FRAMED! - part 24

43

Wednesday 16 December 2009

Maya Walker called Brian at 6.30 that morning, offering some support. But the conversation did not flow as their conversations usually did. It was strained. Brian instinctively knew that something was not quite right, that something was ‘in the air’. He is a man who trusts his intuition.

He arrived at court at 9.15. He went to the toilet and then sat outside Court 4 by 9.25. The monitor outside the court read “Both cases, part heard and status TO BE HEARD.”

As usual, there was no sign of Dominic Bell.

Brian’s good friend and fellow counsellor, John Callow sent a text saying “You are in the right. Several police wrongs don’t make them right.” Brian felt gratified to have received the text, but this was matched by some deep sadness that throughout this trial – and, indeed, for the past 18 months – his daughter had not been in contact. He was missing his beloved grand-children. He wished they were around him. He wanted to be reading to them, telling them stories, or going rock-climbing or for walks in the woods. Instead, he had to cling to their memory rather than hug them close as loving grand-parents do.

He felt nervous in case the exposure case wasn’t thrown out and the jury not dismissed. It would mean he would have to go into the witness box which was not something he relished. His doctor had told him that he was not well enough to attend his trial, yet here he was.

By 10:00, Dominic Bell had not arrived at Court. He failed to meet with his client on numerous occasions throughout this trial in order to explain court procedure or how he saw the trial unfolding. In our view, and from the available evidence, he neglected his client.

Forster brought his wife into court and she sat in the public gallery. On a bitterly cold day, only six jurors had arrived by ten o’clock.

Then Brian noticed several things that caused him some alarm. He saw that DC Robbie was ready to go back on the stand – why? Is the trial still going ahead?

Then he noticed DC Saib, the man who had offered Brian a deal (with the tape recorder off) back at Bexleyheath police station on 20 May 2008 if Brian would accept a caution. ‘Why is he here,’ thought Brian, ‘if the trial is off?’

At 10:02, the Judge entered court.

Two minutes later, Bell arrived, out of breath, probably the result of his chain-smoking habit.

Much to Brian’s great disappointment, the trial was to continue. Bell told his client that Forster had to finish his case, including interviewing Brian.

DS Tunn arrived at Court – then went outside. There was a great flurry of activity as the actors and actresses move on to the stage and exited stage left.

At 10:15 the judge returned and the jury entered, all of them sitting in the same places each day.

Forster explained that DC Robbie had been recalled to discuss more DVDs of Brian’s online activities.

Forster: When you set up the Shelley account, what details did you use then?

Robbie: The details were the same, Shelley, 14 and a photo of a girl in hockey uniform.

Forster: Look at the transcripts of 28 January 2008 at 16:13.

Robbie: My log books show that I was available from 15:54. The recording starts at 15:54 and ends at 17:04. I went on to MSN at 15:58. I am available and visible. I engaged him in conversation at 16:13. He did not make contact for 15 minutes.

This testimony from Robbie raises two important issues: (i) although Robbie refers to his log books, they were never shown to Brian or his defence team and (ii) Brian did make contact within a few seconds.

Robbie: On 7 February 2008 I made myself available at 15:32 and had been online for about 2 hours. At 17:32 the defendant came online. On 25 February 2008, I went on at 16:50 and the defendant came online at 18:24.

Forster: During the time before you chatted to the defendant, what were you doing online?

Robbie: I talked to other suspects.

Forster: Was the flavour of the conversation different from that with the defendant?

Robbie: No.

Forster: Did you ever participate in ‘sex4money’ chatrooms?

Robbie: No. Absolutely not.

There is considerable evidence online and we have briefly referred to it here, that there were numerous chatrooms operating on Faceparty at this stage with names such as ‘Cash4Sex’. Robbie has clearly lied here and he is guilty of perjury and perverting the course of justice.

Notice how neither Forster nor Robbie refer to the all-important fifth conversation: the one on 15 May 2008 on the computer belonging to Geoffrey Bacon in Chislehurst. This conversation left a digital footprint on that computer.

Dominic Bell then commenced his cross-examination.

Bell: The Faceparty website. Do you have to be over 16 to become a member?

Robbie: No.

This response clearly does not accord with the terms and conditions on the Faceparty website itself. At this point, the judge and Bell debate over site policy and it is established that the site policy was that no-one under 16 should be on the website.

Bell: DC Robbie, isn’t it true that the terms and conditions stated that a person under 16 could not be a member and isn’t it true that a 14-year-old person should not be using the website?

Robbie: Yes, a 14-year-old shouldn’t be there.

The emphasis is ours – DC Robbie has confirmed what Brian Pead originally told the police on 4 June 2008 – that he always knew that no-one under 16 should be on the Faceparty website and, more specifically, that he knew no-one aged 14 should be on the site and that, upon coming across such a person claiming to be 14, he felt duty bound to investigate just as he had felt duty bound to investigate his brother’s untimely death in 1972. We have to ask why this trial was allowed to continue beyond this point, since it is clear that beyond reasonable doubt Brian could not have believed this person claiming to a 14-year-old really was only fourteen. Robbie continued to confirm that which Brian had already told the police eighteen months previously.

Robbie: There were some sexual chatrooms. Teens4oldmen; there were rooms where people were swapping indecent images of children; various sexual interest chatrooms. I can’t say I have ever seen one called ‘Escorts’. I’ve never seen one. In May 2008, Faceparty deleted millions of accounts.

This accords with the evidence on numerous websites about the demise of millions of member accounts on Faceparty. Notice, however, that Robbie does not inform the Court that the Faceparty website is still currently active. Notice, too, that Bell fails to ask him that question.

Loraine-Smith interjected once again, “How many chatrooms were there? The jury need to know why you missed it.”

Robbie: There were only ever ten chatrooms on Faceparty.  I do know about the Adultwork website. I have never seen a link from Faceparty to Adultwork, though.  I believe it was 1-to-1 chat in each room. You get to see a list of users. I never posed as a teen after money.

Bell: Is there a physical log of Faceparty?

Robbie: Yes, I had to press play to record everything that I typed as Shelley14. It didn’t happen as the defendant says.

At this point, Bell asked to stop the trial so that this physical log of everything that was happening on Faceparty could be brought into court, but the judge would not allow him to hold up cross-examination for the paperwork.

You might well be thinking that Dominic Bell was working in the best interests of his client, but this was all mere pretence. All of the material he is now asking for – and which the judge is refusing him to obtain – is material which should have been sought during the Disclosure process. In the event, Bell concedes to the judge: “No further questions.”

Robbie told the Court that each time he logged on to pose as a child, he would press ‘Play’ on the machine that was recording in real time and that everything he typed and everything the ‘suspect’ typed would be recorded. But Brian believed that this was only part of the true story. It would be easy, for example, for a police officer to log on as ‘Shelly14’ and ‘Shelly_k14’ and behave normally using the first email address and record that session and act as an agent provocateur using the other email address and not record that session in which he was acting illegally.

Forster: Are there other sessions you had online which haven’t been recorded on DVD?

Robbie: No. I have to hit the record button as soon as I start working online. I watched the DVDs last night of 15 May 2008 and I wasn’t in any of the chatrooms.

This was the date that Brian claimed he had told the ‘girl’ to “Fuck off! You are a fake!” and this was witnessed by Geoffrey Bacon. It is evident that, just because Robbie stated that he was not in any of the chatrooms on 15 May, it does not mean that no other police officer using the ‘Shelley’ email address was not working online. In fact, one of them would have had to have been because Geoffrey Bacon witnessed Brian ‘chatting’ to the person purporting to be a 14 year old girl, as we have shown earlier. Bell, of course, ought to have asked this question; he ought to have asked for further disclosure – in the event, he did neither.

According to Robbie, he claimed that he had taken the DVDs recorded on 15 May 2008 out of the police store room and taken them home and watched them to see if the conversation had occurred as Brian described it. Had this occurred as Robbie stated, it would have been improper procedure in any event.

The judge asked, “How long did it take you to watch them?”

Notice that Loraine-Smith does not ask about serious breaches of protocol. Notice that he does not ask why the defence team had not had the opportunity to also examine these DVDs.

Robbie: The DVD of 28 January lasted for an hour and ten minutes. On 7 February it took two hours and fifty-two minutes and on 25 February it took me two hours and thirteen minutes to watch these DVDs. I did not see any communication with the defendant on 15 May 2008. It didn’t happen.

Note that no-one challenges Robbie’s statements. This is what he says, but he has not provided any evidence to support this part of his testimony. Worryingly, neither Dominic Bell nor Judge Loraine-Smith asks him to provide evidence of his assertions.

Forster: Did you ask for money for sex?

Robbie: If I was found out I would be imprisoned or sacked. Nothing in the conversations refers to chatroom or escort work.

Notice that Robbie failed to answer the prosecutor’s direct question. This does not make sense – the CPS’s entire case had been built on Brian allegedly inciting a child to engage in sexual activity – it is therefore inconceivable, we believe, for Robbie to suggest that there had been no references in these conversations to ‘escort work’. Besides, numerous people had mentioned this in blogs, as we have shown in part. 

Bell had an opportunity to drill this point home, and to question why these DVDs had not been made available to the defence, but he merely stated:      “No further questions.”

At 11:00, Bell continues the sleight of hand and pretence.

Bell: There is a lack of disclosure. It was signed off by the Reviewing Officer. There are no logs or disks of the dates Robbie claims. This is a fundamental flaw.

Judge: This seriously undermines the Crown’s case.

This was the second time that the issue of non-disclosure had been brought to the attention of the Court, yet the trial was still continuing. It was by now a clear case of Abuse of Process.

Bell: On page 102 of my client’s statement to police, he stated that he had been investigating Faceparty. On page 104 he said, “If I had any intention of meeting this alleged ‘girl’, I would have given ‘her’ a real mobile number, but I didn’t do that. Also on page 104 he told police “You need to look at the chatlog in the Faceparty chatroom log.” I doubt the Reviewing Officer looked at DC Robbie’s DVDs.

Judge: What are you saying that should have been disclosed?

Bell: The chatlogs on Faceparty should have been disclosed and all the DVD disks that DC Robbie has only now just brought into court should have been disclosed. Was there collusion between the management of the Faceparty website and the police and were the police involved in the liquidation of Faceparty? Disclosure has failed. Two highly significant documents have not appeared.

Whilst this looks on the face of it to be a case of a barrister robustly defending his client, a vitally important question needs to be asked here: “Why is Bell only just bringing this to the attention of the prosecution?” This is a significant part of his role – to ensure that the CPS and the police comply with the Criminal Procedure Rules with regard to disclosure. Notice at this point how Forster responds to this extreme failure of disclosure.

Forster: Whether or not disclosure had been done properly is not relevant.

Judge: There is an extraordinarily scant Defence case.

Forster: Yes, very scant and delivered late!

Notice how the smoke and mirrors, the sleight of hand, ensures that the major issue of a lack of disclosure and an abuse of process which has been brought to the attention of the Court, has been dismissed by both the trial judge and the prosecutor, who then take it in turns to discredit the defendant by claiming that the defence statement is ‘scant’ and that it was ‘delivered late’ (neither of which was Brian’s responsibility). Notice, too, how Forster claims that, “Whether or not disclosure had been done properly is not relevant.” Of course it is relevant in any case, let alone Brian’s case here. Such a lack of Disclosure meant that the trial was a nullity. Yet it was to continue.

At this point, Bell called for a recess.

He spoke with his client outside Court 4. “I will go for the jugular with Tunn. He bullied my wife at school and this is my chance to get him back for that. I’ll challenge him about the Asian woman on 2 June 2008 and not providing you with chatlogs on 28 January 2008.”

“But what about Geoff Bacon?” asked Brian. “When are you proposing to call him? He needs to know because of his job.”

“Well,” replied Bell, “I don’t think I will call him because I can’t see how he can advance your case.”

“What do you mean? He’s a fucking critical witness. I want him called and he wants to be called.”

“Let me make these decisions. You’re too emotionally involved. Keep this simple. We don’t want to confuse the jury.”

“But that’s bollocks!”

In his journal, Brian wrote ‘conveyor belt justice!’ He went back inside the Court and asked, “Do all cases move along at this pace?”

“No,” replied the usher. “This is moving much faster than any case I’ve ever seen.”

With the judge back behind his bench, Forster said to Bell, “Tunn has the logs of Robbie’s work in his briefcase.”

Bell thanked the judge for the recess.

Forster: Nicola Noone is an anti-character witness.

At 11:40, the jury filed back in.

Forster: We return to Count 1 – Exposure. The Crown calls Detective Sargeant Saib.

Saib is sworn in.

Saib: I work in the Sapphire Unit at Bexleyheath. I was not involved from the start. I was present on 20 May 2008.

Forster spends a long time going over the exposure case. DS Saib plays the part of WPC Jane Sergeant at interview. Forster plays the part of Brian.

At 11:55, Brian wrote in his journal ‘They are still reading. Why are they wasting such time?’

At 12:05, the two protagonists are still reading. All they are doing in reality is reading from Brian’s witness statement, a copy of which the jury have. This is purely a show, designed to extend the trial because (i) there is no real evidence against the defendant and (ii) to increase the level of revenue that can be claimed from the legal coffers. Brian writes in his journal, ‘Deliberate play by Forster to re-enact this for the jury and sow a seed of doubt in their mind. Why is Bell allowing all this with no objections?’

At 12:30, Forster and Saib are still reading. Fifteen minutes later, they finish.

Forster: You weren’t aware of the search of the defendant’s house?

Saib: I believe so. I would have looked for computer equipment. I was only aware of the internet case many months later.

This is difficult to believe. Saib interviewed Brian on 20 May 2008 on the day of his arrest. The police did search his house and no laptop was found because it had, as we have seen in earlier chapters, broken down and he had disposed of it for that reason.

Bell began his cross-examination of DC Saib.

Bell: Can you be shown PET101 and PET 102.  Which window did the offence take place? Was it the far left window?

Saib: I can’t really answer.

Note that this is the lead officer in the case. Here he is, in a Crown Court, saying that he has no idea at which window the alleged offence of exposure took place.

At 12:50, the Court rises for a short recess. At 1:05pm, the trial continues.

Judge Loraine-Smith asked Forster and Bell to reduce the length of time they spent on examination and cross-examination.

Given that there ought not be time constraints on justice, this is an astonishing request from the trial judge.

Saib: I did not offer the defendant a caution. It’s against the rules when the machine is off.

And Saib left the stand. He had had an easy ride.

The Prosecution then call DS Tunn, who swears by Almighty God.

Tunn: I was on duty on 4 June 2008. I made a statement and that’s been entered into court. [Authors’ note: This statement was not signed and there was no URN (unique reference number) - making it inadmissible as evidence.] There was a premises search at 89 Days Lane and six computers were recovered. There was an ITV camera crew present.

At 1:15, the Court rose for lunch and re-started at 2pm.

Forster is speaking with Bell: “I want to speak about the interviews of 4 June 2008. Nicola Noone is here; we have an exhibit for her.”

DS Tunn is back in the witness box and Bell asks for a copy of the search warrant used on Brian’s house, but Tunn fails to provide it. [Authors’ note: This should have been requested months earlier by Bell under the Part 22 disclosure rules.]

Loraine-Smith enters at 2.10pm and the jury files in.

Bell: I want to ask you DS Tunn about the stop and search you made on my client on 2 June 2008 at New Eltham railway station. Please explain to the Court why you stopped him.

Tunn: I was at an observation post near Mr Pead’s house. I spoke to him at the railway station.   I don’t recall what car I was driving. I don’t recall what I said to him.

Notice the ‘Court-speak’ that Tunn uses: “I don’t recall…” All police officers of any rank are obliged to maintain pocket notebooks and official records. If Tunn was keeping Brian under surveillance – and there is no doubt that he was – then all of this data should ordinarily have been recorded. But Tunn’s saying, “I don’t recall…” sheds doubt on the legality of this covert operation on Brian, and we ask as authors why these logbooks were never disclosed – if they ever existed.

Bell: Where is the Stop and Search form? I want the Surveillance document.

Tunn: I don’t recall a search. He provided a bank card as proof of ID. I do not recall searching his bag.

Notice how Tunn again escapes accountability by claiming that he cannot recall searching Brian or his bag. But notice, too, how Bell is merely going through the motions – a barrister who is really working on behalf of his client would have demanded the surveillance document during the process of disclosure and he would have demanded that Tunn provide his log books. He would also have contacted British Rail to obtain the CCTV evidence of the unlawful stop and search because Brian stood near an entry gate onto the platforms which he knew would be monitored by CCTV.

We also believe that had Bell really been working in his client’s best interest, he would have demanded that the trial cease immediately based on the appalling lapses in procedure that we have indicated here.

Furthermore, later that day Brian had told his line manager at Off Centre, Thelma Mathews, that he had been unlawfully stopped and searched. He asked her to record his concerns about the incident and to include the incident in the Minutes of their meeting, which she did.

[Authors’ note: Did you notice the unusual spelling of ‘Mathews’? It is more commonly spelt with two ‘t’s, as in ‘Matthews’. It is these almost insignificant details that Brian notices – ‘shelley’, ‘shelly’]

Tunn: I wanted to know if the man who had been communicating with Shelly14 was living at the defendant’s home address. We tried to ascertain who was living at 89 Days Lane. I don’t accept I searched his bag.

Notice here how Tunn claims that he kept Brian under surveillance because they were not sure who lived at 89 Days Lane. It is inconceivable to the authors that this Special Command division of the Metropolitan Police had not contacted the local Bexley Police force. From this force, and from neighbours, they would easily have established who lived at that address. Furthermore, Brian was on the electoral roll, having lived there since 1989. Whilst this does not provide conclusive evidence of whoever is residing at any particular address, it is a very good starting point.

The authors believe that Brian was being held under surveillance illegally and that he had been targeted because of what he uncovered at Lambeth Council and because the police had worked out that Brian’s motives for communicating with the ‘girl’ were not the usual sexual motives of paedophiles and other sex offenders. The ‘girl’ had provided ‘her’ mobile number on three separate occasions and Brian had not texted or called it. And Brian had provided three false mobile numbers. One does not have to be a Columbo or Sherlock Holmes to deduce that the person operating as Brian did must have had a different motive from the usual offenders in making contact with ‘Shelly14’.  

[Authors’ note: We should explain here for the removal of all doubt, that the number ‘14’ in ‘Shelly14’ does not automatically suggest a person’s age. Searches on Google and other such providers will show names such as ‘John 78’ or ‘Tracy8’ and so on. We accept that on occasion a person will put their age alongside their name, but this is usually done by way of the year of their birth, such as ‘John1975’ because anyone calling themselves ‘Shelly14’ will no longer be fourteen, of course, on their next birthday.]

Notice, too, how Tunn claims, “I don’t accept that I searched his bag” whereas just a minute or two earlier he had claimed, “I do not recall searching his bag.”

Furthermore, Tunn claims he did not recall searching Brian’s person, that he did not recall searching Brian’s bag, but he did – somewhat surprisingly, we feel - have an instant recall that Brian had shown him his bank card by way of identifying himself. This was without reference to his pocket notebooks (which he is required to maintain) which never made their way into the Courtroom.

Tunn scans his (alleged) copy of the surveillance document. This document was never provided to Brian. It may well have been provided to Dominic Bell and Angela Shaw, but it was never shown to Brian. This, of course, renders the trial a nullity, because evidence was allowed to be produced and discussed in court which the defendant had never seen.

Bell: Have you got a copy of the search warrant issued?

Tunn: Yes.

Bell: You were given permission to search for indecent photographs of children, computers, videos and all computer-related paraphernalia, yes?

Tunn: DC Godfrey got the warrant from the City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court. Yes, we were looking for computers etc. and anything which might have had images of children or child pornography on them. I admit that we went far beyond that which was permitted by warrant.

Judge: Mr Bell, what is the relevance?

Bell: I am trying to show that the police overstepped the mark where my client is concerned.

Judge: Carry on.

Tunn: In respect of the ITV film crew, the Assistant Commissioner of the Met gave permission for the documentary. I don’t recall why the defendant was handcuffed in his own home throughout the duration of our search. I recall that the house looked like a building site. I’m not disputing that the film director came into the defendant’s house during our search.

Notice how Tunn concedes that the ITV film crew unlawfully entered Brian’s house, invaded his privacy and breached his rights under Article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998.

Hopefully you will also have noticed how Tunn’s selective recall didn’t extend to his remembering why Brian was handcuffed (why did he not note this down in his pocket notebook?), although he did recall that the house looked like a building site (which it was at that time).

Bell: Would you say that my client was very co-operative?

Tunn: Yes.

Bell: At his house and at the police station?

Tunn: Yes.

Bell: So, he had the manner of someone who had nothing to hide?

Tunn: Yes.

 Bell: Why did you take Inland Revenue items and other correspondence belonging to my client since these were not mentioned on the search warrant? In fact, why did you take any other items at all?

Tunn: We had arrested him, so we were then entitled to search for any items under section 18 of PACE.

At this point, we need to turn to the document which governs the conduct of the police during searches and arrests and their behaviour at police stations and in interviews. It’s commonly referred to as PACE – the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. Sections 60(1)(a) and s.66(1)(a) to (d) are the Codes of Practice A-E which came into effect after midnight on 31st January 2008. There have been later editions of PACE, but because these alleged crimes occurred between January 2008 and May 2008, we refer throughout to the 2008 edition of PACE.

Code B of PACE is the code of practice for searches of premises by police officers and the seizure of property found by police officers on persons or premises. This Code applies to applications for warrants made
after midnight on 31 January 2008 and to searches and seizures taking place after midnight on 31 January 2008.

Section 1.3 of Code B of PACE states that:

“…The right to privacy and respect for personal property are key principles of the Human Rights Act 1998. Powers of entry, search and seizure should be fully and clearly justified before use because they may significantly interfere with the occupier’s privacy. Officers should consider if the necessary objectives can be met by less intrusive means…”

We believe that by handcuffing Brian throughout his arrest on 4 June 2008, his privacy was breached in a number of ways, not least because he was subjected to inhuman treatment by being forced to urinate when handcuffed.

Section 1.4 of Code B states:

“…In all cases, police should:

   (i) exercise their powers courteously and with respect for        persons and property

   (ii) only use reasonable force when this is considered necessary and proportionate to the circumstances…”

    

We do not believe that five officers storming into Brian’s house minutes after his partner had left, handcuffing him throughout the ordeal, refusing entry to a friend and removing items from his house which were not covered by a search warrant is in accordance with PACE. It is our opinion that Brian had been treated abysmally and that the raid on his house had been designed to cause him as much disruption to his life as possible – and all because he had uncovered an illegal police sting operation.

Bell: The Reverend Nicholas Kerr, the vicar of the Holy Redeemer Church in Days Lane which is right opposite my client’s house received a call from Maya Walker that her partner – my client – was in some kind of danger and he came knocking. Why did you send him packing when he came to support my client?

Tunn: We were investigating a crime scene.

Section 6.11 of Code B – the conduct of searches states the following:

“…A friend, neighbour or other person must be allowed to witness the search if the occupier wishes unless the officer in charge of the search has reasonable grounds for believing the presence of the person asked for would seriously hinder the investigation or endanger officers or other people. A search need not be unreasonably delayed for this purpose. A record of the action taken should be made on the premises search record including the grounds for refusing the occupier’s request…”

A friend or neighbour must be allowed to witness the search if the occupier wishes. Being handcuffed in his own home and under imprisonment in his own home by five police officers, Brian naturally welcomed the sight of his friend and neighbour, Nick Kerr. Since the only reason under PACE to deny entry to a friend or neighbour (or other person) is that a police officer must have reasonable grounds for believing the presence of the person asked for would seriously hinder the investigation or endanger officers or other people, it is the authors’ belief that the presence of Reverend Kerr was wrongly denied by the police and that the search was, therefore, an unlawful search under PACE. We find it hard to imagine a scenario in which a man of the cloth would be likely to impede the progress of a search or to endanger officers or others. Nicholas Kerr was hardly likely to harm the officers and he would not harm Brian, the only other person present at the ‘crime scene’ as Tunn described it.

There is little doubt that this was an illegal house search, which had been designed to destabilise Brian because of what he had discovered on Faceparty and at Lambeth Council. Nor is there any doubt that Brian’s human rights were severely breached. Nor is there any doubt that Tunn had conducted a second illegal house search on Geoffrey Bacon’s house on 31 July 2008. We have reason to believe that DS Tunn was operating like a maverick sheriff in the Wild West. He displayed a blatant disregard for the rules and procedures around proper policing methods.

Furthermore, Brian asked to be allowed to call his daughter because he wanted her present during this search, but his mobile phone had been taken from him and he was not allowed to make a call to her in yet another breach of protocol.   

Bell: DS Tunn, please turn to page 104 of my client’s statement. You are questioning him are you not?

Tunn: Yes.

Bell: Can you please turn to page 108. Does it say there that my client asked you – in fact challenged you – to obtain the logs of the Faceparty chatroom he was in on 28 January 2008 because he told you it would prove his innocence?  

At this point, Brian – a student of body language and a trained counsellor, noticed that Tunn had his tongue in his cheek, clearly denoting his discomfort at such a question. The detective was also looking around the courtroom for support. He did not respond, so defence counsel asked the question again.

Bell: So my client asked you to obtain the chatroom logs, did he not?

Tunn: Yes.

Bell: Is it your assertion that the police were working with Faceparty ?

Tunn: Yes.

Bell: What efforts did you make to address my client’s request for the chatroom logs?

Tunn: I did not get a copy of Faceparty’s server, no.

At this point, the judge intervened: “Mr Bell, you’re not always the politest.”

Notice how the judge fails to concern himself with the real matter here – that of yet another failure of disclosure and a most serious failure at that.

Bell: You made no efforts at all to investigate my client’s claims?

Tunn: No. DC Godfrey did.

This was another lie. The police never obtained the chatroom logs that Brian requested because he knew these logs would prove his innocence and that the ‘girl’ had entered the chatroom claiming to be fourteen-years-old (on a website that claimed in its terms and conditions refused membership to those under 16) and stating that ‘she’ wanted money for sex.

It is clear to the authors that at even this stage of the trial it should never have proceeded and nor should it ever have come to trial in the first place. There was no evidence against Brian and all of the evidence that proved his innocence was either not sought by the police or it was destroyed by the police. But, as this story unfolds, matters get significantly worse for Brian.

At 2.45pm Bell completes his cross-examination of DS Tunn, and Timothy Forster takes over.

Forster: The search warrant. Do you feel that you went beyond its powers?

Tunn: I dispute that the search warrant went beyond its scope. This was the first time we knew that the defendant was using that particular MSN email address. Having got his admission, we went on to search for anything and everything. We had power under the Arrest Act to seize papers etc. I don’t accept I rattled the defendant’s cage.

There is no Arrest Act. The judge would know this; the prosecutor would know this; defence counsel would know this. Brian, at this stage in his development as a human being, did not know this, despite the fact that he had always maintained a keen interest in legal issues.

Archbold devotes several pages to a definition of an arrest, but we feel that the Liberty Human Rights website www.yourrights.org.uk provides a succinct description:

“...(1) Arrest means placing a person under lawful detention against their will for the purposes of law enforcement. When is it fair to arrest someone? Individuals have a right to liberty, and it has been held by the courts that if the police do not adequately respect rights to liberty by ensuring that (i) they have some evidence to justify the arrest before it takes place, (ii) that they tell the person why they are being arrested and (iii) that they release the person as soon as possible, then the arrest becomes unlawful. This was the position in a case called Christie v. Leachinsky [1947] A.C. 573...”

It appears to the authors that Brian’s arrest on 4 June 2008 was unlawful because it did not satisfy all of the relevant criteria. The police had no evidence to justify his arrest because it is evident that they had information which showed his innocence, not alleged guilt. Tunn has just told the Court that the police were working with Faceparty and so it would have been easy for Tunn to have obtained the chatroom logs that Brian requested. But Tunn failed to take such a step. Why? We believe that there can only be one reason.

Tunn: My notes showed that at 07:54 Mr Pead left to walk to the train station at New Eltham on 2 June 2008. I notified DC Godfrey that I had got the man. This was a covert stop because I wasn’t going to go back to the house and look for evidence. I don’t recall the story I gave to the defendant but I had to tell him a lie to get him to stop and produce his ID. He showed me his bank card.

Under oath, Tunn has now admitted lying to Brian in order to undertake an illegal stop and search at New Eltham train station. We suggest that if he is prepared to lie so readily, what other lies has he told during this trial? He claims – once again – that he doesn’t recall what he told Brian in order to get him to stop, but this should have been noted down by him in his pocket notebook or other log.

After this unlawful stop and search, Brian wrote to the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) and asked for the Crime Report relating to the ‘young Asian woman’ that Brian had allegedly sexually assaulted on his way to the station. The Metropolitan Police failed to produce the CRIS or CAD report and the IPCC failed to find a problem with that failure to produce. We believe that no such reports exists.