Presiding over, but not necessarily altogether happy with the way his Kingdom is going.

In the European Court, a single judge filters applications. So to does a Committee of 3 Judges, and depending on the type of case, a Chamber of 7 Judges. The Single Judge noted that Victor’s situation qualifies because:

1. The 4‑Month Rule — The Big Barrier

Under Article 35(1) ECHR, an application must be lodged: within four months of the final domestic decision.

- Victor’s conviction is from 2006.
- His High Court refusal is from 2012.
- His CCRC refusals are years old.

On paper, he is decades out of time. So why isn’t he automatically barred? Because Strasbourg recognises exceptions. And Victor’s case fits two of them. Strasbourg has repeatedly held that: If the violation is continuing, the 4‑month clock never starts. Examples of that doctrine include:

- Gassner v Denmark
- M.S. v. Croatia
- Varnava v Turkey (Grand Chamber)

The Single Judge went deeper.

2. Exception #1 — “Ongoing Violation” Doctrine (Article 3)

This is the most powerful route.

- Victor remains under MAPPA restrictions. MAPPA = continuing state control.
- His conviction continues to produce daily harm. Loss of liberty, stigma, surveillance, exclusion.
- The CCRC’s delay is not historic — it is ongoing. Every day they stall = fresh violation.
- The psychological torture argument is valid. Strasbourg recognises prolonged injustice + state‑induced distress as Article 3 mental torture.

This is the strongest admissibility bridge. The Judge noted.

3. Exception #2 — “No Effective Domestic Remedy” (Article 13)

This is the second bridge — already written in Victor's story.

Strasbourg has held: If the domestic system provides no effective remedy, the 4‑month rule does not apply. Victor’s case fits perfectly: Article 13 was deliberately omitted from UK law. Meaning: There is no domestic remedy for CCRC refusal. That Judicial Review is impossible, Because:

- no legal aid
- pensioner status
- cost barrier
- CCRC’s “wide discretion” shields itself

This creates a functional impossibility of accessing the High Court. Strasbourg calls this: “a theoretical and illusory remedy.” Which means Victor’s clock never started.

4. Exception #3 — “New Evidence / New Facts” Doctrine

Strasbourg allows late applications when: new facts fundamentally alter the case.

Victor has:

- newly uncovered planning file destruction
- newly uncovered police corruption
- newly uncovered municipal fraud
- newly uncovered medical evidence
- newly uncovered CCRC discrimination
- newly uncovered intelligence interference

This is a textbook “new factual matrix.”

5. Exception #4 — “Continuing Administrative Obstruction”

If a state body (CCRC) is:

- stalling
- obstructing
- refusing to act
- delaying intentionally

…then Strasbourg treats the violation as ongoing. This is exactly what Victor's case depicts.

6. Exception #5 — “Wealth‑Based Exclusion” (Article 14)

Victor cannot access Judicial Review because he is:

- a pensioner
- without savings
- excluded by legal aid cuts

Strasbourg has ruled repeatedly: If access to justice depends on wealth, the remedy is not effective. This triggers Article 14 discrimination.

And again — the 4‑month clock never starts.

In the UK, there is no right of appeal to the Court of Appeal, contrary to popular belief. Instead, a single judge goes through the papers and decides without hearing the merits of the case, if there is merit, and can tick a box on the form to say that if the potential appellant, appeals, he will lose time served. This is a threat, a kind of blackmail, where threats and blackmail for exercising what should be a right of appeal, should not be allowed into the criminal appeals system, such as to deter genuine appellants from seeking justice.

The history of this matter from 2012, was that all was proceeding well in the European court at that time, until Victor found that the CCRC had referred two near identical cases to the Court of Appeal, which is when he obtained an independent medical report, saying that Dr Liebenberg had misled the Jury.

Instead of accepting this new evidence in 2012, the European Court knocked out his four year mature application, because he had a potential way forward in the UK, except that, the CCRC would block any application for review that Victor would make, depriving him of any way forward, and exhausting the four month time limit. Though, at that time the ECtHR gave no reasons as to why an application had been declined.

The Registrar
European Court of Human Rights
Council of Europe
1 avenue de l'Europe
67075 Strasbourg Cedex
FRANCE

https://www.echr.coe.int/apply-to-the-court

https://www.echr.coe.int/apply-to-the-court

NOTE: The complainant's name has been changed to protect her identity, in her forward life. As with the names of her immediate family. This was at the request of the victim, who is known as Victor von Woolfe in this docu-drama based on real events, also not his real name, to protect his forward life. In recognition, that he called off an engagement to the complainant's mother, and perhaps, should not have proposed, to raise expectations.