Timothy
Forster
Misconduct in Public Office
That
Timothy Forster, a criminal barrister and prosecutor of Furnival Chambers, on
dates between 01 January 2009 and 25 September 2013, wilfully neglected to
perform his duty and wilfully misconducted himself 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
Timothy Forster, a criminal barrister and prosecutor of Furnival Chambers, 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 he:
1
deliberately
ensured that a Defendant would be found guilty of a crime he knew the Defendant
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
he knew that Mr Brown’s testimony would exonerate his Client
4
deceived the
Court by informing it that Warwick Brown had emigrated to Australia when, in
fact, he was living in London
5
conspired
with others to collapse a trial at Woolwich Crown Court in February 2009 after
he had informed the trial Judge that the Crown’s witnesses were “ready to go”
6
conspired
with others to harass Brian Pead
7
harassed
Brian Pead between January 2009 and September 2013
8
failed to
adhere to the Criminal Procedure Rules around Disclosure
9
was
admonished by the trial Judge for a lack of Disclosure
10
failed to
report perjury by police officers and Nicola Noone to the trial judge
11
failed to
report to the Court the illegal disposal of vital evidence by the CPS, the
Police and a Crown Witness
12
failed to
report to the Court demonstrable police entrapment : police as Agents
Provocateurs
13
failed to
point out to the Jury that a key Police statement was written one year after
the Defendant’s arrest, and one year after the Defendant had made his
own statement
14
failed to
point out to the Jury that this Police statement differed greatly from the
original Police statement made one year previously
15
failed to
report Police perjury regarding the liquidation of a website to the attention
of the Judge and Jury, despite having evidence of perjury
16
despite
possessing knowledge and evidence to the contrary, failed to report Police
misbehaviour (breaches of PACE) on a number of counts
17
failed to
point out to the Judge and Jury that the three female witnesses in Indictment
One did not make their statements until two weeks after their allegations
so that the Police could manipulate this information and join it to the
investigation by the Paedophile Unit
18
despite having
evidence to the contrary, allowed false evidence to be entered into
Court by the Police and Crown
19
failed to
apply for the Trial to be halted despite knowing that the wrong evidence
was in Court
20
allowed the
Crown’s witnesses (including the Police) to answer questions with “I don’t
know” or “I can’t be sure” or “I can’t remember” and did not continue with his
questioning, but allowed a lack of clarity to permeate the Trial
21
failed to ask
the Police what they did to investigate the fact that the Defendant used false
mobile numbers when ‘communicating’ with the alleged ‘girl’
22
despite the
Police stating on oath that they knew the numbers to be false, failed to
cross-examine why they had brought this case to Court if they knew that
the numbers were false and thus no charge of Incitement could hold up, since
no-one with the intention of meeting with someone else would provide false
mobile numbers
23
failed to
request a copy of the website’s servers, which was necessary for a fair Trial
24
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
25
failed to report
the demonstrable fact that a Crown witness committed Perjury
26
failed to act
when informed by the Defendant that his computer at work had been illegally
tampered with
27
failed to act
when informed by the Defendant that his research materials at work had been
removed from the office servers
28
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
29
failed to
adduce examples of evidence tampering into Court
30
failed to
provide a copy of the Crown’s Joinder argument to the Defendant
31
has
deliberately misled the Registrar in the Appeals Court – by making claims as if
they were facts, despite compelling
evidence to the contrary
32
failed to
bring to the Court’s attention that the Jury was not sworn in
33
failed to
contest the Judge’s duress towards the Jury
34
failed to
bring to the Court’s attention that there was a significant breach of the
Defendant’s Article 6 rights in that the case took 23 months to come to court,
despite it not being a complex case
35
was guilty of
Gross Prosecutorial Misbehaviour by deliberately collapsing the Trial for
Exposure at Woolwich Crown Court in February 2009, thereby interfering with the
Judicial Process and orchestrating that that Indictment was linked with
Indictment Two at a separate court
36
deliberately
dwelt on irrelevant material, giving it the appearance before a Jury of being
relevant
37
failed to
bring allegations of demonstrable Police misconduct to the Judge’s notice
38
failed to
bring allegations of demonstrable Police misconduct to the notice of Scotland
Yard’s Professional Standards
Unit
39
failed to
inform the Defence that another key witness – the Arresting Officer in
Indictment One – had mysteriously “moved away” and therefore could not attend
the Trial to be placed under cross-examination
40
failed to
comply with the Judge’s request for Disclosure around the ‘bankruptcy’ of the
website
41
as a direct
consequence of this failure to disclose, the Judge and the Jury were misled
that the website was defunct: it is still operational and this is capable of
belief by logging on to it
42
allowed the
Police to commit Perjury in Court on a number of occasions
43
allowed the
Police to enter into Court demonstrably false evidence, thus misleading the
Judge and Jury
44
allowed a
Crown Prosecution Witness (Nicola Noone) to perjure herself on oath and mislead
the Judge and Jury
45
wrongly
instructed the Jury – in his Closing Remarks – to “…ignore the facts of the
case…” and to believe mere hearsay
46
during his
Closing Remarks, introduced fresh allegations which had no merit whatsoever in
fact, and no relation whatsoever to the case, save for the purpose of defaming
the Defendant
Harassment
That
Timothy Forster, a criminal barrister and prosecutor of Furnival Chambers, on
dates 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
Timothy Forster, a criminal barrister and prosecutor of Furnival Chambers, on
dates between 01 January 2009 and 25 September 2013, did commit fraud by
deliberately failing to disclose documents to Brian Pead, to the police, to a
Crown Court, and that, once such knowledge had come into his possession, he
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
Timothy Forster, a criminal barrister and prosecutor of Furnival Chambers, on
dates between 01 January 2009 and 25 September 2013, did abuse his position as
a Barrister and Officer of the Court in that he (and others) perpetrated a
series of crimes and human rights abuses 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 he knew, or ought to have
known, would cause him and his daughter and grand-children alarm and distress,
contrary to the Fraud Act 2006, the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 and the
Human Rights Act 1998.
Fraud by false representation
That
Timothy Forster, a criminal barrister and prosecutor of Furnival Chambers, on
dates 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
Timothy Forster, a criminal barrister and prosecutor of Furnival Chambers, on
dates 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 he knew
that police officers had 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
Timothy Forster, a criminal barrister and prosecutor of Furnival Chambers, on
dates 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. He extracted monies from the public purse in the form of
Legal Aid and misappropriated those funds by running a prosecution which he
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