Translate

Wednesday, 22 January 2014

Khaw v Con Party Renewal hearing on 21 January 2014 at the Royal Courts of Justice

I am sorry, but I really can't be bothered to write this up properly.


Claire Khaw, what precisely is expected to happen in court tomorrow regarding your case against the Conservative Party?
Like ·  · 20 January at 22:32
  • Claire Khaw 20 minutes for me, 10 minutes for the Tories. 

    I am representing myself, the Tories will be legally represented.
    20 January at 22:41 · Like · 1
  • Andy Kimber looks like you are 3rd on,and if the first one is at 10.30,you would on at about 11.30?
    20 January at 22:51 · Like
  • Leon What precisely will you do? Lay out the skeleton of your case, nothing too in depth?

    Where can the court case times be found?
    20 January at 22:52 · Like
  • Andy Kimber the RCJ website
    20 January at 22:52 · Like
  • Leon Could you post the link on here, please?
    20 January at 22:53 · Edited · Like
  • Claire Khaw http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/court-lists/list-rcj

    COURT 27
    Before HIS HONOUR JUDGE BLACKETT
    (Sitting as a Judge of the High Court)
    Tuesday 21 January, 2014
    At half past 10
    FOR DISPOSAL
    CO/2869/2011 The Queen on the application of Nowa v Secretary Of State For Home Department

    Applications for Permission

    COURT 27
    Before HIS HONOUR JUDGE BLACKETT
    (Sitting as a Judge of the High Court)
    Tuesday 21 January, 2014
    At half past 10
    FOR DISPOSAL
    CO/2869/2011 The Queen on the application of Nowa v Secretary Of State For Home Department

    Applications for Permission

    CO/2822/2013 The Queen on the application of Masoud v Westminster City Council 
    CO/9046/2013 The Queen on the application of Ukaegbu v Middlesex University
    CO/8019/2013 The Queen on the application of Khaw v Conservative Party
    CO/7762/2013 The Queen on the application of Tank v Secretary Of State For The Home Department

    Administrative Court at the RCJ daily cause list
    www.justice.gov.uk
    Administrative Court at the RCJ daily cause listShare thisCause list Friday, 17 ...See more
    20 January at 23:02 · Edited · Like · Remove Preview
  • Anthony Hubert Codjoe It makes no sense for any sane person to want Claire put performance for tomorrow's court hearing here for what ? Somebody to evaluate or what ? Her blog has indicated enough of her case and what she deems senseless about her removal from the Conservative Party. In the blog a lot of so called violations against the party by her are shown. And Claire refutes them. She asked questions about what constitutes violations , free speech and when the violations were committed.
    20 January at 23:05 · Like
  • Claire Khaw The Conservative Party constitution does indeed give them the right to remove any member without warning or explanation at its absolute discretion.
    20 January at 23:06 · Like
  • Andy Kimber i cant get there til about 12.30 and i think that will be too late 
    20 January at 23:08 · Like
  • Claire Khaw This would exclude the right to being heard by an unbiased tribunal according to the rules of natural justice. 

    They will no doubt argue that the Tory Party is not a public body and therefore not subject to judicial review. It is only a private club and the courts must not interfere, they will say.
    20 January at 23:08 · Like
  • Claire Khaw You can always meet us for drinks later!
    20 January at 23:09 · Like
  • Leon Actually, Anthony, I wholeheartedly support Claire's actions here. The Conservative Party does not seem to know what a principle is. If I were around, I would be in the court early in excitement!
    20 January at 23:09 · Unlike · 2
  • Andy Kimber the court bit is the bit i wouldnt want to miss!
    20 January at 23:11 · Like
  • Claire Khaw I will say it is far from being a club, since it exercises powers that affect the rights of individuals and society. 

    Not only that, the Conservative Party has a role in choosing who becomes a member of the Legislature (ie Members of Parliament) and     the Executive (ie Prime Minister) and these have the power to start wars as well as change the meaning of marriage. 

    Saying that a political party is like a club is to totally misunderstand the nature of both. 

    A club exists solely for the benefit of its members and of course members of a club should be able to remove any of its members if they decide for any reason at all that they don't want him any more. 

    A political party has the purpose of promoting a political ideology. What then is the political ideology of the Conservative Party? 

    Nobody knows.
    20 January at 23:12 · Like · 1
  • Claire Khaw There is actually a shocking Australian case of a sitting Premier of Victoria, who was expelled from his own party.
    20 January at 23:13 · Like
  • Anthony Hubert Codjoehttp://tonyhubertcod.mywapblog.com/logic-and-justice.xhtml

    LOGIC AND JUSTICE | ANTHONY HUBERT CODJOE's Mobile Blog
    tonyhubertcod.mywapblog.com
    Logic and Justice are related. There Can be no Justice without Truth. Logic is a way of knowing certain Truths. Spiritual Truth escapes domain of
    20 January at 23:13 · Like · Remove Preview
  • Claire Khaw He sued them in 1934 but received no satisfaction.
    20 January at 23:13 · Like
  • Claire Khaw I will say that the Tory Party does indeed exercise the functions of a public body and Datafin supports this. 

    http://en.wikipedia.org/.../R_(Datafin_plc)_v_Panel_for...

    R v Panel on Take-overs and Mergers, ex parte Datafin plc - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    en.wikipedia.org
    R v Panel on Take-overs and Mergers, ex parte Datafin plc is a 1986 case decided...See more
    20 January at 23:15 · Like · Remove Preview
  • Leon I have just read out Claire's intentions to my grandmother, and she SUPPORTS her! Ahoy Khaw!
    20 January at 23:15 · Unlike · 1
  • Claire Khaw Donaldson MR

    “No one could have been in the least surprised if the Panel has been instituted and operated under the direct authority of statute law, since it operates in the public domain. Its jurisdiction extends throughout the United Kingdom. It    s codes and rulings apply equally to all who wish to make take-over bids or promote mergers, whether they are members of bodies represented on the panel. Its lack of a statutory base is a complete anomaly.
    20 January at 23:16 · Like
  • Leon “Conservatives KHAWnered and KHAWterised in KHAWt by sure KHAWrageous Khaw!”
    20 January at 23:17 · Unlike · 2
  • Claire Khaw Lloyd LJ:

    "It is helpful to look not just to look at the source but the nature of the power. If the body in question is exercising public law functions, or if the exercise of its powers have public consequences, then that may be sufficient to bring     the body within the reach of judicial review. The essential distinction is between a domestic or private tribunal on the one hand, and a body of persons who are under some public duty on the other."
    20 January at 23:17 · Like
  • Claire Khaw Part IV 17.7 of the constitution. 

    17 The Board shall have power to do anything which in its opinion relates to the management and administration of the Party. It shall oversee all activities within the Party and in particular be 
    responsible for – 

    17.7 the cancellation or refusal of membership, in its absolute discretion, of any Party Member or prospective Party Member; 

    Yet on page 28 of the constitution, it states:

    Natural Justice 

    28 Any removal of rights of membership of, or removal of office or other position from, any Association or other body within the Party will only be made after due consideration of natural justice.
    20 January at 23:19 · Like
  • Leon After the Secular Koranist revolution, I will insist that ‘court’ be re-spelt as ‘khawt’ thereafter.
    20 January at 23:21 · Unlike · 1
  • Claire Khaw To say that any member can be expelled without warning or explanation can only mean that that provision excludes the exercise of the rules of natural justice. 

    It is clearly a very confused and capricious piece of drafting. Perhaps it just means that only certain members will get a hearing that adheres to the rules of natural justice, but only if it feels like it, and it is a blue moon.
    20 January at 23:23 · Like
  • Claire Khaw Below is what they said when they dismissed my appeal:

    Decision of the Conservative Party Disciplinary Committee in the matter of the appeal by Ms Claire Khaw against her expulsion from the Conservative Party by the Board

    The Committee met at Conservative Campaign Headquarters, 30 Millbank on Wednesday 27th March 2013 to consider an appeal by Ms Claire Khaw against the decision by the Board to expel her from membership of the Conservative Party.

    Members of the Disciplinary Committee who heard the Appeal on the papers were:

    Simon Mort (Chairman)
    John Flack
    Pauline Lucas
    In attendance: Marcus Booth
    The Committee DISMISSED the appeal.

    Based on the evidence provided (including by Ms Khaw), the Committee concluded that Ms Khaw's publicly stated views and values, together with her conduct (that the Committee were in a position to appraise) are such that they are not compatible with membership of the Conservative Party, which is not an absolute right.

    The aims, objectives and ******policies************* of the Conservative Party are freely available to read and Ms Khaw should have reasonably appraised herself of these before applying to join the Party.

    [It is interesting, is it not, that the Defendant is referring to its POLICIES when what is at issue is its PRINCIPLES.

    The Defendant is being misleading or is genuinely ignorant of the difference between a policy and a principle.]
    20 January at 23:29 · Like
  • Claire Khaw A policy is what you say to others you do, and your policies should conform to your principles, if you are a political party.
    20 January at 23:31 · Edited · Like
  • Leon Principles are underpinned by ideology. If the Conservative Party has no principles (or does not know what this word means), it has no ideology at all — least of all conservative principles derived from a conservative ideological foundation.

    The party should be renamed.
    20 January at 23:32 · Like
  • Claire Khaw What should it be called?
    20 January at 23:33 · Like
  • Leon I can think of a few suggestions:

    (i) No-Principles Party;
    (ii) Blank Party;
    (iii) Nothingness Party;
    (iv) Unsure Party;
    (v) ‘A Party’.
    20 January at 23:35 · Like · 1
  • Claire Khaw The Whateverist Party.
    20 January at 23:36 · Like · 2
  • Claire Khaw which supports Whateverism ...
    20 January at 23:36 · Like · 1
  • Leon The Anything Goes Party.
    20 January at 23:37 · Like
  • Claire Khaw The Whatever the Voter Will Accept Party
    20 January at 23:37 · Like · 2
  • Claire Khaw Such a party is a fraud its members as well as a fraud on the voting public.
    20 January at 23:38 · Like
  • Leon The logical conclusion of establishing that the Conservative Party has no principles, is that it can no longer be said to advocate or promote conservatism.
    20 January at 23:38 · Like
  • Claire Khaw That is bad enough, but there is worse to come. It gives its members NO RIGHTS AT ALL. 

    In theory, even the Prime Minister himself could be expelled from the Conservative Party! 

    This was what in fact happened to the Premier of Victoria, Edmond Hogan in 1932.
    11 minutes ago · Edited · Like
  • Claire Khaw Who are the members of the Board of the Conservative Party? 

    It seems they have the power to topple the Prime Minister!
    20 January at 23:40 · Like
  • Leon Will any representative from the Conservative Party, excluding their lawyer, make an appearance tomorrow?
    20 January at 23:41 · Like
  • Claire Khaw I have no idea.
    20 January at 23:41 · Like
  • Claire Khaw I hope so. I want there to be as many people as possible in court.
    20 January at 23:43 · Like
  • Claire Khaw The Conservative Party Board is the party's ultimate decision making body, responsible for all operational matters (including fundraising, membership and candidates) and is made up of representatives from each (voluntary, political and professional) section of the Party.[91] The Party Board meets about once a month and works closely with CCHQ, elected representatives and the voluntary membership mainly through a number of management sub-committees (such as membership, candidates and conferences).

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_Party_(UK)...

    Conservative Party (UK) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    en.wikipedia.org
    The Conservative Party, officially the Conservative and Unionist Party and collo...See more
    20 January at 23:46 · Like · Remove Preview
  • Leon How did it go, Claire?
    15 hours ago · Like
  • Adrienne Hartley Yes I'd like to know too.
    14 hours ago · Like
  • Leon Claire sent me a text earlier to say that the judge believed that whatever his decision, the other party would appeal, so he decided that the best way forward would be to refuse Claire's application on the grounds of legal precedent so as to allow her to appeal.

    Appeal Court, here she comes!
    8 hours ago · Unlike · 3
  • Claire Khaw Yes, he seemed quite encouraging. To say he refused it on the ground of legal precedent, if you read between the lines, was that he was minded to accept my arguments but felt tied down by precedent. 

    I tried to persuade him to grant me my application and leave it to the Tories to appeal, but he was having none of it.
    51 minutes ago · Like · 1
  • Claire Khaw He did advise me to seek professional legal advice (which is standard procedure for litigants in person) even though he said there was nothing wrong with the way I had presented it, which was jolly nice of him.
    36 minutes ago · Edited · Like
  • Claire Khaw Jeffrey Marshall and Eddy Butler did say unkind things about my rather shambolic presentation, and in particular my failure to bring the judgement of Datafin with me. 

    When I got home I found it on my unmade bed.
    42 minutes ago · Like · 1
  • Claire Khaw The other side was quite funny though. The solicitor advocate did a Manuel in court: "I know NOTHING. My clients have not been in touch with me all these months. I do not even have the papers the Claimant is referring to. I do not have the Conservative Party constitution the Claimant is referring to and is claiming is contradictory, confused and capricious. I have not prepared and was under the impression that the Claimant's application is certain to be refused. I shall seek an adjournment if this carries on!"
    31 minutes ago · Edited · Like
  • Claire Khaw Judge: "There, there. Would you like me find in your favour and advise the Claimant to go to the Appeal Court?" 

    Tory Party solicitor nods head eagerly. 

    Me, delighted that he seemed to be telling me that I should appeal: "I would be amenable to your suggestion, My Lord."
    31 minutes ago · Edited · Like · 1
  • Claire Khaw I did go on about Lord Rennard a bit to the bemusement of the court, saying that how he was being treated is in fact typical of how activists are routinely abused by the leadership. 

    3 important legal principles were being set aside in the case of Lord Rennard:

    1. The retrospective nature of his punishment. Retrospective legislation is against the rules of natural justice because it punishes someone for a crime that was not a crime when it was committed. It has already been admitted by Lord Greaves that half the members of the House of Lords have pinched the bottom of a woman. When they did they had no idea that they would be taken to court and their names dragged through the mud for so doing. 

    2. The principle of double jeopardy. How many investigations and hearings are they going to have in order to find him guilty of something or other? 

    3. The principle of being treated as innocent until found guilty, after a fair trial. 

    The other point I raised was that the legal fiction of a political party not being a public body and therefore subject to judicial review should now be finally done away with. 

    The Conservative Party constitution allows *any member* to be expelled without warning or explanation. This means the PM himself could in theory be expelled if the Board of the Conservative Party decide to get rid of him. 

    This did indeed happy in Cameron v Hogan when a sitting Australian Premier of the State of Victoria was expelled from his own party. 

    I pointed out that if that happened it would provoke a constitutional crisis, and this cannot be denied.
    6 minutes ago · Edited · Like
  • Claire Khaw After lunch, all he could come up with was that if the every member of the Conservative Party left the party, it would be no more. 

    I still have no idea what point he was making. 

    Of course he went on about the Tory Party being a voluntary association and how precedent has always treated it as such, blah blah. 

    But nothing substantive.
    21 minutes ago · Like
  • Rafal Pruszyn-ski outline the positions, Claire Khaw: why are you in court?
    20 minutes ago · Like
  • Claire Khaw Because I want the Conservative Party to be subject to judicial review.
    19 minutes ago · Like
  • Claire Khaw So that when the party activists are routinely abused by their leader and party there is a legal remedy. 

    If I had sued them in contract they would just have given me back my £25, which is not what I seek.
    17 minutes ago · Like
  • Claire Khaw Poor Lord Rennard, who has done so much for his party, is just being thrown to the wolves for no other reason than the LibDem leader is a pussywhipped wimp and wants to please his wife and the vociferous, implacable and malicious female activists who want to be served with Lord Rennard's head and testicles on a platter.
    A few seconds ago · Edited · Like
  • Claire Khaw What I should have done was dispute the costs. 

    Even if I win and don't have to pay the costs of the Conservative Party, they shouldn't be paying nearly £1500 for what their solicitor did, which is precisely nothing. 

    He handed me a photocopied bundle of documents which I already had for which I thanked him, but that was the extent of his preparation.
    13 minutes ago · Like
  • Claire Khaw You should have come anyway at 12:30, Andy, which was when the hearing started.
    12 minutes ago · Like
  • Claire Khaw Oh, and I said that to persistently conflate their principles with policies found in their manifesto, which are but mere promises which they may not even keep, and which would change every 5 years, made for the purpose of inducing voters to vote to them, is evidence of a fundamental philosophical error as to the nature of what a principle is and what principles are for.



at
Labels: , , , , ,

2 comments:

snork maiden said...

So, the gist? Have you got to go to court again? Are you still fighting the party's decision to expel you or has it got bigger than that now?

22 January 2014 at 18:10:00 GMT
Claire Khaw said...

I have to wait to receive the judgment before I can go to the Court of Appeal.

Only if the courts decide that the Conservative Party is amenable to judicial review would the fairness or otherwise of my expulsion come to be considered.

I do believe I am doing what every member of the Houses of Parliament secretly wants to do.

No, it was never really about me but about the fact activists and members are routinely abused by their leader and their parties.

Lord Rennard is probably the worst-treated party member in the UK, considering how long he was in his party and how much he had done for it.

22 January 2014 at 18:30:00 GMT

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Stable nations through stable families in stable marriages

Stable communities https://t.co/2ZlBQnc1sx — Santa of Secular Koranism (@Book_of_Rules) December 2, 2024 1:00  CAROL joins to say Western me...