COMPLAINT TO RT HON. CLARKE, SECRETARY OF STATE FOR JUSTICE, MINISTRY OF JUSTICE, UK Irregularities in City of Westminster Case No: 1004020346 RSA v. Shrien Dewani: Issue: Extradition to RSA The Rt Hon. Kenneth Clarke, MP Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor 102 Petty France Westminster, London, SW1H 9AJ Tel: +44 (0)20 3334 3555 Fax: +44 (0)20 3334 4455 Email: general.queries@justice.gsi.gov.uk; clarkek@parliament.uk; office@rushcliffeconservatives.com
23 May 2011
CC: Mr. Shrien Dewani (Counsel); Republic of South Africa (Counsel); CC: Ms. Theresa May, Home Secretary; Dr. Liam Fox, MP; Mr. Nigel Farage MEP Failure of Complaints Handling and Enquiries Team, Customer Services Division, Her Majesty's Courts Service, Operations and Performance Directorate; to resolve complaint submitted to it on Monday, February 14, 2011 5:51 PM
[1]
On Monday, February 14, 2011 5:51 PM I filed an email complaint with the Complaint Handling and Enquiries Team (Annex A), as directed by Justice.gov.uk1; in response to the City of Westminster’s Court refusing to provide me with the requested information in the matter.
[2]
The information I requested from the City of Westminster Court Clerk, and subsequently from the Complaints & Enquiries Team; was:
[3]
1.
The Name of the Judge who allegedly ruled the Application of Lara Johnstone, member of the Radical Honesty culture and religion to Proceed as an Amicus Curiae in South Africa v. Shrien Dewani as ‘Inappropriate’; and
2.
A verbatim transcript of the alleged ‘inappropriate ruling’ and whether such ruling occurred during public court proceedings; or in chambers.
The complaint alleged that the Judge and Registrar’s conduct were irregular and plausibly biased: 1.
1
The ruling is not adequately accessible and sufficiently precise; as required by Lithgow & others v. United Kingdom (1986) * EHRR 329 § 110. In Lithgow & others v. United Kingdom, the European Court of Human Rights held that the rule of law requires provisions of legislation to be adequately accessible and sufficiently precise to enable people to regulate their affairs in accord with the law. The same could of course be said for judicial rulings.
http://www.justice.gov.uk/global/contacts/moj/index.htm and http://www.justice.gov.uk/global/contacts/hmcts/courts/index.htm
2.
[4]
2
The lack of clarity and vagueness of said decision indicates a plausible appearance of bias; for the rule of law requires that a person who makes a decision should be unbiased and act in good faith; for justice must not only be done; but it must be seen to be done; as required by R v Sussex Justices, Ex parte McCarthy ([1924] 1 KB 256, [1923] All ER 233); where Lord Chief Justice Hewart found that: “.... a long line of cases shows that it is not merely of some importance but is of fundamental importance that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done. .... Nothing is to be done which creates even a suspicion that there has been an improper interference with the course of justice.”
If the Radical Honesty SA Application to proceed as an Amicus Curiae (Annex B) was approved; the Radical Honesty Amicus Curiae would prove beyond any reasonable doubt that: 1.
It is legally impossible for the Plaintiffs to provide the Defendant with a free and fair trial; in South Africa
2.
If the Systemic Intellectual, Moral and Legal Dysfunction of the SA Legal System as it exists today, was managed by White Afrikaner males; every single AntiApartheid ‘Human Rights’ Organisation in Europe would be screaming their lungs off, organising protests, filing Amicus Curiae objections, etc; arguing that Mr. Dewani was incapable of receiving a free and fair trial because the SA criminal justice system is a criminal injustice system; but when the current Systemic Dysfunction is far, far worse than under Apartheid (3,000 % worse in the case of farm murders; 25000% worse in the case of deaths in Police custody, etc, etc) and under the management of the corrupt, incompetent, unprofessional, ANC; the ‘Anti-Apartheid Human Rights (sic)’ organisations conduct is that of the 3 monkeys. It is submitted Mr. Dewani as an Indian would have stood a 3,000% better chance for a free and fair trial under a conservative White Afrikaner Apartheid Judge and Justice System.
3.
Furthermore, on May 23, 2011, the US Supreme Court ruled that conditions in California's prisons violated the constitutional ban on "cruel and unusual punishment" and affirmed a lower court's order that the state drastically reduce its inmate population. The photo’s2 attached to Brown v. Plata convinced the Justice’s. As a former political prisoner under the ANC government; I can unequivocally and categorically inform you that California (where my former African American husband is and has been a prisoner since 1982) and SA prison conditions can be described respectively as: California five star cleanliness and discipline v. SA hellhole of filth and anarchy. The space between beds in SA prisons is about 30 cm, if prisoners are lucky to have a bed. Blankets, sheets and pillows are a luxury. Discipline and any complaints procedure simply does not exist. In the US Supreme Court decision, writing on behalf of the court's five-vote majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy noted that US Supreme Court’s unprecedented measure had become the only way to remedy the "serious" and "uncorrected" constitutional violations against inmates in the state's correctional facilities, particularly the sick and mentally ill.
http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/05/california-prison-overcrowding-photos
[5]
Does Mr. Dewani have the right to a free and fair trial? If so; there is not a chance in hell he can get such under the current SA systemically dysfunctional justice system.
[6]
If convicted, virtually an absolute certainty in SA’s InJustice System, unless he decides his only option is to bribe himself an innocence verdict; his conditions of detention shall be much worse, than those described by the US Supreme Court in Brown v. Plata as ‘cruel and unusual punishment’.
[7]
The Radical Honesty Amicus Curiae would consequently recommend: 1.
[8]
If the Plaintiff’s are honourable and sincere that they have a Prima Facie case of Murder against the Defendant, they should be given the opportunity to try the Defendant in a British court of law.
I would appreciate it if your Office could help me to get a professional, informative response to my complaint to providing me with the simple answers to my questions in my February 14, 2011 complaint.
Respectfully,
___________________________ LARA JOHNSTONE, Pro Se P O Box 5042, George East, 6539 Tel/Fax: (044) 870 7239 Cel: (071) 170 1954 Email: jmcswan@mweb.co.za. Annex A: Correspondence to Complaints Handling and Enquiries Team, Customer Services Division, Her Majesty's Courts Service, Operations and Performance Directorate; to resolve complaint submitted on Monday, February 14, 2011 5:51 PM Annex B: Notice of Motion and Founding Affidavit Application to Proceed as Amicus Curiae, of Lara Johnstone, Member of Radical Honesty culture & religion, filed 18 January 2011; & Condonation: Re: Pro Se Representation, filed on 06 February 2011
CC: Complaints Handling and Enquiries Team &/or Mr. Benny Stone & Mr. Russel Meek Customer Services Division Her Majesty's Courts Service Operations and Performance Directorate 1st Floor - 1.42; 102 Petty France London SW1H 9AJ Email: Customer Services (CSHQ) (customerserviceschq@hmcourts-service.gsi.gov.uk), (CustomerService.mcol@hmcourts-service.gsi.gov.uk); Russell.Meek@HMCOURTSSERVICE.GSI.GOV.UK; BennyC.Stone@HMCOURTS-SERVICE.GSI.GOV.UK CC: Clerk of the Court & Court Manager (Jordan Mason) City of Westminster Magistrates' Court 70 Horseferry Road, London, England, SW1P 2AX Fax: + 44 (020) 7805 1193
Email: gl-horseferry.court@hmcourts-service.gsi.gov.uk; Clerk: Russell Sykes (Russell.Sykes@hmcourts-service.gsi.gov.uk); Court Manager: Jordan J Mason (Jordan.Mason@hmcourts-service.gsi.gov.uk) CC:
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA Advocate D. Damerell; NPA - CT National Prosecuting Authority Tel: (021) 487 7142 Email: dadamerell@npa.gov.za Adv. D. Rangaka Chief Prosecutor: NPA HQ Tel: (012) 845 6963 | Fax: (012) 845 7326 Email: drangaka@npa.gov.za
CC: SHRIEN DEWANI Andrew Katzen Hickman & Rose Solicitors Aylesbury House, 17-18 Aylesbury Street Clerkenwell Green London EC1R 0DB Tel: 020 7702 5331 | Fax: 020 7253 1367 Email: mail@hickmanandrose.co.uk, akatzen@hickmanandrose.co.uk
Adv. J.A. Niehaus Deputy Director: Capetown T: (021) 487 7245 | F: (021) 487 7200; Email: janiehaus@npa.gov.za Adv. A. Smith Chief Prosecutor: Capetown Tel: (021) 465 3824 | Fax: (021) 462 1890 Email: asmith@justice.gov.za
Clare Montgomery QC Griffin Building Gray's Inn, London, WC1R 5LN DX 400 Chancery Lane Tel: +44 (0)20 7404 3447 Fax +44 (0)20 7404 3448 Email: matrix@matrixlaw.co.uk, claremontgomery@matrixlaw.co.uk, PracticeStaff_TeamT@matrixlaw.co.uk
CC: Ms. Theresa May Home Secretary of the United Kingdom c/o Direct Communications Unit 2 Marsham Street, London SW1P 4DF Tel: 020 7035 4848 | Fax: 020 7035 4745 Email: public.enquiries@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk (Ref: Chris A Inger MBE, Direct Communications Unit, Correspondence Management Team correspondence to MOJ on 31 January 2011 14:50: RE: Ms. Theresa May, Home Secretary of UK; RE: Status of Amicus Application in RSA vs Dewani (Case 1004020346)) CC: Mr. Nigel Farage, UKIP MEP UK Independence Party PO Box 408, Newton Abbot, Devon, TQ12 9BG Tel: 01626 831 290 / 0800 587 6 587 Fax: 01626 831 348 Email: FARAGE Nigel UKIP MEP (nigel.farage@europarl.europa.eu) (Ref: Tue 1/25/2011 12:06 PM: Nigel Farage Letter to The Clerk of the Court, Westminster Magistrates' Court in case, number 1004020356, Subject: Re application to act as amicus curiae) CC:
3
Dr Liam Fox MP House of Commons, London, SW1A 0AA Tel: 020 7219 4198 | Fax: 020 7219 2167 Email: douglasi@parliament.uk; admin@northsomersetconservatives.com (Ref: Family Slam Liam Fox for Dewani case intervention3)
http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/78604,people,news,family-slam-liam-fox-for-shrien-dewani-extradition-case-intervention
COMPLAINT TO RT HON. CLARKE, SECRETARY OF STATE FOR JUSTICE, MINISTRY OF JUSTICE, UK Irregularities in City of Westminster Case No: 1004020346 RSA v. Shrien Dewani: Issue: Extradition to RSA
ANNEX A: Correspondence to Complaints Handling and Enquiries Team, Customer Services Division, Her Majesty's Courts Service, Operations and Performance Directorate; to resolve complaint submitted on Monday, February 14, 2011 5:51 PM From: Lara Johnstone [mailto:jmcswan@mweb.co.za] Sent: Monday, February 14, 2011 5:51 PM To: 'Customer Services (CSHQ'; 'CustomerService.mcol@hmcourts-service.gsi.gov.uk' Cc: 'Russell.Meek@HMCOURTS-SERVICE.GSI.GOV.UK'; 'BennyC.Stone@HMCOURTSSERVICE.GSI.GOV.UK' Subject: Official Complaint to HMCS: RE: Clerk of Crt; City Westminster Mag. Crt: Case 1004020346: RSA v Dewani__Pro Se Amicus Application OFFICIAL COMPLAINT TO: Complaints Handling and Enquiries Team &/or Mr. Benny Stone & Mr. Russel Meek Customer Services Division Her Majesty's Courts Service Operations and Performance Directorate 1st Floor - 1.42 102 Petty France London SW1H 9AJ Email: Customer Services (CSHQ) (customerserviceschq@hmcourtsservice.gsi.gov.uk), (CustomerService.mcol@hmcourts-service.gsi.gov.uk) CITY OF WESTMINSTER CLERK OF COURT REFUSES TO PROVIDE INFORMATION TO APPEAL APPLICANT INFORMATION REFUSED: (I) NAME OF JUDGE WHO MADE AMICUS RULING IN SOUTH AFRICA V. SHRIEN DEWANI; (II) VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT OF ‘INAPROPRIATE’ RULING REASONS REQUESTED: TO FILE AN APPLICATION FOR WRITTEN REASONS TO CLARIFY THE ‘INAPRROPRIATE’ RULING
CITY OF WESTMINSTER MAGISTRATES COURT, UNITED KINGDOM [TO BE HEARD AT BELMARSH MAGISTRATES COURT] Case No: 1004020346 Issue: Extradition to RSA In the matter between: REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA (RSA) and SHRIEN DEWANI Dear HMCS Complaints Handling and Enquiries Team, RE: APPLICATION TO PROCEED AS AMICUS CURIAE, ALLEGEDLY RULED ‘INAPPROPRIATE’.
I was informed by City of Westminster Magistrates Court: Clerk of Court: Mr. Russell Sykes (on Wednesday, February 09, 2011 3:09 PM) that: “Your application in the case of Shrien DEWANI was refused as it was “inappropriate”, by the District Judge in court yesterday, Tuesday 8th February.” I requested the fully written “inappropriate” ruling to be emailed to me verbatim in email body, or in doc; or pdf format. This request was denied, twice: (1) On February 14, 2011 4:28 PM; and (ii) February 14, 2011 4:28 PM.
CLERK OF COURT: MR. RUSSEL SYKES REFUSES TO PROVIDE INFORMATION: On February 09, 2011 4:54 PM, Clerk/Mr. Russell Sykes responded as follows: “All I can say is, your application was refused, that was the decision of the Senior District Judge (Magistrates Courts). I’m afraid the court is unable to help you any further.” Repeated requests followed for Mr. Sykes to please provide the requested information (Magistrates name and verbatim transcript of copy of ruling). On February 14, 2011 4:28 PM, Mr. Russell Sykes responded with: “The City of Westminster Magistrates Court is unable to deal with your application any further, any further emails will not be actioned.”
REQUEST FOR INFORMATION, TO FILE APPLICATION FOR ‘WRITTEN REASONS’: I intend to file a written application to the aforementioned ‘District Judge’; for written reasons clarifying his/her ‘inappropriate’ ruling; in that: [1] The ruling is not adequately accessible and sufficiently precise; as required by Lithgow & others v. United Kingdom (1986) * EHRR 329 § 110. In Lithgow & others v. United Kingdom, the European Court of Human Rights held that the rule of law requires provisions of legislation to be adequately accessible and sufficiently precise to enable people to regulate their affairs in accord with the law. The same could of course be said for judicial rulings.
[2] The lack of clarity and vagueness of said decision indicates a plausible appearance of bias; for the rule of law requires that a person who makes a decision should be unbiased and act in good faith; for justice must not only be done; but it must be seen to be done; as required by R v Sussex Justices, Ex parte McCarthy ([1924] 1 KB 256, [1923] All ER 233); where Lord Chief Justice Hewart found that: “.... a long line of cases shows that it is not merely of some importance but is of fundamental importance that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done. .... Nothing is to be done which creates even a suspicion that there has been an improper interference with the course of justice.” In order to file the application for written reasons; I require the following from the Clerk of the Court: [A] The verbatim transcript of the (court record) or (in chambers) ruling; [B] The name and contact details of the Magistrate who made the ruling.
POSSIBLE IRREGULARITY: RULING MADE ‘IN COURT’ PROCEEDINGS:
In the email of Wednesday, February 09, 2011 3:09 PM, Mr. Sykes wrote: “Your application in the case of Shrien DEWANI was refused as it was “inappropriate”, by the District Judge in court yesterday, Tuesday 8th February.” Mr. Russel Sykes says the application was denied ‘in court’; however no UK or South African newspaper makes any mention that such a ruling or decision occurred ‘in court’ proceedings. Did the decision occur during public court proceedings; or during ‘in chamber’ proceedings; or is the decision a ‘verbal’ leave no records or paper trail decision? If it did indeed occur ‘in court’ proceedings, and every single newspaper covering this matter has simply ignored it; then surely such newspapers are not acting in accordance to ‘fairness’ court ethics guidelines; by failing to report on court proceedings information, of third party applications lodged in support of Dewani’s extradition denial. But it would most certainly not be fair to accuse them of such, if such ruling did not occur during public court proceedings they attended: “If evidence has been given by both prosecution and defence, the report must contain both sides. It is not necessary to report every word that was said, but the overall balance of the court case must be retained in the report.” -- The News Manual [http://www.thenewsmanual.net/the_manuals.htm], by David Ingram and the Peter Henshall, a straightforward, no-nonsense guide and for many years it became a standard text in newsrooms across the Asia-Pacific region.” [http://www.thenewsmanual.net/about.htm] Chapters 56 to 73 – Ethics and law, of which Chapter 64: The rules of court reporting [http://www.thenewsmanual.net/Manuals%20Volume%203/volume3_64.htm#fair] Respectfully, LARA JOHNSTONE, Pro Se 16 Taaibos Ave, Heatherpark George, 6529 Tel/Fax: (044) 870 7239 Cel: (071) 170 1954 Email: jmcswan@mweb.co.za.
From: Sykes, Russell [mailto:Russell.Sykes@hmcourts-service.gsi.gov.uk] On Behalf Of GLHorseferry.court Sent: Monday, February 14, 2011 4:28 PM To: Lara Johnstone Subject: RE: [Clerk of Crt; City Westminster Mag. Crt] Case 1004020346: RSA v Dewani__Pro Se Amicus Application Lara Johnstone, The City of Westminster Magistrates Court is unable to deal with your application any further, any further emails will not be actioned. Thank You City of Westminster Magistrates Court
From: Lara Johnstone [mailto:jmcswan@mweb.co.za] Sent: Monday, February 14, 2011 4:25 PM To: 'BennyC.Stone@HMCOURTS-SERVICE.GSI.GOV.UK' Cc: 'Russell.Meek@HMCOURTS-SERVICE.GSI.GOV.UK'; 'Customer Services (CSHQ)' Subject: Mr. Stone, CSHQ: Re: Case 1004020346: RSA v Dewani: Req to Clerk of Crt; City Westminster Mag. Crt Dear Mr. Stone, I have not received any response to my email of 11 February, 2011 5:56 PM below. I would like to file a written application to the Court for ‘written reasons’ clarifying the Judge’s decision. The Clerk is refusing me the information of the Judge’s name, and the verbatim ruling. Whom should I contact when the Clerk of the Court, and the Manager at the Court ignore my request for access to information; if not your ‘Complaints Handling.. Operations and Performance Directorate’ office? Sincerely, Lara Johnstone
From: Lara Johnstone [mailto:jmcswan@mweb.co.za] Sent: Friday, February 11, 2011 5:56 PM To: 'Customer Services (CSHQ)'; 'Meek, Russell'; 'BennyC.Stone@HMCOURTS-SERVICE.GSI.GOV.UK' Subject: RE: CSHQ: Re: Case 1004020346: RSA v Dewani: Req to Clerk of Crt; City Westminster Mag. Crt Dear Mr. Stone, I did contact the court, repeatedly – the emails below the email to you being the evidence therefore. I requested the information from the court on: (i) 09 February 2011 14:20; (ii) February 09, 2011 5:13 PM; (iii) February 10, 2011 4:17 PM; and (iv) February 11, 2011 3:05 PM. The Clerk of the Court refuses to provide me with the information requested. On February 09, 2011 4:54 PM, the Clerk wrote: “All I can say is, your application was refused, that was the decision of the Senior District Judge (Magistrates Courts). I’m afraid the court is unable to help you any further.” The clerk refused to respond to subsequent requests for information. What kind of court cannot provide the name of the Magistrate, who made a particular ruling? What kind of court cannot provide the verbatim record of a Magistrates ruling? I also contacted the court manager on February 11, 2011 3:15 PM. No response; no acknowledgement of receipt. Are you not the: Complaints Handling and Enquiries Team Customer Services Division Her Majesty's Courts Service
Operations and Performance Directorate Whom should I contact when the Clerk of the Court, and the Manager at the Court ignore my request for access to information; if not your ‘Complaints Handling.. Operations and Performance Directorate’ office? Respectfully, LARA JOHNSTONE, Pro Se 16 Taaibos Ave, Heatherpark George, 6529 Tel/Fax: (044) 870 7239 Cel: (071) 170 1954 Email: jmcswan@mweb.co.za. Lara Johnstone
From: Stone, Benny [mailto:BennyC.Stone@HMCOURTS-SERVICE.GSI.GOV.UK] On Behalf Of Customer Services (CSHQ) Sent: Friday, February 11, 2011 5:20 PM To: Lara Johnstone; Meek, Russell Subject: RE: CSHQ: Re: Case 1004020346: RSA v Dewani: Req to Clerk of Crt; City Westminster Mag. Crt
Dear Madam, Thank you for your email. You have to contact the court, it's not for us to do so on your behalf. This is the email address: gl-horseferry.court@hmcourts-service.gsi.gov.uk. You can find other contact details at this link: http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk Regards Benny Stone From: Lara Johnstone [mailto:jmcswan@mweb.co.za] Sent: 11 February 2011 14:51 To: Meek, Russell; Customer Services (CSHQ) Subject: Att: CSHQ: Re: Case 1004020346: RSA v Dewani: Req to Clerk of Crt; City Westminster Mag. Crt Mr. Russell Meek Complaints Handling and Enquiries Team Customer Services Division Her Majesty's Courts Service Operations and Performance Directorate 1st Floor - 1.42 102 Petty France London SW1H 9AJ Dear Mr. Meek, RE: Req to Clerk of Crt; City Westminster Mag. Crt: Case 1004020346: RSA v Dewani: Pro Se Amicus Application I was informed by City of Westminster Mag. Court: Clerk of the Court: Mr. Russel Sykes on Wednesday, February 09, 2011 3:09 PM that: “Your application
in the case of Shrien DEWANI was refused as it was “inappropriate”, by the District Judge in court yesterday, Tuesday 8th February.” [A] I have notified the Clerk of the court that I intend to file an application for Written Reasons clarifying his/her ‘inappropriate’ ruling; in that: [1] The ruling is not adequately accessible and sufficiently precise; as required by Lithgow & others v. United Kingdom (1986) * EHRR 329 § 110. In Lithgow & others v. United Kingdom. [2] The lack of clarity and vagueness of said decision indicates a plausible appearance of bias; for the rule of law requires that a person who makes a decision should be unbiased and act in good faith; for justice must not only be done; but it must be seen to be done; as required by R v Sussex Justices, Ex parte McCarthy ([1924] 1 KB 256, [1923] All ER 233). [B] Was the ‘District Judge’ judge who made the ‘inappropriate’ ruling, Chief Magistrate Howard Riddle, at City of Westminster Magistrates Court? [C] If so, was the ‘inappropriate’ ruling made during public court proceedings, in the court record? [D] If not, could you please provide me with the name and contact details of said ‘District Judge’ and their contact details, for my written application for written reasons? REQUEST TO CUSTOMER SERVICES DIVISION: Please could you ask City of Westminster Magistrates Court: Clerk of the Court to provide me with the aforementioned information requested. Respectfully, LARA JOHNSTONE, Pro Se 16 Taaibos Ave, Heatherpark George, 6529 Tel/Fax: (044) 870 7239 Cel: (071) 170 1954 Email: jmcswan@mweb.co.za.
From: Lara Johnstone [mailto:jmcswan@mweb.co.za] Sent: 11 February 2011 13:05 To: Sykes, Russell; GL-Horseferry.court Subject: [Clerk of Crt; City Westminster Mag. Crt] Case 1004020346: RSA v Dewani__Pro Se Amicus Application Clerk of the Court City of Westminster Magistrates' Court 70 Horseferry Road London, England SW1P 2AX General Fax: + 44 (020) 7805 1193 Email: Clerk of Court (gl-horseferry.court@hmcourts-service.gsi.gov.uk) CC: Russell Sykes: (Russell.Sykes@hmcourts-service.gsi.gov.uk), CC: Court Manager: Jordan J Mason (Jordan.Mason@hmcourts-service.gsi.gov.uk) CITY OF WESTMINSTER MAGISTRATES COURT, UNITED KINGDOM
[TO BE HEARD AT BELMARSH MAGISTRATES COURT] Case No: 1004020346 Issue: Extradition to RSA In the matter between: REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA (RSA) and SHRIEN DEWANI Dear Clerk, RE: Application to Proceed as Amicus Curiae, ruled ‘inappropriate’. I was informed by Mr. Russel Sykes on Wednesday, February 09, 2011 3:09 PM that: “Your application in the case of Shrien DEWANI was refused as it was “inappropriate”, by the District Judge in court yesterday, Tuesday 8th February.” I requested the fully written “inappropriate” ruling to be emailed to me verbatim, or in doc; or pdf format. This request has so far been denied, by being ignored. RULING MADE ‘IN COURT’ PROCEEDINGS: Mr. Russel Sykes says the application was denied ‘in court’; however no UK or South African newspaper makes any mention that such a ruling or decision occurred ‘in court’ proceedings. Did the decision occur during public court proceedings; or during ‘in chamber’ proceedings; or is the decision a ‘verbal’ leave no records or paper trail decision? If it did indeed occur ‘in court’ proceedings, and every single newspaper covering this matter has simply ignored it; then surely such newspapers are not acting in accordance to ‘fairness’ court ethics guidelines; by failing to report on court proceedings information, of third party applications lodged in support of Dewani’s extradition denial. But it would most certainly not be fair to accuse them of such, if such ruling did not occur during public court proceedings they attended: “If evidence has been given by both prosecution and defence, the report must contain both sides. It is not necessary to report every word that was said, but the overall balance of the court case must be retained in the report.” -- The News Manual [http://www.thenewsmanual.net/the_manuals.htm], by David Ingram and the Peter Henshall, a straightforward, no-nonsense guide and for many years it became a standard text in newsrooms across the Asia-Pacific region.” [http://www.thenewsmanual.net/about.htm] Chapters 56 to 73 – Ethics and law, of which Chapter 64: The rules of court reporting [http://www.thenewsmanual.net/Manuals%20Volume%203/volume3_64.htm#fair]
WRITTEN REASONS: My repeated request to Mr. Sykes to inform me whether the ruling was simply one word ‘inappropriate’ or whether it provided written reasons and legal argument for its allegations of ‘inappropriate’; have not been responded to; the name and details of the ‘District Judge’ are not yielding any response.
REQUEST FOR INFORMATION:
[A] I intend to file a written application to aforementioned ‘District Judge’; for written reasons clarifying his/her ‘inappropriate’ ruling; in that: [1] The ruling is not adequately accessible and sufficiently precise; as required by Lithgow & others v. United Kingdom (1986) * EHRR 329 § 110. In Lithgow & others v. United Kingdom, the European Court of Human Rights held that the rule of law requires provisions of legislation to be adequately accessible and sufficiently precise to enable people to regulate their affairs in accord with the law. The same could of course be said for judicial rulings.
[2] The lack of clarity and vagueness of said decision indicates a plausible appearance of bias; for the rule of law requires that a person who makes a decision should be unbiased and act in good faith; for justice must not only be done; but it must be seen to be done; as required by R v Sussex Justices, Ex parte McCarthy ([1924] 1 KB 256, [1923] All ER 233); where Lord Chief Justice Hewart found that: “.... a long line of cases shows that it is not merely of some importance but is of fundamental importance that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done. .... Nothing is to be done which creates even a suspicion that there has been an improper interference with the course of justice.” [B] Was the ‘District Judge’ judge whow made the ‘inapropriate’ ruling, Chief Magistrate Howard Riddle, at City of Westminster Court? [C] If so, was the ‘inapropriate’ ruling made during public court proceedings, in the court record? [D] If not, could you please provide me with the name and contact details of said ‘District Judge’ and their contact details, for such written application? Respectfully, LARA JOHNSTONE, Pro Se 16 Taaibos Ave, Heatherpark George, 6529 Tel/Fax: (044) 870 7239 Cel: (071) 170 1954 Email: jmcswan@mweb.co.za.
From: Lara Johnstone [mailto:jmcswan@mweb.co.za] Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2011 4:17 PM To: 'Russell.Sykes@hmcourts-service.gsi.gov.uk' Subject: FW: APPLICATION Mr. Sykes, Could you please inform me how I can be provided with the District Court Judge’s, Tuesday 8 February ruling of ‘inappropriate’ in the matter of the Application of Lara Johnstone to proceed as an Amicus Curiae, the case of South Africa vs. Shrien Dewani. Is the sum-total of the ruling ‘inappropriate’? Does it include no written reasons clarification as what the Judge alleges is ‘inappropriate’ and how or why, upon which legal principles it is ‘inappropriate’?
Respectfully, Lara Johnstone
From: Lara Johnstone [mailto:jmcswan@mweb.co.za] Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2011 5:13 PM To: 'GL-Horseferry.court' Subject: RE: APPLICATION Mr. Sykes, Not a problem about the scanner. Could you fax the ruling by the Magistrate to my sister, or to a London fax number; who will scan it for me? Alternatively, could you, or the Clerk, email me the ‘inappropriate’ ruling; i.e. the exact written words – verbatim -- used by the Senior District Judge, and the Judge’s name; so that I can file an application for written reasons, so that he can clarify what was ‘inappropriate’ and based upon what legal arguments. Thanks, Lara Johnstone
From: Sykes, Russell [mailto:Russell.Sykes@hmcourts-service.gsi.gov.uk] On Behalf Of GLHorseferry.court Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2011 4:54 PM To: Lara Johnstone Subject: RE: APPLICATION Lara Johnstone, The court is unable to send scanned documents as we don’t have a scanner. All I can say is, your application was refused, that was the decision of the Senior District Judge ( Magistrates Courts). I’m afraid the court is unable to help you any further. Thank you
From: Lara Johnstone [mailto:jmcswan@mweb.co.za] Sent: 09 February 2011 14:20 To: GL-Horseferry.court Subject: RE: APPLICATION Mr Sykes, Could you please email me the District Judge’s official written notice that my application was inappropriate (in doc, or pdf); and written reasons, clarifying ‘inappropriate’. Or to whom should I write to request such written reasons, as to what exactly in my application was ‘inappropriate’? Respectfully,
Lara Johnstone
From: Sykes, Russell [mailto:Russell.Sykes@hmcourts-service.gsi.gov.uk] On Behalf Of GLHorseferry.court Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2011 3:09 PM To: Lara Johnstone Subject: APPLICATION Lara Johnstone, Your application in the case of Shrien DEWANI was refused as it was “inappropriate” , by the District Judge in court yesterday, Tuesday 8th February. Thank You
City of Westminster Magistrates Court