Brian Pead hand delivers letter to MP Henry Bellingham


29 September 2017

Dear Sir Henry,


I trust that you are well. It was good to see you on the campaign trail back in June and kind of you to offer a meeting to provide you with information regarding my latest arrest and charges.

I have emailed Eileen Stephens, your PA, but she has yet to come back to me with possible dates. I thought that, ahead of our next meeting, I would provide you with further details of my latest arrest on 02 April 2017, together with important information by way of updating you.

As you know, I have been charged with three breaches of a Restraining Order which we have endlessly discussed has no legal merit because it was issued by the Bexley magistrates’ Court on 01 November 2011 outside of the Rule of Law – neither my daughter nor granddaughter (the only people named on the Indictment) had complained to the Police, had made a statement to the Police and neither appeared in Court against me.

As a former barrister, you will be fully conversant with the work of Lord Denning, whose work with regard to jurisdiction of courts is most helpful in this present matter, as I feel sure you will agree.

Taking a step backwards to almost a century ago for a moment, we find that a void order does not have to be obeyed because, for example, in Crane v Director of Public Prosecutions [1921] it was stated that if an order is void ab initio (from the beginning) then there is no real order of the Court. In other words, the Restraining Order issued by the Court in 2011 was void from the very beginning and was therefore “not real.” As you know, we have discussed this very legal principle on several occasions.

The second legal principle with which you will be familiar as a barrister is that of a court’s jurisdiction and this is where Lord Denning comes in useful. In the case of Pearlman v Governors of Harrow School [1978] 3 WLR 736), Denning discussed the point of a ‘without jurisdiction’/ultra vires act of a public body or judicial office holder. A ‘without jurisdiction’/ultra vires act is any act which a Court did not have the power to do (Lord Denning in Firman v Ellis [1978]). In other words, did the public body or judicial office holder have the legal authority or jurisdiction to act as they did, or was their act (or acts) ultra vires – beyond their powers?

As you are aware (and as we have discussed with witnesses present), the Bexley Magistrates’ Court had no jurisdiction to make any kind of Order against me as a result of the fraudulent and illegal hearing on 01 November 2011 because it had no jurisdiction to act outside of the Rule of Law. I turn again to Denning, who wrote in his excellent book The Discipline of Law:

“…(any tribunal, court or public authority) which falls into an error […] does exceed 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’…”

As we have discussed, for the Bexley Magistrates’ Court to “determine according to law” in this case, my daughter, Sorrel Birch, and elder granddaughter, Emily Birch, would have had to have made complaints to the Police, they would have had to have investigated the complaint, my family members would have had to have made official statements and they would have had to have appeared in Court against me. Since none of these ordinary and lawful procedures took place, Bexley Magistrates’ Court could not have “determined according to law.”

We return to the wise words of Lord Denning:

“…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…”

As we have discussed, the Bexley Magistrates’ Court went wrong in law by not following any of the normal protocols one would expect as a reasonable person to have been conducted. In going wrong in law, the Court went outside of the jurisdiction conferred on it and any decision was “therefore void”. As Denning (and common sense) shows, the Court – indeed, any court – only has the jurisdiction to decide or act rightly and no jurisdiction whatsoever to decide or act wrongly. Clearly the Court decided wrongly in finding me ‘guilty’ of my beloved family members and acted wrongly in issuing a Restraining Order preventing me from having contact with my family.

Furthermore, Lord Denning added:


“…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; and it can be quashed on certiorari; or declared void by a declaration to that effect…”

I have made a Statutory Declaration in which I state that under the Rule of Law – as defined by Lord Denning – I am not guilty of the harassment of my family members and that the Restraining Order issued against me was issued in error.

It follows, therefore, that the Restraining Order has no legal merit (it never had because the Bexley Magistrates’ Court had no jurisdiction to issue it) and that it never had any legal merit.

As a barrister you will know that it is never too late to raise the issue of nullity and a person can ignore the void order or claim and raise it as a defence when necessary (Wandsworth London Borough Council v.Winder [1985] A.C. 461. As we have discussed, I continually rely upon the defence of the Restraining Order being void and a nullity.

As you are aware, a person affected by an invalid order has the right – ex debito justitiae to have the order set aside (which means that the Court does not have discretion to refuse to set aside the order or to go into the merits of the case) (Lord Greene in Craig v Kanssen [1943]).

We have discussed how I have made several applications to the Bexley Magistrates’ Court to officially set aside the Order (even though I was not required under the Rule of Law to do so, it being automatically my right to have it set aside since it had been issued in error and without jurisdiction) but the Courts failed to respond to a single one of my letters, as discussed. However, their lack of response does not nullify my legal right to have it set aside and I therefore regard the Order as having been set aside.

Additionally, 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. [1961]).

You are aware that in August 2015, whilst being held unlawfully in prison, I was found ‘guilty’ of breaches of the unlawful Restraining Order and sentenced to 24 months in prison (the sentence was extreme, but I do not propose to discuss that in this letter.)

I made you aware that Bexley Police claimed I had sent a card to my granddaughters’ school – Bexley Grammar School – in 2014 and that my elder granddaughter, Emily, had received it and been “traumatised.”

A DC Zia testified that he had been to the school and collected the card, which was produced in evidence against me and the CPS, in what can only be reasonably described as a circus, even went to the expense of calling an ‘expert’ witness to say that my saliva was found on the card.

I was self-represented. I sought disclosure around this incident, including (but not limited to) a sworn statement from the School Secretary to confirm that DC Zia had been to the school to collect the card, a statement from the head teacher to confirm that this incident had taken place, a statement from Emily’s form tutor who had allegedly comforted her, a statement from the School’s Designated Child Protection Officer, the local authority’s DCPO, Emily’s doctor, Emily’s school attendance records (on the assumption that had she been traumatised at school she would have had several days off school through emotional illness), a statement from the child’s mother Sorrel Birch and so on and so forth.

The Judge – clearly acting outside of the jurisdiction the public confer on him to observe the Rule of Law and act as an impartial arbiter – refused me Disclosure on any of the material I had reasonably requested under the law. Clearly the judge “fell into an error” to use Denning’s words. Staying with Denning, clearly the judge “exceeded his jurisdiction” and, in exceeding his jurisdiction, he “went wrong in law.” And in “going wrong in law”, and with no jurisdiction, his decision was therefore void. He had jurisdiction to decide or act rightly but no jurisdiction to decide or act wrongly – clearly “something founded on nothing” and clearly unlawful as you stated on 27 January 2017 with investigative author Satish Sekar also present: “All of your convictions are unsafe and unlawful and any solicitor could see that straightaway.”

Not long after that meeting of 27 January 2017, I took certain steps in the interest of justice. I will now put you in possession of the steps I took so that you can be left in doubt as to the truthfulness and accuracy of your statement.

I first wrote to Cressida Dick, the new Commissioner of the Met Police. I had written to Sir Paul Stephenson and Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe about police corruption in my cases and their only response was not as the reasonable person might imagine to investigate, but instead to create new false allegations against me, have me arrested and falsely imprisoned and continue to run me out of money whilst ensuring the “fake news” of my alleged criminal activity was promulgated on the internet (always by “anonymous” police officers or civil servants posting such rubbish).

On 29 March 2017, I went to Teapot Island in Kent which, as you know, is owned by my son-in-law’s mother and step-father and which was visited in 2014 (whilst I was unlawfully held in prison) by HRH Prince Charles and Lady Camilla. The purpose of my visit was to put my son-in-law’s mother (Susan Blazye) in possession of your letter to Tony Martin regarding my being the innocent “victim of a number of miscarriages of justice”, copies of my books Framed! (a signed copy is in your possession), a copy of tony martin: the truth and a number of other legal papers which prove my innocence.

Of course, the reasonable person as defined by the Courts would expect Mrs Blazye to inform my daughter and her children of my innocence. The reasonable person would be delighted to learn of someone’s innocence. The same reasonable person would imagine a scenario whereby Mrs Blazye – if she were conducting herself in the manner of a reasonable person – would be informing her daughter-in-law (my daughter) of her father’s innocence straightaway and inform the grandchildren, too. And, indeed, she would surely be informing her son, Paul Birch, to let him know he has been used by Scotland Yard (as retired DCI Driscoll had feared in our meeting of 09 march 2015) to attack me. In other words, Scotland Yard used him to fire their bullets at me and he was an unwitting stooge in their Machiavellian manoeuvres.

I regret to inform you that Mrs Blazye, nor any member of her family (and no member of my family) has been in touch with me.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, Ms Dick’s response to my letter was a repetition of her predecessors’ – to have me arrested (02 April 2017) and interviewed and charged on 03 April 2017. Incidentally, whilst being interviewed, I made an impassioned speech about my granddaughters and how I wished for them to achieve all that they achieve irrespective of their gender. The interviewing officer told me that he was “genuinely impressed” with my obvious care and concern for my grandchildren.” It follows, therefore, that a Defendant with “care and concern” for his loved ones would not have the requisite mens rea to harass them and yet the CPS insist on wasting yet more public money (a particular bête noire of yours I am given to understand) on taking this case forward. As you might imagine, I intend to call Emily and Lauren (and the Blazyes) as witnesses which the Rule of Law allows for and which any reasonable person would do.

The reasonable person would be driven to question whether the arrest was directly linked to my visit to Teapot Island on 29 March.

On 04 April 2017, I was taken from King’s Lynn to Bromley Magistrates’ Court, where the District Judge informed me that he had no papers in the case. Initially there was no Prosecutor either but eventually one was found. When the DJ asked the prosecutor the names of my beloved grandchildren, the Prosecutor was unable to tell him, having no grasp of the facts of the case.

Nonetheless, the DJ released me from custody and sent the case to the Crown Court. Being in receipt of no papers in the case, the reasonable person would query why he failed to dismiss the case in its entirety since, with no papers before him, there can have been no case to answer.

On 20 April, my former landlady, Philippa Bensley, made a sworn declaration in which she confirmed my ill-treatment at the hands of Norfolk Police, including my being arrested by armed police and committal to the Fermoy Mental Health Unit when no such measures were ever necessary as you are well aware and we have discussed. She also confirmed that I had been unlawfully arrested on 29 January 2014 when I was given no reason for the arrest until a good length of time after the arrest: the reason, you may recall, was for allegedly “Impersonating a Barrister” – a charge you have previously and quite correctly described as “laughable.”

Ms Bensley also confirmed that Norfolk Police had called at her house on more than a dozen occasions between January and March 2014 and yet had claimed they had never been to her property and that there was no record of any such visits! Clearly that course of conduct amounts not only to the harassment of me, but also to Ms Bensley and her family members.

On 24 April 2017, I met with Toby Porter of the South London Press, a newspaper which has published many articles on the subject of child abuse in Lambeth. He was most interested in my civil case against Lambeth for unlawful dismissal, harassment and fraud. He said he would contact me about a story but he has not made contact with me and I put this down to MI5/Scotland Yard/the Home Office continuing to illegally interfere in all forms of my communications. As you are aware, I have written on a number of occasions to the Home Secretary (Theresa May when in office and now Amber Rudd) and neither has been able to provide me with a copy of the warrant issued under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 and the reasonable person is driven to conclude that no such warrant exists. The lack of a warrant, of course, makes the interference in all forms of my communications illegal and a breach of my Rights under the Human Rights Act 1998.

On 28 April 2017, I received a nonsense communication from the Met’s Professional Standards Department claiming to have investigated my complaints re police corruption in my cases contained in my letter of 28 February 2017 to Commissioner Dick. The ‘investigation’ found no case to answer and yet no-one bothered to contact me. The investigation clearly did not take place and the letter sent to me by Scotland Yard has no basis in law and is nothing more than the work of a fantasist.

On 02 May 2017 I attended Woolwich Crown Court before hhj Keith Raynor for a hearing for the alleged Harassment of my daughter. Michael Bird, co-author of from Hillsborough to Lambeth (a copy of which you are in possession of) acted as a McKenzie Friend. There was no prosecutor in court and yet a trial date was set for August (since lapsed).

As you are aware, Woolwich Crown Court is within the same circuit as both Bexley and Bromley Magistrates’ Courts.

You are aware of my research into the entire history of Liverpool Football Club since 1892 and my five books on the subject. I turned those skills into looking a little more closely at the Magistrates/District Judges and Judges involved in my cases and I now put you in possession of my findings. I must stress that I conducted only brief searches on the personnel outlined above, but nonetheless the findings are quite incredible.

We have often spoken about my unlawful and fraudulent dismissal from Lambeth and indeed you have uttered the phrase “Clearly there was some murky stuff going on against you in Lambeth.”

You were not wrong! A search for Phyllis Dunipace (the former Executive Director of Lambeth Children and Young People’s Services and who mysteriously resigned on 08 August 2010) on the Companies House website shows that she has been a director of a number of companies.

In one company, the London Action Trust (Company number 02897056) her co-directors included (but were not limited to) judges, magistrates (including one at Bromley Magistrates’ Court), a former Chief Constable of Hertfordshire (where I and a brother were abused in the Oval Children’s Home), and a current Assistant Commissioner of the Met Police.

Notwithstanding the above, Dunipace was also a director of the Kent Catholic Schools’ Partnership (08176019) and you will recall that the female teacher I had occasion to dismiss for child grooming, racism and bullying came from St Augustine’s Catholic Priory School in Ealing. You were obviously correct when you said that “some murky stuff” went on in Lambeth against me.

Naturally your army of researchers in Parliament will be able to verify the research I have undertaken.

On 07 May 2017 I wrote to the Home Secretary regarding my “unsafe and unlawful convictions” as described by your good self but I have yet to receive a response from her. (It would be helpful if you would give her a gentle reminder.)

On 17 May 2017 I visited the law firm Birnberg Peirce in London with my retired firefighter friend David Cox present. I showed solicitor Sarah Robertson the letter from the Crown Prosecution Service (enclosed) to my then solicitors (Brady, Eastwood, Pearce and Stewart) stating that neither my daughter nor my granddaughter had made witness statements against me. Ms Robertson described the letter as “a game-changer” and declared that the Restraining Order “had no legal effect” and the meeting ended. She said she would contact me after speaking with her superiors but had failed to do so by 31 August 2017.

On 30 May 2017, we met when you were on the campaign trail and you briefly mentioned that you’d heard I’d been arrested again.

On 31 May 2017, I met with Tony Martin and he reiterated that he was very cross that Simon Bailey, the Chief Constable was not going to investigate the child abuse at Glebe House School in Hunstanton that Tony suffered at the hands of a Major Bailey (coincidentally the same family name as the Chief Constable.)  I am due to write on Tony’s behalf to his MP, Liz Truss, whom you know very well.

On 08 June 2017, Tony’s appeal against his convictions was turned down by the CCRC, despite the CCRC failing to obtain a single one of the 48 documents it was required to obtain on Tony’s behalf. I feel sure that you will be staggered by the conduct of the CCRC.

On the same day, the Money Claim Court attempted to dismiss my lawful and meritorious claim versus Lambeth Council for being “out of time” and I had to write to the Court to remind them that there are no time limitations on cases involving fraud and fraud was certainly perpetrated in my case by the investigation officer, Cathy Twist, who did the same thing in the case of James Walker v Lambeth Council which I have previously made you aware of.

I have since sent the case to the High Court in London and they have seen fit to stamp my claim and proceed with it. For this reason, I do believe we should meet as soon as possible. Being a former barrister, you are fully aware that most cases are settled out of court for a wide variety of reasons but chiefly to reduce costs. I therefore inform you that it is my intention to reduce costs for the Lambeth taxpayer where possible. And, of course, you are aware of the Pre-Action protocols with regard to the bringing of cases. I have written to Sean Harriss, CEO of Lambeth, to try to effect a meeting, but he refuses to meet. You will recall saying on 27 January 2017 that he cannot refuse to meet with you, so perhaps now is the right time for you to call that meeting and deal with this once and for all.

On 13 June 2017, I visited Bexley Grammar School, where I met with the Head teacher, Stephen Elphick.

We discussed the card allegedly received at the school in 2014 and he stated that the school had not received the card and nor had the Police ever been to the school in relation to my granddaughters.

This means, of course, that DC Zia committed perjury in the Inner London Crown Court in August 2015.

It also means that the Restraining Order the CPS claim exists from that Court is void ab initio. Furthermore, as you are fully aware of, Lord Denning stated:

“No Court in this land will allow a person to keep an advantage he has obtained by fraud. No judgment of a court, no order of a Minister, can be allowed to stand if it has been obtained by fraud. Fraud unravels everything.”

Lazarus Estates Ltd v Beasley: CA 1956, [1956] 1 QB 702, [1956] 1 All ER 341


Clearly DC Zia acted fraudulently and I and my family have suffered as a direct result of his fraud.

On 15 June 2017, information came into my possession that Kate Halpin is the Borough Commander in the Borough of Lewisham. My son-in-law’s garage is located within the Borough of Lewisham.

This raises a number of legal issues, which, for the avoidance of doubt, I shall make you aware of.

I have previously informed you that on 18 July 2009 I was brutally beaten up by 4 police officers from Bexley (just prior to the ‘trial’ at Southwark in December 2009.) I also informed you that two very publicly-spirited witnesses to the beating wrote official complaints to the police and they were then paid a visit and forced to withdraw their statements “if you know what’s good for you.”

Clearly that was police intimidation. The police officer involved was Kate Halpin.

So not only did she commit a criminal act in forcing witnesses to police brutality to withdraw their statements under duress, but she is now the Borough Commander for the London Borough in which my son-in-law’s garage is located. If there is not a whiff of police corruption, there is certainly a strong smell of bias.

In your role as a barrister, you would have been familiar with the case of R v Sussex JJ ex p. McCarthy [1924] 1 KB 256, probably the best-known test for bias. Taking the view that a reasonable suspicion of bias was enough to amount to breach of the rule, Lord Hewart CJ said: “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.”

Only a blind mental defective would – upon considering all of the facts – consider that there is no bias in this present case against me.

As you might imagine, I initiated a Freedom of Information Act request on 28 July 2017 asking the Metropolitan Police Service to provide full disclosure on all of its financial dealings with my son-in-law’s garage.

As you are aware, they should have responded by 29 August 2017 but they failed to do so. I have asked for an internal inquiry (enclosed). It is clear that the Police have something to hide otherwise they would simply have provided the information which I lawfully requested. I do believe that I have previously made you aware that whilst I was held unlawfully in prison in 2015 my daughter was made a director of the garage, too.

Again, the stench of bias is noticeable to all but those mired in the smell of corruption.

current proceedings at woolwich crown court

A trial has been scheduled by HHJ Christopher Kinch. A brief search on Mr Kinch on Companies House shows that he is a school governor and director of Archbishop Lanfranc Academy, Coloma Trust, a school where a teacher was convicted of child abuse. Mr Kinch is also a director of The Citizenship Foundation. A co-Director is one Cherie Booth whom, as you know, is now Cherie Blair, the wife of the former Prime Minister. As you know, Blair’s Home Secretary was Jack Straw, whose brother has a conviction for a sexual offence against an underage girl and whose son was a school governor in a Lambeth primary school.

You will understand that, given our meetings on these topics, it is my intention to call you as a witness to the December 2017 trial at Woolwich where you can inform a jury that all of my convictions are “unsafe and unlawful”. Please confirm your willingness to attend.

It is impossible for me to obtain a fair trial in this country.

Finally, I have previously told you that once I receive considerable compensation from the State for its unlawful treatment of me and my family, I intend to purchase a smallholding and operate a number of bee hives and keep chickens and so on. I have recently identified a course to teach me bee-keeping. I will keep you posted.

In the meantime, I would be very grateful if you would provide me with a date/ time to meet to conclude these appalling abuses of my human rights and those of my beloved family members.

You will recall in the Tony Martin case, and as his then MP, you were a trustee of the POW trust, a charity assisting him in his appeal. It is clear from my research into my book on Tony that you wrote a number of letters on his behalf to the Lord Chancellor and others and I think it would be helpful were you to adopt a similar approach on my behalf.

Clearly, as you have stated on several occasions, any solicitor could see “straightaway” that my convictions are unsafe and unlawful and not, as the Home Office likes to claim, “complex”. The use of the word “complex” is nothing more than a linguistic device for civil servants to fail to act to quash the convictions and provide time for others to resign or move on.

Yours sincerely,

Brian Pead



In: Latest news

Still quiet

Leave a Response