Latest post of the previous page:Another bizarre update nearly a year later.
Angel and Steve attempted to appeal yet again on the pretext that they had found new evidence - in reality a film they had taken of Andy Lewis at a skeptics meeting in Bath which they'd already disclosed to the Court but this time it was FROM A SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT ANGLE. As the appeal Judge states: 'it adds nothing to the merits'.
They also re-submitted material (from disclosed correspondence) which they'd been told was privileged and which 'at any event does not assist the applicants'. I can't remember now what it was.
They were also disputing the decision made by HHJ Seys Llewellyn at the pre-trial review in 2015 NOT to allow them to reinstate a claim for harassment, which they'd made and then withdrawn, we imagine on the advice of lawyers they had at the time. The original claim was a vast and formless beast, an exercise in self-indulgence, speculation and hopeful Stalinism. Everything after that was a slip of a thing.
Anyway, as reply to this application to revisit that decision of early 2015 in the words of the latest appeal judge (the Right Hon. Lady Justice Sharp):
'This application, brought more than two years out of time, with no reasonable explanation, is a hopeless attempt on vexatious grounds to challenge an unimpeachable case management decision made by the judge. The application before the judge was made extremely late; it would have led to the vacation of the trial date, which was imminent, and as the judge found it would have vastly widened the scope of proceedings with the consequent implications for court resources and costs. Further, as the judge pointed out, to the extent the evidence was relevant to the defamation claim it could be used without amendment.'
They also appear to have been cross that we (the Respondents) were given opportunity to reply to their submissions in their FIRST application to re-open the appeal (I forget to tell you there was an earlier application to re-open) and because we'd had that opportunity they accused the first appeal judge of bias. They even demanded that he recuse himself. How dare we have representation!
It must have seemed unjust to them that they had the same judge (Simon LJ) at appeal and (first) application to re-open the appeal but it appears perfectly standard practice.
I suspect they believed that if they could only get their case in front of a different appeal judge there would be a different result. This is that result. The judgement by the Right Hon Lady Justice Sharp ends:
'The applicants should understand that if any further such applications are made directly or tangentially in connection with these proceedings, and the issues considered in them, the court will be bound to consider making a Civil Restraint Order against them pursuant to CPR Practice Direction 3C.'
This is reassuring for us of course but not entirely surprising.