UNIVERSAL DECLARATION 

 

OF HUMAN RIGHTS

 

HOME  |   CASE STUDIES   |   HISTORY   LAW   |    POLITICS       RIGHTS    SITE INDEX

 

 

 


Adopted and proclaimed by General Assembly resolution 217 A (III) of 10 December 1948

 

 

Article 11.

    (1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.

     

    (2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.

     

UK CASE IN POINT UNDER REVIEW

 

In the case of Nelson Kruschandl Vs the United Kingdom (Sussex Police and Wealden District Council) he with a series of alleged sexual offences in 2006 under the Sexual Offences Act 2003. A trial took place in February of 2008.

 

The Sexual Offences Act 2003 provides that a person accused of a sexual offence is presumed to be guilty rather than innocent at the outset, contrary to Article 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

 

The 2003 statute was enacted by the British Government under the guidance of David Blunkett, a Member of Parliament and the then Home Secretary. Mr Blunkett's agenda was to increase the number of convictions regarding sexual offences - also to increase sentences to the point where thousands of Indeterminate Public Protection (IPP) prisoners are being detained many times over their tariff. The 2003 Act is truly is an abomination of a legal document that is blind to the consequences of the eugenics approach to bending of the rules of law to, in-effect, massage the convictions statistics to make himself and his Labour Government under Tony Blair more popular to win votes.

 

David Blunkett (now Lord) must have known that the reversal of the duty imposed on him by Article 11, would have required additional funds for any half decent defence to be mounted, but there was no increase in Legal Aid funding for those accused of sexual charges.

 

In addition the word went out to Single Judges that only a very few appeals would be allowed with a similar direction to the Criminal Cases Review Commission. There would be no honours for anyone bucking this agenda. Hence, with no right of appeal under British law, those wrongly convicted would stay convicted indefinitely. This is handy for councils and police who may have been caught conspiring to pervert the cause of justice, as happened to be the case with Mr Kruschandl were he reported crimes, accusing Wealden District Council of lying to Inspector Raymond Dannreuther about the history of a generation station in a Petition in 1997. This was of course the truth, but Sussex police were not prepared to investigate the malfeasance in public office, a common law crime that carries a maximum life sentence, where they had granted immunity from prosecution to Wealden's officers, where it is alleged that a masonic link existed between Sussex police and Wealden, because of known associations with Tyrian Lodge, a masons meeting place in South Street, Eastbourne, just 100 yards from the then police station in Grove Road. The father in law of the assistant district planning officer, Ian Kay and Councillor Brian West were both former Grand Masters at this Lodge. A coincidence maybe, but then Councillor West was on the planning committee in the 1990s and voted for enforcement against Kruschandl, even though he knew that the history the officers were giving to the area plans south committee was untrue. He knew that the generating buildings were genuine, but said nothing to prevent that injustice. Indeed, he was party to the injustice.

 

Another potential conflict of interest is that Mr Kruschandl was in litigation with Don Wales, who attended Eastbourne College. Where Kruschandl was claiming monies owed by the grandson of Sir Malcolm Campbell in an amount of 62,000 as to non payment for services in connection with a land speed record project, it could be that the police and council took sides unofficially. We understand that Wealden supplied Mr Wales with a dossier of information, hoping that he would succeed in litigation that would wipe out their adversary. Don Wales had either friendships or contacts in the membership of Wealden District Council. When Wales failed to win his case, a stitch up by Sussex police would kill two birds with one stone. All they had to do was wait for an opportunity.

 

When Kruschandl called off an engagement to the daughter of a cabinet member at Wealden, it appears that this was the opportunity they were waiting for. All they had to do was fuel the bad feelings from the break up of the relationship and persuade (groom) the teenage daughter who was caught up in the middle of the break up to go along with the assertions of a friend that there had been inappropriate sexual contact, where all the evidence pointed in the other direction. But that did not stop Gordon Staker. He appears to have allowed two weeks for the girl, her mother and grandmother (both social workers well versed in such issues) to elapse before taking a statement. Staker was also prepared to close his eyes to a video collection belonging to the claimant about The Bill and Casualty episodes, and her computer, where if they had bothered to look (and probably did) they would have seen that this girl was surfing the web on dating sites and taking pictures of her brothers genitals - and that her video collection was largely about this subject, but that she was claiming she would not have know sexual contact with her former stepfather would have been wrong. These were pertinent facts that the Jury should have known about.

 

They would also have seen entirely innocent emails from the girl to Kruschandl that they did not want any Jury to see, let alone the fact that the victims computers evidence the fact that he was not looking at inappropriate pictures or otherwise acting in a manner that one would have expected, had the allegations been true. Indeed, the Jury would have found out that he was a planning activist who'd won a number of cases against Wealden. They would also have found out about the Petition and the litigation with Don Wales. This was inconvenient to the case, so Gordon Staker and James Hookway turned a blind eye. We believe that such dereliction of their duty of care to the accused should warrant a prosecution of the investigating officers.

 

It gets worse. Forensic evidence was wrongly fed to the Jury, suggesting that naturally occurring marks on the girls hymen were not natural. This was another lie. They are natural, but even worse than that, the girls hymen was closed, indicating virginity, where she was claiming multiple penetrations that equals rape. Judge Cedric Joseph told the Jury that there could have been 30 to 40 such sexual episodes. If there had been any truth at all in the statement, the girl would have had a gaping hymen, not been tightly closed. For this reason we suspect masonic connections between the Judge and the Crown Prosecution Service.

 

If this is the level of Human Rights abuses in just two cases, we wonder if the United Kingdom should be allowed to remain a member of the United Nations ?

 

 

 

 

 

OTHER CASE DEFICIENCIES

 

Sussex Police failed to secure the crime scene  ..... To be continued ....

(other language versions)

 

The Human Rights Act 1998  -  Schedule 1 Part I - The Articles  -  Part II  First Protocol  -  Part III Sixth Protocol

Scotland Legislation |  Wales Legislation |  Northern Ireland Legislation |  HMSO