Some points concerning context of legal procedures and proce Oct 13, 2019 10:53:25 GMT via mobile
Post by Administrator on Oct 13, 2019 10:53:25 GMT
The law really says...
That a Claimant of a right should have it recognised by the prosecution.
It doesn't need to be given representation at court or proved or appealed at court by the Claimant.
If the Claimant has reasonable evidence / validation of the right...
It is required for the prosecution to recognize and act on that.
And as it can be used in (any) proceedings.. there is no bar to any instance or proceedings where is cannot be used. It's the reason..so that it can be upheld at any point it needs to be recognized or if there has been a failure of it being recognised previously at any stage.
1. Observations on behalf of the House of Lords Authority's
2. First Amendment right to a remedy
3. The recent anne sacoolas case of Diplomatic immunity
4. The Criminal damage act 1971 section 5
This is the most important realization though....
That because it IS the legal requirement of the prosecution to recognition of the right laid claim to by the Claimant..
It therefore cannot be expected that with a reasonable valid representation for a right... that it would be the defendant come Claimant who were responsible for presenting it, or having it presented.
Because any advocacy or representation at a court on behalf of the Claimant of the right... by a 3rd party solicitor or barrister.. would completely bypass the prosecutor come respondent.
As if it was not the prosecutions legal requirement to recognize the right at all.
And because it IS the legal requirement and responsibility of the prosecution come respondent to recognize the right of the Claimant..when there is a valid right presented.. they they must act in recognition of that right and the implications and legal effect of that right.
If a representation of a right is successful.. or even if it has reasonable chance of success and succeeds..
Without being recognised by the prosecutor..
The prosecutor has failed in the overriding objectives.
Very important ones at that.
So really... the proper and correct solution where there is a right claimed... is not appeal by the defendant come Claimant at all.
It is only to obtain a representation or material to reasonably prove the validity of the right to the prosecutor come respondent..
And the rest is the full responsibility of the prosecution for representation and effect to the remedy.
Because the prosecution are supposed to be unbiased and under employment in the public interest to recognize the rights.
Thus when a University Associate Professor in law, with a full research team published a 65 page paper that validates a right for both American and the United Kingdom, it must be taken seriously and considered valid and legitimate.
Particularly when it is no ordinary right, but "The Right to Petition" which is a right that makes all prosecutions illegal against the Claimant of the right. With the same Privileges in context of their work and actions as the Bill of Rights Grant's The House Of Lords.
To which protections have been validated at Crown Court level and cannot be challenged in a lower court.
And under the overriding objectives.. the Crown Prosecution service already failed to uphold the objectives in the Lord Hanningfield and regina case...
Because if it is the Court, a Judge, Magistrates or a Jury who left to recognize and validate a right...
The prosecution surely did not only fail, failed to recognize it but failed to protect the rights of the defendant come Claimant ...
They in fact put their own personal motivations above the fundamental rights of the democracy itself.
Which cannot be the proper conduct or procedure expected of the Crown Prosecution Service