The Words of the Brann Family

Hearing on True Father's case in Britain

Mark Brann
April 4, 2004

First Day – 30th March:

Dear Everyone,

I wanted to offer you all a brief report on today's proceedings in TF's immigration case appeal. Actually, we had thought that today might be the only day of the hearing and that we might even have at least a decision in principle by tonight. But it was not to be. It is very hard to estimate accurately how long presenting material is going to take. Today was basically just the presentation of TF's case. When it ended at about 15.30 the judge gave the government team the option to begin their case in the morning, which they accepted. Not only they, but also the judge himself, was happy to stop early as our case had been powerful, detailed and demanding to listen to and the judge no doubt needed time and space to think and order his thoughts. From well before the start at 10.00 a.m. the small immigration courtroom had been packed out with our family members. Normally there is only room for 12 members of the public, but as over 20 members came to lend prayer support the authorities had to quickly find chairs for them. It gave the court an unusually packed and intense feeling, which was very good. Gradually, as proceedings began the spirit became very high.

The presentation of TF's case by David Pannick was very powerful, passionate and compelling to listen to. He did not spare the Home Office or 'the Home Secretary', the minister responsible, but castigated both continuously with measured, controlled and very effective anger for their conduct. He said the exclusion should never have issued and that it was an "outrage" that it had been and one that violated many fundamental human rights and freedoms. He particularly attacked again and again the lack of objectivity and fairness in the way that the decision had been made to exclude TF and the conduct of the case since and focussed particularly on the decision to listen to the "anti-cult" movement input based on mere assertions, presupposition and speculation from unqualified people rather than the objective and scientific studies of Prof. Eileen Barker (whom the government had consulted but ignored) and Dr Bryan Wilson whom we had engaged as our expert witness and who are both world authorities. He characterised this approach as deeply irresponsible, profoundly unbalanced and unfair.

David Pannick dealt strongly and very confidently with the government contention that there was no protection for human rights for someone like TF who was outside the jurisdiction (i.e. who lived in a country not covered by the European Convention on Human Rights). He said that there was clear and binding authority from higher courts that this was not the case and that in effect the government's attempt to argue this was a disgrace because it was effectively trying to exclude appeals to the courts against ministerial decisions where Parliament had clearly intended there to be such a right of appeal. This was a clever way to make his point because it touched on a major constitutional argument that the government has just lost after they tried to prevent asylum seekers having a right to appeal to a court. It is still a very raw nerve at the moment and in touching it David strongly, but subtly, suggested an underlying motive to abuse power here too.

It was a masterful performance and quite riveting at times. I have worked with David several times before and never felt his passion so engaged as now. We had prayed that he could rise above normal lawyerly motivation, including concern about money and his own reputation and give himself heart and soul to TF's cause and he certainly did that, vindicating Rev Song's guidance that the key to victory was the making of cheon song conditions. Many such were made by many members, especially in the last 2 weeks and including in other countries. The judge seemed very attentive and engaged at all times and very respectful. He did not challenge anything David Pannick said. At the end David Pannick even challenged the government lawyers to keep their reply short because there really could not be much to say in reply. My only concern at that point was whether members might start clapping and cheering! It felt like they wanted to. In short, it was a very good day

Second Day - 31st March:

We began at 10.00 am when the government counsel, Monica Carss-Frisk Q.C. started to present the case for the Home Secretary, David Blunkett. The main point for the government was that True Father was someone who was applying for protection of his human rights from "outside the jurisdiction" and that the European Human Rights Convention simply did not apply to someone in that category. It only protected those who were physically in the country or in limited other situations like on ships sailing under the national flag etc. She cited case after case that appeared to show this and said that the cases cited by David Pannick to show the opposite had been wrongly interpreted by him. Almost one and a half hours was taken up with this very dry procedural kind of submission. Only for about half an hour or forty minutes at the end did she address the actual facts of the case and our contention that the Home Secretary simply did not have a case at all. Needless to say she denied this and pointed to a couple of things that Prof Eileen Barker had said that were critical of us such as that TF had become wealthy as a result of members efforts and lived in luxury and that several British citizens had suffered over the last 30 years as a result of the UC although she did not say how. However, it was not a strong performance, much less a compelling one. It lasted just two hours and ten minutes.

According to the procedure in such cases the person appealing then has a second chance to speak in order to address arguments raised in the response. The judge offered David Pannick half an hour to prepare his arguments. However, he turned down this opportunity and immediately went straight into the counter-attack with a high octane mixture of clinical and biting logic and withering criticism of the Home Office and the Home Secretary as well as of their counsel who had got the case law wrong. He showed that they had simply not understood the law about the application of the Human Rights convention and that the judge was clearly bound to accept a higher decision that said a person in TF's situation (physically outside the territory of the convention) was entitled to protection for human rights that he sought to exercise inside the territory in relation to persons to whom he was deeply connected (such as religious followers) and denounced all the arguments put forward on the factual case as rationalisations thought up at the last moment to justify a thoroughly bad original decision by David Blunkett. It was a very strong performance.

The judge said he could not give a decision there and then but would give a written decision in about two weeks. Although it may be disappointing not to know the result in principle immediately, this means that we will have a very full decision quite quickly. Once the decision is received either side has 28 days in which to lodge any appeal.

It is very important that we keep making our special conditions until we get the decision. It is clear that it these conditions more than anything else that have made the hearing go as well as it has, but with the judge away from the court and in his own environment it is important that everyone can pray for him while he writes his decision. Therefore, I want to request that everyone continues to pray for Michael Clements until further notice.

Sincerely, Mark Brann

 Download entire page and pages related to it in ZIP format
Table of Contents
Information
Tparents Home