|
|
Lloyd Sewell 16 Westdene Meadows, Cranleigh, Surrey GU6 8UJ Tel: 01483 267098 – Fax: 01483 267098 Mobi: 07866 607197 |
The Prime Minister Date:24/06/2005
Mr T Blair
10 Downing Street
London SW1A 2AA
PERSONAL BACKGROUND DETAILS:
On 26-Dec-2005 I was (64) years old, I have lived and worked in the United Kingdom for approximately (45) years and I have also lived and worked briefly in Germany and Holland during that period – Because of the two following cases – I have been forced to live on social security since 1997.
PROBLEM NO: 1 - BACKGROUND DETAILS
I went to West London Training and Enterprise Council in 1995 to request help in starting my own business – They promised both verbally and in writing to assist – but instead – used my business and marking plans to obtain £1.76(m) from the Government Office for London to start a similar project based on my business plans in (1997) - The chief executive of West London Training and Enterprise Council (WLTEC), at the time was Dr Phil Blackburn,
I had discussed my project by letter with Mr Michael Bichard at that time a government minister in 1996 – and later with Mr Andrew Smith, I have both the original letters and their response.
1. I wrote to Tony Blair – 1997 with no result
2. I wrote to the Ombudsman – with no result
3. I wrote to The Government Office for London – with no result
4. I wrote of several other members of Parliament – with no result
5. I was denied Legal Aid – because of government regulations regarding civil cases
6. I was advised by the Lord Chancellor’s Office that I could pursue my case in the
county court by myself – which I preceded to do in 2001
7. Because my original submission to Brentford Court (BF102062) was deemed (not to be in
the order that the court expected – my case was dismissed with costs against me. of
approximately £1200 –
8. The re-submitted documents was also rejected by Brentford County Court – who invited the
other side to increase their cost – which they did – court orders against me approximately
£3760 -
9. I later appealed against these orders and that appeal subsequently took place on
11-April 2005 – my appeal was rejected and I was ordered to pay costs of £11,790 -
10. In the meantime the other side had filed an application for bankruptcy against me in the
Guildford County Court (which was dealt with in 19-April 2004) – this order was
annulled on 19-Jan-2005 – as not to have been made – my costs were assessed at juts
over £2000
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
I have documentary evidence from the defendants and letters relating to my project from;
- Mr Michael Bichard, (former Joint Permanent Secretary)
- Mr Richard Balfe, MEP
- Mr Robert Evans, MEP
- Mr Andrew Smith, (former Head of the Department for Education and Employment)
- Hillingdon Borough Council
- West London Training and Enterprise Council
WITNESS STATEMENTS
I have (8) witness statements, including my own - Several letters from various managers of West London Training and Enterprise Council – relating to my project and what support they were prepared to give and under what conditions.
ALTERNATIVE TO LEGAL ACTION
I have several letters from various members of parliament – and the Government Office for London – but they took no action
PROBLEM NO: 2 - BACKGROUND & DETAILS
In (1998) I attempted to start a new venture and piloted this venture successfully in the London area.
One of the agencies for which I conducted a workshop was Business Link London North West – under contract to their business development manager.
When the business links was wound up by the government – the business development manager – now operating a not-for-profit company together with his wife - successfully used the documents previously submitted to him by me in confidence to obtain funds from the Phoenix Fund to promote and provide the same training course to ethnic minorities in the London area.
I have again attempted to put this matter before (Guildford County Court) – but again – because (a) I was not legally represented – (b) the court administration misplaced and misdirected some of the documents - so that neither defending party to the action had a full set of documents in advance of the hearing - the court took the view that my application was not what should have been put before the court – and again my case was dismissed – with cost against me of £1500 -.
I appealed and Guildford County Court offered an oral hearing –
I argued that (a) my case was based on fact, (b) supported by documentary evidence and (c) signed witness affidavits, that I had been (d) denied access to justice and that (e) my human rights had been denied.
At the end of the hearing, the judge remarked that in his opinion my human rights had not been denied. that I could present my case myself and that I have the option of making an appeal to a higher court;
• Although he advised at the hearing (on transcript) that I could appeal to the High Court –
he wrote in his order that I had no further right to appeal Being ignorant of the rules,
• I prepared my case took it to the high court – where it was rejected on the grounds of
(a) the oral nature of the hearing and
(b) the actual order of the judge.
ALTERNATIVES TO LEGAL ACTION
I wrote to (a) the Head of the Small Business Service, informing him of both cases, (he has not responded - )
I wrote to (b) The Secretary of State for Small Business – informing him of both cases, (he has declined to become involved)
In all cases,
(a) The acts against me would not have been perpetrated if I were white or;
(b) If I were legally represented – then both my cases – which are based on facts, supported by
documentary evidence and (11) witness statements in total, would not have been dismissed
for lack of proper representation
(c) Therefore it is my conclusion that
• My access to justice has been denied under (Access to Justice Act), section 6(8)(b),
and
• Subsequently – my human rights has been denied – under (Article 1, Protocol 1)
• The same justice from which I have been excluded – has been used against me –
• In the rare case – where the order of the court is in my favour – then the resulting
cost to the other side is mineralised – (by the CPR) – because I am un-employed – a
fact caused by the actions of the defendants – so the cost order against them is a
minimum
• On the other hand – when cost are against me – they are maximised – because the
defendants – who caused my un-employment are able to employ barristers – while I
have to rely on self-defence.
• This is multiple discrimination – which is also means a denial of human rights
• Because of this discrimination – I am obliged to represent myself in (3) action at two
separate courts – in-spite of the access to justice acts and my human rights – while at
the same time the government agencies involved – can rely on the law – which
already in their favour and a team of barristers.
• This is not justice – but a denial of justice – and denial of my human rights
As a direct result of the actions of these individuals I am forced to live on social security – all attempts to get justice has failed – with cost levied against me in both cases - while at the same time – project(s) that I have developed are generating revenues and income for others.
In the absence of legal representation due to the fact that legal aid for civil cases was withdrawn, I could not afford the services of a solicitor and barrister, hence my cases were not properly presented to the court
However the information stated above and presented to the court is completely factual and supported by documentary evidence and witness statements.
I believe that it is not morally acceptable that in the United Kingdom in 2005 that this sort of thing should happen to anyone, especially when viewed in the light of the various factual documents and witness statements.
This is my personal nightmare at the hands of the government agencies since (1995), I have no legal or political representation –. I am therefore making this final appeal to you as prime minister in an attempt to get justice for my plight.
Your’s sincerely and I look forward to your reply
Signed: Beauford Lloyd Sewell
Date: 24/06/2005
