Despite the rule of natural justice stating clearly ‘Judges should not sit in a case where they have even the slightest personnel interest … either as defendant or prosecutor’, (Taylor, 2000, p372) corrupt UK Judicial Authorities arrogantly insist Justice Toulson’s shameful and unlawful conducts, (procedural abuse and imprisonment of Mr. Caul Grant in 1999 Without Charge or Trial) contravening Article 6 ECHR is not sufficient ground to substantiate an allegation of bias. (See 02 Mach 2001 Lord Chancellor’s Department Letter)

And despite Section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 making it illegal for public authorities (including the Judiciary itself through the courts) to act in a way which is incompatible with articles of the European Convention on Human Rights, (ECHR) Judges within the UK Judiciary continue to show a consistent reluctance and unwillingness to interpret matters before them compatibly with articles of the European Convention on Human Rights.  Instead they have resorted to deliberately altering literal meanings of the Articles of the Convention Rights, so as to falsely appear to be consistent and in compliance with them, when in reality they are in violation.  (See Judge Christopher Pratts’ deliberate misinterpretation of Article 7 ECHR to the Jury; also see the same corrupt Judges’ deliberate misdirection to the Jury that there is no Defence of Justification in English Law as evidence of assertion)
As a matter of fact, Section 3 of the Act imposes a duty on the courts to interpret legislations, wherever possible, consistently with articles of the convention.  So the UK Judiciaries’ ongoing failures to give due redress to Mr. Grant’s Unlawful Imprisonment, or allow Mr. Grant to Appeal corrupt Judge Christopher Pratts deliberate and erroneous misdirection to convict on the basis that ‘no jury or court can stop him or convict him of anything’, (see the corrupt judges’ own words for yourself) tantamount to no less than a violation of the UK’s very own Section 6 and Section 3 of its own Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA), as well as violations of ARTICLE 50 (Remedies); ARTICLE 14 (Right not to be Discriminated Against); ARTICLE 13: Right to an Effective Remedy; ARTICLE 7 (The Principle of Non-Retroactivity in Criminal Trials); ARTICLE 6 (The Right to a Fair Trial); ARTICLE 5 (Right to Liberty); ARTICLE 1 (Obligation to Respect Human Rights) etc; of the Convention Rights.

Remedy

Under Article 13 ECHR, the UK and its Judicial Authorities have a responsibility to ensure an effective remedy for ‘everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in the Convention are violated, shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity. 

A party state must ensure that any person whose Convention rights are infringed has an effective remedy for the breach,’ … ‘A remedy must be provided wherever the applicant has an "arguable claim" of breach of one of the ECHR rights.’ (Shorts and De Than, 2001, pp.66-67)

With current failures and inabilities of UK Judicial Authorities to administer Justice within its jurisdiction in accordance with the Rule of Law, and allow convictions to be tested properly for safety and validity (by defendants or their legal representatives) before refusing Appellants, permission to appeal and then Dismissing Appeals formally without engaging the Dual Process proper (in order to save money) require the UK Judicial Authorities Rule against itself or end up being Ruled on by the European Court of Human Rights.