Brian Pead informs Commissioner Cressida Dick of police corruption
28 February 2017
Re-submitted 24 March 2017
New Scotland Yard
Dear Ms Dick,
An Open Letter Re: Your Appointment and Other Matters
Firstly, may I congratulate you on your appointment as Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police Service. What a remarkable moment in history we have with the confluence of a female Prime Minister, female Lord Chancellor, female Home Secretary and a female Commissioner. Nobody, of course, commented when males held all of those roles for centuries. I hope your appointment inspires my two granddaughters, now 18 and 15.
You will have seen that, as the author of this letter, I have given it the status of an Open Letter. I believe you will understand why as you read on.
I should also point out that throughout this letter, I make reference to an article by Tom Harper in The Sunday Times dated 26 February 2017 (page 6) entitled ‘Cool Cressida’s first case: the battered Yard.’
The article painted a sorry and somewhat disturbing picture of the current state of Scotland Yard. It refers to your “icy” relationship with your predecessor, Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe, to whom I had occasion to write on at least a dozen occasions and who failed to deal with my matters in a professional manner. The baton has now been passed to you, and I am seeking your assistance in not only correcting gross miscarriages (please note the plural) of justice that I have been involved in, and also the case of Tony Martin, the Norfolk farmer who fired his shotgun when burglars smashed their way into his house in 1999. It is a case which you may well remember.
I have been the victim of FOUR miscarriages of justice. This is not only my view, but also that of Sir Henry Bellingham, my MP and a non-practising barrister. In fact, on 27 January 2017, when I met with him (with Satish Sekar, an investigative journalist also present), Sir Henry said that “All of your convictions are unsafe and unlawful and any solicitor – let alone a barrister – could see that straightaway.” This is recorded in the Minutes of that meeting.
Now, the “reasonable person” as defined by the Courts, would be driven to conclude that, with an MP being able to state on the record that my convictions were “unsafe and unlawful”, that it should be a simple matter for them to be quashed and my life return to normal.
Not so. And the reason that this Kafka-esque nightmare has arisen is because of demonstrable police corruption. I have been in communication with Baroness Lawrence of Clarendon on this matter, since, as I expect you will know, she was most vociferous in the matter of police corruption in her son’s murder. She managed to get a Home Affairs Select Committee to discuss the issue of police corruption.
In Mr Harper’s article, he referred to a dissertation you wrote arguing that the way Margaret Thatcher used the police to crush the miners’ strike had “…undermined public support by creating the impression that the police had been reduced to the status of political tools…”
Sadly, I do not have the time or space in which to give you my views of the way in which the miners were treated (although from the way I constructed that sentence you may well be able to tell where my sympathies lie) and nor do I have the space to discuss your point that the police were reduced to the status of political tools – though I must say that I do entirely agree. I think there is a worrying trend towards the Police being nothing more than an extension of Government, rather being at least one step removed. Perhaps it is a naive thought on my part to think that there should be complete independence when it is clear there is not.
Referring to your comment about public confidence in the Police being undermined, I think you are only half-correct. I believe that by far and away the biggest issue with the Police which undermines public confidence is corruption. I need only mention Hillsborough (a match which I attended) and you will instantly know that no right-minded, decent member of the public would wish its police force to lie, to apportion blame where no blame exists, to create false documents, to forge signatures and to go into a mind-set of continual and perpetual denial when the ‘human thing to do’ was to say, “We’re sorry, we got this wrong.”
I do not have the time or space to enter into all of my views about Hillsborough, though some can be found in my (banned) book from Hillsborough to Lambeth, co-authored with Michael Bird.
The purpose of my letter is:
(i) to draw your attention to my miscarriages of justice achieved through police corruption (and I use the term in accordance with its use by Professor Phil Scraton of the Hillsborough Independent Panel);
(ii) to seek your assistance in achieving a meeting with my beloved daughter and grandchildren;
(iii) to request a full written apology from the Metropolitan Police Service for its inhuman treatment of not only me but vicariously also my immediate family.
THE MISCARRIAGES OF JUSTICE
(i) the incitement of a female aged 14 to engage in sexual activity (s.10 Sexual Offences Act 2003) – there never was a female and the SOA requires there to have been a ‘Person B’ to have been incited;
(ii) the alleged Harassment of my daughter Sorrel Birch (née Pead ) by sending her a letter about police corruption in the above case, and my then 12 year old granddaughter, Emily Birch, by sending her a birthday card – when neither family member had made a complaint to the Police, when neither had made a witness statement and neither appeared in Court (Bexley Magistrates’) against me;
(iii) the alleged criminal damage to a car purportedly belonging to the energy company E.ON – when no damage was sustained and when the Board of Directors (whom I contacted) failed to provide ownership of the car and the Police failed to provide proof of damage;
(iv) allegedly impersonating a barrister (I have acted lawfully as a McKenzie Friend for Tony Martin and others) – when I have never spoken on another person’s behalf in Court, I have never worn a wig or gown in Court and never portrayed myself as a barrister at all.
You will easily be able to see that Sir Henry Bellingham is correct in saying that any bona fide solicitor could see straightaway that these convictions are, indeed “unsafe” and “unlawful” and they only came upon me after the age of 56 when I had reported child abuse whilst working as the Head Teacher of a pupil referral unit in Lambeth Council – which was my job to report. Thereafter, I was “unlawfully dismissed” (Sir Henry’s phrase) by the Council, where I had been “set up” to quote Alex Passman of the University of Plymouth, an award-winning Employment Law Specialist who accompanied me to the first investigation meeting following my unlawful suspension (I had not been provided with reasons for my suspension) and then this series of convictions entered my life. I had also been replaced as Head on 02 April 2007 and not interviewed until 19 April 2007 – a clear breach of Employment Law.
The article previously referred to, says that you possess “…a powerful intellect…” and so I feel certain that you will be able to see that these convictions against me have no merit whatsoever and have obviously been brought against me as a stalking horse to deflect attention away from Lambeth. As you will know, Lambeth Council is now – 10 years later – very much in the news with regard to child abuse and is being investigated by the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse.
On 09 March 2015, I met with Clive Driscoll, a now-retired DCI from Scotland Yard, who informed me that I was “flagged up at Scotland Yard as a major threat because of my research and books” and that my family had been lied to and it was likely that they had been shown documentation. (I have, unlawfully, two Police National Computer [PNC] records. One (false) record shows that I have been convicted of rape against numerous females under the age of 13, when I have never been arrested, charged, indicted, on trial or sentenced. Indeed, Mr Driscoll commented that if the record had been true, we would not have been able to sit drinking tea together (with co-author Michael Bird present) as I would have been languishing for years in prison. I have actually been held in prison on five occasions and not once lawfully.
(Minutes of that meeting enclosed)
I could write at great length about the level of police corruption that I have encountered, but will refrain from doing so as it will get in the way of my achieving justice for me and family.
THE DIFFICULTIES FOR THE POLICE
At present my entire focus is on the second conviction – that of the alleged harassment of my daughter and granddaughter (but not my son-in-law, younger granddaughter or grandson.)
My son-in-law is a co-Director in a garage known as Foxberry Garage, in Brockley, southeast London.
On 23 September 2011, I had been unlawfully held in HMP Belmarsh on a charge of the witness intimidation of my then 12 year old granddaughter, Emily, who had never been a witness in any trial or hearing. It would have been easy to establish the truth of that statement. However, I was held in prison for seven weeks and on 01 November 2011 I was forcibly taken to Bexley Magistrates’ Court for the trial for Harassment. There were no witness statements and no family members in court, other than my son-in-law, who was extremely agitated and, I argue, under duress. He said in court that my daughter and grandchildren wanted nothing more to do with me on the basis that I had a conviction for alleged incitement, but there was no evidence, no trial bundle, no witness statements, no accusers against me. It follows, therefore, under the Rule of Law, that I cannot (and am not) guilty of the Harassment of my beloved family members.
The difficulty for the Police is that I am convinced that my daughter was not informed about this hearing at all- and nor was Emily.
The Police have created a situation in which a man (my son-in-law) has gone behind his wife’s back in order to get her father found guilty of a crime he knows the father has not committed.
When I spoke with Mr Driscoll about this, he agreed that there may well have been a financial inducement to make my son-in-law act in this way, since the garage he is a co-Director in services vehicles for the Met Police.
However, be that as it may, the issue is that the Magistrate, acting ultra vires (since he did not have the authority to act outside of the law) issued a Restraining Order for 18 months preventing contact with ALL members of my immediate family.
Furthermore, on March 2014, when I was forced to attend Bexleyheath police station, I was asked to make a statement saying that I wished to have no contact with my family members in order to harass them. You do not need a “powerful intellect” to believe that the police will have played that tape to my family without the words in italics, thus giving them the impression that I do not want contact with them. This is completely untrue.
In January 2012, I was forced to represent myself at Woolwich Crown Court on a bogus charge of a breach of a SOPO (made in error against me). The Judge (the only fair one I have met) threw out the case because she said that the police officer had lied and entered false evidence into court. It is my belief that that is, in fact, a criminal offence, but he was never reprimanded – that is not the purpose of this letter.
The difficulty for the Met Police is this: that in assisting me in becoming reunited with my family, it will become obvious to my daughter (who has no previous knowledge) that her husband went behind her back in getting her father convicted of a crime he did not commit. Whilst the Sunday Times article did not refer directly to your qualities of emotional intelligence and/ or empathy, I am making the assumption that you must possess these because it spoke of your treatment of ‘junior officers’ and I know that a wise and intelligent leader pays close regard to one’s colleagues, especially those in junior positions.
MY REQUEST TO YOU
I have a large claim against the Met Police for its persecution of me since I first reported child abuse in 2006. My family also has a large claim for having been denied my company for the past decade.
However, that will come in time and I sincerely hope that you are not minded to perpetuate the behaviour of “corporate denial” which I have constantly met with, particularly from your predecessor.
In the meantime, I am asking that you call a meeting with my daughter, son-in-law and grandchildren at New Scotland Yard, with Sir Henry, retired DCI Driscoll, Satish Sekar (investigative author) and Michael Mansfield QC also present with the objective being that my family is finally told the truth. Justice came (in part) to the Hillsborough families and to Doreen Lawrence, and I believe that my family and I deserve Justice too.
Prior to the Police infiltrating every aspect of my life without a RIPA warrant in place, I saw my grandchildren every week of their lives until the ages of 9, 7 and 2.
I taught my granddaughters the value in decent living and in aspiring to achieve your dreams. I took them to the cinema, to museums, to the park, to theatres, and encouraged them in rock-climbing as a physical metaphor for life. I would like my granddaughters to meet you so that they once again learn that not all police officers are corrupt, or liars, or forge witness statements or create documents. Despite the Met’s decade-long persecution of me, I still believe in the notion of a police service (I do not subscribe to the view that it should be a police force), and I still hold to the notion of the Rule of Law.
I therefore ask that you do the honourable thing and call this meeting so that I can be reunited with my family. I do not blame my son-in-law for his actions on 01 November 2011 since it was very clear to me that he was acting under duress. Only a few months later, a police constable lied and entered false evidence against me as I have shown.
I do not think it will have escaped you that I mentioned earlier that a Restraining Order was issued against me contrary to the rule of law on 01 November 2011 for a period of 18 months.
I regret to inform you that the Police are still claiming that it is active. No paperwork to support their lies is ever produced. I am also presently banned from the entire London Borough of Bexley (where my family live) because the police are perpetuating the myth that I am a danger to my family and that they need protecting. The only people my family need protecting from are corrupt police officers.
On each previous occasion that I have written to previous Commissioners with my complaints and demonstrable evidence of corruption in my cases, I have been arrested and new further charges (all bogus) brought against me. I do hope that you are not minded to perpetuate such criminal activity.
It may interest you to know that the Criminal Cases Review Commission has recently accepted Mr Martin’s Appeal against Conviction. He confirmed to the CCRC in person that he wished me to conduct his appeal although he is fully aware that I am neither a solicitor nor a barrister. I have exhaustively researched Mr Martin’s case for 3 years and found a number of worrying departures from normal police protocol in his case. I understand from the aforementioned article that your degree at Balliol was in agriculture and forest sciences and feel it would be appropriate for you to meet with Mr Martin on his land to discuss his case. (This is not to interfere with the current CCRC investigation but merely to inform you in situ as it were of the wrong-doing in Mr Martin’s case.)
Last week I received notification from the Met that they have placed me on police bail to attend a police station in southeast London (I live in Norfolk) in the matter of an alleged breach of the Restraining Order unlawfully issued on 01 November 2011 which Sir Henry Bellingham has agreed ought never have been issued.
I must make you aware that, because policing is by consent in this country, I have no intention of answering police bail because to answer would be for me to buy into the notion that this farcical state of affairs is lawful. I have no wish to indulge in unlawful behaviour or to perpetuate the myth that the Restraining Order is lawful. It is not.
Furthermore, on 22 February 2017, I entered into Bromley Magistrates’ Court (the circuit’s leading court) an Application to Revoke the Restraining Order. However, I had no need to do this since the RO is void ab initio – it was unlawfully made and therefore is automatically void. I refer you to the following ratio decidendi in Lord Greene in Craig v Kanssen :
“A person affected by a void order has the right – ex debito justitiae – to have the order set aside (which means that the Court does not have discretion to refuse to set aside the order or to go into the merits of the case).”
In making the Application, the very act itself served notice on the Court that the order is void and the Court has no discretion to refuse to set it aside or to go into the merits of the case. This means, of course, that I am, in fact, lawfully entitled to visit my family. However, I am prepared to wait so that they can hear the Truth from you in the first instance.
Furthermore, a void order is incurably void and all proceedings based on the invalid claim or void act are also void. Even a decision of the higher Courts (High Court, Court of Appeal and Supreme
Court) will be void if the decision is founded on an invalid claim or void act, because
something cannot be founded on nothing (Lord Denning in MacFoy v United Africa Co. Ltd.
I am obliged to inform you that on 31 December 2013, I issued an Official Complaint under Article 3 of the European Convention which is still active, due to the Government’s lack of appetite in dealing with the Complaint.
I look forward to your prompt and expeditious response to my letter and positive intervention in securing my reunification with my beloved family. I inform you that I continue to be persecuted by the Met and Norfolk Constabulary (who arrest me at will and then claim I have not been arrested after holding me in a police cell for over 16 hours before being released without charge) and, by extension, my family is also persecuted in continual breaches of our Article 8 Rights under the Human Rights Act 1998.
MINUTES OF MEETING
Date: 09 March 2015
Venue: The Port Jackson public house, Bishop’s Stortford, Essex
Attendees: retired Detective Chief Inspector Clive Driscoll [CD], Michael Bird [MB] (co-author of From Hillsborough to Lambeth), William Brian Freeman [WBF] (formerly known as Brian Pead) (co-author of From Hillsborough to Lambeth) and other books including FRAMED! and 10Prisons12Weeks
1. CD opened the meeting by declaring that he had called it in order to “seek justice for Brian and his family”;
2. CD added that Lambeth Council was known to be a ‘corrupt Borough’ and that a common consensus was that “everyone was on the fiddle”;
3. The consequence of  was that people who came to learn about child abuse perpetrated by others would not expose it for fear of themselves being exposed for wrongdoing such as, for example, financial mismanagement;
4. CD added that there was a strong Catholic and Masonic presence in Lambeth and within the Police;
5. WBF informed CD that the female teacher he dismissed for grooming and other offences had been a teacher at St Augustine’s Catholic School in Ealing and that the Executive Director of Lambeth’s Children and Young People’s Service is a Governor at La Retraite Catholic School in Lambeth;
6. CD commented that “Lambeth have been vicious to you, Brian, and it can’t be just because of what you wrote in the book from Hillsborough to Lambeth”;
7. CD stated that he read the book and agreed with its contents;
8. CD stated that WBF was “…flagged up at Scotland Yard as being a major threat because of your research and books…” and that WBF had been “…subjected to a sustained period of persecution by the Met as a direct consequence of this…”;
9. CD suggested that WBF write to his MP seeking justice, to enquire whether he is on the Sex Offenders’ Register (since people are sometimes added to it in error), if he is on it, why he is on it and for what period of time;
10. CD said that he would try to obtain a transcript of the entire Southwark trial;
11. CD stated that a major difficulty with quashing the Southwark (2009) conviction for alleged incitement was that WBF had “out-stung” a police sting operation1 and that if Brian’s conviction had been quashed it might have led to hundreds (if not thousands) of other convictions being quashed at great cost to the Government in terms of (a) compensation and (b) a large number of unsafe convictions;
12. WBF stated – and this was confirmed by MB – that it was an injustice to him and his family that his conviction “might not yet be quashed” simply because of other cases. WBF stated that he was not interested in other cases, only his own;
13. CD added that the case of alleged incitement of a non-existent girl (Southwark, 2009) could and should be quashed because of misdirections from the judge, his placing the jury under duress to reach a decision on the last day of the Michaelmas Term and mis-Joinder;
14. WBF added that there were a number of significant abuses of process in the Southwark conviction which could ordinarily lead to his conviction being quashed and not necessarily convictions of others whose circumstances could be very different from his own;
15. WBF informed CD that he (WBF) had two (2) police national computer (PNC) records, and this was confirmed by MB;
16. CD stated that it was not ordinarily possible for anybody to have two such records and that one must clearly be false;
17. MB confirmed that at Southend Police station in January 2013, a civilian administrator also stated that the record he had called up on the PNC appeared to be false;
18. WBF stated that this record contained at least six (6) convictions for rapes and other sexual assaults against females under 13 and that none of them was true;
19. CD stated that they could not have been true because otherwise Brian would not be at liberty;
20. CD stated that this false record needed to be expunged – he suggested that WBF write to the Commissioner of the Met, Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe and inform him that WBF has never been arrested, charged, indicted for these offences, that it was dishonest of someone to create a second PNC record showing false data, that there has been a lot of corruption in WBF’s cases and also conspiracy and “…huge breaches of you and your family’s human rights…”;
21. WBF stated that he would do this within the next week or two [Editor’s Note: this was not possible since Brian was committed to prison and had no written records with him];
22. CD suggested that WBF obtain the MAPPA file against him because (a) he is entitled to it and (b) it is likely to throw up information that would prove mistakes had been made on the part of the Police and/or Lambeth Council;
23. CD suggested that Brian write to the Department of Professional Standards, Empress State Building, London;
24. WBF stated that he knew of two rogue officers within that building and was therefore loathe to have their own colleagues investigate them as such investigations usually resulted in a whitewash;
25. CD stated that it was appalling the effect that these cases were not only having on WBF but also his daughter and grandchildren and that, as a grandfather himself, he could not imagine the distress this was causing both to WBF and his family members;
26. WBF mentioned that his son-in-law owned a garage repairing vehicles for the Met Police and that the police could well have taken advantage of this business relationship to turn Brian’s family against him and feed them false information;
27. CD added that it was likely they have been misinformed and shown false documents against WBF which had led them to no longer have contact;
28. CD added that there was “…undoubtedly an element of dishonesty…” somewhere in all of these cases, stating that had Brian been guilty of the alleged improper activity online, then he (CD) would not have prosecuted but – at most – written a warning letter about conduct. CD said that he could not understand why the case ever went to court at Southwark in 2009;
29. CD added that in his opinion WBF ought to write to his MP about numerous breaches of the Human Rights Act 1998 and that people in various agencies of State were clearly making decisions based on false PNC records and other data;
30. WBF informed CD about his and his brothers’ abuse in a children’s home in Harpenden, Hertfordshire known as ‘The Oval’ from 1955 to 1960 and CD suggested that WBF write to the MP for Harpenden [Editor’s Note: due to his incarceration without recourse to his records, this was not achieved until 08 April 2016];
31. CD asked what level of compensation that WBF would ultimately be seeking – WBF stated that he had initiated a claim against Lambeth in 2013 for £5million;
32. CD suggested that this might be “selling yourself short considering everything that Lambeth have done to you over almost a decade”;
33. A figure of £30 million was suggested to include claims against Lambeth Council, three police forces, Off Centre counselling charity and other organisations and individuals;
34. WBF invited CD to write a chapter for a second edition of the book From Hillsborough to Lambeth but CD stated that he would be unable to do so given that there are ongoing investigations into child abuse in Lambeth Council;
35. WBF informed CD that he was writing a new book about the Tony Martin case in 1999 and invited CD to write a chapter about that case – CD stated that he would be pleased to since “…murder is my speciality…”;
36. CD stated that he believed that Michael Mansfield would be “…an ideal barrister…” to assist Brian in quashing his convictions, restoring his good name and receiving compensation;
37. MB agreed that this would be a good choice of barrister;
38. WBF stated that he would be willing to work with Mr Mansfield;
39. CD stated that he would approach Mr Mansfield on WBF’s behalf [Editor’s Note: this has not yet been achieved];
40. CD provided a business card to MB and WBF – this card included CD’s home address and mobile telephone number.
41. END OF MINUTES ………………………………………………………………
1 This fact was also corroborated by Marcia Weise (AA Mirsons Solicitors) at Charing Cross police station on 04 June 2008 when she told her client, Brian Pead, “…You have out-stung a police sting operation and they will be out to get you…”