Judicial Review
Application for Repatriation and Re-interment at Stonehenge
Getting an appointment with the Director of a Museum can be quite difficult especially when their staff keep giving you the run-around, and nobody returns you calls: So I went in and slapped this on his desk. I think that might get his attention:
King Arthur Pendragon
Battlechieftain Council of British Druid Orders
Titular Head and Chosen Chief
Loyal Arthurian Warbands
L /|\ W
www.warband.org.uk
k.pendragon@yahoo.co.uk
07840277812
O=={{:::::::15th August 2013::::::::>
Salisbury and South Wiltshire Museum
Application for Repatriation and Re-interment at Stonehenge,
As a Senior Druid and Spiritual Leader working n the Environs of Stonehenge, which to us is a Sacred Landscape I wish to apply for repatriation and Re-interment on behalf of the Sacred Priests of Stonehenge, Past/Present & Future.
In Respect of;
a. Human Cremation (HC33, SBYWM: 1933.29.5): Phase 2 (The Time of Stonehenge) The cremation of a human adult was excavated by Professor Richard Atkinson at Stonehenge (within Aubrey Hole 32) in 1950. It was in the care of Salisbury and South Wiltshire Museum until 2011 when it was loaned to English Heritage. The cremation, studied by English Heritage after the loan period began, consists of five small pieces of skull and 12 fragments of long bone. It is not possible to say whether the remains are those of a man or a woman, nor estimate their age at death.
This cremation has been dated to 3080–2890 BC, and this is therefore one of several cremations associated with the earliest known monument at Stonehenge, pre-dating the raising of the sarsens. This Late Neolithic cremation cemetery is unique in Britain and is a highly significant part of the Stonehenge story. The cremation will be displayed with a small collection of objects found with contemporary cremations to help explain how this early monument, used as a burial place for over 500 years, developed.
Taken from 'THE DISPLAY OF HUMAN REMAINS AT STONEHENGE CURATORIAL STATEMENT'
King Arthur Pendragon,
email your support in relation to this application to adriangreen@salisburymuseum.org.uk
15th August 2013
King Arthur Pendragon
Battlechieftain Council of British Druid Orders
Titular Head and Chosen Chief
Loyal Arthurian Warbands
L /|\ W
www.warband.org.uk
k.pendragon@yahoo.co.uk
07840277812
O=={{:::::::15th August 2013::::::::>
Salisbury and South Wiltshire Museum
Application for Repatriation and Re-interment at Stonehenge,
As a Senior Druid and Spiritual Leader working n the Environs of Stonehenge, which to us is a Sacred Landscape I wish to apply for repatriation and Re-interment on behalf of the Sacred Priests of Stonehenge, Past/Present & Future.
In Respect of;
a. Human Cremation (HC33, SBYWM: 1933.29.5): Phase 2 (The Time of Stonehenge) The cremation of a human adult was excavated by Professor Richard Atkinson at Stonehenge (within Aubrey Hole 32) in 1950. It was in the care of Salisbury and South Wiltshire Museum until 2011 when it was loaned to English Heritage. The cremation, studied by English Heritage after the loan period began, consists of five small pieces of skull and 12 fragments of long bone. It is not possible to say whether the remains are those of a man or a woman, nor estimate their age at death.
This cremation has been dated to 3080–2890 BC, and this is therefore one of several cremations associated with the earliest known monument at Stonehenge, pre-dating the raising of the sarsens. This Late Neolithic cremation cemetery is unique in Britain and is a highly significant part of the Stonehenge story. The cremation will be displayed with a small collection of objects found with contemporary cremations to help explain how this early monument, used as a burial place for over 500 years, developed.
Taken from 'THE DISPLAY OF HUMAN REMAINS AT STONEHENGE CURATORIAL STATEMENT'
King Arthur Pendragon,
email your support in relation to this application to adriangreen@salisburymuseum.org.uk
15th August 2013
"I would rather Try and Fail, than Fail to try". King Arthur Pendragon 2013
The Royal Courts of Justice
One thing I have learned from ‘our’ appearance on 15th May 2013. “We’re on our own”. Despite a massive campaign over the World Wide Web to show ‘Robed Support’ The Loyal Arthurian Warband were ‘as usual’ the only ‘Robes’ at the sharp end. From this we learn that if, as, and when, we take ‘Legal’ or ‘Non-violent Direct’ Action in the future we can not rely on the active support or assistance of the other Orders, Covens and Groves. We will in stead look to the other faiths for their support Saffron Robes, Turbans, skull caps, and ‘Dog Collars’ at the ready. We will stand and be counted, and if LAW are the only Pagan and/or Druid Order doing so. So be it. We shall not retire from the Field of Battle until the Battle is won.
Blessings from the Front /|\
One thing I have learned from ‘our’ appearance on 15th May 2013. “We’re on our own”. Despite a massive campaign over the World Wide Web to show ‘Robed Support’ The Loyal Arthurian Warband were ‘as usual’ the only ‘Robes’ at the sharp end. From this we learn that if, as, and when, we take ‘Legal’ or ‘Non-violent Direct’ Action in the future we can not rely on the active support or assistance of the other Orders, Covens and Groves. We will in stead look to the other faiths for their support Saffron Robes, Turbans, skull caps, and ‘Dog Collars’ at the ready. We will stand and be counted, and if LAW are the only Pagan and/or Druid Order doing so. So be it. We shall not retire from the Field of Battle until the Battle is won.
Blessings from the Front /|\
| the_case_as_put_by_king_arthur_pendragon.doc |
MEDDLESOME DRUIDS
We are in our fifth year of campaigning for the return and re-interment of The Ancient Cremated Human Remains known as The Guardians at Stonehenge. Mounting a very visible and ‘High Profile’ campaign at Stonehenge and a very public legal challenge in The Royal Court of Justice, not something that could or should go un-noticed by the rest of the Druid community. And in deed it did not. Yet now at the eleventh hour as it were, with a date fixed for an Oral Hearing in support of my application for a Judicial Review fixed for the fifteenth of May other (Meddlesome) Druids wish to get involved, at best ‘Jumping on the Band Wagon’ and at worst ‘Queering the pitch’ either way, “Too little-Too late”. I would not mind so much had they liaised with our campaign as was requested on numerous occasions. But this, at this late hour, without so much as a ‘Heads up’ as to what or why they were doing it I find completely unacceptable and would remind them that this is the subject of a legal challenge.
My response elsewhere on the www to the publication of a letter sent to EH.
My response elsewhere on the www to the publication of a letter sent to EH.
Oral Hearing - date to be confirmed
I have been working on my measured response and the points of law that I will be putting before the Judge and believe me it is heavy going, but I can't do everything and I need YOUR support on the day.
Blessings from the Front /|\
CALL TO ARMS
My current application for a Judicial Review of the decision to grant an extension to the Archaeologist to continue their ‘study’ of the cremated human remains, (known as The Guardians) , re-exhumed and taken from Stonehenge in 2008 and to have a prohibition order put in place to prohibit the Ministry of Justice from granting any further extensions at the end of this study and to thereby put safeguards in place to ensure that they are returned to what should have been their final resting place and not retained in a museum, has been refused.
I have however ‘served’ papers on all parties and applied to the court (Royal Courts of Justice) for an Oral Hearing where I will be given a thirty minute opportunity before a Judge in chambers to make my case for a full hearing.
I need your support; ‘Robed’ Druids and Pagans outside The Royal Courts of Justice, The Strand, London. On a day yet to be announced, Banners Flying, in sufficient numbers to show that we do not wish for ‘Our Ancestors’ to be placed in boxes, gathering dust in some Museum facility but for them to be re buried at Stonehenge where they lay for thousands of years encircling our Great Temple.
And to show that we will not go quietly into the night, and we will not give up on this campaign.
We will stand and we will be counted.
Who’s coming?
King Arthur Pendragon
Senior Druid and Pagan Priest /|\
Distribute Widely
Blessings from the Front /|\
CALL TO ARMS
My current application for a Judicial Review of the decision to grant an extension to the Archaeologist to continue their ‘study’ of the cremated human remains, (known as The Guardians) , re-exhumed and taken from Stonehenge in 2008 and to have a prohibition order put in place to prohibit the Ministry of Justice from granting any further extensions at the end of this study and to thereby put safeguards in place to ensure that they are returned to what should have been their final resting place and not retained in a museum, has been refused.
I have however ‘served’ papers on all parties and applied to the court (Royal Courts of Justice) for an Oral Hearing where I will be given a thirty minute opportunity before a Judge in chambers to make my case for a full hearing.
I need your support; ‘Robed’ Druids and Pagans outside The Royal Courts of Justice, The Strand, London. On a day yet to be announced, Banners Flying, in sufficient numbers to show that we do not wish for ‘Our Ancestors’ to be placed in boxes, gathering dust in some Museum facility but for them to be re buried at Stonehenge where they lay for thousands of years encircling our Great Temple.
And to show that we will not go quietly into the night, and we will not give up on this campaign.
We will stand and we will be counted.
Who’s coming?
King Arthur Pendragon
Senior Druid and Pagan Priest /|\
Distribute Widely
Stand and be Counted
We have served Papers on the Ministry of Justice; Sheffield University and English Heritage.
We are asking for a Judicial Review, and an Order Prohibiting the granting of any further extension to the licence, which was issued to remove and retain the Ancient Cremated Human remains, (known as the Guardians) from Stonehenge. And to ensure their return and re-interment in the Sacred Landscape, as we believe seven years of study is more than long enough.
If the ‘Medicine men’ of the native American tribes, can gather in their sacred ‘Black Hills’ and offer up a prayer to their ancestors that we may succeed in this endeavour then I do not think it too much to ask that the Pagan and Druid Orders, Groups, Covens and Groves of these Isles get behind this campaign.
King Arthur Pendragon /|\
Battle Chieftain
Council of British Druid Orders
Also posted on Other News page
We are asking for a Judicial Review, and an Order Prohibiting the granting of any further extension to the licence, which was issued to remove and retain the Ancient Cremated Human remains, (known as the Guardians) from Stonehenge. And to ensure their return and re-interment in the Sacred Landscape, as we believe seven years of study is more than long enough.
If the ‘Medicine men’ of the native American tribes, can gather in their sacred ‘Black Hills’ and offer up a prayer to their ancestors that we may succeed in this endeavour then I do not think it too much to ask that the Pagan and Druid Orders, Groups, Covens and Groves of these Isles get behind this campaign.
King Arthur Pendragon /|\
Battle Chieftain
Council of British Druid Orders
Also posted on Other News page
I did not lose .. see point 5!
It was reported back in August that I LOST the case for a Judicial Review into the Granting of an extension to Sheffield University with regards to the Ancient Cremated Human Remains in their possession taken from Stonehenge. I did Not, see point 5 below. The Fight continues.....
THE RULING
CO/13022/10
Neutral Citation Number: [2011] EWHC 2607 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2A 2LL
Tuesday, 23rd August 2011
B e f o r e:
MR JUSTICE WYN WILLIAMS
Between:
THE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF KING ARTHUR PENDRAGON
Claimant
v
MINISTRY OF JUSTICE
Defendant
Computer Aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of
WordWave International Limited
A Merrill Communications Company
190 Fleet Street London EC4A 2AG
Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
The Claimant appeared in Person
J U D G M E N T
(As Approved by the Court)
Crown copyright©
1. MR JUSTICE WYN WILLIAMS: The claimant seeks a judicial review of a decision made by the defendant, the Secretary of State for Justice, to vary the terms of a licence which had been granted under section 25 of the Burial Act 1857.
2. In brief, the relevant history is as follows. In 2008, to be precise on 28th May 2008, the defendant granted a licence to the second interested party, Professor Parker Pearson. Under the Act the licenced permitted the exhumation of remains of around 60 cremation burials at a pit known Aubrey Hole 7 at the famous site as known as Stonehenge.
3. The original licence was subject to a number of conditions. Paragraph 2 specified the conditions and subparagraph (d) provided that the remains excavated should be re interred as soon as practicable and in any event no later than within 2 years of the date of disinterment, in a burial ground in which interments may legally take place.
4. In the months that followed, after the remains had been removed from the ground, various archaeological investigations and/or scientific investigations of the remains took place. There came a point in time when the professor and his team wished to extend the period in which to carry out investigation. Accordingly they made an application to the defendant to vary the term, to which I have just referred.
5. Various representations were made about the application for variation. The claimant made representations opposing any suggestion that the time for complying with the obligation to re inter the remains should be extended. Despite the views of the claimant but in the face of many representations the defendant granted the variation which was sought. As I have said, the variation was granted in November 2010 and condition 2(b) of the licence was deleted and replaced by the following provision:
"The remains shall be re interred as soon as practicable and in any event no later than 1 November 2015 in a burial ground in which interments may legally take place."
Essentially, therefore, the obligation upon Professor Pearson and his team is to re inter the remains as soon as is practicable but in any event no later than 1st November 2015.
6. During the course of his eloquent address to me this morning, the claimant frankly acknowledged that if he was satisfied that this condition would be complied with, he would not be seeking a judicial review. His fear however is that the archaeological team has no intention of re interring these remains; rather, it wishes that they should be kept permanently in a suitable museum.
7. In that submission he is right. Professor Parker Pearson has said in terms that he does not accept that the remains should be re interred and that his position is that they should be kept at a museum. However, that is not what the licence says. So in order to achieve the object of obtaining permission for judicial review, the claimant has to satisfy me that there is an arguable case that the defendant has acted in some way unlawfully.
8. On the papers the suggestion is made that the defendant has acted unlawfully because he has failed to take account of the views of the claimant and those who think like him. In advance of the defendant's decision, the claimant made full representations as to why the variation should not be granted. It is right to record, however, that there were many representations including from English Heritage, which supported the grant of a variation. Ultimately whether or not the variation sought was to be granted was a matter for the Minister to consider having taken account of appropriate representations and then exercising his discretion. As far as I can see, that is precisely what the Minister did.
9. Despite the submissions of the claimant, I can find no basis for concluding that the Minister deliberately or inadvertently ignored to take account of the claimant's representations.
10. The fact that he did so is demonstrated by the material to which reference is made in the acknowledgement of service filed on behalf of the defendant. It does not seem to me that that ground of claim can possibly succeed and it would not be appropriate for me to grant permission on that ground.
11. The second ground advanced on the papers is that the claimant's human rights are infringed and in particular Article 9 of the European Convention. That aspect of the case has not been elaborated upon orally this morning. I do not criticise the claimant in any way for taking that course, he has a limited time in order to present the points which he wishes to emphasise with particularity.
12. The plain fact is however that the acknowledgement service filed on behalf of defendant more than adequately addresses the alleged human rights issue. In my judgment, there is no realistic prospect that a successful claim could be mounted on the basis of an infringement of Article 9 or any other Article of the Convention and I adopt the reasons which are set out in the acknowledgement of service for reaching that conclusion.
13. In his oral submissions this morning the claimant focussed more upon his submission that the reality of this case was that the Minister was being duplicitous. The Minister, on the one hand, was issuing a licence, which on its face suggested that the remains should be re interred at some suitable point in the future but at the same time was assuring Professor Parker Pearson and his team, either that at some distant time the law would be changed to avoid that happening or that the current law would be interpreted in such a way so as to prevent that happening.
14. If there was a true evidential basis for this suggestion of duplicity, that would be a proper basis for the grant of permission. I am afraid to say however that the papers provided to me do not provide a proper evidential basis for the suggestion that the Minister is being duplicitous or biased which was the other way in which the claimant sought to put his case.
15. That does not mean that if there is something in what is being said, albeit not supported by evidence now, it removes from the claimant the opportunity of presenting a claim in the future. If in the future something were to occur which would give credence to the suggestion that the defendant had acted in some way duplicitly, that would be the appropriate time, in my judgment, for any challenge based upon duplicity to be made. It is not appropriate at this stage to grant permission to apply for judicial review on the basis of what, at the moment, is an unsubstantiated allegation.
16. On the basis of the written material presented to Edwards Stuart J, in my judgment he was correct to refuse permission for the reasons he gave. In relation to those matters which have been raised before me orally this morning, I regret to say that I am not satisfied that there is a sufficient evidential basis for concluding that permission should be granted. Accordingly it is my duty to refuse this application.
17. Thank you very much
THE RULING
CO/13022/10
Neutral Citation Number: [2011] EWHC 2607 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2A 2LL
Tuesday, 23rd August 2011
B e f o r e:
MR JUSTICE WYN WILLIAMS
Between:
THE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF KING ARTHUR PENDRAGON
Claimant
v
MINISTRY OF JUSTICE
Defendant
Computer Aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of
WordWave International Limited
A Merrill Communications Company
190 Fleet Street London EC4A 2AG
Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
The Claimant appeared in Person
J U D G M E N T
(As Approved by the Court)
Crown copyright©
1. MR JUSTICE WYN WILLIAMS: The claimant seeks a judicial review of a decision made by the defendant, the Secretary of State for Justice, to vary the terms of a licence which had been granted under section 25 of the Burial Act 1857.
2. In brief, the relevant history is as follows. In 2008, to be precise on 28th May 2008, the defendant granted a licence to the second interested party, Professor Parker Pearson. Under the Act the licenced permitted the exhumation of remains of around 60 cremation burials at a pit known Aubrey Hole 7 at the famous site as known as Stonehenge.
3. The original licence was subject to a number of conditions. Paragraph 2 specified the conditions and subparagraph (d) provided that the remains excavated should be re interred as soon as practicable and in any event no later than within 2 years of the date of disinterment, in a burial ground in which interments may legally take place.
4. In the months that followed, after the remains had been removed from the ground, various archaeological investigations and/or scientific investigations of the remains took place. There came a point in time when the professor and his team wished to extend the period in which to carry out investigation. Accordingly they made an application to the defendant to vary the term, to which I have just referred.
5. Various representations were made about the application for variation. The claimant made representations opposing any suggestion that the time for complying with the obligation to re inter the remains should be extended. Despite the views of the claimant but in the face of many representations the defendant granted the variation which was sought. As I have said, the variation was granted in November 2010 and condition 2(b) of the licence was deleted and replaced by the following provision:
"The remains shall be re interred as soon as practicable and in any event no later than 1 November 2015 in a burial ground in which interments may legally take place."
Essentially, therefore, the obligation upon Professor Pearson and his team is to re inter the remains as soon as is practicable but in any event no later than 1st November 2015.
6. During the course of his eloquent address to me this morning, the claimant frankly acknowledged that if he was satisfied that this condition would be complied with, he would not be seeking a judicial review. His fear however is that the archaeological team has no intention of re interring these remains; rather, it wishes that they should be kept permanently in a suitable museum.
7. In that submission he is right. Professor Parker Pearson has said in terms that he does not accept that the remains should be re interred and that his position is that they should be kept at a museum. However, that is not what the licence says. So in order to achieve the object of obtaining permission for judicial review, the claimant has to satisfy me that there is an arguable case that the defendant has acted in some way unlawfully.
8. On the papers the suggestion is made that the defendant has acted unlawfully because he has failed to take account of the views of the claimant and those who think like him. In advance of the defendant's decision, the claimant made full representations as to why the variation should not be granted. It is right to record, however, that there were many representations including from English Heritage, which supported the grant of a variation. Ultimately whether or not the variation sought was to be granted was a matter for the Minister to consider having taken account of appropriate representations and then exercising his discretion. As far as I can see, that is precisely what the Minister did.
9. Despite the submissions of the claimant, I can find no basis for concluding that the Minister deliberately or inadvertently ignored to take account of the claimant's representations.
10. The fact that he did so is demonstrated by the material to which reference is made in the acknowledgement of service filed on behalf of the defendant. It does not seem to me that that ground of claim can possibly succeed and it would not be appropriate for me to grant permission on that ground.
11. The second ground advanced on the papers is that the claimant's human rights are infringed and in particular Article 9 of the European Convention. That aspect of the case has not been elaborated upon orally this morning. I do not criticise the claimant in any way for taking that course, he has a limited time in order to present the points which he wishes to emphasise with particularity.
12. The plain fact is however that the acknowledgement service filed on behalf of defendant more than adequately addresses the alleged human rights issue. In my judgment, there is no realistic prospect that a successful claim could be mounted on the basis of an infringement of Article 9 or any other Article of the Convention and I adopt the reasons which are set out in the acknowledgement of service for reaching that conclusion.
13. In his oral submissions this morning the claimant focussed more upon his submission that the reality of this case was that the Minister was being duplicitous. The Minister, on the one hand, was issuing a licence, which on its face suggested that the remains should be re interred at some suitable point in the future but at the same time was assuring Professor Parker Pearson and his team, either that at some distant time the law would be changed to avoid that happening or that the current law would be interpreted in such a way so as to prevent that happening.
14. If there was a true evidential basis for this suggestion of duplicity, that would be a proper basis for the grant of permission. I am afraid to say however that the papers provided to me do not provide a proper evidential basis for the suggestion that the Minister is being duplicitous or biased which was the other way in which the claimant sought to put his case.
15. That does not mean that if there is something in what is being said, albeit not supported by evidence now, it removes from the claimant the opportunity of presenting a claim in the future. If in the future something were to occur which would give credence to the suggestion that the defendant had acted in some way duplicitly, that would be the appropriate time, in my judgment, for any challenge based upon duplicity to be made. It is not appropriate at this stage to grant permission to apply for judicial review on the basis of what, at the moment, is an unsubstantiated allegation.
16. On the basis of the written material presented to Edwards Stuart J, in my judgment he was correct to refuse permission for the reasons he gave. In relation to those matters which have been raised before me orally this morning, I regret to say that I am not satisfied that there is a sufficient evidential basis for concluding that permission should be granted. Accordingly it is my duty to refuse this application.
17. Thank you very much
The Case (as put) for Judicial Review
by Arthur Pendragon on Monday, 12 September 2011
THE CASE FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW
Re The Queen on the application of KING ARTHUR PENDRAGON verses MINISTRY OF JUSTICE
CO/13022/2010
Skeleton argument
I will show, that;
(1) The Authorities did not and indeed could not have given any weight what-so-ever to my submissions.
(2) The Authorities, by their own admission (and contained in their submissions) have absolutely no intention of honouring their pledges, and thereby giving any weight what-so-ever to my submissions.
(3) From the outset, ALL the relevant Authorities colluded and conspired (against the spirit of the law) to make it virtually impossible for any serious consideration to be given to my concerns.
(4) It was and still is, (despite their assurances to the contrary) their intention that these remains are to be placed in a museum.
(5) The premise as stated for the extension is flawed, (and known to be so) in that;
A, This is not the only chance they have for this research, as borne out in their own submissions.
B, The extension was wholly unnecessary.
Work was only carried out on a part time basis, as it was in their interests to apply for such an extension, at a later date, in order to await an amendment to the Law to allow museum retention, which has been their aim all along.
(6) The MOJ in concert with EH and Sheffield University have shown a flagrant disregard for the Law and manipulated the situation for their own ends, and to maintain the status quo.
(7) In order for Justice to be seen to be done and the public interests to be served a Judicial Review is wholly appropriate, proportionate and desirable.
Update and Background
Since the application was made a question has been raised in the House of Lords and an open letter signed by 41 prominent members of the Archaeologist community to the Justice Minister (Kenneth Clark MP) was printed in the National Press calling for a change in the Law to allow museum retention of these ancient cremated Human remains.
Burial act 1857
Question
Asked by Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will amend the burial act 1857 to ensure that significant prehistoric or ancient human remains can lawfully be conserved and curated in perpetuity in appropriate museums or designated institutions for the purpose of scientific study and research [HL5513]
The Minister of State, Minister of Justice (Lord McNally)
We are currently considering whether it may be possible to take forward changes to burial legislation generally, including the Burial Act 1857 which regulates the exhumation of human remains. In the mean time, we continue to apply the present exhumation licensing system in a way which recognises, as far as possible, the interests of archaeologists, museum professionals, and the general public.
It is my belief that if this extension is not challenged now, there will be no further opportunity to do so. And as a result these ancient cremated human remains, arguably ‘The founding fathers of this once great nation’ will be destined for retention in a museum drawer.
The Ministry of Justice have as stated above (The Case for Judicial review), and I will show contained in their submissions, been working in concert with the other relevant authorities against any possibility of ever giving any weight what-so-ever to my legitimate concerns that these particular remains will never be reinterred at, and in what should have been, their final resting place, Stonehenge.
It may be of some use at this point to bring the following to the attention of the court.
From Ministry of Justice
Statement on burial law and archaeology
Coroners Unit, April 2008
(I would bring to the attention of the court that this statement is taken from Burial Law and policy in the 21st century The Way Forward and is made available to all through the UK Gov site on the World Wide Web and predates the exhumation of the remains in question. It should be noted that the wording retrospective effect is used in this statement.)
Point 3
During the course of the year, as a second stage of reform, consideration will be given to amending existing burial ground legislation so that it can be more responsive to 21st century needs. The aim will be in particular to allow otherwise lawful and legitimate activities, such as the archaeological examination of human remains, to proceed without the constraints of legislation not designed to deal with such issues, and with retrospective effect as far as possible. In taking this forward, the Ministry of Justice aims to continue to work closely with the Department for Culture Media and Sport, English Heritage, and relevant professional bodies.
Summary of Evidence to be presented at Full Hearing.
It has always been our concern that these remains, despite assurances to the contrary, were and are destined for display in a museum facility.
These fears and concerns have been realised in that the Ministers and Civil Servants from EH, DCMS, and the M.O.J have conspired to make it so.
I have in my possession certain documents obtained under The Freedom of Information Act that clearly shows this to be the case;
Including an extract from Minutes of a meeting where it is stated
“This item is potentially exempt from public access under the Freedom of information Act, sec 36; prejudiced to the effective conduct of public affairs. Other exemptions may apply”
Clearly, they did not/and do not wish their true intentions to be in the public domain and are ‘fobbing’ us (The Druids) off with half truths and Pseudo-promises that they have NO INTENTION of ever honouring.
As far back as May 2008 before the Ancestors were removed the Ministry of Justice were giving Sheffield the nod;
‘”At present, we cannot authorise the deposition of remains in a museum or other similar facility under the exhumation licence. However, I can say that consideration is being given to amending legislation so that I can deal more flexably with such plans in the future. We intend to keep the Archaeologists informed of progress, in the meantime, applications to extend or vary terms will be considered where required.”
From a letter M.O.J. to Sheffield University.
And English Heritage took it when applying for the extension
‘”as current professional guidelines also recommend, prehistoric human remains of this importance should normally be kept in museums for any further examination and analysis, along with the rest of the excavation archive. You will recall that we discussed this with you, and were reassured by your public statements that extensions would be granted where there was good reason, and that you were working actively to amend the relevant legislation.”
From a letter Applying for the extension from EH to the M.O.J.
Including the information that the whole application is based on the premise that this is the only chance the scientific community has to study and to carbon date the Ancient Builders of Stonehenge. However it has come to light in their submissions that they have already used the same ‘New’ techniques on remains taken from other Aubrey holes at Stonehenge and from cremation pit found at Durrington walls.
Summary
In essence my case is simply that despite claims and promises to the country the M.O.J could not have given any weight what-so-ever to my submissions as they along with the other relevant bodies had a ‘done deal’ which in practice will mean that their promises and assurances are nothing more than a ’sham’ and raises several question in relation to Constitutional Law and is therefore in the wider public interest to proceed in order for Justice to be seen to be done.
Since preparing this document I have read with interest the assurances given to and reported by Mike Pitts of the Scientific (Archaeologist’s) community by the M.O.J that they will re-interpret existing law more favourably toward the scientific community with a view to museum retention of remains such as these in question.
Clearly they are trying to be ‘all things to all men’ and are telling each Faction what they wish to hear. This may be all well and good in parliamentary and diplomatic circles but, leaves both diametrically opposed parties, mistakenly believing they have won some small victory but quite clearly resolves nothing, to the satisfaction of either side.
CONCLUSION
So in conclusion the general public and groups I represent, feel that because of the ramifications of this duplicity and in the interests of legal clarification (with specific regard to the remains in question) In order for Justice to be seen to be done and the public interests to be served a Judicial Review is wholly appropriate, proportionate and desirable.
It is hoped that the Court will take into consideration that, whilst I have the facts at my disposal to present such arguments, I am not trained to do so and this presentation may not be of the same standard as the Authorities who have instructed learned Counsel to do so.
THE CASE FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW
PLEAS
Re The Queen on the application of KING ARTHUR PENDRAGON verses MINISTRY OF JUSTICE
CO/13022/2010
We will show that the Authorities in question have throughout had a flagrant disregard for the Law, The Spirit of the Law, The Judiciary, and the courts;
For Example;
"In the matter of The Historic Buildings & Monuments Commission versus Mr R. Maughfling and others at the Royal Courts of Justice, Tues, 6th July '99, case no HC-99-02944, Lady Justice Arden ruled that "in future English Heritage should take into account the need for public consultation, especially on a local level, and respect the feelings and wishes of genuine religious groups, such as those represented by The Council of British Druid Orders,"
No such public consultation has yet taken place in respect of the removal or proposed permanent retention of the Ancient Cremated Human remains in question.
Perhaps the most damming evidence that has come to light in my investigations is this;
Provided to me by M.O.J under the Freedom of Information Act ( later included in their submissions);
C: Extract from Operations plan (Appendix to Research Proposal as above)
“5.3 Ministry of Justice authorisation for recovery of human remains The Ministry of Justice’s current licensing arrangements for exhuming human remains are faulty and known to be so, since they leave no possibility that human remains might be retained in museum collections, instead, they require that archaeological remains are; reburied after the period of their analysis is completed. Their only available options are; re-interment, cremation, leave in situ, or ‘not yet decided’, Our application to M.o.J. is submitted and pending. On the advice of EH Centre for Archaeology director, XXXXX (who has consulted MoJ directly on this proposal) , we have ticked the box for re-interment after a period of five years of detailed analysis and dating. It is presumed that MoJ will have modified the currently inadequate arrangements to include museum retention by that time.
Should museum curation be deemed acceptable if MoJ review their recommendations, the human remains will be archived for museum storage according to UKIC guidelines (1990). Other non-human artefactual and ecofactual material will be prepared according to UKIC guidelines for deposition in Salisbury Museum.”
IT IS PLEADED
(ref’ point 29 Defendant’s summary grounds of Defence)
That the (Defendant) M.O.J
Did not exercise their legal responsibility on the part of the public bodies concerned to demonstrate that they have reached a fair decision without undue bias, and that such a bias and procedural impropriety can be demonstrated throughout their decision making process and is grounds for Judicial Review.
IT IS PLEADED
(ref’ point 30 Defendants summary grounds of Defence)
That I have (The case for Judicial Review) satisfactorily particularised the arguable grounds for Judicial Review
THE CASE FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW
Re The Queen on the application of KING ARTHUR PENDRAGON verses MINISTRY OF JUSTICE
CO/13022/2010
Skeleton argument
I will show, that;
(1) The Authorities did not and indeed could not have given any weight what-so-ever to my submissions.
(2) The Authorities, by their own admission (and contained in their submissions) have absolutely no intention of honouring their pledges, and thereby giving any weight what-so-ever to my submissions.
(3) From the outset, ALL the relevant Authorities colluded and conspired (against the spirit of the law) to make it virtually impossible for any serious consideration to be given to my concerns.
(4) It was and still is, (despite their assurances to the contrary) their intention that these remains are to be placed in a museum.
(5) The premise as stated for the extension is flawed, (and known to be so) in that;
A, This is not the only chance they have for this research, as borne out in their own submissions.
B, The extension was wholly unnecessary.
Work was only carried out on a part time basis, as it was in their interests to apply for such an extension, at a later date, in order to await an amendment to the Law to allow museum retention, which has been their aim all along.
(6) The MOJ in concert with EH and Sheffield University have shown a flagrant disregard for the Law and manipulated the situation for their own ends, and to maintain the status quo.
(7) In order for Justice to be seen to be done and the public interests to be served a Judicial Review is wholly appropriate, proportionate and desirable.
Update and Background
Since the application was made a question has been raised in the House of Lords and an open letter signed by 41 prominent members of the Archaeologist community to the Justice Minister (Kenneth Clark MP) was printed in the National Press calling for a change in the Law to allow museum retention of these ancient cremated Human remains.
Burial act 1857
Question
Asked by Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will amend the burial act 1857 to ensure that significant prehistoric or ancient human remains can lawfully be conserved and curated in perpetuity in appropriate museums or designated institutions for the purpose of scientific study and research [HL5513]
The Minister of State, Minister of Justice (Lord McNally)
We are currently considering whether it may be possible to take forward changes to burial legislation generally, including the Burial Act 1857 which regulates the exhumation of human remains. In the mean time, we continue to apply the present exhumation licensing system in a way which recognises, as far as possible, the interests of archaeologists, museum professionals, and the general public.
It is my belief that if this extension is not challenged now, there will be no further opportunity to do so. And as a result these ancient cremated human remains, arguably ‘The founding fathers of this once great nation’ will be destined for retention in a museum drawer.
The Ministry of Justice have as stated above (The Case for Judicial review), and I will show contained in their submissions, been working in concert with the other relevant authorities against any possibility of ever giving any weight what-so-ever to my legitimate concerns that these particular remains will never be reinterred at, and in what should have been, their final resting place, Stonehenge.
It may be of some use at this point to bring the following to the attention of the court.
From Ministry of Justice
Statement on burial law and archaeology
Coroners Unit, April 2008
(I would bring to the attention of the court that this statement is taken from Burial Law and policy in the 21st century The Way Forward and is made available to all through the UK Gov site on the World Wide Web and predates the exhumation of the remains in question. It should be noted that the wording retrospective effect is used in this statement.)
Point 3
During the course of the year, as a second stage of reform, consideration will be given to amending existing burial ground legislation so that it can be more responsive to 21st century needs. The aim will be in particular to allow otherwise lawful and legitimate activities, such as the archaeological examination of human remains, to proceed without the constraints of legislation not designed to deal with such issues, and with retrospective effect as far as possible. In taking this forward, the Ministry of Justice aims to continue to work closely with the Department for Culture Media and Sport, English Heritage, and relevant professional bodies.
Summary of Evidence to be presented at Full Hearing.
It has always been our concern that these remains, despite assurances to the contrary, were and are destined for display in a museum facility.
These fears and concerns have been realised in that the Ministers and Civil Servants from EH, DCMS, and the M.O.J have conspired to make it so.
I have in my possession certain documents obtained under The Freedom of Information Act that clearly shows this to be the case;
Including an extract from Minutes of a meeting where it is stated
“This item is potentially exempt from public access under the Freedom of information Act, sec 36; prejudiced to the effective conduct of public affairs. Other exemptions may apply”
Clearly, they did not/and do not wish their true intentions to be in the public domain and are ‘fobbing’ us (The Druids) off with half truths and Pseudo-promises that they have NO INTENTION of ever honouring.
As far back as May 2008 before the Ancestors were removed the Ministry of Justice were giving Sheffield the nod;
‘”At present, we cannot authorise the deposition of remains in a museum or other similar facility under the exhumation licence. However, I can say that consideration is being given to amending legislation so that I can deal more flexably with such plans in the future. We intend to keep the Archaeologists informed of progress, in the meantime, applications to extend or vary terms will be considered where required.”
From a letter M.O.J. to Sheffield University.
And English Heritage took it when applying for the extension
‘”as current professional guidelines also recommend, prehistoric human remains of this importance should normally be kept in museums for any further examination and analysis, along with the rest of the excavation archive. You will recall that we discussed this with you, and were reassured by your public statements that extensions would be granted where there was good reason, and that you were working actively to amend the relevant legislation.”
From a letter Applying for the extension from EH to the M.O.J.
Including the information that the whole application is based on the premise that this is the only chance the scientific community has to study and to carbon date the Ancient Builders of Stonehenge. However it has come to light in their submissions that they have already used the same ‘New’ techniques on remains taken from other Aubrey holes at Stonehenge and from cremation pit found at Durrington walls.
Summary
In essence my case is simply that despite claims and promises to the country the M.O.J could not have given any weight what-so-ever to my submissions as they along with the other relevant bodies had a ‘done deal’ which in practice will mean that their promises and assurances are nothing more than a ’sham’ and raises several question in relation to Constitutional Law and is therefore in the wider public interest to proceed in order for Justice to be seen to be done.
Since preparing this document I have read with interest the assurances given to and reported by Mike Pitts of the Scientific (Archaeologist’s) community by the M.O.J that they will re-interpret existing law more favourably toward the scientific community with a view to museum retention of remains such as these in question.
Clearly they are trying to be ‘all things to all men’ and are telling each Faction what they wish to hear. This may be all well and good in parliamentary and diplomatic circles but, leaves both diametrically opposed parties, mistakenly believing they have won some small victory but quite clearly resolves nothing, to the satisfaction of either side.
CONCLUSION
So in conclusion the general public and groups I represent, feel that because of the ramifications of this duplicity and in the interests of legal clarification (with specific regard to the remains in question) In order for Justice to be seen to be done and the public interests to be served a Judicial Review is wholly appropriate, proportionate and desirable.
It is hoped that the Court will take into consideration that, whilst I have the facts at my disposal to present such arguments, I am not trained to do so and this presentation may not be of the same standard as the Authorities who have instructed learned Counsel to do so.
THE CASE FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW
PLEAS
Re The Queen on the application of KING ARTHUR PENDRAGON verses MINISTRY OF JUSTICE
CO/13022/2010
We will show that the Authorities in question have throughout had a flagrant disregard for the Law, The Spirit of the Law, The Judiciary, and the courts;
For Example;
"In the matter of The Historic Buildings & Monuments Commission versus Mr R. Maughfling and others at the Royal Courts of Justice, Tues, 6th July '99, case no HC-99-02944, Lady Justice Arden ruled that "in future English Heritage should take into account the need for public consultation, especially on a local level, and respect the feelings and wishes of genuine religious groups, such as those represented by The Council of British Druid Orders,"
No such public consultation has yet taken place in respect of the removal or proposed permanent retention of the Ancient Cremated Human remains in question.
Perhaps the most damming evidence that has come to light in my investigations is this;
Provided to me by M.O.J under the Freedom of Information Act ( later included in their submissions);
C: Extract from Operations plan (Appendix to Research Proposal as above)
“5.3 Ministry of Justice authorisation for recovery of human remains The Ministry of Justice’s current licensing arrangements for exhuming human remains are faulty and known to be so, since they leave no possibility that human remains might be retained in museum collections, instead, they require that archaeological remains are; reburied after the period of their analysis is completed. Their only available options are; re-interment, cremation, leave in situ, or ‘not yet decided’, Our application to M.o.J. is submitted and pending. On the advice of EH Centre for Archaeology director, XXXXX (who has consulted MoJ directly on this proposal) , we have ticked the box for re-interment after a period of five years of detailed analysis and dating. It is presumed that MoJ will have modified the currently inadequate arrangements to include museum retention by that time.
Should museum curation be deemed acceptable if MoJ review their recommendations, the human remains will be archived for museum storage according to UKIC guidelines (1990). Other non-human artefactual and ecofactual material will be prepared according to UKIC guidelines for deposition in Salisbury Museum.”
IT IS PLEADED
(ref’ point 29 Defendant’s summary grounds of Defence)
That the (Defendant) M.O.J
Did not exercise their legal responsibility on the part of the public bodies concerned to demonstrate that they have reached a fair decision without undue bias, and that such a bias and procedural impropriety can be demonstrated throughout their decision making process and is grounds for Judicial Review.
IT IS PLEADED
(ref’ point 30 Defendants summary grounds of Defence)
That I have (The case for Judicial Review) satisfactorily particularised the arguable grounds for Judicial Review
Three little questions for The Authorities
by Arthur Pendragon on Wednesday, 31 August 2011
DOUBLE STANDARDS
Why is it, if you were to put a Human skull atop of your staff, you would be viewed as a barbarian, put the same skull behind glass and you are viewed as a ‘scientist’?
How is it, you get jailed for hanging off the cenotaph and applauded for ‘digging up’ the Ancestors at Stonehenge?
Why are ‘the cremation pits’ at Stonehenge allowed to be disturbed and those at Salisbury Crematorium protected under British Law?
Until our Government can answer these questions to my satisfaction I will continue to seek redress under the law. Write to your MP’s and if they answer to your satisfaction, let me know, ‘till then…..
DOUBLE STANDARDS
Why is it, if you were to put a Human skull atop of your staff, you would be viewed as a barbarian, put the same skull behind glass and you are viewed as a ‘scientist’?
How is it, you get jailed for hanging off the cenotaph and applauded for ‘digging up’ the Ancestors at Stonehenge?
Why are ‘the cremation pits’ at Stonehenge allowed to be disturbed and those at Salisbury Crematorium protected under British Law?
Until our Government can answer these questions to my satisfaction I will continue to seek redress under the law. Write to your MP’s and if they answer to your satisfaction, let me know, ‘till then…..
Onward we charge
25 August 2011
The reason I did not announce my pending appearance at the Royal Courts over my application for a Judicial review of the M.O.J’s decision to extend the licence to Sheffield University for a period of five more years, has nothing what-so-ever to do with the Authorities whom I am in conflict with. It was more to do with the Druid and Pagan groups who not only failed to support my call for such a review but in some cases actively opposed such a strategy.
It is hoped that now the Archaeologists have come clean about their intent to place these ‘Guardians’ In a museum facility that these groups will now get behind this continued campaign.
There are however certain ‘Ground rules’ to be followed, as we move forward on this issue. We may (rightly so) attack the policies of the Archaeologists and their allies in Government Departments, Ministries and Quangos, but we will not attack the personalities. We will conduct this campaign in a dignified manner. They may be as personally insulting to me as they wish, we will NOT lower ourselves to that level and be insulting back. We will attack the Policies not the personalities.
The fight goes on, through the courts, through non-violent direct action, through the media and through any other medium we see fit to work through.
I believe that I have proved myself to be a worthy Champion in this fight and would ask for your continued support, in simple terms Lead, Follow or get out of the way.
Onward we Charge. King Arthur Pendragon /|\
The reason I did not announce my pending appearance at the Royal Courts over my application for a Judicial review of the M.O.J’s decision to extend the licence to Sheffield University for a period of five more years, has nothing what-so-ever to do with the Authorities whom I am in conflict with. It was more to do with the Druid and Pagan groups who not only failed to support my call for such a review but in some cases actively opposed such a strategy.
It is hoped that now the Archaeologists have come clean about their intent to place these ‘Guardians’ In a museum facility that these groups will now get behind this continued campaign.
There are however certain ‘Ground rules’ to be followed, as we move forward on this issue. We may (rightly so) attack the policies of the Archaeologists and their allies in Government Departments, Ministries and Quangos, but we will not attack the personalities. We will conduct this campaign in a dignified manner. They may be as personally insulting to me as they wish, we will NOT lower ourselves to that level and be insulting back. We will attack the Policies not the personalities.
The fight goes on, through the courts, through non-violent direct action, through the media and through any other medium we see fit to work through.
I believe that I have proved myself to be a worthy Champion in this fight and would ask for your continued support, in simple terms Lead, Follow or get out of the way.
Onward we Charge. King Arthur Pendragon /|\
Told you so...
by Arthur Pendragon on Wednesday, 24 August 2011
QUOTED FROM MIKE PITTS BLOG YESTERDAY
"7. In the meantime, following a public campaign by archaeologists that I have written about elsewhere on this blog, the ministry revised its approach to licensing. New licenses now allow for the option of retaining archaeological human remains indefinitely. So while it is strictly correct, as the press reported yesterday, that the Stonehenge cremation burials are to be reburied in a few years’ time, we have every right to expect that in fact the license will be changed to allow for permanent retention – which of course is what we believe strongly should happen."
QUOTED FROM MIKE PITTS BLOG YESTERDAY
"7. In the meantime, following a public campaign by archaeologists that I have written about elsewhere on this blog, the ministry revised its approach to licensing. New licenses now allow for the option of retaining archaeological human remains indefinitely. So while it is strictly correct, as the press reported yesterday, that the Stonehenge cremation burials are to be reburied in a few years’ time, we have every right to expect that in fact the license will be changed to allow for permanent retention – which of course is what we believe strongly should happen."
A reply from the D.O.J to an inquiry by another group
14th June 2011
The same group who have been saying that I am wasting my time going for a Judicial Review. The same group who are now saying "something Fishy" Hate to say it, (No I don't), "Told you so" - read on.
"Thank you for your email.
Following concerns raised by archaeologists and others regarding the requirement to rebury ancient human remains, we have recently determined that the Burial Act 1857 can allow for wider range of options for the disposal of exhumed remains than was previously thought possible. With that in mind, it has been determined that it may not be necessary to require exhumed remains to be re-buried in every case. Applications will - and always have been - considered on a case by case basis. If there are any known objections to the exhumation and/or retention of the remains these will be taken in to consideration when deciding whether not a licence should be granted.
There are currently no forthcoming plans for legislative reform of the Burial Act 1857. If legislative reform was to be proposed, it would entail a full public consultation prior to being introduced to Parliament.
Regards
Paul"
The same group who have been saying that I am wasting my time going for a Judicial Review. The same group who are now saying "something Fishy" Hate to say it, (No I don't), "Told you so" - read on.
"Thank you for your email.
Following concerns raised by archaeologists and others regarding the requirement to rebury ancient human remains, we have recently determined that the Burial Act 1857 can allow for wider range of options for the disposal of exhumed remains than was previously thought possible. With that in mind, it has been determined that it may not be necessary to require exhumed remains to be re-buried in every case. Applications will - and always have been - considered on a case by case basis. If there are any known objections to the exhumation and/or retention of the remains these will be taken in to consideration when deciding whether not a licence should be granted.
There are currently no forthcoming plans for legislative reform of the Burial Act 1857. If legislative reform was to be proposed, it would entail a full public consultation prior to being introduced to Parliament.
Regards
Paul"
Check this out. Then tell me I was wrong to go for Judicial Review
by Arthur Pendragon on Sunday, 05 June 2011
Introducing the May/June issue of British Archaeology, available from Friday 8 April
A recurrent theme in this issue is how archaeology today wants you to be part of the quest, which we have reflected in the cover design (featuring the editor's aged and much-travelled trowel!). This is another magazine to read from front to back, with much new, topical and thought-provoking stuff.
Best Wishes
MIKE PITTS
Human Remains to be Retained
British Archaeology has learnt that after reviewing the 1857 Burial Act, the Ministry of Justice has decided that archaeologists in England and Wales will not now routinely be required to rebury all excavated human remains. Last year BA launch a campaign requesting re-interpretation of the law, and in February 40 archaeology professors wrote to the secretary of state for justice seeking long-term retention of remains. That wish appears to have been granted.
Introducing the May/June issue of British Archaeology, available from Friday 8 April
A recurrent theme in this issue is how archaeology today wants you to be part of the quest, which we have reflected in the cover design (featuring the editor's aged and much-travelled trowel!). This is another magazine to read from front to back, with much new, topical and thought-provoking stuff.
Best Wishes
MIKE PITTS
Human Remains to be Retained
British Archaeology has learnt that after reviewing the 1857 Burial Act, the Ministry of Justice has decided that archaeologists in England and Wales will not now routinely be required to rebury all excavated human remains. Last year BA launch a campaign requesting re-interpretation of the law, and in February 40 archaeology professors wrote to the secretary of state for justice seeking long-term retention of remains. That wish appears to have been granted.
