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, 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 had 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.

I was gathering my documents, prior to leaving the Courtroom: when the Court was adjourned: after the Sergeant had testified, when 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 the 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, 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 real 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, because 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, because 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 sentence 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 evidence, which indicates that he had either, already dictated the false evidence; purported to have been given by her, or intended so to do.

If he had not already dictated the false evidence, attributed to her and had not already omitted evidence that she had given, or had no intention of fabricating the evidence, 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 Jurors' had been informed that they could examine the handwriting on my custody record, but there again, if he had already altered, or intended to alter, 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 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 was then 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.
~~~~~~~
Chapter 2
~~~~~~~