WHETHER IT CAN BE DEDUCED FROM THE TOTALITY OF FACTS AND EVIDENCE PRESENTED THAT THE ACTS OF THE DEFENDANT CONSTITUTE A VIOLATION OF THE PLAINTIFF’S RIGHTS AS ALLEGED. The Court shall now proceed to determine the issue as set out. The stance espoused by the Plaintiff is that the Defendant denied him a fair trial through the unlawful termination of his employment with no regard to the proper procedures. Advancing this position, the Plaintiff posits that his trial by a Judge whose case he was handling prior to his trial, having publicly raised his reservations, falls short of the guarantees of the right to be heard by an impartial and independent tribunal. The Plaintiff further alleged that there was complete failure to comply with the requirements of fair trial during his trial and he has suffered discrimination by the Defendant. The position of the Defendant is that the powers it exercised relative to the Plaintiff were in line with its Constitution and that the Plaintiff was properly charged on the outcome of the investigation report submitted to the Attorney General’s Chambers by the police, as well as the legal opinions and surrounding facts. As amply stated in the decision of the European Court of Human Rights [ECHR] in the case of: O’HALLORAN AND FRANCIS V. THE UNITED KINGDOM [GC], NOS. 15809/02 AND 25624/02, § 53, ECHR 2007-III); “What constitutes a fair trial cannot be the subject of a single unvarying rule but must depend on the circumstances of the particular case” 13