Standing Order s.152
I have come up against a little problem in getting a Select Committee to deal with two issues of "misconduct in public office".
Standing Order s.152
152.—(1) Select committees shall be appointed to examine the expenditure, administration and policy of the principal government departments as set out in paragraph (2) of this order and associated public bodies. Select committees related to government departments.
(2) The committees appointed under paragraph (1) of this order, the principal departments of government with which they are concerned and the maximum numbers of each committee shall be as follows:
Name of Committee Principal government departments concerned Maximum members
...
7 Home Affairs Home Office; policy, administration and expenditure of the Lord Chancellor's Department (including the work of staff provided for the administrative work of courts and tribunals, but excluding consideration of individual cases and appointments); and administration and expenditure of the Attorney General's Office, the Treasury Solicitor's Department, the Crown Prosecution Service and the Serious Fraud Office (but excluding individual cases and appointments and advice given within government by Law Officers) 11
...
(3) Each select committee appointed under this order shall have the power to appoint a subcommittee, and the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee shall have power to appoint two subcommittees.
(4) Select committees appointed under this order shall have power—
(a) to send for persons, papers and records, to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, to adjourn from place to place, and to report from time to time;
(b) to appoint specialist advisers either to supply information which is not readily available or to elucidate matters of complexity within the committee's order of reference; and
(c) to report from time to time the minutes of evidence taken before subcommittees, and to lay upon the Table of the House the minutes of the proceedings of subcommittees;
and the subcommittees appointed under this order shall have power to send for persons, papers and records, to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, to adjourn from place to place, to report from time to time the minutes of their proceedings, and shall have a quorum of three.
(5) Unless the House otherwise orders, all Members nominated to a committee appointed under this order shall continue to be members of that committee for the remainder of the Parliament.
Where issues are criminal (not a human rights issue) then surely there is a need for a select committee where the Police and all ancillary agencies to law have failed to act or have omitted to act or have acted negligently. If a criminal is located in high office, when evidence is provided that misconduct has occurred, then surely it is in the interests of the country that that person is suspended pending an investigation and where certain removed and prosecuted. If the police fail to deal, then surely the last resort should be a select committee acting in the best interests of the country. My premis is, if this has happened to me, then who else is it occurring to. I hold suspicions concerning one other case reported in the Times around the millenium. Also, if the situation is occurring as a consequence of the Woolf Reforms and it is possible that it is so, as I have argued that the Human Rights Act became necessary due to the Woolf Reforms, and I have no knowledge that the HRA was necessary pre-Woolf (which would require research), then a select committee should be the way forward, ie perversion of the course of justice is a criminal issue, not a civil action under the Human Rights Act.
Is the wording of s.152 and the exclusion on individual cases contrary to the Human Rights Act 1998, Article 6, Schedule 1!
Besides, on the issue of individuality as an exclusion, how did David Kelly on Iraq get a select committee hearing.
Issues being raised:
1. Misconduct in public office - both Professor Richard Susskind OBE and Anne Molyneux hold public office as IT Adviser to the Lord Chief Justice and as a Recorder in the Criminal Division and as a member of the Parole Board for England and Wales respectively.
2. Misleading of Parliament - Lord Woolf mislead Parliament by premising the Woolf Report on "Access to Justice" when in consequence it is "Access FROM Justice". Tony Blair MP was made aware of the fundamental flaw in the Woolf Report as early as 1997 and the report was implemented as the Access to Justice Act 1999 inclusive of the flaw which is "unjust law" as CPR Rule 26. (This flaw is currently contained in the Directive on Mediation and is being implemented by the Scottish Executive IN FULL KNOWLEDGE of what the flaw is at Scottish and European level).
Professor DisOBEdient perverted the course of justice or perjured himself by failing to deliver up a 40 man hour investigation report as per his witness statement. The case was thereafter perverted by His Honour Mr Justice Morison failing to place the points of law and legal argument in his judgment which is fabricated. The court of appeal then failed to hear or record the case properly and the House of Lords cashed a £500 cheque and failed to hear the case at all. Perversion of the course of justice is certain. Complaints were made to the police, Office of Supervision of Solicitors and Bar Council, all of whom failed to deal properly or at all. Hence there is a series of events which are causing misconduct in public office for which Professor Richard Sussking OBE is responsible and whilst there are 6 suspects, Ms Molyneux is at least an accessory and aiding and abetting conduct for which she derives a direct benefit.
The case occurred alongside the Woolf Reforms which appeared to be being implemented early concerning my case which commenced in 1995 and came to trial in 1997 where skeleton arguments were being used in ex parte preliminary hearings and ex parte application hearings at the Court of Appeal establishing that they fail to enable a case to be heard properly - an HRA issue under article 6 of schedule 1.
IF ANYONE ELSE IS EXPERIENCING THE SAME OR SIMILAR PROBLEMS IN THE COURTS AND ANCILLARY AGENCIES TO LAW INCLUDING THE POLICE PLEASE GET IN CONTACT AS ANOTHER CASE WOULD MEAN IT IS A COLLECTIVE ISSUE (NOT INDIVIDUAL)!
Misconduct in public office carries a penalty of life imprisonment
Should it even be addressed by a Select Committee sourcing from the Department of Constitutional Affairs given the substance involves members of the Department of Constitutional Affairs. Policing their own department is perhaps not the right methodology. But which other Select Committee would be appropriate?
Discuss.
Standing Order s.152
152.—(1) Select committees shall be appointed to examine the expenditure, administration and policy of the principal government departments as set out in paragraph (2) of this order and associated public bodies. Select committees related to government departments.
(2) The committees appointed under paragraph (1) of this order, the principal departments of government with which they are concerned and the maximum numbers of each committee shall be as follows:
Name of Committee Principal government departments concerned Maximum members
...
7 Home Affairs Home Office; policy, administration and expenditure of the Lord Chancellor's Department (including the work of staff provided for the administrative work of courts and tribunals, but excluding consideration of individual cases and appointments); and administration and expenditure of the Attorney General's Office, the Treasury Solicitor's Department, the Crown Prosecution Service and the Serious Fraud Office (but excluding individual cases and appointments and advice given within government by Law Officers) 11
...
(3) Each select committee appointed under this order shall have the power to appoint a subcommittee, and the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee shall have power to appoint two subcommittees.
(4) Select committees appointed under this order shall have power—
(a) to send for persons, papers and records, to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, to adjourn from place to place, and to report from time to time;
(b) to appoint specialist advisers either to supply information which is not readily available or to elucidate matters of complexity within the committee's order of reference; and
(c) to report from time to time the minutes of evidence taken before subcommittees, and to lay upon the Table of the House the minutes of the proceedings of subcommittees;
and the subcommittees appointed under this order shall have power to send for persons, papers and records, to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, to adjourn from place to place, to report from time to time the minutes of their proceedings, and shall have a quorum of three.
(5) Unless the House otherwise orders, all Members nominated to a committee appointed under this order shall continue to be members of that committee for the remainder of the Parliament.
Where issues are criminal (not a human rights issue) then surely there is a need for a select committee where the Police and all ancillary agencies to law have failed to act or have omitted to act or have acted negligently. If a criminal is located in high office, when evidence is provided that misconduct has occurred, then surely it is in the interests of the country that that person is suspended pending an investigation and where certain removed and prosecuted. If the police fail to deal, then surely the last resort should be a select committee acting in the best interests of the country. My premis is, if this has happened to me, then who else is it occurring to. I hold suspicions concerning one other case reported in the Times around the millenium. Also, if the situation is occurring as a consequence of the Woolf Reforms and it is possible that it is so, as I have argued that the Human Rights Act became necessary due to the Woolf Reforms, and I have no knowledge that the HRA was necessary pre-Woolf (which would require research), then a select committee should be the way forward, ie perversion of the course of justice is a criminal issue, not a civil action under the Human Rights Act.
Is the wording of s.152 and the exclusion on individual cases contrary to the Human Rights Act 1998, Article 6, Schedule 1!
Besides, on the issue of individuality as an exclusion, how did David Kelly on Iraq get a select committee hearing.
Issues being raised:
1. Misconduct in public office - both Professor Richard Susskind OBE and Anne Molyneux hold public office as IT Adviser to the Lord Chief Justice and as a Recorder in the Criminal Division and as a member of the Parole Board for England and Wales respectively.
2. Misleading of Parliament - Lord Woolf mislead Parliament by premising the Woolf Report on "Access to Justice" when in consequence it is "Access FROM Justice". Tony Blair MP was made aware of the fundamental flaw in the Woolf Report as early as 1997 and the report was implemented as the Access to Justice Act 1999 inclusive of the flaw which is "unjust law" as CPR Rule 26. (This flaw is currently contained in the Directive on Mediation and is being implemented by the Scottish Executive IN FULL KNOWLEDGE of what the flaw is at Scottish and European level).
Professor DisOBEdient perverted the course of justice or perjured himself by failing to deliver up a 40 man hour investigation report as per his witness statement. The case was thereafter perverted by His Honour Mr Justice Morison failing to place the points of law and legal argument in his judgment which is fabricated. The court of appeal then failed to hear or record the case properly and the House of Lords cashed a £500 cheque and failed to hear the case at all. Perversion of the course of justice is certain. Complaints were made to the police, Office of Supervision of Solicitors and Bar Council, all of whom failed to deal properly or at all. Hence there is a series of events which are causing misconduct in public office for which Professor Richard Sussking OBE is responsible and whilst there are 6 suspects, Ms Molyneux is at least an accessory and aiding and abetting conduct for which she derives a direct benefit.
The case occurred alongside the Woolf Reforms which appeared to be being implemented early concerning my case which commenced in 1995 and came to trial in 1997 where skeleton arguments were being used in ex parte preliminary hearings and ex parte application hearings at the Court of Appeal establishing that they fail to enable a case to be heard properly - an HRA issue under article 6 of schedule 1.
IF ANYONE ELSE IS EXPERIENCING THE SAME OR SIMILAR PROBLEMS IN THE COURTS AND ANCILLARY AGENCIES TO LAW INCLUDING THE POLICE PLEASE GET IN CONTACT AS ANOTHER CASE WOULD MEAN IT IS A COLLECTIVE ISSUE (NOT INDIVIDUAL)!
Misconduct in public office carries a penalty of life imprisonment
Should it even be addressed by a Select Committee sourcing from the Department of Constitutional Affairs given the substance involves members of the Department of Constitutional Affairs. Policing their own department is perhaps not the right methodology. But which other Select Committee would be appropriate?
Discuss.
posted by Lesley McDade at 7:29 pm
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home