Placing this case in the public domain,
under the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1999 and Article 10 ECoHR, deprivation of Human
Rights, incl. Article 6 ECoHR, Fair Hearing and continuous Contempt of Court Procedures,
Denial and Abduction of Rights, Suppression of Information, False Processes and False
Instruments leading to Collusion and Fraud. Lord Chancellor, DTI and Home Office notified
since 22/10/04 and the Attorney General since 10/5/05. Their actions are pending.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL & THE LORD
CHANCELLOR and MINISTER OF CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS have
been advised of wrong doings in this Civil Case and attempts made,
to engage this with The Terrorist Act 2001, which has since being absolved. To
date, the above UK's Legal Representatives of Last Resort, failed their Duties and
Responsibilities and thus by implication supporting wrongdoings by the Judiciary and other
parties involved. Such failings carry a Vicarious Liability.
The Lord Chancellor speaking of a more transparent judiciary said: "The Public needs to have confidence in judges who more closely
reflect the diversity of the nation, and who have a real understanding of the problems
faced by most people" (Daily Mail: 14 July 2005).
Such concerns expressed by the Lord Chancellor, point to a
need of an immediate corrective action encompassing cases like the one on hand where
irregulatities and lack of transparency fail principles of Natural Justice.
FAIR COMMENT:-
 |
The Lord Chancellor has being informed of Judiciary's wrongdoings
since 22/10/04. Due to inaction and lack of Responsibility, the Attorney General was
also being informed since 10/5/05 and called to action under their Duties and
Responsibilities. |
 |
Due to failure of Response by the Attorney General and the
Lord Chancellor alleviating his responsibility by stating that he can only investigate the
Judiciary if there has been a Personal or Racist comment and not how the
proceedings were handled (!) forgetting that Citizens go to
Court for Justice and the Judges are there to retain and to serve Justice thus
being the Administrators of the Law. Albeit they are all Public servants and the law is
there in order to protect citizens from crime and criminals and they are there to
correctly administer the law.
The question remains as to who is responsible when these individuals, fail
their duties / responsibilities / Judicial Oath and Juris Prudence ? ? Any
other employee would loose their job
with repercussions but, the judges are allowed to carry on irrespective of judicial bias
as per Sussex Justices (1924).
Their employers (ie the Government Ministers) deny responsibility and
claim inability to deal with issues raised ! Issues raised therein (23/6/05) remain
pending. Simple straightforward answers are not being answered. |
  |
Last Confirmation requested from both the Attorney General, ' the Guardian of Public
Interest' and the Lord
Chancellor who appoints the Judiciary,
with reference to the performance of their duties including conflict of interest, are now
pending since 1st July 2005. |
|
