5 September 2017
Applications to re-open case 3SA90091 (Paris and Garden v Lewis and Byng) on fresh evidence, and the “interrelated” appeal of the foreseeably unjust decision, made immediately before trial by the presiding judge, to exclude observed and acknowledged covert harassment, stalking and hate-crime, have now been accepted by the Court of Appeal.
This follows lengthy mishaps including loss of files by the Court.
Due to the fear engendered by threats to life and liberty perpetrated by Andy Lewis and Melanie Byng, the Court of Appeal has accepted the necessity for email communications rather then their usual general procedure of sending letters by post. They have also agreed to send packets to the office of Labour MP, Geraint Davies for the same reason.
Following further emails, service is now due by the 18th September. Nevertheless, the letter below shows the Court of Appeal alerting the perpetrators to the issuing of the applications, including the MP’s address, by cc’ing them into a letter ostensibly written to us, thus again demonstrating the arduous necessity of the above measures.
It is odd, to say the least, that personal information is quietly handed around even to those making threats to kill, while ordinary people are supposed to obey “unspoken rules” to either do legal action OR publish.
Legal Action vs Publication
We have published without legal action in self-defence, when that was all we could do as we lived outside the abusers’ jurisdiction. Our open publication with right of reply caused “problems” for Lewis and Byng, and they stalked us constantly to covertly interfere with our free association as part of their course of conduct.
It was only to obey the “unspoken rules” of court that we ceased publication, when we were forced to seek help, having first trans-globally relocated and then yet again met the perpetrators’ chronic aversion to democracy.
Legal action without publication -> Injustice.
For example, Andy Lewis and Melanie Byng are allowed to remain in breach of a court order, made by the same judge before trial, to disclose substantive evidence of their malicious communications about us to ‘big-hitter’ UK journalists.
The court is quite aware of this unlawful breach, but having already deliberately removed the perpetrators’ harassment and stalking from the case, and then allowed their obvious perjury and evidence tampering, the court did not consider this evidence, or their breach, but awarded Andy Lewis and Melanie Byng our home in spite of it, as “costs”.
When we asked Andy Lewis and Melanie Byng to rectify their own breach of court order before taking our home, they maxxed out on hypocrisy.
Shortly after this they broke in and changed the locks.
Stalking involving fear of violence, serious harm and distress
In case 3SA90091, the Court has clearly first excluded an acknowledged course of conduct of covertly harassing, then relied on exactly the covert nature of that highly networked and co-ordinated harassment in order to bury it, punish the targets and reward the perpetrators.
Rewarding DISABILITY HATE-CRIME, STALKING, HARASSMENT, MALICIOUS COMMUNICATIONS is not in the public interest, and does not accord with established legal principle, current thinking or stated goals.
For example, since 2012 Section 4 A 1 b i & ii of the Protection from Harassment Act has existed to deal with cumulative, targeted harassment with the characteristics of stalking.
Chilling Free Speech in the UK
The deliberate promotion of Stasi-level networked psychological abuse and stalking, by one of the highest courts in the land, exists in a heated global context of internet publication and free speech, and puts the “unspoken rule” of no publication with legal action into a dangerous perspective.
The inevitable chilling effect on free-speech of the defamation ruling by HRH Anthony Seys Llewellyn, can be seen in the request below, sent by a commenter on one of our websites who withdrew their comment.
Although we technically served the case on Lewis and Byng, the terrifying impression of their aggression forcing the legal action on us is correct.
We must now therefore lawfully continue to publish, both for our own protection and safety and in the public interest in the protection of robust free-speech with right of reply for all, according to the law.
These are the principles motivating these appeals, principles that both police and courts are bound to uphold, contrary to their actions in this case.
For the purposes stated above we will therefore publish going forward including, potentially, communications marked “confidential”, where further harassment would result from our silence.
“This case could change the law”, as stated by Jonathan Price QC (opposing Barrister) of Doughty Street Chambers.
“Could become a stated case”, as stated by PC Robbins of South Wales Police.