Site Meter

Friday, October 07, 2011

John Hirst v Executive,Parliament and Judiciary

John Hirst v Executive,Parliament and Judiciary

Yeseterday I sent this email:

Non implementation of Hirst v UK (No2)

John Hirst; To:;

Dear Madam

Re: Your E-Transmission to the ECtHR on 26 July 2011.

I am concerned that it is being reported in the media that the UK has secured a six month delay in fully complying with the Hirst No2 judgment.

My understanding is that the Section Registrar has granted a six month stay on the Chamber decision in Greens and MT v UK and not Hirst No2.

Today is the 6th anniversary since the UK lost its appeal to the Grand Chamber in Hirst No2.

To date the UK has ignored the judgment.

Justice delayed is justice denied.

As the FCO represented the UK at the ECtHR I am holding the FCO liable for its failure to fully comply with the Hirst No2 judgment.

As you know the Foreign Secretary has publicly announced that he has put human rights at the forefront of foreign policy. Whilst I applaud this decision, I challenge his decision to deny UK citizens their human rights. In particular, convicted prisoners of their human right to vote.

Therefore, I give you notice that I intend to start a private law action and judicial review against the Foreign Secretary.

So far all I have heard from the UK is excuses but not explanations for non compliance.

The question I will be asking the courts is: How does one get a court judgment implemented?

My starting point is the Treaty of London 1949 (the Statute of the Council of Europe). As you are aware the Court of Justice of the European Union “Its mission is to ensure that "the law is observed" "in the interpretation and application" of the Treaties. The Court reviews the legality of the acts of the institutions of the European Union; ensures that the Member States comply with obligations under the Treaties; and interprets European Union law at the request of the national courts and tribunals”. Therefore I will be asking the courts to seek a ruling from the CJEU.

There will, of course, be other Defendants added to the actions.

I will be arguing that the HRA 1998 is incompatible with the Convention. For example, in relation to non incorporation of Articles 1 and 13.

It appears to have escaped peoples attention that my case is against the 3 arms of the State, that is, the Executive, Parliament and Judiciary. It is the responsibility of all 3 to ensure that the UK abides by the Convention and abides by the ECtHR decisions. It is also clear that all 3 have failed in their respective responsibilities. There have also been failings by the Committee of Ministers and Council of Europe.

I look forward to your response.

Yours sincerely

John Hirst

Today I went to Hull County Court to lodge the Application for Injunction (N16A). However, as I did not have proof of my Pension Credit guarantee credit I was unable to lodge the Application for a fee remission (EX160). Therefore, I will submit the claim on Monday 10 October.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Be careful now! Hazza Moynihan has the habit of saying anyone who disagrees with UK human rights abuses should not be answered.