Deliberate Action To Get into Court as a last Resort

Having been Remanded in Custody, (4 Days) on a False Allegation of Breach of Bail Conditions, by District Judge Baker sitting at Clerkenwell Magistrate Court in August 1997, (when court records show there was no conditions attached to bail) Mr. Grant later had his Writ against Bindman & Partners and Others unlawfully Struck Out by a High Court Judge in December 1998.

And having been unlawfully Imprisoned 'Without Charge or Trial' by Justice Toulson and his brother or brother's Law Firm, acting on behalf of Bindman & Partners in February 1999, Mr. Grant further received in June 2001 a rejection of his Application of Complaint to the European Court of Human Rights, on grounds that the Application was filed too late.

And when all ensuing public actions organized by him to bring public awareness and pressure to the authorities between August 2001 and July 2003, (with protest marches and demonstrations to Parliament Square, Royal Court of Justice, Downing Street, etc,) resulted in further numerous periods of False Arrest and Imprisonments, (of both himself and other Campaign for Truth & Justice members) on accusations ranging from Contempt of Court without an Appeal, (unlawfully charged, tried, sentenced and executed by the very same alleging Magistrates' in total contravention of the Rule of Law) to 5 Months imprisonment on alleged obstruction of the Highway, even though the maximum sentence available was 28 Days.

After having had all access to UK Civil Courts unlawfully blocked, and the only remaining avenue to a court of law became the Criminal Courts by default, Mr. Grant resorted to rebellion as a last resort in order to get into a court of law and have enforce his enforceable right to redress and compensation that he was due in law, but being unlawfully denied by UK Judicial Authorities following his unlawful Imprisonment by Justice Toulson in February 1999. (See Article 13 ECHR).

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)

As a result of the UK Authority’s ongoing failures to take serious his legitimate complaints of Judicial Corruption and Unlawful Imprisonment since 1998, Mr. Grant took to act in self-defence, legitimate protest and defiance against the deliberate abuse of power and violations of the Rule of Law by the Judiciary and Other State Officials. 
Most importantly, it is essential to note (quite remarkably) that Mr. Grant's action is fully supported in law by Article 7 ECHR. This reads ‘No Punishment without Law’ and assures no punishment outside Law for those wittingly or unwittingly pushed outside the protection of the law of the land. The following is how the law make provisions under the Article for those (like Mr. Grant) who have had their legal and enforceable rights unlawfully denied them by state institutions and officials, to take any reasonable measure at their disposal (short of the worse evil) to highlight the injustice, enlist help, expose and overturn existing injustice, in order to make it clear by international standards a Lawbreaker cannot be a Law Enforcer.

Further more, if the Trial Judge is right, then it means there is no such Defence of: Self Defence, Duress, Duress of Circumstances, Necessity, etc, etc. And it is precisely because he is wrong (knowingly or unknowingly) that there do exist these defences as confirmed in Smith & Hogan Criminal Law by David Ormerod (A Professor of Criminal Law, University of Leeds and Barrister of the Middle Temple, 18 Red Lion Court) wherein he outlined under 'General Defences' like Duress, Duress of Circumstances, necesity, etc, as existing defences recognized in law for centuries.

"For centuries the law has recognized a defence of duress by threats. The typical case is where D is told, 'Do this [an act which would be a crime if there were no defence of duress] – or you will be killed', and, fearing for his life, he does the required act. Quite recently, the law has recognized another form of duress – duress of circumstances. Again, D does the act alleged to constitute the crime out of fear, but this time no human being is demanding that he do it.297 D does it because his life is threatened and his only way of escape is to do the act, which, but for the duress, would be a crime. The compulsion on D to do the act is exactly the same whether the threat comes from someone demanding that he do it, or from an aggressor, or other circumstances. His moral culpability, or lack of it, seems exactly the same.'" The relationship of duress, duress of circumstances and necessity is postponed until each has been examined in detail" (D. Ormerod, 2005, pp.296 - 297).

2. Misdirection to Convict

The direction by the Trial Judge to the Jury to Convict Mr. Grant (independently confirmed by Grenville J Walker Solicitors) amount to a breach of a fair and independent trial as is guaranteed under Article 6 ECHR. Had this independent legal practitioner interpretation of the judge's action not been available, it would have been tremendously difficult convincing ordinary members of the public that a judge would abuse his/her position and in contravention of Article 6 ECHR direct the Jury to return a Guilty verdict rather than allowing them to come to a decision on their own in accordance with Law.

Further the Misdirection removed the unsuspecting Jurors from exercising their unique and specific role of deliberating the evidence before them, along side a guideline of the law from the referee (the Judge) who failed in this instance (wittingly or unwittingly) to direct accurately as regards the Law in the context of Article 7 Section 2 in view of Mr. Grant's explanation.

3. Contravention of Article 6 ECHR

As sighted earlier, the judge's direction of the Jury to convict Mr. Grant violates the principles of a fair trial. It also violated the principle and primary purpose of Trial by Jury.

The refusal of British Law Firms to represent Mr. Grant in UK Courts on the basis of his Defence explanation and supporting evidence, challenging the integrity of the UK Judicial system warrants investigation as the principle of equality of arms for all parties before the courts under Article 6 has not been adhered to.

Refusal to allow him the assistance of a Mckenzie friend, (which was a Right under such exceptional circumstances as his) following the unwillingness of UK Law Firm's to represent him based exclusively on his Defence and Explanation, is further evidence supporting the fact that the Judges action was indeed calculated and deliberate rather than an innocent oversight. (See legal basis of Mckenzie friend as provisioned for in Law)

4. Deliberate mis-interpretation of Article 7 ECHR

With the presiding Judge (himself an agent of the state and representative member of the Judiciary) having obvious and apparent vested interest in Mr. Grant's evidence, resorted to blatant deliberate mis-interpretation of Article 7 ECHR to the Jury so they could have clear conscience to convict.

5. Safety and Lawfulness of the Conviction

Thus in line with established principles of law, it is fair to surmise Mr. Grant's conviction is Unsafe and should be QUASHED. The erroneous and deliberate misrepresentation of the law to the jury by the Judge is enough justification to warrant the Conviction Unsafe at an Appeal if the Process was functioning properly in accordance with the Rule of Law. After all if there was never an explanation that could be given for a person’s act or actions, there would be no need for courts and Judges.

APPEAL PROCESS,

Owing to his extremely unusual defence argument implicating Judicial Corruption and State Lawbreaking facts responsible for his initial Unlawful Imprisonment for which he was being unlawfully denied due resolve and was the reason for his action, he could not get Lawyers in the UK Judicial System to represent him.

All insisted Mr. Grant drop the issues pertaining to Judicial Corruption in British Courts if he wants their assistant for Legal Representation.

Mr. Grant refused and was not willing to do this and as a consequence was forced to represent himself again for Appeal. On ............. Mr. Grant lodged an Appeal against conviction.

APPLICATION

Mr. Grant also submitted for the records that the brief overview drafted by the Appeal Office Summary Writer, presented to the full court did little to point the courts in the proper direction of his Grounds of Appeal. Rather than a fair and balanced summary which includes what the Crown Allege and what he (the Defence) offered for explanation, the brief overview instead made much about the applicants’ request at trial for the assistance of a Mckenzie Friend which was refused by the trial Judge. However, the issue of a Mckenzie Friend was not the main plank of his Grounds of Appeal.

Additionally Mr. Grant injected it unacceptable in the interest of Justice and Impartiality, that the Brief Summary placed before the full court, be taken solely from the Trial Judges summing up, most especially since he had made it clear that the Trial Judges summing up of his evidence was far too vague and that only a Trial Transcript could properly fill the gaps.

PROCEDURAL ABUSE

As stated Mr. Grant lodged an Appeal against conviction. However he was refused permission to allow him to appeal without oral hearing, representation, or examination of his evidence, despite him being self representing and having made application to be present, to address the court on his grounds of appeal.

The basic principle of an appeal is to challenge the Lawfulness or Safety of a Lower Courts verdict. In refusing the applicant permission to appeal without an oral examination, or representation of the applicant’s defence explanation, the court failed wholly unreasonably in its role to test the lawfulness, or Safety of the lower courts verdict in this case.

The Appeal Court’s decision to refuse Mr. Grant permission to appeal and have examined the lawfulness and fairness of his conviction, without any proper legal representation, or appearance from him as a Self Representing Applicant (after not being able to find an honorable enough law firm willing to present his case of state lawbreaking deriving from Judicial Corruption and improprieties to the courts) in court to make oral representations and examinations necessary, grossly erred in contravention of Articles 6 (1) and 6 (3) (c) human rights act 1998 and European Convention on Human rights. 

It is the Appeal Court’s duty to conduct a proper examination of the submissions, arguments and evidence by the parties without prejudice to its assessment of whether they are relevant to its decision, most especially in this particular instance where the applicant has clearly not received a fair independent and impartial tribunal, since the person or persons he complains of having been responsible for the violation of his enforceable rights under Article 5 (5) is members of the Judiciary who sit as Judge Jury and executioners in their own cause, determined to deny any proper examination and hearing of his application in a UK court of law in total contravention of both Article 6 HRA 1998 and ECHR. 

Finally, it is important to note that it is not the remit of the Appeal Court to decide Guilt or Innocence, but test the lawfulness and safety of the applicant’s submissions. This belief and understanding is supported by previous Judgment of the Court of Appeal as in the case of - R. V. LAKE, 64 CR. APP. R. 172 LORD WIDGERY C.J. Said:
‘In this court … the first matter we are concerned with is to see whether the rules have been obeyed and to see whether the trial Judge has followed the rules of practice appropriate to the protection of the Defence’.

THE CRIMINAL CASES REVIEW COMMISSION

Following the Appeal Courts rejection of Mr. Grant's application summarily on paper without any proper examination of the Grounds, Mr. Grant was referred to the Criminal Cases Review Commission in a desperate bid to derail his renewed Complaint Application to the European Court of Human Rights.

Consequently on 1st June 2005 Mr. Grant lodged an application (reference no. 439/05) with the Criminal Cases Review Commission. (See Mr. Grant's Application to the CCRC)

Thereof Mr. Grant convey his conviction was prejudicial and bias, and that it violated procedural fairness guaranteed under Article 6 (1) of both the European convention on Human Right and the Human rights Act 1998.

In spite of the overwhelming evidence confirming Judicial Improprieties and Irregularities evident in Mr. Grant's case, the Commission on 12th December 2005, (negligent of its duty of care and statutory responsibilities to both the applicant and public) erroneously communicated ‘there are no grounds on which to refer’ (the applicant) ‘Mr. Grant’s conviction to the court of appeal.’ This is despite knowing full well that the application matter before them was never given any appeal, as the appellant was in fact refused permission to allow him to appeal without oral hearing, representation, or examination of the evidence involved. (See Mr. Grant's response to the CCRC's decision not to refer).