If you missed it See HERE
“The tribunal did not have the benefit of hearing from Dr Rankin or Ms Park, and the documentation included in the bundle was not agreed by the respondent. These reports did not assist the tribunal as Dr Rankin’s findings were recorded in his report dated 21 June 2019, which was well before the relevant time.”
Bear in mind I had my accident on 10 November 2018, I was constantly dismissed by my GP and had tried to find private medical help for months. The mentioned report includes my private diagnosis of Post-Concussion Syndrome and was seven months after I hit my head.
To establish disability, you must prove that it has lasted or is likely to last longer than twelve months:
“A person has a disability if s/he has a physical or mental impairment, which has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on his or her ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities.”
See page 239 of the Equality Commission’s Disability Code of Practice.
At no point during the hearing was I informed that the evidence within the bundle was not agreed upon, thus making the bundle itself not agreed upon by both parties.
It is clear that we have legal professionals, namely MacBlair's solicitor and barrister, who have operated within the confines of a system for such an egregious period that they were fully aware that this ‘implicit divergence’ with the bundle would remain unmentioned and that the Judge and panel would appropriately "handle" it in the judgment.
It is of great concern that the 'legal professionals' in question have placed their reliance on a system that is riddled with corruption, disability discrimination, and, dare I say, sex discrimination, as well as judicial bias and egregious negligence to purportedly safeguard and promote the values of equality, fairness, and justice. Instead of using their extensive knowledge and training to win the case, they resorted to underhanded tactics and reliance on an inequitable and unjust system to render a verdict against me.
“which was well before the relevant time.”
The tribunal have decided, that MacBlair is authorised to function on the premise that they have not "agreed" to the inclusion of medical evidence, that establishes my disability, and that I had been suffering from a long-term condition that had persisted for well over a year at that point, then I must firmly state that I do not AGREE with their "expert" evidence which was sought long after the ‘relevant time’.
Furthermore, I do not AGREE to the use of my tweets, which were posted long after the ‘relevant time’, and I do not AGREE to the use of those brain injury service notes, that are long after the ‘relevant time’.
The above circumstances have given me ample grounds to challenge the validity of the tribunal's decision. I will be seeking clarification from the tribunal on 25 April 2023, as to how their decision reflects fairness and impartiality. Furthermore, I will be questioning the professional conduct of the legal professionals involved.
This brings me to why I was referred back to the IT to seek remission of fees to appeal a judgment that I believe is perverse.
Email sent to Lady Chief Justice Keegan and the NICTS:
Free dictionary definition of corruption
I chose this definition because it is not limited to bribery. The above can clearly be described as an act done with an intent to give some advantage inconsistent with official duty and the rights of others.
What do you think?
Tell me below.