UPDATED 30/7/09
Andre Power lost
I lost! Mr Justice Blair agreed with the defendants that the case should be dismissed because agents/servants of the Crown who are negligent in their duties are not liable in law,
so they can do what they like and we have no recourse. Does anyone see
the bitter irony in this? The Ministry of Justice at The Royal Courts
of Justice won by arguing that Justice should not apply to the select
elite who work for them
We officially now have a two tier
legal system, one for the righteous and one for the rest of us. The
Crown can sue ABC Ltd or Joe Bloggs but ABC Ltd or Joe Bloggs cannot
sue the Crown for negligence.
The irony of it being another Blair who made this decision.
+++
Published in PJC Journal Wed 22/7/09
One of the most significant hearings of recent times is passing by
unheralded on July 30th at The Royal Courts of Justice and it is one
that will ultimately affect every private citizen in the UK if it is
found in favour of the Defendants, being The Ministry of Justice,
represented by the Treasury Solicitors.
The Mistake
Andre Power, the Plaintiff, had a County Court Judgement emplaced on him for £254,000 by mistake
via Her Majesty’s Court Service. Mr. Power was unaware of this for
thirteen months whilst seeking funding for his company to launch a
business, four years in the creation and with investment by the
principals of over £400,000. Unfortunately, as HMCS failed to advise
Mr. Power that a CCJ for £254,000 showing unpaid was now registered
against his name on public credit files such as “Experian”, he/the
company failed to raise any funding, despite the company having no
indebtedness whatsoever, save for a £15,000 bank loan, which was paid
up to date at that time.
A Circuit Judge has ruled that the CCJ
should never have been emplaced on Mr. Power’s name and it has been
removed, after showing on credit files for thirteen months. Mr, Power
has had four separate apologies and clear admissions of negligence from
HMCS in correspondence thereafter. However, they declined to pay any
compensation on the basis of spurious and unfounded allegations that
there must have been further debts (though not specified) which
prevented the company from being funded.
Therefore, Mr. Power
started a legal action for compensation. Included in his submissions
were letters from noted funding groups stating that they would decline
any such funding requests where due diligence revealed the Managing
Director of the company had an unpaid CCJ registered on his name for
£254,000.
The Defence
However,
none of this has been argued before a Judge as yet. The first hearing
was on 6th March 2009 before a Master Foster. The Defendants asked that
the case be struck off based on an alleged precedent. Mr. Power
received the “skeleton argument” for this action some five minutes
before entering the Court.
In a previous court case a man who
was given two years and three months imprisonment after being found
guilty, was accidentally sentenced to two years and six months. As some
of the sentence was due to run concurrently, a mistake had been made in
the totting up of the sentence and he served an extra three months.
At
some point, (presumably after completing his sentence) despite himself,
his legal representatives, the Judge and the court staff, all missing
the original error, he sued for the compensation for the loss of three
months liberty. The Judge upheld the Defence’s claim that a civil
servant who makes a mistake whilst discharging the normal duties of his
job cannot be liable in law for such a mistake and therefore found
against the Plaintiff.
This same precedent was therefore
represented to Master Foster as the reason Mr. Power’s claim should be
struck off. And Master Foster allowed this flimsy reasoning to stand
and found in favour of the Defendant’s, although immediately granting
Mr. Power the Right to Appeal. This appeal is to be heard on July 30th.
No Comparison
Mr.
Power will argue that the precedent cited bears no resemblance or
comparison to his case. Firstly, he was not guilty of any offence in
the first place, as proofed by a Circuit Judge ruling that the CCJ was
wrongly emplaced on his name in the first place. Secondly, Mr. Power
was never advised of the CCJ so unlike the chap cited in the precedent
who was present when he was found guilty and sentenced, he had no
opportunity to redress the situation. Thirdly, the Treasury Solicitor’s
argument that a civil servant who makes a mistake whilst going about
his job cannot be declared negligent is also being contested by Mr.
Power.
He maintains that it was precisely because civil
servant/s (unknown to this day) were NOT doing their job properly in
the first place that this situation arose. If they had been discharging
their duties, for which they are paid from the public purse, then this
circumstance could never have occurred.
Precedent.
If
this precedent is allowed to stand, thus preventing Mr. Power from ever
seeking compensation before a Judge in an open court then a dangerous
and unsettling precedent is in place that would have shocking
repercussions for every private citizen in the UK. It would mean any
civil/public servant and/or offices of the civil service could commit
any act of wilful negligence without fear of legal action and with
absolute impunity.
You are already aware of the growing
disparity between private business and public employ. We pay the taxes
for civil servants wages and pensions. Indeed our pensions have
collapsed whilst theirs have been growing. We work under an ever
burgeoning set of directorial responsibilities, red tape and laws that
prevent us from ever running our businesses in such a cavalier fashion.
And of course we have no such protection in law from claims against us
resulting from the negligent actions of our staff and ourselves if they
are proofed to have negligently impacted on any of our fellow citizens.
We work longer hours and enjoy significantly less absence from work due
to sickness, holiday time and sundry days off.
Impact
If
this precedent is allowed to stand it will mean a new two tier society
has been created, effectively an act of apartheid, legislated via the
highest court in the land. It will mean that all the millions of
civil/public servants will be working under a completely different
circumstance to the army of self employed and private businesses who
fund their existence.
The only examples of such civil service
power over the people can be found in communist, fascist and
totalitarian regimes. They have never been implemented in any state
before that has declared itself to be a “democracy”.
The power
of the individual will therefore be subsumed before the power of the
State. No longer will we be able to sue any state body or its
representatives. Indeed, they will be able to perform all manner of
objectionable and dubious acts against the citizen without the citizen
having any recourse in law. Would any taxpayer willingly pay taxes to
support an unelected elite in the pursuit and maintenance of this goal?
Therefore,
if you wish to make a stand against the erosion of that most historic
right, whereby both public and private citizens are held to be under
the same principles of English law and jurisprudence, then I ask that
this case be given as much prominence and publicity before it is too
late and we are drawn into an “us and them” gulag mentality whereby the
private individual no longer enjoys the same legal rights and
privileges as the Government employee.
Andre Power's case is
one that the Libertarian Party will be fully supporting. This case will
affect everyone, anyone who is subjected to any mistake however large
or small by any civil servant in any circumstances. Unless Andre Power
wins this appeal, the result will be that the State and those who work
within it, can make no mistakes, nor will it ever have to correct
anything, by law.
Note: Attention was drawn to the above by
email this afternoon at the Libertarian Party Offices, and having
spoken to Mr Power who has given permission to publicise this case
which could establish the legal precedent that no Civil Servant can be
held accountable for his or her negligence.
For the first time,
the ' rulers' will have enhanced legal protection from the consequences
of their incompetence over us the 'ruled'. No more messy inquests into
the shooting of unarmed electricians on the underground, no legal
consequences for battering an innocent bystander at a demonstration so
that he dies. You can now lose your life,your property and your wealth,
and you will not be able to sue the State for redress.
In the
dying days of this corrupt Parliament, the Treasury Solicitors are
going to argue that Civil Servants have no duty of care to the public
and cannot be sued for negligence
If you wish to discuss this further please contact Andre Power anytime on 01702 389005.
