Perverting the Course of Justice: Local Authoritarianism or The Role of Local Authorities in Abortions of Justice

'The Lady has turned her back on Justice' by Michael Naughton

From Town Clerk to Globalist Agency

I used to ride my bicycle around town in St. Albans, to look proudly on the Georgian Town Hall, safe in the knowledge that wise heads were making decisions for the betterment of the bourgeoisie in that fine city.

Democracy lies in the heart of England, triggered by Alfred’s Witangemoot in the 800ADs and with the spark at Runnymede in 1215 with Magna Carta and repeatedly reconfigured ever since. The uncodified British Constitution is not written in stone, so it is flexible. Through our free speech, we can change it.

I’m no rebel. On the contrary, I’m believe in the Crown, the Church and state. I, like millions of others, am a white, Anglo-Saxon Protestant, not dissimilar to the Dutch, and the Puritans of Cromwell’s times who really  knew what liberty meant.

In the aftermath of the English Civil War there appeared, along with the Renaissance and the Enlightenment, a new theory: “liberal democracy.” This is not the Liberalism of 1858 political Party Liberal, this was the bourgeois theory of individualism that opposed absolute monarchy that Charles I was trying to introduce.

Where corporate “1858” Liberalism is a top-down, hierarchical authoritarian system (which favours international law), “liberal democracy” is a talking-shop: and the Tories have been just that for centuries. Liberalism has stolen liberal democracy’s clothes, by stealth and with a name. Councils are profoundly hierarchical and have been captured by the bureaucracy since the early 1990s in my perception whether in Whitehall or the BCP council where I live. They have become Liberal. Liberalism has entered the body politic through the back door, authoritarian Liberalism, not liberal democracy.

I have directly experienced the sustained attack of the local authority because “they” don’t like “you.” I have experienced it elsewhere, so I know what it is. So, when I was shown SP’s papers on his conviction for rape and a sentence of 8 years, I was somewhat disbelieving, not that he did it, but what the local authority had done to him; and what they had done to me, as well as many others.

My first question to him was: “Have you done anything to annoy the local authority?” The answer was “yes.”

At this stage, one has to realise that some of the people who work in the public system, in this case the criminal justice system (CJS), are genuinely not very nice people at all. The local authority system is not a simple system: it includes the police, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), the court system, probation, social services, the NHS, the education system, and the CEO of the local authority. The local politicians have some, minor, influence, but the CEO is the influential person, not the Mayor. The inter-relationships between those agencies should be the priority in monitoring those relationships. As far as I can see, duty of care has broken down because of corporate Liberals who have lost interest in their customers, if they had any interest at all. The Rape Gang Scandal is proof enough of that.

The Strange Case of SP: The investigation

When I was given the facts of the matter, the case of SP was incredulity made real. I had seen this kind of case before on multiple occasions, including in my own personal experience: how on Earth does a prosecutor or a judge or anyone else take seriously a woman who was having sex with one man whilst then claiming she had a boyfriend? How can it be that SP and the plaintiff were happily talking in SP’s café for a lengthy period of time? The plaintiff nor SP appeared drunk. They went to SP’s room in the early hours. The plaintiff stayed in the room. On waking the plaintiff took a prophylactic pill. On leaving his room, she returned and then left. She texted him joking she hoped she hadn’t got a parking ticket. They agreed to meet the next day. All was good.

Then, at 5pm that same day, the plaintiff’s parents arrived at SP’s residence, which was over the café. The father physically attacked him and the mother stood by with a chair, ready to strike and did in fact hit SP on his leg, wounding him. A female third party witnessed this. The parents should have been charged with assault. They were eventually.

At this point a police officer became involved, who took notes from both parties. Four witnesses stated that the plaintiff was not drunk. A fifth person, a lodger who lived in a room below SP’s was told by the police officer not to give evidence. That is tampering with a witness. A report was written.

That is the first phase of the investigation. Evidence is collected. At that point there should have been no charges against SP. If there were charges, there should have been charges against the plaintiff for perverting the course of justice, against the parents for attacking SP and against the police officer for tampering.

But no.

As to tampering and non-disclosure of relevant evidence, the law is quite clear: all defendants have the right to any relevant evidence (R for Nunn v Chief Constable of Suffolk Constabulary inter alia 2014). The fifth witness was shut down by the investigator. This was illegal. I would suggest Misconduct in Public Office (MiPO). This would seem to be an obvious error but, one police officer (a sergeant) I spoke to on X/Twitter, plainly didn’t understand the Nunn case. The officer thought it was the prosecution’s decision to disclose evidence. This may be because the people in the Criminal Justice System (CJS) don’t understand Torts and Common Law. The CJS tend to deal with statutory offences in which they have all the power: the legal antidote is Common Law and Torts, the first as in MiPO and the latter in damages caused by wrongful arrest and imprisonment. Thereby, the police officer had no “right” to silence witness 5 and the defence should have made it clear to the court that the officer had done so. This case becomes sinister.

The Prosecution: The presentation of the evidence to the court

“2.1….It is the duty of prosecutors to make sure that the right person is being prosecuted for the right offence and to bring offenders to justice wherever possible….2.2….Prosecutors must ensure that the law is properly applied; that all relevant evidence is put before the court; and that obligations of disclosure are complied with….2.4 …Prosecutors must always act in the interests of justice and not solely for the purpose of obtaining a conviction….2.5…Prosecutors are bound by the duties set out in this legislation. (Crown Prosecution Service,2010a: 3)”.Taken from Naughton (2014, p49.

“Our decisions will be independent of bias or discrimination…we will act with integrity and objectivity and will exercise sound judgement…In our dealings with each other and the public we will be open and honest. We will show sensitivity and understanding to victims and witnesses and treat all the defendants fairly….we are accountable to Parliament and the public; we will work together with out colleagues to maintain public trust and to provide an efficient criminal system. (Crown Prosecution Service 2012).” Naughton; ibid. p50.

“Non-disclosure is a potent source of injustice and even with the benefit of hindsight, it will often be difficult to say whether of not an undisclosed item of evidence might have shifted the balance or opened up a new line of defence. (R v Kamara. Paragraph B).” Naughton, ibid, p51.

“The most significant consequence of…(the) appeal was the introduction of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 (CPIA) which gave statutory force to the prosecution duty of disclosure). Naughton, ibid, p52.

This is the part of the legal journey I focus on; others focus on evidence collection (e.g. Dror in Butler; 2013 inter alia).

Obviously, people with no experience of the legal system put their faith in the defending lawyer which is a big mistake (Findley and Scott, 2006). The CPS receive the case from the police. The CPS then examine the evidence. The first question they ask should be “Is this in the public interest?” and then secondly, remind themselves: “De minimis non curat Lex”: “the law doesn’t deal with trifles.” Then they look at the evidence. Let’s imagine a scenario. The name SP comes up. The CPS lawyer phones up the CPS head. The CPS head, who plays tennis with the Council “CEO,” says SP is a problem. He’s been playing about with his licensing hours. He’s a nuisance. He’s a “loose cannon.” The message is understood. Operation Abortion of Justice is set in action, defined by Michael Naughton in The Innocent and the Criminal Justice System (2014) as: "Abortions of justice...occur when actors either internal or external to the workings of the criminal justice process knowingly and intentionally cause wrongful convictions."

The CPS official looks at the facts. Despite the fact the plaintiff is clearly lying, that is, there was no rape, that there are four witnesses that say she wasn’t drunk or otherwise incapacitated, that she was friendly after the event, the case ISN’T closed. The case is taken seriously. On top of the clear lack of corroboration, to add insult to injury, SP was attacked by the parents at 5pm the same day! What’s more, the plaintiff’s character could be questioned given other statements she’d made; but above all: she had a boyfriend. Why did she sleep with someone else and then try to blame the other man? The answer would seem obvious to the ordinary man on the Clapham Omnibus and even more so to the ordinary woman.

The plaintiff is trying to pervert the course of justice because she had landed herself in trouble. To suggest women of any sort “don’t lie” is a ridiculous belief. Michael Naughton provides eight examples from the early to mid-2000s that demonstrate that women DO lie, they make false accusation which is perverting the course of justice (Naughton, 2014, p55).

However, have the CPS agents enough life experience to question the police report? On the other hand, if the CPS agent assumes this belief and can, apparently, shamelessly claim that uncorroborated female “victims” must be believed, perhaps, the critical observer thinks, the CPS agent has an issue with the real victim, to wit, SP.

Perhaps, such a ridiculous allegation comes in useful to the local authority. He’s charged, without any justification, in my opinion. That is an abortion of justice.

At this point, I have some of my own evidence, which to me is proof positive of the questionable behaviour of some women: I was there. It happened to me repeatedly up to the mid-1990s starting in 1974 time, maybe, but an extended period of time: repeatedly I would be approached by, or drawn into some sort of relationship, with a woman and then a boyfriend appears. I even fell prey to a woman that was engaged! What did she think she was doing? My best example is when I was at a pub in Kentish Town, London and I went to the bar to get a drink. Somehow, I started talking to a woman at the bar, I have no idea what we talked about and suddenly this man came up and started bellowing at me about chatting up his girl-friend. Now, whether that was the woman’s intention, or the guy was just mad-jealous, who knows, but third parties play a big part in these types of cases. The result was: I was blamed; certain people turn nasty; I remain unmoved, because I didn’t have any engagement with the person in the first place. She was better avoided in any event.

The point is: it turned out it was always a third party who caused the issue. In fact, I commented to a police-officer about the third party involved in one case and he replied: “It’s usually third parties who make the allegation,” quote, unquote.

So, in my experience, there are multiple examples where women make approaches to men when they shouldn’t. SP was a victim of that.

I don’t consider myself a victim, I’m an avenger through legal processes, which should not as of necessity involve the courts: “De minimis non curat lex.” However, I was falsely accused at Southampton University in 1995, I was falsely accused in Christchurch in 2000/2001, and I was falsely accused twice in 2006 in Bournemouth. I got away with “just” a caution for the 2001 case only to find out a caution was a free conviction. (The legal firm, Gunn’s, did not tell me that. It was said to be a warning. It’s much more than that). The Local Authority had achieved its aim: to mark my card.

All went quiet until 2018 when I was again falsely accused. This time I realised this was not just the Plod getting it wrong. The CPS are involved, and I did my research. I told my M.P. He told me to get a solicitor, which was, in fact, the worst possible advice, as the local authority runs like a local mafia and they all know each other, as I have explained. I have come to believe the M.P. knew that. Perhaps I was a threat to him. I ask questions that some people, like the local authority, don’t like.

At this stage, 2005 to 2015, I had been examining the psychiatry profession because of their failures in treating a member of my family and who was just left on benzodiazepines. After threats of legal action, that situation changed and the previous administrators have obviously been removed, and my family member is now getting proper care. But I made my presence felt and I’m sure and I hope I represented a threat to them, not because I’m a trouble-maker, but because I was forcing them to carry out their work in accordance with the law, not criminal law as such, but Common and Tort law. I’m a qualified manager and I was taught contract and Torts at management school in the Law Department. Public officials are obliged to conduct themselves fairly and responsibly, not use their powers like in a cowboy film:

“Misconduct in public office (“MiPO”) is a common law offence that can be tried only on indictment. It carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. The offence concerns serious wilful abuse or neglect of the power or responsibilities of the public office held. There must be a direct link between the misconduct and an abuse of those powers or responsibilities. The Court of Appeal has made it clear that the offence should be strictly confined, and it can raise complex and sometimes sensitive issues.” From the CPS website.

So, public officials, such as the police, the CPS, the legal profession i.e. solicitors and barristers in the UK, including judges, social workers, psychiatrists, nurses, doctors all have a duty of care as public officials and as individuals, based on Donaghue vs Stevenson (1932). They cannot take a negative attitude against a taxpayer just because they don’t like their views or character, not least when the person involved is, far from being anti-establishment, is, in fact, and in all fairness, pointing out where they have got the law wrong. This is because public officials study Statutory law, not Common Law and Torts.

Similarly with SP: he had had run-ins with the Local authority regarding licensing hours at the café he ran. In fact, the issue of losing his license came up in his statement. The court would know such a severe sentence, never mind a guilty verdict, would impact on his finances. Despite this, given the clearly dubious claims by the plaintiff, uncorroborated by the 4 witnesses and the other unrelated false or wild accusations she had made about her family, the witness who wouldn’t tell, the text communications after the event and the pressure put on her by third parties, SP was charged, despite the clear alternative explanation, which the defending counsel should have put forward. This other scenario clearly gives a rational alternative explanation to the events: to wit: she did something wrong and she’s trying to blame the defendant. There is reasonable doubt.

The Defence

“Defense lawyers are susceptible to institutional pressures that contribute to tunnel vision. Defense lawyers, like prosecutors, quickly learn that most people charged with crimes are guilty. They see that most of their clients plead guilty, and most of those who go to trial are convicted. Defense lawyers learn that, more often than not, their clients fare much better in the criminal justice system if they plea bargain rather than go to trial. To take an adversarial posture in a case, to investigate aggressively, file discovery motions for access to evidence from police and prosecutor’s files, and file motions to supress – not only requires an investment of scarce resources but also comes at a cost in terms of the ultimate resolution of the case. Experienced defense lawyers learn that better deals can be obtained by being cooperative. “Prosecutors and judges alike thus indoctrinate defense attorneys into the plea bargain process by communicating to attorneys that time-consuming motions should be forsaken in favour of plea negotiation”” (Findley and Scott 2006, p331).

I have cited this part of Findley and Scott’s excellent paper before and will continue to do so. We all imagine we go to a defense lawyer to get help and protect us from false allegations. The internal complexities within the lawyer-group/legal profession are far to embedded to hope for that. On two occasions, I found out the solicitors thought I was guilty when I was found innocent (I found that out post facto as a part of my research). One firm had to pay me compensation for not even knowing the brief. I also discovered that that particular solicitor used to be in the CPS. I was going to be found guilty. Why bother learning the brief?

In SP’s case it was no different. The solicitor obviously couldn’t care less, rather like Lucy Letby’s solicitor. SP was told “not to speak” at the trial because he “had a stutter.” I’ve spoken to SP, online and in person: he has no serious stutter. He should have spoken in court. This seems like an “abortion” of justice as Michael Naughton would have it. It seems highly likely the defence lawyer had colluded with the judge and the prosecution to fit SP up.

Some people will find that hard to believe. It has happened too many times to deny.

In that vein, I spoke to a well-respected solicitor who, regarding my case said, given the number of false accusations made against me, that when that happened it was easy to imagine it’s a conspiracy when, really, it’s a “cock-up,” as the saying goes. My response to that was: if this group of people in the CJS and local authority are so incompetent, then the question must be: are they suitable for the work to which they have been appointed? The answer must be no.

This is the case in SP’s trial. Either the defence was incompetent or was caught up in the institutional pressures that exist in small-town politics. As far as they’re concerned the local authority runs the town, not the councillors; and the councillors, although I know they’ve cottoned-on now, not least as a result of the rape-gangs fiasco, haven’t decided what to do quite yet.

The Trial

“The legal ombudsman commented that ‘if Mr B had taken the stand and told the court what he told the police he had heard, then the matter may have been decided differently and may have received a different verdict’.” Information provided by SP.

“My main claims are that my legal team were so demotivated by the ‘Believe the Victims’ policy that they conspired to persuade me into not speaking at my trial, including citing my stammer as an adverse factor, and that the main allegation was pressurised into being reported by the complainant’s parents and boyfriend.” ibid.

From my point of view, SP’s trial was a set-up by the prosecution, defence and the judge, an attitude repeated by the Single Judge in the appeal. The give away to me is that one of SP’s legal team called him a “loose cannon.” If the lawyer involved now denies that, there is your culprit. I experienced the same attitude from several solicitors and one judge in particular (Judge Pawson), in the last appeal which wasn’t allowed. It was their last chance to get me. In my case, like SP’s, there was absolutely no incriminating evidence. The prosecution, quite against their own rules, made it LOOK criminal. My legal letter to the plaintiff in my case was nothing other than polite. SP’s association with the plaintiff was just friendly.

It's inconceivable that any good lawyer could think “proof beyond reasonable doubt” existed to show that SP had done anything wrong. Quite the opposite, the plaintiff and her family had behaved badly; at least the father got community service for his violent actions.

The CCRC

“Abandon hope all ye who enter here”.

I have read several documents produced by the CCRC and SP’s are nothing new. They want “new evidence;” it is evident that SP’s court hearing was incompetent and unsound. That’s new evidence. They also want to use the “real possibility” of a further appeal: “Not if we can help it” is not an ideal motto for their work, as has now been accepted by the change of leadership.

If nothing else, the CCRC should be a source of appropriate lawyers – there are good ones – but, in fact, they are full-on bureaucrats: “I’m afraid I can’t help you.” Once a legal decision is taken, it’s very hard to be over-turned, and it shouldn’t be. Wrong decisions must be easily over-turned.

Curiously enough, just when I had mystery-shopped the CCRC, the resignations happened, obviously due to the Malkinson case, but. nonetheless, the edifice has toppled, albeit metaphorically.

We should all have one purpose: justice. I’m not convinced the bad guys think like that. I posit there is an undercover Local Authority “stitch-up” unit that harasses people they don’t like, for whatever reason.

Concluding remarks.

If it were funny, I would laugh. It is not funny, however. How did anyone who believed the case against SP, or indeed Lucy Letby, actually come to think what they thought? All the evidence and, indeed, facts and proof, are in SP’s favour. They were chatting at his wine bar/café, things took a turn and they slept together. A “boyfriend” then appears as well as two angry parents. The parents assault SP and so on. All the compasses of guilt are pointing at the plaintiff.

Let’s look at the counter-narrative. The local authority were fed-up with this loose-cannon running some wine bar in town. He was a nuisance. He said things they didn’t like (which I don’t doubt). He was a “loose cannon.”

At that point, otherwise ordinary people (police, CPS, and psychiatrists) have statutory powers: police to arrest, CPS to make up some charges, psychiatrists to interview and section, judges to rule and a jury to be fooled. And, a defence solicitor to be moulded into shape - if they want that well-paid job at the CPS in, say, a couple of years, maybe 18 months, that is.

Job 1: how do we fool the jury? Don’t let him speak, downplay the witness statements, emphasise she was drunk and that she had a boyfriend. After all, they muse, why should she willingly have sex with someone if she had a boyfriend?

At that point I could reel off the reasons. In effect, the defence lawyer didn’t. It was a non-defence aimed at a guilty verdict.

There is a psychological complex I call “prosecutor’s mindset.” They really believe the false allegations.  To a hammer, everything is a nail. They wanted a conviction (which is against their own rules). I saw it in the money-laundering case against me in 2007: when I was acquitted (the judge actually stopped the ridiculous trial) the prosecuting barrister was dumbfounded. That’s how biased some of these professionals are (they’re not supposed to be biased according to their own rules): my previous area of research was psychiatry. They’re just the same: they don’t recognise their own confirmation bias. At the same time, they don’t like being criticised, which makes the return to logic difficult.

But then, enter the well-groomed defence barrister. The solicitor has lined him up: he says, as far as I can tell, absolutely nothing. I think I have said more than he did.

That’s court-room and jury manipulation: the manner in which the evidence is presented. You advise the defendant to plead guilty, failing that you manipulate the evidence to make it point at the defendant when, in fact it all points to the plaintiff. In the Birmingham Six case it all pointed at the failure of the forensic tests. The jury were, nevertheless, fooled. SP’s not speaking at the trial would have shown him for the articulate and thoughtful person that he is. The local authority wouldn’t have wanted that: that’s another narrative.

I would remind the reader: everything we are talking about is decision-making. As a young management student and over time I realised decision-making was the most important function of a manager. I studied psychology and found that confirmation bias was the overweening pressure on rational thinking. There are other biases, but confirmation bias, aka tunnel vision, is the most important.

Bruner, who is the originator of “psychology and law,” writes in his newest book (Bruner, 2021) that law is dominated by narratives (amongst other things). The legal profession, not least the highest judges, have, once their transcripts are examined, a clear narrative of what they personally believe. One solicitor I overheard talking to a younger colleague talked of how one judge decides this, another something else. Comments are well-known about how tough one judge is in comparison to another. Those narratives can contain their own pattern of bias.

Kahnemann refers to “noise” (Kahneman, 2021), what I would refer to as “other factors”, the wife’s unhappy, the kids are rebelling, the pain in your leg is aching, the coffee machine doesn’t work. All this “noise” hinders decision-making and it is hard (but manageable) to “compartmentalise” other issues. We can at least show that much empathy to all those who were involved in this case. But was there so much noise and such a powerful prosecution narrative that the facts escaped ALL of them? It can’t be. It was how the evidence was presented in court: biased.

The local council didn’t like him; they were micro-managing him. They were looking for something to get him with. It could even be seen as that they lined-up a prospective local politician to go in and seduce him. Her career could be advantaged by helping them.  She didn’t tell her parents or her “boyfriend”. The boyfriend objects to what happened and coerces her to phone the police. The parents come round to his house and physically attack him.

Four witnesses state they saw the plaintiff and she wasn’t drunk. A fifth witness was tampered with by the PC.

The plaintiff spent time with the defendant and then went home.

That is an alternative explanation and the collusion between the local authority and the plaintiff is the evidence. She behaved badly and the CPS ignored it.

Despite that, the result is SP gets 8 years. The fact that the appeal judge saw nothing wrong with this must really make the alarm bells ring. I saw a similar silent collusion myself elsewhere.

Incredibly enough the CCRC has suddenly had a change of leadership. Sometimes things go wrong in large organisations, frequently if we look at the CJS. Let’s hope Vera Baird puts it right. It nevertheless gives False Allegations Watch and others a chance to change the narrative.

References

Bruner, J. and Amsterdam, A. (2000); Minding the Law; Harvard University Press.

Dror, I. and Bucht. R. (2013); Psychological Perspectives on Problems with Forensic Science Evidence; in “Conviction of the Innocent” (B. Cutler; (Ed)); American Psychological Association.

Findley, K.A. and Scott, M.S. (2006); “The multiple dimensions of confirmation bias in criminal investigations”; University of Wisconsin Law School.

Kahnemann, D. et al; (2021); Noise: A Flaw in Human Judgement; William Collins.

Naughton. M. (2014); The Innocent and the Criminal Justice System; Palgrave Macmillan.