Campaign for Truth and Justice

Evolution: According to Barrister-at-Law (Edwin Shorts) and Senoir Lecturer in Law at westminster University (Claire De Than) ”’The United Nations was formed with the intent of establishing an international commitment to protecting human rights on a global scale. On December 10, 1948, one of its first acts was the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This declaration came about largely in response to governmental abuses of power and … was considered “a significant milestone” in protecting human rights … (full long text International & National Human Rights Law).

Homepage;
Synopsis; Deliberate Action; Violations; Documents; Video; Corruption; CTJ declaration;
Address: Campaign for Truth & Justice (SW), 25 Swinford Gardens, Barrington Road, London SW9 7LA, UK;
Contact.

Genesis of the Problem: In November 1994, Mr. Grant retained the services of Bindman & Partners Solicitors to pursue a complaint against King’s College NHS Hospital Trust for negligently giving false information about the circumstances leading up to the death of his 14 month old son. 

Bindman & Partners advised him in writing, that there was no law in the United Kingdom which gave protection against false advice.  Mr. Grant found this very difficult to accept and sought the advice of several other law firms, who all told him Bindman’s were wrong.

Mr. Grant tried to have his Legal Aid Certificate transferred to a firm who were prepared to properly represent his interest, but Bindman’s refused to release it.

In August 1997 Mr. Grant then issued a writ against Bindman & Partners for several breaches of the Solicitors Code of Conduct.  They included a breach of contract, willfully giving false advice and failure to act in the best interest of the client.

Bindman & Partners were represented by another firm of Solicitors, Reynolds Porter Chamberlain (RPC).  They offered no defence to the claim and sought only to rely on the influence of their friends or families within the Judiciary.

The Senior Partner at RPC, Alan Toulson, is the brother of a High Court Judge, Mr. Justice Toulson.  Alan Toulson, or his firm, went to his brother and arranged to have Mr. Grant’s claim willfully struck out of Court.  RPC also arranged, with Justice Toulson, an unlawful injunction against him contacting Bindman’s directly.

The actions of Justice Toulson and his brother, or brother’s law firm, is a direct contravention of Article 6, Section 1 of The European Convention.

During the abuse of process and infringement of his rights, Mr. Grant made several complains to Downing Street, Members of Parliament, the media and to Her Majesty the Queen, but no help was forthcoming.

In an effort to attract public attention to all what was taking place, he spray painted the windows of the offices of Bindman & Partners.  Mr. Grant was subsequently arrested and prosecuted for criminal damage.  He pleaded not guilty as a result of circumstances.
The following Morning, 13th August 1997, he was brought before a District Judge, Mr. Baker and despite the documented fact that there were no conditions attached to his bail, the Judge remanded him to 4 days in prison.

On the 17th August 1997 he was taken back to the same Court before a different Judge, Mr. Johnstone, who stated in Court, he would not become involved in what was taking place and he confirmed that there were no conditions attached to his bail and released him from custody.

In June 1998 Mr. Grant was eventually convicted for the allegation of criminal damage.  He appealed against the conviction and in July 1998 the conviction was overturned.  The Appellate Court presided over by His Honor Judge Inman, accepted his defence of duress of circumstances.

By now Mr. Grant had also received a reply to his complaint from Buckingham Palace, written on behalf of the Queen.  It is clear from that letter that the Queen could not intervene directly.  However, she instructed that Mr. Grant’s letter of complaint be sent direct to the former Head of the Judiciary, Lord Irvine.  The letter from Buckingham Palace also confirmed Lord Irvine’s awareness of his case.

Lord Irvine’s failure to act on the issues raised in his complaint allowed the corruption to spread out of control and because he was the Head of the Judiciary Mr. Grant was denied the right to be heard by an impartial, independent Tribunal, the basic principles of fairness.

In September 1998 Mr Grant reissued his writ, this time there were four Defendants, Bindman & Partners for reasons already given, the Solicitors Indemnity Fund, the Hospital responsible for subjecting him to mental torture and the Hospital responsible for deliberately over prescribing him antidepressants.

Alan Toulson, or his firm, went back to his brother to have Mr. Grant’s writ struck out, again unlawfully.
In an effort to break him once and for all, RPC also alleged that Mr. Grant had breached their unlawful injunction.  In February 1999 Mr. Justice Toulson conducted a hearing, in Mr. Grant’s absence, without legal representation and without his knowledge, prosecuted by his brother or his brother’s law firm.

At the conclusion of that unlawful hearing, Justice Toulson ordered that Mr Grant should go to Prison and serve 6 months for Contempt of Court.

Comments are closed.