20 February 2011
Why We Are White Refugees
On Monday, 14 February 2011, an Official Complaint was filed, in the matter of RSA v. Shrien Dewani, with Her Majesty's Courts Service: Customer Service Division.
The complaint was filed by South African citizen, Lara Johnstone, who had applied to the court to proceed as an Amicus Curiae, to oppose Dewani's extradition to South Africa; in that he would not receive a fair trial in SA; because South Africa is a "criminal mafia parasite state that breeds and feeds crime, for political and financial benefit of the TRC FRAUD elite". [Notice of Motion & Founding Affidavit (PDF)]
Johnstone's application was allegedly subsequently ruled to be 'inapropriate' by an anonymous Magistrate/Judge, who refuses to be named, or to provide Johnstone with a copy of his anonymously issued 'inapropriate' ruling.
Subsequent to filing her original Amicus application, the Clerk refused to provide any written status response thereto. Johnstone then filed a complaint to the UKIP, a libertarian party, who objected to Julian Assange’s extradition; who seek Britain’s withdrawal from the EU.
On 25 January 2011, Nigel Farage, UKIP MEP in the European Parliament, for South East Region requested City of Westminster Magistrates Court to please provide the courts response to the Amicus Curiae Application filed by Lara Johnstone in RSA v. Shrien Dewani. The UK Westminster Clerk of Court ignored Mr. Farage's request.
Johnstone's complaint filed with the UK Home Secretary, was forwarded to Mr. Russell Meek, Case Worker, Complaints Handling and Enquiries Team, Customer Services Division, Her Majesty's Courts Service, Operations and Performance Directorate, who on 03 February 2011, forwarded it to the Westminster Clerk of the Court; requesting the Clerk to provide Johnstone with a response to her application.
On 09 February 2011, the Westminster Clerk of the Court issued the following statement by email to Johnstone: "Your application in the case of Shrien DEWANI was refused as it was “inappropriate”, by the District Judge in court yesterday, Tuesday 8th February."
Request for Information & Verbatim Ruling Denied
Johnstone requested the Clerk of the Court to confirm whether (a) it was Chief Magistrate Howard Riddle who had issued the ruling; and if not the name of the Magistrate; (b) if the ruling had been made during 'in court' proceedings; why was it not reported on by any attending media publications; or was the ruling made in private chambers proceedings; (c) for a verbatim pdf copy of the ruling, as signed by the Magistrate.
The Clerk of the Court responded on February 14, 2011 4:28 PM, refusing to provide the name of the anonymous Magistrate who issued the alleged ruling; or a pdf copy of the 'inapropriate' ruling.
Request to HMCS: Operations and Performance Directorate: Customer Service Complaints
On Fri 2/11/2011 4:51 PM, Johnstone filed a request with Mr. Russel Meek, at Complaints Handling and Enquiries Team, at Her Majesty's Courts ServiceRE: Req to Clerk of Crt; City Westminster Mag. Crt: Case 1004020346: RSA v Dewani: Pro Se Amicus Application
I was informed by City of Westminster Mag. Court: Clerk of the Court: Mr. Russel Sykes on Wednesday, February 09, 2011 3:09 PM that: “Your application in the case of Shrien DEWANI was refused as it was “inappropriate”, by the District Judge in court yesterday, Tuesday 8th February.”
[A] I have notified the Clerk of the court that I intend to file an application for Written Reasons clarifying his/her ‘inappropriate’ ruling; in that:
 The ruling is not adequately accessible and sufficiently precise; as required by Lithgow & others v. United Kingdom (1986) * EHRR 329 § 110. In Lithgow & others v. United Kingdom.
 The lack of clarity and vagueness of said decision indicates a plausible appearance of bias; for the rule of law requires that a person who makes a decision should be unbiased and act in good faith; for justice must not only be done; but it must be seen to be done; as required by R v Sussex Justices, Ex parte McCarthy ( 1 KB 256,  All ER 233).
[B] Was the ‘District Judge’ judge who made the ‘inappropriate’ ruling, Chief Magistrate Howard Riddle, at City of Westminster Magistrates Court?
[C] If so, was the ‘inappropriate’ ruling made during public court proceedings, in the court record?
[D] If not, could you please provide me with the name and contact details of said ‘District Judge’ and their contact details, for my written application for written reasons?
REQUEST TO CUSTOMER SERVICES DIVISION:
Please could you ask City of Westminster Magistrates Court: Clerk of the Court to provide me with the aforementioned information requested.
Mr. Benny Stone from Complaints Handling and Enquiries Team, at Her Majesty's Courts Service, responded as follows:
On Fri 2/11/2011 5:56 PM; Johnstone responded to Mr. Stone:I did contact the court, repeatedly – the emails below the email to you being the evidence therefore.
I requested the information from the court on: (i) 09 February 2011 14:20; (ii) February 09, 2011 5:13 PM; (iii) February 10, 2011 4:17 PM; and (iv) February 11, 2011 3:05 PM.
The Clerk of the Court refuses to provide me with the information requested.
On February 09, 2011 4:54 PM, the Clerk wrote: “All I can say is, your application was refused, that was the decision of the Senior District Judge (Magistrates Courts). I’m afraid the court is unable to help you any further.” The clerk refused to respond to subsequent requests for information.
What kind of court cannot provide the name of the Magistrate, who made a particular ruling? What kind of court cannot provide the verbatim record of a Magistrates ruling?
I also contacted the court manager on February 11, 2011 3:15 PM. No response; no acknowledgement of receipt.
Are you not the:Complaints Handling and Enquiries Team
Customer Services Division
Her Majesty's Courts Service
Operations and Performance Directorate
Whom should I contact when the Clerk of the Court, and the Manager at the Court ignore my request for access to information; if not your ‘Complaints Handling.. Operations and Performance Directorate’ office?
On Mon 2/14/2011 4:25 PM; Johnstone again contacted Mr. Stone, with a reminder that she had not received the information to her questions.
Clerk of Court Again Refuses to Reveal Magistrates Name or Evidence of Ruling
Subsequent thereto, Johnstone received the following from the Westminster Clerk of the Court, still refusing to provide the information requested:
Official Complaint Filed to HMCS: Operations and Performance Directorate:
On Mon 2/14/2011 5:51 PM, Johnstone filed the following complaint:OFFICIAL COMPLAINT TO:
Complaints Handling and Enquiries Team
&/or Mr. Benny Stone & Mr. Russel Meek
Customer Services Division
Her Majesty's Courts Service
Operations and Performance Directorate
1st Floor - 1.42
102 Petty France
London SW1H 9AJ
Email: Customer Services (CSHQ) (email@example.com), (CustomerService.firstname.lastname@example.org)
CITY OF WESTMINSTER CLERK OF COURT REFUSES TO PROVIDE INFORMATION TO APPEAL APPLICANT
INFORMATION REFUSED: (I) NAME OF JUDGE WHO MADE AMICUS RULING IN SOUTH AFRICA V. SHRIEN DEWANI; (II) VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT OF ‘INAPROPRIATE’ RULING
REASONS REQUESTED: TO FILE AN APPLICATION FOR WRITTEN REASONS TO CLARIFY THE ‘INAPRROPRIATE’ RULING
CITY OF WESTMINSTER MAGISTRATES COURT, UNITED KINGDOM
[TO BE HEARD AT BELMARSH MAGISTRATES COURT]
Case No: 1004020346
Issue: Extradition to RSA
In the matter between:
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA (RSA) and SHRIEN DEWANI
Dear HMCS Complaints Handling and Enquiries Team,
RE: APPLICATION TO PROCEED AS AMICUS CURIAE, ALLEGEDLY RULED ‘INAPPROPRIATE’.
I was informed by City of Westminster Magistrates Court: Clerk of Court: Mr. Russell Sykes (on Wednesday, February 09, 2011 3:09 PM) that: “Your application in the case of Shrien DEWANI was refused as it was “inappropriate”, by the District Judge in court yesterday, Tuesday 8th February.”
I requested the fully written “inappropriate” ruling to be emailed to me verbatim in email body, or in doc; or pdf format. This request was denied, twice: (1) On February 14, 2011 4:28 PM; and (ii) February 14, 2011 4:28 PM.
CLERK OF COURT: MR. RUSSEL SYKES REFUSES TO PROVIDE INFORMATION:
On February 09, 2011 4:54 PM, Clerk/Mr. Russell Sykes responded as follows: “All I can say is, your application was refused, that was the decision of the Senior District Judge (Magistrates Courts). I’m afraid the court is unable to help you any further.”
Repeated requests followed for Mr. Sykes to please provide the requested information (Magistrates name and verbatim transcript of copy of ruling). On February 14, 2011 4:28 PM, Mr. Russell Sykes responded with: “The City of Westminster Magistrates Court is unable to deal with your application any further, any further emails will not be actioned.”
REQUEST FOR INFORMATION, TO FILE APPLICATION FOR ‘WRITTEN REASONS’:
I intend to file a written application to the aforementioned ‘District Judge’; for written reasons clarifying his/her ‘inappropriate’ ruling; in that:
 The ruling is not adequately accessible and sufficiently precise; as required by Lithgow & others v. United Kingdom (1986) * EHRR 329 § 110. In Lithgow & others v. United Kingdom, the European Court of Human Rights held that the rule of law requires provisions of legislation to be adequately accessible and sufficiently precise to enable people to regulate their affairs in accord with the law. The same could of course be said for judicial rulings.
 The lack of clarity and vagueness of said decision indicates a plausible appearance of bias; for the rule of law requires that a person who makes a decision should be unbiased and act in good faith; for justice must not only be done; but it must be seen to be done; as required by R v Sussex Justices, Ex parte McCarthy ( 1 KB 256,  All ER 233); where Lord Chief Justice Hewart found that: “.... a long line of cases shows that it is not merely of some importance but is of fundamental importance that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done. .... Nothing is to be done which creates even a suspicion that there has been an improper interference with the course of justice.”
In order to file the application for written reasons; I require the following from the Clerk of the Court:
[A] The verbatim transcript of the (court record) or (in chambers) ruling;
[B] The name and contact details of the Magistrate who made the ruling.
POSSIBLE IRREGULARITY: RULING MADE ‘IN COURT’ PROCEEDINGS:
In the email of Wednesday, February 09, 2011 3:09 PM, Mr. Sykes wrote: “Your application in the case of Shrien DEWANI was refused as it was “inappropriate”, by the District Judge in court yesterday, Tuesday 8th February.”
Mr. Russel Sykes says the application was denied ‘in court’; however no UK or South African newspaper makes any mention that such a ruling or decision occurred ‘in court’ proceedings.
Did the decision occur during public court proceedings; or during ‘in chamber’ proceedings; or is the decision a ‘verbal’ leave no records or paper trail decision?
If it did indeed occur ‘in court’ proceedings, and every single newspaper covering this matter has simply ignored it; then surely such newspapers are not acting in accordance to ‘fairness’ court ethics guidelines; by failing to report on court proceedings information, of third party applications lodged in support of Dewani’s extradition denial. But it would most certainly not be fair to accuse them of such, if such ruling did not occur during public court proceedings they attended:“If evidence has been given by both prosecution and defence, the report must contain both sides. It is not necessary to report every word that was said, but the overall balance of the court case must be retained in the report.” -- The News Manual [http://www.thenewsmanual.net/the_manuals.htm], by David Ingram and the Peter Henshall, a straightforward, no-nonsense guide and for many years it became a standard text in newsrooms across the Asia-Pacific region.” [http://www.thenewsmanual.net/about.htm] Chapters 56 to 73 – Ethics and law, of which Chapter 64: The rules of court reporting [http://www.thenewsmanual.net/Manuals%20Volume%203/volume3_64.htm#fair]
As of writing; there has been no response to the Official Complaint filed with HMCS, from either the Operations and Performance Directorate; or the City of Westminster Clerk of Court.
Disclosure: Andrea Muhrrteyn is the Why We Are White Refugees nom-de-plume for Lara Johnstone, from Radical Honesty SA
Guerrylla Law Related:
- PDF: Radical Honesty SA Notice of Motion & Founding Affidavit
- PDF: Condonation: Notice of Motion & Condonation: Affidavit
- 10-12-31: [Radical Honesty SA Open Letter to Dewani and Hindocha families: Shrien Dewani has zero% chance of fair trial in South Africa]
- 11-01-13: [Radical Honesty SA Questions to V&A Waterfront: 'Public Relations Censorship & Deception' of Crime in SA, by SA Media]
- 11-01-19: [Amicus Applic. to Dewani’s Judge: SA is a criminal mafia parasite state: Descartian Jurisprudence does not exist in ‘Rainbow Hypocrisy SA’]
- 11-01-24: [Proudly SA Magistrates: Respect Their: Assassination HitLists, Pornography addictions, SMS sex-texting, 22 children, fraud, bribery, et al]
- 11-01-25: [UK Ind. Party (UKIP) Request to City of Westminster Clerk of Court; RE: Dewani Amicus Curiae Application]
- 11-02-01: [‘SA citizens - SA legal system is corrupt - Amicus challenge to Dewani extradition’ - The South African]
- 11-02-04: [Home Secretary & HM Court Svc. Req. City of Westminster's Clerk of Court to Respond to Dewani Amicus Application]
- 11-02-06: [Q to Cape Law Soc: Which argument/s in Radical Honesty SA Amicus in RSA v. Dewani is/are ‘without substance or legal basis’?]
- 11-02-20: [SA Legal System Incompetent: The Silence of the Lawyers]