|SCCRC MOJ SELL BY DATE
GLASGOW SHERIFF COURT ACTION 2MO V SCCRC & SCOTS MINISTE++ This case is due to call tomorrow morning at 1000 hours at Glasgow Sheriff Court and you are all welcome to attend. Please put on the social networks and on pass as this communication is intended to go to as wide an audience as possible. This is to highlight what the populace of Scotland are being subjected to by the SNP led Scottish Government, the self-acclaimed champions of social justice, which in reality is nothing more than rhetoric, 'spin' and illusionary ++
Rod/ Ciara & Danielle, As a matter of courtesy, please find attached a further authority [Findlay v UK] which I intend founding upon in support of my motion for summary decree on the basis of the failure to interpret and apply the requisite need for structural independence in the operation of the justice system in Scotland, contravening the defenders' obligations and violating my (and many other members of the populace of Scotland) rights under the Convention.
I wish to highlight the simple fact that the UK Government was unable to contest this Findlay application. I therefore have a legitimate expectation to be informed with 'sufficient clarity' why the SNP led Scottish Government (the champions of 'social justice') feel there is "benefit" to such unlawful acts. Especially given the simple fact their own Justice Strategy for Scotland states to the polar opposite it is "CRUCIAL" to the practical and efficient running of the justice system that there must be organisational 'separation of powers'.
It is perverse, irrational and illegal for a sub ordinate of the state prosecutor to be investigating acts and omissions of the state prosecutor, and Mr Matheson, the Cabinet Secretary for Scotland's statement this actually 'benefits' the populace of Scotland flies in the face of common sense.
I would also like to know why under Article 46 the UK Government are legally BOUND by this Findlay decision which could not be defended by the UK Government, but the Scottish Ministers (the self-appointed Scottish Government with no public debate on such name change) are a law to their own and feel compelled to act illegally, in defiance of this Strasbourg decision.
This may also present an issue for Harper McLeod whereby you are officers of the court and owe a duty, and in terms of trust, independence & integrity, and whereby the Solicitors (Scotland) (Standards of Conduct) Practice Rules 2008 apply, and there has already been a serious misrepresentation whereby Harper McLeod have misled the court and I, for and on behalf of this public authority, the SCCRC are not a public authority and therefore not civilly liable as section 7 of the Human Rights Act 1998.
Under section 13(1) “Solicitors must never knowingly give false or misleading information to the court. They must maintain due respect and courtesy towards the court while honourably pursuing the interests of their clients." To the factually correct contrary, the SCCRC's response to the Scottish Human Rights Commission confirms they are a public authority and liable. It's not as though this was a slight variation, but the polar opposite!!!!!!
Another potential exercise of constitutional right is under section 91 of The Scotland Act 1998-headed ‘Maladministration’, whereby under sub section (3) The Parliament may make provision for the investigation of complaints in respect of — (a) any action taken by or on behalf of an office-holder in the Scottish Administration, and (c) any action taken by or on behalf of a Scottish public authority with mixed functions or no reserved functions. We have a CONFLICTING situation whereby Mr. Michael Matheson, the Cabinet Secretary for Justice’s position is that the Crown’s participation in the processing of miscarriage of justice applications is of “benefit” to the operation of the justice system in Scotland. This position is the polar opposite of the Justice Strategy for Scotland. In terms of the hearing calling before Glasgow Sheriff Court tomorrow and the potential to exercise my right to report such matters to the Scottish Parliament and Law Society of Scotland, it is imperative that Harper McLeod identify the individual or individuals involved in such misrepresentation for and on behalf of the Scottish Ministers. I wish to enforce under the terms of section 57(2) of The Scotland Act 1998 - A member of the Scottish Executive has no power to act any way which is incompatible with any of the Convention rights or with EU law. Conclusively, there have been several breaches and I am looking for the culprits to stand up and be counted and put their name(s) to such ultra vires acts.
Alison, as my local MSP and as a member of the justice committee, I hope you have sufficient unease at (a) such farcical misrepresentations in a court of law process whereby the SCCRC are deemed to be NOT A PUBLIC AUTHORITY by way of acts for and on behalf of The Scottish Ministers; and (b) an earlier ECHR decision which the UK government could not even contest because it was so flagrant, is not legally binding on the Scottish Government. I herewith canvass your support to get to the bottom of this to enable section 91 of The Scotland Act to be engaged, thanks.
Hard to make sense of the Scottish Justice Minister's views that Crown employees working on SCCRC cases is good for the justice system as a whole especially after reading the Findlay judgement and other opinions on independence and inpartiality.
Does Mr Matheson not know that the SCCRC (they r a public authority) are supposed to be independant of justiciary!!
I guess you could say Mr Michael Hanlon was close to prosecution authorities (Findlay) whilst working on SCCRC cases. He was actually employed by Crown at the same time. Couldn't make it up.
I find it really concerning that the Chief Executive of SCCRC would sanction the use of Crown employees to work on Commission cases when they state they are independent of Crown. He should be sacked for this.
Personally, I do not believe the SCCRC are independant and I hope something arises from this case which in the end could assist other applicants to SCCRC.
|SCCRC MOJ SELL BY DATE
YES FOR INDEPENDENCE, OF THE JUSTICE SYSTEM IN SCOTLAND!!!!!Thanks for the support for my hearing at Glasgow Sheriff Court today trying to get justice for hundreds of SCCRC applicants who have been given false hope by the SCCRC, who are not "completely independent" but the SNP Led Puppets perhaps trying to minimise the nos of referrals to the COA. Not happy with the handling of my case, what do you think of an "ADVISER" to the Scottish Ministers adjudicating on an action against the Scottish Ministers??????!
TO: GLASGOW SHERIFF COURT
Danielle, It is within my correspondence that Sheriff Deutsche said he could not over-rule a "Sister Sheriff" in relation to the case management of this case, which appears to be of no substance whatsoever.
Clearly, the sheriff has not suitably and sufficiently considered the fact that (1) Sheriff Anwar stated I could raise a Devolution Minute (an “initiating document”, no reference to a further Minute of Amendment), which I have identified in earlier correspondence to you which needs to be done prior to proof as per the Act of Sederunt (Proceedings for Determination of Devolution Issues Rules) 1999, provided by Alloa Sheriff Court when you were unable in your role as Civil Courts Manager to provide me with the set procedure; (2) I have repeatedly asked for the outstanding Devolution Minute to be decided and Sheriff Deutsche avoidably has failed to do so.
In fact, his position today was about “others not getting dragged into it”, rather than complying with the judicial oath, which provides, “I will do right to all manner of people after the laws and usages of this Realm, without fear or favour, affection or ill-will.” In taking that oath, the judge has acknowledged that he or she is primarily accountable to the law, which he or she MUST administer.
I am further unable to reconcile why the interlocutor of Sheriff Deutsche’s “sibling Sheriff” has not been complied with, by way of this “brother Sheriff” ruling on the ‘live’ Devolution Minute yesterday or today? It would appear the focus was on the defender’s ‘caution’ as opposed to a declaration of incompatibility/ devolution minute. Furthermore, in complete odds with such statement of solidarity, he over-ruled Sheriff Anwar informing me at the hearing I could raise a further Devolution Minute/ Declaration of Incompatibility, when he scornfully reacted like a petulant child when I tried to insist upon my constitutional right, which has no discretionary powers to remove. Only an Act of Parliament suffices in this regard or the populace of Scotland would be getting turned away from the court door by corrupt officers of the court.
By my count, that amounts to TWO ERRORS OF FACT AND ERRORS OF LAW, in the maladministration of this activity. To further compound matters the Sheriff seems to have applied a ‘discretionary’ test in terms of providing me with a decision, when the Act of Sederunt section 6 (3) legislates, “(3) In any case other than that described in paragraph (2) above, the party raising the devolution issue shall lodge a motion or incidental application, as the case may be, craving a warrant for intimation of the devolution issue on the relevant authority, and on considering the motion or incidental application, where it appears to the sheriff that a devolution issue arises, he shall order such intimation of the devolution issue.”
I am not in receipt of any interlocutor informing me there has been any change to Sheriff Anwar’s ruling, and to the appearance of the cover-up contrary, ‘solidarity’ prevailed. I am dissatisfied at the Sheriff being unable, unwilling or unprepared to deal with this, to avoid “others getting dragged in” to this type of carnage caused by maladministration of the highest order, which squarely lies with Glasgow Sheriff Court to remedy. Sure he will find there is a substantive case to answer on a point of law in this regard. I do apologize for the inconvenience of asking him to do his job properly or perhaps hurting his colleagues’ feelings by exercising my constitutional right to complain about an "objective appearance of bias".
Instead of spending his time, ordering me to respond to the defenders’ positions and caution, when the burden of proof as outlined rests with the state, I have a legitimate expectation Sheriff Deutsche should have been a man of his word. Rather than just the shallow but touching “sisterly” rhetoric. [Morice –v- France, ECtHR) I will not tolerate the avoidance of this Sheriff’s peremptory duty being obtempered and wish to enforce my constitutional right to not only raise this ‘Minute’, but for this to be fully argued and a decision with ‘sufficient clarity’, provided as prescribed by law.
Much has been written about judicial independence both in its institutional and individual aspects. Judicial independence is not the private right of sheriffs, but the foundation of judicial impartiality and is for the benefit of the public. It is a cornerstone of our system of government in a democratic society and a safeguard of the freedom and rights of the citizen under the rule of law.
Independence of the judiciary refers to the necessary individual and collective or institutional independence required for impartial decisions and decision-making. Judicial independence thus characterises both a state of mind and a set of institutional and operational arrangements. The former is concerned with the sheriff’s impartiality in fact; the latter with defining the relationships between the judiciary and others, particularly the other branches of government. Clearly, Sheriff Deutsche had a couple of bad days at the office and has my empathy he was not in the state of mind to reasonably, proportionately and lawfully deal with my submissions, which is a most disappointing experience.
What is really alarming is that Sheriff Deutsche has be made fully aware that my access to court in this case was neither ‘practical’ or ‘effective’. There was a failure of court staff to provide procedural assistance and far too often I was placed at a disadvantage due to such standards and court staff interpreting procedural advice as “legal advice”. The ‘Record’ was ‘closed’ after I was notified I could make several changes, which like the schedule of service information provided, was factually incorrect and prejudicial. I objected to Sheriff Anwar closing this ‘Record’ and this being subject to defenders’ answers by way of a Minute of Amendment. OCR 2 could have been reasonably engaged to cure any mistakes/ defects arising from such procedural misinformation. As for staff being unable to provide a Devolution procedure, is implausible and delivers an appearance of obstruction but I was not perturbed and sought proper assistance elsewhere.
When I raised a fully certified Motion identifying such failings, this turned into an oral motion with the documents returned to me at great haste. This did not remedy the irregular closing of ‘Record’ and going straight to proof, when the defenders identified today in support of my assertion there was no end of ‘complex’ problems. Part due to my lack of procedural knowledge, a lack of reasonable assistance in this area, and the fact that the two defenders precise preferences on adjustments could not be both accommodated. I have thanked Mr.McKenzie of the First defenders for his assistance but my trust was eroded by his company misleading the court and I, the SCCRC were not a public body (in amongst a number of factually incorrect submissions, which failed to precisely detail statutory provisions on jurisdiction, prescription &c) and misinforming me in relation. It is not his responsibility to try and assist – this obligation rests with the court and I should not be met with “do you realise how busy this court”, “see a solicitor” and in response to Sheriff Anwar advising me to go and see staff (after being unable herself to explain what she meant by not being in the “prescribed format” and what was that?!), I was met with this is “legal advice”. I have clearly demonstrated that if the procedure is provided, I can comply, I should not have to second-guess matters. [Kvaerner Cementation precedent]
The same shoddy standards of assistance applied on preliminary pleas, defences to pleas, and even the Minute of Amendment procedure, which has to follow. In fairness to Danielle Blue, she kindly provided a Court of Session guide, but it was too late and the damage was done to my prejudice. A question arises as to why sub ordinates did not do so much earlier or at least provide basic information. Why would the ‘Record’ be lodged in the way it was? Simply because I was informed there was no ‘standard’, what I proposed would be acceptable (which it was not) and this was only properly formatted after the clerk of court and Mr.McKenzie’s valued assistance. I reiterate the proceedings to date, evaluated, as a “whole” have been wholly unsatisfactory. [Piersack –v- Belgium]
To day, I had to listen to logically absurd nonsense such as to why I had not broken down the sum of damages craved. I then objected to The Scottish Ministers ‘caution’ applying the same immune logic in an analogous situation that they had also failed to provide a breakdown of how they arrived at such figure. Farcically, Sheriff Deutsche said his vast “experience” of the court could allow him to second guess this, so I am therefore surprised his “experience” did not extend to approximately guessing my breakdown. Given the silence it was clear the representatives of The Scottish Ministers were unable to do so. I feel it was inappropriate for the sheriff to make such representations. Especially given the ‘attention to detail’ examination and hostile reception I was subjected to as a layperson. Conclusively by his demeanour, the sheriff was clearly not of the dispassionate state of mind after jumping to the defence of a “sister sheriff”; and might have been better off recusing himself to avoid any legitimate attack on his independence and partiality.
But to really compound matters, I have repeatedly informed the court with reference to section 7(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998 that the court and both defenders that under section 6(1) of the Human Rights Act and section 57(2) of The Scotland Act 1998 could not continue to “propose” to further act incompatibly - in the full “knowledge” that Sheriff Anwar was identified as an “Adviser” (to be more precise, legal adviser) to the Scottish Ministers in her role as a member of the Judicial Appointments Board for Scotland. Whilst an act of incompatibility can be excused under section 6(2) if the authority (which includes the court under section 6(3) a) but it was not a case of this. The ‘three amigos’ (court, SCCRC & Scottish Ministers) just decided to be a rule to them and waive their obligations and my rights. I shall not tolerate conniving liars, cheats and con-men/ con women, with no dignity or respect for the Rule of Law. Whilst they may consider this letter as vexatious as part of the further “appearance of bias” to cover up Sheriff Anwar being deemed an ‘Adviser’ to the Scottish Ministers, if they think I will stand by and accept such abuse of process and power, they’d better think again.
It is incredulous that Sheriff Anwar identified the prime argument in this case was ‘structural independence’ and continued to sit in the ‘conflict of interest’ knowledge without disclosing this close affiliation [Porter –v- Magill]. This is most surprising, unlike the SCCRC and Scottish Ministers unlawfully continuing to act, rather than state they could not proceed until this matter was satisfactorily resolved by law. Instead, they were more focused on trying to get the case thrown out on any ‘technicality’, even if this meant misrepresenting the SCCRC was not a “public authority”. It is beyond all belief that Sheriff Deutshe has refused to allow my constitutional right to rely on section 7(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998, to cover up for acts of the defenders and a “sister Sheriff” being “dragged into this” maladministration of the highest order.
Please note, The Judiciary and Courts (Scotland (Act) 2008 enshrines judicial independence in law. It introduces a duty on Scottish Ministers, the Lord Advocate and members of the Scottish Parliament to uphold the continued independence of the judiciary, barring them from trying to influence the judiciary through any special access to judges. Judicial independence is important for a fair hearing, for adjudication of disputes, for respect for decisions and because the judges may have to decide disputes between the executive, the legislature and an individual or the public at large. Our legal system is based on the principle that an independent, fair and competent judiciary will interpret and apply the laws that govern us.
A sheriff’s role is to make a decision between parties in a legal dispute, based on the facts of the case and the law that applies to the facts. The sheriff’s duty is to apply the law as he or she understands it without fear or favour and without regard to whether the decision is popular or not. This is a cornerstone of the rule of law. Sheriffs individually and collectively should protect, encourage and defend judicial independence. Judicial independence means that sheriffs are not subject to pressure and influence, and are free to make good decisions based solely on fact and law.
Sheriffs themselves have to be vigilant to identify and resist any attack upon that independence, by whomsoever or by whatever means. Unfortunately in the case management of A295/15 at Glasgow Sheriff Court, Sheriff Anwar and Sheriff Deutsche have failed to comply with their sworn oaths and there has been an appearance of a blatant cover up not to “drag others into it”. To be candid, created by the complete disregard for the Laws of Scotland by thee court, SCCRC and Scottish Ministers, working in unlawful concert.
I do not accept or recognise any ultra vires contaminated rulings thus far made by these Sheriffs in the management of this case. I herewith apply to the Cabinet Minister for Justice to look into the conduct of representations made for and on behalf of the SCCRC and Scottish Ministers and to the Sheriff Principal of the Sheriffdom of Glasgow and Strathkelvin, with a view to conducting a practical and effective investigation into the alleged statutory breaches; alleged suppression of a Devolution Minute/ Declaration of Incompatibility and why an “Adviser” of the Scottish Ministers was allowed to adjudicate in relation to a primary argument relating to a lack of structural independence in the operation of the justice system?
This has also been copied as a matter of courtesy to the offices of the Scottish Human Rights Commission, Lord Advocate and Advocate General for Scotland, to alert them to this unacceptable and unlawful ‘situation’ and to request their intervention to secure my constitutional right to raise a Devolution Minute/ Declaration of Incompatibility. Can Mr Mulholland, HMA; Alan Miller, Chair of SHRC; Mr Matheson, Cabinet Secretary for Justice; Advocate General for Scotland, Lord Keen of Elie, QC, and Craig Scott, Sheriff Principal of Glasgow and Strathkelvin, please acknowledge receipt of this communication.
Thanks in anticipation of your assistance in the ‘public interest’ and ‘interests of justice’.
Graham Gordon, A295/15 Civil Party Litigant