Thursday 19 September 2013

FRAMED! - part 18

37

By August 2009, Brian was in a poor way emotionally. He was missing his daughter and was upset that she had not contacted him about the cases. It felt to him as though she had abandoned him in his hour of need. When he had called her from Charing Cross police station on 4 June 2008, he had said to her, “I need your support on this,” but it was not forthcoming. But he was also wise enough to know that this was not his daughter’s fault. She had been “got at” by the police and social services.
Whilst a lack of contact with his daughter caused him a great deal of emotional distress, this was exacerbated because he was missing contact with his beloved grand-children. He had played a large part in their lives and seen them on an almost weekly basis prior to these problems.
On top of the emotional upheaval in his life, the police were using Susan Pool to help them turn other neighbours against him. Julia Godfrey had lied to Nicola Noone and Brian had lost his job as a counsellor at Off Centre, which meant that he now had financial problems to contend with. He was in danger of losing his house and his savings were fast diminishing.
He was not fit for trial and went to see his doctor, who told him that she was unable to do anything unless the barrister wrote to her and asked for a medical report about Brian’s emotional wellbeing.
Brian thus emailed Angela Shaw and asked her to contact Dominic Bell and ask him to write to his doctor.
Bell failed to do this, despite Brian’s strict instructions. At a later conference Bell said to Brian, “I can see no reasons for the delay. It’s obvious you’ll be acquitted for the exposure case because the police haven’t even investigated that case properly and as for the incitement case, I can get you off that because there is sufficient doubt because neither you nor anyone else could possibly have believed the alleged girl was fourteen. I can see no reason to delay a trial and if I were you, I’d get the trial over with and enjoy your Christmas.”
Thus he failed to seek an adjournment on behalf of his client.
We now fast-forward to a story which made the newspapers in 15 December 2012 – three years after Brian’s trial. By coincidence, this trial was also at Southwark Crown Court, and it featured Margaret Moran, the former member of Parliament for Luton South.
We believe that the story which we will reproduce below will provide yet further evidence of judicial corruption in the case of R. v Brian Pead:

“…Supervision order for bogus invoice ex-MP Moran
by Liam O’Brien
The former Labour MP who fiddled more than £53,000 from the taxpayer has been given a two-year supervision and treatment order, a sentence that the judge admitted could lead to people thinking she had ‘got away with it’.
Margaret Moran, 57, who represented Luton South for 13 years, claimed nearly her entire annual allowance in one bogus expense entry; and forged invoices for more than £20,000 for non-existent goods and services.
Southwark Crown Court heard how she billed the taxpayer £22,500 in 2008 to treat dry rot at her seaside home, 100 miles from her constituency. Her claims were the largest uncovered in the MPs expenses scandal in 2009. But Mr Justice Saunders said Moran, who was absent from court, was unfit to plead because of a depressive illness.
Dr Simon Kelly, from the Priory Hospital in Southampton, said Moran was ‘severely ill’ and had been ‘deeply distressed’ by a newspaper article which had pictured her at a pub. He said: “She experienced panic attacks, nightmares and believes that she is going to be door-stepped at any point.”
Jim Sturman, representing Moran, said “The more vengeful press who hound her at her front door, seem to think that the only way someone can be demonstrably mentally ill is if they are in a straitjacket in a padded cell.”
Marjorie Wallace, of the mental health charity Sane, said: “The severe breakdown that psychiatrists confirm she was experiencing is punishment enough. However, I do not believe that suffering from depression can be an excuse for losing all moral judgment in relation to defrauding expenses.”
Mr Justice Saunders said his rulings were limited to criminal proceedings and “do not affect any steps that may be taken through the civil courts to recover any money.”
© The I, Saturday 15 December 2012

We want to know why Margaret Moran, an MP who embezzled public funds – real public funds and abused her position of trust and power – should be allowed not to appear at a criminal trial and yet Brian Pead – with no real victim – should be forced by his own barrister to go through the trauma of a Crown Court trial when he was similarly suffering.
In our opinion, justice was not taking place, but that injustice was being choreographed back-stage.




38

On 26 November 2009, Brian travelled to Charter Chambers to meet Dominic Bell and Angela Shaw. The purpose of the meeting was for Brian to read through the defence statement which had to be served on the prosecution and the court (weeks earlier).
Bell went through a lengthy diatribe about wanting to ambush the prosecution, withhold as much evidence from them as possible and ‘hit the bastards with it at trial’.
It is not legal procedure to ‘ambush’ either party – that is the reason for the disclosure process. In fact, it is incumbent upon the defendant – and sensible, we believe – to provide as much of a defence as possible.
Brian had written a 50-page defence statement in the Exposure case, and a 64-page statement in the Incitement trial.
Bell produced the following document:
“…
1.              The defendant is not guilty of both counts on the indictment.
2.             In relation to count 1, the general nature of the defence is as follows:
a.      the defendant did not expose his genitals.
b.      the defendant did not masturbate himself in view of Katie Prouse.
3.             The defendant thus takes issue with any evidence that is contrary to the above.
4.            In relation to count 2, the defendant accepts engaging with ‘Shelley’ through instant messaging.
5.             The general nature of the defence is as follows:
a.      he honestly believed that ‘Shelley’ was not a 14-year-old girl;
b.      he engaged in ‘chat’ with her in an attempt to expose this;
6.            The defendant takes issue with any evidence that is contrary to the above…”

And that was that. Brian’s 114 pages on the two indictments had been reduced to less than half a page of A4 paper. In defence of two criminal trials.
Against his better judgment, Brian signed this document. He was extremely ill, having had his living taken away from him, his colleagues turned against him, his family turned against him and his savings diminishing by the minute. He missed his grand-children terribly. He missed their hugs and kisses, the conversations they used to have, the trips out and their unconditional love. His daughter and son-in-law had been turned against him by the police. That was one issue, but he was not going to allow his beloved grand-children to live with a lie, just because both of their parents were prepared to do so.    




39 

                                                              

With just six days to go to the trial at Southwark, Brian – who was unlawfully dismissed by Lambeth on 31 July 2007 – was deemed as not presenting a risk to children and young people. Just two days later, Rosa Vaz from Lambeth HR, sent details of Brian’s dismissal to the Independent Safeguarding Authority again. Someone wanted him out of teaching. 

No comments:

Post a Comment