Mr Nigel Griffiths

Parliament Under-Secretary of State

Small Business and Export Control

Department of Trade and Industry

1 Victoria Street

London SW1H OET

Date:09/05/2003

REF: BF102062

REF: GU301363

Dear Mr Griffiths,

Further to your letter dated 13-Jan-2003, in response to my allegations against (3) former and or current government agencies, and with respect to Human Rights Laws available from the new Department of Constitutional Affairs I wish to bring to your attention the following facts

The Human Rights Act:

• makes it unlawful for a public authority to act incompatibly with the Convention rights and allows for a case to be brought in a UK court or tribunal against the authority if it does so. However, a public authority will not have acted unlawfully under the Act if as the result of a provision of primary legislation it could not have acted differently.

• requires all legislation to be interpreted and given effect as far as possible compatibly with the Convention rights. Where it is not possible to do so, a court may

• quash or disapply subordinate legislation or

• if it is a higher court, make a declaration of incompatibility for primary legislation. This triggers a new power that allows a Minister to make a remedial order to amend the legislation to bring it into line with the Convention rights.

• requires UK courts and tribunals to take account of Strasbourg case-law (i.e the case-law of the Court and the Commission in Strasbourg, and the Committee of Ministers). They will also be bound to develop the common law compatibly with the Convention rights.

9. The practical implications of this are discussed in section 5 of this guidance.

10. Because of the importance the Government attaches to respect for the Convention rights, and the need to ensure that their incorporation into UK law meshed properly with another important aspect of constitutional reform –

devolution - provisions were included in the Scotland Act, the Northern Ireland Act and the Government of Wales Act to ensure that the devolved institutions would have to act in a way that was compatible with the Convention rights.

1. That the government has narrowed the right to legal aid in civil matters – which has meant that to date I have been unable to get legal representation in a court of law – contrary to

AND

Article 1 of Protocol 1: The Right to Peaceful Enjoyment of Possessions and Protection of Property

Many possessions are regarded as property, not just houses or cars, but also things like shares, licences and goodwill. The right to engage in a profession can also, in some cases, be a property right. No one can be deprived of their property except where the action is permitted by law and justifiable in the public or general interest. This Article is discussed in more detail in paragraphs 67-72.

Article 1 of Protocol 1 is made up of three rules concerning:

• the principle of the peaceful enjoyment of possessions.

• the deprivation of possessions.

• the right of the State to control the use of property in the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties.

Article 1 of Protocol 1 aims to ensure that a person’s (including a company’s) possessions are not unfairly interfered with.

Possessions are things of economic value. They include goods, shares, rights under contracts (including leases), land, rights to run a business (including licences or registration), goodwill and damages or other sums awarded by a court or tribunal. The term has a very wide meaning, but it covers only existing possessions and existing legal rights. It covers, for example, the right to receive benefits under a pension scheme, but not the right to inherit property at some point in the future. Refusal to grant a licence would not bring Article 1 of Protocol 1 into play, but revocation or refusal to renew a licence might. Article 1 of Protocol 1 covers property not just owned by individuals but also owned by a company or other private body, such as a charity or trade union.

AND

Article 6: The Right to a Fair and Public Trial within a Reasonable Time

This is a wide ranging and highly developed right which covers all criminal and many civil cases, as well as, for example, cases heard by tribunals and some internal hearings or regulatory procedures. Article 6 accords anyone charged with a criminal offence certain rights, including the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty and to be given adequate time and facilities to prepare their defence. The emphasis on a public trial protects litigants against the administration of justice in secret with no public scrutiny. Article 6 is discussed in more detail in paragraphs 44-49.

AND

Article 14: The Prohibition of Discrimination in the Enjoyment of Convention rights

Not all differences in treatment are discriminatory, but only those which have no objective and reasonable justification. Article 14 only applies to the rights set out in the Convention, and thus there must be another Convention right at issue to which a claim of discrimination can be attached. Article 14 is discussed in more detail in paragraphs 73-78 of this guidance.

INCLUDING ACTIONS OF

Public Authorities

19. The Act requires public authorities to act compatibly with the Convention rights. ‘Public authorities’ are not defined exhaustively but the term covers three broad categories:

• obvious public authorities such as a Minister, a Government Department or agency, local authorities, health authorities and trusts, the Armed Forces and the police. Everything these bodies do is covered by the Act. Parliament, though, is not a public authority for the majority of its functions.

• courts and tribunals.

any person or organisation which carries out some functions of a public nature. Under the Act, however, they are only considered a public authority in relation to their public functions. So, for example, Railtrack is a public authority in relation to its work as a safety regulator for the railways, but not when acting as a commercial property developer

INCLUDING

20. In some cases it will be difficult to know if a body is a public authority. You will need to take legal advice to clarify this. However, some key characteristics of a public authority include:

• whether the body performs or operates in the public domain as an integral part of a statutory system which performs public law duties

• whether the duty performed is of public significance

• whether the rights or obligations of individuals may be affected in the performance of the duty

• whether an individual may be deprived of some legitimate expectation in performance of the duty

• whether the body is non-statutory but is established under the authority of government or local government

• whether the body is supported by statutory powers and penalties

• whether the body performs functions that the government or local government would otherwise perform

• whether the body is under a duty to act judicially in exercising what amounts to public powers.

What is a public authority?

No express definition exists in the Act but it is likely to include:

• Government departments

• Local authorities

• The NHS

• Police, prison, immigration officers

• Public prosecutors

• Courts and tribunals

• Non Departmental Public Bodies

• Any person exercising a public function.

What the Act Means in Practice

32. The Human Rights Act is about respecting and fostering the Convention rights in everything a public authority does. It provides a new basis for the protection of fundamental rights of every citizen.

33. The Act does this in two ways: it places everyone under a duty to interpret all legislation compatibly with the Convention rights, and requires you, as a public authority, to act in accordance with the Convention rights.

Compatibility of legislation

35. The Act requires that all legislation - Acts of Parliament, Regulations, Orders - so far as is possible, be read and given effect in a way which is compatible with the Convention rights.

36. This is a very strong provision and you must make every effort to interpret legislation in accordance with the Convention rights. Where there are two possible interpretations of a provision - one which is compatible with the Convention rights and one which is not - the one which is compatible must be adopted. The fact that a court may have interpreted a law in a certain way before does not mean that after the coming into force of the Human Rights Act, it will interpret the provision in that same way. Nor can that earlier interpretation be relied upon by a public authority.

37. If a piece of primary legislation cannot be interpreted compatibly with the Convention rights, it will remain in force. The courts will not be able to overrule it. That would be to undermine the sovereignty of Parliament. But a higher court (defined in section 4(5) of the Human Rights Act) can make a declaration of incompatibility, which will create considerable pressure to find some way of amending the legislation so that it is compatible with the Convention rights.

38. The courts may however quash subordinate legislation, such as a Statutory Instrument, that is not compatible with the Convention rights, unless the provision has to say what it does because of a provision of primary legislation. This also applies to legislation made by the devolved administrations.

Compatibility by public authorities

39. All public authorities have a positive obligation to ensure that respect for human rights is at the core of their day to day work. This means that you should act in a way that positively reinforces the principles of the Human Rights Act. The Human Rights Act underpins this by making it unlawful for a public authority to act (or fail to act) in a way which is incompatible with a Convention right. This covers all aspects of the public authority’s activities including:

Drafting rules and regulations

Internal staff and personnel issues

Administrative procedures

Decision making

Policy implementation

Interaction with members of the public

a) That I broght to the attention of various government ministers and government departments the matters –relating to Case No:BF102062 , (1997 and 2003) inclusive.

1. That the government ministers and / or departments including the Government Office for London failed to take appropriate corrective action.

2. That as a direct result of this lack of action by govcernment departments – I have suffered extreme hardship and financial loss - contrary to the Laws of Humans Rights Contrary to the provissions contained in section (19) of the Human Rights Laws

In the case of GU301363

That I have again broght to the attention of the government vis-a-vis - yourself – in your capacity as minister reponsible for small business, and that;.

1. You have failed to take any action – consistent with the Laws of Human Rights hat the government ministers and / or departments including the Government Office for London failed to take any corrective action in the matter

2. That as a direct result of this lack of action by govcernment departments – I have again suffered further extreme hardship and financial loss - contrary to the Laws of Humans Rights (Article 1, Article 14).

3. That the Department of Trade and Industry has facilitated the theft of my intellectual property and although this fact has been brought to your attention on a number of occassion, you have thus far, failed to take any action.

Yours Respectfully

Lloyd Sewell