is the document that Cramp & Co did not know about when defending a
case between 2006 and 2008 - but would have discovered if they had
challenged the medical evidence as instructed by their client. This
could have led to an adjournment, and following specialist reports,
dismissal of the case, on the assumption that appropriate applications
would then have been made. The Crown's expert,
Melanie Liebenberg, told the Court that a naturally occurring
anatomical feature was suspicious. The above document reveals more than
that little error, it also reveals that if the girl had been penetrated
as claimed, there would have been physical evidence to back that up.
When as a matter of fact the girl was "tightly closed and could
not be opened with labial traction." Virginity
tests should be mandatory in all cases where penetration is alleged.
It's time for a change in the law to protect victims of false
allegations. Children from single parent families are more prone to
making false allegations - especially against departing (foster/step)
parents, who they treat as disposable items against which to vent their
frustrations at being abandoned by their biological fathers. Anyone
aided in a
British court is unlikely to receive a fair trial. There is no right of
appeal in the UK contrary to SDG 16 of the United Nations sustainability
goals. The Criminal
Cases Review Commission appear to biased in the extreme where masons
HUMAN RIGHTS ACT -
LIBERTY & SECURITY
to Article 5: Right to liberty and security
1. Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law:
(a) the lawful detention of a person after conviction by a competent
(b) the lawful arrest or detention of a person for non-compliance with the lawful order of a court or in order to secure the fulfilment of any obligation prescribed by law;
(c) the lawful arrest or detention of a person effected for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence or when it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent his committing an offence or fleeing after having done so;
(d) the detention of a minor by lawful order for the purpose of educational supervision or his lawful detention for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority;
(e) the lawful detention of persons for the prevention of the spreading of infectious diseases, of persons of unsound mind, alcoholics or drug addicts or vagrants;
(f) the lawful arrest or detention of a person to prevent his effecting an unauthorised entry into the country or of a person against whom action is being taken with a view to deportation or extradition.
2. Everyone who is arrested shall be informed promptly, in a language which he understands, of the reasons for his arrest and of any charge against him.
3. Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1(c) of this Article shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial. Release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial.
4. Everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily by a court and his release ordered if the detention is not lawful.
5. Everyone who has been the victim of arrest or detention in contravention of the provisions of this Article shall have an enforceable right to compensation.
scales of injustice - heavily weighted against the common man
this is rarely the case where a rich man can easily issue instructions
to a firm of solicitors and get instant results - good or bad - he gets
instant results. Whereas a poor man inevitably experiences
difficulty engaging a firm of solicitors, and even if he manages to get
his foot in the door, the Legal Services Commission will then seek to
strike out his application for public funding. The poor man does
not get instant results, not even results in a reasonable timeframe.
care to agree that in the circumstances the: "Access
to Justice Act" should properly be titled the "Cop Out
POLICE KNOWINGLY DEFYING ARTICLE 5:
to get redress
Protection of Property Rights
Right Not to be Discriminated Against
Right of Free Expression
Right of Peaceful Protest
Right to Know
Right to Privacy
Rights of Defendents
Rights of Prisoners
Rights of Suspects
Rights of Travellers
Rights of Victims and Witnesses
Information and Advice
Human Rights Act