The Broad and Encompassing Facts of Claim

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

In a nation where laws enacted to protect the rights of the ordinary man and woman are constantly trampled upon by the very same public officials placed to ensure Accountability and Redress; then the violated and unremediated victims have an UNRESERVED RIGHT to resorting to lawful rebellion, as demonstrated by the Campaign for Truth and Justice's African and Caribbean grassroots community action group, that emerged in absence of the Black-British Professional Class's failure to provide 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 class journals, far removed from the public's prying eyes. This approach allowed the British establishment (ruling elites) to save face and most importantly avoid most of the time Criminal Prosecution in accountability for 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 being narrowly scrutinised at the time.

Had it not been so, the judiciary would have equally shared in the same fate of public outcry and condemnation mete out to the Metropolitan Police Department; for just as the esteemed Doreen Lawrence and her husband, the formidable Neville Lawrence retort '...when the case went to trial, we discovered that it had already been decided before a single word was spoken …’. This statement from non other than those who spent their entire lives seeking JUSTICE for the unprovoked Racist Murder of their son (Stephen Lawrence) reinforces the fact that the British Justice System WAS and STILL is influenced by Socio-economic status; including Race and Ethnicity of those appearing before its Judges, and only like to portray false impressions that the Courts are colour blind when nothing can be further from the truth.

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 the professional army of State employed, controlled and bankrolled apologist would say, the UK Courts and its judges are far from the benign images projected.

Much like other British institutional authorities, the judiciary of England and Wales has long been plagued by deep-seated corruption culture, which culminated in Prime Minister Tony Blair's June 2003 sudden abolishment of the 1,400 year old post of Lord Chancellor and the Department, in a desperate attempt to shake-off the Campaign for Truth and Justice's persistent complaints against both the Lord Chancellor and his Department's FAILURES and CORRUPT indiscretions penned directly to the Prime Minister's Office.

Within the body of complain, the campaign highlighted as FACT that the role of the Lord Chancellor, rhetorically presented to be independent, was in fact not so in reality, but more so compromised by his dual positions with one foot in the Executive Cabinet of Government and the other in the Judicial Office as head of the Judiciary, upon which legitimate complaints of Judicial Violations and State Law-breaking evidently pose a serious CONFLICT of INTEREST problem for the Judiciary of England and Wales; which was then made worse by the compromised Lord Chancellor, including his entire Department's failure to act.

This conflict of interest was at first 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 our evidenced letter from Buckingham Palace dated 9^th January 1998, and a further most implicating and irrefutable one from the Lord Chancellor’s Department dated 2^nd March 2001, which embarrassingly show how the Lord Chancellor and his Department sought to DELIBERATELY Obfuscate and Misrepresent the law (in regards to '... recusal of judges in cases that involve direct familial relationships in judicial proceedings ...') in order to aid friends and colleagues in the legal profession.

In essence, institutional racism and prejudicial bias, is not exclusively limited to the Metropolitan Police Department alone; Equally the judiciary is guilty, save for it has managed to evade scrutiny for a considerable length of time by focusing and pointing fingers at others apart from itself.  The responsibility for failing to hold the Judiciary Accountable to the same standards it requires of everyone else, is is attributive to a lack of CONFIDENCE, ASSERTIVENESS and COURAGE from the largely sold-out, distant and remote Black Lawyers, Solicitors, Barristers and their Associations, whom only too content with token positions, gestures and seemingly vaguely wrapped-up prestigious titles (OBE, MBE, etc.,) designed to make them DOCILE and FEARFUL to ever want to challenge institutional racism and lawlessness within the judicial establishment;  on behalf of their African and Caribbean communities; LET ALONE THE METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT.

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 all Black African and Caribbean MPs (with the exception of Bernie Grant had he been alive) feared being seen ever attempting to Help Resolve Black African and Caribbean issues, whilst white MPs have no qualm providing aid and assistance to the general public, irrespective of being a member of their Constituency or not.  Quite often most of the British Black African and Caribbean MPs are aloof, Self Hating with no courage to champion the Black African and Caribbean perspectives of their Communities. 

Instead, they only focus on the agendas dictated by their Political Party Cabal and Cash Rich Outside Foreign 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 typified by Self Serving organisations like the Black Equity Organisation.  It claims to be a national Black civil rights organisation dedicated to dismantling systemic racism in Britain. Despite such bold claims, the organisation has never reached out to suggest or respond to any of the significant issues, from Home Office Windrush Compensation inequities, or Judicial Criminal Perversions of Justice and Non-Accountability issues brought to its CEO's attention; (Wanda Wyporska most probably dismissed everything without a second glance in preference of her pet love pursuits in 'Polish Witchcraft') Nor did the current incumbent Timi Okuwa, who states unequivocally that she and the BEO is for '... ensuring Black communities know their rights and use their power to hold institutions to account ...'  An irreconcilable contradiction, because if such was true, then why has there been no HELP, least of all SUPPORT for the courageous activist on the frontline of a ferocious fight to hold the Judiciary of England and Wales ACCOUNTABLE; in defence of our rights !!!

The simple answer is that they are tied in addiction to Government Funding, Grants and Sponsorships which they don't want to loose, or compromise by publicly taking any stance likely to contradict the Government's position unless directly given permission to do so.  The former HM Inspectorate of Constabulary, Fire & Rescue Service (HMICFRS) Wendy Williams was rolled out to Report the Windrush Commission, because her employer (the UK Government) needed someone of African and Caribbean ancestry within its influence and control to exonerate the Home Office from a charge of Institutional Racism and MULTIPLE Law-breaking of the HRA 1998. 

These incompetent and morally lacking individuals largely seek to remain silent on pretence of rigorously fighting for change, whilst all the time just actively engage in drafting idealistic propositions and Commission Reports that only benefit their Bank Accounts Balance.

So in reality, the real crux of the matter is that most are simply ambitious career chasing bourgeoisies choosing to keep their head down, most importantly because you can’t have skeletons in your wardrobe to dare raise your head above the parapet in criticism of the British Judicial establishments, let alone the Metropolitan Police Department who we know can fit any dissenting voice up with any crime of its choice as was done to Charles De Menezes, (to justify having Unlawfully killed him) the Birmingham Six, (sentenced to life in prison after being tortured by police into making confessions, which were later proved to be false and made to spend 16 years in prison before their convictions were overturned in 1991); the Guildford Four (whom like the Birmingham Six convictions were based on confessions that were later proven to have been coerced by police, but not until they had spent 15 years in prison before their convictions were quashed in 1989); the Tottenham Three (Stephen Miller, Richard McFarlane, and Kevin Lyttle were convicted for the murder of a police officer, PC Keith Blakelock, during the Broadwater Farm riots in Tottenham, London.  The three men were eventually acquitted in 1991 after their convictions were quashed, and it was revealed that key evidence had been ignored or suppressed); The "Black Panther" Case (Johnnie and Michael Grant were two young Black men who were wrongfully convicted of a 1983 shooting in the West End of London. Evidence later emerged showing that the police had fabricated parts of the case, and after a prolonged legal battle, the convictions were overturned in 1993).

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 to Enter 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; Walter Sisulu; Oliver Tambo; Steve Biko; Denis Goldberg; Winnie Mandela; Desmond Tutu; etc., 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.

The Judiciary of England and Wale’s Caught, 'Deliberately Instructing the Jury in Misdirection to Convict', As Response to Evidential Arguments of False Arrest, Prosecutions, Convictions and Imprisonments it Could Not Refute !!!

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 in Defence and Counter Claim which state 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; uptil then 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 FORCE the issue back into the Courts once again in hope that the action would compel the UK authorities to consider bringing an amicable resolve to his long outstanding complaints of UNLAWFUL IMPRISONMENT .

With the Criminal Court being the only access route remaining unblocked for him to seek to Enforce his Right, Mr Grant entered the Criminal Court in the spirit of Clause 61, Magna Carta 1215 with a suitcase of Herbal Cannabis deliberately packaged to attract Gatwick Airport Customs Authority's Attention.

The matter went to 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 had to Represent himself because no Legal Counsel wishing to stay in good favour of the Judicial establishments, had courage to dare offer to put before the courts eloquent Defence arguments with detail evidence of State Law-breaking, Convention Right Violations, Unlawful Imprisonments including Judicial Criminal Perversion of Justice complaints that their engagement would have entailed.

In evidence Mr. Grant testified that he was the chairman of Campaign for Truth & Justice and that he was seeking an opportunity to enter court by any means necessary in order to have unresolved grievance of False Arrest and Unlawful Imprisonment inflicted upon him addressed.

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, whom he blames as being responsible for pushing him outside the protection of Law.

As evidence exhibit to support the above facts Mr. Grant provided the Lord Chancellor’s letter of 02/03/2001 which confirm 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 that the Judge’s decision not to recuse himself from adjudicating in a matter involving his direct related brother’s INTEREST; was 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 in 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, for resolve 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.

UNLAWFUL Judicial Violations Utilised by the Courts and its Judiciary to Prevent Appeal Rights from Being Exercised, Following Conviction !!!

Now just to be clear, we are not talking about an Appellant having duly raised and submitted an Appeal Application to the Courts, that was unsuccessful because it was fully Heard by the Appellant Court.

No, we are talking 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 were 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 Hearing, 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 come as a 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 who is known to be Self Representing from being able to present his 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, the court failed wholly unreasonably in its role and duty 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 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’.