Date: 27 January 2017
Venue: Knights Hill Hotel, King’s Lynn
Attendees: Sir Henry Bellingham, MP [SHB]; Brian Pead (co-author of From Hillsborough to Lambeth and other books including FRAMED! and 10Prisons12Weeks and tony martin: the truth) [BP]; Satish Sekar (investigative author and journalist, see The Cardiff Three) [SS]
Time: 18:00 – 19.28
SHB invited SS to tell him a little about himself. SS mentioned his work on The Cardiff Three.
- SHB asked SS if he was helping BP with his cases – SS agreed that he was. SS also mentioned Dr Michael Heath in the Tony Martin case. Brief discussion around the Tony Martin case and Heath’s autopsy on Fred Barras.
- SS mentioned the Fitted In project and said he was assisting BP in his injustices.
- SHB mentioned Lambeth Council, that it had been in the news a lot lately and SHB asked “What is your reading of how it affects your case Brian?”
- SHB said that Lambeth Council had admitted that they were involved in child abuse and cover-ups and that they were likely to be paying out a lot of money.
- BP said that he thought it would be sensible for Lambeth to deal with his case under the same umbrella as the Shirley Oaks case and draw a line under it. BP said that Michael Mansfield QC was running a class action against Lambeth.
- SHB suggested there could be a joiner.
- BP mentioned Alex Passman, an employment law specialist, who had told BP that he was being set up by Lambeth Council and was unlawfully dismissed.
- SHB agreed that it was a related case dating from the same period.
- SHB sought clarity with regard to the teacher BP reported for child abuse which Lambeth Council then covered up.
- BP mentioned the Burchell Test (which SHB confirmed he knew about as a barrister in Tort Law) and how it had not been followed by Lambeth in his unlawful dismissal.
- BP mentioned Chuka Umunna’s comments re child abuse not being only Lambeth Council’s responsibility but also the Police, the judiciary and the CPS.
- BP mentioned his banned book from hillsborough to lambeth; that he is re-publishing a second edition which will be redacted to avoid a gagging order; and BP also mentioned the unlawful dismissal of James Walker, another Lambeth Headteacher. BP mentioned former mp Simon Hughes who said that Lambeth officials had lied to an Employment Tribunal – the very same officials who dismissed BP.
- SHB stated that he was looking for areas in which he could add value: he said he would ask for a meeting with the Chief Executive of Lambeth; BP said he’d sent a Letter Before Claim for which he had had a receipt but not a reply; SHB said he’s prepared to write to Lambeth to put on hold BP’s claim against them pending acknowledgement of a firm meeting; SHB said that compensation would have to be discussed by Lambeth; BP said he would not give Lambeth forever to deal with it and that the Shirley Oaks case had been dealt with swiftly; SHB said he would write again to Michael Mansfield because he may not have been fully aware of the Lambeth connection; SS mentioned that Mansfield is the Patron of the Fitted In project and that Mansfield had written a Foreword to SS’s new book about forensic evidence; SS mentioned Mansfield Law; SHB said he felt Mansfield should be aware of BP’s cases and felt that the qc could readily get up to speed with BP’s case and take it on and if he’s driving for a settlement for the 600 he might as well as add BP; SHB asked about BP’s unlawful dismissal and asked whether BP had taken it to an Appeal, BP said he had; SHB said there are two takeaways: (i) he would write to Sean Harriss and (ii) BP’s teacher’s pension.
- BP said if SHB writes about the pension, all that would happen is that the teachers’ pension would provide false information; BP had asked for Proof of Debt from the tpa but none had been forthcoming; SHB asked when BP was due his pension and BP said it was due now; SHB said that he could tackle it straight on and write to the Secretary of State for Education to ask why BP was not getting his pension; SHB asked where the alleged debt of £25,000 had come from; BP stated that it was clearly wrong; SHB said it appeared that there had been an administrative error and that he would deal with it.
- SHB mentioned BP’s convictions and clearing BP’s name; SHB said BP ought to find a new lawyer to take on the cases; SHB mentioned re-trials or new evidence and the unsafe convictions taken back to Court to be quashed; SHB mentioned that a young solicitor could make a name for him- or herself by taking on these cases and getting them quashed.
- SHB said the case regarding Impersonating a Barrister was “a joke”.
- SS asked SHB if BP could get Legal Aid, SHB doubted it; SHB mentioned alleged Incitement – BP mentioned that his case had been sat on for 5 years by the ccrc; SS sought clarity re ccrc rejecting BP’s appeal for alleged incitement; SHB said he would write to the ccrc re BP’s cases (all four) – BP to provide SHB with judgment from ccrc.
- BP said that he was concerned that he and SHB meet every few months and have essentially the same conversation and that they never get any further forward.
- SHB said he would definitely get a meeting with Lambeth’s CEO because they can’t turn him down as an MP; SHB added that if he raised it in the House of Commons under legal privilege that Lambeth were refusing to meet with him they would not like it and SHB further added that he would do it if necessary; SHB said that he was disappointed that Mansfield did not take on BP’s cases as a cause celebre, but that it was worth trying again;
- SHB asked BP if he wanted to find a solicitor for him – SHB claimed he didn’t know if the convictions would be quashed. BP said it was a disingenuous statement because he had given SHB considerable information proving that all four convictions were unsafe; BP mentioned s.10 of the Sexual OffencesAct 2003 and that there never was a “person B” which a finding of guilt needs. BP said he would not listen to police nonsense about a sting operation and that he had out-stung an illegal police operation;
- BP mentioned that corrupt people were keeping him guilty of a bogus sex case and that in the case of the alleged harassment of his daughter and granddaughter neither made a complaint to the police, neither made a witness statement and neither appeared in Court against him.
- SS said he knew of 3 firms who might help BP: Birnberg Peirce (Gareth Peirce), Stephen Bird of Bird’s Solicitors; Stuart Hutton in Cardiff. SHB said he would write to all of them to enquire on BP’s behalf whether they would represent him;
- SHB asked BP to refresh his memory re Harassment case; BP said he didn’t take it to Appeal because he was given new cases to fight and put unlawfully in prison; SHB said it must go to the ccrc – SS said all of BP’s cases must go to the ccrc – SHB agreed, saying that “Every one of the cases is unsafe basically”
- SHB said he wanted an update from BP regarding his family (Point 5 on the agenda). BP said that there was a nonsense Restraining Order issued by a single magistrate which ought not to have been issued – SHB agreed; SHB suggested finding a mediator who knows both sides of the family who could intercede; BP pointed out the obvious flaw in that plan – that any third party intermediary could say that BP’s family no longer want to see him without it being true; SHB said that if BP’s family took the view that they wanted to see BP again, they could because the Restraining Order is against BP and not them; SHB said if they signed an Affidavit saying they wanted to see BP again they could; SHB asked the ages of BP’s grandchildren, he replied 18, 16 (in August) and 11 (in May); SS asked “How about Judicially Reviewing the Restraining Order?” – BP said he was out of time; SS said make a further application and if the court refuses to then seek a JR; BP explained that last year he sent an application to revoke the RO to court but that he never heard anything back; BP said that SHB had a copy of his book Framed! [as does SS], BP said that Hackney MP Meg Hillier had said she couldn’t talk about BP’s case because she was acting on the orders of the Home Office; BP said he had given the authorities until 12 June 2017 (his 64th birthday) to deal with it.
- SHB returned to BP’s family and said that through all that has happened, BP lost his right to a family life and to enjoy his family; SHB said that Emily Birch (BP’s eldest grandchild) was now 18 and she could decide tomorrow to see BP; SHB said that Lauren Birch could see BP when she reached the age of 18 – BP said he was not prepared to wait until then, SHB said “Fair enough”; SHB said that BP’s daughter and son-in-law could make an Application to the Court to see BP and get the RO lifted; in the meantime SHB said that he would be happy to call Sorrel Birch (BP’s daughter) and in London meet her in Portcullis House and have a chat with her to talk the whole thing through – BP said as long as he was there, it would be fine; SHB did not accept that; BP said that as soon as he said he wanted to be there, things changed; SHB claimed that Sorrel Birch might not agree to see him with BP present and BP asked “Why?” – SHB said, “I don’t know, let’s try.” SHB claimed that Sorrel Birch would be more comfortable meeting him without BP present and BP said “You don’t know that.”
- SHB asked for Sorrel Birch’s address and telephone number – BP said he had provided these details previously. BP suggested SHB call Bexley Police to get the up-to-date details of his family’s whereabouts. SHB asked why Sorrel Birch had not made contact with her father and BP said because he had been consistently moved around by corrupt agents of State and that BP’s phone number keeps changing because of his many arrests and unlawful seizures of his phones by the police; BP said the meeting was supposed to be in good faith but he felt that SHB’s suggestion was too open to ambiguity; BP reminded those present that the RO was issued unlawfully contrary to the Rule of Law, and that – as anxious as he is to see his daughter and grandchildren, the first step is to revoke the RO which is a simple step to take because, since the court issued it in error, it has no option but to revoke its own order: point of law A person affected by both a void or 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 ).
- SHB said that BP should find a lawyer to write to the Bexley Magistrates’ Court to ask what happened to the revocation paperwork that Brian sent in October 2016. SHB said that the RO has legal impact – BP said he refused to accept it in the manner of the Hillsborough families who refused to accept the Coroner’s verdicts of accidental death; SS suggested “Why don’t we all agree that there has been an injustice here?” and SHB said, “There is a restraining order that was incorrectly, improperly and unlawfully secured. It doesn’t mean to say that it doesn’t exist. It may be tarnished but it exists. We can’t be in denial about this. One way of doing this is if your family contacted the Court to get it lifted.” BP said that “A void order does not bear the brand of invalidity upon its forehead.” SHB said that the Police treat it as being lawful and that as long as it’s there, it has power. BP said that “Aren’t they using it to the maximum effect?” SHB agreed saying that BP should get the application to revoke the order back to court immediately. SHB suggested he would contact Sorrel Birch – BP refused him permission. SHB said he would call Sorrel Birch to tell her that he had had meetings with BP and that he is absolutely convinced of BP’s innocence in all of this. Can SHB facilitate getting back together? SHB said, “Emily Birch could track you down and hear the truth. So far they’ve only heard the police version. Sorrel and Paul Birch have bought the propaganda. SHB said he would contact Sorrel Birch. BP asked what SHB would hope to achieve? SHB said he would hope to persuade her of BP’s innocence and how BP needs his life back because it has been turned upside down with this whole campaign against him and that BP needs her help, support and love and need to get back together again.
- BP asked what female MP he would have assisting him and SHB said there was no need for it. BP asked about Baroness Lawrence (not an MP) who was very good about exposing police corruption and a friend of Clive Driscoll. SHB asked who is Sorrel Birch’s MP – BP said James Brokenshire. BP said there ought to be a female present. SHB said it was not necessary. BP said “What if she says no?” SS said that if SHB’s approach does not work, would he then try BP’s approach, to use a female? SHB agreed. He said “a letter first of all. Tell her that I am absolutely convinced that her father is the victim of police corruption and miscarriages of justice etc and that it is breaking his heart not seeing his family.” SHB said that if Sorrel Birch refused to meet him “it would be very odd” but it is also important to get the RO lifted urgently.
- SS asked what the reason was for BP’s application to revoke the RO not working in October. BP explained that it was not responded to by the Court. SS said “Aren’t they obliged to respond?” and of course the courts are obliged to.
- SS said that perhaps SHB could write to the court and ask why it had failed to respond to his constituent’s application to revoke the RO – SHB agreed that it was a very good point and said he would do that. It was not interfering in justice and that he wanted his constituent to have his day in court – ACTION POINT.
- BP said that SHB should write to Bromley Magistrates’ Court. SS said that SHB should ask for a copy of any response from the Court last October.
- SHB said it could be conspiracy or a simple cockup. BP said he had a receipt for it. BP added that he had sent a copy of the Application to SHB. SHB agreed that he had received it. BP said that someone took it to court on his behalf and obtained a receipt. SHB agreed that he could write to the court and tell them that his constituent had been denied justice. BP asked for a copy of all letters sent. SHB agreed, saying “I will let you have a full report on this meeting and the actions I will take.”
- SHB turned to BP’s new address: Flat 2, 66 Goodwins Road, King’s Lynn. BP informed the Police and Probation. BP mentioned the sopo. That it expired on 27 January 2017. BP explained that the contract stated no children. BP said that he suspected that probation would get BP arrested because they don’t know his address and Probation has a duty of care to tell the Police. SHB agreed that it should mitigate against any arrest and that it was “a sensible thing for BP to do.” SHB said, “You have taken all reasonable steps.”
- SHB wondered whether BP was actually resident in his constituency. SHB said that his staff had devoted a lot of time to BP’s case because SHB felt it was a deserving case. BP said that SS had offered a room in his house to BP but that BP turned it down because of staying in Norfolk. BP added that if he felt that SHB was not progressing his cases, he would move.
- SHB asked about Lorne Green, the Police and Crime Commissioner for Norfolk. BP said that Mr Green had not replied to his letters/ emails. BP said that he written at least 6 times to Mr Green and not received a reply. SHB said that the PCC appears not to be doing his job despite being accountable to voters.
- SS suggested that SHB write to Lorne Green. SHB agreed that it was a good idea.
- SHB asked about the Tony Martin book and his Foreword to it. BP said that tony martin: the truth had come out but that bleak house revisited was due out in the Spring. BP said he had sent to SHB’s office bullet points about where the original trial and appeal went wrong. SHB said he had not received them. BP mentioned the notion of Diminished Responsibility under the 1957 Homicide Act and that it cannot be used on Appeal if it was not used at the original trial. SHB agreed.
- BP informed SHB that he and Tony Martin were due to meet the ccrc at the Knights Hill Hotel on 02 February 2017, subject to his being arrested. BP pointed out that each time he meets with shb, he is arrested within 2-3 days. SHB confirmed that it had nothing to do with him. BP showed shb the letter from the ccrc confirming the meeting. SHB asked if BP was involved as a McKenzie Friend – BP agreed that he was and that Tony Martin had asked BP to run his Appeal for him.
- SHB said he would be happy to do the Foreword.
- SHB said he would send an email with all the action points in it.
- SHB said that “These are unsafe and unlawful convictions and any lawyer would be able to tell you that straightaway.”
- SS asked SHB to write to Elizabeth Truss to ask “Is the ccrc effective in over-turning miscarriages of justice?” SHB said, “Yes, we know they are.”
- BP said not to contact his daughter out of the blue. SHB said “What if I send a letter on a Private and Confidential basis and say that I am dealing with your father’s case and that it is a heart-breaking case and I’m very keen to have a chat with you about it, and then ring her.” – BP said “I think there needs to be in there which says that he was clearly set up by Lambeth – you’ve got the book: Alex Passman the employment law specialist said I was being set up; and that you believe that these 4 convictions against me are unlawful and unsafe.” SHB replied: “Send me a draft if you like.”
- SHB said that BP would definitely receive the Minutes of the meeting the following week (w/e 03 February)
- Meeting ended at 19.28.
SHB to write to Sean Harriss, CEO Lambeth Council to seek a meeting with BP
SHB to write to Michael Mansfield qc re BP’s Lambeth connection
SHB to write to Secretary of State for Education re BP’s teacher’s pension not being paid
SHB to write to the ccrc to seek clarity re current status of BP’s appeals
SHB to write to 3 law firms
SHB to write to Bromley Magistrates’ Court to ask why they failed to respond to BP’s application to revoke the unsafe Restraining Order
SHB to write to Lorne Green re his lack of responses to BP’s letters and emails
SHB to write Foreword for Tony Martin book bleak house revisited
BP to provide draft letter for SHB to send to Sorrel Birch (BP’s daughter)
SS to provide contact details of Mansfield’s Chambers