Claim against UK's PM and her key officers

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

B E T W E E N:

Dr Aisha Bijlani (“A”)

-v-

Attorney-General of UK (“D1”)

Lord Chancellor & Secretary of State for Justice (“D2”)

The Prime Minister of UK  (“D3”)

Letter of Claim

1.       A is a doctor (from the world-renowned Guy’s Hospital) and barrister from the UK’s leading professional negligence Chambers (at 4, New Square in London).

2.       D3 is head of the UK government, ultimately responsible for all policy and decisions, and:

a.       oversees the operation of the Civil Service and government agencies.

b.      appoints members of the government, including D1 and D2.

c.       the principal government figure in the House of Commons.

3.       D1 is chief legal adviser and has a number of independent public interest functions, as well as overseeing the Law Officers’ departments. These are:

a.       the Crown Prosecution Service

b.      the Serious Fraud Office

c.       Her Majesty’s Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate

d.      the Government Legal Department.

4.       Other responsibilities of D1 include:

a.       acting as principal legal adviser on questions of EU and international law, human rights and devolution issues

b.      referring unduly lenient sentences to the Court of Appeal

c.       bringing proceedings for contempt of court

d.      intervening in certain proceedings

e.      dealing with questions of law arising on government Bills

f.        legal aspects of all major international and domestic litigation involving the government.

5.       D2 has oversight of all of Ministry of Justice business and is responsible for making improvements to the criminal justice and prison system so that it better serves the public. Other responsibilities include:

a.       functions of the Lord Chancellor

b.      lead on prison and courts reforms

c.       resourcing of the department

d.      public appointments

e.      judicial policy including pay, pensions and diversity.

6.       D1, D2 and D3 are responsible for the actions, successes and failures of their departments.

7.       Since 06.02.06 A has been medically certified as suffering from depression as a result of a meeting at her Chambers on 06.02.06, and has already succeeded in proving a prima facie case of race discrimination against her.

8.       A is a victim of harassment, discrimination and fraud.

9.       Further, on key issues, key Members of A’s Chambers:

a.       Committed perjury, in verified documents and under oath in Court, in 2009;

b.      Concealed key evidence with their rogue lawyers;

c.       Have acted in Contempt of Court with their rogue lawyers, each day since.

10.   As a result, A had reason to raise concerns and complaints to D1, D2 and D3, and/or its departments.

11.   Each D knows A is vulnerable, the issues are urgent, and that statutory reasonable adjustments had to be made.  Each D has actual / constructive knowledge of the ongoing fraud against A, caused and/or contributed to and/or abetted by numerous judges, lawyers / tortfeasors including those employed by D1 and D2.

12.   Since 2011, A has obtained key evidence (previously concealed by her Chambers) which proves their perjury beyond doubt, obvious to all credible including:

a.       PC Barguss;

b.      Inspector Bruce Middlemiss;

c.       DS Jerry Rider.

13.   In 2015, a leading employment specialist outlined:

“A is a barrister whose complaint, in essence, was that she was denied work by the clerking team of her former chambers. This has, A alleges, caused her significant financial detriment and personal injury to the extent that despite her vocation and qualification, she is unable to advocate her own position by way of oral submission owing principally to stress related to these events. Central to A’s challenge to the relevant findings in the cases listed above is the fact that she alleges that in each case the Court relied on evidence which was simply untrue. More particularly, she alleges that the various tribunals were told that Bar Standards Board requirements for the appointment of an Equality and Diversity Officer (EDO) had been met [by the appointment of Stuart-Smith J as EDO], whereas she says that the evidence is plain that this was not true…there is apparently no corroborative evidence, and a Race Relations questionnaire was misleadingly completed. Given that A’s allegation was of discrimination, Rs’ compliance with regulatory expectation and requirement in this regard is likely to have been material to a consideration of whether or not a discriminatory act had taken place. The allegation is not of any dishonesty but of dishonesty in relation to a critical matter in dispute..as A has expressed in her skeleton argument, the Court should not be party to improper conduct and there appears to be a real risk here that the integrity of the process was tainted in a material aspect of this dispute. there is a real risk that there is a breach of natural justice in any case where the process is subverted by misleading evidence.”

14.   The Courts have (repeatedly) destroyed A’s Bundles, and the said Advice, and/or failed to address the key issues or A’s Skeleton, despite the evidence in support since 2011. They have acted in contempt of A’s medical reports, and failed to make reasonable adjustments.  In summary, the Courts have colluded with the fraudsters at A’s Chambers, and acted in Contempt of Court, each day since 2009.

15.   In 2016 a Leading FTSE Chair outlined:

"The history, to a lay ear, portrays the culture of the Bar in a very bad light, from the original tales of racial harassment, through conflicts of interest in hearings, to a strong smell of perjury – in the words of one opinion that I have seen, ‘there appears to be a real risk here that the integrity of the process was tainted in a material aspect of this dispute’. And now, it would seem that the judiciary is closing ranks – she has a date for an appeal but no one will represent her. 

She has explained to me the history of her case and shown me documents that, in the words of one QC writing in The Association of Women Barristers, ‘do not serve to promote an image of the Bar which equality practitioners could be proud.’ This quote, by the way, appeared in an article that her Chambers had removed quickly from the internet, part of a pattern of the Bar closing ranks and, it would seem likely, resorting to perjury, to ensure that Aisha does not receive due justice or reasonable compensation.

I have seen enough to feel very concerned about the culture of our judiciary.

One of the brightest women of her generation, who happens to be Indian, would appear to have been given a very raw deal.”

16.   See summary at twitter.com/BijlaniDr

17.   Further, see A’s extant claims (against the Bar Council, her Chambers (including members of the judiciary) and their insurers, UNUM Limited), and A’s Letters of Claim to the:

a.       Solicitors Regulation Authority and Legal Ombudsman;

b.      Independent Police Complaints Commission;

c.       Information Commissioner’s Office;

d.      Financial Ombudsman;

e.      Criminal Cases Review Commission;

f.        London Central Employment Tribunal;

g.       Employment Appeal Tribunal;

h.      Judicial Conduct Investigations Office, and Judicial Appointments and Conduct Ombudsman

i.         Etc.

18.   A was, and is, entitled to reasonable competence whilst raising concerns or bringing complaints, and for the disputes to be resolved fairly, expeditiously and reasonably.

19.   A has repeatedly spoon-fed D and/or its departments, and supported her views with the Code / specialist legal advice / QC’s input. Despite these highly unusual facts in A’s favour, D have repeatedly and unlawfully failed to uphold her concerns / complaints, and/or to take any or any adequate action against the unlawful judges / lawyers / tortfeasors.

20.   No reasonable adjustments have been made by D.

21.   Moreover, D employ racists, who have never treated any white barrister, in the manner they have treated A.

22.   By example, no credible lawyer would support the inaction / decisions of D against A, or most of the emails of the employees of D.

23.   D1 has refused to meet A and/or failed to prosecute key Members from A’s Chambers (or from their rogue lawyers Chambers at 11, Kings Bench Walk including Richard Leiper, Slade J, Wilkie J, Elias LJ, Sales LJ), and others who have acted unlawfully and in Contempt of Court.

24.   D are responsible for all the consequences of their inaction / unlawful / absurd / negligent decisions and emails, which have undermined A’s dignity and breached A’s human rights, and caused £multi-million-billion loss and had devastating consequences.

25.   A seeks:

a.       Immediate compensation, as an interim payment.

b.      Exemplary and aggravated damages.

c.       A competent review of each matter, expeditiously, in an attempt to mitigate the ongoing loss.

d.      Disclosure of all relevant data that A has not seen, to comply with the pre-action disclosure obligations and DPA requests;

e.      To meet pre-action urgently with credible lawyers, with a view to resolving the issues amicably.

f.        £multi-million-billion in damages and ongoing loss of £5m per day.

g.       Summary dismissal of the incompetent / racist employees, and/or reasonable competence at employing and/or training those employed.

h.      Reasonable adjustments of ensuring only those who have credible University / law degrees and qualifications, contact A by email, or have any input in any matter concerning A, in light of her depression and it being exacerbated by those who are grossly inept and lack insight to defer to legal expertise.

i.         Damages for each of her emails and chase-ups, and for drafting numerous documents and Letters of Claim.

j.        D to mitigate the loss, including by adequate (interim) compensation, and joining as a party to A’s extant claims and/or taking adequate action against each tortfeasor / unlawful judge / lawyer.

k.       An urgent review with specialist Advice on each of A’s concerns / claims.

Dated 08.03.17