FRAMED! - part 29

Forster claimed: “The two allegations are different.” We agree. And because the two allegations were different, they should never have been Joined. Misjoinder results in a nullity (rule 9 of the Indictment Rules 1971.)

Forster claimed: “The defendant said that the officers are lying.”

Not only did Brian say that the police had perjured themselves at Court, but he had the evidence. Yet his defence team had not made this evidence known to the Court – which is their first duty – and nor had the prosecution made all of the available evidence (the unused material) known to the defence and the Court, and nor did Loraine-Smith.

Forster claimed: “Elizabeth McIntyre was putting on shows.”

In a statement made by Maya Walker, she confirmed that on 18 May 2008, she had been present when Elizabeth McIntyre was ‘putting on a show’ in her bedroom to the front of the house at 62 Days Lane. This ‘show’ was 10 days after she had made a call to the police about a ‘man watching her’.

Forster claimed: “The defendant has an odd mind.”

As authors who have met Brian and spent a great deal of time in his company, we can say that we agree that he has ‘an odd mind’. However, we would argue that he is at times bordering on genius and he often sees the things most people would miss and not even know that they had missed them. He is alert, intuitive, compassionate and sensitive. He is determined, enthusiastic and a man who loves his family more than anything else in life. We believe that his qualities make him a personal threat to the police and the judiciary. We accept (because bona fide evidence exists to prove it) that up until the age of 55 he had not had any issues with the law, but – once he had uncovered police corruption and also corruption at Lambeth Council – his world was suddenly thrown into turmoil. We believe that this is far too much of a coincidence.

We have spoken with people who find him difficult – indeed, we believe that his own daughter has often referred to him as such. However, it appears to us that he is most often referred to as difficult by people who try to manipulate him and when he resists he is called difficult or obtuse.

His ‘superior intelligence’ (as referred to by a psychologist at the age of 5) means that he can identify the bigger picture as well as understand the detail. His determination and ability to undertake vast research is evidenced by the fact that he is the only man in the world who undertook the entire historical record of Liverpool Football Club from 1892.

Forster claimed: “The defendant is lonely and obsessed.”

By his own admission, Forster is an ‘obsessive’. What does it mean in reality? Was Brian obsessed with uncovering the complete record of Liverpool FC? Yes he was, and so what? He produced an invaluable record which has brought pleasure to thousands of people. Bill Shankly has been described as ‘obsessive’. Monty Roberts, the famous ‘horse whisperer’ has also been similarly described. Passion borders on obsessiveness – and it often changes the world, or at the very least it can change people’s perceptions of the world. Is Brian obsessive about justice? Yes he is – just like Nelson Mandela, Emmeline Pankhurst, Christine Collins, Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King and a whole host of others. Invariably they, too, have been described as ‘obsessive’. Anyone who threatens the law is often referred to as ‘obsessive’ and the authorities will try to ‘nut them off’ – a colloquialism meaning to get someone sectioned as mentally ill.

As we have seen, Brian was leading a full life and, despite living alone – by choice – he was not lonely. His life was taken up with his daughter and grand-children, refurbishing his house, socialising with friends, his lover, his job and his continued research into various projects and planning books on differing subjects.  

Forster claimed: “No matter what the measurements say, the girls say they saw him.”

The measurements taken to a professional standard by John Callow proved that what the females claimed had happened could not have happened. It is therefore wholly improper for Forster to try to disregard the impossibility of the allegations based on scientific and mathematical evidence. Besides, where was the fourth witness who also lived in the house? And hadn’t Ellen Stanley and Glen Meeking both stated that they thought the females were operating a brothel from 62 Days Lane? This would have given them significant reasons to do a deal with Bexley Police in making false allegations against Brian in exchange for not being prosecuted for any possible misdemeanours they had perpetrated themselves.

Forster claimed: “Nowhere in the 3 conversations is there any reference to any chatroom.”

This was a blatant attempt by Forster to mislead the Court again – there were five conversations, not three, and Forster knew this. We know that he knew this because this information was contained in the unused material which he failed to pass on to Brian’s defence team (and who failed to ask for it). Thus Forster knew all along that Brian was innocent. The key fact here is the vital conversation on 15 May 2008 that Brian had with ‘the girl’ online when using Geoffrey Bacon’s computer.

Forster claimed: “He cannot run away from the transcripts.”

Brian has never tried to run away from the transcripts – quite the reverse, in fact. It was the CPS and the police who were running away from the transcripts by failing to show the Court that there were five conversations in total. Brian wanted all five entered into Court because they proved his innocence beyond all reasonable doubt.

Forster claimed: “On May 8, there was a flurry of messages on Faceparty and it is impossible to tell the difference between genuine contact and smoking out.”

This was a striking admission by Forster because it meant that that the CPS and the police actually gave credence to the fact that Brian had been saying for months that his sole objective in chatting with ‘the girl’ was to ‘smoke her out’ as a prospective sex offender. It also shows the reasonable doubt that existed and such doubt would mean that a jury must acquit the defendant.

Forster claimed: “The defendant doesn’t actually meet up with the girl.”

Of course Brian did not meet ‘the girl’ because (i) she did not exist (ii) Brian knew this and (iii) he never intended to meet this person in any event.

However, by stating that Brian did not actually meet the girl, he cannot be guilty of incitement or even attempted incitement because in order to incite someone a person has to know they are capable of committing the crime.

Forster claimed: “He had crossed the line.”

Brian had clearly not crossed the line. In the case of Tony Campbell, he had prepared (as we have seen in an earlier chapter) to rob a post office, having written out a note demanding money, driven to a post office and obtained an imitation gun. However, he stopped one yard short of entering the building and won his appeal against conviction because he had done nothing more than merely preparatory.

Brian had crossed no line. He did not meet the ‘girl’. He did not call ‘her’. He did not text ‘her’. No money changed hands. In fact, ‘she’ did not – as we know – even exist, so he could not possibly have crossed any line.

Forster claimed: “The defendant is guilty of both charges…”

The prosecutor has to try to convince a jury of a defendant’s guilt – that is his or her role in Court. However, Forster knew that Brian was guilty of neither charge.

The prosecution had finished. It had thrown all that it could at Brian and it is evident that there was nothing of substance in any of it.

It follows that it was now the turn of the defence counsel to close his speech. Remember that Brian had technically sacked him two days previously. You are invited to read this closing speech by Dominic Bell very carefully and ask yourself “Do I really believe that this man is fighting on his client’s behalf? Is the language he is using really helping Brian? What do I, as a reader, know that Bell also knows but hasn’t informed the Court of?’ No doubt you will have questions of your own.

We adopt the same procedure here as we did with the prosecution’s closing speech above: we reproduce it with our emphases, but refrain from discussing or commenting upon the emphases until after the closing speech by Bell:

“...The females claim that the defendant is a dirty old man. We are in a court of law, not morals. He didn’t expect to be arrested on 20 May 2008 but he was. He was also arrested on 4 June 2008 with a film crew in tow.

The police went through his house with a fine-tooth comb ... every CD and every computer ... he was not expecting either arrest. He had not ‘got rid of his laptop’ because he was hiding anything, but because it was no longer working and would cost more to repair than to replace. He had informed friends and his lover, Maya Walker.

Everything was laid bare before the police to be seen.

He had five separate interviews and answered all their questions fully and frankly and told them he had been investigating Faceparty.

In the police interviews, he had been asked several intimate questions ... this was a man who had never been in trouble before.

He went into the witness box and the Prosecutor cross-examined him. He was in the box for hours. He was asked many intimate questions about his personal life and his sexual life.

He entered the witness box at 2.40 but was not asked a question until 4.15 on Count 1 and not until 4.20 on Count 2.

[To the jury] Imagine how you would feel if you had to enter the witness box and answer all these personal and intimate questions.

 I’m proud of the British legal system. I cannot think of a better system than a jury. This is not a game. It’s not fun. This is as serious as it comes. [Authors’ note: Dominic Bell knew that the jury had not been sworn in properly in accordance with the law.]

You need to separate the wheat from the chaff. Focus on the real issues and/ or the evidence. These allegations are extremely serious for the defendant.

He has already told you of the damaging effect this has had on his life. The word ‘paedophile’ has been mentioned. The defendant is being accused of being a paedophile.

On the indictment for Exposure ... he said he had not been masturbating at his bedroom window. You have to cross-refer the three girls’ statements.

Elizabeth McIntyre reacted against the defendant’s case against her. I chose not to upset her further in my cross-examination of her.

I asked her, “You have been putting on some shows, have you not?” and if the defendant’s evidence had been wholly wrong, she would have replied, “How dare you?”

You may conclude that he was, in fact, masturbating, but that’s not the charge. The Common Law would be for Outraging Public Decency, but the CPS charged him with exposure and the witnesses all stated that they did not see his genitals.

The CPS have not laid out that charge.

If you examine the geography of that bedroom, it is unlikely that he intentionally exposed his genitals.

On Count 2, you would have to believe that the defendant reasonably believed the girl to be 14. You may conclude that he was trying to procure some sort of sexual act.

The defendant said he had communicated with the girl on Faceparty and then moved to MSN.

If we take a snapshot of the defendant’s life on 4 June 2008 we see many things.

Even if he was, did he know that Shelley14 was 14?

You have to separate the wheat from the chaff.

The CPS are seeking to paint before you a picture of the defendant as an old man with an unhealthy interest in younger women.

You have been given the relevant extracts that he wrote in his Personal Learning Journal (PLJ).

He gave the PLJ to me more than a month ago.

You have the CPS transcripts in front of you.

This PLJ is a crucial document. Focus on the provenance of the PLJ. Look at the detail in the PLJ.

DS Tunn said that in a covert operation the police can employ a lie.

On 2 June 2008, on page 93 the defendant sets out details about the stop and search that DS Tunn agreed happened.

On page 97, the defendant sets out details that Tunn agreed.

How could the defendant know that his PLJ would one day end up in Court? He could not have known.

The CPS say, “You have been rumbled ... you knew you were going to be arrested and you got rid of your laptop and we suspect that there was child pornography on it.”

You need to consider the defendant’s behaviour.

Faceparty. Evidence is available from Faceparty. The defendant challenged DS Tunn in his interview to obtain the chatlogs and Tunn told you that he failed to obtain them. The defendant didn’t know the witness would be in Australia or that Faceparty had been liquidated.

The defendant said that DC Robbie corruptly went into a chatroom on Faceparty as a 14-year-old. Robbie denied it.

I wanted to ask Warwick Brown about the identity of this girl, but he was unavailable.

The most important thing to remember is that he could have said, “I’m not guilty – they can’t prove it.”

Look at the defendant’s behaviour after his arrest: His interviews are very important. He gave honest, truthful answers. Did he expose his genitals? You cannot deny that shows were going on. Was he exposing himself deliberately? Not Outraging Public Decency. Even if he had exposed himself, it would have been under the windowsill.

Finally, there is the character evidence. We heard from Kirsty McIntyre, an attractive young woman whom he taught between the ages of 14 and 16. She said that the defendant had given her 1-to-1 tutoring. She is a paralegal for a large corporation. “I have never felt uncomfortable around the defendant.” The CPS say the defendant has an obsession with teenage girls.

Michael Bird spoke highly of the defendant.

If the CPS are right, that the defendant knew she was 14 and that he was trying to procure sexual favours, you would have to assume that she was real.

It could not have happened because he gave her false numbers – why would he do that if he really thought ‘she’ were genuine?

Why did he not cyber-stalk her and ask her where she lived, for example?

He never said, “Call me and do this.”

The defendant’s intention was exactly as he said in his PLJ.

You need to sort out the wheat from the chaff. The only fair submission is Not Guilty…”

A cursory read of Bell’s closing speech could make the reader believe that he was supporting his client and fighting in his client’s corner.

But, once we unpick it, we think that you will come to realise that it was a clever ruse to make the Court believe that he was acting in his client’s best interests. The prosecutor, the judge and the unsworn jury were, we believe, all in on the act, but those in the public gallery were led to believe that it was a bona fide trial. It was anything but.

Bell told the Court: “…The females claim that the defendant is a dirty old man. We are in a court of law, not morals…”

The females did not claim this. Here Bell is telling the Court something that didn’t happen. He is sowing a seed of doubt – that Brian is a ‘dirty old man’.  As authors, we have spoken to several people who know Brian well and others who know him less well. Not a single person whom we have spoken to has ever described him in that way. A defence barrister who was properly fighting on his or her client’s behalf would have launched into a monologue about Brian’s extensive record of teaching without any issues, no criminal record by the age of 55, and his charity work in the local community. Bell did not mention any of this. Furthermore, he did not call Geoffrey Bacon as a key witness.

Bell told the Court: “…He was asked many intimate questions about his personal life and his sexual life…”

This was true – Brian’s personal sex life was called into question in a way which did not meet the allegations against him. And Bell never once raised an objection to the prosecution trying to defame Brian in open Court, even to the extent (as we have seen) of Forster asking Brian about the length of his penis. It was inhumane treatment of an innocent defendant and we express the opinion that even a guilty defendant ought not to have been treated in such a way.

Bell told the Court: “…He entered the witness box at 2.40 but was not asked a question until 4.15 on Count 1 and not until 4.20 on Count 2…”

Again, this was actually true. However, Bell failed to mention that he had a duty to Brian to have asked the judge what the relevance was of Forster’s inane cross-examination. He failed to object to Forster’s trawling expedition.

Bell told the Court: “…These allegations are extremely serious for the defendant…”

So serious, yet he failed to write a genuine defence statement, he turned up late every day for the trial, he failed to meet on a daily basis with Brian to re-group and talk tactics, he failed to call character witnesses (Brian had to do this), he failed to call witnesses as to the facts, and he failed to ensure that the trial was conducted properly.  

Bell told the Court: “…The word ‘paedophile’ has been mentioned…”

In fact, it had never been mentioned. Notice how Bell introduced it here. The CPS did not need to impugn Brian’s character when his own defence counsel (dismissed two days earlier) described his client in this way, doing the prosecution’s job for them.

Brian Pead is not a paedophile. As authors who have extensively researched the evidence and met him on numerous occasions, we are confident that what Marcia Weise said at Charing Cross police station on 4 June 2008 was completely correct: “Brian, I can see exactly what’s happened here. You’re clearly not a paedophile because I’ve met many through my work and you’re not. But what you’ve done is you’ve out-stung their sting operation and they will be out to get you. Be careful…”

Do you not consider it strange that Bell did not call Marcia Weise as a witness? We do. Brian had told him about her comments and thus Bell knew that the conversation had taken place. Furthermore, Marcia Weise worked for AA Mirsons, the solicitors who instructed Bell to act as defence counsel. Angela Shaw, Brian’s solicitor, worked in the very same office as Marcia Weise, so Shaw should have ensured that Weise was called as a witness by Bell.

There are many reasons why we believe that this trial was an unlawful trial – this is just one of them. It is a compelling reason.

Bell told the Court: “…You have to cross-refer the statements of the three young women…”

We have studied the witness statements made by the three females living at 62 Days Lane. Remember that these statements were unsigned and they contained no URN (unique reference number). They are, of course, unlawful documents. That said, we have studied them carefully and it is evident that the three statements are so completely different from one another and they bear no relation to the alleged offence by Brian. It is difficult to conceive how the case ever came to the Crown Court - it is quite remarkable from a legal point of view. We believe that by now you will have worked out why this trial did actually take place from the evidence we have produced here. Undoubtedly you will have ideas of your own.

Bell told the Court: “…If you examine the geography of that bedroom, it is unlikely that he intentionally exposed his genitals…”

This was an appalling piece of summation by Bell. The phrase “it is unlikely” was crafted by Bell to suggest that there was some doubt that Brian had exposed his genitals, but the truth is he had not, the female witnesses also said that he had not, and John Callow’s professional report showed that it was impossible for him to have done so because of the geography of that room – the high windowsills and the extremely low ceiling in the bay window at 89 Days Lane.

Bell told the Court: “…You may conclude that he was trying to procure some sort of sexual act…”

All barristers – whether prosecuting or defending – are taught how to address a jury. Part of their teaching is based on the language they use in Court and the power of their words and of suggestibility – the psychological process by which an idea is induced in, or adopted by, an individual or group without argument, command or coercion. No barrister worth his or her salt would dream of saying to a jury – even a jury that was not sworn in – what they might be thinking or concluding, and certainly not that the defendant was “trying to secure some sort of sexual act.” This is professional suicide.

Bell told the Court: “…The defendant said he had communicated with the girl on Faceparty and then moved to MSN…”

This was true – the evidence is incontrovertible. Even the police documents which we have obtained prove this to be true. Why, then, did Bell not produce this evidence to the Court? Why did he not place the evidence before the (unsworn) jury?

Bell told the Court: “…The defendant’s apparent fascination with escorts was peripheral…”

Brian has a fascination for the psychology of all kinds of human relationships. He was a keen attendee at the London Psychodrama network. He came across the work of Jakob Moreno (1889-1974), who was the founder of the Group- Psychotherapy Psychodrama, founder of Sociometry-Effect on Sociology and Psychotherapy in Groups and Theatre. While a student at the University of Vienna in 1917, Moreno gathered together a group of prostitutes as a way of discussing the social stigma and other problems they faced, starting what might be called the first support group. From experiences like that, and as inspired by psychoanalysts such as Wilhelm Reich and Sigmund Freud, Moreno began to develop psychodrama. For more information on the life and work of Jakob Moreno, please visit: <www.moreno-museum.at/moreno-museum-biography-en.html>

Furthermore, whilst at Avery Hill teaching training college from 1982, Brian and his peers who were studying to be teachers of English encountered George Eric Brown, a lecturer who had written a detailed study of George Bernard Shaw. Brian and the lecturer built a relationship based on mutual trust and respect. Eric Brown (he preferred to be known by his middle name) had published a book on Shaw in 1971 (Arco Books) and the English students had studied Mrs Warren’s Profession, a play that made Brian extremely angry.

Shaw said he wrote the play “…to draw attention to the truth that prostitution is caused, not by female depravity and male licentiousness, but simply by underpaying, undervaluing, and overworking women so shamefully that the poorest of them are forced to resort to prostitution to keep body and soul together…”

George Bernard Shaw was a free spirit and a freethinker who advocated women’s rights and equality on income, and Brian is a man in the same mould. The play made him very angry and it touched on his love of psychology and sociology and justice and equality for all. He felt humble and privileged to be studying a play by Shaw under the guidance of a lecturer who had had a well-respected book about the playwright published. In their conversations together, Eric Brown and Brian Pead discussed topics of social deprivation, prostitution and equality.

As we have shown, there have been several famous psychologists who have been ‘fascinated’ by prostitutes, escorts and sex workers. Brian makes no apologies for his interest (he does not describe it as a ‘fascination’) in women who sell their bodies for money, and Mrs Warren’s Profession left an indelible mark on his consciousness. He also believed that a 15-year-old girl who abused him in the children’s home in Harpenden would have become involved in the sex industry in one form or another. And his deep interest in the Preventure programme run by King’s College, London also heightened his interest in such workers. Why is it perfectly alright for psychologists working at King’s College to be interested in sex workers, but not for Brian, an independent psychologist, author and researcher? We strongly argue that Brian has as much right as anybody else to conduct such research into whatever topic he should choose and we believe that any human being has an equal right to conduct such research without being treated by the State in the ways that Brian has.  

Bell told the Court: “…The CPS are seeking to paint before you a picture of the defendant as an old man with an unhealthy interest in younger women…”

We do not subscribe to the view that 55 equates to ‘an old man’, but nonetheless, Bell failed to rebut this adequately. He failed his client once again. Nor is there any credible evidence to show that Brian had an interest in younger women, yet much evidence to the contrary.

The CPS say “You have been rumbled ... you knew you were going to be arrested and got rid of your laptop and we suspect that there was child pornography on it.”

When Brian was arrested in his own home on 4 June 2008, the police seized six computers. All of them were forensically examined and not one of them contained child pornography on them. Brian has told us that he has no interest in it whatsoever, though he does say that he has an interest in the people who use it, control it and distribute it, which is an entirely different concept. As a counsellor, an author and survivor of child sexual abuse, why would he not have such an interest? He – like all of us – has the right to have such an interest. Unlike Brian (for his obvious reasons), we may choose not to explore that interest in the people who use it, but we support his right to research into any topic that captures his imagination.

Furthermore, the computer he used at Off Centre was wiped clean of his research and the computer he used at Geoffrey Bacon’s house had its hard drive burnt out by the police after it had been illegally seized.

Eight computers in all – not one of them contained child pornography.

Space does not permit us to discuss this topic further here, but we suggest you might like to visit <www.wikileaks.com> and search for ‘An insight into child porn’. We believe that you may be shocked by what you read there. The document was created on 26 February 2009 – ten months before Brian’s illegal trial.

Bell told the Court: “…I wanted to ask Warwick Brown about the identity of these girls, but he was unavailable…”

It was Bell’s duty to call Warwick Brown – the IT manager of Faceparty – as a witness. It was his duty to examine Forster’s claim that Brown had emigrated to Australia. It was his duty to ensure that a video-link with a Court in Australia (had that been the real situation) was set up.

But Bell failed to do any of these standard things. He knew, we believe, that Warwick Brown was not in Australia but in London and in any event it was his duty to establish the whereabouts of such an important witness.  

We have critically analysed Bell’s closing statement and believe it to have failed Brian.

We now turn to the summing-up of Judge Nicholas Loraine-Smith. We will repeat our previous two examples in which we will reproduce the Summing-Up and then highlight certain phrases which we will subsequently discuss.

48

At 12:45, the judge began his summing-up and directions to the jury. The Judicial Studies Board produces a range of training materials for Crown Court judges and the Crown Court Bench Book – Directing the Jury. In this 400+ page document, a vast range of topics is covered to give guidance to judges acting in the Crown Court (similar publications exist for each level of Court in the overall judicial system). As you might expect, the publication uses legal tomes including Archbold, Blackstone and Smith & Hogan (books which we have referred to throughout this account.) The Benchbook for Judges can be found at:

<www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Training/benchbook_criminal_2010.pdf>

Before we reproduce a summary of the judge’s Summing-up and Directions to the jury, we believe it necessary to reproduce the guidance to Crown Court judges in respect of trial on ‘criminal attempts’:

“…(7) Criminal Attempts Introduction

By section 1(1) Criminal Attempts Act 1981 the actus reus of an attempt to commit an offence is an act “more than merely preparatory to the commission of the offence”. To constitute an attempt the act must be accompanied by an intention to commit the full offence even if the full offence is one which requires a lesser degree of mens rea (e.g. attempted wounding requires an intent to wound, attempted murder requires an intent to kill) or is an offence of strict liability. It does not matter that the offence which the defendant is intending to commit is impossible by reason of facts unknown to him (section 1(2); see the case of Shivpuri⁷⁴). It is for the judge to decide whether there is sufficient evidence of an attempt for the issue to be left to the jury; if so, it is for the jury to decide whether the acts proved do amount to an attempt.

Directions

•   The judge should follow the words of the statute.⁷⁵

•   It is, however, common practice and, save in the obvious case, useful to explain and/or illustrate the difference between an attempt to commit an offence and acts preparatory to an offence. The jury should be told that the issue whether the act was more than merely preparatory is for them to decide.

•   Where impossibility has featured in the evidence, the jury should be told that they must be sure of an attempt to commit the offence intended (e.g. the fact that the victim’s pockets were empty is no defence to attempted robbery)

Footnotes

74 [1987] AC 1 (HL)

75 R v. Campbell [1991] 93 Cr App R 350…”

By way of a summary of the guidance to Crown Court judges in the Benchbook, it is clear that for guilt to be established in any criminal attempt, there has to be a crime (the actus reus) and there also has to be the simultaneous intent (mens rea). We have shown that neither of the two elements of the alleged crime of incitement existed in this case.

Loraine-Smith would have known this before he summed up and gave directions to the jury.

But there is one further vital piece of information that you, as a reader, need to be made aware of – and it is to be found in Archbold on page 554 of the 2008 edition (which you will recall we are using because it is the edition which refers to the statutes as they existed at the time of the alleged crimes by Brian):

“…Where the judge issues an ultimatum or stipulates a deadline, a conviction is liable to be set aside: see R. v McKenna [1960] 1 Q.B. 411, 44Cr.App.R. 63, CCA; R. v Rose [1982] A.C. 822, HL.

The jury must be free to deliberate without any form of pressure, whether by way of promise or threat or otherwise. They must not be made to feel that it is incumbent on them to concur with a view they do not truly hold simply because it might be inconvenient or tiresome or expensive for the prosecution, the defendant, the victim or the public in general if they do not do so…”

It is evident that ‘the jury must be free to deliberate without any form of pressure.’

Loraine-Smith: “…The law is my responsibility and you have to follow the directions that I am about to give you, but the evidence, the facts are for you and you alone. You decide whether Mr Pead exposed his genitals intending to alarm or distress to the females opposite, and whether he actually tried to incite a girl he thought was just 14 to engage in sexual activity with him…”

Notice at this point how the judge has worded his opening sentences to read as though a real girl existed because he knows that the law of incitement refers to real people.

“…You must decide that on the evidence that you have seen and heard in this court room. You will see and hear no more. You must not speculate on what other evidence there might have been. A lot of questions have been thrown up by this case. […] Your job is to apply the law as I tell you it is to the facts as you find them to be. What are those principles? The first principle is the burden of proof. The prosecution bring the case, the prosecution must prove it. It is not for the defendant to prove his innocence, it is for the prosecution to prove his guilt.

The next principle: what standard do they have to prove it to? They have to prove it so that you are sure of his guilt. If at the end of your deliberations you are sure of his guilt, it is your duty to convict him. If at the end of your deliberations you are not sure of his guilt then it is your duty to acquit him…”

At this point, Loraine-Smith is speaking as any judge would as he or she starts their summing up of the Indictment and providing directions to the jury.

However, it is when he starts to describe the indictments and his view of the salient points that there is extreme cause for concern. A full transcript of the summing up runs to 83 pages and space does not permit us to include all of it here. We propose to make it available online in due course. For our purposes here we will provide you with quotations taken directly from these 83 pages. We will provide our commentary too. You are free, of course, to arrive at your own conclusions.

“…There are two counts on this indictment. Will you look at it now and we will look at the ingredients. The first thing I will say is that there are two separate allegations and you must consider them separately. Certainly some of the evidence is going to apply to both of them, but you must consider each count separately. The verdicts do not necessarily have to be the same…”  

It is true that there were two counts on the indictment – and legally there should not have been. This was an abuse of process and caused considerable bias and detriment to the defendant. You will recall how Judge Charles Byers at Woolwich Crown Court in February 2009 had refused to join the two separate indictments because of the very fact that they were separate. In our opinion, any judge allowing such an abuse of process to proceed would have to have his or her integrity called into question.

“…The first count on the indictment is exposure. The allegation is that Brian Pead on 7 May last year intentionally exposed his genitals intending that someone would see them and would be caused alarm or distress. You have to be sure before you can convict him on this count firstly, that he intentionally exposed his genitals, not unwittingly, but intentionally. In fact, nobody says they actually saw his genitals. The Crown, you will know from count one, do not have to prove that somebody did see them, but you must be sure on the evidence of the three young women that he had actually exposed his genitals…”  

This is an appalling comment from a Crown Court judge – “The Crown do not have to prove that somebody did see them [his genitals]”. Archbold – as we have shown in an earlier chapter – provides a detailed description of every crime in UK law. The Crown did have to prove that someone saw Brian’s genitals and they did have to prove that once they had seen his genitals that he had done it intentionally and with the aim of causing alarm or distress.

Loraine-Smith therefore misleads the jury and the Court. The three women (you might like to ask yourself why Loraine-Smith refers to them as ‘young’ women – this appears to be an exact mirror of the allegations against Brian at Lambeth) all stated on oath that they had never seen his genitals – therefore Brian cannot be guilty of the alleged offence.

Now carefully read the next passage in Loraine-Smith’s summing up. Notice how the judge makes a statement as if it were a fact – this is common amongst those in the legal profession and the police. It is a dangerous practice and means that many innocent people are wrongly convicted each year for crimes which they have not committed:

“…The Crown say that the defendant obviously had exposed his genitals, he was masturbating in the window. The defence say that he was doing no such thing and the girls are completely wrong.

The next issue. The Crown have to prove that he intended that somebody would see them. The Crown say, ‘Well, why else stand in the window?’ The defence say ‘It never happened’.

Thirdly, they have to prove that he intended to cause alarm or distress. That is how he gets his pleasure. That is not the sort of person he is, say the defence. There in a nutshell are the issues on the individual ingredients the Crown have to prove in Count 1…”

The italicised emphasis is ours: note how Loraine-Smith changed his description of the ‘three young women’ to ‘girls’. This sort of manipulation of language occurred in the allegations against Brian at Lambeth.

Notice how, in this section, Loraine-Smith says that the Crown say that Brian was masturbating at his bedroom window. Where was the proof of such an allegation? The only ‘evidence’ came from three females who had allegedly submitted written statements to the police (but which were unsigned and contained no unique reference numbers), three females who failed to arrive at Court in February 2009, three females who were actually four females, three females who had had ‘lots of male visitors to the house’, three females who had had complaints made about them by the local community, three females who all stated that they had not seen Brian’s genitals and three females who had all differed greatly in their version of events. 

Furthermore, the CPS would have to prove that Brian intended to cause alarm and distress to the females living at 62 Days Lane.

It is inconceivable to us as authors that the Crown should ever have taken this case to court. On legal grounds, it had no merits whatsoever. There had to be another motivation on the part of the Crown.

Loraine-Smith continued his summing-up:

“…Count 2. Attempting to cause or incite a child to engage in sexual activity. “Brian Pead, a person over the age of 18 years” – no doubts about that – “between 27 January 2008 and 9 May 2008, attempted to intentionally cause or incite a child to engage in sexual activity, namely the penetration of her mouth with his penis, and the penetration of her vagina with his finger; the circumstances being such that the activity was sexual, the child was under 16 years and that Brian Pead did not reasonably believe that the child was over the age of 16 years.

This is charged as an attempt. To be guilty of attempting to commit a criminal offence the defendant must do something which is more than merely preparing to commit it. You must be sure firstly that he intended to commit the offence complained of, the mental element of the offence, and secondly, you must be sure that he did something more than mere preparation for committing it, the physical element. Here the prosecution say that the transcript of the messages speak for themselves. That is what you can see him attempting to do. What is the offence he is alleged to have attempted? A person is guilty of this offence if, firstly, he intentionally incites another person to engage in an activity. Secondly, that activity has to be sexual, and there is no issue in this case that the activities discussed were sexual.

Thirdly, the Crown have to prove that the other person is under 16 and the defendant does not reasonably believe she is over 16.

Of course the other person was not under 16 – it was a police officer impersonating somebody, that is why it is indicted as an attempt, but that the defendant must not reasonably believe that she is over 16. Of course he was not going to succeed in this case because Shelley was in fact a policeman. In a nutshell on Count 2, you have to be sure that the defendant did something more than merely preparing to commit this offence, and that he tried to incite a girl he believed to be under 16 to indulge in sexual acts on the indictment with him…”  

We regard this summing-up as an appalling piece of legalese. Notice how Loraine-Smith switches between a description of a real ‘girl’ and then claims that the ‘girl’ was a policeman. The law is clear as we have pointed out: Brian could not possibly be guilty of this crime because there was no girl and the law says there must have had to have been another person for him to incite and that person must be under 16. He could not incite the policeman, even if the policeman was posing as a 14-year-old. But, of course, as we have seen, Brian always knew the person posing as a teenager was not a teenager but an adult. You might like to ask yourself why Dominic Bell failed to provide information about Geoffrey Bacon’s computer to the judge and jury. You might also like to ask yourself why Bell failed to contact the Professional Standards Department at Scotland Yard about DS Tunn, DC Godfrey and DC Robbie – whom all acted illegally.

Not, too, that the dates that Loraine-Smith provides are not the dates on the indictment.

Nor does Loraine-Smith include in his summing-up here the fact that Brian has been conducting research into child abuse at Lambeth Council and on Faceparty. You might like to ask yourself why.

Court adjourned at 1pm and resumed in the absence of the jury at 2pm.

At two minutes past the hour, the jury came back into court.

Loraine-Smith QC continued to sum up to the jury. During this summing up, he recounted the comment by Elizabeth McIntyre that Brian “had watched me once or twice a week”. Not only is this untrue, but it completely contradicts her earlier statement that when she received the note from Brian informing her that she could be seen undressing, she claimed to have “kept my curtains closed thereafter.”

If she had kept her curtains closed thereafter, how on earth could she have seen Brian “watching me once or twice a week”? Loraine-Smith failed to put this important contradiction to the jury.

On page 24 of the summing-up transcript, Loraine-Smith recounts the testimony of Natalie Ryan:

“…On the night of 7 May 2008 the other two [tenants] were too frightened to close the curtains. I am the more confident so I stood nearer the window. I shut the curtains…”

Clearly, then, Elizabeth McIntyre had not kept her curtains closed since she received the note in October 2007. Loraine-Smith failed to point this out to the court.

On page 21 of the transcript, Loraine-Smith recounts the testimony of Katie Prouse:

“…I told Liz to call the police and she did so immediately afterwards…”

This referred to the alleged masturbation on 7 May 2008. However, on page 24 of the transcript, Loraine-Smith recounts the testimony of Natalie Ryan:

“…I didn’t contact the police but I learnt that they had been contacted the next day [8 May 2008]…”

Loraine-Smith failed to point this stark contradiction out to the court.

On page 27 of the transcript, the issue of Brian’s personal learning journal (PLJ) was brought up by Loraine-Smith. The judge attempted to introduce new ‘evidence’ at this point because he sowed a seed of doubt by claiming that Brian had written this document retrospectively – after he had been arrested. Yet the evidence shows that compiling a PLJ had been a course requirement at the CPPD and other evidence showed that writing a PLJ was something that Brian had done at least since 2004. A PLJ is not a logbook; it is not a diary; it is not a book of minutes; it is merely a record of thoughts, events and feelings that (in this case) a counsellor chooses to record. When he mentioned on 20 May 2008 in interview that he had not kept a logbook of the dates of Elizabeth McIntyre’s ‘shows’ from her bedroom window, he was telling the truth. The CPS – aided and abetted by the judge – tried to claim that Brian had written the PLJ retrospectively after 20 May otherwise he would have mentioned it during his interview. This does not hold any credence. His PLJ was available to his lecturers from September 2007, there was a long track record of his having written PLJs and he does not regard it as a log in any way, shape or form. Furthermore, he had just been arrested in his own home and transported to Bexleyheath police station, which can be a traumatic experience for anybody. The fact that Brian does not refer to the PLJ as a log does not, in our opinion, detract from the notion that this document was created contemporaneously from September 2007 onwards and that it recorded details of Elizabeth McIntyre’s ‘shows’ without noting them all down which is the purpose of a log book, not a PLJ.

The above was an example of Loraine-Smith using ‘smoke and mirrors’ to obscure the truth. There had been many examples of it in this trial. But nothing compared to the confusion in the summing-up of the incitement case. You must decide whether you believe that it was deliberate on the part of the judge or otherwise.

“…DC Robbie told the court, “It is not an attractive job.” The defendant suggests that Robbie has behaved disgracefully. There is no magic in the uniform. You should treat DC Robbie like you would any other person. He told you that he joined clubs and vice in 1997, the paedophile unit in 2001 and from 2004/5 he had been deployed as a covert officer on the internet…”

DC Robbie had been in clubs and vice. We remind you that in chapter 7 we reproduced an article from The Independent on Sunday written by John O’Connor, a former commander of the Flying Squad who stated on the public record that Scotland Yard was corrupt and that it controlled the adult pornography industry. Brian Pead asserts that it also controls the child pornography industry and there is some evidence to support his assertion.

Loraine-Smith, QC, continued:

“…DC Robbie said he would pretend to be under 16 or a paedophile, but that he always worked within the rules and never acted as an agent provocateur…”

This has to be one of the most banal comments made by a Crown Court judge. Of course Robbie is not going to admit to having acted as an agent provocateur because he knows that that would equate to a prison term. Loraine-Smith knows this, too, but he fails to report Brian’s allegations against the officer to the Professional Standards Department at Scotland Yard and ask them to investigate. He merely takes Robbie at his word.

“…DC Robbie told us that he joined the Faceparty website in December 2007. I gave out an email address of shellyk14@hotmail.co.uk …”

This was exactly what Brian had stated to police on 4 June 2008 when interviewed at Charing Cross police station.

However, as Brian pointed out, he had been contacted by a person using the email address of ‘shelly14@hotmail.co.uk’ and also ‘shelleyk14@hotmail.co.uk’. To the eagle-eyed Brian, it seemed that someone was using multiple email addresses (all of which were almost identical) in order to contact him and others. In some of these email addresses, the officers would be ‘behaving’ themselves, in others they would not. Both Bell and Loraine-Smith failed to explore this in open court. Even if Brian was wrong – which we do not believe is the case – then at least it creates enough doubt for an acquittal.

[Authors’ note: It is also interesting to note that in the typed transcript of the judge’s summing-up and directions to the jury, the name ‘Shelly’ is spelt as ‘Shelley’ throughout, with the addition of a second ‘e’. This was something that Brian – being something of a self-confessed ‘geek’ when it comes to language and psychology – had noted during his interactions. Yet the police transcripts always spelt the name as ‘Shelly’. Note also the name of the female police officer who stood in for DC Godfrey when the transcripts were being read out in Court – DC Michelle Wilkin. We believe this to be ‘Shelly’/ ‘Shelley’.]

“…On 14 January 2008, Robbie said he received an invite from the defendant. The defendant told us that he had created a separate account in order to ‘smoke out’ people who were posing as children or who were potential paedophiles or sex offenders.

There was no response by the defendant until 28 January 2008. The officer said he is an experienced officer acting as a covert intelligence officer.

The defendant said he knew from the beginning it was a fake profile and that the person was not genuinely a teenager…”

It is interesting to note at this point that Loraine-Smith was in possession of the fact that Brian claimed that illegal activity had taken place on the Faceparty website, yet he did nothing about reporting these allegations. Furthermore, he would have been in possession of Brian’s claims that he had told the fake teenager to “Fuck off! You are a fake!” on 15 May 2008 at Geoffrey Bacon’s house (which Mr Bacon has confirmed). And the police illegally seized that computer and burnt out the hard drive. All of this bona fide evidence makes us believe Brian’s account and not that of the police whom one of their own former high-ranking Scotland Yard officers has described in a national newspaper as ‘corrupt’.

Loraine-Smith then read out vast tracts from the MSN messages, which on the face of it did not look good for Brian. Yet, looked at with objectivity, they demonstrate that Brian was ‘smoking out’ this person. Let’s consider for a moment the first question he asks the ‘teen’: “…Do you do meets?”

On its face, this might be interpreted as a man asking a person he thinks is a genuine teenager if she wants to meet up. However, it could also be interpreted as a man asking the person claiming to be a teen if ‘she’ meets up because he is smoking her out and just wants to find out what is really going on in the chatroom and on MSN. Remember, too, that Brian has a deep-rooted history of having been sexually abused in a children’s home – we argue that this is a sufficient reason for him to want to smoke out someone whom, because of his experiences, he instinctively felt was not genuine. As authors we can claim that we would most probably not have continued to converse with the person claiming to be a teenager unless we, too, had such a psychological and emotional motive and unless we, too, were conducting research and unless we, too, had been sexually abused in a children’s home and unless we, too, had a deep passion to expose the perpetrators of sexual abuse and corruption.

On page 35 of the transcript, Loraine-Smith reads out another part of the MSN transcript of the conversations between Brian and the ‘girl’: “…Your picture [on your profile] doesn’t prove it’s you…” and we suggest that this is yet further evidence that Brian had deep suspicions about this person from the very moment they started conversing. We also doubt that many other people would have had such a reaction to this alleged teenager, but the vast majority of the population has not been sexually abused in a children’s home and the vast majority do not possess Brian’s ‘superior intellect’ as diagnosed from the age of five by psychologists and numerous other adults who lived or worked in close proximity in the children’s home with Brian.

Loraine-Smith continues: “…What did you have in mind [to do sexually]? Money is no object either. So say what you are into…”

This could be taken to mean that a man is interested in meeting and is prepared to pay for sexual activity, or it could be taken to mean precisely what Brian said it was: an indication of his ‘smoking her out’. Furthermore, Brian was earning a little over £26,000 pounds per annum as a counsellor, not a fortune, and he was spending all of his earnings and savings on a major refurbishment of his house.

Loraine-Smith continues: “…The ‘girl’ asks the defendant for his profile on Faceparty. The defendant replied: ‘I didn’t tell you my profile because you are so not genuine.’…”

This was the very first MSN conversation between Brian and the ‘girl’. In this conversation he has told her ‘you are not genuine’. He cannot be any clearer about his perceived knowledge about the ‘girl’. At no point did he say ‘If you were genuinely 14 I would want to meet you and pay you for sex’. He has unequivocally told ‘her’ that he knows ‘she’ is not genuine. Why, then, did this case come to court? It is evident from the police transcripts themselves that Brian knew from the start that this was not a genuine teenager.

Loraine-Smith continues:

“…She asked for his mobile phone number. He gave a number which was his own number minus one digit. It is probably a non-existent number unless someone by chance happened to have it, but it is a number that he would be able to remember. The defence say that is very important because if he really wants to meet up with this girl he is going to give a genuine number so that she can contact him on the telephone as opposed to the internet.

I suppose the Crown’s response to that is that ‘Well, what is happening here is that this middle-aged man contacting a girl who is saying that she is under 14; it is all illegal. You are not going to give your own mobile number which can be traced to you in those circumstances…”

We regard this as a horrific passage in Loraine-Smith’s summing-up for two reasons. The emphasis above is ours: the role of a judge is not to suppose anything, nor to hypothesise and not to guess – his or her role is merely to stick to the facts and to guide a jury according to the law. Loraine-Smith has broken the ethical code of conduct that all judges – at whatever level they are working – must adhere to. The Crown never did, in fact, offer that as an argument because it holds no water: it follows that if you are going to meet someone, you need to provide a real mobile number. But Brian – as has been proven here – showed that he had no intention of meeting. Furthermore, he did not take the step of meeting ‘her’ – just as Tony Campbell had not entered the post office in order to rob it. As authors, we have read all five of the MSN ‘hats’ and at no point does Brian ever ask to meet the ‘girl’.

The judge then strayed way off the course he is supposed to take in his role when he completely misled the jury by stating:

“…On 25 February 2008, the defendant suggested that they meet at 7pm at Southwark Tube station…”

The transcripts of the MSN conversations show that ‘the girl’ made such arrangements, not Brian.

On page 42 of the summing-up transcript, Loraine-Smith then returns to DC Robbie’s account on the witness stand.

“…He told us that there are links to various chatrooms and he said, ‘We would work in chatrooms with names like ‘older4teens’ or ‘teens4older’ and there are chatrooms for swapping indecent images of children and specific interests. He said, ‘I cannot say I have ever seen a chatroom for escorting.’…”

It may well be true that DC Robbie had never seen a chatroom for escorts (though we doubt his comment given his career in vice), but even if it were true it does not follow that such rooms did not exist as Brian claimed. Indeed, in earlier chapters we have provided evidence of blogs and forums in which escort chatrooms on Faceparty were discussed – Brian had not been the only person to notice such activity.

What occurs next can be only described as incredible – we never believed as authors that we would ever read a transcript in which such ineptitude (or corruption, or both) would be so transparent:

“…DC Robbie made a statement, you will recall, as a result of enquiries when the allegation [of corruption] was put to him in terms, and rather than have him back in the witness-box, a statement was read from him saying that he had looked at recordings of the occasions where he was deployed as ‘Shelley’ and in both of these matters he can state as per his notebook that no further Faceparty messages had been received from the defendant....”

This is an appalling statement made by a Crown Court judge on many levels. ‘Rather than having him back’, Robbie was allowed to make a statement which was read out in Court – thus avoiding cross-examination. Why would a Crown Court judge allow such an abuse of process?

Not only was Robbie permitted not to return to Court to answer allegations of criminal activity, but he claims in his statement that he looked over all of his past activity when deployed as ‘Shelley”. Why did the judge allow this abuse of process – what we have here is an example of a police officer who has been accused of corrupt and criminal activity and the judge has allowed that officer to conduct an investigation into himself! Not only that, but the officer refers to his logbooks which were not produced as evidence in court and Brian – the defendant – never received a copy of such logbooks. DC Robbie could have – and did – say anything.

Why did the judge allow Robbie such leeway? Why did Bell?

But it now gets worse as Loraine-Smith continues his summing-up:

“…There was a suggestion that there had been a further Faceparty message saying in effect: “Fuck off”, which would of course be very much to the defendant’s advantage if that existed because it would show he knew that this was false, but it has not been found. The Crown say it is because it never existed, he has invented it…”

As we have explained in great detail previously, this message did exist – but in a Faceparty message applet which allowed members to communicate live, not a Faceparty message which worked in the same way as an email.

Brian had told Bell all about this small – yet important – difference. Bell also knew that this message had been sent by Brian on Geoffrey Bacon’s computer and that that computer had been illegally seized and its hard drive burnt out. Bell also knew that Mr Bacon wanted to be called as a witness and that Brian had provided the full contact details of his friend, but neither Bell nor Angela Shaw ever contacted Geoffrey Bacon.

Loraine-Smith continues: “…DC Robbie said, ‘By 19 May 2008, my Faceparty profile had been deleted due to it being under age…”

Loraine-Smith appears to have overlooked two vitally important points: (i) the Faceparty management terms and conditions stated that no-one under age could join and become a member with a profile, (ii) that the profile was fully functional on 18 May 2008 because Brian had messaged that profile, and (iii) Warwick Brown (the IT manager of Faceparty who had allegedly emigrated to Australia but who was working in London) had stated that it was his responsibility to vet all profiles. Can we really believe that the profile which was allegedly created in December 2007 by Robbie (and in which he claimed he had stated his age as 14) would have still been online five months later? Why had Warwick Brown not taken the profile down much sooner? It does not make sense unless it is lies and we are suggesting that that is precisely what DC Robbie’s statement is: a complete fabrication.

At this point in Loraine-Smith’s summing-up and directions to the jury, prosecutor Timothy Forster turned round to sit and face the jury.

“…Let us come to Warwick Brown, whom you have not seen,” continued the judge. “Both parties said they wanted him, but the defence particularly because they said they would like to ask him about chat logs and records; the identification of others. He is the IT manager for the internet social networking site known as Faceparty. Warwick Brown said, ‘Only the last IP address is retained on the system’…”

Notice the appalling slackness in this part of the summing up. Loraine-Smith describes Brown as “…He is the IT manager for Faceparty…” Did you notice the present tense – he is, not he was. A few days earlier in Court, Forster had told the Court that Warwick Brown had left Faceparty and emigrated to Australia. This was a lie. DC Godfrey had told the Court that Faceparty ‘was now defunct’. The reality is that these were lies. Why did Loraine-Smith (let alone Bell and Shaw) not investigate this? 

And by referring to the last-known IP address recorded by Faceparty, why did the judge not ask to be given evidence of this? It would have shown that the last computer Brian used was that belonging to his friend in Chislehurst.

And why did Loraine-Smith never challenge the veracity of Forster’s claim that Warwick Brown had emigrated to Australia? Throughout this entire trial we have seen a large number of documents which were not signed by the alleged witness, documents with no unique reference numbers on them and allegations made without supporting evidence. And all of this after Brian had uncovered child abuse at Lambeth Council.

The judge then embarked upon a discourse about Nicola Noone, the Director of Off Centre, the Hackney charity where Brian worked as a counsellor.

“…She told the Court that the defendant – who claimed to be conducting research into child sexual abuse – had not been asked to do this by Off Centre and she said, ‘We were unaware of him undertaking any. Had he been undertaking any such research, it would have been a disciplinary matter in itself…”

This means nothing. So what if Brian had not informed Off Centre that he was undertaking private research into child sexual abuse? He had no obligation to inform them whatsoever. It certainly was not a disciplinary matter. Brian had not even been charged by the police on this matter at the time of his unlawful dismissal by Off Centre. He was not, as we have seen, charged with incitement for another eight months after his dismissal!

“…Ms Noone told us she thought that five per cent of clients said they had suffered sexual abuse. Mr Bird told us this morning that in his view it was 35 to 50 per cent…”

What a pity that the judge failed to enquire about this wide disparity during the trial itself. What a pity that Bell failed to cross-examine Noone more deeply about her claim that only 5% of Off Centre clients suffered child sexual abuse. It is inconceivable to think that only 5 clients in every 100 had suffered sexual abuse. Indeed, in his PLJ, Brian had noted in the first clinical meeting in his first week at Off Centre that two of the clients discussed (out of 5) had suffered such abuse and Brian was angry that nobody seemed to want to discuss the topic. He vented his anger in his PLJ.