Democracy, appearance and reality in Post-Bradley's England: A letter to Senior Legal Managers, the Administrative Court

Dr Alexander Sobko

05.08.08


Senior Legal Managers
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2A 23LL



REF: CO/3950/2008

Dear Sir,

On 24th of April 2008 I submitted my claim for judicial review to the Administrative Court. Having applied the reasonableness test to how my claim have been processed by now, I became induced to seek your opinion as to whether my judgement that the test failed is reasonable in its turn. There are two aspects that I wish to offer for your attendance.

Firstly, my application for interim relief was turned down on 29 April 2008 by Sir Michael Harrison on the basis that it is not appropriate to apply for interim relief when an alternative remedy exists (see a copy attached). As far as I understand the basic tenets of the English jurisprudence, in particular the Constitutional and Administrative Law, it is up to me to decide whether to follow procedures of complaining or taking the matter to the court. Therefore, should I construe the wording of Sir Harrison’s decision as semantically equal to the statement that it would be inappropriate to attend an evening party at a chamber in white trousers? As far as I understand, the interim relief is a remedy available for a person who submitted a claim to the court and who has a reason to seek urgent consideration of the case, which I had indeed. Therefore, Sir Harrison, in fact, disapproved my application to the Judicial System of the United Kingdom altogether. Consequently, the question arises as to whether a person in the capacity of a judge of the Administrative Court is empowered to impose his opinion as to whether somebody should or should not seek judicial help in this country?

Another question which comes to my mind in this context is whether Sir Harrison’s decision would contradict or adversely affect the English Law or running the English judicial system had he responded to my seeking interim relief in positive? If not, what was the basis of his decision? May be, to understand this, I need to make acquaintance with Sir Harrison’s ethical views? In this respect I would appreciate if you could be so kind as to refer me to the publications where a biography of Sir Harrison is laid down as I failed to find it. .

Secondly, on 4th of August 2008 I visited listing office of the Administrative Court to seek information as to the standing of my claim , and I had a pleasure of conversing with Mr Roberts on the issue. Firstly, I was taken my mobile's telephone number, which in fact I passed to the office on my previous visit. Secondly, I was told that nothing have changed in the status of my claim since I submitted it, that is, after 15 weeks time has elapsed. Mr Roberts found my question as to what percent of the cases submitted about the same time as mine was experience such a significant delay - I was told, that 8 weeks waiting time is considered to be a characteristic for processing of claims at the Court- a silly one.

Hence, I have a feeling that my perception as to what is reasonable substantially differs from that in operation at the Court. From my point of view, the above indicates of my case having biased treatment at the Court. Now, I have to let you know, that on a number of cases I was poisoned in the United Kingdom, and on three occasions when I complained about this to UCL Hospital and to St Thomas Hospital, I was offered to see a psychiatrist. My complains to the police were in vain also as there were no medical evidence to start a case (details can be supplied on demand). So far, i was used to believe that toxicologists are those people who are qualified to deal with poisonings, and the repeated suggestions to see a psychiatrist with respect to the complains of poisoning indicate that my cultural background and the notion of what is reasonable and what is not substantially differ from those that seem to be pertinent to the views held by the educated layer of the British society.

One more fact in support of the latter thesis is that recently during my visit to the City Citizen’s Advice Bureau to seek advice on my claim submitted to the Court an adviser expressed her strong disapproval of that I dared to sue the Department for Work and Pensions at all. In view of that all, it well may be that my classifying of my case treatment at the Court as biased is not reasonable, and I am seeking your judgement as a reasonable person as to whether my expressed perception of how my case is being treated is reasonable or just a delusion?

Sincerely yours,



Alexander Sobko