JOHN HIRST'S CAMPAIGN TRAIL

John Hirst at 3A has started a campaign, a Judicial Review, which seems to involve a Roll of Honour, and a Roll of Dishonour, two lists of pseudonyms that post at 3A, some of which are (newly created and) old sock puppets of John Hirst.

John Hirst says that he has never lost a case, but all Hirst’s work seems to have been done whilst he was a prisoner. Perhaps this is his hobby whilst tasting freedom, pursuing various vendettas against random women, Kate McCann, Justice Hogg and others online. He talks about taking action against these women. I reckon he can’t wait to get back inside so that he can qualify for legal aid to pursue these actions. I doubt whether an unemployed citizen of the UK would be able to get Legal Aid for these ridiculous activities. But prisoners have rights.

http://www.legislationline.org/legislation.php?tid=57&lid=6279&less=false


JH used Legal Aid (at the Taxpayers' expense) for his fights for human rights. His claim for damages of £5,000 was thrown out.

A. Damage

91. The applicant claimed 5,000 pounds sterling (GBP) for suffering and distress caused by the violation.

92. The Government were of the view that any finding of a violation should in itself constitute just satisfaction for the applicant. If alternatively the Court were to make an award, it considered the amount should not be more than GBP 1,000.

93. The Chamber found as follows (see paragraph 60 of the Chamber judgment):

“The Court has considered below the applicant’s claims for his own costs in the proceedings. As regards non-pecuniary damage, the Court notes that it will be for the United Kingdom Government in due course to implement such measures, as it considers appropriate to fulfil its obligations to secure the right to vote in compliance with this judgment. In the circumstances, it considers that this may be regarded as providing the applicant with just satisfaction for the breach in this case.”

94. Like the Chamber, the Court does not award any monetary compensation under this head.

B. Costs and expenses

95. The applicant claimed the costs incurred in the High Court and Court of Appeal in seeking redress in the domestic system in relation to the breach of his rights, namely his solicitors’ and counsel’s fees and expenses in the High Court of GBP 26,115.82 and in the Court of Appeal of GBP 13,203.64. For costs in Strasbourg, the applicant had claimed before the Chamber GBP 18,212.50 for solicitors’ and counsel’s fees and expenses. For proceedings before the Grand Chamber since the Chamber judgment, the applicant claimed additional reimbursement of GBP 20,503.75 for his solicitors’ and counsel’s fees and expenses broken down to GBP 7,800 for 26 hours of work (at GBP 300 an hour), GBP 1,650 for 55 letters and phone calls (at GBP 30 each), GBP 1,653.75 for value-added tax (VAT), GBP 8,000 for counsel’s fees during two days in connection with the hearing and 20 hours of work plus GBP 1,400 for value-added tax. He also claimed some GBP 300 as out of pocket expenses (the cost of telephone calls etc).

96. The Government submitted that, as the applicant was legally aided during the domestic proceedings, he did not actually incur any costs. To the extent that the applicant appeared to be claiming that further sums should be awarded that were not covered by legal aid, they submitted that any such further costs should not be regarded as necessarily incurred or reasonable as to quantum and that they should be disallowed. As regards the additional costs claimed for the Grand Chamber proceedings in Strasbourg the Government submitted that the hourly rate (GBP 300) charged by the solicitor was excessive, as was the flat rate for correspondence. No more than GBP 4,000 should be awarded in respect of solicitors’ fees. As regards counsel’s fees the hourly rate was also excessive, as was the number of hours charged for the preparation of a very short pleading. No more than GBP 3,000 should be recoverable.

Add that figure to JH's total life in prison at a cost of £30,000 per annum - 25years x £30,000 = £750,000.



http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/cms/1220.htm


If you are challenging the decision of a court, the jurisdiction of judicial review extends only to decisions of inferior courts. It does not extend to decisions of the High Court or Court of Appeal.


John Hirst has changed his mind about the judicial review stuff and is now claiming that he has a solicitor who is informing him about locus standi in regards to his campaign.

http://sixthformlaw.info/03_dictionary/dict_l.htm



R v Secretary of State for the Environment, ex parte Rose Theatre Trust co (1990) the remains of the Rose Theatre, which had seen the first performances of works by Shakespeare and Marlowe, were discovered during redevelopment works in the London Borough of Southwark. The applicant, whose members included distinguished archaeologists and actors, was formed in order to campaign for the protection of the remains, the group did not have sufficient interest and therefore no locus standi.

http://www.revision-notes.co.uk/revision/897.html

Locus Standi breaks into two different headings. Privileged Applicants and Non-Privileged Applicants. It is very difficult for non-privileged applicants to prove locus standi.
Privileged Applicants
· MS
· Council
· Commission
· EP
· ECB




http://www.law.ed.ac.uk/legaltheory/files/locusstandiworkshopproposal.pdf

“Locus Standi, or standing, is a fundamental feature of legal procedure at both national and international levels. REQUIRING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A CONNECTION TO THE ALLEGED HARM OF A LEGAL ACTION, IT IS DESIGNED TO EXCLUDE SO-CALLED UNWORTHY ACTIONS AND VEXATIOUS LITIGANTS” (hmmmm…John Hirst, a serial litigant)


http://www.iflg.uk.com/documents/Judgement0708.pdf