Appeared at Bexley Magistrates Court on 27 May to enter a plea of Not Guilty on a charge of Exposure.
It was alleged that he had masturbated to three females (aged around 20-22) from his bedroom window, which was covered with scaffolding, and which is opposite the entrance to a church and church hall. (Click here for a photograph Scaffolding at Days Lane clearly obstructing views into and out of the windows.) The hall is used at all times of day and night. The acts were allegedly over a period of 9 months, yet in that time, no photos or videos were made by these technology-savvy females. No complaints were made, either, until the Child Abuse team became involved.
The house was rented to four female students, yet one mysteriously never made a statement – or did she? The police have never produced a copy of this fourth female’s statement. Her name is Christine Holloway and a note from Brian’s previous solicitors – the appalling Nelson, Guest and Partners of Sidcup – states that Ms Holloway “…was not present on the night of the alleged offence (07 May 2008) …” and therefore did not make a statement. However, it was alleged that Brian had masturbated at his bedroom window over a period of nine months, so why didn’t she make a statement, since she had resided in that house during that nine-month period? Furthermore, these three witnesses claimed that they had seen him using his right-hand, whereas he is, in fact, left-handed. Surely, had it been true that they had seen him, they would have been able to establish whether he is left- or right-handed? These are just some of the alarming questions that this entire case against Brian Pead has thrown up.
On the night the females allegedly called the police stating that Brian was “up at the window” he was, in fact, lying in bed in agony, suffering from extreme pain in his toe, which he thought was broken. He attended hospital the following day where he was diagnosed with gout (which his medical records confirm).
How, then, did this case ever get to Court? The case was committed to Woolwich Crown Court with a date set for February 2009.
On 7 July 2008 our client attends Bexley Magistrates’ Court for committal proceedings, where the case is officially transferred to be dealt with at Woolwich Crown Court.
On 7 August 2008, the Defendant attends Woolwich Crown Court for a Plea and Case Management Hearing. He pleads Not Guilty.
In November 2008, several character witness statements mysteriously “go missing” after being sent to Nelson, Guest and Partners.
26 January 2009, attends Woolwich Crown Court for a pre-Trial Review of the Exposure case.
[During this time, Brian Pead is continually bailed by the Police to attend a police station each month, and he is involved in two civil cases – both of which have been instigated at the behest of the police. In an attempt to “keep him busy”, the police then initiate four more civil cases – more of that later.]
On Friday 6 February 2009, Brian Pead attended Woolwich Crown Court for pre-trial exchanges of documents. The trial judge, Charles Byers, asks the Crown Prosecutor, Timothy Forster, if “the girls are ready for Monday?” On three separate occasions, Forster says that the three female witnesses are, indeed, ready.
On Monday 9 February 2009, the trial for Exposure fails to go ahead. Prosecutor Forster has contrived with the police to ensure that the women fail to attend court.
Amazingly, the Judge allows the CPS a “second bite at the cherry”.
In the lobby outside of the Court, Forster is overheard asking the officer in the case, DC Saib of Bexley police, “So where are the girls?” and Saib replies, “In a nearby hotel.”
The trial should, therefore, have gone ahead. Brian would undoubtedly have been acquitted.
In seeking a new trial date, the following travesty of British justice occurred:
Judge Byers asked the clerk of the court for a new date for trial.
CPS: They (the women) won’t be able to make March because they are involved in a college production.
Judge: I should have thought they would want this case out of the way as soon as possible.
[To the Clerk]. Please suggest a new date.
CPS: They won’t be able to make that because one of the girls (Elizabeth McIntyre) is working on a cruise ship from 6th April.
Judge: [Incredulously] Please provide me with another date.
CPS: They won’t be able to make that date either because they have their dissertations to finish and hand in.
Thus these young women – who were allegedly “traumatised” by the sight of a man allegedly masturbating at his bedroom window over a nine-month period – were all too busy to attend Court! We have sought expert evidence from psychologists and counsellors on this point, and the consensus was that this is simply not commensurate with the real mindset of women claiming to have been treated this way. Women in this situation (had it been true) would have wanted revenge as swiftly as possible.
At this debacle, the CPS attempted to have the two cases tried together (Joinder), but Judge Charles Byers rightly rejected this spurious attempt to pervert the course of justice. (However, see below to read how Judge Hardy at Southwark improperly allowed Joinder.)
On 16th February 2009 – having been on police bail for some 8 months – Brian Pead was charged with Inciting a 14 year old female to engage in sexual activity.There never was a female, and, in any event, Brian always knew that his online conversations were not being conducted with a genuine 14 year old female. He knew this from his knowledge of psychology, linguistics and transference. The purpose of this Indictment is that the CPS can now seek Joinder (joining two charges together on the same Indictment.)
However, all the legal experts we have consulted on this matter have informed us that the case for Exposure and the case for Incitement should never be joined since they are not the same type of case and they do not have the same type of execution.
Forster and the Police connived against Brian and deliberately perverted the course of justice so that a jury (which had not been properly sworn in) would hear two cases of alleged sexual wrong-doing against an innocent man.
This was just the start of the many abuses of process that Forster, various trial Judges and the police were implicitly involved in.
11 June 2009 at Southwark Crown Court – list for mention and directions. As the case for Exposure was collapsed by the CPS at Woolwich, they sought to have it transferred to Southwark Crown Court (known to be one of the more police-friendly courts on the circuit).
18 June 2009 at Southwark Crown Court – Joinder is achieved by CPS. The judge – Hardy – also refuses Brian’s wish to retain the services of two barristers, one for each Indictment. He is refused. A trial date is set for 14 December 2009 at Southwark.
Having been arrested and charged with Exposure – despite no police investigation – on 20 May 2008, Brian’s trial was already more than 12 months in coming to trial. This is dangerously close to infringing Article 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998, which says that a defendant must have a trial in a “reasonable time”. By the time this case was tried, it had been some 19 months since Brian’s arrest – far too long, and a breach of his human rights.
14 December 2009 at Southwark Crown Court
This trial was an enormous travesty of justice. Several serious abuses of process had already been perpetrated by the police and Timothy Forster, but the depths to which they sank in this case were appalling. All Around Justice suggests that the reader will not believe that these breaches of law actually occurred in a British court in the 21st century, but occur they did.
Abuse of process 1: Judge Nicholas Loraine-Smith rebukes defence counsel, Dominic Bell of Charter Chambers for producing “the worst defence statement I’ve ever seen in my career.” This defence statement is less than one page in length – and this is supposed to be a defence against TWO criminal offences!
Abuse of process 2: Judge Loraine-Smith rebukes prosecuting counsel for “…a noticeable lack of disclosure…” – failing to provide documentary evidence not only of the Defendant’s possible guilt, but also his innocence. All Around Justice has received some of the trial papers, but it is clear that many documents have “gone missing”. Defence counsel – Dominic Bell – claims on the Charter Chambers’ website that he is “…an expert in forcing the CPS to provide disclosure…” Despite his somewhat boastful claims, he failed to ensure that full disclosure was achieved in this case.
Abuse of process 3: Judge Loraine-Smith does not ensure that the Jury is sworn in according to the standards laid down by The Juries Act 1974, section 11. This states that in any trial, the jury to try an issue before a court shall be selected by ballot in open court from the panel of jurors summoned to attend. This selection process was not undertaken in open court at Brian’s trial.
Abuse of process 4: Section 12 of the Juries Act states that “…(1) In proceedings for the trial of any person for an offence on indictment that person may challenge all or any of the jurors for cause…”
The opportunity to challenge all or any of the jurors was never offered to Brian Pead, yet it is something his defence counsel should have insisted upon in the interests of justice.
Abuse of process 5: The Crown Prosecutor, Timothy Forster – who is directly responsible for the collapsed trial at Woolwich in February 2009 – informed the Judge that a key witness in the case could not be called because “…he has emigrated to Australia…” This key witness was responsible for the IT on the www.faceparty.com website, on which Brian Pead had discovered an unprecedented level of unlawful activity by the police, acting as agents provocateurs.
No attempt was made to either (a) challenge his written statement (b) insist on his attendance at Court (the CPS had had 10 months in which to call him or (c) insist on a video-link with a court in Australia. In the interests of justice, any of these should have been achieved.
Abuse of process 6: More than 125 exhibits demonstrating Brian Pead’s innocence were not entered into Court by his solicitor or barrister, despite Brian having provided them with these exhibits and despite them being photocopied for use at trial.
Abuse of process 7:A key Witness as to Fact (Geoffrey Bacon) was never called into Court. This key witness had had his computer unlawfully seized by the police and information proving Brian’s innocence had been burnt off the hard drive before being returned to this witness with no chain of custody and not in an evidence bag, in accordance with police protocol.
Abuse of process 8: When the three females in the Exposure case had all denied ever seeing the Defendant’s genitals – which was easily proven in Court to have been impossible – the Judge failed to stop the trial. The Jury was, by now, a biased Jury, and conventional thinking is that “Well if he isn’t guilty of one, he must be guilty of the other” – which is why the Crown wanted the two separate indictments tried together. (See Judge Byers’ decision at Woolwich in May 2009 above).
Abuse of process 9: In accordance with the Law of England and Wales, every Defendant receives a copy of the “Jury Bundle” – a list of documents in the case which the Jury is given. It is self-evident that the Defendant in any trial should also be given a true copy of any bundle, since it is clear that if he/she isn’t given an exact copy, any documents could be given to the Jury which could prejudice them against the Defendant. All Around Justice is clear that Brian Pead did not receive a Jury bundle.
Abuse of process 10: Punctuality is obviously important in a trial. Dominic Bell arrived late each day and never stayed after each day to speak with his client. This is appalling behaviour from defence counsel.
This trial was conducted over a period of some 8 days. However, this was not eight full days. Too often the trial was stopped so that other cases could be entered into court, or prisoners sentenced. This was a deliberate ploy by the CPS to (a) try to wear out the Defendant and (b) ‘brain-wash’ the Jury by simply repeating the SAME evidence each time they came back into Court.
At no point was Brian Pead’s defence put to the Jury.
On Wednesday 23 December 2009 – in a strange quirk of fate – Harry Redknapp and Milan Mandaric were charged with two counts of fraud by cheating HMRC out of tax. Their trial was to be heard at Southwark Crown Court – the very same Court as Brian Pead. Click here Unlawful Brian Pead trial to read how these two trials – supposedly carried out in the same Court and thus supposed to be the same conditions for both – were, in fact, vastly different.
This was the final day of the trial against Brian Pead. What you will read next should send a shiver down the spine of every right-minded citizen in this country.
On this final day of what is known in the legal profession as the Michaelmas Term before the Christmas recess, the Judge directed the jury to “reach a verdict today. I am not prepared to have a new trial in the new year. I am not prepared to have a new jury. You must decide today, by 4pm because we are closing the Court then…”
A female Juror asked the question in open court after the Judge finished his summing up: “Are you saying that if there is no real person, no victim, we cannot find the defendant guilty?” to which the Judge replied: “Yes, that is what I am saying.” Thus it is clear that the Jury should have returned a “Not Guilty” verdict on both counts.
It is a basic tenet of English & Welsh law that the Jury must have all the time it needs in order to reach a verdict. Putting the Jury under this sort of pressure is reprehensible and renders the verdict unsafe.
The Jury then returned to the court and found Brian Pead “Not Guilty” on the charge of exposure (which he is) and “Guilty on the charge of Incitement” (which he cannot be) on a count of 10-2.
Thus a biased Jury – and a Jury operating under duress to reach a verdict on that day – found Brian Pead guilty of an offence which it is impossible to be guilty of if there is no victim.
As if that were not bad enough, what occurred next should equally offend you. The judge – knowing that the Jury has returned a perverse verdict – said to Brian Pead, “…If you continue to deny this, I will have no option but to send you to jail when you return next month for Sentencing…”
This same Judge – who failed to dismiss the biased Jury after the three females all denied ever seeing anything – then threatens the Defendant with a custodial sentence, knowing him to be innocent!
Abuse of Process 11: And then it gets decidedly worse. Dominic Bell – after the verdict is delivered – meets with the Defendant outside of the courtroom and says, “…You have Grounds of Appeal. He should have discharged the Jury after Count 1 (exposure). He should have removed Count 1 from the Indictment and dismissed the Jury. That would have meant – at worst – a new trial in the new year with just the one count…”
Which might seem to indicate that he was working on behalf of his Client. Do not be fooled. He then added: “…Pay close regard to what the Judge has said. He will jail you if you maintain your innocence…”
He, too, knew his client to be innocent!
27 January at Southwark Crown Court
Brian Pead attends for Sentencing. His supporters are in the public gallery and witness yet another farce.
Judge Loraine-Smith: “…I have no idea of what sentence to pass because there is no victim. He is a man of good character. He never intended to meet anybody. He possessed no child pornography…”
Loraine-Smith then implored both sets of counsel to try to find a solution to this problem. Having threatened Brian with a custodial sentence, he did not, in the event send him to jail, but instead gave him a community order. He made provision for the Defendant to continue to be allowed to see his grand-children. (Look under 2011 to see how this was not adhered to by the legal authorities.)
During this time, the Defendant was the subject of further civil court cases in an attempt by the police to prevent him from speaking of the corruption that he uncovered.
In January 2010, Brian – who lives in a semi-detached house – was taken to Dartford County Court by his immediate neighbour, a divorced mother of two, who once wanted a relationship with him. This woman, whom we name as Susan Ann Pool, is a known police informant.
The previous year, Brian had erected a marquee in his garden which was subsequently blown away in unprecedented high winds and it knocked down three fence panels belonging to this neighbour. Mrs Pool demanded a brand new fence – of some 14 panels – which Brian naturally refused to pay for. (The previous summer, so concerned was he about the condition of her neglected fence, he offered to build her a brick wall or to build a new fence free of labour costs.)
Known to be emotionally unstable – having shouted at her children for many years in an uncontrolled manner and turning her children against her former husband and having had 10 years of counselling – Mrs Pool took the matter to the Courts. Brian Pead knew that the courts should be used as a last resort, and thus instigated the process of mediation.
Initially Mrs Pool embarked upon this process, but – being unstable – hijacked the process and took Brian Pead to court knowing that by now he had repaired the fence and replaced the damaged panels!
At the Court Hearing, Brian Pead produced photographs as evidence which were dated and timed. He had had a witness take these photographs for him. Despite showing the Deputy District Judge (DDJ) that the fence had been repaired to a professional standard (click here for photographs) and despite stating that this was a malicious prosecution, the DDJ found in favour of police informant Mrs Pool and awarded her costs of £400 (for three fence panels which could be purchased at B&Q for £45).
The very next day, a bailiff from the Court posted a photocopy of a “Final Demand” notice through Brian Pead’s front door. He was intelligent enough to know that this was a bogus note and he refused to pay a single penny. To date, he still has not paid the alleged debt.
During the same period, Brian’s former tenants – who had been told by the police to leave his house on the same day he was beaten up in the street by four officers – took him to Court in order to release their Deposit, the Defendant claiming that he had kept it because the tenants had breached the contract. This case was to be another year before coming to Court. One of the tenants had a father in the police force.
In case you’re wondering, the four officers who brutally beat the Defendant were never brought to justice. In fact, it is even worse than that. Two witnesses to the beating immediately wrote to the Chief Superintendent of Bexley Police, complaining about the brutality they had witnessed. Kate Halpin –formerly of Bexley Police, now of Greenwich – visited the witnesses (Adrienne and Victoria Tear of Halfway Street, Sidcup) and intimidated them into withdrawing their complaint!
A subsequent IPCC “investigation” into the incident revealed that the two witnesses had – after writing detailed accounts of the brutality – not, after all seen anything more than five seconds of the incident!
Other cases involved Brian being taken to court for two mobile phones which had been sent to his home unsolicited. He naturally took the right step in contacting both mobile companies and said that he did not want the phones and how should he return them? They had not been purchased using his credit card – but with credit cards which were “untraceable” according to the mobile phone companies. All Around Justice suggests these were purchased by the police, who were then able to instigate yet another civil case against our Client. (In the event, Brian simply walked into a Vodafone and T-Mobile store and handed the sets over to the manager and obtained a receipt for their safe delivery!) It is extremely likely that the phones had been pre-loaded with child pornography.
On another occasion, Brian was in the process of selling his house at a time when a Home Improvement Pack (HIP) was a requirement. He did not, in the event, purchase one, but the company he had made contact with to find out more about them took him to court for an alleged debt of more than £700 – even though they had not produced a HIP for him. Brian won that case, because there was no case to answer. It was another example of the police – through an unprofessional solicitor – Brent Hill – trying to delay Brian from revealing the truth about the corruption he had encountered.
On 18 December 2011, Brian wrote to the then Commissioner of Scotland Yard – Sir Paul Stephenson – regarding the corruption that he had uncovered and he sought that the perpetrators of perjury and those guilty of perverting the course of justice be brought to trial.
The Commissioner – who has subsequently resigned after payments were made in the phone hacking scandal and because he availed himself of a £13,000 health spa ‘holiday’ in contravention of regulations – did not arrest anyone other than Brian himself!
On 7 January 2011 Brian Pead was arrested twice for two offences. His first ‘offence’ was an alleged Breach of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, by not signing the Sex Offenders register in time. He has always refused to sign it, because he is not a sex offender, but the police claimed that he was “three days late” in attending the police station at Bexleyheath to inform them of his address (which they already knew because they have a police informant living next door!)
Furthermore, he was arrested and later charged with harassment of his daughter and grand-daughter! No restraining orders are in place to prevent any contact.
All Around Justice believes that any right-minded adult – when writing to the Commissioner about corruption in his force, and a miscarriage of justice, would copy that letter to his daughter. (In any event, Article 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998 gives individuals certain rights to freedom of expression. These are known as qualified rights since it is clear that citizens cannot simply say anything anytime to just anybody. However, in this case, Brian Pead had no limitations on his ability to write to his daughter and grand-daughter. So, naturally, he sent a copy of the letter to the Commissioner to his daughter.
His grand-daughter, Emily, has a birthday on 31 December, so the Defendant sent her a card for her birthday. The police claimed that these two communications – a copy of the letter to the Commissioner and a birthday card – were evidence of “a course of conduct amounting to harassment.”
The purpose of these two charges – both of which were without legal merit – was a further attempt by the police to keep Brian Pead busy and to frighten him into silence about the corruption and child abuse he encountered.
Throughout 2011, he attended Bexley Magistrates’ Court and Woolwich Crown Court and Southwark Crown Court. So well-known did he become at these courts that court staff always smiled and said “Hello” to him. Some even told him they thought he was a barrister!
In 31 August 2011 police surrounded his house – despite knowing that, by choice, he lives alone. During the height of the summer riots throughout London, 8 officers and 5 vehicles were dispatched to his house with strict orders to arrest this man. His crime? An alleged breach of his probation order.
On 20 June, his father died, aged 91. Naturally this caused him some distress, and he was busy with arranging a funeral and distributing his father’s ashes in four separate locations as he had wished.
Brian Pead’s Probation officer, Ian Kane, refused to allow him a break from the meetings so that he could deal with his grief and make the necessary arrangements for a funeral.
On the day of his arrest, one officer tried smashing down the back door with a sledgehammer whilst Brian Pead was engaged in conversation with officers at the front of his house.
In any event, non-attendance at a Probation meeting is not an arrestable offence. On this occasion, the neighbour on the other side of him, Glen Meeking, assisted the police in this unlawful act. Yet, Mr Meeking – before being misinformed by the police – had stated that he would attend court and speak as a character witness because he had never seen “anything untoward at your house or with you”.
Obviously of low intelligence, Mr Meeking was no match for the juggernaut that is the police when it attempts to cover up its own corrupt practices.
On 1 September 2011, Brian Pead appeared at Southwark Crown Court. He was visited by Philip Kazantzis, a barrister, who confirmed to Brian that it is obvious that he is innocent of his original charges and that no Judge could lawfully join two cases together which have a different nexus (commonalities) unless for malicious reasons.
Predictably, the Judge bailed Brian Pead and set a new court date (our client pleading his innocence). Also predictably, Ian Kane sent in a report to the Court suggesting that our client suffered from a mental illness! (For those not au fait with the judicial system, if a defendant pleads his/ her innocence, or fails to buy into the game being played by others, the swiftest retort is that the defendant has “mental health problems”.
Throughout September 2011, Brian Pead sent a series of letters to the Prime Minister, Home Secretary, Minister for Justice, the Director of Public Prosecutions and others of a similar ilk. Their response? Read on…
On 15 September 2011 Brian Pead represented himself at Woolwich Crown Court. It is a basic fundamental right of any citizen to represent him/herself at court. It might not be the wisest move from a legal standpoint, but it a longstanding right nonetheless. This was a preliminary hearing for an alleged breach of a community order before Judge Byers. The very same Judge Byers who had rightly said that Joinder should not occur. The very same Judge Byers who failed to dismiss the Crown’s case against Brian when the females failed to attend. The very same Judge Byers who allowed the females’ diary commitments to adjourn a trial for more than three months.
And this very same Judge Byers said that he would send Brian to jail if he continued to represent himself!
On 23 September 2011, whilst waiting at a bus stop near Sidcup station, Brian saw his 12-year-old grand-daughter, Emily, get off the bus. He said “Hi,” to her. She did not reply. Later that evening, the police arrested him at his home – this time only deploying two officers and one vehicle – claiming that our Client was guilty of “Witness Intimidation” by saying hello to his own grand-daughter, with no restraining orders or similar in place to prevent him from speaking to his own grand-daughter.
Furthermore, Emily is not a witness in any trial, therefore our Client could not be guilty of witness intimidation. Saying hello in the manner in which he did is not intimidatory.
However, it was yet another bogus charge in which to try to frustrate Brian Pead. After spending three days in custody at Bexleyheath Police Station, he was transferred to Belmarsh maximum security prison! More information on his experiences there – involving a meeting with career gangster Dave Courtney – can be found in his forthcoming book Framed!.
Brian Pead was transferred between Belmarsh and Wandsworth prisons on a regular basis in further attempts to disrupt him. His glasses – needed for research – “went missing”. Clothing “went missing”. He was never allowed access to the Library to continue his research into law.
But all that is minor when we come to 31 October 2011 at Woolwich Crown Court. The case was for alleged witness intimidation and the case was rightly dropped. This should have brought about the immediate release of Brian Pead, but the authorities thought it rather amusing to create a bogus warrant for his arrest which meant that he was kept in prison for another 15 days (he should never have been in prison at all in any event.)
What occurred on 01 November 2011 at Bexley Magistrates’ Court was a further injustice against Brian Pead. He appeared on a charge of Harassment of his daughter, Sorrel Birch, and Paul Birch, part-owner of Foxberry Garage in Brockley. Paul Birch claimed that his father-in-law had harassed him by sending Emily a birthday card. Foxberry Garage’s best customer is the Metropolitan Police Service.
With no defence witnesses being called, with no documentation in court and with no disclosure, Brian Pead was found guilty of harassment, even though it is clear he is not guilty. He was given a suspended prison sentence of 18 months, as the police sought to maintain their intimidation of Brian. He was also given a Tagging Order in yet another move to deny our client his human rights.
On 15 November 2011 our Client was finally released from Wandsworth Prison when he attended Woolwich Crown Court.
On another matter, during all these events, Brian was being taken to Court for a Repossession Order on his house – even though the Halifax had not gone through all of the pre-action protocols which is a necessary action that all lenders must comply with before any court action is commenced.
Throughout the previous twelve months, three estate agents in Sidcup all wrote to the Defendant and said they would not represent him in the sale of his house! All Around Justice has never heard of any estate agent declining a fee. These agents were Drewerys, Chattertons and Village Estates.
On 23 November 2011 a tag was fitted to our Client, restricting his movements. He had to remain in his house between the hours of 10pm and 6am. This was fitted by SERCO.
On 19 January 2012 Brian Pead was called to Woolwich Crown Court where he was told by Judge Robinson that he would not be given Legal Aid to fight the case for an alleged breach of a community order. Brian Pead qualifies for Legal Aid, so she was wrong in giving such a refusal. She also said that Brian would have to represent himself in Court at trial before the jury tomorrow!
The previous September, Judge Byers had threatened to jail Brian Pead if he did represent himself in court, and just four months later his colleague was telling Brian to represent himself.
On 20 January 2012 Brian did, in fact, represent himself. More about this case can be found in the Newsletter section, under January 2012. Brian fought tenaciously. Just for good measure, the conniving and arrogant Timothy Forster appeared in the public gallery to make a further mockery of British justice.
On 23 January 2012 the case was dropped by the CPS after their witness, PC John Brown, was said by the Judge to have “…lied whilst on oath…” and to have “…misled the Court by producing false documents…”
The Jury was dismissed, but, before being sent home, they were told that PC Brown had clearly been “…an unreliable witness…”
Immediately prior to this trial, Brian had a solicitor, Alan Burcombe of Wellsburcombe of West Drayton. They had been instrumental in securing the release of Barry George in the Jill Dando murder case, but they sat on Brian’s Appeal against conviction for an appalling eight months.
Prior to this trial, Alan Burcombe suggested that Brian plead “Guilty” and when he refused to, Alan Burcombe withdrew from the case! For this reason, All Around Justice urges defendants to question the advice of any solicitor they may instruct. Sometimes the solicitor’s advice is not the best advice even though they have a duty to represent their clients to the best of their ability.
On 23 January 2012 at Southwark Crown Court – home of the appalling wrongful conviction of Brian Pead in December 2009 – football manager Harry Redknapp and chairman Milan Mandaric were on trial. (Click here for more information about how our client’s trial and Harry Redknapp’s trial could not have been more different.)
Having won the case at Woolwich Crown Court, and shown the police to have lied and to have entered false documents into Court, Brian Pead might have thought he would be free from the attentions of the legal profession for a while. However, on 02 February 2012 he was arrested and held in police custody (for another non-arrestable offence) – this time the police claimed that he had breached his tagging order by not allowing SERCO to fit the tag when they called at his house on 12th and 13th November 2011. Brian Pead pointed out that he was being unlawfully held in prison at the time and was thus unable to answer his front door!
What followed was another example of the police and corrupt lawyers using the legal system to try to intimidate Brian.
On 03 February 2012 at Bromley Magistrates’ Court, Brian Pead was held in the court cells all day. His case was dealt with at 4.20pm and he was released on bail, to appear at Greenwich Magistrates’ Court on 7 February 2012.
At this hearing, the prosecutor failed to attend. All Around Justice had suggested to Brian that this was a likely occurrence, so he was instructed to seek a dismissal. The magistrate refused, and demanded Brian’s return the following week.
On 14 February 2012 at Greenwich Magistrates’ Court, the prosecutor deigned to attend and he promptly dropped the charges against Brian. However, that was not the end of the matter as he then added a third bogus charge and the magistrate forced Brian to attend in a fortnight’s time.
(The cost to the public purse is enormous).
On 28 February 2012 at Greenwich Magistrates’ Court, all charges were dropped against Brian Pead. He was also awarded costs.
© Lambeth Child Abuse.org 2013 – 2016 All Rights Reserved