Abuse-Judge-Oneill

District Judge O'Neill - Case For Abuse of Position.

My Claim easily met the legal test to defeat the Summary Judgment Application.

District Judge O'Neill's dismissal of my claim does not stand up to legal scrutiny. It was legally and factually wrong and based on a mis-conducted Hearing where she ignored my submissions, evidence and legal arguments, ignored case Law and performed the wrong legal tests. It was a perverse decision in an unfair Hearing.

She wasn't neutral on the underlying issues as required to be for a fair Hearing. She supported a past prosecution against me, used her flawed opinions on criminal Law based on dislike of legal views she read on file, to say I had committed crimes, then used this to dismiss my negligence claim. She accepted everything the Defendant said without question, and even acted on their behalf to introduce a false argument to dismiss my claim, proving bias.

This was an unfair Hearing run as District Judge O'Neill v Claimant. DJ O'Neill was biased and acted with intent to dismiss my claim. It is impossible to see it any other way.

Her behaviour can be argued as Judicial misconduct,

fraud, Misfeasance in Public Office and Human Rights abuse. A Judge has a duty to be impartial. You cannot allow biased Judges - it undermines the Legal Justice System and brings into question whether past decisions can be trusted.

District Judge O'Neill set out with intent to dismiss my Negligence claim.

She ignored my submissions, accepted everything the Applicant said, mis-conducted the Hearing, was not neutral on the underlying matters and performed the wrong legal tests which made it impossible to succeed:

First win a Malicious Prosecution mini Trial with her acting as the CPS Prosecutor aiming to dismiss my

particulars where 'any possible defence she thought the Prosecutor could have used'', was enough to

dismiss them, where she didn't know my evidence or point on intent, didn't accept important facts on the tort

(agreed by both parties), and used her invalid opinions of criminal Law to say I had committed crimes.

Judge O'Neill set out with intent to dismiss my claim. She undermined the outcome of a past criminal trial claiming I had committed crimes I was cleared of (a collateral attack on a crown court decision); undermined the tort of malicious Prosecution by assuming the Prosecutor was innocent and acted properly in Law, and by her not accepting the improper motive of the claim agreed by both parties; undermined the tort of Loss of Chance Negligence by performing a test on whether I would succeed in the underlying claim.

She lost site of the fact this was a Summary Judgment Hearing for LOC Negligence where it was only necessary to show I had material evidence. Not only should she not have made decisions on the underlying claim, but she did so using her flawed opinions to interpret Criminal Law how she wanted, where she was wrong in Law and ignored my submissions telling her why she was wrong. She used this to say that the Defendant didn't need to make submissions which would not succeed, so dismissed my LOC Negligence claim for no prospect of success

On an important particular where the Applicant had not offered a reason to dismiss it, DJ O'Neill introduced an invalid reason on the Applicant's behalf, (see proof below), proving actual bias and intent to dismiss the claim.

Her Conclusion amounted to a list of false statements taken straight from the Application. Her assertion, that my claim was an abuse because it was a collateral attack on the decision of the Court in 2011 was impossible because no evidence was before the Court in 2011, and showed intent to dismiss the claim.

District Judge O'Neill set out with intent to inflict maximum costs

District Judge O'Neill was disqualified by conflict of interest due to outside influence and should have

stood down. Not content with wrongly dismissing my claim, she rejected all my submissions on

costs, proportionality and CPR practise directions and gave me the maximum cost order possible

without concessions (almost unheard of). This included costs not caused or incurred by myself which

can be argued as fraud. The Defendant was trying it on and she gave them what they wanted.

I believe if they asked £5000 for one phone call she would have allowed it. It was a ridiculously excessive order, totally disproportional to the amount claimed, based in part on her acceptance of the Defendant unnecessarily expanding the claim, and in my view her obvious dislike of me and affect of outside influence, where she refused to recuse herself (stand down) when disqualified from the Hearing.

The Judicial code of conduct requires Judicial independence, Impartiality and Integrity. Judges swear an oath to that effect. I don't see how a Judge who ignores submissions, uses her opinions instead of Law, finds a person guilty of crimes he was cleared of in a Civil Hearing, accepts false statements without questions or introduces false arguments to dismiss his claim, or refuses to stand down when disqualified

by conflict of interests, can be acting properly. A Biased Judge cannot be trusted and brings into question her impartiality in her past decisions.

Proof of intent to dismiss my claim, actual bias and Breach of ECHR Article 6(1) - Right to a fair Hearing.

District Judge O'Neill acted on behalf of the Defendant to issue a false argument to dismiss the claim as follows:

Particular 21.12 referred to evidence the Prosecutor explicitly stated he knew a reason in Case Law (Chappell) that prevented the charges. It was material evidence of charging without true belief in guilt in any malicious Prosecution Claim, so Counsel's non-submission proved the Loss of Chance Negligence claim.

This was not a finding considered by the Court in 2011.

The Application referring to the Defence said 'there was no explicit statement of knowledge by the Prosecutor'. That statement obviously was not true, so natural justice meant Claimant succeeded, and both the Application and Defence failed.

But O'Neill offered a reason on behalf of the Defendant, to why the Prosecutor changed his mind to charge an alternative strand of Law, and used this finding (which could only be made in a Malicious Prosecution Trial), to dismiss this particular.

This was done without chance of reply when advanced disclosure is required to defend assertions.

But her reason to try to excuse the Prosecutor failed to defeat the Claimant's particular because it was a finding in case Law that the Prosecutor knew. Charging a different part of Law didn't defeat it. It wasn't the reason the Prosecutor gave at the time. The alternative strand of Law applied to speech so didn't make sense and was anyway rejected by Chappell case Law, so could not apply by matter of fact. So it was wrongly dismissed.

It is not the role of a Judge to act as a Prosecutor facing Malicious Prosecution in a Summary Judgment Hearing for Loss of Chance Negligence, nor to introduce arguments to dismiss particulars on behalf of a Party. This proves improper intent.

Click here for a list of her bias.

Click here for my cost arguments and excessive costs.