30
Many people regard the Law as difficult to understand, dry and perhaps
even boring. They may well be right, but it is an essential element of this account.
Brian was first arrested in relation to his use of the internet on 4 June 2008.
He was released without charge on that date but, as we have seen in a previous
chapter, he was eventually charged on 16 February 2009 under section 10(1) of
the Sexual Offences Act 2003 and also under section 1(1) of the Criminal
Attempts Act 1981.
In previous chapters, we provided a reasonable analysis of both
statutes. However, what we did not provide at that stage – and for good reason
– was an account of how the law itself relates to the charge against Brian.
We showed, in a previous chapter, how each crime usually has two
distinct elements to it: the actus reus (or
‘the act’, or crime) and the mens rea
(or the motive, or intention – the ‘guilty mind’.)
A barrister (or judge) will usually look at the charge against a defendant
in that order – in other words, the barrister will examine the crime itself,
“What did my client steal?” or “Who did my client hit?”
Only when the facts of the alleged crime have emerged and been noted
down will the barrister then turn
his/ her attention to any possibly intention.
This precise methodology has been in existence for decades, if not
hundreds of years. And there is logic and common-sense behind that particular
way of working because any person under suspicion will ask, “What exactly is it
that you say I have done?” before even thinking about any kind of defence
according to motive or intent.
However, criminal attempts turn this accepted practice and methodology
on its head – for it examines the motive or intent first and, again, for reasons of logic and common-sense. Anyone
charged with an attempt has
obviously not committed the crime (or criminal act – the actus reus) itself, but has had an intention to commit the crime. This is why, for example, there
is a charge of attempted murder
which differs greatly from murder because there is no murder victim but instead
a victim whom another may have had the intention of killing.
It is for this reason, that the usual methodology of (i) what is the
crime? and (ii) did my client have an intention to commit the crime? has to be reversed in cases of attempt.
In Criminal Law published by
Butterworths, JC Smith, CBE, QC, LLD, FBA who at the time of publication was Emeritus
Professor of Law at Nottingham University and who was made a QC in 1979 and a CBE in
1983 and Brian Hogan, who at the time of publication
was Professor of Law at Leeds University, the authors state the
following on page 287:
“…Exceptionally, mens rea is here discussed before actus reus because, as has often been
remarked, the mental element assumes paramount importance in attempts. The actus reus may be a perfectly innocent
and harmless act as where the Defendant, intending to murder P, puts sugar in
his tea, believing that it is not sugar but a deadly poison. The actus reus may be any act, provided it is done with
intent to commit the offence and goes beyond mere preparation…”
It is clear, therefore, from this account, that in order for Brian to
have been charged, the Crown Prosecution Service (acting on instructions from the
police) would have had to believe that Brian had an intention to commit
the offence of inciting a girl under 16 to provide sexual favours in return
for money.
Professors Smith and Hogan write (on page 302):
“…for […] there
must be an intention to commit the offence contemplated […] and a more than merely preparatory step towards
its commission…”
How could he possibly have had such an intention? At this point, we
will need to re-examine the evidence:
Brian told police he had been ‘smoking out’ someone purporting to be a
child but whom he believed to be an adult.
At the time, Brian was undertaking research into child sexual abuse as
part of his Advanced Diploma course in Humanistic Investigative Counselling
Also at the time he had been asked to provide Staff Training for Sub19 and Off Centre (which he delivered on 28 March 2008)
Brian Pead is a survivor of childhood sexual abuse in a children’s
home and therefore has (a) considerable knowledge of the subject area and (b) a
reason to be interested in the subject area:
·
Brian (and others) had noticed a worrying trend
on the Faceparty website
·
apart from one occasion (the first conversation)
all of the other four conversation in a five-month period had been initiated by
the ‘girl’
·
before his arrest on 4 June 2008, Brian had
given up the internet at his house and cancelled his contract with British
Telecom
·
Brian had never met the person purporting to be
a ‘girl’ and had no such intention to meet her
·
he had provided three false mobile telephone numbers to the ‘girl’
·
he believed the ‘girl’ to be an adult (or
adults) and he told Geoffrey Bacon and his lover Maya Walker this fact before
his arrest
·
he had told the ‘girl’ “You are a fake! Fuck
off!” at Geoffrey Bacon’s house on 15 May 2008 and he
had briefly told his friend about Faceparty and the degenerate chatrooms that he had found
there (and which others also found there)
·
he had never called the ‘girl’ despite ‘her’
asking him to do so on several occasions
·
he had never texted the ‘girl’ despite ‘her’
asking him to do so on several occasions
·
he had never arranged to meet ‘her’
With all of this evidence – which is capable of proof – where was
Brian Pead’s alleged intention to incite this ‘girl’ to commit sexual acts?
Put simply, there was no such intention.
Furthermore, he had not taken steps which were more than merely preparatory towards the commission of an offence
in inciting a 14-year-old girl to have some form of sexual encounter not just
because no such girl ever existed
(of which he was aware and which would make the commission of an offence
impossible), but also because he had taken no steps which were more than merely preparatory to the
commission of an offence. Indeed, the authors would argue most strongly that –
in the circumstances of this case – Brian Pead had not even taken a single
preparatory step towards the commission of an offence, or an attempt at the
commissioning of an offence.
On the facts of the case, what had he actually done? He had - as he
told the police and there is substantial evidence in the public domain to
support his version of events – merely talked to someone whom he knew not to be
an adult in order to ‘smoke out’ that person and report him or her to the
management of Faceparty. But once he had sufficient
information (on the 15 May 2008 he had told the person purporting to be a girl
to “Fuck off! You are a fake!”), he was, in fact, unable to report this person
because the website was liquidated (this fact is supported by evidence from
Companies House, Faceparty itself and
numerous posts confirming the liquidation).
In the process of ‘smoking out’ this person, Brian, as a researcher
and responsible adult, asked a number of questions in the manner that a
detective might ask them. He never arranged to meet a girl, he never believed
her to be a ‘girl’, and he never provided a genuine phone number (which would
have been necessary in order for them to meet).
Thus, the authors argue, he had done nothing wrong at all. In fact, we
go so far as to suggest that he should have been commended for his research and
for his public-spiritedness instead of vilified by the police.
Not only had he not – in our view- done anything wrong at all, but he
certainly had not taken a single step which anyone could possibly perceive as
‘…more than merely preparatory…’ We have provided you with details of cases in
which steps were taken by defendants far further along a line than Brian ever
took and these defendants were acquitted because they had not taken a
more-than-preparatory step.
The famous case of R. v Gullefer (1990) can be summarised as follows:
“…The defendant,
seeing that the dog he had backed in a greyhound race was losing, jumped onto
the track and attempted to distract the dogs by waving his arms. He hoped that
the stewards would declare ‘no race’, whereupon punters would be entitled to
have their money back and he would recover his £18 stake. He was convicted of
attempted theft and appealed on the ground that his acts were not sufficiently
proximate to the completed offence of theft to be capable of comprising an
attempt to commit theft.
His conviction was
quashed. Chief Justice Lord Lane raised the question, “…Might it properly be
said that when he jumped on to the track he was trying to steal £18 from the
bookmaker? He had not gone beyond mere
preparation. It remained for him to
go to the bookmaker and demand his money…”
The two emphases are the Authors’. The text in bold indicates, as we
have seen in this and previous chapters, that a defendant must take steps which
go beyond more than mere preparation in order to be found guilty of an attempt.
We believe we have shown that Brian did not even prepare to incite a girl into providing sexual favours. However,
our emphasis in italics above clearly
shows what Chief Justice Lord Lane regarded as the next steps that Mr Gullefer
would have needed to have taken in order to be found guilty by reason of doing
acts which were more than merely
preparatory. The Chief Justice felt that Mr Gullefer would have needed to
have taken two further steps beyond that of merely jumping on to the race track
and distracting the greyhounds – he would have had (i) to go from the track to
the bookmaker’s and (ii) demand the return of his stake money. (It is possible,
of course, that he could have left the track and gone to the bookmaker’s without ever demanding the return of
his stake money).
Thus, if we consider Brian’s
case in light of the Gullefer case, then Brian – in order to be guilty – would
have had to have left his computer (leave the track), travelled to meet the
‘girl’ (go to the bookmaker’s) and demand sexual favours in return for money
(demand the return of his money).
It is clear that Brian did nothing to suggest that he was guilty of an
attempt to incite a 14-year-old girl to provide sexual favours in return for
money. Not one shred of evidence suggests this.
Furthermore, he had no intention to meet. Thus he did commit any
criminal acts (the actus reus) and
nor did he have criminal intent (the mens
rea). He did not satisfy either
element of the two-step test, let alone both, which are needed for a guilty
verdict.
This case should never have come to Court. But recall the words of
Marcia Weise – “You have out-stung their sting operation and they will be out to get you.”
At the age of 5½, it was recorded by a psychologist working on behalf
of the National Children’s Homes that Brian Pead was of “superior
intelligence”. This was noted by the ‘sisters’ who directly looked after him
and it was also noted that he was the ‘class leader’ and that he ‘could be
reasoned with’.
Now, if you consider those facts and now add into the mix the fact
that he started writing his first book at the age of 14 (it was published in
1986 at the age of 33), that at the age of 19 he gave up his job to investigate
the death of his brother on board a Lowestoft trawler by also signing up to work at sea,
that at 19 he had witnessed not only the death of his brother in hospital, but
also a highly suspicious inquest, that he had nine books published at the time
of his first arrest and that he had been investigating what he believed to be
illegal activity by the police on Faceparty, it is not at all surprising
that the police regarded him as a ‘fixated threat’ and that he had to be
silenced and in so silencing him, that he had to be defamed and his research ‘rubbished’.
Untrue entries on the police national computer,
a friend’s computer illegally seized and returned four months later with a
burnt-out hard drive, and no evidence against the defendant leads the authors
to conclude – and conclude it we must – that Brian Pead had been set up, just
as he had been set up at Lambeth according to the award-winning lawyer, Alex
Passman. The reasons for his being ‘set up’ will become
clear in the following chapters.
Brian Pead – a huge Liverpool fan at the time – attended the fateful
game known as ‘the Hillsborough Disaster’. It left an indelible mark on him,
just as it had done so with others. One of the things he felt was incredibly
unjust was the way in which the police – who were guilty of incompetence by
failing to shepherd the Liverpool fans properly – met at South Yorkshire police
headquarters on the Monday following the match in order to concoct a story
against Liverpool fans. Orders were issued that police officers should ‘find
evidence - any evidence’ that might incriminate not only the living Liverpool
fans, but also those who had died at Hillsborough.
On Monday 20 May 2013, the BBC Panorama programme provided incontrovertible evidence
of police corruption. Orders from a high level had been given that meant that
the witness statements of ordinary police officers were changed or redacted and
vetted by senior officers. Those at fault shifted the blame on to others. South
Yorkshire Police developed plans to defend themselves. The judiciary – in the
guise of Lord Justice Taylor – allowed South Yorkshire Police to write their
own statements when being investigated by the West Midlands police force.
Those who pointed out the fiasco were marginalised, disbelieved,
discredited and defamed.
Just like Brian Pead.
He became an inconvenient witness, not only at Hillsborough, but in
his investigations into Lambeth and into Faceparty.
The Panorama programme found that police witnesses at the
Hillsborough Inquiry had been coached – this was to happen in Brian’s trials.
People who spoke out about the Hillsborough disaster were disbelieved
and discredited, just as Brian Pead was.
Like many others, Brian has shed tears over the dead Liverpool fans
and over the orchestrated cover-up of police incompetence and corruption. In
studying and following the news about the disaster over almost 25 years, Brian
came to admire Anne Williams, the mother of a
fifteen-year-old son who sadly died at the game. She fought valiantly until her
own death for justice, not just for her and her son, but for all those who were
involved and affected by Hillsborough. Brian admires people who have the
courage to speak out – to put their heard above the parapet in the name of
justice or for some cause or another.
Just before her death in April 2013, Anne Williams told Panorama, “I’ve been made to look for
the truth when it was already there.”
No comments:
Post a Comment