|
|
MY LOSS OF FAITH
Upon phoning
our Solicitor, I expressed my concern regarding Mrs. West's transcripts.
I had been expecting him to give some indication of incredulity about what
I considered, to be a unique allegation, because it was an alleged offence
that was levelled against an independent party, a party that everyone relied
upon to record an accurate account of Court proceedings. We all know that
allegations of tampering with evidence,against the Police, are not unknown,
but when false evidence is presented by them, their motive for tampering
with the evidence, is immediately apparent. When a case against a suspect
is weak some unscrupulous Officers' will fabricate evidence: to secure
a conviction; we all know that. I believe that it is accepted as a well
known fact. As far as I am aware, never had such allegation been made against
a person with absolutely no involvement with the case; other than to faithfully
record, what has been said.
The Solicitor
did not express any surprise. He listened to me, patiently, without once
interrupting. Although I have said that he did not express any indication
of surprise, it does occur to me, that he may well have been surprised,
so much so, that he was gob smacked, which could have accounted for his
silence; stunned silence. When I had finished explaining my concerns, he
informed me that he would be leaving the firm, and that our case would
be passed on to another Solicitor, adding that he would arrange a meeting
with him: the meeting was, subsequently, arranged.
I attended
the meeting, full of hope, naively expecting the Solicitor, who I understood
to be a partner in the firm, to take up the cudgel for me. I left that
meeting in a despondent mood, because the Solicitor, had concluded, that
although he was certain that I was sincere in my belief that the transcripts
had been partially fabricated, he just could not accept that the trial
Judge was responsible. During the course of that meeting I was made to
feel as though it was I, that was the guilty party: for making that
unheard of allegation. Far from trying to assist, that Solicitor appeared
to be trying to convince me that a trial Judge would never involve himself
in such a conspiracy. It could have been no more than an assumption on
his part: he should not have assumed, or pretended such an assumption.
I knew, that there was no direct evidence to implicate the trial Judge,
but I ws convinced that it was he, that had instructed the shorthand writer
to do as she did. The Solicitor would have none of it. My recollection
of that meeting is that the Solicitor acted as if he was Judge Simpson's
defence lawyer. I was made to feel as if I was the accused person; being
asked to justify myself, for making that serious allegation against such
a respected member of his own profession. I should have known better than
to have gone to that meeting with the naive expectation, that I would be
treated with anything other than resentment for making such an allegation.
I should have realized that the allegation is not one that most Solicitors'
would be very keen to pursue, or to become involved in. Even if that Solicitor
acted as any other; upon hearing what must have seemed to be an outlandish
allegation, and even if he had been acting properly, the fact is that I
was made to feel accountable for having the temerity to even suggest that
a Circuit Judge could possibly commit such an act. I do not know what it
would have taken to induce that Solicitor to pursue the matter on my behalf.
He surely could not have expected me to provide him with all of the details,
because conspirators' do their plotting in secrecy. I did make it very
clear to him, that my allegation: that the transcripts are false, could
be supported, and corroborated, by every person who had been in Court:
who had listened to the evidence. I made it clear to him, that the twelve
independent Jurors', would support my allegation, but he poured cold water
over that obvious possibility, which, if it had been pursued, would most
certainly have confirmed my credibility. He poured cold water over it,
by replying, that I could not expect the Jurors' to remember everything
that had been said. They will have remembered the Sergeant's unsolicited
change of evidence, after they had been directed, by Judge Simpson, that
they would be able to examine the handwriting on my custody record, to
determine whether the Sergeant had written the words "Assault Police."
They will have remembered that immediately after that: when the Sergeant
had realized that he would be tumbled, he had chipped in to change his
previous evidence with - "I,ve just remembered, I did write it." - They
will have remembered that prior the that intervention, by the Sergeant,
he had consistently perjured himself, by repeatedly swearing that he did
not write those two words. Yes they would have remembered, and probably
still do, because being asked to try an accused person is not an everyday
occurrence They will have remembered that the Sergeant was forced to change
his evidence, because it was they, that would have discovered his perjury.
The Sergeant is not a fool. He realized that it would be better to pretend
that he had just remembered, despite positively swearing, on a number of
occasions, that he didn't know who had written those two words. Judge Simpson
remembered what the Sergeant's evidence had been, and that evidence caused
him to alter it, to the effect, that the Sergeant had been consistent throughout,
but what Judge Simpson forgot, or was careless about, is the evidence that
still remains in the transcript, and in Mrs. West's original shorthand
notes, that demonstrates that he did invite the Jury to examine the custody
record to determine who had written those two words. Would he have made
that invitation to the Jury if the Sergeant had consistently testified
that he had written those two words? I think not, because there would then
have been no dispute from me, because I had wanted him to admit that fact
from the beginning, and he would not do so: hence Judge Simpson's invitation.
Judge Simpson's carelessness, in not having the forethought to omit the
evidence of his own invitation to the Jury, has caught him out. I accept
that conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, may have been a new activity
for the Judge, but even that: is by no means certain.
The Jury could
not easily, have forgotten the Special Constable's performance in the witness
box. They could hardly have forgotten her comic, but in those circumstances,
most serious; repetitive perjury. They will have remembered, that she did
not know the meaning of some of the words that she had used, when writing
up her notes, and when writing her Criminal Justice Act statement. They
will have remembered that she was unable, after two attempts, to spell
one of the words that she had written. The Jurors' could hardly have failed
to remember. Again Judge Simpson, did not forget; when he altered the Special
Constable's evidence.
"I could not
expect he Jurors' to remember everything that had been said." - With those
words, the Solicitor, seemingly, wished to dispose of my allegations, and
if that had not been the case, he could equally have said, - "Yes, you
can expect them to remember, if not all, then some of the evidence." after
all, the whole point of them being there was to listen, and to remember
what had been said. At the very least, the Solicitor ought have recognized
the possibility, that my allegations could have been supported, and in
my view, he should not have dismissed my suggestion out of hand. He knew,
that our Barrister had advised that the transcripts be obtained for the
sole purpose of using them as evidence at the trial of our action against
the Chief Constable; even so, he was quite prepared to use them, despite
being informed, by myself, that they contain false evidence, and that would
have been quite wrong, because I would necessarily have to, and want to,
rely on accurate transcripts to prove our case against the Police, and
I would have to, and want to, truthfully testify that the transcripts are
false. It would have been unlawful to rely on transcripts of evidence,
parts of which are alleged to be false, and with evidence having been omitted.
If that Solicitor had realized the folly of going to Court, using the transcripts,
that I would truthfully have to say are false, he gave me no indication
of it. In that Solicitor's defence, I should point out that after my persistent
badgering, he did write to the Chief Clerk of the Court: attempting to
secure the addresses of the Jurors'.
As a result
of the way in which that meeting, with our Solicitor, was conducted, which
included the stance he'd taken; a seed of an idea was planted into my head.
I believed, that because our Solicitor had been, or perhaps, had pretended
to have been, so incredulous, and reluctant, to believe that a Judge could
possibly have been corrupt, it was a pound to a pinch of salt that most
other Solicitors' would be like minded. I believed that if I wished to
pursue the matter, and I had little option if the action against the Police
was to be conducted in a lawful manner; I would have to pursue it myself,
without the added burden of banging my head up against a brick wall, by
trying to convince other Solicitors' of something that they would not,
in any event, want to believe.
On August
25 1993, our Solicitor wrote to me; advising that the way ahead was to
simply issue proceedings against the Chief Constable, and to get on with
the matter, and subsequent to that letter, on September 14, he advised
me that a Writ of Subpoena had been issued against him. On September 22,
he further advised me that if I persist in maintaining that the transcript
of the trial is incorrect, or has been tampered with in some way, that
I may well be in danger of losing some of my credibility. So my suspicions
had been confirmed. The Solicitor was prepared to use the transcripts in
the action against the Police: the transcripts that I would have to swear
are false, and here he was, indirectly suggesting, that I should retract,
in order that the transcripts that I had assured him were indeed false,
could be used, without me losing some of my credibility: he was wrong:
to retract was a sure way to lose some of my credibility. Clearly the way
ahead was to pursue the matter to obtain transcripts, with only the evidence
that had been given, legitimately used, in the action against
the Police. He will have known that Mrs. West did not add certification
to the transcripts, by stating that they are a complete, and correct account
of the proceedings, but he was not, at that time, to know that she would
go as far as ignoring an Order of the Court, for her to certify them.
Even though
our Solicitor had: wrongly, in my view, advised that I was in danger of
losing some of my credibility if I persisted in maintaining that the transcripts
are false, despite that advice, he was still advising that we should go
to trial using them. I knew, what the Solicitor should have known: that
we should not go to trial until the question of the transcripts had been
resolved, because there was no way in the world that would induce me to
agree to use false transcripts, and there is no way in the world that would
induce me to perjure myself, by testifying that the transcripts contained
only the evidence given by the witnesses. If I had retracted, as our Solicitor
had evidently wanted, and if I had subsequently perjured myself, as a consequence,
by declaring the transcripts as being a true account of the Officers' evidence,
then, in those circumstances, we would still have won our case, because
the other transcripts: prepared by other shorthand writers', were accurate,
and contain abundant evidence to have proved our case. Even so, the Solicitor
was wrong; the lawful way ahead was to pursue my allegations against Mrs.
West, if not against Judge Simpson. The lawful way ahead was to make Mrs.
West accountable, or for her to sue me for alleged defamation of character,
although I knew, full well, that was a step that she would not, and never
will take. Our Solicitors' advice did nothing to give me any confidence
that he would act upon our instructions.
The germ of
an idea, that I had been contemplating, after my meeting with our Solicitor,
was that we would probably be better off if I conducted our case against
the Police myself, because if I did, I would not have to do battle against
our own Solicitor, who was not, seemingly, prepared
to act upon our instructions. I can accept that if we had not been reliant
upon legal aid, my relationship with him would in all probability, have
been much more amiable: he may even have been prepared to hear me out,
without judging the issue of the false transcripts: without making assumptions:
without casting doubt on my credibility.
I could see
that a change of Solicitor would be unlikely to improve matters, because
the allegations, and the circumstances surrounding them, would remain.
I had no reason to believe that any other Solicitor would be any less reluctant
to pursue the allegation against Mrs. West, and the corrupt Judge, who
incited her to take down the false notes.
I was, and
still am, dogmatic, about these matters. I was, and still am, confident,
that I will be believed, regardless of whether people are prepared to admit
that they believe my story. One thing is certain: nobody, that I accuse
of entering into the conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, will
be prepared to have the matter aired in open Court, and with respect to
readers' who may doubt my credibility; that fact tells its own story.
In the light
of the seriousness of my allegation, and the obvious implications, it is
understandable for the majority of those in the legal profession not to
want to believe that such an unheard of criminal offence, as a Court reporter,
and a Circuit Judge, getting their heads together to alter evidence, could
actually happen, but it has happened, and I am unable to realistically
believe that it is the first time that it has happened. Not wanting to
believe that such a thing could occur, is akin to an ostrich burying its
head in the sand. I retract: an ostrich knows no better: it acts in ignorance.
Although I
had been contemplating taking over the conduct of the case from some time
shortly after the meeting with our Solicitor, I was hesitant about putting
my thoughts into practice; partly because of my lack of experience, and
knowledge of procedure, and ignorance of the rules of the Supreme Court,
and also, believe it or not, I was concerned, about hurting the feelings
of our Solicitor, despite his lack of enthusiasm, and his apparent determination
to conduct the case against the Chief Constable on his own terms, and in
my opinion, not strictly lawfully. I refer to the transcripts that he had
consistently been told are false, but which he was, nevertheless, prepared
to use, without making the Court aware of that fact.
The crunch
came via a letter, from the Solicitor, dated October 7 1993, in response
to a letter from myself, requesting the trial against the Chief Constable,
to be by Jury, because I still had hopes of contacting the Jurors': to
support me. I had no intention of abandoning that action simply because
the evidence given by two of the Police witnesses had been tampered with.
The Solicitor's letter advised that it was not possible for a Jury to decide
the matter, and that if the case went to trial, it would have to be before
a High Court, or Circuit Judge. I was taken aback, upon reading that advice,
because I knew that he was completely wrong. I knew that we were entitled
to have a Jury try the matter. It was because I'd been hesitant, about
taking over conduct of the case, that I had made use of the Public library.
I had learned, that an allegation of false imprisonment, is triable by
Jury. I had already experienced one bad episode, and it had been the independence,
and wisdom, of the Jury that had resulted in my acquittal in spite of the
corrupt Circuit Judge. I considered the letter very carefully, but I could
not bring myself to believe that an experienced Solicitor would not be
aware that the action was triable by Jury: if such was our wish, because
if he had been ignorant of that fact, he would surely have had to have
revised: to be certain that the advice that he was about to impart; was
accurate. He must have had access to the rules of the Supreme Court to
put him right, in the improbable event that he was unsure. I may be doing
that Solicitor an injustice, but that letter, together with what had taken
place at our meeting, convinced us, that we should not allow him to continue
as our legal advisor. Rightly, or wrongly, I believed that he was more
interested in trying to stifle me, with regard to Mrs. West, and Judge
Simpson, than he was in taking care of our best interests, and so, what
little faith I had in him, to work in our best interests, before he'd imparted
the wrong advice, completely evapourated. I could see no advantage to transferring
the case to another firm of Solicitors'. I considered that not only would
another legal advisor be no less incredulous, but would also not wish to
pursue the matter of the false evidence. With the immediate approval of
Janice, I formally terminated our Solicitor's instructions, on March 3
1994.
I had known,
that if we went ahead with the plan to act in person, it would
mean that we would no longer be entitled to legal aid, and that things
would therefore be hard on my family as a consequence, because of the costs
of the action would then, have to be funded from my invalidity, and our
income support benefits. I had already had Janice's approval, of course,
and I was pleased that our son Gary was also right behind me.
I notified
the Legal Aid Board of the decision to act in person, and on April 20 1994,
our legal aid certificates were discharged. Shortly after that, upon my
request, the relevant documents relating to the case, were passed on to
us, by our former Solicitor.