FRAMED! - part 30

But read carefully what Loraine-Smith then states: “Ms Noone said, ‘I don’t know if someone called Matt Doocey asked him to disseminate his knowledge.’”

A man’s reputation was at stake. A man’s liberty was at stake and here is a prosecution witness claiming that she didn’t know if Brian had taken Staff Training. She had a duty to find this out. The prosecution had a similar duty, as had the judge. But even more cogently, Bell had a duty. He should have called Matt Doocey as a witness. Brian had given him Doocey’s contact details at the Tavistock in London.

On page 50 of the summing-up transcript, Loraine-Smith mentions Marcia Weise, who represented Brian at the police station. In an appalling oversight, he did not think of instructing her to be called as a witness.

But Loraine-Smith’s ineptitude – for if it was not corruption at the highest level, it must have been ineptitude at the lowest level – did not end at his inability to seek out the truth. Consider the following comments by him with regard to Brian’s character:

“…When you are considering the defendant’s evidence, you have got to ask yourself: “Is this someone who is trying to tell me the truth as best he can or is he trying to pull the wool over my eyes?” I am bound to say I failed to hide my irritation this morning at his tendency to lecture a bit from time to time…”

The emphasis is ours. We feel strongly that the judge has inappropriately and unlawfully used the summing-up process in order to deal the defendant a blow. In essence, he has told the jury of his opinion of Brian. It matters not one iota what kind of person any defendant is: what matters is the law and a person’s intent. We find this misuse of his powers completely appalling and anathema to justice.

Loraine-Smith then mentions Brian’s PLJ:

“…Ordinarily you would not have this document. Ordinarily a private diary in itself would be called self-serving and not be admissible, but in this case it is really central to the trial so of course you have it…”

But providing the jury with this private diary infringed the rights of several third parties mentioned in it, including Brian’s daughter and son-in-law. Brian had put in that document many private details of these parties and we believe that each of them has a case against the Crown for allowing their private details to be made public.

In the second paragraph on page 58 of the 83-page summing-up transcript, the judge states: “Members of the jury, that is it. You try the evidence which is put in front of you.”

Yet, as you may have deduced, there then followed a further 25 pages of a re-hashing of the alleged facts, as if Loraine-Smith were lecturing the jury and forcing his opinions on to them.

On page 65, the judge makes mention of the conversation on 15 May 2008 at the house of Geoffrey Bacon. Loraine-Smith was keen to tell the jury that no evidence of this conversation had been found. Yet it had. Brian had told both Angela Shaw and Dominic Bell. Neither had informed the judge. Yet the judge failed to order Geoffrey Bacon to be called as a witness. Given that he had mentioned Bacon, it is an appalling indictment of British justice that Loraine-Smith failed to call Geoffrey Bacon. He knew that had the builder been called as a witness, Brian Pead could not have possibly been found guilty.

 As the day drew to a close, Loraine-Smith said:

“…Half an hour, I think I will give you and I will send you away, assuming you have not reached verdicts by then.

Two things. I have no doubt you have heard about majority verdicts and majority directions. Put those out of your minds. My direction to you now is to reach verdicts on which you are all agreed, unanimous verdicts. If there comes a time when I can accept a verdict which is not the verdict of all of you, I will have you back into court and I will give you a direction in law, but my direction to you now is to reach verdicts upon which you are all agreed…”

The jury retired to consider their verdicts at 3.46pm. The Authors refer once again to Archbold on Retirement of the Jury (4-501): it is undesirable that a jury should be sent out after 3pm. Yet another flagrant breach of protocol.

But before they went, one of their number – a female aged about 28 – asked a question. It was a vital incident in an incredible farce masquerading as a trial. With both John Callow and Michael Bird sitting in the public gallery, she addressed the judge: “Are you saying that if there never was a victim, never a real girl, then we cannot find the defendant guilty?”

And the judge’s response?

“Yes, that is what I am saying.”

There you have it. An astute juror had obviously understood the law – that with no victim, Brian could not be guilty of incitement or even an attempt to incite. This was said in open court with witnesses present, one of whom was Michael Bird, whose witness statement about this farcical trial we have included in an earlier chapter.

The court adjourned at 3.47 and resumed again at 4.12pm. Another farcical event was about to occur. Notice Loraine-Smith’s comments:

“…The jury have asked for two exhibits, one which they can have, the other of course is the complete personal journal. The answer is that I am going to tell them that I did not explain myself very well that they cannot have it because the time for new evidence is over. I will just assure them that you have both seen it and anything that both of you think is relevant they have, and that is it…”

Did you notice that sleight of hand? Did you notice that Loraine-Smith failed to say on the record what the first exhibit was that the jury asked for?

There then ensued another discussion between the judge, the prosecutor and defence counsel about the jury being given the entire personal learning journal, and not an abridged one with the references to the Employment Tribunal at Lambeth removed.

It is agreed that the jury should be given access to the complete PLJ – but at no point did anyone consult with Brian and at no point did he give his consent to the jury being given access to his journal. This is in itself an abuse of process.

But notwithstanding this comedy of legal errors, we feel that you will be aggrieved to read the next entry. If you recall, we reproduced part of the instructions to judges in directing a jury. We also saw how Archbold states that a jury must be given all the time it needs in arriving at a verdict. Read carefully the next passage and ask yourself, “Is this justice I am reading about?”:

“…If for any reason Mr Pead were delayed tomorrow morning, I would not wait before sending the jury out, because I am going to send them out, full stop, and since they have only got a day, I want them to have as long as possible…”

Another sleight of hand. Another misuse of language. You may have heard the judge say “I want the jury to have as long as possible” but he did not say that at all. He set a time limit. He gave them only a day to reach verdicts on two criminal indictments.

Here is the law again: where the judge issues an ultimatum or stipulates a deadline, a conviction is liable to be set aside: refer to the case of R. v McKenna [1960] 1 Q.B. 411, 44Cr.App.R. 63, CCA; and also to that of 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.  

The jury returned at 4.16pm, all dressed in their overcoats and scarves against the freezing cold December night:

“…You have asked for two exhibits; you will have them. That personal journal, I understood, that counsel between them had agreed that everything that was relevant had been copied, but since you have asked for it, they are both anxious you should have the whole thing and so you will have the whole thing tomorrow. Remember it is not all copied so try and keep it in date order when you go through it. Do not get lost in the detail, but bear in mind that both parties reckoned that what really matters is to be found in the papers that were copied in front of you…”

And that was yet another sleight of hand. Did you notice it? Did you notice that the jury wasn’t provided with the entire PLJ as it had asked for? Can you think what might have been removed from that document before it was shown to the jury? Yes, the pages about the 15 May 2008 when Brian used Geoffrey Bacon’s computer and the pages around 31 July 2008 when the computer was seized and the hard drive later burnt out.

Those pages would not have been included. Nor would the pages about Brian’s own sexual abuse as a child been included – how could Bell have told his client not to talk about it to the jury? Nor would his pages about his time at Lambeth and the Employment Tribunal have been shown to the jury either. 

Those pages in his journal which covered his Employment Tribunal case against Lambeth Council, where he had exposed child grooming and racism, would also have been removed. The farce was growing exponentially in line with the rapid growth of corruption.

We also believe that other pages will have been omitted by the prosecution and by Bell, but here is the critical question: why was Brian not shown the same version of his PLJ as the jury? This is an abuse of process – a jury cannot be shown material that the defendant has not seen, otherwise, a jury could be shown anything.

But here was a jury under duress. It had been told to arrive at a verdict on the following day, the 23 December 2009. It had been told that this was the last day of what is known in the legal profession as the Michaelmas Term. However, the <www.judiciary.gov.uk> web site cites that the Michaelmas Term in 2009-2010 will run from 1 October 2009 through to 21 December 2009. It would appear that the jury had been deceived once again. It was sitting beyond the ‘legal year’.

From a legal perspective, what ought to have happened is this: the Jury ought to have been discharged at the end of that Term if it had not reached a verdict and a new jury ought to have been engaged. However, in this scenario, the Crown would have had to drop the exposure allegation based on the fact that all three witnesses had claimed that Brian had not exposed himself to them. With that allegation dropped, the case against Brian before a new jury would have been considerably weakened. Furthermore, Brian would have had more time in which to conduct research.

The most expedient result to the Crown was a verdict before the end of the Michaelmas Term, no matter that such a result was achieved unlawfully.

49

Wednesday 23 December 2009

Brian arrived at Pret at 7.20am! Although he had left a good deal of time because of the inclement weather, the trains were running virtually normally, although they were practically empty.

In Pret, he asked an assistant behind the counter to turn the raucous music down, which she did.

There were four other cases in Court 4 that day. At 09:50, DC Godfrey entered court and Forster arrived five minutes later. But there was no sign of Bell. He had been late to Court on every single occasion during this trial.

Eventually, all were present and Forster asked Loraine-Smith a critical question: “Is the Lambeth incident – the masturbation in the theatre – in the PLJ for the jury? They either get the PLJ in its entirety or they do not.”

Judge: That entry re Lambeth would prejudice the defendant’s case.

Forster and Bell make a show of looking through Brian’s PLJ, while Godfrey, who has numerous files in front of her, sits doing nothing.

Forster: Leave out the Employment Tribunal and the 19 January 2008. I’ll get it all hole-punched.

Bell: The Lambeth bit must come out.

Forster: It’s impossible to work out. If I wanted to take a hard line, I’d say the defendant put it in on purpose.

DC Godfrey sat throughout this exercise doodling on a legal pad in front of her. Bell continued to sort out extracts from the PLJ – reading out certain dates.

This was yet another sleight of hand. The entries in Brian’s personal learning journal about Lambeth Council contained information about his exposing child grooming in a pupil referral unit that he managed. (Authors’ note: A full account of this can be found in the book from Hillsborough to Lambeth by Brian Pead and Michael Bird, Invenire Press, 2012. The book was unlawfully banned by Justice Michael Tugendhat on 1 February 2013, along with the website <lambethchildabuseandcoverup.com>. On 16 July 2013, Caroline Addy, counsel for Lambeth, asked for a permanent gagging order on Brian Pead.)

Judge: I am concerned that some matters were private for the defendant and other people. I will have to direct the jury about the PLJ.

At 10:17am the jury entered Court 4.

Judge: I said you could have the PLJ but it concerns me. The defendant has written private information about other people. It seems to me that the original pages can be seen by the jury, but not the entire document because of confidentiality issues.

Yet another sleight of hand. In order to convince a jury that there would be missing pages from the PLJ, the judge tries to claim that this is because of issues with confidentiality. It was nothing of the sort. The prosecution, defence counsel and the judge all knew that the pages Brian had written about the unlawful seizure of Geoffrey Bacon’s computer were critical pages, just as were the pages he had written about telling the ‘girl’ to fuck off in front of Geoffrey Bacon. It was never mentioned in Court that Geoffrey Bacon was present when Brian typed: “You are a fake – fuck off!”

Furthermore, Brian had written about child abuse in Lambeth and that had been removed in another unlawful move in a farcical trial.

It is our considered opinion, based on incontrovertible evidence (the provenance of which is not in any doubt) that there was connivance between the prosecutor, the defence and the judge to ensure that certain pages would not be included in the PLJ shown to the jury because, with them included in the document, there was irrefutable evidence of Brian’s innocence.   

At 10:22am Brian went to the canteen on the first floor. We are grateful to Brian for permission to reproduce extracts from his personal court diary. We think it makes for profound reading and provides yet another insight into the mind of a man with a passion for detail and for justice:

“…How do I feel?

I feel nervous. Scared. I believe it’s because I feel I have no control over the process. At this point, I’ve done all I can and it’s now in the hands of others. That’s a feeling I hate, because other people, 12 others, who have fought through rain and snow and ice to attend every day for 8 working days, are going to pronounce 2 judgments on me, yet I firmly believe that all of the facts have not been heard in both my cases.

I did not sleep well last night, even though I ‘tried’ to relax. I woke around midnight and struggled thereafter to sleep. I cried for my lost daughter – how can it be that she failed to support me at this critical time in my life? Of course I will have made mistakes with her – as all parents do – but hardly to warrant her deserting me in my hour of need. Did she hate me that much? Was my parenting that bad?

And I cried for Emily and Lauren and little Joe. I miss them all so much. I wish Sorrel had brought them with her to my trial – I need my family around me, but they are nowhere to be seen thanks, no doubt, to the police disinformation and to social services, the SS.

I felt that I let little Brian down. Dominic Bell advised me not to confuse the jury with info about my own CSA, so – on his advice – I did not mention little Brian 50 years ago. But I should have mentioned it!

AdultBrian feels that he’s let down ChildBrian. Why do I feel this?

10:30am      

Principally, because for the past 18 months, I have been acutely aware that the charges have emanated from little Brian’s abuse.

That abuse was the trigger for whatever happened in my life thereafter. That abuse has led me into court half a century later.

I have been feeling that I’ve let little Brian down, but I have just had a realisation that perhaps the universe’s plan was for me to feel all the guilt and shame again personally (after my two arrests) and then expiate that guilt and shame in public with two verdicts going my way. I do hope so.

10:35am

I am nervous though. I have tried all week to feel how the jury is going; how they’re feeling towards me. But it’s incredibly difficult.

Staying with this AdultBrian letting down ChildBrian feeling, I’m feeling perhaps I may be wrong.

Intellectually, I think I let him down, but emotionally I believe I kept my composure under the most intense pressure and gave a reasonable and honest account of myself and my life.

Intellectually, I may have let ChildBrian down by not remembering every last detail that I feel aggrieved that the jury haven’t heard, but emotionally I kept composed. Forster tried to unsettle me several times, of course.

Kirsty said that when she looked through the glass door into Court 4, that I looked relaxed, putting on my glasses, taking them off etc.

Truth is, I did feel relaxed most of the time. If you speak from the heart, from a truthful place, how can you not feel relaxed?

10:44am

And now I’m starting to feel that AdultBrian did not – after all – let ChildBrian down 50 years later. Maybe, I actually did a good job after all. Perhaps I should stop beating my Adult self up and start acknowledging the role I took on the stand.

The judge said something about not accepting a verdict between 1 and 2pm, so presumably I can leave the court then but I have to stay in court at all other times.

Julia Godfrey looked pissed off today – almost bored, resigned.

10:48am

Three guys have just walked into the canteen and sat down and are discussing their case. They don’t look like police.

I wish I had someone with me today. John told me last night that he won’t come today because he’s so tired. I fully understand.

I’ve just texted Kirsty and she’s working from home today. Pity.

Michael is, of course, busy at home with his kids etc.

However, perhaps this is something I need to face alone, for ChildBrian’s sake. Perhaps this is what the universe has decreed – that ChildBrian should face all that crap (the allegations) and face his verdicts alone.

ChildBrian was alone in his bed that night.

ChildBrian is not alone today, actually. Today, he has AdultBrian with him.

11:40am

Been doing crosswords and sodoku to keep my mind off the subject.  Still lots of nerves bubbling away under the surface.

12:03pm      

Still doing sodokus.

12:15pm       

Sodokus.

Jury still out.

12.35pm       

Just finished all three sodokus in The Independent. I think they labelled the ‘Advanced’ one in error because I raced through it.

Received a text from John, wishing me luck.

12:40pm      

I went for a pee.

I noted that my nervousness is NOT my nervousness. It’s projection from others. I am innocent of all charges and my authentic self is relaxed.

12:48pm      

I texted the above to Michael.

I don’t know if the judge will call the jury back in before lunch, or ask them back in straight after lunch to see if they have reached a verdict.

12:55pm       

I went back to Court 4, where I was told to remain in the building even during lunch!

1:00pm        

I went back to the canteen. Sausage, bacon, beans and tea cost £3.55! I could eat for two days on that!

2:00pm

I went to Court 4 – lots of personnel outside on another case.

2:02pm

I returned to the restaurant. An argument between a male and female worker in back kitchen. “Janet, I need you please,” I heard.

2:04pm

Called back into Court 4.

[The tall, bearded journalist enters Court 4. Talking to the police. New Serco guard in the box alongside me.]

2:15pm

Some confusion. Forster is apparently on his feet in another court.

DB went out; said he’d meet me in 10 minutes.

I wait outside court.

2:17pm

all back into Court.

       Forster in; Bell in.

       Other personnel for next case all in place.

       Forster reading notes on next case…”

At 2:20pm, the jury returned. The foreman of the jury said that no verdict had been reached on either Count. At this point Loraine-Smith said that he would accept at least a 10:2 majority verdict.

At 2:22pm, outside Court 4, Bell explained to Brian that if there is no decision today, the jury cannot return tomorrow because the Court is closed and there is no security. “In this event, the judge would discharge the jury and there would have to be a re-trial.”

Back to Brian’s personal court diary:

“…DB had said in Court it would have to be up to the CPS to decide whether they would press charges again.

DB said he’d meet me here in the canteen later and left.

2:30-2:35pm

I sent updates on the above to Michael, Kirsty, John and Geoff.

2:37              

Geoff texted me. A good friend.

2:38 – 3:00pm

Kirsty called me and chatted. What a fantastic person she is.

3:00pm        

Client ‘Donna’, 26, texted me and asked for a session at 3pm tomorrow.

3:04             

John Callow texted with the view that “it’s all going as expected.”

3:10              

It seems that all the canteen staff have gone home.

There is calm, quiet and peace in the canteen as I read the paper.

My only fear now is that the jury have been rushed.

3:15              

Forster and Bell are in new courts doing their thing for other people like me. How many of them are innocent, too?

I recognise that I am just a cog – just a name, just another client. Truth, reality, justice etc don’t appear to count here, but it’s a Kafka-esque process that I find myself involved in.

3:25              

Been for a pee.

A guard took some food out – for my jury?

It’s getting close to 4pm. Obviously I’m nervous, but I stood facing the Thames just now and asked the Universe, Mother and Bob for help.

3:36             

Called to Court 4…”

Bob referred, of course, to Brian’s brother – Robert – who died in 1972 after his skull was fractured on board a Lowestoft trawler. The tragic death of his brother, at the age of 21, had led to Brian’s first piece of investigation when he went undercover to work on board a trawler himself in order to investigate his brother’s accident.

His mother had died in 1997 and the Oregonian lawyer who created her will, David Barber, was then struck off for financial mismanagement and corrupt practices. Brian felt that it was no coincidence that these people and these thoughts were flooding through his mind as he began to walk back to Court 4.

50

Brian walked back into the dock behind the glass and with a Serco guard present, the jury filed in.

Judge:        How do you find the defendant, guilty or not guilty of the                        charge of exposure?

Foreman:   Not Guilty.

Judge:        And how do you find the defendant, guilty or not guilty on                      the charge of incitement?

Foreman:   Guilty.

Judge:        And by what margin?

Foreman:   By 10 to 2.

The jury was thanked for ‘all their hard work’ and they filed out. Brian tried to make eye contact with them, but only two did so. Were these the two who knew him to be innocent?

The judge looked directly at Brian: “If you appeal, you will go to prison. If you continue to deny Count 2, I will send you to prison.”

Did you notice the less-than-veiled threat to Brian? It was bad enough, we believe, that Brian had been convicted of a charge which he could not be guilty of and – we believe – he had been convicted because of what Marcia Weise told him on 4 June 2008 (18 months previously!) : “You have out-stung a police sting operation and they will be out to get you.”

They had got him. He had been outmanoeuvred at every possible turn. Witnesses were not called. Witness statements were not signed. Trials had been collapsed. Disclosure had not been met. Perjury had been committed but not investigated. The criminal procedure rulebook had been thrown out along with the concept of British justice.

In trying to placate the angry Brian, Loraine-Smith said the following on the public record:

“…You didn’t turn up at Southwark to have a meeting. That is powerful mitigation. A non-custodial sentence would be conditional that you embark upon a treatment programme for sex abusers. If you continue to fight this claim, I will be forced to commit you to prison…”

We regard that as not only an improper threat by a Crown Court judge, but also a breach of Brian’s human rights. Any person has the inalienable right to continue to claim that they are innocent without being threatened with prison.

Outside, Brian discussed with Bell what had transpired inside the court room and particularly the grounds of appeal because Brian was still going to appeal, despite the threats made by Loraine-Smith.

Bell said, “He should have discharged the Jury because Count 1 was not guilty. He should have removed Count 1 and discharged the jury. The grounds of appeal are takeable. Pay close regard to what the Judge has said – he will send you to prison if you maintain your innocence. Your PLJ stays with the Prosecution. You must return here on 27 January 2010 for sentencing. You have 28 days from today to lodge an appeal, though you can appeal out of time up to a week late.”

Brian left the Court both angry and disconsolate. He had wanted to be acquitted on both counts because he knew himself to be innocent of both charges and because he wanted to speak with his daughter again and to hug his grand-children again; look into their eyes and see their souls; see their innocent smiles and hear their voices and learn about their dreams and their disappointments.

It had not been lost on Brian that the ‘verdict’ had arrived just before the doors were being closed for the Christmas break. It seemed to him – as it does to us – that this had been ‘stage-managed’ all along, just as it had been at Woolwich Crown Court in February 2009, and just at it had been at the Employment Tribunal when he took Lambeth Council to court in March 2008 for wrongful dismissal.

Brian began calling his friends. At 6.41pm he called Michael Bird who was in Prospect Close, Southend, Essex.

Brian: Hi Michael, I’m just calling to let you know the verdict.

Michael: Great! Not Guilty I take it?

Brian: No. On the Exposure case, not guilty ... on the Incitement case, Guilty by 10-2.

Michael: [Silence] No fucking way! That’s impossible. The Judge clearly said to the jurors that you could not be found guilty because there was no victim. That woman juror even asked him the question, “Are you saying that if there is no victim, then we can’t find him guilty?” and he said, “Yes, that is exactly what I’m saying.”

Brian: Well, it gets worse. When I return for sentencing on 27 January [2010], they said I must sign the Sex Offenders’ Register. The judge said that he would send me to jail if I continued to protest my innocence.

Michael: Under no circumstances must you sign that register, regardless if they send you to prison for years, you never sign to say you did something that you didn’t do.  It’s irreversible once you’ve signed and said you’re guilty.

Brian: Well, I am innocent, so I’m not gonna sign it. 

Michael: Brian, this will be a turning point in your life. If you do say you’re guilty just to stay out of prison, you will never be able to prove your innocence. But if you stick to your guns now, however difficult they may make it for you, you will always be able to look at yourself in the mirror.

Brian: Well, I want to be able to look at my grand-children and get the truth to them. I’m gonna write a letter to my daughter and put it through their letterbox tomorrow. As you know, my grand-children mean everything to me and they have to learn the truth. Whatever their parents have told them, it must be lies. I want them to grow up with the truth, not with lies.

Michael: Well, let them bring it on. It’s gonna be hard for you, but let them bring it on.

Brian: Ok. Well, I’ll call you again over Christmas. Take care, bye.

Michael: Yeah, good luck, bye.

 Between 23 December 2009 and 17 January 2010, Brian did not hear a word from either Dominic Bell or Angela Shaw. This is not only unprofessional, but also incredibly disrespectful. Whilst Brian had sacked Bell during the trial, there is no reason why Angela Shaw (of AA Mirsons) should not have contacted her client.

Brian felt strongly that corruption had taken place and we agree with that conclusion based on the evidence we have seen and our knowledge of his character.