Cardiff County Court Judges Involved In MoJ Cover-Up

As reported in April 2014, His Honour Judge Seys Llewellyn QC (Llewellyn) was asked to recuse himself in a long-running lawsuit against the Ministry of Justice (MoJ), the Chief Constable of the South Wales Police, the Home Office/UKBA (UKBA) and recently, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS).

’His Honour’, Llewellyn, ignored the request.

Cardiff County Court has a long history of corruption as does Llewellyn, perhaps for mutually complimentary reasons.

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

Recently, despite refusing to recuse himself, Llewellyn attempted to side-step the matter of his unabashed bias when he ’handed the ball’ to His Honour Judge Andrew John Keyser QC (Keyser), who true to form as acted exactly as Llewellyn would have wished or more than likely commanded.

The case was transferred to Cardiff from Pontypridd Wales after misconduct was alleged against the solicitor for UKBA and District Judge Fraser (Fraser). Solicitor, Helen John (John), who represents the Home Office and Fraser continued with a telephone hearing after realising that the claimant had been inadvertently disconnected from the conference call system. Immediately after 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 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 Llewellyn’s court in Cardiff.

The case began with judicial misconduct (a complaint was filed against 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 Llewellyn. A recent complaint against Llewellyn was dismissed despite the obvious evidence of judicial bias.

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 on loan to UKBA) and numerous other violations of EU Human Rights by UK Government agents.

Llewellyn, who was appointed a Circuit Judge for Wales on 17 July 2008, has repeatedly refused to grant a claimants’ request to force the MoJ to disclose its files connected with the intentional falsification of its computer records. Llewellyn and all other UK judges work for the MoJ. In his decision on an MoJ application, 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 or remove; ignoring the fact that the Appeal Court in London had previously determined that deportation was not appropriate in the case. 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 Llewellyn excluded the false imprisonment claim on the basis that the claimants could not prove their case despite the fact that proof exists which Llewellyn would not compel the defendant to disclose.

Repeated attempts by the claimants to force the MoJ to disclose their records have been met with delays by Cardiff County Court and outright refusals.

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 their identification (sic). The UK authorities also passed the wrong birth date of the claimant to the Americans and they dutifully repeated it back to them in a sworn witness statement.

Despite this, 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".

On 10 October 2014 Mr Justice Stephen Phillips QC (Phillips) refused an appeal by the couple, ignored requests for further disclosure by the defendants and ordered the couple to pay costs that are tantamount to an ’obstruction of justice’ or better-described as the method used by crooked judges to stymie justice for some.

Most if not all of Phillips’ orders are now under appeal.

Read more at http://www.wirenews.co/uk/legal/22397/cardiff-county-court-judges-involved-in-moj-cover-up#wI1QBWOecK5Tz63M.99

Image Source: For more information about the case of Maurice Kirk v South Wales Police visit http://www.KirkFlyingVet.com.