EARL OF LYTTON on behalf of Victims of White Collar Crimes – comments on the Queen’s Speech

14 06 13 Earl of LyttonThis precious text came from Len Lawrence, the air pilot poisoned by organophosphates that killed thousands of farmers. George Wescott happened to have survived and accompanied Len to a meeting of Parliamentarians where, at long last, organophosphates were on the agenda.

This excerpt regarding white collar crimes on the occasion of the Queen’s Speech dates from Hansard on 09 June 2014.

The Earl of Lytton (Crossbench)

My Lords, the gracious Speech refers to a fairer society. The Minister mentioned the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill, and rightly referred to the importance of the rule of law. However, I start with the Home Secretary’s address to the Police Federation on 21 May. She made a welcome promise of better protection for whistleblowers in the police. People such as James Patrick have put their entire careers on the line for the truth. However, the proposed new offence of police corruption is otiose. We already have laws enough on our statute books, although of course police co-operation in investigating themselves may be in doubt.

The Home Secretary suggested that leaving police operations unfettered would resist political pressures but that, to me, means inadequate oversight despite the beefing up of Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary. Operations at the front line will always trump policy. We still have many questions but few answers to the points raised about police culture and operations. A senior judge has recently questioned the objectivity of that other safeguard, the IPCC, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon.

Under anti-social behaviour legislation, the police have virtually untrammelled and incontestable powers. They decide ab initio who they think is the guilty party. The rampantly one-sided exercise of these in a case involving a Sussex MP has been corroborated by cases in South Wales, Devon and Cornwall, Thames Valley and, in the most recent, from Hampshire, police evidence seems to have been total fiction. I have been shown custody records altered post hoc to refer falsely to a more serious offence of violence. I have seen manifestly concocted properties for legal photographs used to procure convictions in magistrates’ courts. This I now find is very easy to do, and applies also to CCTV and audio files. This material is increasingly used as evidence in court proceedings. All that is required is slackness by witnesses and prosecution, and the guidance of ACPO on digital evidence to be ignored, and you have a recipe for misleading the court.

I learn of serious failure of prosecution to disclose documents as required, and of failure of defence teams and judges to ensure compliance. The Attorney-General’s recent guidance identifies this as a threat to a fair trial. I hear of documents that are unsigned or undated, possibly even forged, being accepted by the courts, and a failure to safeguard the interests of people under rulings from the Court of Protection.

Much of this is ongoing, with frequent accounts of files lost, court records deleted or unavailable, police notes absent or officer amnesia in the witness box. A solicitor categorised this for me as “gaming” the provisions of Section 117 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, because a police witness cannot be cross-examined on something he has forgotten, and if the only other evidence is documentary or electronic, however faulty, then that must stand unless the defence can have the evidence struck out: effectively a reversal of the burden of proof. It would also appear from a recent BBC “File on 4” programme that these and allied manipulation of rules of evidence and procedure continue at the highest administrative and professional levels.

Withdrawing most legal aid—a principle I applaud as a general concept—but without rendering the system of justice accessible and affordable to normal folk, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, seems to be a flawed policy. I question why two legal experts are required to represent a criminal defendant. However, if undeserving types were gaming the legal aid budget beforehand, we now appear to have police and prosecution gaming the procedures to the detriment of fair trials. Add these together and we have a situation once described to my father by his lawyer as follows: “Where there is muddle and confusion, dishonesty follows close behind”. I try to remember that.

Once an offence, police notification or occasion of arrest is established, the details go into a police computer system. The citizen does not have rights, or certainly has no adequate rights, to gain access to or check that for accuracy, yet may find material regurgitated at some future date in proceedings, shared with other agencies or disclosed in a CRB check. Necessary protections before the law remain inadequate, open to abuse, and are being manipulated to the unfair disadvantage for defendants in criminal proceedings in particular. This erodes trust in a vital sector of public administration. That imperils the rule of law and ultimately, the stability of society. Oversight must be restored. Senior law officers within the Government have long been aware of the situation, so why no action?

We should not be complacent or wag our finger at other jurisdictions, while all the while corrupt practices infect our own affairs. The Government need to act now—or if not this one, now, then a new one in 2015.

Advertisements

About Sabine Kurjo McNeill

I'm a mathematician and system analyst formerly at CERN in Geneva and became an event organiser, software designer, independent web publisher and online promoter of Open Justice. My most significant scientific contribution is www.smartknowledge.space
This entry was posted in Association of Chief Police Officers and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to EARL OF LYTTON on behalf of Victims of White Collar Crimes – comments on the Queen’s Speech

  1. Anonymous says:

    Now this is a welcoming way forward. But the Home Secretary should be mindful where – She made a welcome promise of better protection for whistleblowers in the police.
    The Police is not the only Public Body where you will find individuals drawing money from the public purse under false pretences.
    Local Government can often be sweetshop for criminals, criminals harboured for knowing the right people, belonging to the right club or wearing the right tie and awarded for wilful blindness towards towards the embezzlement of public funds.
    A whistleblower that chooses not to be part of that growing culture will face the wrath of the “Black Hand” branded as vexatious, paranoid, delusional and in need of sectioning.
    Having his / her disclosures treated as frivilous the whistleblower is often dispensed / disposed of. Often losing his / her family and property and falling foul of degrading treatment as enemies of the State.

  2. Ismail Abdulhai Bhamjee says:

    SECTION 8 OF THE ACCESSORIES AND ABETTORS ACT (AS AMENDED)
    AND SECTION 44 OF THE MAGISTRATES COURTS ACT 1980
    AND SECTION 40 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT 1987.

    THIS ARE ALSO PARLIAMENT ACTS WHICH HAS BEEN IGNORED BY THE HIGH COURT JUDGES AND THE STRATFORD, REDBRIDGE MAGISTRATES COURT.

    WHEN THE MAGISTRATES COURTS DOES REFUSE TO ISSUE THE SUMMONS WHEN A PERSON IS LAYING FOR INFORMATION, THAN THE MAGISTRATES COURT ARE REQUIRED TO INFORM THE DPP FOR THE CROWN PROSECUTION SERVICES, AS THIS HAS NOT BEEN COMPLIED WITH.

    SECTION 42 (3A) OF THE SENIOR COURTS ACT 1981 DOES APPLY TO CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS-
    THE COURT OFFICERS ARE EITHER LISTING CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS AS CIVIL PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 42 (3) OF THE SCA 1981-

    THE COURT OF APPEAL {CIVIL DIVISION) THEY DON’T TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION OF SECTION 53 OF THE SENIOR COURTS ACT 1981.

    THE COURT OF APPEAL CRIMINAL DIVISION DOESN’T ALLOW ANY LITIGANT IN PERSON TO APPEAL AGAINST THE DECISION OF THE CROWN COURT FOR REFUSING TO ISSUE A VOLUNTEER BILL OF INDICTMENT AGAINST THE DECISION OF SNARESBROOK CROWN COURT.

    THE CORONERS AND JUSTICE ACT 2009, WHICH IS A PARLIAMENT ACT,
    THE QUEEN DID GIVE A SPEECH ON THIS ACT-
    SINCE SOME OF THE WORDS UNDER SECTION 2 OF THE 1933 ACT HAD BEEN REPEALED, WHILST THIS HAS NOT BEEN UPDATED ON THE HMSO LEGISLATION.

    THE PLANNING {CONSEQUENTIAL PROVISIONS] ACT 1990 IS A PARLIAMENT ACT, WHERE THE HIGH COURT HAD NO JURISDICTION POWER TO DEAL WITH MATTERS UNDER THE TCPA 1971.

    THE TAYLOR AND ANOTHER VERSUS LAWRENCE CASE IN THE COURT OF APPEAL, THE ADVOCATES TO THE COURT HAD MADE SUBMISSIONS THAT THE COURT OF APPEAL HAD NO INHERENT JURISDICTION POWER AS THE COURT OF APPEAL HAD BEEN CREATED BY STATUTE,
    THIS HAS NOT BEEN TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION WHEN ANY LITIGANT IN PERSON DOES MAKE AN APPEAL TO THE COURT OF APPEAL OR TO THE UPPER TRIBUNAL.

    THE COUNTY COURTS ACT 1984 IS A PARLIAMENT ACT
    SECTION 23, 38, 76 AND SCHEDULE 1 AND 2 HAS NOT BEEN TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION,
    THE HM ATTORNEY GENERAL AND THE LORD CHANCELLOR WITH MEMBERS OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE RULE COMMITTEE HAVE BEEN BIAS AGAINST LITIGANTS IN PERSON, AS AN APPEAL IS BASED ON A POINT OF LAW,
    AND NOT BASED ON CASE LAW.

    THERE HAS BEEN ROUGH AND FRAUD JUSTICE IN THE UNITED KINGDOM-
    AS THE LORD CHANCELLOR IS EITHER SUPPORTING THE JUDGES WHEN HE SHOULD HAVE TAKEN DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THEM FOR BREACH OF THE JUDICIAL OATH OF OFFICE.

    There are or many other persons in the Republic of Zambia who had been killed during the struggle for Independence, and this does include for the Independence of Zimbabwe-
    As Section One of the Zambia Independence Act 1964 has been published on the HMSO Legislation, that The United Kingdom has no Jurisdiction Power from the Appointed date 24th October 1964,

    On the 15th January 1986, I was not living in the United Kingdom, but was living in the Republic of Zambia, and why say about Kenya or India when those countries have no Jurisdiction Power over the Republic and Constitution of Zambia.

    The Former Vice President of the Republic of Zambia, The Late Mr Mainza M Chona SC, He was my Lawyer when He was practising as a Lawyer,
    He was a known person to me, He couldn’t write a letter on my behalf when He was alive, and there has been collective Harassment by other United Kingdom Nationals, Civil Servants and Lawyers.

    Yours Faithfully

    Ismail Abdulhai Bhamjee

  3. Renata Ostertag says:

    Sabine, I need help badly. Renata Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2014 08:33:17 +0000 To: renata_ostertag@hotmail.com

  4. Reblogged this on Musings of a Penpusher and commented:
    Still far too much is being swept under the carpets of bureaucratic dictatorship. Where is the democracy we are ALL supposed to enjoy?

  5. Pingback: MIND THE GAPS between what they Say, Write and Order: HHJ Simler, Treasury Solicitor & Private Barrister | Voluntary Public Interest Advocacy

  6. Stacie says:

    Hi there! Do you know if they make any plugins to protect
    against hackers? I’m kinda paranoid about losing everything I’ve worked hard on. Any recommendations?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s