Background info
Towards the end of 1995 I worked long hours in the middle of the night putting together the framework of the then newly constituted Public Law Centre and Public Defender Service. In that same year Simon Brown was appointed the President of the Intelligence Services Tribunal.
But looking back, Simon Brown and I were meant to cross each other’s path under extenuating circumstances. I believe that a SUPREME AUTHORITY planned it that he, Simon Brown would use his powers unjustly, unwisely, and wrongfully to harm me and that the hurt would persist over many years. But I also believe that the same SUPREME AUTHORITY would point me in the right direction. It is not for me to pay him back what he did to me. Nature will take care of that.
And we did cross each other’s path on November 18 1999. Shortly after we crossed each other’s path in November of 1999, he was replaced as the President of the Intelligence Services Tribunal.
The question is not why he was replaced but what could he have done that triggered the need to replace him? Did he, at any time endanger the security of the state? Or was his presidency of the Intelligence Services Tribunal surplus to requirements?
In this second instalment of my article on the newly created Supreme Court, I argue that the appointment of Simon Brown as one of the Justices of the Supreme Court is bad for justice. He does not deserve such a high honour and he should never have been appointed. Below is my statement of the Case against Simon Brown.
Profiling
A feature that is peculiarly idiosyncratic of those who achieve a position of authority, especially in the fields of law and politics is a tendency to walk all over everyone else on the way to the top of the ladder. It is an irony but it is a paradox. There is nothing the society can do about it. But Nature can and Nature always does and always will compensate the aggrieved when the high and mighty of the law courts act against the interests of justice and when they abuse their position.
If all things are equal, the height that most people reach in a lifetime is hardly ever reached by a sudden flight from Zero point to Infinity. No, things do not work that way. To reach the height that Simon Brown is at, at this moment of time, he would have had to make positive contribution to the state. Did he? No, he did not. Instead, he rode roughshod over people.
When this man left school at the age of 17 or so he went into the army. He served for just one year in Cyprus between 1956 and 1957. He was rewarded with a “scholarship” and went to Oxford University.
In the 1950s and 1960s the barrister’s branch of the two-tier legal profession was, more or less, for those with good connections in the right places. Furthermore, a degree in any subject was good enough to become a barrister, if one had enough money to eat the 21 dinners in those days. It was a long time ago that I studied law and I have no idea whether the whole practice of eating “dinners”, is dead or alive.
For real, obtaining a place in Oxford or Cambridge in those days was relatively painless. Good connection was enough to earn one a “Scholarship” to Oxford. Accident of birth was, still is, a sine qua non in the process of actualization or realisation of the sort of dream that many of us can only dream about until we drop.
Simon Brown was called to the Bar in 1961 and for the next 18 years or so he so practised law.
Colonial mindset rules
Condescension born of colonial mindset is one of the primary sources of institutional racism directed at Black people of African origin in the UK. Bad habit dies hard. Good ones don’t have a chance to be born.
In the case of Simon Brown he was not particularly brilliant, but brilliance or no, dullness as two short planks or not, the society does not feature in the equation, provided one operates within an inner circle that has been set up by the same inner circle to promote the advancement of certain sophisticated parameters. From the viewpoint of those within the inner circle, the rest of us can go to hell, if we don’t like what they are doing to us
On 18 November 1999 Simon Brown together with another judge, Newman, sat in the Divisional Court, to hear an application for an injunction under the Supreme Court Act 1981, section 37. The injunction was sought against Andre John-Salakov.
The Attorney General of the day was not in court to present the application but he had four people in court on that day to speak for him: Robert Jay, a QC, Stephen Wilcox, Head of a one-man Division of Legal Advice and Litigation Division in the Lord Chancellor’s Department, Neil Smith and Robert Martin Hawkins, detective sergeants and one Rodger Lutterodt.
Two folders containing hundreds of documents had already been filed in the Crown Office., latterly known as the Administrative Court. The most important document out of that lot was the 11-page Affidavit sworn by Rodger Lutterodt.
Rodger Lutterodt Affidavit Evidence was very important because nothing that he wrote in that Affidavit was credible. First, the opening paragraph:
“I am a SOLICITOR of the Supreme Court employed by the Treasury Solicitor. "
He went on, “This Affidavit is sworn in support of the Claim Form and the Notice of Application issued on behalf of the Applicant for an interim injunction pursuant to Section 37 of the Supreme Court Act 1981”
Mr. Lutterodt was not a solicitor of the Supreme Court or of any court. He did not go to any law school. He never took any law exam and he did not pass any. He had no right of audience.
Point of reference number two: The body of his Affidavit lied in its own face in so far that Mr. Lutterodt invented “court cases” and “trials” that never took place.
Point of reference number three: Simon Brown and Newman knew all about Andre John-Salakov many years before 1999.
Point of reference number four: That application for an injunction under section 37 had already been determined on the 4th October 1999 by Kennedy and Hooper. Kennedy and Hooper made a wrong order. The order that they made on the 4th October 1999 was an “Interim Injunction” pursuant to the Supreme Court Act 1981 section 42. The order was invalid because Section 42 of the Supreme Court Act 1981 did not provide for an Interim Injunction.
Point of reference number five: On 18 November 1999 Rodger Lutterodt, Robert Jay QC, Neil Smith, Robert Martin Hawkins and his lordship, Stephen Wilcox pretended that they did not know that Kennedy and Hooper had made a determination on the same application almost 6 weeks earlier. How could they do that? The four of them appeared before Kennedy and Hooper on the 4th October.
In any event, Simon Brown and Newman could not have read and studied the application before them. They spoke eloquently about Venazza’s case. Newman’s tongue was sweet. Simon Brown’s tongue was even sweeter.
Frustration
The inside of me was consumed of anger and frustration. Simon Brown is only 4 years my senior but on that day in November 1999, he expected me to bow down to him. He demanded that I addressed him as “My Lord”. No human being is entitled to call himself a “Lord”. I rejected Simon Brown’s demand.
Sod’s Law
Anything or something that can go wrong will most certainly go wrong. The application made by or on behalf of the Attorney General – Case No. 3761 of 1999 fell nicely within the ambit of the Sod’s Law doctrine. From start to finish everything was wrong, wrongful, and unlawful. Simon Brown knowingly permitted injustice despite the Judicial Oath that he took “to well and truly serve Sovereign Lady Queen Elizabeth the Second in the Office of a Justice of Her Majesty’s High Court and do right to all manner of people after the laws and usages of this Realm without fear or favour, affection or ill will”
I needed help to challenge the order even though I was willing to pay any reasonable fee but I had no luck. However, I was not going to let Simon Brown, Newman, Hooper, and Kennedy get away with their wrongdoing.
Family Doctor
I began to make enquiries. My first area of interest was to establish the particulars of Simon Brown’s GP [family doctor] for one simple reason. Unless he had problems with his eyes; unless he had serious cataract there was no way that he would not have become aware of the serious lacunae in the application made by Rodger Lutterodt on behalf of the Attorney General
My gut feeling was that he did not read the papers and he relied on every word spoken by Robert Jay QC. I was right.
Access to the Prime Minister
As the President of the Intelligence Services Tribunal, he had access to the Prime Minister between 1995 and 2000. He also had access to state security materials. The question is: who assisted him from time to time when handling intelligence materials during his “presidency” of the Intelligence Services Tribunal? And is there any guarantee that his conduct during his “presidency” of the Intelligence Services Tribunal was exemplary, beyond reproach?
Those who see themselves as the upholders of the interests of state in the political and legal establishments are mostly people who feel that they are above the law. The effect of this self-serving approach to matters of public interest is a nation state drifting aimlessly in all directions.
Those working in the corridors of power have a tendency to frown at criticisms. They thrive on denigration – of the masses however, the affairs of the state cannot be managed by the high and mighty on their own.
Conclusion
We may never know the answer to those important questions relating to Simon Brown, with particular reference to his “presidency” of the Intelligence Services Tribunal. It is important for those who administer justice to bear it in mind that the whole purpose of the courts is to assist individual citizens in the process of validating and vindicating their rights and entitlements.
The rules of court do not advance or promote the rule of law. Judges are making life unbearable for many in the British society. There is ignorance and total lack of respect for Humanity in the courts. Judges frown at criticisms and they put themselves above the law.
Do the 27 Member States of the EU need just one President? And do we need Anthony Blair as the President of the Union? To both questions the answer is an emphatic "No". In the case of Anthony Blair, the question for the Member States is a simple one - WOULD YOU APPOINT A PERSON WHO LOVES PLENTY OF NICE FOOD AND LOTS OF GRAVY AS A LOCOMOTIVE DRIVER OF A GRAVY TRAIN INTENDED FOR STARVING MILLIONS? If the Member States of the EU are intending to give birth to CORRUPTION on a tsunami scale then, by all means, go ahead, appoint Anthony Blair as your President and may God have mercy on everyone on the Continent. I shall explain the PLC Party Policy on the subject of "EU PRESIDENCY" fairly soon. AJS/08/10/09
DO YOU HAVE SOMETHING TO SAY ON THIS ONE? Please Click here
PLC Party euoffice@plcparty.com Tel 0044 (0)20 8133 7447
