Chapter Eleven

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
NO LEAVE TO APPEAL
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
  
      Lord Justice Saville

I realized that no one: Solicitors' or Judges', would be happy to accept that one of their number would attempt to pervert the course of justice, but I had thought that when Mrs. Justice Smith was
confronted with the evidence, on the 12th of November, she wouldn't flinch from ensuring that justice would be seen to be done, particularly when she had said that, it should never appear, in any sense, that a Judge is anxious to dispose of an action against another Judge, but I'd been wrong, because she did flinch.

Despite Justice Smith's Judgement, I still thought that a Court of Appeal would certainly overturn the previous Orders, so perhaps optimistically, I submitted an application, dated the 26th of January I997, for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal, care of the Registrar for Civil appeals in London,   together with the sealed Orders of District Judge Weston and Mrs. Justice Smith.

On the I4th of December I996 I submitted, to the Civil Appeals Office, by recorded delivery post, two copy transcripts of the proceedings before Justice Smith on the 22nd of May and then, on
the 20th of January I997, I submitted further grounds for my application for leave to appeal, to the Progress Group of the Civil Appeals Office.

I submitted to the Appeals Office, two Bundles of documents in anticipation that my appeal would be heard by two Lord Justices and I was later informed by that office that my application would in
fact, be heard by two Lord Justices' at the Royal Courts of Justice on the 5th of March I997, ex-parte, ie. only myself to attend.

Included in the Bundles was documentary evidence in support of the application, Judgement Orders, Affidavits, Notice of ex-parte application, Pleadings and my proposed Notice of Appeal that
couldn't be served upon the Defendants' at that time without leave to appeal having been granted.

Prior to the hearing I didn't doubt that I would be granted leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal. I couldn't see that there was any way that the Lord Justices could refuse, because it was so
obvious to me that the Orders of the lower Courts were wrong. I'd prepared the proposed Notice of Appeal well in advance of the hearing.

I. TAKE NOTICE that the Court, so soon as the Applicant, or Counsel can be heard on behalf of the above named applicant, on appeal from the Order herein, of The Honourable Mrs. Justice Smith,
   made on the I2th of November I996, whereby she Ordered that the Plaintiff's appeal against the Order of District Judge Weston, that the Statement of Claim be struck out as disclosing no reasonable cause of action be dismissed and from her Order that the Plaintiff do pay the Defendants' costs and the Plaintiff asks the Court of Appeal to overturn the said Honourable Mrs. Justice Smith's and District Judge Weston's Orders and holds that the Statement of Claim does disclose a reasonable cause of action and is not scandalous, frivolous, or vexatious and also holds that the costs of the Plaintiff's appeals be against the Defendant s '.

2. AND FURTHER TAKE NOTICE that The Honourable Mrs. Justice Smith wrongly exercised her discretion on the I2th of November I996, by dismissing the Plaintiff's appeal against the Order of
District Judge Weston, made on the I3th of February I996, whereby he struck out the Statement of Claim as disclosing no reasonable cause of action and she ought to have held that because it was
established on the 22nd of May and agreed between herself and Counsel for the Defendants' that the Statement of Claim plainly does disclose an alleged cause of action, that the Plaintiff's appeal is justified and she should have dismissed the Defendants' application for the Statement of Claim to be struck out and Ordered the Plaintiff's costs to be against the Defendants'.

3. AND FURTHER TAKE NOTICE that The Honourable Mrs. Justice Smith wrongly exercised her discretion in holding that the affidavit sworn by the 2nd Defendant on the I4th of October is true and ought to have held that the overwhelming evidence produced by the Plaintiff and referred to in his reply to the 2nd Defendant's affidavit, which has been served and submitted to the Court, clearly demonstrates the 2nd Defendant's perjury.

4. AND FURTHER TAKE NOTICE that The Honourable Mrs. Justice Smith wrongly exercised her discretion by suggesting to Counsel that if the 2nd Defendant were to put an affidavit, producing her notes and demonstrating that they have not been altered, then there would be a very solid basis upon which a Judge could say, "this whole action is frivolous and vexatious", which suggestion
to Counsel was made after it had been agreed that the Claim plainly does disclose an alleged cause of action and prior to her adjourning the hearing to allow the 2nd Defendant to produce the
documents and she ought to have held, (on the I2th November) that because the shorthand books produced demonstrated that they had been tampered with; that their production further confirmed that, there is a reasonable cause of action and that the request by Counsel for an adjournment to produce evidence to demonstrate that the Claim is scandalous, frivolous, or vexatious was an
abuse of the power of The Honourable Court, because as the 2nd Defendant knew the shorthand books, if they were produced, would demonstrate the reverse.

5. AND FURTHER TAKE NOTICE that The Honourable Mrs. Justice Smith wrongly exercised
her discretion by finding that the potential witnesses listed in paragraph 6, C) of the Plaintiff's affidavit
dated, served and submitted to the Court on the I6th of September I996, could not substantiate the Plaintiff's allegations and ought to have found that the probability is that the said potential witnesses may prove the Plaintiff's case.

6. AND FURTHER TAKE NOTICE that The Honourable Mrs. Justice Smith wrongly exercised her discretion by failing to pursue the Plaintiff's invitation, stated in paragraph 5, F, of his affidavit, which invitation was to those representing the Defendants', to approach, or disclose the identity of the Jurors who sat at the Plaintiff's trial and she ought to have held that because those representing the Defendants' were instructed by the Lord Chancellor's Department who know the identity of the Jurors, they should have submitted the Jurors' evidence to support the application and she ought to have noticed the adverse inference in the Defendants' failure to respond to the Plaintiff's invitation
in his affidavit, served 8 weeks before the hearing, on the I2th of November.

7. AND FURTHER TAKE NOTICE that The Honourable Mrs. Justice Smith wrongly exercised her discretion bv stating that she thinks the action is unsustainable as it would asking a Judge to make a giant leap from the mere finding that the transcript is not accurate to the conclusion that there has
been a conspiracy, because on the 22nd of May I996 she said that in order to demonstrate that they (Defendants') have been corrupt, I (Plaintiff) would have to demonstrate that there is something wrong with the shorthand note (at A, page I9, certified transcript, submitted to the Appeals Office on
the I4th of December) and then (page I9) she said - "I am not suggesting that you (Plaintiff) should do anything further yourself, because I have suggested and Counsel has agreed that it would be more appropriate if he takes those steps. I am proposing to adjourn this matter for that to happen." and on the I2th of November Counsel produced the original shorthand books, which were examined by Mrs. Justice Smith and which demonstrated that pages are missing and have been tampered with.
The Honourable Mrs. Justice Smith ought to have held that because it had been demonstrated that something was wrong with the shorthand note and because she had adjourned the hearing on the 22nd of May (page I9) for that to happen, corruption is sustainable.

8. AND FURTHER TAKE NOTICE that The Honourable Mrs. Justice Smith wrongly exercised her discretion by stating that she thinks that the action is unsustainable when the evidence before her demonstrated that the Defendants' have not been prepared to deny the allegations in either the Defence, which was prepared by Mr. Shepheard upon the instructions of the Lord Chancellor's Department, on behalf of the Defendants' on the 5th of September I995, (para, 2, affidavit sworn by Mr. Shepheard) or the Further and Better Particulars of the Defence, which demonstrates that the Defendants' refused to answer the requests for particulars, which were requested to determine whether, or not the Defendants' personally deny the allegations and which purported particulars state only that the Defendants' refuse to answer any requests, or questions the answers to which would tend to expose them to criminal penalties and The Honourable Mrs. Justice Smith ought to have held that because the Defendants', refused in the purported Further and Better Particulars, to personally deny the allegations of conspiracy, that they will not personally deny them if and when the case goes to trial and that the action can be sustained.

9. AND FURTHER TAKE NOTICE that The Honourable Mrs. Justice Smith wrongly exercised her discretion by not holding that the refusal by the Defendants' to furnish particulars to which a Plaintiff is entitled on the ground that the answers would tend to expose them to criminal penalties is an abuse of the power of the Court and/or not an adequate Defence, or a Defence and she ought to have taken the inference that if the Defendants' had not been guilty of the serious allegations, or if they are prepared to defend, then they most certainly wouldn't have refused to particularize, to say that they personally deny the allegations, nor would they have said that the answers would tend to expose them to criminal penalties.
With respect The Honourable Mrs. Justice Smith seems to have overlooked the strong probability that His Honour Judge Simpson has already made his corruption known to those who represent him,
will admit liability, or will not defend the action and if Mrs. Justice Smith had not overlooked the probabilities she could not have dismissed the appeal as being unsustainable.

IO. AND FURTHER TAKE NOTICE that The Honourable Mrs., Justice Smith wrongly exercised
her discretion by apparently assuming that because, as she stated, - "there is no direct evidence of a
conspiracy between Judge Simpson and the Shorthand writer" - she assumed therefore, that conspiracy would be unsustainable and she ought to have held, as she did on the 22nd of May, (transcript, page II, at B) - "corruption tends to be committed in privacy, cloaked in secrecy and as she also held on the 22nd of May - "The duty of a pleader is to plead the facts and not the evidence
that supports it." (transcript, page II, at B) She ought to have concluded that because conspiracy is sustainable through interrogation and interrogatories and because of the probability that liability would be admitted, or the action not defended, that ,justice should be seen to be done and the action
be litigated, despite the inadequate Defence.

11. AND FURTHER TAKE NOTICE that The Honourable Mrs. Justice Smith wrongly exercised her discretion by apparently holding that District Judge Weston was correct in hearing the
Defendants' application to strike out the Statement of Claim before hearing the Plaintiff's application for the 2nd Defendant to serve a Defence, because the Plaintiff's application was first in time by
approximately two and a half months and had already been part heard by District Judge Weston weeks before the Defendants' summons to strike out the Statement of Claim was issued and which
adjournment allowed the Defendants' nearly seven weeks grace in which to issue a summons and she ought to have held that the Plaintiff's application would have been granted had it been heard by Judge Weston in its proper order.

AND FURTHER TAKE NOTICE that the Appellant proposes that this Appeal be assigned to the Queens Bench Division of the High Court.

Signed J. F. Hulbert.

I arrived in London by rail, getting to the Royal Courts of Justice fifteen minutes before the hearing was due to commence. Despite the direction signs I found Court 63 with some difficulty, taking a couple of wrong turns before arriving at the Court where I was ushered in.

The courtroom was surprisingly small and after being ushered in I saw only one other person apart from the Usher herself who, as I was to find out, was the Court transcriber.

Mine was the first application to be heard in Court 63 that day and sitting immediately in front and very close to the Bench I saw the documents    including my Bundles, brought in and laid
before the chairs where the Lord Justices' were to sit.

Thinking it would be too nerve racking for me to read out the applications I'd prepared three typed copies, two of which were intended for the Judges', for them to read without me having to
say too much. I handed the two copies to the Usher and she passed them on for the Judges' before they entered the Court.

It must have been the close proximity of the Judges' coupled   with the apparent friendliness of the Court Usher that gave me the confidence to decide to read out the application myself,  because surprisingly, I didn't feel in the least nervous and upon the Lord Justices' being seated I did read out my application:

"My Lords,
I.  My application is for leave to appeal against the order made by The Honourable Mrs. Justice Smith on the I2th of November I996, whereby she dismissed my appeal against the order made by District Judge Weston on the I3th of February I996, when he struck out my Statement of Claim solely on the ground that it disclosed no reasonable cause of action. pages IO and I49 of my Bundle are the copies of both orders."

Note - After reading out the first paragraph, one of the Judges' interceded by saying words to the effect - "There's no need for you to read paragraphs two and three, we know what it's all about."
I did as requested by continuing at paragraph four, because wasn't about to argue with a Lord Justice, although it did strike me that they must have known what every paragraph was about since they had my bundles of documents with pleadings, affidavits and the proposed notice of appeal before them and of course, they were following what I had to say from the copies I'd submitted to the Usher, but I had no time to give the Judge's intervention much thought. Paragraphs two and three, which they must have read for the Judge to know that he didn't want them reading out, referred the Mrs. Justice Smith's dismissal of my appeal in the certain knowledge that the claim plainly disclosed an alleged cause of action. I can only suppose that Lord Justice Saville didn't want paragraphs 2 and 3 recorded and transcribed.

4. My appeal against Judge Weston's Order was dismissed despite it having been established by Mrs. Justice Smith herself, on the 22nd of May I996 that, there is plainly a cause of action
alleged, which was agreed by Counsel for the Defendants'.
That's in the certified transcript of the hearing, page 2I at D of my bundle. So I submit that, because it has been established and agreed that there is plainly a cause of action alleged that, my appeal against Judge Weston's Order was justified and ought to have been upheld.

5. Pages I6, at A and B and I5, at F, of the transcript of the hearing on the 22nd of May shows that, because it had been established that there is a cause of action alleged, it was clear that the District Judge was wrong in striking out the action on that ground and Counsel for the Defendants' sought
to have the hearing adjourned in order to demonstrate that the action is scandalous by producing the 2nd Defendant's shorthand books together with an affidavit from her, but on the I2th of November, Mrs. Justice Smith couldn't find that the action is scandalous, because the evidence of the short-
hand books demonstrated that they have been tampered with, with pages missing, so Mrs. Justice Smith made the Order dismissing my appeal against Judge Weston's Order and in so doing must have held that the Statement of Claim discloses no reasonable cause of action. I submit that its strange that the hearing on the 22nd of May was adjourned to allow the Defendants' to demonstrate that the action is scandalous because there is a cause of action alleged and then, after it had been demonstrated that the action isn't scandalous, Mrs. Justice Smith apparently held that Judge Weston's ground for striking out the action was correct.

6. Although the Orders of The Honourable Mrs. Justice Smith and Judge Weston don't state that the action was struck out on the ground that it is unsustainable, Mrs. Justice Smith did say in her Judgement that she thinks the action is unsustainable, so for that reason it is necessary to refer to the evidence that was before her on the I2th of November:

a) The original shorthand books, with pages missing and the wire coil page holder on book 668, that shows that it has been tampered with, also the photo-copies of some of the pages, they are pages I24 to I29 of my Bundle and shows  the position of the end of the coil and damage to the tops of some of the pages.

b) The evidence of the false transcripts themselves, pages 80 to IO4 of the Bundle, that indicates that other parts must be false.  The full details were made known to Mrs. Justice Smith and are on pages I85 to I87 of the Bundle and referred to in paragraph 6, B, of my affidavit dated I6th of September I996, page 78 of the Bundle.

c) Pages I39 to I40 of the Bundle is a false CJA. statement made by a taxi driver, that has been proved to be false by the Police Officer in the case and by the taxi driver himself, when they testified at my trial and again by the taxi driver in a later witness statement, a copy of which I've retained.
The proven false sentence in the C.J.A. statement - "I    reported a man running into a house after refusing to pay.". was supported by the Special Constable, but that support has been omitted from her transcript and it may be significant that the Ist Defendant didn't refer to the false statement in his Summing Up, I05 to I23 of the Bundle.

d) The evidence of the definite contradiction of the evidence given by the Special Constable about the time that she made up her notes. The contradiction is revealed in the false transcript that was
prepared by the 2nd Defendant and the accurate, certified transcript prepared by the 2nd Defendant's former employer, of the Ist Defendant's Summing Up, pages 83 at F and II8 at E, of the Bundle.
The false transcript purports that the Special Constable made up her notebook at I2.30. and the accurate transcript shows that Judge Simpson told the Jury that the Special Constable's evidence was that she made up her notebook at 1.30 in the morning.

e) The evidence in paragraphs 26 and 29, on page I46 of the Bundle, which is a copy witness statement made by one of the witnesses who's evidence has been tampered with, the Special Constable, that gives an entirely different account of her evidence relating to her notebook, to her purported evidence in the 2nd Defendant's transcript. Its conceded that two different accounts doesn't prove either one true, but the witness who's evidence has been tampered with has signed her statement whereas, the 2nd Defendant's certificate reluctantly given, still doesn't state that her transcript is a complete and correct account of the proceedings.

f) The evidence of the affidavit sworn by the 2nd Defendant on the I6th of October I996, pages 64 to 70 of the Bundle and my reply to it dated 5th of November, which has been served and submitted to the Court, pages I8I to I84, together with two Judgement Orders that prove the Second Defendant's affidavit untrue.
Paragraph I5 of the affidavit states that- she prepared a certificate of accuracy of the transcript pursuant to a York County Court Order, dated 2Ist of February I995.
The order she refers to is page I69 of the Bundle, which invited her to certify the transcript as true and accurate within I4 days.
On the 27th of February; six days after the Order was made, I sent the transcripts by recorded delivery, to Mrs. West and I've retained the copy letter with the certificate of posting.
On the 2Ist of March; three weeks after confirmation of delivery, I sent a further letter to her, with a further copy of the Order, the copy letter being retained by myself. With no response from the 2nd Defendant I applied to the Court and on the I3th of April I995 Judge Grills made a further Order, which is page I70 of the Bundle, which states that Mrs. West had failed to provide certification
of the transcripts, so paragraph I5 of the Defendant's affidavit is untrue, she didn't certify the transcripts pursuant to the Order made on the 2Ist of February.
Despite her 25 years experience as a shorthand writer Mrs. West has left her purported certification undated to disguise the fact that she didn't comply with the Order of the 2Ist of February and she has also certified the transcripts as being a complete and correct account of her shorthand notes, which has never been disputed; she refuses even now, to certify them in accordance with the rules
governing verification.
The other two shorthand writers who took down evidence at my trial have certified their transcripts according to the rules.
Page I68 of the Bundle is Mrs. West's purported certification and I've retained the certification of the other two shorthand writers.
Prior to applying to the Court for an Order to Mrs. West to certify her transcripts, I made six requests to her for verification and paragraph 23 of her affidavit confirms my numerous letters to her
The evidence shows that Mrs. West has never been prepared to certify her transcripts according to the rules and it is submitted that Mrs. Justice Smith ought not to have accepted paragraph I5 of Mrs. West's affidavit as being true.

7. Pages 76 to 79 of the Bundle is my affidavit dated I6th of September I996, served and submitted to the Court on that date, which in paragraph 6, C, lists potential witnesses who can substantiate the allegations.

a) The two witnesses who's evidence has been tampered with;

b) the CPS. Law Clerk who assisted the Prosecution at my trial;

c) the 2nd Defendant's former employer;

d) the Jurors who sat at my trial:

Paragraph 5, F, of my affidavit, which is page 78 of the Bundle, is an invitation to the Defendants', or those representing them to approach, or disclose the identity of the Jurors who sat at my trial, because Counsel had given Mrs. Justice Smith an undertaking on the 22nd of May, to demonstrate to me and to the Court that there was no corruption, or skullduggery; that's page 23 at B, of the Bundle.
Although those representing the Defendants' were instructed by the Chancellor's Department, who know the identity of the Jurors, my invitation served eight weeks before the hearing has been ignored.

8. As stated, Mrs. Justice Smith said in her Judgement, that she thinks the action is unsustainable and she said that despite the evidence of the Defence and the further and better particulars of it, which two documents demonstrate that the Defendants' have not been prepared to personally deny the allegations.
The Defence was prepared on behalf of the Defendants' on the 5th of September 1995, which date has been deleted on the document, but is still plainly visible and reveals that it was prepared before the 2nd Defendant had given her consent and therefore without any material being provided by her.
The further and better particulars of the Defence states that the Defendants' refuse to answer any requests. or questions the answers to which would tend to expose them to criminal penalties.
It is submitted that because the Defendants' refuse to personally deny the allegations of conspiracy, they will not personally deny them if and when the case goes to trial and Mrs. Justice Smith ought to have noted the probability that Judge Simpson has already made his corruption known to those
who represent him, will admit liability, or will not defend the action.

9. It is also submitted that the application to strike out the action is an abuse of the power of the Court, because the refusal in the purported Further and Better Particulars of the Defence to furnish particulars on the ground that the answers would tend to expose them to criminal penalties is
not an adequate defence, or a defence.
My application for the 2nd Defendant to serve a Defence was issued about two and a half months before the Defendants' application to strike out the action and it had already been part heard by District Judge Weston weeks before the Defendants' summons was issued.

10. I further submit that it has been established that there is a cause of action alleged and that the action is not scandalous, or an abuse of the process of the Court, that the evidence of the shorthand books and affidavit produced by the 2nd Defendant, together with the evidence that I've referred to, demonstrates that corruption is sustainable and the refusal by the Defendants' ~o provide particulars of the Defence, the apparent refusal by the Ist Defendant to swear an affidavit, the probability that the Defendants' have already made their corruption known, the probability of further evidence being obtained at the Discovery stage of the proceedings, or through interrogation and/or interrogat-
ories and the probabilities referred to in my affidavit of the 20th of March I995; all these things show that conspiracy can be substantiated and that my application for leave to appeal is justified and should be granted.

Signed J. F. Hulbert (Plaintiff in Person)

The Judges' retired for only a few minutes after I'd read  out my application and when they were seated again I was told by one of them that the app!ication for leave to appeal was refused, whereupon, the other Lord Justice said only two words, - "I agree."

I was very disappointed and I couldn't understand how the Judges' in their wisdom had come to that conclusion; that the action couldn't be substantiated.
They must have realized that corruption against Mrs. West was sustainable, but my allegations had been corruption by conspiring to pervert the course of justice and they took the view, as did
Mrs. Justice Smith that, conspiracy was unsustainable despite the circumstantial evidence and the very real probability that they had made their corruption known, as demonstrated by the fact
that they wouldn't personally deny the allegations, in which case the action was sustainable.

How the Judges' had taken the view that further evidence couldn't have been obtained at the discovery stage of the proceedings, or through interrogatories when the Defendants' would be required to answer questions under oath, I just don't know, because clearly, they had refused to personally deny the allegations and the probability had to be that admissions would be forthcoming when an Order of the Court would require them to answer my questions under oath, or if they refused to do that, the action could not be defended.

I tried to understand why one of the Lord Justices' had instructed me .not to read out paragraphs two and three of my prepared application, so I re-read the paragraphs to try to find out the reason and the first thing I noticed was that they described how Mrs. Justice Smith had dismissed my appeal despite it having been established by her, that there was plainly an alleged cause of action and that because that had been established, the Defence had tried without success to demonstrate that the action was scandalous and that when that attempt had failed, Mrs. Justice Smith had apparently done a "U" turn by dismissing my appeal against the District Judge's Order, thereby holding that    the claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action.

Paragraph three had gone on to submit that it was all very strange, but when considering these points I came to the conclusion that it was no more odd than the Lord Justice's instruction to me not
to read out the Mrs. Justice Smith's reasoning.

Whatever the rights, or wrongs of District Judge Weston's, Mrs. Justice Smith's and the Lord Justices' Orders, there is one thing that is very clear, they had all given one of their colleagues the
opportunity to evade answering the allegations made against him when, according to the rules of the Supreme Court, allegations must either be answered, or judgement entered against the defaulter.

If it is to be a case of sauce for the goose, any civil litigation could end with the defendant refusing to answer the allegation in the knowledge that it would put an end to the matter, which would
make a mockery of the Justice System, however the requirement that every allegation in an action must be answered is designed to stop that happening, but so far, that doesn't seem to apply when
a member of the judiciary is the defendant.

How two Lord Justices' could have refused me leave to appeal to the full Court of Appeal,  having held that the Defendants' had not personally denied the allegations and in the knowledge, that the Rules of the Supreme Court state that all denials in a Defence must be specifically answered, or they are deemed to be admitted, makes the mind boggle.

For readers' who may be interested to know how Lord Justices' Saville and Morritt arrived at the decision not to allow my application to appeal to the Court of Appeal, here is the Judgement as spoken by Lord Justice Saville, from the official approved transcript of my application. I intertwine my own comments, where I deem it necessary, in red text.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Judgement

LORD JUSTICE SAVILLE: This is an application by the plaintiff in person for leave to appeal against an order made on 12th November 1996 by the Honourable Mrs Justice Smith sitting at the Kingston upon Hull District Registry

My comment - Wrong: : the order made by Mrs. Justice Smith was made in Sheffield as the evidence of her sealed order, dismissing the appeal, demonstrates.

in an appellate capacity. By her order the judge dismissed the plaintiff's appeal against the striking out of his statement of claim by District Judge Weston under Order 18 Rule 19 of the Rules of the Supreme Court on the ground that that statement of claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action.

My comment: then it is admitted by those two Law Lords, that my appeal was simply dismissed by Mrs. Justice Smith and it confirms what I have been saying all along: she has  never, at any stage, agreed that D/Judge Weston was correct in striking out the claim as disclosing no reasonable cause of action, nor could she possibly agree after having ruled exactly the opposite: demonstrated by he evidence of the transcript of the hearing.

The plaintiff claims damages for conspiracy to pervert the course of justice including aggravated and exemplary damages against his Honour Judge Alan Simpson and against Mrs Sheila West, who was a court shorthand writer.
The claim arises from a criminal trial at the Kingston upon Hull Crown Court held in December 1991. The plaintiff, who, as I understand it, represented himself at that trial, was acquitted of charges of making off without payment of a taxi fare and two counts of assault with intent to resist arrest. The first defendant was the presiding judge at that criminal trial, and the second defendant was the shorthand writer on one day of the trial.
What the plaintiff, Mr Hulbert, alleges is that Mrs West fabricated or altered parts of her shorthand note of evidence at the behest of Judge Simpson who, it is alleged, dictated false or misleading notes with the object, or intent, of protecting the police from a civil action the plaintiff was bringing against the police for assault, false imprisonment and malicious prosecution. The plaintiff says that the
fabricated shorthand notes are alleged to have been inserted into the
shorthand notebooks, and the old true pages removed carefully from the wire coil at the top of the book.
In a written note, which Mr Hulbert has prepared and read to us this morning, he sets out full details of what he says were the alterations and tampering with the shorthand note.
The essence of the judgement of Mrs Justice Smith was that there were insufficient facts and matters pleaded to support this allegation that it was a conspiracy.

My comment: regardless of what Mrs. Justice Smith may or may not have said in order to try to justify the dismissal of my appeal, the superseding fact remains: she dismissed the appeal in the absolute knowledge that it had been struck out on a false ground: disclosing no reasonable cause of action, contrary to her own ruling and that the order remained, as if valid, on the court record.
If she had believed that she had any other reason to strike out the action she would have and should have made an order to that affect, but she wouldn't and couldn't. She had no other valid reason.
After all it was a re-hearing of application before D/J Weston. Common sense tells up that if there was plainly an alleged cause of action disclosed in the S/Claim, the appeal should have been allowed.

The plaintiff, in effect, relies on two matters. Firstly, that there were these inaccuracies in the transcript and, secondly, that the defendants have not themselves personally denied the
conspiracy, although it has been denied on their behalf by a defence served on their behalf by the Treasury Solicitor.

My comment: I can assure everyone that, I relied on far more that that. I relied on the evidence that I had produced before Mrs. Justice Smith, some of which, is disclosed in my website, but more than anything else, I relied on the fact that the S/Claim discloses an alleged cause of action as Justice Smith had ruled and that unlawful order remained, as if valid and still does to this day.

Mrs Justice Smith concluded that even if one assumed in favour of the plaintiff, as one has to on an application striking out on these grounds,

My comment: there you have it "one has to on an application striking out on these grounds," and "she had to", which poses the important question, 'why did she rule in my favour, demonstrating that my application, against Judge Weston's order, striking out the action was/is well founded and then go on to dismiss my appeal that, she had upheld?
Can there be any clearer evidence that D/J Weston wrongly exercised his discretion?
Justice Smith had the power to strike out the claim on other grounds had there been any, but she couldn't and didn't.

that his allegations of alterations and tampering with the transcript are correct, nevertheless those facts, assuming them to be established, fell far short of beginning to demonstrate that there was,
accordingly, a conspiracy between the trial judge and the shorthand writer of the kind that Mr Hulbert suggests.

Whether it falls short or not and many would disagree with the weight of evidence that I have, but even so, it wasn't a trial.
It was an appeal against an order striking out on a false ground, they had themselves agreed that one must find in favour of the Plaintiff in an application to strike out on the Defendants' submitted grounds.

Having looked at the papers, the affidavits sworn by Mr Hulbert and the other material in the bundle, together with the document he handed in and read to us this morning, which was entitled "Background to Case" and "Application for Leave to Appeal", I have to say, in my view, that Mrs
Justice Smith did reach the right conclusion and the contrary is not sufficiently arguable to enable us to give leave to appeal.
The fact that, if such it be, the notes were tampered with does not, in my mind, begin to entail or suggest that there was therefore a conspiracy of the nature alleged.

My comment: it wasn't their job to decide whether their was a conspiracy.
There was no trial,

As to the second point pressed on us by Mr Hulbert, the fact that the defendants have not themselves personally denied the conspiracy seems to me to be neither here nor there. They have put in a defence, as is their right..

My comment: absolutely true, but the Law Lords declined to say, in this judgement, that the defence submitted by the Treasury Solicitor, refused point blank to answer, even one, of the alleged facts on which the S/Claim relied, contrary to the rules of the Supreme Court. Further,  the 'Further and Better Particulars' of that purported Defence categorically states that the Defendants refuse to answer questions that 'WOULD' tend to expose them to criminal penalties.

That defence, on their behalf, specifically denies these allegations, and I can draw absolutely no inference of the nature suggested by Mr Hulbert from the fact that the defendants have not, at
this stage, themselves personally denied these allegations.

My comment: "that defence on their behalf" not "their defence".
Even the Law Lords agreed that the defendants hadn't personally denied the allegations and how could they have, when and if, the defendants' had made their corruption known to the LCD, which I strongly believe to be the case.

In those circumstances, despite the help given to us by Mr Hulbert this morning, I am bound to say that I must conclude that the chances of him succeeding in an appeal from Mrs Justice Smith are virtually non-existent, and in those circumstances the application for leave to appeal must be refused.

My comment: well, that part may be true, but who knows whether the Court of Appeal
would join in the conspiracy, I somehow doubt it.

LORD JUSTICE MORRITT: I agree.

ORDER: Application refused.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Upon consideration and in believing, that an action against Mrs. West alleging corruption, by perverting the course of justice and perjury, by swearing a false affidavit, would be substantiated, I
decided to commence a fresh action against her alone, to see what would develop.
~~~~~~~~~~~
Chapter Twelve
~~~~~~~~~~~