1 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL CIVIL DIVISION ON APPEAL FROM HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT CASE NO 2016 0552 CASE NO 2016/P1/10313 CASE NO 2016 1804 CASE NO 2016 2012 CASE NO 2016 2442 CASE NO 2016 1755 CASE NO 2016 3310 CO 4920 2014 CO 1860 2015 CO 2640 2015 CO 2641 2015 CO 2454 2015, CO 1398 2016 CO 1262 2016 CO 938 2016 CO [torture application] 2016 CO [recusal application] 2016 The Honourable Mr Justice Cranston The Honourable Mr Justice Hickinbottom TARIQ REHMAN APPLICANT v THE BAR COUNCIL AND 54 OTHERS RESPONDENTS APPLICANT’S CORE BUNDLE AND SUBMISSIONS PART INDEX PAGE A TARIQ REHMAN V THE BAR COUNCIL, ANAL SHEIKH V THE LAW SOCIETY [2005] EWHC 1409 (CH) . THE TWO CASES WHICH COULD DISMANTLE THE BAR COUNCIL AND THE LAW SOCIETY, BRINGING ABOUT THE MOST FUNDAMENTAL CHANGE WITHIN THE LEGAL PROFESSION IN 200 YEARS 5-19 UK89
139
Embed
uk89-core-bundle-and-skeleton-court-of-appeal-pdf … · 1 in the court of appeal civil division on appeal from high court of justice in the administrative court case no 2016 0552
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
1
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL CIVIL DIVISION ON APPEAL FROM HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
CASE NO 2016 0552 CASE NO 2016/P1/10313 CASE NO 2016 1804 CASE NO 2016 2012 CASE NO 2016 2442 CASE NO 2016 1755 CASE NO 2016 3310
CO 4920 2014 CO 1860 2015 CO 2640 2015 CO 2641 2015 CO 2454 2015, CO 1398 2016 CO 1262 2016 CO 938 2016 CO [torture application] 2016 CO [recusal application] 2016 The Honourable Mr Justice Cranston The Honourable Mr Justice Hickinbottom
TARIQ REHMAN
APPLICANT
v
THE BAR COUNCIL AND 54 OTHERS
RESPONDENTS
APPLICANT’S CORE BUNDLE
AND SUBMISSIONS
PART INDEX PAGE
A TARIQ REHMAN V THE BAR COUNCIL, ANAL SHEIKH V THE LAW SOCIETY [2005] EWHC 1409 (CH) . THE TWO CASES WHICH COULD DISMANTLE THE BAR COUNCIL AND THE LAW SOCIETY, BRINGING ABOUT THE MOST FUNDAMENTAL CHANGE WITHIN THE LEGAL PROFESSION IN 200 YEARS
5-19
UK89
2
B CONTEMPORARY RELEVANCE -BREXIT
20-22
C SUMMARY OF THE TARIQ REHMAN PROCEEDINGS
1 VIOLATION OF THE BASIC PRINCIPLES ON THE ROLE OF LAWYERS ADOPTED BY THE EIGHTH UNITED NATIONS CONGRESS ON THE PREVENTION OF CRIME AND THE TREATMENT OF OFFENDERS, HAVANA, CUBA 27TH AUGUST – 7 SEPTEMBER 1990
22-27
2 VIOLATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE AND OTHER CRUEL INHUMAN AND DEGRADING TREATMENT OR PUNISHMENT 1984
27
D CURRENT PROCEEDINGS IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AND
ELSEWHERE
28-31
E ESSENTIAL READING 32-33
F SCHEDULES, TABLES AND LISTS AND MATERIALS
1 TABLE 1 – THE BSB’S PROSECUTIONS SCHEDULE 35-39
2 TABLE 2 – LIST OF LEO’S DECISIONS 40-44
3 TABLE 3 - A TABLE SHOWING CURRENT POSITION IN THE TRIBUNAL, THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT AND THE COURT OF APPEAL
45-49
4 TABLE 4- SHOWING THE NUMBER OF COURT APPLICATIONS, ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS WHICH HAVE BEEN GENERATED BY LEO’S AND THE BAR COUNCIL’S SHAM ALLEGATIONS AGAINST THE MR REHMAN
50-55
5 TABLE 5 – THE BSB’S REGULATORY PROCESSES : WHAT SHOULD HAPPEN AND WHAT DOES HAPPEN
56-59
6 TABLE 6 – LEO’S DECISION MAKING PROCESS : WHAT SHOULD HAPPEN AND WHAT DOES HAPPEN
60-63
7 TABLE 7 – THE BSB- LEO CONSPIRACY 64-76
8 TABLE 8 THE PROCEDURE AT THE DISCIPLINARY
TRIBUNAL
77-95
9 TABLE 9 - THE OBLIGATION TO WORK AS A FORM OF TORTURE
96-107
3
10 TABLE 10 – THE IMPOSITION OF DEADLINES AS A FORM OF TORTURE
108 -115
11 VENN DIAGRAM ILLUSTRATING RACIAL MISTRUST AND HATRED IN BSB 1
116 -118
G ISSUES
1 ARE THESE DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS (OR FOR
THAT MATTER ARE THEY PROCEEDINGS OF ANY
DESCRIPTION )
119-121
2 IF THEY ARE DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS, ARE THEY CAPABLE OF BEING TRIED ‘ LIES, DAMNED LIES: ABUSE OF PROCESS AND THE DISHONEST LITIGANT’ LORD REED
121-125
3 SHOULD ALL 161 CHARGES AND 27 PROCEEDINGS
BE SET ASIDE UNDER HAYWARD V ZURICH
INSURANCE COMPANY PLC [2016] UKSC
125
4 ARE ALL BAR COUNCIL’S PROSECUTIONS AB INITIO VOID AND UNLAWFUL. SHOULD EVERY PROSECUTION OF EVERY BARRISTER BE SET ASIDE?
125-128
5 ARE ALL 300 LEO DECISIONS MADE AGAINST TARIQ REHMAN VOID AND UNLAWFUL?
128-130
6 ARE ALL LEO DECISION BASED BAR COUNCIL PROSECUTIONS AGAINST TARIQ REHMAN VOID AND UNLAWFUL BECAUSE THE LEO DECISONS ARE AB INITIO VOID AND UNLAWFUL ?
130
7 ARE ALL OF THE TRIBUNAL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST TARIQ REHMAN AB INITIO VOID AND UNLAWFUL
130
8 BSB 1 DOES NOT EXIST. CRANSTON J ‘ ORDER WAS MADE IN BSB1. THEREFORE, SHOULD CRANSTON J’S ORDER BE SET ASIDE AND DECLARED NON EXISTENT?
130
9 IS HICKINBOTTOM J AUTOMATICALLY DISQUALIFIED UNDER RE PINOCHET ? IF SO, ALL SIX ORDER MADE BY HIM SHOULD BE SET ASIDE
130-132
4
10 IS MASTER GIDDEN’S PURPORTED CRO REFUSAL CONTRARY TO THE PRINCIPLE OF PARLIAMENT SOVEREIGNTY? SHOULD IT BE SET ASIDE BECAUSE IT IS BASED ON HICKINBOTTOM J’ ORDERS
132
11 IS THE COURT OF APPEAL UNWITTINGLY FACILITATING SERIOUS ORGANISED CRIME AND MONEYLAUNDERING?
132
H HOW THE CLASS ACTION [VICTIMS OF LAND AND PROPERTY THEFT] WORKS
133-136
I PROPOSED DIRECTIONS FOR THE CONDUCT OF COURT OF APPEAL PROCEEDINGS
1 JOINDER WITH ANAL SHEIKH V LAW SOCIETY
137
2 CONSOLIDATION OF ALL APPEALS AND APPLICATIONS. THE RESCISSION OF EXISTING REQUIREMENTS
137
3
PERMISSION TO BE GIVEN IN THE JUDCIAL REVIEW CLAIM [BSB] AND THE JUDICIAL REVIEW CLAIM [LEO]
137
4 IMMEDIATE STAY OF ALL PROCEEDINGS ON THE GROUNDS OF TORTURE
137
5 DEALING WITH BSB 1 AS A SAMPLE CASE ON THE FACTS
137
6 THE OTHER PROCEEDINGS TO BE DETERMINED ON POINTS OF LAW. COURT TO BE ADVISED BY CONSTITUTIONAL AND REGULATORY COUNSEL
138
7 CONSOLIDATION WITH ALL BARRISTERS’ AND SOLICITORS’ CASES
138
8 THIRD PARTY INTERVENTION BY VICTIMS OF BARRISTERS AND SOLICITORS
138
9 COURT STAFF TO BE REFERRED TO THE CRIMINAL AUTHORITIES
138-139
5
A TARIQ REHMAN V THE BAR COUNCIL, ANAL SHEIKH V THE LAW SOCIETY [2005] EWHC 1409 (CH) . THE TWO CASES WHICH COULD DISMANTLE THE BAR COUNCIL AND THE LAW SOCIETY BRINGING ABOUT THE MOST FUNDAMENTAL CHANGE WITHIN THE LEGAL PROFESSION IN 200 YEARS
1. These proceedings are brought in the public interest as class actions,
namely 1) the Barristers’ Class Action,
2) the Solicitors Class Action and
3) the Victims [Theft of Land and Property] Class Action (being victims of dishonest barristers and solicitors )
2. The aims and objectives of the Class Actions are set out in [ P4 -2 1] CL 1 PAGE 64-PAGE 67 . In summary, they are : 1) to take the first steps to establish a effective system for the regulation
of lawyers, which truly protects consumer rights
2) to rid the profession of dishonest lawyers (whoever they may be) and hold them to account
3) to set aside disciplinary findings made against barristers and solicitors,
where they have made unlawfully 4) to establish a fully funded legal aid system 5) to establish to a fairer system of regulation for solicitors and barristers
and to bring about the most fundamental change the professional has seen for over one hundred and fifty years (since the days of Jinnah, Nehru and Gandhi)
3. The Class Action shows that far from protecting the public interest, the General
Council of the Bar, the Bar Standards Board , the Law Society of England and Wales , the Solicitors’ Regulation Authority and the Legal Ombudsman’s Service are at the heart of a nationwide criminal network in which individuals such as Baroness Ruth Deech, former Chair of the Bar Standards Board, Patricia Robertson QC, former Vice Chair of the Bar Standards Board and Timothy Dutton QC, former Chairman of the Bar Council, play a pivotal role.
1 A common set of files detailed in Class Action Index has been deposited in the Court of Appeal. The designation of the files is [A1-1 ] where A1 is the file number and -1 is the tab number.
6
4. The proceedings concerning Tariq Rehman and Anal Sheikh come before the Court of Appeal ostensibly as disciplinary proceedings, but they cannot by any stretch of the definition be disciplinary proceedings.
5. In the UK in the 21st century, a black and ethnic minority barrister, Tariq
Rehman, has had to face 161 charges, prosecuted in 27 sets of proceedings over a three year period. which are increasing by the day , and additionally has the obligation to make appeals, judicial reviews claims , satellite litigation and face other investigations
6. The prosecutions against him range from ‘saying something’ or ‘thinking
something’ to shock a (white) solicitor ‘but not much’ (BSB 1) to not paying LeO compensation awards or refunds to clients who have never instructed him, whom he does not know , who have never paid him any money and who are clients of other barristers, because a gym instructor, restaurant manager or life coach (the Investigator’s typical pre LeO employment) says he should!
7. In Anal Sheikh v Law Society, a black and ethnic solicitor has been struck off
for doing bills which end with a zero, for taking her own remortgage monies from client account and for not completing the administration of an estate which usually takes eighteen months to two years, in which over 100 letters were written and received, in seven hours!
8. At best, the purported proceedings in both cases are representative of symbolic justice, the primary aim of which is ‘ reassurance rather than redress, prevention or punishment’ 2 At worst, they are conducted solely for the personal enrichment of those individuals referred to above .
9. Another aspect of this type of ‘symbolic justice’ is the sanitization of court
judgments by
1) suppressing the fraud and corruption which is widespread in the UK, particularly when it involves members of the legal profession
2) creating the impression for the world at large that UK lawyers are competent and honest,
10. A comparative study of regulatory decisions would lead anyone to believe that
the only dishonest , incompetent and unfit lawyers in the UK are black and ethnic minority lawyers , while lawyers who are supremely honest , highly competent and eminently fit for the profession, are white.
2 See Prospect Magazine , Issue 119 / February 2006 Catherine Fieschi. Senior Reseacher at Demos
7
11. The case of Anal Sheikh v Law Society HC 2005 Ch was the first time in legal history a solicitor succeeded in an application against the Law Society to set aside an intervention into a solicitor’s practice under Part II of the Schedule to the Solicitor’s Act 1974 (or what everyone mistakenly believed was an intervention under Part II of the Schedule to the Solicitor’s Act 1974) .3
12. In his lengthy judgment in the case of Anal Sheikh v The Law Society [2005]
EWHC 1409 (Ch) delivered in June 2005 , Sir Andrew Park, who was about to retire from the Bench , was damning against the Law Society His judgment was more than the ‘‘landmark’ decision it was described to be at the time.
13. Championing the weakest and most vulnerable members of the profession
against whom the Law Society’s unfettered and increasingly capricious and arbitrary power was being exercised in most barbaric of ways, Sir Andrew Park’s judgment was monumental in its effect.
14. In the year which followed his judgment, these so called interventions fell from
100 per year to only 7 , which had the effect of terminating the regular source of income, which in many cases probably exceeds £20m per annum, enjoyed by the solicitors and barristers who have contracts with the Law Society to deal with their regulatory work
15. A year after that , by an egregiously self serving act, a single individual ,
Timothy Dutton QC, reversed all that Sir Andrew Park had achieved. 16. Interventions now stand at about 400 -500 per year.
17. It is now known that these so called interventions by the Law Society are
nothing more than an elaborate bank scam.
33She asserts she is still a solicitor. The Law Society disagrees. The Solicitors’ Disciplinary Tribunal’s decision purporting to strike her off as a Solicitor in 2009 is void because it was
procured by fraud. The Tribunal were directed , intimidated , bribed or induced to create a false account in order to reverse the findings in the case of Anal Sheikh V The Law Society [2005] EWHC
1409 (Ch) which they did in her absence . The Law Society then directed , intimidated , bribed or
induced the court usher of the Administrative Court to physically lock her out of court in order to obstruct her from seeing a judge to ask him to deal with an application in her appeal .Collins J had
found had her appeal had ‘ cast iron grounds’ . Three Lord Justices , Sir Andrew Morritt, Lady Hallett and Lord Wall were appointed to hear her application in the Court of Appeal in April 2010. She
attended the hearing but they did not turn up . Five years later they have still not appeared to hear
the case . On the day Nicholas Patten QC impersonated a Court of Appeal Justice (a Court of Appeal Tribunal comprises three justices, not one) Mr Patten purported to hold a hearing at which he
purported to refuse her appeal to the Court of Appeal , which is her statutory right, and which she had made on sound legal grounds. He said that she should have made an application to the
lower court ( He did not tell her how she could get through a locked door with the court clerk standing outside it obstructing her entry ). The doorman of the Supreme Court, who has no legal
qualifications, was directed, intimidated , bribed or induced to refuse to accept her application to
the Supreme Court to accept jurisdiction because he purported to adjudge that the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction
8
18. It is impossible to conceive of a cruder scam: a Bank Fraudster writes to the Bank asking the Bank to freezes the Customer’s Bank Accounts and transfer the Customer’s funds to the Bank Fraudster. The Bank does so. The Bank and the Bank Fraudster then split the Customer’s money between them. In this case
1) the Bank Fraudster is the Law Society of England and Wales,
2) the Customers are the 10000 solicitors’ practices who have been victims of the scam,
3) the Bank Accounts are bank accounts of the solicitors 10 million or so
clients,
4) the Bank , on statistical probabilities, is every bank in the UK
The problem is that the bank scam (‘the SRA’s Bank Scam, Compensation Fund Fraud Etc.) is so crude it has to be disguised as something else in order to succeed. The scam is disguised as something which is lawful.
The vehicle of the theft is the SRA’s Fraudulent Vesting Instrument at PAGE 10. It is obvious that the document is not a court order: it is only a printed sheet with some words typed on it.
The Law Society sends the SRA’s Fraudulent Vesting Instrument with the letter appearing as PAGE 11 to the solicitor’s bank asking the bank to freeze the solicitor’s bank accounts which holds th solicitor’s and clients’ money, and to transfer the funds to the Law Society’s own account, or by their direction. The bank and the Law Society both conspire to treat the SRA’s Fraudulent Vesting Instrument as a court order entitling or obliging the bank to comply with the request. The solicitor’s money and the clients’ money is then split between the President of Law Society, the Chief Executive of the Solicitors’ Regulation Authority, other officials within those organisations, bank officials, members of the judiciary and others involved in the scam.
19. The SRA’s Bank Scam, Compensation Fund Fraud Etc. is effective because 1) it is sent by an seemingly respectable organisation whom no one would
believe would have a dishonest motive whereas in fact the Law Society is a criminal fraternity at the heart of serious organised fraud in the UK and
2) by the clever use of the term ‘vesting order ‘ it appears to have some sort
of court sanction
These two features induce anyone seeing it to treat the lawfulness of the
instrument as read , without question
9
The Law Society commits fraud on the court to cover up the bank scam. The purported proceedings which follow the SRA’s Bank Scam Compensation Fund Fraud Etc, the Law Society and the banks present false and perjured evidence, doctor documents, make sham submissions , bribe or intimidate witnesses
and legal representatives and bribe, intimidate and influence judges
The SRA’s Bank Scam Compensation Fund Fraud Etc falls into the three
accepted stages of money laundering
Placement –This is the movement of cash from its source. On occasion the source can be easily disguised or misrepresented. The removal from the solicitor’s bank is the placement .
Layering- The purpose of this stage is to make it more difficult to detect and uncover a laundering activity. It is meant to make the trailing of illegal proceeds difficult for the law enforcement agencies.
Integration – This is the movement of previously laundered money into the economy mainly through the banking system and thus such monies appear to be normal business earnings. This is dissimilar to layering, for in the integration process detection and identification of laundered funds is provided through informants.
The purported court proceedings associated with the scam form the dual function of layering and integration. The purported judgments which are generated are false and fraudulent instruments used to disguise the stolen money.
10
11
12
20. The Law Society has undertaken a minimum of 10000 unlawful interventions
to date in , or as a consequence of, which
About 30,000 lives have been destroyed. About 1 million clients have had their cases disrupted and have had to
retain a solicitor who was not their first choice.
The Law Society has committed banking fraud by deceiving banks into treating the SRA’s Fraudulent Vesting Instrument as a freezing order
There has been substantial defalcation of the Compensation Fund, a public trust fund, which is being used as no more than a ‘gravy train ‘ for Law Society and SRA officials and the solicitors and barristers representing them. The residual balances should be a matter of immense concern. In the majority of cases , clients will be unaware that they are entitled to the money, many will have died or moved abroad. With no checks and balances in the administration of the Compensation Fund, what is to stop dishonest officials from creating fictitious accounts and channelling the money to them?
The Law Society uses its powers of intervention to unlawfully expropriate a solicitor’s practice accounts which invariably hold costs for unbilled work to which the solicitor would be entitled. If, in each of the 6000 interventions since 1985, £250,000.00 was held by each solicitor in his client account by way of unbilled costs, £1.125 bn has been appropriated from solicitors .That is a conservative estimate. In the case of most firms , they will have unbilled work representing one and a half years annual turnover which could be £500,000.00 or more. Exceptionally , in large sole practice, a solicitor could have as much as £4m- £5m .
Another purpose of intervening into solicitors’ practices (or rather raiding and burgling them) is to enable the Law Society to obtain control over the solicitor’s residual balances to supplement the Compensation Fund.
It is also to show the Government that the Law Society is capable of regulating solicitors, which it is manifestly not capable of doing. The ultimate and long term objective is probably the elimination of all small practices from the market, and the establishment of ’supermarket’ type law firms , controlled by the Law Society ,in which bribes, ‘backhanders’ and other inducements by the Law Society and those connected with it
will be commonplace.
Firms are not intervened into where there is clear evidence of dishonesty if there is likely to be a claim on the Compensation Fund. The burden of payment in those circumstances is passed to the firm’s professional indemnity insurers. Firms are intervened into only where there are
13
substantial residual balances and no likely claim on the Compensation
Fund.
The targets of interventions are sole practitioners and small and niche practices some of whom are white, but the firms who bear the real brunt
are black and ethnic minority solicitors.
The Law Society relies on false and perjured evidence , fabricated evidence and withholds of evidence to secure a win against solicitors.
The Law Society procures contributions from the 147000 solicitors in England and Wales to the Compensation Fund by deceit . Each practising solicitor in England and Wales is obliged to pay about £400.00 - £500.00 annually by way of a contribution to the Compensation Fund. The SRA’s defalcation of the Compensation Fund stands at some £100m over a
period of 5 years.
The Law Society takes clients wills, deeds and documents That is a very valuable and dangerous database.
The Law Society has also stolen £55m by way of untraceable residual balances of which £11m is bona vacantia, In other words the SRA in collusion with the Treasury is stealing from the Crown. In the Matter of the interventions into the solicitors’ practices known as Ahmed & Co, Biebuyck, Dixon & Co and the practices of Mr Zoi and In the Matter of Sections 35 and 36 and Schedules 1 and 2 of The Solicitors Act 1974 and In the Matter of the Law Society Compensation Fund Rules 1995
21. The Law Society’s unlawful interventions to date which have been undertaken in breach of statute have generated proceeds of crime amounting to about £100m over a 5 year time span and have stripped the UK economy of in excess of £1.65 bn in the last 10 years.
22. The Law Society’s lawyers, such as Mr Timothy Dutton QC, Mr Gregory
Treverton Jones QC, Ms Patricia Robertson QC and others earn substantial sums from the Law Society ’s criminal activities. [DOC 08 PAGE 185- 207]
23. The arbitrary and unlawful exercise of the Law Society’s powers had has an enormous cost in human terms for the victims:
In 2007 , Mrs Ranee Bassi a 48 year old married woman and mother of 3 children was found dead in her solicitor’s office after a four year probe, at the conclusion of which she was found honest. She had hung herself by the neck from the ceiling beams
Mr Lawrence Mann, charged with dishonesty of a sum of about £5000.00, later found to be technical breach, shot himself and died . Records show
14
that on the day before his suicide , a caseworker had telephoned Mr Mann and accused him of dishonesty.
Solicitor Y committed suicide again after being accused of dishonesty.
In 2011 Phillipa Knox, a solicitor, committed suicide. 24. Mr. Dutton shares the responsibility for the unimaginable suffering and in some
cases, the death, of the thousands of solicitors whose lives and whose families’ lives have been destroyed by the Law Society, where interventions predate Anal Sheikh v Law Society (2005) EWHC 1409 (Chancery) ; but Mr. Dutton must bear the sole responsibility for the thousands of lives which have been destroyed since.
25. One of the questions I have posed above and have asked the Supreme Court to determine is whether Mr. Dutton has blood on his hands.
26. There are over 100 barristers involved in the SRA’s Bank Scam
Compensation Fund Fraud Etc from Britain’s most preeminent Barristers Chambers. There are over 30 of Britain’s most preeminent Queen’s Counsel involved in the SRA’s Bank Scam Compensation Fund Fraud Etc .
27. There are over 20 Britain’s most preeminent solicitors’ practices involved in the SRA’s Bank Scam Compensation Fund Fraud Etc .There are over 1000 of Britain’s most preeminent solicitors directly or indirectly involved in the SRA’s Bank Scam Compensation Fund Fraud Etc including past Presidents of the Law Society and the current incumbent.
28. Each and every one of them could be arrested on charges of fraud immediately. In the majority of cases, convictions are guaranteed.
29. The outcome of UK11 also has a direct impact on the Barristers’ Class Action
in the following ways:
1) Timothy Dutton QC and Patricia Robertson QC can immediately be
committed for contempt of court and probably also charged with offences contrary to the Fraud Act 2006 , Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, Theft Act 1968 , Conspiracy to defraud and Hate Crimes [ SRA2].
2) Baroness Ruth Deech’s Chairmanship of the Bar Standards Board comes
under suspicion
30. The involvement of Timothy Dutton QC, Patricia Robertson QC and Baroness Deech in the SRA’s Bank Scam Compensation Fund Fraud Etc brings the entire Bar Council into disrepute.
15
31. The nexus between Anal Sheikh v the Law Society and Tariq Rehman v the Bar
Council is shown in the flowchart at PAGE 16 32. The ramifications of UK11 are set out in the flowchart at PAGE 17
33. The link between UK11 and the Class Actions is set out in the flowcharts at
PAGE 18- PAGE 19
16
ANAL SHEIKH V THE LAW
SOCIETY
TARIQ REHMAN V THE
BAR COUNCIL
LAW SOCIETY’S BANK FRAUD, FRAUD ON THE COMPENSATION FUND, THEFT OF SOLICITORS’
BILLED COSTS, THEFT OF RESIDUAL BALANCES, THEFT OF BONA VACANTIA, THEFT OF CLIENT
DEPOSITS AND THEIR UNLAWFUL INTERVENTIONS INTO SOLICITORS’ FIRMS
Hickinbottom J
formerly a partner
in Cameron
McKenna
Fiona Woolf QBE , Partner in Cameron
McKenna
Timothy Dutton QC
OBE of Fountain
Court. Chairman of Bar Council
Patricia Robertson
QC of Fountain
Court. Vice Chair
Cranston J
Baroness Ruth Deech. Chair of the
BSB
10000 law firms raided and
burgled
Stolen
money goes through
client account
Deech family income
depends on SRA bank
scam
John Deech is a partner in Blake Lapthorn who have a
contract with the SRA to raid law firms and steal client and office money
Protected Dutton and
Robertson from
misconduct complaints Advanced
sham grounds
at SDT
Deceived CA and HL
Appointed to control all proceedings
Author of the Law of
Banking!
17
1
DOC 160 and DOC 72
20m clients can
claim 1) return of
stolen data eg wills
and deeds 2)
return of stolen mo
ney 3) damages
against the Law
Society (10000
raids over 50 years
x 2000 clients for
each firm)
THE PUBLC
PUBLIC
ACCOUNTABILTY
The Law Society together with the
banking industry has striped the UK
of £1.65bn : solicitors whose
practices are destroyed are reliant on
state benefits for the rest of their
lives. Mental and physical illness
results in a burden to the health care
system. The financial and economic
contribution they would have made is
not made . The taxpayer has to pay
for sham proceedings
THE UK ECONOMY
30000 solicitors who
have been unlawfully
raided can claim the
return of billed costs
and client money
£1.125 BN (30000 X
say £1.5m each ) and
damages £100bn
(30000 X say £5m
each )
SOLICITORS
£55M untraceable residual balances including £11m bona vacantia,
was stolen by the Law Society in collusion with the Treasury which
could be spent on schools and hospitals. The Law Society has stolen
£100m from the Compensation Fund Fraud over 5 years
FINANCIAL FRAUD
UK11 They and their families
(where they are deceased )
have substantial claims.
Who is going to tell them?
SOLICITORS WHO HAVE
RESETTLED OVERSEAS
AND COMMONWEALTH
SOLICITORS
RIGHT TO
WORK- FREEDOM
OF TRADE
10000 sole
practitioners and
small law firms can
reopen TODAY
ACCESS TO
JUSTICE
10000 mainly legal
aid practitioners and
can reopen TODAY
Law Society Presidents,
Bar Council Chairs and
BSB and SRA Executives
past and present can be
prosecuted for their part
in the SRA’s Bank Scam .
Baroness Ruth Deech,
Patricia Robertson QC
(VC BSB) Tim Dutton QC
(Chair Bar Council)
Anthony Townsend,Dame
Janet Paraskeva can
immediately be arrested
immediately
THE IMPACT IN
THE REGULATION
OF DOCTORS,
ACCOUNTANTS
AND OTHER
PROFESSIONALS
RACIAL EQUALITY
10000 predominantly BME
sole practitioners and small
law firms can reopen
TODAY
Automatic
rescission of all
disciplinary
decisions against
barristers and
solicitors made
over the past 50
years .
PROFESSIONAL
REGULATION
1000 white barristers and
solicitors from ‘top’
chambers and ‘magic circle’
firms can be prosecuted for
the SRA’s Bank Scam
THE END OF THE MONOPOLY OF THE
BAR COUNCIL AND THE LAW SOCIETY
18
CODE
This shows the automatic consequence of the grant of UK11
Parties who are making breach of duty claims against their barrister and / or solicitor
Parties who are making contempt applications , applications challenging forged instruments and strke outs, other applications
Mrs Margaret Gomm’s contempt application
Yash Mahey case set aside the decision by Sir Anthony May in the SRA’s Bank Scam, Compensation Fund Fraud Etc , the Red River Conveyancing and Mortgage Fraud and his involvement in the making of the Fraudulent Civil Restraint Orders against Anal Sheikh in favour of the Bar Mutual and Marc Beaumont
19
GRANT OF UK11 MADE EX DEBITO JUSTICIAE
(THE STATE’S JUDICIAL ORGAN HAS NO CHOICE)
ACCOUNTABILITY
Public and professional inquiry
REPARATION For Anal Sheikh and for 30000 other solicitors. Freezing orders against
dishonest lawyers’ property
PUNISHMENT
Committals for contempt, debarring of barrister and striking off of solicitors
Tre
vert
on J
ones
QC 39 E
ssex S
t
Paul Saff
ron R
adcl
iffe
sleBra
sseur
Hugo P
age Q
C, Jo
nath
an
Harv
ieQ
C (
Bla
ckst
one)
Phili
p
Engelm
an (
Clo
iste
re
Anest
a W
eekes
QC, (2
9 E
ssex
)
Marc
Beaum
ont.
( W
indso
r) Ab initio
voidness Discrimination.
No separation of powers.
EC Treaty infringements. Human rights
violations. UN violations. Lady Deech
Money laundering
Insurance fraud Torture
Robert
Burn
s
Salim
Ahm
ed
Mic
hael Cart
er
John H
endy
Joel Leig
h
Reinstatement & rescission of
all convictions
All UK
barristers
Tariq
Rehman
Margare
t Gomm
Marc Beaumo
nt JR
Victims Class Action
Lawyers
Class Action
Doctors
Class Action
Dr Ann Barker
FCA?
The Crossley
case
Yash
Mehey
May L
J, B
urn
ett
LJ
LJ
Nurn
ett
BAR MUTUAL
20
B CONTEMPORARY RELEVANCE -BREXIT
30. An application has been made made to the Supreme Court to link these proceedings and others with the Brexit Appeal. The nexis between them is shown in the diagram at PAGE 23
31. In the Brexit Case in the High Court ,the Lord Chief Justice, the Master of the
Rolls and Lord Justice Sales said
It is common ground that the most fundamental rule of UK constitutional law is that the Crown in Parliament is sovereign and that legislation enacted by the Crown of both Houses of Parliament is Supreme. Parliament can by enactment of primary legislation, change the law of the land in any way it chooses. There is no superior form of law than primary legislation, save only where Parliament has itself made provision to allow that to happen. The ECA 1972 which confers precedence on EU law is the sole example of this
32. The submission made to the Supreme Court, repeated here, is that the rule
of law, separation of powers and judicial independence are constitutional principles which exist in the UK only in the realms of constitutional theory. Parliament does not makes the law : the judiciary can and do disapply the existing law, amend the law and make new law :
1) In the cases of Tariq Rehman and Anal Sheikh, the Tribunal, Cranston J
and Hickinbottom J have disapplied, disregarded or changed the Legal Services Act 2007 (separation of powers)
2) In the case of Tariq Rehman, the Tribunal, Cranston J and Hickinbottom J have disapplied, disregarded or changed the Legal Services Act 2007 (the Legal Service Ombudsman’s Scheme)
3) In the case of Tariq Rehman, the Tribunal, and Hickinbottom J have
disapplied, disregarded or changed Vat law
4) In the case of Tariq Rehman, the Bankruptcy Court and the High Court have disapplied, disregarded or changed the Insolvency Act 1986
5) In the case of Anal Sheikh, the High Court, the Court of Appeal, the former House of Lords and the Supreme Court have disapplied, disregarded or changed the Solicitor’s Act 1974
21
6) In the cases of Tariq Rehman and Anal Sheikh, the High Court and Court of Appeal have disapplied, disregarded or changed the Civil Procedure Rules which has been created by statute
33. Tariq Rehman lives in Bradford . A round trip to the Royal Courts of Justice
would incur the following costs and losses and travel time
TABLE 1
Miles
Time Cost
Travel Bradford to Greater London Depart at 4am arrival 8.30am. MI rush hour traffic Mileage 50p per miles
200 4 hr 30m £100.00
Travel Greater London to Central London and walk to court by underground , waiting
1 hr 15m £10.00
Travel Central London to Greater London and walk from court by underground
1 hr 15m £10.00
Travel Bradford to Greater London Depart at 2.30 pm arrival 7 pm. MI rush hour traffic Mileage 50p per miles
200 4 hr 30m £100.00
Loss of earnings at £1500 per day for 2 days (because Mr Rehman would not have slept)
£3000.00
TOTALS
400 11hr 30m £3400.00
34. Miss Anal Sheikh has attempted to deliver files from him which contain
documents which sets out the law. The Court Office has refused to accept them from her on his behalf . The staff say that they will only accept them if he delivers them personally. They also
We will ignore any communication written by Miss Sheikh
35. The problem is that the Bar Council , the Tribunal , Hickinbottom J and Cranston
J do not know the law, or do know the law but do not acknowledge that the judiciary is bound by it . If Miss Sheikh does not tell the Court of Appeal what is the relevant law is, how else will the Court of Appeal know.
22
36. One of the issues in these proceedings is whether statute law only applies 1) to those members of the public who can travel for 200 miles and incur a
loss of £3500, and does not apply to those who cannot travel for 200 miles and incur a loss of £3500
2) to those members of the public who have the time and ability to research the law and articulate it, and does not apply to those members of the public who do not have the time and ability to research the law and articulate it. Plainly, no one can seek advice or be assisted by anyone else
3) to whose members of the public who have no involvement with Miss Anal Sheikh and if they do, statute law does not apply to them
C SUMMARY OF THE TARIQ REHMAN PROCEEDINGS
1 VIOLATION OF THE BASIC PRINCIPLES ON THE ROLE OF LAWYERS ADOPTED BY THE EIGHTH UNITED NATIONS CONGRESS ON THE PREVENTION OF CRIME AND THE TREATMENT OF OFFENDERS, HAVANA, CUBA 27TH AUGUST – 7 SEPTEMBER 1990
33. In his letter to the Malaysian Prime Minister, the President of the Law Society of England and Wales upholds the principles of freedom of expression and of the rights of the lawyer to perform his function without intimidation. PAGE 24-PAGE 25. The UK is no better in its treatment of its lawyers
34. Mr Wok wrote something for which he is being menaced and intimidated by the State
35. The treatment of Tariq Rehman is more serious in that the offence for which he is being punished is not one of writing anything perceived by another to be offensive, nor saying anything by another perceived to be offensive (because no one can prove what was said ; nor are his accusers agreed on what he is alleged to have said ). Tariq Rehman is being punished , and in the most barbaric of ways, for what someone thinks he thought. (BSB1)
23
24
25
26
36. To date Mr Rehman has been charged with 161 purported charges in 27 sets
of proceedings and 300 LeO Decisions have been made against him [TABLE 1-
TABLE 2 PAGE 35 – PAGE 44 ]
37. The allegations of misconduct for which he is being prosecuted are previously
unheard of not only in the UK but are unheard of in any civilised society. In
addition to BSB 1 the purported charges include
not paying within 7 day some demands of money claimed by other barristers, notice of which it is agreed was never received and which there was no obligation to pay because the demands were not vat invoices ( The BSB have changed VA T law to prosecute him in BSB2)
not (re) paying money to
a) people who are not his clients b) people who are the clients of other barristers c) people who have never paid him in the first place (‘the LeO
Decisions)
38. The charges are manifestly 1) nonsensical 2) absurd 3) perverse 4) irrational 5) abhorrent to any moral being 6) motivated by his race and or his religion or 7) some other characteristic of the Barrister and 8) patently brought for an ulterior motive
39. TABLE 2 below is a summary of all of the BSB’s prosecutions
TABLE 2
27
DESCRIPTION
BSB 1 - Charges
In this case, Mr Rehman has been prosecuted for thinking something for which he suspended for 2 months. It can now be shown that the prosecution had an ulterior motive which was to cover up the theft of the Landlord’s Property (as defined) by a Law Society Council Member [P5-7] UK72-5. The Case Examiner James Dawson of 2 Hare Court has been reported to the police Crime Report 1
BSB 2 - Charges
In this case, Mr Rehman has been prosecuted for not paying fees claimed by other barristers within 14 days under a Legal Aid Scheme . They had forged his signature on the claim form . It was accepted that they said sent their request for payment to the wrong address. Mr Rehman has therefore been prosecuted for not paying a sum to barristers whom he had no knowledge were asking for payment. Furthermore there was no legal obligation to pay the barristers because their demand was not a VAT invoice so Hickinbottom J’s finding that legal title had passed was wrong in law, in particular under VAT law Furthermore, the BSB and James Counsell, Counsel for the BSB, colluded with the Farringdon Chambers barristers to suppress the fact that they had forged Mr Rehman’s signature (plain to see ) All are being reported to the police
BSB 3- BSB 27 (About 100 charges)
These are based on LeO Decisions, which are void because the LeO Decision are void
New charges
The BSB are now prosecuting Mr Rehman for getting a CRO for arguing the above.
2 VIOLATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE AND OTHER CRUEL INHUMAN AND DEGRADING TREATMENT OR PUNISHMENT 1984
40. Tariq Rehman claims that the treatment to which he has been subjected by the Bar Council, the Tribunal and the High Court amounts to torture and they derive some sadistic satisfaction in subject him to humiliation, pain and suffering at in inhuman level and to ruin him financially and professionally .
41. An analysis of the torture techniques employed by the Bar Council, the
Tribunal and the High Court acting in concert with each other is set out P2-8]
42. Mr Rehman seeks relief from the Court of Appeal from the ongoing torture
28
D CURRENT PROCEEDINGS IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AND ELSEWHERE
43. TABLE 3 is a list of the proceedings pending in the Court of Appeal as at
July 2016
TABLE 3
CASE NUMBER DESCRIPTION
2016 0552 Appeal against Order 21st January 2016
2016 /P1/10313 Application for relief against torture by way of a stay of proceedings
2016 1755 Appeal against Order 18th April 2016 (Cranston J)
2016 1804 Appeal against Order 22nd April 2016
2016 2012 Appeal against Order 27th April 2016
2016 2442 Appeal against Order 25th May 2016
2016 2442 application
Application for a restraining order against the publication of Hickinbottom J’s judgment and a stay order
2016 3310 Appeal against Order 29th July 2016 (Hickinbottom J)
44. Since July 2016, the Bar Standards Board has continued its campaign against Mr Rehman of prosecuting him with sham charges which are determined at sham hearings at the Tribunals ,
45. The Bar Council (and the Law Society ) do not stop at stripping the barrister (or solicitor) it has targeted of his profession, livelihood and reputation : the Bar Council ensures that the Victim is left penniless, homeless and destitute. The Victim has to be completely extinguished to prevent him from mounting any future challenge which might reveal the Bar Council’s criminal activities to
the public. Typically, Bar Council
1) procures the making of fraudulent CROs to keep their victim out of court
2) bankrupts their victim
29
3) uses its extensive network throughout the entire court system to prevent their victim from mounting any claims against any person (however unconnected with the purported disciplinary proceedings ) which give him result in his receiving money . Courts will be instructed
not to issue claims for their victim not to enter any judgment in his favour to maintain sham proceedings against him
4) encourages others to make sham claims against their victim
46. TABLE 4 is a list of the proceedings pending in other courts and in the
Employment Tribunal and Disciplinary Tribunal which, there is no doubt, the Bar Council has influenced
TABLE 4
NO PROCEEDINGS
DESCRIPTION
1 Alan Blacker v Tariq Rehman
Alan Blacker was a solicitor who was struck off. He held himself out as an insolvency expert. Mr Rehman wrote a five line email inquiring whether Mr Blacker would be able to assist a client of his. He did not pursue the inquiry . He did not write anything further to Mr Blacker. Mr Blacker delivered a bill of £1800 for making the inquiry and obtained judgment in default. Mr Rehman issued a second claim for another bill for £1800 for ‘dealing with’ a statutory demand. He did not serve a response pack and did not apply for sanctions. The claim is therefore void. Despite requests made since April 2016 the judge has refused to strike out the claim. It is alleged that the Bar Council have instructed the judge to leave the claim pending.
2 Tariq Rehman v Alan Blacker
Mr Rehman issued an abuse of process claim against Mr Blacker. Mr Blacker has not defended it. Mr Rehman is entitled to judgment in default . It is alleged that the judge is acting under the dictation of the Bar Council
3 Leo v Tariq Rehman (Birmingham County Court )
Judge Worster refuses to strike out the proceedings notwithstanding that Mr Rehman has shown that Freda Sharkey ,
30
General Counsel of LeO obtained an enforcement order by misleading the court in the most preposterous way: in her skeleton argument she omitted a line of a section of the Legal Services Act 2007 to give the section an entirely different meaning (see PAGE 121-PAGE 125 below) It is alleged that the judge is acting under the dictation of the Bar Council
4 Misconduct in Public Office Claim [UK 81]
An attempt was made to issue this Claim in Bradford District Registry in July 2016 before Hickinbottom J’s fraudulent CRO. The Claim included an application to injunct him from making the CRO. The Court delayed issuing the Claim until the fraudulent CRO was made and now refuses to issue the Claim
5 Employment Tribunal
6 BSB 6 Statutory Appeal
On 2nd November 2016 the Tribunal sentenced Mr Rehman to a suspension of about 3 years for not paying sums pursuant to LeO Decisions to clients who were not his clients but were the other barristers. He has lodged an appeal in the Administrative Court which the Court refuses to issue
7 BSB 3 Statutory Appeal
On 14th November 2016 the Tribunal suspended Mr Rehman for failing to manage chambers . His Joint Head of Chambers Ian McDonald QC received no sentence. Mr Rehman has lodged an appeal in the Administrative Court which the Court refuses to issue
8 BSB 10 Statutory Appeal
On 23rd November 2016 the Tribunal debarred Mr Rehman for not paying sums pursuant to LeO Decisions to clients who were not his clients but were the other barristers. He has lodged an appeal in the Administrative Court which the Court refuses to issue
9 Tariq Rehman application to set aside a statutory demand
From time to time the Kings Court Chambers barristers referred surplus work to another Chambers. A statutory demand has been issued for payment. There is no creditor and there can be no claim for a contract. The Bankruptcy Court has had four opportunities
31
to strike out the demand but will not do so. It the statutory demand is not set aside it will establish the following precedents
If a GP refers a patient to a consultant, he must pay that consultant . The consultant may additionally charge the patient
A customer enters restaurant A which
is full. Restaurant A refers the customer to another local restaurant, B. Restaurant B is entitled to charge Restaurant A as well as the customer
10 Tariq Rehman v the Minister of Justice
This is a judicial review application arising from the Bankruptcy Court’s refusal on 4 occasions to strike out the Statutory Demand which has no creditor and void for a number of other reasons.
11 Tariq Rehman v Clodaghmure Callinan and 4 others
This is an appeal arising from the Bankruptcy Court’s refusal to strike out the Statutory Demand
12 BSB 40 charges
A hearing is listed at the Tribunal on 17th January . The Charges are based on LeO based decisions , which are void
13 BSB CRO
Mr Rehman is also being charged for getting a CRO!
47. The Court of Appeal is asked to give Mr Rehman a remedy in all thirteen cases on the grounds that the lower court and Tribunals are not , respectively, courts or tribunals respect but are public authorities within the meaning of the Human
Rights Act 1988
32
E READING
48. The Class Action has common files, detailed in the Class Action Index, which
have been deposited in the Court of Appeal. Those relevant for the purpose of these submissions are:
CASE SPECIFIC CASES TARIQ REHMAN V THE BAR COUNCIL
APPEAL COURT PROCEEDINGS
P1 3 UK63 PART 1 Skeleton Argument in the Court of Appeal Proceedings PAGE 11-12, function and purpose of document, PAGE 32-36 background PAGE 36-PAGE 40, the ab initio voidness of the Bar Council’s regulatory functions PAGE 53-PAGE 60 Why it is said these are not disciplinary proceedings at all but are symbolic proceedings and why it is said they are tantamount to human torture PAGE 64-PAGE 70 the Administrative Court’s conduct of the case and what the Court of Appeal is asked to do PAGE 100- PAGE 132
1-132
P1 4 UK63 PART 2 UK 61 Skeleton Argument in Judicial
Review Claim [BSB 6]. This document provides a detailed
analysis of the Bar Council’s regulatory procedures
showing they are ab initio void
P2 5 UK63 PART 3 UK 48 Skeleton Argument in Judicial
Review Claim [LeO]. This document provides a detailed
analysis of the LeO’s procedures showing they are ab
initio void
P2 6 UK63 PART 4 LSB 1 The aims and objectives of the Barristers and Solicitors Class Action , A report to the Members of the Privy Council, The Rt. Hon Michael Gove MP Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, The Rt. Hon the Lord Thomas, Lord Chief Justice ,Sir Andrew Park ,The Hon Mr Justice Cranston , Members of the Bar’s Representation Committee ,Members of the Council of the Inns of Court, Members of the Bar Council, The Legal Services Board, Members of the Board of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, UK Barristers UK Solicitors
33
P2 7 UK63 PART 4 UK51 . Tariq Rehman’s complaint in the Employment Tribunal
P2 8 UK63 PART 6 EC UN CORE PART XI analyses UK’s torture techniques with reference to the lawyer’s regulator but it could just as well apply to the Victim who has been stripped of his land and property by a purported member of the judiciary and attempts to recover what he has lost through the courts which is an exercise in futility. The techniques are extracted from a random selection of official torture manuals such as Biderman (1956, 6-13), the "basic communist techniques of coercive interrogation" , KUBARK Counterintelligence Interrogation and LTC Jerald Phifer‘s memorandum to the Commander of Joint Task Force 170 (Guantánamo)
CASE SPECIFIC CASES TARIQ REHMAN V THE BAR COUNCIL
MISCONDUCT IN PUBLIC OFFICE CLAIM
Q1 1 UK 81 Misconduct in Public Office Claim
[A1] EC UN CORE PAGE 568- PAGE 582 shows how fraudulent civil restraint orders are used in the UK against Victims to suppress fraud.4 They are an instruments to secretly imprison Victims
4 Speaking recently at the Hay Literary Festival , investigative journalist Roberto Saviano, said : “If I asked what is the most corrupt place on Earth, you might say it’s Afghanistan, maybe Greece, Nigeria, the south of Italy. I would say it is the UK. It’s not UK bureaucracy, police, or politics, but what is corrupt is the financial capital. Ninety per cent of the owners of capital in London have their headquarters offshore. Jersey and the Caymans are the access gates to criminal capital in Europe and the UK is the country that allows it
34
F SCHEDULES, TABLES AND LISTS AND MATERIALS
49. Mr Rehman also relies on various tables and schedules which are works in progress. They are by no means comprehensive, representing on average about fifty per cent of the relevant data. They are : 1) TABLE 1 PAGE 35-PAGE 39, is a Schedule of BSB Prosecutions
2) TABLE 2 PAGE 40-PAGE 44 is a Schedule of LeO Decisions
3) TABLE 3 PAGE 45 -PAGE 49 is a table showing the current position of proceedings in the Tribunal and the Court
4) TABLE 4 PAGE 50-PAGE 55 shows the number of court applications which have been generated by the BSB’s sham prosecutions and LeO’s sham decisions
5) TABLE 5 PAGE 56 – PAGE 59 shows what should happen in the BSB’s
regulatory processes and what does in fact happen
6) TABLE 6 PAGE 60-PAGE 63 shows what should happen in LeO’s decision making process and what should happen
7) TABLE 7 PAGE 64 -PAGE 76 is an extract from UK81 the Misconduct in Public Office Claim showing how the BSB- LeO Conspiracy works
8) TABLE 8 PAGE 77 – PAGE 95 shows the procedure at the Tribunal
9) TABLE 9 PAGE 96 - PAGE 107 , this is a record of the time spent doing the work needed to defend himself . A random period of two months is taken to show that the Victim has no time to eat, sleep, enjoy family life or do anything save work. He certainly has no time to earn an income. Mr Rehman has been under this pressure for four years now.
10) TABLE 10 PAGE 108 - PAGE 115 this is a calendar of ‘deadlines’ . For
the Victim missing a single deadline has a fatal outcome , The calendar is only partially complete.
BSB 17 CHG130 PCLR 2015 0329 LEO Charlotte Ritchings
BSB 17 CHG131 PCLR 2015 0330 LEO Kirsty Lemner failed to cooperate with an investigation
BSB 17 CHG132 PCLR 2015 0331 LEO Michael Goitom
BSB 17 CHG133 PCLR 2015 0348 LEO Sarah Marechera
bsb 19 PCLR 2015 0365 D3 Failure to pay LeO Decision
BSB 12 CHG134 PC 2015/0411 Failure to pay BSB 4 costs of £335 and to correspond. £335
BSB 12 CHG135 PC 2015/0411 Failure to pay 1 feb 2010 fine £1300 £335 and to correspond.
BSB 18 CHG136 PC 2013 0043 LeO with Nigel Wray
BSB20 CHG137 PC 2015/0491 LeO
BSB20 CHG138 PC 2015/0493 LeO
BSB20 CHG139 PC 2015/0494 LeO
BSB20 CHG140 PC 2015/0495 LeO
BSB20 CHG141 PC 2015/0496 LeO
BSB20 CHG142 PC 2015/0498 LeO
BSB20 CHG143 PC 2015/0499 LeO
BSB20 CHG144 PC 2015/0500 LeO
BSB20 CHG145 PC 2015/0501 LeO
BSB20 CHG146 PC 2015/0502 LeO
BSB20 CHG147 PC 2015/0503 LeO
BSB 22 CHG 150 PC 2016/ 0024 LeO Gao
39
BSB 22 CHG 151 PC 2016/ 0028 LeO David Baker
BSB 22 CHG 152 PC 2016/ 0029 LeO Cindy Walker
BSB 21 CHG 149 PC 2016/ 0044 Leo Abi
BSB 21 CHG 148 PC 2016/ 0045 lEo tudor
BSB 23 CHG 154 PC 2016/ 0072 Leo
BSB 23 CHG 155 PC 2016/ 0073 Leo
BSB 24 CHG 156 PC 2016/0089 Leo
BSB 24 CHG 157 PC 2016/0080 Leo
BSB 24 CHG 158 PC 2016/0092 Leo
BSB 25 CHG 159 PC 2016/0130 Leo
BSB26 CHG 160 PC 2016/0226 Leo
BSB27 CHG 161 PC 2016/0243 CRO
40
TABLE 2 LIST OF LEO DECISIONS
Complainant Complaint
No Action No
ABDULLAH CMP 002692
Abdullah
ABI CMP-009054
AHMAD CMP-009443
Ahmed
Alexander CMP 000011
ALTAWIL CMP 011572
AOUANE
BALAYOT CMP 005092
Balayot
BERGER CMP -005184
Berger
BAGUS CMP-003838
2014 12395
Bagus
BELAIA CMP 008522
Belaia
BOUCHER CMP 003854
Boucher
CALLIRGOS CMP 006317
Callirgos
41
CHARLOTTE
CONNARD ( WRAY)
2014 11638
DAVID CMP 002917
David
DAVIS CMP 003838
De Villiers
DE VILLIERS
201 408 976
EARL
2014 16984
Earl
ESCHEMULLER
FRIMPONG CMP 004645
Frimpong
GAO
2014 12392
Gao
GOITOM CMP 000792
Goitom
GRAHAM CMP 007519
GRAY CMP 001128
Gray
GUPTA CMP 000815
Gupta
HABOUL CMP 000471
42
Haboul
Haboul
HADDAD CMP 0006433
Haddad
HALLARD
2014 03401
HOWE (wray)
CMP-007847
JABARRI CMP 017300
JACOBS
2014 100341
JAMA CMP 002951
JENKINS CMP 001363
KAMARA CMP 00698
KAUSER CMP 000759
Kauser
KENNETT CMP 003307
Kennett
Kizahakkevilay CMP 011 838
LATEEF CMP 009854
LEMMER CMP 002906
LOMAKA
2014 11967
Lomaka
LONGLEY CMP 005970
Longley
43
MAKI CMP -010446
Maki
MARESCHERA
2014 11712
MEHARI CMP -000725
2014 19130709
Mehari
Mehari
Mohammed CMP 007 855
MURTADHA
2014 08168
NELSON
CMP-005919
Nelson
NICHOLAKOS CMP 005 984
Nicholakos
PHOTIOU
2014 04469
PAUL
2014 10014
Paul
Paul
RAMADANI CMP 013470
RAVIKANT
2014 16564
RICHINGS CMP 002093
Richings
RODGERS CMP 008597
Rodgers
44
SHARIF
2014 03401
SHERIDAN CMP 008591
Sheridan
SINGLETON
201406194
SALOP CMP024712
SITTA CMP-021284
SODHI
2014 06596
Sodhi
Sodhi
SOUTHWELL CMP 008840
Southwell
TAMAKI CMP 00460
Tamaki
Tamaki
TUDOR CMP 004826
WALKER CMP 001514
Walker
SOUTHERN
2014 408495
Unknown CMP021241 standard sent
Unknown CMP 006 317
standard sent
Mcann (wray) CMP-028428
45
TABLE 3 CURRENT POSITION OF PROCEEDINGS
Column 1 is a reference to the proceedings at the Tribunal
Column 2 is the numbers of charges included in each proceedings. The Appeals are proceeding by way of rehearing, so each charge will have to be considered by the court
Column 3 is the status of proceedings at the Tribunal
Column 4 shows where an appeal has been made
Column 5 shows where a judicial review claim has been made.
Column 6 is a judicial review claim in relation to LeO Decisions . The charges which are directed effected by the issues in in the claim are tinted
blue.
Column 7 is a judicial review claim in relation to the BSB’s regulatory procedures . The charges which are directed effected by the issues in in the claim are tinted orange
Column 8 is a Notice of Application which was issued in May 2015 but despite repeated requests was not listed until Cranston J directed that it be heard on 22nd January 2016 in Mr Rehman’s absence . The application
is for an order
1) To strike out BSB 1 2) To consolidate all proceedings 3) To stay proceedings at the Tribunal
The cases brought within the application are indicated by a red tint
Column 9 is referable to a Notice of Application which was lodged in January 2016 but has not yet been issued . The cases brought within
the application are indicated by a yellow tint
Column 10 is referable to another Notice of Application which was lodged in January 2016. It has also not yet been issued . The cases
brought within the application are indicated by a green tint
Columns 11-16 are the Court of Appeal appeals
TABLE 3
46
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Pro
ce
ed
ing
s N
o.
Ch
arg
e N
o.
Sta
tus a
t tr
ibu
na
l
Ap
pe
al
Ad
min
Co
urt
No
. JR
Ad
min
Co
urt
No
.
JR
Le
O C
O 9
38
20
16
Lis
ted
27
Ju
l
16
JR
BS
B C
O
12
62
20
16
Lis
ted
27
Ju
l
16
20
16
N2
44
dir
ecti
on
s
& s
trik
e o
ut
N2
44
-
re
cu
sa
l o
f
Cra
nsto
n J
a
nd
se
t a
sid
e O
rde
r o
f
22
01
16
N
24
4
re
lie
f
ag
ain
st
tort
ure
Co
urt
of
Ap
pe
al
Ord
er
21
Ja
n 1
6
Co
urt
of
Ap
pe
al
Ord
er
18
Ap
r 1
6
Co
urt
of
Ap
pe
al
Ord
er
22
Ap
r 1
6
Co
urt
of
Ap
pe
al
Ord
er
27
Ap
r 1
6
Co
urt
of
Ap
pe
al
Ord
er
10
Ma
y
16
To
rtu
re
Ap
pli
ca
tio
n
BSB 1
1-3
CO
49
20
20
14
Hea
rd 2
1 J
an 1
6 ,
18
A
pr
16
Is
sued
in M
ay 2
01
5 in
BSB
1
BSB 2
4-7
CO
18
60
20
15
Hea
rd 2
2 A
pr
16
BSB 3
8-17 3
day
s in
20
15
, 14
No
v 16
CO
24
54
20
15
Hea
rd 1
0 M
ay 1
6
CO
26
40
20
15
BSB
4
18
BSB
5
19-
20
47
BSB
6
21-
23
Heard
22 F
eb 1
6 . 0
2
Nov 1
6
CO
1262 2
016
Lis
ted
2
8 J
ul
16
CO
1398 2
916
BSB
7
31-
61
BSB
8
62-
92
CO
2641 2
015
BSB
9
37
BSB
10
38-
49
Hn
gs 1
8 M
ay 1
6, 0
6
Sep
16
, 23
No
v 16
BSB
11
32
BSB
12
73-
74
BSB
13
36
48
BSB
14
38-
49
Lis
ted 4 J
ul 1
6
BSB
15
111-
113,
116-
122
Lis
ted 15 J
ul 16
BSB
16
114
BSB
17
123-
133
BSB
18
136
BSB
19
?
BSB
20
137-
147
BSB
21
148-
149
BSB
22
150-
152
BSB
23
153-
155
BSB
24
156-
157
BSB
25
158-
169
49
BSB
26
160-
161
BSB
27
161
50
1. APPEAL ADMINISTRATIVE COURT CO 4960 2014
2. JUDICIAL REVIEW CLAIM 2014
3. APPEAL TO COURT OF APPEAL 2016 0552
4. APPEAL TO COURT OF APPEAL 2016 1755
5. APPEAL TO COURT OF APPEAL 2016 1804
6. APPEAL TO COURT OF APPEAL 2016 2012
7. APPEAL TO COURT OF APPEAL 2016 2442
8. APPEAL ADMINISTRATIVE COURT CO 1860 2015
9. JUDICIAL REVIEW CLAIM 2014
10. APPEAL TO COURT OF APPEAL 2016 0552
11. APPEAL TO COURT OF APPEAL 2016 1755
12. APPEAL TO COURT OF APPEAL 2016 1804
13. APPEAL TO COURT OF APPEAL 2016 2012
14. APPEAL TO COURT OF APPEAL 2016 0552
15. APPEAL TO COURT OF APPEAL 2016 2442
BSB 1
BSB
2
Ta
ria
Re
hm
an
th
ou
gh
t so
me
thin
g w
hic
h
‘sh
ock
ed
’ A
dri
an
Gre
en
b
ut
‘no
t m
uch
’ T
ari
a R
eh
ma
n
did
no
t p
ay a
de
bt
wh
ich
wa
s n
eve
r
ow
ed
an
d o
f w
hic
h h
e k
ne
w n
oth
ing
wit
hin
7 d
ays
of
ne
ve
r h
avin
g r
ece
ive
d
it !
!
TABLE 4 TABLE SHOWING THE NUMBER OF COURT APPLICATIONS, ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS WHICH HAVE BEEN GENERATED BY LEO’S AND THE BAR COUNCIL’S SHAM ALLEGATIONS AGAINST THE CLAIMANT
51
16. APPEAL ADMINISTRATIVE COURT CO 2454 2015
17. JUDICIAL REVIEW CLAIM 2640 2015
18. APPEAL TO COURT OF APPEAL 2016 0552
19. APPEAL TO COURT OF APPEAL 2016 1755
20. APPEAL TO COURT OF APPEAL 2016 1804
21. APPEAL TO COURT OF APPEAL 2016 2012
22. APPEAL TO COURT OF APPEAL 2016 2442
23. APPEAL ADMINISTRATIVE COURT CO 1262 2016
24. JUDICIAL REVIEW CLAIM CO 1398 2016
25. APPEAL TO COURT OF APPEAL 2016 0552
26. APPEAL TO COURT OF APPEAL 2016 1755
27. APPEAL TO COURT OF APPEAL 2016 1804
28. APPEAL TO COURT OF APPEAL 2016 2012
29. APPEAL TO COURT OF APPEAL 2016 0552
30. APPEAL TO COURT OF APPEAL 2016 2442
BSB 3
BSB
6
Ta
riq
Re
hm
an
is
re
sp
on
sib
le f
or
eve
ry a
lle
ge
d
mis
de
am
ou
r o
f e
ve
ry b
arr
iste
r in
his
ch
am
be
rs
Ta
riq
Re
hm
an
ha
s t
o r
efu
nd
mo
ne
y h
e h
as n
eve
r
rece
ive
d to
cli
en
ts w
ho
are
no
t h
is c
lie
nts
wit
hin
7
da
ys
52
31. APPEAL ADMINISTRATIVE COURT CO [not yet issued]
32. JUDICIAL REVIEW CLAIM [not yet issued]
33. APPEAL TO COURT OF APPEAL 2016 0552
34. APPEAL TO COURT OF APPEAL 2016 1755
35. APPEAL TO COURT OF APPEAL 2016 1804
36. APPEAL TO COURT OF APPEAL 2016 2012
37. APPEAL TO COURT OF APPEAL 2016 2442
38. APPEAL ADMINISTRATIVE COURT CO [not yet issued]
39. JUDICIAL REVIEW CLAIM [not yet issued]
40. APPEAL TO COURT OF APPEAL 2016 0552
41. APPEAL TO COURT OF APPEAL 2016 1755
42. APPEAL TO COURT OF APPEAL 2016 1804
43. APPEAL TO COURT OF APPEAL 2016 2012
44. APPEAL TO COURT OF APPEAL 2016 0552
45. APPEAL TO COURT OF APPEAL 2016 2442
BSB 10
BSB
12
Ta
riq
Re
hm
an
ha
s t
o r
efu
nd
mo
ne
y h
e h
as n
eve
r re
ce
ive
d
to c
lie
nts
wh
o a
re n
ot
his
cli
en
ts w
ith
in 7
da
ys
53
46. APPEAL ADMINISTRATIVE COURT CO [not yet issued]
47. JUDICIAL REVIEW CLAIM [not yet issued]
48. APPEAL TO COURT OF APPEAL 2016 0552
49. APPEAL TO COURT OF APPEAL 2016 1755
50. APPEAL TO COURT OF APPEAL 2016 1804
51. APPEAL TO COURT OF APPEAL 2016 2012
52. APPEAL TO COURT OF APPEAL 2016 2442
53. APPEAL ADMINISTRATIVE COURT CO [not yet issued]
54. JUDICIAL REVIEW CLAIM [not yet issued]
55. APPEAL TO COURT OF APPEAL 2016 0552
56. APPEAL TO COURT OF APPEAL 2016 1755
57. APPEAL TO COURT OF APPEAL 2016 1804
58. APPEAL TO COURT OF APPEAL 2016 2012
59. APPEAL TO COURT OF APPEAL 2016 0552
60. APPEAL TO COURT OF APPEAL 2016 2442
BSB 14
BSB
15
Ta
riq
Re
hm
an
ha
s t
o r
efu
nd
mo
ne
y h
e h
as n
eve
r re
ce
ive
d
to c
lie
nts
wh
o a
re n
ot
his
cli
en
ts w
ith
in 7
da
ys
54
61. APPEAL ADMINISTRATIVE COURT CO [not yet issued]
62. JUDICIAL REVIEW CLAIM [not yet issued]
63. APPEAL TO COURT OF APPEAL 2016 0552
64. APPEAL TO COURT OF APPEAL 2016 1755
65. APPEAL TO COURT OF APPEAL 2016 1804
66. APPEAL TO COURT OF APPEAL 2016 2012
67. APPEAL TO COURT OF APPEAL 2016 2442
68. APPEAL ADMINISTRATIVE COURT CO [not yet issued]
69. JUDICIAL REVIEW CLAIM [not yet issued]
70. APPEAL TO COURT OF APPEAL 2016 0552
71. APPEAL TO COURT OF APPEAL 2016 1755
72. APPEAL TO COURT OF APPEAL 2016 1804
73. APPEAL TO COURT OF APPEAL 2016 2012
74. APPEAL TO COURT OF APPEAL 2016 0552
75. APPEAL TO COURT OF APPEAL 2016 2442
BSB 20
BSB
23
Ta
riq
Re
hm
an
ha
s t
o r
efu
nd
mo
ne
y h
e h
as n
eve
r re
ce
ive
d
to c
lie
nts
wh
o a
re n
ot
his
cli
en
ts w
ith
in 7
da
ys
55
1) LeO’s First Enforcement Proceedings [Claim] The Legal Ombudsman v Tariq Rehman Case No 3QZ31575 being a Claim issued by LeO in Northampton County Court in 2014 for the recovery of £400 Case Fees in ? cases
77.LeO’s First Enforcement Proceedings [Statutory Demand] LeO’s Statutory Demand dated 16the December 2014 served on the Claimant to recover a claimed judgement debt of £6935.97 made LeO’s First Enforcement Proceedings
78 LeO’s Second Enforcement Proceedings [Claim] The Legal Ombudsman v Tariq Rehman Case No A3QZ851A being a Claim issued by LeO in Birmingham County Court in 2015 for the recovery of £400 Case Fees in ten cases
79 LeO’s Third Enforcement Proceedings [Claim]The Legal Ombudsman v Tariq Rehman Case Nos B6QZ698, B6QZ706, B6QZ724, B6QZ733, B6QZ736, B6QZ767, B6QZ770, B6QZ775, B6QZ779, B6QZ790, B6QZ797, B6QZ802, B6QZ806 being Claims issued by LeO in Bradford County Court for the recovery of £400 Case Fees in thirteen cases
80 LeO’s Fourth Enforcement Proceedings [Claim] The Legal Ombudsman v Tariq Rehman Case No B6QZ794 being a Claim issued by LeO in Birmingham County Court Proceedings ( 1 Claim) for the recovery of £400 Case Fees in one case, transferred to Bradford to be consolidated with LeO’s Third Enforcement Proceedings [Claim]
81 LeO’s Fifth Enforcement Proceedings [Claim] The Legal Ombudsman v Tariq Rehman Case No B01BM051 being a Claim issued by LeO in Birmingham County Court Proceedings ( 1 Claim) for the recovery of £400 Case Fees in one case,
TABLE 6 – LEO’S DECISION MAKING PROCESS : WHAT SHOULD HAPPEN AND WHAT DOES HAPPEN
61
DIAGRAM 3
THE PARTIES UNDER S 128
RESPONDENT
COMPLAINANT
Is an
individual S.
128 (3)(a)
Received services from
Respondent
+
Is an authorised person in relation to a reserved legal activity (s3 and Schedule 2) i.e a) the exercise of a right of
audience (the right to appear before and address a court)
b) The conduct of litigation (the issuing of proceedings , the commencement, prosecution and defence of proceedings, the performance of ancillary functions )
c) Reserved instruments activities
d) Probate activities e) Notarial activities f) The administration of oaths
DIAGRAM 2
62
WHAT SHOULD HAPPEN
RULE 5.3a
Legal Ombudsman must refer complaint to Authorised Person
Authorised Person agrees that complaint
falls within Scheme
OMBUDSMAN’S REASONED DECISION
That Complaint is 1) not within Ch 2 2) not within Ch 4 3) within R 5.7 i.e 5.7 An ombudsman may (but does not have to) dismiss if a) no reasonable prospect of success, frivolous vexatious; b) no financial loss, etc c) AP offered redress e) /f) already dealt with g) should be dealt with by etc h) - j) - k) not practicable to investigate time elapsed l) - m) refusal to provide a service- no evidence that the refusal was not reasonable n) other compelling reasons
COMPLAINT
1) within Ch 2 2) within Ch 4
3) not within R 57(4)
RULE 5.4 Authorised Person says complaint : 1) not within Ch 2 2) not within Ch 4 3) within Rule 57
Application of regulatory
objectives and Rule 4 (7) (Ombudsman
extending) time limits ) bring within
scheme
Complainant can make
representations
COMPLAINT NOT CLEARLY
1) within Ch 2 2) within Ch 4
3) not within R 57
RULE 5.5
Complainant can make
representations
63
WHAT HAS HAPPENED
RULE 5.3a
Legal Ombudsman must refer complaint to Authorised Person
Authorised Person agrees that
complaint falls
within Scheme
OMBUDSMAN’S PURPORTED AND
UNREASONED DECISION THAT COMPLAINT IS OUT
OF TIME
COMPLAINT
1) within Ch 2 2) within Ch 4
3) not within R 57(4)
RULE 5.4 Authorised Person says complaint : 1) not within Ch 2 2) not within Ch 4 3) within Rule 57
Application of regulatory objectives
and Rule 4 (7) (Ombudsman
extending) time limits ) bring within scheme
Complainant can make
representations
COMPLAINT NOT CLEARLY
1) within Ch 2 2) within Ch 4
3) not within R 57
RULE 5.5
Complainant can make representations
64
E THE CONSPIRACY BETWEEN LEO AND THE BSB
15. The objectives of the LeO Defendants and the BSB Defendants was a) To terminate the revenues the Claimant and KC Chambers received from
the Global Agency Contract b) To destroy the Claimant’s business and livelihood, while protecting and
preserving the business and livelihood of the Other Global Barristers [KCC] c) To destroy the Claimant’s professional reputation while protecting and
preserving the reputation of the Other Global Barristers [KCC] d) The procure the Claimant’s bankruptcy and ruination
16. The LeO Defendants were however constrained by the jurisdictional limitations
of the First and Third Defendants which prevented the, from achieving their objective
17. All the First Defendant could do in relation to the Claimant is set out in the following table:
LEO’S JURISDICTION DISADVANTAGES
To direct an apology No real adverse consequence for the Claimant
Order to rectify error Not viable in any of the cases
Require the Claimant to pay specified loss
The breach of duty had to be obvious at first sight which. The enforcement of the determination could challenged in the courts by the Claimant
18. The First Defendant had no jurisdiction to interfere in the Claimant’s arrangements for the reason set out in Para 22- Para 28 above. The following table is a summary of the First Defendant’s jurisdiction in relation to the Complaints
TABLE 7 THE LEO- BSB CONSPIRACY
65
Global- Lay Client
Agreement
KCC- Lay Client
Agreement
LeO can deal
Reasons
NOT TR
TR TR NOT TR
TYPE A Complaints
X Global not an AP
TYPE B Complaints
X TR did not provide services to lay clients
TYPE C Complaints
X
TR did not provide services to lay client
TYPE D Complaints
19. To achieve their objective, the LeO Defendants and the BSB Defendants entered into a conspiracy ‘(‘BSB-LeO Conspiracy’)
20. The BSB- LeO Conspiracy was planned to take effect in the following way:
The creation of a contract which did not exist
a) The first problem was that there was no contract between any of the
Global Agency Barristers [KCC] and the Global Customer, so the barrister and in particular the Claimant could not be made to held liable to the Global Customer. To overcome the problem the BSB Defendants insisted that KC Chambers enter into such a contract (‘The Bar Council’s Contract ‘)
b) Unaware that the BSB Defendants had no authority to interfere with their business arrangements and that the requirement was part of the BSB-LeO Conspiracy against the Claimant the Bar Council’s Contract was implemented which in the event the Claimant signed on behalf of the Global Agency Barristers [KCC] (but the signatory could just as well have been any of the barristers in Kings Court Chambers)
Bombarding the Claimant with the LeO Decisions
c) The plan was that once the Bar Council’s Contract was in place, LeO would
have an excuse to make the LeO Decisions against the Claimant.
d) The Bar Council’s Contract
66
a) was not between the Claimant and the Global Customer b) did not specify the Claimant would be the Conducting Barrister c) did not require the Global Customer to pay fees to the Claimant d) In fact stated that the Global Customer had to pay fees to Global
but that mattered little: the LeO Defendants would treat the Bar Council’s Contract as though it were client care agreement between the Claimant and the Global Customer
e) The First Defendant then proceeded to make over three hundred LeO Decisions against the Claimant but not against the Other Global Agency Barristers
f) The First Defendant would make the LeO Decisions in such a way as to make it impossible for the Claimant to respond to them , in particular they would bombard him with multiple Leo Decisions,
g) The LeO Decisions would require the Claimant in every one of the three hundred complaints (approx.)
a) to refund the entire fee paid by the Global Customer b) to pay £100 - £250 compensation c) to pay Chargeable Case Fee in each case of £400
Enforcement Proceedings for Chargeable Case Fees
h) There was still a problem for the LeO Defendants because the Claimant could challenge the LeO Decisions directing him to pay refunds and make compensation payments to the Global Customer, which the LeO Defendants knew were unlawful, whereas LeO Decisions directing him to pay Chargeable Case Fees could not be challenged so the LeO Defendants confined their attack upon the Claimant to the making of claims for payment of Chargeable Case Fees only , leaving the BSB Defendants to discipline him for the LeO Decisions
Coordinated attack by the Bar Standards Board
i) The First Defendant had no authority to take disciplinary action against the Claimant so they contrived with the LeO Defendants to discipline the Claimant on alleged non compliance with the LeO Decisions knowing the LeO Decisions were unlawful
67
Multiple coordinated attack by the LeO Defendants and the BSB Defendants
j) The Claimant has had to face a coordinated attack by the LeO and BSB Defendants which has involved him in receiving hundreds of letters obliging him to respond and tens of thousands of documents Name and Shame Publications
k) The BSB and LeO then conspired to defame the Claimant. Purportedly in discharge of the First Defendant’s functions under s 150 of the Legal Services Act 2017 , the LeO Defendants have published the following :
Mr Rehman of Kings Court Chambers
The Legal Services Act 2007 empowers the Office of Legal Complaints (OLC) Board to publish details of lawyers or law firms involved in complaints. The OLC has decided that it may decide to exercise this power where Ombudsman decisions about complaints reveal a pattern of behaviour or set of individual circumstances that indicate it is in the public interest that a firm or individual should be named on a case by case basis. It is expected that publishing such information will be a rare occurrence.
One individual that has met the above criteria and caused concern recently is Mr Rehman, a barrister at Kings Court Chambers. The OLC Board has therefore decided to publish details of these concerns in line with our Category 1 Publishing Policy and Criteria.
In the past twelve months, there have been 14 Ombudsman decisions against Mr Rehman and this follows on from 11 in the previous year. The total awards in these cases amount to £8087. Poor service has been found in the all of the cases where an Ombudsman has made a final decision and it is also relevant that the nature of the complaints is thematically similar: delay, poor costs information, poor advice and poor complaint handling. These appear to point to a systemic failure.
In view of the continuing number of complaints against Mr Rehman, the OLC Board considers that the likelihood of repetition remains high and that there is a now a public interest reason for making public our concerns.
The Board have therefore decided to publish a summary of the following decision: October 2014
68
The complaint involved a proposed application for naturalisation by Mrs Z. Mrs Z contacted Kings Court Chambers on 3 April 2014 and was quoted a fixed fee of £700 for Mr Rehman to provide an advice and draft an application form. She provided her credit card details and a payment was made over the phone. Having heard nothing from Mr Rehman, Mrs Z’s daughter contacted Kings Court Chambers on 23 April 2014 to confirm that Mrs Z did not wish Mr Rehman to act for her in this matter and to ask for a refund. Mrs Z was advised that if she cancelled at this point she would only receive back £350 as she had already had a consultation. Mrs Z agreed to this offer as a solution to her complaint but the refund was not paid and so the matter was referred to this office.
Mrs Z’s complaint was that the information provided at the outset was inadequate and that the matter was not dealt with in a timely way. In addition she had noted that, although she had been quoted £700 fixed fee, £752.50 had been deducted from her credit card on 3 April and that, in any event, Mr Rehman had not refunded her £350 as agreed.
The Ombudsman decided first that the retainer was with Mr Rehman and although some of the dealings were with other members of Kings Court Chambers, Mr Rehman had overall responsibility for this matter, including work done in connection with this matter by other members of staff at the chambers.
The Ombudsman then considered the costs and determined that the costs information was inadequate. Mrs Z was clear that she had been quoted £700 for this work and this was confirmed by the client care letter sent to her on 23 April and in the receipt of that date. However KCC had deducted £752.50 from her credit card on 3 April and Mrs Z had provided evidence to show that this was the case. The decision concluded that Mrs Z had paid £752.50 and not £700 and that the receipt of 3 April from the Chambers was therefore incorrect. There was also no evidence to show that KCC had informed Mrs Z of any additional charges and they were not mentioned in the client care letter. If there was an administration charge, as KCC had suggested, then it should have been included in the receipt and the fact it was not, suggested this was either an omission or an error by KCC. The Ombudsman concluded that there had been an overpayment of £52.50 in any event. There was also no evidence to show that Mr Rehman had advised that the fixed fee was intended to include the application fee.
With regard to the costs information, the Ombudsman reviewed the information provided by Mr Rehman in the client care letter of 3 April and noted that although the client care letter set out the charging structure in some detail, this letter was not sent until after this and was not received by Mrs Z until 23 April. This was after Mrs Z had made her payment and before she had had
69
the opportunity to review the terms and conditions to decide if she was happy with them and was willing to instruct Mr Rehman on this basis. The Ombudsman stated that “I am not satisfied that this is reasonable. Lawyers are required to provide information about their costs and terms at the outset so that the client is aware of what their potential future costs may be and the terms on which the service will be provided. If, as in this case, the payment is made first and the information provided later then the client cannot know in advance what the true position may be and cannot in reality give informed consent to those terms and conditions. I consider that this is unreasonable and poor service.”
In this case, Mr Rehman had declined to provide a full refund. He stated that Mrs Z had had a consultation and in line with the terms and conditions explained to her on 3 April he was entitled to retain fifty per cent of the fee. The Ombudsman noted that the client care letter ran to six pages and was very detailed and concluded that she could not be satisfied that all this information would have been explained in the telephone call on that date or that it would have been reasonable to expect Mrs Z to make a decision on whether she accepted the terms and conditions, including the costs, on the strength of that call. A more reasonable approach would have been to provide the information about the terms and conditions in writing in advance. The Ombudsman determined that this was poor service.
In addition, the Ombudsman stated: “I am aware that this complaint is thematically similar to a number of other complaints made to this office about the service provided by Mr Rehman and it seems that this approach is not limited to this case but is the standard business model adopted by Mr Rehman and Kings Court Chambers. In view of the potential detriment to any future clients, I consider that it raises a wider issue involving the public interest. I must stress that my decision in this case rests solely on the information relating to the complaint but in the circumstances, I have decided that the matter should now be referred to Mr Rehman’s regulator for further consideration. I would also strongly suggest that Mr Rehman should consider changing this approach going forward to ensure that all potential clients have the opportunity to receive and consider the terms and conditions before they are required to make payment.”
With regard the advice in general, the Ombudsman concluded that the advice in the letter of 23 April was incomplete because it did not offer any prospect of success, provide any timescales or say precisely what evidence was required. It also concluded that there was delay in dealing with this matter in that although Mrs Z first contacted KCC on 3 April, she did not receive the information pack and client care letter until the 23 April. Moreover KCC had confirmed at this point that “we had not yet
70
begun to process the case beyond consultation”. In the circumstances the Ombudsman concluded that KCC had simply delayed in sending the client care letter and initial advice for three weeks and that this was poor service. Finally the decision concluded that, in continuing to use an incorrect name for Mrs Z despite reminders, this was poor service as was the failure of Mr Rehman to comply with the agreement to refund Mrs Z £350.
The final decision was that there had been poor service that required a remedy and it directed Mr Rehman to refund £350, being half of the fixed fee of £700, to refund the additional payment of £52.50 and to pay £300 compensation. This made a total refund of £702.50.
Information for consumers
The published Ombudsman decision provides information about the types of complaints the Legal Ombudsman has seen about Mr Tariq Rehman of Kings Court Chambers.
Consumers should also be aware that Kings Court Chambers is also called KC Chambers, and we understand is in the process of changing its name to Hilton Chambers.
If you have already made a complaint to the Legal Ombudsman
If you have already made a complaint about Mr Tariq Rehman, or any other barrister at Kings Court Chambers, we will continue to investigate the case as usual.
We are in contact with the Bar Standards Board (the regulatory body for barristers) who are working with Mr Rehman and the chambers to resolve the situation.
If you have not made a complaint to the Legal Ombudsman
If you have not made a complaint to the Legal Ombudsman but you are concerned about the level of service you have received then you may want to consider making a complaint.
If you do wish to make a complaint please read our Making a Complaint section on the website to find out what steps to take. For example you must ensure that you have made a complaint to the barrister first.
Alternatively please contact our assessment centre on 0300 555 0333.
In response the Legal Futures published the following
‘Named and shamed’ barrister hits back at “misleading” ombudsman
By Nick Hilborne
12 December 2014
Birmingham-based chambers dealing with 300 clients a month The first lawyer to be ‘named and shamed’ by the Legal Ombudsman (LeO) for a series of complaints has argued that he is only “trying to adapt to new market forces”.
Immigration barrister Tariq Rehman said LeO was “misleading” in failing to comment on the 97% of clients of his chambers who had not complained.
Mr Rehman argued that Kings Court Chambers, based in Birmingham, dealt with around 300 clients per month, and a “large majority” of the14 complaints upheld by LeO related to administrative errors or late payment of refunds.
He accused LeO of trying to “prevent an attempt by a non-establishment chambers to compete in a new and very different market for legal services”.
LeO said earlier this week that Mr Rehman’s standards of service were “consistently poor, requiring ombudsman intervention time after time”, and that it had named him because he was “a risk to any potential new client”.
However, Mr Rehman said the chambers was “compelled to look at innovative ways in which to operate differently to gain the flexibility that would allow it to service clients in a different environment and to take on larger volumes of work.”
In a statement, Mr Rehman went on: “Kingscourt Chambers used a marketing strategy to attract large volumes of work through the direct access scheme whilst keeping within the regulations which govern chambers or other legal entities of this kind.
“This type of reaction from the Legal Ombudsman is misleading and does not truly reflect the efforts being made by barristers in trying to adapt to the changes.”
The statement went on to complain that he had been “specifically targeted and vilified” by LeO as an Asian ethnic minority lawyer.
“There are many ethnic minority lawyers who will keep silent and not highlight their grievances, for fear of repercussions and deliberate targeting which usually follows to hush them up if they dare speak out against the disproportionate treatment by the Solicitors Regulation Authority, the Bar Standards Board and the Legal Ombudsman, who are allegedly ‘protecting the public’.
“It would appear that Mr Rehman has been specifically targeted, despite nearly 15 years at the bar and without a single complaint made against him by any client he has represented in the criminal courts.”
The Legal Ombudsman declined to comment.
12) The world wide web is now awash with defamatory publications about the Claimant which was objective of the BSB- LeO Conspiracy
Tariq Rehman. ... Tariq Rehman. Concerns about a barrister or authorised body · Facing a complaint? ... Called to the Bar by Lincoln's Inn, March 2000. Independent panel decides not to suspend Birmingham ... www.barstandardsboard.org.uk › Media Centre › Press releases and news
22 Dec 2014 - An independent interim suspension panel, run by The Bar Tribunals and ... decided not to suspend Birmingham based barrister Tariq Rehman, ... Direct access in spotlight after barrister is slapped with 11 ... www.legalcheek.com/.../direct-access-in-spotlight-after-barrister-is-slapp...
26 May 2015 - The story of Tariq Rehman — co-head of Birmingham's Kings Court ... The Bar Council declined to comment on the Rahmen case or more ... Tariq Rehman v Bar Standards Board - Public Regulatory Blog publicregulatoryblog.fieldfisher.com/.../update-on-dishonesty-tariq-rehm...
29 Aug 2013 - On 20 July 2013, Visitors to the Inns of Court held that a disciplinary tribunal of the Inns of Court had been justified in finding that a barrister, ... 'Named and shamed' barrister suspended over payments ... www.lawgazette.co.uk/law/named-and...barrister.../5048331.fullarticle
20 Apr 2015 - Topics: Law firm & practice management,The Bar ... Tariq Rehman was found to be in breach of his professional conduct after he failed to pay ... 'Named and shamed' barrister to fight misconduct findings ... www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/named-and...barrister.../5048927.fullarticle
20 May 2015 - Bar Tribunals & Adjudication Service finds Birmingham public accessbarrister Tariq Rehman guilty of 11 breaches. barrister gets judge removed from disciplinary appeal hearing www.legalfutures.co.uk/.../barrister-gets-judge-removed-from-disciplinar...
12 May 2015 - Tariq Rehman, the barrister 'named and shamed' by the Legal ... chairman of the Bar disciplinary tribunal and the counsel for the Bar Standards ... Senior QC who worked with 'named and shamed' barrister is ... www.legalfutures.co.uk/.../senior-qc-who-worked-with-named-and-sham...
19 May 2015 - Bar tribunal: Macdonald failed to ensure chambers administered ... when Mr Macdonald was working with Tariq Rehman, the first lawyer to be ... Mr Rehman of Kings Court Chambers | Legal Ombudsman www.legalombudsman.org.uk/?portfolio=mr-rehman-of-kings-court...
9 Dec 2014 - In view of the continuing number of complaints against Mr Rehman, the .... about Mr Tariq Rehman, or any
other barrister at Kings Court Chambers, we ... We are in contact with the Bar Standards Board (the regulatory body for ... You've visited this page 4 times. Last visit: 03/01/16 'risk to any potential new clients', says legal watchdog www.birminghammail.co.uk › News › Midlands News › Courts
9 Dec 2014 - Office for Legal Complaints issued the warning over Tariq Rehman, ... A legal watchdog has warned that a Birmingham barrister is a “risk ... Meanwhile the BarStandards Board (BSB) has referred him to a suspension panel. Tariq Rehman « UK Immigration Barristers 2014 https://ukvisaadvice.wordpress.com/tag/tariq-rehman/
25 Sep 2012 - One barrister has a lot to answer for, Tariq Rehman. ... We are in contact with the Bar Standards Board (the regulatory body for barristers) who ... Findings and sentences of past hearings - Bar Tribunals and ... www.tbtas.org.uk/hearings/findings-and-sentences-of-past-hearings/
Appeals against relevant decisions of Bar Disciplinary Tribunals made before 7 ... Using the facility below you may search by: name of barrister; date; type of ... Tariq Rehman - Kings Court Chambers www.kingscourtchambers.com/tariq-rehman-profile.php
A description for this result is not available because of this site's robots.txt – learn more. Legal Ombudsman names barrister in first public interest case www.solicitorsjournal.com/node/21256
9 Dec 2014 - Legal Ombudsman names barrister in first public interest case ... named Birmingham based Tariq Rehman of Kings Court Chambers in a detailed report, ... We have alerted Mr Rehman's regulator, the Bar Standards Board. The Barrister Magazine - K-O Barrister Chambers www.barristermagazine.com/barrister/index.php?id=83
Bar Council 2015 Legal Reporting Awards - Open to entries · Bar regulator consults on reforms to the ... Kings Court Chambers, Birmingham, Tariq Rehman ... Tariq Rehman | Kings Court Chambers | ZoomInfo.com www.zoominfo.com/p/Tariq-Rehman/1886251693
View Tariq Rehman's business profile as Joint Head at Kings Court Chambers ... Rehman is a barrister who was prepared to take on the Bar Standards Board. Tariq Rehman | LinkedIn https://www.linkedin.com/in/tariq-rehman-30a8985 Leeds, United Kingdom - Barrister-at-Law at Kingscourt Chambers - Kingscourt Chambers View Tariq Rehman's professional profile on LinkedIn. LinkedIn is the ... Barrister-at-Law at Kingscourt Chambers. Location ... Bar Vocational Course. 1998 – ...
SOLICITORS FROM HELL - Kings Court Chambers ... solicitorsfromhelluk.com/index.php/list-all.../207-kings-court-chambers
Kings Court ChambersAlbert HouseAlbert StreetBIRMINGHAMB4 7UDWhether fuelled by desire, greed or need, Tariq Rehman, a barrister and head.
The LeO Defendant’s Unlawful Enforcement Proceedings
l) By late 2015 , it became apparent to the conspirators that the BSB-LEO Conspiracy was not going to plan. Almost a year had elapsed since the Name and Shame Publications and a) the Claimant was still in practice b) the plan to bankrupt the Claimant on the back of the claim for the
Chargeable Case Fees had not worked because Global had met the payments
m) Their credibility undermined , the BSB Defendants and the LeO
Defendants determined that more drastic measures were needed to destroy the Claimant. Accordingly pursuant to the conspiracy between them the LeO Defendants attempted the Unlawful Enforcement Proceedings referred to at Page below in which the LeO Defendants a) made sham submissions b) attempted to mislead the Court c) advanced a false and perjured case d) withheld material facts and matters e) lied to the Court f) attempted to commit fraud on the Court and on the Claimant
21. The BSB- LeO Conspiracy is shown in the flowchart at PAGE 96 hereof
Within (5) 10 weeks of date of referral to the Tribunal BSB to serve on the Defendant 1. Charge/
application 2. Regulations
rE104 BSB TO SERVE DOCUMENTS [WITHIN 28 DAYS AFTER
CHARGE]
As soon as practicable the BSB must give .1 a copy of the evidence of any witness (which may be a formal witness statement or an informal document such as a letter or attendance note); and .2 a copy of any other documents and .3 either: .a the standard directions under rE107, which must include such timetable as may be considered reasonable by the BSB having regard to the facts of that case; or .b the standard directions amended as the BSB considers reasonable; and .4 details of any proposed special directions , in default of agreement, to apply for (which may include, but are not limited to): .a any of the matters listed at rE107.2 ; or .b an application for leave to amend and/or add charges and/or applications.
rE105 28 DAY TIME
LIMIT
If not done within 28 days of service of the charges the BSB must provide within that period: .1 details of the evidence that is still being sought; and .2 details of when it will be
given
1 FLOWCHART – SERVICE OF THE CHARGE
TABLE 8 THE PROCEDURE AT THE DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL
78
2. FLOWCHART -DIRECTIONS TO LISTING FOR HEARING
rE 110
Within 14 days the BSB must consider and 1 Inform barrister of changes to standard or special directions BSB can agree 2. seek to agree other changes
rE 107 BARRISTER’S TO RESPOND TO BSB’S
DIRECTIONS WITHIN 21 DAYS
Within 21 days, the barrister must: .1 provide written submissions explaining why the standard /special directions under rE104.4 , should be amended, withdrawn or added to; and .2 confirm whether they intend, if no of agreement is reached, to make any of the following applications for special directions, namely: .a to sever the charges and/or applications; .b to strike out the charges and/or applications .c to stay the proceedings; .d about the admissibility of documents; .e for disclosure of documents in accordance with rE116.2.c; .f to extend or abridge any relevant time limits; .g to adjourn the substantive hearing; .h for the hearing to be held in private; .i for separate hearings or an application that proceedings pending against separate defendants be dealt with at the same hearing; or .j any other application for special directions (which the defendant considers reasonable, having regard to the facts of the case
STANDARD SPECIAL STANDARD AS
AMENDED
rE 1
08
de
em
ed
dir
ecti
on
s i
f n
o r
esp
on
se
rE 1
09
re
ferr
al
to t
he
Dir
ecti
on
s J
ud
ge
if
no
resp
on
se
79
rE 112
AGREEMENT
Where parties can agree these are the directions which apply 14 days the BSB
rE 112 NO AGREEMENT
Where no agreement the BSB must send to the President .1 a copy of the standard directions and/or special directions which have been agreed; .2 any written submissions received from the defendant(s )under rE107.1; .3 any notice from the defendant(s)that they may be intending to make an application under rE107.2; and .4 the BSB’s response to any such request(s) and/or submissions
S113 and s 114
President must designate a Directions judge who must not be a Panel judge and send him all the papers
rE 115
Directions judges must consider ANY submissions and in an appropriate case whether oral hearing
rE 1
11
Ag
ree
d
dir
ecti
on
s
80
rE116 - DIRECTIONS JUDGE DECIDES NO ORAL HEARING FOR
DIRECTIONS
Then .1 he must make an order setting out those directions which are to apply in the case taking into account all the relevant circumstances, including any written submissions of the parties and his own findings; and .2 he may consider and decide any other issues which may be necessary including but not limited to: .a how any of the applications referred to at rE104.4and/or rE107.2are to be dealt with; .b what documents are to be admitted ; .c what documents which are in the BSB’s possession or control, and/or documents which later come into the possession of the BSB’s, and which may support a defence or undermine the BSB’s case should be disclosed; .d what facts should be made the subject of admissions; .e the provision of a statement that the defendant has been duly served under rE215 with the documents required by rE102and rE104; .f the extension or abridgement of any time limit governing the proceedings; .g fixing the date for the hearing; .h such other matters as he consider are expedient for the efficient conduct of the hearing
rE117 - DIRECTIONS JUDGE DECIDES ORAL HEARING FOR
DIRECTIONS Then must give written notice to the BSB and the defendant(s) that an oral hearing is to be held 1. for the purpose of giving
directions and 2. taking such other steps as he
considers suitable for a) the clarification of the issues
before the tribunal and b) generally for the just and
expeditious handling of the proceedings.
He must also give time estimate for the oral directions hearing.
rE122, rE123 - PRESIDENT TO SERVE DIRECTIONS ORDER –
NO APPEAL
81
After the oral directions hearing (or, if one was not required, after the review of the papers by the Directions Judge) the President serves directions order the BSB and the Barrister . The directions order is final and there is no appeal against it
rE124 WHERE DATE HAS NOT BEEN FIXED – CONVENING
ORDER
This regulation applies where, after
the deemed acceptance, later agreement, of directions, or the service of a directions order by the President,
the date of the hearing has not been fixed The President must .a appoint an appropriate Disciplinary Tribunal ; .b appoint a person or persons to act as Clerk. No person who has been engaged in the investigation of a complaint or application against a defendant in accordance with the relevant procedure or otherwise shall act as Clerk of proceedings under these Regulations arising out of that complaint; .c not less than fourteen days before the date of the substantive hearing, serve an order on the defendant(s)(“the convening order”) specifying: .i the name of the defendant(s)to the proceedings and such other information as may be relevant to the defendant(s), .ii the date and time of the sitting of the Disciplinary Tribunal at which it is proposed the charge(s) and/or application(s) should be heard; and .iii the names and status (that is, as Chairman, as lay member, as barrister or other) of those persons who it is proposed should constitute the Disciplinary Tribunal to hear the case; and .iv the name of the Clerk, and send copies of that Convening Order to the nominated members of the Disciplinary Tribunal, the BSB Representative, and the Clerk. In the Order the attention of the defendant(s) will be drawn to: (1) their right to represent themselves or be represented by counsel, with or without instructing a solicitor, as they shall think fit; and (2) their right to inspect and be given copies of documents referred to in the list served pursuant to rE104 above; and (3) their right (without prejudice to their right to appear and take part in the proceedings) to deliver a written answer to the charge(s) and/or application(s) if they think fit.
82
rE126 FIRST
RECUSAL
Upon receipt of Convening Order barrister can object to Member Disciplinary Tribunal by giving notice to the President He must specify grounds
rE127 SECOND
RECUSAL
When they receive that notification, the barrister may; object to any substitute member or members, in the same way as they may object under rE126
83
3 THE CONVENING ORDER
84
85
4. THE COMPOSITION OF THE TRIBUNAL (Re 131. Re 137)
The Disciplinary Tribunal Regulations 2014 provides as follows
Composition of disciplinary tribunals
rE131 A Disciplinary Tribunal must consist of either three persons or five persons. rE132 A five-person panel must include the following persons
nominated by the President: .1 as chairman, a Judge; and .2 at least one lay member; and .3 at least one practising barristerof not less than seven years’ standing.
1. rE 137 of the Disciplinary Tribunal Regulations 2014 provides as follows
For the purposes of rE132 and rE133, a Judge includes: .1 a puisne judge of the High Court; .2 a judge of the Court of Appeal; .3 a Circuit judge; .4 a Recorder who has been authorised to sit as a judge of the High Court under section 9(1) of the Supreme Court Act 1981; .5 a deputy judge of the High Court appointed under section 9(4) of the Supreme Court Act 1981; and .6 a person who has been a judge of the Court of Appeal, or a puisne judge of the High Court, or a Circuit Judge, provided that he remains permitted by virtue of section 9 of the Supreme Court Act 1981 to be requested to act as a judge of the High Court, or is eligible for appointment as a deputy Circuit judge under section 24 of the Courts Act 1971.
2. Section 9 of the Supreme Court Act 1981 provides as follows
Assistance for transaction of judicial business of Senior Courts
86
(1) A person within any entry in column 1 of the following Table may [subject to the provision at the end of that Table] at any time, at the request of the appropriate authority, act—
(a)as a judge of a relevant court specified in the request; or
(b)if the request relates to a particular division of a relevant court so specified, as a judge of that court in that division.
Table
Judge or ex-judge Where competent to act on
request
1. A judge of the Court of Appeal. The High Court and the
Crown Court.
2. A person who has been a judge of the
Court of Appeal.
The Court of Appeal, the
High Court and the Crown
Court.
3. A puisne judge of the High Court. The Court of Appeal.
4. A person who has been a puisne
judge of the High Court.
The Court of Appeal, the
High Court and the Crown
Court.
5. A Circuit judge. The High Court and the
Court of Appeal].
6. A Recorder] The High Court]
The entry in column 2 specifying the Court of Appeal in relation to a Circuit judge only authorises such a judge to act as a judge of a court in the criminal division of the Court of Appeal.]
1A)A person shall not act as a judge by virtue of subsection (1) after the day on which he attains the age of 75.]
(2)In subsection (1)—
“the appropriate authority” means—
(a) the Lord Chief Justice or a judicial office holder (as defined in section 109(4) of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005) nominated by him to exercise his functions under this section, or
(b)
87
at any time when the Lord Chief Justice or the nominated judicial office holder is unable to make such a request himself, or there is a vacancy in the office of Lord Chief Justice, the Master of the Rolls;]
“relevant court”, in the case of a person within any entry in column 1 of the Table, means a court specified in relation to that entry in column 2 of the Table.
(2A)The power of the appropriate authority to make a request under subsection (1) is subject to subsections (2B) to (2D).
(2B)In the case of a request to a person within entry 1, 3, 5 or 6 in column 1 of the Table, the appropriate authority may make the request only after consulting the Lord Chancellor.
(2C)In any other case the appropriate authority may make a request only with the concurrence of the Lord Chancellor.
(2D)In the case of a request to a Circuit judge or Recorder to act as a judge of the High Court, the appropriate authority may make the request only with the concurrence of the Judicial Appointments Commission.]
(3)In the case of—
(a)a request under subsection (1) to a Lord Justice of Appeal to act in the High Court; or
(b)any request under that subsection to a puisne judge of the High Court or a Circuit judge,
it shall be the duty of the person to whom the request is made to comply with it.
(4)Without prejudice to section 24 of the Courts Act 1971 (temporary appointment of deputy Circuit judges and assistant Recorders), if it appears to the Lord Chief Justice, after consulting the Lord Chancellor,]that it is expedient as a temporary measure to make an appointment under this subsection in order to facilitate the disposal of business in the High Court or the Crown Court, he may appoint a person qualified for appointment as a puisne judge of the High Court to be a deputy judge of the High Court during such period or on such occasions as the Lord Chief Justice may, after consulting the Lord Chancellor, think fit]; and during the period or on the occasions for which a person is appointed as a deputy judge under this subsection, he may act as a puisne judge of the High Court.
(4A)No appointment of a person as a deputy judge of the High Court shall be such as to extend beyond the day on which he attains the age of 70, but this subsection is subject to section 26(4) to (6) of the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1993 (Lord Chancellor’s power to authorise continuance in office up to the age of 75).]
(5)Every person while acting under this section shall, subject to [ subsections (6) and (6A)], be treated for all purposes as, and accordingly may perform any of the functions of, a judge of the court in which he is acting.
(6)A person shall not by virtue of subsection (5)—
(a)be treated as a judge of the court in which he is acting for the purposes of section 98(2) or of any statutory provision relating to—
88
(i)the appointment, retirement, removal or disqualification of judges of that court;
(ii)the tenure of office and oaths to be taken by such judges; or
(iii)the remuneration, allowances or pensions of such judges; or
(b)[ subject to section 27 of the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1993], be treated as having been a judge of a court in which he has acted only under this section.
(6A)A Circuit judge or Recorder shall not by virtue of subsection (5) exercise any of the powers conferred on a single judge by sections 31 [ 31B, 31C] and 44 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 (powers of single judge in connection with appeals to the Court of Appeal and appeals from the Court of Appeal to the [ Senior Courts]).]
(8)Such remuneration and allowances as the Lord Chancellor may, with the concurrence of the Minister for the Civil Service, determine may be paid out of money provided by Parliament—
(a)to any person who has been—
(i)a judge of the Supreme Court; or]
(ii)a judge of the Court of Appeal; or
(iii)a judge of the High Court,
and is by virtue of subsection (1) acting as mentioned in that subsection;
(b)to any deputy judge of the High Court appointed under subsection (4).
(9)The Lord Chief Justice may nominate a judicial office holder (as defined in section 109(4) of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005) to exercise his functions under subsection (4).]
3. Section 24 of the Courts Act 1971 provides as follows
Deputy Circuit judges and assistant Recorder
If it appears to [F2him]F2 that it is expedient as a temporary measure to make an appointment under this section in order to facilitate the disposal of business in the Crown Court or a county court or official referees’ business in the High Court, F3...—
[F4(a)the Lord Chancellor may, with the concurrence of the Lord Chief Justice, appoint to be a deputy Circuit judge, during such period or on such occasions as the Lord Chancellor thinks fit, any person who has held office as a judge of the Court of Appeal or of the High Court or as a Circuit judge;]
F4(b)[F5the Lord Chancellor may]F5 appoint to be an assistant Recorder, during such period or on such occasions as he thinks fit, [F6any person who satisfies the judicial-appointment eligibility condition on a 7-year basis.F6]
[F7(1A)No appointment of a person under subsection (1) above shall be such as to extend—
(a)in the case of appointment as a deputy Circuit judge, beyond the day on which he attains the age of seventy-five; or
(b)in the case of appointment as an assistant Recorder, beyond the day on which he attains the age of seventy;
but paragraph (b) above is subject to section 26(4) to (6) of the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1993 (Lord Chancellor’s power to authorise continuance in office up to the age of 75).]
(2)Except as provided by subsection (3) below, during the period or on the occasions for which a deputy Circuit judge or assistant Recorder is appointed under this section he shall be treated for all purposes as, and accordingly may perform any of the functions of, a Circuit judge or a Recorder, as the case may be.
(3)A deputy Circuit judge appointed under this section shall not be treated as a Circuit judge for the purpose of any provision made by or under any enactment and relating to the appointment, retirement, removal or disqualification of Circuit judges, the tenure of office and oaths, to be taken by such judges, or the remuneration, allowances or pensions of such judges; and section 21 of this Act shall not apply to an assistant Recorder appointed under this section.
(5)There shall be paid out of money provided by Parliament to deputy Circuit judges and assistant Recorders appointed under this section such remuneration and allowances as the Lord Chancellor may, with the approval of the Minister for the Civil Service, determine.]
[F9(6)The Lord Chief Justice may nominate a judicial office holder (as defined in section 109(4) of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005) to exercise his functions under subsection (1)(a).F9]
4. Section [ ] of the Courts Act 1971 provides
Retirement, removal and disqualifications of Circuit judge.
(1)Subject to subsection (4) below and to subsections (4) to (6) of section 26 of the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1993 (power to authorise continuance in office up to the age of 75), a Circuit judge shall vacate his office on the day on which he attains the age of 70.
The Council of the Inns of Court Disciplinary Pool members’ Information and
Guidance pack January 2014 provides as follows
1. Guidance for clerks
9.1. Introduction: The smooth running of Disciplinary Tribunal hearings depends greatly on the way in which Disciplinary Tribunal clerks (“clerks”) discharge their duties. The information below provides guidance on how clerks should perform their role. 9.2 An important first step for clerks is to familiarise themselves with the BSB Handbook,and in particular the Code of Conduct (Part 2) and the Enforcement Requirements (Part 5) of their respective subsections. 9.3 Overview of role and function: The primary role of clerks at Disciplinary Tribunal proceedings, as overseen by the Council of the Inns of Court (“COIC”), is to ensure that the needs of the Panel are met during the hearing. A large part of the role is to ensure that the administrative aspects of Disciplinary Tribunal proceedings are attended to. 9.4 Clerks do not act in a legal advisory role but they are expected to address any queries raised by the panel about procedural issues. As such issues will arise from time to time during the hearing or during the Panel’s deliberations, it is vital that clerks understand the Disciplinary Tribunal Regulations (Enforcement Requirements, Part 5) and proactively identify any areas where the Regulations are not being followed or clarification is needed. 9.5 The clerk’s responsibility is to the Panel and not to the parties to the proceedings. Clerks have a responsibility to raise matters of procedural concern, even in circumstances where nobody else involved in the proceedings has recognised the issue. 9.6 Appointment: Clerks are appointed to Disciplinary Tribunals by the President of the COIC, by way of a Convening Order made under rE 125.2.(b). Pre-hearing Administrative issues are dealt
91
with by the BTAS Administrator as the clerk currently does not have any involvement outside scheduled hearings
5 THE FINDING
Rule 18 (the Finding) provides as follows
At the conclusion of the hearing, the finding of the Disciplinary Tribunal on each charge, together with its reasons, shall be set down in writing and signed by the Chairman and all members of the Tribunal. If the members of the Tribunal are not unanimous as to the finding on any charge, the finding to be recorded on that charge shall be that of the majority. If the members of the Tribunal are equally divided as to the finding on any charge, then, the burden of proof being on the BSB, the finding to be recorded on that charge shall be that which is the most favourable to the defendant. The Chairman of the Tribunal shall then announce the Tribunal's finding on the charge or charges, and state whether each such finding was unanimous or by a majority.
The findings sheet in the majority of cases appears to have been completed and
signed by the members after the event in that it refers retrospectively to the reasons
for the findings having been first formulated orally at a hearing at which the BSB
were present.
92
rE143a STANDARD OF PROOF
The Tribunal must apply the criminal standard of proof when
deciding charges of professional misconduct and in deciding whether
the disqualification condition has been established
rE123a TIME LIMITS, APPLICATIONS ETC
For the avoidance of doubt, the Directions Judge, or the Chairman of
the Disciplinary Tribunal designed in the Convening Order (or failing
the Directions Judge or the Chairman, any other Judge nominated by
the President) may:
.1 upon the application of either party at any time extend or
abridge any time limit governing the disciplinary procedures on such
terms as he thinks just;
.2 upon the application of either party, or of his own motion, hold
preliminary hearings for the purpose of giving any further directions
or taking any other steps which he considers necessary for the
proper conduct of the proceedings;
.3 adjourn any preliminary hearing from time to time and for such
periods of time as he considers appropriate and set such time limits
as he may decide for action to be taken during such adjournments;
or
.4 consider applications for adjournments of the substantive
hearing prior to that Hearing and grant such adjournments as he
considers appropriate
rE106 DOCUMENTS NOT SERVED ON DEFENDANT
Nothing in rE104or rE105 above shall prevent a Disciplinary Tribunal
from receiving the evidence of a witness which has not been served
on the defendant(s) in accordance with s rE104 or rE105, or of a
7. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS (STANDARD OF PROOF, TIME
LIMITS, DOCUMENTS , RULES OF NATURAL JUSTICE
93
document not included in the list of documents referred to at rE104.2
above, provided that the Tribunal is of the opinion either that this does
not materially prejudice the defendant(s), or that the evidence is
accepted on such terms as are necessary to ensure that no such
prejudice occurs.
E144 The rules of natural justice
Definitions [195] Regulatory objectives
The rules of natural justice apply to proceedings of a Disciplinary Tribunal. Subject to those, the Tribunal may: .1 (subject to rE145below) admit any evidence, whether oral or written, whether given in person, or over the telephone, or by video link, or by such other means as the Tribunal may deem appropriate, whether direct or hearsay, and whether or not it would be admissible in a court of law; .2 give such directions with regard to the conduct of, and procedure at, the hearing, and, with regard to the admission of evidence at the hearing, as it considers appropriate for securing that a Defendant has a proper opportunity of answering the charge(s) and/or application(s) made against him, or otherwise as shall be just; .3 exclude any hearsay evidence if it is not satisfied that reasonable steps have been taken to obtain direct evidence of the facts sought to be proved by the hearsay evidence
Regulatory objectives has the meaning given to it by section 1 of the LSA and consists of the following objectives: a) protecting and promoting the public interest; b) supporting the constitutional principles of the rule of law; c) improving access to justice; d) protecting and promoting the interests of consumers; e) promoting competition in the provision of the services; f) encouraging an independent, strong, diverse and effective legal profession; g) increasing public understanding of the citizen’s legal rights and duties; and h) promoting and maintaining adherence to the professional principles
94
9. POWERS OF DELEGATION
Delegation
rE218 The powers and functions conferred by these Regulations on a Directions judge may be exercised by any other Judge or Queen’s Counsel nominated by the President, including the Judge designated in the convening order as Chairman of the Tribunal appointed to hear and determine the charge or charges against the defendant, if the Directions judge is unable to act due to absence, or to any other reason
rE219 Any duty or function or step which, pursuant to the provisions of these regulations, is to be discharged or carried out by the President may, if he is unable to act due to absence or to any other reason, be discharged or carried out by any other member of the Council of the Inns of Court, the Treasurer of any Inn, or by any other person nominated in writing by the President for any specific purpose
rE220
Anything required by these Regulations to be done or any discretion required to be exercised by, and any notice required to be given to, the President may be done or exercised by, or given to, any person authorised by the President(either prospectively or retrospectively and either generally or for a particular purpose) subject to rE218
95
96
TABLE 9- THE OBLIGATION TO WORK AS A FORM OF TORTURE
Referral to Enforcement Team [Tamaki] BUNDLES RECEVIED BSB 6 600 pages
6
7
8 Deadline
to respond to Pre Action Letter [Maki] Administrative Court Appeals. Cranston J Order. Deadline to Set Aside
9 10 Deadline
to respond to Pre Action Letter [Longley]
11 Deadline
to respond to Pre Action Letter [Kauser] Administrative Court Appeals. Cranston J Order. Deadline to Appeal to CA
12 Deadline
to respond to Threat of Referral to Enforcement Team [Tamaki]
13
14
15 Deadline
to respond to Pre Action Letter [Alexander] and [Gao]
16 17 Directions Order. BSB ? Wilkie J. Deadline to comply
18 Administrat- ve Court Appeals Cranston J Order. Deadline to comply . BSB1 & BSB 2 Response to Preliminary Assessment in BSB 20 PC 2015/0491 PC 2015/0492 PC 2015/0493
19 Deadline
for response to Tribunal's question about Jurisdiction under Equalities Act 2010
20
TABLE 10- THE IMPOSITION OF DEADLINES AS A FORM OF TORTURE
109
PC 2015/0494 PC 2015/0495 PC 2015/0496 PC 2015/0498 PC 2015/0499 PC 2015/0500 PC 2015/0501 PC 2015/0502 PC 2015/0503
21
22 DEADLINES
File form 235 Service Certificate
Hearing BSB 6
23
DEADLINES Application for Transcript Form 62 Post CA letter of 15 Feb to all 23 Respondents
24 25 26 27
28 29 Deadline
to lodge Skeleton and Bundles
MARCH 2016
SUN
MON TUE WED THU FRI SAT
Leo Bsb Tribunal Court Admin Court of appeal Employmnet Tribunal Birmingham County Court
1 2 3 4 5
6 7
8
TRAVEL TO COURT TO ISSUE BSB 6
9
10
DEADLINES
11
DEADLINES
12
110
JR AND APPEAL
Service by post LeO JR UK47 on LeO Board Bar Council Bar Standards Board Tribunal Law Society SRA Robert Burn Michael Carter Paul Pretty Freda Sharkey Ian MacDonald Christina Henderson Louise Santamera
MOJ
Service by email LeO JR UK47 on LeO Board Bar Council Bar Standards Board Tribunal Law Society SRA Robert Burn Michael Carter Paul Pretty Freda Sharkey Ian MacDonald Christina Henderson Louise Santamera
MOJ Send court Certificate of Service
13
14
DEADLINES
Appeal against BSB6 Findings
Lodge Judicial Review Claim against BSB6 Findings
15 16 DEADLINE
S
Lodge Skeleton and Bundles (new)
17 18
Travel to lodge Bundles at CA
19
20 21
DEADLINE
22 DEADLINE
23 24
DEADLINES
25
26
111
Service of BSB6 JR on THE DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL THE BAR COUNCIL THE BAR STANDARDS BOARD THE COUNCIL OF THE INNS OF COURT THE LAW SOCIETY OF ENGLAND AND WALES SOLICITORS’ REGULATION AUTHORITY THE LEGAL OMBUDSMAN’S SERVICE PHILLIP CURL ROSEMARY GILLESPIE HOWARD FREEMAN MARK WEST GODWIN BUSUTTIL ANDY RUSSELL MARGARET HILSON ROBERT BURNS (a barrister) PAUL PRETTY (a barrister) FREDA SHARKEY (a solicitor) KATE MALLISON RICHARD GOLD FRANCIS PATTERSON JULIAN FLAUX MARC BEAUMONT ANTHONY SPEAIGHT THE BAR MUTUAL
File Certificate of Service BSB6
BCC threat of penal notice in LeO v Tariq Rehman BO1BM051
DEADLINES Sitta . Response or will treat as liable Baloyot- Respond or will enforce Callirgos – respond to Ombudsman’s Decision
112
INDEMNITY FUND TIMOTHY DUTTON PATRICIA ROBERTSON RUTH DEECH NICHOLAS PHILLIPS IAN MACDONALD ANDREW MITCHELL CARLA REVERE JEFF CHAPMAN CHRISTOPHER PITCHFORD
27 28 29
DEADLINES
Respond to Prelim Assessment BSB21
30
DEADLINE
S Berger Threat to Enforce
31
APRIL 2016
SUN
MON TUE WED THU FRI SAT
Leo Bsb Tribunal Court Admin Court of appeal Employmnet Tribunal
1 2
3 4 Urgent application for stay
5
6 7
8 DEADLINES
Leo David Baker 2016 0028 response by 12
9
113
Leo Cindy Walker 2016 0029 response by 12 Leo Gao 2016 0024 response by 12
10
11
12 13 14 15 16
17 18
BSB 1 HEARING
19
20 21 Appeal Court obtaining of stay HHJ Baker retired judge , Draft Order to Admin Court
DEADLINES Leo decision on Calligoros will be produced. Threat of Enforcement
22
BSB 2 HEARING
DEADLINES Response due to Investigator’s lstter on Nadir Salop
23
24 25 26
DEADLINES One day reminder of
27 28 29
30
114
response due CMP 021 241
MAY 2016
SUN
MON TUE WED THU FRI SAT
Leo Bsb Tribunal Court Admin Court of appeal Employmnet Tribunal
2 3 4 5
6 Response to Mullins complaint due
7
8
9 UK63-1 Application for stay to CA Bar Councils response submissions received to Judicial Review BSB – served at 4pm
DEADLINES
McCann Deadline (Wray)
10
BSB 3 HEARING
UK63-2 Further Application for stay to CA
11 DEADLINES
LeO Mckinnan deadline
WORK DONE
Response Nadir Salop Response to CMP 021 241 Response to CMP 006 317
12
DEADLINES
WORK DONE Response on McCann
Appeal Order 27th April 2016
13
WORK DONE
Travel to Court to issue
Appeal against Order
27th April 2016
14
15 16
WORK DONE
Application for stay of BSB 12 Hearing
17 18
HEARING BSB 12 Tribunal
DEADLINES
Appeal Order
27th April 2016
19 20 21
115
UK69 to BLM
WORK DONE
22
23 24 25 26 27 28
29
30
31
116
7 VENN DIAGRAM ILLUSTRATING RACIAL MISTRUST AND HATRED IN BSB 1
The following is a table of the ethnicity of the relevant parties
Present Absent White BME
Tariq Rehman Accused
X X Mark Mullins Barrister for the accused
X X Adrian Green Complainant’s Partner
X X Jaroslav Stachiw
Complainant
X X Sadia Chowdry Post office worker who dealt
with the posting of the Notice X X Mr Khan Mr Rehman’s Client and the
Landlord X X HHJ Baker Chair of the Panel
X X Lucinda Barnett Panel Member
X X Dr Kerr Wilson Panel Member
X X Jacqui Thomas Panel Member
X X
The Venn diagram clearly shows the racial bais of the Panel
1) The Panel could easily have seen that Mark Mulllins was dishonest. All they had to do was turn over the Page 68 and they would have seen the remainder of the Handwriter’s report . They could noticed that there was no complaint against Mr Rehman and that Mr Mullins was advancing a false and perjured case. They were unable to do that
117
2) The Panel could easily have seen there were inconsistencies between Mr
Green’s evidence and the hard evidence before them. They were unable to do that either
3) Mr Stachiw, a white man, was absent, but the Panel found his evidence reliable without the need to have him cross examined
4) Mr Rehman was absent. The Panel found him dishonest despite the glaring inconsistencies in the evidence against him and without cross examination. Significantly, they felt they could read his mind
5) Mr Khan was absent. His word could not be trusted
6) Miss Chowdry was absent. Her word could not be trusted
The conclusions are that 1) A white witness who gives oral evidence is honest, even if there is hard
documentary evidence which conflicts with his oral evidence given on examination
2) A white barrister is honest, even if there is evidence before the Tribunal which shows that he might be dishonest
3) A white witness who does not give oral evidence is honest
4) Black witnesses do not have to give oral evidence for the Panel to know that they are all dishonest
118
Untrustworthy
Trustworthy
Absent
Present
BLACK AND
ETHNICS MINORITI
ES
WHITES
Mark Mullins -1 Adrian Green-2 J Staichiw -3
Rehman -1 Post office worker-2 Khan -3
119
D THE ISSUES
1 ARE THESE DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS (OR FOR THAT
MATTER ARE THEY PROCEEDINGS OF ANY DESCRIPTION )
50. Hickinbottom J has turned the law in the UK on its head in this case.
51. Until and unless the Court of Appeal overturns his orders the precedents in the table below have been established in the UK and represent good law. (Of the fifty or more precedents he could cite, Mr Rehman limits them to five)
FILE REFERENCE PRECEDENT ESTABLISHED IN THE CASE
WIDER IMPLICATOINS OF PRECEDENT
[P5-7 ] UK72-5 PAGE 9-11
A member of the Investigation and Hearings Team can attend the PCC Meetings, A PCC Member can attend an investigation . a Board Member of the Bar Council can attend an investigation
There is no separation of powers in the UK in any prosecution. An Old Bailey Judge dealing with a criminal case can attend with the police in a house raid; the arresting police officer can sit next to the Old Bailey Judge at the hearing. The Home Secretary (= Board Member) can also be present at both the raid and sit on the Bench next to the policeman and the Judge
[P5-7 ] UK72-5 PAGE 11
The Chairman was a retired judge and had no constitutive jurisdiction Leathley distinguished
The Court’s Head Chef, the Court Maintenance Manager or any member of the gallery can convict an accused at the Old Bailey
120
[P2-5] PAGE 107 UK63 PART 3 UK 48 Skeleton Argument in the Judicial Review [Leo]
LeO can determine complaints from the following parties where no objection is received : 1) An disgruntled employee against an employer 2) A consumer against a shopkeeper 3) A homeowner against a builder 4) An aggrieved wife against her husband 5) A nephew against an aunt or uncle 6) A Member of Parliament against his constituent 7) A child against a
parent
Parliament is not the supreme law making body in the UK. Judges can make the law, change the law or disregard the law,
BSB 2 Hickinbottom J has found that there is a legal obligation to pay a demand sent by a VAT registered party which is not a VAT invoice . He has also found that a barrister is guilty of professional misconduct if he does not make a payment a demand for which the sender agrees he has never received (It was accepted that everything went to the wrong email address)
VAT law no longer applies in the UK , or does not apply to everyone All professional are guilty of misconduct if they do not immediately pay claims upon their never being made. !
121
[P5-7] UK72-5 PAGE 62- PAGE 80, Skeleton Argument
A barrister is guilty of misconduct if he thinks something . (Mark Mullins emphasis throughout the proceedings that it was his intention behind the statement which was important)
Regulators are mind readers. Fraud is fraud only if someone acknowledges it is fraud; and if no one acknowledges it as fraud, it is not a fraud. (Whether Adrian Green fraudulently altered the Housing Act Notice has never been considered)
2 IF THEY ARE DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS, ARE THEY CAPABLE OF BEING TRIED ‘ LIES, DAMNED LIES: ABUSE OF PROCESS AND THE DISHONEST LITIGANT’ LORD REED
52. In his 2012 speech to University of Edinburgh in 2012, ‘ Lies, damned lies: Abuse of process and the dishonest litigant’ Lord Reed described when cases should be struck out as an abuse of process
One can discern in the case law at least four approaches to the problem of dishonest litigants. One is that the court’s power to punish contempt encompasses the power to dismiss the action. A second is that the litigant who resorts to forgery, perjury and the suppression of evidence in order to prevent the court from finding out the truth ipso facto forfeits his right to have the court hear his case. A third is that the court should adjudicate upon the issues between the parties as long as the dishonest litigant’s conduct has not rendered it impossible to hold a fair trial. A fourth approach brings to bear the overriding objective of the CPR. It holds that, since a litigant who resorts to forgery, perjury and the like imposes an unnecessary burden on court resources, which may be at least as great as that imposed by a litigant who fails to comply with the rules of court or breaches the court’s orders, he too may have his case struck out.
53. If there were ever a case of abuse of process, this case must be it.
54. Mr Rehman’s case is that the Bar Council as well as the Bar Council’s advocates have told so many lies, resorted to so much fraud and perjury, suppressed so much evidence and fabricated so much evidence that it is impossible to have a
fair or any trial.
122
55. Again, Mr Rehman could cite over 100 lies, forgeries, sham submissions and the like but for the purpose of brevity limits them to the following:
1) For the fourteen different versions of what the BSB allege Tariq Rehman
said to Adrian Green in BSB see [ P5-7 ] UK72 -7 PAGE 62FF
2) Marc Mullins withheld the Handwriting report from the PCC
3) The identity of Case Examiner (The 28th Respondent ) has now been discovered. He is James Dawson . He was given the opportunity of reporting to the PCC that he was misled. As he did not respond, a complaint about him has been made to the police . See Crime Report 1
4) There was no PCC. The BSB simply pretend that there is
5) The barrister ‘s clerk forged Mr Rehman’s signature in BSB 2
6) Evidence will be produced that Michael Carter has falsified evidence, perjured himself , lied to the court , advanced a false and perjured case and the like, not only against Mr Rehman but against other barristers as well. It can reasonably be assumed that Mr Carter is responsible for hundreds of unreliable convictions brought about by him.
In one case, he approached a barrister to attempt him to change his statement. The barrister refused. It is believed that the judge in the case recommended that he referred to the BSB for gross misconduct
7) Alison Padfield, of counsel, is involved in Red River Conveyacing and
Mortgage Fraud and in the Bar Mutual Fraud and has advanced a false and perjured case to the court. Again, it is assumed that she must have also have been responsible for very many unjust convictions.
8) Freda Sharkey, General Counsel of LeO lied to the court
The application had been made without notice to the Claimant.
The material section of the Legal Services Act 2007 is s. 141:
141 Enforcement by complainant of directions under section 137 (1)This section applies where—
123
(a)a determination is made in respect of a complaint under the ombudsman scheme,
(b)one or more directions are made under section 137(2), and
(c)the determination is final by virtue of section 140(4).
(2)An amount payable in accordance with—
(a)a direction under subsection (2)(b) of section 137 which requires that the whole or part of any amount already paid by or on behalf of the complainant in respect of the fees be refunded, or
(b)a direction under subsection (2)(c) of that section,
including any interest payable by virtue of subsection (4) of that section, is recoverable, if a court so orders on the application of the complainant or an ombudsman, as if it were payable under an order of that court.
(3)If the respondent fails to comply with any other direction under section 137(2), the complainant or an ombudsman may make an application to the court under this subsection.
(4)If, on an application under subsection (3), the court decides that the respondent has failed to comply with the direction in question, it may order the respondent to take such steps as the court directs for securing that the direction is complied with.
(5)An ombudsman may make an application under subsection (2) or (3) only in such circumstances as may be specified in scheme rules, and with the complainant's consent.
(6)If the court makes an order under subsection (2) on the application of an ombudsman, the ombudsman may in such circumstances as may be specified in scheme rules and with the complainant's consent recover the amount mentioned in that subsection on behalf of the complainant.
(7)In this section “court” means the High Court or a county court.
7) The section provides that if the respondent fails the comply with a direction given by the First Defendant , the First Defendant or the complainant is entitled to make an application to court.
8) In the context of matters, it is as plain as day that the application
referred to is an application under Part 7 or Part 8 Claim leading to a full trial in which the respondent can cross examine witnesses , call for documents and make legal submissions.
9) No application had been made by the LeO Defendants or Mr Haboul
under s 141 (3) 10) In the premises the LeO Defendants deliberately deceived the court
as to the law in order to procure the issuing of the LeO’s Seventh
124
Enforcement Proceedings [Enforcement Order] [Haboul £5550.15. They have , in effect, committed a fraud on the court
11) The deception has been accomplished by the following paragraphs of
the Submissions PAGE 9
12) Firstly, they withhold the fact that one of main issues in the Judicial
Review Claim [LeO] is whether the complainants or any of them satisfy the second condition in s 128 (4) (a) of the Act (whether the respondent provided services to the complainant(s)); and therefore whether LeO has jurisdiction
125
13) Secondly, they deliberately misquote s 141(2) by omitting the words
between ‘recoverable and ‘as if it were payable ‘…. The missing words are ‘ if a court so orders on the application of the complainant or an ombudsman. In other words, the obtaining of a court order is a precondition. LeO have not obtained a court order which it can enforce. LeO has not satisfied the precondition
14) Thirdly , they jump to s141 (4) deliberately omitting a reference to
s141 (3) which is the key provision providing that an application has to be made to court for an order for payment before it can be enforced
3 SHOULD ALL 161 CHARGES AND 27 PROCEEDINGS BE SET ASIDE UNDER HAYWARD V ZURICH INSURANCE COMPANY PLC [2016] UKSC
56. The proceedings should be set aside because they are based on fraud
4 ARE ALL BAR COUNCIL’S PROSECUTIONS AB INITIO VOID AND UNLAWFUL? SHOULD EVERY PROSECUTION OF EVERY BARRISTER BE SET ASIDE?
1) PROCEEDINGS AB INITIO VOID AND UNLAWFUL - BREACH OF PRINCIPLE OF SEPARATION OF POWERS
1) NO SEPARATION OF POWERS – MEMBER OF THE INVESTIGATION
AND HEARINGS TEAM ATTENDS THE PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT
COMMITTEE MEETING
57. If the executive participates in ,associates itself with or instigates the decision
to prosecute5 is there a breach of separation of powers
58. If there is a prosecution and or conviction where there has been a breach of
separation of powers, is the prosecution and or conviction is void and unlawful
5Compare the role and function of the police and the CPS
126
59. The BSB10 Finding and Sentence is void, unlawful and non existent by reason
of the fact that a Member of the Investigation and Hearings Team (Paul Pretty,
Robert Burn, Michael Carter) attended the Professional Conduct Committee
Meetings at which Mr Rehman was referred to the Tribunal (See the following
extract
60. The Investigations and Hearings Caseworker is involved at every stage of
the disciplinary process. He will
Receive the complaint against the Barrister Decide whether or not to accept jurisdiction for the complaint Investigate the complaint on paper Undertake an investigation into the Barrister’s chambers practices by
visiting chambers
Make recommendations to the Barrister, which if the Barrister does not follow, he will be charged
Decide whether or not to refer the complaint to the PCC
127
Prepare the papers for the PCC Prepare the papers for the drafting of the charge Where he purports to exercise delegated authority on behalf of the
PCC refer the barrister to the Tribunal himself Prosecute the case at the Tribunal or instruct a barrister to prosecute
the case (in which case he will attend the hearing as a representative of the BSB and the person instructing counsel )
Prosecute any appeal or instruct a barrister to prosecute the appeal (in which case he will attend the hearing as a representative of the BSB and the person instructing counsel )
2) NO SEPARATION OF POWERS – MEMBER OF THE BAR
STANDARDS BOARD ATTENDED THE INVESTIGATION
61. If the legislative participates in, associates itself with or instigates an
investigation is there a breach of separation of powers
62. The BSB10 Finding and Sentence is void, unlawful and non existent by reason
of the fact that a Member of the Investigation and Hearings Team (Paul Pretty,
Robert Burn, Michael Carter) attended the Professional Conduct Committee
Meetings at which Mr Rehman was referred to the Tribunal (See the following
extract
3) NO SEPARATION OF POWERS – MEMBER OF THE BOARD
ATTENDED THE INVESTIGATION
63. The BSB10 Finding and Sentence is void, unlawful and non existent by reason of the fact that a Member of the Board (Paul Mitchell) attended an investigation into Global
4) NO SEPARATION OF POWERS – MEMBER OF THE PROFESSIONAL
CONDUCT COMMITTEE ATTENDED THE INVESTIGATION
64. If the judiciary (or quasi judiciary ) participates, ,associates or instigates an investigation ,is a breach of separation of powers
65. If the judiciary (or quasi judiciary ) participates in ,associates itself with or
instigates the decision to prosecute, there is a breach of separation of powers 66. If there is a prosecution and or conviction where there has been a breach of
separation of powers, is the prosecution and or conviction I void and unlawful
128
67. The BSB10 Finding and Sentence is void, unlawful and non existent by reason of the fact that a Member of the PCC (Carla Revere) attended an investigation into Global
5) BAR COUNCIL IN BREACH OF LEGAL SERVICES ACT BECAUSE
THERE IS NO SEPARATION OF POWERS
6) NO SEPARATION OF POWERS BETWEEN THE BAR COUNCIL AND
THE BAR STANDARDS BOARD
68. Detailed at [P1-4] UK61 PAGE 109
7) NO SEPARATION OF POWERS BETWEEN THE BAR COUNCIL, THE
BAR STANDARDS BOARD, THE DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL OF THE
INNS OF COURT AND THE BAR MUTUAL
69. Detailed at [P1-4] UK61 PAGE 109-112
2) BSB 10 PROCEEDINGS AB INITIO VOID AND UNLAWFUL - BSB’S PROSECUTION BROUGHT IN BREACH OF RULES
70. The Bar Council and Bar Standards Board appear to have established what they term ‘an initial assessment’ for external complaints which there is no provision in the Rules. The process appears to be a strike out ‘ as soon as the complaint is made leaving the Victim with no recourse. The an initial assessment’ procedure vitiates the entire system :
1) The procedure enables to BSB to pick and chose which complaints it will consider and which it will not, to protect some barristers protect and pursue others
2) If the BSB are filtering complaints the PCC never see the full range of complaints enabling them to apply comparators or to properly apply the regulatory objective
3) The Panel therefore never all see the full range of complaints enabling them to apply comparators
[P1-4] UK61 PAGE 71-90. The procedure is shown in the flowcharts set
above
129
5 ARE ALL 300 LEO DECISIONS MADE AGAINST TARIQ REHMAN VOID AND UNLAWFUL?
1) s 128 OF THE LEGAL SERVICES ACT 2007
71. The Legal Services Act 2007 provides as follows
128 Parties
(1) The respondent is within this section if, at the relevant time, the
respondent was an authorised person in relation to an activity which was
a reserved legal activity (whether or not the act or omission relates to a
reserved legal activity).
(2) The complainant (“C”) is within this section if C—
(a) meets the first and second conditions, and
(b) is not excluded by subsection (5).
(3) -
(4) The second condition is that—
(a) the services to which the complaint relates were provided by the respondent
to C;
72. In other words LeO has jurisdiction only where s 128 (4) (a) is satisfied (
the legal services which are the subject of the complaint were provided by the
respondent to C )
73. LeO had made some 300 purported decisions against Mr Rehman where
complainants had not received services from him but had received
services from other barristers.
74. The LeO Decisions were void, unlawful and non existent
75. The BSB 10 Charges were based on LeO Decisions, therefore the BSB10
Charges were also void, unlawful and non existent
130
2) S 126 OF THE LEGAL SERVICES ACT 2007
76. LeO has made some 300 purported decisions where the complainant had not
first complained to Mr Rehman under s 126 (1) of the Act .
3) LEO DECISIONS VOID FOR OTHER REASONS
77. The LeO Decisions were void for other reasons [P2-5] UK48
6 ARE ALL LEO DECISION BASED BAR COUNCIL PROSECUTIONS AGAINST TARIQ REHMAN VOID AND UNLAWFUL BECAUSE THE LEO DECISONS ARE AB INITIO VOID AND UNLAWFUL ?
78. If the LeO Decisions are void and unlawful, the BSB Prosecutions based on
them must also be void and unlawful
7 ARE ALL OF THE TRIBUNAL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST TARIQ REHMAN AB INITIO VOID AND UNLAWFUL
79. The Tribunal proceedings are void and unlawful and therefore the Panels
Findings and Sentences should be set aside
8 BSB 1 DOES NOT EXIST. CRANSTON J ‘ ORDER WAS MADE IN BSB1. THEREFORE, SHOULD CRANSTON J’S ORDER BE SET ASIDE AND DECLARED NON EXISTENT?
80. The hearing of BSB1 was listed before Cranston J. The BSB 1 Charge does not
exist:
Mr Stachiw (the complainant ) specifically wrote to the BSB that he
did not wish to complain about the Appellant in relation to the charge
in question. He wrote
4 The final and most serious point of my complaint is that the Possession Proceedings have raised serious allegations of forgery whereby Mr Rehman has alleged that my Partner, Mr Adrian Green committed an act of forgery in inserting a date on a pertinent Notice of Seeking Possession. Obviously this allegation is emphatically
131
denied with a Counter allegation that either as Mr Khan or Mr Rehman are attempting to mislead the court particularly as has admitted in his own evidence that he completed the said notice on behalf of his lay client . Please note that at this stage I am not asking the Bar Council to consider this part of my complaint as there will certainly be an Adjudication and a finding of fact by the court
Mr Stachiw, gave evidence to the court that it was Mr Khan, the
Appellant’s client, who made the offending statement not the
Appellant. So why has the Appellant been charged with anything in
BSB1? An extract from the transcript of the hearing appears below
132
81. If the BSB 1 Charge does not exist, the BSB 1 Tribunal Finding and Sentence do not exist
82. If the BSB 1 Tribunal Finding and Sentence and Conviction do not exist, to
the extent Cranston J did not acknowledge their non existence, Cranston J’s Order does not exist
9 IS HICKINBOTTOM J AUTOMATICALLY DISQUALIFIED UNDER RE PINOCHET ? IF SO, ALL SIX ORDER MADE BY HIM SHOULD BE SET ASIDE
83. Hickinbottom J is automatically disqualified under Re Pinochet because of his connection with the solicitor’s firm Cameron Mckenna LLP and or with former President of the Law Society, Fiona Woolf OBE, who has committed the SRA Bank Scam, Compensation Fund Fraud Etc. PAGE 16
10 IS MASTER GIDDEN’S PURPORTED CRO REFUSAL CONTRARY TO THE PRINCIPLE OF PARLIAMENT SOVEREIGNTY? SHOULD IT BE SET ASIDE BECAUSE IT IS BASED ON HICKINBOTTOM J’ ORDERS
84. Master Giddens order appearing at PAGE 133 purporting to refuse Mr Rehman’s permission to appeal under the fraudulent CRO is unlawful because it deprives him of his statutory right. It should be set aside
85. It should also be set aside on the grounds that it is based on Hickinbottom J’s order which is unlawful and should set aside
11 IS THE COURT OF APPEAL UNWITTINGLY FACILITATING SERIOUS ORGANISED CRIME AND MONEYLAUNDERING?
86. There is a good argument that BSB1 is false record trail created to suppress the Theft of the Landlord’s Property [P5-7] UK72-5 PAGE 63- PAGE 64 , With each day that passes the money laundering consequent upon the theft continues. By its failure to make the Stay or Restraining Order which would stop the fraud, can the Court of Appeal be said to be furthering money laundering, albeit unwittingly?
133
134
H HOW THE CLASS ACTION [VICTIMS OF LAND AND PROPERTY THEFT] WORKS
87. The barrister or solicitor is instrumental in the economic crime which is
undertaken through the civil jurisdiction and the human rights violations which go hand in hand with it ; the fraud could not take place without the lawyer’s collusion with the opponent against his own client. [A1] EC UN CORE PAGE
428-PAGE 675]
88. He has the key function of engendering trust in the Victim, sufficient to bring
him into the forum of the purported court, where the theft can be committed with the appearance of legitimacy. Where the Victim is already involved in court proceedings, the barrister or solicitor is bribed or threatened to compromise his case.
89. The Victim may realise that his barrister or solicitor has done something wrong but he will not understand the full extent of what has happened and is unlikely ever to know that his barrister or solicitor was colluding with his opponents.
90. The Barrister is protected from claims by the client he has defrauded by the Bar
Mutual [EC UN CORE PAGE 566-638]
91. There is a network of barristers and solicitors appointed to key positions enabling them
To identify the property to be stolen To steal it
The conceal the theft To prevent the Victim from obtaining a remedy or reparation To money launder the proceeds of crime
92. Barristers Chambers involved in serious organised fraud are structured like
criminal cells providing Members complete immunity from claims, prosecution and regulation [EC UN CORE PAGE 677-PAGE 773]
93. The Class Action for Victims is intended to enable victims who have been defrauded cheated by barristers and solicitors, whether their own or their opponents.
135
94. Most Victims will have a claim against the State, at the very least, for damages arising from a judicial act under s 9 of the Human Rights Act 1988 , if not a claim under the Treaty of Lisbon and Member States’ obligations under the Civil Law Convention on Corruption which obliges Member States to provide in its internal law for effective remedies for persons who have suffered damage as a result of acts of corruption by its public officials in the exercise of their functions to enable them to defend their rights and interests including offering the possibility of obtaining compensation for damage.
95. However, as the flowchart at PAGE 134-PAGE 135
96. Why should the burden of repaying the Victims fall upon the taxpayer? Why can’t the barrister’s or solicitor’s victims recover from him personally ?
97. In my submissions to the Constitution Committee in UK26 PAGE 48-71 I put
proposals to Mr. Grayling to enable Victims to obtain reparation or compensation within a matter of days without the Government being out of pocket a penny piece.
98. One immediate thing the Government could do is to obtain asset freezing
orders against their properties in anticipation of compensating the Victim.
CODE
Indicates serious conflict
Indicates route for complaints or governance (HMLR was an MOJ agency at the material time)
Indicates route to obtain a remedy, compensation or reparation
THE COMPLETE ABSENCE OF SEPARATION OF POWERS IN
THE UK
136
C.
FCA
EXECUTIVE
MINISTER OF
JUSTICE TREASURY
LSB ‘ Go
to the
BSB
Victim’s
own
solicitor
Banks Other
barriste
r
MARGARET
GOMM
RED RIVER
FRAUD
THEFT OF
INVESTMENT
PROPERTIES
BMIF ‘ You
are not
allowed to
go to
court
Purported
judge
THEFT OF
MOUNTSIDE
BSB ‘ Go to
the police’
LeO ‘
Go to
court
We’ve avoided paying the Victim
compensation or reparation, kept
them out of court and protected all
of the barristers solicitors and
judges as well as HMLR
Victim’s
own
barrister
JICO
‘Go to
court’
Ste
al
wh
at
yo
u c
an
fro
m t
he
Vic
tim
.
Giv
e m
e a
50
% cu
t a
nd
I’ll
pro
tect
all
of
yo
u .
HM
Courts
SRA’S BANK SCAM
COMPENSATION
FUND FRAUD ETC
We’ve protected the
insurance companies
and the Banks
Other
solicitor
HMLR
No money
needed from
Treasury as no
payments made
to Victim
Treasury pays
for court to
commit fraud
FSOM
‘Go to
court’
Theft of
Bona Vacantia in
SRA Scam
Complaints
Commissioner
Anthony Townsend
137
I PROPOSED DIRECTIONS FOR THE CONDUCT OF COURT OF APPEAL PROCEEDINGS
1 JOINDER WITH ANAL SHEIKH V LAW SOCIETY
99. The request that an order be made in the terms of UK11 (which is Tab 2 of file) is made ex debito justiciae. The Court cannot refuse to make it
2 CONSOLIDATION OF ALL APPEALS AND APPLICATIONS. THE RESCISSION OF EXISTING REQUIREMENTS
100. It is proposed that all matters concerning Mr Rehman in every court and tribunal be consolidated in the Court of Appeal and determined there
3
PERMISSION TO BE GIVEN IN THE JUDCIAL REVIEW CLAIM [BSB] AND THE JUDICIAL REVIEW CLAIM [LEO]
101. The skeleton argument for the Judicial Review Claim [BSB] is at [P1-4] UK61. The skeleton argument for the Judicial Review Claim [LeO] is at [P2-5] UK48
102. Eight member of the public attended court to intervene in the Judicial Review Claims. One was Mrs Margaret Gomm, aged 80 , disabled and sick . Others were homeless . There was no question of any disruption. Hickinbottom J locked them out of the courtroom
4 IMMEDIATE STAY OF ALL PROCEEDINGS CONCERNING MR REHMAN ON THE GROUNDS OF TORTURE
5 DEALING WITH BSB 1 AS A SAMPLE CASE ON THE FACTS
103. BSB1 is analysed in [P5-7] UK72 -5 Skeleton Argument proposing the conduct of proceedings in the Court of Appeal
138
6 THE OTHER PROCEEDINGS TO BE DETERMINED ON POINTS OF LAW. COURT TO BE ADVISED BY CONSTITUTIONAL AND REGULATORY COUNSEL
104. Draft instructions to Counsel are at [ ]; they will be circulated with the invitation to advise the court pro bono
7 CONSOLIDATION WITH ALL BARRISTERS’ AND SOLICITORS’ CASES
105. It is proposed that all disciplinary proceedings, past and current, be consolidated and reopened if necessary
8 THIRD PARTY INTERVENTION BY VICTIMS OF BARRISTERS AND SOLICITORS
106. It is estimated that thousands of Victims of barristerial and solicitors misconduct and corruption will wish to intervene, for which provision should be made
9 COURT STAFF TO BE REFERRED TO THE CRIMINAL AUTHORITIES
107. Throughout the entire proceedings there has been pattern of withholding facts
and evidence body. In BSB 1 for example
The Caseworker withheld the handwriting expert’s report from the PCC
(if one exists ) and the fact that there was no complaint by anyone
Mark Mullins withheld the handwriting expert’s report from the Tribunal
and the fact that there was no complaint by anyone
All the files were withheld from Hickinbottom J
The files and documents have been withheld from Master Giddens
108. In the Court of Appeal, the court lawyer has taken it upon himself to prepare what he calls a ‘core bundle’ containing orders and appellant’s notices. P6 and P7 containing these documents have already been deposited by Mr Rehman; it is not known why he felt the need to duplicate those files
139
109. The function of a core bundle is give the court an overview of the
proceedings, identify the key issues and present the key evidence. This document , UK89, is the Core Bundle.
110. The court prepared bundle does not identify any issues and does not contain any of the key evidence . It is alleged that the file has been designed to mislead the judge and thereby to pervert the course of justice.
111. On 14th December, the Attorney General’s office was asked to investigate the conduct of the court office , in this and in other respects. In the meantime , a complaint will be made to the police.
112. The judge is asked to disregard the bundle in its entirety and is also asked to require the lawyer to respond to the following questions :
1) Would he explain why he prepared it?
2) What does he understand to be the issues in the case?
3) Where are the issues identified in the bundle ?
4) Mr Rehman has objected to the reliance on any transcripts [P5-7 ] UK
72-5 PAGE 97-PAGE 98 Why has he included a transcript of a