Lord Woolf comments in his Interim Access to Justice Report [June 95] at Para 7 of chapter 17 :-“The situation is made worse for them [litigants in person] if they have tried to understand and comply with the rules, only to find that the rules are flouted by lawyers, and effectively condoned by the Courts [Judges]”. Regretfully HHJ Godsmark has not only condoned but actively promotes the abandonment of all protocols acts of parliament together with all CPRs as he wreaks personal vengeances of Mr Browne for his success at the CAC against DJ Reesona member of the Brotherhood.
Access to justice is a right not a privilege and as such cannot be interpreted to mean anything else. In that regard it will play an important part in helping to maintain the Courts commitment to access to justice as a right available to all. Lord Dyson, Master of the Rolls 11th December 2012. HHJ Godsmark has no respect for Lord Dyson or for the law itself as he proceeds to deny Mr Browne the simple right to access to Justice as he wreaks vengeances on Mr Browne
HRA Article 6.
Together with the right to a fair trial before an impartial Judge. The right to level playing field. HHJ Godsmark does not believe in fair trials so he just ignores all mr Browne’s evidence in order to find against him and favour to multi national British Gas. Now the Mr Browne finds himself in a further case 3YQ10123 where Godsmark is following the same vengeances tactic. Provable
Affirmation – Judicial
I, _Nigel Graham Godsmark, do solemnly sincerely and truly declare and affirm that I will well and truly serve our Sovereign Lady Queen Elizabeth the Second in the office of Judge, and I will do right to all manner of people after the laws and usages of this Realm without fear or favour affection or ill will.
I remind HHJ Godsmark of his oath of office that he has ignored with licence throughtout a period of 8 years. It is self-evident that he sworn this oath with his fingers crossed. It is proven that he breached this oath in case no 3YK0846 and again in case no 3YQ10123 full details available and on file in London and Nottingham. In effect this is unconstitutional and a total betrayal, in effect TREASON AGAINST THE CROWN! and it impeachable.
We expect our judges to be honest and wise and above all impartial. Their integrity and impartiality are the bedrock of the entire judicial system. We trust them to ensure fair trials and protect the rights of all litigants’. We expect them to scrutinise the evidence and purely on the evidence to make a fair Judgment. We expect them to respect fundamental Civil Rights HRA. Create a level playing field. To treat litigants in person as described in the “Hand Book for litigants in Person co-written by two of the offending judges in this matter. HHJ Hampton & HHJ Peter bower.
UNFORTUNATELY NOBODY TOLD HHJ GODSMARK AS HE CARRIES ON UNLAWFULLY LIKE A NAZI DICTATOR AND IS A LAW UNTO HIMSELF. This puts Mr Browne in a hostile environment and makes him a victim of malfeasance!
B. The Overriding Objective
4.6 CPR Part 1.1 provides that “These Rules are a new procedural code with the overriding objective of enabling the court to deal with cases justly and at proportionate cost”. ‘Dealing with a case justly’ has always been the aim of the English civil court, but from 1 April 2013 this ‘overriding objective’ is given a new definition. By virtue of CPR Part 1.2 “Dealing with a case justly and at proportionate costs includes, so far as is practicable –
- Ensuring that the parties are on an equal footing;
HHJ Godsmark ignored this, presided and acted as counsel in the case 3YK08479or British Gas against the litigant in person making their barrister redundan. HHJ Godsmark deliberately ensured that it was an unequal footing,.in effect a hostile environment in the Nottingham County Court for Mr Browne.
- Saving expense;
- Again HHJ Godsmark made sure that I would be hit with disproportionate costs of over £100,000 for a mere money claim, How biased and hostile is that? He Judged arrogantly that this would bust and destroy Mr Browne, have his property stolen to pay. Itt certainly did not so my fight for Justice goes on!!
- Dealing with the case in ways which are proportionate
- This case was stalled for 6 years by HHJ Godsmark, how proportionate is that. Took 6 years 12 hearings 24 Judges 24 Ordersand the matter s still unresolved
- To the amount of money involved;
- The money involved was originally aprox £2500.
- To the importance of the case;
- HHJ Godsmark wanted this case swept under the carpet due to his personal vengeance against Mr Browne. Discrimination personified.!
- To the complexity of the issues;
This was a simple money claimvia Salford before HHJ Godsmark who turned it into a 6 year fiasco to satisfy his ego and avenge his associate DJ Reeson for my win against same in 2003
(iv) To the financial position of each party;
HHJ Godsmark’s only account was to bust Mr Browne
99 Ensuring that it is dealt with expeditiously and fairly;
It took 6 years and fraudulence, due to bias! what else!
- Allotting to it an appropriate share of the court’s resources, while taking into account the need to allot resources to other cases
- HHJ Godsmark stalled this case 3YK08479 £for six years, using 6 years of court resources to wreak vengeances on Mr Browne for his success against DJ Reeson He is now doing the same in case no 3YQ10123 and wreaks further vengeance against Mr Browne
(f) Enforcing compliance with rules, practice directions and orders. HHJ Godsmark breached all rules all practice directions and issued discriminatory orders against Mr Browne Overriding all the evidence before HHJ Godsmark
The judge must never put himself in a position where he might be thought by a neutral observer to be favouring one party over his opponent, even where the party concerned is a litigant in person and his opponent a barrister of many years’ standing, well able to look after himself and his client. Thus, the judge cannot become the advocate of the litigant in person,
On the contrary all judges in this cases were advocates for British Gas. 3YK08479 and 3YQ10123 ee transcripts. For the role of a judge is no different to that of an advocate. He must ensure a fair trial, and not afford an advantage to the defendant against the litigant in person. In this case the Judges became advocates for British Gas(see transcripts) and affers clear advantage to British Gas to the detriment of the defendant LIP not the other way around. Clear hypocrisy and gross discrimination in effect victimization and a clear vendetta as I won my case against District Judge Reeson(Nottingham Brotherhood) in the CAC with costs 1995/2003.
I the undersigned confirm that the above is truth and nothing but the truth.
J K Browne Originally 30/12/2016 and ignored by HHJ Godsmark