Jonathan King

Congratulations... if that's the right word.

The change of evidence after a hearing is troublesome. Not being given a chance to refute that change is injustice.

I sincerely hope that truth will triumph.

zooloo wrote:
I sincerely hope that truth will triumph.


That would certainly be a change.

I hope you're successful JK.

Unfortunately you'll be landed with a massive bill for your board and language for the time spent in jail. So, the government still digs it's claws into you even if you're cleared. It's shameful.

A long time coming indeed.

There was never much hope of justice for you, JK, whilst the processes were left in the hands of this morally corrupted and broken country. Now the European Courts have taken it on, I firmly believe it is just a matter of time until your name is cleared.

That could then snowball into justice being done for so many others, who currently have no voice. So much good could be done.

I just hope I'm not guilty of naivety here.

Interesting to see the MonS picking up your posting. What do you mean by "four months of detailed examination of evidence and deliberation"? Has there been a Statement Of Facts in your case? Has the UK Government been submitted a list of questions? Is there an admissibility ruling?

Still early days C4J; it took them four months to decide to accept the application - now let's see how seriously they examine the facts.

Hi JK
What year did you issue the application? I love the irony of The King Of Europe turning to Europe for justice And it's usually nul points for our judges
Hope this isn't an omen-Another King v UK was ruled inadmissible earlier this year


Fourth Section

Decision

As to the admissibility

Application no. 6234/06
by John Iain KING
against the United Kingdom

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 6 March 2007 as a Chamber composed of:

Mr J. Casadevall, President,
Sir Nicolas Bratza,
Mr G. Bonello,
Mr K. Traja,
Mr S. Pavlovschi,
Mr J.

As you'll see if you click the link to the acceptance certificate, we formally applied in June this year.

After much to and fro-ing, they finally decided to accept it at the end of last month.

www.kingofhits.co.uk/component/option,co...id,54/?g2_itemId=503

Isn't there a problem with their strict "6 month rule"? The last decision made by the domestic court in your case was on 12 July 2005 when Kennedy LJ/Walker J refused your application to JR the CCRC's refusal to refer your case. Have your conjoined this fresh application with your previous ECHR petition (drafted by Peter Hughman) in July 2003? Are the grounds the same?
Sorry for all the probing questions but I'm just trying to help-Half our time here is spent onm ECHR business

No - this is a new application provoked by the entirely fresh evidence - the previous application covered none of the same grounds and the domestic route needed fresh applications and rejections before this could be put forward.

The CCRC rejected it because they claim "it's not when but whether" something happened that matters; choosing to ignore the fact that the jury might well have decided TWO changes of dates by one person might well imply more than a mistake and could have planted the seed of reasonable doubt.

And cross examining someone who claimed to be twelve might have warranted a different approach to someone who could have been 16.

Hi Jonathan,

Having had a taste of "justice" from the Ombudsman in this country involving a complaint about someone who during our case (without our knowledge)was being interviewed and appointed to BECOME another ombudsman!

I wish you well!

We had a written admission that council officers had deliberately lied to and missled comittee but although that cost me over

a long time coming indeed and may we justice prevail.