Since publication of the UK 2nd Compliance Report in 2007, the Council of Europe has again urged government to
include the Cornish in the Convention. Moreover, the UK Commission for Racial
Equality and the Cornwall ‘County’ Council have also recommended that the Convention
be extended to the Cornish.
This means that government must
again retake its decision to exclude the Cornish and once again publish the
outcome of that decision in the looming 3rd UK Compliance Report. We
already know what the likely outcome will be, and as this is most probably the
last opportunity to mount a challenge to the government’s unlawful behaviour,
we must either prepare to meet that decision head on, or forever suffer the
consequences.
In our last case, the government
made no attempt to demonstrate that the difference in treatment afforded to the
Ulster-Scots and the Cornish, or Irish Travellers and the Cornish, or Scottish
Gypsies and the Cornish, arose from conditions that were lawful - and
the High Court never asked it to. Had I been in receipt of sufficient funds, I
would have progressed the case to the Strasbourg based European Court of Human
Rights to see how that court dealt with this situation. I remain optimistic
that the case would have been fairly dealt with there.
This confidence arises from the
fact that the Framework Convention; having been shown in Scat t’Larrups to have
been misapplied, manipulated, breached and denounced by the UK Government, is
an instrument of the Council of Europe - and the Strasbourg Court is also an
instrument of the Council of Europe. So, instead of the Cornish seeking justice
in a legal system that accepts and condones such behaviour, they would be
seeking justice in a court that found such behaviour deeply insulting and
wholly objectionable.
It should also be remembered that
the Council of Europe’s own Committee of Experts on minority rights have
already twice endorsed Cornish inclusion within the Convention. And that in
cases involving discrimination against minorities, the Strasbourg Court are
obliged to consult, and consider as primary evidence, the opinions of that same
Committee of Experts.
I have explained how we were
forced to abandon our last case through lack of funding. That funding was
required to meet the government’s legal costs. Costs that it imposes upon those
who challenge government wrongdoing. Costs that would have spiralled upwards
had we continued. Costs that are designed to financially cripple complainants
and thus end challenges such as ours.
I have shown in Scat t’Larrups
how the Cornish will never achieve success in a domestic English court. The Cornish will consistently fail to obtain
justice because of inherent bias and pre-conceived prejudice; because of
supremacist attitudes and colonial tendencies; because of the government’s wish
to continue the rolling programme of assimilation, because of its desire to
maintain the duchy/private estate deception and because of the 1947 Crown
Proceedings Act giving the Duke of Cornwall the power to covertly intervene
in, and control the outcome of, any legal proceedings that might affect his
property, privileges or rights. At
the dawn of the twenty first century, what kind of governmental system
tolerates a procedure that allows for one man to secretly control the destiny
of a whole community?
We therefore need to disengage
from this corrupt and morally bankrupt judicial theatre and engage with the
European Court of Human Rights. The rules state that to have a case accepted in
this court, all domestic avenues of redress must have been exhausted. This
means having a case summarily dismissed, not only at the High Court, but also
at the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords, thus exposing ourselves to
potentially large adverse defence costs. These are costs that government will
deliberately rack-up in an attempt to prevent our challenge from continuing.
Government adopts this tactic because, as shown in Scat t’Larrups, it has lost
every argument.
No doubt, many who read this will
be incensed by what has happened and will wish to do what they can to right the
wrong. We, in Cornwall 2000, are volunteering to be the conduit by which you
can channel your feelings of injustice into positive action. We have
determination and experience and we can mount the legal challenge outlined
above. However, before such a challenge can begin, we need to raise £100,000 to
cover potential adverse costs. The structure for the administration of this
fund is as follows.
Pledges of financial support [not
actual donations or money] should be forwarded either via this website, or by
post to 45, Higher Bore Street, Bodmin, Duchy of Cornwall PL31 1JS. If, and
only if, the required sum is reached, a meeting of all donors pledging £500 or
more will be called. At this meeting, a chairman, secretary and treasurer will
be democratically elected. A dedicated bank account will be opened and donors
will be asked to make the promised payment into that account. As happened in the last two Cornwall 2000
legal actions, the account will require multiple signatories to release funds,
and funds can only be drawn to cover direct legal costs incurred in the case.
At the conclusion of the challenge, unused funds are returned to donors in a
proportional manner as per previous legal challenges. Funds remaining from
those who have given anonymously will be donated to the Cornwall Air Ambulance.
Should sufficient funds be
raised, the legal challenge will be timed to coincide with the Council of
Europe timetable for government submitting its third Framework Convention
compliance report – sometime in early 2009. If by that date, the strategy
outlined here has not gathered the required level of support, we shall assume
that the Cornish community does not cherish its identity nor care that it
survives.
The amount sought is ambitious,
but it is necessary to be able to meet the entire potential adverse costs
required to exhaust UK redress procedures. It would be unrealistic, and a waste
of time and money, to begin a legal challenge without having this capability. I
must stress that this figure is the absolute minimum required to launch the
legal challenge. A vengeful government determined to deprive the Cornish of
recognition and rights will attempt to run up costs well in excess of this sum.
Therefore, we shall present the UK courts with only the briefest of cases, for
the intention is to traverse and exit the UK legal system as quickly and
cheaply as possible. If fortune favours us, one of the courts will refuse right
of appeal. If this happens, we will have exhausted domestic redress procedures
and can go immediately to the European Court of Human Rights.
Funds will be used to cover court
fees and adverse legal costs only [i.e. the costs being run up by government].
Since I shall be handling the bulk of the casework, our own legal costs will be
minimal. However, from time to time it
will be necessary to obtain professional legal advice. It is hoped to keep
these costs to an absolute minimum. By this means, we can advance the case to
its maximum extent at minimal cost.
As our case is strong, there may
be a possibility of engaging legal representation on a no-win no-fee basis.
This will need to be investigated further. However, this arrangement would
still require us to meet defence costs should we lose. During the Cornwall 2000
school ethnic monitoring, or PLASC, case [successfully concluded in 2003], our
solicitors were so enthused by the strength of our case that they offered to
work for a much reduced hourly rate. This was not a no-win no-fee arrangement
but a satisfactory compromise. Finally, there is a strong possibility that if
we win at any stage, there will be no adverse costs and we will be awarded our
own costs back.
I make no promises, and I have no
wish to raise false hope. However, unless we take this course of action there
is no hope at all for Cornish people. To avoid any charge of failing to put my
own money where my mouth is, in May of 2008 I made the first pledge in the sum
of £5000.
|
