Like Gladiators. In Suits

Today I've had my afternoon in Court and I would like to tell that I've been found not guilty. Mainly because that would be a lot easier then explaining the technical detail of what actually happened.

As I mentioned yesterday the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) had failed to disclose the exhibits referenced in the initial disclosure of evidence. As a result my defence argued that it was impossible to mount a proper defence meaning that I would not receive a fair trail. They then suggested to the CPS that they apply for an adjournment. The rather young CPS lawyer instead dispatched a police officer to bring those exhibits to the Court. This of course would have been completely useless because the main exhibit - the hammer - would then have to be sent off for forensic examination. However it circumvented the technicality meaning that the case could proceed.

We began with a reading of the statement of the victim - the witness living in the address with the damaged windows - which makes up pages 20 and 21 of the initial disclosure bundle. This was brief and simply talks of hearing a load noise and seeing a non-descript male wearing dark clothing including a hooded top with the hood up walking away from the scene in poor light. The problem was that at the time of my arrest and thoughout the day leading up to that arrest and along with most of the following day spent in police custody I was wearing blue jeans and a grey fleece top which did not have a hood. So either this statement described someone who was not me leaving the scene or was a case of a witness who had seen nothing making a guess based on what I normally wear. As this statement was so brief and was contradicted by all other witnesses the CPS decided not to call this witness for cross-examination and the defence saw no need to disagree.

Next we moved onto the independent witnesses whose statement makes up page 16 of the initial disclosure bundle. This is the terrific work of fiction that was referenced during the 'plebgate' House of Commons select committees. In this statement that was given to the Officer in Charge (OIC) of the case - "Sarastro" - more then a month after the event the witness claims that she not only saw a man fitting my description leaving the scene of the crime in excellent visibility but that I stopped and had a little conversation with her. In that conversation I supposedly told her that I had smashed the windows because "I don't like those people" before telling her where I lived. This conversation was not witnessed by the victim who had a much better view. Also it sounds remarkably similar to the statement I gave to the police after discovering a burglar in my shed in a case that led to complaints being made to both the police borough commander and the Independent Police Complaints Commission (the other IPCC). The use of the phrase "Those people" by a white person to describe black people seems to be the witness implying that this was a racially motivated offence which is rightfully considered much more serious.

This witness went on to claim she was able to provide probable cause for my arrest because she had witnessed my initial contact with the arresting officer. The problem is that this conversation happened well within the confines of my property meaning that it was well beyond the witnesses field of vision and her view was so obscured that there was actually an entire other two storey house in the way.

So although defences don't say things like that in Court it appeared very much that the OIC and the independent witness had conspired to give a false statement that helped solve some of the quite big problems with the case. This is commonly know as the criminal offence of attempting to pervert the course of justice contrary to common law.

The independent witnesses was cross-examined in Court but insisted on doing so from behind a screen. Now this could have been interpreted as me being such a scary and nasty person that merely having to glance at me would cause her severe emotional and psychological distress. Alternatively though it could be interpreted as the witness being unable to look me in the eye as she lied through her teeth thus committing the further criminal offence of perjury. Despite the screen under examination from the CPS lawyer the witnesses story began to fall apart to the point where she had to be reminded to read her statement before answering. By the time the defence had completed their examination the witness had become so flustered that she was unable to confirm to the Court where she lived and why she had never seen a man who had been living two doors down from her for 8 years before in her entire life.

At this point the prosecutions cause had been all but lost but as it's highly inappropriate to just give up halfway through we moved onto hear from the arresting officer and the (OIC).


Being rather skilled at this sort of thing the arresting officer merely confirmed what was in his statement which makes up pages 18 and 19 of the initial disclosure bundle. This states that upon arrival on the scene the officer proceeded to walk onto my property where he first encountered me standing smoking in poor visibility. This is all true but if it is proof that I'd committed the offence it also proves that I am guilty of every single other crime that has been committed anywhere in the world whilst I was standing on my property smoking a cigarette of the past 8 years. What this statement does though is raise the question of on what authority the police officer entered the private property without a search warrant or probable cause. Needless to say although he didn't lie in his testimony the arresting officer gave the impression that this conversation had in fact occurred on the public street in full view of the independent witness. That was something we were going to bring up during my testimony.

Following this initial contact the arresting officer then went off to speak to the victim and any potential witnesses before detailing the exact circumstances of my arrest. Here the arresting officer claims that I was offering such a level of resistance that I had to be restrained by three police officers and handcuffed in the enhanced rear-stack position. Although I feel I was being more sarcastic then violent this is what happened. However the arresting officer then claimed that he left this unruly prisoner unattended while he went to search an outbuilding. On a work surface within that outbuilding the arresting officer claims he discovered a hammer with glass fragments on the head which he seized as evidence. The problems with this are that a police officer would never leave a prisoner - unruly or otherwise - unattended, there was no work surface in the outbuilding and the police failed to confirm the presence of glass fragments through forensic tests. Put simply the search and seizure were actually carried out by a police Sergeant and a police Inspector who were also at the scene and the arresting officer was simply lying in his statement. However rather then challenging the officer on cross-examination these issues were simply left for my testimony to contradict because the absence of the hammer spoke more loudly then my lawyer ever could.

Finally came the evidence of the OIC which is vital because his conduct effects all the other evidence in the case. His testimony was simply a reading on the transcript of the police interview the recording of which was part of the evidence the CPS had failed to disclose. Prior to the OIC's testimony the defence filed a motion to exclude the interview because my father had been used as an appropriate adult in clear violation of the 2012 update of Code C of the Police and Criminal Evidence (PACE) 1984. However before this motion could be ruled on the OIC gave his testimony which involved him reading his part of the interview and the CPS lawyer reading my part of the interview which was fun because it led to the prosecution standing up in open Court and saying; "Well police officers lie." On cross-examination the defence merely got the OIC to confirm that he had made no attempt to contact an appropriate adult as described in PACE either whilst I was in custody or at any point whilst I was on bail and I had repeatedly objected to my father being used as an appropriate adult. This helped paint a picture of a police officer trying to get the evidence to fit a suspect rather then allowing the evidence to lead them to a suspect.

As soon as the OIC had finished giving his evidence the defence withdraw its motion to exclude because we suddenly realised that during the interview the OIC had quoted from the statement given by the independent witness that wasn't actually given until some 40 days after the interview had been terminated. That gave a lot of people the impression that the OIC had given the statement to the witness rather then the other way round as was being claimed.

Then after a short delay while we waited for the CPS lawyer to accept that the hammer could not be brought to Court in time the prosecution case rested.

Then in the style of episode 1 of series 2 of US TV Show "Scandal" the defence filed a pro-forma motion calling for the case to be dismissed due to a lack of evidence. After a short recess in which the defence lawyer warned me that these motions never work it worked. As a result I have been acquitted of the offence because the prosecution had not been able to present a strong enough case for me to have to answer. Quite why it has taken the best part of 7 months for that obvious conclusion to be reached is one of the matters I expected to be bringing up in another Court in the none too distant future.

Before I go and get drunk though I should point out that the old trick of the prosecution 'forgetting' to disclose evidence causing a case to collapse prior to witnesses giving evidence is often used in organised crime cases either to protect an informant or disrupt a group by making them think someone is an informant. However in this case I think the reasons where somewhat different. In fact although phone reception was terrible I do believe the UK Houses of Parliament - the very heart of government - came under threat the moment I walked into Court.

18:35 on 12/11/13.

Edited at around 20:30 on 12/11/13 to add;

Although all the evidence in the initial disclosure bundle is now a matter of public record so can be obtained from the national records office in the next 6-9 months before I publish them on the Internet I would like to redact certain identifying details. After all while I'm sure mine is an endorsement he could happily live without I genuinely feel that the police force is a better place for having the arresting officer on it. Unfortunately at this point I am now to drunk to write my own name let alone delete it from a series of documents. So, erm, f*ck you,