PROBLEMS SUMMARY TO GOVERNMENT MINISTERS 16-Jan-2004

Personal Background details:

On 26-Dec-2008 I Beauford Lloyd Sewell was (68) years old, I have lived and worked in the United Kingdom since 1961 - I have also lived and worked briefly in Germany and Holland during that period – Because of the two following cases – I have been forced to live on social security since 1997.

Problem Background Details Case No: 1 and (1a – Bankruptcy proceedings)

I went to West London Training and Enterprise Council in 1996 to request help in starting my own business – They promised both verbally and in writing to assist – but instead – used my business and marking plans to obtain £376,000 from the Government Office for London to start a similar project based on my business plans in (1997)

I had discussed my project by letter with Mr Michael Bichard at that time a government minister in 1996 – I have both the original letter to Mr Bichard and his response.

a) I wrote to Tony Blair – 1997 with no result

b) I wrote to the Ombudsman – with no result

c) Wrote to The Government Office for London – with no result

d) Wrote of several other members of Parliament – with no result

e) I was denied Legal Aid – because at the time – I did not have all the evidence

f) I was advised by the Lord Chancellor’s Office that I could pursue my case in the county court by yourself – which I preceded to do in 2001

g) Because my original submission to Brentford Court (BF102062) was not in the order that the court expected – my case was dismissed with costs against me.

h) The re-submitted documents was also rejected by Brentford County Court – by another district judge, who invited the other side to increase their cost – which they did – so by now I had (2) court orders against me totalling approximately £3760.

i) Without legal advice – I was at a loss as to what to do and contacted the Lord Chancellor’ office – who informed that I could appeal although the appeal was out of time

j) I submitted my permission to appeal and my appeal – the other side failed to attend both hearings – but subsequently applied for the appeal to be re-heard - which is still in progress

In the meantime they have filed an application against me in the Guildford County Court (GUxxxxxx) to make me bankrupt – this was dismissed on two occasion – they failed to attend court for both hearings – but have subsequently had the case for bankruptcy against me re-instated.

Problem Background Details Case No: 2

In (1998) I attempted to start a new venture and piloted this venture successfully in the London area.

One of the agencies for which I conducted a workshop was Business Link London North West – under contract to their business development manager.

When the business links was wound up by the government – the business development manager – now operating a not-for-profit company together with his wife - successfully used the documents previously submitted to him by me in confidence to obtain funds from the Phoenix Fund to promote and provide the same training course to ethnic minorities in the London area.

I have again attempted to put this matter before the courts – but again – because (a) I am not legally represented – (b) the court administration misplaced and misdirected some of the documents - so that neither defending party to the action had a full set of documents in advance of the hearing - the court has taken the view that my application was not what should have been put before the court – and again my case has been dismissed – with cost of approximately £1500, against me.

Guildford County Court offered an oral hearing –

I argued that (a) my case was based on fact, (b) supported by documentary evidence and (c) signed witness affidavits, that I had been (d) denied access to justice and that (e) my human rights had been denied.

At the end of the hearing, the judge remarked that in his opinion my human rights had not

been denied. that I could present my case myself and that I have the option of making an appeal to a higher court

- Access to Justice Act and Hunan Rights

My observation is that in the courts their no equity between the legal abilities of a lay person against (a) the government in the form of a solicitor from the Department of Trade and Industry and (b) a barrister, – hence in the absence of being legally represented, I have not had the benefit of a fair trial under the human rights laws.

Alternatives to Legal Action

I wrote to (a) the Head of the Small Business Service, Mr Martin Wyn-Griffiths – informing him of both cases, he has not responded

I wrote to (b) The Secretary of State for Small Business – Mr Nigel Griffiths – informing him of both cases, he has declined to become involved

So again, these government departments, have denied my human rights by (a) failing to investigate my allegations as per human rights act (Article 1, Protocol 1)

Conclusion

· The Government encourages people to start their own businesses

· The Government further encourages this possibility – by setting up business support agencies and encourage people to seek advice from these agencies

· The persons most likely to start their own business are normally Non-English – because of wide spread discrimination

· The Government further discriminates – against these same people - by changing the law so that these people - who been encouraged to start their own business – and may have found themselves in difficulties – are now barred from the benefits of Legal Aid

· The result is that many thousands of small firms from Ethnic Minorities – are discriminated against – while at the same time being encouraged by Government to enter into starting their own business.

· This change in the law – ignores (Article 1, Protocol 1) provision of the right to enjoy possession – this right has been derogated by the change in the law – that denies legal aid to people if the civil action includes that of running a business.

My Personal Tragedy

In all cases, were I an Englishperson;

(a) The acts against me would not have been perpetrated

(b) If I were legally represented – then both my cases – which are based on facts, supported by documentary evidence and witness statements in the courts would not have been dismissed for lack of proper presentation

(c) Therefore it is my conclusion that

· My access to justice has been denied under (Access to Justice Act), section 6(8)(b), and

· Subsequently – my human rights has been denied – under (Article 1, Protocol 1)

· The same justice from which I have been excluded – has been used against me – in attempts to make me bankrupt.

· In the rare case – where the order of the court is in my favour – then the resulting cost to the other side is minimalised – by the fact that the actions of the defendants resulted in my un-employment – so the cost order is minimum

· On the other hand – when cost are against me – they are maximised – because the defendants – who caused my un-employment are able to employ barristers – while I have to rely on self-defence.

· This is multiple discrimination – which is also means a denial of human rights

· Because of this discrimination – I am obliged to represent myself in (3) action at two separate courts – inspite of the access to justice acts and my human rights – while at the same time the government agencies involved – can rely on the law – which already in their favour and a team of barristers.

· This is not justice – but a denial of justice – and denial of my human rights

Signed: Beauford Lloyd Sewell 16-Jan-2004