Response From Magistrates Court.

Today (23/6/11) I received a response from Croydon Magistrates Court over this statutory nuisance matter. The letter claims that the court cannot allow the prosecution because the offence "appears" to fall outside of a six month time limit. This argument is of course false because the allegation is of five years of intermittent, malicious nuisance with the most recent offence occurring on May 24th which was two days before the case was brought before the court. So well within the six month time limit then. The letter offers no explanation of why the court cannot allow the prosecution of the offences of May 20-24th.

Therefore Britain's position is that it is unwillingly to prosecute. Presumably because they've now realised that I'll win.

Now I will obviously have too consider my position before I react and make my next move because I think the court should have a right to reply after their mistake has been pointed out to them. However in the meantime Britain is now under an obligation to report itself to the International Criminal Court (ICC) and request that it carries out an investigation on their behalf. I don't think that will be happening anytime soon but the American's are quite right, this should have been tried as a habeas corpus matter.


Edited @ 13:42 (23/6/11): Of course today's BBC news is leading with another story about how UK authorities failed to protect an infant (not Baby P) from torture and death at the hands of his parents. At Wimbledon tennis tournament the big match will be between Britain's Laura Robson and Maria Sharapova. So Britain is currently running the little used "this offence was committed during the commission of a much greater crime" defence. Meanwhile EU leaders are meeting in Brussels to discuss Greece's Sovereign Debt Crisis.