The buck stops with his Majesty King Charles III, as head of state of the United Kingdom.

A further application to the CCRC, cannot be fully made out at this stage, not until the necessary supporting information has been obtained from ESCC, and other sources. The thinking is that the CCRC will again refuse to refer the matter to the Court of Appeal, thus, a further application to the European Court should follow in precisely the same terms, excepting that the CCRC will have had a third chance to give the appellant his long overdue remedy - though in no way could that be described as 'effective' after so many years. The following is food for thought, interim.

The problem with the CCRC, is that in 2012, three high court judges said the CCRC were entitled to take a view. This was on application for leave for a judicial review. This will be on file, regardless of any fresher cases about abuses of process. 

Taking a view, where there were two identical cases, the CCRC did refer back to the court of appeal, and both convictions quashed, means the British courts are allowing the CCRC to violate the rights of this one target. And, they will wriggle and squirm, to get themselves out of the situation they have put themselves in. Thus, any application must line up the British justice system, with a focus on the CCRC, as deliberately refusing an effective remedy, under Article 13, where the UK has no article 13 in their domestic Human Rights Act, and discrimination is unlawful, under article 14. How then might a renewed application be drafted to encourage the CCRC to do the right thing, with one eye on Europe, which Convention does include article 13 - should the CCRC carry on violating Victor's convention rights? 

.....

STRATEGIC RECOMMENDATION FOR VICTOR'S NEXT CCRC APPLICATION

The application must assert that had the jury or the trial judge been made aware of the financial leverage, the broken engagement, the explicit threats of retaliation, and the investigator's familial proximity to the Cabinet's political allies, the prosecution would have been stayed immediately as an affront to the public conscience, under the modern standard defined in landmark abuse of process case like R v Hamilton [2021] EWCA Crim 577 above, and R v Sussex Justices [1924].

....

INCONVENIENT EVIDENCE WAS NOT SECURED

And that goes some way to explaining why the CCRC refused to investigate the Virginity issue in Victor's case, lack of proper procedure, and the Diary, that the defence were not allowed to see, leading to the Judge, Cedric Joseph, misdirecting the Jury on two important points, suggesting that this Judge might be a Mason along with George Weston, or in the alternative, completely incompetent.

In this case Sussex police did not use their forensic expert, they used a friend of the claimant's mother; Melanie Liebenberg. They both worked at and for the same NHS Trust. Melanie Liebenberg was prepared to mislead the Jury. Saying exactly the opposite of the police expert Elizabeth Carter in another case.

Corruption and perverse policies are major issues to overcome. Until such matters are dealt with, the UK is held to be "up shit creek without a paddle." Worse, endemic corruption prevents progress. Eventually, this corruption and the Royal family's links to slavery, will expose the institutionalised discrimination that flows from top to bottom. I.e., from Buckingham Palace to Councils everywhere in the UK. Including, Parish Councils, like Herstmonceux.

The United Kingdom does not yet have a Written Constitution, leaving the justice system open to abuse via the honours system. [R v Sussex Justices 1924] Without justice being available to the ordinary man in the street, fairly, impartially and affordably, Britain can never truly be great again.

REFERENCE

https://www.