Today I've had my afternoon in Court and I would like to tell that I've
been found not guilty. Mainly because that would be a lot easier then
explaining the technical detail of what actually happened.
As I mentioned yesterday the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) had failed
to disclose the exhibits referenced in the initial disclosure of
evidence. As a result my defence argued that it was impossible to mount a
proper defence meaning that I would not receive a fair trail. They then
suggested to the CPS that they apply for an adjournment. The rather
young CPS lawyer instead dispatched a police officer to bring those
exhibits to the Court. This of course would have been completely useless
because the main exhibit - the hammer - would then have to be sent off
for forensic examination. However it circumvented the technicality
meaning that the case could proceed.
We began with a reading of the statement of the victim - the witness
living in the address with the damaged windows - which makes up pages 20
and 21 of the initial disclosure bundle. This was brief and simply
talks of hearing a load noise and seeing a non-descript male wearing
dark clothing including a hooded top with the hood up walking away from
the scene in poor light. The problem was that at the time of my arrest
and thoughout the day leading up to that arrest and along with most of
the following day spent in police custody I was wearing blue jeans and a
grey fleece top which did not have a hood. So either this statement
described someone who was not me leaving the scene or was a case of a
witness who had seen nothing making a guess based on what I normally
wear. As this statement was so brief and was contradicted by all other
witnesses the CPS decided not to call this witness for cross-examination
and the defence saw no need to disagree.
Next we moved onto the independent witnesses whose statement makes up
page 16 of the initial disclosure bundle. This is the terrific work of
fiction that was referenced during the 'plebgate' House of Commons
select committees. In this statement that was given to the Officer in
Charge (OIC) of the case - "Sarastro" - more then a month after the
event the witness claims that she not only saw a man fitting my
description leaving the scene of the crime in excellent visibility but
that I stopped and had a little conversation with her. In that
conversation I supposedly told her that I had smashed the windows
because "I don't like those people" before telling her where I lived.
This conversation was not witnessed by the victim who had a much better
view. Also it sounds remarkably similar to the statement I gave to the
police after discovering a burglar in my shed in a case that led to
complaints being made to both the police borough commander and the
Independent Police Complaints Commission (the other IPCC). The use of
the phrase "Those people" by a white person to describe black people
seems to be the witness implying that this was a racially motivated
offence which is rightfully considered much more serious.
This witness went on to claim she was able to provide probable cause for
my arrest because she had witnessed my initial contact with the
arresting officer. The problem is that this conversation happened well
within the confines of my property meaning that it was well beyond the
witnesses field of vision and her view was so obscured that there was
actually an entire other two storey house in the way.
So although defences don't say things like that in Court it appeared
very much that the OIC and the independent witness had conspired to give
a false statement that helped solve some of the quite big problems with
the case. This is commonly know as the criminal offence of attempting
to pervert the course of justice contrary to common law.
The independent witnesses was cross-examined in Court but insisted on
doing so from behind a screen. Now this could have been interpreted as
me being such a scary and nasty person that merely having to glance at
me would cause her severe emotional and psychological distress.
Alternatively though it could be interpreted as the witness being unable
to look me in the eye as she lied through her teeth thus committing the
further criminal offence of perjury. Despite the screen under
examination from the CPS lawyer the witnesses story began to fall apart
to the point where she had to be reminded to read her statement before
answering. By the time the defence had completed their examination the
witness had become so flustered that she was unable to confirm to the
Court where she lived and why she had never seen a man who had been
living two doors down from her for 8 years before in her entire life.
At this point the prosecutions cause had been all but lost but as it's
highly inappropriate to just give up halfway through we moved onto hear
from the arresting officer and the (OIC).
Being rather skilled at this sort of thing the arresting officer merely
confirmed what was in his statement which makes up pages 18 and 19 of
the initial disclosure bundle. This states that upon arrival on the
scene the officer proceeded to walk onto my property where he first
encountered me standing smoking in poor visibility. This is all true but
if it is proof that I'd committed the offence it also proves that I am
guilty of every single other crime that has been committed anywhere in
the world whilst I was standing on my property smoking a cigarette of
the past 8 years. What this statement does though is raise the question
of on what authority the police officer entered the private property
without a search warrant or probable cause. Needless to say although he
didn't lie in his testimony the arresting officer gave the impression
that this conversation had in fact occurred on the public street in full
view of the independent witness. That was something we were going to
bring up during my testimony.
Following this initial contact the arresting officer then went off to
speak to the victim and any potential witnesses before detailing the
exact circumstances of my arrest. Here the arresting officer claims that
I was offering such a level of resistance that I had to be restrained
by three police officers and handcuffed in the enhanced rear-stack
position. Although I feel I was being more sarcastic then violent this
is what happened. However the arresting officer then claimed that he
left this unruly prisoner unattended while he went to search an
outbuilding. On a work surface within that outbuilding the arresting
officer claims he discovered a hammer with glass fragments on the head
which he seized as evidence. The problems with this are that a police
officer would never leave a prisoner - unruly or otherwise - unattended,
there was no work surface in the outbuilding and the police failed to
confirm the presence of glass fragments through forensic tests. Put
simply the search and seizure were actually carried out by a police
Sergeant and a police Inspector who were also at the scene and the
arresting officer was simply lying in his statement. However rather then
challenging the officer on cross-examination these issues were simply
left for my testimony to contradict because the absence of the hammer
spoke more loudly then my lawyer ever could.
Finally came the evidence of the OIC which is vital because his conduct
effects all the other evidence in the case. His testimony was simply a
reading on the transcript of the police interview the recording of which
was part of the evidence the CPS had failed to disclose. Prior to the
OIC's testimony the defence filed a motion to exclude the interview
because my father had been used as an appropriate adult in clear
violation of the 2012 update of Code C of the Police and Criminal
Evidence (PACE) 1984. However before this motion could be ruled on the
OIC gave his testimony which involved him reading his part of the
interview and the CPS lawyer reading my part of the interview which was
fun because it led to the prosecution standing up in open Court and
saying; "Well police officers lie." On cross-examination the defence
merely got the OIC to confirm that he had made no attempt to contact an
appropriate adult as described in PACE either whilst I was in custody or
at any point whilst I was on bail and I had repeatedly objected to my
father being used as an appropriate adult. This helped paint a picture
of a police officer trying to get the evidence to fit a suspect rather
then allowing the evidence to lead them to a suspect.
As soon as the OIC had finished giving his evidence the defence withdraw
its motion to exclude because we suddenly realised that during the
interview the OIC had quoted from the statement given by the independent
witness that wasn't actually given until some 40 days after the
interview had been terminated. That gave a lot of people the impression
that the OIC had given the statement to the witness rather then the
other way round as was being claimed.
Then after a short delay while we waited for the CPS lawyer to accept
that the hammer could not be brought to Court in time the prosecution
case rested.
Then in the style of episode 1 of series 2 of US TV Show "Scandal" the
defence filed a pro-forma motion calling for the case to be dismissed
due to a lack of evidence. After a short recess in which the defence
lawyer warned me that these motions never work it worked. As a result I
have been acquitted of the offence because the prosecution had not been
able to present a strong enough case for me to have to answer. Quite why
it has taken the best part of 7 months for that obvious conclusion to
be reached is one of the matters I expected to be bringing up in another
Court in the none too distant future.
Before I go and get drunk though I should point out that the old trick
of the prosecution 'forgetting' to disclose evidence causing a case to
collapse prior to witnesses giving evidence is often used in organised
crime cases either to protect an informant or disrupt a group by making
them think someone is an informant. However in this case I think the
reasons where somewhat different. In fact although phone reception was
terrible I do believe the UK Houses of Parliament - the very heart of
government - came under threat the moment I walked into Court.
18:35 on 12/11/13.
Edited at around 20:30 on 12/11/13 to add;
Although all the evidence in the initial disclosure bundle is now a
matter of public record so can be obtained from the national records
office in the next 6-9 months before I publish them on the Internet I
would like to redact certain identifying details. After all while I'm
sure mine is an endorsement he could happily live without I genuinely
feel that the police force is a better place for having the arresting
officer on it. Unfortunately at this point I am now to drunk to write my
own name let alone delete it from a series of documents. So, erm, f*ck
you,
(Originally Posted on 12/11/13)
No comments:
Post a Comment