Complaint against HH. Justice Clarke a member of the EAT Gang of Four
- On the 15th
March 2007 the Respondents Appeal (Manchester Metropolitan University v
C.D’Silva ) was listed for a two day
hearing in Court 2 before the Honourable Mr Justice Wilkie, Ms v
Branney & Mrs M Mc Arthur see Cause List; EAT/0024/07/LA [1].
- However on the
day of the hearing the cause list was
changed and members of CAFAS & the
CEM who attended as observers found that the Respondents two day Appeal
(Manchester Metropolitan University v C.D’Silva ) was now listed for a hearing in Court 1 before His Honour Judge Peter Clarke, Ms
V Branney & Mrs M Mc Arthur see Cause List; EAT/0024/07/LA [2].
- HH. J. Peter Clarke on the day appeared to be in perfect physical health and his substitution in this case was considered as bad news by members of the CEM and CAFAS who attended the Employment Appeal Tribunal. HH. Judge Peter Clarke’s past conduct as an EAT Member in undermining the cases of ethnic minorities such as Mr Deman and Dr Chaudhary had been noted by CEM Members as well as his Law Society finding for negligence.
- HH Judge Peter Clarke heard the appeal of Dr Chaudhary V BMA and in the course of the hearing made adverse personnel comments, why was he wasting his time he should seek an alternative job. He subsequently caused Dr Chaudhary (Indian) detriment by overthrowing his decision against the Secretary of State who had awarded him just under one million pounds in compensation.
- In view that HR Judge Peter Clarke had caused detriment to two people of Asian origin including the claimant's lay representative, Mr Deman in his UCU case and Dr Chaudhary who had requested an adjournment in the claimant's MMU case whose decision was being considered in this appeal. I believe that there is a pattern of bias in his decisions in the handling of cases of members of the Indian subcontinent as the decision would have been a foregone conclusion.
- It was noted by CAFAS & CEM members and others that HH Judge Peter Clarke at the EAT on seeing the claimant was represented by Mr John Davies.QC became agitated. On adjournment of the case for lunch on the 15th March 2007, we were surprisingly informed on our return that Mr Peter Clarke had been struck down with food poisoning and the two day case had to been adjourned and would be re-listed for a further two day hearing at a latter date at significant financial cost to the claimant in view that his QC would need to be paid for a further day.
1. Food poisoning requires a 24 hr period for incubation it does not spontaneously occur over lunch.
2. The EAT and H.H.J. Peter Clarke failed to provide a medical certificate to support their contention that he had food poisoning despite the claimant requesting it of the EAT. The claimant in a similar position on requiring an adjournment in his MMU case on the grounds of his ill health represented by a lay person Dr Chaudhary offered a NHS consultant to give evidence on his medical condition [8]. This however was refused and the case was not adjourned and was heard in his absence in April 2005, at the Respondent’s Council, Mr Gilroy. QC influence on the Manchester Tribunal being a member of its governing body.
3. However in the Respondent’s EAT case heard on the 6/7th June 2007 (UKEAT/0024/07/LA) with the judgment promulgated on the 26th Sept 2007 [4] and the order the 27th Sept 2007 [5]. The EAT to save the reputations of the six Senior members of the University found guilty of racial discrimination brought the trio together and sacrificed justice in support of racial discrimination. Judge Peter Clarke gave MMU several bites of the cherry whilst breaching the claimant’s Human Right Under Article 6 in regard to a fair trial. In view that the Claimant never gave evidence or was represented by Counsel how could Justice Clarke overthrow the claimant’s judgment in view of the overriding objective of the Tribunal the maintenance of an equality of arms. The only fair thing would have been for HH Judge Clarke to have the case re-heard however this would not have changed the outcome in favour of MMU in view of the adverse finding made against its management.
4. Instead HH Judge Peter Clarke, applied his Judicial discretion, in a racially prejudicial manner as he had done in the case of Mr. Deman vs AUT, Dr Chaudhary vs The Secretary of State and the claimant’s case by refusing Counsels reasonable request for a Burns-Barke direction [6(1-6)] in which the Chairman of the Manchester tribunal, Ms O’Hara could have provided clarification as to how she arrived at her decision. His subsequent comment during the hearing in asking whether the claimant, was still in employment showed again his contempt for victims of racial discrimination.
5. The
extended reasons provided by the Employment tribunal were given over a
year after the tribunal provided its short form judgment due to respondents Counsel, Mr Gilroy’s tactics in
delaying the processing of the case by claiming first he was going to appeal the decisions [12] and
then withdrawing the appeal before the hearing date. On realizing the claimant
was not going to give up his claim he then
pursued a cost order in regard to the wasted appeal [13] which the
Respondent requested to be red flagged to rail road it through the EAT,
in breach of Tribunal procedures
which required it should be heard after the Tribunal
Judgment was promuglated. The EAT and
H.H. Judge Serota a member of the gang of four in breach of tribunal procedures held the appeal hearing on
the same day the ET was to promuglate its decision and in his attempt to rail road the claimant’s appeal. Judge
Serota failed to conduct the hearing correctly with two wing members
present and based on the merits found in the claimant's favour. The EAT appeal however was rendered a
nuility due to Judge Serota’s failure to have wing members. On the same day the decision of the EAT became available, the Manchester Tribunal informed the claimant that he
had won many parts of his ET Tribunal
case, so he withdrew his EAT
appeal judgment and kept his ET judgment.
