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