Organized stalking ?

( 2)



Quote: Facts 10. The applicant will claim the facts set out in the document FACTS.rtf in the bundle. None of these facts are, to the applicant's knowledge, in dispute between the applicant and the respondent, except for the facts claimed by the applicant in paragraphs 7 and 13 of the document FACTS.rtf. 11. The learned judge will appreciate that at the time the applicant drafted this statement of facts for his written application now renewed orally, namely FACTS.rtf, he was not privy to the information that emerged at the first inquest. The applicant would therefore wish to be allowed to comment briefly on his initial statement of facts, in the light of what took place at the first inquest. 12. The coroner invited Properly Interested Persons to put questions to witnesses. It is a fact that the applicant had questions that he wished to put to witnesses, but was unable to put them. The questions are questions that the applicant is confident that the deceased would have wished him to ask. He respectfully submits that it is eminently possible that the verdict of the first inquest might have been different if those questions had been asked, and that press coverage of the first inquest might have been more befitting for the deceased's good reputation after his death. Caselaw to be cited 13. The applicant wishes to draw the attention of the judge to the criminal convictions of Hatice Can and Kemi Ajose, in order to remind the judge of the principle that a deceased's actions being the immediate cause of his or her own death, and his or her death also amounting to his or her unlawful killing by another person or persons, are not mutually exclusive or contradictory possibilities at law. In the case cited, both sets of facts were found: the two findings of fact coexisted. The applicant has not yet obtained a copy of the trial judge's summing up to the the jury in that case, but hopes to be able to provide one to the court and the respondent before the hearing of his oral application. Failing this, he wishes to remind the judge of the case by mentioning press reports of some of the key facts. 14. At the first inquest, the sitting deputy assistant coroner indulged the applicant, allowing him to make an application to her in the absence of the jury at the start of the second day, seeking permission to give further evidence about the known capabilities of electromagnetic weapons that might have assisted the jury to interpret the deceased's own evidence posted onto You Tube roughly a day before he was killed. 15. Before rejecting that application, the sitting deputy assistant coroner declined to allow the applicant to make further representations as to directions she should put to the jury. The main direction that the applicant was not allowed to request, was the legal principle applied in R -v- Hatice Can and Kemi Ajose, mentioned in the previous paragraph of this skeleton argument. The applicant believes that the omission of any direction to the jury concerning the principle in Can, by way of comment upon any evidence the applicant gave about the capabilities of directed energy weapons, rendered the first inquest verdict unsafe, as regards the UK's compliance with Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights, in the light of the deceased's own allegations in SecurityServiceAllegation.pdf, on You Tube, and in various correspondence and conversations of his before he got killed. 16. In support of his contention that there exists such a thing as what he called an “Article 2 inquest”, as distinct from a mere “Rule 36 inquest”, and that the deceased is entitled to the the former in the light of his allegations, the applicant may wish to refer to either or both of the following two cases, and to provide copies of the judgments if he is able to obtain them in time, with the limited resources available to a litigant in person: a) R (on the application of Takoushis) v HM Coroner for Inner North London & Others [2005] EWCA Civ 1440 b) R v HM Coroner for the Western District of Somerset & Another, ex parte Middleton (FC) [2004] UKHL 10 17. From Regina -v- Coroner for Southern District of Greater London, ex Parte Driscoll [1994] 159 JPR 45, a case which the respondent cited in her reasons for the decision of which judicial review is now sought, the applicant would like to draw attention to the following key sentence in a precis of the full judgment published by swarb.co.uk at http://www.swarb.co.uk/lisc/Cornr19931993.php : “The test was whether an applicant's desire to participate went beyond the wish to give relevant evidence and extended to a genuine concern regarding the scope of the inquest with an associated need to put views to witnesses.” The applicant believes that he meets that criterion in abundance and par excellence. 18. The applicant has been unable to find a copy of the full Driscoll judgment on the internet, including the passages to which the coroner referred, about candidates for class (h) PIP status under S. 20 (2) of the Coroners Rules 1984 having to have a relationship with the deceased that is analogous to one of the relationships in classes (a) thru (g). He will continue trying to obtain a copy. He hopes for the assistance of the respondent in obtaining one, since it was the respondent who first cited the case. 19. The applicant does not seek to reference the Al Fayed case cited by the respondent. Grounds 20. The applicant will primarly expound and expand upon the reasons already set out, in GROUNDS.rtf, and in Darrim86b.pdf (q.v. both). 21. The applicant will contend that it is admitted by the respondent that he has taken a sincere interest in the inquest from the outset, an interest that he was requested to take by none other than the deceased himself. It would be perverse, and certainly detrimental to the public reputation of the UK courts, to declare that such a serious and well-founded interest was improper. Therefore, giving the words “Properly Interested Person” their ordinary meaning (as the respondent coroner conceded that they should be given in her paragraph 18) the applicant cannot be anything other than a Properly Interested Person. 22. The applicant would draw attention to his restraint in not attempting to turn this case into a cause celebre using the KILLED.org.uk website that has been kept, to date, thoroughly low-key and uncontroversial. Rather he has dealt with this dispute as an individual to date (rather than as rabble-rouser, as he might have done), in a dignified manner, as one who expects justice without needing to raise a following willing to demonstrate noisily outside this or the coroner's court. 23. Yet others who correspond with the applicant would be apt to describe the first inquest, at which the applicant was not a PIP, as a stage-managed cover-up of the extra-judicial capital punishment of a part-Iraqi political dissident. The applicant will assert that there is a wider public than just himself that is interested in the deceased's death. It is therefore arguable that it is in the public interest for justice to be seen to be done, by allowing a jury at least to consider – and perhaps to reject, although that is not a foregone conclusion - the evidence for the “conspiracy theory” (as some might call it) of the deceased, the applicant and countless others. Conclusion 24. The applicant contends that the possible grounds for judicial review that even he himself has been able to list, a mere litigant in person, might render judicial review possible and necessary. 25. The applicant contends that even these grounds are far from being so weak as to render it safe, in matter touching the death of a dissident political activist with a following in his lifetime who alleged persecution by the state, for the court to reject today his application for permission to apply for judicial review at a later date, if possible, represented by counsel when that substantive application for judicial review is made. 26. The applicant therefore renews orally his application for permission to apply for judicial review.




From:

http://www.beulahbaruch.org.uk/SkelArg.htm

Arabic Forum