Gang of Four at the EAT 
Govt. Judiciary UnMasked


 


 


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 The rape of Justice




Peter Gilroy.QC

see Ligarten vs

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Police Complaint against Judge Elias, Judge Clarke, Judge Serota And Justice Underhill to pervert the Course of Justice .- The Gang of Four

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Complaints against Mr. Justice Elias,  Underhill, HHJ Peter Clarke, HHJ McMullen  

  • On the 15th March 2007 the Respondents Appeal (Manchester Metropolitan University v C.D’Silva )  was listed for a two day hearing  in Court 2 before the Honourable Mr Justice Wilkie, Ms v Branney & Mrs M Mc Arthur see Cause List; EAT/0024/07/LA [1].

  • However on the day of the hearing the  cause list was changed and  members of CAFAS & the CEM who attended as observers found that the Respondents two day Appeal (Manchester Metropolitan University v C.D’Silva )  was now listed for a hearing in Court 1 before His Honour Judge Peter Clarke,  Ms V Branney & Mrs M Mc Arthur see Cause List; EAT/0024/07/LA [2].

 

  • HH. J. Peter Clarke on the day appeared to be in perfect physical health and his substitution to members of the CEM and CAFAS who attended the Employment Appeal Tribunal meant the sacrifice of Justice.  Judge Peter Clarke’s past conduct as an EAT Member in undermining the cases of ethnic minorities such as Mr Deman   and Dr Chaudhary  had been noted by CEM Members  as well as  his Law Society finding for negligence.
    • HH Judge Peter Clarke heard the appeal of Dr Chaudhary  V BMA and in the course of the hearing made adverse personnel comments,  why was he wasting his  time he should seek an alternative job.  He subsequently caused Dr Chaudhary (Indian) detriment by  overthrowing his decision against the Secretary of State who had awarded him just under one million pounds in compensation.
    • In view that HR Judge Peter Clarke had caused detriment to two people of Asian origin including the claimant's lay representative, Mr Deman  in his UCU case and Dr Chaudhary who  had requested an adjournment  in the claimant's MMU case whose decision was being considered in this appeal. I believe that there is a pattern of bias in his decisions in the handling of cases of members of the Indian subcontinent as the decision would have been a foregone conclusion.                                                                                      
    • It was noted by CAFAS & CEM members and others that HH Judge Peter  Clarke at the EAT on seeing the claimant was represented by Mr  John Davies.QC and was being watched by members of the CEM & CAFAS became agitated. On adjournment of the case for lunch on the 15th March 2007,  we were surprisingly  informed on our return  that Mr Peter Clarke had been struck down with food poisoning and the  two day case was adjourned and had to be re-listed for a further two day's hearing  at a significant financial cost to the claimant  in view that his QC would need to be paid for a further day but the respondents were gambling  using tax payers money.

     

    1.  Food poisoning requires a 24 hr period for incubation it does not spontaneously occur over lunch. 


     

    2.      The EAT and H.H.J. Peter Clarke  failed to provide a medical certificate to support their contention that he had food poisoning despite the claimant requesting it of the EAT.   The  claimant in a similar position on requiring an adjournment in his MMU case on the grounds of his  ill health represented by a lay person Dr Chaudhary offered a NHS consultant to  give evidence on his medical condition [8].   This however was refused and the  case was not adjourned and  was heard in my absence in April 2005, at the Respondent’s Council, Mr Gilroy. QC influence on the Manchester Tribunal being a member of its governing body. 

     

    3. However in the Respondent’s EAT case heard on the 6/7th June 2007  (UKEAT/0024/07/LA)  with the judgment promulgated  on the 26th Sept 2007 [4] and the order the 27th Sept 2007 [5].    The EAT to save the reputations of  the six Senior members of the University  found guilty of racial discrimination brought the trio together and sacrificed justice in support of racial discrimination.   Judge Peter Clarke tied the hands of the claimant's Counsel and Chairman O'Hara of the Manchester Tribunal and gave MMU several bites of the cherry whilst breaching the claimant’s Human Right Under Article 6 in regard to a fair trial.  MMU Counsel Mr Gilroy  had failed to score in the Manchester Tribunal against an open goal and now  with the support of Judge Clarke who had previously acted in MMU's behalf in the case.  In view that the Claimant  never gave evidence or was represented by  Counsel how could Justice Clarke overthrow the claimant’s judgment in view of the overriding objective of the Tribunal  the maintenance  of an equality of arms.   The only fair thing would have been for HH Judge Clarke to have the case re-heard however this would  not have changed the outcome in favour of  MMU in view of the adverse finding made against its management.


    4. Instead HH Judge Peter Clarke, exercised his Judicial discrimination rather than his discretion, in a racially prejudicial manner as he had done in the cases of Mr. Deman vs AUT, Dr Chaudhary vs The Secretary of State  and the claimant’s case by refusing Counsels reasonable request for a Burns-Barke direction [6(1-6)] in which the Chairman of the Manchester tribunal,  Ms O’Hara could have provided clarification as to how she arrived at her decision. His subsequent comment during the hearing by asking  ''is  the claimant still in employment'' despite winning, shows  his contempt for victims of racial discrimination.

     

    5. The extended reasons provided by the Employment tribunal were given  over a year after the tribunal provided its short form judgment due to  respondents Counsel, Mr Gilroy’s tactics in delaying the processing of the claimant's case by claiming first he  was going to appeal the decisions [12] and then withdrawing the appeal before the hearing date.  On realizing the claimant was not going to give up his claim he then  pursued a cost order in regard to the wasted appeal [13] which the Respondent requested to be  red flagged  to rail road it through the EAT,  in breach of Tribunal  procedures which required it should be heard after the Tribunal Judgment was promuglated.  The EAT and H.H. Judge Serota a member of the Gang of Four (Judge Elias, Judge Serota, Judge Peter Clarke & Justice Underhill) in breach of tribunal procedures held the appeal hearing on the same  day the ET was to promuglate its decision and in an attempt to railroad the claimant’s appeal. Judge Serota failed to conduct the hearing correctly with two wing members present and based on the  merits found in   the claimant's favour.  The EAT appeal however was rendered a nuility due to Judge Serota’s failure to have wing members.  On the same day the decision of the EAT  became available, the Manchester Tribunal informed the claimant that he had won many parts of his ET Tribunal  case,  so he withdrew his EAT appeal judgment and kept his ET judgment. 

     

    6. Having  delayed the claimant’s extended reasons by  a year the respondent's on receiving the 83 page extended reasons decided despite having an open goal in the ET  and failing to win decided to cry foul and appeal the decision in nthe EAT knowing the  Gang of Four Judges were wiling to oblige and overturn the Claimant's decisions.


    7.  Judge Clarke's dive on on the 15th March 2007  was nothing but an attempt to  waste the claimant's legal costs. On further investigation of the matter with the  President of EAT,  Justice Elias revealed that Justice Clarke's sudden departure was nothing to  do with food poisioning but  would not reveal the reason or medical condition.  A claimant in a similar position  Dr Malotora who won his discrimnation case  against his employer London   despite being ill and suffering a heart attack where he died several times on the way to the hospital due to cardiac arrest  but  was revived.  Since returning home from hospital  and stating  his medical condition and his need for  a bypass operation has  been since been harrased by Judge Clarke on behalf of the respondents to have his case heard despite medical advice that  he rests until fit.