13 comments By Norman Scarth
Human Rights? In USA? As at Wounded Knee. Phillipines, No Gun Ri in Korea, Massacre of Kent County University students by National Guard, My Lai, & helicopter gunship attacks on civilians during the illegal invasion & occupation of Iraq?
UK's record is no better, with Peterloo, Amritsar, the hunting of Aborigines in Australia, etc., etc., etc. Assange, to whom the whole world owes a great debt, is only one man, & he is still alive, but the continuing torment & mental torture by both Britain & USA is malicious & sadistic.
As a veteran of the Arctic Convoys, I am regarded as a 'Hero' by the nation, but it didn't save me from similar treatment to Assange when, late in life, I learned the truth &, again like Assange, became a whistle-blower, though, after more than six years incarceration, I have managed to escape, & was able to flee the land of my birth for safety in Ireland. Pity Assange couldn't have managed to do the same.
The ECtHR case Scarth v UK, 33745/96 brought the Ruling (incorporated into the 1998 Human Rights Act) that ALL hearings (INCLUDING HEARINGS 'IN CHAMBERS'!) shall be open to the public, other than in exceptional circumstances (which must be stated)
Norman Scarth (Yes, that was me!)
It was a re-affirming of the words of the eminent Chief Justice Cockburn, c1860: "The courts of England are open to all, in every sense of the words, & I trust they will always remain so". Other eminent judges have said much the same, including Lawrence J, later to preside at Nuremberg.
"The idea that someone accused of harassment could cross-examine their accuser is abhorrent, she said, ..."
It is abhorrent to ME, that anyone should NOT be able to cross-examine their accuser!
It is also abhorrent that women who are accusing a man of something which could result in his imprisonment for life should be able to hide behind anonymity.
Yet this is allowed now, going against centuries of Common Law (& the ECHR).
Women claim to be the equal of men in everything: They can pilot nuclear bombers & crew nuclear warships, use a bayonet on front-line fighting, etc., etc., etc., yet when asked to stand behind an accusation they have made, it becomes, 'I am only a weak & feeble woman (swoon, swoon, pass the smelling salts), just as much as any delicate Victorian lady. They claim to want 'equality', but then demand special treatment.
Your scenario is spot on for British Courts in the 21st century.
'Innocent until proven guilty'? That's a laff!
Deny it though you will, not all judges are entitled to the Demi-God status bestowed on them. At my 'trial' in April 2001 the judge (now deceased) had banned Press Reporting, so there was not even a reporter present, much less a camera! Had there been, the public would have seen me (a World War 2 'Hero' of 75, then) - being LITERALLY dragged & thrown back down the cells (not once - but THREE times!) when I dared to protest at the judge's gross misconduct.
I suspect the above will be more than enough to fall foul of your censorship 'rules', so there is little point in telling you of the horror of the 11 years which followed.
Suffice to say that at the age of 92 I am now safe in Ireland, but am continuing to publicise what I believe to be short-comings in 'the court system', which cameras in court could help to alleviate.
On first seeing that a District Judge (of all people!) was 'blowing the whistle', I foolishly allowed myself a glimmer of hope that her whistle-blowing was about the true state of 'Justice' in Britain.
Reading further, I learn that the 'momentous issue' (???) is whether she is an employee or not - which is as important as whether judges should have white handkerchiefs or coloured ones!
Of INFINITELY greater importance are (1). The hostility of lawyers to the Litigant In Person - which is endemic throughout the profession - FROM TOP TO BOTTOM!
(2) The treatment of REAL whistle-blowers in Britain.
The hostility of lawyers (including the judiciary) towards the LIP is especially so against the successful one.
My single-handed success in the ECtHR (Scarth v UK, 33745/96) means I am hated ten-fold.
It brought many years of persecution, until, at the age of 86 I belatedly accepted that Britain is not a safe place for those who expose corruption, & fled the land of my birth - THE LAND FOR WHICH I FOUGHT IN WORLD WAR 2 - & sought safety in the Republic of Ireland.
From where, at the age of 92, I am STILL trying to help other whistle-blowers in Britain, some in prison for 'Contempt', others - completely sane - who are incarcerated in Stalinist 'Mental Hospitals'.
PS: With warrants out for my arrest, if I dare set foot in Britain again, I am liable to FIVE YEARS in prison (for breach of Restraining Order) - courtesy of one particular DJ (who I had better not name if this is to be published).
PPS: See http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-21845753 for PM Cameron expressing the gratitude, which you, along with the rest of the nation, owe to me.
The LIP who has studied the 'Rules', knows his stuff, & presents his case well will be treated worst of all!
Lord Woolf (who produced the CPR) admitted this in his '1995 Interim Report'. I will try to find it (MIGHT be Chapter 17?)
Certainly my own single-handed success in the ECtHR (33745/96) made me much hated by the professionals - never more blatantly so than at my (secret) 'trial' in April 2001!
My email address (which says much about me!) is
It might have been expected that my single-handed success in the ECtHR (33745/96) would have brought respect from lawyers.
Sadly, no. I am living proof that hostility to the LIP is endemic throughout the profession - from top to bottom.
My success (incorporated into the 1998 Human Rights Act) brought a vital change in British Law (that ALL hearings - INCLUDING HEARINGS IN CHAMBERS!) shall be open to the public. The change is hated by lawyers & judges, & I am hated for it - much more than the ordinary LIP.
Less than two years later, I (the very man who had brought in the ruling) was subjected to a grotesque 'trial', effectively in secret, made even worse in that it was not officially declared to be so!
I ask again, is there one among you who will repay the debt you owe me by taking on my (CAST-IRON) appeal?
I care not for myself, &, safe here in Ireland, am proud of that conviction, which was really to silence my whistle-blowing activities.
However, I was once proud to be British, & it would restore a little of that pride if this glaring blot on the face of British Justice could be removed.
I was 86 when (belatedly), I decided to seek safety abroad. Now 91 years of age, I am facing FIVE YEARS in prison if I dare set foot in the land for which I fought all those years ago.
I ask now, is there one of you who will take up my appeals against 2 grossly unfair 'trials'?
According to David Cameron (& many others) I am one of those to whom the nation owes a great debt. See http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-21845753
Yet it did not save me from suffering ‘errors’ which were far, FAR worse than those inflicted on ‘LL’.
To avoid more, I was forced to flee the land of my birth for safety in Ireland. Yet none of you lawyer will touch MY appeal)
The great need for the Litigant In Person is NOT to be 'represented in court', but for assistance with research.
New graduates should be good at the latter, though not necessarily good at the former.
Regular legal aid could be MUCH cheaper if articulate LIPs could be provided with research aid only.
By stating that he "requires a statement from the imprisoned person", Judge Collins shows abysmal ignorance of the law - or contempt for it?
'Habeas Corpus' means 'Produce the Body'.
It specifically means 'alive or dead', & in some cases it could be that the person is deceased. Yet Collins requires a statement from that person!