habeus corpus - round 2 - challenging bail, prison license, docks and bollocks

Petition: Writ of Habeas Corpus


For

Mrs. Barbara Grace Tucker

And

Mrs. Charity Sweet

22/04/2008
















With permission - by Mrs. Charity Sweet, McKenzie friend/Advocate for Mrs. Barbara Tucker

Reasonably requesting the Royal Courts of Justice to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus to HMP Holloway and COWMC for the State to show just cause as to why Mrs. Tucker's liberty is being restrained by way of License from HMP Holloway Prison and as to why Mrs. Sweet’s liberty is disproportionately at risk by way of unconditional bail from COWMC
- includes affidavits and evidence
Affidavit of Mrs. Charity Sweet – 22/04/2008

I am not a legal professional and it is my intention to first clarify my understanding of the Magna Carta 1215 "… no free man shall be taken or imprisoned or disseised or exiled or in any way destroyed except by the lawful judgement of their peers or by the law of the land" – specifically.

I understand Habeas Corpus to be an ancient common law prerogative writ as a legal procedure to which anyone has an undeniable right which is predominantly of Anglo-Saxon common law origin, preceding the Magna Carta as recorded as early as the early 13th century.

I understand that the Magna Carta was a reaction to the incursion of European civil law via William in 1066 and following the beheading of King Charles I in 1649, the people's Parliament clearly established the respective position of King and citizen.

I understand Habeas Corpus was codified by Parliament in 1679 by enactment of the Habeas Corpus Act. I understand that there are constitutional provisions that the Writ of Habeas Corpus is never to be suspended.

I am requesting that the court issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus for Mrs. Barbara Grace Tucker to HMP Holloway to explain the circumstances of her previous detention and current license as ordered by Justice Owen 16/04/08, on behalf of Mrs. Barbara Tucker as her McKenzie friend and advocate

I am requesting that the court issue a joint Writ of Habeas Corpus for myself also, as our cases are inextricably linked, to City of Westminster Magistrates’ Courts to explain the current disproportionate threat to my liberty imposed by District Judge Wickham as unconditional bail, which still carries the risk of imprisonment has been set for an offence which is summary: non-imprisonable, on the below noted reasonable grounds, on the below noted reasonable grounds citing ARCHBOLD 2007 First Supplement in the first instance:

Sentencing Guidelines:

1.1 - The 5 purposes of sentencing are punishment, reducing/deterring crime, reform and rehabilitation, protection of the public and reparations to those affected by their crime.

1.3 - The sentencing threshold for both SOCPA 132 (b?) and Public Order Section 5-6 is a level three fine. Mrs. Tucker was unlawfully arrested under SOCPA 2005 on February 26, 2008 as it is a summary offence and not indictable – at best a caution/reporting and a summons following in the post would have been correct process of law and chain of events as Sir Ian Blair has failed to place any prescribed processes when "enforcing" SOCPA 2005 and has purported to delegate his authority in an un-timed and undated document which is tantamount to fraud as far as I understand the meaning of the crime.

Using the Bail Act to imprison a person for a summary offence is a gross abuse of the judicial processes and abuse of a position of trust as a District Judge bound by the Human Rights Act 1998.

1.4- The sentence should be commensurate with the seriousness of the offence. One woman and one pink banner versus one woman and no pink banner in a place of public free access hardly convincingly establishes in criminal law a legitimate aim for grossly interfering with an individual human rights to the point of denial of liberty of person.

Surely culpability and the deserving of blame for a crime which causes harm or risk would constitute a serious offence and this perception must be of relevance to a single woman who campaigns with a single banner for "peace, love and justice for all". What exactly would be the foreseeable harm in criminal law?

1.7 – Is foreseeable harm an issue with Mrs. Barbara Tucker? Is she reckless in her behaviour? Has she been negligent in her duties as a mom?
Of what harm may Mrs. Tucker impose?

1.8 – Does she risk causing physical injury or has she suffered such? Sexual violation? Financial loss? Damage to health? Psychological distress?

1.23 – Are their factors indicating a serious degree of harm posed? A pink sparkly banner surely does not pose any true security threat or actual risk in the real world, does it?

I will also cite Archbold 2007 Section IV and HRA 1998:

16-43 Article 5 Right to liberty and security

16-55 Habeas Corpus Article 5(4) guarantees the right to challenge the legality of detention.

16-57 (2) Everyone charged shall be presumed innocent until proven guilty

(3).(b) Everyone should have adequate time and facilities to prepare a defence

As I was present at her breach of bail hearing pertaining to a SOCPA 2005 unlawful arrest and a questionable Section 5-6 public order charge was stated and set for trial April 25, 2008 by DJ Snow. I saw DJ Snow find Mrs. Tucker guilty of breach of police bail and sentenced her to two weeks in Holloway…yet I visited Mrs. Tucker today at HMP Holloway to be informed that she is deemed to be held on remand for exactly what offence?

DJ Snow has shown clear bias and prejudice in his past various dealings with Mrs. Tucker as evidenced in her currents matters under judicial reviews that are yet to be determined within the walls of these very courthouses as the matters are under Judicial Reviews and clearly evidenced in the noted attached documents.

Further full documentation will be available to the courts in the presence of and upon service of the Writ of Habeas Corpus for Mrs. Tucker.

As witnessed in 2 Judicial Review addendums to CO/2460/2008 and the JR regarding custody record 0801463 and serious procedural irregularities/abuse of process regarding the unlawful arrest of Mrs. Tucker. The arbitrary detention for 19 ½ hours at Belgravia Police Station under SOCPA 2005 section 132-138, yet another unlawful arrest of Mrs. Tucker, was made on the orders of Alan Duncan Conservative MP (Shadow Minister for big business).

Various breaches have occurred of the Human Rights Act with regards to the woman that is Mrs. Barbara Brace Tucker including Art. 3 – inhuman and degrading treatment, 5 – right to liberty and security, 6 – right to a fair trial, 7 – no punishment without law, 8 – right to privacy, 9 – freedom of thought, conscience and religion, 10 – freedom of expression, 11 – freedom of assembly, 14 – prohibition of discrimination, Article 1 of the first protocol – protection of property.


Contemporaneous notes: 11/04/2008

Tucker arrested yesterday @ 9:45 a.m. Denied access to legal advice until today @ COWMC. She was given access to duty solicitor. Snow - Solicitor does not realise Snow will attempt to remand her for trial.

Also charged with section 5(4) public order act while arrested on Feb 26/08 for SOCPA 2005. The Ninja Ant arrested same day, same offence, switched over to P.O. also? Charges (SOCPA 2005) against Jago dropped.

Held 20 hours Feb.26. Signed bail form stating clearly that she would not be attending police bail @ Belgravia re this offence. When they let her go, that is accepting the terms under which she signed contract to adhere to. The police should not have released her given her signed declaration of refusal to re-attend on police bail.

I was arrested yesterday for once again saying "Bollocks to Blair" and specifically denoting Sir Ian Blair…

Carolyn's case dismissed.

@ 3:25 p.m. duty solicitor just given counsel file and gone to speak to Babs.

… jailer said @ custody (COWMC) that none of the files could be found for any of the cases and all the courtrooms have come to a standstill. (Professional?)

Tucker:

"I do not accept the authority of this courtroom. (Affirmation read)

These are politically motivated trials. On the April 4th I was supposed to be at Charing Cross giving evidence against this court and this judge here now.

I have been reported over 145 times. Whether the Commissioner authorises or does not authorise is irrelevant as there is no legitimate aim convincingly established in law. I have made a complaint of fraud against the Chief of the MET. He is using an undated, unsigned document and having people locked up. I have made a complaint of FRAUD against him."

Duty Solicitor:

" Did you have a reasonable excuse not to attend…?"

Tucker:

"I was on bail from Feb 26, 2008 when I was arrested under SOCPA. There is no legitimate aim convincingly established in law. The MET police are abusing their powers, including these courts and this judge, who has previously denied me access to these courts through an extraordinary banning order.

"corruption … JR (judicial review) in the Royal Courts of Justice. I have been unlawfully arrested some 20 times in the past two years. My excuse for not attending is that it was reasonable not to attend. The police had no right to have me arrested and detained in the first place( there are no powers of arrest under SOCPA 2005).

In fact on August 5th, 2007 on an obstruct the highways charge, there were two CPS witnesses to this case. The case was vacated. 2 trials for a summary offence.(?)

DJ Nicholas Evans said that a summary matter, at worst, I could be fined. I was supposed to be giving evidence at Charing Cross (police station) involving this judge."

DJ Snow interrupts

Tucker:

"I haven't finished giving my evidence yet. I have just spent over 30 hours in custody over a summary matter.

Snow:

"Take a seat."

Duty solicitor:

"made very clear what the reasons are... appears to be saying that she believes she has been unlawfully arrested in the past… challenges the legality of this arrest."

Snow:

"cannot amount to a reasonable excuse. Any convictions? Sentencing guidelines… deal with straight away today."

DS:

"No previous convictions in respect of the Bail Act… in custody since yesterday morning… she has explained to court that…unjust circumstances…"

Snow:

" 2 weeks… April 25th… case management hearing… disorderly behaviour… 10:00 a.m…. trial date fixed. Sentence regarding Bail Act.

Custody is inevitable. This was deliberate and calculated to undermine the criminal justice system… 2 weeks in prison.

HOLLOWAY"

Babs and Myra Hinley… both sent to Holloway. This is justice?

Myra clearly was convicted of abusing children.
Babs says stop killing other people's children for money.

This is justice?

14 April 2008
Re: Charity Sweet V. Holloway CO/35572008 - Addendum

The Royal Courts of Justice
Listings Office / Administrative Courts Office
Strand
London
WC2A 2LL

Listing office Fax:

To Whom It May Concern:

Urgent application and serendipitous opportunity for hearing a Writ of Habeas Corpus regarding Mrs. Barbara Tucker

It has been brought to my attention and confirmed by staff at HMP Holloway Prison that Mrs. Barbara Grace Tucker – TM9872 – is to attend the Southwark Crown Court, tomorrow morning at 10:00 a.m., in Courtroom 12, in front of Judge Stone QC, to be sentenced up to the maximum of a level 3 guideline should she be found guilty under SOCPA 2005 section 132-138 as these offences are summary only.

As Mrs. Tucker will already be in the vicinity of the Royal Courts of Justice, I assume it would be a great savings to the tax-payer to use the "SERCO" journey from HMP Holloway to Southwark Crown Court and carrying on to the Royal Courts of Justice, as a round trip of justice for Mrs. Tucker, so she may be physically present for a Writ of Habeas Corpus to be heard in her presence and justice to be seen to be done

I would also further reasonably add as reasonable grounds for an urgent Writ of Habeas Corpus to be heard within 24 hours citing Archbold 2007:

Section II Soliciting or inciting to commit a crime – an indictable offence I reasonably believe has been committed by various officers of the Metropolitan Police Force, including Feb. 26, 2008.

Lastly, ENTRAPMENT is a matter which must be raised where the state has incited a peaceful member of the public through causing her harassment, alarm and distress by unlawfully denying her liberty.

4-63 Teixa de Castro v. Portugal, 28 E.H.R.R. 101 (post 16-68a)

i) It is not acceptable that the state through its agents should lure its citizens into committing acts forbidden by the law and then seek to prosecute them for doing so. Such conduct would be entrapment, a misuse of state power, and an abuse of the processes of the courts.

ii) … every court has an inherent power and duty to prevent the abuse of its process the courts can ensure that executive agents of the state do not misuse the coercive law enforcement functions of the courts and thereby oppress citizens of the state.

iv) … the doctrine of the abuse of process is reinforced by the Human Rights Act 1998
The doctrine of abuse of process enables a court to stay proceedings when it would not be fair to try a defendant; one such situation would be when the proceedings result from the executive action that threatens either basic human rights or the rule of law.

Genocide is a war crime.

17 April 2008
Re: Charity Sweet V. Holloway CO/35572008 - Second Addendum

The Royal Courts of Justice
Listings Office / Administrative Courts Office
Strand
London
WC2A 2LL

Listing office Fax:

To Whom It May Concern:

Re: your letter dated April 16, 2008 and a closed hearing regarding Mrs. Barbara Tucker

HMP Holloway Prison released Mrs. Barbara Grace Tucker – TM9872 – today at 11:30 a.m. after she was questioned regarding her immigration status which she has held for over twenty years. I understand that the Governor also offered to come meet Mrs. Tucker before she left and Mrs. Tucker declined which I found rather odd. Does the Governor always come down to say 'cheerio' to all those who leave his gates?

Mrs. Tucker did attend Southwark Crown Court, Courtroom 12, sat in front of Judge Stone QC, and was once again found guilty on appeal of SOCPA charges and fined £50.00 for each offence as well as additional costs for that days hearing. Her sentence was below a level 3 fine according to the sentencing guidelines that the courts must adhere to regarding this summary offence which is not imprisonable. I witnessed the malicious character assassination of Mrs. Tucker and a judge declaring his opinion regardless of law.

Regardless that Mrs. Tucker was already in the vicinity of the Royal Courts of Justice, I was greatly disappointed and, quite frankly, reasonably disturbed by the fact a closed non-oral hearing was set yesterday and I was not allowed to attend as was not Mrs. Tucker.

Considering that this is a matter of Habeas Corpus, of producing the body before the courts, I find it highly irregular to hold a closed hearing in relation to this issue by Mr. Justice Owen and am requesting an explanation in writing, as to the reasoning for said hearing to be closed. Justice must be seen to be done.

"It seems highly unlikely that Mrs. Barbara Tucker was sentenced to two weeks imprisonment when she appeared before DJ Snow at the city of Westminster Magistrates' Court on April 11, 2008, but as this is a Habeas Corpus application the basis upon which she is currently detained at HMP Holloway must be established" – Mr. Justice Owen.

I could not agree more and am not satisfied that these orders have been followed out. As proposed by Justice Hooper. I also disagree with the decision made that the issue of bail and licence was not addressed at this open oral hearing. For the courts to state that the body is here and therefore how the body got there, HMP Holloway, is of no importance is most reasonably unreasonable, to say the least.
None of the issue regarding remedies were dealt with at said hearing and are still most relevant to those at risk of being denied their liberty, without due process of law; namely myself and Mrs. Tucker.
The doctrine of abuse of process enables a court to stay proceedings when it would not be fair to try a defendant; one such situation would be when the proceedings result from the executive action that threatens either basic human rights or the rule of law.

Genocide is a war crime.




Sincerely,



Mrs. Charity Sweet