Posts Tagged ‘High Court’
Home Office Denies FOI Request In Cover-Up Of All Information On Cannabis Production Licences
On 6th March 2018 CLEAR submitted a Freedom of Information Request to the Home Office asking for full details of the licences accounting for the legal production of cannabis in the UK. This arose from the story which we broke on 4th March revealing that the UK is the world’s largest producer and exporter of legal cannabis, this according to data provided to the International Narcotics Control Board (INCB) by the government.
The Home Office has refused the request. Its grounds for refusal are that disclosure “would, or would be likely to, prejudice the commercial interests of any person or would be likely to prejudice the prevention or detection of crime“.
Presumably this means that the commercial interest of GW Pharmaceuticals and whoever else has been granted such licences would be prejudiced and that they would risk robbery or other crime at their places of business.
INCB Production of Cannabis 2015-2016
We consider this to be false and without any merit whatsoever. How would it prejudice anyone’s commercial interest? We would not expect any detail that goes behind the licence holder’s normal commercial confidence and it must be right that the identity of those companies or individuals licenced to produce cannabis should be on the public record together with outline information about the terms of the licence – what is it for, for what period, in what quantities. Furthermore, with the security precautions required for such a licence, any attempt at crime would be foolhardy and utterly stupid. It would be much easier either to import or produce your own cannabis. The sort of criminal enterprise that would be required to raid, for instance, one of GW’s grows would be on a grand scale, incredibly risky and with sentences probably higher than for production of cannabis.
Clearly, disclosure of the information around these licences could, in any case, be limited to redact any specific information which should be kept confidential
It’s quite clear that this refusal is simply an excuse, probably to cover-up not only the extent of the licences but also the basis on which they have been issued.
Of course, the Home Office has pre-empted the next step in a FOI request and states that “the public interest falls in favour” of not providing this information. We consider this to be nonsense. It is clear that the public interest (not just the interest of the public) is very much that the issue of such licences should be a matter of public record. It is outrageous that this information is being kept secret.
The answer to the second part of our FOI Request provides further insight into how little trust can be placed in the Home Office and demonstrates that its answers are dishonest. In answer to a written question in Parliament on 1st March 2018, Home Office minster Nick Hurd MP said “No licences for pharmaceutical companies to grow and process medicinal cannabis for exportation to other countries have been issued.” However the INCB report, which information can only have come from the Home Office, shows that in 2015/16 the UK exported 2.1 tons of medical cannabis. We asked for an explanation of how Mr Hurd’s answer is consistent with the facts reported.
Nick Hurd MP, Home Office Minister
The Home Office’s answer is that “these figures could include any plant material exported for pharmaceutical purposes or pharmaceutical products containing cannabinoids that are manufactured in the UK and exported, such as Sativex.” and that it takes ‘medicinal cannabis’ to mean “substances produced to be consumed, be that smoked or ingested in any way.”
It is clear therefore that the Home Office has given two different answers to the same question and that the answer given to the INCB is correct whereas the answer given by Mr Hurd is without doubt intended to mislead Parliament. It also seeks falsely to create a distinction between Sativex and other forms of cannabis which is manifestly and beyond doubt another deception, based on information published by GW Pharmaceuticals which CLEAR revealed in 2016.
In summary therefore, the Home Office has refused to answer the FOI Request in relation to licensing on grounds which are entirely spurious and has demonstrated that it is actively engaged in deceiving both Parliament and the public on the export of medicinal cannabis from the UK.
Following the required procedure, we have now requested an internal review of the Home Office’s handling of the FOI Request. We argue that: “It goes directly to the question of the massive public demand for legal access to cannabis for medical use and the total denial of this by government. This policy is itself irrational and against the public interest and the refusal to disclose the information requested is a political cover-up.”
We anticipate this will be a whitewash and further attempt at a cover-up. Thereafter we have a right to complain to the Infomation Commissioner. At this stage we would also seek to mobilise support from MPs with an interest in this area. Ultimately, we may be able to apply to the High Court for judical review of the Home Office’s decision and we will consider mounting a crowdfunding campaign to enable this.
High Court Orders Injunction Against Greg ‘Cure Ukay’ De Hoedt.
Greg De Hoedt
There is little else that needs to be said about this. It is self-explanatory and is a total vindication of my action against De Hoedt to stop his lies and abuse.
I was forced to take legal action against four people with regard to the hate campaign that was launched against me back in 2012. I reached a settlement agreement with Alun Buffry. A consent order concluding my claim against Sarah McCulloch will be published shortly and De Hoedt is now restrained from repeating or causing to be repeated any of his lies on pain of going to jail.
The ringleader Chris Bovey is still to face justice. Whether I can succeed against his great wealth and army of solicitors and barristers remains to be seen but the issues are the same. Bovey is probably the most malevolent, dishonest manipulator I have met in my life and he is responsible for encouraging the other defendants into the conduct that led them to the High Court. He has a great deal to answer for both to those he has misled and to the massive damage he has caused to the cannabis campaign in the UK. I particularly regret the way he turned Greg De Hoedt against me. I counted Greg as a close friend and it causes me great heartache that I had to pursue him to this extent.
Bovey has had my claim against him struck out on procedural grounds. My appeal will probably be heard in the autumn. Given new case law that has arisen in the meantime I have good grounds for optimism. If I succeed and the substantive issues in my claim are heard then he will be looking at a damages award well into six figures. Bovey’s biggest problem is that if an award is made against him, he has the assets which the Court can seize.
High Court Judgment On Greg De Hoedt.
Reynolds v De Hoedt
Hearing note – 22 May 2014
Royal Courts of Justice
Master Bard in Chambers
Application to set-aside Default Judgment of 23 February 2014
JUDGMENT
Greg De Hoedt
1. This is an application to set aside a Default Judgment of 23 February in a libel action brought by the Claimant.
2. The Defendant has been represented by Mr McLean. The Claimant was represented by a Mackenzie friend, who is a pupil, who addressed me in terms clear and modest, and perfectly proper.
3. The temperate nature of the hearing has not been matched by the matters which have gone on between the parties. The Claimant is president of CLEAR which is campaigning for the legalisation of cannabis. The Defendant and others used to be with CLEAR but departed in circumstances described at best as acrimonious and became associated with NORML which has similar aims. As it happens there has been a great deal of unpleasantness and vituperation. As far as I can tell it has been largely one way and directed at the Claimant, who has brought libel proceedings against three defendants.
4. The evidence shows that the Defendant was not responsive or receptive to approaches from the Claimant to seek to get him to desist publishing numerous defamatory allegations on the internet and not prepared to provide an address for service. When the Claimant used the business premises associated with the Defendant and the Defendant’s parent’s address on both occasions the documents were returned. The Defendant states that he had not been given the documents or told about them. This is something I am asked to view askance, suffice to say Master Eastman was prepared on seeing the Sheriff’s documents showing contracts at a particular address to make an Order deeming that an address for service.
5. Default Judgment was granted on 23 February. On 26 February the Claimant notified the Defendant by email. On 14 March the Defendant’s Solicitor went on record. On 26 March about 28 days after the judgment was granted the Application was made to set-aside.
6. The Claimant is seeking damages and an injunction and Master Eastman did not have power to grant an injunction and he directed when entering Judgment that it was for the Claimant to list the application for an injunction before a judge. This is due on 4 June
7. I have not so far gone into the detail of the allegations made and complained of in the Particulars of Claim. I should start by commenting that a considerable amount of what has been said by the Defendant can only be characterised as puerile, as to the publications and the response which has arisen from attempts by the Claimant to be in contact with him. Although the Defendant contends that the Claimant directed tirades at him I have seen no evidence of this. The way the Claimant has expressed himself has been surprisingly temperate given the nature of the allegations published. Without going into any details the substance includes that he has paedophilic tendencies, he has reported cannabis users to the police, a serious allegation for him, that he has been pocketing large sums of money from CLEAR and that he has been given to exposing himself on the internet. I take these as a snapshot and there are other allegations.
8. I am asked to set-aside Default Judgment in circumstances where the Defendant is coming from a place which is less than attractive. Not only has he posted these puerile allegations on the internet, not only has there been apparent attempts to avoid service, as has been seen from what was tweeted by himself there is a certain kind of mockery over the Claimant’s attempt to gain redress. The Defendant produced a Witness Statement. In it he says that the Claimant has regularly subjected him to abuse by email, including making threats to take legal action. Apart from proper and understandable threats about publications I can seen no evidence at all of any regular abuse on the part of the Claimant against the Defendant. Further, although the Defendant says in his Witness Statement that will raise substantive defences he does not seek to do so at all.
9. In all these circumstances, Mr McLean properly in seeking to address me on the set-aside Application has not focused on condition (a) because subject to the pleadings point he acknowledges that the Defendant has not put forward evidence to that effect but that there is another good reason the Defendant should be allowed to defend the claim.
10. I have to bear in mind questions of whether the Application was made promptly…… It does not seem to me that this will be determinative of the matter. It seems that the Defendant within 2 weeks or so of learning of the Judgment had solicitors on record. Within 12 days they filed the Application to set aside the Judgment. I am not prepared to say that this is so tardy as to cause discretion to be exercised against the Defendant.
11. Because of the Defendant’s unattractive behaviour and him making it difficult that I should rely on those as good reason to decline to consider discretion rather than exercise it as he has not come to Court with clean hands. That makes the Defendant’s position unattractive but if there is a good reason to set aside then that ought not to stand in his way although it may stand in costs.
12. The strongest point that Mr McLean makes is his attack on the Particulars of Claim because he says for various reasons they are defective. I have no intention of going into details of criticisms some of which are better than others. Most of the criticisms are directed towards the point that the extent of publication cannot be known, that there is not enough material to assess damages, that sometimes the words used are not sufficiently or properly pleaded or particularised, that the claim for exemplary damages is inappropriate, that pleading malice as freestanding is inappropriate
13. I am told that Master Eastman has struck out a claim against Bovey but that is not a claim in identical form to this and not knowing the basis I am not bound by that. The Claimant acknowledges the force in some observations by the Defendant. His desire is not to seek substantial damages, not least because he recognises the difficulty of enforcement, but rather to get a judgment in his favour and an injunction to support it. He has indicated that he would be satisfied with nominal damages to have this matter dealt with once and for all, a sum of £5.
14. There is force in some of Defendant’s criticism, exemplary damages would not be awarded, malice is inappropriately pleaded but there is a good deal of material in the Particulars of Claim in publications printed off the internet which are attached to it which does meet with sufficient standards to stand up as adequate pleading it may be if matters are to go further pleadings may have to be considered
15. I have to deal with this in a manner which is proportionate and an efficient use of the Court’s resources. In exercise of my discretion, the Defendant cannot complain about the Particulars, given his failure to respond he cannot complain about judgment at £5 and a order for costs against him with the Claimant going for an injunction .
16. In regards to the Particulars of Claim, whatever particulars can stand that up as a matter to which there is no defence, there is no real prospect of successfully defending, on the material, even if pleaded by an expert, there is no good reason why judgment should be set aside or varied … nominal damages are assessed at £5, I am dismissing the application and the Claimant has costs of the Application and the action.
17. Upon hearing the solicitor for the Defendant and the Claimant in person with the assistance of a Mackenzie friend, and upon the Claimant reducing his damages to nominal damages of £5, I order;
1. Application to set aside dismissed
2. Damages assessed at £5
3. Defendant to pay the Claimants’ cost of the Application and of action to date.
COSTS
18. I will assess the litigant in person’s costs now…..Total at £18/hour. There is nothing objectionable in this. This is summarily assessed at £5000.
PERMISSION TO APPEAL
19. I am asked permission to appeal on two grounds:
1. To enlarge the Defendant’s Witness Statement
2. That the claim should be stuck out because of the way in which it is pleaded
20. I do not agree on 1. There is nothing put forward by way of real prospect so this cannot amount to a ground of appeal
21. As far as the 2nd is concerned there is no current application to strike out the claim, merely an Application for setting aside, I have expressed the view for the purposes of a judgment for nominal damages that there is easily sufficient pleadings for it to be inappropriate to set aside, it would be a wasteful use of the Court’s resources and disproportionate. Therefore I refuse permission to appeal
22. Really this is not a seemly way for anyone to conduct a genuine political campaign to be behaving. This is the sort of thing which would give that campaign a bad name… Mr McLean please pass on to your client that he should reflect on this.
23. In the same way it should be understood that it can be inflammatory to crow about a victory. I can understand any step into the right direction affords personal satisfaction. However, it must be in the interest of parties, the legal system, and the cause for this to come to an end. They are not flying the flag in an appropriate manner.
Download Greg De Hoedt’s Witness Statement
Download Peter Reynolds’ Witness Statement
Download Defendant’s Skeleton Argument
Download Claimant’s Skeleton Argument
Greg ‘Cure Ukay’ De Hoedt Ordered To Pay Peter Reynolds £5,000.
Yesterday in the High Court, represented by the top firm of media lawyers, David Price Solicitors and Advocates, Greg De Hoedt’s application to set aside the judgment I had obtained against him was dismissed. He was ordered to pay me £5,000 and refused leave to appeal.
A full transcript of the Judgment will be published here shortly. Suffice to say that the words spoken by the Judge, Master Nicholas Bard, vindicated me far more than I had dared to hope. He also had extremely harsh words to say about Chris Bovey and Sarah McCulloch, the other people I have been forced to sue for defamation.
As far as De Hoedt is concerned, he will have to find £5,000 14 days from now or face enforcement action. There is also a further hearing on 4th June 2014 when I am confident of obtaining an injunction against him restraining him from further defamation. If he breaches this he will go to jail.
Greg was a friend of mine and I put a lot of time, effort and money into helping him, both with his health problems and his campaigning. CLEAR also funded him on one of his trips to the USA. I greatly regret that he turned against me but I count him as a victim in this as well. He was misled and manipulated by Chris Bovey who is the real villain behind all of this. Bovey is a liar and a bully, not to say Europe’s biggest dealer in highly toxic synthetic cannabinoids. He will use and abuse anyone to achieve his own ends. Justice will not be achieved until he too has been called to account.
High Court Reinstates Claim Against Sarah McCulloch.
Confirming my report of 11th April 2014, I today received the sealed Order from the High Court setting aside the judgment that Sarah McCulloch had obtained and reinstating the action.
I have made a generous and conciliatory offer to settle with Ms McCulloch and I am waiting her response.
Justice Prevails. De Hoedt And McCulloch Defeated In The High Court.
Greg De Hoedt
At 10.30am this morning there was a case management conference before Master Eastman concerning my claim against Greg De Hoedt. I was awarded judgement against him in February and the next stage is for a High Court Judge to assess the damages and costs he must pay me.
It is only now, after more than a year trying to avoid my claim, that De Hoedt has faced up to it and appointed solicitors. They represented him today. He was not present. His solicitors applied to have the judgement set aside. Master Eastman refused. They then applied for the proceedings to be stayed pending my appeal against the striking out of my claim against Chris Bovey. Again, Master Eastman refused. It is now up to me to propose the next steps and how exactly a Judge can assess the damages I am due.
Sarah McCulloch
At 11.00am there was a hearing before Master Eastman concerning my claim against Sarah McCulloch. She had obtained judgement against me by deception. She had made false statements to the Court and pursued an application without giving me notice, so I that had no idea that it was taking place. Today was my application to have her judgement set aside. I was successful and Master Eastman ordered that my claim should be reinstated.
Master Eastman also considered McCulloch’s claims that I was harassing her by writing to her about the case. She had made a further false statement to the Court that I had been given an ‘Harassment Warning’ by the police. In fact a police officer from Harlow in Essex had telephoned me a few months ago to say that McCulloch had made a complaint. We ended up laughing together at how ridiculous her allegation was when I was writing to her about a High Court case at the address she had filed with the Court.
I explained to Master Eastman that ever since I had discovered that McCulloch is diagnosed with two mental health conditions I had made generous offers to try and settle with her. He was gentle with her but very firm and told her however hard she found it, she had to communicate with me about the case.
Afterwards, McCulloch and I had a five minute discussion outside the Court and I made a further offer to settle. She explained that she had now edited one of her articles to remove the false allegation that I had lied about submitting a report to the Home Affairs Select Committee in 1983.
My offer to McCulloch is very generous, far more so than it would be were it not for her health problems. It was sad that as I walked away she shrieked “You’re a bigot!” Nevertheless, I remain hopeful that she will see sense and we can both put this unhappy episode behind us.
Sarah McCulloch To Face Perjury Hearing In High Court.
In October last year Sarah McCulloch submitted an application to the High Court seeking judgement against me on the grounds that I had “not acted on my claim”. This was untrue. Also, in a bizarre twist she revealed that she has twice reported me to the police for harassment for sending her correspondence about the case! These positions are clearly incompatible with each other. Dishonestly, she submitted her application and attended a hearing on 19th November 2014 without ever notifying me. She has now admitted this in writing saying that it was a “mistake”.
A hearing will take place on 11th April 2014 at which I will apply to set aside the judgement that she has obtained on the grounds that she did so through deception and dishonesty.
High Court Orders Judgement Against Greg ‘Cure Ukay’ De Hoedt.
The High Court has granted judgement in my favour in my Claim for defamation against Greg De Hoedt.
A hearing will take place on 11th April 2014 to determine the amount of damages and costs he must pay me. Supported by this judgement I will now apply for an injunction preventing him from any further defamation or harassment.
Peter Reynolds 