ELECTION PETITION M330/08.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE, QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION

 

In the Matter of the Representation of the People Act, 1983

And in the Matter of a Local Government Election for Manningham Ward of Bradford Metropolitan District Council held on the    1st day of May 2008

Petitioner Norman Scarth, First Respondent: Mohammad Amin, Second Respondent Anthony J. Reeves

 

Re. The Hearing of the Above Petition listed to start on 6th May 2009

SUBMISSION re. ARTICLE 6.

1.      This document is from the Petitioner, & questions the legality of the hearing as above, with mention also of Contempt of Court by West Yorkshire Police, Commissioner Mawrey turning a blind eye, & thus condoning it.

2.      Britain purports to be a ‘Democracy’, with ‘Human Rights’ & the ‘Rule of Law’,   Sadly, we have none of them.  The gradual disappearance over the last 50 years speeded up rapidly under what could be described as the BlairBrownCameron Regime (War Criminals abroad [which the people know about], torturers & murderers at home [which they don’t].)           

3.      Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (& of our own 1998 Human Rights Act) says that “In the Determination of his Civil Rights & Responsibility ... everyone is entitled to a Fair & Public Hearing, before an Independent & Impartial Tribunal.  In no way does this hearing fulfil those requirements. 

4.      Though the conduct of the Respondents is reprehensible, the main culprits in this matter are West Yorkshire Police, who are of course Agents of The State.   Commissioner Mawrey has himself been appointed by, & is being paid by The State, & thus cannot possibly be seen to be ‘Independent & Impartial’.  One might be inclined to accept that he would at least try to fulfil those requirements, but his conduct so far suggests otherwise. 

5.      In his Order dated 25 March 2009 Commissioner Mawrey required that WY Police should, “disclose ... the names of the police officers who attended ... on the afternoon of 1 May 2008 ... & to state when & by whom the decision to arrest Mr. Scarth was taken”.  WY Police did in fact give the names of three constables, but there were at least five, one of them a sergeant. 

6.      They also contemptuously ignored the Order to “state when & by whom the decision to arrest Mr. Scarth was taken”.  I informed the Commissioner of this, & asked that he take the necessary steps to enforce his Order.  I also informed him that WY Police had said that PC 4631 Goss, one of the three constables named, had not made a pocket book entry, that he had made a statement, but they were not prepared to disclose this without a further Order from Commissioner Mawrey.  This is highly suspicious, & suggests that WY Police are most anxious to protect the ‘High Up’ person who gave the order! 

7.      An email from Commissioner Mawrey dated 15th April 2009 said, “I have received Mr. Scarth’s document.  I do not propose at this stage to make any further Order” (neither for the name of the person who ordered my arrest, nor to disclose the content of a Statement which we must assume could be VERY illuminating!)  This is most blatant contempt of court by WY Police, yet Commissioner Mawrey accepts it without a murmur. 

8.      It is another example of how the police are allowed to get away with anything, up to & including murder, of which there have been far too many recent examples.      

9.      Re. The claim by the Second Respondent that the election should not be voided because the conduct of WY Police did not affect the result.  A ruling by Lord Denning MR said that this was irrelevant.  I DID find a copy of the ruling, but unfortunately made a note only of the page number (74), without the source, & am unable to find it again.  The lawyers for the two Respondents being SERVANTS OF THE COURT, their function to assist the court, I ask that they should find this, & provide copies. 

10.  Apart from this, it is blindingly obvious that those who would stoop to Zimbabwean treatment such as inflicted on me would have no compunction at interfering with the ballot papers.  Indeed, Commissioner Mawrey himself said that electoral cheating in Birmingham “was not the work of a few hotheads”, “confined to two wards”, “but was a tactic Labour used across the city”.  He said there was evidence of “massive, systematic& organised fraud”, that had made a “mockery” of the election, & that the system was “hopelessly insecure”. 

11.  He also criticised Birmingham Police for their handling of allegations of electoral fraud.   All in all he said “It would have been a disgrace to a Banana Republic”.    Can we believe that it is only in Birmingham where Labour ‘activists’ indulge in such practices?     

12.  I have already referred to Section 139 (4) of the 1983 Representation of the Peoples Act, which says “On the trial of a Petition, ... any charge of a corrupt practice may be gone into, & evidence in relation to it received before any proof has been given of agency on behalf of any candidate in respect of the corrupt practice.  In relation to an election in England & Wales under the Local Government Act, this subsection applies as if corrupt practices included illegal practices”. 

13.  I have already mentioned ‘Obstructing/Perverting the Course of Justice’ and/or ‘Misconduct in Public Office’ by WY Police.  In addition I refer you to the ‘Protection from Harassment Act 1997, which says, inter alia: s1 Prohibition of harassment.  (1) A person must not pursue a course of conduct – (a) which amounts to harassment of another (b) which he knows or ought to know amounts to harassment of the other.” 

14.  S2 says “(1) A person who pursues a course of conduct in breach of section 1 is guilty of an offence.   (2)  A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or both.” 

15.  In Dytham (Regina v) [1979] (2 QB. 722, 69 Cr.App.R. 387) the Appeal Court ruled that having knowledge of serious crime taking place, & turning a blind eye was ITSELF serious crime.

16.  Which brings me to the ruling in Nixon vs Loundes [1909] 2, Ir.R. 1,  Q.B.D. which says, If, in the course of a civil action, the suspicion of crime comes to light, the civil action must be adjourned until the criminal matter has been investigated.  NOTE:  The ruling says specifically ‘the SUSPICION of crime’.  I regret that I do not have easy access to a law library (or the strength to go seeking one), & ask that the lawyers for the Respondents shall produce photo copies of that ruling. 

17.  How can all the above matters be resolved?  The only way in which anything resembling a ‘FAIR HEARING’ could take place would be before a jury, in a court presided over by someone other than an appointee of the British State. 

18.  It would also obviously be desirable that the Petition hearing should be adjourned, & the criminal matters investigated, but there is a problem.  The Second Respondent & his lawyers have already ‘abused & mis-used the process of law’ trying to block the Petition - obviously to prevent the truth coming out.   In doing so they have caused great delay, knowing that at my age of 83, a heart attack, a stroke, enfeeblement, exhaustion or my demise cannot be far away.  They haven’t happened yet, but every extra day makes one or other more likely, the criminals then getting away Scot Free. 

19.  That being so, I have no option but to allow the hearing to go forward as listed, but emphasise the point that it does NOT comply with the requirements of Article 6, hoping that Commissioner Mawrey will allow the truth about Police State Britain to come out, rather than cover it up..   

20.  I note that in his message of 7th April 2009, Commissioner Mawrey says, “... unless the trial takes some unexpected turning ...”, but have no idea what ‘unexpected turning’ he envisages.  The only hope (not for me, but for the nation) is that the Commissioner will have a ‘Road to Damascus’ moment, put aside his professional dislike of the Litigant In Person, find his conscience & his courage, abide by his Judicial Oath, & let the nation know that behind a facade of ‘Democracy’, Britain is a totalitarian Police State (a Banana Republic?) where oppression, intimidation, terrorism, torture & murder are used to silence ‘dissidents’. 

21.  That is my hope, but my fear is that Commissioner Mawrey will comply with the unspoken requirements of those who rule us, & ensure that all these things remain covered up.  We shall see.                                      

 

Norman Scarth,   Petitioner.                                                                                                 1,485 words.

Wednesday 29th April 2009

Cc to all parties.