Total Visits

Tuesday, 9 July 2019

BREXIT CASE APPEALED TO THE COURT OF APPEAL


BREXIT CASE APPEALED TO THE COURT OF APPEAL


Here is the Order of Mr Justice Spencer:-







It certifies that our Application is “Totally Without Merit”.  This is, on the face of it, totally mystifying, as it is obvious that the case is clearly at least “arguable”!

The explanation however lies in the relevant Court Rule which was developed in 2016.  This was supposedly to stop unmeritorious immigration claims clogging up the system.

Here is the text of the Totally Without Merit Appeal Rule:-
“Judicial review appeals from the High Court
52.8

(2) Where permission to apply for judicial review ….. has been refused on the papers and recorded as being totally without merit in accordance with rule 23.12, an application for permission to appeal may be made to the Court of Appeal.
(4) An application under paragraph (2) must be made within 7 days of service of the order of the High Court refusing permission to apply for judicial review.
(5) On an application under paragraph (1) or (2), the Court of Appeal may, instead of giving permission to appeal, give permission to apply for judicial review.
(6) Where the Court of Appeal gives permission to apply for judicial review in accordance with paragraph (5), the case will proceed in the High Court unless the Court of Appeal orders otherwise.”

We have however appealed in time to the Court of Appeal and here is our “Ground of Appeal”:-

“The learned judge erred in law by finding that it was unarguable that there was not a Prerogative or a statutory power to agree to an extension of the period between notification and withdrawal of a Member State by Article 50 of the TEU.”

We now wait for a single “Lord Justice of Appeal” to rule on the case.  That will probably be another wait of several weeks!

Thursday, 4 July 2019

BREXIT CASE UPDATE

 

BREXIT CASE UPDATE


Since issuing the English Democrats’ case (claiming a Declaration that the UK left the EU on the expiry of our Notice on the 29th March 2019), the Administrative Court has not shown itself to be either as speedy or efficient at dealing with the case. 

This is despite my having made an initial Application to have the case expedited. This resulted in the Government Legal Department undertaking to provide their Grounds of Resistance by just before Easter on the 17th April  (usually they get a full 21 days).  Mr Justice Supperstone made an Order which was emailed to me confirming that in these circumstances he was not going to order the Government Legal Department to serve their Grounds of Resistance any sooner. 

Matters then did not progress as speedily as we would all have hoped.  So I then made a further Application for the case to be expedited, but received no indication as to when any hearing was going to occur.  So after waiting for almost another two months I went off on holiday for two weeks starting on the evening of Friday, 14th June. 

Until Tuesday, 25th June we had heard nothing further from the Court.  Although I am sole practitioner and most sole practitioners going on holiday simply close their office, I do have my assistant come in to check the post regularly and, of course, to answer any telephone calls, etc. 

I was therefore dismayed to hear that a decision had been made, the image of which I am showing on this blog, not only refusing to give Permission, which would be strange enough, given Sir Richard Aitkin’s, the retired Court of Appeal Judge’s public comment that this case is “strongly arguable”, which is well above the merely “arguable” threshold that is supposed to guarantee permission to Judicially Review.  But this Order went much further than that and certified on the flimsiest of grounds that our case was “Totally Without Merit”. This is a shorthand for a new procedure introduced in order to make things as difficult as possible for immigration cases, where the Administrative Court has been inundated with legally unmeritorious applications by litigants in person. 

If a case is certified as being Totally Without Merit, then the consequence is that an application to Appeal to the Court of Appeal has to be made within 7 days of deemed service. 

As you can see from the Court’s covering letter, the letter was purportedly sent out on Wednesday, 19th June and therefore deemed served on Friday, 21st.  In fact it had not arrived on Friday, 21st as my post was fully opened on that day. 

It is possible that it arrived on the 22nd or on Monday, 24th, as it was opened when my assistant next went into the office on Tuesday, 25th. 

To catch me out it needed me to go away for two weeks or more.  This holiday was the first time that I have done so for over 20 years!

The Order was then faxed that morning to our barrister, Francis Hoar, and work commenced to get this Application issued on or before the last date for issuing it, which was Friday, 28th. 

Francis did a superb job and got the Application ready for us to be able to issue it, despite my still being away on holiday. 

If my personal practice had not been as thorough and as conscientious as it is, I think it is likely that I would have returned from holiday to find that we had already missed the deadline. 

Whenever I think about this situation I find it hard to believe that this “coincidence” is purely accidental.  This was the one opportunity in the whole of the last two months in which we could lose this case provided the paperwork was sent when it was, as explained above. 

Furthermore it is odd that the less important Order of Mr Justice Supperstone’s was emailed but this much more important Order was only posted. Nor were we given any advance warning.  I do not think I will ever be able to prove the attempted set up that seems to have happened here, but fortunately we have managed to keep the case on track by getting the Application in on time.

 If my suspicions are right it is a very sad reflection on the state of “justice” in this country which has now become so politicised that we seem to have lost the “Rule of Law” which was the cornerstone of England’s hard won and hard fought ancient Constitution.

A further matter emerged when there was the easily made confusion between two Mr Justice Spencers.  The signature on the Order looks like Mr Justice Martin Spencer, but it turns out on very close inspection of the documentation to be that of Mr Justice Robin Spencer aka Sir Robin Spencer.  

Inspection of the Facebook profile and Twitter account of Mr Justice Martin Spencer revealed that he was an outspoken Remainer. As it was put in a legal analysis:-
 

18. On the said Twitter site appear the following comments by Mr Spencer QC (as he then was) (all dated 24.6.2016, the day the referendum result was announced), none of which have since been removed, all of which were publicly available on 27.6.2019 and all of which continued to be published by Martin Spencer J up to the later date.  In chronological order:

(1)       ‘If Europe disintegrates, with the UK as the catalyst, we will have betrayed our children and grandchildren.’
(2)       This is not something we can undo in 3 or 4 years’ time as in a general election, it will affect generations.’
(3)       We have taken leave of our senses, as a country.  This was a time to stand together, untied with Europe in our beliefs and values.’

19.       The implied meaning of the above tweets includes the statements that (in respect of each numbered tweet using the same sub-paragraphs) those voting and those political parties advocating Leave in the referendum:

(1)       Are responsible:
(a)       for betraying their children and grandchildren;
(b)       for increasing the likelihood of the ‘disintegration’ of Europe;
(2)       Have damaged the UK for generations (this is imputed from the fact that the second comment immediately followed the first); and
(3)       Have, in particular, ‘taken leave of [their] senses’ and have betrayed the values that all should share.

21.       On 6.7.2016, on the said FB site, the user (it is assumed Mr Spencer QC, as he then was) made the following comment, which remained publicly available to view and thereby published on 27.6.2019:
‘Apparently, since the referendum vote, support for staying in the EU has risen in Denmark from 59.8 % to 69 %.  We appear to be a laughing stock in the rest of Europe.  This is Der Spiegel’s verdict: ‘the result has "created new rifts: between old and young, London and the provinces, the English and the Scottish. In the end, further referenda may follow, with the result that the once-powerful UK could be transformed into a loose alliance of marginalised mini-states." Quite.’

22.       The implied meaning of the above comment was that those voting Leave or advocating such a vote have:
(1)       Made the UK the laughing stock of Europe;
(2)       Been responsible for creating the rifts set out;
(3)       Increased the likelihood of the break-up of the UK into a loose alliance of marginalised mini-states, including England as an independent country;
And that:
(4)       The emergence of England as an independent country would be an extremely negative outcome, were it ever to occur.

23.       In respect of the implied meaning alleged at para 17 (3) above, the author reaches the conclusion that the break-up of the UK would be caused by rifts between (inter alia) England and Scotland; and went on to allege the emergence of ‘mini-states’.  Although England has a population of around 55 million, the most logical meaning of this other to an ‘idiot in a hurry’, informed by the well-known fact that England voted Leave and Scotland did not, was that England would be one of those states.

24.       The FB user, who appears to have been Mr Spencer QC (as he then was) also advertised the fact that he had signed an online Petition that said as follows:

‘We the undersigned call upon HM Government to implement a rule that if the remain or leave vote is less than 60% based a turnout less than 75% there should be another referendum.’

25.       The implied meaning of the above statement, which (if the site is his) Mr Spencer QC endorsed and which, in his judicial office, he continues to endorse through its publication, is that the Referendum result, in which under 60 % of the population on a turnout under 75 % voted to Leave, was illegitimate and that the UK should therefore remain in the EU in spite of the Referendum result.


Although these comments cannot have any bearing on this case, they do however have a strong bearing on what is happening to our legal system in which we have a Blairite Judicial Appointments Commission which will only appoint Judges who can “demonstrate a life time’s commitment to Equality and Diversity” and are therefore ideologically only of the multiculturalist Left and therefore almost all Remainers. 

This system of appointment clearly needs to be changed to ensure that people are only appointed as Judges as they are the best lawyers and their politics is ignored.  If the British Political Establishment are displaced then we can expect the terms of reference to the Judicial Appointments Commission to be changed after each General Election and appointments to be made only of those who are supporters of whichever party is then in power!



Thursday, 23 May 2019

FACEBOOK AGAIN REVEALS ITS PRO-REMAIN POLITICAL BIAS



FACEBOOK AGAIN REVEALS ITS PRO-REMAIN POLITICAL BIAS


Some time on Thursday last week Facebook “Disabled” my “Personal Profile”.

The first I knew about this was when I tried to sign on to check if I had had any messages. I was then told that the account had been “Disabled”. 

Here is exactly what the text said:-

Your account has been disabled
For more information, or if you think your account was disabled by mistake visit the Help Centre”

For more information about our policies please review the Facebook Community Standards.  If you think your account was disabled by mistake please contact us.”


I of course thought that that must be wrong and therefore went to their next page which said:-

Why was my account disabled?

Your account has been disabled for violating Facebook’s Statement of Rights and Responsibilities.

Our Policies

One of Facebook’s main priorities is the comfort and safety of our members.  The following are not allowed on Facebook:

·       Support for a violent and/or criminal organization or group
·       Credible threats to harm others or the promotion of self-destructive behaviour
·       Targeting other individuals on the site
·       Hate speech or singling people out based on race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sex, gender, sexual orientation, disability or disease
·       Graphic content including sadistic displays of violence against people or animals and depictions of sexual assault
·       Selling recreational or pharmaceutical drugs

Learn More

After looking carefully at that page I was able to see that there was some element of an appeal process, so I clicked onto the link they provided and got a page which only told me to send them a PDF of my passport or other ID.

So all I was able to do in response to my Profile being “Disabled” was to send them an image of my passport to confirm my identity!

On Friday I received a response saying that the ID Team couldn’t help with any appeal!

Which is absolutely hopeless.

At that point I thought Facebook’s procedures for appeals were completely inadequate and didn’t even remotely approach the basic “Rules of Natural Justice”.  I therefore sent off an email to every Facebook email address that I had got. 

Here is my email to them:-

Dear Sir

I have tried to log in to my above profile and your system asked me to submit an ID check.  There is no proper detail of any reason why this happened nor a clear appeal process just some generic items which can’t be relevant to me.

I am currently a candidate standing in an election here in England and I have already done your double identity check for political figures and advertising so you should be aware.

Here in the UK it is a crime under the Representation Of the People Acts for candidates to be slandered so I would politely ask you to sort this out and restore my profile or I shall get the police involved tomorrow.”

In reply I did get this answer:- 

“Hi Robin,
Thanks for your report.  We’ll review the information you provided and get back to you when we have an update on your report.

In the meantime, you can review our Community Standards to learn more bout what is and isn’t allowed on Facebook:


We appreciate your patience.

View updates from your Support Inbox:  https://fb.me/1FCup0kANUMY5ok

Thanks,
The Facebook Team

At the time of writing this blog, I have not received any substantive response explaining either why they have done it or what they are going to do about it.

I, in common with many other EU Parliamentary candidates, did receive a visit from the police advising us on security and so have received contact details of the officer who is responsible for dealing with political crime. I have therefore started the process of reporting this matter to the police, since Facebook would seem to interfering in an election which could well amount to a criminal offence.

The police have acknowledged that they are now investigating Facebook’s actions.

I shall wait and see what the police will do about this before considering my civil options against Facebook, which at the least would seem to amount to a breach of contract and may well be at least an implicit defamation in wrongfully disabling my profile.

Facebook’s actions call into question what exactly this is all about. 

I should explain that I have had my profile up on Facebook for at least 10 years (although I now of course cannot check exactly when I signed up!).  In all that time I have not been banned or warned of a ban for anything that I have ever posted up.  That is quite simply because I have not posted up anything that is even remotely against Facebook’s so called “Community Values”, nor even of questionable taste.

Furthermore I would say that as far as my profile is concerned I had not actually posted up anything new on my profile for quite a few days.  Also I hadn’t posted up anything else, other than updates about the case which I as a solicitor and Chairman of the English Democrats, am bringing against the Government (to get a Declaration that, as a result of our Notice expiring, we were Out on the 29th March!). 

In addition Facebook is well aware of my being involved in politics as a few months ago they had written to me to ask for me to sign up to what they describe as something along the lines of ‘double identity verification’ for political figures which would then allow me to place political adverts.  I had done this and I had also placed a few political adverts.

So the situation is my profile has been disabled and this has happened in the context where I have only been posting information up about the case. 

I had not even posted up very much about the English Democrats and myself having stood in the EU elections.  That is of course because the primary reason for standing in the EU elections was to publicise the case. 

Since what I am aiming to achieve with the case is that a Declaration that were actually already out and that therefore these elections are null and void. 

In response to this activity Facebook has disabled my profile without notice and without giving any explanation as to why they have behaved in this way and without providing a proper appeals process! 

Could this have anything to do with Facebook’s internationalist/globalist agenda and of their appointment as a Director of Nick Clegg of the “Bollocks to Brexit” Liberal Democrats?

Go figure!