BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | ||
England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions |
||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions >> Hood v Department for Transport & Ors [2024] EWCA Civ 760 (03 July 2024) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2024/760.html Cite as: [2024] EWCA Civ 760 |
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
ON APPEAL FROM PORTSMOUTH COMBINED COURT CENTRE
J00PO627
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL |
||
B e f o r e :
and
LORD JUSTICE WILLIAM DAVIS
____________________
ROBERT HOOD |
Appellant |
|
- and - |
||
(1) THE DEPARTMENT FOR TRANSPORT (THROUGH THE DIVER AND VEHICLE STANDARDS AGENCY) (2) MATTHEW SMITH (2) SHEILA RANSOM (4) DAVID BLAKE |
Respondents |
____________________
Michael Fry (instructed by The Government Legal Department) for the Respondents
Hearing date : 27 June 2024
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
Lady Justice Elisabeth Laing and Lord Justice William Davis :
This is the judgment of the court.
Introduction
Factual background
"(d) Post (or re-post) on social media (including, but not limited to, Facebook, Instagram, TikTok and Twitter) or otherwise publicly disclose any content which:
i. Names the second, third or fourth Claimants and/or any other DVSA employee;
ii. Includes a picture or video of the second, third or fourth Claimants and/or any other DVSA employee; and/or
iii. Includes the address. or any other personal data through which the second, third or fourth Claimants and/or any other DVSA employee may reasonably be identified."
"The Defendant must forthwith remove from all of his social media accounts (including, but not limited to, Facebook, Instagram, TikTok and Twitter) any content he has posted which:
(a) Names the second, third or fourth Claimants and/or any other DVSA employee;
(b) Includes a picture or video of the second, third or fourth Claimants and/or any other DVSA employee; and/or
(c) Includes the address or any other personal data through which the second, third or fourth Claimants and/or any other DVSA employee may reasonably be identified."
The order was to be in force until the conclusion of the trial of the claims or until earlier variation or discharge, Mr Hood being given liberty to apply on notice for variation or discharge of the order. He was served with the order on 31 January 2023.
The appeal
i) Halsbury's Law 2011
ii) 1981 Forgery Act – stamping court documents is a criminal activity if done without a jury – it is a crime of uttering
iii) Biased judge and/or the judge erred
iv) Procedural failings.
Discussion
"The meeting lasted for around an hour, during which I explained the reason why his pupil had not been successful. However, no matter how I explained the reason I was just not able to get through to Mr Hood. The meeting was very stressful as he kept going over the same point and he would not accept what I was telling him. In the end we agreed to disagree and he said he understood why his candidate had been failed even if he didn't agree with the reason. This was not a pleasant experience and I remember feeling mentally drained when he left."
"I was asked by Amanda Lane, the DVSA's Operational Delivery Manager for Area 15 at the time, to respond to these allegations and I have exhibited my email to her on 3 June 2020 at MS2[45]. In my email I stated that my recollection of my meeting with Mr Hood was that it was pleasant and not as described in his letter. My initial response was to downplay the incident in the hope Mr Hood would let the matter rest. At the time, I did not see any benefit in describing how unpleasant Mr Hood was towards me in the meeting."
"I have been accused of allegedly breaching a COUNTY COURT injunction (with limitations and exclusions). It is my belief that this accusation is false and that the claimants in this case and cases connected to this allegation are using an injunction to hide £2 billion of fraud accrued over the past 73 years, currently accruing at £50 to 55 million annually.
The claimants' representatives have conveniently left out in their request for a breach of an injunction hearing SUBSTANCIAL instructions ref the INJUNCTION ORDER to bolster their criminality and the fact they are currently hiding behind this injunction in an attempt to hide their clients theft."
Habeas Corpus