1. I define an unlawful decision not as one that displeases me but, rather, as one that is incompatible with the law.
2. Every decision by a court must be explained rationally. Section 10 of the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1992 and Section 174 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 demand this be done.
(i). Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights is understood to demand the same but this is the interpretation of the Courts: it is not written in that Article.
(a). Case law is law, they say, but it is always preferable to have a clearer expression of a rule than is supposed to have been made in Article 6. I have to admit that, if you can find that rule in that Article you can, with equal legitimacy, find many other things therein that might not be so agreeable to you.
3. While the Criminal Justice Act refers to sentencing and the Tribunals and Inquiries Act refers to decisions by tribunals and ministers, this rule is accepted by all courts.
4. Naturally, the unlawfulness of a legal decision is almost invariably discovered in the reasons expressed by the court. Where no reason has been given, the absence of a reason constitutes adequate grounds to consider the decision unlawful.
5. Another reason decisions may be unlawful is the process by which they are arrived at. If decisions leading to the final decision are unlawful for example: unreasonably refusing to permit witnesses or rejecting, without grounds, reasonable requests that would permit a case effectively to be argued.
(i). In my case, the final decisions are not reasonable and, generally, the processes leading to those decisions has been seriously flawed.