rule of law abandoned in Woolwich Crown Court
Monday, July 24th, 2017 by admin
WOOLWICH CROWN COURT
24 JULY 2017
The Queen v Brian Pead
The following report is based entirely on fact. How you choose to interpret those facts is entirely your personal responsibility. In the interest of justice, we include a short background to how these proceedings originated. At the conclusion you are invited to act in the interest of justice based on your level of personal responsibility.
Brian Pead and Michael Bird (acting in the legal role of McKenzie Friend https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/publications/mckenzie-friends/) arrived in Court 5 at 10.03. Brian had travelled from King’s Lynn and Michael from Great Bentley near Clacton.
Brian was rebuked for being “late”. He had been given no time for the hearing other than “a morning Hearing” – this evidence will be found in a recording of the previous Hearing of 17 July 2017.
The purpose of the Hearing was for Brian to make an Application to Dismiss the Proceedings on the grounds of Abuse of Process. Knowing in advance (from years of experience of judicial corruption) that the Judge would not allow the application to succeed, Brian decided to write an OPEN LETTER to the Court instead, informing it of bias against the Defendant, breaches of the Overriding Objective, abuses of process, criminal activity perpetrated by the police, CPS and others in this entire matter dating back to 01 November 2011 when Brian was found “guilty” by a District Judge in Bexley Magistrates’ Court of the Harassment of his daughter and eldest grandchild (then aged 12) by sending the former a letter about police corruption and the latter a birthday card.
Neither family member had ever made a complaint to the Police, neither had made a statement and neither had appeared in Court against him. It was, in effect, solely a paper exercise in order to secure a conviction and unlawfully separate Brian from his beloved family.
In December 2010, Brian had written to the then Commissioner of Scotland Yard (Sir Paul Stephenson https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Stephenson_(police_officer) informing him of police corruption in his ‘trial’ at Southwark Crown Court in December 2009.
The Commissioner’s response was to have Brian arrested on 07 January 2011 for the alleged Harassment of his daughter and eldest grandchild, then aged 12.
The Commissioner failed to investigate Brian’s complaints.
On 23 September 2011, (following Brian’s letters to the Queen, the Prime Minister, Home Secretary, Director of Public Prosecutions, Minister of Justice, Baroness Lawrence [who complained about police corruption in her son’s racist murder] Brian was arrested on a bogus charge of the witness intimidation of his granddaughter, who had never been a witness in any trial or Hearing.
He was held on remand in HMP Belmarsh and constantly moved between that prison and HMP Wandsworth so that nobody could contact or visit him.
Prior to 2011, Brian had been involved in his grandchildren’s lives on a weekly basis: he involved himself in their education on several levels including contributing to the cost of their private education (http://www.benedicthouseprepschool.co.uk/) and their emotional well-being. Throughout their lives they lived no more than a 10-minute car drive away and they described him as “their favourite grandparent” because he gave them of his time and unconditional love.
On 31 October 2011, Brian was taken to Woolwich Crown Court where the case against him for witness intimidation was dropped. Should you examine the Court records, you will find no mention of this case.
The Rule of Law decrees that where a case against a Defendant is stayed, the Defendant (if he/she is not already in prison on another offence) should walk free from court. Brian was immediately returned to prison.
The very next day (01 November 2011) Brian was taken to Bexley Magistrates’ Court.
Bexley Magistrates’ Court issued a Restraining Order preventing Brian from contacting his entire family – not just the two named on the Indictment against him.
Clearly a number of errors had “crept into the proceedings”.
Brian wrote to the Court on a number of occasions informing it that the Order had been made in error and against the rule of law and as Lord Denning stated (http://ubplj.org/index.php/dlj/article/viewFile/279/307): “any tribunal, court or public authority which falls into an error exceeds its jurisdiction and I am quite clear that at the same time it falls into an error of law too: for the simple reason that it has ‘not determined according to law’”
Denning added: “…If it went wrong in law, it went outside the jurisdiction conferred on it. Its decision was therefore void. It had jurisdiction to decide or act rightly but no jurisdiction to decide or act wrongly…”
It is clear that any court which finds any defendant “Guilty” when there are no witnesses against that defendant has made an error in law.
Similarly, if it then issues an Order against that defendant based on the original error it has just made, it follows that any Order must automatically be void since the Court had no jurisdiction to act wrongly or in error.
Denning again: “It is beyond doubt that, if a tribunal, court or public authority fails to observe the rules of natural justice, or is biased – its decision is a nullity and void.”
It is clear that Lord Denning – at this time he was the most prominent judge in the land – stated that any error made by the Court in which it has failed to follow the Rule of Law is automatically a nullity and void. In other words, Bexley Magistrates should not have found Brian guilty of the harassment of his family members and, when it did, it was in error and when it issued a restraining order based on that original error it was wrong and acting outside of the Rule of Law.
Prior to the ‘trial’ at Bexley Magistrates’ Court on 01 November 2011, Brian was studying for a law degree at the University of Greenwich in London. His personal tutor was a Kim Everett, a human rights barrister (http://www.lambethchildabuse.org/kim-everett-university-of-greenwich-law-tutor-recieves-framed-and-from-hillsborough-to-lambeth/). In a tutorial on 10 September 2010, she advised him not to use the word ‘corruption’ in relation to the proceedings against him.
[Brian uses the definition of ‘corruption’ in accordance with Professor Phil Scraton’s definition (http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/i-had-witnessed-corruption-of-evidence-in-the-past-but-this-was-shocking-34834908.html ). Professor Scraton is a law professor at the University of Belfast and was instrumental in authoring the Hillsborough Report (http://hillsborough.independent.gov.uk/). Brian attended the fateful Hillsborough match on 15 April 1989.]
On 20 January 2011 in another tutorial she informed him that he could not possibly be guilty of the Incitement of a non-existent 14-year-old girl and repeated her warning with regard to Brian’s use of the word ‘corruption’.
On 24 February 2011, in their third tutorial, Brian informed her about his arrest for the alleged harassment of his daughter and granddaughter and the circumstances of the arrest: the barrister and lecturer said that it could not possibly have been harassment and that, once Brian called his daughter as a witness, the whole matter would easily be dealt with.
Brian took the precaution of recording his tutorial meetings and distributed copies amongst friends.
The background having been provided, we now come to today’s proceedings.
Brian has been charged with three counts of breaches of the void restraining order. The order is not void because Brian believes it to be so, but because Lord Denning and the rule of law decree it to be so.
According to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), Brian sent letters and birthday and Christmas cards to his daughter and the cps claim that these acts were breaches of a restraining order issued by the Inner London Crown Court in August 2015 (when Brian was unlawfully held in prison on a charge of Impersonating a Barrister when he has never represented another person in court or spoken on their behalf).
In that Harassment trial, (also for alleged breaches of a restraining order) Brian’s daughter also never made a complaint to the Police, never made a statement against him and also never appeared in Court against him.
That bogus trial was merely a repeat of the Bexley Magistrates’ Court hearing and although Brian attempted to call his daughter as a witness (since the prosecution had not called her), the Judge breached the Rule of Law and denied Brian his inalienable right to call his daughter (then aged 40) as a witness.
Thus, that trial in 2015 was based on the original Hearing at Bexley Magistrates’ Court in 2011.
What does the Rule of Law say about this?
We turn to Denning again: “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.  https://windowsontheworld.net/2014/07/windows-on-the-world-when-court-orders-are-void/).
Again, the Rule of Law is very clear on this matter – you cannot keep bringing cases against somebody based on an invalid claim or void act.
And yet they do.
Today’s Hearing was before Judge Christopher Kinch (http://www.thelawpages.com/legal-directory/Christopher-Kinch-QC-1394-3.law)
The prosecutor – who failed to introduce herself to Brian as is the normal court protocol with any Defendant-in-Person – was Angela O’Dwyer of Blackfriars Chambers (http://www.blackfriarschambers.com/angela-odwyer/)
Ms O’Dwyer was a senior legal adviser at Ealing Magistrates’ Court.
Brian’s banned book (From Hillsborough to Lambeth, ISBN 978-0-9574301-0-5, co-authored with Michael Bird, http://justice4brianpead.com/british-library-finally-issues-receipt-hillsborough-lambeth/) explains how the teacher Brian was forced to dismiss for child grooming, racism and bullying actually worked in St Augustine’s (a private Catholic Girls’ School in Ealing http://sapriory.com/) prior to her working in the Unit in Lambeth run by Brian.
She had not been CRB checked by Lambeth Council.
On 01 November 2010, Mrs Frances Gumley-Mason, (http://scepticalthoughts.blogspot.co.uk/2011/03/mrs-gumley-masons-response-to-isi.html) Headteacher of St Augustine’s Girls’ School in Ealing applied for an injunction against the Independent Schools Inspectorate in an attempt to prevent publication of the ISI report into her school’s safeguarding of children procedures. Mrs Gumley-Mason, who had no teaching qualification, later resigned from her post (http://scepticalthoughts.blogspot.co.uk/2011/08/mrs-gumley-mason-is-resigning.html . (This resignation mirrored that of Phyllis Dunipace, the Executive Director of Lambeth Children and Young People’s Service (http://southeasteleven.blogspot.co.uk/2011/08/former-head-teacher-james-walker-wins.html), who signed the letter confirming Brian’s unlawful dismissal from Lambeth on 31 July 2007. Employment Law specialist Alex Passman (http://www.dhsb.org/alexpassman/) had told Brian on 19 April 2007: “You are being set up by Lambeth but I don’t know why. There is something very strange about this case.” (http://www.lambethchildabuse.org/award-winning-lawyer-alex-passman-confirms-his-role-in-the-book/)
Clearly, it can be argued that Ms O’Dwyer had been carefully selected by the Home Office to prosecute this case. (For more information about the involvement of the Home Office, click here: http://bloodandproperty.blogspot.co.uk/search?q=brian+pead)
Brian would argue that her presence as a Prosecutor displays bias. The Rule of Law states that probably the best-known test for bias was formulated in the case of R v Sussex JJ ex p. McCarthy  1 KB 256 (see MP John Hemming’s blog: http://johnhemming.blogspot.co.uk/2011/04/r-v-sussex-justices-ex-p-mccarthy-1924.html)
Taking the view that a reasonable suspicion of bias was enough to amount to a breach of the rule, Lord Hewart said in that case: “It is not merely of some importance but is of fundamental importance that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done.”
The Home Office choosing a prosecutor who worked for years in Ealing Courts and the teacher Brian had cause to dismiss being from an Ealing Catholic Girls’ school, has more than an appearance of bias.
Furthermore, both Lambeth Council and the Catholic Church are amongst the 13 organisations that the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse are investigating (https://www.iicsa.org.uk/investigations). [See also Brian’s speech https://www.iicsa.org.uk/sites/default/files/documents/Lambeth-investigation-transcript-27072016.pdf]
On 14 June 2017 at Woolwich Crown Court, Judge Heathcote-Williams QC ordered that the Prosecution provide Disclosure to Brian by 19 June 2017. It has failed to do so and at the earliest possible court date on 17 July 2017, Brian brought this Abuse of Process to the Court’s attention.
Judge Kinch decided that this failure by the Prosecution was not a problem. In fact, he allowed the Prosecutor to attempt to serve the paperwork on Brian during the Hearing today: a month after the Court had ordered its delivery.
You are reminded that Brian was rebuked by Judge Kinch for being three minutes late.
The Overriding Objectives of the Criminal Procedure Rules 2014 state at 1.1: (2) Dealing with a criminal case justly includes: (b) dealing with the prosecution and the defence fairly; (d) respecting the interests of witnesses, victims and jurors and keeping them informed of the progress of the case.
(c) recognising the rights of a defendant, particularly those under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights;
(a) acquitting the innocent and convicting the guilty;
(1) The overriding objective of this new code is that criminal cases be dealt with justly.
We leave you to decide whether you believe that this case has been progressed “fairly” in accordance with the Rule of Law.
We take the view that it is in itself a vexatious prosecution brought only after Brian wrote to the new Commissioner of the Met Police, Cressida Dick, informing her of Police corruption and of criminal activity perpetrated by the Commander of Lewisham, Kate Halpin (http://news.met.police.uk/images/chief-superintendent-kate-halpin-431740).
Each time Brian writes to the Commissioner of the Met (Sir Paul Stephenson, Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe and Cressida Dick) he is arrested and charges manufactured against him.
Brian’s son-in-law owns a garage in Brockley, southeast London).
The garage has a business relationship with the Met Police (https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/mps_commercial_activities), repairing vehicles for the police. Money therefore changes hands. On 09 March 2015 (http://www.lambethchildabuse.org/brian-pead-michael-bird-meet-retired-dci-clive-driscoll/), retired DCI Clive Driscoll told Brian Pead and Michael Bird that “it is likely that your daughter and son-in-law [and their children] have been misinformed and shown false documents against you by the Police which led them to no longer have contact; Driscoll added that there was “…undoubtedly an element of dishonesty…” somewhere in all of the cases against Brian.
Brockley is in the London Borough of Lewisham (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_districts_in_the_London_Borough_of_Lewisham)
On 16 July 2009 – just prior to a trial at Southwark Crown Court for the alleged Incitement of a 14 year old girl who never existed – Brian was beaten up in the street by four police officers from Bexley. Brian’s then solicitor (https://mk-law.co.uk/our-team/section-2/angela-shaw/) and barrister (http://www.187fleetstreet.com/index.php?pr=profile&ba_id=143&pa_id=2) failed to report this to the Police.
Two public-spirited witnesses to this “brutal and unnecessary beating” made an official complaint to the Police.
They were visited by Kate Halpin and forced to withdraw their complaints “if you know what’s good for you.” (That’s at the very least a criminal offence of witness intimidation, perverting the course of justice and misconduct in public office.)
This Court Report reminds the reader of the Rule of Law and the appearance of bias.
In the Victorian era the courts strove to establish the principle that a decision-maker with a direct pecuniary interest in a decision will always be treated as being biased. The most famous Victorian case in this area is Dimes v Grand Junction Canal Co (1852) 10 ER 301 (http://swarb.co.uk/dimes-v-proprietors-of-grand-junction-canal-and-others-hl-26-jun-1852/)
The parties were involved in a long series of cases between 1831 and 1853.
On three occasions the Lord Chancellor, Lord Cottenham, was on the bench.
Dimes subsequently discovered that Lord Cottenham held shares in the company.
The House of Lords held that this was a breach of natural justice, even though no one would seriously think that the Lord Chancellor’s judgment had been affected: the appearance of bias was enough.
Following Brian’s letter to the Commissioner of the Met Police (originally sent on 28 February 2017 and, receiving no acknowledgement, re-submitted on 24 March 2017 in which Brian reported demonstrable police corruption, he also asked her to call a meeting with his daughter and grandchildren to inform them of his innocence in all criminal matters, Brian was arrested on 02 April 2017 and three counts of breaches of a void restraining order were brought against him, claiming that he had unlawfully contacted his daughter who has never asked him not to contact her or her children).
As if the proceeding paragraphs were not sufficient indication that the Rule of Law has been dispensed with in this case, the following should leave you in no doubt.
Brian asked for the cctv footage which his son-in-law claimed showed letters sent by Brian being delivered to his house. This evidence was ordered to have been provided to Brian by 19 June 2017.
Brian also asked for a recording of his police interview of 03 April 2017, together with interview tapes of all of the Prosecution witnesses (his daughter, son-in-law and a person calling herself Elizabeth Johnson.)
Prosecutor O’Dwyer informed Judge Kinch that the dvd with that on was “in a sealed evidence bag and I ask the Court how it can be opened in order to provide Mr Pead with a copy.”
She then turned her back on the Judge and spoke with the police woman in the case, PC Rebecca Bushell.
Ms O’Dwyer then produced a copy of a dvd which was not in a sealed evidence bag and attempted to pass it along the bench to Brian, who refused to accept it on the grounds that (a) it was a month late and (b) that it was tainted evidence, clearly not being in a sealed evidence bag: it could have had anything on it and it could, of course, have been interfered with in some way.
Judge Kinch thought it perfectly acceptable that Ms O’Dwyer should be able to do this.
Brian asked the Judge is he was acting on his Oath of Office (https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/about-the-judiciary/the-judiciary-the-government-and-the-constitution/oaths/).
The Judge claimed that he was, though we argue that his actions prove otherwise.
The Judge claimed that Brian’s Open Letter to the Court could be considered as an Application to Dismiss for Abuse of Process and promptly dismissed the application.
Brian told him that it was an Open Letter and not an application.
The Judge failed to respond.
The Prosecution then informed the Judge that Brian must not be allowed to cross-examine any of the Crown’s 3 witnesses against him: his daughter, son-in-law and an Elizabeth Johnson, who claimed Brian’s daughter called her and told her Brian is “highly manipulative and was a terrible father” and that she couldn’t possibly face him in Court.
Brian has sought disclosure of the phone records of his daughter and Mrs Johnson, who on her own admission worked for the Ministry of Defence and is the widow of a former policeman. Her present partner (Frank Humm http://www.upwellparish.com/your-council/) sits on the local parish council and meets regularly with the Police in the course of his work.
The Judge set a new Hearing date of 31 July 2017 and ordered Brian to attend.
Hearings have now become weekly to Brian’s detriment in terms of time and money. The Judge knows that Brian lives in King’s Lynn, Norfolk and has a 3-hour journey each way and significant travel costs. (Brian’s teachers pension is still being unlawfully withheld by the Home Office. The teachers pension agency claim that Brian (who worked as a teacher for 25 years) owes it £25,000. Brian has asked for proof of debt, none is forthcoming.)
Brian reminded Judge Kinch that these proceedings were breaches of his Article 3 Rights under the European Convention on Human Rights, Article 6 (the Right to a Fair Trial) under the Human Rights Act 1998, Article 8 (the Right to privacy and family life), Article 10 (the Right to Freedom of Expression) but also the rights of his beloved grandchildren under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Brian described them as “the innocent victims of this circus” (https://www.unicef.org.uk/what-we-do/un-convention-child-rights/) If, having read this Court Report, you agree that justice has been served, do nothing.
If, on the other hand, you agree that these proceedings displayed an indifference to the essential conditions for the rule of law which is objectionable and deeply worrying, then you are asked to write to Amber Rudd, the Home Secretary, at 2 Marsham Street, London, SW1P 4DF making your concerns known. Please send a copy to Brian for his archive at Flat 2, 66 Goodwins Road, King’s Lynn, Norfolk PE30 5PD and call him to let him know that you sent it to him since the Police unlawfully intercept his mail. (You may like to ask Ms Rudd for a copy of the RIPA warrant lawfully permitting interference with his mail. You won’t receive a copy: it doesn’t exist (unless they’ve Photoshopped a copy.)
Do not waste your time writing to Brian’s MP, Henry Bellingham (https://www.henrybellingham.com/), who is now a knight of the realm. Some folks in West Norfolk believe he received a knighthood for doing nothing to assist Brian in almost four years.
Brian ought to be able to be contacted on 07508 242 101, but this number is constantly monitored by the Police and Secret Services (against the Rule of Law since no warrant is in place permitting such activity https://www.mi5.gov.uk/interception-of-communications)
Please attend Court on 31 July 2017 (10pm) (https://courttribunalfinder.service.gov.uk/courts/woolwich-crown-court).
Please put the trial date of 14 August 2017 in your diaries and attend if you can. The ‘trial’ is scheduled for ANY 3 days within that week.
Please send this link to EVERY ONE of your contacts on all forms of social media. Injustice in the courts, indeed injustice of any kind, cannot prevail if the ordinary, decent person unites with his or her fellow human beings against such corruption. Doing nothing allows corruption and child abuse to prevail.