Dominic Bell tries to blackmail former client, says Robert Ecclestone

DOMINIC BELL

Misconduct in Public Office

That Dominic Bell, a criminal barrister of One Inner Temple Lane (and formerly of Charter 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 Dominic Bell, a criminal barrister of One Inner Temple Lane Chambers (and formerly of Charter 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 Client would be found guilty of a crime he 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 he knew that Mr Brown’s testimony would exonerate his Client

4        conspired with others to collapse a trial at Woolwich Crown Court in February 2009

5        provided false information to his 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 his 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 late every day to the Trial and was reprimanded by the Judge for lateness

12    was guilty of a lack of thorough preparation for the Trial

13    produced a simple two paragraph Defence Statement and this 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 him 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 cross-examine Crown Witnesses with the necessary level of skill and robustness indicated by the Bar Standards Council

19    failed to question the Defence Witnesses to extract the most information out of them

20    failed to report allegations of demonstrable Perjury by police officers and Nicola Noone, a witness for the Crown

21    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

22    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

23    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

24    failed to address significant problems of a lack of Full Disclosure by the Crown and the Police

25    failed to challenge the authenticity of two search warrants

26    failed to challenge the existence of a third search warrant

27    failed to report the illegal disposal of vital evidence by the CPS, the Police and a Crown Witness

28    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

29    failed to thoroughly read evidence supplied to him by the Defendant in his Defence

30    worked alone and failed to be supported in Court by the Defendant’s solicitor, save for one brief period of two hours (in an 8 day trial)

31    failed to report demonstrable police entrapment : police as Agents Provocateurs

32    failed to request reporting restrictions

33    failed to meet daily with his client for briefings during the Trial process

34    worked on too many cases simultaneously and failed to devote enough care and attention to the Defendant’s case

35    failed to report that a police informer was known to be supplying the police with deliberately false information

36    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

37    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 failed to ask the vital questions of this Witness that would have highlighted Perjury to the Judge and Jury  

38    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

39    failed to point out to the Jury that this Police statement differed greatly from the original Police statement made one year previously

40    failed to report Police perjury regarding the website to the attention of the Judge and Jury, despite having evidence of perjury

41    failed to apply for Full Disclosure, especially disclosure which would have proved the Defendant’s innocence beyond doubt

42    failed in his Duty of Care to the Defendant by not providing more than a basic two-page argument against Joinder on the second occasion that the Crown applied for Joinder

43    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

44    failed to elicit a statement from the fourth female in the house, who refused to make a statement to the police

45    failed to subpoena this potential Witness, as she clearly had an important bearing on Indictment One

46    failed to communicate with the Defendant regarding photographs in Indictment One, and therefore entered the wrong photographs into Court

47    despite possessing knowledge and evidence to the contrary, failed to report Police misbehaviour (breaches of PACE) on a number of counts

48    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

49    failed to enter into Court all the evidence which the Defendant had gathered about   illegal Police activities online – despite having knowledge of its existence

50    despite having evidence to the contrary, allowed false evidence to be entered into Court by the Police and Crown

51    despite having evidence to the contrary, failed to apply to the Crown and the Police for the correct evidence to be brought into Court

52    failed to apply for the Trial to be halted despite knowing that the wrong evidence was in Court

53    stated openly in Court that “…I am not going to bother trawling through all the DVDs [provided by the Police]…” despite being informed by the Defendant that this was a necessary undertaking because improper evidence had been entered into Court by the Police, i.e. the wrong DVDs were entered into Court and the Judge and Jury seriously misled

54    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

55    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’

56    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

57    failed to request a copy of the website’s servers, which was necessary for a fair Trial

58    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

59    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 failed to subpoena this Line Manager as a Witness and bring him into court to establish this important fact

60    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

61    failed to challenge the demonstrable fact that a Crown witness committed Perjury

62    failed to act when informed by the Defendant that his computer at work had been illegally tampered with

63    failed to act when informed by the Defendant that his research materials at work had been removed from the office servers

64    continued to represent the Defendant after being removed from the case during the trial

65    was guilty of over-confidence by repeatedly informing the Defendant that “…this is an easy case to win…”

66    was guilty of false representation to the Defendant by stating each day that “…We are in good shape…” when, even to the Defendant’s untrained eye, it was obvious that this was not the case

67    stated during the Trial that “…We need more information to win this case…” despite being given a wealth of evidence prior to the Trial by the Defendant to support his claim of innocence – this evidence went unread and unused

68    failed to write several letters requesting information from various sources (including the Police and the Crown), despite stating in conferences in his office that he would write these letters

69    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

70    failed to adduce examples of evidence tampering into Court

71    was rebuked by Judge on 3 separate occasions for continued lateness, for a lack of submission of Defence Statement on time, and for a poor Defence Statement (only two lines)

72    failed to procure the Defendant’s medical records to postpone the Trial until the Defendant was medically fit to stand Trial

73    used prejudicial language against his own client during Closing Remarks

74    wrongly advised the Defendant to withhold evidence (which the Defendant and supporters believed to be crucial evidence in his favour)

75    failed to provide a copy of the Crown’s Joinder argument to his Client, for    consideration by his Client

76    failed to provide a copy of Defence counsel’s argument against Joinder for his Client to consider

77    made a threat to his own client – the Defendant – that “...If you continue to keep saying you’re innocent, the Judge will jail you…”

78    has deliberately misled the Registrar in the Appeals Court – by making claims as if they were facts, despite compelling evidence to the contrary

79    failed to provide his client with a Trial Bundle

80    failed to bring to the Court’s attention that the Jury was not sworn in

81    failed to contest the Judge’s duress towards the Jury

82    failed to bring to the Court’s attention that there was a significant breach of his Client’s Article 6 rights in that the case took 23 months to come to court, despite it not being a complex case

Blackmail

Dominic Bell, a criminal barrister of One Inner Temple Lane Chambers (and formerly of Charter Chambers), on days between 01 June 2013 and 31 July 2013, did attempt to blackmail Brian Pead with a view to gain for himself in a series of telephone calls made, and emails sent, to his former Client.

Harassment

Dominic Bell, a criminal barrister of One Inner Temple Lane Chambers (and formerly of Charter Chambers), 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 and that in June and July 2013, he did pursue a course of conduct by making a series of telephone calls and sending a series of emails which amounted to a course of conduct.

Fraud by failing to disclose information

Dominic Bell, a criminal barrister of One Inner Temple Lane Chambers (and formerly of Charter Chambers), on days between 15 November 2006 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 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

Dominic Bell, a criminal barrister of One Inner Temple Lane Chambers (and formerly of Charter Chambers), on days 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

Dominic Bell, a criminal barrister of One Inner Temple Lane Chambers (and formerly of Charter Chambers), 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

Dominic Bell, a criminal barrister of One Inner Temple Lane Chambers (and formerly of Charter Chambers), 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 by others in that they removed the contents of that computer’s hard drive, upon which were documents necessary for a bona fide investigation and trial to take place contrary to section 3(1a) of the Computer Misuse Act 1990 and Article 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998.

Misuse of Public Funds

Dominic Bell, a criminal barrister of One Inner Temple Lane Chambers (and formerly of Charter Chambers), on days between 01 January 2009 and 25 September 2013, did misuse public funds in perpetrating crimes and human rights abuses 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 defence 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. 

Brian Pead is innocent, says Beverley Williams, Lambeth

BEVERLEY WILLIAMS

Theft Act

Theft in breach of trust

PARTICULARS OF OFFENCES

That Beverley WILLIAMS, a council officer with the London Borough of Lambeth Children and Young People’s Service and former PA to Barry GILHOOLY, between 01 January 2006 and 25 September 2013, conspired with others to steal from Brian Pead and that she and they did in fact steal property belonging to Brian Pead, namely counselling books, personal development books, psychology books, business development books, teaching books, educational management books, personal photographs of grand-children, a pair of shoes, a briefcase and various other items including computer files valued together at approximately £800 pounds GB sterling.

These thefts of property were taken with the intention of permanently depriving Brian Pead of property belonging to him.

These thefts were in breach of the trust placed in her/ them as an officer/s of the Council.

Misconduct in Public Office

That Beverley WILLIAMS, a council officer with the London Borough of Lambeth Children and Young People’s Service, between 01 January 2006 and 25 September 2013, wilfully neglected to perform her duty 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 Beverley WILLIAMS, a council officer with the London Borough of Lambeth Children and Young People’s Service, between 01 January 2006 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 - with her knowledge and consent - :

(i)                 was complicit in stealing valuable property from Brian Pead

(ii)               was aware of false evidence being given to an employment investigation into mis-founded and spurious allegations against Brian Pead made up after he had reported child abuse, bullying and racism to his superiors (who failed to act)

(iii)             failed to report criminal activity to a Disciplinary Hearing, an Appeal against dismissal, an Employment Tribunal, the Police and others who were tasked with investigating the offences

(iv)             conspired with others to commit theft, abuse their position of trust, and falsely convict Mr Brian Pead

(v)               conspired with others to harass Brian Pead

(vi)             failed to report child grooming, racism, bullying and misconduct in public office to her superiors and to the Police.

Harassment

That Beverley WILLIAMS, a council officer with the London Borough of Lambeth Children and Young People’s Service, between 15 November 2006 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 Beverley WILLIAMS, a council officer with the London Borough of Lambeth Children and Young People’s Service, between 01 January 2006 and 25 September 2013, did commit fraud by herself (and with others) by deliberately failing to disclose documents to Brian Pead, to the police, to an Employment Tribunal, and to the Courts, contrary to the Fraud Act 2006.

Fraud by abuse of position

That Beverley WILLIAMS, a council officer with the London Borough of Lambeth Children and Young People’s Service, between 15 November 2006 and 25 September 2013, did abuse her position as a Council Employee in that she participated in a series of crimes and human rights abuses against Brian Pead 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 daughter and grand-children alarm and distress, contrary to the Fraud Act 2006 and the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.

Breaches of Computer Misuse Act 1990

That Beverley WILLIAMS, a council officer with the London Borough of Lambeth working in the Connexions Young People’s Service, between 15 November 2006 and 25 September 2013, was complicit in the modification of the contents of a computer used by Brian Pead in that she was aware of the removal of the contents of that computer’s hard drive, upon which were documents necessary for a bona fide employment investigation to take place, contrary to section 3(1a) of the Computer Misuse Act 1990.

Misuse of Public Funds

That Beverley WILLIAMS, a council officer with the London Borough of Lambeth Children and Young People’s Service, between 15 November 2006 and 25 September 2013, did misuse public funds in perpetrating crimes and human rights abuses against Brian Pead and in allowing crimes to be perpetrated against Brian Pead.

Richard Fulcher says "Cathy Twist is twisted"

CATHY TWIST

Theft Act

Theft in breach of trust

PARTICULARS OF OFFENCES

That Cathy TWIST, a council officer with the London Borough of Lambeth, between 15 November 2006 and 25 September 2013, conspired with others to steal from Brian Pead and that she and they did in fact steal property belonging to Brian Pead, namely counselling books, personal development books, psychology books, business development books, teaching books, educational management books, personal photographs of his daughter and grand-children, a pair of shoes, a briefcase and various other items including computer files valued together at approximately £800 pounds GB sterling.  

These thefts of property were taken with the intention of permanently depriving Brian Pead of property belonging to him.

These thefts were in breach of the trust placed in her/ them as an officer/s of the Council.

Misconduct in Public Office

That Cathy Twist, 15 November 2006 and 25 September 2013, wilfully neglected to perform her duty 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

Cathy Twist, a Council Officer for Lambeth Council, on days between 15 November 2006 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:

(i)                 stole valuable property from Brian Pead

(ii)               claimed that she was working with the authority of Lambeth Council in conducting an investigation into mis-founded and spurious allegations against Brian Pead made up after he had reported child abuse, bullying and racism to his superiors (who failed to act)

(iii)             provided false information to a Disciplinary Hearing, an Appeal against dismissal, an Employment Tribunal, police officers and others who were tasked with investigating the offences

(iv)             provided false information to Brian Pead

(v)               conspired with others to commit theft, abuse their position of trust, and falsely imprison Mr Brian Pead

(vi)             conspired with others to cause actual bodily harm to Brian Pead

(vii)           conspired with others to harass Brian Pead

(viii)         failed to report child grooming, racism and bullying within a Lambeth pupil referral unit called the OLCVS

Harassment

Cathy Twist, a Council Officer for the London Borough of Lambeth, on days between 15 November 2006 and 25 September 2013, did pursue a course of conduct amounting to the harassment of Brian Pead and did cause him alarm and distress contrary to the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.

Fraud by failing to disclose information

Cathy Twist, a Council Officer for the London Borough of Lambeth, on days between 15 November 2006 and 25 September 2013, did commit fraud by deliberately failing to disclose documents to Brian Pead, to the police, to an Employment Tribunal, and to the Courts, contrary to the Fraud Act 2006.

Fraud by abuse of position

Cathy Twist, a Council Officer for the London Borough of Lambeth, on days between 15 November 2006 and 25 September 2013, did abuse her position as a Council Officer in that she perpetrated a series of crimes and human rights abuses against Brian Pead 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, the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 and the Human Rights Act 1998.

Fraud by false representation

Cathy Twist, a Council Officer for the London Borough of Lambeth, on days between 15 November 2006 and 25 September 2013, did make false representations and provide false documents to other Council officers and employees, to the police, to an Employment Tribunal, to the Independent Safeguarding Authority, and to the Courts in relation to Brian Pead, contrary to the Fraud Act 2006.

Breaches of Computer Misuse Act 1990

Cathy Twist, a Council Officer for the London Borough of Lambeth, on days between 15 November 2006 and 25 September 2013, did authorise the modification of the contents of a computer used by Brian Pead in that she authorised the removal of the contents of that computer’s hard drive, upon which were documents necessary for a bona fide employment investigation to take place and over which she was presiding, contrary to section 3(1a) of the Computer Misuse Act 1990.

Misuse of Public Funds

Cathy Twist, a Council Officer for the London Borough of Lambeth, on days between 15 November 2006 and 25 September 2013, did misuse public funds in perpetrating crimes and human rights abuses against Brian Pead.

Multiple Counts

That Cathy TWIST also repeated these offences in the case of James R. Walker –v- London Borough of Lambeth.

Mr Walker was the former Head Teacher of Henry Fawcett Primary School in Kennington in the London Borough of Lambeth.

James Walker was sacked from Henry Fawcett Primary School in Kennington over claims of bullying and after raising concerns about its budget. Lambeth Council was determined to remove him, the South London Employment Tribunal heard.

But Mr Walker said it was "a disgrace that Lambeth has used public funds to push me out of my job, and I hope the actions of those responsible for this waste will be thoroughly investigated".

The Employment Tribunal criticised two senior education officers - Cathy Twist and Claire Cobbold.

Barry Gilhooly, a former assistant director at Lambeth who carried out the investigation into the allegations against Mr Walker, was also criticised by the tribunal which found his investigation was flawed.

Simon Hughes, MP for Bermondsey and Old Southwark, said: "...I have rarely found a tribunal as willing to condemn as many people, senior people who came before them, for not telling the truth.  This is not good enough..."

Source: <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-16009828>

The local Labour MP, Kate Hoey, said Lambeth Council objected to Mr Walker for "resisting their policies." But an employment tribunal said the bullying allegations were a "stalking horse" to remove him and the investigation one-sided. The hostility of the council towards Mr Walker "bordered on callousness". He won his claim for unfair dismissal. Far from being the perpetrator of bullying, Mr Walker has been on the receiving end of astonishing municipal bullying...”

Phyllis Dunipace “...commissioned a report written by consultant Tom Walker in February 2009 outlining a strategy for removing James Walker from his post...” http://kenningtonnews.blogspot.co.uk/2011/08.

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.