U.K. Court Perverts Justice in Dr. Pelling's Trial
For those following the Dr. Pelling trial:
From: "Dr Michael Pelling" <>
Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2005 13:53:28 -0000
To: "Fathers 4 Justice"
Subject: [fathers4justice] AG v.PELLING
SUMMARY (not verbatim) DIVISIONAL COURT 9/2/05
Lord Justice Laws: "We understand you wish to apply for leave to cross-examine
the Attorney-General's witnesses".
Dr Pelling: "I do not accept that I need leave. This is a criminal trial and I
claim the right at Common Law to cross-examine my accusers. Nevertheless I now
formally request leave to cross-examine".
Lord Justice Laws: "What questions do you want to put to the Attorney-General's
Dr Pelling: "I decline to disclose in advance my lines of cross-examination and
give the Attorney-General an advantage".
Lord Justice Laws: "Why do you want to cross-examine the Attorney-General's
Dr Pelling: "I believe I shall be able to elicit facts which will help my defence".
Court's Decision: "We can't see any evidence that the witnesses could give which
would be of use to you. So we decline to allow cross-examination".
Dr Pelling: "In that case I shall not be continuing further with this case
War on secrecy (II) provides greater depth of coverage of the hearing
NOTE: Although Dr Pelling relied on the Common Law, the ECHR [English
Charter of Human Rights] which the Court was
under a duty to apply, says:
ART.6(3). "Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following
...(d) to examine or have examined witnesses against him...".
The Human Rights Act 1998 s.6(1) says:
6(1). It is unlawful for a public authority to act in a way which is
incompatible with a Convention right.
6(3). In this section "public authority" includes
(a) a court or tribunal, ... .
The circumstances that caused Dr. Pelling to be brought to trial involved him
trying to help a boy that was being abused by U.K. justice Singer:
One man's fight for justice and against secrecy in the courts
Judge uses his power to retaliate for resistance to his abuses
Posted 2005 02 14