PCP Set To Be Listed For Hearing At Bromley Magistrates Court
If you missed the last update, please read it at the link below before you continue reading this post, so that you are up to speed with all the latest developments in the case, which has now progressed from Westminster to Bromley Magistrates Court.
One week ago, we were informed by telephone that PUB’s PCP papers are now with the designated court’s listings department, who expect a case number will soon be issued, following checks by the legal team at Bromley Magistrates, to which it was transferred for processing and listing by the Westminster court where the case was laid last month.
Effectively, this means that the case files contained enough prima facie evidence of pandemic fraud for Westminster to transfer the case to Bromley, for the purposes of performing the final legal checks [the initial checks having been done by the south London court’s legal department] and listing the first hearing of the case at the Kent court.
Past Experience & Mansfield’s PCP
Experience has taught us, by way of the Hancock warrant application being dismissed at the end of 2020 [in the absence of enough prima facie evidence], upon the order of a district judge at Westminster Magistrates Court, who made his decision on paper [without a hearing], that we have already cleared the first major hurdle in the proceedings.
Moreover, were that not correct there is no realistic possibility that the case would have been transferred to Bromley’s listing department, especially given that particular judicial venue is where all PCP’s laid at Westminster are sent when sufficient evidence has been submitted to justify the listing of a hearing at Bromley Magistrates Court, which specialises in Private Criminal Prosecutions.
Furthermore, when renegade barrister, Michael Mansfield QC, acted for a retired Iraqi general in a PCP against former Prime Minister, Tony Blair, and others, for crimes of aggression in Iraq, the papers were laid at Westminster Magistrates, where they were dismissed on the grounds that the accused are immune from prosecution and the offence is unknown to UK law.
Nevertheless, Mansfield ran a High Court appeal of the decision, on the ground that the evidence cited against the defendants was sufficient for the case to proceed to trial. However, the court refused the appeal and upheld the ground that the UK does not recognise the crime of aggression under domestic law as being an indictable offence.
R [Rabbat] v Blair & Others
In corroboration of the foregoing, on 05/07/2017, Owen Bowcott wrote the following on R [Rabbat] v Blair & Others in The Guardian:
“An initial application to launch the prosecution was dismissed at Westminster magistrates court on the grounds that Blair enjoys immunity and that the crime of aggression does not exist in English law.
The court was told that attempts to persuade the international criminal court to prosecute to the former Labour prime minister for invading Iraq have made no significant progress.
The crime of aggression was finally defined in 2010 by the ICC, the high court heard, but it has not yet been ratified by a sufficient number of states.
The high court appeal is being heard by the lord chief justice, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, and Mr Justice Ouseley.
The current attorney general, Jeremy Wright QC, has intervened in the case to argue that the crime does not exist in the statute book. “The crime of aggression is not known to English law,” James Eadie QC, for the attorney general, told the court.”
It was then reported in The Herald on 31/07/2017 that:
“Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, the Lord Chief Justice, and Mr Justice Ouseley dismissed the general’s application, saying there was “no prospect” of the case succeeding.
The case was brought after Westminster Magistrates’ Court refused to issue summonses in November last year on the grounds that the ex-ministers had immunity from legal action, and in any event the current Attorney General, Jeremy Wright QC, would have to give consent.”
Potential Reasons For Listing A Hearing
Therefore, on the balance of probabilities, the first hearing of R [PUB] v Hancock & Others is being processed by the legal department at Bromley Magistrates Court, for one or more of the following purposes:
- To list a pleading hearing, in which case summonses will be issued to each of the defendants in due course [perhaps as early as this week].
- To list a hearing of our informal application for a declaration that the autopsy moratorium on alleged COVID deaths be lifted and a moratorium be placed on all flu and COVID jabs [for a period of at least 90 days].
- To list a preliminary hearing of the evidence adduced before a district judge, who will decide whether or not the case should progress to trial by jury on the charges laid.
That being said, the third possibility is a now somewhat remote one because PCP’s generally only get transferred to Bromley Magistrates Court when they are deemed to have enough substantive evidence to proceed to trial.
It also naturally follows that the action would have suffered the same fate as the Hancock warrant application [and Mansfield’s PCP] without leaving the jurisdiction of Westminster Magistrates, in the event that the district judge presiding at the court did not think that the case has at least a realistic prospect of securing criminal convictions against the defendants.
Common Law Always Provides A Remedy
Whatever the wrongdoing, be it a criminal or civil offence, the Common Law always provides a remedy, no matter how grave the circumstances surrounding the case.
Since murder is the ultimate heinous crime, mass murder by whatever means is the most wicked of wrongdoings under the Common Law.
However, when mass murder is being carried out by government policy, it is always the case that the state-controlled police and public prosecutor refuse to investigate such allegations by members of the oppressed masses, just as we have witnessed in Britain over the past year.
Nevertheless, in treacherous and dangerous times such as these, the Common Law provides the People with the means of bringing the perpetrators of mass murder by government policy to justice in a Private Criminal Prosecution.
It therefore goes without saying that, when [if not before] the PCP against Hancock, Whitty, Vallance and Ferguson succeeds in securing criminal convictions for multiple breaches of the Fraud Act 2006, another private prosecution will lay charges of mass murder against the defendants and their accomplices.