RE: Section 1 of the Legislative Reform Act 2006, Case of Magyar Helsinki Bizottsag V Hungary Strasbourg 8th November 2016 and CPR 52-30 and Individual Appeal.

Ismail Abdulhai Bhamjee made this Freedom of Information request to Attorney General's Office

This request has been closed to new correspondence. Contact us if you think it should be reopened.

Response to this request is long overdue. By law, under all circumstances, Attorney General's Office should have responded by now (details). You can complain by requesting an internal review.

Ismail Abdulhai Bhamjee

Dear Attorney General’s Office,

We, Ismail Abdulhai Bhamjee and Mrs Sahera Ismail Bhamjee of 196 Tiptree Crescent, Ilford, Essex IG5 OST, do hereby make a request that:-

1. Do you have a copy of Section 1 of the Legislative Reform Act 2006, Can you provide the details when the Attorney General or Solicitor General has made decisions to reduce burden on persons who are or have been wrongly declared as Vexatious Litigants under Section 42 of the SCA 1981.

2. There is a Judgment given in Strasbourg Court, Grand Chamber on the 8th November 2016
Magyar Helenski Bizottsag Versus Hungary, where the United Kingdom Government had made some representations through a Barrister Counsel.
Can you disclose the amount that had been paid to the Barrister for making representations before the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.

You should either Transfer this request to the Responsible Person Officer if you don't have the requested information.

3. Official Misconduct in Public Office at Common Law- The Numbers and List of Applications the Attorney General has appealed in the Court of Appeal. Since Section 1 of the Zambia Independence Act 1964 does apply, as British Citizens have no Legal Right to vote in any type of Elections in the Republic of Zambia from the 24th October 1964.

Can you provide the Costs that had been paid to the other Barrister who had appeared before the Divisional Court.

4. Does the United Kingdom withdraws from the United Nations Treaties after the brexit Votes, Since the Court of Justice of the European Communities are either relying on the Treaties signed at the United Nations.

Yours faithfully,

Ismail Abdulhai Bhamjee

Saherabanu Ismail Bhamjee

Correspondence, Attorney General's Office

1 Attachment

Dear Mr Bhamjee

Please find attached the response from the Attorney General's Office to your recent FOI request.

Kind regards

Craig Hollands
FOI Officer

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

show quoted sections

Ismail Abdulhai Bhamjee

Dear Correspondence,

We, Ismail Abdulhai Bhamjee and Mrs Saherabanu Ismail Bhamjee refer to your response made on the 19th December 2016 and say as follows that:

1. We believe that you are aware that on the 19th June 2003, The Former Solicitor General Harriet Harman QC MP or another Law Officer at the time had authorized an Application for a Section 42 of the SCA 1981 against Ismail Abdulhai Bhamjee for a Civil Proceedings Restraint Order whilst not disclosing the Letter from the Court of Appeal, where we believe that the Former Lord Justice Brooke didn't give directions that the HM Attorney General should authorize an Application for a Section 42 of the SCA 1981 Order, but wanted to control on Fee Remissions.

2. The HM Attorney General Chambers does have my Letters of Complaint between 1988, Since we believe that the Senior Courts Act 1981, The County Courts Act 1984, doesn't apply to any Country outside England and Wales- There is the Evidence (Proceedings in Other Jurisdiction) Act 1975 which has not been taken into consideration which does cause Miscarriage of Justice and Injustice.

3. The Registrar in the Family Division at Somerset House at the time had given the Directions that I must first Serve the Petition on the HM Attorney General, and after a period of 30 days, I should than Lodge with the Court, there was no Order drawn and sealed at the time, but your Office should have had the knowledge of Section 59 (1) (2), 60 and repeals schedule under the Family Law Act 1986.
and Statutory Instrument 1988 No 226 Rule 109 and 111 (4) to (10).

4. We believe that the Former Attorney General now the Late Baroness Mathew through his clerk had written a Letter to the Clerk of the Family Division in December 1988. We believe that the High Court Judge didn't read the contents of the Letter.

5. You do have the House of Lords decision of Arnold Versus National Westminster Bank PLC, which does mention also of Change of Law
Since the Recognition of Foreign Divorces and Legal Separations Act 1971, the Whole Act was repealed under the Schedule of the Family Law Act 1986.

6. The Law Officers in the HM Attorney General Chambers does have reasonable access to the House of Lords decision in the Year 1939/1940
Where it been stated that the Solicitor is liable to pay the Costs when He/She does knowingly files a False Affidavit Witness Statement before the Court.
My Applications were not Vexatious Applications as the Time Limit under the Foreign Limitations Periods Act 1984 Section 1 (1) (a) and 6 (2) (b) had expired from the 15th January 1986.
Any Orders made in the High Court of Justice Family Division in Claim Number 5634/1988 and 9974/1987 had been obtained by Fraud, and Perjury, whilst it is for the HM Attorney General to issue Contempt of Court Proceedings against a Person- A Person does include a Barrister or Solicitor and Litigant in Person.

7. There is the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 which had been amended by the Planning and Compensation Act 1991, Whilst there is a Development Order which have been signed by the Minister of the Crown and Statutory Instrument 1995 No 297 Class B1, B2.
The Land at 86-88 Upton Lane, Forest Gate, London E7 9LW

8. When making a complaint to the Bar Council- Professional Conduct Committee, It is not an Application made to them to have any Court Order varied or amended by them, but it is for them to take the Barrister to the Inns Court for Breaches of the Professional Rules of Code of Conduct on Barristers.

9. The Law Officers in the HM Attorney General Chambers does have reasonable Access to the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 Section 27 (7) Where, Immediately before the commencement of this section, No Restriction was placed on the persons entitled to exercise any right of audience in relation to any particular court or in relation to particular proceedings, nothing in this section shall be taken to place any such restrictions on any person.
This was in force between the 1st January 1991 until the 31st December 2009

10: The Law Officers or the HM Attorney General didn't require more than Six Years to authorize an Application for a Section 42 of the SCA 1981 Order from the Order dated the 26th August 1988 before Mr Justice Hollis in the High Court of Justice Family Division, when there was no Affidavit Signed by the Former Wife, whilst an Application had been made for an Order under Section 51 (1) (a) of the Supreme Court of Jurisdiction and Consolidation Act 1925, when the whole Act was repealed under Schedule 7 of the SCA 1981.

11. The Counsel-Barrister Paul Gott who is now a QC He had appeared in the Court of Appeal on the 9th July 2003 in the case of Bhamjee Versus David Forsdick and Others and Ismail Abdulhai Bhamjee versus The First Secretary of State
The Costs that had been paid to the Barrister Paul Gott of Fountain Court Chambers is not known.

12. The Costs that had been paid to Samantha Broadfoot for preparing the Claim Form for a section 42 of the SCA 1981 interim Order and Final Order is not known which should be disclosed.

13. Mr Adam Tolley of Fountain Court Chambers who had appeared in the Divisional Court on the 31st July 2003 in the CO/2003 Proceedings before then Lord Justice Maurice Kay QC and then Mr Justice Crane-
The Costs Order is not known- whilst the Lord Justice Maurice Kay QC had given some directions which is not shown on the Order as some of the words have been left out,
The Lord Justice Maurice Kay QC had given directions that the HM Attorney General should carry out the Investigations on Perverting the Cause of Justice and report to the Court.
The Lord Justice Maurice Kay QC had given directions that I am not restricted from taking any Criminal Proceedings.

14. On the 8th December 2003 before than Lord Justice Rose and then Mr Justice Jackson, there was an Order made against me, whilst the Barrister Adam Tolley had also mentioned that I had laid information before the Magistrates Court for summons to be issued against Lord Justice Dyson and then Mr Justice Sullivan, when I had not made any such Application against them, as I had the Legal Right to make a complaint to the Lord Chancellor SS Ministry of Justice.

15. The Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, This Act was not in force at the time the application had been made for a Section 42 of the SCA 1981, whilst there is a Legal Right for any Person to Appeal to the First Tier Tribunal and then to the Upper Tribunal,
There is also a Legal Right for Person to make an Application for Judicial Review in the Upper Tribunal and Seek relief under Section 15 (1) of the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007.

16. The Judgment which has been given in the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, It was simple for your Office to contact the Cabinet Office and obtain the details of the amount that had been paid to them.
All requests which we have made to the HM Attorney General Chambers in the Past does breach Article 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 14 of the Convention Treaties.

17. The High Court and County Court Jurisdiction Order 1991 which has been amended in the year 2014,
This has not been taken into consideration by the Law Officers and HM Attorney General, as this are in the Public Domain, which does amount to Contempt of the Sovereign, by the Counsel-Barristers instructed by the Treasury Solicitors on behalf of the HM Attorney General or HM Solicitor General.

18. The Barrister Samantha Broadfoot has also misled the Court of Appeal, when Permission of the High Court is not required for the purpose of Taking Criminal Proceedings, as the Application is being wrongly listed as Civil when it is Criminal Proceedings cause or Matter.
The Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 Section 19, 19A does apply to Costs Order in Criminal Proceedings.

19. There is the Litigants in Person Act 1975, whilst Litigants in Person who are pleading on True Facts, are being denied Justice, as the Counsels-Barristers are relying on Repealed Statutory Acts or Statutory Instruments issued by any Minister of the Crown.

Yours sincerely,

Ismail Abdulhai Bhamjee