Black and white

Those involved in the conduct and the cover-up of the Gaul, Derbyshire and Trident miscarriages of justice can blackmail the current government and the Crown (with their constant demands for inquiries), can intimidate, rouse the rabble and issue threats via all the state institutions that Labour infiltrated while in power, interfere with the already corrupt justice system, but they cannot efface black and white evidence of their wrongdoing. The evidence (of which both the government and the Crown are well aware, and which they seem to be using as counterbalance to the threats of exposure leveled at them*), unluckily for some, exists - annoying, unequivocal and uneffaceable and soon to be made public.

No amount of cunning and political horse trading or privileges afforded to certain ethnic minorities in Britain can compensate for bad luck.



* The child abuse inquiry being just one of the latest examples of which they are clearly terrified. We cannot understand why the Royal family would be so frightened about historic cases of child abuse, especially, it seems, about that involving Kincora boys' home.

Where they are now

Recent thoughts of the formal investigations that we have referred to on this blog prompted our curiosity to find out more as to the whereabouts of the judges who acted as chairmen in those unfortunate inquiries.

Sir David Steel, for instance, is no longer judge at the Commercial and Admiralty Courts in London. David Steel was involved twice with the FV Gaul: first in a partisan position as lawyer for the Insurance Company, then in a neutral position as chairman of the 2004 RFI.

Although not yet arrived at the age when, as a poet said, passions relax their hold, or when expired judges are customarily wheeled out of HM’s Courts, in October 2011, Sir David Steel quietly left his judicial position and returned to the bar in a less demanding, though no less cushy role of Arbitrator at 10 Fleet Street. Simultaneously, he was also appointed Appeal Arbitrator for the London insurance market. Quite surprising!!! The commercial literature advertising the nobleman’s services now refers to Sir David Steel in terms of “the retired judge”.

The other honourable judge, Sir David Young – the former Sheriff Principal of Grampian, Highland and Islands – who presided over the more recent public inquiry into the sinking of FV Trident has also left his judicial position early, that is immediately after the conclusion of the Trident inquiry.

Justice Anthony Coleman, who chaired the MV Derbyshire investigation, in his turn, left the High Court in 2001, immediately after the MV Derbyshire inquiry had ended, and set out to the Czech Republic to advise the Ministry of Justice there on procedure with a view to the Czech Republic’s accession to the EU. Sir Anthony Colman then went on to become an International Arbitrator for that temple of austerity which is the Dubai International Financial Centre.

So, all these three former inquiry chairmen are no longer judges. The Brotherhood, it seems, has its own, discreet code of honour. Still, we are left with the feeling that these three judges fared far better than the victims of their judgments. This is Britain today – long live the Queen!

More to come

ECHR

Selections from our recent complaint to the European Court of Human Rights:

48. Following suggestions received from different quarters, including from the most creditable sources (i.e. most kindly, from within the Royal Family*) – suggestions validated to some extent by the Applicant’s personal experience – the Applicant was given to understand that the UK government has been placed under pressure by the US administration to obstruct any legal process that could make the abuses complained of by the Applicant and details of his disclosures public and proven in a court of law. What is more painfully apparent is that the Applicant and his family have been placed, in their turn, under tremendous pressure (duress) with the aim of preventing the Applicant from pursuing his claims further. The Applicant became aware that there were fears that details of his complaints of harassment suffered outwith the workplace (especially the events which took place during his secondment in Brussels and in which foreign nationals/agencies were implicated ) might be aired in public, and names and affiliations publicly disclosed. As it is understood that some of the Applicant’s former work colleagues had links to the intelligence services, there were also fears that identities, methods and embarrassing details about the conduct of those services could emerge. What was more, the Applicant’s disclosures, if dealt with, would have also tainted/incriminated a number of senior political figures and high-ranking officials from within the British Establishment.

49. It has been also implied that the UK, for the sake of some unspecified political interests, could not contemplate defying the US’s calls for secrecy. When faced with the difficult quandary of deciding how to reconcile the US administration’s demands with the obligation of having regard to due process and the rule of law, the UK, it seems, has chosen to comply with the former, while giving only the appearance of following the latter – to the effect that the Applicant was deprived of a fair hearing of his claim.

We have also complained about the UK government monitoring and interfering with our mail, telephone and electronic communications while we were preparing our case for the UK courts and the ECHR. These actions placed us at a disadvantage in relation to our opponents (i.e. the UK government) by allowing the latter foreknowledge of matters concerning evidence, legal strategy, search for witnesses etc. and the possibility to interfere with these matters. This was another serious breach of the principle of equality of arms and hence of the right to a fair trial.

The complaint also provided evidence of the UK courts' used of blatant falsehoods, legalistic quibbling and disregard for the law in order to avoid hearing our complaints related to the fraudulent public inquiries referred to on this blog.

More details will follow...

_____________________

* That was when the Tory PM did not appear as vulnerable politically

The Royal Courts of Justice

There’s been regretfully a protracted period of silence on this blog, owing to our busy schedule breaking the silence elsewhere and dealing with a whole set of related matters – matters that have eventually taken us all the way up to the Royal Courts of Justice. 

That was for us a first time experience and we were filled with trepidation at the chance of visiting that magnificent bastion of righteousness in the Strand. The edifice housing the Royal Courts of Justice is impressive; designed by George Edmund Street in the Victorian Gothic Revival style, the appearance of the construction, both external and internal, is illustrative of the idea of what society ought to be – morally correct, spiritually elevated and pure. 

And to make sure that society is so, nowadays, visitors are X-rayed and frisked at the entrance, lest some deadly weapons are fired in court. The inner corridors (and there are over 3 miles of them, we are told) were pretty vacant, except for a few black flocks of bewigged barristers, dashing along – vulturine and predacious – and descending upon various courtrooms in their paths. They were followed by judges, more measured in pace, making their way towards the same venues, with the confidence and composure of those habituated to veracity. 

At the oral hearing held by the Court of Appeal, we were honoured by the presence of a lord justice of appeal and allowed to present our argument at length. The facts were plain and our dispute pointed at the distorted logic of earlier court decisions. Our case being so politically sensitive and embarrassing, the lower courts must have thought that it could only be tackled by abandoning standard logic. And abandon it they did. 

The appeal judge, however, did not seem to be listening; we got the impression that he had other preoccupations, which our oral submission hindered to some extent. Not that it was any point in listening anyway, as the Court of Appeal seemed to have made their minds beforehand as to the outcome – or to have had their minds made for them. (Nothing of what we submitted seemed to be acknowledged.) So, in order to save everybody time and spasms of mind, the court quickly decided that the appeal should not be allowed. 

We were told that the decision was for our own good. This may be true, but, as we know very well from history, this assurance is often used by the State to justify the perpetration of many crimes. 

The idea of justice – as Epicurus said, is that it prevents men from harming and from being harmed. And that is, I have to admit, the very idea that the British justice system applies when it prevents us from harming the interests of our opponents – high-rank politicians and officials - and when it prevents them from the unpleasant task of accounting for their actions.

The changing climate

“This is a court of law, young man, not a court of justice.” (Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr)

Our experience of the Courts and Tribunals service – fragments of which were presented here before - has expanded. And with it, so has our bewilderment.

To our laymen’s eyes, what is going on in these temples of law and wisdom does not look at all like wisdom and law, and it certainly has nothing to do with dispensing justice.

The tribunals are, in fact, creatures of the UK government, so when the government is the party complained against, it may be rather tricky for these establishments to act against themselves. But even allowing for this inherent limitation, what we have seen is far beyond what one could normally expect.

Unfortunately, the matters - as they appear to us - are also kept rather quiet, so that the person in the street can still go about his business, lulled in the conviction that, whenever in need, he will be well served by the law. Eventually, when the majority finds that this is no longer true, the very notion of law will have already taken a different meaning.

In our case against the government, we ventured as far as the first main hearing, with the Department for Transport having splashed out more than £33,000 of taxpayers’ money to defend themselves in grand style.

We, of course, did not have the benefit of any legal assistance. Furthermore, the tribunal, faithful to the principle of armes égales, refused to order the Department to make full disclosure (which, theoretically, they were obliged to do) of the documents in their possession or answer essential queries, despite the fact that the judges have the power to make such orders and that these are fairly customary.

It may be worth mentioning that the information that we tried to extract included certain details relating to the way in which the DfT/MCA had dealt with our disclosures about past maritime accidents investigations and copies of the communications between the DfT/MCA and the Met and other third parties following our complaints. However, it seems that the government did not like such information to get into our hands and, care of the legal system, got what they wished.

And to show their good nature, the Treasury Solicitors, who had been tasked by the judge with the preparation of the hearing bundle, could not help taking this opportunity to mess up our own, carefully prepared, evidence.

Anyway, the government’s most intriguing achievement was the tribunal’s refusal to call any of the witnesses [*] whom we had named and who, as key players, had most relevant evidence to give. This is highly unusual, and not even being given a written refusal or the reasons therefore is more unusual still.

Yet, although we don't have much faith in the system, we shall be persisting, no matter what,  fathom the full extent of official dereliction and then pass the knowledge on.
 --------------------------------------------
[*] Interesting details about this particular aspect will be revealed in due course.