uk89-core-bundle-and-skeleton-court-of-appeal-pdf … · 1 in the court of appeal civil division on...

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.

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)

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


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


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.

11) TABLE 11 VENN DIAGRAM PAGE 116- PAGE 118 illustrates racial

profiling at the Tribunal in BSB1

35

TABLE 1 - BSB PROSECUTIONS SCHEDULE

PROC NO

CHG NO No SUMMARY OF CHARGE

BSB 1 CHG 1 PC 2012 /0020 D5 Made an allegation of fraud against a solicitor

BSB 1 CHG 2 PC 2012 /0020 D5 Misleading website

BSB 1 CHG 3 PC 2012 /0020 D5 Failure to correspond

BSB 2 CHG 4 PC 2012 /0430 D Late payment of fees to Edward McKiernan

BSB 2 CHG 5 PC 2012 /0431 D Late payment of fees to Timothy Bass

BSB 2 CHG 6 PC 2012 /0432 D Late payment of fees to Alex Dunn

BSB 3 CHG 7 PC 2013 /0324 D5 Agreed for the Intermediary company to charge £100

BSB 3 CHG 8 PC 2013 /0325 D5 Allowed cases to be taken on without considering the need for a solicitor

BSB 3 CHG 9 PC 2010/0012 A Allowed cases to be taken on by me without allocation

BSB 3 CHG 10 PCLR 2014/0417 Failed to issue a fee note

BSB 3 CHG 11 PC 2012(0259)D5 Failed to follow annex s re complaints



BSB 3 CHG14 PC 2014(0210)D5 Failed to issue a fee note

BSB 3 CHG 15 PC 2014(0243)D5 Failed to inform client of fees to be charged

BSB 3 CHG 16 PC 2014(0384)D5 Failed to issue fee note

BSB 3 CHG 17 PC 2015/0372 Failed to follow annex s re complaints

BSB 3 CHG 18 PC 2014/0783 A

BSB 3 CHG 19 PC 2015/0356 Leo Payment plan

36

BSB 4 CHG 20 PC 2010 0012 A Failure to repay Bar Council Loan

BSB 5 CHG 21 S 2008/108

BSB 5 CHG 22 S 2008/108

BSB 5 CHG 23 S 2008/108

BSB 6 CHG 24 PC 2012/ 0269/D5 Unknown




BSB 6 CHG28 PC 2014/ 0210/D5 Unknown


BSB 6 CHG30 PC 2014/ 0384/D5 Unknown

BSB 7 CHG PR 2014/0783 First Application for Interim suspension

BSB 8 CHG 32-92 PC 2014/ 0783 Second Application for Interim suspension

BSB 11 CHG 93 PC 2008/0235/D3 Failure to pay 29 June 2011 costs of £335

BSB 14 CHG 94 PCLR 2014 0412 D5

LeO Amanda Restall

BSB 14 CHG95 PCLR 2014 0417 D5 LeO Rachell Hallard

BSB 14 CHG 96 PCLR 2014 0426 D5 LeO Sodhi

BSB 13 CHG 97 PC 2015/0356 Leo fines

BSB 9 CHG 98 PC 2015/0372 Failed to pay county court order for Experts

fees £900

BSB 10 CHG 99 PC 2015/0038/D6 17 Leo Complaint Press Warning Release on 9

Dec 14

BSB 10 CHG100 PC 2015/0038/D6 Failed to advise clients of work he had agreed to perform

BSB 10 CHG 101 PC 2015/0038/D6 Failed to pay refunds of £24,000

BSB 10 CHG 102 PC 2015/0038/D6 Failed to pay Leo awards of £13,000

37

BSB 10 CHG 103 PC 2015/0038/D6 Failed to pay Leo awards of £13,000

BSB 10 CHG104 PC 2015/0038/D6 Failed to act in such a way as to achieve

compliance -unregulated entity KC Chambers

BSB 10 CHG105 PC 2015/0038/D6 Failed to act in such a way as to achieve compliance -unregulated entity KC Chambers

BSB 10 CHG106 PC 2015/0038/D6 Failed to act in such a way as to achieve compliance -unregulated entity HLT Chambers

BSB 10 CHG107 PC 2015/0038/D6 Failed to act in such a way as to achieve compliance -unregulated entity HLT Chambers


compliance -unregulated entity HLT Chambers


compliance -unregulated entity HLT Chambers

BSB 10 CHG110 PC 2015/0038/D6 Failed to respond to a BSB letter

BSB 15 CHG111 PCLR 2015 0365 D3

BSB 15 CHG112 PCLR 2015 0068 D5 Leo Ridgeway

BSB 15 CHG113 PCLR 2015 0073 D5 Leo Singleton

BSB 16 CHG114 PCLR 2015 0080 D5 LEO Connard - dismissed

BSB 17 CHG115 PCLR 2015 0087 Leo Eshemuller

BSB 15 CHG116 PCLR 2015 0091 D5 LeO Middleton

BSB 15 CHG117 PCLR 2015 0115 D5 Edith Earl

BSB 15 CHG118 PCLR 2015 0117 D5 LEO Murtadha

BSB 15 CHG119 PC 2015 0204 D3 LEO Bagus

BSB 15 CHG120 PC 2015 0259 D3 Leo fines Paul

BSB 15 CHG121 PC 2015 0276 D3 Leo fines Aoune

BSB 15 CHG122 PC 2015 0296 D3 LEO De Villiers

CHG123 PC 2015 0265 D3 Leo fines Hallard

BSB 15 CHG124 PC 2015 0268 D3 Leo fines Photiu

BSB 17 CHG126 PCLR 2015 0324 LEO Helen Mehari

38

BSB 17 CHG127 PCLR 2015 0325 LEO not known

BSB 17 CHG128 PCLR 2015 0326 Leo Priyanka Gupta

BSB 17 CHG129 PCLR 2015 0327 Leo Priyanka Gupta

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






9. JUDICIAL REVIEW CLAIM 2014







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


17. JUDICIAL REVIEW CLAIM 2640 2015







24. JUDICIAL REVIEW CLAIM CO 1398 2016







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]














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
















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
















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,

82 LeO’s Sixth Enforcement Proceedings LeO’s Statutory Demand Oct 2015 (Haboul)

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

LeO

Claims

56

1. Flowchart showing what is meant to happen

TABLE 5 THE BSB’S REGULATORY PROCESSES :WHAT

SHOULD HAPPEN BUT WHAT DOES HAPPPEN

58

2. Flowchart showing what in fact happens

60

#

1

DIAGRAM 1

COMPLAINT MADE UNDER INTERNAL

COMPLAINTS PROCEDURE

COMPLAINT NOT MADE UNDER INTERNAL

COMPLAINTS PROCEDURE

No resolution

within 8 weeks

Ombudsman thinks there are

exceptional circumstances Rule 4.2 (b)

Ombudsman thinks there has

been an irretrievable breakdown

Rule 4.2 (c)

Ombudsman thinks there are

exceptional circumstances to enable LeO to

consider sooner than 8 weeks Rule 4.2 (b)

Examples are 1) where the AP

refuses to deal with complaint

2) where delay would cause C hardship

LEO HAS JURISDICTION

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


3) not within R 57

RULE 5.5


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


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


representations

COMPLAINT NOT CLEARLY


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.

http://www.legalombudsman.org.uk/helping-the-public/

http://www.legalombudsman.org.uk/helping-the-public/

71

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.”

http://legalfutures.co.uk/nick-hilborne

http://www.legalfutures.co.uk/latest-news/leo-names-immigration-barrister-first-public-interest-publication

http://www.legalfutures.co.uk/latest-news/named-shamed-barrister-hits-back-misleading-ombudsman/print/

http://www.legalfutures.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/birmingham5.jpg

72

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

73

Tariq Rehman - Bar Standards Board www.barstandardsboard.org.uk › ... › Interim suspensions

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

https://www.barstandardsboard.org.uk/complaints-and-professional-conduct/disciplinary-tribunals-and-findings/interim-suspensions/tariq-rehman/

https://www.barstandardsboard.org.uk/media-centre/press-releases-and-news/independent-panel-decides-not-to-suspend-birmingham-based-barrister-tariq-rehman-on-an-interim-basis/

http://www.legalcheek.com/2015/05/direct-access-in-spotlight-after-barrister-is-slapped-with-11-misconduct-findings/

http://publicregulatoryblog.fieldfisher.com/2013/update-on-dishonesty-tariq-rehman-v-bar-standards-board-2013

http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/law/named-and-shamed-barrister-suspended-over-payments/5048331.fullarticle

http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/named-and-shamed-barrister-to-fight-misconduct-findings/5048927.fullarticle

http://www.legalfutures.co.uk/latest-news/barrister-gets-judge-removed-from-disciplinary-appeal-hearing-over-perception-of-bias

http://www.legalfutures.co.uk/latest-news/senior-qc-who-worked-with-named-and-shamed-barrister-found-guilty-of-three-misconduct-offences

http://www.legalombudsman.org.uk/?portfolio=mr-rehman-of-kings-court-chambers

74

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 – ...

http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/legal-watchdog-publishes-details-complaints-8255230

https://ukvisaadvice.wordpress.com/tag/tariq-rehman/

http://www.tbtas.org.uk/hearings/findings-and-sentences-of-past-hearings/

http://www.kingscourtchambers.com/tariq-rehman-profile.php

http://www.kingscourtchambers.com/robots.txt

https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/156449?hl=en-GB

http://www.solicitorsjournal.com/node/21256

http://www.barristermagazine.com/barrister/index.php?id=83

http://www.zoominfo.com/p/Tariq-Rehman/1886251693

https://www.linkedin.com/in/tariq-rehman-30a8985

75

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

http://solicitorsfromhelluk.com/index.php/list-all-complaints/207-kings-court-chambers

76

TARIQ REHMAN’S PERSONAL, PROFESSIONAL AND

FINANCIAL RUIN, AND HIS PUBLIC SHAMING

BSB LEO LSB &

BSB

APOLOGY No real

loss to

Claiman

t

PUT

RIGHT

ERROR

PAY

LOSS

REFUN

D

ALL

FEES

REFUND

ALL

DISBS

DISCIP

ACTION

PUBLIC

NOTIC

E

PAY

£400

CASE

FEES

Notwithstanding

that the Global

Customer never paid

Tariq Rehman fees

or disbursements

Cap

able

of

bein

g ch

alle

nged ind

ivid

ually

, but

if

all don

e t

ogeth

er

as

an o

rchest

rate

d

atta

ck u

pon

the C

laim

ant

, im

poss

ible

to

chal

leng

e

UNDER THE GLOBAL

CONTRACT

UNDER THE BAR COUNCIL

CONTRACT

Not

viable

77

BARRISTER

CHARGED

rE103 SERVICE

ON PRESIDENT

rE102 SERVICE

ON DEFENDANT

BSB must send

copies to the

President

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

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]).]

(7). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

(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]

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1971/23/section/24#commentary-c2070802









89

[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.

F8(4). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

(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.





90

6) THE FUNCTION OF THE CLERK TO THE TRIBUNAL

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

96

TABLE 9- THE OBLIGATION TO WORK AS A FORM OF TORTURE

108

FEBRUARY 2016

SUN

MON TUE WED THU FRI SAT

Leo Bsb Tribunal Court] Court of appeal

2 3 4 Administrative Court Appeals. Cranston J Order. Deadline to comply BSB 1

5 Threat of

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


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


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


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?

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

judgment ?

19TH December 2016

uk89-core-bundle-and-skeleton-court-of-appeal-pdf … · 1 in the court of appeal civil division on...

Documents