Page 151 - 7. 2016 Last three months the 10 - 11 - 12 No Table

will be seriously weakened if it transpires that it has destroyed or failed to
disclose a relevant document, whether or not this omission was deliberate.
Thirdly, where a party fails to disclose a document which is damaging to its
case and a fair trial is no longer possible, its case may be struck out
altogether. Fourthly, deliberate destruction of relevant documents is likely to
be a contempt of court and may constitute the offence of attempting to
pervert the course of justice. Documents damaging a
455,
party’s case should not be withheld or destroyed under any circumstances.
Finally, where a document was not disclosed, it cannot later be relied on in
court except with the court’s permission.
It has already been proven and concluded that Steven Elsmore has deleted
emails sent to Val Tanner, asking for information as this was stated in the
lower court at trial. The applicant knows that for a fact discloser is being held
and that disclosure would give credibility to the Appellant innocent.
Preservation of Documents: -
Because of the potential sanctions outlined above, it is important to preserve
intact all relevant documents from the time litigation is contemplated. If a
party has a routine procedure for destruction of documents, such as the
deletion of computer backup files or e-mail, this should be stopped until the
documents have been examined by lawyers and confirmed not to be
potentially disclosable.
Documents of possible relevance to the pending action must not be destroyed.
All persons within an organisation who have responsibility for documents
should be made aware of these obligations.
Fraud Act 2006: -
Fraud by failing to disclose information a person is in breach of this section if he:
-
(a) Dishonestly fails to disclose to another person the information which he is
under a legal duty to disclose, and: -
(b) Intends, by failing to disclose the information: -
(I) To make a gain for himself or another, or: -
(ii) To cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss
The right to Fair Trial: -
Appellant is asking for a Former Judge to examine the role of police officers,
who present the applicant cases of an Antisocial Behaviour Order (ASBO)
against himself.
The Appellant is asking for this case to be terminated or dismissed under the
grounds of Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights, with regards
to the Right to a Fair Trial Act 1998.
Which in legal terms, should be the best means of separating the guilty from the
innocent and protecting against injustice. Without this right, the rule of law and
public faith in the justice system collapse. The Right to a Fair Trial is one of the
cornerstones of a just society.
Article 6 the Right to a Speedy and Fair Hearing: -
The applicant declares the right to a speedy a fair trial what is fundamental to the
rule of law and to democracy itself.
The right applies to both criminal and civil cases, although certain specific
minimum rights that are set out in Article 6 applies only in criminal cases.