James Colton FIGHTING BACK against judicial corruption

Never in the field of British justice have so many been let down by so few!

HOME - My Kafka Trial  - Criminal Case Review Commission - Book Documents - Police Stitch-up - PACE ACT 1984 - The English Quislings

Email: jamescolton1943@gmail.com

My Application To The CCRC

My full 31 page application to the Criminal Case Review Commission.

Click to open in PDF format

CCRC application

Click BACK  top left corner after viewing documents or you will leave the website.

Or place the pointer over the item you want to view. Right click and select ‘Open Link in New Private Window’ from menu

Evidence Bundle in Sections PDF Format

Pages 1 - 16

Pages 17 - 18

Page 19

Pages 20 - 33

Pages 34 - 41

Pages - 52 - 74

Pages 75 - 83

Pages 84 - 91

Pages 92 - 97

Pages 98 - 103

Pages 104 - 135

Pages 136 - 137

Pages 138 - 148

Pages 149 - 155

Pages 156 - 158

Pages 159 - 161

Pages 162 - 167

Pages 168 - 169

Pages 170 - 172

Pages 173 - 191

Pages 192 - 199

continuation CCRC_LI

The term 5th column Quislings has migrated in use over time and is now sometimes used more generally, to mean traitor or spy.

Today these fifth column Quislings have infiltrated many public bodies in England.

The CCRC turned down my failproof application!

CCRC decision july 18 6 pages small

“Our consideration of the issues

.2. You claim that the lawyer Mr Booty did not call key witnesses in your defence and that his interpretation of the divorce files is seriously flawed.

No ‘claim’ just FACT!

Pages 2- 6 can be viewed below

Click to view

Andrew Renninson

Andrew Renninson CCRC Commissioner decision on my application. Has no legal training.

CCRC letter blocked out

CCRC response to my complaint Click here

Hauschildt v Denmark (Series A, No 154; Application No 10486/83) EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS (1990) 12 EHRR 266, 24 MAY 1989

Impartiality of Tribunal

HEADNOTE:
The applicant filed a petition alleging that he did not receive a fair trial by an impartial tribunal under Article 6 of the Convention. He asserted some of the sitting judges who had convicted him had circulated numerous pre-trial decisions concerning his case. The Court held that a violation of Article (6) had occurred.

1. Impartial tribunal: subjective and objective tests. (Art 6(1))

Article 6(1) provides for two tests to determine whether a tribunal is impartial. The first is a subjective test which is based on the personal conviction of a particular judge in a given case. Second, is an objective test which ascertains whether the judge offered guarantees sufficient to rule out any legitimate doubt as to his impartiality?

In the subjective test, the impartiality of a judge has to be presumed until there proven otherwise.

The objective test, on the other hand, examines ascertainable facts which may raise doubts about a certain judge. Appearance of impartiality should lead a judge to recuse himself. Pre-trial opinion cannot in itself indicate impartiality.

As to the objective test, the Court stated in Fey v. Austria that under the objective test, it must be determined whether, quite apart from the judge’s personal conduct, there are ascertainable facts which may raise doubts as to his impartiality. In this respect even appearances may be of certain importance. What is at stake is the confidence which the courts in a democratic society must inspire in the public and, above all, as far as criminal proceedings are concerned, in the accused. This implies that in deciding whether in a given case there is a legitimate reason to fear that a particular judge lacks impartiality, the standpoint of the accused is important but not decisive. What is determinant is whether this fear can be held to be objectively justified.

My Response

copy main complaint CCRC
COPY CCRC answer Helen Pitcher 17 Oct 18