Ethical organisations depend upon trust, and trust is not something that can be given, it must be earned. It is earned by doing the right thing. It is often not convenient, or the easy way out of a dilemma or the most politic thing to do. What is right is far more important than who is right. Facts,Truth, Logic, are essential ingredients to create ethical organisations. Ethical organisations depend upon honest people adhering to the rule of law and ensure that the integrity of the organisation is protected by being open and accountable for the actions and omissions of its officials.

Recent scandals have exposed the failure of the leadership of authorities to act with honesty and integrity, at the same time less senior officials who could not have been unaware, and in some cases must have contributed to these failings and or involved in concealing the actions or omissions that resulted in the wrongs.

The very idea that in a democratic society with democratically elected representatives that are elected by the people to govern the people can make any claim that anyone acting in government whether elected or not may legitimately claim not to be accountable is ridiculous.

I recognise that High Court Judges have interpreted the law with the intention to prevent judiciary being accountable for the decisions and judgements they have made in Court. Every time any complaint is made to the Minister for the Ministry of Justice we get the response;

“As a Government Minister, I am unable to comment on or intervene in cases

that are or have been before the courts, whether here or abroad. This is necessary

both to maintain the key constitutional principle that the judiciary is independent

of Government and to ensure that the UK respects the role of the courts in other

countries. However, you may wish to note that if an individual disagrees with a

judge’s decision or is dissatisfied with the way in which a Judge handled their

case in England, they are able to seek legal advice about whether they have grounds

for an appeal.”

This opinion has no substance in Law it is a political opinion that has abused the Constitutional “righteous” principle that the Ministers of the Crown and their officials shall be liable for any arbitrary act or wrong they may do, in the same way as any private person would be. [Hansard; Sir John Downer]

The President of the Supreme Court, has stated that the judiciary not only has the right but has obligation to speak out on matters concerning the rule of law, and this includes the UK’s constitutional set-up and the respective roles of the legislature, executive and judiciary within it.

Therefore when the Minister of State for Justice Lord McNally used that opinion to evade having to explain the matter of law where I expressed concern about the intent and act by Judge Hudson acting in the name of the Queen under the shield of Royal Prerogative, to inhibit and prevent a person (Mr Nigel Cooper) from excising his right under International Court Order to recover his daughter from the UK, and return to their usual place of residence in Belgium. The intention and the making of Judge Hudson’s the High Court Order prevents the lawful compliance of the International Court Order, while also impeding the arrest or prosecution of persons who Judge Hudson knows or believes to be guilty of an arrestable offence.

In addition to Judge Hudson included his Judgement Order to sentencing Mr. Nigel Cooper to “Ten Years imprisonment” in absence of the right to fair trial under the rule of law. Article 6 – Universal Declaration of Human Rights; Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law. Article 10 – Universal Declaration of Human Rights; Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.

The case of Judge Hudson and Nigel Cooper is just one of other cases where the Judiciary have failed to comply with the Law. I used this as a very clear example where the Minister of Justice had the opportunity to explain my concerns over the UK failing or refusing to comply with the International Court Order to return a child to her legal guardian.

To make things absolutely clear The Law expects “Ignorance of the Law excuses no man….” [SHELDON] Everyone has a duty to keep to the Law. The elected MP’s are part of the legislators that must uphold the Law. It appears to me as though Members of Parliament have become trusting and naïve and are blindly accepting Judicial Opinion as Law, when in fact it is no more than Opinion.

Contempt of Court Halsburys Laws of England 3^rd Edition Vol vii and notes RSO 52 in the Annual Practice. 1. Criminal contempt construing of words or acts obstructing or calculating to obstruct the administration of justice. – Made instantaneous by a Judge or applied for as a motion.

These facts together with other documents in my possession lead me to conclude that the Judiciary have abused their authority.

“There is no greater tyranny than that which is perpetrated under the shield of law and in the name of justice.” Monegasque

The truth will always come out and I welcome all comments if anyone can show me proof that I am confused and have made errors or mistakes in this statement of truthful opinion, I will be keen to view it.