Prima Facie Case 1

Caul Silford Grant

V

The Ministry of Justice

Testaments to a cruel and wicked calculated attempts by UK authorities to cover up the horrific circumstances leading up to his son, (Prince Anthony Grant) negligent death at the hands of a London Hospital, as the judiciary along with Kings College Hospital, the Met Police, leading law firms such as Bindmans & Partners, Reynold Porter Chamberlain, fisher Meredith and others deliberately set out to pervert and obstruct the due course of justice, in order to protect their friends and colleagues in the legal fraternity.

Brief Intro and Summary to Key Point

Bearing in mind that the physical ACT of violation is indisputable and a fact UNWITTINGLY confirmed as having taken place just as described in the Lord Chancellor's Department 02 March 2001 letter.

That in mind, the key fundamental question for any NON-PARTISAN, COURT of PUBLIC OPINION, (or observing JURY) is whether the Convention Right, to a Fair, Independent and Impartial Tribunal; (as incorporated into UK law under ARTICLE 6 HRA 1998) was violated by Justice Toulson's failure to RECUSE himself from proceeding in a matter directly involving his brother Alan Toulson, or his brother's law firm (Reynolds Porter Chamberlaine) INTEREST.

Since the rule is that one CANNOT be a judge in ones own cause, nor preside in ones friend, relative or family's Hearing, the question must then be WHY has the Judiciary's Lord chancellors Department, suddenly broke from long established practice and conventions of the RULE OF LAW; by deliberately attempting to MISAPPLY, MISINTERPRET and MISREPRESENT the law, as appearing in the evidence document. Lord Chancellor's Department 02 March 2001 letter

When a copy of the referenced Case Law that the Lord Chancellor's Department claimed to be then, 'the most recent example' on conflict of interest, Locabail (UK) Ltd, Regina v Bayfield Properties Ltd: CA 17 Nov 1999; it undoubtedly become clear and apparent that its RULING was SPECIFIC to a challenge brought with regards 'Adverse Comments' by a Judge which was then subsequently ruled to 'Need not be Show of Bias' and absolutely nothing to do with challenge on conflict of interest, as extensive as the Department disingenuously sought to make it appear to imply by deliberate MISREPRESENTATION and INTERPRETATION of the JUDGEMENT.

In summary, it is safe to deduce that the Lord Chancellor's Department CONVENIENTLY ignored far more relevant Case law references (as listed below except for the 2006 Judgement) available at the time, whose challenges were based on potent CONFLICT of INTEREST arguments; rather than the 'Adverse Comments' of a Judge, used as the Reference source instead.  Is this an instance of BAD FAITH; CORRUPTION or both?

Dimes v Proprietors of Grand Junction Canal and others: HL 26 Jun 1852

Regina v Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, ex parte Pinochet Ugarte (No 2): HL 15 Jan 1999

In Re Medicaments and Related Classes of Goods (No 2); Director General of Fair Trading v Proprietary Association of Great Britain and Proprietary Articles Trade Association: CA 21 Dec 2000

Morrison and Another v AWG Group Ltd and Another: CA 20 Jan 2006