After the High Court Injunction Let's hope you learn the meaning of ‘fairness’ and ‘natural justice’
|Picture outside the High Court before a successful application for an Injunction to Sir Stephen Phillips|
I have also written to Jane Shaw, who is Secretary to the National Constitutional Committee, which will be hearing my case, explaining why I had to go to court and why I expect higher standards of behaviour than hereto.
In the meantime I would ask that those who believe that the fight against the Zionists and their allies in the Labour Party, like its General Secretary Iain McNicol, is their fight contribute to the Fighting Fund that I have set up.
We may need to go back to court if necessary and after that there is the Zionist’s fake charity the ‘Campaign Against Anti-Semitism’ to deal with.
See also: A letter to the secretary of the Labour Party’s National Constitutional Committee by Greg Hadfield which makes an important point about the secretive NCC. No one knows the members of this 11 person committee, who chairs it etc. Despite being about to appear before it I have been refused my request for the names of its members.
|Chakrabarti Committee recommendations to the Labour Party|
Dear NEC Member,
Last Thursday at the Queens Bench Division of the High Court in The Strand Mr Justice Phillips granted me an interlocutory injunction preventing Iain McNicol and the Labour Party from going ahead with my expulsion hearing tomorrow.
As I explain in my letter to Jane Shaw, Secretary to the NCC, below and attached, I was forced into going to court by the stubborn refusal of the NCC and its Chair to abide by any concept of natural justice.
All I had sought, when sent papers for my disciplinary hearing was an extension of approximately one month in the date of my hearing. I was sent my papers when I was still in hospital, having just had surgery and the bundle contained 189 pages of allegations, charges etc.
|Crooked Iain McNicol - the éminence grise behind the Right|
Having been suspended for 20 months, 17 of them after my investigative hearing, it should have been obvious to anyone that I had an unanswerable case. However the NCC Chair and Iain McNicol did not see it in that light. Natural Justice is a concept that is alien to these people. My request was refused without any reasons whatsoever.
|3 days b4 I received my letter 'inviting' me to my expulsion hearing the Jewish Chronicle predicted the hearing! Yet another leak|
Mr Justice Phillips however ruled that the Labour Party had ‘dealt brusquely and without any real reasons’ with my application for an extension of time.
The Labour Party has therefore spent the best part of £10,000 on trying to prevent me having an adjournment and giving me time to prepare. That is members money not your own or that of McNicol and the NCC.
Since the charges are brought in your name to the NCC and since you give approval to those charges I would hope that you start to take responsibility for actions carried out in your own name.
Jane Shaw firstname.lastname@example.org,
Secretary to the National Constitutional Committee of the Labour Party
Dear Ms Shaw,
As you are well aware, the meeting of the NCC which was due to be held this Monday has had to be postponed on account of a High Court Injunction, which was granted last Thursday 7th December.
It was, of course, unfortunate that I had to apply to the High Court to obtain justice but it is a commodity in rare supply in the Labour Party of Iain McNicol.
When you emailed me on November 2nd 2017, I was in King’s College Hospital recovering from surgery. You informed me that there was going to be an NCC meeting to expel me on December 11th. Attached was a bundle of 189 pages and 50 separate allegations.
I wrote back to you asking that the hearing be deferred until the New Year, not only because of my medical condition but because of the mass of material to digest and respond to. After all you had had 20 months to assemble your case. Four weeks was highly unreasonable.
Any fair or reasonable person would have agreed without so much as a whimper to my request. Unfortunately neither you nor the Chair of the NCC or whoever made the decision, was either fair or reasonable. The Labour Party machine has bias written through it in the same way as we have Brighton written through a stick of rock.
Not only were you prejudiced and biased but you didn’t even bother to make an effort to hide it. Your only concern was in going through the motions of holding a hearing. Effecting my expulsion as soon as possible was, as your barrister made clear, your main concern.
Unfortunately Mr Justice Phillips wasn’t in the pay of McNicol. Being paid to look at these things objectively, he found that the Labour Party had ‘dealt brusquely and without any real reasons’ with my application for an extension and that
‘it is arguable that there has been a breach of their obligation to ensure fairness, a vast amount of material to consider and a request for a delay for more than 6 weeks seems eminently reasonable and fair. I am satisfied that for current purposes Mr Greenstein has the benefit of the argument and is prima facie entitled to the relief he seeks.’
I know that it goes against the habits of a lifetime but I expect you to adhere to the recommendations of the Chakrabarti Report viz: “In carrying out its functions... the NCC shall observe the principles of natural justice and proportionality.” (Appendix page V).
I would also like to know who took the decision to remove the Chakrabarti Report from the Labour Party’s web site and why. Do you no longer feel bound by its recommendations?
I expect that the hearing, when it takes place, will make some effort at fairness and impartiality. So I have a number of quite reasonable requests in this respect:
1. Whoever made the original decision to refuse my request for an extension, presumably the Chair of the NCC, has displayed clear prejudice and bias. No reasonable person could or should have refused my request for an extension of time unless they wanted to inhibit my defence. I would therefore ask that they recuse themselves, stand down, or be stood down. Clearly s/he has already made up their mind.
2. That I now be given a reasonable period within which to prepare a new response. I am withdrawing my previous response of December 1st because I need to redraft it in the light of the extra time that the Court has granted me. We therefore need to agree a new date within which to submit a new response. That was the purpose of Judge Stephens extending the deadline and bearing in mind the Xmas holiday that is what I expect.
3. Judge Stephens said that the hearing could not be held earlier than the 8th January 2018. That is probably unrealistic. Judge Stephens also made it very clear, as counsel will no doubt confirm, that he did not think one day would be sufficient. I am not available on 9th January.
4. I wish to ask expert witnesses to attend to give evidence concerning the apparent upsurge of anti-Semitism in the Labour Party and also to give their opinion on what anti-Semitism constitutes, given that those pressing the charges clearly believe that the whole of the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism has been approved by the leadership. This will mean some flexibility in timing.
As a result of forcing me into a corner, we have been forced to resort to the courts. You can either play fair and above board or we can go back to court. That decision is yours, but I expect you to confirm that you are willing to abide by the concepts of natural justice and fairness that the NEC approved in the Chakrabarti Report and which are part of Britain’s common law.