Incorrect Justice Part 2
This 1st Part of the Series introduced the issues that constantly plague court users and many of us who, wittingly or unwitting expect the judiciary to do justice in accordance with the words of Judicial Oath but then, what goes on in the Royal Courts are such that one might as well stand on a hilltop in Bexleyheath and thumb for a lift to the moon. The common citizens of the UK, a class to which I belong, are suffering from a combination of mental aberration and optical illusion occasioned by the English legal system. What is not there is what our eyes see and the more we show respect, the harder the system clobbers us. What to do?
Unbeknown to millions of people across the Globe, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was the work of two people. It was the brainchild of Eleanor Roosevelt [America’s First Lady] and Ralph Bunche – an African American, and UN Diplomat with responsibility for Peace in the Middle East.
Mrs. Roosevelt had problems with the Russians represented by their prosecutor, Andrei Vishinsky, as regards getting the Document accepted by the General Assembly of the United Nations.
"This is an outrage, Mrs. Roosevelt. You cannot infringe the rights of governments. They are the things that matter”, Andrei Vishinsky protested.
"Mr. Vishinsky, we're not dealing here with the rights of governments, they're far too much already. We're dealing here, Mr. Vishinsky, with the rights of people, of men, of the right of man to be free. Man, Mr. Vishinsky, not governments", Mrs. Roosevelt replied.
The exchange between Mr. Andrei Vishinsky, Chief Soviet Prosecutor and Mrs. Eleanor Roosevelt, the co-Architect of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, was breathtaking:
Significance of Universal Declaration vis-à-vis English Law
The words of Mrs. Eleanor Roosevelt impose an OBLIGATION upon the European Court of Human Rights (“Strasbourg Jurisdiction”) and national courts everywhere on earth, to ensure that the Courts themselves respect the rights and freedoms of inhabitants of the country in which they operate.
The establishment of the European Court of Human Rights [ECHR], at Article 19 “TO ENSURE THE OBSERVANCE OF THE ENGAGEMENTS UNDERTAKEN BY THE HIGH CONTRACTING PARTIES IN THE CONVENTION AND THE PROTOCOLS THERETO," should, in the ordinary course of events assuage the fears of Mrs. Eleanor Roosevelt, if she were alive today
However, Section 4 of the European Court [the Section that handles complaints referable to the UK] constantly hinders the rights and freedoms of Applicants or Complainants, in a way that would make Mr. Andrei Vishinsky jump for joy in his grave.
The Rules of that Court favour the United Kingdom more than it does fairness to complaints by citizens of the United Kingdom and in any event, fairness or justice delayed is fairness or justice denied. Long delays in the examination of Applications, will always render the Judgment of the Grand Chamber itself surplus to the requirements of natural justice.
The Court of Appeal [Civil Division] also drags its feet, rather than deal with applications as expeditiously as possible. Although the Royal Courts can be described as the great great grandparents of most courts in the world. Yet, UK courts seem to be leading the world in matters referable to Incorrect Justice.
Paucity of learning
The most serious problem that the Court of Appeal [Civil Division] faces is education. Those “glorified” lawyers or "Interns” taking part in the "Judicial Assistance" scheme, which I referred to in the 1st Part, are in the same league as Mr. Rodger Lutterodt, the bogus lawyer employed by the Treasury Solicitor Department. Mr. Lutterodt appeared before many top judges over a period of two years, during which he posed as SOLICITOR OF THE SUPREME COURT, even though he had no legal education, no Certificate issued by the Law Society and certainly did not have the right of audience. Yet, he made a complete fool of the system
Currently, we have Ms Sally Meacher, Ms Lisa Smith, Ms Terry Young, passing themselves off as Deputy Masters in the Court of Appeal [Civil Division]. What kind of message is the Royal Courts sending out to the rest of the world that venerates the English legal system, in light of a system that enables fake lawyers to administer justice in the name of the Queen?
In order to be able to deliver legal services to court users, especially at the Court of Appeal [Civil Division] level, the possession of basic knowledge of the English legal system, is a MUST. Judges are to blame for a state of affairs in which untrained, uneducated, or poorly educated people, give themselves grand titles, such as Deputy Master or Master, in the belief that no one in the mainstream society would ever find out the status categorisation of such “Deputy Masters” or “Masters”..
Specific rules
A person who wishes to make an application for permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal, must make an ex parte application. "Ex parte" means, "without the other party being present". The maker of the application does not have to be present, either. "Ex Parte" application is a paper application.
The header of an “Ex Parte” application would look like this –
"NOTICE OF EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION TO GIVE NOTICE OF APPEAL AND STAY OUT OF TIME"
"STAY" in this context means, "STAY OF EXECUTION". In other words, a family who is about to have the house repossessed by the Bank, can seek a "STAY OF EXECUTION" {an order to keep the bank at bay until the Court can hear the appeal].
Ex Parte application should, as a matter of legal practice be referred to a Master when the application arrives at the Registry of the Court. A Master is a small-time judge in his or her own right. He or she is certainly not expected to be bogus or fake. Unfortunately, the Registry of the Court of Appeal [Civil Division] has rewritten its own rules.
Some 6 months ago I made an Ex Parte application for permission to give notice of appeal and stay out of time in respect of the SCA 1981 Section 42. I attached a copy of my Notice of Appeal to my ex parte application, just in case Permission was granted.
In my application I raised a number of important issues, issues which can only be dealt by a judge, as follows:
"The Issues
14. The primary issue for determination by the Court of Appeal (Civil Division) are as follows:
{1} (i) Is the legal or statutory duty imposed upon the Attorney General or upon any law officer of the Crown discharged in part or wholly under the Supreme Court Act 1981 Section 42[1]
(ii) Where, in the purported performance of the said duty a demand by way of a “Claim” was / is made on the citizen under the Civil Procedure Rules Part 8 –
(iii) By a person purporting to be authorised by the Attorney General to “MAKE AN APPLICATION” OR “CLAIM”, but who, by fraud, passed himself off as having the Right of Audience when he did not have such a Right and
(iv) Is the judgment of the Divisional Court or any order made under Affidavit evidence or statements of information by a person or persons who set out to deceive the Court, void as against the subject of any such judgment or order?
(v) And is any such judgment or order void as against any putative name in the contemplation of the Judge or Justices who delivered such a judgment or made such an order?
{2} Whether the all proceedings order made as a result of the matters above mentioned should now be lifted rescinded revoked annulled set aside upon the grounds that the Judicial proceedings that took place in the Divisional Court on 04 October 1999 and 18 November 1999 were an Abuse of legal process and of the Court, vexatious, scandalous and quite plainly oppressive”
Correct approach, not taken
On receipt of my application Mr. Geoff Denman, Registry Manager should have passed on the documents to a Judge under CPR [Court Procedure Rules] dealing with Preliminary Issues. In the words of Part 8 Section 8 of CPR-
"8.1.1 The hearing of Preliminary Issues (“PI”), at which the court considers and delivers a binding judgment on particular issues in advance of the main trial, can be an extremely cost-effective and efficient way of narrowing the issues between the parties and, in certain cases, of resolving disputes altogether.
8.1.2 Some cases listed in the TCC lend themselves particularly well to this procedure. A PI hearing can address particular points which may be decisive of the whole proceedings; even if that is not the position, it is often possible for a PI hearing to cut down significantly on the scope (and therefore the costs) of the main trial.
8.1.3 At the first CMC the court will expect to be addressed on whether or not there are matters which should be taken by way of Preliminary Issues in advance of the main trial. Subject to paragraph 8.5 below, it is not generally appropriate for the court to make an order for the trial of preliminary issues until after the defence has been served. After the first CMC, and at any time during the litigation, any party is at liberty to raise with any other party the possibility of a PI hearing and the court will consider any application for the hearing of such Preliminary Issues. In many cases, although not invariably, a PI order will be made with the support of all parties.”
Ignorance
Mr. Geoff Denman did not know what to do. Having kept my documents in his filing cabinet for several weeks, it would appear that he passed the documents to a “Deputy Master”; namely, Ms Sally Meacher. But Ms Meacher was in no position to deal with the issues raised. Apart from the fact that she is an Intern, on work experience from the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal, she does not have the education or knowledge or skills that would have enabled her to do justice to my application.
In a scenario situation of that nature, she should have informed Mr. Denman that she was not qualified to handle such a complex issue. In the alternative, she should have referred the application to a judge. She did nothing of the sort.
Further, neither Mr. Geoff Denman nor Ms Sally Meacher has ever heard of Section 16 of the Supreme Court Act 1981. In my application to the Court of Appeal [Civil Division] I made a Submission based on Section 16 of the Supreme Court 1981, as follows
"15. In form this application for permission is a preparatory step in the direction of an Appeal from the High Court of Justice to the Court of Appeal [Civil Division] under the Supreme Court Act 1981 section 16 [1]
16 (1) -- Subject as otherwise provided by this or any other Act (and in particular to the provision in section 13(2)(a) of the Administration of Justice Act 1969 excluding appeals to the Court of Appeal in cases where leave to appeal from the High Court directly to the House of Lords is granted under Part II of that Act), {inserted by S.I. 2000/1071, art.7} or as provided by any order made by the Lord Chancellor under section 56(1) of the Access to Justice Act 1999,] the Court of Appeal shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine appeals from any judgment or order of the High Court.”
Deceitfulness and Contradictions
Eventually, I received a letter from Mr. Geoff Denman, as follows:
"Dear Mr. Salakov,
Re: HM Attorney General v. Salakov
Your papers in this matter have been referred to Deputy Master Meacher who has asked me to write to you as follows:
This court does not have jurisdiction to entertain your application because there is no appeal from a decision of the appeal court, made at an oral hearing, to allow or refuse permission to appeal to that court [See Section 54[4] Access to Justice Act 1999 CPR 52 3[3} and [4] of the Practice Direction to CPR Part 52)
Accordingly I return your papers herewith"
Audacious
I was not amused but it was very audacious of Mr. Denman to describe Ms Sally Meacher as a “Deputy Master”. Presumably Ms Meacher did not disabuse Mr. Denman of his mistaken belief. If that is the case, she is guilty of deception and he, Mr. Denman was an accessory before or after the fact. Whatever the circumstances, they are both as guilty as sin
On receipt of the above letter, I contacted Mr. Denman for further information:
"Dear Mr. Denman,
H M Attorney General -v- Andre John-Salakov
Thank you very much for your email, below.
Concerning the direction that "the court does not have jurisdiction to entertain [my] application because there is no appeal from a decision of the appeal court, made at an oral hearing", please
1. Let me have the Court of Appeal Ref. number in respect of the "appeal" referred to in the direction
2. Provide me with a copy of [my application together with any skeleton argument that I filed prior to any such "oral" hearing
3. Please provide me with details of the shorthand writer in court during the said "oral" hearing
4. Please let me know the name of the Justice who heard any such oral "hearing"
I am sure that you would have no difficulties in locating the documents.
In the meantime, I have this afternoon, instructed an officer of the Public Law Centre, to produce a list of all the applications made to the Court of Appeal by subjects of Section 42 of the SCA 1981, between December 1999 and 2008.
Presumably Deputy Master Meacher is saying that I made an oral hearing previously then, she should provide me with details of any such application.”
In reply, Mr. Denman wrote to me, as follows:
"Dear Mr. Salakov:
The Appeal referred to in the Deputy Master's direction would have been in the lower court and not in the court of appeal.
1. There is no court of appeal reference.
2. The lower court will be able to provide these.
3. The lower court will have shorthand writer's details.
4. The lower court will provide the Judge's details.
I hope this is of assistance."
Next : Incorrect Justice Part 3
Latest Features
Andre John-Salakov, Leader, PLC Party & Founder, The Public Law Centre [CSO]
INVITATION TO PATHFINDERS 