UK Coat of Arms

British Justice ?


The Experiences of an Old Man with the Criminal Justice System in the UK.


Analysis

What were the causes of this situation? Of course mind reading is not an exact science but some facts seem relevant to a search for a cause.

Why the arrest?

If there is a fight in the street between two people, A and B, who should be arrested? Both? Neither? These answers would be fair and equitable. But why arrest A and not B? How can that be justified? If there is clear evidence that A started the fight and B is the victim, then arresting A would be justified. But without clear evidence of who started it surely arresting only one party is evidence of bias.

In some jurisdictions there is a rule that when an allegation of a fight is made, someone must be arrested. If the police cannot determine who started it, then just pick one and arrest them. Is that the procedure of the Norfolk Constabulary? Although this policy is common, I find it inappropriate, and even disturbing. The arresting officers appeared young and inexperienced. Perhaps they did not have real world experience of street violence upon which to base their decision. But yet their decision was reviewed by many experienced police officers and CPS lawyers during the 12 weeks that I was held captive. Why did they not correct the mistake? The arresting officers gave reasons for thinking that I was the aggressor in the fight, but these reasons were contradicted by their own prosecution witnesses in written statements made on the day of the incident. So, why continue to rely on these discredited reasons even to this day? Clearly the arresting officers, and their superiors, had no legitimate basis for labeling me the aggressor.

Winning a fight is not unlawful. Starting a fight without good cause is unlawful. Thus the person who started the fight should have been arrested, not the person who won the fight. The person who started a fight is not always the person who wins the fight. Thus evidence of who won a fight is not evidence of who started the fight. It is not appropriate to arrest the winner of a fight without knowing who started the fight.

Willful Perversion of Justice

The Police refused to take a crime report for the previous multiple assailant attack upon me. They said that it had happened over 6 months ago, and was thus past the time limit for making a report as they would be unable to prosecute in Magistrates Court. Even if one accepts their excuse not to charge the assailants, the fact of the previous attack was relevant evidence in the current crime. If there is a fight in the street between two people, A and B, and the Police do not know which of them was the aggressor, is it not relevant evidence that B had attacked A on a previous occasion? And as a member of a gang attack? I assert that suppressing the evidence of the earlier attack, preventing it from being brought to the attention of a jury, is willful Perversion of Justice by the Police and Crown Prosecution Service.

Why continue with a bad choice?

The police officers that responded clearly had no knowledge of the street. So, they just pick some story and run with it. They arrogantly say that they are experts because they are the police. When evidence proves them wrong they stubbonly insist theat they are right because they are experts. The complaint / oversight processes will not willingly contradict their collegues. I was there at the scene when the incident occurred. I know what happened. I know that the version told by the police is wrong. There are only two explanations for this: Either they are incompetent and arrogant with it, or else they are deliberately perverting justice.

Why Do the Police Refuse to Accept a Crime Report from Me Now?

The Police have told so many lies to me during the course of this situation to justify their refusal to accept a crime report from me. When I was initially arrested they told me I could make a crime report when I arrived at Bury PIC: That was a lie. At Bury PIC they told me I could not make a report because I was a suspect. During the interview they told me that I could make a report at any police station after my release. I tried to make a report at Harleston police station after my release, but they refused to accept a crime report from me. Once again they had lied to me. In the interview they would not accept a crime report from me. They did ask questions relating to the attack upon me, but this was solely for the purpose of obtaining evidence of motive against me. No matter what answers I gave it would not have led to the arrest and charging of [Redacted]. This is an important point of police procedure that may be confusing to the general public. After my release they told me that they would not accept a crime report from me because the court had already ruled on this matter. That is yet another lie. The court has never heard the case against [Redacted]. The system carefully restricts the matters that will be heard to the allegations against me. They would not allow any discussion of the allegations against [Redacted]. Only if [Redacted] is arrested, charged and brought before a court as a defendant will the court listen to any evidence of what he has done. So, once again the police have lied.

This culture of lies permeates so many of the interactions between the police and a detained person. The police use a constant stream of very manipulative lies in order to “handle” their victims. Some examples of these manipulative techniques are telling a suspect that if they insist on a solicitor they will delay their release, or that they will only be detained in Bury PIC for a few more hours, implying that release is imminent, but fail to mention that what comes next is 12 weeks in prison.

In any event I want to make it very clear to the police, Crown Prosecution Service, Courts, and to all my readers worldwide: I want to make a crime report against [Redacted] now. The police can be in no doubt that I want to make this report because I am publishing this to a global audience. I demand that [Redacted] be arrested and charged with attacking me in the street with a knife, possessing a knife in a public place, attempted murder and perverting justice. These are all indictable offences, and thus there is no time limit for bringing these charges. The Crown Prosecution Service has already determined that the public interest test was satisfied by charging me with just two of these offences. If the public interest test is satisfied by allegations that I did a subset of these acts to [Redacted], then how can it not be satisfied by allegations that [Redacted] did the same things to me? Are some more equal than others? Is my life of less value to the public than the life of [Redacted]? As for the evidential stage there is way more evidence that [Redacted] attacked me than that I attacked [Redacted]. Indeed, the evidence against me has already been proven inadequate for a trial; But yet the police are still willfully refusing to look at the evidence against [Redacted]. The police are guilty of bias contrary to the Human Rights Act 1998 and the European Convention on Human Rights. The police are willfully perverting justice.

Retaliation for Website?

The police subjected me to an unlawful medical interrogation regarding a website critical of the police and CPS. I had not created that site, and had no knowledge of it's existence prior to the interrogation. The police had spent months, if not years, using all of the powerful resources at their disposal trying to track down the owner of that site. In the process they arrested, interviewed, and harassed people unconnected with that site in any way. After my release I tracked down the website owner to a residential address in Felixstowe. It took me less than 30 minutes to do so, and I used only public sources. Clearly the police were incompetent. The website was lawful, and therefore the police investigation was unlawful. They hurt me, and the website creator, for their own unlawful agenda in suppressing lawful criticism of their behaviour. The lesson to learn is that oppressive government hates websites that expose their behaviour. I think that I will create this website now to expose what they did to me.

Why an Illogical and Dangerous Restraining Order?

There is clearly no practical benefit in making a fragile old man the subject of a Restraining Order in order to protect a gang of street thugs. I believe that the theory put forward by my barrister is the correct explanation: The Crown Prosecution Service knew that they had charged and prosecuted the wrong person; that however was of no concern to them. What they did care about however was that they had come to realize that they had an unwinnable case. The evidence, that they had had in their possession from the day of the incident, did not support the charge they had made against me. If the case went to trial they knew they would lose. Thus they looked for any way that they could salvage some small face saving victory. Forcing me to agree to a restraining order, and destruction of lawfully possessed property, allowed them to claim that they had won.

So, why did I agree?

I did not “agree” to the 5A restraining order or to the destruction of lawfully possessed property; it was a ransom paid to my kidnappers for my release. Such a transaction is no more an agreement than a woman raped at gunpoint is “agreeing” to consensual sex. It is rape. Extortion is not “agreement”.

My solicitor explained to me that if I went to trial and was found not guilty I would still be subjected to the same restraining order. I was presented with a choice: Either I can go to trial, and be subjected to the restraining order, or not go to trial, and be subjected to the restraining order. If I went to trial I could be found guilty or not guilty. Since the prosecution's case was ridiculously weak I would almost certainly be found not guilty, but one cannot know for sure. Even if I went to trial and was found not guilty it would still consume time and money, delaying my freedom, causing further damage to my credit rating and business affairs, and would not avoid the restraining order or forfeiture of lawfully possessed property. There was thus nothing to gain for me in going to trial, and a lot to lose. I made the logical choice to follow the path that caused me the least damage.

The Police had also entered my home against my wishes, trashing my house and possessions, and removing from my home family heirlooms of immense sentimental attachment. I was able to negotiate the return of one item of particular emotional attachment, a gift given to me by my parents when I was a child, as part of the deal for dropping the prosecution. The Police and Crown Prosecution Service were threatening to destroy this item if I did not agree to their deal. It was an extreme and cruel technique to force me into accepting their terms.

Why is the current system dangerous?

The current criminal justice system in operation in the UK allows the Police and Crown Prosecution Service to arrest anyone they choose without cause or reason, to throw them in prison without trial for many months, and to torture them into making a false confession. And make no mistake about it, this danger is real. They not only can do this, they do do this, and with frightening regularity. If they can do this to a professional middle class medical device designer, they can do it to you. If hurting you will give them an easy win, they will do it. The Police and CPS have no interest in the truth, they have no interest in justice, they only want to maximize points in the win column, minimize points in the loss column, and minimize their effort. And don't expect the court to save you either: The procedure rules will allow them to railroad you through the system without being allowed to tell your side of the story to judge or jury.

In Summary

It appears that the Police and Crown Prosecution Service are driven by a deep seated reluctance to admit their mistakes, even when there is a large body of evidence that contradicts their position. Ultimately the truth will come out, and when it does the reputational damage caused by their failed attempt at a cover up will far exceed that of the initial mistake.

Recommendations for Change

These suggestions are intended to reduce the level of corruption endemic in the British Criminal Justice System, and to give an innocent defendant a fair chance of surviving their ordeal. Some of these suggestions are already policy, but the policies are not adhered to. To be effective any policy must be enforced.

  • Remand should be the exception, not the rule.
  • Bail should only be denied if there are clear grounds relevant to the actual case, and never for “The Usual Reasons”.
  • Paying money to businesses that are part of the Criminal Justice Industry should never be a condition of granting bail.
  • A remanded defendant, or a convicted person appealing their case, should be given access to the Internet, and to office facilities in the prison. Also, law reference books should be available. This is not a luxury, it is a poor substitute for the facilities and resources available to a defendant who is not held on remand. Remand should not be a punishment. A remanded person is at an enormous disadvantage in defending their case. When the Criminal Justice System engineers this disadvantage it is tantamount to perverting justice.
  • The Crown Prosecution Service should not be allowed to take over a private criminal prosecution unless they have a bona fide intention of prosecuting the case enthusiastically. If they fail to make substantial progress within 90 days, the case should be returned to the original private prosecutor.
  • Any defendant sentenced to longer than 3 months should be given the right to be executed quickly and humanely by the state. The pain, fear, and uncertainty of improvised suicide methods are yet further punishments.
  • A defendant with no family or friends on the outside should be given effective means to put their affairs in order. This normalizes sentences: Each prisoner should suffer the same damage for the same sentence. The outside sentence is often way more damaging than the inside sentence. A prisoner is sentenced to time locked up, not to the additional loss of everything that matters to them in this world.
  • The dogma that prison rehabilitates offenders is utterly wrong. Indeed it usually has the opposite effect, destroying the prisoners chances for a productive life, and setting them up to fail.
  • Aquittal should mean aquittal. The system should not punish an acquitted person, or even suggest that they are really guilty.
  • The 5A Restraining Order in particular should be abolished. It is a de facto suspended prison sentence that is only imposed on an acquitted, and thus innocent, defendant.
  • There should be robust sanctions against criminal justice system employees for imprisoning an innocent person. They should be fired, and serve prison time themselves. The current practice gives incentive to charge, prosecute and convict an innocent person. This is deplorable, and needs to be stigmatized.
  • There should be large financial awards made to any defendant who is acquitted after serving time on remand.
  • The IPCC and Professional Standards Departments of police forces are not fit for purpose. They view their role as frustrating legitimate complaints and covering up corruption and incompetence in the criminal justice system. These organizations need to be disbanded and replaced with effective agencies with the competence and desire to investigate and correct problems.

Further Reading

The situation described on this website is far from unique. Indeed, the situation that I faced is surprisingly common. In this section I have collected links to websites that describe the situations faced by other victims of the system.

Maurice Kirk (The Flying Vet)

Mr. Kirk is an adventurer and a man of principle. In past generations he would have been considered a hero. A man in the mold of “Biggles”. He has been on the receiving end of a police vendetta for decades. His story makes very interesting reading.

Eccy De Jonge

Ms. De Jonge is a professor of philosophy at the University of London. She has never even been accused of committing a crime. All she did was question the manner in which the Police investigated a road traffic accident in which her mother was killed. The result: Attempted sectioning under the Mental Health Act, and an investigation of Ms. De Jonge by spook agencies that reached mind boggling proportions.


Lewisham Police Harassment

A member of the public reported multiple counts of harassment, criminal damage and death threats to the Lewisham Police. The police sided with the offenders and engaged in a campaign of harassment against the victim. The police concealed evidence, perverted justice, and even attempted to get the victim committed under the Mental Health Act. You can read more about this case by following this link: Lewisham Police Misconduct


Sites Covering Multiple Cases

These websites and blogs cover many cases of corruption by the UK government and its agencies. This includes, inter alia, County Councils and the Police.

Behavioural Patterns of the Police/CPS

In both of the cases described in this section the Police have either actually sectioned the defendant under the Mental Health Act, or else have threatened and/or attempted to section the defendant. This is precisely what they did to me. Other victims have verbally described to me in private communications being subjected to the same techniques. It seems to me that a pattern is emerging here: The Police are using the Mental Health Act as a weapon.

Another much more common technique is the use of remand as an interrogation tool: The defendant is sent to prison for 3-6 months without trial and without evidence. There they languish while their life on the outside is ruined. They are repeatedly told that if they confess they will be released. This is kidnaping, the ransom for release is a confession.




I am soooo fake pre-loading this image so the navigation doesn't skip while loading the over state.  I know I could use the sliding doors technique to avoid this fate, but I am too lazy.