Documentation Relating to PC Appeal No 70 of 1997

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

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

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

Information Commissioners Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF 20th May 2009

ftao Laura Booth, Senior Complaints Officer

Request for information from Ministry of Justice (Privy Council
Office)
Dear Ms Booth

PC Appeal No 70 of 1997

Receipt is acknowledged of your letter of the 5th inst stating that
the Privy Council Office (MoJ) has no information required to be
disclosed under the terms of the FoI Act despite their confirmation
that they do and it is noted that the case file has been closed

I will respond to your letter in due course (for the Record) but
for the moment:-

Following the intervention of The Lord President the MoJ (Privy
Council Office) provided me with a bundle of documents which they
said contained the information sought under the FoI Act but which
were absolutely exempt from disclosure

The MoJ's fallacious assertions regarding disclosure of the
documents referred to can be interpreted as one wishes but it was
clearly known by the undersigned that any legitimate 'bundle' of
court documents did not contain the information claimed

You have now referred to the 'bundles of information the MoJ has
provided to you'

Do you mean the single bundle of 'court documents' that I (as party
to the legal proceedings) and many others already have?

Sincerely

D A Schiller

Dear Sir or Madam,

Information Commissioners Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF 26th June 2009

ftao Laura Booth, Senior Complaints Officer

Request for information from Ministry of Justice
(Privy Council Office)
Dear Ms Booth PC Appeal No 70 of 1997

Given the circumstances I request that you reconsider your decision
to 'close the file' which I believe to have been premature.
Necessarily some of what follows repeats what has previously been
submitted
-

The MoJ have confirmed it holds the information sought but have not
disclosed it.
The MoJ's initial claim that the information held was exempt from
disclosure was unsustainable and upon the intervention of the Lord
President they were obliged to supply the file they had said
contained the information

The file supplied did not contain the information leading to the
conclusion that either the assertion was deliberately and falsely
made in the belief they would not have to divulge it or that the
relevant information has been removed
-
Following my Complaint to the ICO you confirmed you had been
supplied with bundles of documents by the MoJ and had assumed that
I also had a set.
The MoJ had not supplied me with any bundles, other than the one
referred to above, but following your intervention I have now
received a set.
The bundles supplied to the ICO have been shredded (surely
prematurely?) and the bundle I have received is 3-” thick'
-
Led by Lord Irvine the five 'Law Lords' recommended the Appeal be
dismissed on the basis that The Crown had been dis-honest.
The Crown was effectively named dis-honest on the basis of untrue
and improperly filed 'fresh evidence' procurred by Albert Trinidad,
Senior Crown Counsel and Rhoda (A-G)

(Trinidad has still not been required to comply with an Order from
The Supreme Court of Gibraltar that he explains why he tampered
with Affidavit evidence in related court proceedings)

Properly filed evidence included statements by His Excellency The
Governor of Gibraltar that:-

'I do not know who led you to belief that this office was delaying
your application but such matters are not dealt with at all by this
office'
and by the Convent Liaison Officer, on behalf of His Excellency
that:-

'Having checked with the Police I can confirm that decisions
regarding such applications are taken by the Captain of the Port,
they have nothing to do with this office.'

No evidence was filed by the Respondent in any of the legal
proceedings prior to the judicial committee hearing including
proceedings before The European Commission of Human Rights and a
judicial committee hearing which recommended that 'special leave to
appeal' be granted
(that was before Blair became PM)

The Registrar of the Privy Council stated prior to the hearing that
their Lordships were only concerned with documents which were
before the Court of Appeal: why did he allow the 'fresh evidence'
to be filed and why did the judicial committee pay any regard to
it?

The reason for the Registrar to act as he did must have been based
on information and the FoI Act requires that information to be
disclosed

The requirement to provide 'information' under the FoI Act may also
apply to Irvine and his cohorts : Why did they act as they did?
Their perversity arguably amounted to Treason and certainly
amounted to a 'perversion of justice': what information did they
have to justify their actions ?

Does the FoI Act require a judicial committee to disclose what
information it had – it would appear to
-
'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 information required to be disclosed under the terms of the FoI
Act is clearly not limited to information contained within
documents - all relevant personnel are required to disclose what
they know with reference to why:-
'Lord Irvine as Lord Chancellor, came to be a member of the
judicial committee' and 'why and how 'fresh evidence' was permitted
to be used by the Respondent Foreign Office personnel'
In other words why the Rules of Procedure were applied to the
Appellant but not to the Respondent.
I have already stated that it may be acceptable for any individual
to decline to give information that may incriminate themselves but
equally it is criminal to withhold information on the grounds it
may incriminate others: such withholding of information would
itself amount to a criminal act

I will take the opportunity of adding the contribution to 'Justice'
made by the British Commissioner to the European Commission of
Human Rights and the Commission itself, in the case at hand:-

Having been declared 'Admissible' an application to the ECHR was,
upon the involvement of the British Commissioner, declared
in-admissible. Notwithstanding that perversion by the Commission,
evidence was altered (specifically regarding territorial
jurisdiction) and a 'Decision' was published that was total bunkum
and blatantly defamatory.
It appears the UK is now in the process of ceding jurisdiction of
Gibraltar to Spain

No Information relevant to the Application has been provided by the
Privy Council Office

The 'information' must exist and it is a requirement of the FoI Act
that it be disclosed !
-
Perhaps the content of the original letter to Jack Straw which
prompted this Application is now explained somewhat and maybe it
will be appreciated that this Case has wider implications

Political control of the judiciary is not a good idea and makes
criminals of those 'controlled' and not necessarily the Controller
–

(Cont)Roll on the Iraq Inquiry!

sincerely,

david schiller

Please refer to past correspondence

Resulting from the Privy Council Office having supplied the ICO
with different 'bundles of Documents' than those supplied to me and
the referral of the Case back to the ICO it is understood that you
are to supply me with the documents you wrongly claimed to be
'exempt' from disclosure.
Presently such 'supply' relates to documents considered to be
requested under DPA (a subject access request) and results from a
review of the case by the Casework and Advice Officer (ICO) who has
been in contact with you.

I was notified by letter dated the 13th August last to expect the
relevant documents and would be grateful if you would confirm your
intention to supply them and if possible indicate when they can be
expected

Sincerely, David Schiller

Dear Michael,
Thank you for supplying the documents.
As you will know this matter has been referred to the ICO as a
Complaint because I do not accept that the MoJ have supplied all
the Information that they have confirmed holding
I copy below the text of an email to the ICO for your information
and in case you have any comment you may feel appropriate, viz:-

Dear(ICO)
Please refer to my email of the 3rd inst. Again thank you for your
email of the 30th ult and for your comments regarding the bundles
of documents

I am concerned that you have decided to close the Case on the
apparent basis that the reason it was referred to your department
was only the issue of the bundles : that is not my understanding

This Case began life when a letter sent to Jack Straw was referred
to the Privy Council Office by the MoJ which led to a request under
the terms of the FoI Act, viz:-

Dear Sir or Madam
"A letter sent by the writer .. to Jack Straw (Ministry of Justice)
was re-directed, by them, to your office.. Appeal No 70 of 1997 was
dealt with in an extraordinary manner and is the subject of much
correspondence with various government departments..
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.. 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 ..
I do of course possess information but may not have all the
relevant court documents
The MoJ confirmed holding the information sought but said it was
exempt from disclosure
Upon the intervention of the Lord President they abandoned the
claim of exemption and supplied a small bundle of documents and
later another small bundle following the ICO's involvement

My main concern is not any dispute over the bundles (although that
is clearly an issue) but whether the MoJ have supplied all the
information they have confirmed holding
I am aware that based on your contact with the MoJ you have formed
the opinion that there is no further information held by the MOJ or
Privy Council - with respect that is clearly not the case,

eg :- ' ... 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' :
The case prepared and filed by Counsel (FP) is not in the bundle
supplied to me nor is there any correspondence between FP and the
Registry as surely there must have been? I still do not know what,
if any, 'Case' was filed by FP

All the information supplied is said to be under the terms of the
DPA and is basically information I should already possess as any
information the judicial committee and registry should properly
have should be known to both parties?

There can surely be no doubt that “Appeal No 70 of 1997 was dealt
with in an extraordinary manner” and if it was not dealt with in
accordance with normal practice what information did the Privy
Council Office have that caused them to deal with it in the way
they did ?
That is information the MoJ must have (and have confirmed having)
but have not disclosed: the law requires them to disclose it.

It may help to repeat :-

a The appeal was prosecuted with the benefit of un-contested
'special leave to appeal' being granted by Her Majesty following
which the Respondent said the appeal would not be opposed Having
complied with all the Rules of Procedure and filed the necessary
documents the Appeal should have been set down ex-parte

b The judicial committee (five Law Lords incl the Lord Chancellor)
then indicated they wanted the Appeal contested following which the
Attorney-General for Gibraltar said he would. The Rules of
Procedure where then set aside and the Respondent allowed to file a
Case and enter an Appearance all 'out of time' and all in
contravention of the rules.

c Clearly having no legitimate response to the Appellants Case the
Respondent suborned evidence and was permitted to put it in front
of the judicial committee. The evidence, to the effect that The
Crown had been dishonest, was accepted by the committee and used to
justify dismissing the Appeal: no mention of the fresh evidence was
made in their recommendation to Her Majesty that the Appeal be
dismissed
–
The situation regarding the 'Bundles' seems to be:-

1 The original bundle of documents sent to the ICO by the MoJ
consisted of 5 separate files which (on the basis that all the
information that I was entitled to had been provided and the Case
'closed') were shredded and after that I was notified the Case had
been closed

2 After learning the Case had been closed and because the ICO had
been referring to 'bundles of documents' and I had only received a
single bundle I asked the ICO how thick the bundle of documents
that the MoJ had supplied to you was
Because the bundle had been shredded it could only be a guess but
was said to have been approx 12” thick and also if I remember
correctly there was said to be many documents that had been
redacted etc

3 The single bundle of documents sent to me was less than 3” thick
and that corresponds to the size of the bundle said to be the only
documents held by the MoJ and which the ICO now also has a copy of
The bundle supplied to me has minimal redacting and is almost all
single sided

4 The ICO have offered possible explanations for the differences in
the size of the bundles which although plausable are a little
difficult to accept as realistic (eg some files could be single
sided and some double sided, some would include working notes to
explain whether it was thought each item could be provided or
whether it should be redacted, withheld etc)

5 A alternative and perhaps more realistic explanation would
suggest that 5 bundles were supplied to the ICO and one of those
bundles (or a different bundle) was supplied to me
The issue of the bundles may have obscured the real issue and can
be set aside for the present
--
Addendum

In a previous email regarding this case I said :- “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' and 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”

That seems to me to be a more appropriate interpretation to the
word 'recorded' when applied to the FoI Act

It seems to me that in keeping with the spirit and the correct
interpretation of the FoI Act information includes that which is
known by relevant persons and as such should be divulged

The Registrar/s and all other relevant persons who were involved
are required by the law to disclose all relevant information they
have and in particular why thay acted as they did.

Yours sincerely, david schiller

Thank you for that Michael

Could you just clarify, bearing in mind you have used the phrase
'all the information you are entitled to' whether the MoJ are
claiming an exemption of some sort regarding the information it has
confirmed holding?

Regards

Dear Mr Evans,
As advised the matter has been referred to the ICO and because my
request for information was made on a 'public platform' I will copy
the correspondence for general information although it is
appreciated it no longer concerns the MoJ :-

Dear ICO

Please refer to my email of the 3rd inst. Again thank you for your
email of the 30th ult and for your comments regarding the bundles
of documents

I am concerned that you have decided to close the Case on the
apparent basis that the reason it was referred to your department
was only the issue of the bundles : that is not my understanding

This Case began life when a letter sent to Jack Straw was referred
to the Privy Council Office by the MoJ which led to a request under
the terms of the FoI Act, viz:-

Dear Sir or Madam,
A letter sent by the writer .. to Jack Straw (Ministry of Justice)
was re-directed, by them, to your office.. Appeal No 70 of 1997 was
dealt with in an extraordinary manner and is the subject of much
correspondence with various government departments.. 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.. 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 .. I do of course
possess information but may not have all the relevant court
documents
The MoJ confirmed holding the information sought but said it was
exempt from disclosure Upon the intervention of the Lord President
they abandoned the claim of exemption and supplied a small bundle
of documents and later another small bundle following the ICO's
involvement

My main concern is not any dispute over the bundles (although that
is clearly an issue) but whether the MoJ have supplied all the
information they have confirmed holding

I am aware that based on your contact with the MoJ you have formed
the opinion that there is no further information held by the MOJ or
Privy Council - with respect that is clearly not the case, eg :-

' ... 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' : The case prepared and filed
by Counsel (FP) is not in the bundle supplied to me nor is there
any correspondence between FP and the Registry as surely there must
have been? I still do not know what, if any, 'Case' was filed by FP

All the information supplied is said to be under the terms of the
DPA and is basically information I should already possess as any
information the judicial committee and registry should properly
have should be known to both parties?

There can surely be no doubt that “Appeal No 70 of 1997 was dealt
with in an extraordinary manner” and if it was not dealt with in
accordance with normal practice what information did the Privy
Council Office have that caused them to deal with it in the way
they did ?
That is information the MoJ must have (and have confirmed having)
but have not disclosed: the law requires them to disclose it.
It may help to repeat :-

a The appeal was prosecuted with the benefit of un-contested
'special leave to appeal' being granted by Her Majesty following
which the Respondent said the appeal would not be opposed Having
complied with all the Rules of Procedure and filed the necessary
documents the Appeal should have been set down ex-parte

b The judicial committee (five Law Lords incl the Lord Chancellor)
then indicated they wanted the Appeal contested following which the
Attorney-General for Gibraltar said he would. The Rules of
Procedure where then set aside and the Respondent allowed to file a
Case and enter an Appearance all 'out of time' and all in
contravention of the rules.

c Clearly having no legitimate response to the Appellants Case the
Respondent suborned evidence and was permitted to put it in front
of the judicial committee. The evidence, to the effect that The
Crown had been dishonest, was accepted by the committee and used to
justify dismissing the Appeal: no mention of the fresh evidence was
made in their recommendation to Her Majesty that the Appeal be
dismissed

–
The situation regarding the 'Bundles' seems to be:-

1 The original bundle of documents sent to the ICO by the MoJ
consisted of 5 separate files which (on the basis that all the
information that I was entitled to had been provided and the Case
'closed') were shredded and after that I was notified the Case had
been closed

2 After learning the Case had been closed and because the ICO had
been referring to 'bundles of documents' and I had only received a
single bundle I asked the ICO how thick the bundle of documents
that the MoJ had supplied to you was Because the bundle had been
shredded it could only be a guess but was said to have been approx
12” thick and also if I remember correctly there was said to be
many documents that had been redacted etc

3 The single bundle of documents sent to me was less than 3” thick
and that corresponds to the size of the bundle said to be the only
documents held by the MoJ and which the ICO now also has a copy of
The bundle supplied to me has minimal redacting and is almost all
single sided

4 The ICO have offered possible explanations for the differences in
the size of the bundles which although plausable are a little
difficult to accept as realistic (eg some files could be single
sided and some double sided, some would include working notes to
explain whether it was thought each item could be provided or
whether it should be redacted, withheld etc)

5 An alternative and perhaps more realistic explanation would
suggest that 5 bundles were supplied to the ICO and one of those
bundles (or a different bundle) was supplied to me
The issue of the bundles may have obscured the real issue and can
be set aside for the present
--
Addendum
In a previous email regarding this case I said :- “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' and 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” That seems to me to be
a more appropriate interpretation to the word 'recorded' when
applied to the FoI Act

It seems to me that in keeping with the spirit and the correct
interpretation of the FoI Act information includes that which is
known by relevant persons and as such should be divulged
The Registrar/s and all other relevant persons who were involved
are required by the law to disclose all relevant information they
have and in particular why thay acted as they did.

Yours sincerely,

david schiller

email from ICO:-

Dear Mr Schiller

Thank you for your emails of 3 and 5 November 2009. I note the
request for information from the Information Commissioner’s Office
that you have made in your first email and I have passed this to
our Internal Compliance section for them to deal with. I also note
your concerns about your case and I would like to offer you some
clarification.

Your information request to the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) was for
all documentation relating to your Appeal. I note that the MoJ
originally dealt with your request under the wrong access regime,
i.e. the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), but it later rectified
its position and dealt with it exclusively (and correctly) under
the terms of the Data Protection Act (DPA).

Your request is clearly for all information about your Appeal. As
such, it is your ‘personal data’. A requestor’s ‘personal data’ is
absolutely exempt under the terms of the FOIA, although the
requestor may be entitled to it under the DPA.

If you believe that the MoJ holds more information about your
Appeal, which may be disclosable to you under the DPA, then I would
suggest that you contact them again and explain what you think is
outstanding. It would be helpful if you could clarify that you are
making your request under the terms of the DPA. If you do not
receive what you want then you can ask this office to make a
further assessment under the terms of the DPA. Alternatively, you
can take your own legal action as per the attached link:

http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/l...

You could also consider making a request, under the terms of the
DPA, to Frank Panford QC, and ask to be supplied with any related
information. I am not able to confirm whether or not you would be
entitled to receive any information that he, or his office, may
have. However, if you do not receive a satisfactory response, you
would be able to write to us and ask for us to make an assessment,
or take your own legal action as explained in the webpage at the
link above.

I do not intend to re-open a FOIA case as it would serve no
purpose. You are only entitled to your ‘personal data’ under the
terms of the DPA and there is therefore nothing which could be
released under the FOIA. Additionally, I have made enquiries with
the MoJ and it is my belief that you have already been given
everything it holds, under the terms of the DPA, and that there is
no outstanding information.

If you would like to make a complaint against my conclusions you
can write to my Team Leader, Dr Jon Manners. His email address is:
[email address] The following is a link to our service complaint
pages:

Dear Ms Howes
Thank you for your email of the 11th inst and the 'clarification'
you have provided : I will try to clarify the situation from my
perspective viz-

In accordance with s1(a) of the Freedom of Information Act the MoJ
confirmed holding information of the description specified in my
request and s1(b) requires them to communicate that information to
me:
The MoJ have not communicated the information to me

The reason given for not supplying the requested information was
that it was exempt by virtue of s32 (court documents)

The nature of the information sought makes it almost certain that
it would not be contained in any 'court file' and such source of
information was implicitly excluded from the request

Upon the intervention of the Lord President the MoJ were compelled
to disclose the 'exempt information' because as a party to the PC
Appeal it was clearly not exempt from disclosure to me

Contrary to the MoJ's claim and as expected the 'court documents'
supplied did not contain the information sought which coupled with
their failure to comply with s(1)(b) of the FoI Act led to the
involvement of the ICO

Although the reasoning behind the ICO treating it as a 'hybrid
case' and splitting it into a SAR first and then a FoI request is
appreciated I did not think it was appropriate but had no objection
to the procedure since it was not anticipated it would prejudice
the FoI request

I had understood that following the DPA aspect being dealt with
(which did result in some further documents being supplied) the FoI
aspect would be similarly dealt with but it wasn't

It is now said that all the information the MoJ holds has been
disclosed under the DPA which infers that it is all in the court
documents : that simply cannot be true and as related above it was
not contained in the court documents supplied

The exemptions under s32 of the FoI Act are not intended to usurp
s(1) but to protect the disclosure of personal data to anybody not
entitled to it

No personal data has been sought by the applicant and if any of the
information required to be disclosed could be considered to
infringe anybodies rights it should be redacted or, with adequate
reason being given, excluded: the mere fact that personal data may
be included in the information does not exempt the properly
discoverable information from being disclosed

It is now asserted that I have been provided with all the
information I am entitled to whereas in fact I have not received
any information held in relation to that specified in my request
--
This case clearly has a strong 'public interest' element :
(in fact the DPP perversely indicated, in a letter to The Rev Ian
Paisley, that any privately brought criminal prosecutions against
those accused of (inter alia) conspiring to defeat justice will be
'taken over and dis-continued 'In the Public Interest')

The reason for the request was prefaced by “So far as can be
ascertained Appeal No 70 of 1997 was dealt with in an extraordinary
manner”:-

Prior to the applicant filing the required documentation in the
Privy Council registry including a Case Notice that confirmed the
Appeal was not going to be opposed, the Registrar expressly and
correctly 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...."
the Appeal was initially set down for hearing (ex parte) on 30th
April 1998

The request for information seeks an explanation as to why the
Rules of Procedure governing the Appeal to Her Majesty in Council
were applied to the Appellant but not to the Respondent and how the
judicial committee were emboldened sufficiently to recommend to Her
Majesty that the Appeal be dismissed on the basis that The Crown
had lied.

Shortly before the Appeal was due and after the documents had been
filed a London based lawyer offered to represent me pro bono: the
offer was accepted. Unknown to me or my solicitor until the day
before the Appeal, the lawyer told us he had withdrawn the 'Case
for the Appellant' which I had filed and substituted it with his
own – contrary to instructions!

It transpires that The Lord Chancellor who chaired the judicial
committee indicated he wanted the Appeal opposed following which
the Respondent changed his mind and said it would be.
The Respondent was then allowed to enter an appearance out of time
and file freshly procured evidence in the form of an Affidavit
purportedly made by an ex-Captain of the Port of Gibraltar in which
he 'recalls' that in 1988 he received instructions on behalf of His
Excellency The Governor not to issue a licence to the applicant

The purported 'recollection' contradicts evidence properly put
before the judicial committee from three past Governors of
Gibraltar stating they had nothing to do with the application for a
licence
In fact Their Lordships were not “only concerned with the documents
which were before the Court of Appeal...” but only concerned with
the freshly procured Affidavit that wasn't

The Affidavit was dated 4th May 1998 : (four days after the initial
date set for the Appeal)

Is it remotely plausible that all the information held by the MoJ
has been disclosed?

Sincerely, David Schiller

By email to: [email address] 19-11-2009

Dear Mr Schiller

Freedom of Information Act 2000
Request for information to Ministry of Justice

I acknowledge receipt of your recent email in response to Carolyn
Howes’ email of 11 November 2009. I have considered your comments
in line with the Commissioner’s published policy on handling
requests for case reviews and service complaints. Since your letter
has been brought directly to my attention I will not ask you to
complete a copy of our complaints and service review form. Please
therefore treat this letter as the formal response of the
Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) to the issues which you
have raised.

I note your view that the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) still holds
information which has not been provided to you. You also say that
you had understood that, following the Data Protection Act 1998
(DPA) aspect being concluded, the freedom of information aspect
would be addressed.

Having had sight of the case file, I disagree that the freedom of
information aspect was not addressed. Ms Howes considered whether
there was outstanding information which might be provided under the
Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) but concluded that all of
the information to which you were entitled had already been
provided (under the DPA).

As she informed you on 11 November 2009, there is no further action
which this office can take under the FOIA and the freedom of
information case will therefore not be reopened. She explained that
the information which you seek is ‘personal data’ under the terms
of the DPA and is exempt from disclosure under the FOIA. Having
made enquiries with the MoJ she also concluded that you had in fact
already received all of the information held by the MoJ. Having
considered the case file I have concluded that Ms Howes was correct
to draw these conclusions.

Ms Howes has also advised what options are available to you if you
believe that the MoJ holds more information about your Appeal: take
your own legal action, contact the MoJ again making a request under
the terms of the DPA, and/or make a request under the DPA to Frank
Panford QC.

I appreciate that you remain concerned that the MoJ must hold
further information to which you are entitled under the FOIA, from
which any personal data could be redacted. However, I believe that
Ms Howes’ conclusion that there is no outstanding information which
could be disclosed under the FOIA is correct. This freedom of
information case will therefore not be reopened.

I would also like to confirm that this case has been dealt with in
accordance with the normal procedures at the Information
Commissioner’s Office for investigating ‘hybrid’ cases.

Ms Howes has informed you of your right to complain to the
Parliamentary & Health Service Ombudsman if you remain dissatisfied
with the service you have received from this office. Complaints to
the Ombudsman must be made through your Member of Parliament, and
details of how to make a complaint to the Parliamentary & Health
Service Ombudsman can be found at:
http://www.ombudsman.org.uk/make_a_compl...

If you have any questions or concerns you can contact me by email
at [email address] or through the ICO’s switchboard on 01625
545700, pressing Option 5 and asking for extension 5616 or me by
name. If you correspond please use the ICO service complaint
reference, ie RCC0279215.

Yours sincerely

Dr Jon Manners
FOI Team Leader (Police, Justice & Taxation)
-------------

Yours faithfully,david schiller

email to Dr Jon Manners:
Freedom of Information Act 2000
Request for information to Ministry of Justice

Dear Dr Manners

Receipt of your email of the 19th is acknowledged

The case would have been referred to you (as per Carolyn Howes
email) but was awaiting a response from Joanne Crowley (Assistant
Internal Compliance Manager) regarding the documents supplied to
you by the MoJ following my letter of the 28th Sept (bundle 6) To
contact you before receiving a copy of bundle 6 or notice of a
refusal to supply it would have been premature
Your letter at this stage particularly since the issue of bundle 6
was thought to be 'live' has effectively by-passed any kind of
appeal or complaints procedure to you and has to be treated as a
formal rejection of any complaint/appeal that would have been
lodged

1 The issue regarding the bundles is on record but basically the
situation seems to be that 5 bundles (total thickness approx 12”)
were supplied by the MoJ to the ICO and contained the same
information that was supplied to me (in a bundle less than 3”
thick)
All the information is said to be supplied under the terms of the
DPA (as a SAR)
Bundle 6 is said to comprise another copy sent because the ICO had
shredded the original bundles - it is a bundle that I requested a
copy of and which I was led to believe the ICO were considering
whether to disclose under the FOIA. It is said to contain the same
information as originally supplied to the ICO and me It now has to
be assumed the ICO are not going to supply me with a copy

2 You say that “ Having had sight of the case file, I disagree that
the freedom of information aspect was not addressed. Ms Howes
considered whether there was outstanding information which might be
provided under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) but
concluded that all of the information to which you were entitled
had already been provided (under the DPA)

3 The information requested did not seek any personal data and
implicitly excluded information discoverable under the terms of the
DPA : the reason for the request is contained within it, viz:-
“- all the documentation relating to the Appeal that the FOI Act
requires to be disclosed including any discoverable documentation
explaining how and/or why Lord Irvine as Lord Chancellor came to be
a member of the judicial committee and any indication as to why and
how 'fresh evidence' was permitted to be used by the Respondent “
or more simply put :-
'what information led the judicial committee to conspire to defeat
justice?'
Having confirmed they held the information of the type specified
the MoJ claimed it was 'absolutely exempt' from discovery but had
to abandon that claim upon the intervention of Baroness Ashton (as
Lord President) :
The MoJ have not disclosed the information they confirmed holding
and have not claimed any further exemptions : they are obliged by
law to disclose all the information of the type specified

4 The MoJ and the ICO now say that I have been supplied with all
the information 'I am entitled to' and the inference of that
statement is that there is some information I am not entitled to It
maybe there is some information held by the MoJ that properly
should not be disclosed to me under the DPA but my request was
under s(1)of the FOIA and since no exemptions are now said to
apply:-
I am entitled to all the information held by the MoJ of the type
specified

5 The case involves court proceedings and includes exchanges of
correspondence between the PC Registry and myself. All the 'court
documents' originally said by the MoJ to be exempt from disclosure
should have been in my possession or available to me and I know
that some documents have not been disclosed by the MoJ because I
have my own copies and they were not in the documentation supplied
to me It is also recorded that there is no correspondence between
the registry and Frank Panford and no documents filed by him,
including any 'Appellants Case'
--
Although this letter does require a response from you I would be
grateful for a response to a related aspect of the case, viz:
If, as a result of a request for information under the FoI Act the
authority concerned uncovers information which would lead a
reasonable person to conclude that a crime may have been committed
would the authority have a duty to take any action ?
Finally, my request for information resulted from a letter sent to
Jack Straw being referred, by him, to the Privy Council Office for
a response. Jack Straw has been involved in the Case at hand as
Home Secretary, Foreign Secretary and now Minister of Justice for
many years. The text of the letter was:-

“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 'Iraq Inquiry' begins today consisting of another five Privy
Councillors chosen by Downing Street

Sincerely, David Schiller

email to Dr Jon Manners

Dear Dr Manners
Please refer to me email just sent. I'm afraid I made a mistake
towards the end in saying 'Although this letter does require a
response from you - it should have read Although this letter does
not require a response from you....

Apologies DAS

Yours faithfully,

david schiller

Dear Michael Evans,
I take note of your reluctance to engage in protracted
correspondence : frustrating for you I'm sure
Seen from my side of the debate there also exists a degree of
frustration
Perhaps we can agree that either 5 Law Lords have conspired to
defeat justice or at some point in the history of this affair I
have done something wrong- or perhaps both

I have enquired from the ICO as to whether, in the event that a FOI
request results in any reasonable person having cause to believe a
crime may have been committed, they have a duty to do anything ?
The ICO have no definitive answer to the question but have
suggested that if my question relates to the MoJ in any way I
should ask you

Any response you may feel appropriate, other than to consult a
solicitor, would be welcomed

Yours sincerely,

david schiller

for clarity, I now copy the text of a letter to the Minister-

Jack Straw, Minister of Justice,
102 Petty France, SW1H 9AJ 15th December 2009

Dear Mr Straw, Privy Council Appeal No 70 of 1997

A letter addressed to you in February 2008 was referred to the
Privy Council Office for a response which led to a request to that
office for the supply of information under the terms of the Freedom
of Information Act.

The following web address refers:-

whatdotheyknow.com/request/documentation_relating_to_pc_app#outgoing

Having abandoned claiming any exemptions the MoJ say that all the
information I am entitled to has been disclosed :
'I am entitled' to all the information the MoJ hold and what they
now say can only be true if information they know about has been
lost or destroyed

As Minister of Justice and Home and Foreign Secretary you have been
involved in the case since the present government came into power
and it may be that after the coming election you will no longer be
directly involved – that being the case I believe it proper to
ensure that your office is aware of the present situation

The Case began with judicial review proceedings in 1988 and the
original handling of it by the A-G for Gibraltar, namely by
fabricating criminal charges against me and with the help of a
particular judge obtaining a conviction did not engender an
excessive level of confidence in the Gibraltar/FCO judicial system.

The situation improved somewhat over the following years (despite
incredible perversity by the FCO and the ECHR) and it seemed likely
a resolution of the issues could be achieved but upon the
retirement of Sir Alistair Kneller as Chief Justice and the sad
demise of Justice Harwood (r.i.p.) and the arrival of Schofield and
Rhoda (CJ & A-G) any proper resolution was put beyond possibility

I copy the text of a letter to Sir Ian Blair which may clarify some
of my concerns, viz:-

Ftao Sir Ian Blair, Met Police, 02-02-07

Political Control of the Judiciary

In 1998 the Lord Chancellor chaired a judicial committee of Her
Majesty’s Privy Council.
The council relied upon freshly filed evidence to recommend that
the appeal be dismissed. In more than ten years of legal
proceedings the Foreign Office (the effective Respondent) had not
presented any evidence.

The ‘fresh’ evidence was false resulting in prosecutions against
those who had purportedly provided it.
Those (private) prosecutions were ‘taken over and discontinued’ by
the joint Respondent (Gibraltar's AG

The Metropolitan Police acquired evidence in support of the
allegations but upon such investigation coming to the notice of
government ministers it was stopped and filed as ‘No Crime’

The five members of the judicial committee are charged, inter alia,
with conspiring to defeat justice and various others, including
government ministers are charged with criminal conduct
The DPP refused to interview the undersigned and/or be shown some
evidence and indicated he would, in the Public Interest, ‘take-over
and discontinue’ any private criminal prosecutions brought in
London

Tony Blair was not, at the time, included in those accused because
his involvement could only be implied. He and all others, including
you, have been kept informed of the situation

The PSNI have told you there should be an investigation.
You may like to re-consider this matter
---
---

Based on the information the MoJ have now supplied it is clear that
the Privy Council Office, knowing that the Appeal was not going to
be opposed, told the Respondent via the Supreme court Registry that
the judicial committee, led by Lord Chancellor Irvine, wanted it
opposed
-
Rhodas immediate predecessor as A-G had also indicated the Appeal
would not be opposed and the A-G before that, upon vacating the
post, offered to represent me if the Chief Justice did not raise
any objection – in the event the Chief Justice decided that it
would not be appropriate but the offer clearly has relevance
-
Self-evidently there was no proper defence to the Appeal so Rhoda
found it necessary to suborn fresh evidence : namely an Affidavit
purportedly made by an ex-Captain of the Port of Gibraltar. That
was followed by the Registrar of the judicial committee ignoring
the Rules of Procedure and allowing the Respondent to enter an
appearance and file documents including the freshly obtained
'evidence'

Although the judicial committees perversity could clearly not
justify the fabrication of evidence or the flouting of the Rules of
Procedure it does offer an explanation for Rhodas behaviour and of
subsequent perversity by Schofield and others, including the
Metropolitan Police and the DPP

That the judicial committee accepted the false evidence which
accused The Crown of dishonesty, in a recommendation prepared by
Lord Hope of Craighead, beggars belief
--
Having said that, the circumstances of the case and the limited
information disclosed raises the possibility that Rhoda
misunderstood why the judicial committee and/or the Registrar
wanted the Appeal opposed and if the reason had been made clear it
may not have been necessary to procure false evidence
--
To supply only some information can, deliberately or otherwise,
lead to the wrong conclusion and the law requires all the
information held to be disclosed
Perhaps the Ministry of Justice ought to comply with the law and
supply all the information it holds or explain why it is not doing
so?

Sincerely

D A Schiller

Dear Privy Council Office

As you may know this matter, having been considered by the
Information Commissioners Office, is currently being assessed by
the Parliamentary Ombudsman

There seems to be some confusion regarding certain 'Information'
that the MoJ have supplied and under what law such supply has been
made

My initial request was for information which was held by the Privy
Council Office which the Freedom of Information Act requires to be
disclosed: I did not seek any Information held under the terms of
the Data Protection Act and that remains the case

Having said that I appreciate why the ICO dealt with the matter as
a 'hybrid' case and was content for them to deal with it as such
but it now appears the ICO consider, presumably having been told by
the MoJ, that I have been supplied with all the information that
the FOIA requires to be disclosed - albeit under the terms of the
DPA

That is not the case – I may, allegedly under the DPA, have been
mistakenly supplied with some information that properly comes under
the FOIA but clearly have not been supplied with all the
information the MoJ hold in regard to my original request
-
Initially the MoJ confirmed holding the information sought but
declined to supply it because they considered it to be exempt from
Disclosure

That stance was clearly unsustainable and upon the intervention of
the Hon Lord President it was changed

Given the situation and variety of opinions as to whether the MoJ
have complied with the law regarding the disclosure of information
it may be of benefit to all concerned (ICO, Parliamentary
Ombudsman, etc) to know exactly what The Lord President told the
MoJ

Therefore I would be obliged for a copy of the document sent to the
Privy Council (or MoJ) by The Lord President

Sincerely

david schiller

This matter was referred to the Parliamentary Ombudsman, via my MP,
and I will copy what transpires for anybody who may be interested.
(The matter is ongoing)

Dear Conor

Parliamentary & Health Service Ombudsman Complaint

Thank you for your attention in this matter

It may be appreciated from the letter I sent to Jack Straw that led
to a request for information from his own department that I
expected less than enthusiastic support from the MoJ and I do have
a degree of sympathy with those who have to deal with matters
involving allegations of criminal behaviour by their political
masters : clearly when the first door the Metropolitan Police
knocked on during the present governments reign, that of the Privy
Council Office in 1998, they were 'shown the door' and John Stevens
dropped the investigation and became a 'Lord'

Having said that I did expect a degree of impartiality from a
'Parliamentary Ombudsman' whose 'assessment' I find quite
remarkable : for the 'record' I will respond to the points made :-

"Para 2: Mr Schiller complains that ICO failed to disclose
information that it should have under the Freedom of Information
Act; that it was unreasonable for ICO to shred the documents
provided by the Ministry of Justice while he considered the
complaint still to be 'live'; and that the intervention by the FOI
Team Leader denied him due process to escalate his complaint. This
has caused him inconvenience and lack of access to information to
which he is entitled. Mr Schiller wants to have access to the
information to which he believes he is entitled under the Freedom
of information Act"

Response: (i) No 'complaint' that the ICO failed to disclose
information was made: the ICO shredded documents supplied by the
MoJ whilst the case was live and I suggested they send me a copy of
a second set they obtained so I could check whether they were
documents said to have been supplied to me. I did not consider they
were under any obligation to supply the documents but they treated
it as a formal request for information so I postponed making a
complaint to the Ombudsman until I had sight of the documents. The
processing of the matter took so long that finally the complaint
was registered without having received the documents

(ii) It is axiomatic that a 'Team Leader' whose duties include
arbitrating on possible disputes over the way his 'Team' may have
handled a case should not take an active part in the handling of it
or make any material contribution or comments on it whilst it is
'live'
The shredding of documents, potentially crucial to any appeals
process and whilst the case was live was at best imprudent :
material held by the ICO should clearly be kept pending possible
appeals
--
"Para 3: Legislative background and the Ombudsman's role Section
40(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 states: Any
information to which a request for information relates is exempt
information if it constitutes personal data of which the applicant
is the data subject. In effect this means that if data is available
to an individual under the Data Protection Act 1998 through a data
subject request, then it is not available under the Freedom of
Information Act. The Acts have different exemptions and support and
appeal processes, so it is important that bodies and applicants
appreciate this distinction"

Response: The specified information requested was that which the
FOIA requires to be disclosed and no personal data was sought : No
s(40) exemption was claimed by the MoJ
--
"Para 6: The decision. Relevant background
I will not include a complete chronology here, but have confined
the background to those events pertinent to this complaint. From
the information provided, it appears that Mr Schiller has
approached various bodies to obtain information relating to a court
case he was involved in during the 1990s. Mr Schiller eventually
approached the Ministry of Justice for this information (having
approached other bodies, such as the Privy Council, previously).
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) told him that as this was data
personal to him as the data subject (see paragraph 3 above), they
could not release it under the Freedom of Information Act, but
would consider his request as a subject access request under the
Data Protection Act. MoJ approached ICO to assess whether the
information they intended to release satisfied their obligations
under the Data Protection Act. At the same time, Mr Schiller
approached ICO asking them to consider MoJ's actions under the
Freedom of Information Act"

Response:
(i) The 'background information' bears little resemblance to the
facts and is available at:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/do...
It was as a result of Jack Straw referring a letter sent to him to
the Privy Council Office that led to the request for:- “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”

(ii) The MoJ did not say the data “was personal and they could not
release it under the FOIA but would consider the request as a
subject access request under the DPA” - they said :-
“Thank you for your email of 26th April 2008 where you requested
information about documentation relation to JCPC Appeal 74(sic) of
1997 I can confirm that the Department holds this information. This
information you have requested is exempt under section 32 (Court
Records) of the Freedom of Information Act”

(iii) Following that the MoJ did not respond to emails so on the
9th June 2008 an Internal Review was requested in the following
terms:- “The Privy Council Office have stated that the Department
holds the information requested but that it is (absolutely) exempt
under section 32 (Court Records) of the Freedom of Information Act
2000 Subject to what follows please review 'the Request':-
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........It is
inappropriate for the ministry to review 'their own case' : an
alternative reviewer should be appointed”
On 29th June the MoJ upheld their Decision that the information
sought was exempt from disclosure under s32 of the FOIA and on the
30th June 2008 a complaint was registered with the ICO

(iv) Nothing more was heard from the MoJ until 22nd July 2008
viz.:- “With reference to your letter to the Lord President dated
27th June regarding your request under the Freedom of Information
Act for documents in appeal number 70 of 1997, these documents are
now enclosed, Yours sincerely..” they then reverted to not
responding to correspondence
--
"Para 7: ICO were considering whether it appeared that MoJ were
fulfilling their obligations under the Data Protection Act. ICO say
that the wording of Mr Schiller's request to them meant that they
had to consider this disclosure (being done under the Data
Protection Act) also under the Freedom of Information Act"

Response: The DPA was not mentioned until the ICO's involvement
when they decided to deal with the case under their 'hybrid'
procedure and split it into a DPA request and a FOIA request : my
understanding was that it was done with the intention of ensuring
all the requested information was obtained. It was a procedure I
welcomed on the understanding that in addition to the information
requested under the FOIA any such information also available under
the DPA would be discovered. Upon completion of the process by the
'DPA section' the 'FOIA section' was to deal with the case and any
information not discovered under the DPA process would be
disclosed.
The 'hybrid' procedure effectively removed the necessity to make a
separate DPA request
--
"Para 8: ICO is structured in two parts: one to consider Data
Protection Act issues and the other to consider Freedom of
Information Act issues. The case was first passed to the Data
Protection Act section to consider whether MoJ appeared to be
fulfilling their obligations under the Data Protection Act, ICO
eventually decided that MoJ were, and MoJ released certain
information to Mr Schiller. ICO then passed the case internally to
their Freedom of Information Act section. This section formally
considered whether there was any disclosure necessary on these
issues under the Freedom of Information Act. As mentioned above,
there is no overlap between rights to disclosure under the Data
Protection Act and the Freedom of Information Act. Therefore,
reconsidering under the Freedom of Information Act whether there
was more personal data that should be released through a subject
access request under the Data Protection Act resulted in no further
disclosure. ICO emailed Mr Schiller to tell him that there was no
further information to disclose under the Freedom of Information
Act"

Response: The nett result should have been disclosure of all the
information held by the MoJ that the FOIA requires to be disclosed
The nett result has been that no information held by the MoJ that
the FOIA requires to be disclosed has been disclosed, despite the
MoJ having confirmed it has the information requested
--
"Para 9: Mr Schiller disputed ICO's response, certain that there
must be more information available under the Freedom of Information
Act. At this stage the ICO's FOI Team Leader stepped in and
confirmed that in his opinion there was nothing more to disclose
under the Freedom of Information Act than had already been
disclosed under the Data Protection Act. The Team Leader signposted
Mr Schiller to PHSO"

Response:
(i) This is irrelevant as it refers to personal data; however in
relation to the inference that I could not be certain the MoJ had
supplied all the personal data it is relevant to point out that
information held by the MoJ should include that related to court
proceedings involving a 'litigant in person' and which pertains to
an application for special leave to Appeal in 1996 and an Appeal in
1998 and other documentation, all of which is held by me : it is
not an insubstantial amount
It must be self-evident that I know whether certain documents have
been disclosed or not
(ii) The MoJ confirmed holding information explaining why Lord
Irvine came to be a member of the judicial committee and why 'fresh
evidence' was permitted to be used by the FCO but they have not
disclosed that information. Similarly they disclosed a letter they
received from the Metropolitan Police but have not disclosed the
response to that letter
(iii) One effects of the way in which the request for information
has been dealt with by the ICO and Ombudsman is to relieve the MoJ
from disclosing the information it confirmed holding
--
"Para 11: Reasons for our decision All through this process, the
only information ICO were considering was that to be released to Mr
Schiller by MoJ as a subject access request under the Data
Protection Act.
After MoJ had informed Mr Schiller that the information he wanted
was not obtainable under the Freedom of Information Act but under
the Data Protection Act, all that was being considered was the
subject access request data. If Mr Schiller disagreed that his
request was being treated appropriately, then this is something he
could have challenged MoJ about, or he could have placed a new
request to them worded to exclude personal data"

Response:
(i) If 'the only information ICO were considering was that to be
released to Mr Schiller by MoJ as a subject access request under
the Data Protection Act' they have not complied with the law: they
were required to consider what was to be released under the Freedom
of Information Act
(ii) The MoJ did not inform me that the information I wanted was
not obtainable under the Freedom of Information Act but under the
Data Protection Act ; such assertion, given the wording of the
request, would be absurd
(iii) The Request for Information is unambiguous : it is not for
the MoJ, the ICO or the Ombudsman to re-interpret it as they see
fit. The ICO chose to deal with it as they did with no objection
being raised because they said the requested information held by
the MoJ that both the DPA and the FOIA requires to be disclosed
would be dealt with
(iv) It may be that some information held by the MoJ would be
discoverable under the DPA and should not be disclosed under the
FOIA but such information should have been disclosed under the
'hybrid system' as explained by the ICO and/or it should have been
disclosed with the relevant parts redacted or withheld : a request
under the FOIA does exclude personal data
--
"Para12 ICO's role was to consider whether it appeared that MoJ
were fulfilling their Data Protection Act obligations. That ICO
considered this additionally under the Freedom of Information Act
was as a result of their interpretation of Mr Schiller's approach
to them. However, the scope of the information that ICO was
considering was always constrained to be the data able to be
disclosed to Mr Schiller by MoJ as a subject access request.
Because of s40(1) of the Freedom of Information Act, which
specifically excludes such data from disclosure under the Freedom
of Information Act, this was always going to be a purely academic
exercise in this case. That does not mean that ICO failed to fulfil
their role appropriately in Mr Schiller's case"

Response:
(i) it was not the role of the ICO to consider whether the MoJ were
fulfilling their Data Protection Act obligations unless in relation
to information of the type requested
(ii) unless it is thought I would have agreed to the 'hybrid
system' as explained, knowing it to be a 'purely academic exercise'
and only considering information that I hadn't requested, the
Ombudsman seems to infer and accept that I was deliberately misled
(iii) Because, following the Lord Presidents involvement (para 6)
there seemed a possibility that the MoJ would comply with the FOIA
the ICO were requested to “put the appeal on hold for the present”
but the MoJ continued to prevaricate and have persistently refused
to disclose any further information or give any lawful reason for
not doing so
--
"Para13 From my discussions with Mr Schiller, it appears that he
expected ICO to carry out a review of the data sources provided by
MoJ to decide what additional data, beyond the Data Protection Act
subject access request, could be disclosed under the Freedom of
Information Act; thus broadening the scope of what ICO had been
asked to do. It was not ICO's role to do this'- such requests
should initially be put to the body holding that information, in
this case the MoJ. If Mr Schiller is then dissatisfied with the
disclosure or
refusal to disclose, then there are procedures that parliament has
set down in legislation to pursue such a dispute"

Response:
(i) How the ICO dealt with the DPA and/or the FOIA elements was not
my concern, it was the ICO who chose not to consider the case as
the simple FOIA request that it was but as a 'hybrid' which
presumably necessitated the MoJ/ICO reviewing the data sources
(ii) I agree 'it was not ICO's role to do this' but it was their
decision to do it that way
--
"Para 14 and 15 Destruction of documents and Intervention of the
Team Leader We do not consider ICO's procedure of destroying the
source document copies as soon as they have completed their task to
be unreasonable. In principle the original data is still available
from the source body and can be reconstructed when necessary. ICO
are also complying with Data Principle 5 (Personal data processed
for any purpose or purposes shall not be kept for Longer than is
necessary for that purpose or those purposes); given that the data
is a copy and is in principle available from the source, a policy
of further speculative retention would be difficult to justify.
We do not consider the ICO Team Leader's intervention unreasonable.
He tried to provide reassurance to Mr Schiller, and escalation to
him is not a part of the dispute process if Mr Schiller believes
ICO's decision to be incorrect (that process would be to obtain a
formal decision notice from ICO and then to escalate to a
tribunal), thus Mr Schiller has not been denied an appropriate
escalation route"

Response: (i) (see also para2 ) It is clear to all that the request
for information relates to matters which includes allegations of
malpractice and/or criminal behaviour against senior members of
government and the judiciary and include the Minister of Justice
and it is not inconceivable that the MoJ would be less than
helpful. The intervention of The Team Leader and destruction of
documents would not have raised any questions if the documents had
not been destroyed and/or he had not involved himself in the case
until it was no longer 'live' and that clearly includes any
possible referral to any appeals process, including the
Parliamentary Ombudsman That the documents were destroyed in the
circumstances and that the Team Leader involved himself was
imprudent at best : “thus Mr Schiller has not been denied an
appropriate escalation route
Para 16: For the reasons set out above, we do not consider that
there are indications of maladministration in the actions of ICO
and so have decided not to investigate Mr Schiller's complaint"

Response:
(i) The MoJ's response to the request for information is unlikely
to be described by an impartial observer as helpful and designed to
comply with the requirements of the FOIA or with the spirit of that
law The MoJ, 'clearly an interested party', had no intention of
supplying any information until the intervention of the Lord
President – the reason for such reticence is clear and epitomised
in the letter sent to Jack Straw that prompted the request Perhaps
the MoJ should have 'declared an interest' and the request for
information should have been handled differently?
(ii) Conversely the ICO's decision to deal with the case as a
'hybrid' and split it into two parts had every indication of being
intended to assist in obtaining information held by the MoJ, under
both the DPA and the FOIA but sadly that process appears to have
been corrupted

"Para 17; Conclusion: I recognise that our decision not to
investigate his complaint may disappoint Mr Schiller. However, I
trust that I have clearly explained the reasons for that decision.
I am sending a copy of this letter to Mr Schiller for his
information"

Response: In 20 years of dealings with FCO and other government
departments and the judicial committee of Her Majesty's Privy
Council there is not very much perversion or incompetence by any
organisation that would surprise me They all disappoint me
It would appear that in lengthy discussions on the telephone (which
included jurisdictional issues that the Ombudsman has not raised) I
was not able to convey to the Ombudsman that the result of the
procedures adopted by the ICO ended up being flawed

I asked the Team Leader whether “in the event that a FOI request
results in any reasonable person having cause to believe a crime
may have been committed, they have a duty to do anything ?
It was suggested that if my question related to the MoJ in any way
I should ask them, so I did.
I also suggested to the MoJ that “it may be of benefit to all
concerned (ICO, Parliamentary Ombudsman, etc) to know exactly what
The Lord President told the MoJ“
--
The following is the text of a letter of the 2nd February 2007:
Ftao Sir Ian Blair, Met Police Political Control of the Judiciary
In 1998 the Lord Chancellor chaired a judicial committee of Her
Majesty’s Privy Council. The council relied upon freshly filed
evidence to recommend that the appeal be dismissed.
In more than ten years of legal proceedings the Foreign Office (the
effective Respondent) had not presented any evidence.
The ‘fresh’ evidence was false resulting in prosecutions against
those who had purportedly provided it. Those (private) prosecutions
were ‘taken over and discontinued’ by the joint Respondent
(Gibraltar’s AG)
The Metropolitan Police acquired evidence in support of the
allegations but upon such investigation coming to the notice of
government ministers it was stopped and filed as ‘No Crime’
The five members of the judicial committee are charged, inter alia,
with conspiring to defeat justice and various others, including
government ministers are charged with criminal conduct.
The DPP refused to interview the undersigned and/or be shown some
evidence and indicated he would, in the Public Interest, ‘take-over
and discontinue’ any private criminal prosecutions brought in
London .
Tony Blair was not, at the time, included in those accused because
his involvement could only be implied.
He and all others, including you, have been kept informed of the
situation.
The PSNI have told you there should be an investigation.
Sincerely, D A Schiller
–
Summary
1 A request for specific information under the Freedom of
Information was made to the MoJ
2 The MoJ confirmed holding the information but said it was exempt
from disclosure
3 Upon the intervention of the Lord President the MoJ supplied some
information under the FOIA but not the information specified
4 The ICO intervened and said the MoJ has supplied all the
information that the Data Protection Act requires to be disclosed
5 The Ombudsman agrees with the ICO and sees no need for an
investigation

Sincerely DAS

The following 'Complaint' was registered with the Office for
Judicial Complaints against Lord Hope who took part in a recent PC
hearing related to the matter at hand

Hope was involved in the 1998 PC hearing and remains accused of
conspiring to defeat justice with the four other judges:-

-----

Complaint : Lord Hope of Craighead Privy Council No 0016 of 2009

On the 12th November last a judicial committee dismissed an Appeal
by Derek Schofield against his dismissal as Gibraltars Chief
Justice : a strongly dissenting judgement was delivered by Lord
Hope of Craighead

I understand that The President, Lord Phillips and the Deputy
President, Lord Hope decide who are selected for Judicial Committee
cases and the composition depends on the expertise needed for the
case

Background:- Lord Hope was one of a judicial committee who heard PC
Appeal No 70 of 1997 which unanimously recommended to Her Majesty
that the appeal be dismissed : the others being Lords Irvine,
Hoffman, Cooke and Lloyd
–

The legal proceedings were mainly prosecuted by the undersigned as
a litigant-in-person who filed all the required documentation in
the Privy Council Registry including confirmation that the appeal
would not be contested
After the time for doing so had expired (and after the initial date
set for the hearing) the Respondent changed his mind and 'entered
an appearance', followed by the filing of a 'Case' together with
freshly obtained 'evidence' to the effect that The Governor of
Gibraltar lied and had made the Decision complained of (in JR
proceedings) and not the named Respondent
At about the same time a London based lawyer offered to represent
me pro-bono

The Appeal was dismissed on the basis that the wrong Respondent had
been named
No mention was made of the freshly filed evidence to the effect
that The Crown had been dishonest and upon which the recommendation
that the Appeal be dismissed was based
–

Resulting from a Freedom of Information request to the Ministry of
Justice it transpires the Law Lords themselves, via Gibraltars
court Registry, indicated they wanted the Appeal contested :
the following is an extract from a letter sent to the Registrar of
the Supreme Court of Gibraltar: viz:-

“PC Appeal No 70 of 1997” 16th January 2010
In granting unconditional leave to appeal to the judicial committee
The Hon Chief Justice, Sir Alistair Kneller, said 'the question or
questions involved ought to be referred to Her Majesty in Council'
but such leave was stifled because, contrary to what the FCO had
submitted to the ECHR, legal assistance was withdrawn and £12000
demanded from me as 'security for costs'

Having thus stifled the Appeal Her Majesty was petitioned for and
granted 'special leave to appeal'

After mammoth delays the Record of Proceedings was filed in the
Privy Council Registry, including verification that the AG did not
intend to oppose the Appeal

After the setting down for hearing the PC Registrar indicated to
the SC Registrar that 'Their Lordships' wanted the Appeal opposed
and that was followed by the AG entering an appearance in the
proceedings and filing freshly obtained 'Affidavit evidence' to the
effect that 'The Crown' had been dishonest – the Rules of Procedure
were abandoned

Albert Trinidad, Senior Crown Counsel, had charge of the
proceedings for the Respondent. Trinidad had earlier been Ordered
by the Supreme Court to file an Affidavit explaining how an
Affidavit he had served on the writer was filed in the Registry in
a materially different form and before that he had been responsible
for an Application to commit a previous AG to prison in relation to
the Discovery of documents

Upon Schofield becoming Chief Justice the matter was not pursued

The judicial committees advice to Her Majesty that the Appeal be
dismissed, delivered by Lord Hope of Craighead, made no mention
that the Respondent had only contested it because the judicial
committee itself had asked for it to be opposed or of the filing of
fresh evidence to the effect that The Crown had been dishonest

No application for costs was made : the judicial committee, chaired
by the Lord Chancellor (Irvine) Ordered costs to be paid by the
Applicant

Before the Appeal had been set down for hearing the PC Registrar
realised that he and a past Chief Justice of Gibraltar (Spry) had
made a mistake in drafting legislation regarding appeals to the
Privy Council by impoverished citizens and had suggested to the SC
Registrar that £5000 would have been a more appropriate amount than
the £12,000 demanded as security for costs
Subsequently the Registrar taxed the Respondents costs at £23,000

The 'evidence' that the judicial committee had welcomed and relied
upon was clearly false and private criminal prosecutions were
commenced in the Gibraltar Magistrates court against those
responsible
The AG (Rhoda) 'took over and discontinued' the proceedings

An Application for a Voluntary Bill of Indictment to issue against
Rhoda was filed in the Supreme Court Registry – it was and remains
unprocessed by the Supreme Court

Having confirmed jurisdiction the Metropolitan Police obtained
evidence supporting allegations of criminal acts but upon the Privy
Council becoming aware of the investigation it was stopped and
filed as 'No Crime The Royal Gibraltar Police advised the AG that
the Metropolitan Police had sought permission to travel to
Gibraltar to investigate : Permission was refused
No application for the payment of the £23,000 'costs' was made
until the criminal prosecutions and investigations referred to
above had been commenced whereupon Rhoda applied for me to be
declared a vexatious litigant (All Proceedings Order) and offered
to drop the application for costs if if I agreed to being declared
vexatious

It will be appreciated that if the undersigned had been aware of
the information held by the SC and PC Registrars in 1998 not only
would it have had a major effect on the 'Case for the Appellant'
but would have materially effected the proceedings that followed
the judicial committees perversion

There are many aspects of the Case that should give cause for
concern and collusion between the SC and PC Registrars which
radically influenced the legal proceedings must be a major
concern..

--
Schofield disqualified himself from dealing with the 'All
Proceedings Order' and said his 'brother judge was 'like minded' so
a judge from the UK would be asked to attend and deal with the
matter

It transpired that Schofields 'brother judge' was not 'like minded'
and preliminary directions came before him wherein the AG was
Ordered to make full Discovery (and in discussions with Counsel for
both parties after directions were given it was indicated to Rhoda
that the Application was not likely to be successful and the court
of appeal had recently been complimentary about 'Mr Schiller'
--

1 The judicial committee chose not to deal with the Case according
to the law but in conjunction with the Registrar of the Privy
Council and the Supreme Court of Gibraltar to actively interfere
with the administration of justice by causing and enabling the
Respondents, in defiance of the Rules of Procedure to 'enter an
appearance' and file a 'Case' based on freshly suborned evidence

2 One or more of the five judicial committee members involved in
'hearing' PC Appeal No 70 of 1997 know their recommendation to Her
Majesty that the Appeal be dismissed was a perversion of justice
and even if any of the five did not know of the circumstances
leading to the Respondent entering an appearance they know their
Decision was perverse
Hope prepared the recommendation and Schofield is aware of the
facts

Put simply they are all involved in perverting justice
--
Whatever the process that selected Lord Hope to take part in
proceedings involving the sacking or otherwise of Schofield, he
should have disqualified himself

D A Schiller

Yours faithfully,

david schiller

Margaret Newell
Privy Council Office

Hello Margaret

This particular request for Information can be considered formally
closed and I am posting relevant 'Information' simply for those who
may be interested and to give the wider picture

However thank you for your response

Regards, David Schiller