MILLENNIUM LAW

AND

HUMAN RIGHTS CONFERENCE

CONWAY HALL

25 RED LION SQUARE

HOLBORN, LONDON, WC1R 4RL.

A

DEMAND FOR THE AUTHOR OF THE BOOK:

‘THE MOST CORRUPT BRITISH JUDGES’

TO BE PROSECUTED

FOR PERJURY AND CONTEMPT OF COURT

BY

Dr. A. ADOKO, M.A. & Ph.D (Comparative Law)
Barrister-at-Law, Advocate

Papal Knight of Saint Gregory the Great.

LOCUS STANDI

I am invited to address this Millennium Law and Human Rights Conference, in my capacity as the author of a book entitled, ‘The Most Corrupt British Judges’. My speech deals briefly with the charges against judges made in my book, the basis of those charges, actions that I took to bring about necessary investigations of the charges, reactions of government officials to the book, and reactions of human rights bodies. The book concludes with a demand that I be arrested, charged, and imprisoned for perjury and contempt of court i.e. scandalising justice as a means to force out the truth.

CONTENT

The book accuses 7 British judges, mentioned by name, of a number of criminal offences. First the offence of fraud. Second the offence of perverting the course of justice. And, finally, the offence of perjury.

BASIS OF THE CHARGES:

i. IGNORING ISSUES

In England and Wales, the main tactic used by judges to pervert the course of justice is ignoring the issue to be tried. Just as the object of the eye is to see, so is the object of the judge to determine the issues in the trial. When a person sees a table and pretends that it is not there, he betrays the fact. In the same way, when a judge sees the issue in a case, and pretends at trial that it has not been raised, he betrays justice. Invariably corrupt judges ignore an issue which, if they dealt with it, they would be obliged to give a truthful judgement. Hence, they ignore it in order to give a false judgement.

Let me give an example. Employment Tribunal rules provide that costs, not exceeding £150, may be ordered where a case is dismissed in a preliminary hearing, on the ground that it does not show any cause of action. I was ordered to pay costs of over £8,000 by the Employment Tribunal, in a preliminary hearing. I appealed to the Employment Appeals Tribunal on that issue. Mr. Justice Morrison heard the appeal. In order to dismiss my appeal, he deliberately ignored the issue of costs!

ii.SECRET BRIEFS

The second means that some judges use to pervert the course of justice, are the secret briefs. The content of such secret briefs is never disclosed to the parties in the case. Again, let me give an example. I discovered, for instance, that a leading counsel had bribed an Employment Tribunal Chairman. I raised the issue by way of an appeal in the Employment Appeals Tribunal. Then I discovered, from the judgement of Mr. Justice Mummery, who had heard my appeal, that he dismissed my appeal on the basis of a secret briefing that he had received, from the very judge whom I had accused of receiving a bribe!

Invariably, judges who act on secret briefs do not have the courage to deliver their judgement in public! They dare not face their victims in an open court. For instance, after failing to give judgements in my appeals for over 12 months, both Mr. Justice Morrison and Mr. Justice Potts dared not deliver their judgements in my presence! Indeed, Mr. Justice Potts fled from London, to deliver his judgement in Leeds! Mr. Justice Morrison did not deliver the judgement at all.

ACTIONS TAKEN:

4 FORMAL COMPLAINTS:

On the publication of ‘The Most Corrupt British Judges’, I made formal complaints for investigations of the crimes committed by the 7 judges. The formal complaints were made to: the Lord Chancellor, the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, City of London Magistrates Court, and to the public via the Internet.

i.THE LORD CHANCELLOR

The office of the Lord Chancellor gave replies, in writing. Those letters are available for inspection. First they stated that they had passed over the complaint to the Lord Chancellor. Then, after months, they then admitted, again in writing, that they had never informed the Lord Chancellor about the complaint. Then they stated in writing, that they had investigated the complaints against the judges and dismissed the complaints! Thereafter, they admitted, in writing, that they had never investigated the complaints at all. Then they promised to carry out necessary investigations. When I demanded that the investigations should comply with the rule of natural justice, or that they treat the complaint as withdrawn, they opted to treat the complaint as withdrawn.

ii.COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

On receipt of my complaints, the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police promptly appointed a senior police officer, Senior Superintendent Coles, to investigate the matter. Months past; yet no investigations were initiated! Thereafter, the Senior Superintendent of Police appointed a junior officer to investigate the matter. Again months passed. Not a word was received from the junior officer. I was thus obliged to withdraw the complaint in order to bring a test case, by way of private prosecution, of one of the judges.

iii.CITY OF LONDON MAGISTRATES COURT

In accordance with the provision of s. 6(1) of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985, I applied to the City of London Magistrates Court to bring a private prosecution against Mr. Justice Morrison. I charged Lord Morrison of having committed 11 offences of fraud, and 11 offences of perversion of the course of justice. Under that law, a Magistrate had to allow or reject the application. The magistrate neglected that duty. He unlawfully delegated his duty to a court clerk to refuse the application.

The clerk did not consider the merit of the application. He did not deny the truth of the fact pleaded and supported by affidavit. Nor did he deny the applicability of the points of law of fraud and perversion of the course of justice. His sole ground for refusing the application was that it would create a precedent where judges would no longer judge without fear. In short, that judges were to be above criminal law! The decision was a licence to judges to continue to commit the criminal offences of giving fraudulent judgement! The decision of the Clerk has now been referred to the High Court for an order of mandamus. At long last, the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court has now agreed to have the application for leave for judicial review (Ref: CC/3611/2000) heard in public on 18/12/00. But the time given for the hearing is inadequate for the purpose: 10 minutes. Hence, I have applied for a 2-hour hearing. The media and the public are welcome.

iv. THE PUBLIC VIA THE INTERNET

As was to be expected, the publication of the offences committed by the corrupt judges excited debates over the Internet. More about this later.

REACTIONS TO THE BOOK:

i.DEFAMATION.

You would expect that the judges, whose honourable reputation is everything, would bring an action for defamation against me. Why haven’t they?

ii.SCANDALIZING JUSTICE i.e.

CONTEMPT OF COURT

You would also expect that the Lord Chancellor, the Police and the Corrupt Judges would cause a criminal case to be brought against me for scandalising justice i.e. for contempt of court. I swore an affidavit and lodged it in court affirming that each and every accusation in the book ‘The Most Corrupt British Judges’ is true. I specifically asked that if any of the accusations are found to be untrue, then a case of perjury must be brought against me. After all, it has been brought against Jonathan Aitken, Lord Archer and Oscar Wilde. Why has no criminal case been brought against me? Is it an admission, by the authorities that they know that the accusations I made against the judges, are true?

iii.OFFICIAL COVER UP:

SECRET GAGGING ORDER!

DIRCON

The sole official response to my accusations is that I be silenced and I have essentially been gagged. Early this year, my internet server DIRCON, telephoned me and stated that a firm of solicitors acting for the judges whom I accused, had threatened it with a libel suit! DIRCON claimed that, in the circumstances, they had no alternative but to deny me access to newsgroups. I was even denied access to web-mail. Why I am being prevented from carrying out my duty as a professional to disclose the truth in the public interest, and my right to freedom of expression?

BOOKWARE

My bookseller, Bookware House, of Holborn, 120 Southampton Row, London WC1B 5AA told its customers that they were assured, by the lawyers for judges, that the court had imposed an injunction against the sale of my books. Bookware had no alternative but to stop selling my books

iv.FALSE THREATS:

MARSHALL RICE

Only one person, Barrister Marshall Rice, published over the Internet, that he would bring a libel suit against me, for publishing his crimes, and the crimes of the 7 judges, in my book. I was not surprised he did not. Could it be because he and the others were afraid that if the floodgates were opened by my test case succeeding or by the media and consequently the public ever learning the truth, they could not be closed?

DOUBLE-DEALINGS BY SOME WATCH-DOGS

PASSING THE BUCK DEVICE:

The reaction of the Human Rights bodies was inadequate.

LORD AVEBURY:

I appealed to Lord Avebury, in his capacity as the noble Lord dealing with human rights issues in the House of Lords. He advised me to see my Member of Parliament, Mrs. Harriet Harman M.P

HARRIET HARMAN M.P.

I then sought the assistance of Harriet Harman M.P. She told me that she does not assist her constituents in legal matters. She advised me to contact the legal services ombudsman.

THE LEGAL AID BOARD:

The Legal Aid Board would not assist me in a case against the Law Society. On the contrary, they contacted the Law Society to give them the ground for refusing my application for Legal Aid. And the Law Society obliged them!

LIBERTY:

(THE NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES)

I then applied to LIBERTY to assist me, on the ground that the Legal Aid Board had refused to pay the cost for a solicitor to assist me. Liberty stated that they were over-stretched and could not take my complaint. They referred me to see solicitors doing legal aid work.

COMMISSION FOR RACIAL EQUALITY:

A Mr. Rees of the Commission for Racial Equality said that, the Commission could not help me, in my case against the Law Society. The reason given was that my case was very complicated. Yet, when the Law Society admitted that they had indirectly discriminated against me, on racial ground, the Commission promptly offered to assist me, on what the Law Society had admitted. They still refused to assist me, on what the Law Society had denied i.e. direct racial discrimination.

THE PRESS:

The media have recently shown great courage and initiative. They have been willing to take on the medical profession exposing widespread malpractice and incompetence, and the media have ensured changes, which will protect patients who could not protect themselves.

Perhaps they should start looking at practices in the judiciary, particularly in light of the introduction of the Human Rights Act. Why am I being prevented from making the public aware of the truth, when I am acting in the public interest in order to protect members of the public who also cannot protect themselves? There are others like myself exposing judicial malpractice which is occurring across the country, and the press have already exposed much themselves (please see example news articles in press pack).

CONCLUSION:

I conclude this speech with an appeal to the media and the public to help me to expose the truth in order that the people may have true justice in this nation. Do not ask that the judges who have committed the criminal offences, published in my book, ‘The Most Corrupt British Judges’, be punished. Ask instead, that I, who have published that book, and who has sworn that its content is true, be prosecuted for contempt of court, and for perjury, as a way of exposing the truth.

In the words of Martin Luther King:

“Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere”

Letter from Birmingham jail, Alabama, 16 April 1963.

Dr. A ADOKO

10 SOANE HOUSE

ROLAND WAY

LONDON SE`7 2JF.

Tel: 020 7640 0583

Email:

Website:

1