COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE KINGSTON UPON HULL DISTRICT REGISTRY
(MRS JUSTICE SMITH)

[Comment: wrong: the appeal was against District Judge Weston's order from the Kingston upon
Hull District Registry.]

Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2

Wednesday 5th March 1997

Before

Lord justice saville 

-and-

LORD JUSTICE MORRITT

- - - - - - - - - -

JAMES FREDERICK HULBERT
Plaintiff/Applicant

-v-

(1) HIS HONOUR JUDGE A SIMPSON
(2) MRS SM WEST
Defendants/Respondents
 

I intertwine my comments in red text.

LORD JUSTICE SAVILLE: This is an application by the plaintiff in person for leave to appeal
against an order made on 12th November 1996 by the Honourable Mrs Justice Smith sitting at the
Kingston upon Hull District Registry

Patently false, because it was District Judge Weston, who struck out the claim, at the
Kingston upon Hull District Registry. Mrs. Justice Smith has never at any time struck out
the action as disclosing no reasonable cause of action. The truth is that she dismissed the
appeal against the District Judge's order in Sheffield as the evidence of her order
dismissing the appeal demonstrates: see Court seal on her order at:
  http://corruption.faithweb.com/orders345.html        

in an appellate capacity. By her order the judge dismissed the plaintiff's appeal against the striking
out of his statement of claim by District Judge Weston under Order 18 Rule 19 of the Rules of the
Supreme Court on the ground that that statement of claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action.

Then it is admitted by those two Law Lords, that my appeal was simply dismissed by Mrs.
Justice Smith and it is plain that what I have been saying all along is true. She never, at
any stage, agreed that D/Judge Weston was correct in striking out the claim as disclosing
no reasonable cause of
action, nor could she possibly agree after having ruled exactly the opposite: see page from
certified transcript of hearing at:  http://corruption.faithweb.com/lie.html

The plaintiff claims damages for conspiracy to pervert the course of justice including aggravated and
exemplary damages against his Honour Judge Alan Simpson and against Mrs Sheila West, who was
a court shorthand writer. The claim arises from a criminal trial at the Kingston upon Hull Crown
Court held in December 1991.
The plaintiff, who, as I understand it, represented himself at that trial, was acquitted of charges of
making off without payment of a taxi fare and two counts of assault with intent to resist arrest. The
first defendant was the presiding judge at that criminal trial, and the second defendant was the
shorthand writer on one day of the trial.
What the plaintiff, Mr Hulbert, alleges is that Mrs West fabricated or altered parts of her shorthand
note of evidence at the behest of Judge Simpson who, it is alleged, dictated false or misleading notes
with the object, or intent, of protecting the police from a civil action the plaintiff was bringing against
the police for assault, false imprisonment and malicious prosecution. The plaintiff says that the
fabricated shorthand notes are alleged to have been inserted into the shorthand notebooks, and the
old true pages removed carefully from the wire coil at the top of the book.
In a written note, which Mr Hulbert has prepared and read to us this morning, he sets out full details
of what he says were the alterations and tampering with the shorthand note.
The essence of the judgment of Mrs Justice Smith was that there were insufficient facts and matters
pleaded to support this allegation that it was a conspiracy.

Regardless of what Mrs. Justice Smith may or may not have said in order to try to justify
the dismissal of my appeal, the superceding fact remains: she dismissed the appeal in the
absolute knowledge that it had been struck out on a false ground: disclosing no reasonable
cause of action, contrary to her own ruling and that the order remained, as if valid, on the
court record.
If she had believed that she had any other reason to strike out the action she would have
and should have made an order to that affect, but she wouldn't and couldn't. She had no
other valid reason.
After all it was a re-hearing of application before D/J Weston. Common sense tells up that
if there was plainly an alleged cause of action disclosed in the S/Claim, the appeal should
have been allowed.

The plaintiff, in effect, relies on two matters. Firstly, that there were these inaccuracies in the
transcript and, secondly, that the defendants have not themselves personally denied the
conspiracy, although it has been denied on their behalf by a defence served on their behalf by the
Treasury Solicitor.

So the LJs have held that Judge Simpson and Mrs. West have not personnaly denied the
conspiracy and that ties in with the denials in the defence which provide not a single
particular that answers the facts relied on in the Statement of Claim. The one significant
comment in the defence, however, is this statement: "The defendants refuse to answer
requests and questions the answers to which would tend to expose them to criminal
penalties." I contend that both Judge Simpson and Mrs. West, have made their corruption
known to the LCD.

I can assure everyone that I relied on far more than the two matters mentioned by LJ
Saville. I relied on the evidence that I had produced before Mrs. Justice Smith, some of
which, as everyone knows by now, is disclosed in my website at URL:
http://www.qwikpages.com/rockyroad/corruption/notebook.html , but more than anything else I
relied on the fact that the S/Claim discloses an alleged cause of action as Justice Smith had
ruled and again; I repeat, that unlawful order remained, as if valid on the court record and
still does to this day.

Mrs Justice Smith concluded that even if one assumed in favour of the plaintiff, as one has to on an
application striking out on these grounds,

There you have it "one has to on an application striking out on these grounds," Can there
be any clearer evidence that D/J Weston wrongly excercised his discretion?
The thing is that Mrs. Justice Smith didn't assume in my favour as she *HAD TO*.
She merely dismissed my appeal without striking it out on any other ground.

that his allegations of alterations and tampering with the transcript are correct, nevertheless those
facts, assuming them to be established, fell far short of beginning to demonstrate that there was,
accordingly, a conspiracy between the trial judge and the shorthand writer of the kind that Mr
Hulbert suggests.

Mrs. Justice Smith had already held that, if the issues fell to be determined, they fell to be
determined by a trial judge and LJ Saville knows that upon an application to strike out an
action as disclosing no reasonable cause of action no evidence is permissible.
It was an appeal against an order striking out on a false ground and they had themselves
agreed that one must find in favour of the Plaintiff in an application to strike out on the
Defendants' submitted grounds.
In any event abundant indisputable official documentary evidence had been submitted to
Mrs. Justice Smith and was submited to the Court of Appeal for the LJs consideration.

Having looked at the papers, the affidavits sworn by Mr Hulbert and the other material in the bundle, together with the document he handed in and read to us this morning, which was entitled
"Background to Case" and "Application for Leave to Appeal", I have to say, in my view, that Mrs
Justice Smith did reach the right conclusion and the contrary is not sufficiently arguable to enable us
to give leave to appeal.
The fact that, if such it be, the notes were tampered with does not, in my mind, begin to entail or
suggest that there was therefore a conspiracy of the nature alleged.

Again it wasn't their job to decide whether their was a conspiracy. There was no trial,

As to the second point pressed on us by Mr Hulbert, the fact that the defendants have not
themselves personally denied the conspiracy seems to me to be neither here nor there. They have put in a defence, as is their right.

As LJ Saville had twice stated, 'the defendants had not personally denied the allegations'
and he had stated that the defence had been put in on their behalf, so he knew that they
had not personally put in a defence, other than to say that they refused to answer requests
or questions and it is patently clear that that is no defence.
The LJ declined to say, in this judgement, that the defence submitted by the Treasury
Solicitor, refused point blank to answer even one of the alleged facts on which the S/Claim
relied, contrary to the rules of the Supreme Court.

That defence, on their behalf, specifically denies these allegations, and I can draw absolutely no
inference of the nature suggested by Mr Hulbert from the fact that the defendants have not, at
this stage, themselves personally denied these allegations.

"That defence on their behalf: was not 'their defence'
Even the LJs agree with me that the defendants hadn't personally denied the allegations
and how could they, or can they, when and if they have made their corruption known to the
LCD, which I strongly believe to be the case.

In those circumstances, despite the help given to us by Mr Hulbert this morning, I am bound to say
that I must conclude that the chances of him succeeding in an appeal from Mrs Justice Smith are
virtually non- existent, and in those circumstances the application for leave to appeal must be
refused.

Well, that part may be true, but who knows whether the Court of Appeal would join in the
conspiracy, I somehow doubt it.

LORD JUSTICE MORRITT: I agree.

ORDER: Application refused.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Back to Justice Smith