Total Visits

Wednesday, 11 September 2019

English Democrats Appeal to the European Court of Human Rights


English Democrats Appeal to the European Court of Human Rights


I recently posted, by Airmail, the English Democrats’ Appeal to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.  This is the court which adjudicates on the European Convention of Human Rights.

Article 6(1) of that Convention says:-

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

Here is the text of the application that the English Democrats are issuing:-

Application to the European Court of Human Rights

The Applicant brought a case for Judicial Review regarding the implementation of Brexit in respect of the legal position of the UK and of the legal position of all citizens of the UK and, in particular, all those in England who voted to leave the European Union in the EU Referendum and of all “Persons” in the UK. The UK Government sought to get around Parliament by using the Royal Prerogative to extend the Article 50 notice period.     

The Applicant’s Article 6 rights were infringed by Orders made on 19th June 2019 and on 19th August 2019 and its domestic Appeal remedies have been exhausted (see the case papers).

The Applicant is a political party registered with the UK’s Electoral Commission and is also a “Not for Profit” company limited by guarantee registered with the English and Welsh Companies House.  It has legal personality.

The relevant Application was for a declaration that the Applicant and all the above were out of the European Union on the 29th March 2019 by reason of the expiry of the UK’s Notice Period.  All the legal rights and obligations created by the European Union would therefore not apply to the Applicant nor any of the above and therefore the Application was determinative of the Applicant’s EU “civil rights and obligations”.  Since “Community Law” applies directly in the UK and other EU treaty obligations are incorporated into municipal law the Applicant’s civil rights and obligations under municipal law were affected as well.    

The Applicant’s Judicial Review Application was not dealt with in a timely manner, despite making Applications for it to be expedited.

On an important and urgent question such as this the Court should have dealt with this matter expeditiously which should have been within a matter of 10 weeks, which was the time that the court took to make its decision in the case of R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union [2017] UKSC 5 which was a case which, although of constitutional importance, was not of equal constitutional importance to the Application made by the Applicant.

Further, despite the importance of the matter, the Court chose to deal with the matter at a time when the Applicant’s lawyer was absent from the country and to do so in such a way that, unless an Application for an Appeal was dealt with before the Applicant’s lawyer returned from holiday, the case would be dismissed without any hearing because the Court has adopted a procedural rule whereby Judges can declare that an Application for Judicial Review is “Totally Without Merit”, which has the effect of preventing an Applicant from having any hearing at all, let alone a “fair and public hearing”.  This Order is dated 19th June 2019.

This is a case in which numerous very experienced lawyers, including a retired Court of Appeal Judge, the Rt Hon. Sir Richard Aitkins, and many Queen’s Counsel (Senior Barristers), Barristers and Solicitors had all opined that it was of strong legal merit, so the decision to classify this case as “Totally Without Merit” was legally wrong and seems to the Applicant to be a politically motivated and biased decision intended to prevent the Applicant’s case getting a public hearing.

In so far as Part 54 of the Civil Procedure Rules permits judges to deny applicants for judicial review the right to an oral hearing through the device of marking the application “Totally Without Merit” it is non-compliant with Article 6(1).

Despite the Court’s actions the Applicant did manage to get their Application for Permission to Appeal issued in the Court of Appeal within the time required.  That Application for Permission to Appeal has now been rejected and therefore the Applicant has now been denied any “fair and public hearing” of its Application in breach of Article 6(1).

The general context of this decision is that the Judicial Appointments Commission in England and Wales only allows the appointment of lawyers to become judges who can show “a life-time’s commitment to Equality and Diversity” and therefore its intention is that only Left-wing, Internationalist, Multiculturalist political activists can be appointed as judges.  In practice the JAC reports to the Cabinet Office and is not independent.  Its budget and personnel are largely determined by the Cabinet Office.  

JAC appointees are almost invariably in favour of the UK’s membership of the EU and opposed to the majority decision of the electorate in the UK’s EU Referendum.  People with such views are not “Impartial” on this question. 

In this case, the Lord Justice of Appeal, who finally prevented this case being heard in his Order dated 19th August 2019, is an open advocate of Multi-culturalist “Diversity” and is personally opposed to the Applicant’s political position.  He is a member of the European Legal Institute whose avowed purpose 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.”  It follows that on an Application to try to implement Brexit such as that brought by the Applicant, Lord Justice Hickinbottom is clearly not an “Impartial” figure. 

It was wholly inappropriate and non-compliant with Article 6(1) for a Fellow of the ELI to be assigned to hear a case touching upon the UK’s membership of the EU.  So far as the Applicant is aware no national of an EU Member State who is opposed to membership of the EU by his or her nation state has ever been appointed to be a Fellow of the ELI.

A judicial certification of “Totally without Merit” is a device to prevent the Claimant from being able to get any “fair and public” hearing in court.  This is therefore in breach of Article 6(1) of the European Convention of Human Rights: “In the determination of his civil rights… everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an … impartial tribunal.”

The Applicant has been denied a “fair and public hearing”.  The matter has not been dealt with “within” a reasonable time; and the Tribunal was not “impartial”.  These are all serious breaches of Article 6(1).


31 comments:

  1. Well done sir, Robin let’s see how the corrupt left will spin this news.

    ReplyDelete
  2. How long before this is heard,you have worked so hard for us I hope you are successful

    ReplyDelete
  3. I'll say something for Robin,he doesn't give in easily,the same can be said for Boris.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Well done Robin, really glad this isn't being dropped!

    Ros.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Excellent news Robin. Will this mean the case WILL be heard ?

    ReplyDelete
  6. The “corrupt left” will not spin it cos they won’t talk about it. “If we don’t talk about it, it’s not happening”........��������

    ReplyDelete
  7. Robin how long will it be before your case is heard? I cannot see how your case will fail now even if the Strasbourg Court is biased. Remember the Redfearn case succeeded against the odds.

    Francis

    ReplyDelete
  8. Good Luck Robin, thank you for persevering .

    ReplyDelete
  9. Thank you Robin

    ReplyDelete
  10. Brilliant, good luck and a speedy outcome for all your hard work Robin.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Good luck. You are standing up for the rights of millions, against what seems to be an inherently corrupt system.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Good luck. You are standing up for the rights of millions who voted to leave, against an inherently corrupt system.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Go for it Robin, we need to sort this impasse out PDQ

    ReplyDelete
  14. I was beginning to think all this had been brushed under the carpet and forgotten about
    Well Done Robin God Bless you and our Great Country

    ReplyDelete
  15. There are also other aspects of Human Rights, the EU is a "political project", no one can force you to follow their politics under Article 9. Article 14 prohibits persecution for your political belief, the UK judge, being a left wing activist, effectively persecuted Robin by perverting the right to a hearing. People should note that the European Convention on Human Rights, is NOT the EU. The UK government and parliament are inferior to Human Rights. If the BBC fails to report this, stop paying them also on grounds of political persecution.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Good luck surely the EU have to listen to this to show they are impartial and democratic more then can be said for our own establishment

    ReplyDelete
  17. Well done and thanks

    ReplyDelete
  18. I remember the Scotland UN Committee approached the Council of Europe over the repeal of the 1978 Scotland Act 40 years ago. The chicanery used to block Scottish devolution after the 1979 referendum was rightly condemned by the Council of Europe and as a result Blair in 1997 had to act to save face while Major ran away from it.

    I seriously believe that your action in Strasbourg is bound to succeed. The European Court of Human Rights is INDEPENDENT of the EU and thank goodness for it and therefore little is at stake for them.

    Francis

    ReplyDelete
  19. Ten out of ten for tenacity Robin you have true British spirit. May your efforts be rewarded with victory

    ReplyDelete
  20. Good luck Robin lets hope and pray your successful. This needs sorting we need out of the eu

    ReplyDelete
  21. It's actions like this that have kept the leavers going,determined to right the wrongs done to a legal democratic, peoples decision.

    ReplyDelete
  22. This is one of the most important cases brought before this court. The UK high courts have done everything they can, to try and sweep this away. No wonder so many of us have lost faith in anything UK politicians and judiciary say, we all know that all those involved are working to an agenda, dancing to a tune played by a hidden hand. Thank god for true English heroes like Robin Tilbrook's whose own tune should be "I get knocked down, but I get up again, You're never gonna keep me down". I love what this man is doing for all of us by highlighting the obvious corruption within politics and judiciary. Hopefully there are good men and women who will adjudicate on this with total impartiality and redeem the faith that all men are equal in matters of law and adhering to it.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Just hope this is heard in a unbiased and timely manner. Hope you can find an unbiased judge

    ReplyDelete
  24. We must remember BNP member Arthur Redfearn defeated the UK government in this Court, and yet the MSM silence on the matter was staggering.

    Francis

    ReplyDelete
  25. How will the remoaners react if the European Court of Human Rights upholds your appeal?

    Francis

    ReplyDelete
  26. Why has it taken so long for a court to hear this case when Gina Miller and others can obtain a court hearing in a matter of days?

    ReplyDelete
  27. If it is drivel, Why won't the courts let him have his day what are they scared of?

    ReplyDelete
  28. Thanks to Robin this case is still ongoing. Please everyone donate what you can to this cause...it is very expensive...I have donated seven times now out if my meagre pension. Please help...thank you...

    ReplyDelete