4 Glen Court
Glen Close
Beacon Hill
HINDHEAD
Surrey
GU26 6QT
11 August 2001
Dear Sir/Madam
ANDREW COVEY -v- UNITED KINGDOM - CIVIL PROCEEDINGS ORDER
I write to introduce an application to the European Court of Human Rights.
I was made the subject of a Civil Proceedings Order under section 42(1) of the Supreme Court Act 1981 on 6 October 2000 by the Divisional Court.
I was not permitted to address the court fully as required by article 6(1) of the Convention.
I therefore claim that there was inequality of arms in the court hearing.
My application for permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal was dismissed on 19 February 2001.
Therefore, the Court of Appeal decision dated 19 February 2001 is the final exhaustion of domestic remedies under article 35(1) of the Convention.
I consider that the hearing of the application before the Divisional Court was in breach of article 6(1) and 10(1) of the Convention for the following reasons :-
(1) I was denied the opportunity of arguing my case as the court indicated that my submissions were to end at 11.30 am on 3 October 2000 as the hearing had already occupied the whole of 2 October 2000.
(2) No reasons were given for imposing an indefinite Civil Proceedings Order against me, apart from the court indicating that the order would be indefinite, and I was not invited to address the court on this issue in any event.
(3) The making of an indefinite order was disproportionate along with the making of the Order in any event.
(4) The constitution of the Divisional Court was not an fair and impartial tribunal as former Law Officers had been consulted about their appointment and the application was being brought by the Solicitor-General on behalf of the Attorney-General.
(5) The hearing before the Divisional Court was not before an fair and impartial tribunal as the court had secret bench memoranda prepared by Crown Office lawyers.
(6) The provisions of section 42(1) of the Supreme Court Act 1981 for the making of the Order were too vague and were not reasonably foreseeable along with any consequences regarding obtaining permission to institute or continue with proceedings under section 42(3) of the Supreme Court Act 1981 once the order had been made.
(7) The making of such an Order is discriminatory regarding similar Orders in Northern Ireland and Scotland under article 14 as there are some advantages regarding the making of Orders in those jurisdictions as compared with an Order under section 42 of the Supreme Court Act 1981 in England and Wales.
(8) I therefore do not consider that the making of the Civil Proceedings Order against me was established or prescribed by law under article 6(1) and 10(1) of the Convention.
(9) My application for permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal was also an unfair determination of my civil rights under article 6(1) and 10(1) as Lord Chief Justice Woolf had indicated that he had acted as Treasury Counsel on a Vexatious Litigation application whilst at the bar on behalf of HM Attorney-General. Also the judges were appointed in the same manner as before the Divisional Court.
I will forward the supporting application and case papers when I receive a reference number and acknowledgement from the court.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Yours faithfully
Andrew Covey
COVEY (MENU)
COVEY - EUROPEAN COURT: WITNESS STATEMENT
COVEY - EUROPEAN COURT: WITNESS STATEMENT OF TERENCE EWING
Back To Site Index