|
Stephen Field has a predominantly Criminal and Prison Law practice, covering first instance case, appeals and judicial reviews of those public bodies (the Police, CPS, Magistrates and Crown courts, Probation Service, Parole Board and the Secretary of State) responsible for the administration of criminal justice. Stephen also conducts judicial reviews in mental health and social justice cases.
Stephen represents Defendants in criminal cases and has fought a large number of challenges on behalf of individuals of decisions and practises of public bodies, in the House of Lords, the Court of Appeal (Criminal and Civil Divisions), the Administrative Court and Crown Courts in a range of cases from the rights of victims of child sex abuse, of mental health Patients prescribed with Electro Convulsive Therapy (ECT) treatment and Prisoners confined to the Dangerous Severe Personality Disorder (DSPD Units.
Stephen regularly lectures on the topics of Criminal Appeals, Prison Law and Criminal Judicial Review.
CAREER
HISTORY
Called 1993; Gray's Inn; co-author Blackstone's 'Guide to the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004'; contributor: 'Gaining Ground: Law Reform for Gypsies and Travellers Gypsies, Race Discrimination and Planning' (ISBN 0900458984); co-author MacMillan's 'A' Level Law Guide (Thomson Learning, ISBN 0333662202).
Member
Criminal Law Bar Association; Administrative Law Bar Association.
Education
Trinity School, Croydon; University of London (External) (1992 LLB (Hons); 1993; Bar Finals).
RECENTLY
REPORTED CASES:
R (on the application of JASON SKINNER) v WOOD GREEN CROWN COURT (CPS INTERESTED PARTY)(2010)
Application for judicial review of Crown Court Judge’s decision on 30th March 2010 to revoke bail at a PCMH in a ‘domestic violence’ case when JS appeared at the Crown Court in answer to magistrates’ bail when the complainant (who had made a ‘withdrawal’ statement) accompanied him and sat in the public gallery. The Judge’s decision that JS was interfering with the course of justice was irrational in the circumstances and his decision was quashed. JS released on bail by the Administrative Court in the emergency applications court.
QBD (Admin)(Holroyde J.) 6/4/2010
R (on the application of J) v (1) SECRETARY OF STATE FOR JUSTICE (2) PAROLE BOARD (2010)
The Parole Board was entitled to refuse to recommend the re-release on licence of an offender who had been recalled to prison after he was suspected of committing an offence, since the evidence before the board, including the surrounding circumstances of the offender's case, justified a conclusion that there was a risk of re-offending.
PENOLOGY AND CRIMINOLOGY
QBD (Admin) (Irwin J) 18/2/2010
R v W [2010] EWCA Crim 203
In a case where convictions for gross indecency had to be quashed because of the expiry of the time limit before the charges were brought, linked convictions for buggery were not quashed as the evidence put before the court in relation to the former charges would not have needed a bad character ruling had those charges not been made. However, the 10 year sentence was reduced to 8 years as the judge had not been aware of the limitation provisions and it appeared that in sentencing for the counts of buggery, he could have been influenced by the gross indecency convictions.
CRIMINAL EVIDENCE - SENTENCING
CA (Crim Div) (Pill LJ, Bennett J, Field J) 27/1/2010
R (on the application of OAKES) v (1) SECRETARY OF STATE FOR JUSTICE
(2) NATIONAL PROBATION SERVICE (3) PAROLE BOARD [2009] EWHC 3470 (Admin)
The Parole Board had acted unlawfully in refusing O an oral hearing where there was a factual dispute as to the circumstances of his recall to prison. An oral hearing was ordered and O was released from custody at that hearing.
PENOLOGY AND CRIMINOLOGY
QBD (Admin) (Langstaff J) 17/12/2009
R v ROSS JOHN ORR [2009] EWCA Crim 2400
There was nothing unjust in requiring an offender to serve a custodial sentence imposed but not implemented for some two years due to a system failure, in circumstances where the offender had committed further serious offences in the intervening period and had taken advantage of what had been an obvious mistake.
SENTENCING
CA (Crim Div) (Hughes LJ, Mackay J, Davis J) 4/11/2009
References: LTL 11/12/2009 : Times, November 17, 2009
Document No.: Case Law - AC0122754
R (on the application of STEVEN JAMES ELLERTON) v SECRETARY OF STATE FOR JUSTICE [2009] EWHC 2661 (Admin)
A long-term prisoner serving concurrent sentences for offences committed both before and after 5 April, 2005, who had been released on licence after serving half his custodial sentence in the mistaken belief that the provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 applied to all those sentences, had been "unlawfully at large" within the meaning of the Prison Act 1952 s.49 so as to preclude the time spent on licence from counting towards his custodial term. Leave granted to appeal to the Court of Appeal – listed in July 2010.
SENTENCING - PENOLOGY AND CRIMINOLOGY
QBD (Admin) (Geraldine Andrews QC) 28/10/2009
R (on the application of STANLEY MATTHEWS) v GOVERNOR OF SWALESIDE PRISON [2009] EWHC 2397 (Admin)
A prison governor had been entitled to prohibit a prisoner from submitting an assignment for a proposed study of domestic violence as part of a university course he had started after imprisonment, where the governor had reasonable grounds to believe that the assignment was intended to be an actual research project and any reasonable prison governor would have been entitled to decide that it would not be appropriate to allow the prisoner to conduct the type of research he had outlined.
PENOLOGY AND CRIMINOLOGY
QBD (Admin) (Judge Davis QC) 5/10/2009
R (on the application of GEORGE LOW) v INDEPENDENT ADJUDICATOR (Defendant) (2) MINISTRY OF JUSTICE (Interested party) [2009] EWHC 2253 (Admin)
An adjudicator's decision that a prisoner had wilfully refused to provide a specimen of urine required of him under a mandatory drug testing programme was quashed where the adjudicator had failed to consider relevant evidence and had spoken to two potential witnesses before the hearing which amounted to a serious procedural impropriety.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - PENOLOGY AND CRIMINOLOGY
QBD (Admin) (John Randall QC) 20/8/2009
R (on the application of MICHAEL SILBURN) v PAROLE BOARD (2009) [2009] EWHC 3494 (Admin)
The Parole Board’s error in relation to a prisoner’s withdrawal from the DSPD programme did not render its decision unlawful. Further, the forum for challenging the legitimacy of the Psychopathy checklist – Revised (PCL-R) diagnostic tool as a risk assessment tool was the Parole Board hearing.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - PENOLOGY AND CRIMINOLOGY
QBD (Admin) (David Elvin QC) 3/9/2009
KIERON CARTER v CROWN PROSECUTION SERVICE [2009] EWHC 2197 (Admin)
The court gave guidance on the conduct of proceedings for breach of an authorisation made under the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 s.30, and suggested that all relevant documents should be made available to the magistrates' court at the first hearing to enable it to ascertain whether the authorisation was admitted by the defence.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - POLICE
DC (Thomas LJ, Coulson J) 27/7/2009
R (on the application of M) v (1) LEICESTERSHIRE CONSTABULARY (2) CROWN PROSECUTION SERVICE sub nom M v LEICESTERSHIRE CONSTABULARY [2009] EWHC 3640 (Admin)
A decision to administer a final warning to a juvenile for an alleged attempted rape had been unlawful, as he had not made a clear and reliable admission of guilt to all elements of the offence.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
DC (Sir Anthony May (President QB), Saunders J) 8/7/2009
R (on the application of ROYSTON THOMAS) v GREENWICH MAGISTRATES' COURT [2009] EWHC 1180 (Admin)
A magistrates' court was entitled to rely on written hearsay evidence in deciding whether an individual had breached his bail conditions, and it had properly evaluated that evidence in making its decision.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - CRIMINAL EVIDENCE
QBD (Admin) (Hickinbottom J) 11/5/2009
R (on the application of KHAN) v (1) PAROLE BOARD (2) SECRETARY OF STATE FOR JUSTICE [2009] EWHC 756 (Admin)
While the Parole Board and Ministry of Justice had delayed in arranging a review hearing in respect of a prisoner serving an indeterminate sentence of imprisonment for the protection of the public until after the expiry of his tariff sentence, the court was unable to substitute itself for the Parole Board and order his immediate release because, in the circumstances, it was not able to make a proper assessment of whether or not he continued to be dangerous.
PENOLOGY AND CRIMINOLOGY
A (APPELLANT) v IORWORTH HOARE (RESPONDENT) : H (APPELLANT) v SUFFOLK COUNTY COUNCIL (RESPONDENT) & SECRETARY OF STATE FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS (INTERVENOR): X & Y (APPELLANTS) v WANDSWORTH LONDON BOROUGH COUNCIL (RESPONDENT) [2008] UKHL 6
Times Law Reports (31st January 2008) see also BBC news item Article for James Naylor Foundation
Case of H, a child sex abuse victim who suppressed the events of abuse by a teacher at a special school. His case raised limitation issues. The House of Lords reveresed their earlier decison in Stubbings v Webb 1993 and ruled that the discretionary extension of limitation periods applicable in personal injury cases should now apply in cases of deliberate abuse. Art 6
ECHR.
CASES
RESULTING IN CONSENT ORDERS IN FAVOUR OF APPLICANTS:
Prisoners
R (on the application of Darren Reilly) v Parole Board (2010) Judicial review of the refusal to release R following a reassessment of his risk after an earlier panel had directed his release. R released - ECHR Art 5.
R (on the application of John Christy) v National Probation Service and the Secretary of State for Justice CO/5661/2008 – a judicial review of the recall of a determinate sentence prisoner for alleged breach of licence (Permission and Interim Relief granted– Claimant’s release from prison). EC's long-term release secured following inter-parties hearing - ECHR Art 5.
R (on the application of Keith Knight) v Governor of Bullingdon Prison, Secretary of State for Justice and Oxfordshire NHS Trust – an emergency application of the failure of the Defendants to provide KK, a serving prisoner, with the appropriate medical treatment for immediate and intense pain (Interim Relief granted – provision of the required treatment) and matter now proceeding by way of Consent Order following inter-parties hearing - ECHR Art 3.
R (on the application of Gunda) v Minister of State for Justice and the Parole Board (2009)
Judicial review of Parole Delay – D granted G’s release following issue of proceedings – Article 5 ECHR
R (on the application of Mark Bugler) v Minister of State for Justice (2009) Judicial review of an onerous licence condition – Defendant withdrew the condition following issue of proceedings – Article 8 ECHR
Homelessness
R (on the application of FA and SKA (A Child))v London Borough of Lambeth) (2008) emergency telephone application for a judicial review of the decision of the failure of the defendant local housing authority to accommodate the Claimants pending the carrying out of an adequate section 17 Children Act assessment, rendering the Claimants street homeless - emergency interim relief (accommodation) obtained and proceedings issued 23rd December 2008 - ECHR Art 3 and 8.
R (on the application of Sarah Thomas) v Tandridge District Council (2008) emergency application for a judicial review of the decision of the defendant local authority that the Claimant was intentionally homeless through her anti-social behaviour and its refusal to accommodate her pending the statutory review of its decison rendering the Claimant street homeless - proceedings issued 23rd December 2008 and defendant compromised by providing accommodation - ECHR Art 3 and 8.
R (on the application of Donald Kent) v West Wiltshire District Council (2008) emergency drafting of proceedings for a judicial review of the refusal of the defendant local housing authority to provide the Claimant with interim accommodation pending the outcome of its Housing Act assessment of his vulnaribility and priority need - proceedings drafted but Claimant finding alternative accommodation before issue - ECHR Art 8.
R (on the application of X) v London Borough of Lambeth (2008) emergency telephone application for judicial review of Defendant’s refusal to provide the Claimant (a street homeless woman who had presented at the Lambeth Law Centre with her two young children aged 3 yrs and 18 months) with interim accommodation pending homelessness application – Emergency Interim Relief (accommodation) granted that day and keys to permanent accommodation now offered to Claimant who has accepted permanent accommodsation with her children - ECHR Art 3 and 8.
R (on the application of Bakhtyar Rasu) v Haringey LBC (2008) emergency application for judicial review of Defendant’s refusal to assess the Claimant, a discharged Mental Health Act patient, for housing. Emergency Interim Relief granted (injunction ordering Defendant LBC to accommodate Claimant pending determination of the application) - ECHR Art 3 and 8.
Police
R (on the application of KH) v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis (2009) Judicial review of the decision of police to arrest a volunteer to a police station. Emergency injunction refused, but police withdrew the decision to arrest KH who was interviewed voluntarily.
R (on the application of Graham Coates) v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis CO/6875/2008 – a judicial review of the administration of an arguably invalid and unlawful formal police caution for an alleged breach of a term of a Sexual Offences Prevention Order - Defendant Police Commissioner conceded illegality of the caution.
Social Justice
R (on the application of SD) v London Borough of Hounslow CO/6013/08 – emergency telephone application of the Defendant’s decision to remove the Claimant (a child in care) from her home town in Hounslow to Essex without consultation. Emergency Interim Relief granted (injunction preventing Claimant's removal from Hounslow pending determination of application). ECHR Art 8.
OTHER
REPORTED CASES:
Administrative Court
R (on the Application of Robson)v (1) Parole Board (2) Secretary of State for Justice [2008] EWHC 248 (Admin)
Challenge to the failure of the Defendants to provide the Claimant, a life prisoner originally convicted of murder, later reduced to manslaughter on appeal, with the courses he needed to satisfy the Defendants that he was no longer dangerous. Art 5 ECHR.
R (on the application of Torres)v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis [2007] EWHC 3212 (Admin) 17th December 2007
Test case on police powers to impose pre-charge bail conditions. Art 8 ECHR.
R (on the application of Kalonji)v Wood Green Crown Court [2007] EWHC 2804 (Admin) 19th October 2007
Challenge to the failure of the Defendant Court to provide the Claimant with a trial within his custody time limit.
R (on the application of TH) v Wood Green Crown Court (Interested Parties: Crown Prosecution Service and Department of Consitutional Affairs) [(31st October 2006) [2006] EWHC 2683 (QB), 9th November 2006, [2007] Crim LR 727; Times Law Reports. Also reported WLR and All ER.
Matter arising from a multi-handed criminal trial. TH was a witness, remanded into custody by the trial Judge. Judicial Review of that decision. Acted for TH. TH released on bail at permission hearing. Court considered Judicial Review, habeas corpus, Art 5 ECHR and damages uder the Human Rights Act issues.
R (on the application of A) v (1) Governor of Huntercombe Young Offenders' Institute (2) Secretary of State for the Home Office (4th October 2006) [2006] EWHC 2544 (Admin)
Matter arising from a multi-handed criminal appeal. Criminal appeal allowed, but Governor and Home Office refused to release Appellants. Judicial Review of that decision. Acted for A. Application granted and A released. Art 5 ECHR.
R (on the application of Mullane) v (1) West Berkshire Safer Communities Partnership (2) Secretary of State for the Home Department ( 31st July 2006 ) [2006] EWHC 2499 (Admin) Guardian News Item
Matter arising from the murder of a woman and son by husband who then killed himself. Home Office set up an inquiry which surviving family felt was inadequate in its terms of reference.Judicial Review of that process. Acted for Mullane. Art 2 ECHR.
R (on the application of Crown Prosecution Service) v City of London Magistrates ’ Court (Interested Party: Cordelia Gil) ( 4th April 2006 ) [2006] EWHC 1153 (Admin) Times Law Reports 17th April 2006
Matter arising from the magistrates’ discharge of the case against Gil. CPS judicially reviewed the decision. Acted for Gil. Court held new CJA 2003 applied in committal hearings. Art 6 ECHR.
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
R v Coehlo (May 2008) (unreported)
Appeal against conviction in a witness intimidation case resulting in a prison sentence of 42 months. Appeal allowed. "Verballing" provisions of PACE considered and alleged confession ruled inadmissible, and if admissable, would have heralded a return to the Pre-PACE 'bad old days'.
R v Smith (Peter Charles) (19th February 2007) [2007] EWCA Crim 51
Application under Criminal Appeals Act re arraignment of Defendant out of time.
R v Oliver (Warren) (1st December 2006 ) [2006] EWCA Crim 3150
Appeal against sentence in kidnapping case. Acted for Oliver. Appeal allowed.
R v (1) D (2) B (3) Y (4) S CA ( 22nd September 2006 ) [2006] EWCA Crim 2600
Appeal against conviction in Grievous Bodily Harm case. Acted for D. Appeal allowed.
R v Smith (Peter Charles) 23rd May 2006 [2006] EWCA Crim 1690
Appeal against conviction in drugs importation case. Acted for Smith. Appeal allowed. Important point of law established, distinguishing R v Bilinkski. Details in Crimeline Article.
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Mental Health Law - Electro-Convulsive Therapy
Christine Batchelor v Hull & East Riding Community Health NHS Trust (2003) County Court ( Kings ton Upon Hull ) 3/11/2003 . Lawtel AC0105978
Civil Procedure, Medical Treatment Appeared for Batchelor Trial of a preliminary issue of limitation in an action by the claimant ('B') for damages for personal injury alleged to have been caused by electro convulsive therapy ('ECT') administered by the defendant hospital. Claim failed due to Bolam test. Susan Rodway QC for defendant.
R (on the application of K) v Balham & Tooting Mental Health Trust Springfield University Hospital [2003] EWHC 357 Admin Stanley Burnton J . BBC News Item
Judicial Review, Medical Treatments. Appeared for K. Emergency overnight telephone injunction granted and upheld. Leave granted to judicially review the decision of the Defendant to administer Electro Convulsive Therapy to the Claimant, a 42 year old female Mental Health Act detainee, due to be given ECT the following morning.. Action compromised, Defendant undertaking not to administer K with
ECT.
Criminal Cases and Appeals
R v Johnson (Harold Robert) (2001) Cr App R 26, (2001) Crim LR 125, Times November 21, 2000,
Independent October 24 2000, Archbold 2007 7-51b Ancient Convictions
Criminal Procedure, Appeal Against Conviction. Appeared for Johnson. Appeal on referral by the Criminal Cases Review Commission, against his conviction, in 1968 at the Central Criminal Court, of aggravated robbery. Appeal based on safety of identification evidence pre-Turnbull. Court confirmed that the safety of old convictions is to be assessed by reference to current standards. Appeal allowed, conviction quashed. Bruce Houlder QC for the Crown.
R v Mohammed Dehri, Croydon Crown Court, Archbold News
Criminal Law – Trial - Defence of Necessity. Appeared for Dehri, an Algerian national in UK as overstayer. Attempted to leave UK on a forged French Passport. Defence: he had no valid passport and feared he would be deported with dire consequences so felt compelled to enter Canada where asylum prospects significantly better than UK . Legal argument as to availability of necessity defence in domestic law. Defendant ran defence. Not guilty verdict.
Chichester District Council v Jeremy Nicholas Wood (14th March 1997)Divisional Court CO/2738/96
Criminal Law, Appeal by way of Case Stated. Appeared for Wood, a pedlar/street-trader. Appeal by prosecutor by way of case stated following acquittal by lower court on a charge of street trading – Defendant successfully ran defence that he was a pedlar, not a street trader. Divisional Court certified a point of law of general public importance as to distinction between pedlars and street traders. House of Lords declined petition!
Gypsy Law
R v Thomas ( Southend Crown Court ). Reported in Solicitors’ Journal 139 Sol Jo 786 and Legal Action.
Criminal Law, Trial. Appeared for Thomas, a Gypsy residing on land without planning permission. Served with an enforcement notice requiring him to leave the land. He did not comply and was prosecuted for breach. Ran statutory defence,Section 179(3) that albeit he had done nothing to comply with the notice, he had done everything that he could be expected to do given the legal and social predicament facing Gypsies, ie ‘nothing’ could be ‘everything’. Not guilty verdict.
R v Wood (David) [2001] EWCA Crim 1395 CA (Criminal Division)
Criminal Law, Appeal Against Conviction. Appeared for Wood, a Gypsy who resided on his own land in contravention of planning permission and enforcement notice. Statutory defence, section 179(3) Town and Country Planning Act. Direction to jury. Doing nothing to secure compliance with a planning enforcement notice can be “everything” a Gypsy can be expected to do for the purposes of the statutory defence. Appeal allowed, conviction quashed.
R v. Warwick Crown Court Ex parte Trevor White [1997] EWHC (Admin) 670
Criminal Law. Judicial Review of Crown Court Judge's refusal to allow Trevor White, a Gypsy, to vacate his guilty plea in a Town and Country Planning Act prosecution. Archbold 2007 at paragraph 2-197
Judicial Review Court of Appeal
R v Immigration Appeals Tribunal (ex parte Bellache) (27th April 1997). Reported on Casetrack.
Appeared for Bellache, a failed asylum seeker who had supposedly missed his time for appealing against his asylum refusal decision. B was already boarded on a plane deporting him to Algeria. Successfully secured his removal from plane and secured him an appeal.
Publications
AUTHOR LAW
Prison Law Index 2010
Co- Author: Blackstone's Guide to the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004
Contributor: Gaining Ground: Law Reform for Gypsies and Travellers: Gypsies, Race Discrimination and Planning
MacMillan’s ‘A' Level Law Guide Publisher: Thomson Learning
Various Articles (LAG Journal, Solicitors’ Journal, Converse and Inside Time)
Specialisms
Civil Actions Against the Police
Employment
Judicial Review
Mental Health
Planning
Offences Against the Person
Police misconduct
Human Rights
Regulatory Offences
Prison Law
All areas of Criminal Defence
Gypsy Rights
Education
LLB (Hons) 2:1 University of London (External) (1992)
Certificate in Criminology (Birkbeck College – University of London) Psychology of Crime and Sociology of Criminal Behaviour (1992)
Memberships
Legal Action Group (LAG)
Criminal Bar Association (CBA)
Bar Pro Bono Unit
CPD Seminars
Criminal Appeals
Criminal Judicial Review
Prison Law
LINKS
http://www.prisonlawindex.com/
http://www.prisonlaw.org.uk/
http://www.legal500.com/firms/9579-/offices/9579-london/lawyers/68781
http://uk.linkedin.com/pub/stephen-field/26/997/6b2
http://www.1pumpcourt.co.uk/
http://www.stephenfieldlaw.com/
Prison
Law
Legal
500 London Lawyers
Linkedin
Stephen Field
1
Pump Court
Stephen
Field Law
Prison
Law Index
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.
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.
|
