ANGELA SHAW
Misconduct in Public Office
That
Angela Shaw, a criminal solicitor of Leslie Franks Solicitors Limited (and
formerly of AA Mirsons), on dates between 01 January 2009 and 25 September
2013, wilfully neglected to perform her duty as an Officer of the Court and
wilfully misconducted herself to such a degree as to amount to an abuse of the
public’s trust in the office holder without reasonable excuse or justification.
Perverting the Course of Justice
That
Angela Shaw, a criminal solicitor of Leslie Franks Solicitors Limited (and
formerly of AA Mirsons), on dates between 01 January 2009 and 25 September
2013, with intent to pervert the course of public justice, did a series of acts
which had a tendency to pervert the course of public justice in that she:
1
deliberately
ensured that a Client would be found guilty of a crime she knew his client not
to have committed, according to the Law
2
wilfully
failed to call a Witness as to Fact [Geoffrey Bacon] in a criminal trial
3
wilfully
failed to call Warwick Brown [IT Manager of Faceparty] to a criminal trial when
she knew that Mr Brown’s testimony would exonerate her Client
4
conspired
with others to collapse a trial at Woolwich Crown Court in February 2009
5
provided
false information to her Client, Brian Pead
6
conspired
with others to harass Brian Pead
7
harassed
Brian Pead between January 2009 and August 2013
8
failed to
adduce more than 125 exhibits to a criminal trial
9
misled her
Client when producing a Defence Statement of less than half a page for two
criminal trials
10
failed to
report perjury to the trial judge
11
was absent
from her Client’s Trial save for two hours
12
was guilty of
a lack of thorough preparation for the Trial
13
allowed a simple
two paragraph Defence Statement to be produced which was ridiculed by the Judge
as “…the worst Defence Statement I have ever seen…”
14
refused to
take into account the various research materials the Defendant had produced and
collated
15
refused to
apply for a delay in the Trial date, despite the Defendant informing her that
he was under orders from his doctor not to attend Trial because he was not
ready for a trial and was on two separate forms of medicine which militated
against him being fully prepared for Trial
16
refused to
act on the Defendant’s complaints that Counsel was woefully under-prepared for
Trial
17
failed to
enter into Court a significant volume of evidence [more than 125 exhibits]
which was vital to the Defendant’s case
18
failed to
report allegations of demonstrable Perjury by police officers and Nicola Noone,
a witness for the Crown
19
failed to
report Gross Prosecutorial Misbehaviour, despite being informed of this in
writing and verbally by the Defendant, and by a previous counsel working on the case prior to the new counsel’s
appointment
20
failed to
call an important Witness As To Fact: this Witness As To Fact [Geoffrey Bacon]
was present when the Defendant sent an Instant Message to the ‘girl’ stating
that he was a fake
21
failed to
ensure that a significant volume of character statements from friends,
colleagues and neighbours were signed and ready to enter into Court as
important evidence
22
failed to
address significant problems of a lack of Full Disclosure by the Crown and the
Police
23
failed to
challenge the authenticity of two search warrants
24
failed to
challenge the existence of a third search warrant
25
failed to
report the illegal disposal of vital evidence by the CPS, the Police and a
Crown Witness
26
failed to
adduce the Defendant’s beating by four police officers just months before the
Trial and how they had searched his documents bag looking for evidence of the
Defendant’s research into illegal Police online activities
27
failed to
thoroughly read evidence supplied to him by the Defendant in his Defence
28
failed to
report demonstrable police entrapment : police as Agents Provocateurs
29
failed to
request reporting restrictions
30
failed to
meet daily with her client for briefings during the Trial process
31
worked on too
many cases simultaneously and failed to devote enough care and attention to the
Defendant’s case
32
failed to
report that a police informer was known to be supplying the police with deliberately
false information
33
failed to
organise the Defence witnesses: did not write to them, but left it to the
Defendant to contact them and ask them to attend Court
34
failed to
have questions prepared for a Witness for the Crown, and instead got the
Defendant to prepare the questions and email
them to Counsel the night before the Witness took the stand
35
failed to
report Police perjury regarding the website to the attention of the Judge and
Jury, despite having evidence of perjury
36
failed to
apply for Full Disclosure, especially disclosure which would have proved the
Defendant’s innocence beyond doubt
37
failed to
report the Bexleyheath Police for failing to investigate an allegation and
relying only on the testimony of three females of known dubious repute
38
failed to
elicit a statement from the fourth
female in the house, who refused to make a statement to the police
39
failed to
subpoena this potential Witness, as she clearly had an important bearing on
Indictment One
40
failed to
communicate with the Defendant regarding photographs in Indictment One, and
therefore allowed the wrong photographs
to be entered into Court
41
despite
possessing knowledge and evidence to the contrary, failed to report Police
misbehaviour (breaches of PACE) on a number of counts
42
despite
having evidence to the contrary, allowed false evidence to be entered
into Court by the Police and Crown
43
despite
having evidence to the contrary, failed to apply to the Crown and the Police
for the correct evidence to be brought into Court
44
failed to
apply for the Trial to be halted despite knowing that the wrong evidence
was in Court
45
failed to
request a copy of the website’s servers, which was necessary for a fair Trial
46
failed to
request a copy of the Defendant’s computer hard drive at work which would have
established the Defendant’s claim of innocence and provided a fair Trial
47
failed to
establish as a fact that the Defendant had been researching into Child Sexual
Abuse partly because he had been asked by his Line Manager to teach his work
colleagues during Staff Training
48
failed to
subpoena this Line Manager as a Witness and bring him into court to establish
this important fact
49
failed to
challenge the Crown’s statement that this Staff Training in Child Sexual Abuse
did not take place, despite being shown considerable evidence to the
contrary
50
failed to report
the demonstrable fact that a Crown witness committed Perjury
51
failed to act
when informed by the Defendant that his computer at work had been illegally
tampered with
52
failed to act
when informed by the Defendant that his research materials at work had been
removed from the office servers
53
failed to
write several letters requesting information from various sources (including
the Police and the Crown), despite stating in conferences that she would write
these letters
54
failed to
inform Scotland Yard’s Professional Standards Unit that evidence in this case
had been tampered with, despite possessing knowledge that it had been tampered
with
55
failed to
adduce examples of evidence tampering into Court
56
failed to
procure the Defendant’s medical records to postpone the Trial until the
Defendant was medically fit to stand Trial
57
wrongly
advised the Defendant to withhold evidence (which the Defendant and supporters
believed to be crucial evidence in his favour)
58
failed to
provide a copy of the Crown’s Joinder argument to her Client, for consideration
by his Client
59
failed to
provide a copy of Defence counsel’s argument against Joinder for her Client to
consider
60
made a threat
to her own client – the Defendant – that “...If you continue to keep saying
you’re innocent, the Judge will jail you…”
61
has
deliberately misled the Registrar in the Appeals Court – by making claims as if
they were facts, despite compelling
evidence to the contrary
62
failed to
provide her client with a Trial Bundle
63
failed to
bring to the Court’s attention that the Jury was not sworn in
64
failed to
contest the Judge’s duress towards the Jury
65
failed to
bring to the Court’s attention that there was a significant breach of her
Client’s Article 6 rights in that the case took 23 months to come to court,
despite it not being a complex case
Harassment
That
Angela Shaw, a criminal solicitor of Leslie Franks Solicitors Limited (and
formerly of AA Mirsons), on days between 01 January 2009 and 25 September 2013,
did pursue a course of conduct amounting to the harassment of Brian Pead and
did cause him and his daughter and grand-children alarm and distress contrary
to the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.
Fraud by failing to disclose
information
That
Angela Shaw, a criminal solicitor of Leslie Franks Solicitors Limited (and
formerly of AA Mirsons), on days between 01 January 2009 and 25 September 2013,
did commit fraud by deliberately failing to disclose documents to her client Brian
Pead, to the police, to a Crown Court, and that she failed to report child grooming,
racism, bullying, assault, false imprisonment, theft, and breaches of the
Computer Misuse Act 1990, contrary to the Fraud Act 2006.
Fraud by abuse of position
That
Angela Shaw, a criminal solicitor of Leslie Franks Solicitors Limited (and
formerly of AA Mirsons), on days between 01 January 2009 and 25 September 2013,
did abuse her position as a Solicitor and Officer of the Court in that she (and
others) perpetrated a series of crimes against Brian Pead during a corrupt
trial at Southwark Crown Court in December 2009 and pursued a course of conduct
amounting to the harassment of Brian Pead which she knew, or ought to have
known, would cause him and his family alarm and distress, contrary to the Fraud
Act 2006 and the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.
Fraud by false representation
That
Angela Shaw, a criminal solicitor of Leslie Franks Solicitors Limited (and
formerly of AA Mirsons), on days between 01 January 2009 and 25 September 2013,
did make false representations and provide false documents to the Courts in
relation to Brian Pead, contrary to the Fraud Act 2006.
Breaches of Computer Misuse Act 1990
That
Angela Shaw, a criminal solicitor of Leslie Franks Solicitors Limited (and
formerly of AA Mirsons), on days between 01 January 2009 and 25 September 2013,
failed to report the modification of the contents of a computer used by Brian
Pead in that they removed the contents of that computer’s hard drive, upon
which were documents necessary for a bona
fide criminal investigation and trial to take place contrary to section
3(1a) of the Computer Misuse Act 1990.
Misuse of Public Funds
That
Angela Shaw, a criminal solicitor of Leslie Franks Solicitors Limited (and
formerly of AA Mirsons), on days between 01 January 2009 and 25 September 2013,
did misuse public funds in perpetrating crimes against Brian Pead and in
allowing crimes to be perpetrated against Brian Pead. She extracted monies from
the public purse in the form of Legal Aid and misappropriated those funds by
running a defence which she knew to be contrary to law and in allowing others
to participate in an unlawful trial and the cover-up of significant crimes and
human rights abuses.
No comments:
Post a Comment