Letter sent by myself to District Judge Weston on August 3 1998
C/O Combined Court Centre,
I am compelled to write this personal letter to you, to inform you that I am fully aware of what I believe to be your corruption, by entering into a conspiracy, for the protection of a fellow Judge: Circuit J udge Alan Simpson. Your corruption and your motive, came to light on the 15th December 1996, when after hearing my application for the Defendants' to serve a 'DEFENCE', you adjourned the hearing, on the pretext that an hour wasn't long enough to determine whether the defence document answered the allegations stated in the Statement of Claim, thereby allowing the Defendants', time in which to make application, to have the action struck out, which, (on the February 13) application you insisted upon hearing in preference to deciding upon my application: that no real 'DEFENCE' had been served, and which you would have had to have allowed: there not being one particular of a denial provided in the defence document. NOTE - (in defiance of the rules)
It was on the 3th February, that my suspicions were confirmed, when, despite my objection, you refused to hear my application in advance of the Defendants' (later) application and again, when you were fully aware that the granting of my application, which you could not (lawfully) have refused, would have made the Defendants' application redundant.
I am aware, as you most certainly were, that an application to strike out an action as disclosing no cause can only be determined upon examination of the Statement of Claim, with no evidence being admissible, and the question as to whether the action can, or can not, be sustained, was not an issue for consideration.
I am aware, as you may not be, that a High Court Judge has since held that the Statement of Claim plainly discloses an alleged cause of action and that the Defendants' Counsel has agreed wish that ruling.
I am convinced that in unlawfully striking out my Statement of Claim, you have joined in the conspiracy, by abusing the process of the Honourable Court and you have abandoned your principles. You have abandoned what must have been your absolute conviction, that the Claim did, (and does) disclose reasonable causes and you abandoned your independence to dispense justice without fear, or favour.
You have disgraced the Office that you hold, and you should try to redeem yourself, by holding that your unlawful order striking out the action, should not remain, as if valid, on the Court record,
I am all but certain that you do not have the courage that it takes, to rectify your mistake in joining those who have been determined to use any means to protect Judge Simpson, but I have to be sure: hence this letter.
I really think there will be a need to issue proceedings, not only against you, for damages, if these matters cannot be resolved to my satisfaction, in any other way.
J. F. Hulbert.
My affidavit in opposition to the striking out of my statement of claim.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEENS BENCH DIVISION
KINGSTON UPON HULL DISTRICT REGISTRY
B ET W E E N
JUDGE A. SIMPSON...................................................................................First
SHEILA MARGARET WEST.................................................................Second Defendant
I JAMES FREDERICK HULBERT, Plaintiff, of Kingston Upon Hull, MAKE OATH,
SAY as follows.
I make this affidavit in opposition to the Defendants' application, made by summons: issued on the 18th January 1996, for an order that the Statement of Claim be struck out, pursuant to RSC. Order 18, rule 19, or alternatively, for judgement under Order 14. I make this affidavit of my own knowledge, which is true, to the best of my knowledge, and belief.
1. The Statement of Claim discloses a reasonable cause of action. Paragraph 10, (ii) states that the 2nd Applicant: Mrs. West, was informed, on the 19th September 1994, of the of transcripts, at the trial of an action against the Humberside Police, which was to have taken place in Sheffield on the 15th January, this year, and because Mrs. West failed to provide correct transcripts, or to certify the partially fabricated ones, in accordance with the rules governing verification of transcripts, I have been obliged to agree to a settlement. NOTE - (with the Police)
Mrs. West is required by law, to certify her transcripts as being a correct, and complete, account of the proceedings, to the best of her skill, and ability, but she has the best reason not to comply with the rules governing verification, and that is because she knows that the transcript is not a complete and correct account of the proceedings, so I had no option, but to agree a settlement with the Police, before the trial, as it would have been quite wrong for fabricated transcripts to be used, which could have led to an injustice being and that in itself, is a cause of action, that in turn prevented my wife and myself, the opportunity of being awarded adequate exemplary damages.
2. Paragraph 11, of the Statement of Claim, states that I suffered distress; injury to my feelings; loss, and inconvenience, which, as with the apparent unconcern of the Applicants' about false transcripts being used, are also more than reasonable causes of action.
3. Paragraph 2, of the Statement of Claim, discloses that Mrs. West
took down false notes,
purported to be the evidence given, by two of the witnesses at my trial.
4. Paragraph 3, of the Statement of Claim, states that transcripts were prepared and supplied, by Mrs. West, which contains the false evidence and the same paragraph gives details of the fabricated parts of the transcript.
5. Paragraph 7, of the Statement of Claim, discloses that I directly accused Judge Simpson of conspiring to alter evidence.
6. The indorsement on the Writ, which was served with the Statement
of Claim, states that conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, arising
out of a criminal trial at Kingston Upon
Hull Crown Court and subsequent fabrication of transcripts of notes of evidence, is the cause of this action and full particulars are contained in the Statement of Claim.
7. I maintain that the allegations contained in the Statement of Claim, are ones of serious criminal misconduct and were committed outside of the judicial capacity of the Crown Court Judge.
8. I submit and truly believe, that there is a reasonable cause of action that has been clearly stated, in both the Statement of Claim and the indorsement on the Writ and the Humberside Police are currently investigating my allegations.
9. With respect, I rely on the dictums of Lords' Denning, and Buckley, in the case of Sirros-v-Moore (1997 QB 118) Court of Appeal, May 15, 16, 17, and July 30th.
LORD DENNING - "If the Judge had been in the least degree corrupt, or perverted the course of justice, he can be punished in the criminal Courts, that apart however, a Judge is not liable to an action for damages." - The allegations in this case are that the Judge, as did the 2nd Defendant, act corruptly, and did conspire to pervert the course of justice, and they are both therefore liable to an action for damages.
LORD BUCKLEY - "If the act was non-judicial, there is no doubt that no immunity arises from the fact that the doer hold the Office of Judge, whether of a superior, or an inferior Court."
10. I say that the Statement of Claim is not otherwise scandalous, frivolous, vexatious, nor is it an abuse of the Court.
11. My Statement of Claim is true, and the clear adverse inference contained in paragraphs 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10, are denied by the Applicants', in paragraph 6, of the 'DEFENCE'. It states that those 5 paragraphs are denied insofar as they are allegations of fact, and the Defendants' do not plead to argument. Those 5 paragraphs have been denied, so they have been pleaded, but I accept that Mrs. West did not plead those 5 paragraphs, because the 'DEFENCE' is not hers.
12. I believe that it is significant that the Applicants' do not attempt to deny paragraph 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10, for any other reason, than that they are allegations of fact, and they cannot, or do not, attempt to aver that those 5 paragraphs are untrue, and again, that is because the 'DEFENCE' served, is not Mrs. West's defence.
13. The defence document does not deny, that Mrs. West had not certified her transcripts, even though paragraph 1374, (b) Vol. eleven, of the Criminal Law, Evidence and Procedure, states that the verification of transcripts must be by certificate with, or without, leave to the Court.
14. Mrs. West has deliberately certified her transcripts as being a complete, and correct, account of her shorthand notes and as an accredited shorthand writer, she knows that the rules governing verification state, that the certification must state, that the transcript is a complete, and correct, account of the proceedings. I submit that the inference is very clear,
15. I have sworn two previous affidavits, that support the allegations contained in the Statement of Claim. I swore them because I absolutely certain of my ground, so for this action to be struck out, without the Applicants' swearing one, (affidavit) or more importantly, without the Applicants' saying, in the 'DEFENCE', that paragraphs 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10, in the Statement of Claim are untrue, is with respect, unjustifiable.
16. I aver that Mrs. West's failure to provide me with a certificate as to the truth, and accuracy, of her original transcripts, before I started this action, is not only that she knows they are false, but also because she knows that Judge Simpson, and her former employer, know them to be false.
17, A judgement order has been made, inviting Mrs. West to correct her transcripts if necessary, before providing certification, and Mrs. West has failed to provide me with a certificate, or corrected transcripts, simply because she will not certify false transcripts, and corrected transcripts will prove the originals false. I aver that if Mrs. West's transcripts had been a complete, and correct, account of the proceedings, she would certainly have provided me with a certificate to that effect, in compliance with the rules governing the verification of transcripts, without hesitation, as did her two colleagues.
18. A judgement order has been made for the legitimate use of transcripts and as I have mentioned, the defence document does not deny that Mrs. West had not been prepared to provide a certificate and this after my repeated requests and the judgement order that is referred to in paragraph 17, herein, inviting her to do so.
19. I say that the Statement of Claim is not an abuse of this Honourable Court. If justice was to have been done at the trial of my action against the Humberside Police, it was essential that only accurate transcripts should be used and because partially fabricated transcripts could not be used, justice was prevented from being done. To ask this Court to strike out the Statement of Claim on the basis that it is an abuse of the Court which, if granted, would inevitably have the effect of preventing justice from being done again, may itself be considered to be an abuse of this Court.
20. In summary, I respectfully ask the Court to consider these facts,
that cannot be disputed.
i. I was at the trial;
ii. it was me that was on trial, and my acquittal can not be considered to be a motive for
making false allegations against the Applicants';
iii. I have sworn two previous affidavits, accusing the Applicants' and I am aware of the
consequences if I have been untruthful;
iv. I have accused Judge Simpson directly, by letter, of fabricating evidence;
v. Mrs. West's former employer has not been prepared to say that he has confidence in her
integrity, or that he does not now that the transcripts are fabricated;
vi. neither Mrs. West, nor Judge Simpson, have been prepared to call me a liar;
vii. Mrs. West has consistently ignored my requests for verification;
viii. Mrs. West has ignored a judgement order inviting her to certify her transcripts with
corrections, if necessary;
ix. the defence document does not deny the allegations in paragraphs 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10, of
the Statement of Claim.
21. There is no substance at all, for the Applicants' claim that the
Statement of Claim is
scandalous, frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of this Honourable Court.
22. There is no merit to any of the Applicants' grounds for striking out the Statement of Claim and to say that the Statement of Claim would seriously prejudice the fair trial of this action is, with respect, ludicrous. The trial Judge will ensure a fair trial.
I ask that this application be dismissed, and my costs be paid by the Defendants', in any event.
This affidavit was sworn by the above named Plaintiff of Kingston Upon
Hull, on the 9th day of February 1996.
Signed J. F. Hulbert.
Sworn at the Hull County Court in the County of Humberside.
This the 9th day of February 1996.
P. A. Ward.
Officer of the Court, authorized by the Lord Chancellor to take affidavits for use in the
To Mrs. Justice Smith