Ed Stratton - Papers Leaked Concerning His Judicial Review

[sunshine band 930]

The DEA now have evidence to demonstrate that both the CPS, and the Adminstrative Court lawyer misrepresented our case to the Divisional Court, and denied Ed Stratton and others a fair hearing. A key point is the reversal of roles of the Court (which he is seeking the exercise of judicial protection for himself from the executive) and the Interested Party (being the CPS). This, if it were the case would signify that we had no case in 'these' circumstances - this is what their Lordship's were given guidance and legal authority to do by leading them the wrong way. Whilst we managed eventually in the Oral Permissions Hearing to press them into grasping that the claim being made was quite different from the one they expected to hear about, by that time it was frankly too late, we did not have authorities to counter the random questions and points being asked by the Judges - we knew they didn't get it and the Judgment proves that, but it's hardly surprising if Administrative Court lawyers mislead the Court.

The documents we have:

An Acknowledgment of Service from the CPS which incorrectly reverses the roles of Defendant and Interested Party.

Evidence that the Adminstrative Court thought that Waltham Forrest Magistrate's Court (the defendant) was situated at my house and sent me documents accordingly :wink:

Then the 'leaked document (s)' showing the Notes that the Adminstration Court Lawyer prepared notes for the Judges that clearly repeat the mistake and then lead the court to apply the refusal mandated in law.

An Order of the Court revealing that Mr Howell QC's (the Judge refusing the order on the papers) too thought that the Defendant was actually the Interested Party and entirely misunderstood the claim.

Substantial documentation from ourselves to the Court & CPS to explain the errors.

Edited June 16, 2010 by sunshine band

[digger 1649 216]

are they trying to scupper the chances of a challange ?

[sunshine band 930]

are they trying to scupper the chances of a challange ?

I think they cannot refuse another case on the stregnth of Stratton's refusal for permission for Judicial Review now.

[SinfulHedgehog 0]

So what does this mean in the context of his case?

[Tevion 5,089]

Lets hope its grounds for appeal

[sunshine band 930]

So what does this mean in the context of his case?

Well it will mean that the Court of Appeal will recognise that the High Court misunderstood the case, indeed, it would be an excellent opportunity to use that judgment as a working document to explain what has been done incorrectly. Now that we know what the Admin Ct internal messages have been saying about our case, now we can show why the courts are not addressing the right questions in their refusal.

Edited June 16, 2010 by sunshine band

[Thom 361]

Sounds like the british justice system working at its best as usual!

Fingers crossed this could be really helpful to you guys, all the best

[jahja 75]

HI SB how are you?? Hope all is well?!

Did I read your first post right?? Did the court make a total cock-up and send you documents that were meant to be headed for another court??

After all the shit you guys have been through in basically having your argument ignored, this is a FANTASTIC piece of luck Good for you!

I hope this puts some grease between the cogs and at least your brilliant argument might actually be considered for what it is, not what they keep expecting/misinterpreting/ignoring.

I'm off to smoke one in celebration for you, Ed, and the DEA

Is it worth going to the media with this btw?

Cheers dude

[digger 1649 216]

cheers sunshine,

your efforts are a credit to you my friend.

:wink:

[vince noir rock n roll star 84,524]

could this all lead to a mistrial ? and if yes what would the rammifications be ..would that scupper the court of appeal ?

[sunshine band 930]

Well, the Judgment might be argued to stand as the judges did hear our argument and supposedly read it, I don't even know how to challenge it but I am going to complain to a senior civil servant administerring the High Court and perhaps the President of the QBD that Ed's trial in the Judicial review proceedings was compromised by misleading notes from the administrative court lawyers. I don't think they will be concerned that the hearing was unfair, but we can but tell them. I think there is a strong case to put the correct argument before the court rather than to determine it whilst labourring under various misunderstandings. We will see what the Court of Appeal say to the papers already submitted - the Court of Appeal is a superior court anyway.

Edited June 16, 2010 by sunshine band

[soto 3,596]

I see. So basically, you can now argue a different case as such a case was never struck down during the JR process.

[sunshine band 930]

I see. So basically, you can now argue a different case as such a case was never struck down during the JR process.

Well, if they want to say so, they can point to the final judgment and say the judges got the claim right because they did insert a few points from the oral hearing into the judgment they prepared earlier - it stands up to only the most cursory of scrutiny though as none of the actual claim is addressed and the human rights argument and common law claims are mixed up and incoherrent. I'm not saying this is the key, but if a court looks at all this evidence together they can see that Ed was really hamperred from making his case. It was tough enough to argue this, and to have no solicitor or counsel - but with the CPS and Court lawyers leading the court astray, he had no chance really. It would be hopeless for them to point at the judgment and say look, they have got it here and there - really the point is that they should have been dealing with his claim and not thinking it was another claim, it really denied a proper and full hearing, whatever anyone might say, that is the truth, we were there, we experienced it and it was a shambles because we knew it had been nobbled.

The court did write to me at my address in Leeds thinking I am Waltham Forrest Magistrates Court! Then they told us that some papers were for the defendant. They were sent to a few people before another court lawyer told us that they are not supposed to give me those. Well, what can I say, we wouldn't interfere in the administration of justice, quite the opposite, but if they give us papers for the defendant, we accept them in good faith and note that they tell us why we were denied a fair trial, what are we supposed to do? The cat was already out of the bag, and a good thing to. I trusted the court lawyers as they are civlilians and lawyers who serve the interests of justice. I never imagined that they would alter a person's defence to make it seem hopeless.

Edited June 17, 2010 by sunshine band

[Tevion 5,089]

surely altering someones defence in these circumstances is an offense in itself?

[sunshine band 930]

surely altering someones defence in these circumstances is an offense in itself?

They will just say that they did their best to understand a lot of amateur waffle and what difference does it make at the end of the day - they say we are barking up the wrong tree whatever way you say it. I think they do understand our point to an extent, but not the legal argument, nor the law! I think they were just lazy, and wanted to field off us to save time. I doubt someone worded them up to nobble it but who knows, it does at time look like wilful obstruction.