The Facts of Claim

The Remnants of an Endemic British Institutional Disease of Racism, Prejudicial-Bias and Corruption Culture 

In a nation where laws stem from racist prejudices or unchecked institutional corruption, the rights of ordinary individuals, theoretically protected by law, are trampled upon by those in public office who are supposed to enforce these rights but fail to provide accountability and redress. In such a scenario, the time is ripe for lawful rebellion, as demonstrated by the Campaign for Truth and Justice's fearless community grassroots affirmative action initiatives, which emerged in the absence of any significant Black-British leadership.

When the 1999 Macpherson Report boldly identified the Metropolitan Police Department as "institutionally racist," it marked a significant departure from established norms and taboos. These norms had previously prevented privileged establishment figures from publicly acknowledging institutional failings, preferring instead to keep such issues hidden and only revealed piecemeal in exclusive journals, away from the public eye. This approach allowed the British establishment ruling elites to save face and avoid accountability for their mismanagement and incompetence.

Although the context was specific to the handling of the Stephen Lawrence racist murder investigation and inquiry process, the Metropolitan Police Department was, unfortunately, the only institution scrutinised at the time.

The judiciary would have shared in the condemnation faced by the Metropolitan Police Department just as the esteemed Doreen Lawrence and her then husband, (Neville Lawrence) later discovered (when their case went to trial) that ‘… it had already been decided before a single word was spoken …’. These revelations reinforced the fact that the British Justice System is subtly influenced by the socioeconomic status and race of those appearing before the courts, rather than being the equitable system it is portrayed to be.

The Grassroots Affirmative Action Demands for Judicial Accountability and Redress

In spite of the façade designed to portray the Courts and their judges as fair, independent, and impartial, the reality is often starkly different.

Contrary to what apologist state professionals might claim, the Courts and their judges are far from the benign images presented.

Much like other British institutional authorities, the judiciary of England and Wales has been plagued by institutional racism and deep-seated corruption of which the most recent example of this culminated in the overall abolition of the Lord Chancellor's Department, following complaints to then Prime Minister Tony Blair.

It was the campaign who highlighted that the role of the Lord Chancellor, intended to be independent, was compromised by his dual positions with one foot in the Cabinet and the other in the Judicial Office as head of the Judiciary, upon whom our complaints of Judicial State Law-breaking was outstanding.

This conflict of interest was largely overlooked until it was recognised that Lord Irvine of Lairg, the then Lord Chancellor, could not separate himself and his office from a significant constitutional crisis underscored by an evidenced letter from Buckingham Palace dated 9^th January 1998, and a further most implicating one from the Lord Chancellor’s Department dated 2^nd March 2001, which embarrassingly and undeniably shows how the Department DELIBERATELY Misrepresented the law regarding the recusal of judges in cases that involve direct familial relationships in judicial proceedings.

In essence, institutional racism, including prejudicial bias, is not limited to the Metropolitan Police Department; the judiciary is equally guilty but has managed to evade scrutiny for a considerable time. This is partly due to a lack of assertiveness from the Black lawyers, solicitors, and barristers' associations, who, being content with their token positions, have failed to challenge institutional racism and lawlessness within the judicial establishment.

For instance, Diane Abbott falsely claimed that in the UK, there is no law against false advice, seemingly to protect her friends and colleagues in the powerful British legal establishment. David Lammy, despite his legal background, was repeatedly approached but, like other Black and African Caribbean MPs (with the exception of Bernie Grant), assumed that their responsibilities did not include addressing Black African and Caribbean issues. Instead, they focused on the agendas dictated by their party and outside lobby interests, ignoring any direct involvement in Black African and Caribbean communities issues unless given approval to do so by their controlling pay masters.

Another prime example of disservice is embodied in the Black Equity Organisation, which claims to be a national Black civil rights organisation dedicated to dismantling systemic racism in Britain. Despite such bold claim, the organisation has never reached out to suggest or respond to any of the significant issues, (like the Home Office Windrush Compensation Inequities, or Criminal Perversions of Justice and Non-Accountability issues happening right here in the UK) brought to its CEO (Wanda Wyporska’s) attention, which she most probably dismissed in preference of her pet love pursuits in 'Polish Witchcraft' etc.,.  However in reality, we know the real crux of the matter is, most ambitious career chasing bourgeoisie choose to keep their head down, most importantly because you can’t have skeletons in your wardrobe to dare raise your head in criticism of the British Judicial establishments, let alone the Metropolitan Police Department itself; who can fit a dissenting voice with a crime as was done to Charles De Menezes to justify having Unlawfully killed him.

Complaints of Judicial Violations, Readily Dismissed Prior to Any Investigations into the Facts, As UNMERITED Grievance Deriving Entirely From Dissatisfaction With Unfavourable Judicial Outcomes, Presumed to Have Been Conducted, Entirely in Accordance With the Rule of Law

1. Systemic Injustice and Institutional Failings

Systemic injustice and institutional failings within the judiciary are critical issues that undermine the core principles of fairness, independence, and impartiality upon which the judiciary is built. When examining the root causes of these issues, it becomes evident that a pervasive sense of systemic injustice and institutional failures within the judiciary itself often serves as a motivating factor.

Firstly, the judiciary is entrusted with the crucial role of upholding justice and ensuring that laws are applied fairly and impartially. However, when systemic injustices exist within the broader societal framework, they inevitably seep into judicial processes. This can manifest in various forms, such as racial bias in sentencing, unequal access to legal representation based on socioeconomic status, or gender discrimination in judicial decisions. These biases and injustices perpetuate a cycle where marginalised groups are disproportionately affected, leading to a loss of trust in the judicial system.

Secondly, institutional failings within the judiciary can stem from various factors, including corruption, lack of transparency, and undue influence from external entities. Corruption erodes public confidence in the judiciary by compromising the integrity of judicial decisions and processes. When judges or court officials are influenced by bribery, political pressure, or personal interests, the outcomes of cases may deviate from the principles of fairness and justice. Such failings not only undermine the rule of law but also perpetuate a system where powerful interests can manipulate legal outcomes at the expense of justice for all.

Moreover, systemic injustices and institutional failings are interconnected. The systemic injustices prevalent in society at large can shape institutional practices within the judiciary. For instance, if societal prejudices are deeply ingrained, they may influence judicial decision-making, even unconsciously. Similarly, institutional failings such as inadequate resources for courts, excessive caseloads, or lack of training on bias awareness can exacerbate disparities and injustices within the legal system.

Addressing these issues requires a multifaceted approach. Firstly, there must be robust efforts to identify and mitigate biases within the judiciary through comprehensive training programs, diversity initiatives, and regular evaluations of judicial practices. Transparency and accountability mechanisms should be strengthened to combat corruption and undue influence, thereby safeguarding the independence and integrity of the judiciary.

Furthermore, societal efforts to address systemic injustices must also encompass reforms aimed at promoting equity and inclusivity. This includes addressing socioeconomic disparities that affect access to legal representation, advocating for policies that promote diversity in the legal profession, and ensuring that the judiciary reflects the diversity of the population it serves.

2. Lack of Accountability and Redress

Those in public office often wield significant power and responsibility, entrusted with upholding justice, fairness, and the public good. However, when these officials fail to provide adequate accountability and redress for grievances, it undermines the trust and efficacy of conventional routes to justice. This failure can be attributed to various reasons, including institutional inertia, conflicts of interest, bureaucratic inefficiencies, and sometimes deliberate avoidance of responsibility.

Firstly, institutional inertia within public offices can lead to delays, inaction, or inadequate responses to grievances. Bureaucratic processes, despite intended to ensure thoroughness, can often become barriers to timely justice. For instance, lengthy administrative procedures, cumbersome paperwork, and lack of clear communication channels can frustrate affected individuals seeking resolution.

Secondly, conflicts of interest among public officials may hinder impartial decision-making and accountability. When officials have personal or political stakes in the outcomes of cases, there is a risk of biased judgments or attempts to protect vested interests rather than uphold justice. This erodes public trust in the fairness and integrity of the process.

Moreover, bureaucratic inefficiencies can exacerbate the challenges faced by individuals seeking justice. Limited resources, understaffing, and outdated procedures can result in cases languishing without resolution. This bureaucratic quagmire often leaves affected individuals and communities feeling powerless and disillusioned with the system's ability to deliver justice effectively.

In some cases, there may also be a deliberate avoidance of responsibility by public officials, especially when addressing systemic issues that require substantial reforms or admissions of past mistakes. Fear of political repercussions, reputational damage, or legal consequences can incentivise officials to deflect accountability rather than confront and address underlying problems.

Given these systemic challenges, assertive actions can become necessary to bring about the justice that has been denied through regular channels.

A Last Resort of Entering Court by Any Means Necessary As Direct Strategic Community Affirmative Action Campaign to Expose ODIOUS Judicial Perversion of justice and Metropolitan Police INACTION

The strategy of entering the court "by any means necessary" is deeply embedded in the historical context of civil rights movements. It draws on a legacy of using civil disobedience to challenge systemic injustices and effect significant social change. By invoking this tradition, the community's actions aim to confront and rectify institutional wrongs within the judicial system, raise public awareness, force institutional accountability, uphold moral and ethical imperatives, and build a broader movement for justice and reform.

Civil Rights Movement in the United States

One of the most prominent examples of this strategy is the American Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 1960s. Activists like Martin Luther King Jr., Rosa Parks, and organisations like the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) employed civil disobedience to confront racial segregation and discrimination. By deliberately breaking unjust laws and accepting the consequences, they highlighted the moral bankruptcy of the status quo and galvanised public opinion in favour of civil rights reforms.

Anti-Apartheid Movement in South Africa

Similarly, the anti-apartheid movement in South Africa saw leaders like Nelson Mandela and Desmond Tutu use civil disobedience and other forms of direct action to challenge the institutionalised racial segregation and oppression enforced by the apartheid regime. Their persistent and courageous actions eventually led to the dismantling of apartheid and the establishment of a democratic South Africa.

Women's Suffrage Movement

The women's suffrage movement in the early 20th century also utilised civil disobedience to demand voting rights for women. Activists such as Emmeline Pankhurst and the Suffragettes engaged in hunger strikes, protests, and other forms of direct action to draw attention to their cause and pressure the government to enact change.

Applying Historical Strategies to Modern Contexts

Challenging Systemic Injustices

The community's strategy of entering the court "by any means necessary" aligns with these historical precedents. It aims to challenge systemic injustices within the judicial system by making a bold statement that the status quo is unacceptable. By taking direct action, the community seeks to disrupt the complacency and inertia that often characterise institutional responses to deeply entrenched biases and corruption.

Raising Public Awareness

Just as civil rights activists in the past used their actions to raise public awareness and draw media attention, the community's efforts to enter the court seek to shine a spotlight on judicial misconduct and institutional racism. By bringing these issues into the public eye, they hope to build broader support for reform and hold those in power accountable.

Forcing Institutional Accountability

Civil disobedience has historically been effective in forcing institutions to confront their failings. The community's actions are designed to compel the judiciary and other public officials to address allegations of judicial perversion of justice and enforce the rule of law. By demonstrating the depth of their commitment to justice, they aim to create a sense of urgency that spurs meaningful institutional change.

The strategy is also rooted in a tradition of principled resistance. Civil rights movements have always emphasised the moral and ethical imperatives of their actions, highlighting the stark contrast between the righteousness of their cause and the injustices they oppose. By entering the court "by any means necessary," the community invokes this tradition, positioning their struggle as a moral crusade against systemic wrongdoing.

Deliberate Misdirection of an Over Trusting Jury By Judge to Convict: The Judiciary of England and Wale’s Response to Evidential Arguments of False Arrest, Prosecutions, Convictions and Imprisonments it wants concealed

As a result, of the apparent unwillingness of the authorities to resolve the violations, an AFFIRMATIVE COMMUNITY ACTION Campaign seeking to enter Court, ‘… by any means necessary …’ in pursuit of redress through Civil Disobedience was commenced with Caul Grant entering the Middilesex Guildhall Crown Court 4^th November 2002 (now named the supreme court) through the backdoor, with a simulated burglary of his former employer.

The matter went before Judge Inman wherein the Crown Prosecution duly opened and presented its case. The Defendant eventually rose and presented his case as one which the ACT was committed with deliberate intent to be caught and brought before the Courts; in order to bring grievance of his UNLAWFUL Imprisonment and other violations of his Rights by the authorities (Justice Toulson and the Lord Chancellors’ Department) before the Court as he was persistently denied any access to the Civil Courts by the Judicial authorities who wished their violations hidden and unaccounted for.   Nonetheless, the case was subsequently, Adjourned and Summarily Discharged from Court with full Dismissal.

With the authorities arrogantly ignoring all petitions for redress, Mr. Grant sought to enter the Courts once again in 2003 in hope that the action would compel the UK authorities to consider bringing an amicable resolve to his outstanding complaints of UNLAWFUL IMPRISONMENT .

In the spirit of Clause 61, Magna Carta 1215 Mr Grant entered the Criminal Court again as it was the only route that remained unblocked to him, when on 16th August 2003, he was intercepted at Gatwick Airport with 44.9 Kilos of Herbal Cannabis in the suitcase.

When interviewed, Mr. Grant admitted the offence and in order to be assured the matter is committed fully in severity beyond the Magistrates' court where matters continue to be dealt with both summarily and inequitably, Mr. Grant volunteered 7 counts of same in the past.

The matter went on Trial before Judge Christopher Pratt at Croydon Crown Court in December 2003.  A Mr. A Walker appeared on behalf of the prosecution whilst Mr. Grant appeared unrepresented by any legal Counsel following UK Lawyer's discomfort and unwillingness to put before the courts Defence arguments detailing evidence of State Law-breaking, Convention Right Violations, Unlawful Imprisonments including Judicial Criminal Perversion of Justice complaints he wants addressed by any means necessary short of having to take anybody’s life.

In evidence Mr. Grant testified that he was the chairman of Campaign for Truth & Justice and that he was seeking an opportunity into court to have heard, existing and unresolved grievance of his False and Unlawful Imprisonment, deriving from Judicial Corruption and Improprieties, amounting to state Lawbreaking which has been long standing for redress, denied him.

Mr. Grant stated that he had resorted to the action as a last resort, in a determination to preserve his Enforceable Rights which was being Unlawfully Denied him by a corrupt influential few managing the Administrative Court Department of the High Court, responsible for pushing him outside the protection of Law.

In an evidence exhibit of the above facts Mr. Grant provided the Lord Chancellor’s letter of 02/03/2001 addressed to him on the matter confirming unambiguously Justice Toulson and his brother, (or brother’s law Firm Reynolds Potter Chamberlain’s) acted as alleged by Mr. Grant (inappropriately in contravention of Article 6 of the Convention Rights) whilst claiming wholly inaccurately thereof the Judge’s decision not to recuse himself from adjudicating in a matter involving his direct related brother’s INTEREST; not enough to substantiate a supported allegation of bias, even thought the rules of seeming or slight interest applies just as the General Pinochet saga and Lord Justice Mummery, Lord Justice Latham and Lord Justice Carnwath High Court Judgment of Friday 20th January 2006, case no: A3/2005/2736 demonstrate. (See copy of Lord Chancellor's Department letter) or (Lord Justice Mummery, Lord Justice Latham and Lord Justice Carnwath High Court Judgment of Friday 20th January 2006)

Mr. Grant further included other supporting evidence, Buckingham Palace letters of 9th January 1998 and 14th April 2004 UNEQUIVOCALLY showing that even the Constitutional monarchy, Her Majesty the Queen directed Mr Grant’s complaints of Judicial Corruption and Improprieties to the Lord Chancellor, Lord Irvine of Lairg and the Home Office accordingly. (See copy of Buckingham Palace 9th January 1998 Letter)

When interviewed, Mr. Grant admitted the offence and in order to be assured the matter is committed fully in severity beyond the Magistrates' court where matters continue to be dealt with both summarily and inequitably, Mr. Grant volunteered 7 counts of same in the past.

The matter went on Trial before Judge Christopher Pratt at Croydon Crown Court in December 2003.  A Mr. A Walker appeared on behalf of the prosecution whilst Mr. Grant appeared unrepresented by any legal Counsel following UK Lawyer's discomfort and unwillingness to put before the courts Defence arguments detailing evidence of State Law-breaking, Convention Right Violations, Unlawful Imprisonments including Judicial Criminal Perversion of Justice complaints he wants addressed by any means necessary short of having to take anybody’s life.

In evidence Mr. Grant testified that he was the chairman of Campaign for Truth & Justice and that he was seeking an opportunity into court to have heard, existing and unresolved grievance of his False and Unlawful Imprisonment, deriving from Judicial Corruption and Improprieties, amounting to state Lawbreaking which has been long standing for redress, denied him.

Mr. Grant stated that he had resorted to the action as a last resort, in a determination to preserve his Enforceable Rights which was being Unlawfully Denied him by a corrupt influential few managing the Administrative Court Department of the High Court, responsible for pushing him outside the protection of Law.

In an evidence exhibit of the above facts Mr. Grant provided the Lord Chancellor’s letter of 02/03/2001 addressed to him on the matter confirming unambiguously Justice Toulson and his brother, (or brother’s law Firm Reynolds Potter Chamberlain’s) acted as alleged by Mr. Grant (inappropriately in contravention of Article 6 of the Convention Rights) whilst claiming wholly inaccurately thereof the Judge’s decision not to recuse himself from adjudicating in a matter involving his direct related brother’s INTEREST; not enough to substantiate a supported allegation of bias, even thought the rules of seeming or slight interest applies just as the General Pinochet saga and Lord Justice Mummery, Lord Justice Latham and Lord Justice Carnwath High Court Judgment of Friday 20th January 2006, case no: A3/2005/2736 demonstrate. (See copy of Lord Chancellor's Department letter) or (Lord Justice Mummery, Lord Justice Latham and Lord Justice Carnwath High Court Judgment of Friday 20th January 2006)

Mr. Grant further included other supporting evidence, Buckingham Palace letters of 9th January 1998 and 14th April 2004 UNEQUIVOCALLY showing that even the Constitutional monarchy, Her Majesty the Queen directed Mr Grant’s complaints of Judicial Corruption and Improprieties to the Lord Chancellor, Lord Irvine of Lairg and the Home Office accordingly. (See copy of Buckingham Palace 9th January 1998 Letter)

SUMMING UP & VERDICT

The issue for the jury was whether the Defendant (Mr Grant) was justified in acting as he did, as provisioned for in LAWFUL Defence by Section 7(1)(b) HRA 1998 as well as Article 7 HRA 1998.
However this was unjustly withdrawn from the Jury by the trial Judge, in stating INACCURATELY that ‘… there is no defence of Justification in English Law …’ (See Line 13, page 5, Trail Judge Christopher Pratt Summing Up & verdict, Friday 12th December 2003).  The Judge also Directed the Jury to find him Guilty saying, because if they Acquit him ‘… No other Court or Jury could stop or Convict him for anything …’ (See Lines 6-8, page 6 and Lines 8-12, page 19: Trail Judge Christopher Pratt Summing Up & verdict, Friday 12th December 2003) 

Also (See Grenville J Walker Solicitor’s letter Dated 22nd April 2004) which equally confirm the Judge directed the Jury to find Mr. Grant guilty and consequently the trusting and naïve Jury adhered to the Judge's instruction to Convict Mr. Grant and returned a guilty verdict.

ISSUES FOR THE COURTS

1. Deliberate Misdirection of the Jury 

For a judge to say that 'there is no Defence of Justification in English Law' when there clearly are, just as the following extract from chapter 11, entitled Defences, in Smith & Hogan Criminal Law by David Ormerod (Professor of Criminal Law, University of Leeds and Barrister of the Middle Temple, 18 Red Lion Court) demonstrate is utter nonsense and outright Judicial Abuse of the Due Process.

"Part B, deals with defences in the true sense — where D has caused an actus reus with the appropriate mens rea, but despite both these elements of the offence being proved by the Crown, D is entitled to an acquittal owing to some justifying or excusing circumstance or condition." (Ormerod D, 2005, p.247) 

Further more, if the Trial Judge is right, then it means there is no such Defence of: Self Defence, Duress, Duress of Circumstances, Necessity, etc, etc. And it is precisely because he is wrong (knowingly or unknowingly) that there do exist these defences as confirmed in Smith & Hogan Criminal Law by David Ormerod (A Professor of Criminal Law, University of Leeds and Barrister of the Middle Temple, 18 Red Lion Court) wherein he outlined under 'General Defences' like Duress, Duress of Circumstances, necessity, etc, as existing defences recognised in law for centuries.

"For centuries the law has recognised a defence of duress by threats. The typical case is where D is told, 'Do this [an act which would be a crime if there were no defence of duress] – or you will be killed', and, fearing for his life, he does the required act. Quite recently, the law has recognised another form of duress – duress of circumstances. Again, D does the act alleged to constitute the crime out of fear, but this time no human being is demanding that he do it.297 D does it because his life is threatened and his only way of escape is to do the act, which, but for the duress, would be a crime. The compulsion on D to do the act is exactly the same whether the threat comes from someone demanding that he do it, or from an aggressor, or other circumstances. His moral culpability, or lack of it, seems exactly the same.'" The relationship of duress, duress of circumstances and necessity is postponed until each has been examined in detail" (D. Ormerod, 2005, pp.296 - 297).

2. Misdirection to Convict

The direction by the Trial Judge to the Jury to Convict Mr. Grant (independently confirmed by Grenville J Walker Solicitors) amount to a breach of a fair and independent trial as is guaranteed under Article 6 HRA 1998. Had this independent legal practitioner interpretation of the judge's action not been available, it would have been tremendously difficult convincing ordinary members of the public that a judge would abuse his/her position and in contravention of Article 6 HRA 1998 direct the Jury to return a Guilty verdict rather than allowing them to come to a decision on their own in accordance with Law.

Further the Misdirection removed the unsuspecting Jurors from exercising their unique and specific role of deliberating the evidence before them, along side a guideline of the law from the referee (the Judge) who failed in this instance (wittingly or unwittingly) to direct accurately as regards the Law in the context of Article 7(2) HRA 1998 in view of Mr. Grant's explanation.

3. Contravention of Article 6 HRA 1998

As sighted earlier, the judge's direction of the Jury to convict Mr. Grant violates the principles of a fair trial. It also violated the principle and primary purpose of Trial by Jury. 

The refusal of British Law Firms to represent Mr. Grant in UK Courts on the basis of his Defence explanation and supporting evidence, challenging the integrity of the UK Judicial system warrants investigation as the principle of equality of arms for all parties before the courts under Article 6 HRA 1998 has not been adhered to.

4. Deliberate mis-interpretation of Article 7 HRA 1998

With the presiding Judge (himself an agent of the state and representative member of the Judiciary) having obvious and apparent vested interest in Mr. Grant's evidence, resorted to blatant deliberate mis-interpretation of Article 7 to the Jury so they could have clear conscience to convict.

5. Safety and Lawfulness of the Conviction 

Thus in line with established principles of law, it is fair to surmise Mr. Grant's conviction is Unsafe and should be QUASHED. The erroneous and deliberate misrepresentation of the law to the jury by the Judge is enough justification to warrant the Conviction Unsafe at an Appeal if the Process was functioning properly in accordance with the Rule of Law. After all if there was never an explanation that could be given for a person’s act or actions, there would be no need for courts and Judges.

Further UNLAWFUL Judicial Violations to Prevent Appeal Right Following Conviction, From Being Exercised

Now just to be clear, we are not talking about an Appellant having duly raised and submitted an Appeal Application to the Courts and being unsuccessful with the Application after having been Heard fully in the Appellant Court.

We are talking precisely about an Appellant having duly raised and submitted an Appeal Application to the High Court following a Conviction from the Crown Court and all modes of UNLAWFUL process and procedures used henceforth to prevent that Application Right from ever being Heard.

After Falsely claiming that there is no Defence of Justification in English law, despite the Kingsnorth six Trial, 2008, Maidstone Crown Court wherein Six Greenpeace activists either shut down or attempted to shut down the Kingsnorth coal-fired power station in Kent by scaling the chimney and painting the Prime Minister’s name down the side. At the Court Heart, the Defendants argued that by shutting down the coal plant for a day, they prevented greater damage than that which their action may have incurred.  The jury’s verdict was the first instance in which prevention of property damage resulting from the impacts of climate change was used as a lawful excuse in court. An otherwise Lawful Defence of Justification

It should not be of any surprise that the Judicial authorities would go to any length, including giving UNLAWFUL instructions to the Prison authorities holding an Appellant Applicant not to be brought to Court, in order to further handicap the individual from being able to present their case.

PROCEDURAL ABUSE OF APPELLANT RIGHTS TO APPEAL

As stated Mr. Grant lodged an Appeal against conviction. However he was refused permission to allow him to appeal without oral hearing, representation, or examination of his evidence, despite him being self representing and having made application to be present, to address the court on his grounds of appeal.

The basic principle of an appeal is to challenge the Lawfulness or Safety of a Lower Courts verdict. In refusing the applicant permission to appeal without an oral examination, or representation of the applicant’s defence explanation, the court failed wholly unreasonably in its role to test the lawfulness, or Safety of the lower courts verdict in this case.

The Appeal Court’s decision to refuse Mr. Grant permission to appeal and have examined the lawfulness and fairness of his conviction, without any proper legal representation, or appearance in court to make oral representations and examinations necessary, grossly erred in contravention of Articles 6(1) and 6(3)(c) Human Rights Act 1998.

It is the Appeal Court’s duty to conduct a proper examination of the submissions, arguments and evidence by the parties without prejudice to its assessment of whether they are relevant to its decision, most especially in this particular instance where the applicant has clearly not received a fair independent and impartial tribunal, since the person or persons he complains of having been responsible for the violation of his enforceable rights under Article 5(5) HRA 1998 is members of the Judiciary who sit as Judge Jury and executioners in their own cause, determined to deny any proper examination and hearing of his application in a UK court of law in total contravention of both Article 6 HRA 1998. 

Finally, it is important to note that it is not the remit of the Appeal Court to decide Guilt or Innocence, but test the lawfulness and safety of the applicant’s submissions. This belief and understanding is supported by previous Judgment of the Court of Appeal as in the case of - R. V. LAKE, 64 CR. APP. R. 172 LORD WIDGERY C.J. Said:

‘In this court … the first matter we are concerned with is to see whether the rules have been obeyed and to see whether the trial Judge has followed the rules of practice appropriate to the protection of the Defence’.