Dear Sir or Madam, A letter sent by the writer on the 25th February
last to Jack Straw (Ministry of Justice) was re-directed, by them,
to your office (Jackie Lindsay) to deal with following which you
received a letter from me dated the 1st April. That letter briefly
explains the situation regarding the Appeal referred to in this
request. So far as can be ascertained Appeal No 70 of 1997 was
dealt with in an extraordinary manner and is the subject of much
correspondence with various government departments since. It would
be appreciated if you would supply the writer with all
documentation relating to the Appeal that the FOI Act requires to
be disclosed. If there is any discoverable documentation explaining
how and/or why Lord Irvine, who at the time had recently been
appointed as Lord Chancellor, came to be a member of the judicial
committee it would be of particular assistance as would any
indication as to why and how 'fresh evidence' was permitted to be
used by the Respondent Foreign Office personnel

Sincerely, David A Schiller

Dear Mr Schiller

Please find attach a letter in regards to your Freedom of Information
request.

Regards

Darren Over

Registry Officer

Judicial Committee

Tel: 020 7276 0485

Fax: 020 7276 0460

[email address]

This computer system may be monitored and communications carried on them recorded, to secure the effective operation of the system and for other lawful purposes.

show quoted sections

Darren Over

Dear Darren

Thank you for your response to my application under the terms of
the FOI legislation from which it is noted that you consider there
exists an absolute exemption under the terms of section 32(1) of
the Act for all the information that was requested Please confirm
that you have taken account of the following:-

The information you refer to as being exempt was specifically
excluded from my application, viz: - "It would be appreciated if
you would supply the writer with all documentation relating to the
Appeal that the FOI Act requires to be disclosed"

It would appear from events subsequent to the appeal that there
must exist documentation, properly discoverable under the terms of
the FOI Act and it is that information that I seek to be informed
of If there is not any information that legislation requires to be
divulged; sobeit, but please confirm that the Privy Council Office
and/or the Ministry of Justice (if appropriate) do not hold any
discoverable information. I have to say that I would find it
remarkable if no such information exists

Please bear in mind the allegations of criminal conduct by senior
members of the judiciary and government personnel and an
investigation (albeit truncated) by the Metropolitan Police

As I volunteered " So far as can be ascertained Appeal No 70 of
1997 was dealt with in an extraordinary manner and is the subject
of much correspondence with various government departments since"

Your reference to section 32(1) raises an interesting point, viz:-
The 'exempt' information refers to that which is "held only by
virtue of being contained in documents that have been filed with,
or has otherwise been placed in the custody of the court for the
purpose of court proceedings; and those that have been created by a
court or a member of the administrative staff for the purpose of
such proceedings"

Presumably, as a party to the appeal, all the information referred
to as being 'exempt' should already be in my possession or be
available to me?

I do of course possess information but may not have all the
relevant court documents. For example Counsel who represented me at
the hearing, despite requests has not returned 'the papers' to me
and unknown to me or my solicitor until the day before the appeal
had withdrawn the 'Applicants Case' that had been prepared and
filed by me and substituted it with his own version
---------------- In all the circumstances I would now add to my FOI
request that as a party to the proceedings and properly entitled to
the papers referred to as being 'exempt' under section 32 (1) a
copy of those papers be supplied to me

If thought appropriate, I would be prepared to pay the costs of
supplying such documentation

Sincerely, David Schiller

Dear Darren,

Presumably you do not intend to reply to my last post.

I accept that section 32(1) exempts you from having to supply the
court papers referred to under FOI legislation.

Is it the Privy Council Registry's position that, as a party to the
appeal referred to, I am unable to obtain copies of the filed
documents?

Regards, David Schiller

Yours sincerely,

Dear Sir or Madam,

Access Rights Unit,Selborne House, Point 6.17, 54 Victoria
Street,London SW1P 6QT

9th June 2008

Request for an internal review of FOI Request No FOI/54695/08/DO
(the Request)

The Privy Council Office have stated that the Department holds the
information requested but that it is (absolutely) exempt under
section 32 (CourtRecords) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000

Subject to what follows please review 'the Request'

Preamble

The Privy Council Office were contacted regarding discovery of
information under the Act without realising that it now came under
the control of Jack Straw and the 'Ministry of Justice'

As Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, to whom the letter referred to in
the Request was addressed, is one of the government ministers
involved in the aftermath of PC Appeal 70 of 1997 and accusations
centred around the perversion of and conspiracy to defeat justice

Although not directly concerned with the Request the letters text
is copied below for convenience

It is inappropriate for the ministry to review 'their own case' :
an alternative reviewer should be appointed ----------

Duty to provide assistance (from the Information Commissioners
Office)

Although this is an absolute exemption, it does not mean that
requests for information contained in court and other records
covered by the exemption can be ignored. On the contrary, section
16 of the Act places public authorities under an explicit duty to
provide advice and assistance to applicants. In many cases,
assuming that a public authority wishes to rely upon the exemption,
it will be appropriate to refer the applicant to some other means
by which the information requested may be obtained.

No reply was received to my 'follow-up request'-viz: "In all the
circumstances I would now add to my FOI request that a copy of all
the papers referred to as being 'exempt' under section 32 (1) be
supplied to me as a party to the proceedings and properly entitled
to such papers. If thought appropriate, I would be prepared to pay
the costs of supplying such documentation" ------------------

A(i) It is accepted that the Act exempts information that is held
only by virtue of being contained in documents that have been filed
with, or has otherwise been placed in the custody of the court for
the purpose of court proceedings; and those that have been created
by a court or member of the administrative staff for the purpose of
such proceedings As a party to the proceedings, there should be no
need to seek such 'exempt' information since it should be in my
possession or available to me. It was the refusal to disclose the
(unrequested) documents that prompted the 'follow-up' request which
you have ignored

It is apparent that the reason for the Section32(1) is primarily
although not exclusively aimed at criminal proceedings with the
purpose of protecting citizens from possible unwarranted
publication of information and equally apparent that it was not
intended to be used to conceal malpractice

(ii) This matter involves civil proceedings and was prosecuted by
way of special leave to appeal having been granted by Her Majesty '
it is not the practice of the Privy Council to grant special leave
to appeal unless the case raises questions of dominant Public
importance or far reaching points of law "

The perversity demonstrated by the FCO, including the fabrication
of criminal charges and outrageous conduct in collaboration with
the European Commission and Court of Human Rights, clearly raised
issues of 'dominant Public importance' but far from addressing
those issues the judicial committee raised further 'Public
importance' issues by their own perversity in dealing with PC
Appeal No 70 of 1997

(iii) The corollary of s32(1) is that information which is not held
only for the purposes listed must be disclosed and 'the request'
was not for information contained in court records but for 'all
documentation relating to the Appeal that the FOI Act requires to
be disclosed'

It was anticipated the information could be withheld on the grounds
it may incriminate certain individuals but not that such
information was to be found only in the documents 'filed in court'

(iv) Information required to be disclosed would include that within
the knowledge and/or possession of any person and that held by any
recording method, electronic, notebooks, diaries etc

The implication of your assertion that all relevant information is
exempt is that you have consulted those individuals concerned and
none of them have any relevant information

In the circumstances pertaining to this case it would be remarkable
if neither the Privy Council Office or the Ministry of Justice (if
applicable) hold any information that the Act requires to be
divulged

B The 'circumstances pertaining to this case' include :

(i) Until the time for entering an appearance had passed the
registrar had cause to believe the appeal would not be opposed and
it was not until Rhoda had replaced Dawson as Attorney-General for
Gibraltar that the Respondent decided to oppose the appeal Dawson
had extensive knowledge of the case from the beginning; Rhoda did
not Albert Trinidad (Crown Counsel) handled the case for the
Respondent throughout

(ii) By the time Rhoda/Trinidad 'appeared on the scene' the rules
required the appeal to be set down ex-parte; it wasn't and the
Respondent was allowed to file fresh evidence by way of three
affidavits

No evidence had been filed by the Respondent before the PC Appeal
and that which was filed is, on it's own face, false: it also
imports dishonesty to The Crown and was relied upon by the judicial
committee to recommend the appeal be dismissed

(iii) In related but separate proceedings before the Gibraltar
courts Albert Trinidad had been Ordered to explain how an affidavit
was served on the Applicant in a different format to that filed in
the Court Registry Failing a satisfactory explanation it was said
that it would likely lead to his removal from the relevant
professional registry; the matter was never dealt with

(iv) There are two versions of the affidavits which were procured
and filed in the proceedings so the Applicant cannot be sure which
is the correct version but it would appear that Trinidad procured
them

(v) The affidavit evidence states, as a reason for not being able
to verify the Governors involvement in the Decision under review,
that 'the relevant files have been destroyed...'

In the period leading to the appeal Dawson had asked the Governor
for files relevant to a request for 'voluntary disclosure' to be
made by the Governor There was no evidence at that stage that any
documents had been destroyed; in fact the evidence is that a file
was handed over by the Governor

The Governors files, if relevant to the Judicial Review
proceedings, would have been in the possession of the
Attorney-General and the Respondent would be required, by law, to
keep them safe

Similarly, in the Affidavit purportedly sworn by the Captain of the
Port it is claimed the relevant file 'could not be found' : that
file should, by law, have been kept safe in possession

(vi) In the same proceedings referred to in (iii) above an
Application to commit the Attorney-General (Ag) Peter Dean to
prison was necessary because of Trinidads handling of an Order to
make Discovery As a result the A-G's chambers were searched and 'by
chance I came across three files concerning Mr Schiller hidden away
under a large volume of papers and documents relating to a very
sensitive matter in the bottom draw of a filing cabinet that is
normally locked.' (Affidavit of Peter Dean)

C The FCO have 'form' in regard to acts designed to pervert
justice. They were successful in getting the European Commission of
Human Rights to act in a similar manner to the judicial committee
by 'throwing away the rule book', altering the evidence, declaring
the Application inadmissible upon the involvement of the British
Commissioner after it had been declared admissible according to the
Rules and Publishing a 'Decision' knowingly and falsely naming the
Appellant as a convicted criminal. Similar success was later
obtained in the European Court of Human Rights

D You have confirmed holding information explaining how or why Lord
Irvine came to be a member of the judicial committee and why 'fresh
evidence' was permitted to be used by the Foreign Office and that
information is not 'exempt' (unless only held in the 'court
records) and should be disclosed

E If the Privy Council had handled the appeal in the proper manner
the application for information under the terms of the Act would
not be required and unless it is normal practice for judicial
committee 'appeals' to be tainted by corrupt practice it can only
be the case that information was made available that emboldened the
committee to the extent that they not only treated their own
profession with contempt but conspired to defeat justice:
incompetence alone does not explain their actions

Is it to be assumed that the Registrar and five Law Lords acted as
they did without reason?

The Registrar of the Privy Council stated that "I must
emphasise....their Lordships are only concerned with the documents
which were before the Court of Appeal, plus the judgment and order
of that court...." :

That assertion by the Registrar is correct in law: why was it not
applied to the Respondent? ----------

The reason to act as he did must be based on information: To
withhold that Information is illegal

It is clear beyond reasonable doubt that properly discoverable
information is being withheld ----------

It is clear that the appeal was a perverse act and the inclusion of
Lord Irvine as chairman has political overtones similar to those
present in the handling of the case below

Political control of the Judiciary can have results that are not
'In the Public Interest'

That the Registry of the judicial committee of the Privy Council
appear proactive in such perversion is equally of concern to the
true 'Public Interest'

Sincerely, D A Schiller

Jackie Lindsay
Group Manager
Judicial Committee of the Privy Council
Downing Street
London SW1A 2AJ

Tel: 020 7276 0486
Fax: 020 7276 0460

www.pco.gov.uk

This computer system may be monitored and communications carried on them recorded, to secure the effective operation of the system and for other lawful purposes.

show quoted sections

Dear Sir or Madam,

Yours sincerely,

Dear Mrs Lindsay, 27th July 2008

Thank you for supplying the documents said to contain the
information requested and understood to have resulted from the
intervention of the Lord President?

I am not aware of anything in the documents supplied which provides
an answer to my questions! Perhaps you could direct me to the
part/s you consider relevant ?

I previously referred to a letter sent to Jack Straw which he
referred to you and which in turn resulted in your letter to me and
thence my application for information I did not copy those letters
as a part of my application but will do so now since it may be
helpful and given the circumstances I would request that you deal
with my application afresh

(i) copy text of letter to Jack Straw, 25th February 2008:-

Dear Mr. Straw Privy Council Appeal No. 70 of 1997

It was clearly prudent for Blair to place the legal system under
the control of cronies prior to prosecuting an arguably illegal war
and perhaps the above ‘appeal’ was a trial run to ensure particular
Law Lords would ignore their Oaths of Office and do what’s expected
even if that meant committing treason themselves? The ‘appeal’ was
no more than a conspiracy to defeat justice and upon government
ministers becoming aware of an investigation by the Metropolitan
police it was dropped and filed as ‘No Crime’ Criminal prosecutions
were not brought in London because David Calvert-Smith (DPP)
indicated he would take over and discontinue any privately brought
proceedings and Ken MacDonald continued that policy Private
criminal prosecutions in Gibraltar were taken over and discontinued
by Rhoda (AG) and an application for a Voluntary Bill of Indictment
to issue against him remains un-processed by the Supreme Court
Having settled in Northern Ireland and been denied legal aid on the
basis that criminal acts by government ministers/employees did not
involve Northern Irish law provisional contact was made with the
local court Registrar preparatory to bringing private criminal
prosecutions The court Registry said only the police could bring
criminal prosecutions and a request to be put in front of a judge
was refused. Correspondence with the Northern Ireland Office and
Lord Chancellors department resulted in the normal government
response Recently enquiries have again been made of the court
Registry as to whether they have changed their position but the
only response has been to the effect that ‘a response will be made’
Given the apparent and understandable continual change in criminal
law practice the writer is unaware of the current situation but
given your title it is assumed you have something to do with the
judicial system and despite your own involvement in this case (and
Falconers) perhaps you could inform the Newry court that any
citizen may bring a criminal prosecution or confirm they may not
Sincerely DAS

(ii) copy text of letter to Jackie Lindsay, 1st April 2008:-

Dear Ms Lindsay Privy Council Appeal No. 70 of 1997 Thank you for
your letter of the 19th ult responding to mine to Jack Straw which
related to the Newry court in Northern Ireland ! I don’t really see
why you were contacted but perhaps I should respond? Your statement
that ‘Our records show that the above appeal was dismissed by the
Judicial Committee on the 20th July 1998’ could lead some to
conclude it was a genuine judicial appeal: it was not; it was a
conspiracy to defeat justice and those involved remain accused of
that crime, including Lords Irvine, Lloyd of Berwick, Hoffman,
Cooke of Thorndon and Hope of Craighead The appeal was brought by
way of ‘special leave to appeal’ necessary because the leave to
appeal granted by the court was stifled by the Foreign Office who
successfully petitioned for the legally aided Applicant to provide
‘security for costs’ in direct opposition to submissions it made to
the ECHR Having obtained ‘special leave to appeal’ it was indicated
that the appeal would not be opposed such decision being changed
upon Rhoda taking over as A-G and procuring three affidavits to the
effect that evidence from His Excellency The Governor of Gibraltar
was not true and despite his denials he had made the original
decision under review and not the named Respondent. That was the
only evidence adduced by the Respondent in ten years of legal
proceedings and was the basis of the recommendation to Her Majesty
that the appeal be rejected although the committee did not find it
appropriate to refer to the freshly filed evidence in their
judgment or explain why it was allowed The committee based its
recommendation to Her Majesty that the appeal be dismissed on
improperly filed evidence effectively calling The Crown a liar. The
actual content of the bulk of the ‘Judgment of the Lords of the
Judicial Committee of the Privy Council’ can best be described as
‘bunkum’ bearing no relation to the facts. To import dishonesty to
The Crown based on the behaviour of the Respondent throughout years
of legal proceedings and the childish comments made by the Court of
Appeal for Gibraltar defies credibility The committee ignored the
comments of The Hon Sir Alastair Kneller who as a single judge of
the court of appeal and well versed in the case from the beginning
said ‘the matter or matters involved ought to be referred to Her
Majesty in Council’ ; and ignored the grant of special leave “it is
not the practice of the Judicial Committee to grant special leave
to appeal unless the case raises either a far reaching question of
law or matters of dominant public importance .. ” Their conduct and
acceptance, without question, of fresh affidavit evidence can lead
to only one reasonable conclusion Albert Trinidad (Crown Counsel)
had charge of the Respondents case and attended the conspiracy.
Trinidad had earlier been Ordered by The Hon Justice Harwood to
explain how an Affidavit he filed in court was served on the
Applicant in a different form and was also responsible for an
application to commit Peter Dean (A-G) to prison. At least two
versions of the affidavits apparently accepted for filing by the
Registrar exist Perhaps the foregoing, which is but a small part of
the total and is all on government files helps explain the text of
my letter to Jack Straw? (copied below for convenience ) Could you
to pass the request contained in the letter to Jack Straw to the
relevant department? Sincerely D A Schiller

Yours sincerely,

Dear Darren,

I would appreciate you either giving some thought and response to
this request or ask that you pass it to the person responsible for
ensuring compliance with the FoI Act.

My original request was:

It would be appreciated if you would supply the writer with all
documentation relating to the Appeal that the FOI Act requires to
be disclosed. If there is any discoverable documentation explaining
how and/or why Lord Irvine, who at the time had recently been
appointed as Lord Chancellor, came to be a member of the judicial
committee it would be of particular assistance as would any
indication as to why and how 'fresh evidence' was permitted to be
used by the Respondent Foreign Office personnel

In response to that request you confirmed you had the information
but refused to supply it because you claimed it was absolutely
exempt from disclosure to me. It would appear you have now realised
your initial response was inappropriate and have supplied
documentation said to contain the requested information.

Please indicate those parts of the documentation you have supplied
me with that satisfactorily answers my original request for
information and take note of the contents of my request for a
‘review’ of your departments original response

Sincerely, D A Schiller

Dear Sir or Madam,

The following is the text of an email from the Information
Commissioners Office and my reply It is hoped the contents are
self- explanatory:-

---

18th August 2008

Case Reference Number FS50206354

Dear Mr Schiller,

Thank you for your letter dated 30 June 2008 in which you make a
complaint about the Ministry of Justice.

Unfortunately, although I have attempted to obtain the relevant
correspondence from the “What Do They Know?” website, it is not
completely clear which letters are relevant to this case. I have
found the following:

• FoI request (dated 6 April 2008) • The PA’s refusal under s32
(dated 13 May 2008) • Internal review request (14 May 2008) •
Internal review result upholding the original refusal (19 June
2008)

In theory the documents named above are what the ICO requires, but
as there are other letters on the website I wanted to check whether
there is any other relevant correspondence that I have overlooked.

Yours sincerely, Jenny Sanders FoI Case Reception Unit Information
Commissioners Office --- Thank you for your email The Privy Council
Office response to the request for information has been
inconsistent and in view of what follows I would request that you
put the appeal on hold for the present pending the Privy Council’s
response to my post of the 11th inst

Sincerely, D A Schiller

- - - The original request was dated the 26th April 2008 and was
worded:-

“ So far as can be ascertained Appeal No 70 of 1997 was dealt with
in an extraordinary manner and is the subject of much
correspondence with various government departments since. It would
be appreciated if you would supply the writer with all
documentation relating to the Appeal that the FOI Act requires to
be disclosed. If there is any discoverable documentation explaining
how and/or why Lord Irvine, who at the time had recently been
appointed as Lord Chancellor, came to be a member of the judicial
committee it would be of particular assistance as would any
indication as to why and how 'fresh evidence' was permitted to be
used by the Respondent Foreign Office personnel ”

Notwithstanding the request specifically asking for information
that the FOI Act requires to be disclosed (ie excluding ‘exempt’
information) the response was that the information was held but was
exempt from disclosure under S32. - My letter of the 14th May was
not an ‘internal review request’ but simply a response to the
refusal to disclose information the Privy Council agreed it
possessed. In view of the Privy Councils bizarre response I
included a request to be supplied with the documentation claimed to
contain the information sought on the basis that it was clearly not
exempt from disclosure since I was a party to the legal proceedings
to which the documents related. - My response of the 14th May did
not receive a reply - On the 29th May 2008 I gave the Council a
chance to re-consider and asked if it was really the Privy Council
Registry's position that, as a party to the appeal referred to, I
was not entitled to obtain copies of the filed documents - That
contact also did not receive a response and on the 9th June 2008 I
requested an internal review and requested that account be taken of
the contents of the request - On the 19th June 2008 the internal
review upheld the Privy Council Office’s initial response - The way
in which the FOI request had been handled clearly required an
appeal to the Information Commissioner and by letter dated 30th
June 2008 such appeal was lodged - After lodging the appeal to the
Commissioner the documentation that the Privy Council said
contained the information sought but had refused to supply on the
grounds that it was ‘exempt’ was received by the applicant. There
was no indication given as to the location of the information
sought

Being unable to locate the relevant information the Privy Council
Office was asked, by letter of the 27th July, to direct me to the
parts considered by them to contain it - That request did not
receive a response leading to a further request dated the 11th
August 2008 - As of today’s date no reply has been received but it
may be that a meaningful response will be received within an
acceptable period -

Given the circumstances and for the sake of clarity I will post
this letter on the ‘What Do They Know’ site

Regards, D A Schiller