Wednesday 4 March 2015
Redress and closure of a probate claim
To the House of Commons.
The petition of William Barrie Daden & Pauline May Daden
Declares that the petitioners believe they have suffered unjust mental and physical damage for more than a period of seven years because Probate Claim Number 7BS30602 failed to meet the standard due process of law, i.e., the administration of justice according to established rules and principles; based on the principle that a person cannot be deprived of life, liberty or in the case of the petitioners property without appropriate legal procedures and safeguards and further that the petitioners believe they will continue to suffer indefinitely if the Ministry of Justice do not undertake to review and redress the continuing effects of Probate Claim Number 7BS30602.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Ministry of Justice to review and redress the effects of Probate Claim Number 7BS30602 in order that they may have closure.
And the petitioner(s) remain(s) etc.
Mr William Barrie Daden & Mrs Pauline May Daden —[Presented by Dr Liam Fox, Official Report, 5 January 2015; Vol. 590, c. 1p.]
Observations from the Secretary of State for Justice:
Mr William Barrie Daden and Mrs Pauline May Daden have filed a petition to review the effects of the Probate Claim claiming they have been suffered mental and physical damage for more than seven years.
It is clear from the case history of this probate claim that this case has been subject to decisions made by members of the judiciary. The judiciary are deemed constitutionally independent of Government and the administration of the Ministry of Justice (MOJ) and that of Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunal Service (HMCTS). For this reason the Government are unable to offer any comment on individual cases that have been subject to judicial decisions.
This is not out of any lack of concern, but to do so would undermine the principle for judges to make decisions without undue influence of Government. If Mr William Barrie Daden and Mrs Pauline May Daden felt the decision made in this case was wrong, the remedy would have been to take legal advice and to appeal to a superior court, if so advised. This is also the remedy for anyone who has reason to believe that the case was conducted improperly in some way. It may be worth noting that no further contact has been made by Mr William Barrie Daden with HMCTS since the last court hearing in Bristol on the 25 January 2010. HMCTS are not permitted to offer any legal advice but would have directed Mr William Barrie Daden to the Citizens Advice Bureau for advice and support.