- Court of Public Interest
- Satanic Abuse Explained
- Satanic Abuse and The Establishment
- Fact-Finding Case Short on Facts
- The Press Spout the Judgement Verbatim
- Poor Attention to Facts
- Claims of “A Full and Thorough Investigation”
- Falsification of Truth
- Intimidation of the Public
- Failure to Follow Judicial Precedent
- Unsubstantiated Claims of “Mental Torture”
- Perversion of Justice and Breach of Oath.
The Judicial Precedent that she refers to is Mr Justice Green’s judgement which is 129 pages long and relates to a serial rapist. His two victims complained about the Met not having believed them and not having investigated properly. Hence they were awarded compensation. The ‘quantum’, i.e. how much, you’d have to google for.
The case was published by:
- The Guardian: John Worboys victims win Met police compensation claim
- IBB Solicitors: Metropolitan Police to Compensate Rape Victims.
The analysis of the ‘authorities’ (other precedent cases) covers
The duty on police to investigate torture and degrading and inhuman treatment committed by third parties where the police are not complicit in the perpetration of the treatment.
Paras 211 – 225 cover the PRINCIPLES laid down in Case law, e.g.:
First, Article 3 of the Convention imposes a duty upon the police to investigate which covers the entire span of a case from investigation to trial. The purpose behind this duty is to secure confidence in the rule of law in a democratic society, to demonstrate that the State is not colluding with or consenting to criminality, and, to provide learning to the police with a view to increasing future detection levels and preventing future crime.
…the police must investigate in an efficient and reasonable manner which is capable of leading to the identification and punishment of the perpetrator(s)...
the police will be in breach of Article 3 if the conduct (the means) of the inquiry falls below the requisite standard.
First, the authorities from the Strasbourg Court set out in extenso above demonstrate that the duty on the State to investigate under Article 3 the conduct of private parties which amount to torture or degrading or inhuman treatment is established in a long line of consistent case law stretching back well over a decade. The principle is not a stray or maverick line of thought which having briefly emerged has been (and should Page 102 MR JUSTICE GREEN DSD & NBV v Commissioner of Police for Metropolis Approved Judgment be) forgotten. On the contrary, it represents clear, consistent and established principle which has evolved and solidified over many years and which has received approval from a very large cohort of Strasbourg Judges, including qua President, Sir Nicholas Bratza. I would be disregarding my duty under Section 2 Human Rights Act to “take account” of this case law if I was to attach no weight to it.
Para 230 asserts:
(ii) Domestic law has long acknowledged an equivalent duty
… the above conclusion is not heretical to the common law. The duty on the police to investigate effectively is a bare minimum safeguard in any civilised State. … “they would further include the duty to detect crime and to bring offenders to justice”.
I hold it to be the duty of the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, as it is of every chief constable, to enforce the law of the land. He must take steps so to post his men that crimes may be detected; and that honest citizens may go about their affairs in peace. He must decide whether or not suspected persons are to be prosecuted; and, if need be, bring the prosecution or see that it is brought. But in all these things he is not the servant of anyone, save of the law itself. No Minister of the Crown can tell him that he must, or must not, keep observation on this place or that; or that he must, or must not, prosecute this man or that one. Nor can any police authority tell him so. The responsibility for law enforcement lies on him. He is answerable to the law and to the law alone”.
Para 239 says:
There is hence a recognised duty of the State “in the absence of State complicity” to investigate and prosecute criminal wrongs.
Will these words be music to the ears of Ella’s lawyers?