General Election, 1997:  I stood as an Independent Old Age Pensioner in Chesterfield, a town I had never set foot in till the morning nominations closed, knocked on doors till I found ten local people to nominate me then, with only two hours to spare, went to the council office to put down my last £500 as deposit, knowing I would lose it. 

The two main points in my manifesto were my concern at the LACK of concern by regular politicians at the horrifying increase in two sort of crime:  (a) Violent & murderous attacks on the vulnerable & the old (unheard of at one time), &  (b)‘Fraud In The Legal System’ (of which I had newly become aware).  Both worthy objectives, surely?  –  but the second one earned me very powerful enemies! 

In the manifesto I wrote, “We have all been reared to believe that lawyers (particularly judges) are people of the highest intellect & integrity.  I have recently come across much evidence to the contrary, & will publish a book in the near future”.        I did; it was entitled ‘CAUSE FOR CONCERN’(1997) & included evidence of fraud in the civil courts.  In the foreword I wrote: 

Other extracts from the book are below: 

“For 69 years I believed the propaganda that English judges were men & women of high intellect; of integrity & insight; of honour & honesty; of competence & conscience.  I was living in Fairyland, & so are you if you believe as I did!”

“That there is one rotten apple in the barrel is worrying.  That there should be several is frightening. … This little book is my attempt to expose a rotten canker in this nation.  Pure chance, & their carelessness born of arrogance caused me to stumble into knowledge of it.”             (The book also dealt with violent attacks by burglars & muggers on the vulnerable & the old.)  It continued:

“… I too am a victim.  I too have been swindled, robbed, cheated & mugged, but my attackers have not been the usual kind.  They wear smart suits, yes - & wigs & robes too – but they are thugs just the same”.

“Bear this in mind as you read what follows:  It is a tale about the legal profession, the intellectual elite of the country.  … That such a profession should use the English language (& the law) as carelessly as this lot have done would be only incompetence, but there is much more to it than just incompetence”.

“There are some 3,00 or so judges.  They can’t all be dishonest can they?   You must forgive me for beginning to think they are.  … they have been queuing up to put the boot into me (nine of them so far – I’m losing count)”.

“… ‘Surely they can’t DO that?’ people have said to me.  Oh but they can – shyster lawyers & dishonest judges can do ANYTHING - & if the people of Great Britain don’t wake up they will continue doing it!”

“Judges are after all only jumped up lawyers, & the lawyer’s inborn hatred of the ‘Litigant In Person’ does not disappear when he swears the Judicial Oath.  It increases, & he has the power to indulge it”.

“The Mafia in Italy, Al Capone in Chicago & the Kray twins in London all had their protection rackets, & anyone who failed to pay ‘insurance’ would be taught a lesson.  Fail to pay your protection money to the legal profession – by failing to hire a lawyer - & you will certainly be ‘taught a lesson’!”                                                  (See next page for more from Cause For Concern.)

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

What chance did I have before a British judge after the words in the manifesto, in the book, & to Lord Woolf? (below)

In the Civil Appeal Court, 24^th March 1999 I gave lessons in law & a beating to Lord Woolf (then Master of the Rolls, now Lord Chief Justice), Lord Justice Otton & LJ Ward.  Three months later I was bold enough to tell them, “Her Majesty the Queen, whose courts these are, is badly served by the shysters who infest the judiciary”.  A half page colour spread in the Yorkshire Evening Post (25/6/99) was headlined, “NORMAN ‘OUSTS’(routs) TOP JUDGE”. 

They did not lock me up for contempt – but some-one, somewhere, decided I must be silenced – one way or another!  Just six weeks later I was the victim of a potentially lethal attack by a mob-handed gang of West Yorkshire police, acting as a private army – without even the pretence of a lawful excuse.  There has been a nationwide cover up of that police crime. 

My High Court action LS 190 197, a Claim against the ex Chief Constable of West Yorkshire for £1,000,000 damages can bring it to light.  There is to be a short hearing at Leeds Courthouse at 10am 8^th January 2004. 

The Prison Service & the courts have conspired to delay it for more than two years already, & will undoubtedly cause more delay knowing that (even without the ill treatment inflicted on me in prison) at my age of 78 it cannot be long before I suffer a heart attack, a stroke, enfeeblement or death, thus ensuring the crime remains covered up for ever.  

The ‘great’ Lord Denning said, “Better that innocent men should remain in prison than that the integrity of the judiciary be impugned”.  I HAD been impugning that (supposed) ‘integrity’ - to some tune!  On first setting out to expose corruption in the civil courts, I said, “The worse they treat me the better”, in that it would confirm the truth of my allegations.  It did get worse, but little could I have imagined how evil that worst could be!

Below is more from Cause for Concern, part of ‘Chapter 12, The Counter Attack’.  It tells about the ‘Laying of an Information’ (starting a private prosecution).  Trying to be humourous (though that which it exposes is NOT funny) I give the characters nicknames, the grandest ‘Our Hero’ being mine. 

After a lot of to-ing & fro-ing, a summons was issued, but only against the individual, not the company.  After the bother, Our Hero did not want to start all over again, so left it at that.  The summons was presented before Stipendiary Magistrate Mrs. Penny Twoface (Mrs. Penelope Hewitt) for her approval, which was granted without fuss.  She even complimented Our Hero on finding ‘this obscure Statute’, of which she had never heard.

At the first hearing, the defendant appeared, & said that her solicitors, Pitt Bull Turrier (Denison Till) had advised her to plead Not Guilty.  She did so, & another date was set.  It had all gone quite nicely for Our Hero, so he thought it might be a good idea to take out that summons against the limited company, as intended.  He tried to do so, expecting it to be easy with the earlier model to copy.  Not so.  There was a much bigger kerfufle than before, & after a long wait, back came the word, ‘There’s a problem, Mrs. Twoface wants to see you”.  She was full of apologies.  It seems that the original summons, being out of time, was faulty.

The original court staff hadn’t noticed, Mrs. Twoface hadn’t noticed, Pitt Bull Turrier hadn’t noticed, but in asking for a second helping Our Hero had slipped up.  Some sharp-eyed person had noticed.  ‘It’s my fault’ said Penny ‘I’m very sorry, I should have noticed.  Mr. Clerk, can we pay Mr. Scarth anything out of court funds to recompense him for his trouble?’  ‘Sorry, no’ was the answer.  Our Hero ventured to Penny that there was more to the story than she knew.  ‘I’m sure there is’ said she, ‘I wish you well in whatever action you take’.  On being told that it might be the House of Lords next she exclaimed ‘Wow!’

What a lovely, warm, human person she was, & such a refreshing change from those who have featured in the saga so far.  It was disappointing to Our Hero that his counter attack had come to a halt, but it turned out to be all to the good.  The harassing was resumed (with increased ferocity), which brought it all back within the time limit, so Our Hero, with some experience under his belt now, was able to start again.

Two of Pit Bull Turrier’s team of lawyers had been very active in the harassment, so Our Hero started action against them, against Foulmouth Ltd. (Bradley Grange Stud), & the director.  The four summonses went before Penny Twoface again.  She read through the documents.  One of the lawyers summoned had a rather unusual double-barreled name.  On reaching that name, Penny’s eyes narrowed, & there was an ever so slight drawing back.  She obviously recognized the name as that of a member of her own profession, though it didn’t say so on the document.

Outwardly calm, no doubt her mind was racing as to how she could frustrate this action.  She couldn’t do so on the grounds that the man named was a solicitor, so mentally flailing around, she grabbed at the only straw she could reach.  ‘You can’t prosecute a limited company’, said she.  Even Our Hero, little that he knew, was quite sure that you can, but Penny was adamant.  He came away with three summonses.

He goes to the Law Library, does a little research, & in due course sends to Penny a photo copy of ‘Halsbury’s Statutes, 4^th Edition, Vol. 12, 1994 Re-issue’, pages 544/5, & other authorities, which say, ‘Yes, you can prosecute a limited company’.  One didn’t need to be a Queen’s Counsel to know that.    

Several days & several frustrating phone calls to the court later, Our Hero achieves audience before Penny again.  She grudgingly grants the fourth summons.  Frowning, she warns ‘You might end up being declared a vexatious litigant’.  That was preposterous.  These people had been misusing the law for the purpose of hounding an innocent pensioner to penury, with the threat of bankruptcy & prison, & when the victim dares to fight back through the courts, HE is threatened with being declared a Vexatious Litigant!

Penny Twoface probably is the lovely warm person she appeared to be at first, but that part of her had to be submerged, & the lawyer in her took over when a member of her profession was threatened. 

Eventually came the first hearing, before three lay magistrates.  The defendants pleaded ‘not guilty’.  Our Hero outlined the case.  The defendant’s solicitor jumped up & asked for a declaration of ‘No case to answer’.   The magistrates refused, decided there WAS a case to answer, & a date was set for the hearing proper.  Our Hero was mildly hopeful that he might get a fair hearing before three lay magistrates – but it was not to be.

Picture the situation:  Our Hero, who left school at 13, was trying single handed to topple two lawyers.  Was the legal profession going to allow this to happen?  The question doesn’t need an answer.  The defendants are represented by two more lawyers (barrister & solicitor), who approach the Chief Clerk of the Court (another lawyer) & say, ‘Please can we have a Stipendiary Magistrate (a lawyer) for the trial’.  (A bit like a burglar saying, “Please can I have a burglar as magistrate?”

Collusion, conspiracy, or just a prime example of ‘The Old Boy’s Network’ in operation?  How did Our Hero learn of this?  Purely by chance, mischance, or possibly a deliberate act by an unknown well wisher in the court, a document came into his hands.  It was a copy of the letter from the two lawyers to the Chief Clerk!  It was shown to several ordinary citizens.  They all uttered the same two words – ‘IT STINKS’. 

Chapter 12 continued with detail of the skullduggery when I sought judicial review of the decision, but that will suffice for now.  Another chapter told of the start of my application to the European Court of Human Rights, & the obstruction I met from the British lawyers who act as gatekeepers. 

My eventual success there (case 33745/96), though only a small civil case, nevertheless brought a much-needed change in British law, incorporated into the 1998 Human Rights Act (Confirmed by letter to Jacqui Lait MP dated 1/9/98, from Geffrey Hoon MP, then Lord Chancellor Irvine’s spokesman in the Commons).  The change is much hated by lawyers & judges, & I am hated for it.