Sir,
May I introduce myself? My name is Adrian, and I am very concerned with the activities of police and the courts, as regards apprehending and prosecuting child abusers. I am particularly concerned with so-called "historic" cases of child abuse, that seem to have been covered up over the last couple of generations.
Only two years ago, I would have been considered a "conspiracy theorist", but now my statements above run quite concurrently with the results of recent investigations and revelations – revelations pertaining to Cyril Smith being a good example.
In any case, if I may continue to the grist of my letter to you – you recently sat in judgement of a man known as Chris Spivey; case number 421400531044 heard at Chelmsford Magistrates Court on July 30-31, 2015.
This man has said some outrageous things on various subjects ... it is true also that this man represents a section of the Alternative Media that holds views that are largely abhorrent to a large section of the populace.
It may be true that Chris Spivey is thought of by many, as a man who deserves to face a court – one that tries to determine if what he has said is illegal or not, as the case may be ... but that is not the issue I am trying to raise in this letter.
The issue, is the appreciation and deserved realisation of the correct due process of law.
As a layman to the ways of the legal system, I am dismayed at the handling of the situation that brought Mr Spivey to your court:
- The misuse of the Police And Criminal Evidence Act (PACE), by categorising his offence as "Indictable" and arresting him under section 32, part 2:
"if the offence for which he has been arrested is an indictable offence, to enter and search any premises in which he was when arrested or immediately before he was arrested for evidence relating to the offence"
Far be it form me, to remind your esteemed self, that harassment is not an indictable offence – it is considered to be a summary one.
- Further detours from the proper procedures came when, also contrary to section 32, the premises where Mr Spivey was illegally arrested were searched without Mr Spivey's permission...importantly, no members of the household were allowed to witness the illegal search – again, a contravention.
- Further, the arrest took place at 1:30 am ... a complete disregard for PACE, Code B, which clearly states that searches, "Searches must be made at a reasonable hour unless this might frustrate the purpose of the search".
- A Postal Requisition, clearly malicious in its timing, was employed in seeming response to a reasonable complaint made by Mr Spivey about the abuses that had taken place to get him into a jail-cell. Unusual, as Mr Spivey was actually released on bail. Again, it is not up to a layman such as myself, to remind you that PR's are NOT to be issued to anyone with bail conditions imposed on them.
You were made aware of the very odd apparent leap-frogging of correct processes employed to place Mr Spivey in your court ... yet you were able to dismiss the very obvious by-passing of the law, as laid in front of you. I know you are human, and have a life outside the court, but I am, rather, talking to the person paid a large amount of money to uphold and interpret the law.
The person who should be above anything else, in the pursuit of his role as a judger of people.
Why didn't you dismiss this case at that point, Mr Woollard – when you were shown that Mr Spivey was an obvious victim of the illegal activities of the Essex police force?
Why did you go on to further disgraces and abuses of due process?
- You KNEW Mr Spivey was ill on the day of his plea, yet he was made to wait until the last possible appearance. Petty?
- You refused to postpone the trial; so denying Mr Spivey the option – granted to him under Article 6 of the Human Rights Act – to face his accuser. A deliberate misinterpretation of the law, so as to unduly affect the outcome of a trial?
These are just two examples of how you compounded the injustice of this case with your own bias.
There are more ... including how you are considering a custodial sentence, where actual and truly heinous and direct abuses presented to other courts, are routinely considered to be worthy of no more than a legal "slap on the wrist".
It is upsetting to see the power of the machine that is able to flout the law, and it is utterly wrong that a judge should be party to such an obvious detraction of respect for the law – as exhibited by the illegal machinations swung into the place, to drag a man into a courtroom.
That man, Mr Spivey, was brought before you in shackles – after an apparent collusion between Police, Judiciary, the social services, and even the newspapers.
It was YOUR court, Mr Woollard – it was YOUR opportunity to show that no decent judge would stand for such blatant misuses of the proper process of the law.
In my view, and I think in the predicted view of future investigations or retrials, it is clear that the system you sit at the pinnacle of, is bent out of all shape – and it is frighteningly geared towards the bias and prejudices of people who are not one whit worried about the written-in-stone legal processes they pervert in order to "get their man".
This is NOT the 70's, sir, and we are not talking about the Flying Squad.
The ordinary people had hoped such days were behind us.
You, sir, represent the Law; yet you seem happy to provide a travesty of it – you chose to support the illegal efforts of the heavily-biased Essex police.
I am further dismayed by the power of this machine, when I realise that such 'handling', as faced by Mr Spivey, could facilitate the arrest and prosecution of anyone who makes public statements.
My dismay sinks to new depths, when I come to understand that such 'handling' could very easily PREVENT arrests and prosecutions of current, or so-called 'historic', VIP child abusers...all it would take, is a polar-switcharound in the bias of the police and courts.
I am forced to ask, if this travesty you presided over is 'the norm', when it comes to justice in this country?
Are the police really allowed to expose their worst judgements and interpretations of the law, in order to secure a prosecution...with no fear of their illegal and perverse actions either coming to light, or being questioned by a judge such as yourself?
If a person is thought of as having broken the law – then it is hoped that the police, CPS and the Judiciary will act – separately, and playing their own parts – to bring about circumstances whereupon the person can be ultimately judged in a courtroom.
It is not up to you, the Essex police, or any other body or person, to attempt to circumvent the law in order to target an individual...that in itself being absolutely illegal in any sense.
In another sense, the fact that you WERE able to apparently qualify such illegal moves, means that you and the system you represent, is able to pretty-much do what it wants – and damn the consequences – as the rule of law is horribly mutilated and prostituted to serve the apparently nefarious ends of those who hold our freedom in their hands.
I won't stand here and try to qualify ANYTHING Mr Spivey has claimed to be true in his previous blogs – I don't have to.
It is my concern for the non-derailment of the proper course of justice, that has prompted me to write to you in this fashion, and with such accusations.
I am a taxpayer – you take your substantial wage from the public purse.
To be short, and in conclusion, it is my right to simply do one thing, and expect the proper results...
I am telling you to just do your job properly.
Yours, not expecting a response,
Adrian
