Highbury Corner Magistrates

From Business to Community Human Rights Activism

Prior to encountering Mr Grant and the Campaign for truth and Justice, I was the Proprietor of a modestly successful small Cleaning Management Concern, started just before my completing a Social Policy Honours at Middlesex University (with a One year Occupational Sandwich at the Citizen's Advise Bureau (CAB)).

The overall Business Contracts value back then was between £45,000 – £55,000 per annum with growth Rate of 150% - 300% per annum projection spanning to a peak in 2025; wherein the Growth Rate projectiles reduce to a modest but steady 30% - 40% per Annum.

Engaged at the time on an MBA Post graduate programme in pursue of personal ambitious Business and Organisational Management and Development competencies, whilst simultaneously operating a small Cleaning Management start-up concern for the maintenance of livelihood and growth; I came across Galaxy FM (A Fi We) African and Caribbean Community Radio station broadcast about an injustice inflicted on Mr Grant by Justice Toulson’s brazen violation of Article 6 HRA 1998 Rights, compounded by the Lord Chancellors’ Department disingenuous attempt to deliberately Misrepresent, Misinterpret and Misapply the law, (as with regards Recusal of Judges from presiding cases involving their direct blood relation’s interest) in an unholy, corrupt closed rank effort to protect friends and colleagues in the legal fraternity.

At first like most people, I was naïve to presume such Corrupt Criminal violations were beyond assumed integrity of the Judiciary of England and Wales and its members, until gradual realisations that the facts were precisely as claimed and it was only the sheer hypocritical FOOLISHNESS and ARROGANCE of the authorities in itself prevented them from acknowledging and putting right the wrong. These revelations led to my adopting the Campaign and UNDERWRITING its incorporation as well as its Functional Cost in various equipments and materials through funds generated in my Business.  Also I performed physical functional roles as frontline Activist and Administrative Secretary; determined resolutely in all of our demands for Accountability and Redress that was UNLAWFULLY denied the organisations founding Chair, Mr Caul Silford Grant

Although prior, the Campaign was in and out of the Courts on many occasions, as the Metropolitan Police Department often sought its brutal powers of Arrest to break-up and disperse our protest actions, which when prosecuted to Court, severally resulted in being ‘thrown-Out, abandoned hastily and not continued with after procrastinating tactics of  adjournment after adjournments (strategically deployed by the Courts in collusion with the Public Prosecuting authorities) in order to dampen and delay pronouncing OUTRIGHT victories to vindicated Campaign members like Jaiyeola Sakiru Babansoro, Ian Sinclair, Micheal Conrad, Steven Belgrave, David Fergus, Jennifer Morris, Paul Dominque, etc.,.

Amidst these multiple backgrounds of Arrest and De-Arrest by the Metropolitan Police Department was an incident occurring 29^th September 2001. Therein, on a charge of Threatening Words/Behaviour I appeared before Highbury Corner Magistrates for the Hearing; upon which a CONTEMPT of Court allegation further materialised in an UNPRECEDENTED ULTRA VIRUS ABUSE OF BOTH JUDICIAL POWERS and PROCESS, as MYSELF, CAUL SILFORD GRANT; MARCELLE HAYDEN; JENNIFER MORRIS; DENISE LEE, and RUPERT CHARLES remain testament to having been UNLAWFULLY denied all legal rights in law, to attain redress for:

• Gross Violations of the Due Process of Law by the Judiciary of England and Wales
• False Convictions and False Imprisonments of Campaign For Truth and Justice Human Rights Activist group members by the UK Judiciary in absence of any legal (JURISDICTIONAL) authority to preside.
• An on-going WITTING and UNWITTING Failures to provide Appeals deriving as of Right, to Campaign for Truth and Justice, Human Rights Activist Defendants, following Convictions and trial outcomes breaching Articles 1, 2,3,5,6,7,8,11 and 14 of the Human Rights Act 1998.

Highbury Magistrates’, Contempt of Court Allegation UNLAWFULLY Denied Opportunity to Exercise Appeal Rights !!!

Namely on 6^th January 2003, at Highbury Comer Magistrates' Court, Before District Judge Pigott, myself and Five other Co-defendants, (Caul Grant, Marcelle Hayden, Denise Lee, Rupert Charles and Jenifer Morris) were alleged in Contempt of Court by the officiating judge.

The same judge who alleged Contempt, (District Judge Pigott) then wittingly/unwittingly went ahead to Trial; Find; Convict and Sentence her own Cause and Allegation in total breach and violations of: SECTION 6(1) HRA 1998; SECTION 6(3) HRA 1998; ARTICLE 6 HRA 1998; etc.,.

Following the conviction, due and appropriate challenge was made to the Magistrates' ULTRA VIRUS abuse and violations of the Due Process of law, by way of an Appeal Application to the convicting court, within the time limit and with the areas of violations clearly stated and identified for the courts in the submitted Grounds of Appeal.

See Exhibits:

• 13th January 2003 Copy of Original Appeal Applications lodged with the Convicting Court on behalf of each Defendants

In itself, the law provided many routes for an aggrieved and dissatisfied Appellant to challenge and have scrutinise the lawfulness/unlawfulness of the Magistrates’ Court decision. There was the ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE ACT 1960 route of Appeal wherein Section 13(1) and 13(2)(a) provided a Contempt of Court route to the High Court accordingly:

(1)Subject to the provisions of this section, an appeal shall lie under this section from any order or decision of a court in the exercise of jurisdiction to punish for contempt of court (including criminal contempt); and in relation to any such order or decision the provisions of this section shall have effect in substitution for any other enactment relating to appeals in civil or criminal proceedings.

(2) An appeal under this section shall lie in any case at the instance of the defendant and, in the case of an application for committal or attachment, at the instance of the applicant; and the appeal shall lie—

(a) from an order or decision of any inferior court, to the High Court.

Another optional route available to an aggrieved and dissatisfied Appellant to challenge and have scrutinise the lawfulness/unlawfulness of a Magistrates’ Court decision, was provided within the Magistrates’ Court Act 1980.

SECTION 108 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 provide opportunity for a Right to exercise an Appeal to the Crown Court against Sentence, or Conviction, or both as shown accordingly:

(1)A person convicted by a magistrates’ court may appeal to the Crown Court—

(a)if he pleaded guilty, against his sentence;

(b)if he did not, against the conviction or sentence.

A third alternative within SECTION 111(1) Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980. provision for an Appellant to request that the Magistrate’ Court State the case for an Appeal to the High Court, on points of law challenge to Jurisdiction, etc.,. 

So as it is plainly made available for all to see for themselves, it has been nothing other than NONSENSICAL claptrap set out and passed off as professional Legal Opinions by the Crown Prosecution Service and the OFFENDING Magistrates Court's Legal Representatives, in putting forward a CORRUPTED and ERRONEOUS argument possibly woven in joint collaboration with one another to deceive and mislead an unsuspecting Inner London Crown Court into DECLINING JURISDICTION to Hear an Appeal as of right to its venue.

As a matter of fact, the choice of venue was in the hands of the Appellant, not for the Defendant Magistrates’ Court or the Crown Prosecution to decide. The Appellant could choose to Appeal straight to the High Court on specific points of law issues, or challenge to Jurisdiction.

At the same time the Appellant could choose to reserve the High Court arguments strategically for a last-ditch opportunity, by consciously electing to Appeal to the Crown Court in order to make all arguments further air-tight and conclusively APPARENT for any higher Appeal stage taken after.

Failure to Provide Appeals to Ultra Virus (UNLAWFUL) Abuse of Judicial Powers   

Till date, despite all efforts and demands for these Appeal Rights to be satisfied, the Judiciary and its Courts have arrogantly failed to process and facilitate Appeals to these Convictions falling due as of right, to either me or any of the Five Co-defendants in the matter since 2003.

As a consequence of this omission and on-going failure, the Judiciary and its Courts remain, in CONTEMPTUOUS violations of the following:

SECTION 13(1) ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE ACT 1960;

SECTION 108 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980

(1) A person convicted by a magistrates’ court may appeal to the Crown Court—

(a) if he pleaded guilty, against his sentence;

(b) if he did not, against the conviction or sentence.

SECTION 111(1) of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980

This provision entitles ‘any person who was a party to any proceeding before a magistrates' court or is aggrieved by the conviction, order, determination or other proceeding of the court may question the proceeding on the ground that it is wrong in law or is in excess of jurisdiction.

ARTICLE 5(1)(a) HRA 1998;

ARTICLE 5(4) HRA 1998;

ARTICLE 5(5) HRA 1998

See Exhibits:

• 13th June 2003, Judiciary's Court Services Letter, showing a last minute late cancellation of the scheduled Appeal Hearing to the Inner London Crown Court.

• 7th January 2003 Highbury Corner Magistrates' Court Legal Representative Skeleton Argument attempting inconspicuously to collaborate with the Crown Prosecution Service to totally confuse the Court and the Appellants with NONSENSICAL and CORRUPTED ARGUMENT set out as Legal Opinion ERRONEOUSLY claiming that the normal route for the Appeal is the High Court, except in this particular instance.  

• 24th April 2003, Crown Prosecution Service CORRUPTED ARGUMENT set out as Legal Opinion ERRONEOUSLY Advising the Inner London Crown Court to DECLINE JURISDICTION to Hear a rightful Appeal as of right (from a Magistrates’) to the Court 

Further attempts were made to enforce our Appeal Rights to the Convictions by a resubmission of retained copies of the original Appeal Application documents itself with the Courts, but the Judiciary and its courts claimed even these (further Court sealed NOTICES OF APPEAL lodged with the Courts) was LOST/MISPLACED and COULD NOT BE FOUND.

Finally with Free Standing Civil Actions taken out against the authorities (for violations against myself and others in pursuit of redress) persistently blocked from gaining access to the Civil Courts, the Judiciary and its Courts are therefore themselves in CONTEMPTUOUS of the following laws and Rights without accountability:

SECTION 13(1) ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE ACT 1960.

SECTION 7(1) HRA 1998

SECTION 7(1)(a) HRA 1998

For SECTION 7(1) HRA 1998 allows a person who claims that a public authority has acted or proposes to act in a way which is made unlawful (by SECTION 6(1) HRA 1998) to bring proceedings against that authority under SECTION 7(1)(a) HRA 1998. 

See Exhibits:

• 15th June 2004 Campaign for Truth & Justice Letter reminding the Judiciary of its duty to provide the named Defendants their right of Appeal

• 18th June 2004 Judiciary's Court Services letter confirming NO APPEAL EXIST ON RECORD FOR THE SIX NAMED UNLAWFULLY CONVICTED INDIVIDUALS

• 25TH August 2005 Inner London Crown Court Stamp mark receipt of Second privately financed Appeal documents lodged with the Courts

• 24th November June 2005 Campaign for Truth & Justice Letter to Inner London Crown Court, enquiring about pending Appeal lodged with the Court the SECOND TIME on 25TH August 2005.

• 9th January 2006 Inner London Crown Court Stamp mark receipt of SECOND privately financed - Appeal documents lodged with the Courts

SECTION 7(1)(b) HRA 1998 provide individuals who are victims of an UNLAWFUL ACT to RELY on the convention in any Legal Proceedings.  LEGAL PROCEEDINGS includes proceedings brought by, or at the instigation of a public authority and an Appeal against the decision of a court or tribunal.

A person is a VICTIM of an unlawful Act if he/she would be a victim for the purposes of Article 34 of the Convention rights, if proceedings were brought in the European Court of human Rights in respect of the UNLAWFUL Act or Violations.

Several, privately financed Appeal Applications were made by myself and the Campaign For Truth and Justice members to attain redress, (as in accordance with SECTION 7(1)(a) HRA 1998) for FALSE ARREST and MALICIOUS PROSECUTIONS by the Metropolitan Police Department to no avail, as we were continually UNLAWFULLY BLOCKED, with our claims corruptly declaimed as 'UNJUSTICIABLE' or 'UNMERITUS' by Masters whose purpose is to prevent facts of Judicial Violations from entering the Courts for a full Hearing and ACCOUNTABILITY.