Friday 29th January 2010 saw the appeal court dismiss my application to the nobile officium as incompetent.
The decision can be viewed here:
Pinochet DecisionMy defence team argued that Lord Osborne should have recused himself from my hearing in 2006 because he had prosecuted my appeal in 1982.
We submitted evidence in the form of National Archive documents showing Lord Osborne had indeed prosecuted me in 1982 and sat on my appeal in 2006 and rejected this, In effect he was sitting in Judgement of his own cause which should not be allowed re Pinochet (House Of Lords) and Hoekstra (Scottish Appeal Court Decision)
Todays decision makes no reference whatever to our argument regarding Lord Osborne.
This surprises me greatly because at the hearing in November 12th & 13th last year both Lords Eassie and Reed burst out laughing when presented with the National Archives documents showing that Lord Osborne had indeed sat on his own cause in my case.
We did not argue that Lord Johnston should also have excused himself from my hearing in 2006 as he was actually sitting in Judgement of his Fathers case.
Had he not died I would never have known he was the son of my trial judge because I never related Johnston to Dunpark.
We thought my argument re Lord Osborne would be sufficient to have the interlocutor of 2006 quashed and open the door of the nobile officium.
To add insult to injury it has been brought to my attention that Lords Kingarth and Hamilton had already rejected the appeal of Luke Mitchell which should have actually banned them both from sitting in this hearing as they had already formed an opinion in Mitchell's case bringing to this hearing an already biased opinion.
My argument re being refused Legal Aid in 1982 denied me a fair hearing was rejected as not having domestic effect at that time.
The convention did not have domestic effect at that time they have said despite the Human rights act being ratified in the UK years before, and our own Scottish Law clearly states I was entitled to Legal Representation and their failure to grant such denied me a fair hearing.
Successful cases to appeal this are Granger, Maxwell & Boner, then there was the famous McLibel case against McDonalds and in everyone the European Courts have said their rights were breached by the refusal of legal aid.
Once again the issue of whether or not I have had an appeal rose its ugly head again with the opinion claiming in those days leave to appeal was not required.
To clear matters up I have documents from the high court saying my case never passed leave stage hence there not being any opinion.
I also have a letter from Lord O'Grady saying quite clearly my hearing in 1982 was simply an application for leave to appeal and nothing else.
If I have had an appeal then surely the High Court would be duty bound to produce the reasons for refusal which they cannot do.
If there is no opinion then how can one appeal against it ?
Supreme Court and European Court here I come.
When read the opinion is clearly claiming to be able to interfere in Pinochet and Hoekstra cases yet they totally ignore my arguments in this respect.
In effect while we were complaining of a Pinochet and Hoekstra we were all sitting in one in the making.