Corrupt High Court Judge Mr Justice Langstaff props up tyranny in the UK

Corrupt High Court Judge Mr Justice Langstaff props up tyranny in the UK

The dishonourable Mr Justice Langstaff

In the same way that the Judiciary propped up the Nazi regime under Hitler's Germany during the run up to and during World War 2, yesterday saw the disgraceful spectacle of a corrupt High Court Judge, Mr Justice Langstaff, rule in favour of a tyrannical regime which had denied convicted prisoners Legal Aid to be represented in court and yet granted itself taxpayers money to defend the indefensible.

It is easy to rule against a case where the 588 convicted prisoners were denied effective access to the court, firstly by denying them Legal Aid to be legally represented and secondly by imposing a charge upon them, to be paid up front, for any who wished to be escorted to the court for the hearing.

So, only one side in the dispute was present and legally represented in the High Court. This goes against the legal principle requiring that there be an equality of arms. The principle states: "neither party in either civil or criminal trials should be procedurally disadvantaged". Legally gagging the prisoners voice is acceptable in a tyranny, but I would contend that it is totally unacceptable in a country laying claim to being a liberal democracy.

It is a breach of natural justice or fairness that no-one should be a judge in their own cause. And yet, Mr Justice Langstaff clearly acted as a judge in his own cause. In para.1 of his introduction to the case he referred to Hirst v UK (No2), in which the UK State (Executive, Parliament and Judiciary) was found guilty, of a breach of human rights under the European Convention on Human Rights, by the highest court in Europe. The UK has a legal obligation to remedy the breach of human rights. This legal obligation is imposed upon all 3 arms of the State, therefore, under the doctrine of the separation of powers, Mr Justice Langstaff was duty bound to provide a remedy. Instead, Mr Justice Langstaff, like those judges before him, abdicated responsibility.

In para.2 it states that the: "Secretary of State has expressly accepted that domestic statute law which provides that any prisoner, whatever his circumstances, has no right whilst a prisoner to vote is incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The court has been told[1] that the government proposes to seek amending legislation in response to the decision in Hirst but has not yet done so, despite the lapse of over 4 years since it was issued". This exposes that the Secretary of State for Justice has also abdicated responsibility, in that he has not amended the offending statute to make it compatible with the Convention.

The people of the UK need to be afraid, very afraid, of the dictator David Cameron's proposal to introduce a Bill of Responsibilities in which the subjects will be granted the privilege of rights subject to the subjects displaying the necessary responsible conduct. However, as has been pointed out above those in power have abdicated responsibility themselves and yet hypocritically are demanding that the subjects behave responsibly. Under the Convention, the human rights are not dependent upon human beings acting responsibly but instead are granted because of their status as human beings. The people of the UK should demand their human rights under the Convention and reject any attempt by the dictatorship to remove them and replace them with a substitute which suits the dictatorship but robs the people of their inalienable human rights.

It beggars belief that if Mr Justice Langstaff was acting independently of the Executive, he did not question the Executive's previous statement to the court? "The court has been told that the government proposes to seek amending legislation in response to the decision in Hirst but has not yet done so, despite the lapse of over 4 years since it was issued". How long does it take to propose amending legislation? If we are really talking about a response to my case, why didn't the Secretary of State for Justice simply make a remedial order under s.10 of the HRA 1998 to amend the legislation and lay it before Parliament (the other guilty party before the ECtHR)?

In my view, in para.16, Mr Justice Langstaff appears to threatening other prisoners into not bringing claims and also appears to threaten the Legal Service Commission against funding any applications.

In para.18, Mr Justice Langstaff states that this is "an argument which is one purely of law", and yet MPs recently claimed in the Commons that it is not a matter of law but a matter of politics. Furthermore, Mr Justice Langstaff states "that the Government accepted that the blanket prohibition on voting was incompatible with the Convention, but had not moved to alter it, though had indicated that intention) are not in dispute". As I pointed out above I would dispute that the Government's intention was not a real intention but empty words when what was needed was action and not inaction.

It would appear from para.19 that the LSC was wrong not to fund this case, on the strength of Chester being decided by the CofA. In my opinion, Chester was wrongly decided at first instance and then again in the CofA. This being the case, it follows that the LSC decision is legally flawed.

In para.20 Mr Justice Langstaff states: "I was concerned that the parties were not on an equal footing: the Secretary of State had a team of lawyers, headed by Mr. Coppel, who had a junior (Joanne Clement) though she did not appear at court. The argument is a legal one. The claimant had no lawyer to put his case".

In paras. 21 and 22, Mr Justice Langstaff states spurious reasons why he should proceed, and goes on to say he proceeded.

Mr Justice Langstaff employs flawed logic which I would contend displays intellectual dishonesty. That is, he is corrupt. He is being goalkeeper for the Secretary of State. He is looking down the field when the ball is already behind him in the net.

Mr Justice Langstaff is conveniently forgetting the elephant in the room, that the UK is guilty of human rights violation and that he has a responsibility to remedy the situation. The UK law is incompatible. He claims that Parliament must amend the law, and that the Secretary of State who is responsible for ensuring that the UK complies with the Convention cannot be blamed for doing nothing to remedy the situation. The 3 arms of the State, supposedly providing a balance and check upon each other is not working because the employees within each department are neglecting their responsibilities. This is a systemic failure.

This case not only exposes that s.3 of ROPA 1983 is still incompatible with the Convention, but it also exposes that the HRA is incompatible with the Convention and is a piece of toothless legislation for ensuring human rights. A corrupt State is able to circumvent guaranteed human rights simply by ignoring them. This is a frightening prospect. It means we do live under a dictatorship.