Brian Pead affidavit, part 1

1.     My name is Mr Brian PEAD.

2.     My date of birth is 12 June 1953.

3.     The purpose of this Affidavit is to provide Norfolk Constabulary and every other UK Constabulary with evidence of crimes that have been perpetrated against me and others.

4.     It is my expectation that, having reported such crimes, they are investigated fully and that criminal prosecutions are brought against the persons named in this Affidavit.

5.     The crimes that I am reporting have been perpetrated against the following people:

a.     Mr Leonard Richard Vernon Fulcher

b.     Mrs Karen Fulcher

c.      Mr Brian Pead (nka Mr William Brian Freeman)

d.     Mr Robert Ecclestone

e.      Mrs Violet Ecclestone

f.       Mr Albert Ecclestone (deceased)

6.     For the purposes of this Affidavit, it is my intention that all crimes perpetrated against me also include crimes against my daughter (Sorrel Birch née Pead) and grand-children (Emily Birch, Lauren Birch and Joseph Birch), except where expressly stated.

7.     I have seen written evidence that demonstrates that crimes have been committed by the persons I name in this Affidavit.

8.     I have examined the provenance of such evidence and am satisfied that, in bringing the crimes laid out below, I have sufficient incontrovertible evidence of the crimes having been committed.

9.     It is my intention that this Affidavit provides the Police with the names of people who have committed crimes and brief details of their crimes.

10.                      It is not my intention to provide full disclosure at this stage for a number of reasons.

11.                      The purpose of this Affidavit is to set down a marker and to initiate a police investigation into each of the named individuals who have perpetrated crimes.

12.                      In laying down the charges against the individuals named below, there is a presumption that the human rights of Mr Leonard Richard Vernon Fulcher, Mrs Karen Fulcher, Mr Brian Pead, Mr Robert Ecclestone, Mrs Violet Ecclestone and Mr Albert Ecclestone (deceased) have been seriously breached in a number of ways. These breaches include Articles 3, 6, 8, and 10 but are not limited to these Articles.

Mr Leonard Richard Vernon Fulcher

13.                       The crimes perpetrated against Mr Fulcher also include crimes against his wife, since it is evident that crimes against him affect her within the marriage.

14.                      I believe that in 1994-95, a barn at his property called Lilac Farm in Rands Drove, Marshland St. James in the county of Norfolk was unlawfully burnt down. The Fire Brigade attended and reported this to Norfolk Police, who failed to investigate the crime of arson.

15.                       I believe that the barn was burnt down as the result of Mr Fulcher’s investigations into unlawful activities in the Planning Committee at Marshland Parish Council and because of his increasingly frequent attendance at planning meetings.

16.                       I believe that his neighbour, Councillor David Markinson, at Alder Lodge, Rands Drove, Marshland St. James, also became involved in politics and planning and that he also had his barn burnt down before becoming frightened and re-locating.

17.                       I believe that in August 2006, Mr Fulcher’s barn at The Forge, Bedford Row, Foul Anchor, Wisbech in the county of Cambridgeshire was also burnt down. The Fire Brigade attended after the event. I believe that officers from Cambridgeshire Police were present when the barn was unlawfully burnt down by officers from Fenland District Council (hereinafter “FDC”) in a crime of arson.

18.                       I believe that the barn was burnt down as the result of Mr Fulcher’s investigations into unlawful activities in the Planning Department at FDC.

19.                       I believe that Cambridgeshire Police did nothing to investigate this crime.

20.                       After Foul Anchor burnt down, I believe that Mr Fulcher carried on operating his butcher’s shop in Wisbech. Whilst working in his butcher’s shop, I believe that he was approached by two Conservative Wisbech Town councillors, who were appalled at the barn having been burnt down. I believe that these were Councillor Simon King and Councillor David Wheeler.

21.                       I believe that in October/ November 2006, knowing that Mr Fulcher was a supporter of the Conservative Association, they suggested to him that he should stand for election to the Wisbech Town Council, as they were also dissatisfied with the way in which FDC were treating the town’s constituents.

22.                       I believe that Mr Fulcher was then nominated and seconded by these councillors and the elections (which were due to be held in May 2007) meant that his name was put in the newspapers.

23.                       I believe that in January 2007, Mr Fulcher’s shop and flat above at 14 Norfolk Street, Wisbech, Cambridgeshire burnt down.

24.                       I believe that this series of events of barns and shops being burnt down was not coincidental, but the result of Mr Fulcher’s increasing awareness of planning laws and applications and of his increasing attendance at planning meetings, and Conservative Association meetings and his decision to stand as a Councillor on the Wisbech Town Council.

25.                       I believe that Mr Fulcher subsequently won the seat and was elected on to the Planning Committee of Wisbech Town Council as a result of his substantial knowledge of architecture, building regulations and planning matters.

26.                       I believe that, with his butcher’s shop burnt out and his barns burnt down, he had no business and no farm. I believe that he and his wife took a decision to re-locate to Pott Row to start afresh.

27.                       I believe that Mr Fulcher continued his seat on Wisbech Town Council through to May 2011.

28.                       I believe that in 2010, Mr Fulcher became involved in local politics in the Conservative Party and campaigned with Henry Bellingham, MP for Norfolk.

29.                       From evidence that I have seen, I believe that Mr Fulcher and his wife put in planning applications for a permanent dwelling on Ramblewood Farm and the local Council agreed that, because he and his wife looked after livestock on the farm, some form of dwelling had to be allowed since a refusal to allow a dwelling would be detrimental to the health and welfare of the animals.

30.                       I believe that permission for a temporary dwelling was granted and that Mr Fulcher and his wife lived in a mobile home whilst they continued to pursue planning permission for a permanent agricultural dwelling. At all times, they consulted Government and Local Authority planning regulations and 10- or 15-year plans for rural developments. They ensured that their planning applications met all such criteria for ethical and sympathetic rural development.

                                                                 

31.                       Once they had moved to Pott Row, I believe from evidence that I have seen that they instructed a firm of solicitors known as Kenneth Bush Solicitors (hereinafter “KBS”) to bring a claim against Fenland District Council for unlawfully committing arson and burning down their barns, burning other property belonging to them and bringing about miscarriages in their pigs due to the stress of a fire.

32.                       I believe from evidence that I have seen that Mr Fulcher and his wife became perplexed at the delay that KBS had created in not bringing a legitimate claim against Fenland District Council. This led them to believe that KBS might have been working against their own client and working with Fenland District Council in an attempt to prevent Mr Fulcher and his wife from obtaining a valid judgment against FDC.

33.                       I believe from evidence that I have seen that in two years with KBS, they did not raise a claim against FDC and simply delayed bringing any action against the Local Authority. The Fulchers knew that they had to bring a claim within six (6) years because of the Limitations Act 1980.

34.                       I believe from evidence that I have seen that Mr Fulcher and his wife could not understand why KBS handed such a valuable case (at that point in time the case was worth approximately £350,000 GB including interest) to the most junior of staff. This did not make sense to them or to me, and further confirmed their belief that KBS were not working in their client’s best interests which they (and I) believe is a breach of the Solicitors’ Code of Conduct.

35.                       I believe from evidence that I have seen that once they had made an official complaint to KBS, a Jonathan Eales (whom I believe is a partner in the firm) wrote Mr Fulcher a letter in which he claimed that Mr Fulcher had made threats against an unqualified solicitor in the firm. I believe that the allegation was not only completely untrue but that it ‘paved the way’ for more serious allegations to be made against Mr Fulcher in the not-too-distant future.

36.                       I believe from evidence that I have seen that after being with KBS for two years, during which time they failed to raise a claim against FDC, Mr Fulcher and his wife de-instructed them.

37.                       I believe from evidence that I have seen that Mr Fulcher and his wife then instructed Hayes & Storr (hereinafter “H&S) (The Old County Court House, County Court Road, King’s Lynn, Norfolk, PE30 5EJ) to represent them.

38.                       H&S also sat on the Fulchers’ claim for almost 2 years, and in all that time they also failed to raise a claim against FDC.

39.                       I believe that Mr Fulcher and his wife believed that there was some kind of collusion between KBS, H&S and FDC, since it now became obvious to them that there appeared to be an intention to allow the six year limitation to expire and then they would have no legitimate claim against FDC. If this scenario were true, I believe that KBS and H&S were illegally paid by FDC to ensure that the Fulchers could not bring their claim against the local authority (which would then save it a lot of money).

40.                       I believe from evidence that I have seen that on 10 July 2012, Mr Fulcher travelled to the Fakenham branch of H&S to make an official complaint about their failures in handling their claim.

41.                       I believe from evidence that I have seen that, like KBS before them, H&S not only sat on the Fulchers’ claim for almost two years, but they also gave it to the most junior of staff to deal with. With compound interest, the claim was now worth in the region of £400,000) and it did not make sense that an experienced litigator would not handle the claim.

42.                       I believe that once Mr Fulcher arrived at the Fakenham branch of H&S, he noticed that the offices where he would normally meet with staff were being painted. I believe that he therefore had to discuss his complaint in the Reception area of the Fakenham branch.

43.                       I believe that Mr Fulcher states that there were three receptionists present.

44.                       I believe that Mr Fulcher passed the time of day with one of the painters and decorators as he moved around the branch.

45.                       I believe that Mr Fulcher informed H&S that his wife and he were unhappy with the way they were handling their claim against FDC.

46.                       I believe that, in front of the three receptionists, Mr Fulcher calmly expressed his discontent that time was running out on the Fulchers’ ability to bring a claim against FDC and that he said that he would be reporting H&S to the Solicitors’ Regulation Authority (hereinafter “the SRA”) for delaying – and failing to bring – their claim. It does not make sense to me that any legal firm would delay such a legitimate claim against a local authority unless there was foul play and an ulterior motive involved.

47.                       I believe that at no time did Mr Fulcher make any threats to kill anyone and at no time did he offer any violence to anyone. I believe this because there were no complaints about him made by anyone from H&S immediately after this visit and for at least a month afterwards.

48.                       I believe that after Mr Fulcher had presented his and his wife’s complaints to H&S, he left the building. I believe that neither of the Fulchers received any complaints from H&S about Mr Fulcher’s behaviour or, indeed, the complaints by the Fulchers with regard to the dilatory attitude displayed by H&S.

49.                      I believe from evidence that I have seen that on 14 August 2012, Mr Fulcher attended an interview process for the appointment of a Borough Councillor. He was interviewed and he believed that he had given a good account of himself and his growing political experience.

50.                       I believe from evidence that I have seen that in the way of Minutes taken at the meeting, that later that same evening, at approximately 6pm, a James Morgan (a partner in Hayes & Storr) held up his mobile telephone in front of the Committee of the Northwest Norfolk Conservative Association and claimed something along the lines of: “...I have some information directly from the police to say that Mr Fulcher is going to be arrested today for Threats to Kill...”

51.                       I have evidence in the form of the Minutes of that meeting [Exhibit BP1].

52.                       I believe that the Minute-taker has since been dismissed.

53.                       I believe this could be because she privately sent a copy of the Minutes to Mr Fulcher.

54.                       I believe that Mr Morgan could not have known that Mr Fulcher was going to be arrested that evening (in the event, he was not arrested that evening at all but the next day) unless he had been improperly informed by the police, or because he was going to make such a call to the police later that day, or because he had already made such a call to the police himself.

55.                       I have assisted Mr and Mrs Fulcher in subsequently applying for the disclosure of the Computer-Aided Despatch (CAD) report which would show when a telephone call about Mr Fulcher was made to the police, but up to the point of my writing this Affidavit, the CAD report has not been provided to either the Fulchers or to me.

56.                       The fact it has not been provided to me or to the Fulchers leads me to believe that it does not exist and, if I am right that it does not exist, then it follows that Mr Fulcher’s entire trial, conviction and sentence is a nullity.

57.                       If I am correct that it does not exist, then it means that a number of people (including James Morgan) have conspired to pervert the course of justice, that they have, indeed, perverted the course of justice and it would mean that they would have to be arrested, charged and sent to trial.

58.                       I believe from evidence that I have seen that on the evening of 14 August 2012, six armed police officers attended the Fulchers’ property. I believe that Mr Fulcher was not at home, but that Mrs Fulcher was at home. I believe that WPS Karen Faulker [PS3465] led the operation.

59.                       I believe that Mrs Karen Fulcher was present when the police visited. She told them that her husband was not at home.

60.                       I believe, from speaking with Mrs Fulcher, that WPS Faulkner asked her if she had the key to her husband’s gun cabinets, where he lawfully kept a number of firearms which he needs in his role as a farmer. I believe that he also had a ‘bolt gun’ so that, in the event that he needed to humanely put an animal down, he had the capability to do it.

61.                       I believe that Mrs Fulcher informed the police that she did not have a key and that she did not know where her husband kept the key. This conforms to the regulations around keeping firearms on premises.

62.                       I believe that the police left after about 15 (fifteen) minutes. This suggests to me that they did not appear to be in any hurry to detain a man who had allegedly made threats to kill officers at FDC. I believe this to be a particularly strange way to police such an incident - either Mr Fulcher had made those threats and was to be perceived as a threat to the public at large (since had had a number of firearms which the police were well aware of) or he did not make those threats and he was therefore not a danger to the public. The fact that the police left the property, and the fact that they did not return until the next day, suggests that they did not feel that he was a real threat and therefore, it would follow, they did not believe that he had made the threats he was alleged to have made.

63.                       I believe that the following day (15 August 2012) armed officers again visited the Fulchers’ farm and that Mr Fulcher was unlawfully arrested and his firearms unlawfully confiscated. From evidence that I have seen, I believe that Mr Fulcher was taken to the Police Investigation Centre (hereinafter “the PIC”).

64.                       From evidence I have seen, I believe that Mr Fulcher was given the duty solicitor, George Sorrell of Credence Law, who appears on the interview tape when Mr Fulcher was interviewed by officers at the PIC.

65.                       I believe that Mr Fulcher was released on bail.

66.                       From evidence that I have seen, I believe that Mr Sorrell then instructed Neil Guest of Charter Chambers (33 John Street, London, WC1N 2AT.)

67.                      I believe that during a Hearing, Mr Guest told Mr Fulcher (in front of his wife) that he would be sentenced to 10 years imprisonment if he was found guilty of Threats to Kill.

68.                       I believe that Mr Guest repeated this on at least three occasions in front of Mrs Fulcher.

69.                       I believe that Mrs Fulcher became extremely alarmed and distressed. I have knowledge of the fact that she is receiving medical treatment for stress brought on by these entire circumstances. As a qualified counsellor, I can state that Mrs Fulcher displays a significant number of the outward signs of long-term stress.

70.                       I believe that Mr Guest then met with the Prosecutor and said that he had “...a deal...” for Mr Fulcher. I understand that Mr Guest said that if Mr Fulcher accepted a charge of Harassment, the two charges of Threats to Kill would be dropped and he would only receive a small sentence of community service.

71.                       I believe that Mrs Fulcher was panicking at this stage and she wanted the entire proceedings “to go away”. I believe that, under duress from Mr Guest, Mr Fulcher accepted the deal of pleading guilty to harassment, but knowing that he was not at all guilty in order to ensure that the Threats to Kill charges (and the possible 10-year sentence) would be dropped. I believe that Mr Fulcher was not comfortable with accepting a charge of harassment when he knew himself to be innocent of the charge, but Mr Sorrell and Mr Guest left the Fulchers in fear of a ten-year prison sentence.

72.                      Having agreed to the “deal” struck by Mr Sorrell and Mr Guest with the prosecutor, I believe that Mr Fulcher then went into Court for his Plea to be heard.

73.                       When the charges were read out, I believe that Mr Fulcher realised that he had been tricked. The two allegations of Threats to Kill were still read out, together with the additional charge of Harassment. I believe that Mr Fulcher was astounded by the duplicity of Mr Sorrell and Mr Guest and the prosecutor.

74.                       I believe that, being aware of the duplicity at the moment the charges were read out, Mr Fulcher pleaded “Not Guilty” to all three charges.

75.                       I believe that, although Mr Fulcher had “three charges” against him, he has never been charged with Harassment. I believe that no witnesses have ever made statements alleging Harassment against Mr Fulcher. I believe that Mr Fulcher has not harassed anybody in this matter since there is no evidence to support a charge of Harassment.

76.                       I believe that the ‘charge’ of Harassment was added to the original charge of Threats to Kill under section 16 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 (hereinafter “the OAPA”). Mr Fulcher has since found out that this is wholly improper procedure and abuse of process.

77.                       I believe that this makes the entire trial and the conviction and sentence a nullity, since Lord Denning stated in Abraham v. Jutsun (1963) 2 All E.R. 402, at P. 404. that: “...appearing ... on behalf of an accused person, it was as I understand it, his duty to take any point which he believed to be fairly arguable on behalf of his client. An advocate is not to usurp the province of the judge. He is not to determine what shall be the effect of legal argument. He is not guilty of misconduct simply because he takes a point which the tribunal holds to be bad. He only becomes guilty of misconduct if he is dishonest. That is, if he knowingly takes a bad point and thereby deceives the court...”

78.                       According to Lord Denning’s comments, I believe that the prosecutor, the Magistrates and defence solicitor Gavin Cowe deceived the Norwich Magistrates’ Court on 13 March 2013.

79.                       From evidence that I have seen, I believe that they are guilty of misconduct in public office and that they should answer charges of perverting the course of justice.

80.                       From the evidence of my own eyes, I believe that Gavin Cowe failed to write a defence statement for Mr Fulcher.

81.                       From evidence I have seen, I believe that Mr Cowe said he would deal with the case in the Magistrates’ Court; that Mr Fulcher did not need to be represented by a barrister; that the case did not need to be heard in a Crown Court; that he did not need to call witnesses as to fact.

82.                       From evidence I have seen, I believe that Mr Cowe also failed to seek full disclosure; failed to obtain the CAD report that Mr Fulcher instructed him to obtain; failed to call the painter and decorator; failed to call the receptionists; and failed to get recordings of telephone calls made by him to H&S.

83.                       I believe that Mr Cowe was wholly negligent. I believe that he deliberately perverted the course of justice, that he deceived the court, abused the court process and that he conspired so to do with others.

84.       I believe that, as a direct consequence of a neglectful solicitor, Mr Fulcher was found guilty of Threats to Kill (x2) and of Harassment. He was sentenced to 250 hours of community service.

85.       From evidence that I have seen, I believe that Mr Cowe deliberately misled his client and that he conspired to, and perverted, the course of justice.

86.                       I believe that Mr Cowe deceived the Court.

87.                       I believe that, immediately prior to and immediately following Mr Fulcher’s unlawful conviction, he was visited on a number of occasions by Trading Standards, a department of Norfolk County Council.

88.                       I believe that Trading Standards had been instructed to harass the Fulchers and, in particular, Mr Fulcher in order to remove his animals thereby removing the necessity for the Fulchers to obtain planning permission and remain on their land.

89.                       From the evidence that I have seen, I believe that Ms Paula Cooper, of Norfolk County Council Trading Standards, harassed the Fulchers by making unwarranted visits to the farm, by always ensuring that the police were in attendance on her visits and by setting them wholly unrealistic targets for the improvements that she deemed necessary on the farm.

90.                       From the evidence that I have seen, I believe that Ms Cooper would visit one day and demand improvements within 1 or 2 days.

91.                       Without lawful excuse, she brought a number of police officers to the farm when visiting.

92.                       I believe that Norfolk County Council had colluded with Norfolk Constabulary in order to harass the Fulchers.

93.                       From evidence that I have seen, I believe that Ms Cooper alleged that Mr Fulcher was mistreating the livestock. To my knowledge (and that of others with whom I have spoken about this matter) Mr Fulcher has managed livestock for many years and has never been accused of mistreating animals in his care.

94.                       I believe that when he had a farm in Cambridgeshire, he had an excellent relationship with the Trading Standards Officer, Dean Jarvis.

95.                       I believe that Ms Cooper has had a significant amount of time off work because of mental health issues. Mr Fulcher has applied for Disclosure from the CPS with regard to obtaining a copy of Ms Cooper’s CV and medical and work attendance records, but they are refusing to comply with his legitimate requests for Disclosure.

96.                       From evidence I have seen, I believe that Ms Cooper wanted to have certain thinner-looking animals (especially pigs) put down, whereas Mr Fulcher wanted to nurture them, because many litters will have a runt in them and the lives of thinner pigs can be saved with nurturing.

97.                       I believe that Ms Cooper insisted that the Fulchers house all of their pigs in pens, whereas they wanted to let several of them roam free on the land (within boundary fences) so that they could produce organic meat and at the same time give their animals a happy and relatively stress-free environment. It seemed that Ms Cooper did not understand the Fulchers’ ethos or methodology, or agree with it.

98.                       I believe that on all material occasions that Ms Cooper visited the farm (either on her own, or with colleagues, or with police officers) she broke the cardinal rule of visitors to any farm: she did not disinfect her footwear or the wheels on her vehicle and nor did she ensure that those accompanying her complied with DEFRA regulations.

99.        I find it particularly worrying that Ms Cooper – purporting to be a bona fide Trading Standards Officer – did not appear to know the very basics of farming.

100.   I believe that she brought police officers on to the land in order to intimidate the Fulchers.