Above are the images of the Order that I have just received, which disappointingly confirms that our case is not going to be allowed to have even a single hearing. (Apologies for the way it has reproduced on this blog!)
The tone of the reasons for the Order is more reasonable than the previous two Orders that we have had in this case. I do however find it interesting that this Judge has come out with yet another set of inconsistent reasoning as to why our case would not succeed. In my view, as we have now had three different Judges, all of whom have given a different basis on which they are refusing the case. Speaker Bercow had a yet further different view. Between them they have vividly shown why this is a case that should have actually been properly heard. Proper legal argument should have been listened to, so that the Court could have come to a proper reasoned decision. That would have been the way that a Judicial Review decision would have been dealt with until very recently.
What we have however uncovered here is, not only the extent of politically biased personal agendas within the Judiciary, but also a drastic deterioration in the general standards of fairness and of open justice in our country. This bodes very ill for the future of a country which once had one of the very best justice systems in the world. The English justice system was seen as the very model of the best system of the idea of the “Rule of Law”.
I would say that although I do not know Lord Justice Davis, but he must mix with very different people to any that I meet or hear from on social media, since I have yet to come across anybody who thinks that it is right and proper that a Judge who has signed up to the European Law Institute could fairly hear a Brexit case or be considered anything other than biased on the issue of Brexit.
In the circumstances I have now taken this case as far as it can possibly go in the England and Wales jurisdiction.
I am continuing with our Application to the European Court of Human Rights on the basis that they would not give us a “public hearing”, the case was not dealt within a “reasonable time”, given its importance, and also that we did not get an “impartial” tribunal.
I am also pursing the Courts to provide disclosure under the General Data Protection Regulations of the Ministry of Justice’s Case Summary on the front of the Court file.
I have so far only encountered obstructionism, which suggests to me strongly that the Judges have been given a biased steer on this case by the Case Summary on the outside of the file before they even start to read the papers. If this wasn’t so there would be nothing to hide!
What do you think?