Site Meter

Monday, November 28, 2011

See you in court Ma'am!

See you in court Ma'am!

Hirst v Executive, Parliament and Judiciary (case no.1KH04685)

As I am a freeman I have no wish to serve the Foreign Secretary and Justice Secretary like I was a servant and they my masters. Save for serving them with a court summons issued at Hull County Court. In particular, William Hague and Kenneth Clarke are the Ministers responsible for failing to abide by the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) judgment in Hirst v UK (No2).

Apparently, the District Judge states "It is not clear who the Cabinet Office, Electoral Commission or Parliament is.

I claim that those collectively responsible for the breach of human rights should accept service of the County Court summons.

The District Judge states I need "to clarify and specifically name in [the] claim form".

I believe that the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) clarifies the position from an international and European law perspective: "4. In order to ensure the long-term effectiveness of the Convention system, the principle of subsidiarity must be fully operational in all states parties to the Convention. The Interlaken process should therefore take into account, in particular, a number of matters to which the Assembly attaches particular importance and which do not require amendment of the Convention: the need to strengthen implementation of Convention rights at the national level (including the res interpretata authority of the Court’s case law); the improvement of the effectiveness of domestic remedies in states with major structural problems, and the need to rapidly and fully execute the judgments of the Court".

I specifically name the UK, that is, the 3 arms of the State; Executive, Parliament and Judiciary.

The Queen is said to be the Head of State, and David Cameron is the head of government. Executive power is exercised by Her Majesty's Government, on behalf of and by the consent of the Monarch, as well as by the devolved governments of Scotland and Wales, and the Executive of Northern Ireland. Legislative power is vested in both the government and the two chambers of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, the House of Commons and the House of Lords, as well as in the Scottish parliament and Welsh and Northern Ireland assemblies. The judiciary is independent of the executive and the legislature, the highest national court being the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom (Source: Wikipedia).

What remedy does justice demand? Clearly s.3 of ROPA 1983 must be amended to ensure that it is compatible with Article 3 of the First Protocol of the ECHR. The Human Rights Act 1998(HRA) also needs to be amended to include Articles 1 and 13 of the ECHR, had this been done in the first place it is possible that my case need not have gone all the way to Strasbourg and back again. The High Court abdicated responsibility, and erred in law by deferring to Parliament. Given the lack of political will in Parliament for such a necessary reform, and to honour the UK's obligations to the Council of Europe, the Judiciary needed to exercise its independence and provide a check and balance upon State abuse. Given that the FCO argued that £1,000 for the loss of the vote is reasonable, this should be paid to each inmate who suffered the human rights abuse during each election since my case was decided.


Tim said...

I find this quite confusing, but get the feeling that the courts/judges/UK are being deliberately vague and un-understanding to try and weasel out of complying with Hirst v UK no 2.

jailhouselawyer said...

I agree.

See my latest post where I have emailed Sweden for support against UK.