Attorney General Judge in His Own Cause Position

The request was refused by Attorney General's Office.

Dear Attorney General’s Office,

Could you disclose the position concerning public interest decisions taken by govt departments and CPS ? Is the Attorney General ultimately responsible for all public interest decisions ? When does the AG become Judge in his own cause and would he be bound by the constitution to refer such decisions to a Judge ?

As you know (Matron McGILL Decd, Sue Ryder and Leonard Cheshire Homes, Unlawful Police No Go Area, application of New Zealand Govt who also recognise Privy Council as their supreme constitutional court, Dept of Health research contrary to inmate rights in Leonard Cheshire Homes)there is a multiplicity of "Public interest" decisions in the history. Two of which (Police No Go Area and NZ Govt application) enter the realm of Treasonous response by UK Govt.

I am mindful too that Gerry Adams has just been arrested and that is a case of the same age as the Matron McGILL Decd case.

If you could make your response by way of explanation of a further refusal of Section 13 access to High Court to quash the McGILL Decd suicide verdict please. Thank you

Yours faithfully,

Richard Card

Dear Attorney General’s Office,

This FOI is now overdue for response. Your early attention would be appreciated

Yours faithfully,

Richard Card

Correspondence, Attorney General's Office

1 Attachment

Dear Mr Card,

Please see the attached.

Yours sincerely,

Guy Flitton
Freedom of Information Officer
Attorney General's Office

show quoted sections

Dear Correspondence,

Thank you for your reply.

The question of Attorney General being Judge in his own cause arises upon the history since 1972 of the Matron McGILL Decd case. The fact is Matron McGILL's New Zealand Govt asked to re-open inquest in Suffolk and they asked within 3 months of the inquest.

They were then misled by reports written jointly by Suffolk Chief constable and Home Office. This was part of a pattern of lies which had already included concealing the holding of an inquest and conning cremation consents to destroy the body before the New Zealand family and New Zealand Govt found out.

With new evidence the first application for a Section 13 Quash of Suicide verdict was from Roger Evans MP 1990s (A barrister). It is clear that in the history since then of AG public interest decisions the AG has never weighed that the NZ Govt supreme judicial authority was HM the Queens Judicial Cttee of Privy Council.

Clearly if the NZ Govt thought it was in their public interest to conceal the facts of the McGILL death then they wouldn't have requested a new inquest in 1972 would they ? And their authority for such justice was HM the Queen sole fount of justice in mercy.

In deciding to conceal treason (underming the monarch as font of justice) the AGs over many years have exceeded any authority they can have in the constitutional monarchy. This is another branch of the Constable Oath argument you have already treated as being within the power of an AG to spurn.

The Attorney General in breaking Treason Law and in the same breath exempting himself from answerability is a case of being judge in his own cause. Surely you have a constitutional guideline for such a situation ?

So could you disclose it please or if you don't have one then disclose that fact, write one in proper consultation with the Privy Council and then disclose it. Thank you. Shall we deal with this by way of internal review ?

Yours sincerely,

Richard Card

Dear Correspondence,

The oath and duties of Attorney General to HM the Queen impose a duty on him to ensure that govt does not break the law.

In McGILL Decd clearly Home Office did conspire to pervert justice in the cover up (The lies reported to New Zealand Govt) but there is evidence (Welsh Regional Crime Squad) that there was Home Office creation of an unlawful police no go area favouring Sue Ryder and leonard Cheshire and their charity founders.

Since the Chief constable of Suffolk participated with Home Office in lying and conspiring in McGILL Decd there is a CROWN oath aspect to. That of the Chief constable Oath to the Queen.

Hence Attorneys General since the first application under Section 13 in McGILL Decd have had a sworn duty to address Home Office breaking the law and s constitutional sworn duty not to allow a Chief constable to lie and conspire under the cover of a constable oath.

Once the double betrayal of sworn Attorney Genral duties was made then thereafter any AG protecting the secrecy decision did so in breach of his oath and in breach of the principle no man shall be judge in his own cause.

That is another way of looking at it.

Yours sincerely,

Richard Card

Correspondence, Attorney General's Office

1 Attachment

Dear Mr Card,

Please see the attached.

Yours sincerely,

Guy Flitton
Correspondence Unit
Attorney General's Office

show quoted sections

Dear Correspondence,

Thank you for your response.

The AG recently used High Court judgments to deny Section 13 access to High Court. These are judgments about the unavoidable delay in bring inquest appeal. And if sufficient time has elapsed it is no longer in the interests of justice to hold a new inquest.

In Mary McGILL Decd the delay is entirely due to Govt depts and Govt law officers.

Hence in denying access to High Court the AG has acted as Judge in his own cause.

It seems a perfectly simple point to me.

In essence he is saying that if govt can undermine justice for a sufficient length of time then it should be allowed to get away with it.

When a govt law officer places himself above the law, by acting as judge in his own cause, he commits treason.

So I am asking you to disclose what limits on public interest custodianship the AG recognises ?

He has already said that a Constable Oath to the Queen is not of any weight with him. IE That he places govt power above Crown Authority.

Now he says it is OK to be judge in his own cause.

Please deal with this by way of internal review. What is Mr Grieve's position with regard to maintaining the Queen as sole fount of justice in mercy ? A constitutional guarentor that no man shall be above the law (Including Leonard Cheshire) and no man shall be judge in his own cause.

Yours sincerely,

Richard Card

Correspondence, Attorney General's Office

2 Attachments

Dear Mr Card,

Please see the attached.

Yours sincerely,

Guy Flitton
Correspondence Unit
Attorney General's Office

show quoted sections

Dear Correspondence,

Thank you for your response.

For the record as this is a public site:

(1) Public interest clearly resides upon the foreseeable applications to make Leonard Cheshire and Sue Ryder saints of the catholic church.

UK Govt Law Officers are de facto editing and thus prejudicing a Vatican process which will affect millions of people worldwide

(2) At this time of abuse inquiries, concerning institutionalised care, the authority already exists for judicial examination back more than 40 years. This case also links to another suppressed care inquiry the child deaths at Ixworth Beeches, in Hackney Social Services care, 1966 to 1972.

(3) There is current public interest re the suitability of a Judge acting in such inquiry due to her relationship to a previous Attorney General. Among questions about the role of govt law officers in the context of abuse cover ups.

(4)The 40 year elapsed time was caused by Govt Law Officer decisions. The current decision is irrational as it amounts to "Govt law officers got it wrong for so many years we should now be allowed to get away with it". A clear case of acting as a judge in their own cause.

Nonetheless thank you for your response.

Yours sincerely,

Richard Card