Lord Chief Justice informed IN ADVANCE of a mis-trial in Brian Pead case

07 January 2015

The Rt Hon. The Lord Thomas of Cymgiedd,
Lord Chief Justice of England & Wales
The Royal Courts of Justice
The Strand

Dear Lord Chief Justice,


On 12 January 2015 at the Inner London Crown Court, I am due to appear on an allegation of the Harassment of my son-in-law and eldest grandchild, Emily Birch, aged 16.

The allegation, the Crown says, arises from a card that was sent to my granddaughters at their school – Bexley Grammar School. The Crown asserts that I sent this card to both granddaughters and that one of them – Emily – became distraught and had to receive ‘counselling’ from her form tutor and her Head of Year. My other granddaughter, it seems, was not affected.

My son-in-law, it is claimed, also felt harassed by this card being sent, but not my daughter and not my grandson. My son-in-law owns a garage (Foxberry Garage and also Helical Gearboxes) and his best customer is the Metropolitan Police Service.

Naturally, I have sought representation and contacted Imran Khan, solicitor to Baroness Lawrence of Clarendon. Mr Khan has seen fit to deny me representation. Yet Baroness Lawrence had suggested to me in a letter that I ought to approach Mr Khan to initiate a Judicial Review of my previous miscarriages of justice (which I wrote to your predecessor about on 11 August 2011 but which I never received a reply to. In fact, a month after that letter I was illegally held on remand for 7 weeks in Belmarsh Prison on an allegation of the witness intimidation of my granddaughter, Emily Birch, then aged 12. Emily Birch has never been a witness in any trial or hearing (and, of course, this fact is easily proven.)

Due to Mr Khan’s refusal to represent me, I am therefore forced to defend myself in the Crown Court.

I naturally wrote to my granddaughters’ school requesting information from the Head Teacher (Stephen Elphick), and my granddaughters’ respective form tutors and respective Heads of Year. Having been a former Teacher and Head Teacher, I am naturally au fait with the protocol required in a situation such as this.

The Inner London Crown Court (Judge Mark Bishop sitting) has refused me permission to call the personnel necessary for a fair trial.

Mr Bishop has also refused to allow me to call the Arresting Officer in the case.

Mr Bishop has also refused to allow me to call my own daughter, yet the Crown alleges that she has claimed harassment against me. (For the avoidance of doubt, she has not.) Yet it is necessary under the Rule of Law for Sorrel Birch to be called as a defence witness.

Mr Bishop has also refused to allow me to call my own granddaughter, Lauren Birch, aged 13. Yet it is necessary under the Rule of Law for Lauren Birch to be called as a defence witness to provide her version of events to receiving the card that I allegedly sent to their school.

Thus, Article 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 has already been breached. It is impossible for me to receive a fair trial.

I have requested from the school full disclosure around the alleged incident, but the school has failed to co-operate and Judge Bishop has failed to make an order for full disclosure. I personally drove from King’s Lynn in Norfolk to Bexley Grammar School and issued a Witness Summons to the Head Teacher. He has failed to reply. This is anathema to justice and to the Rule of Law.

Furthermore, I have sent all papers in this matter to Mrs Alison Saunders, the Director of Public Prosecutions, yet I received a letter from the London area CPS claiming that it had not received my Defence Statement or Witness Summonses and for this reason it had failed to provide secondary disclosure. This is, of course, all a nonsense since I have received notification from the DPP’s office that my paperwork has been received. I took the decision to send all of the paperwork in this matter directly to the DPP because my communications (in whatsoever format) are currently illegally being interfered with, something which I have made my Member of Parliament – Henry Bellingham – aware of.)

Clearly, there have already been a significant number of abuses of process. However, please make yourself aware of the following:

1. Mr Paul Birch, my son-in-law, is a Director of a company which repairs vehicles for the Metropolitan Police fleet and thus bias taints this allegation;
2. This allegation is based on a case heard at Bexley Magistrates’ Court on 01 November 2011, at which time I was being illegally held in prison.

For the avoidance of doubt I was found guilty of the Harassment of Sorrel Birch, my daughter, and Emily Birch, my granddaughter by sending the former a letter regarding police and judicial corruption and the latter a birthday card. However, neither my daughter nor my granddaughter appeared in Court against me and neither had made witness statements against me. The decision by the single Magistrate was clearly made in error.

The single Magistrate claimed that he made a Restraining Order against me, but, of course – as you will know – such an Order has no legal merit whatsoever, for the reasons stated below:

1. A void order does not have to be obeyed because, for example, in Crane v Director of Public Prosecutions [1921] 2 AC 299, it was stated that if an order is void ab initio (from the beginning) then there is no real order of the Court. (The emphasis is mine – although the Court might produce a document which has the appearance of being a real order of the Court, it is, in fact, not bona fide and it carries no legal weight whatsoever.)

2. A void order results from a ‘fundamental defect’ in proceedings (Upjohn LJ in Re Pritchard (deceased) [1963] 1 Ch 502 and Lord Denning in Firman v Ellis [1978] 3 WLR 1) or from a ‘without jurisdiction’/ultra vires act of a public body or judicial office holder (Lord Denning in Pearlman v Governors of Harrow School [1978] 3 WLR 736).

3. A ‘without jurisdiction’/ultra vires act is any act which a Court did not have power to do (Lord Denning in Firman v Ellis [1978]).

4. Similarly, if the higher Court’s order is founded on a lower Court’s void act or invalid claim then the higher Court’s decision will also be void (Lord Denning in MacFoy v United Africa Co. Ltd. [1961] 3 All ER).

5. A void order or claim has no legal effect ab initio (from the beginning/outset) and therefore does not need to be appealed, although for convenience it may sometimes be necessary to have it set aside (Lord Denning in MacFoy v United Africa Co. Ltd. [1961] and Firman v Ellis [1978]). A void order or claim does not have to be obeyed and can be ignored and its nullity can be relied on as a defence when necessary (Wandsworth London Borough Council v. Winder [1985] A.C. 461)

6. A void order can be set aside by the Court which made the order because the Court has inherent jurisdiction to set aside its own void order (Lord Greene in Craig v Kanssen [1943])

7. 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]).

8. 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; Smurthwaite v Hannay [1894] A.C. 494; Upjohn LJ in Re Pritchard (deceased) [1963]; Lord Denning in MacFoy v United Africa Co. Ltd. [1961]).

9. In Bellinger v Bellinger [2003] UKHL 21 the House of Lords confirmed that a void act is void from the outset and no Court – not even the House of Lords (now the Supreme Court) – has jurisdiction to give legal effect to a void act no matter how unreasonable that may seem, because doing so would mean reforming the law which no Court has power to do because such power rests only with Parliament. The duty of the Court is to interpret and apply the law not reform or create it.

10. In his book The Discipline of Law, Lord Denning stated: “…(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’…”

11. Denning added: “…If it went wrong in law, it went outside the jurisdiction conferred on it. Its decision was therefore void. It had jurisdiction to decide or act rightly but no jurisdiction to decide or act wrongly…”

12. Furthermore, Lord Denning has stated: “…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…”

a. The Bexley Magistrates’ Court clearly fell into error and it therefore exceeded its jurisdiction because it did not determine ‘according to law’. Because it went wrong in law, it went outside the jurisdiction conferred on it. Its decision was therefore void. It had jurisdiction to decide or act rightly but no jurisdiction to decide or act wrongly. It is 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.

13. Given that these proceedings are based on a previous trial on an alleged offence which is in itself a nullity and void it stands to reason that this Trial is also a nullity since something cannot be founded on nothing. (Lord Denning in MacFoy v United Africa Co. Ltd. [1961]).

14. And given that on 14 July 2013, I Served on Bexley Magistrates’ Court a Notice of a Void Order – which I was not according to law required to do since the Order was inherently void – it is apparent under the Rule of Law that these present proceedings have no legal merit in and of themselves since they are based on a nullity.

15. And given that any ill-founded Order of the Court can be set aside by the Court that made it upon application to that Court and a person affected by the order has a right – ex debito justitiae – to have it set aside.

16. I took the legal steps – according to due process – to write to Bexley Magistrates’ Court and have the Order against me set aside. I did not hear back from the Court and thus my application for set aside was not rebutted and it therefore stands in Law that the Order of the Court has no legal merit whatsoever.

17. And given that a person affected by a void 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] KB 256 CA).

18. And given that on 09 October 2014, my Member of Parliament, Henry Bellingham, (himself a barrister) stated to me in the presence of witnesses that the conviction for Incitement at Southwark Crown Court in 2009 and the conviction for Harassment of my daughter and granddaughter, Emily, were both “…clearly deeply flawed…”, it is self-evident that the current charge of Harassment brought against me by the State also has no legal merit whatsoever.

19. For these reasons, there is no case to answer and the charge against me should be dismissed under the Rule of Law.

Although the justice system has seen fit since 2006 to create allegations against me and rush these through the court process in order to find me guilty where I have committed no offences (such as Franz Kafka chose to write about in The Trial) – and since these convictions only arose after I exposed child abuse, racism and bullying in Lambeth, and only after my book from Hillsborough to Lambeth was illegally banned at the High Court – it is clear to the “man on the Clapham omnibus” that none of the charges against me ever has any legal merit and they have been spuriously created in order to prevent me from further exposing child abuse and police and judicial corruption. (I have no doubt that you will disagree in defence of your colleagues.)

Lord Denning in MacFoy v United Africa Co. Ltd. [1961] stated:

“…You cannot put something on nothing and expect it to stay there. It will collapse…”

I have made this point to several Judges whom I have appeared before, but each insists on allowing the CPS to proceed with a case which has no legal merit whatsoever and which is a complete waste of public funds when the funding for the legal system has been severely curtailed by the present Government.

Furthermore, Judge Bishop also tried to claim that these proceedings were “extremely narrow” and limited only to this incident and no previous incidents. Judge Bishop would do well to examine the wise counsel of Lord Denning. I have invited the Crown to dispense with these proceedings, but the Crown continues to pursue them with a vengeance. One is forced to question the Crown’s motivation and whether it is acting on instructions directly from the Home Office.

There is no legal reason why these current proceedings should be made so narrow so as to not include the decision of the Bexley Magistrates’ Court made on 01 November 2011. Indeed, to attempt to re-write history and pretend that the former hearing – albeit unlawful – did not exist is anathema to justice.

Furthermore, on 16 December 2014, I received a letter purporting to be from Simon Bailey, Chief Constable of Norfolk who has refused to allow two of his officers to attend the trial scheduled for 12 January 2015. Yet they were the arresting officers in the case. Now, even my 13-year-old granddaughter would be able to tell you that of course the arresting officers have to be present – were the trial to be lawful.

I am currently under house arrest and have to answer bail each week to King’s Lynn Police Station. Such is the duplicity of the corrupt officers in this case that they attempted to have me sign to say that my attendance each week was as a sex offender when I am (a) not an offender and (b) only signing to say that I am answering bail.

I am well aware who your paymasters are and your ‘need’ to appease those providing you with your current lifestyle and status. However, you are nonetheless subject to the Rule of Law like every other citizen of this country and, as such, it is your duty to exercise judicial competence and act under the Rule of Law.

I assert all of my rights under the Common Law and the European Convention of Human Rights.

I also assert my grandchildren’s rights under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, since it is clear that my grandchildren’s rights have been breached, too.

For the avoidance of doubt, all of the convictions against me (there are currently four) have been Appealed under the Rule of Law and in a timely fashion. However, the Courts always “lose” my Appeal documents rather like those “lost” in the Home Office relating to paedophile Members of Parliament. For this reason I have elected to send all of my documentation directly to the DPP by Recorded Delivery and I always seek a signature (although I am well aware that a signature is no guarantee in itself of safe delivery to the intended recipient.)

By way of example of the level of corruption before you, on 17 December 2014 I received a letter from the Department for Work and Pensions informing me that the sum of £5 per week will be stopped from my JobSeeker’s Allowance to pay a Court fine. This relates to my unlawful conviction for criminal damage (again by a single magistrate with no bona fide evidence before him – I was not even informed of the court date and have witnesses as to this fact), yet I have appealed this conviction. You will not be surprised to learn that the Court “lost the Appeal papers”.

For the avoidance of doubt, it is clear to all right-thinking people that the judicial system is creating a situation in which I am (a) left unrepresented and (b) when I represent myself, it will seek to (unlawfully) imprison me for alleged Contempt of Court when I inform whichever Judge is sitting that the trial is undoubtedly corrupt and not in accordance with the Rule of Law.

I have brought to the attention of the Police and the Judiciary incontrovertible evidence of corruption: all of my private criminal prosecutions have led nowhere: no Court accepts them, despite them being based on the Rule of Law and written in accordance with due protocol.

I have been unlawfully imprisoned on 3 separate occasions.

In your capacity as the Lord Chief Justice, I want to know what you propose to do about these abuses of me by the agencies of State and also what you propose to do about the criminal offences brought to your attention in the Information Memorandum and the file I sent to the National Crime Agency, documents which outline the criminal offences perpetrated against me. It is, of course, your duty to ensure that the perpetrators are brought to justice and I look forward to working with you to ensure that this occurs under the Rule of Law.

Lord Chief Justice, I am requesting a full Judicial Review, including this current matter and also my case in May 2015 for allegedly “Impersonating a Barrister” (when I have never represented anyone in Court, claimed to be a barrister, or worn a wig and gown.) This case arose after a District Judge was reported for Fraud and Misconduct in Public Office. (For the avoidance of doubt, I did not report him.)

You will have noted that each time I complain to the authorities, I am charged with new allegations and unlawfully imprisoned so as to divert me away from further exposing criminal activity by those abusing their positions.

Finally, you ought to be aware (if you are not already) that on 31 December 2013 I (along with others) initiated an Official Complaint against Her Majesty’s Government under Article 3 of the ECHR.

This automatically renders these current proceedings illegal, since they add to the “inhuman and degrading treatment” covered by Article 3.

Yours sincerely,
W.B. Freeman
(formerly known as Brian Pead)

In: Latest news

Still quiet here.sas

Leave a Response