The Facts of Claim

The Odious Acts and Omissions: Judicial Perversion of the Course of Justice, Metropolitan Police Department Failure to Act and Home Office Protection of Establishment at all Cost Mentality   

This is the adulterated, UNIQUE first-hand account, directly from the Black African and Caribbean Community, that was at the forefront of the MONUMENTAL State Law-breaking, Institutional Abuses and wholesale Violations of Human Rights laws and Covenants by the UK’s Home Office; Metropolitan Police Department; and Judiciary of England and Wales.

What began as a RIGHTFUL and LEGITIMATE demand for Justice, Accountability and Redress, was brutally descended upon by a wider underlying culture of institutional corruption and BUREAUCRATIC PERSECUTIONS, aimed to suppress DISSENTING VOICES and COMMUNITIES through (first a covert and later overt) coercive state actions.

The purpose of documenting this information is two-fold.  The first is to preserve the FACTS and EVIDENCE in order to debunk the UK Government's officially sanctioned narrations yarned and disseminated to the naive, over trusting and unsuspecting public in cover-up (through a controlled OLIGARCHY national media; whilst the other is to relay and expose the UK's HYPOCRITICAL habitual systemic violations of Human Rights, with details about the Government and the Home Office Department’s elaborate efforts to enforce a clandestine Hostile Environment Policy agenda, DIRECTLY targeting Black British African and Caribbean communities, under the guise of immigration control; in order to deter the Community’s AFFIRMATIVE ACTION Human Rights activism pursuits, (under the banner of Campaign for Truth and Justice) from continuing with an unrelenting ACCOUNTABILITY and REDRESS DEMANDS on the Judiciary and Metropolitan Police Department.

The failure of the judiciary to acknowledge and redress its own violations is not just a technical legal issue—it is a profound failure of justice. This failure raises significant concerns about the integrity of the judicial system and the commitment of  the Lord Chancellor’s Department, including the Lord Chief Justice, (the Head of the Judiciary of England and Wales) to uphold the rule of law. Without accountability, without the willingness to examine these clear violations, the system as a whole risks becoming tainted by corruption and bias. The case at hand requires not just judicial oversight but a fundamental reassessment of the systems in place to ensure that justice is done, not only in letter but in spirit.

Equally with the Metropolitan Police Department and CONSECUTIVE Commissioners failing to record and investigate serious complaints regarding judicial misconduct as monumental as  Judicial Criminal Perversion of justice, including False and Unlawful Imprisonments, these omissions are no longer a mere co-incidental oversight, but a blatant dereliction of duty.  The failure enables a culture of corruption and injustice within the judiciary, further compounding the harm done to victims. The inaction of the Metropolitan Police Department in fulfilling its legal obligations to uphold the law in a fair and impartial manner amounts to gross misconduct and is a clear violation of the principles enshrined in the Public Bodies Corrupt Practices Act 1889 and the Prevention of Corruption Act 1916.

Last but not least is the role of the mainstream media, which Justice Brandis had famously referred to as the disinfectant ray of sunlight and most efficient public service policeman which ensures transparency and Accountability check on corruption and wrongdoings. When public officials, (judges, courts, police departments, etc.,) fail to protect the rights of ordinary citizens, the media, could ordinarily be relied upon in the proper performance of its functions as an efficient public eye and watchdog, to kept the rich and powerful in check against over exorbitant abuse of power.

Historically, the media has played an essential role in highlighting injustices, giving a platform to those whose voices which might otherwise go unheard.  However, when it fails in this regard, it perpetuates a cycle of disempowerment. The lack of media attention or misrepresentation of the struggles faced by communities can often exacerbate the feeling of isolation and invisibility that these communities experience in relation to legal and societal structures.

There are several reasons for these media failures. Sometimes, it may stem from biases in the media's portrayal of these communities, a lack of resources to cover such stories comprehensively, or even institutional reluctance to challenge powerful entities like law enforcement. Additionally, the media’s role in influencing public opinion and policy can be limited if these issues aren't seen as mainstream, or if those in charge of editorial direction fail to see the importance of them.

However with modern media platforms own and controlled by a few oligarchical interests, with vested interests in the status quo, they resort to act as gatekeepers, limiting the flow of crucial information and Narratives detrimental to their SPONSORS stated aims and objectives. They enable corrupted politicians and public establishments to evade accountability by muzzling those who would speak truth to power—whistleblowers, activists, and victims of systemic injustice—leaving them with little means of gaining public attention or support.

In sum, media entities with their vast reach, hold significant sway over public perception. However their suppression of dissenting voices, prevent important issues from coming to light, as they often obscure the truth with sensationalism or biased reporting. In doing so, they serve the interests of political elites and financial oligarchs rather than the people they claim to inform. The controlled narrative creates an atmosphere where power is unchecked, and the accountability that underpins justice is all but erased. This suppression is not a passive act, but a deliberate strategy aimed at maintaining the status quo and ensuring that those in power remain unchallenged, even as they perpetuate corruption and injustice.

Failure of Duty by the Judiciary of England and Wales, and its Lord Chancellor’s Department to Acknowledge its Member’s Wrongdoing and provide Redress and Compensation to victims of its Judge’s CRIMINAL Violations

When the judiciary fails to acknowledge its own violations of law, particularly when those violations are irrefutable, it represents not only a failure of legal integrity but also a breakdown in the fundamental duties of accountability and justice. The case presented herein—where Justice Toulson failed to recuse himself from a matter that directly involved his brother and his brother's law firm, Reynolds Porter Chamberlaine—raises serious concerns regarding impartiality, fairness, and the judiciary's adherence to the law.

The situation is clear: the act of violation, as confirmed by the Lord Chancellor's Department on 02 March 2001, is indisputable. The failure of Justice Toulson to recuse himself from a matter involving such a direct conflict of interest undeniably calls into question whether the Convention Right to a fair, independent, and impartial tribunal, as outlined under Article 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998, was violated. This is not merely an academic question, but a matter of fundamental legal principles and fairness.

For the judiciary to dismiss this violation since 1998 without providing redress to the victims, and for the Lord Chancellor's Department to attempt to misinterpret or misrepresent the law in its letter, undermines public trust in the legal system. The Department cited the Locabail (UK) Ltd, Regina v Bayfield Properties Ltd case as the most recent example of conflict of interest law. However, this reference was selectively applied in an effort to downplay the significance of the conflict in Toulson’s case with Mr Caul Silford Grant. The ruling in Locabail focused on adverse comments made by a judge, not on issues of conflict of interest. By misrepresenting this ruling and applying it to the Toulson matter, the Lord Chancellor’s Department displayed a deliberate attempt to obfuscate the issue at hand.

Moreover, the Department conveniently overlooked more relevant case laws, which directly addressed conflicts of interest. Key cases such as Dimes v Proprietors of Grand Junction Canal (1852), Regina v Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, ex parte Pinochet Ugarte (1999), and In Re Medicaments and Related Classes of Goods (2000), all contain judgments that are directly applicable to challenges based on conflicts of interest. The failure to reference these precedents raises a critical question: was the Lord Chancellor’s Department acting in bad faith, or is this an example of institutional corruption?

When the judiciary and the Lord Chancellor’s Department fail to address violations of law, fail to hold those responsible accountable, and fail to provide justice to the victims of such violations, it represents a catastrophic failure of duty. This is not merely a case of an isolated judicial error—it is one of many cited instances of systemic disregard for the rule of law. For the judiciary to operate with impunity, without addressing clear violations, undermines the very foundation of justice. If the judiciary is not held accountable for breaches of its own duty, then it risks eroding public trust in the legal system altogether.

Failure of Duty by the Metropolitan Police Department to RECORD AND INVESTIGATE Judicial Criminal Perversion of Justice Complaints

The current authority responsible for handling complaints against the Metropolitan Police Department is the Independent Office for Police Conduct.  This body is claimed to be an organisation, operating independently of the police and government, to investigate complaints and allegations of misconduct or criminal behaviour by police officers; in order to ensure transparency and accountability in the process.

The IOPC was established in 2018, after having taking over from the Independent Police Complaints Commission. Like its successor, the IPCC’s role was investigating serious complaints, such as allegations of police misconduct, corruption, or abuse of power including deaths or serious injuries involving police officers. Only difference in emphasis being that the primary function of the Independent Office for Police Conduct is to ensures that complaints are thoroughly investigated and that police forces, are held accountable for their actions; with a power to make recommendations for changes in police practices or policies based on the outcomes of investigations. 

The Independent Police Complaints Commission was established in 2004 through the Police Reform Act 2002 and began operating with the goal of providing an independent body to investigate complaints and allegations of misconduct by police officers across England and Wales.  It took over from a previously existing Police Complaints Authority  established in 1985.

Therefore in 1998, the Police Complaints Authority (PCA) would have had a specific role in overseeing and handling complaints about police misconduct, including Judicial corruption in public office under the Public Bodies Corrupt Practices Act 1889 (S1) or the Prevention of Corruption Act 1916 (S1). These Acts specifically deals with offences related to corruption within public bodies and public servants, the likes of Judges, Court Officials, Public Prosecution Service, Police Officers, etc.,.

a) Public Bodies Corrupt Practices Act 1889, Section 1

This Act makes it a criminal offence for any person employed by a public body (including Police Officers, Judges, Public Prosecutor, Court Officials, etc.,) to corruptly PERVERT THE COURS OF JUSTICE, solicit or receive any gift, loan, reward, or advantage for performing their duties improperly.

• Duty of the PCA in 1998: The PCA would not have been directly involved in investigating offences under this Act. Instead, if a complaint was made that suggested a Police Officer, Judge, Public Prosecutor, Court Official, etc., was engaging in corrupt practices (such as PERVERTING THE COURS OF JUSTICE, soliciting bribes or improperly influencing decisions) the PCA should have ensured that the matter was appropriately investigated, either internally by the police or by an independent investigator if necessary. However, criminal investigations under the Public Bodies Corrupt Practices Act would typically be the responsibility of law enforcement agencies such as the Serious Fraud Office established in 1988 (SFO), National Crime Agency established 2013 (NCA), or specialised police units. The PCA would have been responsible for overseeing the fairness and integrity of the investigation into police FAILURES and misconducts.

b) Prevention of Corruption Act 1916, Section 1

This Act also addresses the issue of corruption by public officials, particularly focusing on the act of bribery. It prohibits Police Officers, Judges, Public Prosecutor, and other public officials from accepting any form of bribe or advantage to act in a corrupt manner while performing their duties.

• Duty of the PCA in 1998: Similar to the Public Bodies Corrupt Practices Act 1889, if a complaint was made against a Police Officer, Judge, Public Prosecutor, Court Official, etc., involving a potential violation of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1916, the PCA’s role would have been to oversee the fairness of the investigation. If a police officer was suspected of corruption (such as accepting bribes), the PCA should have ensured that the complaint was investigated thoroughly by the relevant police authority. The PCA itself was not a prosecuting body for criminal offences but ensured that investigations into police FAILURES and misconducts were impartial and independent. The actual legal enforcement would be under the purview of law enforcement agencies, particularly those with jurisdiction over corruption and criminal investigations.

The failure of the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) to acknowledge and act upon Judicial Violations of law represents not just negligence, but a grave dereliction of duty and gross misconduct, aiding and abetting further JUDICIAL criminal acts. This failure undermines the core responsibilities of law enforcement and the administration of justice, particularly when it involves a Judge Deliberately Perverting the Due Course of Justice. This argument is rooted in multiple legal frameworks, including the Public Bodies Corrupt Practices Act 1889, Section 1, and the Prevention of Corruption Act 1916, Section 1, which explicitly mandate the duty of public bodies, including the police, to prevent and address corrupt practices and the abuse of power.

1. Legal Framework and Duty of the Police

The Metropolitan Police, as a public body, is bound by the provisions of the Public Bodies Corrupt Practices Act 1889 and the Prevention of Corruption Act 1916. These statutes criminalise the failure to prevent corruption and criminal acts within public bodies. When the MPD fails to acknowledge judicial violations or investigate complaints of judicial criminal conduct, they are breaching their duty under these laws. These Acts serve as a clear reminder that public authorities, especially law enforcement agencies, are required to take action against any form of corruption or criminal perversion, even within the judiciary.

2. Complicity in Judicial Criminal Perversion of Justice

The ongoing systemic failure to address judicial misconduct, despite ample evidence presented by the victims and their supporters, including letters from Buckingham Palace (1998) and the Lord Chancellor's Department (2001), constitutes a severe miscarriage of justice. The MPD’s inaction in investigating and recording these serious claims can only be interpreted as aiding and abetting the criminal acts committed by members of the judiciary, whether by deliberate omission or incompetence. The role of the police is to uphold the law impartially, yet their failure to investigate judicial law-breaking implicates them directly in the perversion of justice and in facilitating the continued abuse of power by those within the judicial system.

3. Dereliction of Duty and the Erosion of Trust

A police department's refusal to act on judicial violations also contributes to the erosion of public trust in the justice system. If citizens are made to believe that the law does not apply equally to all—whether police officers, judges, or government officials—then the very foundation of justice is undermined. The MPD’s failure to properly investigate complaints not only disregards the rights of individuals like Caul Silford Grant and the Campaign for Truth and Justice (CTJ) group, but it also signals an institutional culture that is either complicit in or indifferent to the violation of fundamental human rights and legal principles. This type of dereliction of duty by a law enforcement body is a direct assault on the principles of equality before the law, justice, and accountability.

4. Impact on Victims and the Community

The two-decade-long struggle of Caul Silford Grant and the CTJ group highlights the severe and far-reaching consequences of this systemic failure. It is clear that the MPD’s failure to engage meaningfully with these complaints has prolonged the suffering of those wronged by the state’s judicial system. Victims of judicial misconduct, including unlawful detentions, malicious prosecutions, and unlawful imprisonments, have been denied justice, redress, and compensation due to this institutional refusal to investigate and address criminal behaviour within the judiciary. In this context, the MPD’s inaction is not simply neglectful; it is actively complicit in the continued abuse of power by the judicial system, further oppressing individuals who are already marginalised and victimised by the state.

5. A Call for Accountability

In light of the legal obligations placed on public bodies, including the Metropolitan Police, it is imperative that the department be held accountable for its failures. The laws outlined in the Public Bodies Corrupt Practices Act 1889 and the Prevention of Corruption Act 1916 make it clear that ignoring complaints of judicial misconduct is a form of complicity in corruption. Moreover, the failure to uphold the principles of justice and accountability amounts to a dereliction of duty that cannot be allowed to persist. To restore public trust, it is crucial that the MPD not only investigate these complaints but also take proactive steps to ensure that the judiciary is held to the same standards of accountability as any other public body or institution.

Systemic Suppression of African and Caribbean Victims from Accessing Mainstream Media to Expose Institutional Wrongdoing

The role of the media as a critical tool for maintaining accountability and transparency in a democratic society cannot be overstated, especially when public officials, such as judges, court systems, police commissioners, and other powerful entities, engage in misconduct or violate the rights of ordinary citizens.

Public officials, whether they are judges, law enforcement officers, or bureaucrats, are entrusted with significant power and responsibility. This power can be easily abused if there are insufficient mechanisms for accountability. When individuals in positions of authority—such as judges in a courtroom, police officers on the streets, or commissioners of law enforcement agencies—engage in corrupt or unethical behaviour, their actions can have profound and detrimental effects on the lives of ordinary citizens.

Abuses of power, (whether it’s judicial bias, wrongful convictions, police brutality, or systemic corruption) pose serious threats to justice, fairness, and social equity. These actions can disproportionately affect marginalised communities already vulnerable to the justice system. Hence, mechanisms for oversight and accountability are critical to maintaining the integrity of these institutions.

The Media’s Role as the Public Eye

The media acts as the public's watchful eye, ensuring that the activities of powerful institutions are subject to ongoing scrutiny. This "public eye" function helps safeguard democracy by preventing the concentration of unchecked power and by creating an environment in which individuals and institutions are incentivised to act responsibly. As the “efficient policeman” of society, the media not only reports on incidents of abuse but also brings societal pressure to bear on those responsible for ensuring justice, often calling for the prosecution or disciplinary action of wrongdoers.

The media's role in this capacity is to keep public officials and institutions accountable to the public. It often highlights gaps in the legal system or inefficiencies in government policies that perpetuate violations of citizens' rights. By holding authorities accountable in the court of public opinion, the media ensures that governmental powers are exercised with caution and respect for human rights.

Further, the media serves as a primary source of information which play an essential role in making the actions of powerful entities transparent particularly through Investigative Journalism as it shines a spotlight on corruption and abuses, that might otherwise have remain hidden from the public eye. It exposes wrongdoing and generates public awareness, which is often the first step in addressing and rectifying these issues.

In this sense, the media acts as a "disinfectant" or "ray of sunlight" in the sense that it can reveal misconduct, bringing these issues to light in a way that discourages further abuses. Sunlight is often seen as the best disinfectant because it illuminates what would otherwise remain obscured, giving the public the information needed to hold these officials accountable.

Media as a Last Resort tool of the Powerless and Disenfranchised

For the powerless or disenfranchised individuals who may lack the resources or legal knowledge to fight back against violations of their rights, the media becomes their champion. Ordinary citizens who experience wrongful treatment by the justice system, law enforcement, or any branch of government may not have the means to hold those responsible accountable, especially in situations where the system itself is designed to protect the interests of the powerful.

The media serves as the last resort for these individuals, offering a platform where their stories can be heard, and their rights can be defended. Through investigative journalism, reports, and even opinion pieces, the media gives a voice to those who are otherwise silenced, and this can prompt a broader public outcry that forces the system to respond.

Mainstream Media Gatekeeping and Underrepresentation

Mainstream media platforms, especially those that cater to predominantly White audiences, like the Guardian Newspaper, the British Broadcasting Corporation, BBC Radio London, LBC, etc., have historically acted as gatekeepers, determining which voices and perspectives are amplified. This gatekeeping is influenced by the demographics of the media institutions themselves—largely controlled by White executives, editors, and journalists who shape narratives based on their experiences and biases.

For the Black African and Caribbean communities, representation within the mainstream media has always been scarce and stereotypical with no opportunity for Black voices to directly address social issues impacting their lives, for fears, it will be challenging a predominantly White-centred worldview and status quo.  For an example, when issues such as racial injustice, poverty and marginalisation of Black working-class communities,  led by Metropolitan Police Department’s disproportionate targeting of young Black Men and Children for STOP and SEARCH, ARREST and CRIMINALISATION, (which in turn sustains and reinforces an economic-industrial complex built on Policing, Courts, Judges, Solicitors, Barristers, Prisons, Probation Service, etc.,) are brought up by African and Caribbean grassroots activist communities, they are often ignored by the mainstream media’s selective screening process and only highlight them when presented in a way that aligns with mainstream societal norms (i.e., when White people express concern over these issues or when framed through a lens of "exceptional" or "non-threatening" water down assimilated MENTICIDE Black voices of docile establishment individuals like Kemi Badenoch, David Lammy, James Cleverly, Kwasi Kwarteng, Diane Abbott, etc.,.)

LBC's Nick Ferrai, James Whale, James O’Brien, etc.,  were from as early as 2004/5 being told by myself and Mr Grant about the Judiciary’s Criminal Violations, Metropolitan Police Department’s failures to Record and Investigate Criminal Complaints that it had a Duty in law to carryout. Further, long before the Guardian Newspaper started to disseminate information about the Home Office wholesale violations under the Hostile Environment policies, LBC's Nick Ferrai, James Whale, James O’Brien, etc., downplayed the information and prevented it from being aired, until a considerable length of time later around 2017/18 when it seems okay and credible because David Lammy was the acceptable face and voice considered non threatening enough to deliver it rather than the original prime source and VICTIMS like myself, or Mr Grant who were at the forefront of the entire incident.

Notably however, were these Black African and Caribbean grassroots activist ever to demonstrate themselves to be extremely distant and remote, self-hating obnoxious Kemi Badenoch type individuals with no LOYALTY or connection to their Communities, Racial Groups or Ethnicity, they would be carried live on air with lots of opportunity to talk; since they would dare not punch up and talk truth to power, except punch down to feed into the socially engineered constructs of Global Capitalist, Oligarchs, Ruling elites and their fraudulent controlled PROPAGANDA medias.

Amidst all the excessive screening and blocking of Black African and Caribbean community grassroots activist from participating in mainstream media platforms, (in order to disable and STIFLE any  discussions of struggles and protests against structural inequalities on mainstream phone-in platforms like LBC and BBC Radio London, etc.,) a vast range of popular Black radio stations (like Kiss FM and Choice FM) as a consequence began to evolve, though providing only Music-centric, momentary reliefs and entertainment escape for audiences which sought much more, for grassroots ACTIVIST listenership.

Like the Civil Rights Activist of America, the grassroots at the forefront of the UK’s very own Social Justice and Human Rights DEMAND here in London grew increasingly more concerned for informative contents, and turned to LIVE talk radio for analysis and problem-solving. Talk radio’s interactive nature allowed for a dialogue, as listeners could now directly interact with hosts, experts, and fellow callers to debate and discuss current events, social issues, and even personal struggles.

Galaxy ‘A Fi We’: The Champion African and Caribbean  Grassroots Community Empowerment Radio Station

The station was founded in the mid 1980s by Bongo Tete after completing his term with an Honourable Discharge from the British Army. He was soon after joined by Abu Jatata, who was equally an ex-service man in the British army with a passion and desire to give representation to the voices of the African and Caribbean communities.  

Since then Galaxy 'A fi We Station' has evolved to be the leading platform for African and Caribbean communities in the UK, becoming the most dedicated non-commercial, Black-owned LIVE phone-in talk radio station. Established with a clear mission, it sought to address the UNDERREPRESENTATION and MISREPRESENTATION of Black African and Caribbean people in mainstream media.

From its inception, the station recognised the significant gap in media representation, where African and Caribbean voices were often marginalised, distorted, or ignored. Galaxy 'A fi We Station' filled this void by providing a dedicated space that reflected the cultural, social, and political needs of the community, offering an alternative narrative that resonated with listeners.

Beyond its role as a radio station, Galaxy became a beacon of empowerment. Through its diverse programming, it educated, inspired, and enlightened its audience, tackling critical issues such as Identity, Race Relations, Community Development, and Social Justice. The station's inclusive approach allowed for open dialogues, fostering a sense of unity and pride within the Black African and Caribbean diaspora.

As the UK's only Black-owned, non-commercial phone-in talk radio station, Galaxy 'A fi We Station' set a new precedent for media within marginalised communities. Its commitment to grassroots engagement and its focus on providing a platform for voices often left unheard continues to solidify its legacy as a pioneering force in the media landscape.

Galaxy’s consistent and authentic representation of the African and Caribbean communities was what gave space for important discussions, analysis, support and assistance to individuals and groups who found themselves in the crosshairs of Systemic Corruption and Injustice in the UK; like the all important first moments of orchestrated state attacks on an already traumatised Mr Neville Lawrence and Mrs Doreen Lawrence; in the aftermath of their son’s murder; as the Metropolitan Police Department were from the onset ‘… less interested in identifying their son’s killers and securing a conviction, than they were in positioning Stephen and his friend (Dwayne Brooks) as potential criminals …‘. Galaxy 'A Fi We' African and Caribbean Grassroots Community radio station played a vital role in supporting Mr. Neville Lawrence and Mrs. Doreen Lawrence during the early, crucial moments after their son, Stephen Lawrence's murder. Amid orchestrated state attacks—characterised by slurs, isolation, lies, and mistreatment from the Metropolitan Police, Judiciary, and media—the station became a platform for the family to voice their struggles. It provided unwavering support, amplifying their calls for justice and drawing attention to the police's failures to prioritise the investigation or clear Stephen and Dwayne Brooks of unfounded criminal accusations. This early support helped to challenge the narrative and brought vital attention to the case.

Like many other Black African and Caribbean causes it has championed (from the Lawrence’s to the Newcross Fire bomb that killed 13 young people, or Christopher Alder Unlawful Death in Police Custody) Galaxy 'A Fi We' African and Caribbean Grassroots Community radio station played a significant role giving more than two Decades of UNRELENTING support to the cause of Caul Silford Grant and his RIGHTFUL pursuit of Justice by providing a crucial platform for raising awareness and mobilising support.  As Caul Silford Grant sought justice for the wrongful actions and mistreatment he faced, the station helped amplify his voice, giving him and his supporters an outlet to share their experiences and frustrations with the public. Through broadcasts, the radio station kept the issue visible, informing the community about the campaign’s progress, exposing injustices, and garnering widespread solidarity. It became a key tool for organising protests, rallies, and discussions that is aimed to pressure the authorities into addressing the case more seriously.

DECADES OF PETITIONING THE HOME OFFICE: The Department Responsible for the Supervisory and Managerial Oversight of the Metropolitan Police

Right from my commencement of office as Secretary of Campaign for truth and justice, (2000 - 2021) I dutifully petitioned a vast array of UK public figures and offices in an extensive list which include past and current:

• Prime Ministers; (Kier Starmer; Rishi Sunak, Boris Johnson, Theresa May; David Cameron; Gordon Brown; Tony Blair)

 

• Lord Chancellors, (Shabana Mahmood; Alexander Chalk, Robert Buckland; David Gauke; David Lidington; Elizabeth Truss; Micheal Gove; Chris Grayling; Kenneth Clarke; Jack Straw; Charles Falconer; Alexander Irvine)

 

• Former and current Members of Parliament, (Shadow Cabinet Leaders; Shadow Home Secretaries; Shadow Justice secretaries and the Local Borough Constituent MP's (Kate Hoey, Tessa Jowell and Helen Hayes))

 

• UK National Medias, (The Guardian Newspaper; The Daily Express News Paper; The Mirror News Paper; The Daily Mail News Paper; The SUN Newspaper; BBC News; Channel 4 News; ITV News; Global Radio’s LBC, The Voice Newspaper)

• UK State Establishment Institutions, (The Speaker of the House of Commons; The Clerk to the House of Commons; The Leader of the House of Commons; The Lord Speaker of the House of Lords; The Clerk to the Parliaments; Leader of the House of Lords; Windrush Taskforce; Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman; Home Affairs Select Committee; Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights; The Labour Party; The Liberal Democrat Party; Conservative Party; The Attorney General; The Solicitor General; Director of Public Prosecution; Mayor of London; Association of Police & Crime Commissioners; Equalities & Human Rights Commission)

 

Most particularly in my role as Secretary of Campaign for truth and Justice, I wrote in complain to each successive Metropolitan Police Commissioners (Mark Rowley; Dame Cressida Dick; Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe; Sir Paul Stephenson; Sir Ian Blair; Sir John Stevens; Sir Paul Condon).

 

These were specifically with regards to the CRIMINAL CONDUCTS of the Judiciary as complained of since 1998 and most particularly required that the METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT RECORD and INVESTIGATE CRIMINAL COMPLAINTS against Justice Toulson; Alan Toulson; Reynolds Porter Chamberlain; Bindman and Partners; including the Lord Chancellor’s Department’s Head of Division 5 (Malcolm Watts) as provisioned for under:

 

PUBLIC BODIES CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT 1889

PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT 1906

PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT 1916

 

Unfortunately the Metropolitan Police Department and all its Commissioners, (Mark Rowley; Cressida Dick, Bernard Hogan-Howe, Paul Stephenson, Ian Blair, John Stevens and Paul Condon) petitioned on the matter, ignored all request in abject failure of DUTY and RESPONSIBILITY of their office to RECORD and INVESTIGATE the complaint of SERIOUS JUDICIAL CRIMINAL ACTS and PERVERSION OF THE DUE COURSE OF JUSTICE, as in accordance with the law

Consequently, with the Home Office being the Departmental body with Supervisory and Managerial Oversight responsibilities for the Metropolitan Police Department, the matter was reported in complaint to the then Home Office and its successive Home Secretaries (Jack Straw; David Blunkett; Charles Clarke; John Reid; Jacqui Smith; Alan Johnson; Theresa May; Amber Rudd; Sajid Javid Priti Patel; Suella Braverman; James Cleverly and Yvette Cooper).

However, with the HOME OFFICE itself in total disarray and ‘… UNFIT FOR PURPOSE …’ as stated by former Home Secretary, Professor John Reid, all the complaints were first ignored and then passed from ‘Pillar-to Post’ as Home Secretaries after Home Secretaries sought to dodge responsibilities and obfuscate the facts.

Home Office Complicity in Conspiratorial Attempts to Cover-Up ODIOUS Judicial Criminal Perversion of Justice INCLUDING Metropolitan Police Department FAILURES of Duty to Act; 'in an Elaborate Protection of Establishment at all Cost Mentality'

Despite being the overseeing body, the Home Office failed to reprimand the Metropolitan Police Department. Instead, it proactively joined forces with other STATE agencies, (Department of Work and Pensions, Judiciary of England and Wales, UK Boarder Agency, Metropolitan Police Department and the Prison Authorities) in a defence of establishment at all cost mentality campaign which utilised Forced Revocation of Citizenship Rights policies AGAINST AGITATING DISSIDENT Black African and Caribbean Human Rights Activist; in order to enable it to UNILATERALLY exercise Deportation Powers without ever having to go through the courts once intended target sought after (like myself, Caul Grant, Jeyeola Babansoro and Others adamant in bringing publicity to the British Government's HYPOCRITICAL violations of Human Right laws) can be successfully labelled as 'Illegal Immigrant with no Right to Live or Work in the UK'.

The abject failure of the authorities to acknowledge its own wrongdoing and provide swift REMEDY in redress led in all eventualities to the formal incorporation of the CTJ Community Organisation, which as a last RESORT, sought to enter the Civil/Criminal Courts by any means necessary through a series of sustained Community Affirmative Action Campaign events of Lawful Rebellion challenges to gross and odious Judicial violations, as provisioned for under Clause 61, Magna Carta 1215; Section 6(1) HRA 1998; Section 6(6) HRA 1998; Section 7(1) HRA 1998; Section 7(1)(a) HRA 1998; Section 7(1)(b) HRA 1998; Section 7(6) HRA 1998; Article 5(5) HRA 1998; Article 6 HRA 1998; Article 7 HRA 1998, etc.,.

Unprecedented Determination to Enter the Civil/Criminal Courts by Any Means Necessary, in Order to Expose the Judiciary’s SELECTIVE Application of the Law, INCLUDING Abject Failures to Follow Due Process

The apparent unwillingness of the authorities to resolve the violations complained of, led to further a sustained periods of community AFFIRMITIVE ACTION Campaigns seeking to enter Court ‘by any means necessary’ in pursuit of redress through direct Civil Disobedience more often known as Lawful Rebellion.

With this, Mr Grant, Myself and Campaign for Truth and Justice members relied upon provisions in the law, (as was intended by its authors in contemplation of tyranny and abuse of power, under Clause 61, Magana Carta, 1215; Section 6(6) HRA 1998; Section 7(1)(b) HRA 1998 and Article 7 HRA 1998) to enter court, so as to CHALLENGE and EXPOSE on-going unacceptable failures to provide ACCOUNTABILITY and REDRESS for CRIMINAL violations of the law, by members of the Judiciary and other State institutions which sought nothing other than to protect themselves, CRIMINAL CABAL friends and colleagues from being exposed to ACCOUNTABILITY.

In effect, all Civil and Criminal Courts in England and Wales became INCAPACITATED throughout the country with having NO LAWFUL (JURIDICTIONAL) AUTHORITY, unless the Judiciary was prepared to RULE AGAINST ITSELF/OWN MEMBERS existing VIOLATIONS. However, the authorities resort to further embarrassing breaches of the RULE OF LAW in retrenchment throughout UK COURTS accordingly:

• Failing to provide Appeals falling due as of right following Conviction, to Campaign for Truth and Justice members since 2003;
• Dismissing Appeal on Convictions, which was not challenged, or attended by Crown Prosecution Service/Agency;
• Claiming falsely that there is no defence of Justification in English Law;
• Deliberately issuing, DOCTORED, Inaccurate, False and Misleading Records of Court Proceedings to UNSUSPECTING Public as accurate reflection of Court Adjudication Hearing;
• Deliberately entering FALSE Dates Data on last Domestic Appeals Documents for the calculated purposes of rendering Applications to European Court of Human Rights (because the UK was still in the EU at this time) automatically out of time and INADMISSIBLE;
• Appeal Court Judge UNLAWFULLY instructing Prison Governors NOT to produce a Self Representing Appellant WITHOUT Professional Legal Representation to Court for his very own Hearing in breach of Article 6(1)(C) HRA 1998;
• Prevent Legitimate Grounded Appeals Challenging GROSS Violations of Law by the Judiciary from Entering the Appeal Court for a Hearing of their Grounds, etc.,.
• Use underhand Backdoor Tactics to Unilaterally STRIKE-OUT Lawfully Constituted Civil Action pursuits of Victims Rights to REDRESS under SECTION 7(1)(a) HRA 1998; or ARTICLE 5(5) HRA 1998;
• Dismiss Away WITHOUT DUE PROCESS, lawfully grounded Civil Action pursuits of Victim’s Right to REDRESS under SECTION 7(1)(a) HRA 1998; or ARTICLE 5(5) HRA 1998; as VEXATIOUS.

     

Now the British Ruling Authorities being masters of DECEPTION realised it could not logically REFUTE the Campaigns arguments, especially since it is accompanied with IRREFUTABLE HARD EVIDENCE in the form of the Constitutional Monarchy’s 9^th January 1998 letter as well as an IRRERACTABLE and DAMMING Lord Chancellor’s Department 2^nd March 2001 Letter; it therefore sought to distance itself from the Lord Chancellor and its Department’s WRONGDOING, with PRIME MINISTER TONY BLAIR’S JUNE 2003 sudden ABOLITION announcement of the LORD CHANCELLORS’ DEPARTMENT with all its 1,333 years old history, WITHOUT any prior consultation with the British public.

The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg) and his entire Department had been in a CONFLICTUAL DUAL FUNCTIONAL ROLES with permanent seat in the EXECUTIVE Cabinet Office of Government, whilst jointly performing Judicial functions as Head of the Judiciary of England and Wales at the same time. 

The Campaign had shown that the Judiciary with Lord Irvine at the helm was in serious violations of the very laws him and his Department was supposed to uphold; strengthening the campaign’s complaints that the violations amount to UK State Law-breaking, wherein the same violating Head of the Judiciary seating as member of the Government’s Executive Cabinet Office, CAN possibly be argued to be Independent and IMPARTIAL despite his responsibilities to the two INTERESTS highlighted by the campaign.

However, the hasty dissolvement of the Lord Chancellor and his Department did not wipe away the IRREFUTABLE wrongdoings of the Office just because the OFFENDING Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine) and his Department which the UK Authorities want covered-up has been technically DISOLVED expediently in abolishment. 

Arrogant failure of the UK Authorities to think it can DISMISS its victim’s Right to Redress is precisely why a REMARKABLE PLANNED determination to enter Court through the Criminal Route (BACKDOOR) was hatched. Particularly, to FORCE Redress for the Judiciary and its member (Justice Toulson’s) Criminal Violations of the Due Course of Justice to be Heard, just as it is provisioned for under Article 5.5 HRA 1998, but UNLAWFULLY BLOCKED from entering into the Civil Courts for a Hearing through orchestrated STRIKE-OUTS by HM Court Management Criminal Cabal which seeks to conceal its members odious law-breaking from SCRUTINY and Accountability.

 

It followed then that as a direct result of the United Kingdom’s INCESSANT contempt for the Rule of Law, amply demonstrated in its failures to provide the Mr Grant his ENFORCEABLE RIGHT to REDRESS, as guaranteed by law; (Clause 61, Magna Carta 1215, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms; mirrored in the UK’s very own Human rights Act 1998) Mr Grant rebelled and PREMEDITATED his Arrest so as to enter the CRIMINAL court accordingly.

On the 16th August 2003 Mr Grant was intercepted at GATWICK AIRPORT for importing 44 Kilos of Cannabis into the United Kingdom.

On ARREST, he confirmed the act and gave the reasons for his ACTION

At Trial, Mr Grant gave evidence in Court and told the Jury that he acted as claimed, in premeditation to challenge the UK and its Judiciary’s on-going breach of his fundamental Rights to REDRESS, that was being UNLAWFULLY Denied him. Further he explained that his action was intended to expose the ODIOUS fundamental breach to Article 6 HRA 1998 by the Judiciary of England and Wale and its member, (Justice Toulson) who FAILED to RECUSE himself from Presiding a Judicial Hearing directly involving his biological blood brother (Alan Toulson) and his law firm (Reynolds Porter Chamberlain) interest. 

Despite the fact that the United Kingdom could not guarantee Mr Grant his absolute right under Article 6 HRA 1998, to an independent and impartial Tribunal, (since the Judiciary of England and Wales is NOT totally independent, but party to the Hearing as outlined in Mr Grant’s Defence Statements and Evidence) he was Prosecuted, Tried and Convicted by a Jury acting on the DELIBERATE Misdirection of the presiding Judge to Convict.

Presiding at Croydon Crown Court 12^th December 2003, Judge Christopher Pratt, a ‘WHOLLY PARTIAL’ and Un-independent Judge desperate to absolve the State and Judiciary of all stated Wrongdoing, RESORT to further unbridled blatant breach of the Rule of Law. Telling the NAÏVE and OVER TRUSTING Jury in Directional Summary to Convict, because:

 

‘… There is no defence of justification in English Law, nor is there any defence of justification conferred on anyone by virtue of the European Convention on Human Rights …’. (Exhibit: page 5, lines 13-15 of the Judge’s summing up)

 

A deliberate MISDIRECTION and a FLAGRANT LIE which was intended to secure a Conviction irrespective of what the Rules are and whatever the law may say.

 

As pointed out before, the Defence of Justification is not new and has always existed in Civilised Societies, (of course unless the UK is not one) which recognise them as SELF-DEFENCE, DURESS, NECESSITY, PREVENTION OF CRIME, PREVENTION OF DAMAGE TO PROPERTY, etc.,.  Also, Section 7(1)(b) HRA 1998 is a Justification Defence recognition for the protection of VICTIMS of unlawful acts, in ANY legal proceedings. These are all DEMONSTRATIVE EXAMPLE of Justification defences which allows for a defendant to argue that their actions, while potentially criminal, were justified by the circumstances.

 

Now most people would be forgiven to think, if it was the case that the Judge UNWITTINGLY ERRED, (if not deliberately) in DIRECTING to convict contrary to the law; or that the question of whether there was or not a Defence of Justification in English law would be picked-up in the Appeal Process. Well, the fact is that Mr Grant followed the Appeal Process. First, he had to sought permission to appeal against the unlawful conviction and detention, but was refused.

The decision to refuse him the right to challenge his unlawful conviction and detention is a direct violation of Article 5, Section 4 of Convention Rights (as mirrored in the same of the UK’s Human Rights Act 1998).

 

Furthermore, on the topic of Appeal, Mr Grant was not represented and was denied the right to represent myself, as the Presiding Appeal Court Judge UNLAWFULLY INSTRUCTED the Prison Holding him NOT TO PRODUCE HIM for Court and thus was denied all access to Court. The denial of access to Court is a direct violation of Article 6, Section 1 and 3C of the Convention Rights. This is because the United Kingdom and its Judges have become Judge in their own cause, and as a result deny Mr Grant the basic principles of natural justice, fairness, independence and impartiality. 

 

Considering that the United Kingdom was signatory (until the Brexit Vote of 2016) to the aims and democratic enforcement of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and fundamental freedoms based on the Universal Convention, and considering the United Kingdom’s own Human Rights Act 1998 based on the European Convention, the actions of the United Kingdom and its failure to secure Mr Grant his rights are in direct violation of its International, National and Domestic obligations to the Rule of Law.

Racially Focused Draconian HOSTILE ENVIRONMENT POLICIES USHERED IN, to QUELL the AFRICAN AND CARIBBEAN Community Human Rights Activist's DEMANDS, for SYSTEMIC ACCOUNTABILITY AND REDRESS

Having complained profusely to the Home Secretaries (Jack Straw and his successor David Blunkett) about the VIOLATIONS, FAILURES and OMISSIONS, of the Home Office, I became marked and targeted by the Department, because of my UNRELENTING support for Mr Grant and his demand for justice, even when he was ARRESTED, PROSECUTED, CONVICTED and IMPRISONED in further breach of the RULE of LAW.

See Exhibits:

• Croydon Crown Court, 12^th December 2003, Judge Christopher Pratt Summing-up and Verdict, page 5, Line 13-16; page 6, Line 6-8; page 9, Line 5-9; page 19, Line 8-12.

I believe this to be evident, because the HOME OFFICE shamefully sought as early as 2002, to PERSECUTE me and implement COVERT REVOCATION of citizenship rights and entitlements policies, against me, by claiming then that it had ‘no record of me, nor that of my mother’. Notwithstanding the fact that my mother is a British Citizen and British Passport holder at the time.

See Exhibits:

• Home Office 2002 Letter
• Mother’s Home office issued British Passport

The strategy was a deliberate ploy to totally detach and disassociate me entirely from any of my mothers’ Home Office records that may have existed on file in order to be able to DEPORT me once the departments’ craftily woven arrogant narratives had been unquestionably accepted (by unscrupulous and overly ambitious subservient greasy career pole climbing individuals strategically placed as judges in Courts) just as it is so often done in STATE managed FORCED DEPORTATION cases against African and Caribbean men and Women.

The relentless petitioning of all subsequent incoming HOME SECRETARIES (Charles Clarke; John Reid; Jacqui Smith; Alan Johnson; and Theresa May) left the authorities having a desperate need to dislodge me from the Campaigns pursuit, following FAILED ATTEMPTS to DEPORT me on the back of any successful Convictions it could influence and secured through the Courts.

Thus in conspiratorial cohort with the Metropolitan Police Department; (whom I ridiculed and lambasted for having failed in duty to investigate criminal complaints) Home Office; (not used to being confronted by UNAPOLOGETIC, FEARLESS and NON-DOCILE Black Commonwealth-Born Britons) Ministry of Justice (hell-bent on keeping a most gross and odious improprieties of both the institution and its members concealed from public accountability and awareness) and my then Partner; (Ms Natasha Sherina Paton who UNKNOWING to me was under pressure from UK Boarder Agencies and the Metropolitan Police Department as an ABSCONDING VISA OVERSTAYER which in itself is a Criminal Offence under section 24 of the Immigration Act 1971 that can lead to fines, imprisonment, deportation, and re-entry bans) on promise of full support and assistance with her Home Office application to remain with her children in the UK, sought to co-operate with the colluding authorities’ in drumming up a wholly FALSE and UNTRUE CRIMINAL COMPLAIN ACCUSATION of ‘… threatening with knife and Intimidation from pursuing prosecution through the Courts;’ when the facts could not have been any more to the contrary, given we had persistently sought entry into the Courts by any means necessary, since 2003, but UNLAWFULLY prevented from doing so by the State and its Judiciary, in order to cover-up its very own violations.

See Exhibits:

• Former Partner, Natasha Sherina Paton’s Eventual Statement Disclosures whilst I was in Prison HELD on REMAND, CONFESSING that I did NOT ‘threaten her’, that I did not ‘hold a knife to her throat, or ‘intimidate her in any shape or form.

Having failed dismally to secure any meaningful convictions out of Four Counts on Indictment, the Home Office, with its co-conspiring partners (Metropolitan Police Department and Ministry of Justice) then callously thought to cast an encircling snare wider in order to engulf me, (the target) whom it wanted so desperately to give-up the UNRELENTING PURSUIT of Justice within CAMPAIGN FOR TRUTH AND JUSTICE; through a covert Hostile Environment Policy agenda specifically targeted to strip me and other unsuspecting BLACK BRITONS, of all Citizenship Rights and Entitlements, by covertly classifying us as UNDOCUMENTED ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS. 

Whilst being careful to ensure the policy DID NOT affect Black Britons born in the UK with British Birth Certificates. It could NOT however control and guarantee unsuspecting law abiding BLACK BRITONS classified as Commonwealth-born African and Caribbean British Citizens, from falling victim to the Departments’ callous disregard for BLACK LIVES.

 

With the Home Office being able to classify me as UNDOCUMENTED ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT, I became DESTITUTE with no legal right to:

• LIVE,
• WORK,
• ACCESS WELFARE, OR
• LEGAL REPRESENTATION for any matter in the UK, save if I was an Asylum seeker.

With no legitimate means of Income, through gainful employment, or State Welfare Benefit, it was anticipated that I would resort to Criminality for my sustenance and consequently end up Arrested and Charged by the waiting Metropolitan Police Department, (whom I have doggedly criticised for years for failing to Record and Investigate Serious Criminal Complaints) to Prosecute me to Court, where the plan was to Convict me with the aid of colluding Legal Representatives, eager to comply with wholesale STATE ABUSE of the Due Process of law in exchange for tangible Benefits that come with refusing to put Defendants’ argument of State Law-breaking formally forward before the Courts.

See Exhibits:

• 16^th September 2014 A.Balogun, letter to Charles Allotey Solicitors, Dispensing with their service on account of them as Legal Representatives not wanting to confront the Courts with my ARTICLE 7 defense instructions exposing JUDICIAL LAW-BREAKING.  
• 28^th August 2014 A.Balogun, letter to Charles Allotey Solicitors, DIRECTING THEM TO REPRESENT ME ACCORDING TO MY INSTRUCTIONS AND NOT WHAT JUDICIARY AND THE HOME OFFICE WISH THEM TO FOCUS MY REPRESENTATION ON

The immediate effect of the Home Office’s erroneous classification of me in its DATA BASE as an UNDOCUMENTED ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT negligently left me with no means of an income to sustain myself, Children and Family; including the effective pursuit of the Campaigns determination for Accountability and redress pursuits.

For example, I was WRONGLY refused all claims entitlement to State Welfare Benefits, from National Unemployment Insurance, to Hospitalisation, Dentistry, Driving License Renewal, Opening Business and Personal Bank Accounts, Travelling Out of the UK without risking Refusal of Re-entry back into the UK at Immigration Control, just as it happened to my brother Kassim Balogun; Ken Morgan; Vernon Vanriel; etc.,.

 

The relentless PERSECUTIONS, (Revocation of Driving Licence, Closure of Bank Accounts, Torturous Bailiffs Harassments, Rent Arrears, Housing Repossession Threats; Hearings, Court Orders and Judgements; Hindrance to any ability to attain Mortgage on Home residence ; seizures of Commercial Business and Private vehicles; Business Breakdown and collapse; Unable to go outside the UK to attend my father’ burial place; (nor visit relatives) or honour my former partners’ desire to marry for security of herself and the children, etc.,.) Irretrievable break-up of both my immediate and extended family relationships, etc.,.

Till this day I have not been able to see any of my children, because I was refused any Legal Representation, (INEQUALITY OF ARMS) by the State at the Family Court, whilst my former partner (who was a an Absconded Visa Overstayer) was professionally represented under Legal Aid by the State.

The State through the Home Office, Crown Prosecution Service and the Metropolitan Police Department groomed and encouraged my former Partner (Natasha Sherina Paton) to file complaints against me with Brixton Police FALSELY claiming that I put a knife to her throat , in order to be able to affect my ARREST, CHARGE, PROSECUTION, CONVICTION, IMPRISONMENT and subsequent DEPORTATION; with an enticement to provide her with both the METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT and HOME OFFICE backed and approved guaranteed assistance to remain in the UK.

Subsequently, my Children have suffered irreparable damages to their Social-Educational family development and enrichment which I hold both the HOME OFFICE and the Metropolitan Police Department jointly responsible for.

SUBJECT HEADLINES:

 

COLLATERAL DAMAGE WITTINGLY/UNWITTINGLY INFLICTED CALLOUSLY ON COMMONWEALTH-BORN AFRICAN AND CARIBBEAN BRITISH CITIZENS IN UTTER VIOLATIONS OF RIGHTS, FREEDOMS AND ENTITLEMENTS AS ENSHRINED IN THE HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 1998

 

Eventual Media Exposure of the Windrush Scandal by the Guardian Newspaper

Why did the British Legacy press (including supposedly Black news media (the Voice Newspaper) fail in duty to respond to much earlier alert warnings and complaints directed to their offices until being compelled to act Four to Five years later when establishment figures began to show interest?

Condemnation of the Home Secretary Amber Rudd who inherited the then Prime Minister Theresa May’s Hostile Environment Policies implemented under her long tenue at the Home Office.

Common-wealth Caribbean Nations jointly intercede with direct representations in audience with the Prime Minister at 10 Downing Street expressing disappointment and disapproval of the British Government’s mistreatment of its Common-wealth Caribbean Nations.

Whilst the matter very much concerns many Common-wealth Africans, it must be noted that these groups have never been vocal in defending African nationals or ever held the British and Western Governments accountable to any standard of law like the Caribbean nations.

The Home Office Compensation Scheme to operate redress for the affected victims under very narrow constraints that in itself fails to address a vast bulk of the medium and long term impacting effects of the Home Office State UNPRECEDENTED wholesale Law-breaking.

 

The Home Office Compensation Scheme Offer Insulting, Derisory and Inequitable Awards to African and Caribbean Victims of its wholesale violations of several Articles of the UK's very own Human Rights Act 1998 as enshrined in the ECHR.

 

GROUNDS OF REVIEW FOR THE INEQUITABLE AND ERRONEOUS OMISSIONS OF THE HOME OFFICE SELF-ADMINISTERED COMPENSATION SCHEME