HENRIETTA PAGET  - CROWN PERSECUTION SERVICE

  False allegations run riot and newspapers publish regardless of the consequences potentially breaching rights to a fair hearing

Latest Cases

• Herstmonceux Bunny Boiler case.

• R v Neil Allanson.

BELL YARD CHAMBERS

9-12 Bell Yard is a Barristers Chambers in London specialising in criminal law. Members of this Chambers have experience and expertise in criminal litigation, to include prosecuting and defence. Some members have specialist knowledge in other areas of law such as: common law, administrative law, licensing, etc.

Advocacy and advisory work is undertaken City law firms and High Street practices. Other clients include the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), Local Authorities.

CONTACTS

9-12 Bell Yard
London WC2A 2JR
Tel. +44 (0)20 7400 1800
Fax. +44 (0)20 7404 1405
E: clerks@9-12bellyard.com
DX. LDE 390

Magistrates Ct Enquiries:
Rachel Syrett
07860 485 162

Other Enquiries:
Gary Reed, Senior Clerk
07860 483 491
Angela May
07976 239 064

CASES

R v Jones [2007] EWCA Crim 1118

CA: Thomas LJ, Penry-Davey and Wyn Williams JJ: 15 May 2007

The offence of intentionally causing or inciting a child under 13 to engage in sexual activity contrary to s 8 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 could be committed by a person even though it was not possible to identify any specific or identifiable child to whom the incitement was addressed.

The Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) so held when dismissing an appeal by the defendant, Ian Anthony Jones, against his conviction, following a guilty plea, on 25 April 2006 by the Crown Court at Lewes (Judge Niblett) for attempting to intentionally cause or incite a child to engage in sexual activity in contravention of s 8 of the 2003 Act, contrary to s 1(1) of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981.

S 8 of the 2003 Act provides: “(1) A person commits an offence if—(a) he intentionally causes or incites another person (B) to engage in an activity, (b) the activity is sexual, and (c) B is under 13.”

The defendant wrote graffiti on train and station toilets seeking girls aged 8 to 13 for sex in return for payment, requesting contact via his mobile telephone number. Following a complaint, the police began an undercover operation using an officer pretending to be aged 12. The defendant was charged, inter alia, with attempting to incite her to sexual activity. At trial the defendant applied to stay the proceedings as an abuse of process on the grounds that he had been entrapped into committing the offence, and the charge disclosed no offence known to law, because the defendant did not intend to incite any actual person under the age of 13 and therefore could not have had the requisite intent.

THOMAS LJ, giving the judgment of the court, said that the offence under s 8 of the 2003 Act did not require incitement of an identified or identifiable child. The criminality at which the offence was directed was the incitement. It mattered not that this was directed at a particular child, a very large group of children or whether they could be identified or not. There was no significance in the use of the term “another” in s 8 as opposed to “any other”; they meant the same. The offence could be committed by someone who, with requisite intention, made a statement which in specific terms directly incited a child or children. Therefore the offence could have been charged without identifying a particular person, and it could not be said that the police created the offence. The police did not instigate the offence and did no more than merely provide the opportunity for the defendant to attempt to commit an offence similar to one he had attempted earlier, and provide the evidence necessary for a conviction. The defendant’s acts were more than merely preparatory and done with the intention of committing the offence. The fact that commission of the actual offence was on the true facts impossible because the police substituted an adult for a child did not mean that there was a defence in law to the charge.

Appearances: Jeffrey Lamb (assigned by the Registrar of Criminal Appeals) for the defendant; Christine Laing QC and Henrietta Paget (Crown Prosecution Service, Sussex) for the Crown.

Reporter: Sharene P Dewan-Leeson, Barrister

"He said if they bought it he would take care of it."  Miss Padget said the defendant's demands added up to blackmail.

KALISHER TRUST - 15 March 2007

Kalisher Scholarship Fundraiser: Investing in the Bar’s Future

The Kalisher Scholarship, is a charity dedicated to funding disadvantaged students through their Bar training.

Announcing the launch of its 2007 fundraising programme, the flagship event was a reading of the Bardell v Pickwick trial by a host of leading actors, held in Middle Temple Hall.

Actors including Richard Griffiths, Martin Shaw and Jemma Redgrave will re-enact the Bardell V Pickwick trial, from Charles Dickens’ classic novel The Pickwick Papers. The event is scheduled for the 1st April, and will see actors and barristers joining forces to raise money for the Trust. The scene is the most famous fictional trial in English literature, and will provide both entertainment and food for thought for today’s Bar.

Founded in 1996, in memory of Michael Kalisher QC, the Kalisher Scholarship has provided funding and support for poorer students for the last 6 years. It works with the eight BVC providers to ensure that every year one talented but financially disadvantaged student has a free place on the BVC course.

Anthony Arlidge QC, Chairman of the Kalisher Scholarship, commented:

‘We are only too aware of the financial strain which coming to the Bar places on entrants, and the Kalisher Scholarship gives extremely talented students access to our profession which they might otherwise be denied. We have a responsibility to ensure that the brightest and best come to the Bar, no matter what their financial constraints. I know that the Kalisher Scholarship plays a small but vital part in securing the Bar’s future as a profession which strives to attract the UK’s elite, no matter what their background.’

He continued:  ‘I am delighted that we have such an exciting and different event to launch this year’s fundraising programme, testament to the importance of the Scholarship. I would like to thank all the actors involved, who are giving their time free, as well as HSBC, The Times, 2 Hare Court, 18 Red Lion Court, and 9-12 Bell Yard, all of whom have provided sponsorship for the event. As someone who has had an enormously rewarding career at the Bar, I am privileged to be giving back to the profession in this way. Buying a ticket will give you an unique evening’s entertainment, as well as helping to secure the future of a talented student coming to the Bar.’

It appears that the CPS (Sx Police) knew this Review was due to be published, but failed to mention it to the Defence. Note the publication date as being March 2008, one month after the Trial of a Herstmonceux man accused of sexual assault on the basis of a mark that this Review tells is a naturally occurring feature. For sure he was convicted on junk science. This tells us a lot about how corrupt the CPS is. It is called noble cause corruption. Did Henrietta know about this Review? And, if she did, would she still have called Dr Liebenberg to testify?

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 defense 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.

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.

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.

A - Z of Sussex officers

Joe Edwards

Ken Jones

Paul Whitehouse

Sarah Jane Gallagher

Sir Ken Macdonald QC