Great British injustice system

British Injustices

Injustice in England and Wales








ARMED & DANGEROUS - There are hundreds of policemen pounding British streets that will be involved in crafting the evidence to obtain convictions, or otherwise cover up their mistakes. Others will use their position of trust to groom vulnerable children and adults for sex. Perhaps helping them to gain revenge and then using that conspiracy to lever favours at a later date. In other cases masonic influence infects the British justice system, injecting discriminatory practices into an institution that should be above reproach.



Surrey police were involved in the injunction to muzzle Matt Taylor via their civil solicitors Weightmans LLP. At time of writing they are attempting to use the same intimidation tactics on John Hoath as the letter from solicitor Gilly (Gillian) Jones appears to confirm.


Weightmans LLP
Surrey Police
Legal Services Department
PO Box 101

Tel: +44 (0) 345 0739900
Fax: +44 (0) 345 0739950


Dear Mr Hoath


John Hoath – Injunctive Relief
Protection from Harassment Act 



I am the solicitor representing the Sussex Police and Crime Commissioner and her officers.

You have recently sent me several emails. Your e-mail of 30th April 2018 reads as follows:

I have e-mailed sound and solid evidence of corruption in Sussex Police, which proves beyond reasonable doubt that your client, the Sussex Police & Crime Commissioner, Katy Bourne is aiding, abetting and assisting Sussex Police and Chief Constable to pervert justice to conceal corruption.

This evidence is being prepared to be advertised and posted on the internet, therefore as your client refuses to act within the laws of aiding, abetting and assisting criminals with gun crime, it is in fact, a true statement of fact, therefore not libellous or a defamation of your clients character, therefore could be proved as such in a court of law….

I feel sure that you will advise your client as to her criminal conduct in continuing to support criminals with gun crime.


You are aware that Katy Bourne and Mark Streater obtained an injunction preventing Matthew Taylor from whether by himself or by instructing encouraging or permitting any other person or persons, from posting on the internet or otherwise publishing or broadcasting any video, comment, opinion or other material which directly or indirectly refers to either of them. You were in court for the proceedings. 

You have made a threat that if you do not get a meeting with the Sussex Police and Crime Commissioner, you will upload material to the internet which refers to my client and your allegations that she and her officers are involved aiding and abetting the Chief Constable of Sussex Police in perverting justice and concealing corruption. These are very similar allegations to those made by Matthew Taylor, and which were considered to be harassment.

Posting such allegations online is likely to amount to harassment and potentially defamation. 

There is a defined route for complaints. As you were advised in the letter to you from the Sussex Police and Crime Commissioner’s Office dated 10th April 2018, that route is to appeal to the IOPC within 29 days of the date of that letter. 

Protection from Harassment Act 1997 (The Act)

As a member of the public, you are of course entitled to make a complaint to the police if you are dissatisfied with aspects of the service which you have received from them. 

You have waged a lengthy campaign against the Sussex Police Force, and the Sussex Police and Crime Commissioner. 

In your various emails and correspondence both to me and my clients, you make a number of deliberate attacks on the personal and professional integrity of the Police and Crime Commissioner. Your claims of criminality are clearly designed to cause Katy Bourne and her officers alarm and distress. 

The relevant parts of the Act provide as follows:-

1. Prohibition of harassment.
(i) A person must not proceed with a course of conduct :-
(a) Which amounts to harassment of another, and 
(b) Which he knows or ought to know amounts to harassment of the other.
(ii) For the purposes of this section …, the person whose course of conduct is in question ought to know that it amounts to or involves harassment of another if a reasonable person in possession of the same information would think the course of conduct amounted to harassment of the other.

Were you to post your allegations online, it would be very difficult to envisage a situation where a court did not find your conduct amounted to harassment in breach of the Act. That conduct has currently been made as a threat if you do not get your own way with regard to a meeting with Katy Bourne. 

The Act provides the following Defences to harassment:-

“(3) subsection (1) … does not apply to a course of conduct if the person who pursued it shows –

(a) That it was pursued for the purposes of preventing or detecting crime
(b) That it was pursued under any enactment or rule of law to comply with any condition or requirement imposed by any person under any enactment, or 
(c) That in the particular circumstances, the pursuit of the course of conduct was reasonable.

You would only have a defence if you established, and the burden of proof is on you, that the conduct falls within one of the exceptions in Section 1(3)(1). Case law in respect of Section 1(3)(a) states that purpose is a subjective state of mind, and it is subject to a control mechanism to be found in the concept of rationality. Where the conduct is irrational, perverse, abusive, or grossly unreasonable, it cannot fall within Section 1(3)(a). 

The Police and Crime Commissioner for Sussex, and her Chief Staff Officer are of the view that your publication of your allegations online would be irrational, perverse, abusive, and grossly unreasonable.

Going Forwards

I am instructed by The Sussex Police and Crime Commissioner and her Chief Staff Officer to apply for an injunction restraining your behaviour if you do post online any material about them as you have threatened. If you do, I am instructed to automatically apply to the court for an injunction against you without further reference to you. Please be advised that I will seek the costs of and occasioned by the injunction application from you should my clients application be necessary, and succeed.

My client will not meet with you. 

If you are unclear as to anything contained in this letter, then please contact a solicitor at the earliest opportunity. You are recommended to take legal advice in respect of this matter.

Yours sincerely

Gillian Jones
For and on behalf of Weightmans LLP








As to the integrity of Sussex police and their chief constables, we should look at the investigation of the shooting of James Ashley under the lead of Sir John Hoddinott.


The Wilding report found a complete failure of corporate duty by Sussex police. The Hampshire inquiry concluded that three police officers lied about intelligence in order to persuade Deputy Chief Constable Mark Jordan to authorise the raid. The report found that the raid was

"authorised on intelligence that was not merely exaggerated, it was determinably false ... there was a plan to deceive and the evidence concocted."


The report also showed that the guidelines on firearms put together by the Association of Chief Police Officers was breached. Experts on firearms and the law told Kent police that even if the intelligence had been correct, the firearms should not have been authorised.

The chief constable was castigated. Sir John Hoddinott concluded that Paul Whitehouse, the then chief constable,

"wilfully failed to tell the truth as he knew it, he did so without reasonable excuse or justification and what he published and said was misleading."

Sir John found evidence against Deputy Chief Constable Mark Jordan. That included criminal misfeasance and neglect of duty, discreditable conduct and aiding and abetting the chief constable's false statements. There was suggested evidence of collusion between some or all of the chief officers and an arguable case of attempting to pervert the course of justice.

These statements were contained in those investigation reports. The reports have been kept secret - apart from the leaks made to the press - and have never been available for public scrutiny.





Information Access Team
Surrey Police
PO Box 101

Telephone: 101 or 01483 571212

TextPhone: 18001 101

Police Link Officers for Deaf people (PLOD): 

SMS text us on 07967 987179

Send an email to: 

In an emergency, when life is in immediate danger or a crime is in progress, call 999



Katy Bourne sitting on her hands while sitting on the fence


KATY BOURNE - Was elected Crime Commissioner, taking office with an oath to serve the public interest. That is an oath that many are now questioning, where she appears to be serving Sussex Police instead of policing the organisation that has come under such flack for their blatant refusal to investigate so many complaints of malfeasance in public office. What is plain is that where there is criticism of her alleged inaction, that she works with other forces to quash what many might agree is freedom of speech. In the case of Matt Taylor obtaining an injunction and in the case of John Hoath (gun crime allegation) threatening an injunction.



Giles York chief constable of Sussex


Giles York is the chief constable of Sussex Police taking over from a long chain of chief constables, including Paul Whitehouse, who was finally forced to resign after the Home Secretary insisted that he should go for bringing the force into disrepute from his attempt to cover up the Jimmy Ashley murder. Each time one chief resigns, the next candidate learns from the mistakes of his predecessor and makes effort not to be tripped up in the same way. Unfortunately, that is not helping the situation, where in-effect Mr York has nobody looking over his shoulder to make sure that he is not breaking the law. The most common way of breaking the law, is simply doing nothing when a crime is reported - so becoming party to the crime, as with the Petition scandal in 1997.


The British judicial system is shown here as corrupt from the judges to the policeman on the beat





Aran Boyt

Chris Sherwood

Colin Dowle

Jo Pinyoun

Joe Edwards

Giles York

Gordon Staker

James Hookway

Kara Tombling

Ken Jones

Martin Richards

Neil Honnor

Olivia Pinkney

Paul Whitehouse

Robert Lovell

Sarah Jane Gallagher

Sir Ken Macdonald QC

Timothy Mottram






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




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. 


For more information go to: If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.






Paul Whitehouse (1993-2001) Ken Jones (2001-2006) Joe Edwards (2006-2007) Martin Richards (2008-2014) Giles York (2014 >>)



This site is free of © Copyright except where specifically stated 2018.  Any person may download, use and quote any reference or any link, and is guaranteed such right to freedom of information and speech under the Human Rights and Freedom of Information Acts.  However, be aware that we cannot be held liable for the accuracy of the information provided.  All users should therefore research matters for themselves and seek their own legal advice and this information is provided simply by way of a guide.  Horse Sanctuary Trust.   All trademarks herby acknowledged.