WELLS BURCOMBE LLP, SOLICITORS

  The English judicial system is flawed, with limited funding to mount a defence in complex cases, causing untold injustice in the name of noble cause corruption.

HOME     |   CASE STUDIES   |   LAW   |    POLITICS   |   SCANDAL  |     SITE INDEX   |    WHISTLEBLOWING

 

Julian Dale is a barrister practising in the UK, bound by a code of conduct.

 

Criminal Law is a specialized field. Wells Burcombe's teams aim to help you through the legal minefield.

They have Lawyers who might assist in the following disciplines-

* Road Traffic Offences
* Police Station Matters
* Magistratesí Court
* Youth Court
* Crown Court
* Criminal Appeals and applications to the Criminal Cases Review Commission
* Serious Fraud & Confiscation
* Judicial Review
* Health and Safety and Regulatory Law
* Extradition
* Prison Law
* Civil Liberties
* Miscarriages of Justice

Address: 5 Holywell Hill
ST. ALBANS
HERTFORDSHIRE
AL1 1EU
ENGLAND
DX address: DX 6108
ST ALBANS
Number of solicitors and lawyers at this office: 17
Areas of law: Administrative and public law
Advocacy
Children law
Civil liberties and human rights
Conveyancing residential
Criminal law
Employment law
Family law
Fraud
International law (non EU)
Mediation - family

 

 

STAFF

 

Nicholas Baird - Partner
David Wells - Partner
Alan Burcombe - Partner
Suezanne King - Partner
Steven Pidcock - Barrister
Philip Kazantzis - Solicitor Advocate
Massimo Trebar - Solicitor
Dominic Chandler - Barrister
Lloyd Moody - Solicitor Advocate
Parmjit Chandler - Duty Solicitor
Chantal Heneghan - Solicitor
Sucheta Sarkar - Solicitor Advocate
Tasmin Malcolm - Caseworker
Harjinder Jheeta - Duty Solicitor
Appollonia Avanzi - Duty Solicitor
Chloe Chinnick - Solicitor

 

 

CONTACTS

 

Phone Number: 01727 840 900
Fax Number: 01727 840 005

Mobile:  07592 034170
Web Site: http://www.wellsburcombe.co.uk
Email Address: info@wellsburcombe.co.uk

 

LINKS

 

Cyber Terrorist Prosecution

Millenium Dome Appeal

Drink Driving Challenge

Life term for acid attack rapist

http://www.times-series.co.uk/news/8213614.Ex_judge_appointed_to_lead_Azelle_Rodney_inquiry/

http://www.channel4.com/news/azelle-rodney-unlawfully-killed-by-police

http://azellerodneyinquiry.independent.gov.uk/about.htm

Businessmenís killer found hanged

Bomb plot

Cocaine Queen jailed for smuggling

Al-KHAWAJA AND TAHERY V UNITED KINGDOM

 

 

 

 

This is the document that Cramp & Co did not know about when defending a case between 2006 and 2008 - but would have discovered if they had challenged the medical evidence as instructed by their client. This could have led to an adjournment, and following specialist reports, dismissal of the case, on the assumption that appropriate applications would then have been made.

 

 

 

ANATOMY OF A STITCH UP:

 

Set against a background of increasing pressure to gain convictions, many police officers fail to investigate fully for fear of finding inconvenient truths, which they will then have to pass to a defence team during the discovery process.

 

The fact is it is all too easy to put an innocent man behind bars where a blunderbuss serious of charges, often used in sexual assault cases, make it all but impossible to mount a defense with alibis for specific events claimed. (This may of itself breach Article 6 for a lack of detail, as is required by Article 6 (3) (a), but English defenders frequently fail to use this Article to pinpoint exactly what the Crown are alleging.)

 

This is called the 25-75% rule. Statistics prove that a single charge results in a conviction rate of 25%. This rises to 75% with four charges. Thus, the Crown simply have to add a couple of allegations - to be sure of obtaining a conviction. They do this by cajoling a person making an allegation, into agreeing that whatever he or she is claiming may have taken place more times than they are suggesting. The grateful claimant takes what social workers and police officers are suggesting, as a sign that they believe the claims - so, elaboration begins.

 

If you are very lucky, this may eventually be the undoing of the case, even though this may be years later, having served a prison sentence and having had your life ruined.

 

In most cases an allegation grows like a pyramid, once the system kicks in. Unfortunately, at each stage of the process, the allegation grows as it is passed from one person in the chain to another, each adding their own interpretation and filling in the blanks, so to speak.

 

Where an allegation has been made (which is often the case) by a young girl or boy who may find him or herself in an uncomfortable family situation, which could be a combination of loneliness, stress from school work, social stresses from friends, or lack of them, not feeling important or feeling ignored. Sometimes just being bored or mischievous, or simply bearing a grudge - the child will often pander to the attention they are suddenly receiving, and sometimes they are simply bunny boilers, out to ruin someone they feel abandoned by...... It's a win, win situation for the accuser, with no comeback at all if found to be lying!!! They can simply move onto the next target, or go about life as usual - since nobody knows who they are. Should there not be a register of accusers?

 

The policies of Labour's Harriet Harman, Minister of State for Women, are designed to raise conviction rates is sex related cases, regardless of evidence. This has resulted in many more appeals and innocent men being freed, having been convicted on little or no evidence. It begs belief that such cases are brought, considering the irreversible harm caused to the victim, in these case the person defendant.

 

One key element in raising convictions in sex cases, was to shift the burden of proving guilt, to the defence to prove innocence. This was achieved simply by arbrogating the need for a Judge to give a warning to a Jury, that it is dangerous to convict on the unsupported say so of a a claimant - where this had so many times in the past proved to unreliable evidence. Nobody even noticed this slight of hand be the Justice Minister in the 1990s. The results though were devastating. The conviction rate soared. It was no longer "your word against hers". It is now "you are guilty mate, unless you can prove otherwise."

 

Before this arbrogation, it was the job of the Crown to prove guilt. That is no longer necessary. It is a witch hunt, plain and simple.

 

In many cases (number unknown) innocent men are rotting in jail, since there is no appeal for them unless fresh evidence surfaces, which may only happen once a bunny boiler repeat offends. Otherwise, there is no justice for men. A point overlooked by Harriet in her rush to up statistics for voters.

 

The English Appeal system relies on a Single Judge, who is usually biased in the extreme, no matter what HM Courts Service puts out. The Single Judge system breaches Article 6, where it is a paper application. This has been held consistently in the European Court, the exception being where an appellant has the benefit of solid (unrestricted) drafting of grounds of appeal.

 

In many cases it is the Court Administration that slips up, refusing transcripts - which may later be found to have been vital for the application to the single judge. By then it is all too late. Once the single judge has refused an application, that is held to have been an appeal, even though there has been no oral exchange, where a barrister may point a judge to evidence that is very often overlooked.

 

A later application to the Criminal Cases Review Commission, faces new obstacles, for even if you can now prove that the single judge got it wrong, or that your barrister was negligent, you may not argue anything that has been argued before. Catch 22? No, it's much worse than that - it is a State sanctioned stitch up, which breaches Article 17. The reason the State get away with this, is because your average lawyer is not aware of Article 17, and Article 13 is not included in the Human Rights Act 1998. it was deliberately left out so that Her Majesty did not have to provide an: "effective remedy." Which of course means, that they can make it up as they go along. 

 

 

ANATOMY OF A STITCH UP - FLOW CHART

 

ALLEGATION SEXUAL ASSAULT 2006

follows acrimonious family break up

|

TEACHER

loses her note of original version of events

FRIENDS

report their version of gossip

SOCIAL WORKERS

failure to investigate claims

|

CHILD PROTECTION UNIT (Breaches SOCAP procedures)

|

2nd OFFICER

INVESTIGATING OFFICER

failure to secure crime scene evidence 

3rd OFFICER

|

PATIENTS DOCTOR

MEDICAL EXAMINATION

uses out of date forensic guidance in a controversial area of science - defence barrister fails to challenge

PSYCHOLOGIST

|

DEFENDANT CHARGED

Eastbourne Magistrates Court

|

CPS WITNESSES

Barrister fails to apply to question claimant

|

FRIENDS

DEFENCE WITNESSES

Barrister fails to interview any of 17 witnesses for defence

FAMILY

|

MEDICAL EVIDENCE

Barrister fails to challenge medical evidence even after Lewes Crown Court Judge tells him to get on to it.

|

SX POLICE

Refuse to return defence computer evidence or to confirm nothing untoward on computers. Court eventually force Police to return.

|

TRIAL COURT FEB 2008

Hove Crown Court - conservative venue with high conviction rate

|

SOLICITOR

Cramp & Co

BARRISTER

Sussex Chambers

JURY SWORN IN

BARRISTER

SOLICITOR

|

ARGUS

BECKETT GROUP

PRESS

Publish mid-trail in violation of Court Order to preserve fair hearing - contempt of Court. Trial Judge, Cedric Joseph, fails to remedy.

SX EXPRESS

KENT & SX COURIER

|

JUDGES SUMMING UP

Misdirects Jury on vital diary evidence and asks them to decide medical issues for which no juror is qualified

|

VERDICT FEB 6 2008

A guilty verdict is returned

JUSTICE

|

INJUSTICE

APPEAL PROCESS BEGUN MAY 2008

APPEAL SOLICITOR

Stuart Grace Associates

|

1st APPEAL BARRISTER

Michael Harrison

APPLICATION TO COURT OF APPEAL requesting transcript of medical testimony

|

Her Majestys's Court Service (HMCS) - refused transcript = abuse of process Appeal barrister unable to perfect grounds

|

SINGLE JUDGE

Sir Christopher Holland - Aged 71, refuses leave and initials box - compounding abuse of process

|

APPLICATION TO ECHR May 2009

28536/09

|

APPLICATION TO CCRC December 2009

In England once leave to appeal is refused, there is no other appeal process save via the Criminal Cases Review Commission

|

LEGAL AID APP FUNDING 2010

|

SOLICITOR (CCRC)

Wells Burcombe & Co

|

BARRISTER (CCRC)

Dominic Chandler

CCRC 2010

Provisionally refuse application.

|

CCRC 2010

Freedom of Information request reveals new medical guidance exists which the CCRC had neglected to mention

|

LEGAL AID APP FUNDING 2011

For report as to natural marks and virginity reference RCPCH guidance March 2008 - one month after trial.

|

SOLICITOR

Ross Simon & Co

Chizzy Nsofor

|

BARRISTER

Lucy Corrin

|

CCRC 2011

Obtain limited forensic Report as to naturally occurring marks. 

|

CCRC 2012

Admit medical evidence to Jury misleading - but refuse to investigate virginity issue, diary misdirection or provide transcript they have obtained as to revelation of diary mid-trial.

|

LEGAL AID APP FUNDING 2012

To seek a Judicial Review (JR) of CCRC's refusal to investigate inconsistencies in evidence as above.

|

SOLICITORS JR

David Wells & Siobhan Tipper

|

BARRISTER JR

Stephen Field

|

JUDGE

The Right Honourable Lord Justice Goldring

APP. HIGH COURT (ADMIN) FEB 2013

Refuse leave for a Judicial Review. According to 

JUDGE

The Honourable Mr Justice Fulford

|

LEGAL AID REFUSE FUNDING

Cutting off any possible Appeal to the Appeal or Supreme Court against violations of Article 6, the right to a fair trial, or the CCRC remit being incompatible with Article 6, etc.

|

ECHR JULY 2013

Fresh Application having exhausted possible domestic remedies

|

 

 

In a case where sexual assault is claimed, it is vital for investigators to act quickly to prevent potential witnesses from rehearsing and developing a version of a false claim. The investigators in this case allowed the claimant two weeks to rehearse a story, all the while she was obtaining feedback from social services and friends as to what to say such that it might be acceptable (believed). Coaching or rehearsing a story is of course illegal. Clearly, in this case coaching is a major feature. SOCAP procedures are designed to prevent coaching by obtaining a statement the moment an allegation is made. By this means false allegations may be revealed by preventing changes to a story that repair obvious lies that a defence will be able to disprove.

 

Clearly, in allowing 2 weeks for the claimant to speak with friends and social services, the Sussex Police were negligent in this case, depriving the defence of a valuable record of changes in the story as the allegation was developed.  Was this simple negligence or criminal negligence? The CPS knew this was going on and used it to their advantage.

 

RIGHT OF REPLY

 

If any person who wishes to refute the facts as published herein, we would like to hear from you. A failure to respond to this invitation will be taken as deemed acceptance.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Unofficial Prison Diaries by Jane Roe, defending barrsiter Julian Dale

 

His barrister didn't challenge the so-called scientific evidence produced at trial. He should have. It was junk science. You'll have to wait for the subjects appeals in the ECHR to conclude before this book is published. Maybe then we'll see an official version in 2016/2017? European appeals take 4 years on average, from date of lodge. But first you have to exhaust any domestic remedy. He has finally, as of February 2013. A claim was lodged in July of 2013.

 

 

 

FAIR USE NOTICE

 

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.

 

This site is protected under Article10 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.