John Gill and Freedom of Speech on Trial Tomorrow

by . Thu Oct 05, 2006 10:07

Yes, that should do the trick all right, you will probably get away with cruxification, for a first offence.

Bring a toothbrush though, just in case.

PS: It is ironic that innocent comments (such as this one, published y'day + again today with this addition) which in absolutely no way conflict with ed.guidelines are being censored off this page with vigour and speed - I sincerely hope that whoever is responsible for that will stop acting like a little commisar trying to protect his buddies from light satire, otherwise indy.ie will soon be as useless as RYS.com
But then again, if VOLPS had been as quick with the knife as some editiors here, maybe they would not be in court today? Interesting paradox, eh?

by Lord Funtoy Thu Oct 05, 2006 10:25

perhaps it's not too late for Mr G. to grab a legal dictionary and look up

1. plausible deniability
2. balance of probability
3. implausible impossibility
4. banjaxxed beyond reasonable doubt

however, latin is not learned during lunch

Stiff upper lip + best of luck

by . Thu Oct 05, 2006 11:00

The original troublesome comment posted at RYS.com which gave rise to the present legal proceedings has been edited out of the website as of yesterday and replaced with this:

"4th of Oct, 2006 by RYS Management

Catherine employs a barrister (REMAINDER OF COMMENT REMOVED). The RYS management has noted Mr. John Gill's appeal to have the original remarks posted in this place about Ms Jayne Maguire, barrister, removed in order to stop his continued harassment by Irish lawyers. This harassment is completely uncalled for, as RYS is a completely independent organization without any legal ties whatsoever to the VLPS, and neither Mr. Gill nor any other members of the VLPS committee have ever had any knowledge of or influence on RYS policies. Even though RYS does not operate under Irish law, being located outside the Irish jurisdiction, and despite delays due to severe technical difficulties, management has unanimously decided to accede to Mr. Gill's appeal as a token of good will and as a once-off gesture to a greatly admired man. May he be a thorn in the side of all incompetent, negligent and corrupt Irish lawyers for a long time to come! Of course, management does have to reserve the right, however reluctantly, to reinstate the comments about Ms Maguire without further notice, if her utterly misguided proceedings against Mr. Gill and the other members of the VLPS committee should continue beyond Oct. 5, 2006. CONTINUED BELOW."

Hhmmm !

Will this late move square the circle and let Mr G. + 7 co-defendants off the liability hook?
Who is RYS management?
How reluctant are they really?

30 minutes to showtime ... legal history being made in tempo allegre?

by Open Mouth - Insert Foot Thu Oct 05, 2006 11:14

That subtley phrased threat to re-publish the slanderous comment will surely go down a treat with the High Court, oh yea.

Also, it kinda demonstrates how 'independent' RYS management is from Mr Gill, not.

This thing is shaping up to be a pretty gory case. For anybody thinking of going in there, welder's masks can be hired at the Law Library front desk for €1/day.

by court reporter Thu Oct 05, 2006 11:33

The people behind this web-site are going to the High Court today to defend their inalienable right to call any lady barrister they hate " a parish bicycle".

Bring your toothbrushes lads!

(actually, rather than sticking to their so-called principles (such as they are) my money is on an cringing climb-down by these brave lads)

by Sceptical Thu Oct 05, 2006 14:53

I would have expected a court reporter to be a lot more objective than you are in your posts: "call any lady barrister they hate a parish bicycle". You are trying to shoot the messenger that you hate yourself, as all legal eagles are trying to do today. Why in the world would the RYS web site people hate this particular barrister? They probably don't even know her. If anybody does hate her it is the POSTER OF THE REMARK.
The complete and very extensive statement of the RYS mangement about the whole situation, which seems to deal with a lot of the objections that the court reporter and others have made against the site has now been copied on the Crooked Lawyers site:

http://www.crookedlawyers.com/default.php#item17

These people seem to be a lot more reasonable than C R gave them credit for!

by TOMMY OWENS Tue Jan 22, 2013 19:04

the site exposed the raw essence and realties amiss and therein the human argument of argument v argument-upon which one hoped resolve

TT MONTAGUE IRVINESTOWN ROBBED A KIND CRIPPLE-BY DRAFTING A WILL IN FULL INSTANT FAVOUR OF THEMSELVES EXCLUSIVELY
-THEY TOOK WHAT MEANS HE HAD-ZERO RESOLUTION FOR REDRESS

ANDREW MONTAGUE FINTONA TOLD THE CLERGY THAT IT WAS A MATTER IF THEY WANTED TO GO TO THE AUTHORITIES-*( HE IS JUDGE AND JURY)

TAKING A CRIPPLED MANS SAVINGS FOR 40 YRS-AFTER HIS WIFE DIED IS NO CREDIBLE ACT-
THE IRISH ARE A LOYAL SOCIETY AND FIND DISTASTE IN CANNABILISM-

THE POOR DISABLED MANS MEANS-A LONELY WIDOWER 4O YRS PLUS A CRIPPLE-I REST MY CASE-MR ANDREW MONTAGUE SOLICITOR IR IN YOUR LOFTY ELATED TERMS CONSULTANT-COUGH!!
NEVER WILL SOCIETY RATE YOU A MAN-THE DECEASED MANS ASSETS YOU SUCKED FOR YOURSELF-FOR GOLFBALLS

by Eye of the Court - Justice Thu Jan 24, 2013 15:45

There is no case in relation to John Gill at present listed in the court or any court for that matter.

Could the above poster provided evidence of their statement?

The law of defamation is being updated presently and this foregoing posting indicates short-sightedness to what could prove active.

by ANON - ANON Mon Feb 18, 2013 18:54

An independent watchdog with the power to strike off lawyers should be established in Northern Ireland, it has been claimed.

cripple robbing solicitors should be struck off..TTM

Self-regulation of the legal profession leaves clients frightened to take up complaints, a cross-border group called the Victims of the Legal Profession Society added. Members met Northern Ireland Finance Minister Sammy Wilson earlier this month.

Spokesman Joe Ferris said: "I would like to see an independent body being established as a minimum because quite a number of people are frightened of solicitors."

A Legal Services Review Group chaired by Professor Sir George Bain has produced recommendations on regulating lawyers. They include reforming the complaints handling system of the Law Society and the Bar Council, regulatory bodies, the creation of a Legal Services Oversight Commissioner and other measures on competition.

Mr Ferris, a nurse from Omagh, Co Tyrone, has had problems transferring land dating back 24 years. His group is based largely in Co Tyrone and Donegal and has 50 to 60 members.

"I would like to see an independent regulator similar to the Nursing and Midwifery Council where whenever a nurse is found guilty of a breach of trust the person is struck off," he added.

The Law Society said it had offered to meet Mr Wilson but received no response. A spokesman added: "The president of the society has written to the minister again offering to meet with him to discuss his concerns."

Mr Wilson said he had heard concerns from many constituents about the actions of their solicitors. He said: "Meeting with this group of individuals, who have bad experiences of their dealings with the legal profession, has crystallised in my mind the need for changes to be made to the way in which the legal profession is regulated."

Regulation responsibility is to transfer from his department to Justice Minister David Ford. He said: "I intend to recommend to him that he has a close look at Bain as I believe that we can do more to strengthen the existing system. Users of legal services should have access to a complaints system that is open, transparent and independent.

"It cannot and must not be left to solicitors to regulate themselves. The complaints which I receive about the Law Society indicate that it is not giving the confidence required to those who feel they have been let down by their solicitors."

by JOE FERRIS - LONE WOLF Mon Feb 18, 2013 19:01

CHRISTINE MEYLER AS AN EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF JOSEPH PATRICK FERRIS (DECEASED)

Plaintiff/Respondent

and

JOSEPH FERRIS

Defendant/Appellant

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CASE STATED

UNDER ARTICLE 62 (1) OF THE COUNTY COURTS (NI) ORDER 1980 IN RESPECT OF AN APPEAL TO THE HIGH COURT FROM A DECREE OF THE COUNTY COURT FOR THE DIVISION OF FERMANAGH AND TYRONE OF 30 MARCH 2007.
_____________________________________________________________________

SKELETON ARGUMENT OF EVIDENCE BY DEFENDANT/APPELLANT

I accompanied my late father Charles Ferris (deceased 9th October 2005) on all his consultations with solicitor Mr. James Montague from lodging an objection at Land Registry against Folio 2974 in response to advertisement dated 8th October 1986.

My late father outlined to solicitor James Montague that comparable persons to himself, i.e. ‘the eldest son’ inherited the farm of land as of inheritance right. And from the death of his father in 1945, this applied to himself. I remember James Montague explaining that as now we had ‘direct rule’ the 1925 Land Registration Act of England applied and ‘the eldest son’ no longer was entitled to inherit the farm of land.

My late father explained as to how from 1945 to the death of his mother in 1962, he performed all the functions of ‘full owner’ with respect to all aspects of ownership. His sister Ellen Dolan (nee Ferris) remained at home, but she was in receipt of money from her husband Tom Dolan in USA and there was always a possibility of Ellen leaving and going to live with her husband. My father’s other two sisters, Mary Ferris, (deceased 1975) and Bridget Ferris (deceased 2005) worked out in various jobs in Omagh and took little or no part in farming. My late father also explained how his brother, Joseph Ferris lived in Belfast and worked there as a male nurse. My late father explained how a Mr Joe Harding had lodged in the family home from 1950 and he was treated as ‘one of the family’ and actually purchased the adjoining farm for and on behalf of the Ferris family in 1962.

My late father had an ‘exceptional’ memory for local history and unfortunately, many of the meetings with solicitor James Montague would also have included a wide range of historical events. An example, was the gruesome murder of a Barrister O’Donnell opposite the Courthouse in Omagh by an ‘aggrieved farmer’ called McCrossan from ‘Dregish, County Tyrone’ either at the end of the 1800s or beginning of 1900s. I recall, my late father outline, how Mr. McCrossan, was a ‘powerful build of a man’ who had attached a very long handle to a ‘gaffe for killing salmon’ and as barrister O’Donnell walked past the shop window, Mr McCrossan, who was occupying an upstairs room used the ‘gaffe’ and hooked barrister O’Donnell by the throat and lifted the barrister off his feet until he bled profusely and fell to his death on the pavement below.

My late father had consultations with a barrister, I believe his name was ‘McRae’ (a very thin delicate man) on two occasions at Omagh Court House in early 1989. My late father provided extensive detail of all the children of Anne Ferris deceased 1925 and how the Land Registry affidavits of Bridget Ferris, Joseph Ferris and Joe Harding, contained many ‘false statements’. My late father also explained how Mr. Harding had apologised for the ‘false statements’ saying that he made his affidavit under pressure from Bridget Ferris, who begged him on her knees to do so as she felt her life was in danger from her brother Joe Ferris.

I attended with my late father at Omagh Court on 30th May 1989, in response to a letter from solicitor James Montague dated This was incredible given the FACT that the case was Adjourned on 5th May AND Mr. Montague had written a one line letter to my father Charles Ferris on Tuesday 9th May 1989. Dear Mr Ferris, We would advise that your case has been adjourned until Tuesday 30th June 1989. Yours faithfully, J. McNulty & Co.

My late father and I arrived early for the above court hearing on 30th May 1989. However, I became alarmed at about 9.45am as neither solicitor James Montague nor barrister McCrea were in the court. At this time Omagh Courthouse was like ‘Fort Knox’ with the level of RUC security, I had to seek permission on three occasions to phone Mr. James Montague, but I was unable to speak with Mr. Montague. I left frantic messages with the office staff and solicitor James Montague arrived in Omagh Court at about 10.15am. My late father asked about the barrister and solicitor James Montague explained that his office had made an administration error and ‘he had forgotten about the court case’. My father instructed to make an application for an adjournment.

At the opening of the court hearing, solicitor James Montague asked for an adjournment, but this was ‘forcefully’ rejected by barrister Fitzpatrick for the Plaintiffs. The County Court Hearing proceeded under these conditions, with barrister Fitzpatrick outlining, that solicitor James Montague, was ‘quite capable’ of defending the case.

The hearing continued from about 10.45 to about 12.30pm. The atmosphere in the hearing was ‘very hostile’ and Judge Babbington warned Joseph Ferris and my father on several occasions regarding their ‘verbal outbursts’ eventually, Judge Babbington stated that the next ‘interruption’ would result in a ‘charge of contempt of court’ and exclusion from the hearing. At about 12.30pm Judge Babbington stated, ‘the court will recess to I believe 1.30pm’.

At about 1.30pm barrister Fitzpatrick, began to provide more detailed ‘legal argument’ namely around issues such as ‘the defendant Charles Ferris, should not be in court today, has no rights to be in court, etc. etc.

After about five minutes, Judge Babbington asked barrister Fitzpatrick, "How are you going to deal with the ‘inheritance rights’ of Charles Ferris the objector?" Barrister Fitzpatrick provided a detailed ‘legal preamble’ with respect to ‘no entitlement’ and Judge Babbington asked the same question again saying, "I am asking you this for the second time?" Barrister Fitzpatrick again provided a detailed ‘legal preamble’ with respect to ‘no entitlement’. Judge Babbington, then stated, "I am going to ask you for the third and final time, how are you going to deal with the ‘inheritance rights’ of Charles Ferris, the objector?" Barrister Fitzpatrick made no reply and after a few minutes, Judge Babbington stated, "Application Dismissed and No Order as to Costs."

After the hearing outside the entrance to the courthouse, my late father ‘thanked and congratulated solicitor James Montague’. James Montague rebutted these and said, "You did not do yourself any favours in there!" My late father asked for details, but none were provided. At a consultation with solicitor James Montague in his office some 15 minutes later, James Montague accepted a telephone call from solicitor Christine Meyler, and we could hear her raised voice, but could not make out any words distinctly. Solicitor, James Montague, explained after the telephone call, ‘business must go on’. My late father asked as to what would happen now and solicitor James Montague stated, "there will most likely be an appeal to the High Court, ‘this case is costing Bridie a lot of money’ with an appeal to the High Court." My late father replied, "it doesn’t need to cost Bridie any money, if she will write to me and give me an apology for ‘treating me like a black sheep’ I will then call and see Bridie, as I never had an argument or disagreement with her in my life."

It is my recollection that on Saturday 24th June 1989, that I received a telephone call from my mother stating, "we thought you might have been up last night, there is a letter to your father from Montague about a settlement." I called up and my late father and I discussed about the prospects of a settlement. My late father was still insistent, that he required ‘a letter of apology’ and after some persuasion agreed for me to make an appointment with James Montague.

It is my recollection, that I was able to arrange the appointment for one day in the week commencing 26th June 1989. During this meeting solicitor James Montague stated, "Charlie, there is an offer, but I think you will not agree with it, there is an offer of seven ninths to Bridie and two ninths to you and your brother Joe is withdrawing any legal claim." My late father expressed his surprise at his brother Joe withdrawing his legal claim and mentioned the ‘hostile’ exchanges during the court hearing on 30th May 1989. My late father again said, "I told you before and I told my son on the way here, I will not accept any settlement until I get a letter of apology." Solicitor James Montague then stated, "I will send a letter of refusal, but to keep us both right, will you sign that the offer has been put to you." My father agreed and signed the document; after a few minutes, I asked, "can I see the offer?" and solicitor James Montague provided me with the document. I read over the offer and then said, "I would be afraid, in case your letter of refusal and the signed document become separated, I think you should also write across the document, ‘offer refused’ or words to that effect?" Solicitor James Montague, wrote some form of words across the document using his fountain pen. I remember James Montague saying, "Joe’s happy now Charlie!" I believe I then explained to James Montague that I was intending to buy a house near Altnagelvin in Derry and Mr. Montague agreed to take my business.

I explained to my late father that I would enquire of James Montague on a regular basis with regard to any future offers or any appeals to the High Court, saying, "this will kill two birds with the same stone." I provided the details of my house purchase to solicitor James Montague in August 1989 and completed the purchase in November 1989, with all bills being paid in December 1989. In early 1990, my wife Attracta was involved in a car accident in Derry and I persuaded her to engage James Montague, but her dealings were mainly with Mr. Cathal Murray. I believe this case was settled in 1991 and again I kept contact with Mr. Montague and frequently asked as to the progress of my late father’s case. Mr. Montague, would usually respond, "the situation is at stalemate, I can’t get a barrister to take the case because of the length of time and all the complications." I recall that in December 1992, I contacted solicitor James Montague on behalf of my father, as Bridget Ferris had come to live with my brother Charles Ferris, as she stated, "Joe has threatened to kill me, and he is going to burn the house to the ground." I remember Mr. Montague stating to me, "your father will be delighted now." I replied, "my father is not delighted, he is very concerned about Bridie’s safety." I requested a home visit by Mr. Montague, but this did not take place because there was a snowstorm and Mr. Montague said he would not risk driving up into the hills.

I believe Bridie Ferris remained with my brother Charles until after Christmas and then returned either end of January 1993 or early February 1993. My late father was still extremely concerned about Bridie’s safety and at a consultation with Mr. James Montague a ‘warning letter’ was sent to Joe Ferris. I did not enquire further after the letter from James Montague dated 27th January 1993, which states; ‘We think that these matter should now be resolved between the members of the family themselves.’ Apart from asking James Montague, as to how to frame a letter, as there was no ‘verbal contact’. James Montague, suggested writing the words ‘Without Prejudice’ at the top of any letter and this was the first time, I became aware of these words and their significance.

From December 1993 to May 1994, Bridie Ferris resided with my brother Charles again because of ‘concerns for her safety’. On 20th May 1994, Bridie Ferris, provided a ‘Power of Attorney’ for my late father, but when solicitor Christine Meyler, visited some days later, solicitor Christine Meyler, refused to accept my father to act as ‘power of attorney’.

My late father, my brother Charles and I met with Mr. Gibson at Land Registry around 1997 during this meeting Mr. Gibson stated that he ‘accepted’ that there was some ‘fraudulent aspects’ in the registration of Folio 2974 in May 1994.

Letter from Land Registry dated 17th June 2002 states, ‘I would again point out that two separate applications to Land Registry are involved in this matter. The first in 1986, to which you refer in your second paragraph of your letter of 15th May, relates to an application under Section 53 of the Land Registration Act (NI) 1970, being a claim to ownership of the land by way of ‘adverse possession’. The application was objected to by your father and was accordingly referred to the County Court for decision. The County Court dismissed the application and accordingly, the application was dismissed by Land Registry.

Letter from Land Registry dated 17th June 2002 also states, A second separate application was made in May 1994, which has nothing to do with the prior application made in 1986, some 8 years previous. This application was made by way of an Assent executed by the personal representatives of the registered owner and registration was carried out in accordance with the terms of the Assent. Again, I would refer you to the provisions of Article 18 of the Land and Deeds Order 1992, which is the law under which Land Registry is required to operate in this matter. It is not up to Land Registry, as I have stated, to question the authority of the personal representatives or their request for registration. Once again I would point out that this is a totally different application from the one which was referred to the county Court and which was dismissed and which was made some 8 years previous to 1994. Copy of Article 18 of the Land and Deeds Order 1992.

I carried out my own independent search of the Public Records Office in Northern Ireland in late December 2006 and I became very concerned to find that there had been ‘fraudulent practice’ by the personal representatives of Anne Ferris deceased 1925. The Oath was sworn by Bridget Ferris & Joseph Ferris on 18th May 1994 and administered by a solicitor in the office of R. H. O’Connor & Company, Solicitors Omagh. I am able to prove ‘beyond all reasonable doubt’ that this ‘Oath’ was fraudulent and pejorative, as detailed below. The following extract from the enclosed ‘Oath’ is very significant in relation to the fraudulent and pejorative content as detailed below. (c) a widow, leaving Patrick Ferris, John Ferris, James Ferris, Joe Ferris, Thomas Ferris, Charles Ferris. Catherine Ferris and Ellen Ferris her lawful and only children and only next of kin all of whom have since died and without grandchild or other descendant the issue of a predeceased child her surviving, that we are the Administrators of the personal estate of the said Charles Ferris under Grant of Administration dated 12.12.1985 granted forth of the District Registry at Londonderry. The above extract from the ‘Oath’ is incorrect and is at variance with the fact that there were 33 ‘grandchildren’ of Anne Ferris.

It is my understanding that "Perjury is the "wilful and corrupt taking of a false oath in regard to a material matter in a judicial proceeding". As this ‘false oath’ was then provided to Royal Courts of Justice Belfast for the purpose of Bridget Ferris and Joseph Ferris becoming the personal representatives of Anne Ferris deceased 1925. The letter dated 2 January 2007 from the Master Probate Office, Royal Courts of Justice states, ‘It is impossible for the office to verify the content of each application. Indeed the office is entirely dependent on the solicitors lodging the application to ensure the factuality of the content of the application. The oath document which contains all the relevant detail in relation to entitlement to the grant is a sworn document and as such will be taken by the office as a statement of fact (provided it is completed properly). (Stephen Watson 2nd January 2007)

I believe that on the evidence of ‘fraudulent practice’ and the evidence of ‘perjury’ is sufficient cause for the County Court to ‘Set Aside’ the Registration of Folio 2974 on the basis that the Oath has therefore been incorrectly attested and on foot thereof, an illegal Assent was presented to Land Registry in May 1994 for the ‘Invalid Registration’ of Folio 2974.

I believe that information provide to me by my daughter Sinead Ferris after performing an Internet Search indicated that Mr Sean Magee Solicitor in office of Rodgers & Co may not have been providing a robust ‘interrogation’ of the ‘deceptive legal’ position of the ‘Plaintiff’ due to his past criminal record.

Judge David McFarland at Dungannon County Court stated:- "I have some concerns about the Assent executed in 1994. Section 34(2) of the Administration of Estates Act (NI) 1955 provides that "a personal representative may execute an assent vesting any estate or interest in .. land in the person entitled thereto". Section 34 (1)(b) defines a "person entitled" as including "the persons or person (…) who (whether by devise, bequest, devolution, appropriation or otherwise) may be beneficially entitled to that estate or interest". The duty of any personal representative is to ensure that the person in whom they vest the interest of the deceased is the person properly entitled to the interest. In this case the personal representatives appear to have assumed that the title in the land passed to the descendants of Charles, as Charles had acquired ownership in the land. Such ownership could not be by way of devise, bequest, devolution, or appropriation, so would have to fall into the "otherwise" category. After the County Court had rejected a S.53 application it is perhaps inappropriate for Bridget and Joseph P. to decide that Bridget is the person entitled to 7/9th of the estate, given that her entitlement under intestacy would have been as little as 1/24th (increasing to 1/12th if Joseph P’s interest is added.)"

Judge David McFarland also stated:- "I remain concerned about the title that the proposed purchaser (vendor?) can offer to any prospective purchaser. Her title derives firstly from the assent and then from the transfer, by way of gift, and finally as personal representative. Referring to the English 1925 Act (the equivalent to our 1955 Act), Snell’s Equity (13th Edition) states: "An assent… is to be taken as "sufficient evidence" that the person in whose favour the assent… is given or made is the person entitled to have the legal estate conveyed to him… but it is not otherwise to affect prejudicially the claim of any person rightly entitled to the estate…" It further states "sufficient evidence" is not the same as "conclusive evidence"; a purchaser accordingly cannot rely on an assent if, on a proper investigation of title, facts come to his knowledge which indicate that the assent was not made in favour of the person rightfully entitled. The simple enquiry concerning the assent will alert any purchaser to a potential difficulty. A court sanctioned sale may operate to lull a prospective purchaser into a false sense of security into such an investigation of what would appear to be a defective devolution of the legal estate."

Judge David McFarland also stated:- "In the circumstances I restrict my ruling in this case to a determination as to parties’ rights to such interest as Charles Ferris (Senior) may have had in the land comprised in the folio. His Honour Judge McFarland 30 March 2007.

Judge David McFarland also stated:- "The evidence of Joseph Ferris cannot be regarded as being particularly accurate. I use this neutral term, as I am uncertain as to whether he has simply lied, has fantasised about this case, or, as a result of his unhealthy obsession with the case, has rejected in his own mind any possible set of facts which contradict his version of what could have happened. Whatever the reason, he cannot be regarded as a witness of truth. He has already lied to the police about the alleged forgery, and, in my view, gave blatantly inaccurate evidence to the court. His assertion that as a member of the nursing profession he is bound to tell the truth does not require comment from me."

I am still waiting for Judge David McFarland to register his concerns with the Nursing & Midwifery Council, the Regulatory Body for my profession, i.e. Registered Nurse.

At the commencement of my contacts with solicitor James Montague and other solicitors in October 1986, I had 100% ‘blind faith’ in the legal profession. I now have minus 100% if that is possible, the ‘blatant corruption’ in my late father’s case and with my contact almost on a daily basis with ‘Victims of the Legal Profession’ from all over Ireland and through the websites www.CrookedLawyers.com and www.RateYourSolicitor.com from all corners of the English speaking world. I do not have any expectations of getting justice and from reading the brief extracts from the following four books by authors in Australia, there is little prospect of justice in these islands, with some prospect, perhaps in the European Court of Human Rights.