The UK is in violation of the Convention they signed up to, where they agreed to provide the protection of Article 13, but did not do so, hence we have no effective remedy, in violation of Article 1, also missing from our Human Rights Act 1998





WHOOPS - This is the document that Cramp & Co did not know about when defending a case between 2006 and 2008 - but would have discovered if they had challenged the medical evidence as instructed by their client. This could have led to an adjournment, and following specialist reports, dismissal of the case, on the assumption that appropriate applications would then have been made. The Crown's expert, Dr. Melanie Liebenberg, told the Court that a naturally occurring anatomical feature was suspicious. The above document reveals more than that little error, it also reveals that if the girl had been penetrated as claimed, there would have been physical evidence to back that up. When as a matter of fact the girl was "tightly closed and could not be opened with labial traction." Virginity tests should be mandatory in all cases where penetration is alleged. It's time for a change in the law to protect victims of false allegations. Children from single parent families are more prone to making false allegations - especially against departing (foster/step) parents, who they treat as disposable items against which to vent their frustrations at being abandoned by their biological fathers. Anyone legally aided in a British court is unlikely to receive a fair trial. There is no right of appeal in the UK contrary to SDG 16 of the United Nations sustainability goals. The Criminal Cases Review Commission appear to biased in the extreme where masons are involved.





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 that 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:


The Registrar

European Court of Human Rights

Council of Europe




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?


How to get redress   The Protection of Property Rights   The Right Not to be Discriminated Against   The Right of Free Expression

The Right of Peaceful Protest   The Right to Know   The Right to Privacy   The Rights of Defendents   The Rights of Prisoners

The Rights of Suspects   The Rights of Travellers   The Rights of Victims and Witnesses   Further Information and Advice

The Human Rights Act   Liberty Website



The Unofficial Prison Diaries, An Innocent Man, Nelson Kruschandl - by Jane Roe


His barrister didn't challenge the so-called scientific evidence produced at trial. He should have. It was junk science. [Junk science is bogus forensic information that the police use to gain a conviction, where they have a weak case.] His barrister didn't show the jury the accused' diaries, he should have, because the girl's mother reminded the accused to send Valentines cards every year - which she, err, seems to have forgotten to mention to the court.  The accused was instructed not to venture why by his barrister, but of course he has a good idea. Sadly, that cannot be revealed just yet for legal reasons. He did say he could forgive a 15 year old for some kind of unthinking hormone driven revenge for not doing what she wanted, but not a mature woman - who would have known better.


Prison diaries:


Sexual cannibalism in humans is commonplace where the (UK) state still pays bunny-boilers to fabricate allegations - despite the untenable ratio of false allegations. This is called Noble Cause Corruption, so named because the cause (more convictions of rapists and perverts) is noble, but the means (convicting significant numbers of innocent men) is corrupt. A decent justice system is one where convictions are safe; where an appeal is guaranteed and where the court system does not refuse appellants the evidence for their barristers to perfect grounds of appeal. This book is based on a real case study, that reveals the fatal flaws in the English justice system. No man is safe until these issues are dealt with - it could happen to anyone.




You'll most probably have to wait for the subjects appeals in the ECHR to conclude before either of these books are published. Maybe then we'll see an official version of the prison Diary? European appeals take 4 years on average, from the date of lodge. But first you have to exhaust any domestic remedy. Remedy was exhausted as of February 2013.









Article 1
Article 2
Article 3

Article 4
Article 5
Article 6

Article 7
Article 8
Article 9

Article 10

Article 11
Article 12

Article 13
Article 14
Article 15

Article 16
Article 17
Article 18






This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.


This site is protected under Article10 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.