ALL AROUND JUSTICE
R v WILLIAM BRIAN FREEMAN
(formerly known as Brian Pead before state interference in his life)
12 JANUARY 2015
INNER LONDON CROWN COURT
Two counts of a breach of a Restraining Order preventing Brian from any contact with his daughter, son-in-law or grandchildren (issued on 01 November 2011 at Bexley Magistrates’ Court before a single Magistrate).
Brian was unlawfully found guilty of the Harassment of his daughter and granddaughter by sending his daughter information about police corruption and his granddaughter (then aged 12) a birthday card. Neither his daughter nor his granddaughter appeared as witnesses against Brian and neither made Witness Statements. He cannot, therefore, be guilty of Harassment. Any order of the court made in error, is automatically void and has no legal weight whatsoever and its nullity can be relied on in defence. Lord Denning stated that 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  A.C. 461)
The Crown alleges that in March 2014, Brian sent his two granddaughters (Emily, then 15, and Lauren, then 12) a card to their school, Bexley Grammar. It is alleged that Emily was ‘distressed’ by seeing the envelope and what she ‘knew’ to be the postmark where her grandfather is now living, whilst Lauren was apparently not distressed, although we cannot say for sure because it seems she has not made a statement.
It is further alleged that Brian’s son-in-law, Paul Birch, of Helical Gearboxes and Foxberry Garage in Brockley, London was harassed by Brian allegedly sending this card, but his daughter was not. Neither Lauren nor Brian’s daughter have made statements against Brian alleging Harassment and nor has Brian’s 8-year-old grandson, Joseph.
In 2008 when Brian was first arrested after blowing the whistle on child abuse in Lambeth (since corroborated by DCI Clive Driscoll, now retired, of Scotland Yard), the Police called in Social Services to harass Brian’s daughter and grandchildren saying to his daughter, Sorrel, “if you have anything further to do with your father, we will take your children away!” This move was designed to break Brian down, because it is common knowledge that he is/was a devoted grandfather who saw his grandchildren every week of their lives until June 2008.
UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION ON THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILD
2. State parties shall take all appropriate measures to ensure that the child is protected against all forms of discrimination or punishment on the basis of the status, activities, expressed opinions, or beliefs of the child’s parents, legal guardians, or family members.
Clearly Brian’s grandchildren are being discriminated against because of his activities as a whistleblower, campaigner and author of books which the Government sees fit to ban.
(Further notes about the State’s interference in the lives of Brian’s grandchildren in a subsequent Press Release).
Since the original unlawful trial in Bexley Magistrates’ Court in November 2011 (heard whilst Brian was being illegally held on remand in Belmarsh Prison for the alleged witness intimidation of his then 12-year-old granddaughter Emily – who has never been a witness in any trial or hearing, a fact which can easily be proven) was unlawful, the Restraining Order is also automatically unlawful.
These current proceedings are also unlawful because as Lord Denning famously said, “You cannot build something on nothing – it will fall away.” Put simply, if the original trial was unlawful (which it clearly was), you cannot now keep bringing further cases based on the original unlawful trial because they, too, will automatically be unlawful. On 09 October 2014, Brian’s MP, Henry Bellingham, with witnesses present, and himself being a former barrister, agreed that the conviction was “clearly deeply flawed because neither your daughter nor granddaughter appeared in Court against you.”
FURTHERMORE, on 31 December 2013, Brian – along with 6 other people persecuted by the State and who had made contact with him – issued an Official Complaint to Her Majesty’s Government under Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Article 3 deals with torture and inhumane and degrading treatment. There are no derogations from Article 3 – the Government (if it acts under the Rule of Law) has an obligation to investigate that complaint in its entirety. It has no authority, therefore, to continue to keep bringing new charges against Brian (or the other signatories to the Official Complaint.) For this reason, these current proceedings are unlawful. As is the case against Brian in Cambridge Crown Court (to be heard 16 May 2015) on a charge of Impersonating a Barrister – a rare beast indeed.
12 JANUARY 2015 – INNER LONDON CROWN COURT
The 3-day trial was listed for Court 10 with Her Honour Judge Greenberg.
She said that there were “significant issues with regards to witnesses, especially Defence witnesses” and the trial was transferred to Court 8 before Mr Recorder van der Zwart.
The next is a summary of the proceedings (a fuller account can be supplied upon request). These notes are an amalgam of those taken by independent members of the public who present in the public gallery:
• initially Brian was prevented from standing in the main body of the Court and was held behind glass in the dock, where he could not hear. He complained and then worked from the main body of the Court
• Brian was asked whether he was represented – the Recorder was keen for Brian NOT to represent himself (possibly because he has a propensity to ask the awkward question)
• Brian informed the Recorder that there were at least 12 legal issues that needed to be dealt with before any trial could be heard
• the Recorder wanted to swear the Jury in before these issues were resolved (there is a propensity in all of Brian’s trials for them to be rushed along (and a guilty verdict found)
• Brian informed the Court that he believes he cannot have a fair trial in England & Wales because all forms of his communications continue to be interfered with and have been since 2006 when he first blew the whistle on child abuse and corruption in Lambeth
• Brian informed the Court that there were two people in the public gallery who could testify there and then they know that Brian’s communications continue to be under surveillance illegally (no Warrant in place – Brian has asked for the Warrant, it has not been provided)
• Brian provided a list of several prominent solicitors and QCs whom he has approached but whom have failed to respond. This list includes, but is not limited to, Michael Mansfield QC, Imran Khan (solicitor to Baroness Lawrence, Michael Wolkind QC, Birnberg Peirce, Kim Everett of the University of Greenwich, who has higher rights in the Supreme Court, James Watson of Watson Woodhouse
• The Prosecutor, Tristan Chaize of 5 Pump Court Chambers, informed the Court that Brian had a conviction for Threatening Behaviour.
• Brian informed the Court that he has no such conviction and put the crown to strict proof
• Break for lunch
• Court reconvened at 2.15pm
• Recorder Mark van der Zwart, Head of Chambers at KCH in Nottingham, started off the afternoon session by stating that there were still a number of issues to resolve
• there was great debate about whether a Legal Aid Certificate was still active or not
the Recorder asks which witnesses the Crown intended to call: Emily Birch (Brian’s now 16-year-old granddaughter), the Forensic scientist who claimed it is Brian’s DNA on the envelope, Paul Birch, Brian’s son-in-law, Zoe Stower (the police officer in the case), PC Zia (interviewing officer), and Tracey McCarthy (officer in charge of the trial bundle), a PC Blanks (whose role has yet to be ascertained – but note the word ‘blank’)
• NOTE here that the Prosecution does not intend to call Brian’s daughter, Sorrel Birch, or other granddaughter, Lauren Birch, aged 13 – yet both were named as being involved since it is alleged Lauren also received the card and Sorrel Birch also handled the card and told Emily to “take it back to school the next day” [you might like to ask yourself why ANY mother would tell her daughter to do that]
• the Recorder asked whether an Application for Special Measures had ever been granted (this is because Emily is 16 years old)
• Prosecutor said there is no record of Special Measures having been granted and therefore Emily will give evidence in Court (via live link)
• Prosecutor said an issue might arise if Brian has to cross-examine his own granddaughter
• Recorder said it should not be an issue because it is not a sexual offence case
• Prosecutor said he thought it was section35 that provides discretion about a Defendant cross-examining his own family
• Brian said that Article 6 of the Human Rights Act (as well as the Common Law) gave him the right to cross-examine ANYONE who is against him at trial
• this was not challenged
• Prosecutor said that the Police have just told him that an Application for Special Measures WILL be sought
• Brian asked Mr Recorder if the Police were running the case against him or the CPS. Mr Recorder said he had noted the intervention of the Police but that he could not comment at this stage
• Mr Recorder said he had seen reference to a Bad Character application (all of Brian’s other miscarriages of justice – guilty of a sexual offence against a non-existent person; guilty of Harassment of his daughter and granddaughter who did not appear against him; guilty of criminal damage to a car when no witnesses against him attended court; guilty of a breach of a non-existent sexual offences prevention order by not telling the police where he lived – the very address where they arrested him)
• the Prosecutor informed the Court that there had been a Hearing in this case on 07 January 2015 and that Brian had not attended
• Judge Greenberg said on 07 January 2015 that Brian “may not have been informed that he was due to attend”
• for the record, Brian had NOT been informed – this has happened on several occasions in the past 3-4 years
• Prosecutor said that Brian had managed to “dupe his MP (Henry Bellingham) by getting him to send Christmas and birthday cards to his family members”
• Prosecutor stated that the MP forwarded the cards on to Brian’s family in January 2015 (make a note of that date)
• Mr Recorder asked if the MP had made a statement yet – answer “No”
• Mr Recorder was satisfied that Brian has not known about 07 January hearing
• Prosecutor said Brian had not been arrested yet for duping his MP and getting him to send cards to Brian’s family when a Restraining Order is in place (it has no legal effect)
• Prosecutor said Brian has not been bailed for duping his MP
• Prosecutor said Henry Bellingham’s office sent the cards on 03 January (note this date, because Brian has in his possession a letter from the MP stating that they were sent in December 2014 as they ought to have been because they Christmas (and birthday) cards)
• Mr Recorder asked who the cards were addressed to
• Prosecutor replied Paul Birch, Sorrel Birch, Emily, Lauren and Joseph Birch
• Prosecutor asked if Mr Recorder had seen a copy of the Restraining Order – he said he had
• Mr Recorder asked if the Police were going to take a statement from Henry Bellingham, MP
• Prosecutor said “No” – this prosecution is based on other evidence “and we do not need to involve the MP” (despite the fact that he is now a material witness and should be called to Court)
• Mr Recorder asked whether the Crown would call Mr Bellingham as a witness – “there seems no point, so probably not” (yet Mr Bellingham is allegedly complicit in a criminal offence)
• Mr Recorder returned to the issue of a Representation Order (giving Brian access to free barristers and/or solicitors under Legal Aid)
• Mr Recorder asked Brian if it was his wish to be represented
• Brian stated that if he was to allow himself to be represented, it would have to be by someone of the highest calibre (as designated by Brian) because his liberty is potentially at stake (there are other Sentencing options were Brian to be found guilty of this offence in yet another miscarriage of justice)
• Brian said he wanted to interview any prospective Barrister and/or solicitor and be satisfied that they are of the highest calibre since he has been let down in the past by inept barristers
• Brian pointed out that Article 6 of the Human Rights Act (and the Common Law) gave him the right to represent himself
• Mr Recorder asked “If lawyers could be found in whom you had the utmost confidence, would you be represented?”
• Brian said it’s a hypothetical question
• Mr Recorder asked “If I grant you more time to find a barrister in whom you have confidence, would you then be represented?”
• Brian said he would use the time to conduct more research but that we might still end up in the position as now because high profile barristers do not want his cases
• At this point, Mr Recorder stated that it was unlikely that the Jury would be needed today, so they could be ‘stepped down’
• Mr Recorder asked Brian about his last appearance at this Court (13 November 2014) before Judge Madge
• Brian said that he handed in a Defence statement which Judge Madge called “the worst I have ever seen”
• Brian said he thanked Judge Madge for his honesty and that he was the SECOND Crown Court judge to say that the defence statement was the worst ever seen because Brian had copied it from the Defence statement authored by barrister Dominic Bell (then of Charter Chambers, now of 1 Inner Temple) – this defence statement had been used by Bell to answer TWO criminal trials illegally joined at Southwark in December 2009
• Brian informed the Court that he had produced a lengthier version (this handed to the Recorder and the Prosecutor)
• Mr Recorder awards further time for Brian to seek legal representation – 6 weeks’ time: Friday 27 February 2015
• Prosecutor said he would be on holiday
• Brian said he would be on holiday
• Mr Recorder said “I believe it would assist the Court and Mr Freeman if he were represented”
• At this point Mr Recorder said that the Officer in the case could de-warn the witnesses (send them home because they were not needed)
• Brian then listed some of his concerns:
• interference with all forms of his communications
• defence Witnesses have been refused by the Court
• lack of Secondary Disclosure by the Crown
• no Case Management File
• insufficient number of days allocated to length of Trial
• CPS has received complaints from the public about the legality of this Trial
• Detective Sergeant Scott should be added to the list of witnesses
• the Head Teacher of Bexley Grammar needs to be called
• the Form Tutors of Brian’s granddaughters need to be called
• that the Home Office had received a letter from Caroline Lucas MP with regard to this matter
• that his daughter has not made a Statement against her father and needs to be called as a Defence Witness
• that his granddaughter Lauren has not made a statement about the card allegedly sent to her (and her sister) at their school
• that the Police were pushing the Crown to make an Application for Special Measures – since when have the Police run Crown Court trials?
• the tapes of the Police Interview have not been dealt with properly – Brian does not have an official copy marked “Metropolitan Police” and no other identifying marks. The Prosecutor agreed that his own copies of the interview tapes were “awful and I could not hear anything after the date and time”)
• the Head Teacher of the school has not made a statement
• the teachers involved in the incident have not made statements
• Brian has not seen the CAD report or the CRIS report (supposed to be supplied to him by the Police during the process of disclosure)
• the Prosecutor confirmed that he had not seen them either
the Recorder said that they should be disclosed
• Brian stated that his Article 3 Rights under the European Convention had been breached and that these proceedings were unlawful because he had served on HM Government an Official Complaint
• In all of his previous trials and hearings, he has never been supplied with a transcript (Mr Recorder informed the Court that one would have to be supplied in this case)
Brian made oral submissions to vary his Draconian bail conditions:
(i) to report each week to King’s Lynn Police Station (where they tried to claim he was signing on as a Sex Offender and not as someone on bail – for the record, Brian is not a sex offender)
(ii) to live and sleep each night in King’s Lynn, Norfolk (which restricts Brian’s freedom of movement)
Mr Recorder varied these conditions as follows:
(i) there is no valid reason that Brian has to report to the Police station each week – condition lifted
(ii) there is no valid reason that he must always sleep in the same house each night – condition changed to a Residency Order
Mr Recorder asked the Prosecutor how long he thought the trial might last – 3 days was the reply.
Brian disagrees – at least 5 days when all the witnesses who are necessary for a Fair Trial attend
Proceedings concluded at 4.33pm
END OF PRESS RELEASE
Any comments or questions, please call 0756 400 2493. All calls will be monitored and recorded for training purposes.