Peter Hofschroer Extradition Hearing, 14 June 17, RCJ, London

Before SIR ALAN WILKIE sitting as a judge of the High Court
Wednesday 14 June, 2017

At half past 10

CO/5792/2016 Hofschroer v Office Of The State Attorney Austria

CO/5792/2016 Hofschroer v Office Of The State Attorney Austria

Alan Wilkie

Sir Alan Fraser Wilkie, styled The Honourable Mr Justice Wilkie, was a British judge and barrister.

He retired on 31 January 2017. Wilkie was born on 26 December 1947. He was educated at Hutchesons’ Grammar School, an independent school in Glasgow, Scotland, and Manchester Grammar School, an all-boys independent school in Manchester, England. He studied law at Balliol College, Oxford.


 The 1st thing I noticed at 9.50am and told the others upon their arrival was that the 2 Yorks officers who were at the Westminster Mag Ct. hearing last November were there again. They [a male and a female officer] sat at the back alongside us throughout until 3.45pm when the day finished.

There were 7 people at one point but some ​strangers ​left midway for some reason.​ In the pm there were 5 of us from 2pm onwards.

​ Strangers turn up but claimed supporters don’t? I can’t quite work that one out, but I know it was midweek.​

I prematurely congratulated P’s barrister at lunchtime, halfway thru, who told me that he thought P had a 50-50 chance of succeeding, or at least getting some of the appeal items dropped – sadly this was not to be.

There was literally hours of discussion on:

P’s conduct, re: his alleged “offending” since, they allege 2009 when he downloaded picture images [taking them from, they allege – the UK to Austria] – some of level 5 seriousness – the worst kind. They allege he brought them to Austria on a device, and whilst in Austria obtained VHS video cassettes containing child porn. It was assumed the Austrians want to charge him for these cassettes – 16 in all, but no one knows if they contain the same images of the 6969 pics allegedly found, which might cause a legal conundrum – a “double jeopardy” in fact, which was what P’s brief was suggesting, which the judge got around and dismissed, stating the later cassettes found were part of ongoing bad conduct [beginning allegedly in 2009] and that this was a factor and relevant to the charge and more important than the “double jeopardy” angle P’s brief tried to make a case for which was contested against very strongly by the Home Office female barrister or whoever she was with. Anyway the judge didn’t agree about the double jeopardy angle. Its “double jeopardy” if one has already been convicted of something and its tried to convict one again on the same charge / same evidence – hence the importance if the content of the VHS vids were the same as the photographs for which a sentence has already been served – one shouldn’t be charged / convicted again for something.

Apparently NOONE in authority has compared both the images of the pics with what was on the VHS vids to see if the double jeopardy was even a viable option – some of the pics were allegedly found in an envelope in amongst cds of whatever in Austria, it was said, as well as being on devices in Austria having been brought there, it was alleged, from the UK. I have read also the images were found on a computer in the UK  after P had left for Austria/ Germany also – the computer being in the UK, which P alleges the offending articles were planted on the pc left behind in Yorks. by P, by his brother and / or with the assistance of UK yorks. police.

Also, the brief tried to make an assumption / connection between the dates that P was raided in Austria [more than one raid apparently, firearms were also allegedly found in one later raid that, we were told the Austrian judge knew nothing of!], in April of whichever year [the year is in my notes which I don’t have for the minute] and the date directly preceeding those dates that P sent emails “threatening to kill” the judge and other officials in Austria and also making “slanderous accusations” which might bring the authorities concerned into disrepute as a result. The judge himself remarked on the closeness of these events as if P was alleging that the later raids / finding the cassettes + firearms were as a punishment [as it were] in retaliation for the sending of the emails.

Were these emails sent when P was free for a couple of weeks? Either way sending those emails containing threats did him no favours, and sending stuff like that to a judge is a very serious mistake.

Also – the Austrians don’t necessarily have to take into consideration the 9 months P has been in custody in the UK after serving his sentence [or part] after the 30 months conviction sentence served.  The slander [in the emails stated] charge carries, in Austria, a 3 year maximum sentence, altho it was suggested that what was intimated by P in his offending emails wouldn’t get that much of a sentence, if convicted.

The brief told me, and the judge stated more fully the content of those INSANE offending emails – to the Austrian judge particularly – contained the words “I hope you get executed – watch your back” and something about “hell” and “when they get there”. I’m pretty sure it was said that these emails were sent after P learnt he was to be charged by both the Austrians + UK police, and also “slanderous” emails were sent to UK / Austrian police  stating he’d been framed by his brother and the police in both countries – here and Austria – re: the pc containing child porn / finding of VHS cassettes, etc. 

At least some emails were also sent  from Germany to officials in Austria. A bit confusing but this was what was mentioned by the judge during the hearing.

So, the appeal on 3 counts, against –

1] the cassettes / and / or pic images charges,

2] the emails, containing “threats to kill” + “slander” contents 


3] firearms,

were dismissed by this judge yesterday, him saying the original judge SNOW who allowed the extradition last November was correct to allow it.

He can’t lawfully be extradited before 14 days. His lawful release date is 23 June.

This is how I believe was yesterday’s hearing in a nutshell.

7 “supporters” in total came along – but some left midway through. 

P thanks everyone for their efforts.

[ERRORS + OMISSIONS EXCEPTED + to be continued / corrected]




FAIR USE NOTICE: This item may contain copyrighted (© ) material. Such material is made available to advance understanding of ecological, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues. This constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed for analysis, commentary, educational and intellectual purposes. In some cases comedy and parody have been recognized as fair use.
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. For more information please visit:

NB: Everything posted on this site conforms to the meaning of the word “alleged” as defined under UK and US Laws and Statutes.



About butlincat

my butlincats blog: [2 a/cs : pink cat logo is main a/c, winking cat logo is secondary] linkedin -
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.