Wednesday, 22 July 2009

The Scales of Justice Are About To Tip In Favour Of The State

One of the most significant hearings of recent times is passing by unheralded on July 30th at The Royal Courts of Justice and it is one that will ultimately affect every private citizen in the UK if it is found in favour of the Defendants, being The Ministry of Justice, represented by the Treasury Solicitors.

Andre Power, the Plaintiff, had a County Court Judgement emplaced on him for £254,000 by mistake via Her Majesty’s Court Service. Mr. Power was unaware of this for thirteen months whilst seeking funding for his company to launch a business, four years in the creation and with investment by the principals of over £400,000. Unfortunately, as HMCS failed to advise Mr. Power that a CCJ for £254,000 showing unpaid was now registered against his name on public credit files such as “Experian”, he/the company failed to raise any funding, despite the company having no indebtedness whatsoever, save for a £15,000 bank loan, which was paid up to date at that time.

A Circuit Judge has ruled that the CCJ should never have been emplaced on Mr. Power’s name and it has been removed, after showing on credit files for thirteen months. Mr, Power has had four separate apologies and clear admissions of negligence from HMCS in correspondence thereafter. However, they declined to pay any compensation on the basis of spurious and unfounded allegations that there must have been further debts (though not specified) which prevented the company from being funded.
Therefore, Mr. Power started a legal action for compensation.

Included in his submissions were letters from noted funding groups stating that they would decline any such funding requests where due diligence revealed the Managing Director of the company had an unpaid CCJ registered on his name for £254,000.
However, none of this has been argued before a Judge as yet. The first hearing was on 6th March 2009 before a Master Foster. The Defendants asked that the case be struck off based on an alleged precedent. Mr. Power received the “skeleton argument” for this action some five minutes before entering the Court. In a previous court case a man who was given two years and three months imprisonment after being found guilty, was accidentally sentenced to two years and six months. As some of the sentence was due to run concurrently, a mistake had been made in the totting up of the sentence and he served an extra three months. At some point, (presumably after completing his sentence) despite himself, his legal representatives, the Judge and the court staff, all missing the original error, he sued for the compensation for the loss of three months liberty.

The Judge upheld the Defence’s claim that a civil servant who makes a mistake whilst discharging the normal duties of his job cannot be liable in law for such a mistake and therefore found against the Plaintiff.
This same precedent was therefore represented to Master Foster as the reason Mr. Power’s claim should be struck off. And Master Foster allowed this flimsy reasoning to stand and found in favour of the Defendant’s, although immediately granting Mr. Power the Right to Appeal.

This appeal is to be heard on July 30th.

Mr. Power will argue that the precedent cited bears no resemblance or comparison to his case. Firstly, he was not guilty of any offence in the first place, as proofed by a Circuit Judge ruling that the CCJ was wrongly emplaced on his name in the first place. Secondly, Mr. Power was never advised of the CCJ so unlike the chap cited in the precedent who was present when he was found guilty and sentenced, he had no opportunity to redress the situation. Thirdly, the Treasury Solicitor’s argument that a civil servant who makes a mistake whilst going about his job cannot be declared negligent is also being contested by Mr. Power. He maintains that it was precisely because civil servant/s (unknown to this day) were NOT doing their job properly in the first place that this situation arose. If they had been discharging their duties, for which they are paid from the public purse, then this circumstance could never have occurred.
If this precedent is allowed to stand, thus preventing Mr. Power from ever seeking compensation before a Judge in an open court then a dangerous and unsettling precedent is in place that would have shocking repercussions for every private citizen in the UK. It would mean any civil/public servant and/or offices of the civil service could commit any act of wilful negligence without fear of legal action and with absolute impunity.

You are already aware of the growing disparity between private business and public employ. We pay the taxes for civil servants wages and pensions. Indeed our pensions have collapsed whilst theirs have been growing. We work under an ever burgeoning set of directorial responsibilities, red tape and laws that prevent us from ever running our businesses in such a cavalier fashion. And of course we have no such protection in law from claims against us resulting from the negligent actions of our staff and ourselves if they are proofed to have negligently impacted on any of our fellow citizens. We work longer hours and enjoy significantly less absence from work due to sickness, holiday time and sundry days off.
If this precedent is allowed to stand it will mean a new two tier society has been created, effectively an act of apartheid, legislated via the highest court in the land. It will mean that all the millions of civil/public servants will be working under a completely different circumstance to the army of self employed and private businesses who fund their existence. The only examples of such civil service power over the people can be found in communist, fascist and totalitarian regimes. They have never been implemented in any state before that has declared itself to be a “democracy”. The power of the individual will therefore be subsumed before the power of the State. No longer will we be able to sue any state body or its representatives. Indeed, they will be able to perform all manner of objectionable and dubious acts against the citizen without the citizen having any recourse in law. Would any taxpayer willingly pay taxes to support an unelected elite in the pursuit and maintenance of this goal? Therefore, if you wish to make a stand against the erosion of that most historic right, whereby both public and private citizens are held to be under the same principles of English law and jurisprudence, then I ask that this case be given as much prominence and publicity before it is too late and we are drawn into an “us and them” gulag mentality whereby the private individual no longer enjoys the same legal rights and privileges as the Government employee.

I received the above email this afternoon at the Libertarian Party Offices, and having spoken to Mr Power who has given me permission to publicise this case which could establish the legal precedent that no Civil Servant can be held accountable for his or her negligence.

For the first time, the ' rulers' will have enhanced legal protection from the consequences of their incompetence over us the 'ruled'. No more messy inquests into the shooting of unarmed electricians on the underground, no legal consequences for battering an innocent bystander at a demonstration so that he dies. You can now lose your life,your property and your wealth, and you will not be able to sue the State for redress.

In the dying days of this corrupt Parliament, the Treasury Solicitors are ging to argue that Civil Servants have no duty of care to the public and cannot be sued for negligence

If you wish to discuss this further please contact Andre Power anytime on 01702 389005.


beness said...

Does this mean the same for anyone who dies due to incompetence, at the hands of the National health service?

Eclipse said...


Would this ruling, if found against Mr Power, cover the total F**k ups made by the NHS?

Eclipse said...

Beness, you beat me to it!

Ampers said...

Why am I not surprised?

Speechless maybe, but surprised, no!

beness said...


it may be the first thought people have. The NHS spend loads paying out for Bureaucratic mistakes and mis diagnosis errors.

Guthrum said...

If you think about the logic, the State will save Billions AND the State can continue being incompetent.

Wesley Groves said...

Plod has a sweet deal, settle out of court. No bad publicity, but it costs. You, the taxpayer.

Taranis said...

If a public servant is performing his normal duty, and makes a mistake, then there is no recourse for damages or compensation?

Surely the 'normal duty' of a public servant is to do his work competently. Is there any sensible argument for the position that 'making mistakes' is part of an employee's 'normal duty'?

Anonymous said...

Equifax and Experian are a bunch of cunts. They often hold false info,you can never actually speak to a human when you phone,and take forever and a day to remove lies/falshoods. Anyone know if they are regulated by anyone,or what can be done to force them to correct their records. I'm having a ding dong with them at the mo,and it's like playing postal chess with someone in Oz.

Anonymous said...

As an ex-civil servant, I was always under the impression that individual members of the Civil Service were immune from being prosecuted for a mistake they made while doing their duty under a precedent set by Lord Denning. So its not new.

I'll check and come back on this though.

Doubting Richard said...

Everyone should have liability in their profession or no-one. I am in a profession, alongside Doctors and Lawyers where if I make a serious error I can be sued personally, and that is iniquitous. The same should be true of public servants.

Anonymous said...

Absolutely appalling! I can only suggest that if this grave miscarraige of justice is allowed to stand then we, the public, will be forced to take the law into our own hands and personally give each & every civil servant who is in anyway responsible for mishandling our tax/pension/vat/health a thoroughly good thrashing, preferably late at night & without any witnesses & without providing any reason to the miscreant. Vigilanteism is to be abhorred, however, it appears that we are in the sorry state of being left without any other method of obtaining recompense.

Mr Power, may I wish you all the very best of luck for a favourable outcome. I can only hope that some very highly placed legal figure of integrity will read this & offer some 'pro bono' services.

Catosays said...

I have a feeling that police officers are not, de facto, civil servants. They may be Crown employees but I'm not sure about this.

However, the whole thing stinks.

Anonymous said...

No accountability = No responsibility.

I trust, following this precedent, that ALL salaries, pension contributions and other perks in the Civil Service will be adjusted to reflect the lack of responsibility.

Well we can dream.

Guthrum said...

I'll check and come back on this though.

There is such a thing as Crown immunity, which has been drastically reduced since 1947.

Anonymous said...

Why in Christ's name is this difficult?

No individual public servant should be sueable. Sackable--yes. Likely to get a bollocking --yes. Demoted---yes.
But not personally sued.

However the organization involved should certainly be open to being sued. And shafted good and proper depending on how bad things were.

What the fuck is difficult about that???? Fuck sake don't tell me I've missed something here or I'll cry.

geewiz said...

Anon 15:40

Yes, they are truly a bunch of cunts. I'm sure they are unregulated and it reflects in their attitude. They are scammers with the power to destroy lives with a keystroke.

I spent months trying to sort out erroneous entries on my file. Eventually gave up and just thought " fuck it"

caesars wife said...

I see what you mean OH , pontius pilot moment for democracy !!

I agree with you on this one

Anonymous said...

I've checked up on what I thought and this seems to cover it:

"Actions in tort will lie against the Crown for the torts of its servants or agents committed in the course of their employment" Which was established by The Crown Proceedings Act 1947 and The Supreme Court (Crown Proceedings Act) 1947.

In this case I'd guess the tort in question would be "Negligence".

But this doesn't mean you can't get re-dress just that you sue the Department not the bloke in question.

It would seem that their are trying to have it both ways by saying that because you cant sue the bloke, you cant sue us. Would that be a fair summary?


Anonymous said...

I recall reading relatively recently that police officers were to be given immunity from prosecution for false arrest. Any arrest would be 'lawful' even if the officer concerned was not aware of any law which allowed the arrest, or that none indeed existed.

Like our common law protection from the police 'shoot to kill' policy, we don't have any protection any more.

Why do we pay taxes?

Guthrum said...

'It would seem that their are trying to have it both ways by saying that because you cant sue the bloke, you cant sue us. Would that be a fair summary?'

Thats what they appear to be saying, because Mr Power has no idea who the Civil Servant was who dropped the ball.

Anonymous said...

Push this out people. Spread the word that this is bollocks and we are being screwed harder than ever.

Nu Labour = Nu Fascism

Eclipse said...

I was asking about the NHS, as I know someone who has a case ongoing. it's obvious even from their own statements that they really, royally f****d up and left a child permantly disabled and dependant on everyone for even his tube feeding.

It should be resolved in the next year or so, but it's been ongoing for some 5 years already

The details are shocking, but i can't reveal them atm though.

spark up said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
spark up said...


i'm with anon on this one - despicable as we may find civil servants, they do not have the scope to profit from their good decisions and therefore cannot be sued for their bad ones. civil servants are not businessmen and do not, become millionaires - unless committing fraud. civil servants' salaries are not high - which is a great relief since they do fuck all except fuck up. government departments, of course, are rightly liable.

a few years back, i was honoured with a ccj and later pronounced bankrupt - as a consequence, i can shed a little light on the godawful fucking shambles cited above.

the main problem in this case is that the courts are (as correctly described in the e-mail) appallingly cavalier in their attitude towards the private citizen; in reaching decisions, judges make reference to their (inadequately calibrated) emotions rather than the law - which is anathema to them. furthermore, the courts arrogantly defer from issuing written judgements as a matter of course, even when specifically requested - which neatly explains why the hapless mr power was blissfully unaware of his degraded status for over a year. had mr power been issued a written decision, this unfortunate affair would have been nipped in the bud before the rampant ramifications wreaked ruin to his reputation. supreme slackness.

spark up said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
spark up said...


in brief, a private citizen is only treated with respect if he hires a big-noise...errr...brief.

the courts are paid by the state and will always favour the state - my advice, therefore, when involved in litigation with a government department, is to argue that the court does not constitute "an independent and impartial tribunal", as required under article 6 of the european convention on human rights, and that your case lies outside the court's jurisdiction. in fact, i offered this defence myself, when refusing to surrender my income taxes, but sadly the district judge struck it from the record and berated me with the immortal legalistic rationation: "what if everyone did that?" - no further written reasons were given for summarily striking out my defence and a county court judgement was duly registered against me (orally). my appeal to a circuit judge was equally brusquely dismissed (orally) and my appeal to the european court of human rights was (you guessed it!) struck out without ceremony or justification. you will not be surprised to hear that i stupidly neglected to hire michael mansfield qc as my barrister, but represented myself.

AndreP said...

Thanks for all the support - it's really picked me up!
Just to clarify a couple of points - I'm suing the civil service dept not the civil servant/s...I don't believe they should be sacked - but they should be named, severely censored and sent back for job re-training...
I'd love Mike Mansfield to represent me, but am rather bereft of funds. The big scam here is that you can't get legal funding for negligence - only medical negligence (which as every lawyer seems to offer on "no win, no fee", seems a little pointless..)This means we're not only paying for them to conduct negligence, libel and human right breaches against us, but we're also paying for them to have the finest legal representation money can buy aka The Treasury Solicitors; whilst denying us any access to representation. This is not only blatant discrimination, but it also is a total abuse of my right to a fair it not?
They say it is a fool that represents himself; I will have to put that to the test on the 30th...
Thanks agin for your good vibes - will report in again soon!
Andre Power

Stockwell Stu said...

Updates as and when available please

killemallletgodsortemout said...

I thought there existed such a thing as vicarious liability. The individual can't be held to account, but the organisation can.

The example that springs to mind is where a fireman, on duty, is involved in a road accident. The fire authority is liable, not the individual.

Just a thought.....

OwlHoot said...

Presumably this poor mug will have lawyers on the case. But I'd have thought he could obtain redress under the Crown Proceedings Act 1947, which overturned the previous legal principle that the Crown can do no Wrong.

Similarly oppressed said...

I am having an up and downer with a government department as well at the moment. They have been on me for two years and have employed all kinds of oppressive and underhand tactics, from delivering court papers on a Friday night prior to Christmas for a hearing on Monday morning; to deliberately ignoring phone calls and emails; telling lies and covering up for colleagues;making false allegations; stealing my evidence in a meeting while I was out of the room; constantly blackmailing me to settle because I don't have the money to defned myself. I have written to two ministers who just tell me to "get a lawyer". I have reduced their many original alleagations down one by one to just one, half baked alleagation which stands on a technicality - but I will have to give in as I can't afford to lose and pay their costs. And, as stated elsewhere, I won't trust the judge to be reasonable. The whole smug, self-satisfied system absolutely stinks. It has been allowed to flourish under Labour - think is will Cameron upset the status quo? Doubt it. Meanwhile, my giving in will affect the rest of my life, my business and employment and earning prospects. And I am 51 having lost everything I have worked for in a business failure. And during that time I paid several hundreds of thousands of pounds in tax and employed hundreds of people.

Anonymous said...

Don't be fooled by Mr Power, he is a professional confidence trickster, and a shnora (please excuse my spelling).

Ratings and Recommendations by outbrain


Related Posts with Thumbnails