After the High Court Injunction Let's hope you learn the meaning of ‘fairness’
and ‘natural justice’
 |
| Picture outside the High Court before a successful application for an Injunction to Sir Stephen Phillips |
I have also written to Jane Shaw, who is Secretary
to the National Constitutional Committee, which will be hearing my case,
explaining why I had to go to court and why I expect higher standards of
behaviour than hereto.
In the meantime I would ask that those who believe
that the fight against the Zionists and their allies in the Labour Party, like
its General Secretary Iain McNicol, is their fight contribute to the Fighting
Fund that I have set up.
We may need to go back to court if necessary and
after that there is the Zionist’s fake charity the ‘Campaign Against
Anti-Semitism’ to deal with.
Thanks
Tony Greenstein
See also: A letter to the secretary of the Labour Party’s National Constitutional Committee by Greg Hadfield which makes an important point about the secretive NCC. No one knows the members of this 11 person committee, who chairs it etc. Despite being about to appear before it I have been refused my request for the names of its members.
 |
| Chakrabarti Committee recommendations to the Labour Party |
Dear NEC Member,
Last Thursday at the Queens Bench Division of the
High Court in The Strand Mr Justice Phillips granted me an interlocutory
injunction preventing Iain McNicol and the Labour Party from going ahead with
my expulsion hearing tomorrow.
As I explain in my letter to Jane Shaw, Secretary to
the NCC, below and attached, I was forced into going to court by the stubborn
refusal of the NCC and its Chair to abide by any concept of natural
justice.
All I had sought, when sent papers for my disciplinary
hearing was an extension of approximately one month in the date of my
hearing. I was sent my papers when I was still in hospital, having just
had surgery and the bundle contained 189 pages of allegations, charges etc.
 |
| Crooked Iain McNicol - the éminence grise behind the Right |
Having been suspended for 20 months, 17 of them
after my investigative hearing, it should have been obvious to anyone that I
had an unanswerable case. However the NCC Chair and Iain McNicol did not
see it in that light. Natural Justice is a concept that is alien to these
people. My request was refused without any reasons whatsoever.
 |
| 3 days b4 I received my letter 'inviting' me to my expulsion hearing the Jewish Chronicle predicted the hearing! Yet another leak |
Mr Justice Phillips however ruled that the Labour
Party had ‘dealt brusquely and without any real reasons’ with my
application for an extension of time.
The Labour Party has therefore spent the best part of
£10,000 on trying to prevent me having an adjournment and giving me time to
prepare. That is members money not your own or that of McNicol and the
NCC.
Since the charges are brought in your name to the
NCC and since you give approval to those charges I would hope that you start to
take responsibility for actions carried out in your own name.
Yours sincerely,
Tony Greenstein
Jane Shaw jane_shaw@labour.org.uk,
Secretary to the National Constitutional Committee of the Labour Party
Dear Ms Shaw,
As you are well aware, the meeting of the NCC which was due to be held this
Monday has had to be postponed on account of a High Court Injunction, which was
granted last Thursday 7th December.
It was, of course, unfortunate that I had to apply to the High Court to
obtain justice but it is a commodity in rare supply in the Labour Party of Iain
McNicol.
When you emailed me on November 2nd 2017, I was in King’s
College Hospital recovering from surgery.
You informed me that there was going to be an NCC meeting to expel me on
December 11th. Attached was a
bundle of 189 pages and 50 separate allegations.
I wrote back to you asking that the hearing be deferred until the New
Year, not only because of my medical condition but because of the mass of
material to digest and respond to. After
all you had had 20 months to assemble your case. Four weeks was highly unreasonable.
Any fair or reasonable person would have agreed without so much as a
whimper to my request. Unfortunately neither
you nor the Chair of the NCC or whoever made the decision, was either fair or reasonable.
The Labour Party machine has bias written through it in the same way as we have
Brighton written through a stick of rock.
Not only were you prejudiced and biased but you didn’t even bother to make
an effort to hide it. Your only concern was in going through the motions of
holding a hearing. Effecting my
expulsion as soon as possible was, as your barrister made clear, your main concern.
Unfortunately Mr Justice Phillips wasn’t in the pay of McNicol. Being paid to look at these things objectively,
he found that the Labour Party had ‘dealt brusquely and without any
real reasons’ with my application for an extension and that
‘it is arguable that there has been a
breach of their obligation to ensure fairness, a vast amount of material to
consider and a request for a delay for more than 6 weeks seems eminently
reasonable and fair. I am satisfied that for current purposes Mr
Greenstein has the benefit of the argument and is prima facie entitled to the
relief he seeks.’
I know that it goes against the habits of a lifetime but I expect you
to adhere to the recommendations of the Chakrabarti Report viz: “In carrying out its functions... the NCC
shall observe the principles of natural justice and proportionality.”
(Appendix page V).
I would also like to know who
took the decision to remove the Chakrabarti Report from the Labour Party’s web
site and why. Do you no longer feel
bound by its recommendations?
I expect that the hearing, when it takes place, will make some effort
at fairness and impartiality. So I have
a number of quite reasonable requests in this respect:
1.
Whoever made
the original decision to refuse my request for an extension, presumably the
Chair of the NCC, has displayed clear prejudice and bias. No reasonable person could or should have
refused my request for an extension of time unless they wanted to inhibit my
defence. I would therefore ask that they
recuse themselves, stand down, or be stood down. Clearly s/he has already made up their mind.
2.
That I
now be given a reasonable period within which to prepare a new response. I am withdrawing my previous response of December
1st because I need to redraft it in the light of the extra time that
the Court has granted me. We therefore
need to agree a new date within which to submit a new response. That was the purpose of Judge Stephens extending
the deadline and bearing in mind the Xmas holiday that is what I expect.
3.
Judge
Stephens said that the hearing could not be held earlier than the 8th
January 2018. That is probably
unrealistic. Judge Stephens also made it
very clear, as counsel will no doubt confirm, that he did not think one day
would be sufficient. I am not available
on 9th January.
4.
I wish
to ask expert witnesses to attend to give evidence concerning the apparent upsurge
of anti-Semitism in the Labour Party and also to give their opinion on what anti-Semitism
constitutes, given that those pressing the charges clearly believe that the
whole of the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism has been approved by the
leadership. This will mean some
flexibility in timing.
As a result of forcing me into a corner, we have been forced to resort
to the courts. You can either play fair
and above board or we can go back to court.
That decision is yours, but I expect you to confirm that you are willing
to abide by the concepts of natural justice and fairness that the NEC approved
in the Chakrabarti Report and which are part of Britain’s common law.
Yours sincerely
Tony Greenstein
No comments:
Post a Comment
Please submit your comments below