BEHIND LADY SMITH
SEXISM OR RACISM?
COUNCIL FOR ETHNIC MINORITY
(England & Wales)
PO Box 17571, London SE9 2ZP
Tel. & Fax: 0208 8594657, Mob: 07525857351
http://cemkumar.googlpages .com
20 July 2009
FAO: Mrs Dale Simon
Head of Office for Judicial Complaints
Department of Judicial Affairs
Selbourne House
54-60 Victoria Street
London SW1E 6QW
Re: Complaint of Unprofessional Conduct & Racial Bias against Lady Smith & Mr. Justice Bean - Deman v Victoria University of Manchester & others.
Dear Mrs. Simon:
Lady Smith 10 March 2009 Lady Smith gave her unusual final judgment in a paper exercise that refused permission to oral hearing. In a note of her judgment she stated as follows:
“You have not pointed to a single document which you claim was necessary for the proper hearing of the appeal but which was omitted from page 132 page bundles”.
Contrary to her false assertion we draw your attention to enclosed index of documents and grounds of appeal, which make it clear that in paragraph 22 under of Ground B, which says, “Mr. Justice Bean erred in law in failing to refer to excerpts (was misspelled) from the ET decision on merit affidavits on bias from his bundle of documents as to conduct of the Leahy Tribunal although he referred to Mr. Justice Underhill’s findings against A”. Hence, Lady Smith’s above suggestion is an unprofessional racist nonsense of highest order. Had she given an oral hearing A would have pointed out this to her but she her own Labour party agenda to victimise A.
Further, Dr Deman, an Indian, is not the first victim of Lady Smith. Dr Demand n a number of CEM’s representatives attended the Court of Appeal in Choudhary v BMA and Labour Party Secretary of Health other in which Lady Smith was one of the panel members. We witnessed her role was not only token but was also hostile to Dr Choudhary another Indian. We believe Lady Smith has shown her racial prejudice and unprofessional conduct towards people from Indian subcontinents in general and against Dr Deman and other Indian in particular.
As to Mr. Justice Bean our complaint is that he exhibited unprofessional conduct and racial bias toward Dr Deman. We outline his conduct, which was as follows:
(a) He browbeat A for about 20 minutes avoiding his appeal against the Registrar's directions or orders of 9 May and 6 June 2008;
(b) He kept interrupting A when he tried to refer to documents from a mini bundle in regards to appeal against the Registrar's above orders;
(c) Mr. Justice rose to consider A's appeal and turned back right away to and ruled he would accept the R's bundles;
(d) He failed to rule on the first appeal against the Registrar's order;
(e) Mr. Justice started to proceed to hear appeal on merit, A requested him that he should consider his application for his recusal. He agreed but did so only reluctantly;
(f) A gave him copies of relevant law cases from the House of Lords, Court of Appeal and the EAT as mentioned above. A drew Justice Bean's attention to paragraphs Mr. Justice Morrison's guidelines in Tchula v Netto Food Stores Ltd 1998 for the Tribunals to avoid any potential complaints of bias;
(g) Mr. Justice refused to allow A to refer to Court of Appeal decision in Ansar v Lloyd TSB & others 2006] EWCA Civ 1462. He would restrict A's submissions to two cases of House of Lords decision in Porter McGiII ad Northern Spirit limited;
(h) Contrary to Mr. Justice Morison's guidelines on bias in Tchoula v Netto Food Store Ltd. EAT 6.3.98 (1378/96) [bullet point Nos. 1,4 & 6] and A's forewarning about the appearance of bias he invited Ms Smith of Counsel for the Respondents to put her arguments first;
(i) Contrary to Mr. Justice Morison's guidelines under point 6 Mr. Justice Bean allowed Ms Smith of counsel for the Respondents to refer case laws from EAT and the Court of Appeal but earlier disallowed A;
(j) Mr. Justice made general assumptions that A will not be able to give help as much as help on points of law and procedures as Ms Smith of Counsel for the Respondents although he had worked hard to prepare his submission on law and facts;
(k) Mr. Justice Bean gave A the impression and to all those who were present that a decision against A was a foregone conclusion as two lay members (loyal dummies) were neither listening or taking notes but were just sitting like lame ducks.
An Independent observer attended the hearing at the EAT who says as follows:
OBSERVATION OF COST PROCEEDINGS AT THE EAT ON 24th June 2008
IN THE CASE OF Dr. S.DEMAIN v UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER, STAURT TURLEY & ANDY STARK
Introduction
I am Ms T.O.Olaleye-Oruene, the CEO of the Olabisi Olaleye Foundation, a company registered by guarantee. The NGO provides support and assistance to ethnic minorities especially in the area of racial discrimination and human rights.
This case came to my attention from a fellow campaigner and I attended as an observer.
Observation of the cost hearing.
1. The Appellant was a litigant-in-person while the Respondent was represented by counsel.
2. The Appellant was not allowed to present his appeal as the judge was constantly interrupting him although the points raised were relevant and cogent to the Appeal. Justice Bean dismissed the appellant’s efforts to direct the Tribunal to the relevant procedural rules on which he relied by claiming to be familiar with procedure.
3. Justice Bean refused to allow the appellant to cite any authority relevant to his application.
4. Application by the appellant in respect of the Registrar’s inequity in colluding with the respondent’s breach of procedural rules in the submission of 136 pages when the rules set the limit at 100 pages. In addition, Registrar’s complicity in the abuse of due process granting of extension of time for the submission of the documents after two years while the appellant who has complied with the law had his documents rejected. This Application by the appellant was dismissed without giving it due consideration. The Judge and wingers left the court and returned immediately. It was evident that they were going through the motion of leaving the court, and promptly turning round to enter the courtroom. They were out for barely one minute.
5. Appellant also submitted an application for recusal and drew attention to Mr. justice Morrison, (former president of the EAT) in the case of Tchoula v Netto Food Stores in which he sets out guidelines on how judiciary should conduct bias application to avoid potential complaint of bias. Justice Bean refused to allow the appellant to cite a Court of Appeal authority of Ansar. This application for bias was also refused without any consideration whatsoever.
6. In terms of the cost application, the judge expressed the view that he was not willing to allow the cost application unless otherwise persuaded. Counsel was invited to present her argument before the appellant without any authority or interruption other than to seek clarification.
7. However, the Appellant who had a binding authority in support of his argument had his appeal dismissed.
Conclusion
a. It is apparent that the EAT was sitting as a kangaroo court which deprives the Appellant of the right to a fair hearing contrary to Human Rights Act 1998 Art 6 taken together with art 14.
b. It is obvious from the conduct of the case that the bench was delivering a pre-hearing ruling as it falls short of the Rule of evidence
c. Justice Bean shows contempt for the Rule of Law by ignoring the Rules of Precedent.
d. Moreover, the conduct of the judge undermines the integrity of the judiciary as justice Bean fails in his primary duty to uphold the Rule of Law, thereby undermining public confidence in the judiciary.
Signed: T.O.Olaleye-Oruene
Date: 4.7.08
We are looking forward to hearing from you ASAP.
Yours sincerely,
Coordinator, C Kumar
& Mrs S Mahadevan [Acting]
I hereby authorise the CEM to challenge one of the worst institutionally racist decisions of HHJ Collins, which is shocking to judicial conscience.
Dr S Deman, BSc, MA (India), MA.ABD(US), MPhil(UK) & PhD (Japan)
1. Home Secretary, Direct Communications Unit, 2 Marsham Street, London SW1P 4DF, Tel: 020 7035 4848, Fax: 020 7035 4745, Minicom: 020 7035 4742, Email: public.enquiries@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk , 2. Commissioner, London Metropolitan Police, 3. Mr. Trevor Phillips, Chairman EHRC, Dr Ian Paisley, MP & MEP & Peter Robinson MP, Prof. Dr DK Kaushik, Chair India-America Society.
