Misrepresentation of Facts by Lord Justice Elias

Waiting for an internal review by HM Courts and Tribunals Service of their handling of this request.

Dear Her Majesty’s Courts and the Tribunals Service,

I have received a decision from Lord Justice Elias. The contents of the decision have been copied from a different case and the judge has refused my case on a completely different manner. I know that bench markers are judges' advisers and they make decisions rather than the judge himself.

What is your policy regarding such decisions or deliberate defamatory decision?

What is the judge's liability in such case? Is he committed to perjury or misrepresentation of facts or most crucially abuse of his position?

Please note that the case was from court of appeal Civil division Case management C.

Yours faithfully,

Mrs ismail

Dear Her Majesty’s Courts and the Tribunals Service,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of Her Majesty’s Courts and the Tribunals Service's handling of my FOI request 'Misrepresentation of Facts by Lord Justice Elias'.

My FOI request was not responded to.

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/m...

Yours faithfully,

ismail

Simon Kaberry left an annotation ()

Read the open letter to Lord Justice Elias on the site of Simon Kaberry - setting his clear dishonesty and cover up in another case, where he put the protection of Establishment ahead of justice

Helen Borodzicz left an annotation ()

Simon, unfortunately appeals are no longer a complete rehearing so a judge can't decide things anew. Full rehearings were automatically the case before the introduction of the Civil Procedure Rules in the late 1990's. Judicial review is even more restricted in scope.
The CPR were all about speeding up and simplifying the cost of justice. Some good things got tossed out e.g. a cap on costs in the county courts.
Ismail's case has become part of case law.

ismail left an annotation ()

Hi helen

Could be be more explicit about "Ismail's case has become part of case law".

Hi Simon

Thanks for the annotation

Simon Kaberry left an annotation ()

Helen - sorry it was not clear. A horrible false allegation was made when i could not speak. It was shown to be untrue. The LCJ directed - 'go back and present the evidence, let Tribunal sort it out' (he dare not criticise his appointees, knowing they had cost the public vast sums). Lord Justice Elias over ruled (a) police findings (b) Jury Findings (and jury words wishing well) (d) the Direction of the LCJ and (e) Tribunal Findings and re-instated the false allegations which had perverted the course of justice and left organised crime free with millions - and re-published the untruths made by his old friend who should have gone down for contempt. He is not a man who can be trusted - he saw all the evidence. He has answered: 'Judges do not explain themselves'. He regularly sits with Nick Patten (LJ) who told me -' 'your Ground that it is a thoroughly dishonest Ruling is not a ground of appeal -' but he did close with the word 'sorry'.

Vinzenz Zinser left an annotation ()

Would it be possible to add a link for the open letter: '.. Read the open letter to Lord Justice Elias on the site of Simon Kaberry ..' Or just quote parts of the content here in the annotations as other people should be able to understand and use this as a database for similar cases?

Helen Borodzicz left an annotation ()

Ismail,
All decisions of the higher courts become part of case law, i.e. what is called precedent, which the lower courts must apply. However many, if not most, cases add nothing new to the law and so don't get reported (which means an organization writes it up as a law report). It is the judge who decides if his decision is to be reported. S/he sends it to BAILII.
An unreported case is still case law and must be applied by lower courts if relied on by a party.
I happened to see your case on the LexisNexis database at a library I visit occasionally that subscribes to this service. It was under the cases applying s21 Housing Act 1988 as I recall. So that means it is presumably on BAILII.
When I did the annotation here I tried to post a link to BAILII but could only remember that it was "Ismail" and some housing association. That was not enough to find the case.
Actually, I now remember that on LexisNexis there were links to several law reporting firms. So it has been widely reported.
When seeing your case on LexisNexis I had a quick read of it. As far as I can remember human rights arguments were put. This might have been the reason the judge decided the case should be reported.
You obviously know the names of the parties and should therefore be able to easily find your case on BAILII.
Simon, you've obviously had a rough ride. I don't know if, as a solicitor, you did contentious work. If so you surely knew the score about litigation. So why the indignation?