Impossible for Dewani to get Fair Trial in Systemically Dysfunctional SA Justice System: Complaint to UK Min. of Justice

[4] If the Radical Honesty SA Application to proceed as an Amicus Curiae (Annex B) was approved; the Radical Honesty Amicus Curiae would prove beyond any reasonable doubt that:

1. It is legally impossible for the Plaintiffs to provide the Defendant with a free and fair trial; in South Africa
   

2. If the Systemic Intellectual, Moral and Legal Dysfunction of the SA Legal System as it exists today, was managed by White Afrikaner males; every single Anti-Apartheid ‘Human Rights’ Organisation in Europe would be screaming their lungs off, organising protests, filing Amicus Curiae objections, etc; arguing that Mr. Dewani was incapable of receiving a free and fair trial because the SA criminal justice system is a criminal injustice system; but when the current Systemic Dysfunction is far, far worse than under Apartheid (3,000 % worse in the case of farm murders; 25000% worse in the case of deaths in Police custody, etc, etc) and under the management of the corrupt, incompetent, unprofessional, ANC; the ‘Anti-Apartheid Human Rights (sic)’ organisations conduct is that of the 3 monkeys. It is submitted Mr. Dewani as an Indian would have stood a 3,000% better chance for a free and fair trial under a conservative White Afrikaner Apartheid Judge and Justice System.
   

3. Furthermore, on May 23, 2011, the US Supreme Court ruled that conditions in California's prisons violated the constitutional ban on "cruel and unusual punishment" and affirmed a lower court's order that the state drastically reduce its inmate population. The photo’s attached to Brown v. Plata convinced the Justice’s. As a former political prisoner under the ANC government; I can unequivocally and categorically inform you that California (where my former African American husband is and has been a prisoner since 1982) and SA prison conditions can be described respectively as: California five star cleanliness and discipline v. SA hellhole of filth and anarchy. The space between beds in SA prisons is about 30 cm, if prisoners are lucky to have a bed. Blankets, sheets and pillows are a luxury. Discipline and any complaints procedure simply does not exist. In the US Supreme Court decision, writing on behalf of the court's five-vote majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy noted that US Supreme Court’s unprecedented measure had become the only way to remedy the "serious" and "uncorrected" constitutional violations against inmates in the state's correctional facilities, particularly the sick and mentally ill.

COMPLAINT TO RT HON. CLARKE, SECRETARY OF STATE FOR JUSTICE, MINISTRY OF JUSTICE, UK

Irregularities in City of Westminster Case No: 1004020346
RSA v. Shrien Dewani: Issue: Extradition to RSA

23 May 2011

The Rt Hon. Kenneth Clarke, MP
Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor
102 Petty France
Westminster, London, SW1H 9AJ
Tel: +44 (0)20 3334 3555
Fax: +44 (0)20 3334 4455
Email: General Enquiries, Ministry of Justice; Hon. Clarke, Parliament; Clarke: Rushcliffe Conservatives

CC: Mr. Shrien Dewani (Counsel); Republic of South Africa (Counsel);
CC: Ms. Theresa May, Home Secretary; Dr. Liam Fox, MP; Mr. Nigel Farage MEP

Failure of Complaints Handling and Enquiries Team, Customer Services Division, Her Majesty's Courts Service, Operations and Performance Directorate; to resolve complaint submitted to it on Monday, February 14, 2011 5:51 PM

[1] On Monday, February 14, 2011 5:51 PM I filed an email complaint with the Complaint Handling and Enquiries Team (Annex A), as directed by Justice.gov.uk ; in response to the City of Westminster’s Court refusing to provide me with the requested information in the matter.

[2] The information I requested from the City of Westminster Court Clerk, and subsequently from the Complaints & Enquiries Team; was:

1. The Name of the Judge who allegedly ruled the Application of Lara Johnstone, member of the Radical Honesty culture and religion to Proceed as an Amicus Curiae in South Africa v. Shrien Dewani as ‘Inappropriate’; and
   
2. A verbatim transcript of the alleged ‘inappropriate ruling’ and whether such ruling occurred during public court proceedings; or in chambers.

[3] The complaint alleged that the Judge and Registrar’s conduct were irregular and plausibly biased:

1. 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.
   
   
2. 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 ([1924] 1 KB 256, [1923] 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.”

[4] If the Radical Honesty SA Application to proceed as an Amicus Curiae (Annex B) was approved; the Radical Honesty Amicus Curiae would prove beyond any reasonable doubt that:

1. It is legally impossible for the Plaintiffs to provide the Defendant with a free and fair trial; in South Africa
   
2. If the Systemic Intellectual, Moral and Legal Dysfunction of the SA Legal System as it exists today, was managed by White Afrikaner males; every single Anti-Apartheid ‘Human Rights’ Organisation in Europe would be screaming their lungs off, organising protests, filing Amicus Curiae objections, etc; arguing that Mr. Dewani was incapable of receiving a free and fair trial because the SA criminal justice system is a criminal injustice system; but when the current Systemic Dysfunction is far, far worse than under Apartheid (3,000 % worse in the case of farm murders; 25000% worse in the case of deaths in Police custody, etc, etc) and under the management of the corrupt, incompetent, unprofessional, ANC; the ‘Anti-Apartheid Human Rights (sic)’ organisations conduct is that of the 3 monkeys. It is submitted Mr. Dewani as an Indian would have stood a 3,000% better chance for a free and fair trial under a conservative White Afrikaner Apartheid Judge and Justice System.
   
3. Furthermore, on May 23, 2011, the US Supreme Court ruled that conditions in California's prisons violated the constitutional ban on "cruel and unusual punishment" and affirmed a lower court's order that the state drastically reduce its inmate population. The photo’s attached to Brown v. Plata convinced the Justice’s. As a former political prisoner under the ANC government; I can unequivocally and categorically inform you that California (where my former African American husband is and has been a prisoner since 1982) and SA prison conditions can be described respectively as: California five star cleanliness and discipline v. SA hellhole of filth and anarchy. The space between beds in SA prisons is about 30 cm, if prisoners are lucky to have a bed. Blankets, sheets and pillows are a luxury. Discipline and any complaints procedure simply does not exist. In the US Supreme Court decision, writing on behalf of the court's five-vote majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy noted that US Supreme Court’s unprecedented measure had become the only way to remedy the "serious" and "uncorrected" constitutional violations against inmates in the state's correctional facilities, particularly the sick and mentally ill.

[5] Does Mr. Dewani have the right to a free and fair trial? If so; there is not a chance in hell he can get such under the current SA systemically dysfunctional justice system.

[6] If convicted, virtually an absolute certainty in SA’s InJustice System, unless he decides his only option is to bribe himself an innocence verdict; his conditions of detention shall be much worse, than those described by the US Supreme Court in Brown v. Plata as ‘cruel and unusual punishment’.

[7] The Radical Honesty Amicus Curiae would consequently recommend:

1. If the Plaintiff’s are honourable and sincere that they have a Prima Facie case of Murder against the Defendant, they should be given the opportunity to try the Defendant in a British court of law.

[8] I would appreciate it if your Office could help me to get a professional, informative response to my complaint to providing me with the simple answers to my questions in my February 14, 2011 complaint.

Respectfully,

LARA JOHNSTONE, Pro Se
P O Box 5042, George East, 6539
Tel/Fax: (044) 870 7239
Cel: (071) 170 1954

Annex A: Correspondence to Complaints Handling and Enquiries Team, Customer Services Division, Her Majesty's Courts Service, Operations and Performance Directorate; to resolve complaint submitted on Monday, February 14, 2011 5:51 PM (PDF)

Annex B: Notice of Motion and Founding Affidavit Application to Proceed as Amicus Curiae, of Lara Johnstone, Member of Radical Honesty culture & religion, filed 18 January 2011; & Condonation: Re: Pro Se Representation, filed on 06 February 2011 (PDF)

» » » » [Complaint (PDF)]

For Those Who Suffer from Dunning & Kruger Primacy Effect

You simple minded Moron Imbeciles who are incapable of reading any article longer than One paragraph which contains words more than two syllables; who consequently are clueless what aforementioned complaint argues:

Law & Order...

On a visit to Malawi, at the airport Mr Zuma is met by the country's Minister of Harbours. All of a sudden Mr Zuma realizes that this is absurd, this country has no harbours as it is landlocked. He is very puzzled and decides to find out what the story is. At the official state banquet later that night, he leans over to the president and asks: 'Mr President why do you have a Minister of Harbours when you don't have any harbours?' The president looks Mr Zuma straight in the eye and says: 'Well, you know that may be true Mr Zuma, but I was just as puzzled as to why you have a Minister of Law and Order?'