Prisoner;s diaries can be quite revealing about the justice system



The Prevention of Corruption Act 1906

The Prevention of Corruption Act 1906 (6 Edw.7 c.34) was an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (as it was then). It is one of the Prevention of Corruption Acts 1889 to 1916. 

Section 1 makes it an offence (formerly classified as a misdemeanour) subject to imprisonment up to 7 years:

* for an agent to obtain a consideration as an inducement or reward for doing any act, or showing favour or disfavour to any person, in relation to his principal's affairs.

* for any person to give a consideration to an agent to induce him to do an act in relation to his principal's affairs.

* for any person or agent to knowingly falsify receipts, accounts or other documents with the intent to deceive the principal.



An "agent" includes any person employed by or acting for another, and a "principal" includes an employer.

The "principal" is the person the agent is employed by or acting for.

Anyone working for the government counts as an agent. (s.1(3))

In 2002, Part 12 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 extended this law for England, Wales and Northern Ireland internationally so that it could be exercised in cases where the agent and the principal had no connection with the UK. An equivalent change was made for Scotland by the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2003.

A prosecution in England and Wales for an offence under this Act cannot be instituted without the consent of the Attorney-General,[3] who can discontinue an investigation that is working towards a prosecution under the Act.





This Act gives a statutory definition .....



HRH Queen Elizabeth 2nd Her Royal Highness, England


NCSC ROYAL OPENING - Her Majesty The Queen opened the NCSC on the 17th of February 2017. There are several agencies in the UK that are supposed to tackle fraud, cyber crime, drugs, sex trafficking and money laundering, but when you ask any one of them to take a look at corruption in Wealden-land, they don't appear too anxious to open a case file. It's more a case of pass the buck .... and keep passing it ... until the complainant fades away. Sorry to have to report this to you Your Majesty, but it is the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth - so help me God.





Concealment of vital evidence equals fraud


NEGLIGENCE: If your legal team do not mount a full defence, your right to a fair trial as per Article 6 may have been compromised. If the investigating officers decide to ignore evidence found at the alleged scene of a crime that points away from guilt, they have a duty to collect that evidence and present it to the defence as part of a fair and balanced investigation as per their Codes of Practice Order April 2005.


In the case in question Gordon Staker, James Hookway and Jo Pinyoun failed to secure the diaries of the Psychiatric Nurse, who hid her work diary in her loft to prevent Sussex police from including it in their evidence for disclosure. These officers also failed to include the hand written entries of the Psychiatric Community Nurse in the defendant's diaries, reminding him about Valentines Day. The Crown Prosecution Service obtained a conviction using a Valentines Day card sent to the claimant, without the defence being able to show why that was. In the absence of an explanation the Jury found the accused guilty, not based on any eye witness testimony other than that of the complainant, but also including junk science in the equation where a perfectly innocent and naturally occurring mark on the girl's hymen was said to be indicative of assault - when in fact all women and girls have such features from a young age.


The CPS further disadvantaged the defence by not supplying colour photocopies of selected diary pages to enable the defence to disprove an allegation as to menstruation cycles on the part of the Psychiatric Community Nurse.


We consider that the standard of investigation by these police officers constitutes a serious malfeasance in public officer where they worked together to conceal the evidence that the defence needed to mount any kind of robust rebuttal.






Aran Boyt

Chris Sherwood

Colin Dowle

Dave Tye

Jane Rhodes

Jo Pinyoun

Joe Edwards

Giles York

Gordon Staker

James Hookway

Kara Tombling

Keith Lindsay

Keith Stoneman

Ken Jones

Maria Wallis

Mark Jordan

Martin Richards

Neil Honnor

Nigel Yeo

Olivia Pinkney

Paul Whitehouse

Peter Coll

Robert Lovell

Sarah Jane Gallagher

Sir Ken Macdonald QC

Timothy Motram



Patrick Scarpa, solicitor Wealden District Council Christine Nuttall, solcitor, Wealden District Council corruption and monument protection English Heritage David Phillips, perjury and corruption Wealden District Council, the Energy Age, Nelson Kruschandl


Victorio Patrick Scarpa, Christine Nuttall, David Phillips & Charles (Charlie) Lant


    Douglas Moss 


Kelvin Williams, J. Douglas Moss and Ian M. Kay



The above picture is of Victorio Patrick Scarpa over 10 years ago, also Christine Nuttall & David Phillips. David Phillips was still working for WDC as of 2018. He was the enforcement officer working with Vic Scarpa concerning the alleged ongoing malicious prosecution - a series of malfeasances in public office that probably deserves at least one life sentence. How many other officers might have been involved, or know enough to be able to blow the whistle? We know Christine Nuttall and Vic Scarpa were the solicitors preparing fraudulent papers for this council for this case as part of a conspiracy. Derek Holness and Charles Lant are also involved in the mix somewhere.



UK Prime Minister Tony Blair laughs as California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger looks on.



Vicarage Lane, Hailsham, East Sussex, BN27 2AX T: 01323 443322
Pine Grove, Crowborough, East Sussex, TN6 1DH





Dick Angel - Jo Bentley - John Blake - Bob Bowdler - Don Broadbent - Norman Buck - Raymond Cade - John Carvey - Lin Clark
Nicholas Collinson - Nigel Coltman - Ronald Cussons - Barby Dashwood-Morris - Dianne Dear - Phil Dixon - Pam Doodes

  Claire Dowling - Jan Dunk - Louise Eastwood - Philip Ede - Helen Firth - Toby Illingworth - Jonica Fox - Roy Galley - Richard Grocock - Chris Hardy

Steve Harms - Jim Hollins - Peter Holloway - Johanna Howell - Stephen Isted - David Larkin - Andy Long - Michael Lunn

Barry Marlowe - Nigel McKeeman - Huw Merriman - Rowena Moore - Kay Moss - Douglas Murray - Ann Newton - Ken Ogden

Amanda O'RaweCharles R Peck - Diane Phillips - Mark Pinkney - Major Antony Quin RM - Ronald Reed - Dr. Brian Redman

Carol Reynolds - Greg Rose - Peter Roundell - William Rutherford - Daniel Shing - Oi Lin Shing - Raymond Shing - Stephen Shing

Robert Standley - Susan Stedman - Bill Tooley - Jeanette Towey - Stuart Towner - Chriss Triandafyllou - Peter Waldock

Neil Waller - David Watts - Mark Weaver -Graham Wells - David White - John Wilton



UK legislation Fraud Act 2006 index page

Wikipedia Fraud_Act_2006

Action fraud police UK




Abbott Trevor - Alcock Charmain - Ditto - Arnold Chris (Christine) - Barakchizadeh Lesley - Bending Christopher - Ditto  - Black Julian

Boakes Beverley - Paul Barker - Brigginshaw Marina - Brown Ashley - Coffey Patrick - Douglas Sheelagh - Dowsett Timothy - Elphick Christopher

Flemming Mike - Forder Ralph - Garrett Martin - Goodwin Daniel - Hall David - Henham J - Holness Derek - Hoy Thomas - Johnson Geoff

Kay Ian - Kay I. M. - Lant Charles - Leyton Benjamin - Meagher Rowanne - Mercer Richard - Mileman Niall - Moon Craig - Moss Douglas, J.

Nuttall Christine - Pettigrew Rex - Phillips David - Scarpa Victorio - Scott Trevor - Stewart Kevin - Turner Claire

Wakeford M. - Whibley David - White, George - White Steve - Williams Kelvin - Wilson Kenneth






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.