Click here to Bellaciao V.3.0 !

Archives Bellaciao EN - 2003-2016 Archives : FR | IT | ES


Judge Asked To Recuse Himself In EU Human Rights Case

Thursday 17 April 2014

Pressure mounting in the wake of several one-sided decisions in long-running civil case

His Honour Judge Seys Llewellyn QC has been asked to recuse himself by two claimants in a long-running lawsuit against the Ministry of Justice, the Chief Constable of the South Wales Police, the Home Office/UKBA and recently, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS).

The claim (1PD 00179), issued in February 2011 against three defendants, has been languishing in Judge Llewellyn’s court in Cardiff for more than three years, with little or no progress being made.

The case was transferred to Cardiff from Pontypridd Wales after misconduct was alleged against the solicitor for the Home Office/UKBA and District Judge Fraser. Solicitor, Helen John, who represents the Home Office and Judge Fraser continued with a telephone hearing after realising that the claimant had been inadvertently disconnected from the conference call system. Immediately after Judge Fraser decided against the claimant John telephoned the claimant and reviewed the result inferring that the claimant had been present all the while. A formal complaint was made and the transcript of the hearing revealed that John and DJ Fraser were fully aware that the claimant was no longer present but that they decided together to continue in the absence of the claimant. As a result of continued pressure by the claimants the case was transferred to Judge Llewellyn’s court in Cardiff.

The case began with judicial misconduct (a complaint was filed against Judge Fraser, reference 10808/2011 - Office for Judicial Complaints, which despite several letters and reminders has not been acknowledged or acted upon) that according to the claimants continues with Judge Llewellyn.

The case involves allegations of false imprisonment, deliberate falsification of computer records, threats and acts of intimidation by agents/officers acting for UKBA (actually South Wales Police Officers) and numerous other violations of EU Human Rights by UK Government agents.

Judge Llewellyn, who was appointed a Circuit Judge for Wales on 17 July 2008, has repeatedly refused to grant a claimants’ request to force the Ministry of Justice to disclose its files connected with the intentional falsification of its computer records. In his decision he ruled that it didn’t matter whether UKBA had properly served or even held an IS 91 warrant because the agency could detain anyone for any length of time with or without a warrant that it intended to deport; ignoring the fact that the Appeal Court in London had previously determined that deportation was not appropriate in the case. Judge Llewellyn decided that even if the computer records had been falsified to prevent the automatic release of a prisoner it didn’t matter because UKBA had instructed the prison not to release the claimant. Six months after a hearing on a defendant’s motion to strike Judge Llewellyn excluded the false imprisonment claim on the basis that the claimants could not prove their case despite the fact that proof existed which His Honour would not compel the defendant to disclose.

The claim describes how UKBA where intimidating the claimant’s wife, hoping to scare her into returning to her native country together with the couple’s children and they even went so far as to threaten to deny the couple’s children access to schools and astonishingly, one UKBA agent actually threatened that his ’agency’ could deny the couple’s son NHS access and that the couple would be forced to repay money spent for their son’s diabetes treatment.

Despite the threats the couple was eventually reunited a few hours before a scheduled Immigration Tribunal hearing that UKBA didn’t want to attend and that would have exposed the illegal actions of the agency.

Unable to deport the claimant, the UK Government sought the help of the United States of America. Three years after being arrested and more than two years after the conclusion of his sentence, the claimant was re-arrested on 28 February 2013 under the guise of an American extradition warrant. The warrant, however, had all the hallmarks of a UK-lead effort, in what is now being called a "Deportation by Extradition" attempt, the U.S. authorities provided the UK authorities with a photograph of the claimant that was actually his 2010 UK arrest photo, which the U.S. warrant stated would aid UK police in identification.

On 18 June 2013 at Westminster Magistrates’ Court in the City of London, Senior District Judge Howard Riddle (Chief Magistrate) fully discharged the claimant on the basis of double jeopardy and refused the U.S. request for extradition. On 1 July 2013 the U.S. Department of Justice declined to appeal DJ Riddle’s ruling.

Claimants immediately sought to join the CPS to the existing Cardiff claim against the Home Office/UKBA and others describing the obvious collusion between the parties; the failure of the CPS to exercise a duty of care with regard to an obvious double jeopardy case and the continuing intimidation and violations of the couple’s EU Human Rights.

Judge Llewellyn refused the claimants’ request, saying that the claim had progressed too far to add what would become a Fourth Defendant. In fact, since the claim was issued in February 2011 and apart from one hearing that related only to the First Defendant, a decision that is under appeal, the only progress in the case has been that the defendants have each prepared and served their response. Few would argue that filing a response in three years represents "progress".

Previously the claimants had objected to the apparent ex-parte communications between Cardiff Court and one or more of the defendants. But it was not until February 2013 that it became obvious that the defendants were communicating with the Court, keeping the Court informed regarding the UK Government’s efforts to "deport by way of extradition" the claimant.

Having denied the claimants’ request to join the CPS, the claimants immediately issued fresh proceedings at Preston County Court (reference A63YJ628), that start out providing background of the existing Cardiff claim and described how Judge Llewellyn continued to refuse and or ignore claimants’ requests for disclosure; how His Honour refused without hearing to grant a change of venue. After receiving a copy of the claim form, in what can only be described as retaliation against the claimants, Judge Llewellyn took the unusual decision (in this case) and ordered that the claimants pay the costs of each of the defendants in an obvious effort to stymie their claim. In fact, after three previous hearings, including an all-day in-Court hearing that the claimants effectively lost (currently subject to appeal) Judge Llewellyn stated that he would not consider costs against the claimants because the claimants were acting pro-se and not financially able to pay court fees, etc. and that to do so would effectively prevent the claim from going forward.

It is therefore no surprise that when Judge Llewellyn’s conduct in the case became an issue; when it became apparent to the claimants that His Honour was denying justice itself, he acted to stymie the claimants’ claim.

Judge Llewellyn is currently on leave until Tuesday, 22 April 2014. The court has told the claimants that their request that His Honour recuse himself will be placed before him upon his return.