QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
B e f o r e :
MR JUSTICE MACKAY
|HER MAJESTY'S ATTORNEY GENERAL||(CLAIMANT)|
|RAM PRATAP SAXENA||(DEFENDANT)|
Smith Bernal Wordwave Limited
190 Fleet Street London EC4A 2AG
Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
The Defendant did not appear and was unrepresented.
Crown Copyright ©
"1. No civil proceedings shall without the leave of the High Court be instituted by you in any court;
2. Any civil proceedings instituted by you in any court before the making of the Order shall not be continued by you without the leave of the High Court;
3. No application, (other than an application for leave under section 42 of the Supreme Court Act 1981), shall without the leave of the High Court be made by you in any civil proceedings instituted by you or by [any person on your behalf] in any court."
"Thank you for your letter received in the Administrative Court on 30th October 2003. I have been asked by the lawyer that you send in to us as soon as possible a copy of your hospital appointment details before a decision can be taken in respect of vacating the hearing date."
Since then, so far as the court is concerned, there has been no response. In those circumstances, we came to the conclusion at the outset of today's proceedings that we would not grant the adjournment sought and proceed with the matter today.
"Dr Saxena is trying to use these proceedings as a platform for raising general matters which he feels should be aired publicly. That is a misuse of the procedures of the court and accordingly his application for leave to appeal is dismissed."
Nevertheless, Dr Saxena applied to the Court of Appeal for permission to appeal. That application was eventually not pursued and was therefore dismissed.
"Barclays is a racialist bank, proved in the past. They are still practising racialism".
Dr Saxena claimed that the maladministration (as he described it) of his case constituted a breach of human rights and was contrary to the rules of natural justice. On 3rd May 2000 Burton J considered written submissions in open court in the absence of the parties, Dr Saxena being in prison on that date, and refused permission.
"These are applications by Dr Saxena against the prison authorities, either the prison service or particular prison officers ... In all these applications the applicant, who is a prisoner, complains of different incidents in relation to his treatment in prison."
He described himself as a "male political prisoner", he alleged that he had been strip-searched and tortured, including being strangled by his own shirt collar, and also made references to threats to kill him. He also complained that when he was in difficulties, rather than receiving sympathy and medical treatment, he was given what he described as "antisimitic order to get up".
"20 October 1995: Defendant hooked with help of a girl (Double agent); 25 October 1995: Every day death in custody; 28 February 1998: Lecturing in public on Princess Diana. Freedom of speech; 3 January 2001: torture regimen".
"... tried to make many people bankrupt specially the couple in ancillary relief. Specially those who have two or three houses or factories".
Once again there was reference to the decision in Levy. The claim form contained further complaints relating to Price Waterhouse Coopers, who were acting as trustee in Dr Saxena's bankruptcy, and it was asserted that the Secretary of State and Price Waterhouse Coopers were involved in bribery and corruption. There was a witness statement filed in those proceedings which made further reference to Dr Saxena's second wife, who was alleged to be "an illegal immigrant and under police investigation for other activities" and "a shield for the police to convict me". He submitted what he described as a skeleton argument, in which he said:
"Price Waterhouse Coopers is also paedophile promotor.".
He concluded that
"there is a witch-hunt against a reformer/doctor who is linked to Princess Diana Institute of Stress".
The Treasury Solicitor acknowledged service of the application and lodged summary grounds for contesting the claim. The matter came before Scott Baker J on 15th June 2001, when permission was refused on the papers and the judge observed that the application was out of time, quite apart from other difficulties outlined in the acknowledgement of service.
"(1) stop the sleaze; (2) stop the racialism; (3) claimant is loosing his self esteem due to dictator behaviour of probation officers;... (4) I cannot go out of country to practice medicine I am losing a lot of money".
The matter came before Harrison J on 31st August 2001 when permission was refused on the papers and the judge observed:
"The papers do not disclose any arguable grounds for judicial review."
There then followed an oral hearing and a renewed application for permission on 29th October 2001, when Scott-Baker J refused permission and awarded costs against Dr Saxena whilst ordering that the files relating to Dr Saxena be sent to the Attorney General for consideration of the institution of the proceedings which have come before us today.
"was based on his conclusion that there was no prospect of success for the reasons he fully and clearly set out in his judgment with which I entirely agree. This was a hopeless application."
"I am satisfied that Dr Saxena's attempt to relitigate the issues that he had already dealt with on appeal before the Magistrates Court was wholly misconceived."
"It is clear from the documents before me that Mr Saxena has a long-standing resentment against the courts and the manner in which he has been dealt with. He makes a number of allegations about freemasonry, breaches of human rights and serious allegations against solicitors who acted for Price Waterhouse Coopers at an early stage. I am not concerned with any of those allegations. I am concerned solely with the simple question of whether I should give permission to appeal from the order of Lloyd J to which I have referred.
Under the rules permission to appeal is granted if there is a real prospect of success; that is to say a prospect more than merely fanciful, or alternatively, if there are compelling reasons why the matter should be investigated by the Court of Appeal. I do not think that either of those tests are satisfied. I can see no ground at all, reasonable or otherwise, for considering that an appeal, if I gave leave to appeal from the order of Lloyd J, has any prospect of success at all; and I can see no reason why the Court of Appeal should be engaged in discussing the other matters which Dr Saxena has referred to which do not appear to me to be relevant to the order which he seeks to appeal."
"no important point of principle or practice here, nor other compelling reason, why the appeal should proceed".
A little later:
"Whatever the procedural complications as to what happened subsequently may have been, Pitchers J was, in my view, entirely correct in reaching the conclusion that there was no prospect of success in appealing the order of Master Ungley. I reach exactly the same conclusion, and it seems to me in those circumstances that this claimant has no real prospect of successfully appealing Pitchers J's order."