~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
H.O.J.R SHEPHEARD
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mr. Shepheard, who had conduct of the case in the name of the Treasury
Solicitor, on behalf of
Judge Simpson and unlawfully, on behalf of Mrs. West, declined to correspond
with me after I
provided him with my affidavit, on September 17, 1996. The affidavit
accused him of perjury and
other unlawful acts, committed for the protection of Judge Simpson.
I cannot be sure that it was the affidavit that contributed to the termination
of his employment in the Office of the Treasury Solicitor, but in any event,
I have not heard from him since.
PERJURY: Mr. Shepheard perjured himself, on December 1, 1995,
by knowingly swearing a false
affidavit.
False statements in paragraph 3, of his affidavit.
False Statement 1.
"On the 12th September 1995, I finished drafting
the 'Defence' of both Defendants'."
EVIDENCE THAT DEMONSTRATES THE ABOVE FALSE STATEMENT FALSE.
i) AFFIDAVIT (disclosing the false statements)
ii) DEFENCE
iii) FURTHER AND BETTER PARTICULARS OF THE DEFENCE.
iv) BILLS OF COSTS.
a) The clearly visible date September 5, on the completed Defence
document: admitted by Mr.
Shepheard himself, in his affidavit, that he did delete it and substituted
it with the date 12th;
b) the fact that, if the drafting of the Defence had truly been
completed on September 12, the deleted
date 5th, could not appear on the finished document;
c) the fact, that the completed 'Defence', which was served, demonstrates
by is own heading that it
was started as the defence of both Defendants', which fact is again
supported by Mr. Shepheard
himself, in the 1st, and 2nd sentences, of his paragraph 3, and the
date 5th, which has been deleted
by him, as his paragraph 3, also confirms, demonstrates that it was
undoubtedly completed, as both Defendants' defence before the date: 5th
was added at the end of the document;
d) the amended date: 12th, is written in ink, demonstrating that
it was added to the completed
'Defence', which is in type, as is the deleted date 5th;
e) and it is manifest, that if a defence document admitted to
have been started as the Defence of both
Defendants', is dated 5th, that it was completed on that date and it
is also patently clear, that if
further drafting of material needed to be done, such drafting could
not be added to a document that
has been typed up and completed. If further drafting, or drafted material,
had to be added to the
document that was typed up and completed, the only possible way to
add to it would be to prepare
a completely fresh document and in such an event, it would necessarily
have to bear the typed date
12th, with no deleted, typed date 5th;
f) the 'Bill of Costs, (page 2) corroborates, that the Defence
of the 2nd Defendant (and 1st
Defendant) was prepared on September 5, and it discloses no claim for
work done on the 12th, the
date that Mr. Shepheard has sworn that he finished drafting the Defence;
On the face of the indisputable: original documentary evidence, that
supports, and corroborates, a)
b) c) d) e) and f) above, it is clear that Mr. Shepheard did not finish
drafting the 'Defence' on
September 12. He has not, nor can he, provide any reasonable, or believable
answer to the
allegation.
False statement 2.
" The Second Defendants' instructions to me on
the 6th September, provided me with material on
which the pleading was finished on the 12th September."
Evidence that demonstrates that the above statement is false.
g) It is evident from the defence document itself; that not
one piece of material was provided by Mrs.
West and Mr. Shepheard will be unable to point any out when, and if
my complaints to the
Metropolitan Police are investigated, because not one particular for
the denials of the allegations and
stated known facts, on which my Statement of Claim relied, has been
provided, by either Defendant: contrary to the rules of the Supreme Court;
h) it is evident, from Mr. Shepheard's reply in paragraph 3,
of the purported 'Further and Better
Particulars' of the 'Defence', that the 2nd Defendant, (Mrs. West)
did not provide him with any
material on which the pleading was finished: the reply given, by Mr.
Shepheard is: "The Second
Defendant is, in any event, entitled to claim the privilege against
self-incrimination, to refuse to answer any such question, or request."
The reply is, in any event, untrue: designed to take advantage of my ignorance
of the law. He would not have served that reply, if I had been legally
represented. Mrs West, being a private citizen, is required to answer allegations
of criminal misconduct, as is everyone else. If it is lawful for private
individuals to claim privilege against self-incrimination; there would
be no Courts: no Prisons: no Justice System. The false reply given, for
my eyes, indicates that Mr. Shepheard was desperately trying to maintain
Mrs. West's silence, but more importantly, in the context of his false
affidavit, it is another indication that Mrs. West did not provide him
with material with which the pleading was said to be finished on September
12, or at any other time. If Judge Simpson was to be protected to the best
of Mr. Shepheard's ability, the last thing that he wanted was for Mrs.
West to provide him with material.
POTENTIAL EVIDENCE.
i) Mrs. West will be unable to support Mr. Shepheards false
statement, that she provided him with
material on September 6, or at any other time and she will be unable
to give details of any such
evidence: unable to point to any material provided by her: there simply
is not any. The only evidence
that she can possibly give, if she has a mind to do so, can
only support me: her accuser;
j) she will be unable to support Mr. Shepheard's false affidavit:
in that she: a private citizen,
instructed him: a legal Officer: in the employ of the Treasury Solicitor,
to legally represent her. As a
Court shorthand writer, she knew and knows, as does everyone else,
that a private citizen is not
entitled to instruct a Government Department to legally
represent her for an alleged corrupt act, out of public funds, or at
all. Further, is the indisputable fact,
that Mrs. West who had already acknowledged service of the Writ of
Subpoena nearly one month
before September 6, stating her intention of acting in person and that
indisputable fact also reveals
that she had no intention of instructing anyone and had no intention
of providing material, which
material, that she undoubtedly, could have provided, would inevitably
have exposed the corrupt
Judge Simpson.
False statement 3.
"On the 6th September, I received confirmation,
through the Lord Chancellor's Department, from Mrs. West, that she wished
the Treasury Solicitor to act an her behalf."
EVIDENCE DEMONSTRATING THE ABOVE STATEMENT FALSE.
k) The indisputable fact that Mr. Shepheard, being a legal Officer
knows, again, as we all do, that
Mrs. West, being a private citizen, was and is not, entitled to the
privilege of legal representation by
a Government Department for an alleged corrupt act, out of public funds
where vicarious liability
does not apply;
l) The fact that Mrs. West must have been aware that she was
not entitled to instruct the Treasury
Solicitor, nor to ask Mr. Shepheard to represent her in the name of
the Treasury Solicitor and it is
most unlikely, that a precedent can be found, where a private individual
has informed either the Lord
Chancellor, or the Treasury Solicitor, that the Treasury Solicitor's
legal representation is required to
defend an action alleging corruption and where such instruction has
been obeyed;
m) also the fact, that even had the above false statement been
true, Mr. Shepheard would have
known, that to legally represent Mr. West in the name of the Treasury
Solicitor, was unlawful.
POTENTIAL EVIDENCE
n) Mrs. West's potential answer, as to whether she informed
the Lord Chancellor's Department that
she wished the Treasury Solicitor to act for her on, or before September
6, or at all;
o) her potential evidence, as to whether she did, or did not,
instruct the Treasury Solicitor, through
either the Lord Chancellor's Department, or through Mr. Shepheard,
to represent her;
p) the non-existence of original, or copy correspondence, between
Mrs. West and the Lord
Chancellor's Department, that confirms Mr. Shepheard's false statement;
q) her potential answer as to whether the Lord Chancellor's Department,
or the Treasury Solicitor's
Office, contacted her, at any time before September 6, to ascertain
whether she did wish the
Treasury Solicitor to act for her.
Further conclusive documentary evidence of Mr. Shepheard's deception
and unlawful representation
of Mrs. West, to maintain her silence, for the protection of
Circuit Judge Alan Simpson.
1. Mrs. West's own 'Acknowledgement of Service', which put her
on lawful Court record, as acting in
person.
2. The unlawful 'Acknowledgement of service' filed and served,
purportedly on Mrs. West's behalf,
while she was on lawful Court record, as acting in person.
3. The unlawful transfer of proceedings to London, under Order 77, Rule 2.
Mr. Shepheard did not trigger the transfer of proceedings, under Order
77, as he did not take over
conduct of the case until September 5, but he knew from that date,
that the action had been
erroneously transferred, with false grounds for the transfer having
been stated on the
acknowledgement of service form, but he kept silent, until confronted
by Master Tennant two weeks
later: September 19; after my application, for the action to be re-transferred
back to Hull. The false
grounds, that were submitted to the Action Department, at the Royal
Courts of Justice are:
a) that the Defendants' residence is not within the district
of the District Registry: patently untrue;
and
b) that there is no indorsement on the Writ that the Plaintiff's
cause
arose within that district: again, patently untrue.
4. Unlawful 'Notice of Change of Solicitor'
i) Served by Mr. Shepheard, upon myself and upon Mrs West, to
draw her attention to the fact that
conduct of the case against her had been taken from her, the 'NOTICE'
being served, without it
having been sealed by the Court, and without it having been filed with
the Court, contrary to the rules
of the Supreme Court, Orders 67, r, 1. para. (1), and (3)
ii) The rules state that a change of Solicitor can take effect
only from the date that it is served, and
filed. but Mr. Shepheard's unlawful 'Notice' was not filed, and in
any event, he purports it to take
effect from August 29, 1996: the date that the erroneous acknowledgement
of service was filed: over one month earlier.
iii) The unlawful 'Notice' states:
a) To - The above named Second Defendant, Sheila Margaret West,
indicating; that she had no
knowledge that Mr. Shepheard had any intention of legally representing
her before September 22;
that she could not have instructed him, nor could she have provided
material, before September 22;
that the conduct of the case was indeed, taken away from her without
her consent and without her
prior knowledge; that Mr. Shepheard did not and could not finish drafting
the Defence of both
Defendants' on September 12.
b) That the The Treasury Solicitor has been appointed to act
as the Solicitor of the Second
Defendant, in place of the Second Defendant, Sheila Margaret West in
person; demonstrating that
because Mr. Shepheard had been appointed to act for Mrs. West, as the
'Notice' dated September
22, informed her, he was not instructed by her on September 6, when
she was on Court record, as acting in person. Mrs. West is not in the position
to appoint: ordain; anyone. If she had truly either instructed, or appointed
Mr. Shepheard, as Mr. Shepheard purports, it is unrealistic to suppose
that either Mrs. West, or whoever it was that truly appointed him, would
have instructed, or ordered him, to commit corrupt acts and if his appointment
was one of a judicial nature, it would be close to being
unbelievable to most people, although I have experienced exactly what
can happen when one of Her
Majesty's Judges' has acted corruptly: it seems that corrupt Judge
must be protected for the good name of the Lord Chancellor's Department
and for the good name of the English Justice System.
I now rely on the outcome of the Metropolitan Police investigation into
my allegations, against Mr.
Shepheard, in the knowledge that the matter of his serious corrupt
acts, including his perjury, can not
be ignored. I have furnished the Metropolitan Police with copies of
all of the documentary evidence
referred to here and that organization now knows that Mr. Shepheard
has absolutely no answer to my allegations against him. I look forward
to criminal charges being laid against him. He will have no alternative,
but to admit to his corruption, in the knowledge that the documentary evidence
would, in any event, prove the case and in the knowledge that both Mrs.
West and the person who he unlawfully protected: Judge Simpson, have his
measure. They I believe, will admit that my allegations against them, are
true if and when, they are charged to answer them.
Because of my concerns about Mr. Shepheard I sent a recorded delivery
letter to the General Council of the Bar, asking for their assistance,
by trying to get Mr. Shepheard to co-operate
with me and to treat me with courtesy, particularly with regard to
the undertaking given by Counsel to Mrs. Justice Smith. I enclosed under
cover of the letter, an affidavit sworn by myself, together with the documents
referred to in my affidavit:
AFFIDAVIT
Re: MR. H.O.J.R. SHEPHEARD
I JAMES FREDERICK HULBERT the above named Plaintiff, MAKE OATH and say as follows.
I. I am acting in Person in the above titled
action and I make this affidavit to demonstrate my
probity in my belief that Mr. Shepheard,
Barrister of Queen .Anne's Chambers, 28 Broadway,
London, SWIH 9JS, who has conduct of
the action on behalf of the Defendants' has been less
than honest in his dealings with me,
with regard to the manner in which he has conducted the
action. Mr. Shepheard states, in his
affidavit, dated Ist of December I995, paragraph 2,
that he was instructed by the Lord Chancellor's
Department.
2. On the 22nd of May I996, at a hearing in the High
Court in Leeds, (transcript of proceedings
retained) Counsel instructed by, or
on Mr. Shepheard's behalf, gave Mrs Justice Smith an
undertaking to have it demonstrated
to me that there has been no skulduggery by producing
documents, an affidavit sworn by the
2nd Defendant, to hopefully be in my possession within
one month and the 2nd Defendant's shorthand
notes.
3. I appreciate that the question as to whether the
undertaking has been complied with is entirely a
matter for the Court, but the conduct
and manner in which Mr. Shepheard has sought to evade
complying with the undertaking may be
of concern to the General Council of the Bar :-
a) During the course of a telephone conversation
with Mr. Shepheard on the 26th of June I996,
timed by Kingston Upon Hull
Communications at 9.I0 am. over a month after the undertaking
given by Counsel, Mr. Sheoheard
informed me that I would not be allowed a sight of the 2nd
Defendant's original note,
nor would I be provided with a copy of it, because of the rule of Law
called privilege.
b) I do
not believe that a shorthand note of criminal proceedings is either privileged,
or
against the Public interest and if that is the case, Mr. Shepheard's comment
demonstrates
to me that he told me a deliberate lie, because I do not believe that a
Barrister would be
ignorant of that fact. If the note is not privileged, then at the very
least Mr. Shepheard
acted improperly considering that I wasn't in a position at that time,
to argue with him,
having had no legal training.
c) I refer
to letters (copies retained) dated Ist of July, 24th of July (recorded
delivery) and
3rd of September (recorded) from myself to Mr. Shepheard, challenging his
remark, that
the notes are privileged and it is significant that he has not yet sought
to inform me whether
he was right, or wrong and it is also significant that he has not yet sought
to dispute that he
did inform me that the notes are privileged.
4. I refer to a letter from Mr. Shepheard, dated
27th of August, informing me that the Humberside
Police had asked for a sight of Mrs.
West's shorthand note and that therefore, there would be
further delay before he could provide
me with Mrs. West's affidavit and I do not believe that the
Police request for Mrs. West's notes
could affect service of a copy of her affidavit and Mr.
Shepheard had informed me, during the
course of a telephone conversation, 2 months earlier, on
the 26th of June, that he was working
on Mrs. West' s affidavit.
5. On the Ist of December I995, Mr. Shepheard swore
an affidavit in which paragraph 3 states
that the Defence that he prepared and
served on behalf of the Defendants' bears a date of
service of the 5th of September, which
was later deleted by him and I2th of September
substituted and the reason foe this,
he swears, was that he began to settle a Defence on the 5th
and later, after receiving confirmation
that the 2nd Defendant wished him to act for her, on
the 6th of September, he completed the
Defence on the I2th of September, using the material
provided by her on the 6th of September.
6. In the light of Mr. Shepheard's affidavit, I ask
the Council of the Bar to decide whether he acted
improperly, or through stupidity, because
I aver that no one, least of all a Barrister, would start
to settle a Defence on behalf of a Ist
and 2nd Defendant, as the heading on the document
demonstrates, then put the date of service
on the final page and then 7 days later, after having
received confirmation from the 2nd Defendant
that she wished him to act for her, add the
material that he swears she provided.
7. It is clear from the title on the document, that it was
started as the 2nd Defendant's Defence and
equally clear that it was completed
on the 5th of September, which date has been deleted, so
plainly it was started and completed
before Mr. Shepheard received instructions and material
from the 2nd Defendant, if indeed he
did.
8. The 2nd Defendant's material could not have been
added to the Defence 7 days later, when the
heading states that it is the 2nd Defendant's
Defence and the date of completion clearly bears
the date 5th of September, it
could only have been added to the document on the I2th of
September if the heading hadn't stated
that it was the 2nd Defendant's Defence, in that event it
would have been plausible, but the heading
does state that it is the 2nd Defendant's Defence and
it is dated as having been completed
on the 5th of September.
9. For the 2nd Defendant's material to have been
added a new Defence would have had to be
prepared and in that event it wouldn't
have been dated the 5th, it would necessarily have
had to be dated 12th and in that event
it wouldn't have borne the deleted date 5th.
The overwhelming inference is that the
date 5th was deleted and I2th substituted without
instructions and without material being
added from the 2nd Defendant.
I0. I aver that it is very difficult to believe
that material provided by the 2nd Defendant was added
after the Defence had been
completed but very easy to believe that the date 5th was deleted
and I2th of December substituted
to disguise that fact.
II. I submit a copy of the Defence to the Council
of the Bar, together with this affidavit that proves
parts of paragraph 3, of
Mr. Shepheard's affidavit true, in that he has dated the Defence the
5th of September and that he did
delete the 5th and insert I2th, but that part of paragraph 3,
that he hadn't finished the Defence
when he dated it the 5th and that part where he says
that he completed it on the I2th,
is I say, difficult to believe, because it is impossible for a
document that has been completed
on the 5th to be completed on the I2th when it is the same
document and it is the same Defence,
that isn't disputed, nor can it be, the document itself
proves that to be the case.
12. If Mr. Shepheard's affidavit can be believed,
in that he did enter the date of service on the
Defence before he completed
it, as having been the 5th of September and before he'd received
instructions and material
from the 2nd Defendant, it would have been a foolish mistake for a
Barrister to have made and
I do not aver that it was a mistake, or that Mr. Shepheard is
foolish, but whether he
acted improperly by swearing a false affidavit, or made a foolish
mistake with the Defence
is, I believe, something that should be considered as a separate issue
and one relating to the
manner in which Mr. Shepheard has been conducting this action.
I3. As referred to in paragraph 2, herein, an undertaking
has been given to Mrs, Justice Smith to
produce the 2nd Defendant's
shorthand notes and as referred to in paragraph 5, herein,
according to Mr. Shepheard,
the notes are privileged material. I submit that those two facts tell
me that Mr. Shepheard knows
my allegations to be true, he knows that the transcript prepared
by the 2nd Defendant is
false, there can be no other reason for him to tell me that they are
privileged, if that isn't
the case. While the question as to whether the transcript is true, or false
is of no concern to the
Council of the Bar, the manner in which Mr. Shepheard has acted and
the content of his sworn statement,
I submit, may well be.
14. I believe that this affidavit, together with
the copy of the Defence and Mr. Shepheard's affidavit
proves my suspicions well
founded and unless Mr. Shepheard can point out the material
provided by Mrs. West the
2nd Defendant, that he says that he added on the I2th of
September and vouch as to
the accuracy of his affidavit, to demonstrate that my suspicions are
unfounded, I ask the Council
to act accordingly and to note that the Defence contains only one
word denials with no apparent
Particulars that could have been provided by either
Defendants', as Mr. Shepheard
has sworn.
This Affidavit was sworn by the above named Plaintiff.
Sworn on the 30th day of September I996.
Signed J. F. Hulbert. (Plaintiff)
To - The General Council of the Bar
3, Bedford Row, London,
WCIR 4DB.
And to - The Court.
In reply to my letter of complaint with the enclosures to the Bar Council,
I received a reply from the assistant Secretary of the Professional Conduct
committee dated the Ist of October I996, which enclosed a form for me to
complete, advising me that it would be helpful to have the relevant facts
on
the form and the letter also enclosed notes of guidance relating to
complaints against Barristers'.
I returned the completed form to the assistant Secretary two days after
its receipt and the next day I sent the following letter to him:
COMPLAINT AGAINST A BARRISTER RE: HIS AFFIDAVIT DATED Ist DEC. 95.
Dear Sir,
Further to my letter of complaint dated 30th of September and the form
of complaint returned on the 4th of October.
With respect if paragraph 3, of the affidavit sworn by Mr. Shepheard is completely true he will be able to demonstrate its accuracy to the P.C.C. of the Bar Council within 2, or 3 days of a request from the P.C.C. reaching him by :-
a) producing copy correspondence between Mrs. West and
himself showing the material that she provided on the 6th September;
or
b) producing copy correspondence between himself and the
Lord Chancellor's Department that shows the material provided by Mrs. West
and her instructions, dated the 6th of September;
and
c) by specifying the material in the Defence document
provided by Mrs. West on the 6th of
September;
and
d) by producing correspondence between Mrs. West and himself
that demonstrates that Mrs. West
approved the Defence document before
its service;
or
e) by producing evidence to show that Mrs. West travelled to
London from Hull to approve the Defence and/or provide the material.
It is almost certain that Mr. Shepheard will be required to provide this evidence in any event, I mention it for my own peace of mind.
Yours sincerely,
I received acknowledgement of the completed form of complaint on the
9th of October, together with a copy of the rules of the Professional Conduct
Committee and subsequently, a letter from
the assistant Secretary dated the 28th of November I996, informing
me that my complaints had been rejected by the Committee
The Committee had rejected my complaint that Mr. Shepheard had not treated me with courtesy. They had decided that, my complaint that, Mr. Shepheard had not complied with an undertaking given to Mrs. Justice Smith on the 22nd of May was for the Court to decide.
They had concluded that my belief that Mr. Shepheard took advantage of my ignorance by telling a deliberate lie on the 26th of June I996 and that he may well have sworn a false affidavit, were not complaints capable of resolution by them and and were also for the Court to decide.
I haven't been informed that Mr. Shepheard has been invited to answer my complaints either orally, or in writing, but I suspect that he almost certainly has, because the 'Notes of Guidance' sent to me, advises that in most cases the Barrister concerned will be notified and required to answer the complaint in writing and is required, by the code of conduct, to respond promptly to any requirement from the Bar Council.
The 'Notes of Guidance' go on to say that the complainant will normally
be sent a copy of the Barrister's comments for any further comments the
plaintiff may have, so whether, or not Mr.
Shepheard refuted my allegations, or not, I just don't know and I find
it hard to believe that a Barrister against whom a complaint alleging perjury
has been made, isn't required to answer it.
It would have been helpful to me if the assistant Secretary had informed
me whether Mr. Shepheard had been required to comment on my complaints
and if so, what his comments were, as specified
in the 'Note of Guidance' he'd sent me. I had thought that a complaint
against a Barrister alleging
perjury, by swearing a false affidavit, would have been capable of
resolution by the Committee when the evidence supporting the complaint
is provided for its consideration, as in this case, but clearly, the Bar
Council know far better than I, what it is capable of.
I sent a reply, questioning the Committees' decision, four days after receiving it, to the assistant Secretary, requesting that the matter be brought back to the attention of the Committee, because of the ambiguity of the decision and because I hadn't been provided with Mr. Shepheard's reply to my complaints.
The reply to my request came on the I7th of December I996, informing
me that the Committee will not re-open a case unless fresh material becomes
available. I didn't consider that further correspondence between the Secretary
and myself would serve any useful purpose, believing
that I'd provided ample material, in fact, all of the material I had.
~~~~~~~~~~~
Chapter Eleven
~~~~~~~~~~~