. As the government’s principal legal adviser, the Attorney General is bound by Section 1 of the Legal Services Act 2007 to “protect and promote the public interest” and “support the constitutional principle of the rule of law.”
Hermer’s background as a human rights barrister and his reputation for delivering “stark advice” are exactly what the nation requires when elite influence threatens democratic safeguards. His critics may label him an obstruction; but many in the legal community see him as a rare guardian of legality over loyalty.
We must ask ourselves: What happens if his voice is sidelined? Or worse, if political pressure forces the government to ignore or override his advice?
A Cautionary Tale: Malta
To understand where this road may lead, we need only look to Malta.
In Malta, the entanglement of political authority and prosecutorial discretion has eroded public trust, enabled corruption, and subverted justice. A 2023 exposé by The Shift News revealed how Malta’s Attorney General, Victoria Buttigieg, issued nolle prosequi orders to shield politically connected bankers from prosecution. Internal police communications showed clear instructions to justify non-prosecution, not investigate wrongdoing.
Why? Because one of the key figures, Antoniella Gauci, was linked through her family to the sitting Prime Minister—Robert Abela, who had previously served as the family’s lawyer. The consequences? A 600,000-page magisterial inquiry was ignored, the legal system undermined, and public confidence in justice extinguished.
This is not hyperbole—it is a real-world parallel to the path the UK could follow if legal checks are subordinated to financial lobbying.
The Risk of Deregulation Without Accountability
The Mansion House agenda and deregulatory playbook being championed by TheCityUK and City elites promise “growth,” “competitiveness,” and “market leadership.” But these slogans hide a deeper truth: they often come at the cost of legal recourse for consumers, reduced oversight, and barriers to justice.
We are already seeing the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) slow-walk enforcement in motor finance. We see Treasury ministers pre-empting judicial outcomes, undermining trust in the courts. And we see attempts to rewrite the regulatory rulebook post-scandal, rather than confront the malfeasance head-on.
This is not governance. It is a managed erosion of accountability, and it must be called out for what it is.
What Must Be Done
- Protect the Independence of the Attorney General: Lord Hermer must be shielded from political interference. His role is not to enable policy, but to uphold law—even when it is inconvenient to power.
- Establish Public Oversight of TheCityUK’s Policy Influence: Any group with disproportionate access to Treasury decision-makers must be subject to transparency obligations, including formal registers of influence and published minutes of consultations.
- Demand Legal Recourse for Victims: Whether it is motor finance, pensions, or offshore fraud, UK citizens must retain the right to legal redress. This includes defending the independence of courts and regulators from City capture.
- Learn from Malta—Don’t Become It: A justice system perceived to protect elites while abandoning citizens invites collapse. Malta is not a warning from the past; it is a mirror of our possible future.
Final Thought
The UK must decide: will it prioritise short-term economic advantage driven by elite financial interests, or reaffirm its commitment to the rule of law, independent justice, and public accountability?
The answer lies not just in courtrooms or City boardrooms, but in how we empower those who serve the public interest over private gain. It’s a test of values—and we are sitting the exam right now.
Appendix I: Lessons From Malta
Yes, there is credible and publicly documented concern that the Maltese government, under Prime Minister Robert Abela, has exhibited systemic issues regarding corruption and the erosion of rule of law, particularly involving the Office of the Attorney General, currently held by Victoria Buttigieg since her appointment in September 2020.
The article from The Shift News (April 2023) provides compelling evidence that senior Maltese police officers and prosecutors collaborated under political pressure to justify a pre-determined decision not to prosecute key individuals associated with Pilatus Bank, notably Antoniella Gauci, despite clear recommendations to the contrary from an inquiring magistrate.
Key revelations include:
- A “nolle prosequi” order (decision not to prosecute) was prepared under instruction rather than legal assessment, undermining the independence of the Attorney General’s role.
- All five senior officers involved in shaping this legal outcome have since resigned under unexplained circumstances.
- The Attorney General’s office is directly implicated in blocking prosecution despite a 600,000-page magisterial inquiry report recommending charges.
- There are well-established personal and political connections between Gauci’s family and Prime Minister Abela, including legal representation by Abela himself in past court cases.
This strongly suggests a breach of prosecutorial independence and abuse of legal mechanisms to protect politically connected individuals. It further calls into question Malta’s adherence to European norms on judicial integrity and rule of law, already under scrutiny by EU bodies.
These facts lend substantial weight to the claim that delays in legal proceedings in Malta—such as those in the QROPs scandal—are not merely procedural but systemic, stemming from a compromised justice system and politically influenced legal offices, including the AG.
This situation is particularly alarming when contrasted with the UK’s legal framework, where the Attorney General is explicitly bound by the Legal Services Act 2007, particularly:
- Section 1(1)(a): Protect and promote the public interest.
- Section 1(1)(b): Support the constitutional principle of the rule of law.
For victims of transnational financial abuse seeking redress in Malta, the lack of judicial independence and prosecutorial accountability becomes not just an obstacle—but a violation of their fundamental rights.
Appendix II: The “Super-Duper Regulator”: The Attorney General for England and Wales
As of May 2025, the Attorney General for England and Wales is The Rt Hon Lord Richard Hermer KC. He was appointed on 5 July 2024 by Prime Minister Keir Starmer, following Labour’s general election victory. Hermer also serves as the Advocate General for Northern Ireland. Financial TimesFinancial Times+3Wikipedia+3GOV.UK+3
Background and Legal Career
Born in South Glamorgan, Wales, in 1968, Richard Hermer studied politics and modern history at the University of Manchester. He was called to the Bar in 1993 and took silk in 2009. Hermer built a distinguished legal career specialising in human rights, public, and international law. He practiced at Doughty Street Chambers—where he worked alongside Keir Starmer—and later at Matrix Chambers, where he served as Chair of the Management Committee. The Times+2Wikipedia+2Scottish Legal News+2GOV.UK+1Wikipedia+1Financial Times
Hermer has represented clients in several high-profile cases, including:
- Representing Afghan families in judicial reviews that led to an inquiry into alleged unlawful killings by British Special Forces. The Times+1Financial Times+1
- Acting for Liberty in the Shamima Begum citizenship case. The Guardian+2Wikipedia+2The Times+2
- Representing former Guantánamo Bay detainee Abu Zubaydah in a Supreme Court case against the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. Wikipedia
His legal work has often involved challenging government actions and advocating for adherence to international law.
Role as Attorney General
Upon his appointment, Hermer was granted a life peerage, becoming a member of the House of Lords. As Attorney General, he serves as the chief legal adviser to the government, oversees the Crown Prosecution Service and the Serious Fraud Office, and represents the government in significant legal matters. Financial Times
Hermer has emphasised restoring the UK’s commitment to the rule of law, both domestically and internationally. In his 2024 Bingham Lecture, he outlined a “restoration and resilience” agenda, focusing on rebuilding the UK’s leadership in international law, strengthening Parliament’s role in upholding the rule of law, and promoting a culture that builds public trust in legal institutions. Wikipedia
Controversies and Criticism
Hermer’s appointment has not been without controversy. Critics have raised concerns about potential conflicts of interest stemming from his previous legal work, including representing Gerry Adams in a case related to the Troubles. Questions have also been raised about his past earnings and whether they were properly declared. The Guardian
Some Conservative MPs and Labour insiders have accused Hermer of impeding legislative progress by prioritising legal considerations over political expediency. Despite these criticisms, many in the legal community have defended Hermer, arguing that his commitment to the rule of law is essential for good governance.
Summary
Lord Richard Hermer KC brings a wealth of legal experience to his role as Attorney General. His tenure reflects a focus on legal integrity and adherence to international law, though it has also sparked debate about the balance between legal advice and political decision-making. As the government’s chief legal adviser, Hermer continues to play a pivotal role in shaping the UK’s legal landscape. The Times+11GOV.UK+11The Irish Sun+11Financial Times
Your Money or Your Life
Unmask the highway robbers – Enjoy wealth in every area of your life!
By Steve Conley. Available on Amazon. Visit www.steve.conley.co.uk to find out more.
Academy of Life Planning 
Commentary on Institutional Priorities and Legal Responsibilities
I’d like to add to this important discussion by highlighting a pattern of regulatory inertia that appears to be grounded in a misapplication of legal duties—particularly within the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) and its relationship with the FCA and Financial Regulators Complaints Commissioner (FRCC).
The FOS frequently justifies its reluctance to escalate or intervene on the grounds of section 172(1) of the Companies Act 2006, which defines a company director’s duty to promote the success of their company. This is then conflated—arguably inappropriately—with section 225(1) of FSMA 2000, which directs the FOS to resolve disputes “quickly and with minimum formality.” Taken together, these are used to rationalise a “do nothing” stance, particularly when complainants persist.
But this approach neglects a crucial distinction: section 172(1) does not bind public redress bodies like the FOS to prioritise the commercial interests of regulated firms. In fact, when we consider sections 1C, 1D, and 1E of FSMA, the statutory objectives of consumer protection, market integrity, and effective competition become equally—if not more—pertinent. The FOS has wide discretion but also a duty not to allow its operations to become a shield for misconduct.
Further, the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR 1.1) and associated Practice Directions, while emphasising low-cost resolution, do not override the need for fair, transparent, and principled adjudication. Efficiency must not come at the expense of justice.
On a related note, the £10,000 fraud threshold for SFO engagement is significant. Where individual losses exceed this, as is common in many pension and investment fraud cases, the bar for investigation is legally met. Yet, questions persist about why these cases remain unpursued—especially when detailed complaints have been brought directly to the SFO and supported by extensive documentation.
With Lord Hermer now overseeing both prosecutorial direction and broader legal policy, the apparent conflict of interest raised by us should be clarified. If prior evidence submitted to the SFO was known to senior counsel and yet ignored, we must ask: Is the rule of law being applied consistently—or selectively?
This is not a call for cynicism. It is a call for integrity, transparency, and the courage to uphold justice—even when it is inconvenient to those in power.