This morning in the Eastbourne Magistrates Court, Deputy District Judge Irena Ray-Crosby refused to issue a Summons naming Superintendent Coll as a witness to be called in the famous Parking Ticket scandal now developing.




"Don't try this at home children"



The case is set to be heard in May 2006, but apparently will be allowed to proceed by the court, without the defendant being allowed the opportunity to question the Police adminstration who may be to blame for the mix up.  It seems the defendant in this matter will not be allowed the right to a fair hearing.  Deputy District Judge Ray-Crosby said: "It's a waste of public money."  However, should there be a price ticket on justice, and if it's such a waste of public money, why are the Police wasting it?


The defendant alleges this is unlawful.  He says he is entitled to question witnesses, as set out in Article 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998


Oddly enough, it is alleged that the decision was made by the Clerk to the Court, rather than the Deputy Judge.  We have seen to original application of the defendant, where there is a NO, clearly written, and apparently not in the Judges handwriting.  This application, which takes the form of a letter, was handed to the Judge by the Clerk, then handed back to the defendant, when he was told by the Judge, she would not issue the summons requested.


The question we would ask is, "If it's such a waste of public money, then why are the Sussex Police pursuing this parking ticket, spending their time seeking to gain a conviction, when the the alleged parking ticket was mis-served. 


As with so many of the similar cases reported on this site, the defendants only ever get a fair hearing in a higher court and usually on appeal.  The defendant alleges this case should never have been brought, since service was not properly effected.  The defendant says he wrote to the Central Ticket office in Hove, pointing out the error, but that the station manager, Inspector Coll, said the matter should go ahead regardless.  Apparently, the defendant also wrote to the Crown Prosecution Service pointing out the problem, but they too ignored the mis-service issue.


Eastbourne Magistrates Court




The defendant alleges that the roles were reversed back in 1997, where he was one of 12 Petitioners complaining about illegal activities within Wealden District Council.  Wealden refused to look into the criminal complaints and passed the matter to Sussex Police.  However it is alleged the Sussex Police did not investigate at all.  The Petitioners claim they were not contacted.


However, some months later, Raymond Parsons, the then Leader of the Council read out a letter from the Sussex Police, saying they had investigated the matter and there was no case to answer.  This stunned the Petitioners, who knew they had not been contacted.


Shortly after this the Chief Executive retired, taking with him an enhanced pension package.  Then a few weeks later, another member of the public was speaking with Police officers at Hailsham Police Station, when these officers confided that there had been no investigation at all.  They went on to reveal that the Council's Chief Executive had written the letter read out, himself. Apparently, he had used Police headed paper, then given the letter to Councillor Parsons to read out as if it had come from the Police officially.


It appears therefore that there may have been a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.  Now if that is the case, it is a serious matter.  Anyone who interferes with the course of justice may become party to the crime.  Especially, a Magistrate or a Judge.


The defendant points out: "The Courts have a duty to protect the right of the public, to a fair hearing."  What do think about Irena Ray-Crosby's decision today?  Did she protect the right of this defendant to call and question a witness to the parking ticket mix up?  See Article 6. 3. (d) for details.  Also, take a look at the cases below featuring Irena.  You will see that she defends people, she prosecutes and she is a Judge.  All rather cosy wouldn't you say?  What role would you like to play today maam!  Do you think Irena would forget her mates in a crisis?


         SUSSEX POLICE   




"And you must cut this flesh from off his breast: the law allows it, and the court awards it." - The Merchant of Venice





Muslim Accused of Assaulting Son Through Circumcision Tuesday, May 3, 2005

A Muslim “assaulted” his five-year-old son by having him circumcised against his mother’s wishes, a court heard today.

The father is alleged to have secretly taken the boy to a doctor in north London for the procedure.

Lewes Crown Court heard he then told the mother – an English Christian – what had happened and said: “There is nothing you can do.”

The 27-year-old man – who lives in Crawley, West Sussex, but cannot be named for legal reasons – denies committing an assault occasioning actual bodily harm in August 2003.

Irena Ray-Crosby, prosecuting, told the court today that the parents had been involved in a three-month relationship and the mother realised she was pregnant after they broke up.

Once the defendant, who is of Moroccan origin, realised the child was his he began raising the issue of circumcision in line with his religious beliefs.

“He told (the mother) he wanted to have the boy circumcised and she said she would agree with that only for medical reasons and never for religious ones.”

The court heard that in August 2003 – shortly after the boy’s fifth birthday – he went to stay with his father.

The defendant telephoned the mother and asked her to come out of her house to talk to him, at which point he told her about the circumcision.

According to Ms Ray-Crosby, the mother accused him of assaulting their son, and the defendant responded: “There’s nothing you can do. I’ve looked into it and it’s perfectly legal.”

He later sent her a text message saying she should give the boy salty baths in order to help him heal.

The court heard that the father had been “under pressure” from fellow Muslims to get his son circumcised, and paid £100 in cash for the procedure to be carried out.

Ms Ray-Crosby said the defendant had admitted when arrested and interviewed by police that he had not told the mother in advance of his plans. She added that there had been no medical reason why the boy needed to be circumcised.

“This is not a case that is anti-Islam or anti-any other faith. It’s simply about a boy who was circumcised without his mother’s consent.”

Ms Ray-Crosby said the father had never applied for legal parental responsibility, and therefore could not have provided proper consent for the operation to take place.

A British court has ruled that consent of both parents is required for circumcision.

The Scotsman 




We'd like a picture of Irena Ray_Crosby for our pages.  Then if any member of the public comes up before her, he or she will know what they're in for.  


We would also like a clear picture of Superintendent Coll and any other officer involved in this case.


We will pay £200 for any clear picture, if it is published.  We believe this to be in the public interest.





DEATH CRASH DRIVER JAILED - Thursday 13th Jan 2005.


A drink-driver has been jailed for five years for killing a teenage girl in a head-on crash.


Christian Sparks caused a horrific accident which claimed the life of 19-year-old Ria Reichl on his way home from a three-and-a-half hour drinking session. He took the wheel of his Transit van despite having drunk enough lager and Jack Daniels whisky to take him almost twice over the legal alcohol limit. Ria, a student from Crowborough, died at the scene after Sparks smashed into her Vauxhall Nova on the A22 at Forest Row last March.


Her best friend and passenger Yvette Kubillus, now 16, was left with broken bones and severe facial and internal injuries. Yesterday, sentencing Sparks at Hove Crown Court, Judge David Rennie told him: "The decision you made to get behind the wheel while you were drunk sends shivers down the spine." Sparks, 29, a lift engineer, of High Street, Nutley, near Uckfield, was found guilty of causing death by careless driving. The court heard how Sparks had driven into Forest Row with friends Tamehana Wrathall and Timothy Warnett for a night out and planned to take a taxi home. Sparks spent the evening drinking Jack Daniels and Coke before the group finished up at the Chequers pub in the town, where Sparks had parked his van earlier.


But, the court heard, Sparks claimed not to remember anything after leaving the pub, denying any recollection of the decision to drive the five-mile journey back to his home. Speaking at the start of the seven-day trial, Joanna Cutts, prosecuting, said: "Miss Reichl was driving in a careful way but as she approached the bend at Forest Row everything changed. "A white van came round the corner, it suddenly swerved sharply on to the wrong side of the road and Miss Reichl had not time to react. "He (Sparks) told police he could not remember anything from when he left the pub until he was standing in the road after the accident. "But there is forensic evidence which shows he was indeed the driver and caused the death of the woman driving."


The court heard families living near the A22 rushed out of their homes and tried to free Miss Reichl from the car. Sparks's sister Louise, a policewoman, told the court of a conversation she had had with her brother soon after the accident in which he claimed he had not been driving but that he had been worried about "getting into trouble over insurance". An off-duty policeman helping at the scene also described how Sparks had denied being in the van just minutes after the accident. Irena Ray-Crosby, defending, said Sparks had no previous convictions and appealed to the jury to consider whether someone else had been driving. Ms Ray-Crosby said: "Can you be absolutely sure that it was Christian Sparks who was the driver - would he suddenly go out drinking and driving for no reason?"


The jury of seven men and five women took little more than an hour to return a unanimous guilty verdict.  Sparks was also banned from driving for five years. Judge Rennie told him: "Your position has always been you have no recollection of being the driver and despite the overwhelming evidence you were not able or not prepared to accept that you were driving."


Outside court, Volker Kubillus, a friend of Ria's family, said on behalf of her father Bernd: "It is not easy for us to be confronted with all the detailed pain and tragedy that was created by a drunken driver and it is very sad to learn that the defendant has not shown any sign of insight after all." He also said the accident had had a terrible impact on his daughter Yvette.








Evening News Friday 27 August 2004


A man who grew his own cannabis was given a condition discharge by magistrates after they accepted he was smoking it to relieve the symptoms of his severe eczema.
A Norfolk doctor leading clinical trials into the use of cannabis in the treatment of ailments today said thousands more people suffering pain and discomfort could be helped but for stigma of taking the drug.

Dr William Notcutt, who spearheaded Britain's first clinical trial of the drug at the James Paget Hospital in Gorleston, said cannabis or its derivatives could help people with conditions like eczema.  "We know some cannabis derivatives have an effect on pain in rheumatoid arthritis," he said.  "It doesn't surprise me that someone is using cannabis in this way."

Deputy district judge Irena Ray-Crosby at Norwich magistrates court had told Ian Howarth: "I totally accept the reasons for cultivating cannabis.  It was not done for fun. 
"This is totally because of your exceptional circumstances.  You are obviously suffering."

Howarth, 25, of Falkland Close, Hellesdon, admitted growing cannabis, driving off without paying for UKP15 worth of petrol and stealing two packets of Germoline from the Asda in Hellesdon. 
Prosecutor Ben Brighouse said he went to the Wayside service station in Dereham Road, Costessey.

He put UKP15 worth of petrol into his Nissan Micra car, but left the garage without paying for it. 
Howarth was traced through his car and when police went to his home they noticed the powerful odour of cannabis.

The found cannabis leaves and also plants being grown under temperature controlled conditions.  There were a total of 17 plants, 10 of them just seedlings. 
Mr Brighouse said the estimated value of the leaves and plants was about UKP800.

Anna Farquharson, for Howarth, said he was on sickness benefit because of his acute eczema. 
"He tells me smoking cannabis alleviates the itching and very often the pain he suffers from eczema.  He is regularly admitted to hospital so bad is his eczema," she said.

"He also feels he is in a position to control the quality of the cannabis to alleviate his symptoms." 
Dr Notcutt has expressed his frustration that the Department of Health had not yet agreed to make cannabis available as a painkiller on the NHS.  He said: "There are more than 200 patients in my pain clinic who want to use cannabis for relief from their pain.

"There may be an opportunity for people like that to use this drug sensibly and safely without suffering side effects.  But it's being held up because it's cannabis. 
"There's a perception of what cannabis does and politicians find this difficult to handle."  He added that many GPs had their suspicions that some of their patients were using cannabis for pain relief.

Using the drug as a legal painkiller, under the control of the NHS, would guarantee its quality and people wanting to use cannabis for this purpose would not have to seek out dealers in order to get a supply, he said.




Thieving charity treasurer jailed - Jan 27 2005


A 79-YEAR-OLD Burma war veteran who swindled a charity out of £18,070 has been jailed for nine months.


David Melrose used the current account of Victoria Almshouses in Deerings Road, Reigate, and London Road, Redhill, to make cheques out to himself, and when funds ran low he began selling off the charity's stocks and shares. It led to Melrose being found guilty at Guildford Crown Court on Friday January 14 of nine charges of obtaining money transfer by deception between late 2001 and August 2002.


He was cleared of three similar offences from February to July 2001. Melrose, who denied the charges, took up the voluntary role of treasurer in 1993 and, although he did not get paid, he was entitled to reclaim expenses which he claimed had run up to £25,000.


Michael Speak, prosecuting, told the court that in 2002 the company's auditors discovered that a very large number of the charity's investment units had been sold.  "It was the charity's nest egg," he said. "No-one, least of all the defendant, had any authority to go and sell off the charity's investment units without telling anybody."


Mr Speak said further examination of the books revealed that he had been stealing the charity's money for quite a long time and trying to cover it up.  

He wrote cheques to himself on several occasions from the current account then turned his attention to the investment account.  The jury heard how, on a ninth attempt to withdraw money, the cheque bounced because he had reduced the charity's current account so much.


In 2002 Melrose realised that matters were getting out of hand and decided to repair some of the damage by buying back shares, Mr Speak said.  Melrose used both the charity's and his own money before auditors discovered the mess.


Irena Ray-Crosby, defending, told the court that Melrose, who claimed he used some of the money to pay for a cataracts operation, was a man of previous impeccable character. She said: "Custody would weigh heavily on him, both because of his age and because of the substantial ill-health of his wife.  "She has had two heart operations and takes a great deal of medication. Without her husband's assistance she is really not going to be able to cope."


Melrose, of Highdown Drive, Littlehampton, told the jury how he had been hit by personal losses on the American stock markets and had run up credit card debts of £60,000.  He said: "It was just a question of paying some one month and some another. I had always expected the golden goose to come in."


Sentencing Melrose, Recorder Georgina Kent said: "These offences are so serious only a custodial sentence can be justified. The reason being that as honorary treasurer you were held in a high degree of trust. This was a serious breach of that trust."


Peter Lowe, chairman of the board of trustees, said after the case: "It was a very sad affair right from the start, but it did not affect in any way the residents of the almshouses.  "It was a shattering experience for us because he was a trusted member of the board."




He told them I was 'psychotic'

From the Telegraph & Argus, first published Friday 10th Nov 2000.

A Bradford psychiatrist diagnosed a woman as psychotic after chatting to her through a window.

Doctor Sasi Bhusan Mahapatra, told solicitors the woman was mentally ill after being asked to provide evidence in divorce proceedings, a disciplinary hearing was told yesterday.

Doctor Mahapatra, of Woodlands Drive, Apperley Bridge, denied serious professional misconduct when he appeared before a disciplinary committee of the General Medical Council in London yesterday.

He admits he failed to examine the woman or take a medical history and that he wrote to the husband's solicitor saying she was suffering from paranoid psychosis.

He denies he discussed her medical history with her husband's solicitors, her church minister or her brother.

Ms Irena Ray-Crosby, for the GMC, said the woman's husband, referred to only as Mr A, first approached his family doctor in December 1993 after his wife began divorce proceedings.

Mr and Mrs A are both Jehovah's Witnesses and did not believe in divorce, so Mrs A's petition for divorce therefore led to greater tensions between the couple.

Mr A had been convinced his wife was suffering from mental illness and put her under considerable pressure to undergo psychiatric treatment.

The family GP asked Dr Mahapatra to assess Mrs A's mental state.

The GMC disciplinary committee was told that Dr Mahapatra visited Mrs A at her home without an appointment or announcing his arrival on December 15, 1993.

When he knocked on the door Mrs A had just got out of the shower and was in her dressing-gown. She refused to let him in.

She told the hearing: "I did not like the way he came to the house unannounced and without an appointment and the way I had been discussed by my husband and GP without me."

Dr Mahapatra did not have face-to-face contact with Mrs A but talked to her through a window.

Following the visit he wrote to the family GP saying he had failed to persuade her to see him but, from information obtained from her husband and two sons, she was clearly in need of psychiatric assessment.

In October 1994, without further examination, Dr Mahapatra wrote to solicitors Harrison & Tordoff acting for Mr A in the divorce proceedings, stating that Mrs A was suffering from paranoid psychosis and was being extremely unreasonable.

Dr Mahapatra asaid the information obtained from both Mrs A's GP and Mr A had led him to believe that she would fall in the category of paranoid psychosis. He said: " It is a shame that I did not have the opportunity to examine her."

He accepted that he failed to make it clear that he had never examined Mrs A and that the information about her was based on second-hand information.

He said: "In hindsight, I regret that I did not make it clear in my report and regret if it caused distress to Mrs A."

The hearing continues.

This is Bradford Archive Home





What cost to the country incompetence?  Sloppiness and Negligence?




Popular Pages
Do it online
Have your say
What's new?





THIS SITE CONTAINS MANY EXAMPLES OF BRITISH JUDGES AND UNREASONABLE BEHAVIOUR - With thanks to Action Groups across the country for the supply of real case history and supporting documents.  *THAT THE PUBLIC MAY KNOW*



This site is free of © Copyright 2006 except where specifically stated.  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 UK Limited.