THE CASE AS PUT BY KING ARTHUR PENDRAGON
O=={{:::::::03 August 2012::::::::>
Application for Judicial Review.
(Letter before claim)
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT OFFICE
ROYAL COURTS OF JUSTICE
Sir/Madam,
1In pursuance of The observations of Wyn Williams,J. at paragraphs 14 and 15 of the Judgment in the proceedings of the Queen on the application of King Arthur Pendragon v Ministry of Justice reported at Neutral Citation number [2011] EWHC 2607 (Admin), I seek a Judicial Review of the decision made by the Ministry of Justice to grant and extend the terms of the licence under section 25 of The Burial Act 1857 in relation to the ancient human remains (known as The “Guardians”) taken from Stonehenge in 2008.
2My application is based on alleged grounds of duplicity by the Ministry of Justice and is made on the belief that it is in the public interest to proceed and that all other avenues have been exhausted.
3The latest evidence regarding duplicity only came to light in July 2012 following an inquiry made under The Freedom of Information Act.
4I enclose the following documents
(a)Judgment Wyn Williams,J..
(b)Statement from a letter from English Heritage to the Ministry of Justice.
(c)Statement from the Ministry to SheffieldUniversity
(d)Statement from Appendix to research proposal Operational plan of SheffieldUniversity.
(e)Email (in full) from Rupert Clayton to the applicant dated 14th November 2010
(Including the statement;
“’the religious views of the Pagans and Druids will be respected and the remains reinterred”)
(f)Letter to the Ministry of Justice printed in ‘The Guardian 4th Feb 2011 in full.
(g)Answer from Ministry of Justice printed 9th Feb 2011 in full.
(h)Letter (in full) from Ministry of Justice dated 10th Feb 2011
(Including the statement;
“We are confident that a more satisfactory way forward can be found which will allow the retention of human remains’”
5Conclusion, So in conclusion the general public and groups I represent feel that because of the ramifications of this duplicity and in the interests of legal clarification (with specific regard to the remains in question) In order for Justice to be seen to be done and the public interests to be served a Judicial Review is wholly appropriate, proportionate and desirable.
RULING AND EVIDENTIAL PROOF OF DUPLICITY
(a)Judgment Wyn Williams,J..
(b)Statement from a letter from English Heritage to the Ministry of Justice.
(c)Statement from the Ministry to SheffieldUniversity
(d)Statement from Appendix to research proposal Operational plan of SheffieldUniversity.
(e)Email (in full) from Rupert Clayton to the applicant dated 14th November 2010
(Including the statement;
“’the religious views of the Pagans and Druids will be respected and the remains reinterred”)
(f)Letter to the Ministry of Justice printed in ‘The Guardian 4th Feb 2011 in full.
(g)Answer from Ministry of Justice printed 9th Feb 2011 in full.
(h)Letter (in full) from Ministry of Justice dated 10th Feb 2011
(Including the statement;
“We are confident that a more satisfactory way forward can be found which will allow the retention of human remains’”
HOW THEY HAVE BEEN ‘PRIMING’ THE ARCHAEOLOGISTS
‘”At present, we cannot authorise the deposition of remains in a museum or other similar facility under the exhumation licence. However, I can say that consideration is being given to amending legislation so that I can deal more flexibly with such plans in the future. We intend to keep the Archaeologists informed of progress, in the meantime, applications to extend or vary terms will be considered where required.”
From a letter M.O.J. to SheffieldUniversity.
HOW English Heritage took full advantage of it when applying for the extension
‘”as current professional guidelines also recommend, prehistoric human remains of this importance should normally be kept in museums for any further examination and analysis, along with the rest of the excavation archive. You will recall that we discussed this with you, and were reassured by your public statements that extensions would be granted where there was good reason, and that you were working actively to amend the relevant legislation.”
From a letter applying for the extension from EH to the M.O.J.
HOW SHEFFIELDUNIVERSITY DID LIKEWISE
EXTRACT FROM OPERATIONS PLAN (APPENDIX TO RESEARCH PROPOSAL)
The Ministry of Justice’s licensing arrangements for exhuming human remains are faulty and known to be so, since they leave no possibility that human remains might be retained in museum collections. Instead, they require that archaeological remains be reburied after the period of their analysis is completed. There only options are; re-interment, cremation, leave in situ, or ‘not yet decided’.
Our application to MoJ is submitted and pending. On the advice of EH Centre for Archaeology director, Sebastian Payne (who has consulted directly on this proposal), we have ticked the box for re-interment after a period of five years of detailed analysis and dating. It is presumed that MoJ will have modified the currently inadequate arrangements to include museum retention by that time. Should museum curation be deemed acceptable if MoJ review their recommendations, the human remains will be archived for museum storage according to UKIC guidelines (1990). Other non-human arytefactual and ecofactual material will be prepared according to UKIC guidelines for deposition in Salisbury museum.
WHAT THEY HAVE BEEN SAYING TO ‘US’ AND TO OUR MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT
From: "Clayton, Rupert" <>
To:
Sent: Tue, 2 November, 2010 14:12:27
Subject: Stonehenge: application to defer reburial of human remains
Dear Mr Pendragon
This is an email to let you know that a decision has now been reached in
this matter.
Careful thought has been given to the arguments put forward by all
parties. While druid representatives have set out clearly the reasons
why they believe the remains should be re-buried without delay, the
significance of the remains from what is a World Heritage Site was also
taken into account.
Permission for the original excavation was only granted after very
careful consideration, and the interests of stakeholders including
Druids and Pagans were considered. While it is unfortunate that that
the time needed to undertake the research work was underestimated, it is
not considered right to curtail the work that has been carried out so
far. The decision has therefore been made to grant an extension to the
re-burial condition for five years, in accordance with the application
made on behalf of the Stonehenge Riverside Project.
Instructions for the licence to be amended have therefore been given.
However, it is proposed that once the work has been completed the
religious views of the Pagans and Druids will be respected and the
remains reinterred.
The Minister responsible for burial law, Jonathan Djanogly, has written
to your MP, John Glen, about this decision enclosing a copy for him to
forward on to you
Rupert Clayton
Coroners And Burials Division
Ministry of Justice
Fourth Floor
102 Petty France
London
SW1H 9AJ
Letters
Reburial requirement impedes
archaeology
Ihe (wirdui. Friday 4 February 2011
We have written to justice secretary Kennmh Clarke to express our concern about
conditions imposed on the archaeological excavation of human remains, which occurs
under licence from the Ministry of Justice. Recently issued licences require the
reburial of all human remains from England and Wales, however ancient. This
requirement is not specified in the relevant act and Mr Clarke has not explained his
reasoning. We wish to return to the simple, well-tried system practised up to 2008
which permitted the retention, study, curation and display of excavated remains as
appropriate.
The current licence conditions are impeding scientific research, preventing new
discoveries from entering museums, and are not in the public interest. The long-term
retention of excavated ancient human remains is a fundamental principle of scientific
research, regulated by professional ethics and guidelines, and is a museum practice
that has been much examined around the world, Curated remains continue to he
reanalysed for centuries, as new techniques are developed. Such research makes
important contributions to the public’s understanding of the lives of the people who
came before us; it helps put our own lives into perspective. If the requirement for
wholesale reburial remains, Britain risks losing its leading role in archaeology, a
decline that will be observed by a mystified international scientific community.
Sir Barry Cunliffe CRE FBA. Emeritus Professor of European Archaeology
University of Oxford
Professor Chris Stringer FRS, Department of Palaeontology, The Natural History
Museum
Professor Grueme Barker FBA, Disney Professor of Archaeology, University of
Cambridge
Professor Stephen Shennan F BA. Director of the UCL Institute of Archaeolog.
I’rofessor Mike Fuitord CBE ERA. Department of Archaeoloav, U niversev of
Professor Cieo Iftev Wanw right M BE, tdrmer Chtef Archaeo!otist, English ileritac
Professor Timothy Darvi 11 ORE. School of Applied Sc.iences, Bourneniouth
I niverciR
Protessor Richard P. Evershed ERS FRSC, School of Chemistry. University ot Bristol
Protessor Martin Bell FBA, Head of Department of Archaeology, University of
Reading
Professor Richard Bradley FBA, Department of Archaeology. University of Reading
Professor Clive Gamble ERA, Department of Geography, Royal Holloway, University
of London
Professor Roberta Gilchrist FRA, Department of Archaeology, University of Reading
Professor Chris Gosden FRA, School of Archaeology, University of Oxford
Professor Anthony Harding ERA, Department of Archaeology, University of Exeter
Professor Cohn Haselgrove FBA, Head of School of Archaeology & Ancient History,
University of Leicester
Professor David Mattingly ERA, School of Archaeology & Ancient History,
University of Leicester
Professor Martin Millett ERA, Laurence Professor of Classical Archaeology,
University of Cambridge
Professor Alasdair Whittle FBA, Distinguished Research Professor in Archaeology,
CardiffUniversity
Professor Ian Armit, Department of Archaeological, Geographical and Environmental
Sciences, University of Bradford
Professor David Austin, Chair of Archaeology, University of Wales Trinity St David
Professor Martin Carver, Editor of Antiquity, Professor Emeritus of Archaeology,
University of York
Professor Andrew Chamberlain, Department or Archaeology, Universityof Sheffield
Professor Bob Chapman. Department of Archaeology, Universityof Readi.ng
Profass:er Jim. Crew, Head of Archaeology, School of History, CHssi•cs
Archaeology, Ed.inhurgh Univers.i.ty
Professor K.eith Dobney. Sixth Century Professor of Human Palacoecology,
University of Aberdeen
Pro fessor Stephen P. Dris•coi L Department of Archaeology. University of GDsgow
Protessor ndrew Fkming [ meritus Prokssor ut Aich itilogy ins Lrot ol W iles
Professor Helena Hamerow, Head of School of Archaeology. University of Oxford
Professor Ian Haynes, Chair of Archaeology, NewcastleUniversity
Professor Julian Henderson, Department of Archaeology. University of Nottingham
Professor Carl Heron. Head of Archaeological, Geographical & Environniental
Sciences. University of Bradford
Professor Simon Hillson, UCL Institute of Archaeology. London
Professor Mark horton, Department of Archaeology & Anthropology, University of
Bristol
Professor John Hunter. Emeritus Professor of Ancient History & Archaeology.
University of’ Birmingham
Professor Martin Jones, George Pitt-Rivers Professor of Archaeological Science,
University of Cambridge
Professor Mike Parker Pearson, Department of Archaeology, University of Sheffield
Mike Pitts, Editor of British Archaeology, Director of Digging Deeper Ltd
Professor Charlotte A. Roberts. Department of Archaeology, University of Durham
Dr Duncan Sayer, School of Forensic & Investigative Science, University of Central
Lancashire
Professor Chris Scarre, Head of Department of Archaeology, University of Durham
Professor Howard Williams, I)epartment of History & Archaeology. University of
Chester
WHAT THEY HAVE BEEN SAYING PUBLICALLY TO THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY
Letters
Flexible reburying
The Guardian, Wednesday 9 February 2011
The concerns raised by your correspondents in Friday’s paper (gçp and Lcs, 4
February), which suggest that all human remains excavated for archaeological
purposes would have to be reburied and therefore lost to science, were wide of the
mark.
It is not our intention to impede scientific research or to deprive the public of
important new archaeological finds. In any case where retention is justified, especially
those involving important discoveries, human remains would never have to be
reburied.
Since the election, the Ministry of Justice has looked at amending the law and has
come to the conclusion that the existing legislation can be applied more flexibly. We
are now discussing with glish Herita’e and leading archaeological organisations
how to do this, and archaeologists who need advice about reburying human
remains should contact us.
oIyIP
Justice minister
Letters: Flexible reburying
This article appeared on p31 of the aecn section of udi on
Wednesdj9Febrrv2il. It was published on guardiaiico.uk at 00.05 GMT on
Wednesday 9 February 2011.
WHAT THEY HAVE BEEN SAYING PRIVATELY TO THE ARCHAEOLOGISTS
From a letter obtained under the freedom of information Act received 24 July 2012
Ministry of Justice
Jonathan Djanogly MP
J Parliamentary Under-Secretary of
State for Justice
102 Petty France
London
SWIN 9AJ
T 020 3334 3555
F 020 3334 3669
E genera’ gueriesjusticegsigov uk
wwwjusticegov.uk
Our Ref: 298552
10’, February 2011
ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATION OF HUMAN REMAINS
I have been asked to reply to your letter of 2
February to the Justice Secretary about
the exhumation of human remains for archaeological purposes,
I am sorry if the Justice Secretary’s letter of 1
November to the Chair of the Science
and Technology Committee gave the impression that we were not aware of concerns
about the burial legislation within the archaeological community. That was not the case.
This Department was well aware that the legislation was not well suited to the needs of
archaeologists and that exhumation licence conditions which required the reburial of
remains could be a significant constraint on research. It was for this reason that the
statement issued in 2008 said that consideration would be given to amending the
legislation to make it more responsive to modern requirements, with particular
reference to the archaeological examination of human remains.
In the event, no changes to the legislation were introduced by the previous
Government. Since coming into office, therefore, we have considered the matter
afresh. The situation is clearly unsatisfactory The Burial Act 1857 was not designed to
regulate the exhurnation of remains of archaeological interest Unfortunately, we have
not been able to find anyway to amend the 1857 Act without recourse to primary
Legislation Given the limited availability of Parliamentary time and the Coalition
Government’s existing commitments and opportunities for legislative reform n other areas, I
am afraid that we do not expect there to be an opportunity to amend the legislation in
the short to medium term.
However, you will wish to know that we have looked at the provisions of the 1857 Act
again and have come to the conclusion that there is room to apply the provisions more
flexibly than previously seemed to be the case. My officials have now discussed the
position with representatives of English Heritage and leading archaeologist
organisations arid we are confident that a more satisfactory way forward can be found
which will allow the retention of human remains in appropriate circumstances. Work on
this is now underway. In the meantime, I
have directed any new licence applications to
be considered on this more flexible basis.
I hope that I have been able to reassure you that we are very much aware of the
difficulties arising from the present legislation arid that we are now progressing a
practical solution to the problem If opportunities to legislate in this area arise in the
future, we will certainly consider them.
I am copying this letter to John Penrose at the Department for Culture, Media and
Sport.
JONATHAN OJANOGLY
APPLICATION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW
CO Ref; CO/9362/2012
The Queen on the application of
KING ARTHUR PENDRAGON
VersusMINISTRY OF JUSTICE
SKELETON ARGUMENT OF THE CLAIMANT
INTRODUCTION
In 2008 a number of human remains were re-exhumed from a burial site at Stonehenge under licence granted by the Department of Culture, Media and Sport (predecessor Authority to the Ministry of .Justice, who subsequently took over responsibility). The purpose of this licence was for scientific examination and research. The original licence was specified for a period of two year study, after which the remains were to be re-interred.
Scientific investigations were initially started by Professor Parker-Pearson and his team from SheffieldUniversity . In 2010, the duration of the original licence was due to expire, and an extension was requested. By this time the matter was within the remit of The Ministry of Justice. At this stage, I, on behalf of The Council of British Druid Orders and other groups whom I represent, opposed this request.
The renewed application was, however granted for an extension of five years subject to the same conditions as the original licence, which were, therefore, that they should be re-interred by 2015.
Following the grant of the renewed application, I, on behalf of my supporters; applied for a Judicial Review of this decision against the Ministry of Justice. English Heritage, who manage and advise the Government in connection with Stonehenge , were named as ‘interested parties’ in the proceedings , as was Professor Parker-Pearson and his team.
The Grounds of the application for Judicial Review were that the Ministry had given insufficient weight and consideration to the facts presented by me in opposition to the granting of any extension. My application was resisted by the defendant.
At the oral hearing I submitted that the reality of the case was that the Ministry was being duplicitous. The Ministry, on the one hand, was issuing a licence which, on it’s face, suggested that the remains should be re-interred at some suitable point in the future but, at the same time, was assuring Professor Parker-Pearson and his team either, at some distant time, the law would be changed to avoid that happening, or that the current law would be interpreted in such a way so as to prevent that happening.
Wyn-Williams, J, stated that he could find no basis for concluding that the Ministry deliberately or inadvertently, ignored to take account of my representations. He concluded that if there was a true evidential basis for the suggestion of duplicity that would be a proper basis for the grant of permission. There was he observed, at that stage, no proper evidential basis for the suggestion that the Ministry was duplicitous or biased. However he went on to observe, that did not mean that if there was something in what was being said, albeit not then supported by evidence, it removed from me The opportunity of presenting a claim in the future.