Category Archives: Courts

Can you think of any reason why a baby that is allergic to formula milk should be deprived of his mum’s breast milk?

As I may have to remove (David Icke has followed the warning whereas I have resisted so far) or change the posts that I made regarding the snatching of a 13 week old baby, I thought I’d give people a chance to check for themselves:

  1. Minister, how many horrible cases of baby snatching do you need?
  2. “To avoid prejudice in the case”, don’t publish the name of the snatched baby and his mother…
  3. In the Virtual Court of Public Opinion: how many men does it take to remove a sick baby from his mother’s breast?

The most violent act of state kidnapping? 13-week-baby torn from mother’s breast at 4.30am Sunday morning


Please spread this far and wide. Make use of the phone numbers. Make it clear to those concerned that their behaviour is unacceptable.

Phone numbers:

Ammonford Police: 01267 222020
Swansea Social Services: 01792 635700
Cafcass Swansea: 01792 645535

Continue reading

The Honest Services Law in the US

This article in the Guardian is about the details of the former media mogul’s appeal against a six-and-a-half-year sentence for fraud and obstruction of justice.

It refers to the Honest Services law in the US that is applied only to instances of bribery and kickbacks.

Since the fight takes place between Conrad Black and the government for tax reasons, one does wonder where the real power lies, and it seems that it is the hands and eyes of the respective lawyers…

From Kenneth Clarke to Paulette Cooper – via her MP

Here is an MP who did something for his constituent: write to the Lord Chancellor. Another MP even took the case of his constituent into an adjournment debate.

The more supportive MPs we can find, the better!

This is a great example for the etiquette of “hierarchical communication”: our “group letter” has been passed on to somebody who works only on certain days in the week, who promises to phone back but doesn’t and who may send her response on behalf of Kenneth Clarke to us within a week.

Instead, Stephen Phillipps MP’s letter to the Lord Chancellor Kenneth Clarke got an extensive reply which I find helpful in terms of analysing how to go further:

  1. Mr Ebert’s big distinction between “administrative procedures” and “judiciary decisions” needs to be highlighted.
  2. Addressing our complaints to the Lord Chief Justice may be more appropriate, while informing Kenneth Clarke, Vincent Cable and one’s own MP.
  3. Distinguishing between “personal” complaints and “professional” complaint is worth pointing out.
  4. We can be a self-appointed and self-regulated watchdog, even if we don’t get funding from the Victims’ Commissioner.
  5. I don’t see any reason for NOT going with individual cases to the Victims’ Commissioner. After all, she needs to be educated into her job.
  6. Lodging an appeal with the support of our group would be a new exercise of care and support for a victim, and we might be more effective with our online campaigning efforts to refer to.
  7. Meanwhile, we’ll wait for our collective response from both Cable and Clarke, before we decide on next letters.
  8. Writing to the Police seems hopeless in Paulette’s case, but on Forum letterhead, with copies to MP, Lord Chief Justice and Ken Clarke, may force more action out of them.
  9. Stephen Phillips QC MP should be invited to look at EDM 516 on REPORTING of FRAUD and sign it. For Paulette’s case is a perfect example of the ‘maze’ one has to wade through when attempting to report fraud, let alone get fairness, justice, resolution or restitution.

So much for today’s thinking.
More soon!

Stephen Phillips QC MP Rcvd 22 7 2010

Stephen Phillips QC MP Rcvd 22 7 2010

Letter from Ken Clarke 22 7 2010 Page One (2)

Letter from Ken Clarke 22 7 2010 Page One (2)

Letter from Ken Clarke 22 7 2010 Page two

Letter from Ken Clarke 22 7 2010 Page two

“No comment” from Buckingham Palace

I don’t have a scanner. So I copy with my fingers:

Buckingham Palace, 13th July, 2010

Dear Mrs McNeill

Thank you for your letter of 6th July addressed to the Private Secretary.

Careful note has been taken of your comments regarding your views on the work of Her Majesty’s Court Services, but I must tell you that this is not a matter on which The Queen or this office would comment.

As a constitutional Sovereign, Her Majesty acts on the advice of her Ministers and I would, therefore, suggest that you address your appeal directly to the Right Honourable Kenneth Clarke, QC, MP, the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice at the Ministry of Justice, 102, Petty France, London SW1H 9AJ.

Yours sincerely,

Miss Jennie Vine

Correspondence Officer

Corrupt Prosecutor jailed for bribe

This article in the Express must give every victim hope: Sarfraz Ibrahim was jailed at Swansea Crown Court after admitting corruption, perverting the course of justice and misconduct in a public office.

Mr Justice Treacy passed the sentence. He sounds like gold dust, given the many terrible cases we hear of…

Consultation on the prevision of Courts services

There is an opportunity for victims of legal exploitation, mis-administration and worse to provide input to the Ministry of Justice about their respective court.

Deadline: September 15, 2010

Letter gone missing from Ministerial Box

Our letter to the Secretary of State The Rt Hon Dr. Vincent Cable MP was hand delivered by Mr Ebert on May 27. He was promised that the letter would be put in the Ministerial Box the same day.

Mr. Ebert’s is one of four cases put before Dr. Cable to rectify false bankruptcies that were obtained by producing fraudulent documentation.

The other two cases are Paulette Cooper whose property was recently repossessed following a previous bankruptcy order, and Raymond Fox who hase recently been evicted following his quest for compension for nuclear induced illness.

The fourth, David Fabb’s case, recently got a hearing that actually was considered fair, and everybody is awaiting the judgment.

Requesting Compliance with The Rule of Law on “Your Freedom”

This is what I wrote in the box “What’s your idea?” on the site that has been closed since:

Dear Coalition Government,

CONGRATULATIONS on this initiative!

You will see on our petition “Stop the Oppression of the British people” [see ] that its popularity has grown to over 1,100 signatures and 5,000 page views since March 2010.

The comments collated from signers on express the Zeitgeist excellently and will tell you that self-regulation does not work.

The legal profession and the Courts’ administration need to comply with the Rule of Law. Lord Bingham summarised what the Rule of Law means here:

We have written to the Lord Chancellor pointing out the abuse of Her Majesty’s seal. See

We have written to the Ministry of State The Rt Hon Dr Vincent Cable MP about false documents being produced to create fraudulent bankruptcies. However, our hand delivered, stamped and signed letter went missing, after we were promised it would be put into the Ministerial Box the same day (May 27, 2010). See

As you will find from reading the comments, the time is ripe for change. Thanks for making it happen by telling your civil servants and public employees to comply with the Rule of Law!

And this in the box “Why is your idea important?”

Because white collar crime has ensured that thousands of people

1. are robbed of their homes and businesses

2. are denied Legal Aid

3. don’t get adequate representation or help

4. are treated as less than humans when they end up as “vexatious litigant” or, worse, sectioned

5. have been robbed of their pensions or industrial compensations.

Please see two of our “sample cases” with photos:

1. Paulette Cooper on

2. Raymond Fox on

Inefficient and judge-centred culture in the Crown Court

From The Times

This article dates from more than two years ago. However, the changes that have supposedly been implemented since, have clearly not been sufficient.

For the signatories of our petition Stop the Oppression of the British people express different thoughts in their most interesting comments.

And the four cases that are before the Lord Chancellor and the Secretary of State Dr. Vincent Cable prove otherwise, too.

Unfortunately, when following up, the letter that was hand delivered to Dr. Cable and was promised to be put into the Ministerial Box the same day, on May 27, can’t be traced…

The only explanation I can think of is that life and society would be VERY different if, insteady of having to deal with Dishonest Money, we’d have a system of Honest Money.

March 18, 2008

Kept a secret by the Justice Ministry, until now. How the judges ran the Crown Court

Frances Gibb and Grania Langdon-Down

An unprecedented report that exposes an inefficient and judge-centred culture in the Crown Court has been obtained by The Times after a three-year battle with officials determined to suppress it.

The report, obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, highlights inefficiencies arising from the prevailing culture of the time that was based on ensuring that judges were not kept waiting.

It also discloses inflexible sitting patterns, sometimes resulting from judges’ unwillingness to sit in an unpopular Crown Court — (courts are not named but could include Northampton, Woolwich or Birmingham) and inconsistency of approach, with some judges failing actively to manage cases.

Officials at the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) have repeatedly refused to release the draft report, arguing that this would “undermine relations with the judiciary” and resisted its disclosure at every stage of the appeals process.

But Richard Thomas, the Information Commissioner, has now ruled that the MoJ, the department charged with running Whitehall compliance on freedom of information, has itself breached the Act. In an embarrassing finding for the MoJ, he says that officials incorrectly withheld the information, as any potential prejudice that would arise was not sufficient to warrant an exemption from disclosure.

The inquiry into the listing and management of cases was carried out by three government inspectorates (those on the Crown Prosecution Service, the magistrates’ courts service and on the police) in 2003 — a time of heightened sensitivity in relations between judges and ministers after the proposed abolition of the office of Lord Chancellor.

As a result, the report remained under wraps, receiving only a passing mention in a subsequent annual magistrates’ courts’ service inspectorate report.

Why? Judges would have been concerned — particularly at the time of the research — that any inquiry into listing trials, which is jealously guarded as a judicial function, was another encroachment on their independence. Publishing a report on the inquiry findings would not have then been welcome, particularly as the report calls for a review of listing practice in the Crown Court, although it does accept that this is a complex task because of the high proportion of not-guilty pleas (66 per cent of defendants at that time). What the inspectors found was that listing practice varied “considerably from court to court” and the differences arose not just from varying workloads but from factors such as the views of the resident judge on how listing should be done. “Until recently there was a listing culture aimed at achieving timeliness targets and keeping judges busy in court.”

But while timeliness will remain important, it can “no longer be the prime focus for listing”, the report says. Instead, there is now “an over-arching target to reduce ineffective trials” and more emphasis on improving victim and witness satisfaction.

The inspectors also urge “greater flexibility” over the sitting day. “Time estimates for trials are often inaccurate and greater attention should be paid to the accuracy of estimates when setting cases down for trial.”

Then there was the problem of moving judges. The inspectors heard that a newly appointed judge might agree to sit at an unpopular court on condition that he or she will be moved to a “more congenial” court after a couple of years. Some candidates who applied to be judges “refuse appointment until they can have the itinerary they wish”. Nor could judges be compelled to change their itinerary to meet court needs, they say.

A further difficulty was the shortage of judges qualified to take certain kinds of case, such as child abuse, rape or murder, for which special training is needed; and of recorders prepared to sit for longer than a week — presumably because they did not want to spare more time from their practices. As a result, trials could be delayed or courts left empty.

It says that the role of the resident judge in running listing is key, but that role is not defined and there is no “competence framework” to assess the judge given this job, nor is it clear to what extent the resident judge can manage fellow judges. Yet the inspectors accept that running the courts efficiently is made all the harder because of the “long-standing problem” of prisoners not being delivered to court on time.

Other failings include a “culture of late preparation at the Bar” and the high percentage of trials that fail to go ahead because witnesses do not attend or defendants plead guilty at the last minute.

So what do the inspectors conclude? The report calls for a complete review of listing practice in the Crown Court.

The report’s findings are now largely historic. In releasing it, the MoJ emphasises that much of it has been overtaken by a series of reforms to make the Crown Court more efficient and meet any criticisms. But as an object lesson in the delicate constitutional relationship between judges and the executive, it remains as relevant now as then.