RIDER RIGHTS

click here to read more

Says Sandra SmithSays Sandra Smith

The speed required to ensure that a gate closes is greater than the velocity required to amputate a finger, crush a child or the head of a dog, trap a push or wheelchair, or – literally - tear a hole in the side of a horse ......... read more

Shrewsbury Magistrates Court

Tony Barnett continues his fight for justice.
He applies to the Court to revoke his restraining order of 23 May 2011

Mr Barnett said ‘That is not acceptable, Paul. Judge Onions, in his view, said that Judge Morgan had ruled outside his jurisdiction. Respectfully, this is outside your jurisdiction too. Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights Act states the right to a fair trial and I request that this case should go to the High Court in London. It is not criminal, these are civil matters..

Says Tony Barnertt

What happened in Court. A blow by blow account

Says Tony BarnerttPresent:

Mr Tony Barnett

Mr Stephen Lewis, a member of Butterfly Conservation, the purported owner of Whitchurch Heath Common, was present as an observer.

A CPS representative.

Mr Paul Ellis was acting Clerk of the Court.

Mr Ellis stated Mr Barnett was applying for a revocation of the restraining order placed on him on 23 May 2011 wherein Mr Barnett was not allowed to enter into any of the land marked with an orange boundary known as Prees Heath Common.

This revocation was opposed by the Crown Prosecution Service.

Mr Ellis asked if the CPS had a file on these matters?

It was stated that the CPS did not have a file with the views of the police or injured parties.

Mr Ellis said that the CPS needed to obtain these views.

Mr Ellis noted that the CPS had been notified on 20 June of this case management hearing today whereby Mr Barnett had requested the lifting of all orders made by Judge Morgan.

Mr Barnett stated that, regarding the alleged criminal damage, Judge Morgan had made the statement that this was outside his jurisdiction. No evidence was ever examined in court and that Prees Heath Common did not exist. In 2002 the name was registered in Mr Barnett’s name.

Mr Barnett reiterated that there had always been a refusal by the Court to make orders for full disclosure regarding this disputed piece of land.

Mr Barnett asserted that it was in the power of this Court to order full disclosure and to lift all the orders in this case.

Mr Ellis replied that the conviction had to stand until a further order had been granted. He reminded the Magistrate that she had no power to grant Mr Barnett’s requests and that the sole consideration was the restraining order.

Mr Ellis said to Mr Barnett that he could apply to the Court of Appeal.

Mr Barnett said ‘That is not acceptable, Paul. Judge Onions, in his view, said that Judge Morgan had ruled outside his jurisdiction. Respectfully, this is outside your jurisdiction too. Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights Act states the right to a fair trial and I request that this case should go to the High Court in London. It is not criminal, these are civil matters.

The Magistrate confirmed that all they could do in this court was to examine the restraining order. Mr Barnett would need to reapply to the Court of Appeal against a Crown order. She also refused to lift the restraining order.

Mr Barnett in reply stated ‘I’ve always been knocked down by courts and refused my rights to full disclosure. I can remove anything from common land and that is what I have done.’

Mr Ellis said that the only matter was the restraining order, irrespective of events of the time before. He pointed out to Mr Barnett that he can take the matter elsewhere.

At this point, a member of the public seemingly exasperated at this judicial table tennis, interjected to the Court that ‘the issue of ownership is central to this’.

Mr Ellis said to him that if he did not like the way things were conducted he could leave. The man said ‘it is my prerogative to do so and I will’. The man then left the court.

The CPS representative returned to the matter of the revocation of the restraining order and stated that the CPS is against this matter.

Mr Ellis stated there would be a full contested hearing on 4 September 2013.
Mr Barnett to provide a skeleton argument, files of evidence and schedules to be served to the Magistrates Court 30 July 2013, 2pm.

The CPS to respond by 13 August 2013 at 2pm.

This would be for District Judge Cadbury.

Mr Barnett again tried to make the Court understand that both orders ultimately had been placed on him by Stephen Lewis with his application for planning consent to PINS.

Mr Ellis replied that ‘This is all a matter of the basis of evidence. In addition the CPS must respond.’

Mr Barnett agreed that the CPS must provide full disclosure listing mortgage fraud and criminal damage among other unlawful activities as perpetrated by Stephen Lewis and Butterfly Conservation.

Mr Barnett explained that the planning consent is provisional. Providing certain obligations are met then it would be lawful. However the Enclosure Act has been repealed.

Tony Barnett writes to SHREWSBURY MAGISTRATES COURT

CASE No 1100045303.

JUDGE MORGAN HAD NO EVIDENCE TO FIND ME GUILTY OF ANY OFFENCE AND THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE FOR HIM TO PROVE ME GUILTY OF ANY OFFENCE.

Says Tony Barnett

AS ORDER BY THE MAGISTRATES COURT ON 9th JULY 2013, I SUBMIT AS ORDERED INFORMATION REQUIRED.

TO THIS HONOURABLE COURT.

YOUR HONOUR. IT HAS WELL ESTABLISHED THROUGH ALL OF MY COURT APPEARANCES THAT I HAVE REQUESTED THE COURTS TO HONOUR MY RIGHTS TO A FAIR TRIAL, AS IS PROVIDED INDER ARTICLE 6 OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS ACT.

EACH TIME THOSE RIGHTS HAVE BEEN DENIED ME.

SUBJECT TO MY NEW HEARING FOR THE ORDERS GIVEN AGAINST ME BY JUDGE MORGAN TO BE LIFTED, I WISH TO REQUEST THAT MY RIGHTS UNDER ARTICLE 6 OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS ACT ARE COMPLIED WITH.

THE ARTICLE STATES THAT EVERYONE CHARGED WITH A CRIMINAL OFFENCE IS PRESUMED INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY ACCORDING TO LAW.

ARTICLE 7 OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS ACT STATES THAT THERE IS NO PUNISHMENT WITHOUT LAW, AND THAT I WOULD NORMALLY HAVE THE RIGHT TO BE FOUND NOT GUILTY OF AN OFFENCE ARISING OUT OF WHICH AT THE TIME WERE NOT CRIMINAL.

THE ARTICLE ALSO STATES THAT I AM PROTECTED AGAINST LATER INCREASES IN THE POSSIBLE SENTENCE FOR AN OFFENCE.

JUDGE MORGAN HAD NO EVIDENCE TO FIND ME GUILTY OF ANY OFFENCE AND THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE FOR HIM TO PROVE ME GUILTY OF ANY OFFENCE.

MY RIGHTS UNDER ARTICLE 6 OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS ACT IS MY RIGHTS TO EXAMINE OR HAVE EXAMINED WITTNESSES AGAINST ME AND TO OBTAIN THE ATTENDANCE AND EXAMINATION OF WITTNESSES ON MY BEHALF UNDER THE SAME CONDITIONS AS WITTNESSES AGAINST ME.

JUDGE MORGAN REFUSED MY APPLICATIONS FOR WITTNESS STATEMENTS AND FOR THOSE MAKING ACCUSATIONS AGAINST ME, I WAS ALSO REFUSED MY RIGHTS TO EXAMINE THE PROSECUTION WITTNESS STEPHEN LEWIS, THE MEMBER OF BUTTERFLY CONSERVATION, IS THE PERSON THAT REQUESTED MY ARREST AND NOT BUTTERFLY CONSERVATION.

I WAS THEREFORE NOT GIVEN A FAIR TRIAL.

AS DIRECTIONS GIVEN TO ME WAS FOR A “SKELETON” LIST OF INFORMATION, I HAVE NOT INCLUDED LARGE SCALE DOCUMENTS, BUT I AM ABLE TO DISCLOSE THE SAME.

I MAINTAINED MY STANCE THROUGH OUT THE HEARING THAT HE WAS COMMITTING COURTROOM FRAUD.

ENCLOSED IS INFORMATION THAT I REQUESTED WHICH I BELIEVE SUPPORTS MY BELEIFS

Says Maureen Comber

Says Maureen ComberI have been given an ASBO by the Hampshire County Council for standing up for riders rights.

How many other people have been silenced by Hampshire County Council? ........... read more

Read more here


Email this to a friend !!

Enter recipient's e-mail: