Site Meter

Wednesday, November 09, 2011

Hirst v Executive, Parliament and Judiciary Case No. 1KH04685 (Update)

Hirst v Executive, Parliament and Judiciary Case No. 1KH04685 (Update)

Dear Mr Hirst

Attached below is a copy of a letter sent from our Legal Services Office to Kingston upon Hull County Court on 8 November 2011.

Kind regards

House of Commons Information Office
House of Commons

UPDATE: 15:10

Dear Sir or Madam

Thank you for your email and the attached letter to the County Court.

It would appear that your office and Assistant Counsel have missed a few
points. Allow me to clarify them.

Firstly, I contacted your office by phone and email to enquire the address
for service of the summons. Your office failed to respond to my question.
Instead, the Assistant Counsel contacted the court allegedly "in order to
answer that question". Surely, I should have been contacted instead? In any
event, I notice that the letter to the court refers to the House of Commons
Legal Services Office. So, in a round about way, I am now in possession of
the answer I first sought.

Secondly, it would appear that the Assistant Counsel complains to the court
that "The House has not been served with any claim". Given that your office
failed to supply me with the requested information in the first place, this
is not surprising. I needed the information to supply to the court to enable
the court to serve The House with my claim. In future I would appreciate it
if the House of Commons Information Office supplied the necessary
information requested.

Thirdly, the Assistant Counsel obtained a copy of the Particulars of Claim
from the Court office. It beggars belief that the Assistant Counsel has
written "We can see no issues in the Particulars of Claim which should lie
against the House of Commons". Might I suggest Spec Savers or remove the
rose tinted spectacles? Under the European law subsidiarity principle, which
Kenneth Clarke and Dominic Grieve have both recently stated should apply to
the UK, "It is the responsibility of all the state organs - the executive,
the courts and the legislature - to prevent or remedy human rights
violations at the national level". These words are in my Particulars of
Claim, and given the legislature's alleged failure in this respect, it
follows that the issues should, and do, lie against the House of Commons.

Fourthly, I contend that it is an abuse of process to attempt to persuade
the District Judge not to do his job, of providing a check upon State human
rights abuse, and strike out my claim. Clearly, the Assistant Counsel has
failed to address the issues I raised and failed to state why they should
not lie against the House of Commons.

Therefore, I respectfully invite you to hand over the case to a more senior
Counsel, who, with a bit of luck, might just know what s/he is dealing with.

I look forward to your response.

Kind regards

John Hirst

No comments: