In case you've not worked it out yet on Friday (28/6/13) I will be answering police bail in relation to - well the bail form is still blank. As I've explained before the obligation is to surrender to the police not a specific police station or even a specific police force. Therefore the plan is that I will surrender at Westminster police station at around 12:00 (local). I do not need to offer a reason for doing this but suspected local corruption and the previous denial of prescribed medication and the right to be seen by a doctor both count as very good reasons. What will happen next is the Metropolitan police at Westminster will contact the Metropolitan police officer in charge (OIC) of the case to find out if he has grounds to proceed with the investigation. If he convinces them that there is he will either travel up to Westminster or I will be transported back to Croydon. I may of course be immediately charged and brought before Westminster Magistrates Court for a habeus corpus hearing but I'll get on to that later. Of course if the OIC cannot be contacted the police may simply re-bail me until a later date.
That is of course the plan. However I might oversleep forcing me to surrender to Croydon police station. I may also find the temptation to surrender to the armed police guarding Downing Street whilst carrying a suspiciously heavy bag too much to resist.
With no formal allegation put to me so far it is quite difficult to predict what will happen if the OIC decides to proceed. After all I might find myself having to answer allegations that I was involved in the disappearance of the race horse Shergar or the assassination of US President JFK or something equally random. However assuming the OIC is intends to pursue offences relating to the 1971 Criminal Damage Act he will first have to assess the quality of the evidence against me.
As far as I can tell they have the statements of two witnesses who are close friends and neighbours. One of those witnesses is - to use the correct legal term - the agent of not one but two organisations that have been waging a long campaign of harassment against my property and those contained within it. That campaign is evidenced by police records, Court records and Parliamentary records. There are also photographs of youngsters at that witnesses address behaving in a very peculiar manner on a low roof of the property is what could be viewed as attempting to feign injury. Therefore the first question the OIC or more accurately the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) lawyer has to ask is whether there is any credibility to those witness statements or whether they are simply the latest chapter in the long running harassment campaign?
The police also have in their possession a hammer that was recovered from a private but non-secure (closed but not locked door) area of my property. Unless the police can explain how that door opened itself and an electric light turned itself on that hammer may well be excluded as the product of an unlawful search and seizure. However with four police officers and one of me that strikes me as a sluggers fight. As was mentioned at the initial interview that hammer is my lawful possession. Therefore no amount of fingerprint or DNA evidence is going to put it in my hand at the time of the incident. In order to prove that it was used in the incident the police will have to show transfer from the scene of the incident to the hammer. This most likely means broken glass. If transfer is found the police must then prove that it wasn't accidentally placed there by a police officer who was both at the scene and the location where the hammer was seized. On something of a side note my father of all people was very surprised to observe that there is certainly no glass on the fabric washing machine cover where the hammer was seized from. Also as the police were able to seize the hammer from my property without my permission they will also have to demonstrate that in a matter of seconds an unknown person did not steal the hammer, commit the act and then return it to the private but non-secure area.
Finally the police claim that they have the whole thing on CCTV. At the risk of giving away trade secrets every single time I've been arrested the police have claimed to have the whole thing on CCTV but I've never once been presented with CCTV evidence. This includes one occasion on which I was arrested in the front passenger seat of one of Sussex Police's garishly labelled CCTV vans. It's almost enough to make you want to read up on a psychological phenomenon known as the Panopticon principle. The address in question certainly has no visible CCTV cameras nor any signs warning of the use of CCTV. Therefore if the address is bristling with covert surveillance equipment it certainly raises significant questions about what type of operation they a running.
If the OIC/CPS are confident that they can prove beyond all reasonable doubt that I have committed the alleged act they then have to demonstrate that act was unlawful. Primarily this means overcoming the statutory defence laid out in Section 2 of the 1971 Act that states that a person can only be considered to be acting criminally if they lack an honest belief that they were not acting in self-defence. As with "reasonableness" "honest" is something of an elastic legal term open to interpretation. However it seems to have been included in this statute to prevent someone doing something naughty, speaking to a lawyer and then making something up after the fact. My belief as to the nature of the organisations conduct has been sworn to under oath in three Court proceedings over several years. Therefore if the CPS believe they have even the slightest chance of proving my belief was dishonest they should be pursuing the much more serious charge of perjury. There are of course also questions about immediacy, proportionality and recklessness. Until such a time as the police are able to make a formal allegation I do not have to address these so am not happy discussing them in detail here. However as for the question of recklessness I should point out that as part of the deal between the property owner, Croydon Council, Croydon police and the Local Member of Parliament that allowed the property to remain open the room with the damaged windows was designated as a living rather than a sleeping area. Therefore if someone is in a living area in - I presume the dark - at around 1AM you have to ask questions about who is being negligent.
Therefore what should happen when Westminster police contact the OIC is that he should quickly inform them that no further action is to be taken against me, ask them to apologise to me on his behalf and request that I am put in contact with a more qualified officer who will take my witness statement. Ideally I'll then spend the next few days at a police shooting range getting my small arms certification. After all if the police expect me to do their job for them I at least expect to be properly trained.
Unfortunately the OIC strikes me as someone who is still dreaming of the day he gets to bring a big case to the Central Criminal Court (Old Bailey). Therefore he will insist that I am transported down to Croydon where he will attempt to effectively bully a confession out of me. He was unable to do this the last time. This time he will be lacking the shock n' awe of a dramatic arrest, nicotine withdrawal, withdrawal from prescribed medication and the social pressure of my father whom he contacted against my express wishes. Therefore on interview I will inform him (it's not my duty to explain) the Statutory Nuisance case and the Court of Protection (COP) case along with the Safer Neighbourhood Team (SNT) emails. Beyond that I expect the phrase; "I refer you to my earlier statement" will be used a lot. If he raises the issue of my Internet use (especially Twitter) I will require him to obtain unanimous permission from the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) before I can discuss it with him. If he gets that far the answer is of course; "Yes."
Out of a mix of spite and frustration that OIC will wait until the last possible moment of the 24hrs he is allowed to hold me without charge (approx 12:00 local on 29/6/13) before referring the matter to a "police decision maker" who is just a mysterious voice at the end of a phone. That decision maker might actually see sense and order my immediate release. However it is more likely that I will be charged and won't be able to be brought before a Magistrate for a habeus corpus hearing until 09:00 on Monday (1/7/13) meaning I'll have to spend the weekend in a police cell. This will give the local police the opportunity to observe the drug regime I use whilst in a police cell and provide lots of opportunity for wild speculation about what is going on. If there are rumours of me pacing my cell muttering to myself the chances are I'll be reciting a certain Shakespearean soliloquy or reciting the words to a Pink Floyd song. If things get really boring I might tell the custody officers a very long and pointless story about a custody officer who I new socially who decided on a career change after coming into contact with a Turkish special forces deserter.
Just before the habeus corpus hearing I will instruct a legal aid lawyer/public defender. Their first task will be to file a motion to dismiss on the aforementioned grounds. If that fails and legally it really shouldn't they will then make a bail application on my behalf. In the UK bail is an automatic right. That means it is extremely unusual for money to have to be placed with the Court and the prosecution must prove that there is good reason to deny bail. The most common reasons are;
- Public Safety. Basically I present a serious (life or limb) threat to the public whilst on bail. This could only apply if I was charged with the endangering life/reckless disregard offence which is legally highly unlikely. I have also been on bail for more than four weeks and no members of the public have been injured.
- Interfering with the investigation. Basically I would intimidate witnesses of destroy evidence whilst on bail. Here the prosecution might have something mainly through my Internet use. However it is not an offence to simply identify a witness who would have to give evidence in open Court. As the SNT emails demonstrate any alleged intimidation took place while the witnesses were engaging in serious criminal behaviour which the police were refusing the intervene with. Therefore my actions seem necessary to keep the peace - something that is supported by the fact nothing actually happened. Also I have had ample opportunity to destroy pictures etc that could become evidence at a later date and have not done so.
- Absconding. Basically I'll run away rather than appearing for trial. This is a non-starter. I have fully complied with the terms of both police and Court bail on numerous past occasions. I have no passport and I have strong links to the local community not least my reliance on my GP for prescription medication.
No comments:
Post a Comment