RE:- Ismail Kamoka and Others Versus The Security Service (3) The Attorney General (5) The Home Office Costs Paid To the Barristers

Waiting for an internal review by Government Legal Service of their handling of this request.

Ismail Abdulhai Bhamjee

Dear Government Legal Service,

I, Ismail Abdulhai Bhamjee do hereby request under any Statutory Act and Statutory Instrument that you should provide the following information:-

1) There was a Case No T3/2016/2583 & 2584 where Judgment had been given on the 25th October 2017 where the hearing date was 18-21 July 2017.
Ismail Kamoka and Others

(3) The Attorney General Defendant

(4) The Foreign & Commonwealth Office

(5) The Home Office

The Names of the Barristers Rory Phillips QC, Kate Grange QC and Richard O'Brian (Instructed by the Government Legal Department) for the Respondents.

Can you disclose the Amount paid to the Barristers in these case.
The Name of the Officers dealing with the Case for the HM Attorney General, The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Home Office.
This is for the Purpose and reasons for saving Costs and Volume of work for the Courts.

2) You do have the Draft Statutory Instruments which have been presented to the House of Commons-
There is Section 189 (1) (c) of the Housing Act 1996.

What is the Old Age?
Since the Ages have not been mentioned.

3) You do have the decision made in Finbow Versus Air Ministry Queens Bench Division on the 9th April 1963.

The Secretary of State for the Housing and Communities and Local Government (Previously The First Secretary of State)

In the Year 2005 the Judgment was given in the Court of Appeal.
The Secretary of State had been ordered to pay the Costs of £29,000-00.

4) My request under Paragraph 2 is urgent and the response is required as soon as possible as I do have Children where Primary Welfare of the Children in any Legal Proceedings.

Yours faithfully,

Ismail Abdulhai Bhamjee

Our Ref: RM/112/18

Dear Mr Bhamjee

I acknowledge receipt of your email dated 09 December 2018. I will respond to your correspondence shortly.

Yours sincerely

Paul Woods
Data Protection Co-ordinator & Freedom of Information Officer

show quoted sections

1 Attachment

Dear Mr Bhamjee

 

Please find attached the response to your Freedom of Information Act
request.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Paul Woods

DPO, DRO FOI/DPA co-ordinator, Head of Library Services

Operations, Government Legal Department

 

One Kemble Street, London WC2B 4TS

Telephone: +44 (0)20 7210 3045

[1][email address]

 

 

show quoted sections

Ismail Abdulhai Bhamjee

Dear Government Legal Service,

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

1. I am writing to request an internal review of Government Legal Service's handling of my FOI request 'RE:- Ismail Kamoka and Others Versus The Security Service (3) The Attorney General (5) The Home Office Costs Paid To the Barristers'.

2. I believe that Section 63 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, does apply to Section 32 of the FIA 2000, as Court Orders are no Longer Exempt Information, as Parties have a duty to Assist the Court, and Mr Paul Woods is in Breach of the CPR Rules.

3. You do have The Consumer Protection from unfair Trading Regulations 2008 Part 5 Supplementary Crown Regulation 28.
(3) Paragraph (2) does not affect the application of any provision of this regulations in relation to a Person in the Public Service of the Crown.

4. You do have the Law Report of Attorney General Versus Jones (1990) 1 WLR 859-865
On Page 863 at C and D

It does not, however to proceedings originated in the Court of Appeal, for example, a renewed application for leave to apply for Judicial Review, or an Appeal from decisions of bodies which are not courts.

The Order made in the Court of Appeal has been stated in the Transcript of the Judgment.

5. The Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 had been enacted in November 1990 and Section 27 (7) of CLSA 1990 applied from the 1st January 1991 after the decision was made in the Court of Appeal.

6. There is an Order made in the High Court of Justice
Queens Bench Division Reference Number IHQ07/0204
Before the Honourable Mr Justice Silber

(2) Mrs Sahera Ismail Bhamjee
versus

(3) The Treasury Solicitor and Agents

it is Ordered that:-

(1) the above Order be varied so that the Application for Permission under Section 42 (3), 51, 69 and 151 of The SCA 1981 is only refused against the 1st Applicant and not the 2nd Applicant.

A) You had seven Days to make an Application to the Court to apply to have this Order set aside, or varied and amended.

8) The Criminal Justice Act 2015 had made some changes for Leap Frog Appeals from the High Court and Upper Tribunals Administrative Chambers.

9) The Family Law Act 1986, Section 59 (1) (2) and Section 60

The Act states that the Petition must be served on the Attorney General, which I had served on the Attorney General Chambers in the year 1988 as I was ordered by the Registrar from the Principal Registry of the Family Division.
and on the 12th July 1988, the Deputy High Court Judge had made an Order in the Presence of the officer from the Welfare Report
(by Paragraph (ii) of the Order I was given leave of the Court to file a Petition for Foreign Decree (Talaq).

Talaq Meaning is Termination of Marriage by Other Proceedings which is not before a Court of Law.

10) Your Office does represent the Lord Chancellor Ministry of Justice at the Same time-

There would be conflict of Interests also:
When Someone has Misled the Administrative Court or Chancery Division or the County Court, than there is a Legal Right to take Action against the Lord Chancellor. Ministry of Justice.

11) Section 31O of the MFPA 1984 when a Judge acts in Bad Faith, than an Action can be taken against the Judge.
The Court Officers have not been given Power to make a decision under Part 3 or Part 1 of the Family Law Act 1986, as it is for a High Court Judge to refer to the Attorney General after the answers have been filed as there is a savings for decisions made before 2002.

12) Someone from the Government Legal Services Department did mislead the Administrative Court/Divisional Court by not taking into consideration of the County Courts Act 1984 Section 23, 38 and 76
and High Court and County Court Jurisdiction Order 1991.
You have taken an Advantage and Placed Other Citizens Human Being Persons at a Disadvantage when someone does exercise his or Her Freedom of Religion and Conscience He or She doesn't be a vexatious Request or Vexatious Litigant.

The Order is Illegal Order

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

Yours faithfully,

Ismail Abdulhai Bhamjee

Looking for an EU Authority?

You can request documents directly from EU Institutions at our sister site AskTheEU.org . Find out more .

AskTheEU.org