This terriblle tragedy in the Alps has come just in time. Resident in Brooklands have noted my declining health.The ability to walk might soon be a distant memory. Before it is too late I must tell my story about the so-called trial. Browsers may be forgiven if they assume that it is a gloomy and sad Russian novel.
The judge before whom I was charged with harassment was highly distorted in her outlook. This is not mere name calling, she was thoroughly partial. Virtually every decision she made was perverse:
The foregoing is a brief summary of how one of Her Majesty's judges acquitted herself contrary to Her Majesty's wishes.
- She invested the police officer with unwarrented powers of integrity and probity
- perversly, she tolerated the wildest excuses of PC Blackburn
- she introduced the question of earlier complaints. If these were central to the case then the answer ought to have been the truth. The answer Blackburn gave was negative and clear perjury. If the answer was not germaine to the case then it could only discredit me in court.
- On the subject of the photographs it was reckoned by the judge that I had a good memory because I knew that one date, the most recent, was 20th October, 2007. This was completely wrong. I knew the date because all digital photographs are time stamped and dated. She was incompetent to judge a case in the 20th century.
- she allowed the police officer to claim under oath that he had seen a nonexistent document on my web site which proved that I had broken a truce. He had repeated this on earlier occasions and I had explained that he was mistaken. The truce was broken the following day by a vandal who deliberately drove across the green and back to the pavement where he parked. The independent witness was never. approached by the police. (Almost nothing was done by the judge to get at the truth.) That document was never produced.
- the law says that I ought to have known that my action would have been harassment, but my neighbours are sensible people and that is what they recommended - asking her employer to take a look at her behaviour. No less than the Civil Aviation Authority advised me in writing that, in view of the fact that my tormentor had driven at me twice while I walked in safety on the green, I must inform her employer who had a duty of care. It never occurred to any of these that their advice would rebound on me. I knew nothing of the police plan to entrap me during those 18 months. This means that the law was not satisfied.
- the evidence that I had been driven at was accepted (by a written admission to the IPCC) and then turned on its head. The claim in court was that I was loitering when it happened. I am disabled and I walk very slowly with my little dog and my tormentor ran out of the house, jumped into their car and drove straight at me. This happened twice. The police simply laughed at me. The judge made no attempt to reconcile this evidence with the facts.
- all the false allegations which had been rejected by the CPS as being civil, and not harassment, were resurrected for the purposes of the trial. How could anyone know that what was civil one day could be harassment on another. The judge accepted all of that evidence without demur.
- when I was examined by my defence lawyer I forgot how to answer; my memory was blank. How did the judge deal with that - she ignored the situation. She could not have been more partial.
- At the end of the trialshe capped it all off with a conditional discharge (which is not a conviction), but the condition was that I must not venture near the drive of a particular vandal. How on earth could she justify that? All the issues were about driving motorised vehicles on the green contrary to section 34, RTA,1988. There were no issues on anybody's drive.
The picture on the upper right shows what is expected of one of Her Majesty's judges.
Click here to return to the front page.