#FreeAssange Stop The #Torture: Free #JulianAssange #FreeTheTruth (Part 1)
4G Live TV
#FreeAssange Stop The #Torture: Free #JulianAssange #FreeTheTruth (Part 1)
4G Live TV
DETECTIVES targeted a grieving father for exposing the corrupt police investigation into his son’s suspicious death on a remote farm linked to organised crime.
A ‘confidential’ police report reveals Essex and Kent police were concerned about Les Balkwell confronting senior officers at their homes and embarrassing them through the media.
A senior management team authorised a secret operation codenamed Intrepid to discredit and silence Balkwell by putting him behind bars for perverting the course of justice.
The shocking revelations have echoes of the police spying operation targeting the family of murdered black teenager Stephen Lawrence at the height of their campaign for justice against the Metropolitan police.
33-year-old Lee Balkwell was found wedged between the drum and chassis of a cement mixer on Baldwins Farm in Ockendon, Essex.
His boss, a local drug trafficker and gun runner, claimed the death was an accident while they were cleaning out the vehicle in the early hours of the morning on 18 July 2002
Operation Intrepid was launched in 2013 just months after an excoriating report by the watchdog had concluded that Essex police’s investigation was ‘seriously flawed’ and praised the family for its ‘tenacity’.
Balkwell suspected that corrupt policing had also undermined the incompetent investigation into his son death. Police whistleblowers were supplying him with information about criminal activities on Baldwins Farm.
Essex, Kent and the Met police had failed to identify Balkwell’s sources when Operation Intrepid was launched. It involved months of covert investigation into the grieving father and his adviser, retired solicitor Tony Bennett.
However, the Crown Prosecution Service refused to prosecute the pair on the grounds there was insufficient evidence and it was not in the public interest.
Balkwell, 74, only found out about Operation Intrepid last month. He told The Upsetter it supports a long held belief that his family home and phone were being monitored.
“I’m disgusted. They wanted something to discredit me because they are aware of the golden nuggets I hold. When they couldn’t find out who my sources were they tried the other way.”
The revelations emerged in documents disclosed to Balkwell after a High Court judge agreed in July to hear his plea for an outside force to investigate his son’s death as a murder.
Essex police closed the case in 2018 and refuses to reopen it as a murder. However, for the last 6 years Balkwell has been aided by a team of ex-Met murder detectives, forensic scientists and a leading human rights barrister.
The High Court will hear evidence next year that the crime scene at Baldwins Farm was ‘staged’ to look like an accident and that Lee was likely dead before he was wedged between the cement mixer drum and chassis.
Operation Intrepid will feature in the judicial review as an abuse of police power. Essex, Kent and the Met police are facing questions over who authorised it and why.
Balkwell drew comparisons with the Lawrence family, whose campaign for justice and legal action against the Met was infiltrated by undercover officers posing as anti-racist activists.
Last night, he said:
“Given the outcry over the intrusion into the Lawrence family it should be the same with what the police did to us.”
Almost immediately after he discovered his son had died that night nineteen years ago, Les Balkwell was on to detective superintendent Graeme Bull about his investigation.
Although Balkwell didn’t know it at the time, there was no strategy for retrieval of CCTV and phone data, no strategy for financial and intelligence gathering and the suspect, Simon Bromley, Lee’s boss, was never forensically tested for drugs and alcohol.
Bromley maintained, and still does, that Lee’s death was a tragic accident while the pair were cleaning out the cement mixer drum at 1am. He was never treated as a suspect even though Supt Bull had designated him as one on paper.
The post mortem was another farce. It was incomplete and carried out by a discredited Home Office pathologist. Lee’s clothes were destroyed hours later on police instructions.
Supt Bull submitted a thin file to the CPS without any witness statements taken from those first at the scene, the fire fighters and paramedics, who suspected foul play straight away.
Predictably, the CPS recommended no further action. It was almost as if Supt Bull wanted to put down the case with little chance of Bromley being prosecuted, even for manslaughter by gross negligence.
It was Balkwell’s determination that led to a review of Supt Bull’s efforts. Detective Superintendent Simon Coxall was given a box of documents and told to see if there were any leads. He didn’t ask for telephone records, made no policy file and again the CPS said no to any prosecution.
Eventually, Balkwell’s complaints were passed to Essex police’s Professional Standards Department in 2004. The Line of Duty squad decided there was nothing in the complaints and that the investigation into Lee’s death was of an acceptable standard.
By now, the police felt Balkwell was a thorn in their side and difficult to ‘manage’, especially after he rebuffed an attempt to recruit him as an informant.
Significantly, Balkwell had become aware from a police source that an undercover operation codenamed Portwing was looking at Bromley and his associates for dealing drugs and selling guns from Baldwins Farm.
Balkwell was tipped off that intelligence had come out of that undercover operation suggesting Lee was killed because Bromley believed he was having an affair with his wife.
This turned out not to be the case, but the fact Balkwell knew so much and was talking to the local media about a ‘cover up’ was a major concern to Essex police.
Operation Portwing ended successfully in 2006 with the jailing of Bromley for 8 years on drugs and gun charges.
After an inquest jury into Lee Balkwell’s death returned a verdict of ‘unlawful killing’ in 2009, Essex police did yet another review. This one looked very belatedly at forensic opportunities – which obviously had been largely lost because of the earlier inexplicable incompetence, if that’s what it was.
The review was a snub by Essex police to the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC), whose interim report had recommended that:
“Essex police consider appointing an external independent force to re-invesitgate Lee Balkwell’s death.”
Instead, assistant commissioner Andrew Bliss decided to get West Midlands to do yet another review of his force’s work. In 2010, the West Midlands police recommendations were given to Kent police to address and discharge.
This review was not in any way a murder investigation or even an investigation into the death. It was called Operation Nereus.
Between August 2011 and July 2012, the Nereus team met Baulkwell and Tony Bennett, a colourful retired solicitor who was also challenging Essex police over its poor handling of the death in 2001 of Stuart Lubbock in Michael Barrymore’s swimming pool.
Balkwell would meet the Nereus team at the Bluewater shopping centre in Kent or at a Ministry of Defence facility in Essex where the cement mixer lorry that his son had died in was stored.
The Nereus team of detectives did not like that Balkwell had been given access to sensitive documents by police sources – for example the entire Operation Portwing file, which he told them had been posted through his door.
A secret intelligence cell was already up and running trying to identify Balkwell’s sources. It was also looking at any relevant police corruption in Essex and the Met, covert activity around telephones and discreet financial enquires.
Out of the blue, in November 2013 Operation Nereus charged Simon Bromley with manslaughter by gross negligence and conspiracy to pervert the course of justice and perjury for inconsistencies in his accounts since 2002.
Balkwell thought the prosecution was a corrupt decision to try and rescue Essex police’s reputation without actually investigating the death as a possible murder. He made his feelings known to the Nereus team and told the CPS about his police sources alleging corruption had played a part in the failure to investigate the case properly.
The CPS directed Balkwell to Alaric Bonthron, the head of the Met’s infamous anti-corruption squad of so called Untouchables.
Balkwell, however, refused to identify his sources unless they were given immunity from prosecution under the Official Secrets Act. This was rejected and in any event the Nereus intelligence cell had already identified one of the police whistleblowers, who was dealt with and later left the force.
By late 2013, there was a growing consensus among police officers that Balkwell and Bennett, who had made no secret he was writing a book on the case, were a problem.
The pair’s many time consuming complaints against senior officers that had to be investigated, the turning up at the doors of senior cops, the visiting of witnesses who had been interviewed by the Nereus team, the bad mouthing in the local media and on the website and youtube were becoming too much.
Documents show a feeling was developing that something needed to be done about the pair. Something serious. Words and warnings were not working. Trust had broken down irreversibly.
But there was a problem. Balkwell had received a boost when the IPCC, the police watchdog, released its final report in 2012 that Essex police’s inquiry into Lee’s death was ‘seriously flawed’ and the family’s campaign for justice should be lauded for its ‘endurance and tenacity.’
Despite this, a decision was taken at a high level to launch a covert operation codenamed Intrepid to deal with the Balkwell problem.
What is known from internal documents is that a ‘Gold command group’ of senior officers with oversight of Nereus included at various times assistant chief constable Bliss of Essex and deputy chief constable Alan Pughsley of Kent, a former Met Untouchable with an interesting past in anti-corruption work.
Pughsley was replaced by Gary Beautridge, who in turn was replaced by Rob Price. The senior investigator on Nereus was Detective chief superintendent Lee Catlin, who on his retirement from Kent police in December 2012 was replaced by detective inspector Janine Farrell.
According to a ‘confidential’ report dated July 2015 by Farrell, she ‘commissioned’ Operation Intrepid and Price was copied in on her reasons, which was to protect the forthcoming manslaughter prosecution of Simon Bromley.
Essex and Kent police had taken the view that by talking to witnesses, Balkwell and Bennett were doing a ‘criminal’ act of perverting the course of justice.
It is an established principle in British law that there is no property in a witness and Balkwell said he was simply trying to discover the truth in the face of official intransigence and incompetence.
Another part of DI Farrell’s rationale for launching Operating Intrepid was that Balkwell was using the media and undermining the good name of the police and judicial system.
The detective also felt it would leave the police open to criticism if while prosecuting Bromley for perverting the course of justice, Balkwell was not investigated for doing the same.
In the end, only a manslaughter charge was put before a jury in October 2014 and even then Bromley was acquitted because of failings in the early police investigations.
The jury did however convict him of minor health and safety violations and possession of cannabis, for which he got 3 years.
DI Farrell had also sent a file on Balkwell and Bennett to the CPS. But she writes that the CPS refused to prosecute the pair on the grounds of an insufficiency of evidence.
The CPS also felt it was not in the public interest to prosecute a victim of crime who would argue in front of a jury that he was just trying to expose injustice.
Various questions are now swirling around Les Balkwell’s head. Was his home and car bugged? Were his phones tapped? Was he followed? Have his finances and phone records been trawled for evidence of skulduggery?
The inevitable consequence of long family campaigns for justice is that grief mixes freely with the stress of not being believed and leads to a deep anger towards the authorities who failed you that can turn inwards.
Les Balkwell admits he suffers from ‘paranoia’. For years he carried a brown leather bag everywhere containing dog-eared police documents to prove to anyone who would listen that he was not a nutter.
His distrust of the police is justified and that’s why he refused to give up his sources. He also played tricks on detectives to see if he was under surveillance. He recalls one day sitting outside by the kitchen window and telling his brother a rehearsed piece of information about the case to see if it ever came back in police documents. It did, he says.
There are many questions about Operation Intrepid that the family’s lawyers intend to raise at the judicial review hearing at the High Court next year.
Given that the operation crosses three police forces – Essex, Kent and the Met – none of them can be considered independent enough to investigate the death of Lee Balkwell, if that is what the High Court directs should happen.
Adam Hunt, the Essex police lawyer handling the judicial review, was across Operations Nereus and Intrepid. He has instructed a heavyweight barrister, whose argument for opposing a review of the decision to close the Balkwell case could be summed up as follows:
Yes we fucked up, fucked up real bad. And then we fucked up again. But then we fucked up less and soon we were done fucking up. In fact in the last ten years no stone has been left unturned looking into this terrible tragedy. Trust us when we say there is no chance of finding any new evidence of murder – because we fucked it so badly in the first place and could never recover the position.
That said, there’s nothing sinister in what we did, so no one needed to fall on their truncheon. Its just one of those things that happened back then. We are all very sorry and lessons have been learned.
Asked to comment on concerns that Operation Intrepid amounted to an abuse of police power to silence a grieving father and chief critic, a spokesperson for Essex police said:
“The investigation into the death of Lee Balkwell is currently subject to a judicial review and as such it would be inappropriate for us to comment.”
And so it goes.
“In the past four years, nearly 2000 police officers, special constables and PCSOs in the UK have been accused of some form of sexual misconduct, #Dispatches can reveal.
In a special episode of Dispatches, reporter Ellie Flynn reveals the true scale of sexual misconduct by serving British police officers.
As Kate Wilson’s epic case makes its way through the Investigatory Powers Tribunal, we delve in the legal arguments being made and their significance for everyone affected by the spycops scandal.
For the last ten years, Kate Wilson has been on a dogged fight for justice. Deceived into to a relationship by undercover police officer Mark Kennedy, she wanted answers.
Part of a group of eight women also deceived into relationships by spycops, she was granted an apology by the Metropolitan Police who sought to brush them off. However, where others were forced to settle, a single door was left open for Kate – the notoriously secretive Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT). It was a small chance, but she went for it anyway.
This week, her unique battle finally made it to court, coinciding with the second set of hearings in the Undercover Policing Inquiry, to which it provides a fascinating counterpoint. There has been some excellent media coverage of the case, highlighting evidence that has coming out, which we will not repeat here (The Guardian, Standard, Morning Star, The Canary) This article will explore Kate’s actual legal claim – and some of the surrounding context – in more depth.
TEN YEAR STRUGGLE
Kate has taking on the Metropolitan Police and exposing its institutional sexism. As anyone who has dealt with the police knows only too well, she was met with all the usual obstruction tactics. A full account of these is a tale in itself, and would take a book to recount properly. The short account is that this backfired on them, as it only made Kate more determined.
It is already common ground between all the parties that the relationships were unlawful and should never have happened. However it is the impact of the relationship that the Tribunal is, in part, being asked to address.
At first, the police claimed that because they had admitted that these relationships happened, the Tribunal did not need to consider any evidence about them; they could keep secret just who knew, and how they knew, about the various spycops’ sexual relationships. Kate successfully argued against that – the Tribunal could not possibly determine the extent to which her human rights were breached without looking at the evidence.
When that didn’t work, the police switched tactics – using outright denial, twisting and changing their story, ignoring court orders and abusing legal processes (for example, serving things late or chaotically). They admitted things but then withdrew their admissions, showing utter contempt for the court. As one observer put it, it was a ‘defence by malicious incompetence’.
That lengthy process took more than two years and priced Kate out of legal representation. Undeterred, she took on the case herself and continued fighting, later gaining a team of pro bono lawyers from Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer. It has culminated in this week’s hearing.
This case is about wider issues than just the relationships of one disgraced undercover. It is about challenging the culture that led to the undercovers abusing women in this way, while their bosses turned a blind eye – the institutional sexism at the heart of their system.
It is also emblematic of a wider disdain for the rights of people who engage in protest. These units viewed everyone politically active as extremists and this viewpoint allowed them to casually strip them of their privacy. The National Public Order Intelligence Unit (NPOIU, 1999-2011) and the Special Demonstration Squad (SDS, 1968-2008) defined extremism so broadly that the notion of ‘collateral intrusion’ on innocent people adjacent to true targets became meaningless – almost everyone was considered fair game in their world.
TAKING SPIES TO THE SECRET COURT
However, just as this is not a standard court case, this is not your standard court either. The case is being held in the Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT) – a body created under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA), which since 2000 has been the framework for undercover policing including the authorisation regime.
The IPT does not try cases as such, rather it looks at human rights claims arising under RIPA with a view to improving the regime. Importantly, however, it can make findings of fact.
The IPT is a secretive court, that makes its own rules, though it is clearly a judicial proceeding. The IPT is so secret that it won’t even say how many cases it hears, but it has numbered in the thousands and is only known to have ruled against the state once.
Although the IPT tries to follow established practice, if it wants, it can hold hearings entirely in secret, and a barrister is appointed to kind-of-represent the interests of the person bringing the claim. The person making the claim often never sees any of the evidence, and it is left entirely to the IPT’s discretion whether it even takes up a case.
The strength of Kate’s case – and her perseverance – allowed her to turn much of that on its head. The disclosure she has received is genuinely unique. The police have been forced by the IPT to turn over a great deal of evidence to her, including Kennedy’s own pocket notebooks and contact logs, and previously confidential NPOIU documents.
The hearings opened with Charlotte Kilroy QC speaking on behalf of Kate Wilson. For two and half days she spoke solidly, taking the Tribunal through the evidence and multiple legal arguments.
Held at the Royal Courts of Justice and broadcast live online, the scene was striking, with boxes of evidence and arguments piled so high most could not see the faces of the three judges – Baron Boyd of Duncansby, Professor Graham Zellick and Lady Justice Natalie Lieven.
SO WHAT IS KATE ARGUING?
Under the terms of RIPA, the IPT looks at human rights violations by the likes of the police and Secret Service (MI5). Any claim must be framed in that context.
Her case has many angles. The most prominent one is that she was deceived into a relationship by Mark Kennedy and this was a gross breach of her rights. Even the police have accepted this – that the relationship was breach of her Article 3 human rights, her right not to be subject to inhumane and degrading treatment or torture. This is an absolute right that no circumstances can justify breaching.
With that also came a breach of her private life and that of her family and friends (Article 8). Kennedy made himself an integral part of her life for several years, furthering the abuse of her trust. Central to this is not the degree to which she and Kennedy had a relationship, but the degree to which this was encouraged and condoned by the unit that ran him – the National Public Order Intelligence Unit (NPOIU) – and their reasons for doing this.
However, Kate’s case is not just about Kennedy. Multiple undercovers intruded and reported on her over a decade of political activism. They too interfered in her private life, and also her right to protest.
She and her friends, and the other women deceived into relationships, were being targeted because they were exercising their rights to free speech and assembly (Articles 10 & 11). Once you look at the bigger picture, it becomes impossible to separate the relationship from the reason why Kennedy and the other undercovers were in her life in the first place.
This is where we get into the much wider aspects of the case, that the entire targeting of her was part and parcel of that abuse, and Kennedy’s spying has to be seen in the context of all those other undercovers. When you look at things this way, questions emerge not just about Kennedy’s operation but about all of the NPOIU’s activities.
STAND UP FOR YOUR RIGHTS
Under the European Convention on Human Rights, most of these rights are ‘qualified rights’. There are no possible exceptions when it comes to Article 3 rights (freedom from torture etc) but there are some for Articles 8, 10 and 11. This means governments are allowed to interfere with those rights, but must provide some justification for doing so.
For that justification to be lawful, it must be shown to be both necessary and proportionate. Kate has challenged the police to provide evidence that these undercover operations were necessary and proportionate. She argues that if they cannot provide such evidence, these operations may not have been lawful at all. Thus Kate’s case includes the assertion that the authorisations of Kennedy’s deployment, and thus the entire operation, not just aspects of it, were unlawful.
And further, when you factor in the interference with so many rights, there emerges a case that the legislation under which those authorisations were made failed as a reliable legal framework protecting individual’s rights.
Finally, Kate has pointed out the institutional sexism that lies at the heart of the police. This is not the sole cause of her human rights being breached, but has certainly exacerbated them, for her and all the other women wrongfully targeted for relationships. She is arguing that the way abuses discriminated against women should be taken into account when considering the other breaches, and a finding made on it as well. (Article 14: protection from discrimination).
As part of this legal argument there is an important concept of ‘positive obligation’. A substantive part of the legal discussion at the hearings is the degree to which they police were required to be proactive in protecting Kate from these violations of her rights. How this plays out varies from right to right, but comes down to who knew and what was the regime in place to protect her – and that means looking at the evidence around training and guidance, and structures of oversight and supervision, including the degree to which there was an embedded culture of sexism within the units which turned accepted the acts of Kennedy and his colleagues.
WRINGING THE EVIDENCE OUT OF THE POLICE
There have already been some notable successes in this case. One of these was an acknowledgement that to understand the severity of the human rights breaches the facts needed to be known.
At first the police tried to control this narrative and keep hold of the material, rather than releasing it to Kate. They produced a statement (signed off by Assistant Commissioner Sir Stephen House) giving their interpretation, based on a limited review of material they had gathered.
The statement was readily debunked as ineffective and flawed. Kate kept up the pressure, saying it was not good enough, and the IPT agreed. Bit by bit she forced the the police to surrender material to her. First came contact and decision logs for Kennedy’s case and internal reviews of his operation. Then authorisations for the undercovers and NPOIU intelligence reports.
Even these small samples were damning and opened the door for further requests. Unsurprisingly, the police did their best to prevent this disclosure. They ignored Tribunal orders, or deliberately misinterpreted them.
Another tactic was to make concessions on the case, claiming that meant there was no need for evidence. When that did not work, they withdrew the concessions, trying to blame their previous lawyers for having made admissions. It was disruptive and frustrating, but they underestimated Kate’s tenacity.
She was able to show that it was not just Kennedy she needed answers about, as there was a pattern of intrusion and spying on her life. For instance, there was the question about how Kennedy’s undercover predecessor ‘Rod Richardson’ had spied on her. Or how much did Kennedy’s contemporaries ‘Marco Jacobs‘ and ‘Lynn Watson‘ know about his many relationships?
This brought more disclosure, about other undercovers, such as Jim Boyling and Rod Richardson, who had spied on her as early as 1999 – years before Kennedy was deployed.
From all the material, it was obvious the right to privacy meant nothing to them; Kennedy filtered nothing out and his bosses appear to have said nothing. It was also painfully clear from the logs that anyone reading them would have been well aware that Kennedy and Kate were in a relationship.
As Kate puts it:
Disclosed #spycops cover logs contain more than 30 references to Kennedy staying with me in my parents’ home, moving in together, and time alone, not protest, or campaigning or crime, just ordinary activities. Kennedy’s handler records that Kennedy gives my name as his “next of kin”.
The evidence, particularly the contact logs that document Kennedy’s continual reports to his ‘handler’ officer, are a goldmine of information about these operations. Although limited, and hampered by the fact that much material (particularly from the key period when Kennedy began the relationship) has apparently been lost or deliberately destroyed, they nonetheless give useful insight into the units.
WHO ELSE KNEW?
It has been possible to build up a bigger picture using Kate’s own memories and those of her fellow campaigners, and other women targeted by the spycops.
Kennedy had one cover officer, known by the cipher EN31, for the entirety of his deployment. The police have admitted that this cover officer must have known about Kennedy’s many relationships. However, EN31 denies this and has refused to cooperate with the police in this case.
It has become abundantly clear that there were multiple officers in close proximity to Kennedy, who were aware of his activities. Though there is no explicit mention of relationships in any of the documents disclosed, anyone reading them would have been immediately aware that something was going on.
As the picture built up, other players came into view: the heads of the NPOIU undercover units and their deputies; cover officers for other undercovers such as Lynn Watson; Nottinghamshire Special Branch.
According to Sir Stephen House, none of these people knew anything. But the contact logs and other material demonstrate otherwise. For instance, it was policy for these logs to be sent to the unit’s managers every week. They were written to be read by others – including messages left in the logs for the Senior Investigating Officer to read. This puts the lie to the police’s position that Kennedy was a ‘rogue’ operator – it is clear, as Kennedy himself told Parliament, that they knew what he was doing at all times.
The cover logs are damning. The Police try to claim senior officers didn’t read the logs. That is not borne out by the evidence – throughout the logs there are personal notes to the Senior Investigating Officer, including the problem of me wanting to meet MK’s mum.
Likewise, part of the police case has been that the undercover unit was a silo, kept discrete from even the rest of the NPOIU. But, again, this is demonstrably untrue.
And what of all the other material? The logs and intelligence reports show that campaigners’ relationships were regularly reported as a matter of course by the undercover and it was deemed important enough to be circulated onward? Yet not one of Kennedy or the other undercovers’ relationships appear in the material. The more one looks at that side of things, the more it is obvious something was amiss. It’s hard to be definitive, but it appears that any such material was being suppressed – ‘sanitised’, as they put it.
As Kate’s barrister, Charlotte Kilroy QC, argues there was a cultural practice of ignoring relationships deeply embedded in the unit, treating them as a given though not to be mentioned.
The police have relied heavily on there being a supposed prohibition on sexual relationships, but are unable to point to any concrete proof of this, other than general regulations against criminality and a duty to respect human rights. They claim that because they now accept sexual relationships are an abuse of Article 3, that means that must have always been the case. Plus, they argue, there are a some bits of circumstantial evidence in their favour, such as the denials of an undercover trainer, and a supposed role-playing exercise in the training given to undercovers.
Kilroy has ably unwound their dubious logic. For example, while there was an explicit prohibition on using drugs for the period in question, no equivalent guidance existed for sexual relationships (since the undercover policing scandal broke ten years ago, a more explicit prohibition on sexual relationships has been made police policy). And it didn’t appear to apply to the NPOIU’s sister unit, the Special Demonstration Squad, which spoke of ‘fleeting, disastrous relationships’ forming part of an undercover’s ‘tradecraft’.
The Tradecraft Manual shows that although it may have been suggested that #spycops sexual relationships should be “avoided” it was not said that they should never happen. Viewed alongside what happened in practice, relationships were not fleeting, although they were disastrous.
The importance of this was it showed there was no real prohibition on sexual relationships worth its salt within the undercover policing units.
Kilroy also set out the cultural context around Kate’s case in two ways.
The first of these entailed exploring the obvious parallels with other undercovers’ deceitful relationships. Clearly both Lynn Watson and Marco Jacobs knew of Kennedy’s relationships, and Jacobs had his own. There seems to have been a culture of accepting these relationships, viewing them as unremarkable. Plus, there was a certain amount of cultural crossover between the Special Demonstration Squad and the NPOIU, the former unit clearly having a culture where relationships was permitted.
Police deny widespread indifference or encouragement for MK’s sexual relationships. But they also acknowledge that, by its very nature, a culture of sexism may not get written down. They have not investigated or presented any #spycops bosses as to be witnesses.
The second of Kilroy’s examinations of the culture concerned the ways in which the structures of these undercover policing units made them institutionally sexist. There were no proper monitoring systems. Training was inadequate, and supposedly relied on oral prohibitions, for which evidence is limited, to put it politely.
There was no acknowledgement that prolonged deployments increased the risk of such dishonest relationships occurring, as well as the likely impact on the women deceived in this way (for example, pregnancy, or lies about intentions). The spycops were content to manipulate these women, disregarding their dignity. The fact that these relationships were known about for many years in the SDS itself reveals a discriminatory attitude towards women and their rights.
Kilroy also criticised the regime under which undercover police operations were authorised. According to RIPA and related regulations, senior officers had to sign off the deployments. Deployments had to be justified, necessary and proportionate. Her line of attack was to ably demonstrate that the arguments for necessity in the authorisations simply were not met and inadequate.
The first authorisations made out for Mark Kennedy did not name specific individuals or organisations to target, as they should have. Instead, he was sent into Nottingham’s Sumac Centre, a community centre used by a wide variety of groups – it was a fishing trip to gather ‘pre-emptive intelligence’. A list of groups which used the centre is provided in in support, but is clearly spurious. It includes what is described as the ‘extreme left wing’ Stop the War Coalition.
Kilroy was able to demonstrate the excessive breadth of the authorisations, which essentially deemed everyone a potential target for spying.
Stop the War is listed, described as a “traditionally extreme left wing” movement. It then talks about the massive demonstrations in London attended by millions of people and peaceful demonstrations that took place in Nottingham. This is what #spycops target as “extreme”.
Once in place, the authorisations were self-perpetuating justifications – Mark collected intelligence and once that started that was deemed sufficient in itself. There were no objectives by which it could be measured, something the police’s own internal reports acknowledge. Mission-creep became a feature, his deployment extending to cover campaigns across Europe that had no bearing on the UK. Criminality was no longer the main reason given but replaced by purely policing resource arguments. Justifications move on to merely protecting his ‘legend’.
Within the authorisations, when it came to ‘collateral intrusion’ of spying on those around activists, anyone involved, however peripherally, in protest or campaigning was considered a legitimate target, and the focus is on privacy in the strictest, data protection sense. What it did not do was consider the kinds of friendships Kennedy was forming, and just how intrusive the operation would be for those whose lives he invaded and reported back on.
WITHOUT JUSTIFICATION, SPYING IS UNLAWFUL
As such, the important consideration of collateral intrusion (an Article 8 ‘right to private and family life’ consideration in itself) was brushed aside, because almost everyone Kennedy came into contact with could be regarded as a target. The authorisations were based on calling everyone an extremist rather than particularising. There was no proper assessment, as required for it to be a justified deployment. As one of the judges put it, in the standard authorisations form the section for considering on collateral intrusion became an Article 8 box-ticking exercise.
Many of the authorisations were misleading and some contained lies. For example, in one of them, Kate is described as being a main organiser of a housing cooperative which was named as a target. This was utterly false, and the NPOIU officers signing off on it would have known this. She is only included as a named target when she was living in Spain and Kennedy wanted to maintain contact with her.
The authorisations show no pressing social need, being about pre-emptive intelligence gathering without clear targets or goal. It was an operation for its own sake, and became increasingly so as time went on. No proper assessment was made about the levels of interference that were actually required or justifiable. This is something that an internal report from the Serious Organised Crime Agency (into Kennedy and the NPOIU) was critical of.
This leads to an important legal point: once it becomes an undercover deployment for its own sake, with no specific outcomes, how can it be capable of meeting the criteria of being ‘necessary’? The ‘necessity’ condition must be met for such operations to be lawful. Kate’s argument is that it can be shown these operations were not necessary and therefore none of the Mark Kennedy authorisations, and possibly other undercover deployments, were lawful.
THE RIGHT TO PROTEST
We began by returning to look at Articles 10 and 11 (free speech, and assembly), at the request of the judges. This pair of rights are often combined in this context as a general ‘right to protest’.
Kate is arguing that the extensive targeting of her over a decade amounted to not just an engagement of those rights but, more seriously, an actual interference with them.
This part of the case is not just about Kennedy, although he played a significant role in what can be termed ‘interference’, but the degree to which she was under surveillance and the impact it had on her. The basic argument is the State had no business monitoring her because of her political views and activities. It does not matter whether or not she was aware of the exact details of this surveillance, it still had an impact on her.
Kate’s barrister, Charlotte Kilroy QC, pointed to European case law that supported this position, recognising that extensive police surveillance in itself has a ‘chilling effect’ on protest.
As one of the judges, Professor Zellick, put it:
‘You might say the state has no business spying on the legitimate political activities of its opponents.’
The evidence allowed Kate to go further. By comparing her own memories with the contact logs, she could identify moments were she was being deliberately manipulated to meet Kennedy’s agenda (and that of his bosses) . He persuaded her to go to events that she was not interested in, or talked her out of others. In this he was leaning heavily on the closeness of their relationship and the trust she had placed in him.
She is still left wondering now just how much his influence affected her:
It is unchallenged in my witness statement that MK did influence and change my political views. #spycops were deeply manipulative and we were very close and he may have influenced me in ways I don’t even know. How many of the decisions and beliefs I held back then were my own?
Then there is the impact that the discovery has had on Kate and her comrades. She has gone from being deeply committed to political organising, to struggling to engage with people and large gatherings. She has become cut off from some groups as a result of her anxieties, which Kennedy and his cover officer knew affected her, which have now grown. Other groups were destroyed under the weight of the Kennedy revelations.
I now find it very hard to engage with politics that reminds me of MK. The impact of betrayal by MK and other #spycops was devastating for the political groups and communities. Even if I wanted to continue, many of those wonderful projects, groups and movements no longer exist.
At this point one of the judges asked about the fact that some of the movements Kate was involved in were aware of the dangers of state surveillance. Kilroy responded that a concern was one thing, but what Kennedy exposed was the sheer extent the police were willing to go to gather information on political views.
Things were far worse than what the campaigners feared – in effect, their paranoia was nothing compared to the actual reality. And because it only came to light accidentally, it means the police cannot be trusted to be honest, to root out misbehaviour in their units.
So having argued that there Articles 10 and 11 were engaged, and breached, the next step is again to consider whether the State could make the case that this was justified. The police have already conceded that the sexual relationship with Kennedy did in itself interfere with Kate’s Articles 10 rights. However, she wants to make the point that this goes much wider than Kennedy, that all the spying on her amounted to an ‘interference’, and that the actions of all the other undercovers need to be taken into account.
As with Articles 3 and 8 (freedom from torture etc, right to private and family life), the interferences arose out of the same police desire to monitor and control protest. It was the reason Kennedy and the other undercovers were deployed, and even the police’s own internal reports acknowledge that when it came to peaceful protest, they overstepped the line. The scope and depth of the reporting that the NPOIU set out to do was not justified under the legal regime, as shown in the analysis of the authorisations.
A PROBLEM WITH RIPA
Since 2000, the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) has governed how bodies use covert monitoring tactics, including undercovers and informers, and issues such as collateral intrusion, should be handled.
There is also an important bit of case law, Malone v UK (1985), which requires that the law must be sufficiently clear to give citizens adequate indication of the circumstances and conditions on which authorities are empowered to use to this secret and potentially dangerous interference with the right to respect for private life.
Kilroy took the Tribunal through a careful analysis of RIPA, showing that Malone v UK was not satisfied. She pointed out that the level of authorisation required for undercover police was actually quite low in comparison to, say, planting a listening device or bugging a phone. Likewise, the conditions are much more stringent.
Who’d have thought that UK law, where uniformed officers need a warrant from a judge to search your garden shed, that all it would need would be the OK from another police officer for them to send #spycops to live in your home and sleep in your bed for years?
Kilroy argued this means that while some intrusion could be foreseeable, on the face of RIPA the public could not reasonably deduce that undercover policing would be used in such an intrusive way.
The judges questioned her, saying that while the relationships are agreed to be unlawful due to their violation of fundamental human rights, RIPA was not at fault, it’s just that the police hadn’t adhered to it.
To this, Kilroy responded that a related case, that of AKJ v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, had since ruled that the definition of relationships in RIPA as pertaining to undercovers did in fact encompass sexual/ intimate relationships. The law itself was not as clear as it should have been, given the extent of intrusion it permitted.
Without a clear prohibition on sexual relationships, the appropriate legal safeguards supposedly in place to properly reflect the severity of the intrusion were not actually there. So part of the problem lies with RIPA itself, something even HM Inspectorate of Constabulary had flagged up in previous reports.
THE POLICE REPLY
The Metropolitan Police and National Police Chiefs Council, the Defendants in the case, were represented by David Perry QC. He began by claiming that the police were approaching the case with the least adversarial approach possible and seeking to disclose everything that could be, thereby raising not a few eyebrows.
He acknowledged that the operations were ‘tainted by illegality’ and their authorisations could be stigmatised as unlawful on the basis of the concessions already made by the police. These concessions were on the basis of Articles 3 and 8 (freedom from torture etc, right to private life), not on the grounds of the interference with the right to protest, other than where Kennedy’s sexual relationship with Kate Wilson had an impact on these.
This breach was further exacerbated by the fact that Kennedy’s cover officer, EN31, ought to have known of the relationship, a failure of the police’s ‘positive obligation’ under Articles 3 and 8. However, Perry takes EN31’s denial of any knowledge of sexual relationship at face value.
Perry didn’t want to detract from the admitted breaches, but did want to address their severity by interpreting the material as disclosed. This is a problem with much of this case – the lack of any real witness from the police side to adequately testify on their behalf. As a result, there is an awful lot of freestyle interpretation going on, with Perry putting it out there what he reckons the officers involved might have been thinking.
From the start it is clear that they are hanging Kennedy out to dry. Considerable time was spent on going through the regime, codes and training that officers received. We were told that they were instructed on the ethical and moral standards expected from them at all times. They say that Kennedy completely violated these. According to Perry, this was the starting point by which his fellow officers would treat and judge him, and he betrayed all of them, including EN31.
The police say they couldn’t possibly have foreseen what Kennedy would do. After all, before joining the NPOIU, Kennedy had been an experienced police officer (of ten years) which included low level undercover work as a Test Purchasing Officer buying illegal drugs. He’d gone through the training which, according to them, included prohibition of sexual relationships. His fellow officers could surely expect him to comply with the standards set out for all police officers, as well as for undercovers.
Lieven J: Is there any evidence, and I mean evidence in the broadest possible sense, of any officer every being subjected to disciplinary action for having engaged in a sexual relationship whilst undercover?
Perry: No, there is not.
Perry pointed out that in having sexual relationships, Kennedy destroyed his own credibility as an undercover. Kennedy would have known had he witnessed any serious criminality, he could have been required to give evidence in court – but any such evidence would be hopelessly compromised by his personal relationships.
It is unclear if the barrister is aware of the significance of his words – the police have for a long time argued that the undercovers were guaranteed secrecy for life, and indeed we have seen the extent to which they will protect their identities. However, Perry was effectively conceding that the policing regime itself meant this could not be the case, that undercovers could not have such an unqualified expectation.
He then went on to argue that Kennedy was passing himself off as an honourable officer to his colleagues in the NPOIU while lying to them. Events such as him reporting a sexual advance by an activist demonstrated that he could be relied on to report such things honestly.
However, other evidence from the logs show that he was lying to them about his actions and reasons for doing things. For instance, on one occasion that he spent alone with ‘Lisa‘ (another woman he deceived into a relationship), his log entry claims to have included other people with whom he discussed political activity. Elsewhere he exaggerated to suit his own ends, and probably to justify his continued deployment.
It seems the police point is MK did report a sexual advance by someone else. So #spycops Cover Officer could assume anything untoward that happened with anyone else (such as me) he would know. (Note: my relationship had been going on for 10 months by then)
EN31, was Kennedy’s Principal Cover Officer, someone he was in daily contact with and who had responsibility for his welfare and other issues. We know from the evidence that he would be physically close to Kennedy, and knew where he was at all times. He was in that position for the entire seven years of the deployment and clearly had a close bond with Kennedy.
It is accepted by the police that EN31, as Kennedy’s cover officer, should have been more intrusive and asked more questions. According to Perry, though, EN31 simply accepted Kennedy’s word in good faith and had no reason to believe otherwise. After all, Kennedy never reported that he was having sexual relationships. There were failings here, but the blame remains entirely with the undercover who deceived everyone, not just the women he targeted for relationships. Furthermore, the relationships were not for tactical purposes, they were for his own personal reasons and needs.
Significant to Perry’s case is that the contact logs did not record relationships per se. This was because Kennedy knew he’d be removed from the field if he did admit them.
The police go on to read a #spycops intelligence report 18/11/2003 “Katja” (that’s me) spent the night of the 17th November 2003 at Mark Stone’s flat in Marshall Street. Somehow this is supposed to support their case, because it doesn’t say we had sex. (We did)
It is also the police position that Kennedy’s own evidence about this, such as that given before the Home Affairs Select Committee, shows him to be an unreliable witness, angry with his seniors and seeking to blame them (when he said they must have known about his relationships). Even the Serious Organised Crime Agency (SOCA), which reviewed all Kennedy’s material in 2011, did not see a trace in the material of sexual relationships.
Perry: “MK did not report any romantic or sexual advance by the claimant towards him whilst he was deployed.”
Judge: Mr Perry, is that really how you want that point to be recorded?
Apparently, yes, it is!
Overall, Perry is protective of EN31, presenting him as a trusting fella misled by Kennedy. He speculates on behalf of the cover officer as to what he was thinking and how he interpreted the the material, taking his statement very much at face value and focusing on the contact logs as if they gave the full picture. He did not explore the relationship between Kennedy and EN31, which appears from the logs to have been very close and matey.
Likewise, Perry has a very particular interpretation of the material in the logs on the grounds of viewing them through EN31’s eyes – as if they are the arbitrators of the facts themselves. Without going into detail, the Tribunal was presented with a weird interpretation of life among the campaigners targeted by Kennedy through this incomplete reporting. For instance, he spent some time on the fact that as they travelled around to events, campaigners would spend time at each others addresses. So mentions of this in the logs should not be taken as untoward or indicative of sexual relationships. Likewise, by the nature of the groups targeted, Kennedy would have to associate with people of both genders.
It was frankly weak stuff. It is a misleading reading of detailed contact logs which clearly infer Kennedy was conducting a relationship with Kate Wilson. At best, it is saying that in seven years, EN31 was so profoundly incompetent that he suspected nothing and did nothing. Likewise, the various senior officers in the NPOIU who also read the logs. It also calls into to question the thoroughness of the SOCA report if they missed the obvious.
A TERRORIST AT THE HOME OFFICE?
Not long before the end of the day, there was an important exchange regarding an NPOIU intelligence report from the time Kate Wilson is recorded as having first stayed over at Kennedy’s house in Nottingham. Justice Lieven noted that it contained a reference to a family friend of Kate’s, describing him as a ‘South African terrorist working at the Home Office’ when he was in fact a Minister of State.
Perry was quick to distance the police from the outrageous comment, claiming it was an example of Kennedy’s inaccurate reporting, but Justice Lieven pointed out that Kennedy’s contact logs for that period are among the documents that have been ‘lost’, and that this report is authored by someone else in the NPOIU, not Kennedy, and that they clearly thought the information was of sufficient interest to send up the chain. Perry accepted that the information was derived from Kennedy, but that the report was written by someone else.
Lieven demanded that the police lawyers address the issue by producing something that would allow her to understand who authored, saw and commented on the reports. The police barrister said he would have to take instruction, and promised her something by Monday.
THE HEARINGS CONTINUE…
On Friday 23 April, the Tribunal sat in ‘closed session’. This is where evidence that was not shown to Kate was to be discussed. She was not allowed to be there, although the police will be. Instead her interests will be represented by the Counsel to The Tribunal, Sarah Hannett QC.
Monday 26 April will see the open hearings resume, with a continuation of the police case. This will be followed by a response from Kate’s lawyer, Charlotte Kilroy QC, to any new points. At which point the hearing finally ends. It is unknown when judgement will be handed down, but it may take several months.
Mar, 25, 2021
Julian Assange’s father, John Shipton, has told a webcast co-produced by CN Live! that U.S. and British authorities are still trying to kill his son.
John Shipton, Julian Assange’s father, said that after nearly 13 years of his son’s detention it is clear what the intention of the United States is.
“They just want to murder him. That’s all. They want him dead,” Shipton said.
“They discussed means of doing it. They found legal means of doing it. It’s twelve years. It’ no joke,” said Shipton. “They have been pursuing Julian Assange in the embassy, in fact they conspired to keep Julian in the embassy.”
Assange faces a hearing on a U.S. appeal against extraditing him at the High Court in London at the end of this month.
The U.S. is challenging a decision by Judge Vanessa Baraitser on Jan. 4 not to extradite Assange because of his high risk of suicide in a U.S. prison. Shipton called “complete rubbish” U.S. assurances to the High Court that Assange would not be put into harsh isolation if he is extradited.
Joe Biden’s DOJ will argue in court that Assange isn’t that ill or suicidal. If there is to be another psychological examination of Assange ordered by the High Court, it could prolong the appeal process by a year, Shipton warned.
Hiding Crimes By Focusing on Assange
Shipton said the benefits of WikiLeaks publications to people around the world, and even to governments, has been obscured by the attention the case has put on Assange. This shift away from the revelation of state crimes to his son’s psychology “in itself is a scandal,” Shipton told Sydney’s Politics in the Pub in a webcast co-produced by CN Live!
“It’s the manipulations of the Crown Prosecution Service and the Department of Justice that ensure that the entirety of the focus now is on Julian’s character and his psychology,” Shipton said. “Compare this to the Himalaya of crime and the benefits brought to the publics in the United Kingdom and the West by exposure of those crimes.”
Shipton’s full remarks.(Article continues below):
The U.S. wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are over and Guantanamo is nearly closed, Shipton said. “The revelations of WikiLeaks, through Chelsea Manning, worked their way through the body politic, and as a consequence, the people have removed their support from governments in pursuing those wars,” he said.
“The benefits of those leaks are tremendous. A gift to people,” said Shipton. But is is potentially a gift to governments too, if they acted wisely, he said.
“Every single politician in the world would benefit by supporting Julian. You might lose two votes. But you’ll get ten,” he said. “I can’t understand why the Australian government and other governments don’t put their shoulder behind this and solve it. It brings benefits, huge benefits to populations around the world and to governments, showing that they can act against clear injustices.”
Shipton added: “The way out of this is clear to everybody: that the Australian government uses the facilities of negotiation and the imagination of skilled diplomats” to free his son.
The appeal hearing in U.S. vs. Julian Assange is set for the High Court in London on Oct. 27 and 28.
Consortium News, which has received praise for the best Assange coverage, will be in the courtroom to provide continuous coverage.
Please Support CN’s
Fall Fund Drive!
Now that former Metropolitan police commissioners Lords John Stevens and Ian Blair have joined other blue voices calling for an independent inquiry into how Wayne ‘the rapist’ Couzens remained a member of the UK’s biggest force, their own problematic record deserves revisiting.
Consider, if you will, what Stevens and Blair did when confronted with horrific allegations of domestic abuse and bullying by their own intelligence chief in charge of the very squad responsible for rooting out bad apples.
Detective chief superintendent Chris Jarratt served his entire Met career in south London. His postings included the Brixton robbery squad, the Tower Bridge Flying Squad and Southwark crime squad before he was made staff officer in 1996 to Deputy Assistant Commissioner David Veness.
Two years later Jarratt was hand-picked by a cabal of self appointed men with the right stuff to investigate corruption in specialist squads and offer up just enough bodies to satisfy politicians that the Met should continue policing itself after the Stephen Lawrence scandal.
Jarrett was appointed intelligence chief of a new covert anti-corruption unit called CIBIC, which carried out deep undercover infiltrations as part of what the Met claimed was a no fear nor favour blitz on the bent.
Jarrett’s direct boss at CIBIC was Dave Wood, who in turn answered to other anti-corruption busters, among them Bob Quick and Andy Hayman. The chain of command stopped at Stevens, who as deputy commissioner from 1998 to 2000 was responsible for the entire anti-corruption effort. Its motto: Integrity is Non-Negotiable.
Stevens claimed no stone would be unturned. Only it turned out that certain stones were never touched or they were peered under and as quickly turned back over.
In 2001, after three years on CIBIC, where he was privy to the Met’s darkest secrets, Chris Jarratt was promoted as a detective superintendent in charge of all murder squads in south London.
But within ten months he had been removed following multiple allegations of physical and emotional abuse from female police staff, in one case dating back to the mid-1980s. Jarratt was also facing separate allegations of financial impropriety and abuse of power.
By the time these allegations emerged in early 2002, Stevens had become the commissioner and Blair was now his deputy in charge of all discipline matters. Under their watch, a decision was made to treat Jarratt differently from how other detectives facing far lesser allegations had been treated by the anti-corruption squad.
For example, Jarratt was not put under surveillance, his phone wasn’t tapped, his police car and office were not bugged and no watch was put on his bank accounts. Nor was Jarratt visited in the early hours of the morning and humiliated in front of his children and neighbours with a search warrant and the service of an official notice that he was now under investigation.
Instead, the former anti-corruption chief was discreetly informed that he would be removed as boss of south London murder squads and found a new posting while an internal inquiry took place.
How long the Met had sat on the complaints from police staff is not known, but it ran into months.
The decision to launch an internal investigation was a difficult one for the Met because Jarratt knew a lot and if found guilty of criminal or discipline offences his disgrace would have a knock on effect for many high profile and sensitive cases.
Among them the prosecution of Flying Squad and Regional Crime Squad detectives for corruption and the murders of Daniel Morgan, Stephen Lawrence and 10-year-old Damilola Taylor.
Internal police documents show there had been a mutiny by homicide detectives just before the Met moved against Jarratt in March 2002. His ‘dictatorial’ management style had run down staff morale so badly that senior managers believed all nine murder squads under Jarratt’s command had been ineffectual during the hunt for Damilola Taylor’s killers.
One senior murder cop said in his witness statement that over 100 homicide detectives wanted to transfer when Jarratt was their boss. Another senior detective said Jarratt operated a climate of fear, was vindictive to officers he didn’t like and female staff were ‘terrified’ of him.
Jarrett’s own staff officer said in a statement that his boss’s idea of feedback was to get him to tell a female staff member ‘she smelt of cigarettes and her feet stank.’ An experienced personnel manager explained how when she once made a mistake her fear of what Jarratt might do made her ‘physically sick’.
Another female complainant said:
‘He looks at you as though you are a complete idiot and makes you feel totally worthless. He is in fact a bully who likes to totally control people … The only thing he is interested in is his [promotion] … I am not afraid of anyone except Mr Jarratt and I hope I never have to meet him again.’
Naturally, with such a raft of complaints against him it made sense to temporarily post Jarratt to Human Resources.
Meanwhile, the Met looked around for a senior officer to run the internal investigation. That poisoned chalice was given to then deputy assistant commissioner Stephen House, who today is a knight of the realm and deputy commissioner to Cressida Dick.
The Met press office said at the time that DAC House was ‘independent’ because he had come to the Met from Staffordshire police.
But the inquiry was very much in-house and to keep it so such serious complaints about Jarratt were never referred for oversight to what then passed as a police watchdog, the PCA.
The bullying allegations from such a wide group of men and women were significant. But more shocking was an allegation against Jarratt of actual bodily harm on his former girlfriend, a police officer.
Linda had dated Jarratt in the 1980s. But he left her for another policewoman who he later married and with whom he fathered children. That marriage ended in 2000 and Jarratt was seeing a Met police solicitor when the internal investigation started.
DAC House found Linda after hearing from fellow officers that it was ‘common knowledge’ Jarratt had assaulted her and his now estranged wife.
Linda’s statement made for chilling reading. She and Jarratt had lived together from 1982 to 1985. She described him as ambitious and ‘very money orientated’. On two occasions she claimed he had ‘seriously assaulted’ her at home. She gave excuses at work of having fallen down the stairs and after one assault said Jarratt drove her to the hospital. Adding:
‘Chris made threats he would use his Masonic links to ruin my father’s career if I ever reported the violence.’
Linda’s best friend, a female Met officer, made a supporting statement recalling how she sought refuge in her flat with a bruised face. Two GPs confirmed Linda’s account of visiting the surgery in 1985 complaining of pain and swelling of her limbs.
A male detective came forward to make a statement claiming Jarratt had victimised him on the murder squad because he knew about the assault allegations. Five detectives supported this detective’s account of victimisation.
Eventually, Jarratt was interviewed under caution in January 2003. He denied having long term vendettas against any detectives under his command and suggested those who had made statements against him were in some sort of conspiracy to undermine him.
On bullying, he said he hadn’t set out to treat staff unfairly but as he was ambitious he did have high performance standards.
Turning to Linda’s assault claims, Jarratt said she ‘hated’ him because he didn’t want to marry her and was seeing the policewoman who later became his wife.
The abuse allegations were ‘wholly unfounded’, he said, and the suggestion of threatening Linda’s father ‘preposterous’. Jarrett claimed never to have concealed that he was an active Freemason, adding that such behaviour would offend the tenets of the secret Brotherhood.
He denied assaulting his ex-wife and when asked for his view on domestic violence said it was ‘appalling.’
Linda did not want her statement used to bring criminal charges against Jarratt but was content to be a witness in any discipline case against him. In any event, the Crown Prosecution Service decided in August 2003 that no criminal charges would be brought.
It coincided with a Met wide poster campaign saying the force was going to ‘pursue abusers even without evidence from the abused partner.’
The campaign followed an announcement by the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) that it was considering a ‘formal policy’ to combat domestic violence by cops. Measures would include screening for offenders and encouraging partners, family members and colleagues to come forward.
Furthermore, ACPO said accused police officers would be treated like the rest of us and ‘always’ arrested. Suspension while under investigation would also be considered – neither of which happened in Jarratt’s case.
In December 2003, the Met press office said Jarratt would face a discipline board in June 2004 for five alleged breaches of the police code concerning ‘honesty and integrity’ including ‘overbearing conduct’ towards colleagues.
The assault and domestic violence allegation formed no part of the discipline charge sheet, even though ACPO had recently said that in cases where for whatever reason criminal charges had not been brought dismissal should be a sanction.
In the end there was no discipline board. Jarratt struck a deal whereby the Met dropped all discipline charges relating to misuse of police resources and improper disclosure because they had discovered there was a ‘lack of evidence’ or Jarratt had now provided ‘a satisfactory explanation’.
The bullying claims also went because Jarratt agreed to accept a written warning – one of the lowest sanctions available. Details of the agreement remain secret. But the affair didn’t effect his rise.
Jarratt was promoted to commander of Greenwich borough. However, in 2009 he was removed as part of the fall out over the bungled investigation by officers under his command into John Worboys.
Police errors had left the prolific black cab rapist free to attack many more women. Carrie Symonds, the prime minister’s wife, claimed Worboys had targeted her in 2007.
Jarratt was given other senior roles in the police until, after 34 years service, he retired with a good pension and trained to become a black cab driver offering bespoke tours of London.
Jarrett trades on his time at Greenwich to attract clients to the black cab business he runs with two other retired senior Met officers. The internet site features Jack the Ripper but there are no plans for a Worboys tour.
Asked last night for his thoughts on the investigation into the assault, bullying and domestic violence claims he faced as a senior detective, Jarratt did not respond.
He is presently in Niger with his new wife, Catherine Inglehearn MBE, the British ambassador to the African nation.
Lord Stevens, executive for corporate investigators Quest, Protector, Mercer Street Security, Axiom and AFA MIDCO, which provide integrity and police training, told a newspaper this weekend that vetting must be improved to get rid of wrong’uns in the police.
Stopping short of suggesting Dame Cressida Dick should step down as Met commissioner, he said she needed to ask herself some searching questions.
Perhaps Stevens should also ask himself what he did as deputy and then commissioner to dismantle the toxic culture of sexism and cover up in the Met.
Lord Blair, who makes his money from public speaking and training the Indians how to be better cops, appears to have searched his soul enough to suggest on the radio this weekend that as a result of changes he made as commissioner from 2005-2008 ‘misogyny and unpleasantness’ became relics of the past.
And in today’s Times Blair writes about how concerns over Met culture should lead to an external inquiry.
In July Dick brushed off a finding of ‘institutional corruption’ by an independent panel looking into the Met response to the 1987 murder of Daniel Morgan. It identified a culture of cover up and lack of candour to the public.
That culture was very much at work during the Wayne Couzens case. Shortly after he pleaded guilty to rape and murder between June and July this year, The Upsetter learned from a government source that the Met had CCTV showing Couzens handcuffed Sarah Everard before putting her in his car.
The Met refused to comment about the handcuffs when it was put to them over the summer. An honest answer would have had no bearing on the criminal case as Couzens had pleaded guilty. An honest answer would have helped women make better informed choices on the streets late at night.
Instead, the Met dissembled and sat on this one shocking fact in the sure knowledge it would send convulsions through the public and set back its damage limitation plans.
Dick assures us she has searched her soul and is honourable. Some may wonder why after so much scandal on her watch she wasn’t forced out by her political masters. Instead, Dick was recently given a 2-year extension to her contract until 2024.
The answer in part is because the Home Office does not see any alternative candidate among the men and women running British policing.
Dick’s deputy, Sir Stephen House, was already overlooked for the top job and could be seen as someone with too much history with the Met’s troubled past.
Met assistant commissioner, Neil Basu, would have been the first ethnic minority to lead the UK’s biggest police force, but he is seen as too woke – which tells you how far to the right the Home Office has become under Priti Patel.
So for the next two years, the Home Secretary is content for Dick to take the flack; a lame duck police commissioner seeing out her time before taking her seat in the over-bloated House of Lords alongside Stevens and Blair.
And so it goes.
Due to the critical situation the world is facing we have put up a special report discussing why western governments have become dysfunctional. This is NOT part of the upcoming paid Q&A videos, it is strictly information Ben has deemed to be important and made available for free to everyone.
Comments are only available for readers with an active subscription. Please subscribe to view comments.
GOD on COVID: Eric Clapton discusses his “Disastrous” Vaccine Experience.
Marcus Singletary Dot Com
#Guitar Legend #EricClapton performed with the Yardbirds, John Mayall, Cream, Blind Faith, and Derek and the Dominos before embarking on a successful solo career. Here’s why he never thought he would play the instrument again after receiving the AstraZeneca Vaccine.
Please subscribe to this channel! Visit http://www.marcussingletary.com for more info.
“Well done, John, publish the 1CF03361 machine gun judgment, by all means, to let it be a lesson to anyone else so stupid in England wishing to cross the river or Offa’s Dyke, marry and live in South Wales
.It was a forgone conclusion, after the appalling behaviour of Judge Seys Llewelyn in dismissing my BS614159 +2 civil damages claims, following the other 40 odd failed South Wales Police’s malicious criminal prosecutions against me requiring little or no defence witnesses or legal representation.Failed police disclosure was rampant then and now it is again, both in the criminal cases and subsequent civil court cases, so it was of no surprise Judge Petts did not allow my usual N244 forms seeking relevant CPR disclosure. He was simply carrying on in the well known tradition by some of those in Welsh authority, that is of being inherently deceitful and for some weird reason bearing a burning hatred of the English without being able to explain the reason why”The welsh system is terrified of ‘losing control like allowing a jury to decide, as in this case, with the police bringing yet another malicious prosecution when I was always the danger to the Chief Constable’s pension NOT a ‘film prop; from ‘Gunbus’ movie’ Remember, John, Taffy was a Welshman, Taffy was a thief, Taffy came to our house and stole a leg of beef…. “!
The judgement 15 September 2021: [apologies for the state of the following but am badly hacked whilst uploading this]
Archive [here] continues [from 2011]:
Tomorrow morning in the machine gun case the QC for the South Wales Police will have ‘arranged’ that no more damaging evidence comes from his remaining witnesses
He will be allowed to oppose an adjournment for PC Brown and Foxy to give vital evidence on how my replica gun was hawked around the UK for over 2000 miles trying to get someone to certify it as a prohibited weapon when, already, RAF, Nottingham police and Chepstow Forensic Services certified the pieces of iron ware as scrap iron!
source and see more at: https://mauricejohnkirk.com/
below: early pic of the “machine gun” – a film prop although Maurice was charged with “dealing in machine guns” and has suffered appallingly since being acquitted of the outragous merit-less charge brought by South Wales “police”!!
The deliberate destruction of the highly revealing police officer’s bodycam was to bury the false South Wales Police data that was passed to PC Oliver Sevlik, on the roadside to obstruct the on going fascinating, even for me, machine gun damages claim in Cardiff’s County Court
Violently arresting M5 Motorway police part redacted witness statement
I am Police Constable 6878 SVETLIK of the Devon and Cornwall Police currently stationed at the HQ Roads Policing and Armed Response Hub. On Wednesday 2nd June 2021 at approx. 1330hrs I was on duty in full Police uniform in company with PC 7141 GREENSITT under callsign Y8ZE.
At that time we arrived near marker post 242.7 on the M5 Northbound to assist PC 8078 HINDSON who had located a male who had been reported to have been walking on the central reservation of the M5 motorway.
I had heard one of her radio transmissions before we arrived informing comms that the male would not co-operate with her and had been walking in the live lanes and that she needed assistance. On arrival I activated my body worn video serial number P15912 and found PC HINDSON speaking with an elderly and unkempt male who appeared to be trying to fill his car with diesel from a plastic fuel container which had no spout.
His vehicle was a red French registered Citroen C4 registration number towing a trailer. I asked him what he was doing and he informed me he was filling his vehicle with fuel. I informed him that running his vehicle fuel so low that it broke down on the motorway was very dangerous and could be considered as Careless Driving. He told me he had been in lane 3 at the last exit and due to the traffic had been unable to exit the motorway.
The male was very unsteady when he walked and I was concerned that he was unfit to drive the vehicle. I asked him if the vehicle was his but he would not answer me. I asked several times if he had a driving licence and insurance for the vehicle but again he would not answer me, then he stated he did have insurance but didn’t have it with him at the roadside.
I asked his name but he would not provide it. He then went to the front nearside door of the vehicle and retrieved a large kitchen knife with a rainbow effect blade which he used to cut the top off a plastic bottle to use as a funnel for the fuel. He put the knife down and then returned to the fuel cap area. I asked why he had a knife in the car and he stated “TO CLEAN MY FINGERNAILS”. He continued wondering around the car unsteady on his feet and repeatedly refusing his details.
As a result at 1336hrs I arrested him on suspicion of driving a motor vehicle on a road with no insurance and no driving licence and cautioned him using the “WHEN RESTRICTED (when complete) MG11 Witness Statement Page 2 of 2 Continuation of Statement of Oliver James SVETLIK Signature: Oliver Svetlik Signature Witnessed by: N/A 05/2012 RESTRICTED (when complete) QUESTIONED” caution to which he made no significant reply. I applied my cuffs to the male’s right wrist as he had been in possession of a knife, had so far been unco-operative and would not provide me with his name so that I could risk assess transporting him without cuffs.
I tried to apply them in a rear stack but the male seemed to be inflexible and in some pain, so I re-applied them in the rear back to back position and checked them for fit and told him not to struggle against the cuffs or they may cause him discomfort.
I then put him in the rear of PC HINDSON’s vehicle. At 1349hrs I further arrested him on suspicion of possession of a sharply pointed/bladed article in a public place and reminded him he was under caution. On the male’s wrist was a hospital patient wristband from which I took the details of Maurice KIRK born 12/03/1945. When I spoke to the male and called him either Mr KIRK or Maurice he responded which tended to suggest this was his name but I was unable to confirm this. He still would not provide his home address.
He was then transferred to another vehicle and transported to Exeter Custody Suite by PC GREENSITT and PC 7830 KNIGHT. KIRK arrived at Exeter custody suite at 1400hrs and his detention was authorised.
In custody he provided an address……….. However, he was also in possession of paperwork in the name of Kasper KIRK,,,,,,,,,,,,. When asked who Kasper KIRK was he replied “THAT’S FOR ME TO KNOW AND YOU TO FIND OUT”. On checking KIRK’s driving record he was showing as holding an Expired Substantive Licence.
South Wales Police Damages Claim – Batting Order
EnquiriesExeter Crown Court
R. v. Maurice John Kirk Case No T20210178
I write regarding the above prosecution concerning alleged unlawful possession of a knife and two motoring charges.
I have been served with a section 23A Notice of Withdrawal in respect of these charges by the CPS, and therefore take it that I am no longer required to attend the court in terms of the bail granted by the Magistrates Ct when transferring this case to the Crown Court. I understand that this Withdrawal Notice has also been sent to the court.
I would therefore apply for a Costs Order in principle from Central Funds under section 16(2)(a)(a) of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985.
I therefore await a decision of the court as to whether I am to be awarded costs from central funds before sending any details of the costs incurred for consideration and assessment. I would suggest that a hearing be fixed for consideration and determination of this cost application.
I will attend your 17th September 21 court to be paid the outstanding £4000 odd out of pocket expenses from the South Wales Police;s maliciously brought prosecution of stalking my very own conservative Taunton MP
The monies are needed to finance this Monday’s barrister, Mr David Leathley, in the linked 1CF03361 South Wales Police ‘machine gun’ malicious criminal conspiracy currently proving the level of deceit the SWP are prepared to stoop to in order to keep their pensions.
I await hearing from the court
Maurice John Kirk
Maurice J Kirk BVSc
Tel 07708586202 www.kirkflyingvet.com
FOXY’s FALSIFIED FAIRY TALE
prosecutor’s summary of evidence seriously distorted with Foxy having a sex shange beteen 30th May 2009 and 26th January 2010
Andrew Huxtable proven as South Wales Police Liar for ‘Targeted Malice’
In the Cardiff County Court’s today’s 4th day of unlawfully restricted trial, while denied a jury, my inalienable right in so simple case of proven police malicious conduct, police HQ’s gun expert Andrew Huxtable looked visibly shocked, while on oath. on how I had ‘got my hands’ on his June 2010 Decommissioning Certificate issued by the Birmingham Proof House confirming ‘no work’, what so ever, had been needed to be done on prosecution exhibit ARH1 after my obvious to be acquittal in February2010 Cardiff Crown Court.
Of course not, as the Nottingham police when, first obtaining my sold film prop imitation ‘ 1916 Battle of the Somme’ Lewis machine gun, had just come from the RAF and flown by myself at the 200 Farnborough Show as part of my replica DH2 biplane
earlier this week I was forced to make a private person’s arrest, NOT A ‘CITIZEN’S ARREST’ on the ring leader of the South Wales Police’s concocted targeted malice, retired Chief Superintendent Stuart McKenzie while asking him to quietly accompany me to to the nearest police station where I would, as usual, ;lay information.
Malice recorded in forty odd failed failed malicious criminal prosecutions, since the 1970s, had come to a head following my having flown my WW2 Burma War army 6a Auster aircraft through the roof of a Haverford Wes aerodrome police car.
Police had tried to obstruct our winter flight to Ireland for a a week-end of duck-shooting and attend the County Fermanagh Harrier Hunt Ball. Police had even resorted to having a Mk 7 Hawker Hunter fighter aircraft to be ‘scrambled’ from RAF Brawdy, near by, such was the inept unexplained welsh hatred of an Englishman repeatedly exposing their inherent deceit, found in some of those in their unique types of authority.
The learned judge’s ‘passing shot’ at the end of yet another day of welsh lies was if Huxtable had even travelled with PC Dodge to personally witness the complete contradiction of his sworn evidence , concerning the state of prosecution exhibit ARH1, why no armed police accompanied such a lethal prohibited weapon to Mr Rydiard, the gun expert at the Birmingham Proof house?
Apart from being contrary to Home Office regulations it transpired that Mr Huxtable’s filming of the film prop during the ‘strip down’, investigating senior police officers had quietly destroyed the incriminating evidence!
nothing new under the sun’ when the target of south wales Police routine nefarious criminal conduct.
In court tomorrow, 10thSeptember 2021, ex army Mr Rydiard will even produce his laboratory evidence that even the prosecution exhibit had no machine gun barrel as it was not side vented to cause rotation of the ammunition magazine and was a condemned barrel from a double choked 0.40 inch gauge squirrel garden gun.
Senior South Wales Police had even withheld Huxtable’s criminally belated January 2010 2nd witness statement upon the specific advice of their QC (quaintly corrupted), Mr Lloyd Jones and mastermind in this 30 years of evil, co defendant, Dolmans , solicitor, Adrian Oliver who are earmarked to be be arrested when they least expect it.
Huxtable’s 2nd 2010 statement had also been deliberately been withheld from their targeted victim and eight lady twelve man jury in Jan/Feb 2010 as Huxtable had unwisely, possibly, let it be known in police HQ that the machine gun ‘ammunition’, I had deliberately left on my office desk on top of my anticipated needed 64 page defence statement explaining all- rather like Sir Alec Guinness in ‘Seven Crowns for Seven Coronets film.
The targeted ‘machine gun’ malice had been hatched as far back as my 4th October 2008 letter to the police solicitors, corrupt Dolmans who, had this criminal conspiracy been in an English court of law, both co-defendants would have been before criminal and civil jury trials.
Instructions for my prosecuting barrister to include:
TRIAL DAY ONE
[ This appears to be contrary to my success before our Lord Chief Justice Burnett at the RCJ when case law was made allowing the mere mortals , like you and I, being now allowed to take notes while sitting in a public gallery of a criminal law court in england and Wales.
This had followed from HHJ Crowther’s threats of immediate prison if my then wife, Janet, did not stop writing my cross examination evidence, on oath, from another South Wales Police conspiracy following my being arrested for ‘entering a welsh prison without permission’].
all – see more at source: www.mauricejohnkirk.com
Remember, this police conspiracy was in the drastic shadow of 40 odd failed malicious criminal prosecutions brought by the same welsh police with my alleged ‘trading in machine guns’ jury civil trial being their desperate last ditch attempt, coup de gras, to block my 7th January 2010 listed 1BS614149 damages claim that would require at least 200 police officers as witnesses.
High Court, on 3rd September, denied me my inalienable right to having a jury despite a request in my Particulars of Claim filed with the Cardiff court in 2011
Written in gaol for 8 months until aquitted
MG at Secret police laboratory in Chepstow to tamper with the evidence, unblock the barrel of the dummy gun and paint it back to the colour when I owned it in order to fool the 2010 Cardiff crown court jury
‘Nothing new under the sun’ where South Wales Police criminality is concerned
Why is the Dummy Machine Gun found at Chepstow’s Forensic Services Laboratory?
ALL WELCOME at the Cardiff civil justice centre and I BUY LUNCH AND REMEMBER, CARDIFF COUNTY COURT STAGES variety ACTS, LIKE MY BS614159 FARCICAL DAMAGES CLAIM, AS A BRIAN RIX WHITEHALL FARCE
High Court, on 3rd September, denied me my inalienable right to having a jury despite a request in my Particulars of Claim filed with the Cardiff court in 2011
Remember, this police conspiracy was in the drastic shadow of 40 odd failed malicious criminal prosecutions brought by the same welsh police with my alleged ‘trading in machine guns’ jury civil trial being their desperate last ditch attempt, coup de gras, to block my 7th January 2010 listed 1BS614149 damages claim that would require at least 200 police officers as witnesses
This is my hand written statement scribbled out in Cardiff prison where I was deliberately incarcerated, until eight months later, to stop the progression of my BS614159+2 more civil claims against Barbara Wilding due to her 40 odd malicious criminal prosecutions.
My machine gun compensation claim denied a jury is in RCJ at 10am tomorrow
My machine gun hearing in Cardiff now on Monday
Come and witness for yourself the level of deceit within senior officers of the South Wales Police.
I give evidence first – a long time waiting to expose the police conspiracy that lost me my wife, almost my life, my heath, wealth and damned near my sanity!
My’ knife in public’ case jury trial tomorrow is adjourned to 17th Sept in Exeter Crown Court
all welcome to witness more blood on the court room carpet
|DEFENDANT’S APPLICATION FOR PROSECUTION DISCLOSURE (Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996, section 8; Criminal Procedure Rules, rule 22.5)|
|Case details Name of defendant: Maurice John Kirk BVSc Court: Crown Court at Exeter Case reference number: T20210178 Charge(s):
Possession of Offensive Weapon contrary to section 139(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.
|Note: You must give a defence statement, and allow the prosecutor time to respond, before you can make an application for prosecution disclosure. How to use this form 1. Complete the Case details box above and answer the questions set out in the boxes below. If you use an electronic version of this form, the boxes will expand. If you use a paper version and need more space, you may attach extra sheets. 2. Attach to this form: (a) a copy of your defence statement, and (b) copies of any correspondence with the prosecutor about disclosure. 3. Sign and date the completed form. 4. Send a copy of the completed form and everything attached to: (a) the court, and (b) the prosecutor.|
|1) What material do you want the prosecutor to disclose The full details of the deletion of the Bodycam evidence, including all relevant documents from the Devon & Cornwall Police. In particular, full details of exactly when the Bodycam evidence was deleted and by whom, and on whose orders and authorisation? When where, why and by whom were the South Wales contacted who then released to the police in the M5 incident PNC data including its WARNING – ‘very violent when arrested? Why was Maurice Kirk denied both doctor and duty inspector, when specifically asked for, despite the police being aware he had just been released from a series of Accident & Emergency admissions following the traumatic insulting T2020177 (stalking MP acquittal) jury trial experience also fabricated by the South Wales Police to block 1CF03361 civil claim arising from ‘trading in machine guns’ acquittal conspiracy’?|
|2) Why do you think the prosecutor has that material? The CPS is under a duty to request the police to provide all available material in relation to the case, whether it supports or undermines the defence. The CPS have informed the Defendant that the Devon & Cornwall Police have notified them that they have deleted the Bodycam evidence. Therefore, the Devon & Cornwall Police will have full details of how and when the bodycam evidence was deleted and who made the decision to do so/ Under whose orders was the Bodycam evidence (VRE) was deleted, incidentally in gross breach of their own Joint Records Management policies and that of the National Information Management Governance.
The Devon & Cornwall Police were under a duty to retain the Bodycam evidence for at least 31 days and then further, if required, for evidential purposes.
The Devon & Cornwall Police were aware that the Defendant had been charged with the alleged offence of Possession of Offensive Weapon contrary to section 139(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, and that the evidence from the Bodycam was important and relevant evidence that would be needed to disclose to the Defendant. The Dev12on & Cornwall Police, while reliant on deliberately concocted South Wales Police National Computer(PNC) data, appear to have deleted the whole P15912 bodycam evidence if the M5 incident in breach of the relevant policy codes and with the intention of perverting the course of public justice thereby.
As a result, the Defendant will be entitled to mount an abuse of process argument to stay and/or dismiss the case on the grounds that the Devon & Cornwall Police have manipulated the prosecution process to prevent the Defendant being given full disclosure of the Bodycam P15912 for 2nd June 2021 that he considered would support his defence.
|3) Why might that material: (a) undermine the prosecutor’s case against you, or (b) assist your case? The CPS is under a duty to disclose all unused material in their possession, irrespective of whether it supports or undermines the Defendant’s defence.|
|4) Do you want the court to arrange a hearing of this application? YES /
The requested evidence is extremely important regarding the Defendant’s defence and how it has now been prejudiced due to the actions of the Devon & Cornwall Police with the result that the Defendant is now denied a fair trial under schedule 1, article 6(1) ECHR, Human Rights Act 1998, and the requested information hasn’t so far been disclosed to the Defendant. Destruction of this key evidence was deliberate to prevent still further criminal conduct by the South Wales P0lice being brought to the notice of an English judge in England.
The CPS is therefore in breach of its disclosure duties to the Appellant to ensure a fair trial as guaranteed under section 1 to 7A of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 and/or article 6(1) ECHR as incorporated under schedule 1 of the Human Rights Act 1998.
The violent assault on his victim, standing peacefully at the side of the M5 Motorway, causing the Defendant to scream in pain was due to the manner the hand cuffs were placed on him by police constable 16878 Svetlik.
|Maurice Kirk <firstname.lastname@example.org>||07:08 (4 minutes ago)|
Dear Mr NC xxxxxx,
I urgently need access to the DCS evidence in the case re Avon & Somerset Police system in order to take legal advice for the imminent ‘South Wales Police machine gun’ conspiracy trial 1CF03361 commencing on the 6th September21
My acquittal in the T20200177 ‘stalking’ MP nonsense and the T2021178 ‘found with a bladed article contrary to s139 of 1955 CJ Act’ acquittal on the 17th Sept 2021 will be because respective English CPS departments abided by apparent CPR unlike the South Wa;es Police and now. the Devon & Somerset police.
As your CPS has sent me access to DCS for the knife case please send to me, urgently, the DCS evidence for the MP appeals/applications currently starting at 10am today in the Royal Courts of Justice
ps A substantial civil claim against the culprits is being currently being prepared.
If someone had simply answered just one of my four years of letters, on her behalf, neither the daft ‘MP stalking’ jury trial nor this equally absurd current ‘in possession of a knife on the M5 Motorway’ would have happened nor leave me with severe financial loss.
BUT the South Wales Police ‘machine gun’ conspiracy is far more urgent as on Monday in Cardiff’s civil so called Justice Centre starts the substantive trial needing another one hundred plus witnesses.
BUT just as before, in 40 odd failed malicious criminal prosecutions brought by the South Wales Police, the deliberate late disclosure, this month, reveals that the dummy machine gun, retrieved from the Nottinghamshire police having stated it was not even a firearm but a heap of scrap iron, the south wales police set about tampering with the prosecution evidence.
This photo, below, of a welsh police officer’s note book only released to me this week 12 years after my acquittal from a likely mandatory 10 prison term or life in Ashworth, reveals the welsh FSS at Chepstow also deemed the ARH1 prosecution exhibit either junk or a prohibited weapon contrary to 5 (1a) of the 1968 Firearms Act
Criminal Appeal Office
Royal Courts of Justice
Acquitted from ;stalking’ an idle and very rude MP living off immoral earnings
APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST MAKING OF A RESTRAINT ORDER AND SUBSQUENT VARIATION OF RESTRAINT ORDER ORDER REF: 2020101866 A4 HT
I am writing regarding my application for leave to appeal against the making of a Restraint Order by HHJ Johnson at Exeter Crown Court on 20/05/21 in the above reference, and also my subsequent application for leave to appeal regarding subsequent variation of that Order by the same Judge at Exeter Crown Court on 01/07/21, although I do not have the reference no. for that application.
As I have applied for Representation Orders on the Notices of Appeal, I would enquire if the court has ordered the relevant transcripts regarding the making of the order and its subsequent variation on 01/07/21?
If so, I would enquire as to whether these two transcripts have as yet been supplied to the Criminal Appeal Office?
If so, I would enquire if I could be sent copies of these two transcripts under CrimPR 36.11, and if there would be any charge and if so, how much?
I look forward to hearing from you.
The ‘found with kitchen knife on M5 Motorway’ 3rd Sept 2021 Exeter Crown Court hearing is likely to be blocked now to protect whoever deliberately destroyed the body cam footage of the incident recorded by the arresting bully, police officer 16878 Svetlik
I note that they claim that the footage was not saved and was deleted. They seem to argue that it is unimportant and water off a duck’s back. This is not the case.
Police do not give any further reasons. However, there has to now be answers as to why it was deleted, who deleted it and when and on whose instructions?
The D&C Police knew that this was proceeding to prosecution, and it is also odd that the footage was not sent to the CPS initially for them to make a charging decision.
Why was it held back?
Therefore, this case has now become a serious abuse of process and the D&C Police have manipulated the prosecution process and as the footage has been deleted, a central plank of your defence is now denied which means that you cannot have a fair trial in breach of article 6 ECHR.
I think I may amend my Defence Statement to make these points or do I keep this back if the South Wales Police input is denied?
Whatever happens this a matter for my Taunton MP
CPS has PROBLEMS
Just as in South Wales
EXTRACT from my proposed letter to CPS today