|
|
JUDGE SIMPSON'S CRIMINAL WEAKNESS
Following my acquittal at Hull Crown Court on December 13 1991, my wife
Janice, and myself, approached a firm of Hull Solicitors', for advice,
with a view to applying for Legal aid to enable us to take civil proceedings
against the Chief Constable of Humberside: for trespass: assaults: false
imprisonment, and malicious prosecution. On April 15 1992, we were granted
legal aid, to take proceedings, limited to the preparatory work necessary
to prepare instructions for Counsel, and thereafter, to the obtaining of
Counsel's opinion on liability.
We attended
a conference with our Solicitor, and our Barrister, in August 1992, for
the purpose of obtaining Counsel's opinion, for the consideration of the
Legal Aid Board, for it to decide whether proceedings against the Chief
Constable should, or should not, be funded out of the public purse, and
in making that decision the Board would access the chance of recovering
such funding.
Counsel's
written opinion was positive: stating that I had been consistent: forthright,
and recommended that our legal aid should be extended to cover the issue
of proceedings in the High Court. Further legal aid was granted on the
strength of Counsel's opinion, in June 1993.
Prior to the
further legal aid being granted, I was advised, in writing, by our Solicitor,
that the transcripts of my trial had been received, and in August 1993,
Janice collected the originals from his office, in order that I was able
to take copies of them, before returning them to him.
Immediately
upon Janice's return with the transcripts, I glanced through some of the
pages, and as I stood looking at them, I became transfixed, because the
transcript that I was reading, was not as I remembered the evidence of
that particular witness, to have been. I just could not understand why
it was different. I had cross-examined the witnesses, so I knew what their
evidence had been. There could have been no person in the Court, with a
better reason to remember what had been said, than myself. I wondered if
I had been dreaming. I examined the transcript closely, but there was no
doubt: it contained false evidence.
The transcript
that I had been reading was purported to have been the account of the evidence
given by a Special Constable; who had tried her utmost, to go along with
the story cooked up by the senior arresting Officer. I had felt sorry for
her while she was testifying, because she had not seemed to remember what
she had evidently, been schooled to say. She had been at a complete loss,
and it was of small wonder, that she was in tears, as she exited the Courtroom,
after leaving the witness box. Janice, who had been sitting outside of
the Courtroom. Jance told me: at a later stage; that the Prosecution Law
Clerk had followed the Special Constable from the Courtroom, and had tried
to console her.
I sat down
on the settee, to examine the other transcripts, to discover that the Special
Constable's transcript was not the only evidence to have been tampered
with, because the evidence purported to have been that given, by a custody
Sergeant, had also been tampered with. I was bewildered. I tried to make
sense of what I was reading. I was certain that the transcripts were wrong,
but I did not, at that moment in time, understand why. I rapidly discounted
errors in transcribing, because what I had read, was clearly deliberate:
false testimony.
I believed
that I had retained the relevant documents, relating to the case, including,
as I thought, the prepared cross-examination questions, that I hd used
for the cross-examination of the witnesses.
I compared
the transcript, that was purported to be the account of the evidence given
by the Special Constable, with the prepared questions that I had used,
but that was not helpful, because I had defended the action against me
on my own. and had therefore been unable to note down her answers to my
questions, and my prepared questions had by no means, been the only questions
put to her: many questions had depended, and resulted, from the answers
that she had given to the prepared questions.
I was unable
to compare the account of the custody Sergeant's purported evidence, in
the transcript, with the prepared cross-examination questions, due to what
I saw, as a very strange occurrence: as I was gathering my documents, prior
to leaving the Courtroom: when the Court was adjourned: after the Sergeant
had testified, I was approached by the Court Usher, who volunteered the
information, that there was not a need for me to take my documents out
of the Courtroom, because the public entry doors would be locked, and that
my documents would be quite safe. Upon being given that unsolicited advice,
I did as the Usher had recommended: I left the documents in the Courtroom
during the break in proceedings, from which time; until that very moment
that I required them, for comparison with the transcript, I had not had
reason to touch. The only time that the prepared questions had been out
of my possession, was during that adjournment. I began to consider what:
I imagine, to most people, would be a nigh on unbelievable motive, for
the Court Usher giving that unsolicited advice. Why had he waited
until the second day of the trial, before he had thought it prudent to
inform me, that it was appropriate for me to leave the documents in the
Court? He could equally, have imparted that information at the time of
the adjournment: on the first day.
It is quite
true that public entry doors are always kept locked during breaks
in the proceedings, but that does not necessarily ensure the safety of
documents that are left behind in the Court. We take it upon trust: in
the integrity of those who do have access, that documents that are left
in the Court will be safe, but we have no guarantee that they will be safe.
We all know that presiding Judges' do not use the public entry, and exit,
doors, and I assume that the shorthand writer had access to quarters adjacent
to his quarters. In any event, I had no guarantee that the Judge did not
have access during the break, nor for that matter, the shorthand writer.
The guardian of the key most certainly had access. It was all very strange.
I did not need the prepared questions to convince me that the transcript
contained false evidence, and that some of the evidence that had been given,
had been eliminated, however, the apparent disappearance of the document
was very puzzling..
Three shorthand
writers' had taken down notes of evidence during the course of the trial,
but only one had taken notes on December 11: the day that the witnesses:
who's evidence had been tampered with, had given their testimony, and as
I discovered, by obtaining a copy of the Court record; the shorthand writer
on that particular day, had been Sheila Margaret West. As far as I was
aware, Mrs. West could have had no axe to grind. She would definitely not
have fabricated evidence of her own volition, because for anyone to have
committed such a corrupt act, they would have had to have a very good motive,
and I figured that the only reason that Mrs. West could possibly have had,
for preparing false transcripts, was that she had been instructed to do
as she did, by another party; but who....? The fact that the two Officers'
had perjured themselves, could not have been lost on any person, who had
been in the Court. Equally obvious, was the fact, that I was being maliciously
prosecuted. Certainly, the Jury: by their unanimous verdicts, were not
prepared to believe the evidence of the two Police Officers': that I had
assaulted one of their number, while, as they had claimed: I had resisted
arrest. The Jury had accepted my evidence: that I came by my injuries as
the result of the unlawful assaults upon me, by the Officers'. It had dawned
upon me, as I sat there, that the evidence must have been fabricated to
protect the two Officers' from the consequences of their obvious perjury.
The Sergeant had not participated in my arrest, nor had the unpaid Special
Constable; despite having testified that she had. She had also testified
that she didn't want to give evidence: saying that she had to. That piece
of evidence, seemed to me, to be very significant. I pose the question.
How many reasons can there be, for a Police Officer not wanting to give
testify as to what had taken place at the scene of an arrest; bearing in
mind that giving evidence is part, and parcel, of the job? Her reason could
not have been, because she was fond of me, because, to my knowledge, we
had never met before the day of my arrest. I reasoned that there was only
one acceptable explanation for her expressed reluctance to testify against
me: she had been instructed to perjure herself. She had resented that fact
enough to make her resentment known, and for that I give her some credit.
There are mitigating circumstances in the Special Constable's favour, because
she had said nothing, nor had she done anything to harm me, until she had
reluctantly stepped into the witness box. Whoever it was, that had been
responsible for falsifying the evidence of the two Officers', must have
believed that they were both minor cogs in the wheel, and as such, that
they should not be held accountable for my malicious prosecution, although,
that is only supposition. Mrs West would not have presumed to make such
a decision. I may never get to know what went on in the mind of the culprit.
My first thought
as to who would stand to gain from involving a shorthand writer in such
a conspiracy, had been the Police, and although that is undoubtedly true,
I soon discounted the idea that they could have been responsible. I could
not see any way that a Police Officer could influence a Court reporter
to alter evidence. Such an approach; by a Police Officer, would be fraught
with danger. I am sure that no accredited shorthand writer, would ever
entertain such an advance from a party to the proceedings. I did not dwell
for very long on the possibility that the Crown Prosecution Service would
attempt to protect the two Officers', because it would have been detrimental
to the function of that Service, to fabricate evidence: to hinder possible
prosecutions. The only other people, that I recalled being present in the
Court, on December 11, in addition to the witnesses, were the Jurors',
the Court Usher; Crown Prosecution Law Clerk, a prison Officer; Mrs.
West, and then there was the presiding Judge: Judge Alan Simpson.
I continued
to consider Judge Simpson as a candidate, because he assuredly, had the
stature that could command the respect of Mrs. West, but could she have
been in such awe of him that she considered that he could do no wrong?
She knew, of course, as most of us do, that a Judge can do no wrong while
he is acting within his judicial capacity: as a Judge. That is to say,
that a Judge enjoys immunity from civil, and criminal liability, while
acting within his judicial function. I can not conceive, that she was unaware,
that the same immunity would apply to her, while acting upon instructions
from a Judge, who himself was acting within his judicial capacity, but
if what had been running through my mind proved to be correct; this was
something entirely different, because it can never be said, that any Judge,
who has committed a corrupt act, has acted within his judicial capacity.
If a Judge has acted corruptly, he is definitely liable to civil, and criminal,
prosecution, as are we all, and that fact has been held to be so, by Lord
Denning, the former Master of the Rolls; among others, at the Court of
Appeal, in the case of Sirros-v- Moore.
Suppose Judge
Simpson did instruct Mrs. West to take down false notes of evidence, upon
his own dictation? Would the fact that she had been instructed to commit
a corrupt act, have even crossed her mind. If she was instructed by Judge
Simpson, would she have realized, that she was entering into a conspiracy
designed to pervert the course of justice? I suppose that if she had considered
the matter, she would have realized, but if she did act upon Judge Simpson's
instructions, she will have had little time to consider the matter. If
she did take down false notes of evidence, I think it unlikely that she
would have had much time to mull over the gravity of what she had been
instructed to do, and I believe that it is extremely unlikely that she
would challenge him, even if she had. Those thoughts played about in my
mind for a considerable time, because I could not easily believe that Mrs.
West would alter evidence on her own initiative. The idea that a trial
Judge would ever alter evidence is, I admit, a hard pill to swallow, but
that very fact may be considered to be an incentive for a corrupt Judge,
because who would believe me: the person on trial, to the detriment of
the holder of such an honourable Office? I have indicated, that the idea
of a trial Judge altering evidence, is just about unthinkable, but it is,
by no means, an impossibility, because a trial Judge has the best credentials
to commit such a corrupt act, and few would ever consider that as a possibility.
I did consider the possibility: I had to consider it: I knew, without any
doubt at all, that evidence had been fabricated, and in that knowledge
I knew that someone was responsible. Yes, I did think about it. I continued
to think about it, and I have thought about little else, since the day
that Janice returned home with the transcripts'
My thoughts
turned to something that Judge Simpson had said to the Jury: during the
course of his summing up, which I had thought at the time, to be unnecessary.
- "People do sue the Police for wrongful arrest, and malicious prosecution,
and if they are successful, they get thousands and thousands of pounds.
Its like winning the 'pools'." - It was an unnecessary remark, in the context,
that what people do, or get, was not evidence that had been given, by the
witnesses. It had been me that was on trial: not the Police. If the Jury
had interpreted that remark as I did, they were aware that he was advising
them, that if they acquitted me, that is what they could expect to happen.
That remark may well be considered to be outrageous, although it did reveal
how Judge Simpson's mind was working. He knew, as the Jury knew, that I
was being maliciously prosecuted. I did not have to stretch my mind to
realize, that he did not want me to get thousands, and thousands of pounds.
It would not have been such a big leap for him to have tried to ensure,
that I did not get thousands, and thousands of pounds.
I considered
another remark, made by the Judge, which, or so it seemed to me, was addressed
to Prosecuting Counsel: he was looking directly, and intently, at her,
as if trying hard to get a point through to her. He had made the remark,
before I had uttered one word: before the Jury had been sworn in. It is
a remark that is imprinted indelibly on my mind. - "Mr. Hulbert is an awkward
customer, but that's all right, we all have our eccentricities, and that's
his." - I pondered why a Judge would want to make such an outrageous remark,
before the start of a trial. If by chance, he had happened to be
correct, and there could have been no way of him knowing whether he was,
because he had never met me before that day, but even if he had been correct;
if I had been, or am, an awkward customer, the very fact that he'd said
that being an awkward customer was all right, made it evident, that there
was no necessity for him to have made the remark, however, he would not
have done so, unless he had thought it necessary. The only explanations,
that I can offer for him making it is, that he wanted the Court to know,
either, that I was an awkward customer, because I had exercised my right
to defend myself, or that he'd had occasion to deal with me on a previous
occasion: not so. There are no other reasonable explanations, and it would
be sad if the judiciary, as a whole, took the view that those who elect
to defend themselves are awkward customers': nuisances': not to be tolerated.
Judges do: quite rightly, make derogatory remarks, aimed in the direction,
of a Defendant, who has committed a despicable crime, but only after that
Defendant has been been tried, and found guilty. There is no doubt that
Judge Simpson's remark was intended to be disparaging.
Unlike the
- "thousands, and thousands of pounds" and "winning the pools" - it seemed
doubtful that - "awkward customer" - was taken down in shorthand, because
proceedings proper: before a Jury, had not commenced, when the uncalled
for remark, was made. The remark did make me angry, and that was a blessing:
it strengthened my resolve. It made me care not a jot for the Office that
he holds: it released my inhibitions.
I am aware
that Judge Simpson's biased remarks are not, in themselves evidence that
can prove that he acted corruptly, but it is evidence, that makes it patently
clear, that he had no benevolence towards me, from the start of the trial,
to its end.
I became more,
and more, convinced, that Judge Simpson was he culprit, as I continued
to examine the transcripts. During the course of his summing up, I
had wondered why he had not referred to the perjury, committed by the first
witness, by way of the witness's false Criminal Justice Act statement:
taken down in writing, by the Officer in the case. The false statement
had been proved to be false, by both the Officer in the case, and by the
witness himself, when he had testified that he didn't know why he had made
his second statement, nor did he know why the sentence in question, was
in the statement. He did know why he had signed the
statement, of course: nothing is done without reason, but he did not wish
to be open about it, by saying that he had signed it at the request of
the Officer in the case. The witness had gone on to say, that the sentence
in question, was not his question, and I do believe that to be a true fact,
but because it was not his sentence, it could only have been the sentence,
of the only other person present when the statement had been written: the
person who had actually written the statement: the Officer in the case.
The witness had made his inference very clear. Judge Simpson had failed
to remind the Jury of the importance of that vital evidence: as the accurate
transcript, of his summing up: written by another shorthand writer, reveals;
he made no reference to it at all. I saw Judge Simpson's omission as another
strong indication of his desire to protect the Police. He had also failed
to remind the Jury, of the Special Constable's perjury; performed in such
an absurd manner, or of the erratic changes of her own evidence, which
indicates that he had already dictated the false evidence; purported to
have been given by her. If he had not already dictated false evidence,
attributed to her, and already omitted evidence that she had given, he
would undoubtedly, have reminded the Jury of it, as is his job. He had
failed to remind the Jury of the Sergeant's abrupt, and unexpected, change
of evidence: after the Jurists' had been informed that they could examine
the handwriting, on my custody record, but there again, if he had already
altered the Sergeant's evidence, for his protection, why would he wish
to remind them of what he knew, would not be revealed in the transcript,
in the improbable event, that I should gain access to it?
There were
so many pieces of circumstantial evidence, pointing to Judge Simpson being
the brain behind the conspiracy that I decided to list them on paper for
future reference, and my consideration.
a) He
had made that outrageous remark, about me being an awkward customer, at
the start of proceedings, without any apparent lawful justification, which
had made his resentment towards me, crystal clear.
b) As
the accurate transcript, of his summing up, discloses, he had made
that outrageous remark, to the Jury, about what they could expect, if they
returned verdicts of not guilty. Fortunately for me, the Jurors' were not
fools: they recognized what was happening: they new that the Police had
tried to set me up, in order to cover their own backs. Judge Simpson had
underestimated their intelligence.
c) He
was the only person in the Courtroom, with the stature, that would command
the respect of Mrs. West, to the extent that she would feel obliged to
do as he had instructed, and she may have had the added incentive, of having
felt honoured, to have been taken into his confidence, to participate in
his devious plot.
d) He,
and Mrs. West, were in close proximity, with the probability, that she
had access to quarters adjacent to his, and if not, there would have been
no obstacle, to prevent them from getting together, to commit the corrupt
act, which, by its very nature, would have been cloaked in secrecy.
e) He
would have known: before he altered the evidence; that there would be no
mention of the Sergeant's evidence, in the transcript of my summing up,
if one should ever be produced, for comparison, because he knew, that I
had made no reference to the Sergeant's testimony, in my summing up.
f) He
knew that the Sergeant had not made a Criminal Justice Act statement, before
he had stepped into the witness box: he had commented upon that fact, before
the Sergeant had commenced giving evidence. With that knowledge, he knew,
that a false transcript of evidence, could not be compared with evidence,
that the Sergeant would necessarily have had to impart, if he had been
required to make such a statement.
g) He
knew that I was completely alone, without support from either a Barrister,
or from a Solicitor. It follows that he realized, that there could be no
verbatim notes of evidence, on which I could rely, in the improbable event,
that I should get access to the false transcript.
I completed
making up the notes of the circumstantial evidence, against Judge Simpson,
and then thought long, and hard, about them. If my memory serves me well,
it was the following day, that I telephoned our Solicitor, to request an
appointment, for the purpose, of what I sure of: that Judge Simpson's resentment
towards me, coupled with his desire, and eagerness to protect the Police
Officers', had caused him to do, what is perhaps, the most evil thing,
that a person of his honourable Office, could do, while purporting to be
acting within his judicial capacity. I have no hesitation in stating, that
by conspiring to pervert the course of justice, Judge Simpson acted corruptly,
and now, he must realize, that he acted foolishly, which does not lessen
the gravity of his unlawful act.