Sign In Sign-Up

Welcome!

Close

Would you like to make this site your homepage? It's fast and easy...

Yes, Please make this my home page!

No Thanks

  Don't show this to me again.

Close

                                    I DID ALL THAT I COULD

    Now that we were on our own, the most important matter on my mind, was to try to get accurate transcripts of the evidence, that had been given, by the Special Constable, and the Sergeant, to enable us to proceed with the litigation, against the Chief Constable of Humberside, in a lawful manner. Although our former Solicitor had, apparently, had no qualms, about proceeding; using the transcripts, provided by Mrs. West, as evidence, if the action went to trial, I certainly had. I had no intention of stepping into the witness box, to agree that the evidence, as portrayed, in the transcripts, is accurate, and thereby, letting both Mrs. West, and Judge Simpson, off the hook.
    I believe, that in the circumstances, I did all that I could to try to secure accurate transcripts of evidence, knowing full well, that it would be a very difficult task. Mrs. West had got herself involved in a conspiracy to falsify evidence, so it was most unlikely, that she would not willingly provide me with accurate transcripts. She didn't enter into the conspiracy with any intention of digging her own grave, by letting the cat out of the bag. I was also aware, that in all probability, the pages that had contained the original, accurate parts of the evidence, that had been given, would long since have been removed from her shorthand book, with pages containing false evidence inserted: that would have been the way to do it, and as things were to turn out, that is exactly how she did do it, but unfortunately for her she made a complete mess of it, because she, like Judge Simpson before her, when he had failed to remove the note of his invitation to the Jurors': to examine my custody record: like him: as will be seen, she was very careless about how she did it.
    I could leave no stone unturned. If I couldn't obtain accurate transcripts, there was still the possibility that I could get evidence to support my allegation. I had to try, because now that some time had elapsed since my trial, there was the slim possibility that in the interim, Mrs. West may have had a change of heart: may have had time to ponder the gravity of what she had been induced to do. She may have realized, that she had been ill used, by being drawn into the conspiracy, by Judge Simpson, and may now resent that true fact: may be ready to make a clean breast of things, and to expose the Judge, by placing the blame, where it properly belongs. It was a long shot, but I had nothing to lose.
    On August 25 1993: immediately after receiving the letter, from our Solicitor: advising me that the way ahead, was simply to issue proceedings against the Chief Constable. I wrote to Mrs. West's former employer, pointing out that the transcript of the two witnesses' evidence, was inaccurate, and I requested him to forward an accurate transcript of the evidence, to either our Solicitor, or to myself. On August 31, 1993, he sent me his reply, which advised that the shorthand writer engaged, on that particular day, was Mrs. S. M. West, who was in possession of the original shorthand notes, and that she was currently engaged by another firm. He suggested; in that letter, that I contact her, at her home address, which he provided. I subsequently wrote a letter to her, in rather strong terms: about the false transcripts that she had provided, for our Solicitor.
    The evidence had been falsified, for just the eventuality that transpired: in case the transcripts of evidence were requested, in the event that we decided to sue the Police. Mrs. West was therefore, obliged to transcribe, and provide the false evidence, in line with Judge Simpson's devious plan. I do not suppose, for one second, that she was very happy, about doing so. She would undoubtedly have hoped that we would not sue: that she would not have to provide any transcripts, but what else could she do: the die had been cast?
    Three days after receiving the letter from Mrs. West's former employer, I wrote to him again, informing him that I had applied to the Court, for an order, allowing for the legitimate use of  transcripts, of my trial, at the proposed trial of the action against the Police. I stressed that it was important to be certain that the evidence, given by the Police Sergeant, and the Special Constable, was accurate, before it was used as evidence, and I asked him if he had every confidence that she had faithfully recorded, and transcribed, the evidence of the witnesses, and had he every confidence in her integrity.
    The reply came in a letter, dated September 12, but the content was not quite what I had expected: instead of informing me that he had every confidence in her integrity, he only went so far as to say that she is a very experience shorthand writer, and his letter went on to inform me, that each accredited Court reporter is entirely responsible for the accuracy of their own notes: a very odd response to my two specific questions. The letter made me feel rather more hopeful, because, although he had declined to say that he knew, that the transcripts were partially false, he had also: surprisingly, declined my invitation to say that he had every confidence in her integrity. I thought: as her former employer, he would have been only too pleased to support her; unless he had good reason not to do so. He wouldn't want any stigma attached to the good name of his firm, and that could have been reason enough, for him  to not openly inform me that he has knowledge that the transcripts are false, and of course, if he does have such knowledge, he wouldn't want to be implicated, by saying that he had every confidence that they are accurate, and that he has confidence in her integrity: a catch 22 situation. Whatever his reason, he did avoid the opportunity to support her, but was his avoidance of the issues deliberate? I decided to find out: to write him another letter, because I was beginning to suspect that he did have knowledge of the matter.
    Two days later: September 14, I again wrote to him; the letter informing him that in his reply to me, dated September 12: to my letter to him, dated September 3, he had avoided answering my two specific questions relating to the transcripts, and Mrs. West's integrity. The letter also informed him that until such time as he answered the questions, I must take the adverse inference, and the letter went on to inform him that I reserved the right to use all, or any, correspondence between us, at any future proceedings that are relevant to the transcripts. There hasn't been any acknowledgement to that letter thus far, from Mrs. West's former employer, and I am not surprised. I took, and take, the view that he wished me to take the adverse inference, in preference to him directly exposing Mrs. West, and to directly involving himself, for having remained silent: for not reporting the matter as soon as he knew of it: the proverbial ostrich act. It is probable that Mrs. West will have informed him of what had happened: perhaps even seeking his advice, or blessing. My suspicions were well, and truly aroused, but it would do no harm to write to him once more, to give him a third opportunity to support his former employee, and a third opportunity to tell me that he has no knowledge of the false evidence, in order that there could be absolutely no doubt that his avoidance of the issues was deliberate, in which case, the inference that I assumed that he wished me to take, would be near certainty. There were also thoughts of other questions buzzing around in my head; under what circumstances did Mrs. West leave is employ? Could she possibly have left it because it was thought prudent, for her to no longer be associated with his firm: if so why?
    On January 11, I wrote a third letter to her former employer, which informed him that I was on Court record as acting in person, in the proceedings against the Police, and that on January 3, a District Judge, sitting in York, had ordered that transcripts of evidence, of the Police witnesses at my trial, on December 11 1991: prepared by Mrs. West, be receivable at the trial of our action against the Chief Constable of Humberside: to be heard in York. He was also informed, in the letter, of what he must already have known: that to use transcripts as evidence, that are inaccurate, would be dangerous, and could lead to an injustice being done, and for that reason; although he had twice gone so far as to decline my invitations, in writing, to say that he had faith in Mrs. West's integrity, not to withhold any information that he might have, that casts doubt on the transcripts being accurate, and also, that if he ignored that third letter, it would be tantamount to confirming what I already knew to be the truth: the transcripts do contain false evidence. I concede that he may have been in something of a predicament, in not wanting to expose Mrs. West, but at the same time, not being able to exonerate her, for fear of possible consequences to himself, but regardless; if he has knowledge of what went on, he knew, and knows, where his civic duty lies, and if he did, and does have such knowledge, he should properly have made the appropriate authority aware of it.
    On December 14: the day that I wrote the second letter to her former employer, I  wrote a latter to Mrs. West, requesting certification of the transcripts that she hd provided, and five days later, I despatched a further letter to her, to inform her of the date of the hearing of my application, for an order, for the legitimate use of transcripts; telling her that if a certificate was not forthcoming, the alternative would be to serve a witness summons upon her, which would require her to certify them under oath, at the trial of the action against the Police; listed to be heard in York. The response from her was a brief note. stating that I  should address my request to her former employer: she was playing hard to get. She knew that what her former employer had already advised, was perfectly true: each accredited Court reporter is responsible for the accuracy of their own notes. She knew that her former employer was unable to to certify her transcripts, and that for him to have done so, would have been unlawful, and yet, here she was, desperately trying not to certify her transcripts, that she knew to be false. I understand her reason for declining to certify them, but I do not understand her motive in directing me to her former employer, for certification. I can only think that it was a delaying tactic, but why? I have no idea. As will be seen, she continued to ignore the rules governing certification: she ignores them to this day. She simply will not certify the transcripts that she knows are false, but what is even more strange: no, more significant, is the indisputable fact that her purported legal advisors are content for her not to certify them in line with the rules of the Supreme Court, and it would be very strange indeed, if they failed to advise her to abide by the rules, unless, and this I believe, must be so: unless they also, are fully aware that the evidence has been falsified. There can be no doubt at all that Mrs. West has been asked, by those who purport to represent her, to answer my allegations, and the very fact that those advisors have deliberately failed to provide, her answers to the allegations, in her purported defence document, again contrary to the rules of the Supreme Court, makes it very clear to me, and I would think to everyone else that is familiar with the case, that she has told her story: Judge Alan Simpson dictated the false evidence. Mrs. West's story must not be told: Judge Simpson must be protected, because of the implications, and Judge Simpson is still sitting in judgement of others' some of whom are no more corrupt than he. She refuses to certify her false transcripts, but I suppose even that is preferable to her going the whole hog, by certifying them for Simpson's further protection.
    A letter from me, dated September 22, informed Mrs. West that her former employer had quite properly advised me, that the notes of evidence, and the transcripts prepared by her, were entirely her own responsibility, and in this letter, I again requested certification of her transcripts, but it was not to be.
    On January 5 1995, I put Mrs. West on notice, that in the absence of confirmation rom her, that her transcripts are either accurate, or inaccurate, it would be necessary to serve a subpoena upon her , for her to testify at the forthcoming trial in York. I should have informed her that it would be necessary to serve a witness summons: it being a County Court matter, however, she will have got my drift.
    Still with no response from her, and upon my application, a District Judge ordered that I furnish her with a copy of the transcript of the evidence that she had prepared within 28 days, and that she be invited, after making corrections, to certify the transcripts as being true, and accurate, within 14 days. That order was made on February 21. Six days later I supplied her with copies of her own transcripts, by recorded delivery post; confirmed as having been delivered, and signed for, but not unexpectedly, she elected to ignore the order. I was obliged to make a second application to the Court, which was heard by the same District Judge, on April 13, when he believed it appropriate to make a second order, stating that Mrs. West, having failed to provide myself, or the Defendant in the action, with certification, as to the truth, and accuracy, of the transcripts of the evidence, either party be at liberty to issue a witness summons, that she attend the trial, with all relevant documentation relating to the transcripts.
    Mrs. West knew, as we all do, that she couldn't continue to ignore orders of the Court, but the manner in which she responded to that second order is extraordinary: very devious, because she sent the purported certificate, not to myself, as apparently the District Judge had intended,, but to the Court, which they received by recorded post on April 25, and the certificate, despite her 25 years experience as a Court reporter, she has left undated: to try to disguise the fact that she had deliberately failed to comply with the first Court order of February 21. What is equally significant, and devious, and again despite her 25 years experience, her purported certificate does not comply with the rules of the Supreme Court that govern the verification of transcripts: that is it doesn't state that the notes are, to the best of her skill, and ability, a complete, and correct account of he proceedings. She has only been prepared to certify them as being a complete, and correct account of her shorthand notes, which fact isn't, and never has been disputed. Most certainly, they are a complete, and correct account of her shorthand notes. They would be a complete and correct account whether, or not, her notes are true, or false. The whole point of the rule governing the verification of transcripts is to do away with any ambiguity. The transcript, if it is accurate, must be certified as being a complete, and correct account of the proceedings: of everything that was said. Mrs. West is a very devious person, but she is not yet prepared to go that far to protect Judge Simpson.
    In September of 1993; before we decided that I should act in person, I inserted three series of advertisements in the press, in an effort to make contact with the Jurors' who sat at my trial, for them to support my allegations, but I was quickly informed, by our Solicitor, that the Chief Clerk of the Hull Combined Court Centre, had written to each of the Jurors', suggesting that they shouldn't respond to the advertisements, as they may be encouraged to break the oaths that they took. The advertisements were immediately made ineffective. Subsequent to that letter from our Solicitor, I took the trouble to find out what the Jurors' had sworn to: "I swear by almighty God that I will faithfully try the Defendant, and give verdict according to he evidence." The Jury had faithfully complied with the oath that they had taken; carried out their civic duties. The oath that they had taken was no longer binding upon them. What is said inside the Jury room should not be revealed, although I conceive that is not always adhered to. The matter resulted in prolonged correspondence between the Chief Clerk, and myself, including correspondence relating to possible reimbursement of my costs, for advertising in the press, but nothing positive resulted.
    I decided to approach Judge Simpson, through the Chief Clerk, but not with any great expectation that he'd want to have the Jurors' contacted: that would be the last thing that he wanted, but more to find out what his reaction would be. On October 9, I did send the Judge a letter, care of the Chief Clerk, requesting him to have the Jurors' informed that they may, if they wished, communicate with me. The letter also explained to the Judge, that no-one with a clear conscience, should object to me trying to get to the truth, providing that they had no reason to believe that I would try to interfere, or try to influence them. I told him that I believed that he knew, and that Mrs. West certainly knew, that the notes of evidence had been tampered with: that I remembered well, his words, when he seemed to be addressing Counsel: before the Jury had ben sworn in: before I had uttered one word. I reminded him of what those words were. I told him that I understood how it was thought quite safe to tamper with the evidence; there being no defence notes of evidence, or support from a Solicitor, or Counsel, as he knew. I reminded him that there had been no reference to the evidence that had been tampered with, in either my testimony, or in my summing up, as he knew. I told him that the evidence given by the custody Officer could not be compared with a Criminal Justice Act statement, because he did not make one, as he also knew. I told him that I would like the person responsible to say why it was done. I told him that if my letter cast some doubt on his credibility, he may think it proper, as I did, that the matter be investigated by another authority. Finally, I told him that in writing the letter, I had tried to be as respectful as I could, under the circumstances. I sent a copy of the letter to our Solicitor, and I believe that I am correct, in saying, that I also sent a copy to our MP: John Prescott.
    On December 17, I was informed, by the Chief Clerk, in writing, that Judge Simpson had said, that he couldn't enter into correspondence with me, nor make directions, since he was no longer directly involved in the case: that was rich; he'd committed a serious offence, by conspiring to pervert the course of justice, and falsifying evidence, and he was no longer involved in the case. He'd done his dirty work: he'd wiped his hands of the matter. That reply rattled me, because it was perfectly clear o me that he was involved, right up to his neck. I was prompted to send him another letter, telling him so, directly accusing him of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice: defying him to call the only independent witnesses to support him, should he wish to take any action against me, and I invited him to do the honourable thing. Significantly, but not surprisingly, he has done neither. I didn't expect a reply to the second letter, and I was not disappointed.
    I appealed to our local MP: John Prescott, for assistance, and was informed by him: on December 10, that he had written to the Lord Chancellor's Department, on my behalf.
    On January 21, 1994, I made a formal complaint in writing, against Judge Simpson, to the Lord Chancellor's Department, accusing him of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice: tampering with notes of evidence, requesting that the complaint be investigated, and that the evidence of he only independent witnesses: the Jurors', be considered, in fairness to the Judge, as well as to myself. I also requested that the Crown Prosecution Law Clerk be asked to contribute, even though she may not be considered to be an independent witness, saying that I had faith in her integrity. The reason for my faith in that Law Clerk's integrity is because; as the Jurors' were ushered in, on the first day, she properly informed the Judge that one of them was known to her, whereupon that person was discharged. The Law Clerk struck me as being a fair minded individual, which fact was confirmed the following day, when during an adjournment, called by Judge Simpson, to allow time for my custody record to be produced, during the course of the Sergeant's testimony, she insisted that I had to be provided with a full copy of the record, after Counsel had suggested to me, that I should be provided with only one relevant page. As things turned out, the full record was very important indeed, because it contains evidence that supported my case: that I had been charged, and subsequently maliciously prosecuted, only after I had made complaints against the arresting Officers': one of them being assaults, by the Officers'. I had been charged with assaulting one of them, because of those complaints, and an alleged assault upon them would tend to make their assaults upon us seem to be lawful. The Officers' had tried to cover their own backs, because of my complaints.
    Having not received a response to my complaint: addressed to the Lord Chancellor, by January 31, I sent a further copy to the Lord Chancellor's Department, and to be doubly confident that the complaint should reach its intended destination, I sent a third copy; care of the Chief Clerk, at Hull Combined Court Centre, to be passed on to his headquarters. Eventually, on April 5, 1994: nearly 10 weeks after having made the first complaint, I did receive acknowledgement that my complaints had been received. The acknowledgement came from the Criminal Operations Branch of the Lord Chancellor's Department The letter of acknowledgement confirmed receipt of the complaints dated January 21, 25, and 31, and the letter informed me that neither the Lord Chancellor, nor any member of his staff, may comment upon, or intervene in any individual case, and advised: as the Chief Clerk had already suggested, that if I believed that parts of the evidence had been tampered with, I should refer the matter to the Police, or the Crown Prosecution Service. If it is true, and I'm in no position to say that it isn't, but if it is true, that the Lord Chancellor cannot intervene in any individual case when, as in this case, it involves an allegation of serious criminal misconduct, against a Circuit Judge, presumably appointed by the Lord Chancellor, it follows, that the Lord Chancellor can have no control over his Judges' which I had always thought to be the case. With regard to the suggestion that I should report the matter to the Police, or the Crown Prosecution Service; well the truth of the matter is that it was he Police that the Judge was trying to protect, and in any event, as the name 'Criminal Operations Branch' implies; that branch is charged with investigating criminal matters. I do not doubt that they did investigate my complaint, and found it to be fully justified.
    Over two months to inform me that neither the Lord Chancellor, nor any member of his staff, could comment on any individual case. I didn't have to wonder for very long to realize why it had taken so long to inform me of something, which if true, could have been advised by return of post. Two months; of course my complaints had been investigated. Of course Judge Simpson had admitted his involvement, and the very strong probability is that Mrs. West had given the reason for her involvement. I am confident that if Judge Simpson, and Mrs, West had been able to deny their corrupt act, then I would have been informed by that criminal investigation branch, that they had investigated the complaint, and that it was proved to be groundless, or that there was not evidence enough to pursue the matter. Of course it was investigated, during the course of those long two months, and of course the allegation has been admitted. I appreciate that the Department is now headed by a new Lord Chancellor, and I am not implying that the old one knew of my allegation against Judge Simpson.