Racist-Religious Fanatics Mafia Strikes Mr Deman


On 14 November 2007 Mr O'Riley Counsel for the AUT-UCU subjected Mr Deman to a Racist-Sectarian Assault in the Courtroom whilst he was in the Belfast Tribunal.  The  case,  Deman v University College Union [previously known as AUT] and its Labour Party Mafia had been delayed ten years in its hearing.


(England & Wales)

PO Box 17517

London SE9 2ZP

Tel. & Fax: 0208 8594657, Mobile 07877008095

e-mal: tribunals_racialbias@yahoo.co.uk, http://cemkumar.googlepages.com



18 November 2007



The office of The Industrial Tribunals

& the Fair Employment Tribunals

Long Bridge House, 20-24 Waring Street,

Belfast BT1 2EB

Fax: 02890 230184


Dear Madam: 


Re:  Deman v AUT, Duncan Mercer, Richard Jay, Max Goldstrom, Paul Hudson. (Ref: 0021896/FET & 01789/96/SD)


Following our letter of 10 November 2007 and also letters from our partners Mr O’Riley, a counsel for the AUT and others withdrew his unprofessional and religiously motivated attack on the credibility of the CEM.  We though that the wisdom will be dawn upon him and he would represent his client in a professional manner.  However, it would appear to reasonable people that our letter writing fell on his deaf ears.


We unequivocally condemn Mr O’Riley for head butting and pushing Mr Deman against the wall in the Court Room following a comment about the conduct of the Tribunals in Northern Ireland to Mr Graham. We fully share him comments. We are surprised to hear that the Chairman has chosen to hide behind the pretext that the assault took place outside the hearing and tried to whitewash one of the most unprecedented incidents in the history of tribunals. We believe assaulted on Mr. Deman was instigated by the Tribunal due to the service of Write of Summons against Mrs. Patricia McVeigh, Mrs Rene Murray and the Tribunals on religious and racial discrimination. Had Mr Deman been a Roman Catholic or Protestant and/or white Mr. O’Riley would not have engaged in such conduct. Due to Mr. Riley’ attack Mr Deman’s state of anxiety depression has deteriorated due to assault.  Since he has come back from Belfast Mr Deman is having nightmares at late nights and he is still apprehensive of further assault on him.   We will be taking him to his GP fro advice.


Further, we note that the Chairman has not given any written reasons for his decision not to recuse himself in spite of overwhelming evidence of appearance of bias. Our concerns about the fairness of the tribunal turned out to be true.  Since the tribunals decision we noted further examples of appearance of bias of the Chairman which are as follows:  (i) in course of cross examination of Mr Jay, Mr Deman referred to his evidence in which he sated, “You are not a victim” and “there was no merit in your claims against in my claims against Mrs Carroll and QUB”.  When Jay tried to change his evidence about the merit you joined him and stated that he had said that I had not been a victim and left out the second part of his evidence, (ii) then he sided with Mr O’Riley to embarrass Mr Deman when he used the phrase “ex ante” in cross examination as to merit of his claim before the decision of the Central London Tribunal. He did this in spite of that fact Mr Deman passed on a copy of the EAT President Justice Morrison’s decision outlining guidelines for the Chairmen of the Tribunals.  Mr O’Riley disputed that there was no such word although Mr Deman conveyed the meaning saying he was only concerned about his view on the merit before the above decision.  However, the Chairman did not correct Mr O’Riley when he misrepresented Mr Deman about Article 8 of the ECHR by saying there was no HRA before 1998.  In fact, Mr Deman never referred to HRA 1998.  Since then Mr. Deman ahs provided us copies of his article in which has referred to “ex ante” from another article by Holstrom and Nelbuff [both are Jewish academics at Harvard and Yale Universities respectively].   We enclose relevant pages of the article.  The Chairman was not slow in noting down when Mr. Deman stated that he was an ashiest although this was not his evidence or submissions.  We would like to make it clear that Mr Deman turn in to an atheist after what he saw and how he was subjected to discriminatory treatment by both the white colour Roman Catholics and Protestant within the QUB and by legal profession and statutory agencies in Belfast.   


In light of above concerns we invite the Tribunal to stay the proceedings and State the Case for the Opinion of the Court of Appeal on appearance of bias. In the absence of written reasons we cannot provide our specific grounds but would rely upon the grounds that the Chairman failed to address the application and has not given any reasons except referring to a paragraph from Port v McGill [2002].  


Mr Graham occasionally carries out routine work on my behalf when I am engaged elsewhere. I am instructing him to resume the picketing whenever he thinks fit to do (preferably from Tuesday) so expose oppressive and institutionally discriminatory practices of the tribunal and the Respondents as I am convinced a fair hearing is not possible in Belfast and the outcome of the tribunal is a foregone conclusion.  Please note that Mr. Deman is not party to our decision to picket.


We are looking forward to hearing from you.


Yours sincerely,





C Kumar & Ms S Mahadevan [Acting]


Cc:  Dr Ian Paisley, First Minister, Hon. Minister Peter Robinson, Mr. Soheel Bhandari, Hudgell & Partners, Fax: 020 855 4195 & S Deman