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 Commissiones, 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.

Some cases are referred back to the Court of Appeal, but others, more or less identical as to points of law are not.

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 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.

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.

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.

COMMUNICATIONS - JUSTIN HAWKINS

The head of communications at the Criminal Cases Review Commission is Justin Hawkins. His job is not as you might think to serve the interests of those that may have been wrongly convicted, but in fact is to seek to keep convictions intact no matter what information might come up to challenge such conviction.

The proof of the pudding is asking the CCRC for copies of documents that are reasonably necessary when reviewing a case. In some cases, Mr Hawkins freely gives out information, when he thinks that such information will not challenge the safety of a conviction. But, the moment that you ask for a transcript where a Crown witness has lied on oath - then the gates of hell close up and the boiling oil is prepared for the parapets to prevent such information seeing the light of day.

That is a strange reaction - you might agree. But where the CCRC have been the subject of a request for a Judicial Review (denied) and may be the subject of a Judicial Review in the future - and they know that they failed to properly investigate matters the first time around - then of course they will do all within their power to hide the fact that in some cases, they do not review a case fully. In that case of course they might well not have bothered and might want to give the Taxpayer a refund for not doing that which they are required by statute to undertake.

According to the High Court, the CCRC are entitled to take a view. What this means in lay terms is that they can do what they like. 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.

Discrimination - Yes. Unlawful - Yes. But that is the truth of the matter and Justin Hawkins is just as guilty as the person making the false allegation in failing to do his duty, according to Section 2 of the Fraud Act 2006.

CCRC OFFICERS 2018

 Jonathan Baume - Sally Berlin - Liz Calderbank - Caroline Corby - Rachel Ellis - Richard Foster - Justin Hawkins
Celia Hughes - Andre Katz - Karen Kneller - Stephen Leach - Linda Lee - Alexandra Marks - Sharon Persaud
Jennifer Portway - Andrew Rennison - David James Smith - Robert Ward

DATA PROTECTION ACT

..

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT

..

CCRC CONTACTS

Switchboard and fax
Telephone: 0121 233 1473
Fax: 0121 232 0899

Postal address

5 St Philip's Place
Birmingham
B3 2PW

Website: https://ccrc.gov.uk/

DX address (a mail system often used by solicitors): DX: 715466 Birmingham 41

Emails

For information: info@ccrc.gov.uk
For media enquiries: press@ccrc.gov.uk
For recruitment: hr@ccrc.gov.uk
For complaints: complaints@ccrc.gov.uk

Media enquiries

Justin Hawkins on:

Tel: 0121 232 0906
Mobile: 07947 355 231
Email: press@ccrc.gov.uk

https://ccrc.gov.uk/about-us/commissioners/

http://www.linkedin.com/pub/justin-hawkins/44/367/185

ANATOMY OF A STITCH UP - FLOW CHART - ECHR ARTICLES 6 & 13 VIOLATIONS

Ian McEwan's novel 'Atonement' (fiction)  -  Jane Roe's 'The System' (based on a true story)

THE SYSTEM

This is a fictional work inspired by a true story, where the names and locations have been changed to protect the identities of the characters. This book reveals flaws in a System, which is geared to gaining convictions, rather than providing support to innocent victims of false allegations, who often spend several years in prison, then several years on licence and even more years reporting and subject to constant surveillance before they are vindicated and infrequently obtain justice via the European Courts and even more rarely via the United Nations.

The British perfected concentration camps during the Boer Wars (1880-1881 & 1899-1902) under Lord Herbert Kitchener 1st Earl. Lord David Blunkett perfected the ultimate in unfair trials with his (Blunkett Law) so-called reforms of laws relating to those accused of sexual crimes in 2003 - in fact a reversal of the principles of justice that Queen Victoria was fond of, in that a person so accused is presumed guilty, rather than innocent until proven guilty. Blunkett and Kitchener appear then to have a lot in common. Adolf Hitler also creeps into the frame as a military man looking to improve on Kitchener's policies.

British plutocrats have long engineered social policies to subdue potential activists in any arena likely to challenge their dominance. The Sexual Offences Act 2003 is just one of their tools in a subtle eugenics programme designed to prevent people reaching their potential, including preventing them enjoying the right to procreate.