Abuse

HIS HONOUR JUDGE RALTON - Case for Judicial Abuse and Misfeasance in Public Office.

To appeal, it is first necessary to request permission from the Court and state valid grounds. I submitted ten proper grounds for Appeal showing legal and factual errors, material matters not taken into account and procedural irregularities in the lower Court Hearing.

I showed that my claim was supported by real evidence that easily met the Legal test for Summary Judgment and proved Loss of Chance Negligence so proved it was wrongly dismissed by the Lower Court.

I showed a mis-conducted Hearing and wrong legal tests by the Lower Court. I showed I was prejudiced and subject to bias including a Judge that didn't properly read my document setting out my evidence, who found I had committed crimes I was cleared of ( a criminal conviction in a civil court ), and introduced false arguments to dismiss my claim. You couldn't have better reasons.

HHJ Ralton, astonishingly refused permission to appeal, firstly on paper and then after an Oral Hearing on 5th June 2019 at Bristol County Court, despite my demonstrating valid grounds for one and a half hours.

His decision didn't make sense. On reading his Judgment, I found he'd just ignored me and issued a list of false statements to justify the dismissal.

Request for permission to Appeal

Improper Reasons for Refusal

The decision of His Honour Judge Ralton to refuse permission to Appeal dismissal of my valid Claim was a public disgrace.

He knew (and was told) the Appellant's Loss of Chance Negligence Claim was arguable, supported by evidence that fundamentally proved the claim, so was wrongly dismissed.

He knew of the substantial legal errors made by the Lower Court and that the Appellant was fundamentally prejudiced and subject to bias. So he knew it was wrongly struck out and that CPR52 allowed an appeal.

His Judgment showed that he acted with intent to refuse permission to argue Ground 1, then ignored Grounds 2 to 10 for Appeal and lied to say they were all the same argument.

He refused to accept verbal and written submissions from me informing him of a valid claim and Case Law informing him of legal errors by the Lower Court. He simply ignored me and the Law. It was appalling.

He made an obvious invalid representation on Law to dismiss the cause of action, stating that omission of evidence cannot be a legal cause of negligence.

He wrote a Judgment that tried to justify the Lower Court's dismissal by substantial falsehoods which are easily shown to be lies or statements reckless to the truth, including at least 6 blatant lies on important material matters. In other words he lied to uphold a decision he knew was wrongly dismissed in Law. His Judgment was a disgrace.

This cannot be explained away by legal justification, negligence or incompetence. No Judge acting properly could have refused this request for appeal, or made so many false statements all of which went against the Appellant.

His Honour Judge Ralton's abuse of position

HHJ Ralton abused his position by acting with improper intent to uphold dismissal of a claim he knew and was informed was wrongly and unlawfully dismissed by the Lower Court, and where he knew the Appellant had been subject to bias and an unfair Hearing. He would not have allowed any reason in any circumstances, to allow an appeal. He knew I could not appeal further and would be subject to severe cost consequences. His actions which include ignoring the Grounds for Appeal and lying were incompatible with his duty to act in accordance with Law and Justice. They can be argued as Misfeasance in Public Office, Human Rights Abuse and fraud. He was complicit with the lower court's bias and based on what he knew, appeared to be covering up.

And I have the evidence to back up what I say.

Seven acts of bad faith and case for misfeasance in public office

More denial of Justice

I requested permission to appeal DJ O'Neill's decision on costs and her refusal to stand down.

HHJ Ralton predictably refused. Yet the points I raised were clearly arguable points for appeal.

His reasons don't stand up.

His statement that an Appeal of recusal would be a collateral attack on the Lower Court's

decision because complaining about an adverse decision is not bias, is laughable.

I provided clear evidence of bias by the Lower Court, including proof she introduced false arguments on the Defendant's behalf (which Ralton has now ignored twice). How could he say I could not argue conflict of interest when supported by case Law? He clearly does not accept the right to a fair Hearing by a Judge free from influence, and once again refuses to accept my submissions on case Law.

He said I cannot argue case Law, since when did the Justice system prevent arguing Law ?
In reality he was ignoring me and dismissing accusations of bias, aka COVERING UP.

HHJ Ralton refused permission to appeal costs despite the fact my grounds 'could' succeed on appeal. My points had merit and could only be decided in an Appeal, not a permission Hearing.

HHJ Ralton appears not interested in justice, but in obtaining the outcome he wants, in this case, refusing permission to maintain an excessive cost order.

See here for details.

I told the Court : "I withdrew my oral appeals because having been refused a transfer, it was impossible to get a fair Hearing from a biased, dishonest Judge who refuses to listen to submissions, ignores the Law and intends to refuse permission regardless."

Case for Misfeasance

The Judicial code of conduct requires Judicial independence, Impartiality and Integrity. Judges swear an oath to that effect. An impartial Judge acting in accordance with the Law is necessary to maintain the integrity of the Courts. Everyone has the right to expect a fair Hearing.

I don't see how a Judge who lies, ignores submissions and the Law to get the result he wants conforms to this oath. Such a Judge cannot be trusted and brings into question his impartiality in past decisions. You cannot have non-impartial and dishonest Judges - it undermines the legal justice system.

See Legal Case for Misfeasance in Public Office.