RE: Case of Hammerton V The United Kingdom http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/ECHR 272 (17th March 2016) and Schedule 9 Crime and Courts Act 2013

Ismail Abdulhai Bhamjee made this Rhyddid Gwybodaeth request to Attorney General's Office

This request has been closed to new correspondence from the public body. Contact us if you think it ought be re-opened.

Gwrthodwyd y cais gan Attorney General's Office.

Ismail Abdulhai Bhamjee

Dear Attorney General’s Office,

I, Ismail Abdulhai Bhamjee of 196 Tiptree Crescent, Ilford, Essex IG5 0ST, Tell 0203-6010-417 do hereby make a complaint and request that:-

1. There is a Judgment given in the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg which has been published on the Bailii Web Site.
http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2016...

The Transcript of the Judgment does contain 38 Pages

This Case differs with my Complaint as Fraud Authentication of Document.

2. There are Judgments given in the United Kingdom of Vicarious Liability-
Since the HM Attorney General is responsible for the CPS, The Serious Fraud Office and The Treasury Solicitors now the Government Legal Services Department.
Does the HM Attorney General has given any directions to revoke the Town and Country Planning {use classes] Order 1987 No 764 (As amended).

3. You do have the High Court and County Court Jurisdiction Order 1991 which has been amended in the Year 2014.
There is the Crime and Courts Act 2013 Schedule 9 and Schedule 10.
Can you give consent that Permission of the High Court Judge is not required to take and defend proceedings in the County Court where the amount doesn't exceed the County Court Limits.
Since the High Court Judge Mr Justice Mitting in the CO/2689/2004 had made an Order that Permission of the High Court is not required.

4. You do have Section 38 of the Public Order Act 1986 as you under the meaning of PUBLIC ALARM, DISTRESS AND ANXIETY
Since it is your Office who is causing Anxiety to members of the Public who are on Low Income.

4. The Law Commission has published a consultation Paper for the Offence of Official Misconduct in Public Office where you do have a copy.

Yours faithfully,

Ismail Abdulhai Bhamjee

Ismail Abdulhai Bhamjee

Dear Attorney General’s Office,

I, Ismail Abdulhai Bhamjee request your attention and consideration that:-

1. There is a Judgment given in the Technology and Construction Court) Decisions
Anglo Group PLC Winther Brown & Amp: Co Ltd Versus Winter Brown & CO Ltd, BML (Office Computers) Ltd [2000] EWHC Technology 127 (8th March, 2000)
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/TCC/...

Paragraph 109 of the Judgment
8. An Expert should be ready to reconsider his opinion, and if appropriate, to change his mind when he has received new information or has considered the opinion of the other expert. He should do so at the earliest opportunity.

2. You do have a copy of the White Book Service Volume 1 of 2003 on Page 828.
Since one of the Law Officers in the HM Solicitor General's Office may have signed the Authorisation for a Section 42 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 against Ismail Abdulhai Bhamjee,
The Data Protection Act 1998 does apply, Since Lord Justice Brook wanted to control on the Fee's Remission,

3. The Bar Mutual Indemnity Fund Ltd which is an Insurance Company for the Barristers in the United Kingdom,
As Notice of Funding for the Barristers isn't lodged with the Chancery Division,
Than it does amount to Interference with the Administration of Justice,

4. The Former Attorney General in the Year 1988, His Secretary had written a Letter to the Principal Registry of the Family Division, If you could release a copy of the Letter, As I believe that the High Court of Justice Family Division had no Jurisdiction Power to give a Judgment on the Petition Number 5634 of 1988.

Yours faithfully,

Ismail Abdulhai Bhamjee

Correspondence, Attorney General's Office

1 Atodiad

Dear Mr Bhamjee

Please find attached the Attorney General's Office reply to your recent FOI.

Kind regards

Craig Hollands
FOI Officer

Attorney General’s Office
[email address]  020 7271 2492
20 Victoria Street, London SW1H 0NF

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

Ismail Abdulhai Bhamjee

Dear Attorney General’s Office,

We, Ismail Abdulhai Bhamjee and Mrs Saherabanu Ismail Bhamjee of 196 Tiptree Crescent, Ilford, Essex IG5 0ST, do hereby make a complaint and request for an Internal Review of the decision made the FOI Officer.

1. There is the Data Protection Act 1998, where we have the Legal Right to request for Information for all the correspondence letters which had been sent to the Attorney General's Office between 1988 and the present time. Since the Petitions Number 9974 of 1987 and 5634 of 1988 had been served on the HM Attorney General's Chamber, when the HM Attorney General's Office was at the Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, London WC2A 2LL. There is a Transcript of the Judgment before His Hon Judge Monnier Williams where the High Court Judge had given permission that I could obtain copies of the Court Documents and send them to the Attorney General's Office.

2. The HM Attorney General does have the Power to issue Contempt of Court Proceedings, as Contempt of Court can be committed before the Planning Inspectorate Appeals Office, Any Tribunal and Before any Court of Law Civil or Criminal Court.

3. There had been many reports made to the Metropolitan Police, but they don't record the Crime, carry out the Investigations and report to the DPP for the Crown Prosecution Services.

4. We are not seeking any Legal Advice from any Law Officer from the HM Attorney General Chambers, Since the Law Officers can't force us that we shouldn't exercise our Freedom of Religion and Conscience.

5. You are aware which was the Highest Court in the United Kingdom on the 27th January 2003, 14th May 2003, 25th July 2003, 31st July 2003, 13th August 2003 and on the 8th December 2003,
Was it the Judgment given in the Court of Appeal on the 27th May 1999,
or the House of Lords Judgment given on the 20th July 2000 where it was ordered that Advocates Have No Immunity Whether Civil or Criminal Proceedings.

6. You do have a copy of the Parliament Act- The Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982, whilst we are not liable and responsible for publishing on the White Book Service, since some of the Sections are not published, and we can't afford to pay higher amount of Subscription on the West Law and Encyclopedia of Planning Law and Practice.
There are many Volumes on Encyclopedia of Planning Law and Practice-

We are requesting that you provide copies made under the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) 1987 No 764 (As amended)

There are time Limits to make a challenge against the Statutory Instrument 1987 No 764
and Statutory Instrument 1995 No 297 Class B1, B2 and B8 Storage.
What is the time Limit, Six Weeks, Three Months or Six Years?
When a Law Officer who had signed on behalf of the HM Solicitor General Harriet Harman at the time on the 19th June 2003,
The Period of Six Years had expired.

7. The Solicitors for the Former Wife, Howard Pallis & CO (A Firm) They did write Letters to the HM Attorney General in the Year 1988, that the HM Attorney General should authorise an application for a Vexatious Litigants Order against Ismail Abdulhai Bhamjee after the Judgment given before Mr Justice Hollis in the Family Division High Court of Justice Case Number 9974 of 1987 and 5634 of 1988, This was made under the Repeal Act, The Supreme Court of Jurisdiction and Consolidation Act 1925, without an Affidavit signed by the Former Wife.
How Many Years did the HM Attorney General require from the 26th August 1988?

8. The Constitutional Reform Act 2005, This has made some changes to the Legislation, Where it is for the HM Attorney General to advice the Prime Minister as some of the Court Officers and Judges have been ignoring the Parliament Act.

I am aware of the Family Law Act 1986 Part 3 Declaration of Marital Status since there had been some delay in bringing this Act into force from the 7th November 1986, as this Act came into force on the 4th April 1988 by Statutory Instrument 1988 No 226 Rules 109 and 111 (4) to (7).

9. There is a Legal Right for any Person to take Proceedings under the Crown Proceedings Act 1947 against the HM Attorney General,
The Law Officers, The HM Attorney General who are also members of the Bar Council, There is a Professional Rules of Code of Conduct on Barristers, where the Barristers should not mislead the Court, and they have to inform the Court of New Legislation, This rule have been breached.
The Claim Number CO/2101/2003 and HQ 01 X 5001 In the High Court of Justice
Even if the HM Attorney General hadn't been named personally, He is included in that Claim Form.
By Taking Legal Proceedings against the Bar Council, than this doesn't mean a Person is a Vexatious Litigant, It is a Report about Breach of the Professional Rules of Code of Conduct on Barrister.

10. The Former Home Secretary of State had stated that persons from abroad should learn to Speak English-
The Persons who are having Law Degrees, they don't understand the meaning of the Word "Except Traffic Contravention Debt as mentioned in Section 82 and 83 of the Traffic Management Act 2004, This does amount to Blackmail, Harassment and Intimidation.

11. The Former Lord Chief Justice Lord Judge had stated before that there are just to many Parliaments Acts which does cause some problems,

We thank you in advance and wait to hear from you, whilst you should take into consideration of the Data Protection Act 1998, The Senior Courts Act 1981, The Crown Proceedings Act 1947, and the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982.

Yours faithfully,

Ismail Abdulhai Bhamjee

Correspondence, Attorney General's Office

4 Atodiad

Dear Mr Bhamjee,

 

Please find attached a response for your attention.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Sayma Khatun

Sayma Khatun

20 Victoria Street,

London

SW1H 0NF

 

 

 

 

 

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

Ismail Abdulhai Bhamjee

Dear Correspondence,

I refer to the 13th May 2016 whilst Civil Servants are not Immune from Contempt of Court Proceedings, whilst your Office have been concealing and Suppressing Evidence by Non-Disclosure whilst my request have not been Vexatious, Since the HM Attorney General's Office does have a Letter which was sent to the Family Division High Court of Justice in the December 1988 as with regards to the Two Petitions Number 9974 of 1987 and 5634 of 1988.

There are many Statutory Instruments and Parliaments Acts which had come into force after I had made the Request, whilst other request had been made after the Judgments had been given in the Court of Justice of the European Communities in Luxembourg which normally takes sometimes more than 2 or 3 Years when a decision has been made.

You do have the Encyclopedia of Planning Law and Practice 3B 972 which is on Page 37022/2, This does mention the House of Lords decision in Newbury District Council Versus The Secretary of State for the Environment [1981] AC 578.

A further feature of the new class is that uses within it may be conducted entirely on Open Land (which a "Warehouse" use formerly could not: Hooper V Slater [1978] J. P. L. 252),

There is Planning permission under the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (S.I. 1995 no 418) Schedule 2, Part 3 for change to this use from any use within Class B1 (business) or B2 (General Industrial).

The Equality Act 2010, This is a Parliament Act- where it does bind the HM Attorney General and HM Solicitor General, There has been direct discrimination against me for a considerable number of years.

There is a Judgment given in the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom on Vicarious Liability against the Ministry of Justice, as this Judgment shall be binding on the HM Attorney General.

In the month of July 2001, I had reported to the HM Attorney General's Office as with regards to Fraud Authentication of Signature which had been lodged on an Enforcement Appeal to the Planning Inspectorate Appeals Office, but no Contempt of Court Proceedings had been taken by the HM Attorney General's Office,

You are aware that Samantha Broadfoot QC, She did mislead the High Court of Justice and the Court of Appeal in the case of Ewing V DPP,
When a High Court Judge does give a Judgment that Permission of the High Court is not required to take any Criminal Proceedings, than the Correct procedure is to Appeal the Judgment in the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, as the DPP does fall under the HM Attorney General's Supritendence and not on the Prime Minister .

I'll be making an Application Claim for Judicial Review, in the High Court of Justice and request that letter of request should be sent to all head of State of the Commonwealth Countries under the CPR 34-13.

Yours sincerely,

Ismail Abdulhai Bhamjee

Correspondence, Attorney General's Office

1 Atodiad

Dear Mr Bhamjee

Please find attached the Attorney General's Office response to your Internal Review request dated 22nd April 2016.

Kind regards

Craig Hollands
FOI Officer

Attorney General’s Office
[email address]  020 7271 2492
20 Victoria Street, London SW1H 0NF

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir