IN THE GRIMSBY MAGISTRATES COURT

Ref: 16AY/XXXX/YY

CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

DEFENDANTS STATEMENT

INTRODUCTION
1.

This is the defendants (my) statement in the matter of charges brought against me for
alleged offences under s5 of the Public Order Act 1986 for which I have no legal
representation. The Duty Solicitor, a partner at John Barkers Solicitors, to whom I will
refer in detail later, was contacted on 21.9.15 about the court case but failed to reply and
therefore the reason I have produced this statement myself. I have no background
whatsoever in proceedings connected with the criminal justice system and must
therefore apologise for the manner in which I have approached the production of this
statement.

BACKGROUND
2.

On the afternoon of 27.8.15 on public grounds in front of Humberside Police station

Victoria Street Grimsby I was looking at one of a number of trees in the vicinity (the
reason for being in close proximity to it). The bark configuration appeared to be that of
either a large-leaved Lime (Tilia platyphyllos) or what might have been a small-leaved
Lime (Tilia cordata). I may of course have been wrong on both counts but is an
academic point as it is unlikely any criminal charges could be brought in respect of a
person innocently observing the features of a tree on land which is not private.

3.

At this time I noticed from a distance which I can only roughly estimate to have been
between 20 and 40 meters, a male who appeared to be pointing me out to the person
who was on duty in the Police Stations front office. I proceeded to walk towards the
office intending to find out what seemed to be concerning them both. On enquiring what
their interest was they both stated that I was urinating against the tree, to which I replied
I was not and they had been mistaken. The person on duty in front office then in a raised

voice insisted he had seen me do so. I then reiterated in a voice equally raised that they
were mistaken and had only made that assumption based upon the close proximity I was
to the tree. They had as they say, put two and two together and got five.
4.

The matter continued being disputed at which time the question arose concerning why if
they were so certain I had been urinating in a public place there was no arrest, in answer
to which the employee on the desk stated that he was not a police officer, despite the
clothing suggesting he was. The point was raised about it being a crime to impersonate a
police officer and that if he had no powers of arrest there was nothing stopping me from
walking away.

5.

Despite not being under any obligation I volunteered to wait for a police officer to arrive
on the scene, knowing that I had done nothing to require the attention of the police and
when the matter had been looked into, it would be obvious.

6.

Shortly after an officer turned up who I believe, though not certain, can be identified as
PC Blake. He ordered me to stay were I was (in or around the front office) while he
walked over to the trees location, accompanied by the male who had initially alerted
the police employee. Both appeared to be examining the tree and immediate area for
signs of evidence to prove that their false allegations were true.

7.

On their return, I fully expected to be informed that they had in fact been mistaken and
an apology offered in the matter for which the police were no longer suspicious.

SUSPICIONS OF INCITEMENT TO COMMIT PERJURY / WRONGFUL ARREST

8.

I suspect that when it became obvious to the officer that I had not been urinating as
falsely accused, it occurred to him that if he changed the accusation from one of
urinating in a public place to indecent exposure there would be a lesser burden of proof
required for a conviction.

9.

The officer after returning from inspecting the area, rather than apologising as I
expected began questioning me and giving out orders. The person who I believe went on
to make a complaint, and who had incidentally said to me he would not do so before
accompanying the officer to the spot where I had been accused of urinating, made a
statement that he had seen me zipping/unzipping my fly. However, I was wearing denim
jeans which had no zip the fly operated with buttons. The reliability of a witness must
be brought into question when the accused actions (stated to have been seen) were an

impossibility. When this was conveyed to the arresting officer he appeared not to
consider it relevant and seemed like he had decided upon bringing a charge for public
indecency regardless of there being no evidence.
10.

I was of the view that as I had committed no offence and was completely innocence I
was under no obligation to respond to the questioning. Within seconds of refusing, the
officer arrested me and I remained handcuffed for approximately half an hour in what
Id describe as a holding room of ridiculously small dimensions accompanied by the
arresting officer.

11.

I happened to notice at the point when I was arrested (which is not an insignificant
matter) that the police employee who had made false accusations about me was smugly
grinning. This can only be put down to having a perverse satisfaction of bringing about
the gross and unwarranted inconvenience which includes the events set out in this
statement.

FALSE IMPRISONMENT
12.

After about 10 minutes stood in the holding room, I requested the handcuffs be
loosened as they were unnecessarily tight and causing pain. After a quick check the
officer responded by stating that there was plenty of room and suggested I try moving
my elbows closer together (my hands were behind my back) in an attempt to lessen the
pressure.

13.

Further questioning took place once entering the main building at which point the
handcuffs were released. I was informed I was entitled to a Duty Solicitor as I had no
access to a solicitor of my own. On asking if the one theyd had in mind was
independent from the police, I took up the offer when they stated they all were
independent.

14.

Over all I was falsely imprisoned for around 8 hours during which time I was allowed
out for short intervals on around three occasions. Once to have finger prints taken etc.
with the threat of being forced if I refused another time to take a call when the
solicitor phoned, and the third time to be interrogated, following a pre-interrogation
discussion with the solicitor.

15.

After a while in the cell I still sensed soreness from the handcuffs and noticed the marks
remained visible, so called for someone to have them photographed. A woman spoke

through the cells spy hole and stated that someone would come and deal with the
matter. However, nobody ever did come and the marks which in fact remained visible
for some days afterwards were never photographed.

ATTENDANCE POLICE STATION 4 SEPTEMBER 2015

16.

I was released on bail at approximately 2am on 28.8.15 on false charges of indecent

exposure. The police bail notice required I surrender to the police station on 4.9.15 at
5:30pm with the threat of arrest if I failed to do so.

17.

Whilst attending Humberside police station it was conveyed to me that the Crown
Prosecution Service (CPS) had considered that because it was a first offence that they
would not take on the case of prosecuting for indecent exposure. I suspect that the
reason was not because it was a first offence but for some other reason which would
more likely be either one or a number of the following:

18.

i)

CCTV footage had been found that proved I had neither indecently exposed
myself nor urinated in a public place.

ii)

There was no CCTV footage to prove either way

iii)

The witness (or witnesses) considered the seriousness of perjury and were
not prepared to take the risk of lying while under oath

Though the CPS had apparently decided against prosecuting the false charge of indecent
exposure, that was not the end of the matter. The third charge (an offence under the
Public Order Act 1986), presumably the result of desperation to secure a conviction was
read out to me which appears on the charge sheet as follows.
Use threatening / abusive words / behaviour or disorderly behaviour likely
to cause harassment, alarm or distress
On 27/08/15 at Grimsby in North East Lincolnshire used threatening or abusive
words or behaviour or disorderly behaviour within the hearing or sight of a person
likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby CONTRARY TO
SECTION 5(1) AND (6) OF THE PUBLIC ORDER ACT 1986.
H.O. 125/12 Local None CJS PU86149

19.

I am not familiar with how criminal offences are dealt with by the police, CPS and
courts. I therefore have no idea whether it is normal practice for the authorities to
consider introducing a new offence which was not the cause for arrest, purely as a

contingency when that arrest was made erroneously. If such an approach is standard
practice then it should be considered an abuse of the criminal justice system. A
defendants (other) actions plainly do not suddenly become a police matter just on
account of the arresting officers blunder in the original charge/arrest.
20.

I do not consider that the court should even consider the charges which are clearly the
result of the criminal justice system being exploited, perhaps to make money from or as
an opportunity to get retribution. I have though, had a brief look at the relevant Act
(Public Order Act 1986) and there are issues which require highlighting.

21.

None of the events relating to the charges which stand presently (which are very
sketchy) would have occurred had first the witness and the police employee on duty
in the front office, and later the arresting police officer, not stated falsely (not suspected)
that I had committed an act of indecency.

22.

The false accusations continued even after I had made it clear that they were mistaken
and couldn't have seen what they had stated to be fact. Any of the events relating to the
present charges therefore were provoked and it considered the 'conduct reasonable,
which is a defence under sub-section (3)(c) of section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986, as
follows (emphasis added):
(1) A person is guilty of an offence if he
(a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly
behaviour, or
(b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is
threatening, abusive or insulting,
within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm
or distress thereby
(2) An offence under this section may be committed in a public or a private place,
except that no offence is committed where the words or behaviour are used,
or the writing, sign or other visible representation is displayed, by a person
inside a dwelling and the other person is also inside that or another dwelling.
(3) It is a defence for the accused to prove
(a) that he had no reason to believe that there was any person within
hearing or sight who was likely to be caused harassment, alarm or
distress, or

(b) that he was inside a dwelling and had no reason to believe that the
words or behaviour used, or the writing, sign or other visible
representation displayed, would be heard or seen by a person outside
that or any other dwelling, or
(c) that his conduct was reasonable.
(4) A constable may arrest a person without warrant if
(a) he engages in offensive conduct which a constable warns him to stop,
and
(b) he engages in further offensive conduct immediately or shortly after
the warning.
(5) In subsection (4) offensive conduct means conduct the constable reasonably
suspects to constitute an offence under this section, and the conduct
mentioned in paragraph (a) and the further conduct need not be of the same
nature.
(6) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary
conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.
23.

With regard to the arrest and not withstanding that there were no reasonable grounds
there also appears to have been a procedural error and therefore unlawful under section
5(4). It provides there that a constable may arrest a person without warrant if he engages
in offensive conduct which a constable warns him to stop, and he engages in further
offensive conduct immediately or shortly after the warning. I have no recollection of the
described circumstances occurring before I was arrested and falsely imprisoned. It
therefore would seem that the charges should be brought against Humberside police
force rather than myself for wrongful arrest and false imprisonment.

CONCERNS REGARDING THE MAGISTRATES COURT

24.

I have been granted bail and a date is set for an attendance at the Grimsby Magistrates
court on 30.9.15, at 1:45 pm (court 1) the consequences of which I have been informed
if I fail to do so may be a fine, imprisonment or both.

25.

I have expressed my view to the police that I have no confidence in the Grimsby
Magistrates' court and have been lied to by the Justices Clerk in another matter (High
Court appeal) and find it inappropriate that this court is given the opportunity to hear the
case and pass judgment.

26.

The case (case stated appeal) submitted in November 2012 which has brought the
concerns about the court to my attention has remained undetermined to this day. The
Justices' Clerk went as far as producing a draft case stated, only after being coerced by a
Judicial Review claim for mandamus. Since then, communications have been
stonewalled by the Justices Clerk for Humber and South Yorkshire, who has lied about
continuing the case to the subsequent stage, i.e., producing the final case stated.

27.

Whilst the case has been ongoing, another with significant relevance to matters raised in
my appeal has been determined. In R (Nicolson) v Tottenham Magistrates [2015]
EWHC 1252 (Admin) the claimant sought judicial review of the decision of justices to
make an award of costs in favour of the Interested Party, London Borough of Haringey
following the granting of a council tax liability order concerning unpaid council tax.

28.

I believe the costs claimed against the defendant in the case referred to was in the sum
of 33,000 and wonder if the effort put into preventing my case progressing was to
prevent a similar outcome. A complaint was submitted to the Advisory Committee on
2nd September 2014 regarding what I considered to be perverting the course of justice,
but have concerns that my complaint has been deliberately ignored because the
Advisory Committee Secretary, to whom the complaint is addressed, is also the Justices
Clerk in my case.

29.

A further complaint has been submitted to the Judicial Appointment and Conduct
Ombudsman (8.8.15) regarding the Advisory Committee Secretary's failure to respond
and has similarly elicited no response. I therefore will be looking at the possibility of
bringing charges of misconduct in public office against those employees of HMCTS
who have been involved in the gross negligence. That also goes for Humberside police
with regards to the force failing to take allegations about bailiff fraud seriously and
mishandling complaints against it in regards that failure (see below paras 30-37).

BAILIFF FRAUD ABETTED BY NORTH EAST LINCOLNSHIRE COUNCIL

30.

I have for a number of years been engaged in matters relating to fraud committed by
private bailiffs working on behalf of local authorities.

31.

Since around 2009, Humberside police have for an array of reasons refused to
investigate allegations of fraud committed by the aforementioned firms. The force has
made it categorically clear that the evidence I have submitted initially relating to

attempts by Rossendales to defraud myself and subsequently to the matter scaled up

and relating to several bailiff firms, does not warrant police resources being used.
32.

The sums, which are based on a five year period, potentially amount to millions of
pounds throughout the country.

33.

I have submitted complaints in relation to the force turning a blind eye to the serious
matter, i.e., local authorities abetting their bailiff contractors to abuse their powers in
helping themselves to vulnerable taxpayer's money, in response to which the force has
been equally negligent in dealing with. The force demonstrates no signs of
accountability, appearing to conduct itself without any standard or duty to the taxpayer,
or in other words, a law unto itself.

34.

There is a sense that police forces are under pressure not to pursue cases that might
impact on the amount of tax collected by the state and so the fraud associated with
private firms awarded government contracts for this work is brushed under the carpet.
The force's unaccountability is self evident by it failing to take allegations of fraud
seriously and subsequently mishandling complaints against it in regards that failure.

35.

A complaint which has only this month concluded (negatively) and has been ongoing
for approaching two years was initially recorded wrongly as 'Direction & Control' whilst
in fact should have been classified as a 'Conduct Matter'. The significance being that
whilst a 'Conduct Matter' had a right of appeal, in the case of a 'Direction and Control'
complaint there was no right of appeal, and stated as such in the negative outcome to the
complaint.

36.

After taking the time to research the matter and contacting the Independent Police
Complaints Commission (IPCC), the IPCC agreed with my assertions that Humberside
police had wrongly classified the complaint, i.e., to avoid having to deal with an appeal.
It was implied anyway at that time by the department head dealing with the complaint,
who incidentally blatantly lied in the contrived response that an appeal right was
academic because the force would at no point consider the fraud allegations for an
investigation.

37.

My concerns are that because of my ongoing dispute with the force and the problems
that it may be causing certain persons serving with Humberside police, there may be a
perverse incentive to abuse police powers and have me inconvenienced in some way.
This appears may be behind why the police officer wrongly arrested me on the false

charges already set out in these representations. My suspicions are as Ive also set out
that the arresting officer may also have encouraged the witness to make false allegations
to aid a criminal case against me, i.e., incited the witness to commit perjury.

CONCLUSION
38.

The time, effort and waste of resources which have resulted from the events set out in
this statement provide a perfect example of how the respective public bodies undermine
the credibility of the judicial process in a way contrary to the interest of justice. It is
worth noting that the authorities are willing to pull out all the stops to ensure the local
authority endorsed fraud of council taxpayers by their bailiff contractors is not pursued,
but do the opposite and fabricate evidence of non-crimes to oppress ordinary citizens.

39.

The evidence suggests that the criminal justice system is being exploited for at least two
immediately obvious reasons. One, to raise money from fines, costs etc., which is even
more obvious since the newly introduced court fee in criminal cases of between 150
and 1,200. The other, which in my opinion arises from the existence of performance
targets for which police forces are presumably under pressure to meet giving
police officers a perverse incentive to arrest. This abuse of the courts is likely to be
further fuelled by the CPS also having to report increasingly presentable figures for
successful prosecutions.

40.

The arresting officer had no good cause to suspect that the charges originally brought
were warranted and the subsequent arrest and imprisonment was unlawful for which
Humberside Police should be held to account.

41.

The final charges brought under the provision of the Public Order Act 1986 had been
provoked by the false accusations which were in any event not considered initially. This
strongly suggests that Humberside police were abusing the criminal justice system and
motivated for reasons already set out, i.e., retribution, financial or in relation to
performance and targets. I therefore recommend that a thorough investigation into the
forces policies and procedures is undertaken. There is no doubt in my mind that the
overall person responsible for this should be answering to charges of misconduct in
public office and/or perverting the course of justice.

42.

There are also key officers within local authorities in place at huge cost to the taxpayer
who should be answerable to the charges previously mentioned for the cover-ups and

negligence detailed briefly in connection with council tax fraud. That also goes for the
various bogus watchdog organisations (IPCC, LGO, ICO etc. etc.) which can only
properly be described as sham organisations which are put in place at the expense of the
taxpayer to fake accountability.
43.

There is also a costs/damages issue (including potential loss of earnings) which if

aggregated over the years for the gross inconvenience of having to deal with the
negligence, maladministration, and criminal actions of the various public bodies briefly
mentioned in this statement would amount to hundreds of thousands of pounds and need
assessing in their own dedicated proceedings.

44.

For the reasons set out above the court is respectfully invited to find the defendant not
guilty of the charges and consider instigating proceedings against the relevant public
bodies for answering to charges of misconduct in public office and/or perverting the
course of justice.

Dated this 30th day of September 2015

Signed:

The Defendant