Locked in car park

[Bookworm]

Pity we cant borrow Jezzas lie detector. I know a few i would like to use it on

Jeremy clarkson has a lie detector?

[Toulose LeDebt]

Jeremy clarkson has a lie detector?

 

Yes I've heard he has a V8 lie detector with a double supercharger. Apparently if it does detect you're lying you explode spectacularly.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(anyone got Clarksons mobile number)

[royboy68]

Now theres a thought, why not Clarkson to do a road test on different barriers.

[Toulose LeDebt]

Now theres a thought, why not Clarkson to do a road test on different barriers.

 

Great idea. Give them all £1000 to buy an old banger and then conduct a series of humorous high speed incidents to see if it really is possible to cause £5000 worth of damage to a barrier which retails at about 1200 quid including VAT.

 

 

ps there's more mail Patma.

[ScarletPimpernel]

Some say he doesn't like litigants in person...

 

Some say he hasn't got a grip on the case...

 

- All we know is, he's called Judge Dread!

[Toulose LeDebt]

[wobbly]

Couldnt Fred object to the Judge concerned being involved as he is biased ,from what Ive read he obviously is.I saw a case after the miners strike when the Baristers representing 2 miners challenged the Judge ,and said he was obviously biased and should remove himself from the case ,back to the Judges chambers they went ,when they came back the Judge removed himself from the case .This happened at Nottingham Crown Court.Good luck Fred I hope you beat them.

Wobbly

[Toulose LeDebt]

Wobbly. Forming a personal opinion based on reading one party to the actions tale of events is one thing but being in a position to invite a Judge to recuse himself is quite another and a step not to be taken lightly.

 

A decision was made recently by the Judge and I believe Fred has invited His Honour to revisit that decision, this time with the benefit of a hearing and the further benefit of 'new information' on which to base that decision.

 

Let's see how the Courts deal with the new subject matter before personally judging any Judges eh?

[Annoying Twit]

Couldnt Fred object to the Judge concerned being involved as he is biased ,from what Ive read he obviously is.I saw a case after the miners strike when the Baristers representing 2 miners challenged the Judge ,and said he was obviously biased and should remove himself from the case ,back to the Judges chambers they went ,when they came back the Judge removed himself from the case .This happened at Nottingham Crown Court.Good luck Fred I hope you beat them.

Wobbly

 

I'm no lawyer, not experienced in this sort of thing, blah blah blah.

 

I had a quick look into cases where there were claims of bias. In these cases, it was always that the judge had some more direct reason for bias, or possible bias even. For example, the judge that ruled in the Pinochet case was accused of bias due to links with a human rights organisation (think about that for a bit .....). BBC News | UK Politics | Pinochet judge under pressure

 

Other cases where a judge's son worked for a company that leased property to a, pub I think it was, that was involved in the court case that the judge presided over. Or, if the judge had a personal relationship with one of the lawyers involved in a case, that would leave them open to accusations of bias.

 

But in the current case, there's no known relationship between the judge and PCAD or LD. It appears, as far as my personal opinion goes, that the judge is just biased against Fred and/or (more likely I believe) litigants in person. I did search to see if any appeals had been based on bias against litigants in person, but didn't find anything. That doesn't mean very much, as I don't have the time or knowledge to search effectively. But, in the absence of someone doing a much better search (any takers? Many hands make light work), it appears that even what appears to me (and it seems others) an obvious bias against LIP's isn't enough in itself.

[Annoying Twit]

Wobbly. Forming a personal opinion based on reading one party to the actions tale of events is one thing but being in a position to invite a Judge to recuse himself is quite another and a step not to be taken lightly.

 

A decision was made recently by the Judge and I believe Fred has invited His Honour to revisit that decision, this time with the benefit of a hearing and the further benefit of 'new information' on which to base that decision.

 

Let's see how the Courts deal with the new subject matter before personally judging any Judges eh?

 

I think this is going to be interesting to see. On this thread we get a steady stream of information. But the judge will, I presume, be receiving information in fits and starts. From what I see here, I've formed the personal opinion that the college is lying through its organisational teeth. But the judge may be assuming, as would probably be the situation in most cases like this, that the information he's receiving (in all forms) from the college is more or less correct. So the judge may have formed an opinion that Fred is basically guilty, and that the case is straightforward. Possibly even an opinion that Fred is just trying to wriggle out of making a rightful restitution to PCAD. It could be that the judge will in the future see enough evidence to overcome this, and realise that the case is less straightforward than previously thought, and start taking a more, erm, hesitant approach to the evidence provided by PCAD. And that might produce what I (and others like me) might perceive as a more balanced approach.

 

To sum up all that waffle in one sentence: As TLD says, things could change.

 

Though, even with that way of thinking, I find it difficult to understand how there could be an agreement that the caution would not be used as evidence by the claimants, then the POC's could be modified so easily soon after. Someone please explain that to me.

[wobbly]

Hi Anoying Twit,

It was just a thought the case I observed(from the dock!)the judge was just challenged in open court after the Jury had been sent .I dont know how it works in a civil case ,however I would imagine if the Judge was challenged he could throw a wobbly and that would give more ammo as it could be said he couldnt be objective anymore in view of the challenge as to his impartiality by the defendant.Incidently I won 12 -0.

Wobbly

[Toulose LeDebt]

Word perfect AT word perfect.

 

You have summed up the situation exceedingly adroitly. HH the Judge has been offered statements of case from both parties and until just very recently nothing whatsoever in the way of evidence. (Still nothing of substance from the claimant). As you surmise there was no reason for the Judge to disbelieve anything contained within the documentation signed as they all were with statements of truth.

 

This changed at the end of last week and again during this week.

 

There are matters before the Court which absolutely have to be addressed before the hearing and to this end (and others) Fred has made formal application to the Court very recently.

[Annoying Twit]

Hi Anoying Twit,

It was just a thought the case I observed(from the dock!)the judge was just challenged in open court after the Jury had been sent .I dont know how it works in a civil case ,however I would imagine if the Judge was challenged he could throw a wobbly and that would give more ammo as it could be said he couldnt be objective anymore in view of the challenge as to his impartiality by the defendant.Incidently I won 12 -0.

Wobbly

 

Possibly, but the proof for the pudding would be past cases where a judge was changed due to potential biases. Accusations of bias are very easy to make, and I'm sure a goodly percentage of cases end with accusations of bias. But something, anything, being done in response to an accusation (or other claim) of bias is very different. To find out under which circumstances claims of bias can lead to something being done, past cases are needed. Where can we find them?

[Toulose LeDebt]

Hi Anoying Twit,

It was just a thought the case I observed(from the dock!)the judge was just challenged in open court after the Jury had been sent .I dont know how it works in a civil case ,however I would imagine if the Judge was challenged he could throw a wobbly and that would give more ammo as it could be said he couldnt be objective anymore in view of the challenge as to his impartiality by the defendant.Incidently I won 12 -0.

Wobbly

 

Congratulations Wobbly if somewhat belated, respect to the miners!!

 

Do you feel this Country has gone full circle (albeit an ever decreasing one) since those days of open Public dissent with Government, the only differences being that today nobody cares enough and the authorities have too much power for such a public show of solidarity to ever be repeated?

 

PS you weren't the guy in the Aztec camera video were you?

[Toulose LeDebt]

Possibly, but the proof for the pudding would be past cases where a judge was changed due to potential biases. Accusations of bias are very easy to make, and I'm sure a goodly percentage of cases end with accusations of bias. But something, anything, being done in response to an accusation (or other claim) of bias is very different. To find out under which circumstances claims of bias can lead to something being done, past cases are needed. Where can we find them?

 

The definitive test is contained within r v Gough [1993] AC 646. Sorry but all copies I find of it are locked so I can't Ctrl+C/V it but if you read secs 12 and 13 of this LINK the test is there together with the implications raised by the European convention of human rights.

[Patma]

Well just to update everyone on today's events. This morning TLD emailed me a whole mass of documents he'd worked on, burning the midnight oil, applications for the court etc etc and they're blooming marvellous.

I'll let him fill you in on what he feels able to disclose about them, but if they don't shift the balance, nothing will.

[Patma]

Congratulations Wobbly if somewhat belated, respect to the miners!!

 

Do you feel this Country has gone full circle (albeit an ever decreasing one) since those days of open Public dissent with Government, the only differences being that today nobody cares enough and the authorities have too much power for such a public show of solidarity to ever be repeated?

 

PS you weren't the guy in the Aztec camera video were you?

I very much echo those congratulations, Wobbly. You deserve every respect.

I, too would love to hear how you feel about today and what chance you think there is of people standing up for what they believe is right like you did then.

[wobbly]

Hi Patma etc,

I used to think that Thatcher was the biggest disaster Britain had ever suffered,but I believe now that the strings are being pulled by unelected faceless manderins and always has been .As regards standing up for yourself and others,there really isnt any choice .Better to fight and loose than go like a lamb to the slaughter.From what I read on here and from experience no political party is interested in the ordinary guy or gal.Personally the 1984 strike totally changed me,I have rarely gone out and socialised since,I look at all the excesses of the police and I am not even suprised ,one thing about me hasnt changed though I will always go to the assistance of the oppressed, I am not the guy in the video my forte is radio transmitting ,make of that what you will.Sorry about digressing good luck to fred,I will have a search to see what I can find out about biasd Judges,but I doubt there will be much that will have been recorded the judge I refered to removed himself when he was challenged about being biased.

Wobbly

[Toulose LeDebt]

Well just to update everyone on today's events. This morning TLD emailed me a whole mass of documents he'd worked on, burning the midnight oil, applications for the court etc etc and they're blooming marvellous.

I'll let him fill you in on what he feels able to disclose about them, but if they don't shift the balance, nothing will.

 

Thanks for the thanks Patma. I know we have some keen followers of this thread but we don't want the claimant knowing too much so we'll just leave it as one application was made seeking permission of the Court to enter an amended statement of case in response to the latest POC's, one application seeking enforcement of an earlier Court order which has not been complied with in full and one application invoking Freds rights under CPR 3.3(5)(a) but we can't tell you what exactly went into this app. Sorry.

[Annoying Twit]

The definitive test is contained within r v Gough [1993] AC 646. Sorry but all copies I find of it are locked so I can't Ctrl+C/V it but if you read secs 12 and 13 of this LINK the test is there together with the implications raised by the European convention of human rights.

 

Very interesting. I note that the document mentions (paraphrased*) "a real possibility or a real danger .... that the tribunal was biased". Not that the balance of probabilities would lead to a conclusion of bias.

 

It could easily be that I am not informed enough, or fair minded enough, but as things stand currently I'd certainly personally conclude that there's a real possibility of bias. As mentioned in the last few posts, my personal conclusions could easily change when we see what the judge and court do in the light of further evidence.

 

*I thought that using Linux pdf tools would allow me to bypass the cut-and-paste lock. But, no.

 

But, even though we know what the rule is, it would still be interesting to see how it has been applied, successfully and unsuccessfully, in the past.

[Toulose LeDebt]

 

But, even though we know what the rule is, it would still be interesting to see how it has been applied, successfully and unsuccessfully, in the past.

 

There are a few judgment templates concerning this topic here LINK

[Alphageek]

Para 12 & 13

 

His Honour Judge S P Grenfell Approved Judgment

 

The Law

 

12. I have been unable to discern any significant issue of law. How a reviewing court should approach the question whether there has been bias actual or apparent in a tribunal has been considered in depth most recently by the Court of Appeal in Re Medicaments and Related Classes of Goods (No 2) [2001] 1 WLR 700. The Court was considering whether a lay member of the Restrictive Practices Court should have recused herself in the light of an application she had made to join an economic consultancy firm. Lord Phillips MR gave the judgment of the court, which reviewed the authorities, in particular, R v Gough [1993] AC 646 in the light of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights and recent European jurisprudence. At paragraph 83 the Court summarised "the principles to be derived from this line of cases as follows.

"(1) If a judge is shown to have been influenced by actual bias, his decision must be set aside. (2) Where actual bias has not been established the personal impartiality of the judge is to be presumed. (3) The court then has to decide whether, on an objective appraisal, the material facts give rise to a legitimate fear that the judge might not have been impartial. If they do the decision of the judge must be set aside. (4) The material facts are not limited to those which were apparent to the applicant. They are those which are ascertained upon investigation by the court. (5) An important consideration in making an objective appraisal of the facts is the desirability that the public should retain confidence in the administration of justice."

13. At paragraph 85 the Court summarised their conclusions:

"When the Strasbourg jurisprudence is taken into account, we believe mat a modest adjustment of the test in

R v Gough

is called for, which makes it plain that it is, in effect, no different from the test applied in most of the Commonwealth and in Scotland. The court must first ascertain all the circumstances which have a bearing on the suggestion that the judge was biased. It must then ask whether those circumstances would lead a fair-minded and informed observer to conclude that there was a real possibility, or a real danger, the two being the same, that the tribunal was biased."

[Toulose LeDebt]

Thank you Alphageek.

 

Now I'm a fair minded person and informed enough to know that the claimants best chance of winning this case lies in not submitting ANY evidence in support of their claim because trust me what has been disclosed can hardly be taken to be supportive of their claim and it's possible they have put a couple of rather large holes through the bottom of their own boat. Then there's the stuff which has not been disclosed under order and can be viewed publicly, we all have our own thoughts about that.

 

There is no shortage of material fact out there let's see what the Judge decides to make of it?

 

I would be much more comfortable in the defendants shoes than the claimants in the run up to the hearing and my fair minded and informed thoughts are that Fred will annihilate them in Court.

 

Whether that actually happens is of course not for me to decide but if it doesn't I would be one of the first to cry 'foul' unless something highly extraordinary is introduced by the claimant or the Judge involved is able to produce a judgment based on a law/laws of which I am currently ignorant.

[Toulose LeDebt]

Patma can you just clarify whether PCAD are now in breach of their duties under your Freedom of Information Act 2000 request please? I'm uncertain as to whether they've corrected the incorrect information contained in the first response in a timely manner.

 

I'm working on the complaint for the ICO now, obviously the main issues are the breaches under the Data Protection Act 1998 in respect of their usage of the cctv footage but the false disclosure under the FOI request might as well go into the same complaint.

 

Any findings made by the ICO will be particularly useful in the event that Fred were to sue PCAD for damages under the DPA 1998 at some stage in the future as an entirely seperate action.

[Patma]

Hi TLD,

Yes you're right, I believe PCAD are now in breach of their duties. I emailed Mr B Turner on 14the July and have received only the inaccurate reply, sent on his behalf since.

My further requests for clarification have been ignored.

Do you know btw if it's the college in general who is deemed to be in breach or the individual the request was directed at?