The following are the transcripts of the Judicial Review appeal hearing before Judge Nicholas Blake – who is apparently a Human Rights expert….
The Transcribers claim that they are inaccurate because the sound quality was poor but this is not the case and the important "inaudible" sections and corrections are marked in [red].

Claim No: CO/6520/2005 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE (VIDEO LINK HEARING)
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
14th September 2007
BEFORE:
HIS HONOUR JUDGE BLAKE QC
(sitting as a Judge of the High Court)
BETWEEN:
BRUCE
Claimant
and
SS WORK & PENSIONS
Defendant
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
MR BRUCE appeared as LITIGANT-IN-PERSON
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Proceedings
Wordwave International, a Merrill Communications Company
PO Box 1336, Kingston-Upon-Thames KT1 1QT
Tel No: 020 8974 7305 Fax No: 020 8974 7301
Email Address: Tape@merrillcorp.com
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
No of Folios in transcript - 60
No of words in transcript – 4,217
Wordwave International, a Merrill Communications Company

Page 2
(Please note that due to the poor quality of digital recording, it has not been possible to produce a high quality transcript in this case.)
VIDEO LINK HEARING
JUDGE BLAKE: Good morning. Mr Bruce, can you hear me?
MR BRUCE: Good morning, sir.
JUDGE BLAKE: You can hear me, can you?
MR BRUCE: Yes, sir, thank you.
JUDGE BLAKE: Right. Well, just give me a moment to dig out your papers. You are seeking judicial review of the decision of the Commissioner to refuse to grant leave to appeal from the tribunal, correct?
MR BRUCE: That is right, sir, yes.
JUDGE BLAKE: Yes. And you say that having regard to the grounds of appeal that you submitted, no reasonable Commissioner could fail to be sure that there was a point of law here, yes?
MR BRUCE: I can't see how he could have come to the conclusion that there wasn't, but I am not a legally trained (inaudible).
JUDGE BLAKE: Right. Then I just want to identify that we are going to the issues, yes? What is said against you in the acknowledgment of service which you have seen, have you not, the document that the defendants have prepared in response to your claim.
MR BRUCE: Yes, sir. I have sent you, I do not know whether you've got it, I did send some papers with my comments on there. I don't know if you've got it in the bundle.
JUDGE BLAKE: I am not sure if I've seen those. I have seen the renewal document.
MR BRUCE: That's right.
JUDGE BLAKE: Is that the document that --
MR BRUCE: I have sent another additional document consideration paper (inaudible).
JUDGE BLAKE: Sorry, can you just tell me when you sent that and which day it is dated?
MR BRUCE: Just a second. I think I sent it to the court on 5th September and we had an acknowledgment that it was delivered on the 6th.
JUDGE BLAKE: I think in my papers the last thing I have is dated 24th January 2006.

Page 3
MR BRUCE: Oh, but sir, this is silly. I sent those by Recorded Delivery on 5th September to the courts and there's papers E1 and 2,[to] E6 and F1 and 2,[to] F19 and D39 and there is a statement included in there, which was witnessed by the High Sheriff in the Isle of Wight.
JUDGE BLAKE: I am afraid I've rechecked the papers before me and I think what I told you is what I have is the accurate position, so --
MR BRUCE: Could we check with the court, sir[Service], to see where those papers have got to?
JUDGE BLAKE: We could, but I rather suspect that might use up our available time on this link.
MR BRUCE: I see what you mean. Would you like me to read out what I've sent to you; I can do that.
JUDGE BLAKE: Lets just see if we can proceed or whether we will have to put this over to another day.
MR BRUCE: (inaudible).
JUDGE BLAKE: Just listen to what I have to say and then see how you respond to that. The argument against you -- are you all right?
MR BRUCE: Not really, but carry on.
JUDGE BLAKE: Well, I mean you are able to listen and able to concentrate?
MR BRUCE: Just about, yes. I don't know whether you've been sent a fax by my GP this morning, have you?
JUDGE BLAKE: No, I told you the last documents I got from you go right back to January 2006. If you prefer to stand this case over, if you are feeling not very well and I do not have what you want to say, that might be the best approach, might it not?
MR BRUCE: I find it ever so hard. I try my best to give all the information to the court and if you're not given it I can't see how ... This is really taking it out of me and it seems really strange that I go to all this trouble to provide the evidence to the court and the court hasn't got it.
JUDGE BLAKE: I can understand your frustration if that is the case. Can I just have a moment? (Pause)
MR BRUCE: I can't believe this. (Pause) It has been delivered to the court. I have the receipt; I have proof it has been delivered. I do not understand why you have not got these papers. And then this morning because of my condition I was advised that I should get a letter from my GP to say why it is that I might not be able to continue with this if my condition gets worse and I ask the court here (inaudible) before you [to fax it to you]

Page 4
in case I need help and apparently you haven't got that either. I do not know what more I can do.
JUDGE BLAKE: We have checked the court file and the last document we have on the court file is a letter from you of 15th August about legal representation, but that is nothing to do with the merits of the case itself.
MR BRUCE: No. This was sent to the court headed, "Supplementary information for judicial review, Appeal case CO6520/2005 and in answer to the questions raised in the summary (inaudible)[of grounds] by [the] Secretary of State and then I explained why I believed the points that have been raised against me are wrong and it goes on to (inaudible) [5 pages of] evidence to show that what I'm saying is correct and I say in the statement -- I have the Sheriff of the Isle of Wight no less witness it and he witnessed it on the 5th and we posted it that same day and according to the GP it was delivered to the court on the 6th.
JUDGE BLAKE: So you had acknowledgment from the Post Office but not from the court.
MR BRUCE: Not from the court. I have not had any acknowledgment from the court, no. I don't get acknowledgment from the court for letters I write --
JUDGE BLAKE: Mr Bruce --
MR BRUCE: You could fax it, if you like. They are saying they could fax it through to you, if that would help.
JUDGE BLAKE: Yes, I am a little bit concerned about the time this is going to take, but I think it is important if you have something which you want me to read and I have not read it, then it is obviously right for me to seek to dispose of the case without seeing what you have said, so if you can fax it through maybe, but we will probably have to come back on this link. It will take a few moments to get it transmitted, for me to read it and then to carry on this discussion, yes?
MR BRUCE: If you are (inaudible) I don't know, the statement there is stapled together unfortunately. I mean, obviously there's a whole stack of papers that go with it and it's costing us a fortune.
Could I just say while we are waiting for this to happen because I have handed the papers to the lady to see if she can fax them and before the link goes down, could I just say that the reason why I went to appeal was, first of all, to have the (inaudible) [false mind-set accusation and the implication of somatisation] syndrome removed from my files because I don't think it should be [there]. Secondly, I believe it is an abuse of process by the (inaudible) [Benefits Agency]. And, thirdly, I believe a breach of human rights and I am sure the Irish [Aarhus] Convention applies as well because this is an environmental matter (inaudible) [and it affects the health of us all]. And fourthly, (inaudible)[I believe there was a] failure to uphold the rules of natural justice. And, fifthly, I believe most important of all, there has been gross deception by those acting for the Crown and I don't think that is what this country deserves. That is my standpoint and I've got plenty of evidence to back up what I'm saying. I have been threatened by the DSS, I have been threatened by those acting for the Secretary of State by the Health and Safety Executive and they

Page 5
all say they refuse to take the (inaudible) [false information off the files unless] ordered to do so by a Judge and I can't get before a Judge because I can't get legal representation.
JUDGE BLAKE: Mr Bruce, lets just [try]-- if those are the points that you make in the documents which are not before me, then I think you have made those points before in the documents which are before me and I have had a chance to look at them. The difficulty you face is that the tribunal examined all the evidence as to whether there was a causal nexus between the problems you faced in 1992 and the scheme that they were considering and concluded on all the evidence that there was not, and that really is a conclusion of fact which you are simply not able to challenge in these proceedings or in appeal on a question of law to the Commissioner. If that was a conclusion of fact that [which] on the material before them a reasonable body could have reached, which appears to be the case, then there is no breach of natural justice or point of community law or anything else. Everything else depends upon you demonstrating that the decision was so outrageous that no-one could have reached it, which I am afraid is what you failed to show.
MR BRUCE: With the greatest of respect, sir, I wouldn't have gone to these lengths if I didn't know that the doctors that had spoken to us in front of witnesses and said certain things and had made certain admissions and admitted that I've been poisoned and that I have (inaudible) [peripheral neuropathy] to our faces, then went away and produced false reports. That is why I challenged this in 1997 (inaudible) [The Tribunal in 1997] criticised the Department because the papers were incomplete and in disarray and illegible. It was done deliberately. Then they decided they were going to hide the truth about my illness. It was a political decision and my doctor was told that it was a political decision to deny the diagnosis. The 1999 tribunal ignored, as he told me, the medical evidence (inaudible) [that proved that somatisation ] was not a suitable suggestion to make to a court [cause] of my illness, then overturned the specialist opinion by saying the (inaudible)[that somatisation was] the cause, but they used Dr Rowlands [Volans] (inaudible) [of Guy’s hospital as] supporting me at the time and he said there was no alternative diagnosis. According to the rules with (inaudible) [the Benefits Agency] on this particular prescribed disease [C3], the presumption (inaudible) [Rule means] that they have to give scientifically valid evidence to support their opposing diagnosis. Now, my doctor's diagnosis and my specialist diagnosis have been achieved through really expensive tests over a number of years. They cannot possibly override that simply by hitting me knee with a hammer, but it is even worse when they come to you and they find that you have [got] no vibration sense in your ankles and in your wrists and you have loss of sensation and they report it in their own report and then go away and say it's all in my mind. I don't think that is what the country expects.
JUDGE BLAKE: Can I just remind you that your challenge is really to the decision of January 2005 by the tribunal. I have read that decision and the tribunal had before it all sorts of medical information and they had to make their decision based on what was before them and what they made of it. Now, have matters really changed since then?
MR BRUCE: That is my point, they did not do that, you see. They did not do that. What they have done is they've ignored all the evidence that supports me and there's a mass of it. I mean, unfortunately you haven't got the documentation that you should have, but in the documentation there is a list of all the doctors that have said that my condition is organo-phosphorous(?) poisoning. The letter that you should have had

Page 6
faxed to you before this started this morning because we arrived here at 20 to 10 this morning and it still hasn't arrived in your hands, it's from my GP and it said this gentleman suffers from chronic organo-phosphorous poisoning. He is not saying it is all in my mind which is what the tribunal had said.
JUDGE BLAKE: Of course, you have to show that on what was before the tribunal, this court is not really hearing your claim; you appreciate that, do you not?
MR BRUCE: I know.
JUDGE BLAKE: Therefore, your task is to show that on what was before the tribunal they could not have reached the decision that they did. I have seen what was before the tribunal and I have seen their reasoning and that is, it seems to me, the problem that you face in this challenge. But apart from what is written in the documents which have not yet reached this court, is there anything else you want to say about apart from the five points you opened on and you have explained to me your case now?
MR BRUCE: Sir, I think that there has been an abuse of process and it is taking advantage of the fact that the claimant is not permitted to have any independent record of what is going on. Now, according to the rules and unfortunately my brain is not working fast enough here, but according to the (inaudible) [Bench Rules] Protocol No 4 1802/2000 (Reads) and Protocol No 10, 0208/2001 (inaudible) medical report gives rise to [serious] concern. Well, the medical report gives rise to serious concern in many ways. Dr Ringer(?) who the tribunal is appealing against, his report is handwritten, nobody could read it (inaudible) [there’s crossings out, bits added afterwards a] complete mess that nobody could read. Even when the typist typed out the thing there was still gaps in so that he could alter it. It has been altered, it has been messed about. He actually went to Dr Rowlands  [Volans] who they knew had been dishonest in the past and they knew that he had not been involved in my case for nine years and Dr Rowlands [Volans] said it was all in my mind. It is not right what happened. I have sent so much evidence to the court, I am just so disappointed that all my efforts have been ignored as if I am some [sort of] village idiot and [when] really I am the one that's telling the truth here. I have nothing else on my side except the truth and the truth is all I've got. I've got nothing else. If the court cannot support me when I'm telling the truth, I don't know what I can do.
JUDGE BLAKE: Mr Bruce, you can still hear me. I am going to give you a fax number. What I suggest you do, if you take it down, if you fax any documents which you have which I do not appear to have seen and I have told you I have had nothing on the court file apart from the renewal grounds 24th January 2006 and I have had the letter of 15th August 2007 and if you have a summary of really where you say things went wrong, if you fax them then I will read them today and I will see whether that changes the provisional view that I formed, having read the papers and having heard you this morning. Do you follow?
MR BRUCE: Yes, I do. When you say fax all the papers, as I said earlier there is about 30 pages that I sent to you on 5th September.

Page 7
JUDGE BLAKE: Right, those have not arrived, so if you consider, it is a matter for you, if you think you say there is something there which is important for me to look at, then use this fax number I am about to give you, do you follow?
MR BRUCE: Yes, okay then.
JUDGE BLAKE: Right. I will read it out slowly and I will check you have it right. It is -- do you have a pencil or something?
MR BRUCE: My wife is writing it down. [because I won’t be able to read my writing anyway]
JUDGE BLAKE: Thank you. The number is 0207 947 7608. I think whilst you have been on -- we have been having this discussion someone has just come into my courtroom with a number of documents. Lets see whether these are the documents -- if I complete that fax number, it is 7608. It is 0207 947 7608. Lets go through a check list now. If there is anything that is missing you had better fax that to me for urgent attention and we will see whether that can be sorted out. Now the first document I have been handed is one which is called F20 going backwards I think to F17, yes?
MR BRUCE: Yes.
JUDGE BLAKE: Statement by Richard --
MR BRUCE: F20 is my statement that I've done.
JUDGE BLAKE: I am just going to check the documents. So I have that and that a statement from F20 to F -- it seems to go backwards and forwards a bit I am afraid, it is F20, F21 and then the next one is additional documents for consideration and then there are supplementary information for judicial review, I think that is what you mentioned you want me to read. We then go to F14, F15, F16 and F17, so I have those. I think that is it.
MR BRUCE: Do you have the letter from the GP?
JUDGE BLAKE: No.
MR BRUCE: Dated 13/9/07?
JUDGE BLAKE: No, I have not. If you want that, fax that through to me. It looks like this is a fax transmission of this morning, 1409 at 10.58. If there is a letter from the GP fax that to me as well, but what I would propose is this. I have to read these things and I have to read them carefully and I am not going to do that right now because that would be too rushed, so what I would propose is that you fax through to me the letter from your GP. I will read these documents at a convenient time during the course of the day, depending upon what course the other cases before me take. Then I will either make a decision on the basis of all the information or if I think that what you have written here requires a further hearing, I will let you know. Does that sound sensible to you?

Page 8
MR BRUCE: It does. Could you please look into whether the Irish [Aarhus] Convention applies, section 9.3 on the environmental matters because what I discovered this year since getting my files out of the lawyers that took my civil case which is directly related to this because the outcome of the benefits agency for corrupting [corrupted] my civil case as well. What I discovered is my lawyers (inaudible) [that the insurers made a false] statement (inaudible) -- even before I had made a claim..
JUDGE BLAKE: I understand all these allegations. I am really concerned to see whether there was anything that was not before the tribunal that ought to have been or whether there is anything that has come to light subsequently -- just listen to what I am saying, Mr Bruce, please -- that would make a difference to this challenge. If you are content with the procedure that I would suggest, and I appreciate this is not a satisfactory way of disposing of this case because you obviously have wanted documents to be brought to my attention which have only just reached me, but if that would enable me to [make sure that I have] read everything that is relevant I suggest we adopt that procedure and depending upon what I make of the documents we will see what the outcome is. Do you follow?
MR BRUCE: Yes, I do, but you see everybody assumes that what I'm saying is not relevant.
JUDGE BLAKE: I have your point, but I have to see whether what you have said because you were clearly able to get it into writing affects the legality of the Commissioner's decision. That is my task, to see if you have an arguable case to challenge the legality of the Commissioner's decision. I am not here to investigate this whole matter myself.
MR BRUCE: I know you are not and what I'm trying to say, I'm not doing a very good job of it I know, is that all of the decisions made in this case have been based under [on] false information.
JUDGE BLAKE: I think you have done a good job, if I may say so, in getting that point across. I understand that in the documents and in what you told me today, but that of course is a difficult submission to make good and you have to make -- you have to make that submission good by demonstrating the falsity of the material upon which the tribunal relied. I will check to see whether there is anything that supports that, but so far I think the weight of the evidence is very strongly against you. That is your problem.
MR BRUCE: This is why I keep referring to the fact that (inaudible) [the whole system has been] corrupted by these false statements because (inaudible) [right from the initial statements the] whole thing when the Department of Works and Pensions and Health and Safety Executive got involved and I am very sorry I am getting --
JUDGE BLAKE: Mr Bruce, I have that point, you have made that point several times this morning. I understand that is your point. I hope you understand what I have put back to you that the defendants say the difficulty is that it is for the tribunal to decide which statements are true and which were false and they are the body vested with that job and if they have looked at the matters that would tend to be an end of it unless something dramatically new has emerged or you could point to some dramatic failure of reasoning and it has to be quite dramatic, but -- yes.

Page 9
MR BRUCE: They keep saying that the whole thing surrounds this mind-set thing and Dr Rowlands.[Volans] Dr Rowlands [Volans] (inaudible) [has been] criticised by not only the --
JUDGE BLAKE: Mr Bruce, I don't want to go over the territory that you covered already. I think we are going to have to bring this application, oral application to a close very shortly, so I propose how we should proceed this morning, I appreciate it is not the most satisfactory way of proceeding, but I think that would enable me to be sure that I read everything that you wanted me to read. Do you follow?
MR BRUCE: If the court will permit me, I will ask them to fax through the pages that we posted to you on the 5th supporting evidence that goes --
JUDGE BLAKE: I have told you what I have. If you think there is anything else that is missing --
MR BRUCE: I will (inaudible) [Obviously Sir] if you look at the additional documents for consideration, there is a whole list of documents that I sent on the 5th (inaudible).
JUDGE BLAKE: I do not know what they are, so all I can suggest is having told you I have your statements, I have the additional documents for consideration, if you think any of those -- well, it seems I have some of those pages, but not all of those pages. If you think that anything that you have, I do not have this morning is important, fax it through to me. If you think that is not possible, then we had better adjourn this for a complete bundle to be done for a further day. But it seems to me that we may be able to do it by you faxing through in addition else that you rely upon in support of your case for later today.
MR BRUCE: Okay then. We will do our best.
JUDGE BLAKE: Thank you very much and we will -- sorry it has been rather difficult to (a) get this link started this morning and (b) it seems the documents you wanted me to read have not been placed before me and I am not sure the court received them by post since what I have is a fax, but we will see what we can do and if there is any reason to think there is much more of importance, we may have to adjourn this application. Subject to that, thank you very much for your submissions, Mr Bruce.
MR BRUCE: I am sorry, what was your name; I can't remember what your name was.
JUDGE BLAKE: You may have been told, my name is Blake. Just put it for the attention of Court 28 for urgent attention it will come through.
MR BRUCE: Okay.
JUDGE BLAKE: Right.
MR BRUCE: Thank you very much. I will do the best I can.
Page 10
JUDGE BLAKE: I think you have got your points across, Mr Bruce, thank you. Thank you very much. We will conclude this consideration of your application until we can examine the documents, yes.
MR BRUCE: Thank you very much.
JUDGE BLAKE: Thank you.
(The Court adjourned for a short time)

If this was an adjournment than presumably the Applicant should have been notified of the time at which the case would be re-opened and the video link re-established for the resumed hearing but this was not done and the judge simply referred again to the case later- after several other complex cases upon which he worked during his break (as mentioned in the recordings of the day's proceedings). 
Since the local court had faxed the missing bundle of 30 or so pages to the High Court in the meantime plus a further 60 or so pages of supporting evidence that would have been raised had the hearing been carried out properly, including the false statement made at a false address by the employer's insurers, it is extremely unlikely that the judge would have been able to properly consider the evidence before him before issuing his decision.
Note that the defendants were so confident in the favourable decision being made despite the evidence that they did not even have a representative in court.

This was faxed to the judge, at the number used by the local court and provided by the judge himself, from the applicant's home at 14.10 pm on the day of the hearing. 
14th September 2007
Case Reference Number : CO/6520/2005 
For the personal attention of Judge Nicholas Blake QC,
Court 28
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London
WC2A 2LL 
Dear Sir, 
Thank you for speaking with me this morning via the video link and I apologise if my health made things difficult.
I understand that the Newport Court staff have faxed the missing papers to you and other evidence that supports all that I have tried to have recognised over the years.
I hope that you have now read the letter of the 13th September from my GP. 
Obviously I am concerned that there has been a failure in the past to recognise the fact that all decisions in this case have been made on deliberately fallacious evidence.
It is my view and that of those who asked me to request a Judicial Review that no decision made on false evidence can be truly lawful or in the spirit of justice. 
At least I can say now that a high court Judge actually has possession of the evidence of perversion of justice, and the grossly false statement that diverted investigators and medical practitioners from the truth. 
In support of the fact that the papers faxed to you were received by the court on the 6th September a photocopy of the postage receipt, together with the details provided by the post office follow this page. 
As I reported to you in the Court today I have nothing supporting me but the truth. 
I have no legal assistance and am not at all well, especially at this moment, but I am told that the truth is what the court seeks and I have supplied evidence of it. 
I am sure that the Aarhus Convention applies to the issues involved in this case. 
Yours sincerely,
At 3.40 pm the Judge re-opened the hearing and declared the following.

CO/6520/2005
Neutral Citation Number: |2007| EWHC 3107 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice

Strand

London WC2A 2LL

Friday: 14 September 2007

B e f o r e:

NICHOLAS BLAKE QC
(SITTING AS A DEPUTY HIGH COURT JUDGE)

Between:
THE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF BRUCE

                Claimant

                                                                      V

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WORK AND PENSION

                           Defendant

Computer-Aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of
WordWave International Limited
A Merrill Communications Company
190 Fleet Street London EC4A 2AG
Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)

The Applicant appeared in person
The Respondent did not appear and was not represented

Judgment

As Approved by the Court

Crown copyright©

l. THE DEPUTY JUDGE: In this application Mr Bruce, who appears in person, seeks
renewal of his claim for permission to judicially review a decision of the Social
Security Commissioner refusing permission to appeal from a decision of the Appeal
Tribunal, dated 11 January 2005, whereby the Tribunal made an adverse decision on
the question of whether the claimant had suffered disablement by reason of industrial
injury caused by phosphorous poison.
2. It is sufficient to note that there was an incident in January 1992 when he was working
at a farm where these cases that he was exposed to organophosphates caused
subsequent disabling injury. The matter has, therefore, a very lengthy history of
determination, re-determination and differences of medical and expert opinion on the
question of toxic poisoning. There are certainly aspects of the medical reports and the
opinions therein that give some support to the claimant's case, but there are others
which undermine that case and do not support it.
3. At the end of the day, it was precisely for the Tribunal to evaluate all those questions
and reach its own conclusions. They did reach their conclusions and they were adverse
to the claimant. The claimant sought permission to appeal to the Commissioner
essentially upon the grounds that no reasonable Tribunal could have reached their
conclusions on the question of whether he had suffered poisoning on the material that
was before them. The Commissioner considered that and did not consider that those
grounds raised an issue of law entitling him to grant permission and reconsider the legal
issue in the case.
4. The claimant, Mr Bruce, has vigorously pursued this claim and alleges that he has been
the victim of untruthful witnesses, sharp practice, non-disclosure and other matters,
which have undermined the fairness of his hearing.
5. The application came on for hearing on 14 September when because of his undoubted
present medical condition and reduced mobility, the claimant sought to make the
application from the Isle of White [Wight] through video link. Arrangements have been made by the court for that to happen. There were some unfortunate technical difficulties in getting the application started, but by l0.50am the link was effective and I was able to
hear the claimant make his submissions.
6. It soon, however, became apparent that the claimant relied, in his oral submissions, in
renewing the application on further documents that did not appear to be on the court
file. Certainly they were not before me in the bundle that had been prepared for me by
the Administrative Court Office. I, therefore, concluded that I would not be able to
give final consideration to the case until I had had the chance to study all the documents
that the claimant wanted me to read.
7. As a result of that, a number of faxed documents have been sent to me which were, as I
understand it, the documents that the claimant was anxious that I should read. They
included a statement, comments on factors raised in the acknowledgment of service; a
short medical report from his GP as of his condition today, and that asserts that he
suffers from chronic organophosphate poisoning. That last letter was not before the
Tribunal or the Commissioner and cannot take the form of a point of law which
undermines their reasoning.
8. I have carefully considered the material that the claimant was anxious for me to read.
With the possible exception of the recent GP letter, none amounts to fresh expert
medical evidence which demonstrates that the Tribunal's conclusions were wrong, or
that witnesses to the proceedings before the Tribunal had withdrawn their evidence,
accepted their evidence was false, or demonstrated that they were guilty of misleading
the Tribunal on the material questions.
9. It is not, of course, this court's function to act as a second form of review of the
causation issues that were for the Tribunal to decide. Conceivably if there was
post-decision evidence that demonstrated that the Tribunal had been deliberately misled
by one of the witnesses to it, there might be grounds for intervention. None of the
material that I have read has established such a proposition, although frequently letters
written by the claimant assert it. To assert something of such fundamental importance
without supporting evidence is futile, in the sense that the court cannot take the
assertion at face value. It has to be satisfied that the assertion is based upon evidence.
10. In my judgment there is no supporting evidence but merely extravagant propositions
relied upon by the claimant. Therefore, the claimant is sadly left with a conclusion of
fact by a Tribunal addressing its minds to a whole complicated history and hearing
medical assessments. That is a conclusion of fact that they were entitled to reach.
Therefore, the Commissioner was entitled and bound to refuse the application for
permission to appeal.
I1. I, therefore, conclude that there is no basis for granting permission in this case of the
Commissioner's decision. I should add, by way of a footnote, that the claimant has
relied upon a human right to argue the hearing and has drawn particular attention to the
Aarhus Convention relating to environmental matters. I have considered the human
rights' aspect and the terms of the Aarhus Convention, but I am afraid that the answer
is: if the claimant was able to make his points before the Appeal Tribunal on the
evidence, as he was, that is a discharge of any obligation either under an incorporated
instrument, or under the Human Rights Convention, to ensure that there is a fair
opportunity to investigate the factual issue of organophosphate poisoning. That has been
investigated.
l2. Therefore, those arguments add nothing to the central proposition of fact, which has
been the subject now of exhaustive investigation by more than one body. There is
absolutely no basis for granting judicial review and I therefore refuse this application.

So effectively the judge recognised the supporting diagnosis of the GP dated 13-09-2007 but refused to recognize the same doctor’s repeated diagnosis saying exactly the same thing over a period of at least 13 years supported by numerous specialist opinions and scientific evidence. He also ignored evidence of perjury and perversion of justice that was presented to him by court officials via fax but which was withheld from him by officials of the High Court. British Justice at work…..