There is no separation of powers when there should be, the separation of powers have been ignored by the british state which is subverting the English constitution
WE ARE A COMMON LAW JURISDICTION
WE ARE NOT GETTING REMEDY FOR THE STATE ABUSE OF SUBJECTS OF ENGLAND
Claimant: Charles Staple
Defendants: PS Steven Richardson, PC Ben Purton, PC David Grivas, PS Jacob Fuller
These officers are accused of acts amounting to torture under UNCAT and Section 134 Torture of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.
Background
Charlie was engaged in peaceful objection to lockdown coercion.
The Statement of Case asserts:
- He was lawfully exercising freedom of expression, freedom of thought, freedom of speech, freedom of movement, freedom of assembly.
- Police officers physically and mentally attacked him.
- He was charged twice in criminal courts.
- He was acquitted twice:
-
-
First case: No Case to Answer
-
Second case: Unanimous Not Guilty by a Crown Court jury
-
Independent video evidence exists showing the police actions.
OR Click this Link
Police unlawfully arrested and violently assaulted me
The Statement of Case frames the police conduct as:
- Violation of the English Constitution
- Cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment
- Torture (as defined under UNCAT)
- Abuse of authority
- Violation of fundamental human rights
It emphasises that torture is not limited to extreme physical harm — psychological coercion, intimidation, and unlawful restraint also qualify.
The Statement of Case relies heavily on:
A. UN Convention Against Torture (UNCAT)
-
Torture is universally prosecutable.
-
States must investigate and prosecute torture without exception.
B. Criminal Justice Act 1988
-
Section 134: Torture. Makes it an offence for any public official, or anyone acting with a public official’s consent or acquiescence, to intentionally inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering in the course of official duties — in other words, it creates a universal‑jurisdiction crime of torture punishable by life imprisonment.
-
Section 135: Introduces a veto mechanism that blocks private prosecutions for torture.
This veto is central to the case.
Charlie attempted a private prosecution of the officers. The Attorney General and Solicitor General blocked it.
The Statement of Case argues:
-
The veto is unconstitutional.
-
It violates UNCAT obligations.
-
It prevents accountability for torture.
-
It creates a “secret bar” protecting police officers from prosecution.
This is why the case cannot proceed in England.
Universal Jurisdiction Filing (Texas)
Remedies Sought
The Statement of Case requests:
-
Criminal prosecution of the officers
-
Recognition of torture under UNCAT
-
Judicial review of the Attorney General’s veto
-
Compensation for harm
-
Public acknowledgement of wrongdoing
-
Structural reform to remove Section 135’s veto mechanism
Constitutional Context (Graham’s framing)
The Statement of Case includes broader constitutional commentary:
-
The UK system shields state actors from accountability.
-
The veto violates the English constitutional principles.
-
The case demonstrates systemic abuse of police powers.
-
It highlights the need for constitutional restoration.
Government under, not above, law: The rule of law requires that all public authorities—including the Crown—are bound by law and cannot arbitrarily set aside legislation. Veto as arbitrary negation: A veto power lets the executive refuse effect to a duly enacted statute for political or personal reasons, which is the very definition of arbitrary government. English constitutional law does not recognise an executive veto over legislation.
Government Must Be Bound by Law, Not Free to Nullify It
