1. I am detained until the Secretary of State for Justice decides I should be discharged, which he may do whenever he chooses. Restrictions such as granting of leave and being moved to less restrictive hospitals may not be eased except by the Secretary of State for Justice.
2. While Mr Gauke was Secretary of State for Justice, I reported to him and did provide incontestable proof the diagnoses underpinning my detention are false. He ignored that fact and continued to detain me.
3. While Mr Gauke was Secretary of State for Justice, I reported to him and did provide incontestable proof my detention in a medium-secure mental hospital was unnecessarily restrictive: I could safely be in a low-secure hospital. I produced incontrovertible proof that the psychiatrist who claimed I could not safely be detained in a less restrictive hospital could not defend that view and must be lying. Mr Gauke ignored those facts and continued to detain me under unnecessary restrictions.
4. I provided Mr Gauke clear evidence the opinions I am dangerous were unreasonable and psychiatrists were unable to defend their opinions I am dangerous (letters exchanged with those psychiatrists). Mr Gauke ignored that evidence and continued to detain me in unnecessarily restrictive conditions.
5. I am detained under sections 37 and 41 of the Mental Health Act 1983. Section 41 is likely to increase the time a person is detained and means he is more likely to be subjected to restrictions, when he is discharged. I reported to Mr Gauke that a psychiatrist had perjured himself before the Crown Court, in order for section 41 to be invoked. Mr Gauke ignored that report.
(i). I provided Mr Gauke proof either the same psychiatrist lied to the Tribunal of 2017 or the Tribunal itself lied, when it declared me to lack the mental capacity to select a legal representative. Mr Gauke ignored that proof.
6. I reported to Mr Gauke, dozens of unlawful decisions by the courts, in cases relating to me. In most instances, the courts must have known the decisions they would make were wrong. They made them anyway.
(i). The response was that the MoJ cannot intervene in individual cases. Judicial independence is important but, when justice routinely miscarries because of questionable decisions by the judiciary, the Secretary of State, who is also Lord Chancellor, has a duty to act. The Constitution Reform Act 2005 has made provision for such an eventuality. I explained this to Mr Gauke. He did not respond and did not act.
7. I reported to Mr Gauke, the Crown Court's refusal to produce transcripts of my case. Mr Gauke ignored that report.