Organized stalking ?

Organized stalking in UK, Darim Case


IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Case Number: CO/3590/2011
The Queen (on the application of John Allman)

versus

HM Coroner for West Sussex

Oral application for permission to apply for judicial review
of the coroner's decision that the applicant is not a
Properly Interest Person in the inquest
touching the death of Darrim Daoud

SKELETON ARGUMENT OF THE APPLICANT

Background


( 1)





Quote: 1. The applicant appears as a litigant in person. This skeleton argument has been prepared by the applicant in person. 2. The written application for permission to apply for judicial review was rejected on the eve of a planned inquest. That inquest, herein referred to as “the first inquest”, was held. The applicant attended, and was called as a witness, but, despite being under oath to tell “the whole truth”, was unable to give certain of his testimony, because the coroner controlled the content of his testimony using her control of the questions she asked, and the applicant was not accorded the privilege of framing questions to himself, or other witnesses for that matter. 3. Depending on which if either remedy the court grants to the applicant, there may need to be a fresh inquest. The coroner proceeded with the first inquest, indicating that she appreciated this, but that it was a risk she was prepared to take. Documents to be referenced 4. Except where otherwise stated, any document to which the applicant may wish to refer and from which he may wish to quote, the learned judge therefore having a copy of that document before him, is a document that shall already have originated with, or been sent to or served upon the respondent coroner in plenty of time before the hearing of the oral application. Collectively I will refer to these documents, plus this skeleton argument, as “the bundle”. The documents of the bundle are all attached to the same email to the dedicated skeleton argument email address for the Administrative Court. 5. The first exception to para 2 above, is that the applicant will wish to refer briefly to text that the deceased posted on You Tube the day before his death, in the context of his uploading the video that the coroner ensured that the first inquest jury watched, giving them the opportunity to read that text, which referred to the deceased's lack of sleep during the week before his death. The video and the text were evidence that the coroner introduced at the first inquest. 6. The second exception to para 2 above, is the inclusion in the bundle of an image of one of the websites he edits, KILLED.org.uk. 7. The applicant has mislaid a letter sent to him by the respondent coroner in late 2009 or early 2010, acknowledging (as he recalls) his “interest” in the matter, which misled him into believing that he had already been accorded Properly Interested Person status. He wishes to refer to this missing letter. He hopes that, on receipt of this skeleton argument, the coroner will furnish a copy from her files. 8. There may be other documents to which the applicant may refer in passing and generically during his oral application, but from which he will not quote, and for which it would not assist for the judge to have copies. Such other documents consist mainly of the large number of emails and other such correspondence between the deceased and others, which the applicant provided to British Transport Police and/or the coroner at their express or implied request long before the first hearing. Any documents referred to in passing without quoting from them ought also to be in the possession of the respondent since before the date of the first inquest. 9. The documents that make up the bundle are as follows: SkelArg.pdf = this skeleton argument CoronerLetter.pdf = a letter from the applicant to the coroner dated 3 December 2009 JohnWitnessStatement.pdf = witness statement of the applicant dated 10 January 2011, supplied to the coroner prior to the pre-inquest review, and which the applicant expected would be handed to the jury at the first inquest, as his evidence-in-chief AmandaWitnessStatement.rtf = draft witness statement of Amanda Palmer dated 15 February 2011, supplied to the coroner as she directed; Ms Palmer was told that her testimony was not required at the first inquest; she was given permission to attend, but was unable to make the necessary arrangements at less than a day's notice, following the unexpected rejection of the applicant's written application for permission to apply for judicial review PreInquestHearingMinutesRuling.pdf, containing the written decision of the coroner of which judicial review is sought FACTS.rtf = section 8 of the written application for permission to apply for judicial review GROUNDS.rtf = section 5 of the written application for permission to apply for judicial review RefusalJRdarrim.pdf = the order refusing permission to apply for judicial review, the day before the first inquest Darrim86b.pdf = renewal application SecurityServicesAllegation.pdf = copy of email correspondence including the deceased's allegation that he was being “stalked”, “tortured” and “blackmailed”, and that he believed that the perpetrators were “the security services – either MI5 or some black ops organisation”, and showing that this information was supplied to the coroner killed.pdf = the image of the home page of the website KILLED.org.uk, served by email on the respondent in a copy of the email to the Administrative Court's dedicated skeleton arguments email address.

Arabic Forum