Court Admin procedures Misprision of Treason and/or Statutory Report Terrorism Law

Richard Card made this Freedom of Information request to Ministry of Justice

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

Waiting for an internal review by Ministry of Justice of their handling of this request.

Dear Ministry of Justice,

We recently established that your Parole Process has no policy or guideline for compliance with the statutory reporting duties of Terrorism Law. For your information it was also recently established that the Kent Police Crime Commissioner does not have a compliance policy; nor her supervising Police and Crime Panel; nor Thanet District Council though they are due to seek legal advice this week.

This FOI asks you what policy or guideline you have for courts admin ? Such as Royal Courts of Justice that has no concept that a Judicial Review file re statutory and or common law reportable facts is entrusted in the name of the Queen to the custody of the court.

The law requires us to report knowledge to a Constable (Terrorism Act statutory) or to a constable or a justice (Misprision of Treason). It does not empower a civil servant in court admin to dispose of case files without ensuring the file actually appears before a Judge.

In the case I queried today with RCJ it was me versus Chief constable of Kent 2009. In fact the Judicial Review file went missing from admin offices of RCJ in 2009 and I reported to Lord Phillips of Maltravers Monarch in Parliament as the senior justice in treason law to fulfill what duties the law places on me. The case at RCJ simply went missing and never accessed a judge. FOI also establishes that a related file at Home Office now cannot be found though there is a review yet to report.

But it is increasingly clear (post Levenson and post Ellison QC review) that the RCJ civil servants disposed in 2009, without record now on its data system, of a file of a couple of hundredpages of information which, in the wrong hands, would be useful to an enemy of the Realm.

We are supposed to be in a war on terror. But who second guesses the police if they feel like nil actioning a report ? Who second guesses a Chief constable if he refuses to act upon crime complaints of paramilitary activity or sabotage ? The PCC ? The MOJ court system ? The local council with relevant planning enforcement jurisdiction ?

What my FOIs appear to be establishing is that the trawl for information intended by Terrorism Law is widely ignored in the Civil and Public Service.

Please disclose whether you have a policy or staff guideline to actually make them aware of their duties to the Realm concerning Misprision of Treason and statutory reporting duties.

In short when a file contains facts like Al Quedda suspects training with uzis at a gun range and a list of the witnesses, Chief constable refused to interview and take evidence from, then that is a file in the custody of the court. It has to be presented to a Judge.

Thank you.

The absurdity of your parole system is astonishing. A prisoner appears before a board charged to assess his future danger if released. That prisoner is as subject of law like Sections 38B and 54 Terrorism Act as the rest of us (though MOJ and public sector are ignorant of it) and there is no policy to assess if a prisoner is holding out on knowledge he is concealing about weapons and terrorist training. It is absolutely absurd.

This FOI is seeking to establish if the absurdity extends to every court in the land including the RCJ

Yours faithfully,

Richard Card

Dear Ministry of Justice,

Your response to FOI is now overdue. I have, in fact, recently had a letter from Royal Courts of Justice telling me they have found my Judicial Review application files and apologising that I was told in 2009 they were missing.

What I have done is email them a copy of a Common Law Information to hold on record in the Court's Crown jurisdiction to enable them to post the original files back to me.

There are glaring follies in the Justice system it seems to me:

(1) The law mandates reporting knowledge subject of Misprision of Treason and Terrorism Acts. If we obey that law and report to Constable or Judiciary the police refuse to answer how they acted upon the reports and the Court clerks are highly likely to pass the information to a postman and not to a judge. Because they take it upon themselves to dislike pagination or the method of dotting "i".

A mandatory report, to make any sense of the law, must be held in Crown jurisdiction and must be able to be made by whomsoever and in whatsoever way. Hence once the report reaches Crown jurisdiction of a Court it must stay there and be read by a Judge or Justice.

(2) It is utterly astonishing that in our "Generational struggle against terrorism" the Parole Board has no guidance and does not weigh failure to report knowledge, subject of Misprision and Terrorism Law, when judging a prisoner fit for release.

I look forward to your response.

Yours faithfully,

Richard Card

Dear Ministry of Justice,

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

I am writing to request an internal review of Ministry of Justice's handling of my FOI request 'Court Admin procedures Misprision of Treason and/or Statutory Report Terrorism Law'.

Your response is now long overdue. What actually happened is that in 2009 a Misprision of Treason Information and an application for Judicial Review was sent to Royal Courts of Justice seeking a Court compulsion of inquiry against and a judicial review of Michael Fuller Chief constable of Kent.

A clerk opined that the information and application were not paginated according to rules. He/she posted the files back to me and I refused their delivery because the files were in the Crown custodianship of the Court. I offered RCJ to come to the court with my biro and amend the page numbering there. Then the RCJ reported to me that they had received the file back from Post Office but it had been called for and disappeared. Recently, five years later, it re-appeared.

We are told that we are in a war on terror. We have a law that makes it mandatory that we report knowledge subject of Misprision of Treason or Terrorism Act 2000. So we the public obey the law. And we report to Police and to Court system.

Then the cockups start. We have a Police and Crime Commissioner who has no policy or guidance for obeying Misprision of Treason or Terrorism Act 2000. And she is supposed to be an age of terror vehicle for answerability of police ! She has never used her power Section 54 Police Act 1996 to call in HMIC who has coercive powers of inquiry. Such as "Why have you nil actioned reports relating to firearms and terrorism ?"

We have a parole system that has no policy or guidance either. Hence prisoners with knowledge, maintaining silence, subject of those laws are not troubled by questions from the Parole Board.

We have Court admin who think their interpretation of rules about judicial file layout have primacy over judicial access for mandatory reports at law.

And apparently we have a Ministry of Justice who think "Don't answer" ?

Please give early attention to this FOI

Yours sincerely

Richard Card

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address:

Yours faithfully,

Richard Card