Category Archives: ministry of justice

Our Application to Appeal to the Court of Appeal has been dismissed


The Right Honourable Lord Justice Hickinbottom has dismissed our Application to Appeal to the Court of Appeal and has used the device of “Totally without Merit” to prevent us from demanding a hearing of our Application. 

 

Given that this is a case that very many lawyers, both distinguished and retired members of the judiciary, QCs, barristers and solicitors think has strong legal credibility, this decision can only be based upon the Judge’s politics. 

 

In the English and Welsh Jurisdiction these days a Judge’s politics perhaps should not be a surprise, given the blatant bias in the appointments system introduced under Blair by his last proper Lord Chancellor, Lord Derry Irvine, who created the Judicial Appointments Commission publicly boasting that he had created a system which would not allow the appointment of any Judges who had “Reactionary Views”. 

 

The Judicial Appointments Commission requires all Judges to prove that they have “a life-time’s commitment to Equality and Diversity”.  Lord Justice Hickinbottom has this in spades, as it says on his biography published on the Judicial website which says he is:- “the former Senior Liaison Judge for Diversity”.

 

Also Lord Justice Hickinbottom is a Fellow of the European Law Institute.  The first among ELI’s core objections is:- “To evaluate and stimulate the development of EU law, legal policy, and practice, and in particular make proposals for the further development of the acquis and for the enhancement of EU law implementation by the Member States.”

 

So it is perhaps not a surprise that a Judge with such views would be more a Europhile Left-wing political activist than someone who would judge simply according to law. 

 

Such is my explanation of why we have had this decision go against us. 

 

The reasoning behind a claim that the case was ‘Totally without Merit’ is not about an actual finding of fact, since as our QC made clear, it was blatantly obviously that the first Judge had actually got his decision wrong and therefore our Application to Appeal clearly had substantial merit. 

 

No, this decision is not about the genuine merits of the case, it is about preventing this case from being heard, which the device of ‘Totally without Merit’ achieves, as I explained in a previous blog. 

 

I think the only sensible reaction to this is to make an Application to the European Convention of Human Rights Court, based in Strasbourg.  This is of course not the EU Court, but a court that will look at whether or not these decisions to exclude our case from even getting a hearing is simply on the political orientation of the Judiciary and is a breach of Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights which states:-

 

“In the determination of his civil rights….everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearingwithin a reasonable time by an…impartial tribunal”

 

Another interesting questions is why Lord Justice Hickinbottom was chosen by the Civil Service to hear the case? 

 

I think Jacob Rees-Mogg rather gave the game away when he was asked about the case.  He made clear that he did not want it to succeed.  Maybe that is also true of the Prime Minister, Boris Johnson.  If so that would simply be a demonstration that both of them are much more concerned about the Conservative Party in “getting Brexit done” than about the interests of our country in how it is done.

 

The worrying element of that thought is that it means that they will be quite open to agreeing completely unacceptable surrender terms to the EU in some sort of Withdrawal Agreement. 

 

Boris’ Ministry of Justice did of course have the opportunity to influence which Judge got to look at these papers and what steer that that Judge was probably given as to the outcome that was desired. 

 

Let’s see now if the European Court of Human Rights considers that the politicised way that the High Court and the Court of Appeal operate is in breach of the European Convention of Human Rights!

 

I think it is a sad reflection on the state of our country in which we have allowed Leftist social justice warriors to dictate the agenda, not only in politics and in the media, but also in the court system.  A court system which used to be renowned for its impartial and incorruptible justice!

 

What do you think?

WAS THE SHORT SENTENCE OF DISGRACED LABOUR MP, FIONA ONASANYA, RACIAL DISCRIMINATION?

 

WAS THE SHORT SENTENCE OF DISGRACED LABOUR MP, FIONA ONASANYA, RACIAL DISCRIMINATION?

 

It used to be regularly claimed that the Criminal Justice system discriminated against Black and Minority Ethnic Defendants and imposed heavier sentences on them than they would do for “White” Defendants.  Although the statistics on the face of it looked disproportionate, most sensible commentators thought the difference was actually about the level of criminality in the different “ethnic minority” communities. 

 

That was until the not so bright Labour MP, David Lammy, made his 35 recommendations to reform the Criminal Justice system to give a bias in favour of Black and Minority Ethnic Defendants. 

 

Although the Judge’s reasoning has not been published, it seems likely that the Government’s politically correct adoption of David Lammy’s recommendations has led to the discrepancy. When the Liberal Democrat MP and Cabinet Minister, Chris Huhne and his wife were convicted of their much less serious case of Perverting the Course of Justice than Ms Onasanya’s, they got more than double the jail time that Ms Onasanya got. 

 

Any reasonable and objective commentator would have thought that Ms Onasanya would have got a stiffer sentence. 

 

It seems that we now live in a country where Whites, even if they are not English, like Chris Huhne and his wife, get stiffer sentences than Black and Minority Ethnic Defendants!  Such is the joy of diversity!

 

Here is a BBC article about David Lammy’s report >>>  
Bias against ethnic minorities ‘needs to be tackled’ in justice system

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41191311

 

Here is the Government’s press release on David Lammy’s report in which the Notes to Editors should be particularly instructive saying as follows:-

 

“In January 2016, the former Prime Minister David Cameron asked David Lammy to lead a review of the Criminal Justice System in England and Wales, to investigate evidence of possible bias against black defendants and other ethnic minorities.

 

His successor, Theresa May, said on the steps of Downing Street that: “If you’re black, you’re treated more harshly by the criminal justice system than if you’re white”.

 

The Lammy Review was supported by the Ministry of Justice and a panel of expert advisers. The review considered evidence from the point of arrest onwards.”

 

Click here for the original  >>>  
Press release: Lammy publishes historic review

 https://www.gov.uk/government/news/lammy-publishes-historic-review

 

Here is a report on an approach that is being adopted >>> 
Prosecutions in London could be dropped or deferred as ministers respond to David Lammy report on legal treatment of BAME people

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/dec/19/london-prosecutions-could-be-dropped-or-delayed-in-pilot-scheme

What do you think?

WAS THE SHORT SENTENCE OF DISGRACED LABOUR MP, FIONA ONASANYA, RACIAL DISCRIMINATION?

 

WAS THE SHORT SENTENCE OF DISGRACED LABOUR MP, FIONA ONASANYA, RACIAL DISCRIMINATION?

 

It used to be regularly claimed that the Criminal Justice system discriminated against Black and Minority Ethnic Defendants and imposed heavier sentences on them than they would do for “White” Defendants.  Although the statistics on the face of it looked disproportionate, most sensible commentators thought the difference was actually about the level of criminality in the different “ethnic minority” communities. 

 

That was until the not so bright Labour MP, David Lammy, made his 35 recommendations to reform the Criminal Justice system to give a bias in favour of Black and Minority Ethnic Defendants. 

 

Although the Judge’s reasoning has not been published, it seems likely that the Government’s politically correct adoption of David Lammy’s recommendations has led to the discrepancy. When the Liberal Democrat MP and Cabinet Minister, Chris Huhne and his wife were convicted of their much less serious case of Perverting the Course of Justice than Ms Onasanya’s, they got more than double the jail time that Ms Onasanya got. 

 

Any reasonable and objective commentator would have thought that Ms Onasanya would have got a stiffer sentence. 

 

It seems that we now live in a country where Whites, even if they are not English, like Chris Huhne and his wife, get stiffer sentences than Black and Minority Ethnic Defendants!  Such is the joy of diversity!

 

Here is a BBC article about David Lammy’s report >>>  
Bias against ethnic minorities ‘needs to be tackled’ in justice system

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41191311

 

Here is the Government’s press release on David Lammy’s report in which the Notes to Editors should be particularly instructive saying as follows:-

 

“In January 2016, the former Prime Minister David Cameron asked David Lammy to lead a review of the Criminal Justice System in England and Wales, to investigate evidence of possible bias against black defendants and other ethnic minorities.

 

His successor, Theresa May, said on the steps of Downing Street that: “If you’re black, you’re treated more harshly by the criminal justice system than if you’re white”.

 

The Lammy Review was supported by the Ministry of Justice and a panel of expert advisers. The review considered evidence from the point of arrest onwards.”

 

Click here for the original  >>>  
Press release: Lammy publishes historic review

 https://www.gov.uk/government/news/lammy-publishes-historic-review

 

Here is a report on an approach that is being adopted >>> 
Prosecutions in London could be dropped or deferred as ministers respond to David Lammy report on legal treatment of BAME people

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/dec/19/london-prosecutions-could-be-dropped-or-delayed-in-pilot-scheme

What do you think?

Letter to Mr Dominic Raab MP Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for English Devolution Ministry of Justice


I recently suggested that supporters of our Cause might like to write to the new Minister of English Devolution. Here is a sample of what one has written which is perhaps long for a Lobbying letter but comes from the heart and makes the point well.

Mr Dominic Raab MP

Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for English Devolution

Ministry of Justice

102 Petty France

London

SW1H 9AJ

7th August 2015

Dear Mr Raab,

Re: English Devolution

I was pleased to learn of your appointment, as resolving the “English question” was a Conservative manifesto pledge, and consequently, I am expecting a resolution acceptable to us English including an English Parliament.

As an Englishman, I, and many of my colleagues, friends, business acquaintances, and family, have strong views on the subject, and have had these for many years, especially as we are now strangers in our own country. My thoughts, and those of others, follow below.

In September 2014 the people of Scotland voted 55% to 45% against independence after a long and sometimes antagonistic campaign by both sides of the divide. Just two days before the people of Scotland cast their votes in the referendum, the leaders of the three unionist parties – David Cameron, Ed Miliband and Nick Clegg made a public vow to give Holyrood more powers. Mr Cameron promised the day after the referendum that if he won the 2015 general election he would deliver on the ‘vow’.

The Queen’s Speech after the election demonstrated that the ‘vow’ to Scotland discussed prior to the referendum had indeed been kept by the incoming Conservative Party. The Scottish Parliament will now be able to raise 40% of taxes and decide on 60% of public spending. There are a number of other devolved powers that the Scottish Parliament will receive, including new welfare powers worth £2.5bn. The people of Scotland now have a devolved Scottish Parliament with its own Executive, First Minister and almost full control over how it shapes the future of Scotland.

We must remember that Wales too has its own assembly with a number of devolved powers and there are promises by the new government that there will be a further devolution of powers to Wales, including more powers over energy, transport and local government elections in Wales (pity they can’t run their NHS).

Northern Ireland has control over areas such as agriculture, education, health and social services, economic development and the environment with further devolution of powers in the pipeline.

Many commentators have suggested that the present constitutional settlement in relation to devolution is grossly unfair to England. The English people indeed are the only people in the Union who have no dedicated political representation. It must be remembered that there is no English government or parliament, no devolved English assembly and therefore no one to speak up for the people of England or represent their interests. The unfairness of the present constitutional discrimination against us English has been recognised by David Cameron who wants to introduce ‘English votes for English laws’, thus ensuring that only MPs representing English constituencies could vote on legislation affecting England alone.

However, what does this mean in practice? English laws will still be proposed by a British government and scrutinised by a House of Lords containing members from across the UK and abroad. There will be no administration devoted to English affairs and British MPs will still vote on British party lines. It simply ends up being a blocking device which can be used by English MPs to stop laws that they do not think are suitable for England. Why can’t England be treated like the other constituent parts of the UK? Why not an English assembly like Wales? Why not devolved powers like Northern Ireland? Why not an English parliament with an Executive, First Minister and devolved powers like Scotland?

The British government and the establishment afford England no recognition as a legitimate nation. In many ways they have made every effort to keep England invisible, and discriminate against the people of England at every opportunity; indeed one gets the impression at times that the British state would like to abolish England, e.g., by breaking it up into regions. Many British politicians have expressed their contempt for England and the English and they are very anxious that England should not assert her identity.

It is a matter of fact that the British state refuses to acknowledge that England is a nation like Scotland or Wales. One can discuss whether these are true nations, but it is very clear that if that designation is afforded to both Scotland and Wales then it surely must be to England also.

No other nation is delegitimised and deconstructed in the way that England is. We English are constantly told that there is no such people as the English or that they are just a ‘mongrel race’, a nation of immigrants. The question, ‘What does it mean to be English ?’, is constantly thrown at anyone who identifies as English, in a way that it would never be thrown at a member of any other ethnic group. Have you ever heard of a multiculturalist MP asking Pakistanis to explain what it means to be Pakistani?

The British state also, clearly, has no problem promoting Scottish and Welsh identities and indeed celebrates these; however there is no focus on English identity or English culture. Scottish and Welsh children are rooted in their respective heritages in a way that English children have not been for a very long time. English children must make do with British identity rooted in a make-believe multicultural past.

Whilst Scottish and Welsh nationalism is actively promoted, English nationalism is characterised as ‘racist’ and ‘xenophobic’; it’s seen as the preserve of the ‘far Right’. It has become totally acceptable amongst the middle class metropolitan elites to castigate the English, and they simply do not care what impact these statements have on the collective dignity and psychological well-being of English men, women and children. These politicians are quite willing to undermine our collective self-esteem whilst all the time going to great lengths not to offend minorities.

As long as the British state remains, England will continue to be subjected to second class status within the Union and the people of England subjected to the abuse meted out to them. We English need to develop a sense of Englishness again if things are to change and begin to assert ourselves in the way that the people of Scotland and Wales have done in recent decades. Thankfully, there are signs that this is starting to happen. More and more people living in England are rejecting British identity and simply identifying themselves as English. There is also emerging what might be called an “English political community”. This is clearly a response to the gross injustices of the devolution settlement and the privileging of the other constituent parts of the UK, especially Scotland.

Many English people are asking why the people of England must pay ever increasing prescription charges whilst people north of the border don’t pay anything! English people want to know why lifesaving cancer drugs are available in Scotland but not in England. They want to know why more money is spent in Scotland per head of population than in England and why this privilege is paid for by the English taxpayer via the Barnett Formula. They also want to know why Scottish MPs can vote on matters affecting England (e.g., the introduction of student fees) but English MPs cannot vote on matters affecting Scotland. Many English people are beginning to wonder whether we would be better off without the Union!

I think that the Union is effectively over. The SNP will use its position in Westminster to manoeuvre for another referendum in the not too distant future – regardless of what Sturgeon and co. are saying at the moment – and I am convinced that if this is held within the next decade Scotland will vote for independence. We English must now seek a constitutional settlement that reflects our interests of us, the people of England. We demand either a devolved English parliament with exactly the same powers as Scotland within a federal UK, as long as the union remains, or they must vote for independence.

It should also be borne in mind that we English have recourse to the UN regarding the elimination of race and cultures and I am aware the certain people are following this up.

My apologies for this rather long letter, but this matter is close to my heart because I no longer recognize the country I grew up in and, like many, feel betrayed and dismissed by a ruling elite who regard us English with contempt. I do not want my country split into regions or “power-houses” and will support anybody and anything that will promote England and Englishness.

Yours sincerely

D P Fair

EVEL = English votes for English laws

In the light of the Conservative leadership’s turgivations and proposals for English votes for English laws it is interesting to see what the Whitehall Civil Service briefing on EVEL says.

Here is the Ministry of Justice’s internal briefing:-

The Government has announced its plans for changes to the process through which legislation is approved by the House of Commons.

Civil servants play an important role in preparing, refining, publicising, implementing, and enforcing legislation. As a result these changes are likely to impact on the work of a number of teams across the Department.

‘English votes for English laws’ will mean that bills, parts of bills and secondary legislation will be subject to a different Parliamentary process in certain circumstances.

The proposal will be implemented through changes to the internal rules of the House of Commons, and will be put to a vote before the summer recess, after which the change would come into effect. If approved, English votes for English laws would affect the way the Civil Service develops and delivers legislation.

How will it work?

The Speaker of the House of Commons would certify all bills, clauses or statutory instruments. A new Parliamentary process would then apply where the Speaker deems a bill, clause or schedule applies to England or England and Wales-only and relates to matters that are devolved to Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland.

The legislative process is then the same up to and including Report Stage – all MPs would continue to debate and vote together. The only exception to this is bills that are deemed England-only in their entirety will be considered at committee stage only by English MPs.

After Report Stage there would be a new process of consideration. This would allow only English, or English and Welsh, MPs to debate and vote on the relevant measures, thereby giving their consent or vetoing them. This process would also include a separate dispute-resolution process where the whole House and the English and Welsh MPs disagree. After this the bill would continue to Third Reading as before.

Secondary legislation would also be subject to the new rules. Those statutory instruments certified as entirely English, or English and Welsh will require the consent of the relevant MPs as well as the whole House if pressed to a vote on the floor of the House.

A more detailed explanation of the new process can be found on GOV.UK. Parliamentary process is complex and the Cabinet Office will circulate guidance to Departments following the approval of the House.

What does this mean for us?

If approved, this would mostly affect teams that prepare new legislation and work on supporting securing its progress through Parliament. It would also affect policy makers, who would need to consider carefully which parts of the UK their policies apply to and how best to legislate on them.

The Cabinet Office will be working closely with teams that could be directly affected to ensure they fully understand the new process and how to use it. If the proposals are approved, there will also be workshops for staff and learning opportunities available on Civil Service Learning will be updated. All staff are encouraged to make the most of these opportunities to familiarise yourself with the new process, even if your work may not be directly affected. As civil servants, we will need to be particularly conscious of this new process when speaking with stakeholders and seeking to gain support for legislation in Parliament.

These proposals will attract significant interest, particularly in the devolved administrations. It is therefore crucial that we are all consistent in how we communicate the policy externally. The Cabinet Office Press Office will lead on media handling so consult them about any media enquiries.

More information will be available but for further advice any teams working on legislation which will be introduced imminently should speak to the PBL Secretariat for primary legislation or the SI Hub in the Cabinet Office for secondary legislation.