A Petition to the Lord of Man

1st July 2012

A Petition to the Lord of Man

To The Queen's Most Excellent Majesty I beg you read about the Case of Martin Archer-Shee versus The King in 1909/10.

There are a few cases in Anglo-American jurisprudence concerning individual liberties that should be known by all. The most famous is Brown v. Board of Education (of Topeka, Kansas), being one of several cases involving Black children asking that they be treated as equal citizens and get a proper education. The Miranda decision concerning making civil-rights available to all is another key decision, which has become so-well known that it is now a much-used word in every Television “crime show”; “Have you read his Miranda rights?” An English case that must be included as important is ArcherShee v. The King in 1909/10. When the Petition was sent, King Edward was Sovereign; by the time the case came to Court in July 1910, the Monarch was King George V. The Incident The real “Ronnie Winslow” (the incident was dramatised in the play The Winslow Boy by Terence Rattigan) was George Archer-Shee, a 13-year-old cadet at the Osborne Naval College on the Isle of Wight. School authorities accused George of stealing a five-shilling postal order from another cadet's locker on 7th October 1908, that George forged a signature on the postal order and then cashed it. George claimed that he was innocent. The clerk-in-charge at the Post Office was the prime witness. Less than two weeks later, George's father was asked to remove him from the College.

George's Family George came from a very conservative Catholic family. George's father was Martin Archer-Shee, a respected bank manager (from Liverpool) with the Bank of England in Bristol. He believed his son's professions of innocence and approached the school authorities to try to clear his son's name. He failed to get satisfaction, first from the Commander of the College, (Captain A.H. Christian), and then from the Admiralty which refused to reopen the matter.

The Legal Situation Archer-Shee was constrained by the legal system in pursuing his son's case. He couldn't file a legal suit directly against the College as it and the Admiralty were technically part of the King's domain. The King, and therefore the Royal Navy, was immune from such actions. In law, the King could do no wrong.

Sir Edward Carson George's father asked noted barrister Sir Edward Carson to take his son's case. Carson was known to almost every newspaper reader in England; he was the man who opposed Oscar Wilde during Wilde's notorious libel suit against the Marquess of Queensberry. Carson agreed to take the case.

Petition of Right The legal options were limited because of the Admiralty's immunity as part of the King's domain. It seemed impossible that a 13-year old boy could take on the most respected institution in Britain – the Royal Navy. Carson's only option was to make use of a “Petition of Right”, which if the Home Office and the Attorney General accepted, could be given to the King. The King then had the option, if he so desired, to grant the Petition. Only then could George's case go to court. King Edward VII received George's Petition in May 1909 and signed and endorsed it, writing “Let Right be Done.” The right of a citizen to Petition the Crown is contained in one of the great three Acts of Parliament at the end of the seventeenth century – the 1688 Bill of Rights. [The other two are the Habeas Corpus Act 1679 and the 1700 Act of Settlement]. In reality, Martin Archer-Shee was Petitioning because he felt that the boy's ancient right to a fair hearing, contained in Magna Carta Libertatum 1297 [the Statute in force in 1908] had been breached. [Incidentally, the other Great English Statute is the 1627 Petition of Right made by Sir Edward Coke (pronounced Cook)].

George's case could proceed after the King's endorsement. The Admiralty was still opposed to reopening the case and challenged the petition by a Demurrer Answer and Plea on 23rd November 1909. The first court test on 12th July 1910 was won by the Admiralty (the Demurrer was upheld), but that ruling was overturned on appeal by Carson, (on 18th July 1910), so the matter returned to a Court of First instance for the facts to be heard. By denying the Demurrer (by 1910, only a Petition of Right against the King could use the right of Demurrer), the Court of Appeal removed the assertion that the Crown could do no -1-

1st July 2012

A Petition to the Lord of Man

wrong in Law. Court Case The trial began on 26th July 1910. Sir Rufus Isaacs, Sir Horace Avory and B.A. Cohen (who prepared the Demurrer) represented the Admiralty. Naval officials, by this time, realised the immense damage that was being done to the reputation of the Royal Navy by the publicity involved as well as the weakness of their case. On the fourth day of the trial, Isaacs announced that on behalf of the Admiralty and the Crown he accepted George's claim of innocence. Newspaper accounts of the trial reported that members of the jury literally climbed over barriers in an effort to congratulate the Archer-Shee family.

Subsequent Debate George's case became the subject of heated political debate in England. It was widely held that the first Lord of the Admiralty, Reginald McKenna, tainted the image of British justice by refusing to pay damages to the Archer-Shee family. George's brother, also Martin Archer-Shee, who was a Conservative and Unionist Member of Parliament, brought the issue to Parliament. Damages were eventually awarded.

Aftermath The conclusion of the George Archer-Shee story is bitter-sweet. Whilst cleared of the charges, the Admiralty and school officials never sent George a formal letter of apology or ever withdrew the charges. He was never able to return to the Navy. George Archer-Shee joined the Army on the outbreak of World War I. Like so many of his generation he was killed in the fighting; in his case at the beginning of the War in 1914, just three years after the end of legal proceeding. He was 19, killed in the disastrous Ypres offensive. On the massive memorial at Ypres, the name George Archer-Shee is almost adjacent to that of Carson's nephew, Teddy Robinson.

Terence Back, the cadet who lost his 5/- postal order, went on to be a Captain, and had a distinguished Naval Career; he was involved in convoy protection in the Second world-war, and awarded a CBE. In 1947, Parliament passed the Crown Proceedings Act, that allowed the Crown to be sued.

Stephen Holmes versus The Queen During 2004 an unlawful event happened in Your Majesty's courts administration in the Isle of Man. An officer of the High Court, the Assistant Chief Registrar, falsely “registered” documents from an English County Court in the High Court of the Isle of Man, in an administrative action. In 2004 (and to the end of 2007) in the Isle of Man, there were seven or eight officers of the Crown, including Governor Haddacks, First Deemster Kerruish, Deputy Deemster Williamson, High Bailiff Moyle, and Attorney General John Corlett.

In the High Court Act 1991 (an Act of Tynwald), under the word Administration, we find – 28 Office and officers of the High Court (1) The General Registry shall be the office of records for the High Court.

(2) The Chief Registrar, Deemsters' clerks and such other clerks in the General Registry as the First Deemster may nominate in writing shall be officers of the High Court.

(3) Officers of the High Court shall discharge their duties under the direction and supervision of the First Deemster or, in the case of a Deemster's clerk, the Deemster to whom he may be attached.

The Chief Registrar manages the General Registry, but he is also an officer of the High Court, acting under the direction and supervision of Your Majesty's First Deemster. 'Chief Registrar' shall include the Assistant Chief Registrar; [section 58].

The unlawful administrative actions of 28 th May 2004 and 4th November 2004 were, by law, directed by an officer of the Crown (either the First Deemster, or the Deputy Deemster).

The Deemster's Oath contains the phrase “to execute the laws of this Isle justly.”

As a result of the unlawful administrative actions on both days stated, on 5 th November 2004 the Deputy Deemster issued a “declaratory order,” and on 26 th October 2007, that declaration was revoked because “there was no legitimate basis upon which the Deputy Deemster could have made the order which he did.”

It seems unbelievable that given three Deemsters and an Attorney-General to “interpret” Manx law, the Assistant Chief Registrar could act unlawfully and produce eight false instruments (four on each day concerned), but she did; none of the documents produced (especially on 4th November) had any legal value.

-2-

1st July 2012

A Petition to the Lord of Man

During the course of a proceeding in the High Court on 3 rd September 2007 Second Deemster Doyle became involved in the debacle, and also issued a false declaration, which was served on me, Your Petitioner, in a police cell in Birmingham. I was arrested as a result of that unlawful action.

By the end of 2007, (a week before the Deputy Deemster retired), I had become “known” to all the above mentioned officers of the Crown in the Isle of Man, and the Judge of Appeal Geoffrey Tattersall QC and an Acting Deemster Tim King; all of whom “ate the Fruit of the Poisoned Tree” of 4th November 2004.

On 5th November 2004 I became the subject of a court declaration – the document issued stated that the only “contact” I could enjoy with my own Manx children was “indirect”.

At first glance that declaration was unlawful (as confirmed by Deemster Kerruish and Judge of Appeal Tattersall on 26th October 2007) for several reasons.

1. It contravened section 1 of the Children and Young Persons Act 2001; the Court had NOT held the welfare of Manx children as paramount, but had given priority to an Act of Tynwald from 1987, and then had not followed the requirements of that 1987 Act. 2. It contravened Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights that had been binding on the Isle of Man since 1953/4.

3. It contravened several Articles of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child that has been binding on the UK and the Crown Dependencies since 1990/91.

4. The declaration specifically mentioned an order from Lancaster County Court and the declaration was headed In the High Court of Justice of the Isle of Man. In England, a County Court CANNOT bind Your Majesty's High Court of Justice of England & Wales, so the County Court in Lancaster, England cannot bind the High Court in the Isle of Man with a so-called COUNTY court order.

5. In August 2003, Your Majesty's Attorney-General published a Chronological Table of Acts of Parliament Extending to the Isle of Man. The Children Act 1989 is missing from this Chronological Table, meaning that the so-called order from the County Court, purportedly made under the Children Act 1989 could not be extended to the Isle of Man. On 4th November 2004, the Assistant Chief Registrar had in her hands a document headed Children Act 1989, section 8 Contact Order, that seemed to allege that “father have indirect contact with the children,” the subject of the ultra vires document being an adult, and not a child. Eight years later, I find it staggeringly incompetent that the officer of the Court did not confirm the validity of her actions with either the First or Deputy Deemster or the Attorney-General! She discharged her administrative duty on 4 th November 2004 under the direction and supervision of Your Majesty's First Deemster and Clerk of the Rolls, (and Deputy Governor), so the Crown has vicarious liability for the production of four false documents on 4 th November, that led the Deputy Deemster to produce a false declaration on 5 th November 2004. The consequences of this false declaration were tragic. My Manx children had no family life with their father for the next three years.

And for 28 months I tried everything to undo the damage, but my attempts came to nought; I was thwarted by bias and incompetence of the Chief Registrar, R. Peter Corkhill.

The Crown is an entity that can be sued in England & Wales under the Crown Proceedings Act 1947, but the 1947 CP Act does not extend to the Isle of Man, so I must proceed by the ancient method. I have.

I claim damages from the First Deemster because the First Deemster's officer of the High Court acted unlawfully on 28th May and 4th November 2004, and the Deputy Deemster issued an unlawful declaration on 5th November 2004. The First Deemster MAY be sued over an administrative action. If this matter was to come to trial, the (office of the) First Deemster would lose because the unlawfulness of the “registrations” has been admitted – a false instrument was circulated for three years.

Sadly, Mr Kerruish died in 2010. David Doyle was promoted to First Deemster, and he had acted in a biased and inappropriate manner on 3 rd September 2007. Deputy Deemster Williamson's successor, Andrew Corlett, was promoted to Second Deemster in April 2011. [There is now a new position of Deemster, not Deputy Deemster]. The only person who could direct on a trial in the High Court would be Your First Deemster, who is biased; the Second Deemster has also acted in a biased and inappropriate manner. The Isle of Man has no active Attorney-General at present. We have two biased judges at the head of our judiciary, and no AG. The Crown did Wrong! In the judgment of 26 th October 2007, “blame” was removed from the Deputy Deemster, and therefore vicarious liability for the unlawful registration of 4 th November 2004 is with Your Majesty's First Deemster (by Statute, above). The judgment states (in paragraph 47) – -3-

1st July 2012

A Petition to the Lord of Man

Although no fair criticism can be made of the Deputy Deemster for him accepting what he believed to be correct, namely that the orders had been properly registered, given that there was in fact no proper registration there was no legitimate basis upon which the Deputy Deemster could have made the order which he did.

The Petition In January 2012, (because the Crown Proceedings Act 1947 does not extend to the Isle of Man but the Bill of Rights 1688 does extend to the Isle of Man), Stephen Holmes Petitioned Your Majesty via Your Governor in the Isle of Man, 'Lord's Lieutenant' Wood.

I now Petition by this letter to offer the Crown a compromise; this claim could be settled out of Court.

My precedent is the Matter of the Petition of Right of Martin Archer-Shee: Archer-Shee versus The King in 1909/10, which the Crown lost. The First hearing went to appeal, but any Demurrer from the Crown is now null and void, because of this precedent, and because of the CPA 1947.

If a trial took place it would be shown that the consequences of the unlawful actions of 4 th & 5th November 2004, carried out by an officer of the High Court, directed and supervised by the Crown, included abuse of the rights of children, abuses to their father, false imprisonment of a father, causing annoyance, suffering and extreme emotional distress for a prolonged period – up to three years. It was as if the Deputy Deemster had declared on 5th November 2004; “Destroy this man's family – however long it takes; make sure he never has a family life!” That is clearly not the sort of Court Order a Crown Officer should have issued.

Research of the Archer-Shee case will sustain that Martin Archer-Shee was awarded £3,000 damages and £4,120 costs in 1911; for an incident that was over in a couple of days, and a process that was delayed for about a year – the Petition of Right was dated 18 th May 1909, but was filed in August 1909 and came to Court in July 1910. As stated, the Demurrer was not written until November 1909.

My claims have been delayed by Deemster Corlett and Deemster Doyle and Government Advocates in the AG's chambers for more than five years, and no light is visible at the end of the tunnel.

Another Georgian similarity In 1913, the High Court heard Thomas Ryan v. Oceanic Steam Navigation Company (a suit for negligence over the loss of the Titanic). The allegation was of negligence – did the officers on the bridge of the Titanic breach their duty of care to their passengers by not slowing-down on the night of 14th April 1912?

The jury found in favour of the Plaintiff; the defendants were negliegent.

The Action on 4th November 2004 In the judgment of 26th October 2007 is the following – 41.

It appears that the orders [from Lancaster County Court] were registered albeit that the requirements that are clearly set out in sections 7 and 12 [of the Child Custody Act 1987] were not met [on 28th May 2004]. [Mrs Holmes] herself can’t be criticised for such error because she was genuinely, and understandably, ignorant of the precise requirements for registration. In any events she had believed that the General Registry had itself obtained certified copies of the orders from the Lancaster County Court, which does not seem to have happened.

42.

Such a conclusion is supported by a letter of the Chief Registrar to Mr Beckett [amicus curiae] dated 25th July 2007 in which he concedes that it would appear that the two orders were registered in the High Court erroneously; i.e. not in accordance with the requirements of the Child Custody Act 1987.

43.

As to the orders made by the Lancaster County Court on 27 th October 2004 which were purportedly registered in the High Court on 4 th November 2004, it is unknown how such orders came to be registered.

Again, I say, the First Deemster was responsible for the supervision of the officer of the Court discharging the duty of the administrative action of “registration” on 4 th November 2004, and that registration was NOT LAWFUL; not in accordance with ANY of the requirements of the Child Custody Act 1987, including not being from Her Majesty's High Court of Justice of England – schedule 1 paragraph 1 of the 1987 Act; a requirement that was missed by the Staff of Government Division review in 2007.

In Conclusion Whereas the Archer-Shee case was a dispute – did the suppliant's son steal the postal order? and the Ryan -4-

1st July 2012

A Petition to the Lord of Man

negligence claim was a decision by the jury as to the negligence of OSNC, the action on 4 th November 2004, that led to the implementation in the Isle of Man of the “indirect contact order,” which in turn caused such distress for THREE YEARS, (and the effects of which are still on-going), is res ipsa loquitor – the thing speaks for itself. My claim could include some words from the 1688 Bill of Rights – by the use of diverse evil councillors, judges and ministers in the employ of Your Majesty in the Isle of Man, “the people have been wronged;” children have been wronged. Mrs Holmes was “understandably ignorant of the precise requirements for registration,” but an officer of the High Court – the Assistant Chief Registrar – had at her disposal the legal direction of the Deputy Deemster (of whom no fair criticism can be made), the First Deemster Kerruish, (the Second Deemster Doyle), Attorney-General Corlett and many Government Advocates in the Chambers of HM Attorney-General; access to the seven-volume Statutes of the Isle of Man, plus a Tynwald intranet web-site with all the Acts of Tynwald stored. The ACR had no excuse. In addition, although a request to register was rare, a “checklist” of requirements should have been available:– 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Application made by the court that made the custody order in the first place; All supporting documents and original custody order application included; Properly certified copy of a custody order; Custody order made under section 1 of the Family Law Act 1986 (an Act of Parliament); and Correct appropriate high Court (Court of Sessions in Scotland; High Court in England or NI).

Failure to comply with any of these requirements would have prevented a successful registration. If the photocopies of “orders” had been certified, say, by a clerk and the wording had been incorrect, it may have been acceptable to state in documents that a “Custody Order made in the United Kingdom” had been registered, but needless to say, none of the above requirements were met, and there was the issue of incompatibility with the Conventions, and with the Children and Young Persons Act 2001, a much later Act. Responsibility for providing officers of the High Court with such a checklist lay with an officer of the Crown – possibly from 1988 when a previous incumbent was First Deemster; nevertheless, the Crown is culpable.

In 1908, a 13-year-old boy was treated unfairly by the Admiralty, and eventually £3,000 was paid in compensatory damages because the Crown had “done wrong.” From 28 th May 2004 to 26th October 2007 officers of the Crown did wrong again, and again, and again. The unlawfulness of the actions on 28/05/2004 and 04/11/2004 was admitted, culpability was with the First Deemster, but no apology has been made, nor attempt to mediate a solution, or pay compensation – the guilty party has had no fair criticism made of him.

Perhaps “unfair criticism!” As Carson said; “This is the grossest case of oppression without remedy I have ever seen;” and the Crown has so far allowed children’s rights to be hopelessly abused for seven-years (and onward …) Although not nearly as bad as in 2005 and 2006, the abuse of the rights of my children continues.

Arrogance of position, complacency with regard to statute, ignorance of Convention and procedures, and incompetence have caused years of hurt, very much worse than that suffered by Archer-Shee; all caused by an unlawful action by an officer of the High Court directed by an officer of the Crown. To the First Deemster I say (from Psalm 82 v.2) How long will you judge unjustly and show partiality to the wicked?

In 2006, Deutsch Bank worker Helen Green was awarded £800,000 damages because she was 'bullied at work'. I was bullied in life by Deputy Deemster Williamson, by members of the Constabulary and other officers of the Crown, causing huge pain and suffering; and no attempt at a settlement has ever been made.

My suggestion is that this Claim for damages should be settled “out of Court;” any court action would be damaging to the reputation of the judiciary in the Isle of Man, and to the international reputation of the Isle of Man itself. (The Petition of January 2012 asked for a number of remedies with regard to Manx Statute).

I remain Your humble servant, (all copies signed by S. Holmes) Stephen Holmes Petitioner (as is my Right under the 1688 Bill of Rights) Apartment 5, 2 Marine Parade, Peel City, Isle of Man. CC: Your Lieutenant Wood, First Deemster Doyle QC, Archbishop of York, Lord Bishop of Sodor and Man, AG in London Grieve, Justice Secretary Clark, Lord Chief Justice Judge, Master of the Rolls Neuberger; also to Deputy Chief Constable Roberts.

-5-