THE HEAD OF STATE - When fresh evidence shows that a conviction is unsafe it falls to the Criminal Cases Review Commission to test the evidence in the Court of Appeal. Unfortunately, the corruption is so strong and at such a high level where Masonic influence is involved (as in this case) that even the CCRC may not be counted on to act impartially and without discrimination, or to act at all.
If it is that the CCRC have also become entangled in a cover up, then the only recourse for any victim is the Head of State. A Prime Minister is only a temporary head of state. If no satisfaction may be obtained from such a temporary appointee, then the matter devolves the the permanent head of state, which at the time of writing is Her Royal Highness Queen Elizabeth on England. Article 13 of the Convention of Human Rights provides every European citizen with the right to an effective remedy. If you take a look at the UK's Human Rights Act 1998, you will find that there is no Article 13. This is another example of English organised crime at the very highest level. As a country we helped draft the Convention to bind all of the other countries in Europe to our will, but then opted out ourselves. Who can you place your trust in knowing that? God? In England you are deprived of the right to an effective remedy. Europe will say that in such cases the effective remedy resides with the head of state. If the temporary appointee fails to act (any prime minister) your effective remedy devolves to Her Majesty - or so logic dictates. It is worth writing to the head of state to ask who it is that guarantees your Article 13 rights - and please let us know what you are told - if anything.
Nelson Says: "What is effective"?
HUMAN RIGHTS ACT - LACK OF YOUR RIGHT TO AN EFFECTIVE REMEDY
Please Note: The convention rights contained in Article 13 have not been incorporated in our Human Rights Act 1998 as a deliberate denial of that right. However, Her Majesty's Government was signatory to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms signed at Rome on 4th November 1950. Accordingly, this a Convention right recognised by Strasbourg and which the English Courts and all administration in between should take note of.
"Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity".
We say an effective remedy is one which prevents the perpetrators of crimes from holding positions in public office, especially council and police officers.
We also say that the right of appeal in criminal cases should be mandatory not discretionary and that the UK court Service must provide transcripts to appeal barristers if they deem them necessary. They refused barrister Michael Harrison transcripts of medical testimony, without which he was unable to perfect grounds - and for that reason and some ambiguity by Sir Christopher Holland as to signing the box or not (on the appeal application/rejection form), it was not possible for Nelson Kruschandl to proceed to the three judges from the single judge.
The single judge system is therefore fatally flawed, which is a paper sifting exercise bereft of oral argument, for which legal aid does not extend - and is therefore a violation of the Article 6 right to a fair hearing. Of course if you had the money, you could afford to employ a barrister to argue for you, but if legally aided, there is no such thing, hence the system also violates Article 14, discriminating financially against those without means.
The UK introduced the single judge system to reduce the country's legal bill. But, in doing so they have also denied valid appeals to thousands of legitimate appellants - perpetuating a gross injustice and ensuring that our prisons are full of innocent men and women. One such Judge is Sir Christopher Holland, presumably knighted for saving the England so much legal aid money - in the process turning his back on those crying out for justice. The ethics of which is questionable to say the least.
Any system that provides unlimited funds to prosecute a case, but then limits the funds to defend a case and/or appeal a verdict that is wrong, is criminally fraudulent and in violation of Articles 3, 5, 6, 8, 10, 13, 14 and 17 of the Convention of Human Rights - a system imbalanced against equality for the ordinary man of limited means. The government that employs such practices, does so deliberately, knowing they are breaching the Convention rights of those they are elected to protect.
Defence funding Vs Prosecution funding - is a gross imbalance in the justice system designed to disadvantage the poorer members of society. The same applies to the planning system, where there is no legal aid funding at all.
Where there is any obvious inconsistency between domestic law and the Human Rights Convention, the only way of obtaining justice is to take the matter to Europe, but not until all domestic remedies have been exhausted and within 6 months of the date on which a final decision was taken.
All correspondence relating to your complaint should be sent to the following address:
European Court of Human Rights
Council of Europe
F-67075 STRASBOURG CEDEX.
Perhaps this is a contributing factor to the plethora of reported serious abuses of authority plaguing Council's up and down the country. Where planning is concerned there is very limited access to justice! What is your MP doing about it?