Posted: 12 March 2014. Apologies for not posting last year as promised but spending over 2 months in hospital and still recovering has not helped matters. You may recall the 1st Trilogy included Alison’s death, apart from the Devon & Cornwall Police cover-up that continues to this day, and had Alison lived she would have been 65 today. R.I.P.
I reserve the right to amend and update as and when. Please feel free to print and copy but please remember the copyright and intellectual property remains with me, the author.
The 2018 Malicious Arrest.
So the next contact I received from Devon & Cornwall Police (D&CP) was in the form of a bizarre telephone call on the morning of Sunday 22 April 2018 from a PC Abbott who I did not know or had ever met. I later described his call as being “malicious” and “extremely vindictive” in a formal written complaint to Chief Constable Shaun Sawyer on 27 April 2018.
One reason why I felt the call was a hoax is because the call was made on a Sunday morning and on the day before my 66th birthday. It reminded me of 2012 when I was asked to attend St Austell Police Station on the day after my 60th birthday when I was unlawfully arrested, detained and intimidated, and that I did not feel PC Abbott’s timing was a coincidence.
PC Abbott advised me a complaint of harassment had been made against me and did not say by whom. He invited me to attend a voluntary interview at St Austell Police Station but the call descended into PC Abbott inappropriately enquiring if I will use Coodes Solicitors again and rubbing salt into open wounds so to speak.
There was absolutely no reason for PC Abbott to telephone me on a Sunday morning when he had more than enough time to officially request I attend voluntary interview in writing.
According to the D&CP Data Protection Unit later, there was no copy of that telephone call to me when I applied for it under an existing SAR.
When I complained about PC Abbott’s phone call I provided a summary of my unlawful arrest in 2012 and 2015 to the Chief Constable and that I considered them part of malicious campaign towards me over the past 6 years. I referred to (X) and Victoria Slavin’s role in 2015/16 and even mentioned the written complaint against me in 2012 by stating:
“I also still await a reply from the Chief Constable as to why Devon & Cornwall Police is still denying me a copy of the written complaint against me in 2012. A complaint which named me, made false allegations about me and was riddled with uninvestigated lies and written by an alleged fraudster.”
I stated Chief Constable Sawyer’s position remains “untenable” and that of the Police and Crime Commissioner Alison Hernandez for engaging in wilful blindness.
I ended by requesting my MP Steve Double:
“should be more pro-active in stopping the above injustices continuing and assist me find a Parliamentary solution to investigate the whole sordid affair once and for all.”
Following my complaint to the Chief Constable, and which was also directed at PCC Alison Hernandez and my MP Steve Double, they just continued looking the other way and being complicit. The complaint was copied to some 24 recipients and others later.
The following is a number of comments that were contained within the complaint to the Chief Constable dated 27 April 2018:
“When PC Abbott phoned me at 09:47 his number was 01726 223700. One other thing why I found his phone call to be offensive and distressing is because he enquired if I would be using Coodes again, which I felt was extremely vindictive.
If the phone call was legitimate then it would of course be extremely negligent of me to volunteer myself into the hands of Devon and Cornwall Police knowing what it has unlawfully engaged in previously. Even using a solicitor chosen and paid for by me, as would have to be the case with it being voluntary, Devon and Cornwall Police has already demonstrated it will edit an interview if necessary,
If Devon and Cornwall Police is foolhardy enough to arrest me again, despite conflicts of interest and obstructing the course of justice previously, my only reasonable option in interview would be to reply “No Comment” to every question.
Not because I am guilty of any crime but to protect myself against the unlawful practices of Devon and Cornwall Police.
The only thing I would ask of Devon and Cornwall Police if it again decides to arrest me regardless is for advanced warning of an arrest in order for me to decide when best to take prescribed medication. If I take them at the wrong time side effects may cause some disruption. (This became an important issue later).
I request Chief Constable Shaun Sawyer provide me with a written explanation to the above and provide me with written confirmation if PC Abbott is an officer with Devon and Cornwall Police, and that if he is I request the name of the more senior officer who would have ordered/advised PC Abbott to contact me,”
No confirmation was received regarding PC Abbott or the identity of his senior officer.
Following my complaint to the Chief Constable, a Mrs R Cohen of the Professional Standards Department (PSD) wrote to me on 09 May 2018 and stated:
“In accordance with the requirements of the Police Reform Act 2002, your complaint has been formally assessed and recorded, and it has been allocated the reference number shown above. The matter has been forwarded to Inspector McWhirter at Camborne Police Station who, whilst maintaining an overview of its progress, will allocate it to an appropriate supervisor to deal.”
The complaint reference number referred to is: “PSD/CO/00407/18” and enclosed with the letter was a “Local Resolution process explained” Form. Included on the reverse side of the Form were details of the “Right to appeal” to the Complaints Appeal Unit (CAU), should I disagree with the outcome of Local Resolution etc.
I had assumed the Police (Complaints and Misconduct) Regulations 2012 would apply.
The 2018 Arrest
The following is a summary of the arrest at “15:47” on Monday 14 May 2018, when I was arrested by two D&CP officers who were unknown to me. A more detailed account will follow.
Once the reason for the arrest was read out to me and I responded to it both officers followed me upstairs for me to get ready.
A complaint had been made by (X), again, and the Cornwall Council Senior Solicitor for the NHS Victoria Slavin was not included this time.
I changed my trousers and got my prescribed medication together before we left.
Once outside near the multi coloured police van in the car park I was frisked and hand searched wearing gloves and in full view of my neighbours and others on the estate.
I felt embarrassed and humiliated because it was really not necessary and could so easily have been done before we left my home.
When I later asked the arresting officer in Custody why he searched me outside and in front of my neighbours he agreed that he could have done it inside to which I replied that I would have to put in a complaint about it.
Custody Records have always described my demeanour as being “Co-operative” so there really was no need to treat me like a convicted criminal. I later described the arrest as being of a “malicious nature.”
Once held in the police van the arresting officer then helped himself to my keys without my permission and returned to my home on his own.
When I asked the other officer what the arresting officer was doing and why so long he simply said that he had to disconnect cables.
The arresting officer returned some 10 minutes later with three of my computers which he placed in the police van before we left for Launceston Police Station, some 45 minutes away.
I felt extremely violated that my home and my private living space had been contaminated in this way and the feeling would just not go away.
The journey was very uncomfortable and I was glad to reach our destination and be let out.
I was booked in at Launceston Police Custody at “17:02” by Custody PS 15354 James Burt and procedures were then carried out.
There was an issue with my prescribed medication and which I was denied taking because they were not in their original boxes and labelled. When it was explained to me why my meds were being denied to me it made sense. What did not make sense was that the two police officers watched me put my meds together in my home but not once did they advise me to keep them in their original packaging with details.
So What Really Happened on 14 May 2018?
The following details and evidence is mostly provided to me by the D&CP Data Protection Alliance upon requesting a SAR which I received before the end of June in a large A4 white envelope via Recorded Delivery and the cover letter was dated 29 June 2018 from S Ashford, Alliance Data Protection Officer. Alliance meaning D&CP and Dorset Police working together.
A copy of the “CCTV footage of the cell”, which I had specifically requested on the SAR application on 18 May 2018, was not provided.
I was disappointed with this and there appeared to be some confusion as to why I did not receive it. I recall a suggestion that it was part of an ongoing investigation despite the fact it should have been provided to me by law within 40 days of the application.
The Mental Health Episode
Still feeling traumatised and violated by the arrest I requested a “Medical Examination” at “17:38” and G4S Health Care Professional (HCP) 95850 Andrea Edwards visited me in cell M8V between “17:55” to “18:10.”
During the HCP’s visit I had a Mental Health (MH) episode and suicidal thoughts which was not like me. Something I still think about most days since it happened.
Unbeknown to me at that time was an earlier conversation between Custody PS Burt and the arresting officer which appeared in Insp Blackford’s 2nd official PSD Investigation Report in 2019.
At “17:15:38”, during the booking in procedure on “14/05/2018” :
“Sgt Burt” to the arresting officer: ‘any plans on doing a VIST’ reply ‘no’
VIST stands for ‘vulnerability screening tool’ – an aide memoire to assist officers in better identifying vulnerable people and recognising they need some level of support.”
So what was it that Custody PS Burt identified that the arresting officer didn’t, bearing in mind that both the arresting officer and the 2nd officer at the arrest knew I had prescribed medication with me but did not know or ask what they were for.
In a “RISK ASSESSMENT PRE – ASSESSMENT” on 02 May 2018, 12 days before the arrest, the arresting officer agreed that he had checked:
“for any warning markers or previous information which may be relevant to the Health/Welfare of the subject.”
Question 5 was “Does the subject have any medical conditions which may affect them while at the police station? (Such as Asthma, Allergies, Heart Conditions, Epilepsy, Diabetes, High Blood Pressure, Dvt’s Etc.). The arresting officer answered “NO” to all the questions.
In relation to the other questions there is a written complaint against me on police records from 2012 when I was arrested and, amongst other things, I was accused of having “mental health issues” and being “mentally disturbed.” D&CP must have accepted these comments when it decided to arrest and detain me in 2012.
Diabetes was mentioned during my arrest in 2015, and every recipient of the complaint to the Chief Constable on 27 April 2018 were made aware I was on prescribed medication.
It is perhaps revealing that at “17:17”, some 15 minutes after I was booked in on 14 May 2018, Custody PS Burt and an unnamed Officer In Charge (OIC) held a “RISK ASSESSMENT” despite knowing that “Medical Attention required: Yes.” and before the Health Care Professional visited me in the cell. That I felt the assessment was somewhat premature.
Because the medication being withheld was for Type 2 Diabetes, Hypertension and High Cholesterol, the HCP recorded my Blood Glucose Level at 16.1. Below 10 is desirable, and my Blood Pressure (BP) reading at 151/92 in the “DETAINED PERSON’S MEDICAL FORM” and described me as being “slightly anxious.”
No request for replacement medication was made to my surgery.
In my complaint and Appeal to G4S sometime later, it considered the clinical observations by its HCP and one of its “senior clinicians” concluded that a BP reading of “151/92”“to be within normal ranges” as opposed to NHS guidance that such a reading would more commonly be referred to as “a silent killer.”
So if Custody PS Burt and HCP Edwards falsified their Custody and Medical Records to cover-up the MH episode what evidence is there that anything at all happened?
With regard to the “CCTV footage of the cell” specifically requested on 28 May 2018 via SAR and which should have been provided to me within 40 days under the law it is now over 6 years since I applied for a copy of it and it is now presumed destroyed.
Further evidence a MH episode occurred on 14 May 2018 was provided when I attended the Hearing at Bodmin Magistrates Court a month later on 14 June 2018 and I was approached by a woman who wanted a word with me in private.
Her name is Vanessa Whyte and she is an NHS Trust employee based at the:
“Peninsula Liaison & Division Service (In Cornwall) Centre for Mental Health and Justice, Bodmin Policing Hub.”
Vanessa Whyte advised me that they had received an anonymous telephone call expressing concern for my Mental Health and we discussed the MH episode in custody that happened a month earlier.
I received a letter from Ms Whyte dated 15 June 2018 on NHS Trust headed paper stating:
“You agreed to a referral of your mental health and social needs during your recent time in custody.”
The letter offered me an assessment at Wheal Northey Surgery for 21st June 2018, which I declined, because I just didn’t feel I could trust the very same NHS Trust that had twice had me arrested to cover-up rigged Homechoice Welfare Priority Assessments that abused Alison’s application for help and support.
I/O Insp Blackford took issue with Vanessa Whyte’s comments of 15 June 2018 in his 2nd official PSD Investigation Report and claimed it was from a template which has since been amended and that:
“the letter they send out after contact is from a standard template and can be a little misleading as it mentions custody rather than court.”
All I can remember from our discussion on 14 June is that we spoke about the MH episode in custody on 14 May 2018 and little else.
Insp Blackford also stated: “The liaison and diversion service via Jo Green (manager) has provided details of their interaction with Mr McLaughlin as Vanessa Whyte is now employed elsewhere. They have stated that the records show that a phone call was received by an unknown person who had identified that Superintendent Bolt had directed them to us. They have checked and the records do not state who called them.
I will leave it for you to decide if Vanessa Whyte contacted me because of an anonymous telephone call or a “court” matter? I believe one should also ask if Vanessa Whyte left of her own accord or if she was “employed elsewhere” to cover the matter up?
I still find it truly remarkable that one of the largest Police Forces in the Country could not investigate who made that anonymous telephone call involving a potentially life threatening situation.
I explained to the PSD and others in 2020 that the reason why I am still alive is because of the realisation that D&CP officers had falsified and destroyed evidence in case I did end my life. That my life meant so little to them, their duty of care to me and the preservation of life.
This work itself is living proof of why I am still here.
According to the “DETAINED PERSON’S MEDICAL FORM” the Health Care Professional (HCP) declared me fit to be detained, Interviewed, transferred and charged and the “MEDICAL FORM” was falsified to exclude any mention of the MH episode.
I next had a consultation with a Solicitor called Jon Holmes at “18:49” who D&CP had arranged earlier and we attended recorded interview at “19:06.”
The recorded interview was not without its problems and was in fact my worst nightmare.
The Recorded Interview
I had already declared my intention in writing to the Chief Constable in April 2018 to say nothing in recorded interview because the recorded interview in 2015 had been edited.
When the arresting/interview officer introduced himself to me as PC Abbott, I could not contain myself and felt very confused and under some duress for the remainder of the interview which lasted some 35 minutes
PC Abbott being the very same PC Abbott who phoned me on the morning of 22 April and who I accused of being “malicious” and “extremely vindictive” to me in my written complaint to the Chief Constable on 27 April 2018.
PC Abbott being the very same PC Abbott who the PSD had advised me on 09 May 2018 had been officially assessed and recorded for PSD investigation following my complaint against him.
PC Abbott being the very same PC Abbott who arrested me on 14 May 2018, violated my home when he seized my computers and which caused me to have a MH episode. An arrest which I described as being of a “malicious nature.”
The very same PC Abbott who had lied 12 days before the arrest that he had checked:
“for any warning markers or previous information which may be relevant to the Health/Welfare of the subject.“
The very same PC Abbott who, together with the 2nd Officer, failed to advise me to keep my medication in their original packaging and labelled and didn’t even know what the meds were for.
And finally, the very same PC Abbott who was not interested in the advice offered to him by Custody Burt regarding a “VIST” when I was booked in at Custody.
Part of the police evidence against me from the recorded interview that was disclosed to the CPS ahead of Trial in 2018, stated:
“As soon as the recording started the defendant tried to disrupt proceedings by making untrue claims that PC ABBOTT, the interviewing officer, was currently being investigated, but eventually the interview proper got underway.”
I remain unclear why PC Abbott was not also described as the arresting officer and that he had been officially assessed and recorded for PSD Investigation days before he was instructed to arrest and later interview me. The CPS must surely have known it was inappropriate.
Because the 2nd Officer was also present at Launceston Police Station that day PC Abbott could have checked my information with him rather than disclose this false and misleading information to the CPS to give the false and misleading impression that I am disruptive and prone to make “untrue claims.”
I assume PC Abbott and the 2nd Officer must have checked with the PSD and a Senior Officer if PC Abbott had been assessed and recorded for PSD investigation before the disclosure was forwarded to the CPS.
I refer to the 2nd Officer because I did not know his name or rank at that time and which became shrouded in lies and secrecy as things progressed.
The Solicitor was silent for most of the interview and knew it was my intention to remain silent. A right, I feel, I was denied exercising after PC Abbott introduced himself.
Solicitor Jon Holmes
So according to the DETENTION LOG DOCUMENT, page 7 of 15, the log entry confirms the Solicitor was contacted at “17:43” on “14/05/2018” and that he was called “JON HOLMES.” That he was not a “Duty Solicitor” and the term “Unlisted Solicitor” was confirmed by “PS 15354 12 JAMES BURT OFFICER RECORDING.”
On the question of Jon Holmes independence and impartiality, I decided to check a few things out and later corresponded with a Fiona Thomson, Senior Investigator with the Ministry of Justice Counter Fraud & Investigation Team.
Fiona Thomson confirmed a call was made to the DSCC from Launceston Police on 14 May 2018 at “17:32” asking for a Duty Solicitor on my behalf and that the DSCC rang Jon Holmes.
Neither Fiona Thomson or her colleague Tom Hart, Intelligence and Risk Officer, could confirm if “Mr Holmes was the next Duty Solicitor available in rotation or not.”
There is an enormous difference between being requested by name to being chosen randomly.
Following the interview I was then returned to the cell at “19:39” and charged with Harassment at “19:48.” More about the charge later which itself proved to be a criminal offence.
So having been charged and bailed I was then returned home in the evening by PC Abbott and the 2nd Officer and with my computers still on board. Before they left I told them I would need the computers before Trial because they contained information and evidence that I would need, but they refused.
I got indoors around 21:00 and was finally able to take my medication with food.
The next day I bought a second hand computer to function normally and do the things I needed to do like requesting a copy of the recorded interview from Camborne Police Station on 17 May and making a Subject Access Request (SAR) to D&CP on 18 May 2018.
The Computers
The SAR information uncovered a number of concerns I had with the seizure of my computers on the day of the arrest and I already suspected the seizure was unlawful.
In the DETENTION LOG DOCUMENT”, page10 of 15, under Property for 14 May 2018 and recorded at “17:24” it states:
“The following items of property have been seized as being evidence of the offence for which arrested or any other offence NONE.”
This I felt was a very serious omission by Custody PS James Burt and meant he had failed to officially record that property, my three computers, were seized from my home in connection with the arrest some two hours earlier. Property that was still in the Police van.
Also on the “CUSTODY RECORD FRONT SHEET” is an attempt to give the false and misleading impression that the arrest on my doorstep involved PC Abbott only when stating: “Comments made when facts of arrest explained: None.”
This is totally untrue because I made numerous comments to both officers on the doorstep and before they both followed me upstairs for me to get ready.
The notion that I did not make any comments is as ridiculous as it is unreasonable and was obviously an attempt to exclude the 2nd officer and a witness.
Also untrue and on the same page is another fabricated statement concerning the arrest:
“Arrested by: PC 13074 ABBOTT
Station ST AUSTELL POLICE STATION
Time 15:47 Date 14/05/2018
HARASSMENT
SOCAP Reasons for Arrest:
ALLOW THE PROMPT/ EFFECTIVE INVESTIGATION/CONDUCT OF PERSON TO PREVENT PROSECUTION HINDERANCE BY DETAINEE DISAPPEARANCE TO PROTECT A CHILD OR VULNERABLE PERSON
Circumstances:
D/P IS ALLEGED TO HAVE HARASSED ANOTHER MALE THROUGH SOCIAL MEDIA.”
“SOCAP” stands for the Serious Organised Crime And Police Act.
The above statement is totally bizarre and without foundation and I believe the officer responsible for this overuse of bold capital letters to overemphasise this statement is PC 12796 Cassie Osborne who did very much the same thing with other parts of the SAR information I received in 2018.
I learnt more about the fate of my computers at the Hearing on 14 June 2018.
The Hearing
My friends Peter and Janet kindly drove me to the Hearing in Bodmin and Solicitor Jon Holmes was also in attendance. I asked the Magistrates to permit me to stand outside the dock so I could hear what was being said just like I had to do in in 2015 because of my partial deafness. They agreed and I pleaded not guilty when asked.
While we were at the Hearing Holmes gave me the impression he had still not applied for Legal Aid and remarked that even if Legal Aid did not happen they would cover the cost of my case. They meaning Cox Burley Solicitors I presumed.
I felt uneasy about this and I felt like I was being played and I suspected if I was being played the Legal Aid Agency (LAA) was probably the most likely candidate.
There was no question the LAA would not pay my legal fees because I satisfied the means tested conditions for Legal Aid. The problem the LAA had was that my evidence, as in 2015/16, came into conflict with LASPO. More about the LASPO factor later.
The old adage that ‘If it sounds too good to be true it probably is’ sprang to mind.
Holmes had written to me on 05 June 2018 to confirm a legal aid application would be submitted as well as a request to the CPS for disclosure. The Representation Order (RO) in Stephen Cox’s name was dated 13 June 2018, the day before the Hearing.
The day after the Hearing on 15 June 2018 Holmes confirmed that:
“Legal Aid has been granted for me to represent you throughout your case and you are not required to make a contribution.” I found this rather revealing after what Coodes had attempted to do in 2016.
Because Stephen Cox is the named Litigator/solicitor on the RO there remains some doubt if legal aid was granted to Jon Holmes to represent me. I will return to this issue later.
On the issue of the disclosure to the CPS, Holmes drew my attention to an order D&CP had disclosed to the CPS ahead of Trial requesting the Court destroy my computers if I am convicted and that I should also be given a lifetime Restraining/Gagging Order.
Deprivation of property & a lifetime restraining order
“The purpose of the deprivation of property order is to ask the court to grant permission to destroy his computers. 3 were seized from his property and they appear to be his only means of accessing social media. He does not comprehend that what he is doing is wrong as shown in the interview and from him starting posting only 3 days after the original RO ended so by destroying his computers it will aid to preventing and deterring him from doing it again not just to this victim but to other potential future victims.”
The order proves the computers were not seized for evidence but to stop me using them and to have them destroyed if convicted. Even if the computers did contain evidence it could not be used against me because of how the computers were unlawfully seized without a warrant and which would have been inadmissible in a Court of law. The order also proves that I was not presumed innocent in accordance with the Human Rights Act 1998 to a Fair Trial.
Depriving me of the computers before Trial, and for some five months, did pervert the course of justice and I personally believe the reason D&CP wanted them destroyed is because of what evidence they contained about D&CP, Cornwall Council, the NHS Trust and others.
The “original RO” refers to the original Restraining Order served on me by the Court on 26 February 2016, to legitimize the false confession on 03 December 2015 involving PS Innes Dowlen and Coodes Stephanie Allen.
I do not know why D&CP set “Bail Without Conditions” on 14 May 2018 when Bail in 2015 was Conditional and Victoria Slavin, (X) and PS Dowlen were named and protected by it so I don’t know why it wasn’t for (X) in 2018?
It was at the Hearing when NHS employee Vanessa Whyte approached me and wanted to speak with me in private about the anonymous telephone call they had received expressing concern for my mental health.
Peter and Janet kindly returned me home after the hearing and I got indoors around 11: 00am.
The Trial was listed for 27 July 2018 but because I felt uneasy with Holmes representing me and the offer to cover my costs I later dismissed him from my case and advised the LAA.
Chris Nicholls Solicitors
So having dismissed Jon Holmes from my case, I sent out emails to a couple of law firms explaining my predicament and Chris Nicholls Solicitors of Bodmin responded favourably on 28 June 2018. He requested I make an appointment to see him the day after and said they would sort out transferring the case.
We actually met on 03 July 2018 at his offices in Bodmin to discuss matters and transfer the Legal Aid case from Jon Holmes to his firm.
I was not unhappy to be represented by Chris Nicholls because it was one of his solicitors who represented me in police interview at St Austell Police Station on 24 April 2012.
Mr Antony Farell was the solicitor in question and compared to the legal representatives I had after Mr Farell, he was the real deal and genuinely put his client’s interest first.
I think it true to say that without Mr Farell’s professionalism and honesty I could not have gone on to have four D&CP offices issued with “Management Action” between 2012 to 2014. So much so that it probably explains why Duty Solicitors arranged for me after Mr Farell by D&CP and the LAA’s Defence Solicitors Call Centre (DSCC) were most likely not chosen randomly.
So Chris Nicholls advised me on 04 July that he had written to the Court asking them to postpone the Trial until August 2018 to allow time to transfer the Legal Aid and prepare the case for Trial. Nicholls stressed that he could not carry out any active work on the case until Legal Aid had been transferred into his firm’s name.
I had reason to contact Nicholls a couple of days later and his secretary informed me that he was now away on holiday until 17 July 2018.
Once back from holiday Nicholls was still concerned about the Legal Aid transfer so I sent him a scanned copy of a Court Order I had received by post on 14 July 2018 stating:
“Grant of Legal Aid Transferred to Chris Nicholls (LAA reference 0Q 316L)”,on “10 July 2018.”
Nicholls office would have received a copy of the Court Order itself anyway.
Link : Please see Sub-Judice notice for further reading.
Represent Yourself
Around the same time as the “sub-judice” notice, Nicholls emailed me on 25 July 2018, two days before Trial, to say he was still awaiting formal confirmation of Legal Aid and the Trial date. This concerned me because Nicholls had previously led me to believe before he went off on holiday that he had written to the Court for a postponement of the Trial date until August.
I became even more anxious when Nicholls said he was checking to see if the Trial can be moved from 27 July 2018.
Just over an hour later Nicholls sent me another email which left me in total shock:
“It seems that your case has remained listed for the 27th July despite our representations.
We have not met with you and are therefore not in a position to represent you on the 27th July. We are trying to get the matter moved to a date in August but at this stage you will have to represent yourself or make strong representations that the mater be adjourned.”
Nicholls then went on to blame a number of things for his decision but which were all factually untrue and which I will explain shortly.
My immediate thought was that I was being set-up by the LAA and Nicholls.
Feeling devastated at the thought of having to represent myself in such an alien and hostile environment and not knowing what to do, I knew I had one day left before Trial so I composed an email to Nicholls on 26 July and sent it to him at 8:56am and copied it to the Court and numerous other recipients.
My belief being that the pen is mightier than the sword.
I explained why Nicholls was wrong and requested a postponement of the Trial myself. I also explained why my case should be heard outside the West Country because I did not believe I would get a fair Trial in Cornwall based on what had happened in 2015/16.
Within an hour I received an email from Caroline, Nicholls secretary, stating:
“Mr Nicholls has been up at Bodmin Magistrates Court this morning as the Court wanted your case listed to find out what had been going on with regard to this matter.”
Caroline went on to say:
“Mr Nicholls has just phoned from the Court to say that there will be no Trial tomorrow, Friday the 27th July 2018 and it has been re-listed for Friday the 21st September 2018 at 10.am at Bodmin.”
Feeling Nicholls had misled me and stabbed me in the back when he instructed me to attend Trial and represent myself was not something I could easily forgive and forget.
Had I done nothing and allowed myself to be railroaded into attending Court to represent myself I felt certain I would have been convicted without any legal representation from Nicholls or involvement from the LAA.
This I felt would have suited the LAA because of LASPO.
The reasons Nicholls gave for not being able to represent me at Trial on 27 July 2018 were “twofold”, according to him:
“Firstly, we had no part whatsoever in the hearing at Court on the 10th July when the 27th July was arranged for the Trial. It has always been noted in my diary that I was never available on the 27th July because I have a Crown Court case that I am personally involved with in Plymouth for hearing on the 27th July.”
In answer to Nicholls comment that:
“the hearing at Court on the 10th July when the 27th July was arranged for the Trial.”
This is untrue because the hearing at Court was on 14 June and involved Jon Holmes and when the 27th July 2018 was announced for Trial.
The date of “10th July” relates to the date on the Court Order specifying:
“Grant of legal aid transferred to Chis Nicholls (LAA reference 0Q316L).”
Nicholls comment that:
“It has always been noted in my diary that I was never available on the 27th July because I have a Crown Court case that I am personally involved with in Plymouth for hearing on the 27th July.”
This statement is completely untrue because when I first contacted Nicholls in writing by email on 28 June 2018, seeking legal representation, I began by stating:
“I am due to appear at Bodmin Magistrates Court on 27th July 2018 to defend myself against an allegation of harassment on social media.”
In fact Caroline replied the following day on 29 June 2018 stating:
“I have now placed this in the diary.”
The other reason Nicholls gave in his email of 25 July 2018 was:
“At no time was I told by the Court or any other agency about the transfer of Legal Aid – I depended on your good self to forward a copy of the transfer of Legal Aid to me.”
I confess I did not really understand what Nicholls meant at first but I did eventually realise that he was not referring to the Court Order I had sent him copies of and which his office would have received anyway from the LAA, but the Representation Order (RO), though why he felt it was my responsibility to provide him with a copy of the RO is beyond me because I did not even have a copy myself. The responsibility for providing Nicholls with an RO is of course the LAA itself.
Critically, on 24 July 2018, the day before Nicholls instructed me to attend Court and represent myself, he wrote to me and stated:
“At present I am clarifying with the Legal Aid Agency that the transfer of Legal Aid by the Magistrates to this firm is acknowledged by the Legal Aid Agency. Then I can be sure that I will be paid under the Legal Aid system to represent you at your forthcoming Trial.”
Clearly a contradiction because Nicholls had already stated that he could not represent me on 27 July 2018 because he had to attend Plymouth Crown Court that day for a hearing.
It was also clear the LAA did not clarify the transfer of Legal Aid to Nicholls firm and did not send him a copy of the RO by email attachment on 24 July or before Trial going by Nicholls reaction to me the following day when he instructed me to attend Court on 27 July 2018 and represent myself.
In fact Nicholls did not confirm receiving the RO until in a much later email when he stated:
“We received the Representation Order on the 30th July 2018.”
This begs the question that if the LAA sent us both a copy of the RO by post on 20 July 2018, which it claimed and which neither of us received, why didn’t the LAA simply not send Nicholls a scanned copy of the RO by email attachment before Trial rather than by email attachment after the Trial had been postponed.
I believe the intention was that I would be left with no choice but to attend the Trial and represent myself and that the LAA would then have had no need to issue the RO. What the LAA and Nicholls hadn’t considered is that I could bring about a postponement without going to Trial.
So What Did The LAA make of Nicholls Advice to me
Bearing in mind the LAA brought this appalling situation about when it decided not to issue Nicholls with a RO before the Trial of 27 July, I found what Sheila Williams had to say on behalf of the LAA by email dated 30 July 2018, 3 days after the postponement, very interesting:
“I do not feel that the Court would have let you be unrepresented in a trial which is so complex and would require cross examination of persons whom it would be inappropriate for either side to conduct.”
What Sheila Williams was suggesting, and on behalf of the the LAA, is that the Court would have appointed a Court Appointed Solicitor to represent me at my cost and deal with the cross examination issue, though why it would have been inappropriate for me to conduct my own cross examination whilst presumed innocent and inaccordance with the Human Rights Act was not explained to me.
The problem the LAA had is that Nicholls was still my chosen legal representative and the only way a Court could appoint a Court Appointed Solicitor was either if the LAA dismissed Nicholls or Nicholls dismissed himself.
Obviously it would have been far simpler for the LAA just to have given Nicholls the RO before Trial than engage in the charade it did.
The statement also suggests the Trial of 27 July 2018 would have had to have been adjourned to enable a Court Appointed Solicitor to familiarize himself/herself with my case.
I believe, on the balance of probabilities, that it was always the intention of the LAA for me to be represented by a Court Appointed Solicitor because of LASPO.
With this in mind I think it more likely that had I attended Trial and represented myself, that which the LAA and Nicholls were proposing, I would have lost.
Admitting my case was “so complex” is an admission by the LAA that it knew all about the details of my case. As for it being “inappropriate” for me to cross examine the main witness against me is not to presume me innocent and which would have violated my right to a fair Trial under Article 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998. A false confession in 2015 and a request to have me accept a Restraining Order in 2016 did not make me guilty but duped.
On the issue of Nicholls instructing me to attend Trial and represent myself Sheila Williams agreed with Nicholls decision in her email to me of 30 July 2018, when she stated:
“Your solicitor was correct in his actions as Crown Court does take precedence over Magistrate Court matters.”
To be expected perhaps when one considers the LAA brought this perverse situation about when it refused to issue Nicholls with a RO before the Trial on 27 July 2018 because what it really wanted was for me to be represented by a Court Appointed Solicitor and avoid the LASPO Factor.
So Did Nicholls Attend Plymouth Crown Court on 27 July 2018?
Despite repeated email requests for over a year and a half requesting confirmation from Plymouth Crown Court if Solicitor Chris Nicholls of Bodmin was in attendance at Plymouth Crown Court on 27 July 2018, the Court has continued not to answer.
CEO Susan Acland-Hood, acting CEO Kevin Sadler and the current CEO Nick Goodwin of HM Courts and Tribunals Service have all declined to answer my request as recipients for the emails and for the sake of transparency. This also including my MP Steve Double who obviously thought it was nothing for him to concern himself with.
Link: “We have no way of being able to ascertain that”, for the conclusion to my requests.
With the postponement of the Trial on 27 July 2018, Nicholls and myself continued email contact but we did not actually meet to discuss the case. There was a provisional date to meet on 20 August 2018 but this was never confirmed.
During this time I requested Nicholls issue Witness Summons but he refused.
Nicholls Dismisses Himself From My Case
We finally met on 05 September 2018 at the offices of Accord Mediation in St Austell which is operated by the LAA, at 2:00 pm. My friend Ed drove me there and was invited to sit in.
The meeting was short and did not go well mainly because Nicholls was not prepared to discuss or explain what happened in the run up to the Trial of 27 July 2018, and me still feeling that he unprofessionally stabbed me in the back.
Not wanting to clarify matters Nicholls then dismissed himself from my case.
In response I sent a formal complaint to Nicholls the following day and copied it to the Court, the Prosecution, and the LAA and others and explained the breakdown of trust and confidence I had in Solicitor Chris Nicholls.
Nicholls copied me into an email later that day that he had sent to the Crown Prosecution Service and was copied to Bodmin Magistrates Court and myself, advising us he was no longer in a position to continue representing me for professional reasons.
My complaint of 06 September 2018 and copied to Shaun McNally CBE, CEO of the LAA and Liverpool CAT, is evidence of fraud by the LAA because the LAA continued to pay Nicholls after 05 September and up until the day of the Trial on 21 September 2018.
I believe, on the balance of probabilities, that continuing to pay Nicholls Legal Aid after 05 September 2018, was to reward and compensate him for dismissing himself from my case and to cover any loss of earnings.
Reward for enabling the Court to appoint a Court Appointed Solicitor at a later pre-Trial hearing to represent me, as first suggested by the LAA, that not only denied me a fair Trial under Article 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 but overcame the RO issue and LASPO.
I would go even further and suggest Nicholls dithering about the Legal Aid transfer before the Trial on 27 July and the LAA’s lies about it sending out RO’s on 20 July 2018 were intended only to set me up for a Trial without the LAA and Nicholls being involved.
So is the LAA Corrupt?
Based on my evidence, most certainly.
As with D&CP, what evidence there is was provided to me by the LAA itself and in response to questions I put to it during our correspondence.
The following is but one such example which I received on 08 August 2018 when Sheila Williams, Liverpool CAT caseworker, apologised for any confusion and attempted to clarify matters. The following three continuous paragraphs are part of her response and I will deal with each paragraph at a time for clarity:
Paragraph 1: “a copy of the transfer was dealt with at Truro Magistrates Court on 10th July, 2018 (this was agreed in Courtroom 2 at Truro) and this information was e-mailed to a CAT team for action. I am unable to state which of the three CAT teams dealt with this as, annoyingly, there is no identifying marker added to the information which I can view. The information simply states “Legal aid transferred from Steven Cox (2F102W) to Chris Nicholls (OQ316L)”. It is only by searching through other systems we have that I am able to ascertain from Court records when and where this transfer took place.”
There is no evidence whatsoever to show Truro Magistrates Court had any involvement with the transfer of Legal Aid to Chris Nicholls Solicitors. The only evidence I received before the Trial of 27 July 2018 is the copy of the Court Order which explains the transfer was dealt with at Bodmin Magistrates Court on 10 July 2018, a copy of which I received by post 4 days later on 14 July 2018. That the transfer of Legal Aid was dealt with by the same Court that set me up with a Restraining Order in 2016.
I am unable to comment on the three CAT teams because, annoyingly, even Ms Williams herself is clueless despite having the time and means to find out. As she confirms herself there are only “three CAT teams.” The “Legal Aid transferred from Steven Cox (2F102W) to Chris Nicholls (OQ316L)”, differs from the Court Order which states “Grant of legal aid transferred to Chris Nicholls (LAA reference 0Q316L).”
I think it unlikely that both Truro and Bodmin Courts would have been involved in the transfer and both on “10 July 2018” if Sheila Williams is correct. Court records would ascertain when and where this transfer took place, but the Court Order clearly states the “Grant of legal aid transferred to Chris Nicholls (LAA reference 0Q316L).”, at “Bodmin Magistrates Court Code 1301 Launceston Road Bodmin PL31 2AL,”, on 10 July 2018,”
I have often wondered how important it was for me to know the transfer of Legal Aid “was agreed in Courtroom 2 at Truro”, knowing that if I sought confirmation from Truro or from HM Courts and Tribunals Service neither would answer in the same way Plymouth Crown Court refused to confirm if Nicholls was in attendance at Plymouth Crown Court on 27 July 2018?
Paragraph 2: “As such, the Court transferred the matter to Mr Nicholls as of 10th July, 2018 but this appears to only have been actioned by the relevant CAT team on 20th July, 2018 when notification was received from the Court. Therefore your representation, covered by Mr Nicholls, began on the 10th July, 2018, however the full Representation Order would have only been issued by CAT on 20th July, 2018. Mr Nicholls therefore would have only been privy to this information by us after we posted/e-mailed the updated Rep. Order in his firms name to him on 20th July, 2018.”
Clearly this statement proves nothing since neither Nicholls or myself received a copy of the RO before the Trial of 27 July 2018. So why did the LAA simply not provide Nicholls with a copy of the RO by email attachment when Nicholls contacted the LAA three days before Trial on 24 July 2018?
Neither Nicholls or myself ever received a copy of the “updated Rep. Order in his firms name to him on 20th July, 2018.”, or before Trial, by the relevant but unnamed CAT team and not until 30 July 2018. The fact Ms Williams does not know which of the three CAT teams is responsible and does not know if the full RO was sent by email or by post is extremely unhelpful in the context of Ms Williams attempting to clarify matters. That on the balance of probabilities, the RO’s were not actioned or sent until 30 July 2018.
So just how important is an RO? Very important because it would have been the only proof Nicholls would have had that he would be paid Legal Aid for representing me.
Paragraph 3: “On the 30th July, 2018 when I forwarded a copy of this Representation Order to both yourselves and Mr Nicholls for clarity purposes, it was noted that those Representation Orders were flawed in that although they contained the name of Mr Nicholls firm in the details, the name of the original solicitor, Mr Cox, was still notated on the form. I rectified this immediately and re-issued new corrected Representation Orders to both yourself and Mr Nicholls by e-mail having removed Mr Cox’s name from the order and thus showing that Mr Nicholls firm were your new representatives and that Mr Cox was not involved in representing you in any further capacity.”
I fail to see how the RO’s sent to Nicholls and myself on 30 July 2018 were: “for clarity purposes” but “were flawed”, a contradiction in terms. If the RO’s were originally posted on 20 July by an unidentified CAT team they must also have been flawed which begs the question why did the LAA not realise the RO’s “were flawed” before 30 July 2018?
On the balance of probabilities, I believe the RO’s were not actioned until 30 July because the postponement left the LAA with no choice but to issue the RO. That the RO’s contained flaws because they were hurried and were not issued until 30 July 2018.
That there never was a RO for the Trial of 27 July 2018 and both Nicholls and the LAA lied.
Sheila Williams, Liverpool CAT caseworker, referred numerous times to not knowing which relevant CAT team dealt with the transfer and the RO. We know Ms Williams represented Liverpool CAT and presumably checked the LAA Reference number with them first. The two remaining CAT teams were Birmingham CAT and Nottingham CAT and one has to ask why she did not check the LAA Reference number with them? That it was hardly Rocket Science.
So was Nicholls party to what was unlawfully going on?
Being paid Legal Aid beyond 05 September 2018 when he dismissed himself from my case and up until the Trial on 21 September 2018 would suggest Nicholls not only knew about the deception but was benefiting from it financially.
So could Nicholls have arranged Cover?
Accepting Nicholls could not have genuinely represented me on 27 July 2018, due to his Crown Court commitments in Plymouth that day, could he have arranged cover?
I reminded the LAA that in 2015 Coodes Mike Gregson was the appointed litigator/Solicitor stated on the RO but that it was actually Coodes Lucy Bryant who dealt with the case and Court appearances and that I never actually ever met Mike Gregson.
The LAA found nothing wrong with this so I put it to the LAA that if Mike Gregson could nominate Lucy Bryant to deal with the matter why couldn’t Chris Nicholls have nominated one of his Solicitors to help me secure an adjournment whilst the RO issue is sorted out.
The LAA never replied.
As a layperson, the conditions on a RO appear quite unambiguous to me and relate to LASPO. I would certainly appreciate some impartial clarification if anyone has any. The following relates to Coodes RO.
THE LAA REPRESENTATION ORDER
“In accordance with the ‘Legal Aid Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012′, you are granted legal aid for magistrates’ court proceedings in relation to the offences listed below.
The order covers work by a litigator only (including advice and assistance regarding an appeal against conviction or sentence but excluding the actual appeal proceedings). This order automatically extends if the case is or has been committed for trial), sent for trial, or committed for sentence to the Crown Court to cover work by a litigator and junior advocate in respect of the Crown Court proceedings.”
“The litigator/Solicitor appointed is:
Mike Gregson
COODES LLP
6 CHELTENHAM PLACE
NEWQUAY
CORNWALL
TR7 1DQ
A copy of this order has been sent to your litigator/Solicitor.”
The “offences listed below” is “Harassment without violence” on the reverse side.
Having read the RO numerous times I still cannot understand how the appointed litigator/Solicitor Mike Gregson, in the 2015/16 case, could delegate his responsibilities to Lucy Bryant based on the above.
I accept the LAA must have agreed to this when it paid Coodes over £1000 Legal Aid from the public purse, but was this payment fraudulent?
Was Nicholls right not to delegate his responsibilities to another in his firm in order to comply with the conditions set out on the RO?
On 22 June 2018 Sheila Williams stated:
“The name Mike Gregson appears on the Representation Order as he is the one designated, usually a Senior Partner, to receive the Orders on behalf of the firm applying and is not necessarily the person you would have spoken to or dealt with in person.”
If this explanation is correct it means Nicholls could have nominated another from his firm in his place had he wanted to.
Why the RO does not just simply state the law firm rather than a named litigator/Solicitor who can then simply delegate his responsibilities to another is confusing and misleading?
Following Nicholls dismissing himself from my case on 05 September 2018, I wrote to the LAA a few days later explaining what had happened and that I needed their advice as to what I should do next. The LAA never replied to me and it felt as though I no longer existed.
Leading up to the Trial on 27 July 2018 both Nicholls and the Prosecution made it quite clear that they really did not want me to use my evidence from 2012.
This when (X) impersonated a CPN, a Mental Health Professional on a rigged Cornwall Council Homechoice Welfare Priority Assessment Panel for re-housing, hence the LASPO Factor, and which led to me making comments on social media and in the public interest and which D&CP wrongly and knowingly set me up for Harassment without investigating my evidence.
Despite Cornwall Council denying this happened for some 6 years, during which time I was twice arrested and ended up in Court, Nicholls expressed in an email to me dated 14 August 2018 that (X) was:
“miss-described on the panel and possibly their decision for low priority could have been different if an appropriate CPN had sat on the panel.”
Just over a week later Nicholls stated in an email to me dated 22 August 2018:
“I can probably agree with the prosecution that” (X) “was incorrectly described on the tribunal and that can be done by way of a written statement.”
What Nicholls and the Prosecution meant by this was that my written request for him to send out Witness Summons was not necessary because written statements could be provided.
Needless to say no Witness Summons were sent out and no written statements were ever received.
On 10 September 2018, 5 days after dismissing himself from my case, Nicholls stated to me:
“I note what you say about the incorrect description of” (X) “and I have every sympathy with you for the actions taken by the NHS.”
Having received no advice from the LAA and running out of time before Trial I requested a postponement of the Trial to arrange having it transferred out of the West Country.
I had discussed the feasibility of this with Sheila Williams of the LAA soon after Nicholls had stabbed me in the back and her advice was:
“Unfortunately, the feasibility of moving your case from the West Country is not something the LAA can become involved with as it is a matter for the Court to decide. I am sure they would consider your request fully.”
The only comment Nicholls made to me on this subject was on 10 September 2018, 5 days after dismissing himself from my case, when he stated:
“I note the steps that you are taking in terms of notifying the Court and seeking representation outside of the West Country and that I would endorse.”
I found this statement from Nicholls very revealing.
The LASPO Factor
I have mentioned LASPO a number of times and I found out about this important piece of legislation quite by accident when it was mentioned on Twitter one day. Finding out more about it was like a voyage of discovery into why my legal representatives in 2015/16 and 2018 wanted nothing to do with my evidence from 2012.
LASPO stands for the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, which created reforms to the justice system in 2012, and came into affect a year later. LASPO removed financial support for most Legal Aid claims involving Welfare, Housing and Medical Negligence issues, amongst others, and is referred to on an RO.
The aim of LASPO was to end the compensation culture but it inevitably punished those who could least afford to protect themselves from injustice. These Legal Aid cuts were brought in by a Conservative-led coalition.
It was revealed in 2018 on BBC Radio Cornwall that Cornwall had just one legal aid lawyer working on housing and debt, and that cuts to the legal aid budget in England had created so-called “advice deserts” across the land as local solicitors, not for profits and charities closed their doors.
Campaign group Liberty said access to justice had been “significantly undermined.”
My evidence against the Charge of Harassment included Housing, Welfare and Medical issues which created problems for the LAA and law firms who would only be paid Legal Aid if they complied with LASPO.
Even D&CP acknowledged that my comments on social media were in connection with me being:
“Aggrieved by a housing decision that was made.”
So Why Was I Aggrieved?
The “housing decision”referred to by D&CP related to the Cornwall Council run Welfare Priority Assessment Panel for re-housing on which (X) was a Panel member and he was wrongly described as a CPN, which he wasn’t, and did he not represent the Health Authority when my late wife Alison was assessed for Welfare priority according to the PHSO.
(This has since been disproven by a Witness Statement by (X) to D&CP and which the PHSOmbudsman has applied wilfull blindness in order to protect rigged Welfare Priority Assessments by the NHS Trust and Cornwall Council).
The notion D&CP would not cover-up and protect Cornwall Council and the NHS Trust would be unrealistic, as proved to be the case, because D&CP did not investigate my evidence or my innocence.
It took some 6 years of campaigning, arrests and Court appearances for stating (X) was an imposter on the Welfare Priority Assessment Panels, that which D&CP considered me guilty of Harassment, for the CPS to finally admit in 2018 that (X) was “incorrectly described” in 2012.
The Council’s Welfare Priority Assessment Panels for re-housing were rigged and I believe, on the balance of probabilities, that (X) was “incorrectly described” more by design than by accident based on (X) admitting in Court in 2018 that he sat on a number of Welfare Panels.
To avoid areas of law no longer funded by the LAA all Coodes had to do in 2016 was to have me agree to accept the offer of a Restraining Order to claim their Legal Aid fee of over £1,000, which was great for Coodes but a great injustice to my late wife Alison and myself because it left us without closure.
Had my case gone to Trial Coodes could still not have defended me using my evidence because of the LASPO factor. The offer of a Restraining Order to Coodes in January 2016 by false accuser Victoria Slavin suited Coodes and the Prosecution to avoid my case going to Trial not only because of LASPO but because they all knew my appearance at Trial would be based on a false confession involving D&CP and Coodes and would be challenged.
The LAA knew in 2018 that it was my intention to use evidence from 2012 and that it would come into conflict with LASPO again.
My research into the alleged fraud by the LAA and Nicholls continued.
In my correspondence with Kevin Berg, Intelligence and Investigations Officer, with the Ministry of Justice Counter Fraud and Investigation, the only reason he gave for not continuing with his investigation into alleged fraud was because no fees had been claimed by Nicholls.
I then wrote to CEO Shaun McNally CBE of the LAA who said very much the same so I eventually made a SAR to the LAA requesting a copy of Nicholls bill. The copy proved Nicholls was paid Legal Aid beyond dismissing himself from my case on 05 September and up until 21 September 2018.
Nicholls was paid “279.45” excluding VAT and claimed “7.20” “Travel cost excluding VAT” and “4.80” Waiting costs excluding VAT.” according to the bill. The “Date Class of Work concluded”on “21-Sep-2018”, proving fraud was committed. According to the bill the “Representation Order Date” is “10-Jul-2018” in keeping with the date on the Court Order but did not represent the full RO. The “Stage Reached” is “PROE” and the “Representation order – lower standard fee.” The “Standard Fee Category” is “2 – Category 2.”
Strictly speaking the full “Representation Order” did not materialise until “30 July 2018.” and should have ended on “05 September 2018” when Nicholls dismissed himself from my case.
Nicholls stated on 25 July, the same day he advised me to attend the Trial on 27 July 2018 and represent myself that:
“We have not met with you and are therefore not in a position to represent you on the 27th July”
Which begs the question what exactly was Nicholls paid for and was his holiday in early July simply an excuse to be unprepared to represent me on 27 July 2018?
Was Nicholls appearance at Plymouth Crown Court on 27 July 2018 a lie or just another excuse?
I believe had Kevin Berg continued his investigation into Nicholls bill when it became available he would have realised that the LAA and others were implicated in fraud, assuming he did not already know.
I hadn’t considered a pre-Trial hearing would take place but one did at Truro Magistrates Court on 17 September 2018.
The Pre-Trial Hearing
I received an official “Notice of changes to hearing”, dated 12 September 2018 from Alessandro Roveri, Justice’s Clerk. The reason for the hearing on Monday 17 September 2018 at 10.00am at Courtroom 01, Truro Magistrates Court is because:
“The Court are in receipt of a letter from C Nicholls Solicitors confirming that they no longer represent you. Your case has been listed for a hearing to address this and to look to appoint a Solicitor to represent you or to cross examine the prosecution witnesses on your behalf. Your attendance is required at this hearing.
We already know the letter from C Nicholls Solicitors was sent and dated 06 September 2018 in which he dismissed himself from my case and he copied me into. The Court and CPS were also copied into it so there really was no need for Nicholls to attend the pre-Trial hearing weeks later unless it was to further defraud the public purse.
The LAA put me in Coventry after Nicholls dismissed himself from my case in September 2018 and the pre-Trial hearing, which came out of the blue a few days before the Trial, left me without enough time to arrange legal representation before the pre-Trial hearing.
The LAA benefited from putting me into Coventry because LASPO and the RO issues simply went away and that it had nothing further to do with me or my case.
I still would have preferred time to have taken my case out of the West Country.
I received the “Notice of changes to hearing” by post midday on Thursday 13 September 2018, meaning I only had Friday to find a legal representative before the weekend and before I had to attend Court Monday morning. This was of course unreasonable and unfair and a violation of my human right to be represented.
Even the “Notice to changes to hearing” is confusing because I was not aware there was going to be a hearing until 4 days before.
Although there was nothing on the order to say I had a legal right to be assisted at the pre-Trial hearing, I believe the Court had a duty to provide me with sufficient time to allow me to seek advice and legal representation to protect myself if I so wished.
Needless to say my rights at the pre-Trial hearing were well and truly flushed down the toilet.
The Court must have known the “Notice” was too short despite also sending me a copy of the order by email attachment on the afternoon of 13 September from Penny Tonkin.
The only memorable thing about the order is:
“The defendant MUST come to court or a warrant will be issued.”
On 14 September 2018 I wrote to Ms Penny Tonkin, Administration Officer at Bodmin Magistrates Court stating:
“Due to unexplained events leading up to the trial listed for 27 July 2018, which would have left me without legal representation, it would be helpful to know if my attendance at Truro Magistrates Court on Monday is requested on a formal or informal basis?”
This in response to Ms Tonkin’s somewhat laid back email of 13 September when she stated “They have requested your attendance if possible please.” This in contrast to the Court’s somewhat intimidating letter/order dated 12 September 2018.
I added: “I feel I can no longer rely on any Court in Cornwall to impartially deal with my case following the flawed arrest on 03 December 2015 and 14 May 2018, and flawed Court appearance on 17 December 2015, 26 February 2016 and the listed 27 July 2018.
I therefore request permission to have my case heard outside of the West Country and that convenient time be allowed to arrange legal representation, preparation and witnesses. Only then will I feel confident that the hundreds if not thousands of victims abused by alleged rigged Cornwall Homechoice Welfare Priority Assessments, like my late wife, will be addressed and in the public interest.”
Needless to say my request and in the public interest was denied.
Copied into my email were some 17 email addresses including the LAA CEO, IOPC, CPS, PHSO, Home Office and others.
I was reminded again of Nicholls statement on 10 September 2018 that:
“I note the steps that you are taking in terms of notifying the Court and seeking representation outside of the West Country and that I would endorse.”
I believe Nicholls endorsement meant he knew I would never get a fair Trial in Cornwall.
The statement by Ms Williams on behalf of the LAA dated 30 July is equally applicable to the Trial in September 2018.
A Trial “so complex” that the Court Appointed Solicitor was appointed to cross examine only on behalf of the Court and after which I would be left “unrepresented” for the remainder of the Trial because that is what the Court decided was fair.
Contrary to the Human Rights Act (HR’s) the Court’s decision not to permit me to cross examine (X), the main witness against me, was to presume me guilty of an offence in the absence of any evidence to prove my guilt. That in 2016, I was not found guilty of any crime and requesting me to agree to accepting a Restraining Order was to simply replace one false admission with another.
It did not take long for me to sense the way the pre-Trial hearing was going before I requested, and for the record, that my Human Rights not be violated by which time of course they already had.
The Court Clerk at the pre-Trial hearing was Mr Martyn Stephens and on the Bench were G Cooper, Mrs A Andrews and J Venables.
What witnesses I requested at the pre-Trial hearing were all refused without reason.
During the pre-Trial hearing I asked Court Clerk Martyn Stephens about my Human Rights and he simply said that it was ‘too late for that’ as if I no longer had any Rights.
Magistrates do not usually have any legal qualifications but the Court Clerk is legally qualified. The Magistrates decide on the facts of a case and the Court Clerk will advise them on the law relating to the case.
Or not, if the Court Clerk is called Martyn Stephens and appears to lack any basic understanding of the Human Rights Act 1989.
The CPS Prosecutor in 2018 was Jill Wilson who I believe was the same Prosecutor in 2015/16. Despite me writing to the CPS for confirmation the CPS declined to say. Bodmin Magistrates Court was no more helpful in saying it had no records.
I was surprised to see Nicholls at the pre-Trial hearing and I wondered what he was doing there as both the Court, CPS and LAA knew weeks before that Nicholls no longer had anything to do with me or my case.
I wondered what deception they were planning and I was even more concerned when Nicholls offered to buy Ed and myself a coffee and offer us a handshake. One of those awkward moments.
It was Court Clerk Martyn Stephens who provided me with information to contact the nominated Court Appointed Solicitor Mr William Hazelton of Cornwall Defence Solicitors and gave me his written contact details having tried unsuccessfully to contact Mr Hazelton himself. Cornwall Defence Solicitors being the other law firm I contacted with Chris Nichols Solicitors in June 2018.
Mr Hazelton phoned later that day at around 3:30pm and offered me an appointment for 4:00pm which I felt was too short a notice especially with me not having transport. Mr Hazelton explained he only worked part time and could not offer me another appointment until 20 September, the day before Trial.
We met Mr Hazelton around 3:00pm on Thursday 20 September 2018, and we discussed the case for about 90 minutes. I say we because Ed was luckily on hand to drive me to Roche and back and was invited to sit in by Hazelton.
The last email I sent before Trial was dated 20 September 2018 and was again copied to multiple email addresses. Basically it was a declaration of everything I objected to about the pre-Trial hearing including the violation of my Human Rights.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Part 2 will continue with the Trial, PSD Investigations, Bent Coppers galore etc. and who is really behind what happened.
justiceforalison 