[1.0] SUMMARY OF THE FACTS

(1.1) The events of the week commencing Monday, 17th. March, 2003.

01 As to which see now the contents of the Exhibt marked “RLM2” and referred to in the Claimant’s First Affidavit and appended thereunto. The events as set out therein are relied upon only in so far that they establish the sequence of relevant political, diplomatic and military events, both domestically and internationally, and which immediately preceded the actual commencment of hostilities, in the sense of the initiation of the hostile and opposed armed and military invasion and occupation of the sovereign territory of the Republic of Iraq, by UK/US coalition ground forces, across the international Iraqi-Kuwati border, established pursuant to Security Council Resolutions 686 and 687 (1991), supported naturally by coalition air and sea forces, and against the political independence of the sovereign Government of the Republic of Iraq, as alleged in the respective informations.

02 Specifically, and for the sake of clarity, no point is taken by the present Claimant, as regards the illegality or indeed potential criminality of the prior and repeated invasions of sovereign Iraqi airspace, and the aerial bombardment of Iraqi military installations and other facilities therefrom, by the air forces of the United Kingdom and the United States, and for the preceding 12 years under the description of “policing the northern and southern no-fly zones”.

03 In so far as the events of the later part of the week are refered to then again that is done only in so far as is relevant, in order to establish that, the armed invasion was opposed and resulted in the commencement of actual armed hostilities as between the international parties concerned, thereby obviating the necessity to establish that either party had formally declared a “state of war” to exist between them ( as to which see now the observations in Part 5.2.1 below)

(1.2) The Informations laid.

04 The criminal informations laid before the respective defendants to this Claim, in so far as they are thereby relevant, are now set out in the First Exhibt marked “RLM1” and referred to in the Claimant’s First Affidavit and appended thereunto. In brief, they accuse the three persons, now named in this Claim as ‘intrested parties’ ( per. Part 54.6(1)(a) Civil Procedure Rules 2000), namely the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the Defence Secretary, in both their official and their personal capacities. Accordingly, there are six informations together. As for the particular reasons for accusing them in both capacities (see now the comments set out at Part 8.4.3 below).

(1.3) The appearance before the Carmarthen Magistrates’ Court.

05 The circumstances in which I came to appear before their Worships’ Bench sitting at the Guildhall, Carmarthen, just before lunch on Wednesday, 26th. March last are set out in full in the First Affidavit of the Claimant. In so far as it is relevant, this Claimant takes the view, having thus appeared before the Bench and addressed the Chairman thereof for about 10 mins as to my seeking to lay several informations before him, and having been then expressly refered by him to his “Legal Assistant” (formerly Justices’ Clerk) Mr. ap Gwent, and having then handed over the relevant paperwork with explanations to Mr. ap Gwent, that, despite any indications to the contrary to be derived from the subsequent letter of Mr.Whale (below), the informations concerned were formerly laid before the Carmarthen Magistrates’ Court, in curia, rather than as a result of my entirely unsuccessful attempts to serve the paperwork upon Mr Whale, in person, and as an administrative matter, earlier in the day.

06 In any events those efforts to lay the said informations resulted in a subsequent letter being received from the said Mr. Whale, acting as Justices’ Clerk for the Dyfed-Powys Commission Area, and dated the 28th. March, 2003, and which is now set out in the Exhibit marked “RLM3” and refered to in the Claimant’s First Affidavit. The relevant part of which reads as follows :

“Further to your visit to my office and our subsequent telephone conversation, I would confirm that I am not prepared to issue any summonses on your informations. The matter has been referred to a Justice of the Peace for a final decision in the mater and he concurs with the view that sumonses should not be issued in this case. The view is taken that the matters do not disclose offences known to law that can be commenced by an individual in a court of first instance.“

(my emphasis added).

(1.4) The letter to and reponse from Horseferry Road Magistrates’ Court.

07 The letter addressed to Mrs. Houghton-Jones, Clerk to the Justices’ for the Inner London Commission Area (?), at the Magistrates’ Court at Horseferry Road, Westminster, was communicated on Tuesday, 25th. March 2003 (@ 13:05) by electronic mail and followed up subsequently the next day, the same day as I appeared before the Court in Carmarthen, by a further copy through the ordinary mail. The text of the letter is set out in the Exhibit marked “RLM4” and referred to in the Claimant’s First Affidavit.

08 The reason for seeking to lay the informations both in Carmarthen, the nearest local magistrates’ court to where I live willing to hear me on the matter, and before the Horseferry Road Magistrates’ Court, in the City of Westminster, is due to a concern I had, and indeed still have, regarding the territorial jurisdiction of (ordinary) justices to issue process pursuant to their statutory powers under s.1 of the Act of 1980, notwithstanding that the offences thereby alleged are manifestly indictable, rather than merely summary only.

09 In particular, I am clear that under the provisions of s.2(4) of the Act of 1980 Justices have jurisdiction as “examiniing justices” and as regards “indictable offences”, wherever those offences may have been commited in England and Wales. However, it is not clear to me from this alone that consequently, Justices similarly have a statutory jurisdiction to issue summonses, even as regards an indictable offence only, under s.1 of the said Act of 1980, irrespective of where the offence was committed, and given that the accused persons were clearly not themselves normally resident within the commission area, as per s.1(2)(d) thereof. Consequently, I sought to obviate any subsequent assertion that the Magistrates’ Court at Carmarthen lacked the requisite territorial jurisdiction to issue the summonses I sought, by taking the precautionary measure, as it were, of also serving the informations on the Court at Horseferry Road, where clearly territorial jurisidction was not an issue, although, in the event, neither Defendant has themselves raised any issue on the point at all.

10 I received a reply to the communication to Mrs. Houghton-Jones at the Horseferry Road Court from a Mr Peter D. Brunning, who works at the Magistrates’ Court at Bow Street, and to which place evidently the matter of my application for summonses had been ‘transferred’, as it were, by Mrs. Houghton-Jones, although she never actually did me the courtesy of writing to let me know this directly herself. Mr.Brunning’s letter was dated 31 March 2003, a copy of which is set out at Exhibit “RLM5” and referred to in the Claimant’s First Affidavit. I subsequently spoke to Mr. Brunning on the telephone on a further 3 occassions, merely to inquire as to the progress (or lack thereof) in the processing of my application for summonses. I also faxed further paperwork to him, by way of extensive background argument and exposition, on the law as I saw it, relating to issues involved with my applications.

11 Finally, Mr.Brunning wrote to me again on Thursday, 1st May, 2003 enclosing a copy of the Judgement of the First Defendant, Mr. Tim Workman, being the Senior District Judge (Chief Magistrate) for the Bow Street Court, a copy of which is also set out in Exhibit “RLM5” and referred to in the Claimant’s First Affidavit. Furthermore, the relevant text of that judgement is now set out and dealt with below in Part 2.2 on the Decisions Challenged.

12 It only remains for me to observe that although I specifically and expressly invited both Defendants to hear from me in argument, either in writing of viva voce, as they saw fit, before deciding to refuse to issue the summonses which I sought, in the event, neither Defendant saw fit to do so.This then summarises the essential factual sequence of events which have led me to make my current Claim for Relief by way of Judicial Review as hereinbelow set out.

Back to top