Lois Bayliss and Philip Hyland

Banned ad for a fake investigation.

I fought the law and the law won Pseudolaw

Traveling us crazy

Corporate personhood Paul Randle-Jolliffe British Constitution Group Titles of Nobility Amendment Ikclaimmijnnaam.nl Mortgage invalidity Direct Democracy Ireland Magna Carta Malcolm Roberts Liberty Dollar Errol Denton Nobility William Cooper v - t - e

“” Depends what you mean by investigation. There’s certainly evidence been submitted which police are reviewing.

—Philip Hyland

Lois Bayliss (1975–) of Broad Yorkshire Law and Philip Hyland (1965–) of PJH Law are British antivax solicitors who instigated misleading claims that a large scale criminal investigation was being carried out into the UK rollout of the COVID-19 vaccine by the Metropolitan Police.

National Emergency

On December 20, 2021, Bayliss and Hyland, along with suspended GP turned holistic practioner Sam White and retired police officer turned sovereign citizen Mark Sexton, filed a criminal complaint over the government vaccine rollout with Hammersmith and Fulham Police at Hammersmith police station. The complainants were issued Metropolitan Police crime reference number (CRN) 6029679/21, which they used to promote the false claim that an massive criminal investigation was underway.

The CRN was immediately included on a press release circulated on Telegram and adverts, including the headlines “national emergency” and "the truth is out" alongside the Met Police logo, published in local papers the Rotherham Advertiser (print) and The Argus (online), calling for members of the public to support the non-existent investigation by submitting evidence of vaccine harm to Bayliss’s firm Broad Yorkshire Law. South Yorkshire Police whose logo was also featured in the Rotherham Advertiser version had the advert retracted by the paper and referred it to the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) for investigation. The Advertising Standards Agency (ASA), acting on six complaints, later banned the ads with the ruling:

We considered that the implication in the ads that Covid-19 vaccines were unsafe and that the vaccine program was illegal had the effect of encouraging vaccine hesitancy. Further, because the ads gave the impression of being placed, approved or endorsed by public bodies, we considered readers were likely to pay greater attention and place greater trust in the ads’ message. Because of that, we considered the ads were unduly alarming and caused fear of Covid-19 vaccines without justifiable reason. — ASA

Sovereign citizens started citing the CRN as justification for their storming COVID vaccination sites across the UK. Hyland distanced himself, Baylis and White from this criminal activity, whilst seemingly throwing Sexton under the bus with the statement:

That’s not something I’ve been doing, or Lois or Sam, but I can’t speak for Mark. — Philip Hyland

On February 3rd, 2022, Bayliss signed a letter on her company letterhead threating legal action against those requiring face-masks, carrying out routine lateral flow tests and facilitating Covid-vaccination programmes for schoolchildren, using the CRN as evidence of an active police investigation, which was circulated on Telegram. Over the next few weeks, according to the SRA, Bayliss sent the letter to up to 450 people at 247 schools and GP surgeries, and encouraged up to 48 others to send similar letters.

The campaign ended on February 22, 2022, when the Met issued a formal rejection of the complaint, stating:

Following an assessment of all the available evidence, it is clear that no criminal offences are apparent. The Metropolitan Police will not be launching a criminal investigation and no further action will be taken. — Met Police Spokesperson

Feted as heroes of the anti-vax movement for their actions, Bayliss and Hyland were invited by organiser and ivermectin pusher Tess Lawrie to speak at 2022 Better Way Conference in Bath, where they were joined by fellow antivax lawyers Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Reiner Fuellmich, and immunologists turned conspiracist Dolores Cahill and Robert W. Malone.

The Truth Is Out

Both Bayliss and Hyland faced professional investigation for the pandemic shenanigans.

On April 4, 2023, the seemingly less impressed SRA referred Bayliss to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) for prosecution, with a ruling that read:

The tribunal has certified that there is a case to answer in respect of allegations which are or include that:
  1. Between 4 and 21 February 2022, in the context of the Covid-19 pandemic, Ms Bayliss sent letters to up to 450 individuals at up to 247 schools and GP surgeries, and encouraged up to 48 others to send similar letters, threatening that the recipients would face civil and/or criminal liability if they:
    i. required face-coverings and carried out routine lateral flow tests for schoolchildren
    ii. facilitated the school-age children Covid-vaccination programme.
The threats in Allegation 1 were misleading.
  2. When making the threats in Allegation 1, Ms Bayliss improperly sought to rely upon her standing and role as a solicitor.
The allegations are subject to a hearing before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal and are as yet unproven. — SRA

A case management hearing for Bayliss, held on January 25, 2024, dismissed an application for strike out and agreed that the four-day hearing, originally listed to start on 12 February, would be relisted for later in the year. At this time Bayliss had raised over £30,000 of a £200,000 target on GoFundMe to fight the prosecution.

On August 10, 2023, Philip Hyland was similarly referred to the SDT for prosecution over allegations that he improperly threatened legal action against a GP surgery when seeking a Covid-19 exemption for a client to travel to Brazil and not self-isolate on return, and against the chair of the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) demanding, on behalf of three clients, withdrawal of the COVID-19 vaccines, suspending COVID-19 testing and a live televised Christmas broadcast announcing this decision. The SRA's Benjamin Tankel said:

This was never a serious legal claim, it was just as ideological campaign. There is no merit to the claim.

A two-day preliminary hearing in May 2024 refused Hyland’s application for a stay. At the full hearing, held in July 2024, Tankel elaborated:

[Hyland] was really…seeking to cloak what was basically a political view in some legal terminology and the solicitors’ profession in order to lend that view, his view and the view of his clients, additional credibility which it otherwise did not warrant. That is clear from the context. It was a “small p” political campaign dressed up as a legal claim.

Peter Fields, acting for Hyland, responded:

I am not suggesting for a moment that the scientific investigation would prove Mr Hyland right [but] he believed that he was and that is my submission.

The hearing concluded with an order for Hyland to pay a fine of £15,000 and costs of £66,500.

See also

• Anna de Buisseret — a fellow British antivax solicitor.