From:                              Norman Scarth <>

Sent:                               27 April 2015 00:40

To:                                   Norman Scarth

Subject:                          FW: Doughty St. Human Rights Specialists????

Attachments:                 ICO-150427-FullThreadOfEmails.docx


(As usual, the text in this thread of emails has been pasted into a Word document, for ease of printing, & is attached now)


To HH Judge Markus QC    (Bcc to others)       Monday 27th April 2015

The Upper Tribunal (AAC),  5th Floor, Rolls Building, 
7 Rolls Buildings, Fetter Lane, London  EC4A 1NL    Tel:020-7071-5661 

Your Honour,

Though 'delay in justice' is said to be 'denial of justice', in this case it is cause for optimism that after 18 days you have not yet come to a decision on my appeal against the (so-called) Information Commissioner : Optimism, in that most judges would not have hesitated a second in slapping me down, declaring my appeal to be 'TOTALLY WITHOUT MERIT' (or something of the sort).  

That you are taking such time suggests you are wrestling with your conscience, knowing that you OUGHT to ask the Sec. State for justice to order an investigation into the 'incident' on 8/8/99, but worrying about the effect on your career if you do.  (To those receiving this Bcc, & seeing it for the first time: See the link in 'New evidence(6)', below,  pages 29, 30, 31, 32.) 

Silence from other quarters is less encouraging.  Having left skool at 13, & been a small farmer most of my life, my knowledge of law is limited, such brain power as I ever possessed deteriorating with my very advanced years.   Knowing that Doughty St. Chambers proudly promote themselves as 'Human Rights Specialists', & seeing that this includes FoI & DPA cases, I decided to ask them for help in this matter & sent them a message on 30/3/2015 (pasted below).   

There has been not one single word in response - not even acknowledgment!    

Below the message to Doughty Street Chambers is pasted another message, about another matter, which I sent to Zenith Chambers in Leeds.  As with the one to Doughty St., it is self explanatory.   

As with Doughty St. it has been contemptuously ignored!  NOT EVEN A BRUSH-OFF!

This is disappointing, but no surprise.   They MAY be concerned about Human Rights, etc. etc,, but NOT for Norman Scarth!

One might have expected my single-handed success in the ECtHR (33745/96) to have brought some respect from the professionals.  Sadly, no.  They think they OWN the 'The Law', & don't like 'trespassers' on THEIR patch!   That case brought a vital change in British Law, incorporated into the 1998 Human Rights Act (see letter dated 1/9/98 from Geoffrey Hoon MP, then Lord Chancellor Irvine's spokesman in The Commons).  The change is much hated by lawyers & judges - & I am hated for it

So, I am on my own: Any lawyer who did take me on would only do so to stitch me up.

Judge Markus: 

The Chief Constable's Defence document in the link in 'New evidence(6) is now before you. This means two things.   You have seen cast iron evidence of crime against me by WYP.  That being so, you  MUST contact the Secretary of State for Justice about it.  

You should of course also grant this appeal, but it will be just for the record.  As said, I don't really need you to.  The information which West Yorkshire Police, the ICO, First tier Tribunal, et al have been so desperate to deny me has come into my hands via the Chief Constable's Defence - & without any redaction of names - as would be the case if I got it via FoI! 

The ball is in your court.   

Norman Scarth.


Subject: FoI & DPA matters.
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2015 11:44:51 +0100
"To Doughty Street Chambers:

I learn from your website that Doughty Street Chambers is ‘… renowned for and committed to defending freedom and civil liberties, … and human rights.

… will always be to improve access to justice and to promote human rights and civil liberties .

Barristers come to Doughty Street because they want to make a difference.

Doughty Street Chambers is unique.   Areas of Practice  … Members are often involved in high-profile, precedent-setting cases. … . Principal areas of practice … civil liberties …:  Civil actions against the Police and Public Authorities. … Freedom of Information and Data Protection’. 

The fact that Doughty Street Chambers needs to specialise in those things is evidence that they are NOT available in Britain as a 'Right', but only to those who can afford to pay lawyers to fight for them!  

I am the victim of very serious crime by ‘Police and Public Authorities‘, but leave that aside for the time being.

Of more concern to me at the moment is the official COVER-UP of that crime (comparable to the long-standing cover-up of crimes by powerful people which is belatedly coming to light).  

And so, I am particularly concerned about Freedom of Information and Data Protection' matters. 

IF the Freedom of Information Act was doing what it PURPORTS to do, there would be no need for either an Information Commissioner, OR expert lawyers to do battle with him!  

I am currently trying to do so on my own.

As a veteran of the Arctic Convoys of World War II, now in my 90th year, I wonder if any of your ‘Public Access’ barristers would assist me in the FoI & DPA matters?  

My assets & income are small, which means I could not afford to pay for representation in court, but I could afford to pay a limited amount for advice.  

At my age, none of it is greatly important to me personally, but I do believe it is of the greatest National Importance, & could well be a ‘precedent-setting case’.

I would be grateful for an early reply.  With an obviously limited life expectation, patience is a luxury I cannot afford.

Norman Scarth,

Athlone, Co. Westmeath,

Republic of Ireland.

PS:  The cover-up of the police crime is such that I have been forced to flee the land of my birth in fear of further attempts to silence me, to prevent exposure of it.   NS." 


Subject: Crim appeal for a WW2 veteran? Will u act?
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2015 18:48:48 +0100

Being a WW2 'Hero' (as others have called me, though I never made that claim) does not & should not allow me (or anyone else) to commit crime with impunity, but NO-ONE should suffer such a malicious prosecution or such a grossly unfair 'trial' as I did.  

Never were there greater violations of Article 6 than in my 'trial' in April 2001, which ended with a sentence intended to ensure I would die in prison.  Well I didn't die, but lived long enough to have 'paid my debt to society'.  (The much GREATER  debt the nation owed to me was repaid with years of incarceration & brutality).


for Prime minister Cameron presenting the Arctic Star to some of the survivors  of the Arctic Convoys of World War II.  

The link given above tells of what those of us who served on those convoys did for Britain. Attached is a picture of one particular event during those convoys. 

Only last year came another accolade.  Another attachment is a picture of me at the Russian Embassy in Dublin on 4th December 2014, being presented with the Ushakov medal by the Russian Ambassador, Mr Maxim Peskov, for my 'bravery' during what they call 'The Great Patriotic War Against Fascism'.   After my own country has treated me so badly, it was good to receive recognition from one of our allies in WW2. 

Now in my 90th year, I would like to appeal against that conviction.  Living happily & safe in Ireland, I am not at all concerned for my own sake (those who know me know the truth), but I did once care for Britain, the land of my birth, & would like what is a most awful blot on the face of British Justice to be removed.    

I was born & bred in Leeds.  Will you take on the appeal for me?  

I am not wealthy, but can afford to pay up to a certain amount.

Norman Scarth,




Subject: GIA/2615/14.StartlingNuEvidnce!(6)
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2015 20:32:40 +0100

To HH Judge Markus QC                     Wednesday 8th April 2015

The Upper Tribunal (AAC),  5th Floor, Rolls Building, 
7 Rolls Buildings, Fetter Lane, London  EC4A 1NL    Tel:020-7071-5661 

New evidence(6)

Your Honour,

Startling new evidence has come into my hands, JUST 2 PAGES, which, on their own, show the criminality of West Yorkshire Police,  & the criminality of the cover-up of the original criminality.  

If I had had those 2 pages (& the 2 pages which follow) at the start, there would have been no need for all the work I have put in presenting to you all that which I have done so far.   

During the years of imprisonment which followed the malicious prosecution & my Kangaroo Court 'trial' in April 2001, unknown to me, a supporter had put 137 pages of documents on the internet.  

 Clicking on   brings them up.   Only now have I been made aware of it. 

There is a TREMENDOUS lot of stuff in it, , including signatures of a dozen or more prisoners protesting at me (a 78 year old WW2 veteran), being dragged down iron stairs & across a yard, bent double, arms twisted up behind my back, screaming with pain from my arthritic spine & joints.  

That is of no concern to you as the judge in this matter (though it SHOULD concern  you as a human being!)

The pages which DO concern you as a judge in this matter are pages 29 & 30, being the DEFENCE put in by The Chief Constable of West Yorkshire to my civil action against him in The High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division, Leeds District Registry, case No. LS 190197.  Pages 31 & 32 are my response which point out the 'inaccuracies' in his defence.  

A little further clarification is desirable.  At 3 (i) the Defence tells that Kenneth Roberts had told WYP "There is squatter on the premises".  This was a most monstrous lie, as Chancery Judge Behrens confirmed some months later, by quashing a Possession Order which had been obtained by perjury.  Roberts was also lying when he said I had denied him entry.  In fact, lunch had been prepared & we (a friend & I) were waiting until Roberts arrived to join us, as had been arranged.  

Why wasn't Roberts prosecuted for giving false information to police? 

Or for the perjury when he appeared as a witness against me?  

At 3 (ii) the Defence says "The call was graded low priority".

Low Priority? Yet they sent a mob-handed gang (seven at one time, nine in all!) to terrorize an Old Age pensioner of 73 (then), doing no wrong in any shape or form! 

(Apart from the crime against me, it was a shocking waste of police manpower!) 

At 3 (v) it says, "At no time did any of the officers act at the scene in a manner indicating an immediate intention to use force ...".   

A mob-handed gang, armed with a battering ram & riot shields?  

If THAT  doesn't indicate the intention to use force, then NOTHING does! 

It goes on to say, "... at no time did any officer ... actually use force ...".

Which shows an abysmal ignorance of the law!   The 1977 Criminal Justice Act (& no doubt any amendments since) say it is an offence subject to immediate arrest "to use force OR THE THREAT OF FORCE to attempt to gain entry to an occupied dwelling house".  That applies even if the occupier is a squatter - which I was not!  (see J Behrens, earlier).  

You may or may not feel that the evidence put before you up to now have been 'allegations', leading to a 'suspicion' of crime (though even suspicion should be enough to warrant an investigation)

That WYP, the Information Commissioner, 1st Tier, 2nd Tier, et al. et al, are, sixteen years later, still so desperate that information about 8th August 1999 shall not come to light leads to the strongest suspicion that there must be something very serious to hide!  

However, with the two new pages, we have more than 'suspicion' - we have cast-iron evidence!  

How incongruous!  Here's me, battling with the WYP, the ICO, et al, for information, when, if my senile brain had been capable of remembering what was happening while I was in prison,  it was there all the time!  

Still, hopefully, the battles may do some good in that they may cause 'SOMEONE' to consider what exactly the FOIA, the DPA & the IC actually DO  (apart from blocking access to information!)    

With earlier installments, I did send Word documents with the text of each message as attachment.  I now feel it better to send the thread of all the messages as one Word document, & do so now.  

To say that I have now 'finished' would be untrue, in that there is much more I COULD send.  However, to lessen the demands on your time & my failing brain-power, it is time to call a halt, & await your decision.   

I wonder?  Are you Judge Markus, the honest judge I have been searching for since 1995?  I have a suspicion you might be. 

I care not for myself, but I did once care for Britain.  

Norman Scarth

Subject: GIA/2615/14.NuEvidence(5).Turning a blind eye to crime
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2015 12:46:06 +0100


To HH Judge Markus QC                     Monday 6th April 2015

The Upper Tribunal (AAC),  5th Floor, Rolls Building, 
7 Rolls Buildings, Fetter Lane, London  EC4A 1NL    Tel:020-7071-5661 

New evidence(5)

Your Honour,

I draw your attention to something which has only now come to my attention: A decision of HH Judge Wikeley in the Ainslie case (2012 UKUT441 AAC aka GIA 294/2012),  

In Para 7 he wrote, "...  Under statute, my sole concern is whether or not the FTT’s decision discloses an error of law. ..."

Those words disclose the root cause of the parlous state of 'Law & Order' & 'Justice' in Britain today.  The purely technical matter of whether there is an 'error of law' may well be the reason the matter came before him in the first place, but to say it is his 'sole concern' is indicative of the serious decline in standards of Justice, morality & humanity in Britain.  I have already mentioned the Nixon v Loundes Ruling,  It shouldn't need that ruling:   

Statutes, Practice Directions, Rules & etc. have their purpose, but that purpose is NOT that they should be used as excuses to turn a blind eye to serious crime which comes to a judge's attention during the course of dealing with the original civil matter, in my case the purely academic matter of whether the 'Proper Procedure' has been followed.  The other matters which have been brought to your attention are INFINITELY more important   

It is comparable to a parking warden who believes his 'sole concern' is to stick a ticket on a windscreen, ignoring the calls for help from the owner, who is trapped in a burning building.  "Nothing to do with me" he may say, "my sole concern is to stick tickets on windscreens".  Truth can be worse than the traffic warden fiction I have just told, & so it was with Police Constable Dytham. He was having a cup of something from a late night sandwich van.  Outside a night club only yards away, a man was being literally kicked to death.  PC Dytham finished his drink & walked away, saying "I'm off-duty now".   

In R. v Dytham, the Appeal Court ruled that 'failure to act' (omission) can be just as culpable as the COMMISSION of an offence   

Judge Markus: I believe you have seen enough to grant me Permission to Appeal, but whether you do or not is of miniscule importance compared to what you do about the other matters you have learned of.  If Dytham was fearful of intervening alone, he had a DUTY as a PC to call for emergency back-up before doing so.   My imaginary parking warden had a duty as a human being to call the fire-brigade!   

I respectfully submit that if you yourself  do not have the power to order an investigation into the 'INCIDENT' of 8th August 1999, as judge, you have a DUTY to ask the Secretary of State for Justice to do so.  You may be worried about having a certain amount of egg on your face if it turns out to be a false alarm (as would the parking warden), but better a false alarm than to stay silent.  

However, I can assure you, it is NOT a false alarm, & there is more evidence to prove it, if you are not satisfied with what you have seen.  In fact there is so much evidence I do not have years enough left to live to be able to present it.  

So, I must call a halt, & leave it to you, but before doing so it is important to mention the recent decision of the Supreme Court.  Yes, it was a civil matter, but the Information Commissioner was effectively 'In The Dock', accused of acting in contradiction of his title - & was found GUILTY!

I submit that being party to the cover-up of serious crime - as he has been in my case - is INFINITELY  worse than to save the Prince of Wale from embarrassment!

Norman Scarth.

PS:  MOST IMPORTANT!  One more piece of evidence - WHICH IS ABSOLUTELY CAST-IRON - has just come into my hands.  I will send it as 'NuEvidence(6)'.     NS.


Subject: GIA/2615/14.NuEvidence(4).'DutyToChallengeJudge'
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2015 16:35:31 +0100

To HH Judge Markus QC                     Tuesday 31st March 2015

The Upper Tribunal (AAC),  5th Floor, Rolls Building, 
7 Rolls Buildings, Fetter Lane, London  EC4A 1NL    Tel:020-7071-5661 

New evidence(4)

Your Honour,

I now come to another Ruling, in the 'TimesOnline Law Report' of 18/12/2008.  The Court of Appeal (Sir Mark Potter, President, Lady Justice Arden & Lord Justice Wall) decision in 're M (a child)'.  

The headline of the Report reads, "Duty to challenge judge".

The Court stated that "Counsel (which must of course include the LIP) had a positive duty to raise with the judge not only any alleged deficiency in the judge's reasoning, but also any genuine query or ambiguity which arose in the judgment."

Reference was made to an earlier decision by Lady Justice Arden in 're T(a child) [2003]FLR 531)' , where Her Ladyship had said, "... when judgment was given, an advocate ought immediately to draw the judge's attention to any material omission of which he was aware."

Wall LJ went on to say, "It would be unsatisfactory to use such an omission as grounds for appeal if the matter had not been brought to the judge's attention when there was a ready opportunity to do so." 

The lawyer may well be able to point out an error by the judge AFTER judgment, but the LIP will have difficulty: As often as not he will be told by obstructive court staff, "The judge does not enter into correspondence".  

Whether lawyer or LIP, how much better it would be if such omission, error or inaccuracy could be remedied BEFORE it got as far as judgment!  

Best of all if the judge could be made aware of it at the time it was made, which might mean an  intervention while the judge was speaking, thus saving court time by ensuring that the judge did not follow a false line based on a false premise.   

A judge may well feel annoyance at interruption, but if it is respectfully made, & then seen to be warranted, such annoyance should disappear. Which brings me to a telephone hearing, as in this case.      

Judge Markus: You did say, "Please try not to speak over me.  If I ask you to stop & listen to me, please do so". (or words to that effect)  

I fully understand that: It is undesirable that two people should be trying to speak at the same time.  Interruption can also lead to the speaker losing their train of thought (which I respectfully suggest is more likely with a LIP, who is without the assistance of a solicitor or note taker).   

So how to save the judge inadvertently following a false line resulting from a false premise?  If I were in court, I would respectfully raise my hand, & hope the judge would invite me to speak.  With a telephone hearing that is not possible (though it would be with Skype).  

One particular correction I felt necessary was when you referred to my 'views':  I felt it important to correct you (& better to do so at the time), that they were not 'views', but facts.  I think there were other errors, but I cannot bring them to mind (& I had inadvertently switched of my recording machine).  

Norman Scarth.

As previously, to make it easier for a reader, I attach the text of this instalment  as a Word Document. 

'New Evidence(5)' will follow with another message.    NS.  


Subject: GIA/2615/14. New evidence(3).'JiggeryPokery'.
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2015 10:31:09 +0100

GIA/2615/14. New evidence(3)JiggeryPokery.


To HH Judge Markus QC                     Sunday 29th March 2015

The Upper Tribunal (AAC),  5th Floor, Rolls Building, 
7 Rolls Buildings, Fetter Lane, London  EC4A 1NL    Tel:020-7071-5661 
 (NOTE: The text of this message will again be pasted into a Word document & sent as an attachment.  I will look for any minor errors & typos in the message, & will [hopefully] correct them in the attachment.   I again ask that you consider the attachment as the definitive version.  NS) 


Your Honour,

I draw your attention to the recent words of Jacob Rees Mogg about 'Jiggery Pokery' in Parliament'.  See link:  

Never was there more 'Jiggery Pokery in Parliament' than when the mass murderers & war criminals of the Blair Regime were in power.  They passed the Freedom of Information Act & the Data Protection Act, the latter intended to cancel any Rights we might have under the former.  This is blindingly obvious to anyone with half a brain who has sought to use the FoI for anything of real consequence 

My view is that it is our DUTY to disobey bad laws.  As a judge, it would be difficult for you to follow that dictum.  Making a 'perverse' decision would do your career no good at all.  

However, I respectfully suggest that, along with you duties as a judge, you also have duties as a a human being.   

I do believe you have enough already to grant me permission to appeal, but even if that is so, I suggest that you should do more than JUST 'grant permission'.  I refer again to my earlier analogy, about learning that the building is on fire.  You have seen evidence of quite momentous  - nay, horrendous - happenings:  Whatever about the Nixon v Loundes ('suspicion') ruling, I suggest that you have a duty as a human being to 'call the fire brigade', i.e. report to the Secretary of State for Justice what you have seen & ask him to investigate.  Bearing in mind the many revelations of corruption, police & elsewhere, child abuse & etc. which are currently coming to light, he may do so - & I HOPE HE WILL!  OR  he may list your Report as a 'False alarm with good intent'.  That of course, is up to him.  

There are other important points I wish to put to you, but to make it easier for me, & easier for a reader to follow, I will send by separate emails, the next one being the Appeal Court Ruling of 'A Duty to Challenge the Judge'. 


Norman Scarth

Subject: GIA/2615/14. New evidence(2).
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2015 00:41:14 +0000

GIA/2615/14. New evidence(2).


To HH Judge Marcus QC                     Wednesday 25th March 2015

The Upper Tribunal (AAC),  5th Floor, Rolls Building, 
7 Rolls Buildings, Fetter Lane, London  EC4A 1NL    Tel:020-7071-5661
 (NOTE: A few typos in this have been corrected in the attachment, & a few words added.  None are of great importance, but please consider the attachment as the definitive version.  NS)


Your Honour,

In my message dated 23/3/2015 I said I had forgotten most of what you had said, & asked if I could have a copy of the recording made by you, or a transcript of it.  This is important, because I was already in confusion. 

I THOUGHT  my case had gone past the ICO, 1st Tier Tribunal, 2nd Tier Tribunal, the JICO & was now with Admiral Brigstocke, the Judicial Appointments & Conduct Ombudsman (JACO).  

My confusion is not surprising - younger & better people are confused.  It would be surprising if they were not.  Like all the various 'Complaints Procedures', the rigmarole which was set up by the Freedom of Information Act was designed to CAUSE confusion, knowing that victims of the the abuse of State Power (see Denning, lower down) will either collapse from exhaustion, or give up in disgust. 

As for Admiral Brigstocke:  I had very little hope of anything from him: That a British Admiral should ignore S O S distress calls from a survivor of the Arctic Convoys of WW2 [as I had previously sent to him] makes him more akin to the skipper of the SS Californian [who ignored distress signal from the Titanic] than to Captain Vian of HMS Cossack, who steamed into a Norwegian fiord to rescue British seaman held prisoner aboard the German ship Altmark,  "THE NAVY'S HERE" came the call from the prisoners, quoted by all the newspapers & radio at the time (I doubt you will know anything of that). 

I return to the extracts from the website of Doughty Street Chambers which I gave earlier (see lower down).  

The fact that Doughty Street Chambers exists is evidence that " freedomcivil liberties, human rightsaccess to justice" are NOT available in Britain as a 'Right', but only to those who can afford to pay lawyers to fight for them!  

Of particular importance to this appeal is the claim that they (which I presume would include Catherine Mary Marcus QC when she was practising there) are experts in ' Freedom of Information and Data Protection' matters. 

IF the FoI Act was doing what it PURPORTS to do, there would be no need for either an Information Commissioner, OR expert lawyers to do battle with him!   (Leaving aside the matter of Police and Public Authorities being involved).

To return to my allegation that the FoIA & the DPA were designed to do the opposite of what they purport to do.  It could be said that the latter was designed to cancel out the former, in all but the most trivial cases.  

I am currently waiting for replies to my FoI requests asking what % of appeals against the ICO are granted & how many struck-out, & the same questions relating to the decisions by Judge N J Warren.

Looking at some of those struck out by Judge Warren (who has resigned very suddenly) he has said on many occasions, 

 "Rights under FOIA do not trump an individual’s right to privacy under the Data Protection Act (DPA)."

My comment: "EXACTLY!  Both Acts were designed to do the opposite of what they PURPORT to do.   

The DPA was designed & IS used to trump the rights we are supposed to have under the FoIA (other than for the most trivial matters)".  Almost any request under the FoI of any real consequence will require the name of some person or other.  To use the language of card games is apt.  They slap down the DPA with the triumph of a card player slapping down his trump card.  THEY DO THIS IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT THE RULES SAY THAT THE DPA DOES NOT APPLY TO THOSE WHO ARE ACTING IN AN OFFICIAL CAPACITY'!  

I can give several examples (with official documents) of how the DPA has been mis-used in this way.  I am told (wrongly, I believe, as pointed out by my McKenzie Friend) that I used the wrong procedure, that I should have gone down some other avenue, & that I should do so now.  What a waste of time that would be!  

I have email exchanges between the ICO, the Ministry of Justice & myself, in which the ICO have got the MoJ to admit they HAVE failed to provide information they should have done,  , Then  the ICO tell me, 'That's it: We've got them to admit it, but that's all we can do>  We have no powers of enforcement',  That was a lie: They DO have powers of enforcement!    ,   NOTE: The information the MoJ has failed to deliver are my medical records from Garth Prison.  As said earlier, there is a strong connection between them & the cover up by West Yorkshire Police of the 'incident' on 8th August 1999.

Time to mention Lord Denning:  Lord Denning was rated (by some!) as the finest judge of the 20th century.  In his book ‘WHAT NEXT IN THE LAW’ there is one chapter entitled ‘A hierarchy of power’.  At (1) in that chapter, he quotes ‘that great historian Lord Acton’, “Power tends to corrupt, & absolute power corrupts absolutely”.  

Denning goes on to say, “In all societies there is a hierarchy of power.  At the top there may be a king or a dictator, … a president or a prime minister, or yet again, a totalitarian party.  Below the top there are hundreds of subordinates who wield power of one kind or another.  Throughout history you will find instances of power being misused or abused.  On occasion the abuse is so great that the only remedy is by rebellion … .  The only admissible remedy – in a civilised society – is by recourse to law.”

At (2) Recourse to law, he writes, “In order to ensure this recourse, it is important that the law itself should proved adequate & efficient remedies for abuse or misuse of power from whatever quarter it may come.  No matter who it is – who is guilty or the abuse or misuse.  Be it government, national or local.  Be it trade unions.  Be it the press. Be it management.  Be it labour.  Whoever it be, no matter how powerful, the law should provide a remedy  for the abuse or misuse of power, else the oppressed will get to the point when they will stand it no longer.  They will find their own remedy.  There will be anarchy!”  

A serious warning from the great man, but it is notable that he excludes judges from those who might ‘abuse their power’.  

Other pronouncements from Denning were less admirable, one of them being, “Better that innocent men remain in prison than that the integrity of the judiciary be impugned”!  Those very words belie that ‘integrity’!  Perhaps he WAS the finest judge of the 20th century – but what does that say for the rest of them?

Here it might be fitting to mention Martin McGuiness.  Protesting about injustice, he did NOT use ‘the proper procedures’: He used ‘his own remedy’ - & got to dine with the Queen!

Is it any wonder that some people are beginning to think that his methods are the only ones likely to get results?

I repeat my earlier respectful suggestion: 'If you STILL 'want to make a difference', & 'set a precedent', you might feel there is no better opportunity than in this case?'


Norman Scarth.

PS:  I, for one, find it easier to read from paper than from a screen, & in case you wish to do the same, I have copied the text of this thread & include it as an attachment.  NS

Subject: GIA/2615/14. ICO et al:New evidence(1).
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2015 13:36:30 +0000

To HH Judge Marcus QC                     Tuesday 24th March 2015

The Upper Tribunal (AAC),  5th Floor, Rolls Building, 
7 Rolls Buildings, Fetter Lane, London  EC4A 1NL    Tel:020-7071-5661


Your Honour,

As promised, I introduce new evidence, but first a Preface:

In June 2010 The Rt. Hon. Kenneth Clark MP PC was appointed 'Anti-Corruption Czar' which brought great joy to victims of corruption in Britain - until we found that the task given him by the Prime Minister was to deal (only) with corruption by foreigners who might try to bribe Britons!

This could be taken as an official announcement that 'There is NO corruption in Britain'.  After all, we have the Freedom of Information Act which created the position of Information Commissioner & his staff, to ensure that ALL actions by State Employees were subject to scrutiny.  Or are they?   

That of course was to reassure the gullible.  Victims of corruption & of State Crime know only too well that a truer name for the IC would be 'Commissioner for Cover-up'.  All those who purport to deal with complaints about the IC & his staff have the same purpose.  They do so by losing vitally important matters in a fog of 'procedures', Section This, Section That & Subsection The Other!  

As evidence of this I offer words from the Automatic acknowledgement of emails which comes from the Tribunals Office.  It includes the words,

There are various stages that you need to complete at the First-tier before you can appeal against their decision.   We may be unable to process your case if you have missed out a stage.

Our website also gives useful information for appealing to this office: application forms, explanatory leaflets, information about general procedures and rules and legislation governing cases.”

- - - - - - - - - - - - - 

AN ANALOGY:  An official is checking to see whether a complaint has been on the correct colour form, whether all the commas, apostrophes, semi-colons & such-like are as the should be.  A call goes out - "THE BUILDING IS ON FIRE!  PEOPLE ARE TRAPPED UPSTAIRS!  CALL THE FIRE BRIGADE!"

The official replies, "That is not within my remit.  I am only here to find fault with the complaint".

It is worth checking on the number of appeals struck out by Judge N J Warren.  In many of them he says,  "Rights under FOIA do not trump an individual’s right to privacy under the Data Protection Act (DPA)."

EXACTLY!  Both Acts were designed to do the opposite of what they PURPORT to do.   

The DPA was designed & is USED to trump the rights we are supposed to have under the FoIA, & this invariably happens, other than for the most trivial matters.

Perhaps all my allegations are false?  After all, there is NO corruption in Britain?    

Well, new evidence is coming to light which shows there is a great deal. 

As in the BBC Newsnight story on Cyril Smith: 

It includes the words,

Newsnight asked former Scotland Yard detective Clive Driscoll, who investigated claims of child abuse in Lambeth in the 1980s and 1990s, to examine the allegations.

"I looked at them as I probably would have done when I was a police officer and, on the balance of probabilities, you would have to say they appear very credible," said Mr Driscoll, the officer whose inquiry led to the conviction of Stephen Lawrence's killers.

"Certainly the timing and the type of allegations that are made are ones that the Met would take very, very seriously."

He described the claims as "very credible and very frightening".

"If you take all of the information that appears to be out there together it does look like collusion with police officers and other agencies to prevent what is a straightforward criminal case," he added.

Watch Nick Hopkins's report on Newsnight or on BBC iPlayer.


Police officers & other agenciesINCLUDING THE PCA, THE IPCC & THE ICO - have been involved in the cover–up of most serious crime against me!

The words highlighted above apply equally to my allegations – WHICH ARE BACKED UP BY CAST–IRON DOCUMENTARY, PHOTOGRAPHIC & VIDEO EVIDENCE!:

Though different types of crime, the conspiratorial cover-up of crimes against me are comparable to the cover-up of the activities of Cyril Smith & Co.   Another difference: The honest coppers who were investigating Smith & Co. were ordered by a very senior officer to ‘Lay Off’, with the threat that their careers could be in jeopardy if they did not.   In my case it would be a tacit understanding of each person of what they knew was expected of them.   

In her Report on the killings by Harold Shipman, Dame Janet Smith identified 'A CULTURE OF FEAR IN THE NHS' as the reason Shipman was able to go on killing long after he should have been stopped.  The brave woman doctor who first reported Shipman to the GMC was warned (like the honest coppers above) that her own career could be in danger if she persisted.   

Sadly, the Culture of Fear runs much wider than just the NHS: It runs throughout the nation.  

I understand that when a practicing barrister Judge Markus was a member of Doughty Street Chambers, who claim to be big on 'Human Rights'. 

Highlighted extracts from their website are below:

“Doughty Street Chambers is … renowned for and committed to defending freedom and civil liberties, … and human rights.

… will always be to improve access to justice and to promote human rights and civil liberties .

Barristers come to Doughty Street because they want to make a difference.

Doughty Street Chambers is unique.   Areas of Practice  … Members are often involved in high-profile, precedent-setting cases. … . Principal areas of practice … civil liberties …:  Civil actions against the Police and Public Authorities. … Freedom of Information and Data Protection  “

All most honourable activities!  

I respectfully ask Judge Markus: Did you leave them behind when you swore the Judicial Oath & became part of The Establishment?  

If you STILL 'want to make a difference', & 'set a precedent', you might feel there is no better opportunity than in this case?

If you have by now decided to grant me Permission to Appeal, then I will say no more.

If you are still undecided, there is much more evidence I can put before you, some of it new, some of it older, but only newly come into my hands again. 

IF I ever get it back, that could include stuff on the computer which was ILLEGALLY seized from me by WYP on 26/10/2011, during what I have described as, "THE FOULEST HONEY TRAP EVER" - & still illegally held by them!   

Norman Scarth.

PS: When Googling 'Anti-Corruption Tzar', I was surprised to see a reference to me.  The link is below, & I offer it as evidence: utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+inquiringminds%2FDgqX+%28Inquiring+Minds%29      

PPS: Without that computer, & the evidence on it, NO hearing involving me could be classed as 'Fair', by Article 6 of the ECHR & Britain's own Human Rights Act.      NS.  

Subject: GIA/2615/14. New evidence.
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2015 10:03:54 +0000

To HH Judge Marcus QC                                                  Monday morning, 23rd March 2015

The Upper Tribunal (AAC),  5th Floor, Rolls Building, 
7 Rolls Buildings, Fetter Lane, London  EC4A 1NL    Tel:020-7071-5661


Your Honour,

You adjourned the hearing last Monday to consider your decision.  I respectfully ask that you defer your decision until you have seen Important new evidence which has come to light.  

I will send it to you in the very near future. 

Norman Scarth  

Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2015 09:39:02 +0000

To HH Judge Marcus QC                                                  Monday evening, 16th March 2015

The Upper Tribunal (AAC),  5th Floor, Rolls Building,
7 Rolls Buildings, Fetter Lane, London  EC4A 1NL    Tel:020-7071-5661


Your Honour,

Close to senility, I do not always think or speak as clearly as I might.  

The attachment I send now is simply to clarify what I said during the telephone hearing today, to aid you in coming to your decision.

Norman Scarth.