“The ultimate act of persecution of this carer, Shazad Hussain, is a malicious private prosecution by Bradford Council for which he was not arraigned until the trial commenced and the judge refused all his applications, including hearings for: adjournments to obtain legal representation, dismissal of the charges of fraud, bail applications on human rights grounds (in the interests of his dependents) with no reasons given for refusal; and his right to an impartial and demographic jury (of non-Bradford residents and to include Asians) was disregarded. The all-White jury may not be familiar with the Asian culture of extended families and collective, as opposed to individual, property rights – a very pertinent issue in this case.
Throughout the trial, from 4 January 2016 to date, Mr Hussain has been severely disadvantaged by daily travel to and from prison to attend Bradford Crown Court, leaving prison at 7am and returning after 7pm; distraction in his cell, by his cellmate, hindering his preparation of his legal papers for the following day; lack of disclosure of Council documents; non-access to his own documents; and judicial reluctance to allow him to receive lay legal help and support in court.
Mr Hussain, who appears to be mildly dyslexic and autistic, has endured the trauma of a month-long trial with no legal representation, thirty hostile witnesses for the Council (including his estranged niece who had informed the family, five months before the trial, that her uncle would be sent to prison), no defence witnesses, lack of public observers, and a judge whom he felt was bullying and intimidating him. His overriding concern was, and is, for his vulnerable family members for whom he was the sole carer.
Shazad’s complaint – submitted in his absence (presumed taken into custody on 7 January 2016)
Date: 8 January 2016
“Dear JCIO [Judicial Conduct Investigations Office],
I write to formally lodge a complaint regarding the conduct of HHJ Savill at Bradford Crown Court. I write in the context of the local authority – City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (CBMDC)’s current malicious prosecution case against me – case reference T20150218.
1. The local authority’s case against me is vindictive in nature, given it was instigated in an attempt to coverup the Council’s systemic failures in Adult Social Care, at a time when I began to raise complaints to them regarding their failings to my relatives (mother & brother) in the provision of their social care community support services.
2. In this context, when CBMDC realised I was intending to whistle-blow on their failures to the Public – since they had put my brother Talib in a car accident in December 2012 – they started an undercover investigation into my personal financial affairs, whilst at the same time feigning to provide services and looking to stage events and create an environment so I ended up abusing the people in my care, so as to give them leverage. This lasted until December 2013, when CBMDC realised that there was no other option but to arrest me from my home, after managing to procure an erroneous Proceeds of Crime 2002 order against me from Judge Thomas QC sitting in private, on trumped-up and unfounded assertions that I was living a criminal lifestyle, thus effectively putting me under financial sanctions, without a right of appeal or reply. Following my arrest by Council investigators, CBMDC looked to unnecessarily prolong their investigation until April 2015, in their attempts to further disenfranchise me. Then eventually they decided to summon me on the 26 March 2015 to attend Court on the 7th of April 2015 and charge me for committing financial fraud against the family members in my care. In the meantime during the investigation period and subsequently, they effectively withdrew their services from my mother and brother and murdered my second brother Nazam in a nursing home under a joint enterprise and attempted to frame me for it, so as to misdirect proceedings to something more serious.
3. Though my complaint today relates specifically to the misconduct of HHJ Savill in my current case, the wider background of these circumstances should be borne in mind. Ultimately what I am alleging is that CBMDC is having a nefarious and undue influence over several Bradford Crown Court judges, as it looks to coverup and whitewash its systemic failings, fraud and corruption on the Public purse and embezzlement of funds. This undue influence over Bradford Crown Court by CBMDC – as it looks to privately commission services from a Public institution – is an affront to justice, a perversion of proceedings and puts the whole judicial institution into a state of disrepute. This undue toxic influence is not limited to the Crown Courts but extends to other Public institutions such as West Yorkshire Police, Bradford District NHS Care Trust, the Office of the Public Guardian, the local Magistrates’ and Coroners Court, to mention just a few. Given this general regard, there is no single place or mechanism whereby I can look to have these grievances raised and addressed and so I must endeavour, first and foremost, to bring them to your attention in the specific instance of the mishandling of my case at the Crown Court and the abuse of position and process by the residing Judge, HHJ Savill. What I specifically hope to show in this regard are incidences of Discrimination, Conflict of Interest, Inappropriate behaviour, Misuse of Judicial Status, Not fulfilling judicial duty and Professional Misconduct.
4. In regard to the nefarious influences and actions perpetrated by CBMDC against me, please rest assured that I have complained to everyone in this regard and exhausted all other avenues. One of the main reasons for my current persecution is my consistent complaining and writing letters in raising attention and awareness of this corruption at the heart of local government. Currently, one of my family members (Nazam) has been murdered by CBMDC and the remaining two (mother Fateh and brother Talib) are suffering as a consequence of CBMDC’s neglect for providing support services.
5. The circumstances leading up to my first encounter with Judge Savill on the 14th of September 2015 are that my case, bought against me by CBMDC, was first heard in the Magistrates’ Court on the 7th of April 2015, where at this hearing it was simply transferred to the Crown Court for listing for a pre-trial hearing for the 21st of April 2015. I had initially been summoned by CBMDC to attend the Magistrates’ Court on Friday 26th of March 2015 on 5 counts of fraud. This left me 4 working days to get legal representation, luckily I managed to secure the services of Yasmeen & Shahid solicitors by the following day, Saturday 28th of March 2015. On the first day at the Magistrates’ Court I suspected foul play since my name was not on any Court listings of the day. I was granted bail when no application for bail was made by my solicitor given he did not hold a representation order.
6. During the prolonged Council corporate fraud investigation against me into my financial affairs, initially commenced undercover in July 2012 and then more overtly, following my Council commissioned arrest on the 17th of December 2013, the Council had insisted I get legal representation to engage with them, rather than in engaging them directly, given the Council were now conducting a criminal investigation. I had suspected foul play on the part of CBMDC ever since my initial arrest on the 17th of December 2013, given the Council were aware that I was going to whistleblow on their systemic failings and the adult abuse I had witnessed taking place in their Social Services department.
7. The Council’s criminal investigation against me and the Proceeds of Crime POCO 2002 financial restraint order – secured against me by Kirklees financial investigator Helen Robinson from Judge Thomas QC sitting in private, had been based on deliberate false assertions that I was living a criminal lifestyle – this was in essence an effective gagging order to prevent me going Public in December 2013.
8. Subsequently following my arrest and release on “Police bail” – even though no bail application was ever made – by Council fraud investigators on the 17th of December 2013, I was left in a crisis situation because the people in my care (elderly mother and disabled brother) were now effectively put in danger because we had not only lost all support services from CBMDC, but had been plunged into a state of financial ruin. The proceeding months and then years would allow CBMDC to continue its nefarious activity of abusing their position to victimise and abuse me under the guise that officially they were undertaking a routine investigation. The reality was that this was anything but routine; they were using this investigation and the financial restraint order as an instrument to punish me and to prevent me from whistleblowing.
9. During the overt investigation period commencing from the 17 December 2013, to the time when they formally summoned me to court on the 26th of March 2015 – a period of time where I was effectively held under house arrest in essence and continue to be so – the Council continued to take nefarious action against me, such as unilaterally removing 6 years of Council Tax discount on a property we owned from my brother Talib’s name onto my name; to looking to effectively deny me and my family all support services, given I had threatened to take civil action against them; to continuing to antagonise and aggravate me and attempting to stage numerous false flag events to further disable me; but the most serious of which was to attempt, on several occasions, to frame me for my own brother Mr Nazam Hussain’s murder. They eventually did kill him off but failed to frame me and have now ended up incriminating themselves. The abuse of position by CBMDC during the investigation period and now subsequently are too numerous to mention and are outside the scope of this letter.
10. The means by which CBMDC are achieving this abuse of their statutory duty of care is by privately commissioning services from public institutions and functionaries in order to achieve private ends and maintain their ulterior agenda. A clear example of this was my arrest and then subsequent “Police bail” on the 17th of December 2013. CBMDC had privately commissioned Kirklees Council’s financial investigation team to help and assist the Council’s fraud investigation team and then asked them to make an application to the Court on their behalf. They then privately commissioned the Crown Court Judge HHJ Thomas QC to approve this application in private and in my absence. They then privately commission services from West Yorkshire Police to arrest me, giving me the impression that the Police were carrying out their public function. Yet the reality was that the Police were acting under private instructions from CBMDC. The private commissioning of services from West Yorkshire Police would extend to utilising their facilities at the Police station to interview me. On paper it seems one way and yet the reality is completely different.
11. This aspect of CBMDC privately commissioning Public services and functions for the personal benefit of themselves to achieve nefarious aims to protect themselves, is the grossest violation of trust by the Local Authority CBMDC. This fraud and deception perpetrated by the Council is at the heart of corruption at the local government level.
12. This can all be best illustrated in my current case at Bradford Crown Court, where I am deliberately being denied access to a fair hearing, given that my guilt and conviction has already been determined and secured by the commission of Bradford Crown Court services for this end by CBMDC before the commencement of any trial. There exists no impartiality in my case between Bradford Crown Court and CBMDC, thus denying me any fair hearing, in clear and direct contravention of Article 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 . The Local Authority are purchasing services from the local Judicial institutions in order to coverup up their corruption and prevent whistleblowing. This is a travesty of justice.
I shall now look to catalogue each of these injustices in further detail.
13. [9 Dec 2013]
The first incident of the judicial perversion of justice at the Crown Court in my case was the granting of a Proceeds of Crime 2002 restraint order to a Kirklees investigator by Judge Thomas QC, sitting in private on the 9th of December 2013, based on false assertions regarding my lifestyle without giving me an opportunity to make representation to defend any such allegations or provide clarity. The context this order was granted in was at the background of circumstance where I had told my local MP David Ward and a CBMDC officer, Mr Mark Trewin, of my intentions to whistleblow and take civil actions against CBMDC at a meeting held on the 2nd of December 2013 at my local MP’s constituency office. Following this meeting the commissioning of this order commenced. The simple assertion that I was living a criminal lifestyle was accepted by Judge Thomas QC sitting in private, in my absence, from an individual who is to be the primary witness in my case (Helen Robinson), when they themselves had been commissioned by CBMDC to carry out the financial investigation on CBMDC’s behalf through their partnership of West Yorkshire Joint Services. The fact that the Judge has granted the POCO 2002 asset restraint order on the basis of a single misleading statement from a commissioned financial investigator from a different local authority, proves beyond doubt that the granting of the Order itself from the Crown Court must no doubt have been commissioned by CBMDC. This is an unprecedented and exceptionally unique order granted under very fraudulent circumstances which has rendered me financially incapacitated and now acts as an instrument of torture. This first perversion of justice would then be the catalyst and lead to numerous other perversions of justice which inevitable led to my disabled brother’s death.
14. [17 Dec 2013]
The second incident of judicial perversion occurred at my arrest on the 17th of December 2013, where the aforementioned Helen Robinson and David Burns (CBMDC’s Corporate Fraud team investigator in the case against me) had commissioned West Yorkshire Police to accompany them to my home to arrest me and transport me to the Police station. Following my arrest and removal from my home by the Police, the Police and the investigators remained on our premises and raided our home and confiscated valuable items and documents, including our family safe. In the process they had traumatised my vulnerable and disabled family members. This judicial perversion occurred due to an omission of involvement by the Crown Court during this incident. There was no arrest warrant sought by the investigators or granted by the courts. There was no search warrant sought by the investigator or granted by the courts. There was no warrant of entry sought or granted. There was simply no Court involvement given there was a lack of judicial oversight in the raid on my home, removal of my property and my arrest and detention at the Police station. CBMDC had simply commissioned services from West Yorkshire Police to circumvent the normal protocols and achieved their desired objective of my arrest and removal, and the search and confiscation of my property to help build their case, under PACE procedures thus undermining and making a mockery of the Judicial institutions.
15. This abuse of protocol continued at the Police station during my first interview, on the 17th of December 2015, and following my release. At the “Police interview” stage following my arrest, I was interviewed by the combined authority fraud investigators (David Burns & Helen Robinson) and not West Yorkshire Police officers. The use of West Yorkshire Police facilities had simply been privately commissioned by CBMDC for the sole purpose of interviewing me, so as to give me the impression that their actions were legitimate. This was an act of deliberate deception by CBMDC, which is a recurring theme in this case. It became apparent to me during the interview that my duty solicitor, Blackwell’s Solicitors, had equally been commissioned by CBMDC to help maintain and legitimise their deception. Following the interview at the Police station, I was initially released on “police bail” for three months under the instruction of the fraud investigator David Burns, without any charges being laid or an application for “police bail” being sought or granted by their commissioned duty solicitor Blackwell’s. Following the expiry of the three month “police bail”, the local authority investigator (David Burns) simply extended the “police bail” unilaterally by a further six months without any written explanation. A CBMDC employee came to my home and hand delivered the extended “police bail” letter without any explanation. At this stage I had no legal representation, given I had recognised the deception committed by the duty solicitor and straightaway rejected his services. At the expiry of this six month “police bail”, once again the CBMDC’s fraud investigator unilaterally extended the “police bail” by a further three weeks. In total I had spent 44 weeks on “police bail” commissioned by CBMDC, without any legal representation or any avenue of legal redress, given that CBMDC was still officially at the investigation stage of its case against me. Any attempt to get legal representation at this stage would have meant that CBMDC would be afforded an opportunity to clandestinely commission the services of my new legal representative for their benefit. During this time of 44 weeks being held under CBMDC’s commissioned “police bail”, they had continued to clandestinely commission services from many of its other partners and associates to stage false flag events and attempted to frame me for my own vulnerable brother’s murder. They evidently failed in achieving this objective but invariably commissioned the murder of my brother Nazam in the end, and terminated his life on the 18th of September 2014, and have now covered this up by commissioning the outcome of the Inquest into his death at the Coroners office.
16. During the leadup to my second interview at the Police station on the 15th October 2015, by the local authority investigators, there was a buildup of pressure placed on me to get legal representation. It was vital for CBMDC to ensure I had legal representation so they could have someone to collude and conspire with to help cover up all their nefarious actions and scapegoat all these failings onto me and to brush all their mistakes under the carpet. I believe that at this stage, the intention of CBMDC was to privately commission the services of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) to prosecute this case on their behalf. The CPS must have refused to privately commission out their services unless I had legal representation. In their desperation they turned to the duty solicitor they had commissioned for me in my initial interview, Blackwell’s. When I saw Keith Blackwell at the Police station kindly presenting himself, looking to represent me for the day, his collusion and complicity became evident and I dismissed him straight away. I had originally asked him to secure the release of my Police custody records of my initial arrest by the Council employees on the 17th of December 2013, but he had made excuses in his inability to procure them given the police would not release my custody records to me without authority from CBMDC. He would now look to hand me my Police custody records on the day, 44 weeks later, which he somehow managed to procure without further taking instruction from me, given I had formally dismissed his services when it became apparent he was colluding and conspiring with CBMDC.
17. During the second interview on the 15th of October 2014, many of the same questions were being asked which had been asked 44 weeks earlier at my first interview with the exception of now asking me financial questions relating to my recently deceased brother Nazam’s finances after CBMDC had commissioned his murder. The interview was simply staged in order to pressurise me into taking legal representation. When this had clearly failed CBMDC fell back on sending a Social Worker to my house – whilst I was being detained and questioned by CBMDC investigators at the Police station – to coerce my mother into making a statement against me that I was abusing her. My mother became very distressed and distraught at the sight of the Social Worker and failed to allow her access into our home, given that CBMDC had just murdered her firstborn and were now holding her youngest son and Carer at the police station. Given the present situation they had no choice but to release me from their “police bail” but informed me that they would soon be summoning me to court, with the charges at some later date. All very vague and abstract. I had it confirmed at this stage that the criminal investigation against me had been completed and that they are now in the process of finalising everything and just need to send the investigation material to CBMDC’s legal department to issue the summons. This time I was released from the police station by the Council investigators without charge or bail. Subsequently I learnt that in fact the investigation against me was still continuing up until my summons in April 2015. The investigation was then once again resumed in October and November 2015 and may still be continuing whilst at the same time the case is progressing through the Courts. This investigation had originally started in July/August 2012 and had been used as a means to prevent and stonewall access to services for family members in the interim.
18. I had approached my local MP in February 2013 after becoming frustrated with their failure to complete their investigation. CBMDC simply bought off my MP and privately commissioned his services to help aid and assist them in building their case against me. This all eventually came to a head in December 2013, when I was arrested by CBMDC investigators, with the full awareness and assistance of my MP David Ward. Following my arrest and release, David Ward would look to disassociate himself from me and eventually told me not to return to his office in February 2014. At this stage my brother Talib became critically ill and ended up in hospital.
19. I appreciate that much of what I have relayed regarding the collusion of two local authorities, the police services, the solicitors and my MP does not directly fall under the remit of JCIO, but I only provide this information as giving context under which the Crown Courts are being perverted and similarly being colluded and corrupted under similar undue influence of CBMDC as it looks to coverup it own systemic failings by privately commissioning services from public institutions.
20. [Apr/May 2014]
The second incident of this judicial perversion of justice was in April-May 2014, when I had requested to make representation before the Judge granting this financial restraint order to put forward a defence to the allegation which had been made against me in private and to seek further clarity, which was formally denied, through our email exchanges, given HHJ Thomas QC refused to see me or grant me any right of audience. The eventual outcome of our email exchanges would be for him to give me instruction to simply take legal representation and liaise with the prosecutor, yet at this stage there was no formal prosecution underway, given CBMDC was still at the investigation stage. CBMDC’s formal prosecution case against me did not commence and get underway until a year later in April 2015. During this intervening 12 month period between April 2014-2015 CBMDC would look to misdirect the preliminary case against me by attempting to frame me for a more serious charge of murder, thus downplaying and misdirecting their original perversion of justice. This all ended up with the death of my brother Nazam at the hands of CBMDC privately commissioning Public services and functionaries of private organisations (nursing homes etc.) under a joint enterprise.
21. The next key event occurred on 15 October 2014 at my second interview with Council fraud investigators, which has previously been delayed. In between this six month period CBMDC had not only commissioned the murder of my brother Nazam and attempted to frame me but they continued their ruthless targeted campaign to demoralise me by taking further direct and indirect action by denying me and my family rights to services and continued to degrade and humiliate me. One such example was for CBMDC to unilaterally remove 6 years of council tax from a property in my brother Talib’s name and put this liability onto my name without notice or means to object. This and other financial liabilities have now been put on hold until after my trial in January 2016.
22. In December 2014, CBMDC attempted to stage a false flag event whereby they could look to gain leverage over my domestic situation. It had been over a year since my original arrest and I had refused to get legal representation, given I had not been formally charged. The attempt to frame me for my brother Nazam’s murder had failed and therefore I had not come under the Police’s jurisdiction and therefore by proxy in turn under CBMDC’s remit or jurisdiction so they could have leverage over me. An event was staged in December 2014 whereby the local authority and Police would collude with my estranged brother Addalet to instigate a domestic disturbance at my home, thereby necessitating Police intervention. My estranged brother Addalet had been commissioned to come to my home, under the guise of visiting his mother but in reality to agitate and provoke me into physically assaulting him. The police would be on standby had I assaulted him, they could then arrest me and take my mother in for questioning and look to have jurisdiction and leverage over me. Fortunately for me the situation was so badly staged it became clearly transparent to me what the authorities were attempting. I didn’t react in the manner they had anticipated. When my brother Addalet’s attempt to agitate me had failed, he got up and physically assaulted me, I did not react but called the Police. Their plan had once again backfired and failed as they failed to get jurisdiction over my domestic situation. By January 2015, CBMDC’s only option was to pursue me with their original criminal fraud investigation, given several attempts to misdirect and leverage their position had ended up in failure and backfired. The attempt to frame me for my brother Nazam’s murder between July to September 2014 failed, and now the attempt to frame me for assaulting my brother Addalet in December 2014 had backfired and failed. Their attempts to force me into getting a solicitor at this stage had ultimately also failed. It was paramount that I take legal representation, thereby affording CBMDC a means to commission their services in private and collude with my legal representative just like they had colluded with my political representative David Ward. When I was eventually summoned to court in April 2015, I did take legal representation at that stage and as I anticipated he was commissioned into acting against my interests and clearly colluded with CBMDC
On the 7th of April 2015 I had my solicitor Shahid from Yasmeen & Shahid Solicitors escort me to the hearing. The first thing I noticed was that my name was not listed on any court listings. I instantly suspected foul-play and asked my solicitor to make enquires. He met up with the prosecuting Barrister Mr Imran Khan and then went into court without further reporting back to me. Eventually he came out to tell me that we were to be heard next and that he knew the Prosecuting Barrister. He advised me not to enter any plea at this stage which I subsequently did when summoned before the Magistrates. The Barrister was looking for the next hearing to be sometime in July due to his availability but the court clerk had to inform the Barrister that the case needs to be transferred to the Crown Court within 14 days due to judicial rules. I was then handed three lever arch folders which would be used as the prosecution used material in the case against me. I had previously asked for all material used and unused but these requests were simply ignored.
The third incident of this judicial perversion of justice occurred at the pretrial hearing on my first appearance at Bradford Crown Court on the 21st of April 2015. At this hearing which literally lasted 7 minutes before Judge Benson, the trial date of 5th of November 2015 lasting 5 days and a Plea and Case Management hearing for the 10th of June 2015 was set arbitrarily by the Prosecutor and agreed by the Judge without any formal indictment being served on the defence or without any case material being submitted before the Courts for the decision to be made. Following the hearing the dates miraculously got changed to a trial date of 5th of October 2015 for 5 days and a Plea and Case Management hearing of 10th of July 2015. When I began to enquire regarding these changes of dates from my legal representative at the time, he began to act confused given he failed to sit in at the hearing, though he was in Court with me on the day. He had not sat in at my pretrial hearing because at the last minute he told me he had to attend another hearing in London. There was clearly foul play at work on the 21st of April 2015 in Bradford Crown Court. I became very suspicious that his services may have been privately commissioned by CBMDC due to his conduct and behaviour on the day in court. My suspicions were confirmed to me at my next meeting with him on the 29th of April 2015, given he failed to answer some very simple, straightforward and direct questions and then when challenged he quickly withdrew his services. He confirmed that he did not have any Legal Aid representation order granted to him in my case and that he had not made any money from his involvement, even though he had ensured there was a barrister on the day to represent me at the pretrial hearing. I firmly believe this is because CBMDC privately commissioned his services in the background, as I had suspected all along, to undermine any defence I may have put forward. Furthermore, they wanted to ensure that any disclosure I made in private to my defence solicitor would inevitably find its way back through unofficial channels to the Prosecutor CBMDC, given they would now be unofficially paying my solicitor off by privately commissioning his services to help them win their case against me.
The fourth incident of this judicial perversion of justice occurred subsequently following my solicitor’s withdrawal from the case on the 29th of April 2015, when I had requested from the Courts a transcription and audio copy of the pretrial hearing to confirm the dates. The dates of the trial and P&CM hearing agreed in court were clearly different to what was now being alleged following the hearing. When the request for disclosure of the hearing was denied by Judge Thomas QC without a right to appeal on the 20th of May 2015, given he was not even the sitting judge at the preliminary hearing, it became apparent to me that the Crown Court were now in full collision with CBMDC to secure my conviction at all costs. At this stage there was no longer any point in getting legal representation given I could not be guaranteed that CBMDC would not look to equally buy off any new representatives. The failure of the Crown Courts to facilitate my request and cooperate with me would only strengthen my resolve and conviction not to take legal representation, given my suspicions regarding the Crown Court’s collusion with CBMDC were being confirmed.
26. [10/07/15] 5th incident, P&CM hearing
The fifth incident of this judicial perversion of justice occurred at my Plea and Case Management hearing before HHJ Hatton on the 10th of July 2015. I attended this hearing without legal representation. At this stage the prosecution barrister Mr Imran Khan approached me making enquiries regarding my legal representative. When he realised that I was not represented for the day he became perplexed on how best to proceed and needing to take advice from the council investigators. He eventually returned to hand me an Indictment sheet and an unfilled plea and case management court form. He then offered to help me fill in this form and enquired how I would be pleading to the indictments presently presented to me. I indicated that I would not be entering into any plea today given I had just been handed the indictment sheet and this was all very inappropriate. The P&CM judge on the day HHJ Burn refused to see me in his Court given I was not represented and another courtroom had to be opened up and convened on an adhoc basis where I could present myself. Presiding in this court was HHJ Hatton, who at first refused to address me in court and would make enquiries from the prosecuting barrister of why I was not legally represented for the day. The prosecuting barrister had to then relay the issues I had raised to him informally outside of court on my behalf to the Judge. When the judge did address me he strongly advised that I get legal representation. I responded by saying I reserve the right to get legal representation should I choose to but at this stage I was a litigant in person. The judge insisted that the courts need to be made aware of my legal representatives in good time. I raised the issue of the difference in dates at the pretrial hearing and then the subsequent changes of dates following the hearing and the judge had it confirmed that the dates given are correct and flatly refused to entertain the notion that my allegations had any validity. I raised the issue regarding the restraint order granted by HHJ Thomas of the 9th of December 2013, as this was the first time I was afforded an opportunity to have it addressed in court, given my previous application had been rejected in May 2014. HHJ Hatton said that this is something you are going to have to take up with HHJ Thomas given there is no prosecution case material before me. The only decision made at court by HHJ Hatton was for me to prepare a defence statement by the end of August 2015, to the indictments handed to me on the day, thus unofficially directing me to get legal representation. It is my strong belief that CBMDC had privately commissioned HHJ Hatton so as to take instruction from them on how best to proceed with me. CBMDC needed me to have legal representation and this was just another attempt to put undue pressure on me. At this Plea and Case Management hearing, no charges had been put to me or any plea entered – I had not been formally arraigned – yet I was instructed to prepare a defence statement to the presently presented indictment handed to me on the day.
27. [14/09/15] 6th incident, Judge Savill first encounter
The sixth incident of this judicial perversion of justice occurred on the 14th of September 2015 before HHJ Savill, the primary individual this complaint relates to. Up to this point, most of the actions perpetrated against me had been clandestine, covert, underhanded and opaque but with HHJ Savill’s involvement the situation became more overt and transparent. This major incident highlights the extent of the corruption and it’s significant at Bradford Crown court, which became all too apparent on the day. Up to this point a great deal of undue influence and indirect pressure by proxy had been placed on me to get legal representation. At my last hearing on the 10th of July 2015, the prosecuting barrister Mr Imran Khan had engaged me and advised and encouraged me to get legal representation given he had to semi represent my intention at court, before HHJ Hatton. On this occasion he did not engage me before the hearing at all because an alternative scheme was in play.
28. The next hearing following my last hearing of 10th July 2015, was meant to be the commencement of the 5 day trial on the 5th of October 2015, where the prosecution would look to present 28 witnesses against me. I had officially been asked to submit a defence statement by the end of August 2015 which I had done so even though at this stage I had not been arraigned. Since I still had not taken legal representation, steps were now being taken by CBMDC to directly force compliance. The notice to the last minute impromptu hearing on the 14th of September 2015 before HHJ Savill, had been sent to me via email late on Thursday the 10th of September 2015, which I read on Saturday the 12th of September 2015, after I had sent an email indicating to the Prosecution that the defence witnesses I would be relying on in my defence would be my mother and brother; the two people I am alleged to have been financially abusing and victimising.
29. The prosecuting authority had made an application requesting this interim hearing on the 10th of September 2015 and managed to secure a date the following Monday 14th of September 2015 without informing me. This is the level of undue influence that CBMDC has over the Crown Court as it receives preferential treatment. Luckily I managed to ensure I was in court, with my mother, to attend the hearing even at this very short notice. Failure to do so would have put me in breach of my alleged bail, which I believe was the true intentions behind this undertaking. In my defence statement sent on the 30th of August I had made an application for a pre trial review hearing since I wanted to have my issues addressed. I presumed that the hearing on the 14th of September 2015 was in response to this application and not as a result of CBMDC’s clandestine interim application. On this occasion the Prosecuting Barrister Imran Khan did not approach me or make any contact outside of court room and I patiently waited to attend this impromptu last minute court hearing. There was no case formally listed before my case, however on the day a case was being heard before my case and so there was a lengthy delay before my case was heard in court. So me and my mother patiently waited in the seating area.
30. CBMDC had, by this stage of proceedings carried out a very comprehensive investigation into my background and circumstance which went far beyond what an investigation of this nature would have necessarily required. They had done background checks on my university education and also determined which high school I had attended. They then found a barrister who had been at the same high school as me, which was known to them. On the day in question, whilst we where waiting, I was approached by a Barrister named Mohammad Sohial, who just happened to have a hearing before my hearing where he was representing his client and who just happened to have recognised me from our school days 22 years earlier. The person I am today is hardly recognisable from my high school days and I instantly suspected foul play at work given my present circumstances and the nature of him approaching me. Nevertheless, at the time I remained open to the possibility that this may be a genuine circumstance where there was no underlying malevolent staging of the event. Sohial had approached me and enquired why I was in Court today and then offered his services by handing me his business card and looked to solicit his services to me.
31. Eventually our case was to be heard and the prosecuting barrister had gone into court before me. As soon as I entered into the Court room the Prosecuting barrister rushed to meet me and told me that the Judge had just popped out to read my defence statement and that he himself did not have a copy of my defence statement. He enquired if I had a spare copy at hand and so I handed him my only copy. This was all highly unusual. The court hearing had commenced and convened before I had entered into the courtroom where the Judge had conversed with the Prosecuting barrister alone prior to my attendance and then decided to leave the courtroom to allegedly read my emailed defence statement before my attendance in the Courtroom. This is clearly a perversion of courtroom protocol.
32. I hold that this was and is a clear abuse of process. The Judge should not have commenced the court hearing before both parties were present in the Courtroom. The Judge should have ensured that the defence statement, which was submitted two weeks earlier to the Courts, should have been read prior to commencing the hearing not after the hearing had commenced. The purpose of this last minute impromptu hearing was not made clear to me. I believe that the prosecutor had requested this hearing because they allege they had not received a copy of my defence statement, as was directed by Judge Hatton at the last hearing 10th of July 2015 to be submitted to the Prosecution by the end of August. I had complied with these directions and submitted my defence statement to both the Council and the Courts on time. The need for this hearing was unnecessary, yet the pretext given that the Prosecuting barrister had not received my defence statement, which was the responsibility of the Council’s solicitor to forward to the Barrister, was used to hold this irregular impromptu last minute hearing. This hearing was clearly fraudulent and a deception.
33. When the Judge eventually did enter the Court room, the very first question put to me in very stern terms was, why did I not have legal representation! I told HHJ Savill that I suspected foul play to have taken place at my preliminary hearing on the 21st of April 2015, where I did have legal representation and I believed that the prosecutors were conspiring to privately commission services from my legal representatives. The judge was instantly very dismissive of my remarks and began to pressurise me into taking legal representation. He was very rude, condescending, bulling and intimidating towards me. I hold that this behaviour is highly inappropriate for a judge who is meant to be impartial. His tone and general demeanour were highly threatening and very overbearing and not at all courteous, respectful or impartial.
34. I once again raised the issue of the restraint order and this was instantly dismissed. The Defence Statement submitted was not thoroughly discussed and the matter was simply obfuscated on. I was told that the trial on the 5th of October would definitely be going ahead and that in the meantime I needed to be seen by trial judge Burn before the trial could commence to ensure the case was trial ready. I was once again bullied, intimidated and railroaded into take on legal representation. I was then asked if I can make my way to York? I enquired why? Judge Savill told me that Judge Burn would not be available in Bradford before the trial date and that I will have to go see him in York. I told the judge of the great difficulty this would cause me, given my caring responsibilities over two vulnerable adults. My concerns were instantly disregarded and I was flippantly told that ‘it’s not impossible is it, you could simply jump on a train and make your way to York’. I was told in no uncertain terms that if I failed to attend the hearing then I would be in breach of my bail and would be arrested and remanded in custody on a separate charge. It is my contention that the judge had intentionally sent me to York out of malice after privately taking instructions from the prosecuting authority CBMDC, to fully inconvenience me thereby ensuring that I take representation. It seems the purpose on this impromptu hearing was simply to ensure I take legal representation and by looking to further disenfranchise me. I was not given any opportunity to have any of my own issues or concerns addressed. I was under the belief that this hearing had been called as a result of my defence statement submission and my application for a review hearing, considering the unusual nature of this case and the occurrences at the previous hearings. Yet my application had simply been ignored and the reality was that this hearing was called at the request of the Prosecutor on the Thursday, 10th of September 2015, without any notice to me and listed for a hearing for Monday, 14 September 2015. I believe this was deliberately done so that I would be in breach of my alleged bail and arrested and detained on a separate charge. Finally, I was told the hearing has ended and I could leave the courtroom. I left the Courtroom while the Court was still in session and the Judge was still seated. It was clear that the judge wanted to continue to have a private discussion with the prosecuting barrister in my absence. I hold that this is an abuse of Court process as the Judge should not be having private conversations with the Prosecution in my absence. As I left the courtroom I felt bullied, humiliated victimised and clearly threatened.
35. That evening I rang up Sohail the barrister who had approached me in Court and requested to see him so I could explore the possibility of legal representation. He told me that he had actually sat in on my hearing and heard everything discussed and he would be available to offer his assistance the following day to offer me free impartial advise. The next day, the 15th of September 2015, I met up with Sohail and he had brought along a solicitor friend of his from Ammal Solicitors. All very convenient. They then began to persuade me to take on their representation, telling me that they knew my trial judge, Judge Burn very well and that they were reputable and respectful operators and would do everything to ensure I didn’t go to jail. Under duress I reluctantly signed over the legal aid forms as I looked to trust them. The application for legal aid would be submitted promptly but would not be granted until the 23rd of September 2015. My next hearing at York was for the 22nd of September 2015. I had requested that the solicitor escort me to the hearing given my precarious situation with my family members but he failed to do so, or respond to my emails. I was left with no option but to take my highly vulnerable family member with me to the hearing in York.
36. In hindsight, I now hold the belief that the hearing on the 14th of September 2014 had all been staged to ensure that I take legal representation so that the prosecutor had a means to collude with someone. I believe that Judge Savill was instrumental in staging this event, given his collusion with the prosecutor.
37. [22/09/15] 7th incident, Judge Burn, York Crown Court
The seventh incident of this perversion of justice occurred on the 22nd of September 2015, at the hearing in York before the trial judge, Judge Burn. Me and my family had managed to make our way to York Crown Court and found that the Court does not have disabled facilities. My brother Talib is a wheelchair user and we had great difficulty accessing the building. Eventually we did manage to gain access and patiently waited for the hearing to commence. Once again the very first subject bought up by Judge Burn was regarding my lack of legal representation. This time I told the Judge that I had taken up legal representation as directed by Judge Savill and that the application for a representation order had not been presently granted and that this was in the process of being granted. This was the reason I was not represented for the day. I did raise the issue before the Judge regarding litigants in person as now becoming likely the everyday reality given the general cut backs in the legal aid funding. Judge Burn tersely responded with the remark that ‘not if I have anything to do with it’. I found this comment as inappropriate for someone looking to represent themselves as litigant in person.
38. Once again we played the same old charade of what was clearly a staged event. After being once again fully coached and coerced into getting a solicitor, which I kept on explaining that I now had; the issue of the indictment was finally discussed. I looked to raise many of the flaws in the indictment presented which I had previously raised in writing as part of my defence statement. The judge on the whole surprisingly accepted them. I had initially been summoned to court in April on five charges of fraud, on indictment these had now changed to seven. Two extra charges were added of holding criminal property. I put it to the judge that no evidence exists to support the assertion that these items are proceeds of crime, as the case has not been proven. Judge Burn accepted this and the prosecutor was asked to amend the indictment before the next hearing. I had also raised the issue of the Court’s jurisdiction in trialing this case given it was being brought by the Local Authority and not the Crown Prosecution Service. I explained that there was a conflict of interest and natural bias in this case against me because it was being prosecuted by the local authority. I requested that no judge or jury should have any direct or indirect association with the prosecuting authority, as the local council has a financial relationship with the aforementioned and as such this caused a conflict of interest. The Judge took this as an opportunity to excuse himself from trialing this case and said that since he was from Bradford he would allow Judge Savill to trial this case, given Judge Savill was from Manchester. My objections to this were not acknowledged. The judge swiftly moved on to agree that the jury should not consist of Bradford residents and that Huddersfield residents could be utilised as jury members.
39. Later when this case was transferred back to Judge Savill he would over rule this and allow Bradford residents to be jury members, in clear contradiction to Judge Burn’s ruling. I had made my position clear that no judge or jury should have any direct or indirect connection with the prosecuting authority, Bradford Council, as a conflict of interest exists given that rate payers of Bradford have a financial relationship with the prosecutor. It seems any line of argument I make is politely heard but then duly disregarded, overruled or dismissed. This is because the Judges have been privately commissioned by Bradford Council to act in their favour and for their best interest. Most of the hearing time was to address the outstanding issues the prosecutor may have had in preparation for trial. It became evident to me that the prosecutor was clearly not ready for trial on the 5th of October 2015. Judge Burn did enquire why this case was not being pursued as a civil action claim and the prosecutor explained that this option would be considered if the criminal prosecution failed. This was all clearly nonsensical. Finally, I looked to have my issues and points addressed but I was told that there was not enough time left to consider my points. Most of the hearing time had been frivolously spent on addressing the prosecution’s issues. I explained that the case lacked any legal merit or substance and it should be dismissed. I was told that any dismissal arguments could not be heard due to the lateness of time and furthermore the Judge did not have the prosecution case material before him to be in a position to make judgement. Once again, conveniently, the same excuse had been used which had been used on every single occasion previously – lack of prosecution case material before the judge to make any decisions. I was however told that a dismissal application could be made but the prosecution would need to be given 14 days notice. The trial was meant to start in exactly 14 days from the time I was at the hearing in York, this didn’t leave me with much time to submit my application.
40. The final decision that needed to be made was regarding the trial date. Judge Burn enquired and started negotiating with the Prosecuting Barrister if a delay of two weeks would be appropriate or maybe a month. The prosecuting barrister was not in a position to provide any indication and this clearly flustered the Judge. He needed an indication of when the trial date should be moved to, to ensure the prosecution were trial ready. The Judge had to make this decision on his own, given he could not contact the true decision makers and I could tell he was struggling because he didn’t know how best to proceed. He kept on enquiring from the prosecuting barrister without any luck and then decided to get the Court Clerk to ring Bradford Crown Court to see when the next available trial date was. Clearly this was a charade for my purposes. I was told the next trial date could potentially be in December or January. A new trial date in exactly three months time of 5th of January 2016 was set. Once again, following the court hearing, and this ruling, this date would once again be changed from 5th of January 2016 to 4th of January 2016. This was clearly a repetition of the date changes which had occurred at the preliminary hearing in court in April and then subsequently changed around following the hearing for the convenience of the prosecutor.
41. Following the hearing the prosecuting Barrister Imran Khan approached me and looked to have an informal off the record chat regarding considering a proposal where if I was in agreement to repay some arbitrary amount to the prosecuting authority then I could potentially avoid prison time. I informed the barrister that i was open to all offers, how much was he suggesting? He said that he would look to negotiate this with the prosecuting authority on my behalf. He asked if we could further chat about this and I agreed. We then went into a side waiting room. I escorted my family members from the main waiting area since they were not allowed into Court to this side waiting area. The prosecuting barrister then entered into conversation with me and my mother. At one point I had to leave this waiting area since I had left my briefcase in the Courtroom. The Barrister continued to converse with my family members in private which I had indicated would be my defence witnesses. This was clearly wrong and would clearly prejudice against my defence case. I would later look to subsequently raise these points in Court and to the prosecuting authority directly and they would be instantly dismissed and disregarded. Clearly the barrister Mr Imran Khan no longer wanted to be on the case and so a pretext needed to be made to have him replaced.
42. Following the hearing in York, the very next day, 23rd of September 2015, I submitted my case dismissal application to both the prosecuting authority and to the courts for it to be heard at the next hearing, the 5th of October 2015. This was not even acknowledged by the prosecuting authority and would initially be ignored and then disregarded. I had assumed that the hearing on the 5th of October 2015 would now be my case dismissal hearing considering my dismissal application and the fact that the trial date had been moved. The reality was that this hearing was just a pretext to have the prosecuting barrister replaced, as he no longer wished to continue in the case.
43. In the meantime Ammal solicitors confirmed on the 23rd of September 2015 that they had now received approval of Legal Aid Representation order. The next available appointment for a meeting was made for the 28th of September 2015. During the meeting it became apparent that they had an ulterior agenda and when questioned further they decided to withdraw their services due to being professionally embarrassed. Clearly they didn’t wish to work with me given I suspect foul play. If the trial date fixture had not been broken because of the prosecution’s failure to be trial ready then this would have meant that the new representatives would have had less then five days to prepare for trial. Given I had already made an application for dismissal I instructed them to prepare to have the case dismissed. It seems that they were not prepared to do this and preferred for the case to go to trial. This naturally caused a conflict and they abruptly withdrew their services after less than 40 minutes of our first meeting. They would later write out to me to confirm their withdrawal was due to being “professionally embarrassed” and that they had equally written out to the Courts. I had assumed that was the end of the matter, however without taking further instruction from me they turned up unannounced at the next hearing on the 5th of October 2015 before Judge Savill with a barrister to claim they had come out of courtesy to inform the courts that they were no longer representing me and that they believed I didn’t wished to be represented. This was clearly not the case, given they themselves had withdrawn their services at our last meeting.
44. This was the second time I was before Judge Savill, who by this stage had now conveniently become the trial judge in the case against me. Once again there was manipulation of case listings and another case was being heard before my case even though we were allocated to a whole day’s session. At the last minute we were sandwiched between cases to reduce court time on the case, since the only priority was for the pretext of the barrister to be replaced. I did bring up the subject of my case dismissal application and the judge said that he may not even allow the dismissal application to go ahead. He was not sure. This confused me as I thought this hearing would be about my case dismissal application and a review of the restraint order. Neither points were to be considered. Instead an excuse was found so the prosecuting barrister could withdraw from the case. The pretext used was that a meeting was necessary before the trial in January, however the prosecutor would not be available next until December and this was not appropriate so the judge said the prosecutors needs to instruct another barrister. Conveniently, allowing the barrister to be replaced. This was just another deception and yet another example of how the prosecuting authority has an undue influence over the Crown Courts in order to achieve their objectives. Judge Savill acknowledged that there were lots of issues that were mushrooming out of control and that a hearing should be quickly heard but unfortunately the next available time was on the 13th of November 2015, a month and a half away. This was totally unacceptable but I was left with no choice. I now believe this was a strategic decision so as to allow the prosecutors ample time to get a new barrister up to speed.
45. On the 11th of November 2015 I received a skeleton argument from the new prosecuting barrister Alun Jones dated the 10th of November 2015 regarding my case dismissal application of the 23rd of September 2015. This was totally unacceptable because I was being setup to fail at the next hearing so my dismissal application would not be successful. Luckily I managed to prepare a counter skeleton argument fully addressing all the points made by Alun Jones ready for our hearing on the 13th of November 2015. The hearing was meant to be an all day hearing but yet again the hearing listing was manipulated and other cases were being heard before mine. In the morning I was handed some documents by the judge to read prior to court commencing. This was very inappropriate as I needed to familiarise myself with legal documents on the day whilst waiting outside of the courtroom. The original barrister Mr Imran Khan had done the same thing on the 10th of July 2015 by handing me the Indictment 5 minutes before the Plea and Case management hearing and now Judge Savill had done the same thing by handing me legal papers just prior to going into court. I handed back my counter skeleton argument to the court clerk to hand back to the judge in preparation for the hearing. I believe this threw a spanner in the works as the plan must have been to instantly dismiss my case dismissal application because I wasn’t expected to have a written response and under those circumstances the judge would have paid more credence to written documents rather than any oral statements. However my written response prevented this option being taken. The main agenda looking to be achieved was to reduce the witness list attendance. This had been the main topic when I was confronted by the new barrister and approached outside of the court before the hearing. Once in court I was presented with an agenda list which Judge Savill had allegedly just prepared of what topics were to be discussed as far as he was concerned. This list of topics were all for the advancement and benefit of the prosecution’s case and aided them and did nothing to advance any of my defence case. The judge went through this list sporadically and clear bias against me was evident. It became evident that the judge clearly was not impartial and was acting for the benefit and interest of the local authority. Finally an excuse was made to adjourn the hearing because the judge was not prepared to make a ruling on the case dismissal application. In the middle of the hearing Judge Savill left to allegedly speak to the listing officer, which in the past the judges have been doing through the clerks over the telephone. I believe the judge left to take private instructions on how best to proceed. For the second time my dismissal application was not heard and the judge adjourned the hearing to Leeds Crown Court for the 27th of November 2015.
46. On the 27th of November 2015, similar shananigans continued. This was once again meant to be a full day’s listing but at the last minute I was told it was going to be a half day’s listing, starting at 12pm. This once again has been a regular theme throughout my attendance at every court hearing; last minute changes to reduce the time allocated so any points I wish to make are glossed over and I am told there is not enough time to deal with these points. This technique once again grossly biases against any defence argument I may wish to make at court. This is a deliberate strategy to disenfranchise me just like handing me legal paperwork on the day is a technique to destabilise me. I have to provide the prosecution and the courts ample advance notice but they do everything last minute. Once again the agenda from the previous court continued and after now hearing my oral arguments in addition to the written counter skeleton arguments my dismissal application was instantly dismissed without giving me any formal explanation. I requested a written ruling from the judge and he flippantly remarked that he would look to write it up sometime. All very vague and abstract. I asked about looking to appeal the ruling or raise an objection because the failure to uphold the dismissal application was not made clear to me. The judge chuckled that there was no means to overturn the ruling and that I could not appeal. This was all clearly very circumspect and I was now convinced that clear judicial fraud had taken place. Everything was very vague and abstract. The main issue of the witness list was returned to, so as to reduce the attendance at court. At this stage I refused to further partake in this sham setup. It became evident that the judge had been privately commissioned to work for the best interest of the local authority and that any fair trial was now impossible. On the 21st of December 2015, I finally received the written ruling which covered a wide range of topics, one of which was my dismissal argument. It was sickening to read given that everything had now been twisted around and there was a clear disconnect between what was actually heard and discussed in court and the judge’s recollection in the ruling hand down. This was the fist time I had received any documents from the Crown Court, before now everything was done orally. The delays and the timing all strategically leveraged to undermine and disable me. I subsequently lodged a preliminary compliant to the Judicial Investigation Conduct Office regarding how I was being treated. I was clearly being discriminated against as a litigant in person and the judge in particular and the courts in general were clearly working towards helping achieve the agenda of the prosecutor. The judge had also forwarded ground rules specifically designed to disable me during the trial. I had requested audio and transcriptions of all hearings because there was a clear disconnect between what was actually being discussed at court during the hearing and what was happening subsequently outside of court. At every stage and at every visit to the courts clear fraud and manipulation has taken place. My request was simply acknowledged but not responded to. Judge Savill had gone out of his way and done everything to sabotage any defence I may put forward and clearly discriminated against me to prevent and deny me any reasonable attempt at getting a fair trial.
47. On the first day of trial I made a request to adjourn the hearing considering I was not trial ready and given the lateness of receiving documents at the last minute from the prosecution. This did not make any difference to the judge, as long as prosecution were ready for trial that was all that mattered. I raised issue that we had recently had a death in the family and this was once again disregarded. Every application or point I made was instantly disregarded. I raised the point that the main prosecution witness who clearly could give a fuller account of the case’s background was not now attending because he was on holiday. This was once again deliberately strategic as my cross examination of his statements could aid my defence. I had requested crucial documents from the the prosecution and they simply stated that they didn’t have them which would have clearly undermined the whole prosecution case. The clear agenda of the prosecution was to bankrupt me and Judge Savill was clearly aiding and abetting, colluding and conspiring with them and there was nothing I could do. The situation had simply been made impossible for me to do anything to help my defence case. At this stage I still had not been arraigned and I refused to further partake in the charade of a kangaroo court. I had clearly being railroaded into despondency and despair as there were no options left. Any and all applications made to Judge Savill had been heard and then instantly dismissed. I was clearly denied any fair and impartial hearing because my conviction had already been privately commissioned by the local authority because I looked to whistle-blow on their failings and take civil action against them on behalf of vulnerable family members which had been abused and exploited.
48. I wish to highlight that the Judges at Bradford Crown Court are being unduly influenced by the local authority City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (CBMDC) to act against their judicial oaths of office and were acting against the public interest. My case clearly goes to highlight this fact. I am now to be wrongly convicted and disposed of all my capital to be declared bankrupt so I am prevented from taking any legal action against CBMDC.
I would now ask you to kindly fully investigate my allegations regarding the conduct and behaviour of Judge Savill in particular and the other judges mentioned in general.
Regards Mr S.Hussain”