Attorney General Duties to the Crown when there is conflict between Crown Offices

Richard Card made this Freedom of Information 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.

The authority would like to / has responded by postal mail to this request.

Dear Attorney General’s Office,

You know the case for reference and have accessed it, Matron McGill Decd.

The history is that the following Crown Officers wanted a new Inquest

(1) New Zealand Prime Minister

(2) New Zealand Govt Chief Legal Advisor

(3) Suffolk Police Pc HM Coroners Officer

The jurisdiction of the Judicial Cttee Privy Council was bypassed and a Home Office Civil servant aided and abetted by Suffolk Chief constable sent a report to New Zealand authority which misled and even attributed lies to HM Coroner (See McGill Decd sworn exhibit report)

This then creates, does it not, a Crown Duty upon Attorney General to resolve conflict between Crown Offices ?

The Attorney General duty is constitutional. The constitution that swore in to the Crown the New Zealand Prime Minister and the Suffolk Police constable. The constitution that dictates by oath to Monarch that constables discharge duty faithfully only unto law. Judge in Open Court not Attorney General extending secret public interest to undermine the Queen as sole fount of justice.

I have pointed out to you before that successive Attorneys General have misdirected themselves in law. Application to quash the McGill Decd suicide verdict is NOT contained to Section 13 Coroners Act 1988 alone. There is Section 15 of the same act. There is Article 8 of the ECHR. There is the duty to resolve conflict between Crown Officers.

My FOI is please disclose the attorney general interpretation of secret public interest custodianship. What limits does he recognise ? The above history suggests that successive AGs have interpreted secret custodianship as a licence to commit treason (Undermining the Queen as sole fount of justice in mercy)

Yours faithfully,

Richard Card

Dear Attorney General’s Office,

Your response is delayed. Please see link to Suffolk Police response to FOI.

Yours faithfully,

Richard Card

Correspondence, Attorney General's Office

Dear Mr Card

The FOI to which you refer has been treated as a clarification to your other FOI dated 17th October. On the 2nd of November the AGO informed you to send no further clarifications after 4th November and that the AGO would respond to it and your many other clarifications provided to the AGO, in our reply being prepared for issue to you 2nd December to your, also clarified, FOI request dated 26th October.

Kind regards

Craig Hollands
FOI Officer

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

show quoted sections

Dear Correspondence,

Thank you. As you can see Suffolk Police have tended to corroborate my argument that they were keeping Nicholas Lyell Attorney General uninformed.

As you know I await HM Coroner Southwark response re reviewing the Guys child patient death inquest 1995. The failure of hospital power system case. You probably know that Met Police area commander was ex Kent ACC who was ACC Ops in Kent the year Deal Royal Marines Barracks was blown up by terrorists in spite of a comprehensive warnings case having been given to Kent Police. In that warnings case was sabotage consistent with IRA Garland Plan in which Guys Hospital power control system featured.

You will also be aware that 1995 was the year a Det sgt on Lawrence case, under command of the same ex Kent ACC, was disciplined for moonlight bodyguard work on police time. And for falsifying Met police duty records. Adverse facts neither disclosed to defence at Lawrence private prosecution 1996 nor CPS prosecution 2012. Was the source of moonlight work to the Det sgt a bodyguard organisation originally based at Deal Royal Marines Barracks ? If so the same ex Kent ACC was in charge of a Met area and Lawrence case when TWO lines of inquiry re Deal Barracks security warnings were both side tracked.

When we look at the manufacturer of the Guys power system and the evidence Kent Police nil actioned in the warnings case re Deal Barracks ... we not only look at the question of unlawful police no go area associated with Sue Ryder charity trustee Airey Neave we also spill into the pubic interest immunity issue re Matrix Churchill. Scott Inquiry 1992 to 1996. And back we come to asking you to check if Plessey Torpedoes and or Petbow Generators were mentioned in letters you should have on record from Sir John Stradling Thomas MP 90/91. As I told you if you do not have on record these things then Sir John's suspicions his mail to Home Secretary and to AG was subject of intercept.

I think it is clear now that Suffolk Chief constable had cut AG out of the loop re Henniker 1992. That it is probable mail from a Gwent MP was intercepted. That AG was cut out of loop by Kent Police re Deal Barracks security and re arrests for loyalist paramilitary collusion 1987. No application to AG under Explosives Substances Act 1883. Similarly the two explosives possession cases Nuneation 1970s. One led to Operation Countryman in Met and the other is the Parker twin mercenary child rapists case.

Thank you again for your efforts. As you know I think this will end up as a Section 13 with Section 15 application to Attorney General. But I wonder if it is worth the trouble. When Police and govt agencies sideline the Attorney General why should the public show the Attorney General any respect ?

Yours sincerely,

Richard Card