Andrew Rennison MSc was appointed by the Home Secretary in February 2008 as the first Forensic Science Regulator. His principal role is to set and monitor the quality standards for forensic science in the criminal justice system. In December 2009 the role was extended when he was appointed to advise the government on the regulation of surveillance camera systems, leading to his appointment as the Surveillance Camera Commissioner in September 2012. Prior to moving into regulation he completed a 30 year career with the police. He holds a Master of Science degree in psychology and an honorary Doctor of Science degree from the University of Bournemouth.
IS THE CCRC UNFIT FOR PURPOSE ?
The CCRC is said by many to be unfit for the role they have been given. Many a time it has taken a public media campaign to force the Commission into gear. Clearly, looking at the positions held previously by the Commissioners, there is likely to be a bias, leaning toward siding with the prosecution, the Judges and the Police force - and of course the supposed victims of any crime that a person may have been convicted of in an English Court. We see no evidence of anyone wrongly convicted on the board through genuine error, or anyone the subject of a police fit up.
Some cases are referred back to the Court of Appeal, but others, more or less identical as to points of law are not. Men convicted on the basis of suspicious marks in one point in question, where three cases are known of but only two have been the subject of appeal.
The perceived unfavourable treatment of some persons suggests undeclared links to secret societies such as the Masons, where many Judges and it appears most of the CPS are Masons, not to mention the Police forces in England that are rife with members with links to business men and their families, where favours are called in, and frequently result in fit-ups. Try then to find out which police officers are masons. There is supposed to be a voluntary register, but when you ask to see it, you will be told that this is the subject of data protection - where there is supposed to be transparency.
With this in mind, and with the CCRC currently not bound by Articles 6 and 14 of the Human Rights Act 1998, and especially not bound by Article 13 of the European Convention of Human Rights (where Article 13 has been deliberately omitted from the HRA 1998) - and where the Sexual Offences Act 2003 violates Article 6 - in reversing the burden of proof, we wonder what use is a safety net that is actually window dressing for those seeking justice. So much for European Law, but with Brexit looming large the United Kingdom is teetering on the brink of isolation harking after the British Empire where slavery and the exploitation of the resources of other nations was routine.
Under International Law, the CCRC is in violation of 1, 2, 7, 8 and 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, where the United Kingdom is a member of the United Nations that like the European Convention, cherry picks what Human Rights it will accord its citizens.
It appears then that the CCRC are part of the problem within the British justice system and more part of a state sanctioned eugenics programme, that involves single judges, the courts, the police and prosecutors - all of which are appointed by and ultimately take their instructions from the Head of State, currently HM Queen Elizabeth II.
It is an interesting situation for study by any sociologist or criminologist as to the level of corruption in British courts. In particular we are following one case that has been referred to the CCRC, but so far they have failed to investigate several glaring errors in the trial process, one medical and other evidential, meaning that the victim of a wrongful prosecution served his sentence and is still in the queue waiting for justice.
There is also the matter of the defending solicitor and barrister not calling any one of 17 witnesses in relation to character and and the police failing to secure the crime scene, most obviously failings from funding cuts.
In addition, it appears that the police (Sussex) in this case were heavily involved in with Wealden District Council in failing to investigate 12 complaints, 11 unrelated to the victim of this travesty of justice. It appears that the Sussex Police were then seriously biased, where the victim (Nelson Kruschandl) complained to Derek Holness, Sheelagh Douglas, Lesley Barakchizadeh and Charles Lant (WDCs Chief Executives) and Giles York (Chief Constable) of the Sussex Police about perverting the course of justice in failing to investigate (no interviews and no crime number) the allegations of malfeasance in public office.
In respect of the failure to refer this matter to the Appeal Court, the English High Court asserted that the CCRC were entitled to take a view - even where they have failed to investigate the virginity issue and the trial Judge summing up incorrectly concerning the work diary of a prime witness in the case.
What the High Court decision means in lay terms is that the CCRC can do what they like concerning Human Rights abuses. They can free one person who has good connections and they can subdue another where the Crown wants them to, such as a person born in South Africa who has been battling the Sussex Police and Wealden District Council for many years prior to the ultimate put down: a beautifully contrived sexual conviction.
In terms of Discrimination the CCRC have been acting unlawfully according to Section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998, such actions being incompatible with international and European law. It remains to be seen if they are capable of remedying the situation in time to prevent the matter going to the United Nations for advice.
CCRC OFFICERS 2018
- Sally Berlin - Liz Calderbank -
Caroline Corby -
Rachel Ellis -
- Justin Hawkins
5 St Philip's Place
Justin Hawkins on:
Tel: 0121 232 0906
PRISON BREAK US DRAMA - YOUTUBE
FAIR USE NOTICE
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.
This site is free of © Copyright except where specifically stated 1997 - 2018. Any person may download, use and quote any reference or any link, and is guaranteed such right to freedom of information and speech under the Human Rights and Freedom of Information Acts. However, be aware that we cannot be held liable for the accuracy of the information provided. All users should therefore research matters for themselves and seek their own legal advice and this information is provided simply by way of a guide. Horse Sanctuary UK Limited. All trademarks herby acknowledged.