I commenced civil proceedings against Mrs. West, by taking out a Writ of Subpoena, sealed on the I7th of January !997 at Kingston Upon Hull District Registry, which was served on her by my son Gary, together with the Statement of Claim.
The claim was for damages for corruption that had perverted the Course of justice by the fabrication of transcripts, purported to be the evidence given at proceedings out a trial at Kingston Upon Hull from the I0th to the I3th of December I99I and subsequent perjury, by her swearing a a false affidavit and the full particulars are given in the Statement of Claim.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEENS BENCH DIVISION
KINGSTON UPON HULL DISTRICT REGISTRY
B E T W E E N
JAMES FREDERICK HULBERT
Plaintiff
and
SHEILA M. WEST
Defendant
===================
STATEMENT OF CLAIM
===================
I. The causes of this action for damages against the above named
Defendant are corruption in that
she perverted the course of Justice by fabricating transcripts,
purported to be the evidence given at
proceedings out of a trial at Kingston Upon Hull Crown
Court from the 10th to the I3th of
December I99I and subsequent perjury by the Defendant
in swearing a false affidavit on the I4th
of October I996.
2. It became known to the above named Plaintiff that the course
of Justice had been perverted on
the 3rd of January I996, before a District Judge
at Sheffield Combined Court Centre, where the
Plaintiff and his wife, were obliged to agree to
a settlement with the Humberside Police in
satisfaction of a claim for damages, because the
only alternative would have been to go to trial
using false transcripts of evidence as evidence
at the trial that was due to take place only I3 days
later and that would have been patently wrong.
The Defendant prepared the false transcripts in
November of I992-
3. The above named Plaintiff did all that he could to prevent
the course of Justice from being
perverted, which included numerous letters to the
Defendant and her former employer, a
complaint to the Police who are currently investigating
the matter, correspondence to the
Criminal Operations Branch of the Chancellor's Department,
and correspondence with John
Prescott MP. who attempted to assist the Plaintiff
and a civil action against the above named
Defendant, alleging conspiracy.
4. Despite the Plaintiff's efforts, referred to in 2. herein,
the course of Justice was perverted on the
3rd of January I996, when the above named Plaintiff
and his wife were forced into agreeing to an
of Court settlement with the Humberside Police.
PARTICULRS
i). On the I0th day of December I99I the above named Plaintiff
was tried on indictment before His
Honour Judge A. Simpson at Kingston Upon Hull Crown
Court.
The indictment contained counts of :-
a) Making off without payment (theft Act I978 S3 (I) ;
b) Assault with intent (Offences against the Persons Act I86I S38) :
On the I3th day of December I99I the Plaintiff was unanimously acquitted
on both the above
counts.
ii) Following the Plaintiff's acquittal he and his wife,
after having been granted Legal Aid,
commenced an action against the Humberside
Police, claiming damages for False Imprisonment,
Malicious Prosecution, Assault and Trespass
and consequently, in November I992 ,the Plaintiff's
trial transcripts were obtained after payment
for same, by the Plaintiff's Solicitor and in August
I993, the Plaintiff, who acted in person at
his trial, after examining the transcripts, noticed that
parts are false with evidence omitted.
iii) On the 7th of August I995, the Plaintiff commenced a civil
action against the Defendant and
another by serving upon her a Writ setting
out a claim alleging conspiracy to pervert the course
of Justice and subsequent fabrication
of transcripts, which allegation of corruption, together with
the claim that the Defendant swore a false
affidavit is the cause of this action.
iv) The claim against the above named Defendant and another was
struck out as disclosing no
reasonable cause of action at Hull Combined
Court Centre on the I3th of February I996.
v. Upon appeal by the Plaintiff against the Order striking
out the claim against the Defendant and
another as disclosing no reasonable cause
of action in Leeds on the 22nd of May I996, it was
established then and agreed by Counsel for
the Defendants', that the claim plainly does disclose
an alleged of action. Consequently Counsel
requested an adjournment, which was granted to
allow the Defendant in this case to produce
evidence and an affidavit to demonstrate that the
claim was scandalous.
vi) On the I2th of November I996 the above named Defendant produced
her shorthand books
numbered 667 and 668 as evidence, which books
demonstrated beyond any doubt that they
had been tampered with and the Judge could
not find the claim scandalous, nevertheless,
dismissed the Plaintiff's appeal, having said,
in her judgement, that conspiracy is unsustainable.
Upon application to the Court of Appeal for
leave to appeal on the 5th of 'latch I997, it was held
that conspiracy is unsustainable and leave
to appeal was refused.
FULL PARTICULARS OF KNOWN FALSE EVIDENCE IN Transcripts
vii) The false parts in the transcript that purports to be the
evidence by the Police Sergeant prior to
His Honour Judge Simpson's invitation
to the Jury (page 23, at D of the Sergeant's transcript)
to examine the Plaintiff's custody record
to determine who had written the words "Assault
Police".
The false parts in the transcript are
on pages I9,C, 20, E, 20,F, 21,D, 21,H, and 22,B.
viii) The omission from the transcript of part of the evidence
given by the Special Constable
purporting to support a 2nd false statement
signed by a taxi driver on the 28th of November
I99I, in that he had reported a man running
into a house after refusing to pay.
ix) Remarks attributed to His Honour Judge Simpson that he didn't
make, also a remark attributed to
the Plaintiff that he didn't make and a question
put by the Plaintiff to His Honour Judge Simpson
that is omitted from the transcript.
a) the false remark attributed to the Plaintiff is on page 6
at H, transcript of the Special Constable's
evidence, quote - "I don't want to take that off."
b) the false reply attributed to His Honour
Judge Simpson on page 7 at A, quote - "You're going
to have to. We will get
to the bottom of this, when the date is."
the true question and reply :-
a) Plaintiff - "Am I allowed to look at the date of the entry before this one ?"
b) Trial Judge - "No."
c) the false remark attributed to His Honour
Judge Simpson on page 25, at B, of the transcript of
the Police Sergeant's purported
evidence, quote - "I'm not sure he can answer. I will tell you
why. It is rather
a lawyer's question. Some offences drink does not affect at all; other
offences
it does. It is quite a complicated
matter and I don't think the Sergeant should be expected
to give a legal tutorial
as to whether drink affects all criminal responsibility or not."
and
c) the true remark made by the trial Judge was simply - "That's a question for a lawyer."
x The false part of the transcript of the Special
Constable's purported evidence on page 4, at F,
relating to the time that she made up
her notes, purported to be I2.30, is patently untrue, as
demonstrated by the accurate transcript
of the trial Judge's Summing Up, when he told the Jury
that the said Special Constable's evidence
had been that she had made up her notes at 1.30. in
the morning. The shorthand notes and
subsequent preparation of the transcript of the trial
Judge's Summing Up, which are accurate,
was not the work of the above named Defendant.
5. On the I4th day of October I996, the Defendant swore
and signed an affidavit before Patrick E.
Craft, 'Solicitor of 14 Kingston Road,
Willerby in which paragraph I5, is manifestly false and
states that she prepared a certificate of
accuracy of the transcript pursuant to an Order of the
York County Court dated 21st of February I995.
PARTICULARS
i) Despite her near 25 years experience as a Court
Reporter, the purported certificate of accuracy
that the Defendant refers to in paragraph
I5, of her affidavit is undated to disguise the fact that
she did not prepare a certificate pursuant
to the Order of the Court dated 2Ist of February
I995.
ii) A 2nd Order of the Court dated I3th of April
I995, made by the same District Judge, states
categorically that the Defendant had
failed to provide a certificate of accuracy pursuant to his
earlier Order dated 2Ist of February
I995.
iii) Despite her near 25 years experience as a Court Reporter
the Defendant's purported certificate
of accuracy does not comply with the
rules governing verification, Vol. Eleven, Criminal Law,
Evidence and Procedure, paragraph I374
(b), but merely states that which isn't disputed, that
the transcript is a complete and correct
account of her shorthand notes and she hasn't been
prepared to certify the transcripts
as being a complete and correct account of the
proceedings as did her two colleagues,
who also prepared transcripts.
iv) In summary - the Defendant did not certify her transcript
pursuant to the York County Court
Order, as she has sworn.
Her purported certificate is undated
to disguise that fact and she has intentionally and consistently
declined to comply with the rules governing
verification after numerous letters to her from the
Plaintiff requesting verification and
the Court Order inviting her to do so, all of which
demonstrates that she is aware of her
corrupt act.
6. On the I2th day of September I995 a Defence was served
on the Plaintiff, purported to be the
Defence of the above named Defendant in reply
to the claim of conspiracy made by the
Plaintiff, which is referred to in paragraph
4, iii, herein, which purported Defence was served on
the Defendant's behalf without any material
being provided by her and which was prepared
before she had given consent for anyone to
act for her, which is demonstrated by the date 5th
September that has been deleted, but still
clearly visible and substituted by the date I2th
September, which demonstrates that the Defence
was not the Defendant's Defence.
7. On the 24th of October I995, Further and Better Particulars
of the Defence, aforementioned in
6. above, was served on the Plaintiff,
wherein it states that the Defendant refuses to answer any
questions or requests the answers to
which would tend to expose her to criminal penalties. The
above named Defendant refused to personally
deny the allegations of corruption and conspiracy
and at no stage, even in her affidavit,
does she deny the Plaintiff's allegation, that the transcripts
are partially fabricated, but merely
states that the shorthand notes that she made at the time are
a true and accurate record of the witnesses'
evidence which, as stated in paragraph 5.iii, isn't
and can't be disputed.
It is the notes that were not made at
the time and which have been inserted into her shorthand
book and her transcripts that are false
and the Defendant has never, at any stage, been
prepared to deny that fact.
8. Although the Plaintiff has evidence by way of
photo-copies that the Defendant's shorthand
books, numbered 667 and 668, referred
to in d- vi, herein, have been tampered with and
documentary evidence that confirms that
pages have been removed from both books and books
and because the Defendant, in paragraph
14, of her affidavit, dated I4th October I996, states
that she has no objection to the books
being forensically examined the Plaintiff has taken the
following precautions to ensure that
the original shorthand books are not mis-laid, or destroyed,
but are preserved as evidence in this
litigation.
The precautions were taken the day after
the Plaintiff's application for leave to appeal was
refused, referred to in paragraph 4,
vi, herein :-
i) A letter, delivered by hand,
dated 6th of March I997, to the Defendant, putting her on notice
to retain the books
pending further litigation and to make them available to the Police to
further their investigation
and forensic examination and confirmation came from the
Defendant' s Solicitors,
dated the 7th of March, that their client had received the notice and
that the books are
in their possession.
ii) A recorded delivery letter, reference
DR 8263 7933 5GB, to the Defendant's Solicitors',
dated the 6th of March
I997, putting them on notice, or to advise their client to retain her
shorthand books numbered
667 and 668, pending further litigation and to make them
available to the Police
to further their investigation.
iii) A recorded delivery letter, dated the
6th of March, to the Police Officer heading the
investigation into
the Plaintiff's allegations, requesting that both the Defendant and her
Solicitor
are put on notice
to retain the books and to make them available to further his investigation.
9. The matters complained of caused anxiety and distress to the
Plaintiff and his family and the
stress may well have contributed to the Heart
attack suffered by the Plaintiff on the 3rd of May
I994 and he has since undergone Heart bypass
surgery.
I0. Further, the matters complained of amount to arbitrary and
unconstitutional conduct and were/are
a gross affront to the Plaintiff's dignity
and integrity.
II. Further, the matters complained of prevented the Plaintiff
and his wife from being awarded
adequate exemplary damages in the aforementioned
claim against the Humberside Police
.
AND the Plaintiff claims :-
I. Damages including aggravated and exemplary damages ;
2. Interest thereon to be assessed ;
3. Costs.
Served this I7th day of March I997 - J.F.Hulbert (Plaintiff) Kingston Upon Hull.
Mrs. West's Defence was served on the I0th of April I997, or more accurately,
her purported
defence, because again, as with the defence served by Mr. Shepheard,
it denied the allegations stated in the Statement of Claim without giving
any particulars whatsoever to support the denials, so again, I was none
the wiser, because I had no idea what Mrs. West's defence was to be: she
simply didn't have one.
Although she doesn't have a defence that she can rely on there are mitigating
circumstances that would lessen the gravity of the offence of fabricating
evidence. She could truthfully have said that she
only did as instructed by Judge Simpson, but because she provided no
material for the preparation
of the defence, or as I believe, wasn't given the opportunity to provide
material, she hasn't said that, or I believe been allowed to say that.
Mr. Shepheard had prepared her purported Defence without her consent
in the action against her and Judge Simpson in order to ensure that Judge
Simpson wouldn't be implicated.
I suppose the Inspector conducting the Police investigation would say,
-"her legal advisors are only keeping their powder dry."
DEFENCE
I. Paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Statement of Claim are denied. The
Defendant specifically denies that
she has at any time perverted the course of justice, fabricated
any transcript, or committed
per jury.
2. The Defendant does not plead to paragraph 3 of the Statement of Claim.
3. The Defendant denies that the course of justice was perverted
as alleged in paragraph 4 or at
all. In relation to the specific allegations against
her the Defendant.
(a) denies those in sub- paragraphs ii, iii, v, vi, vii, viii, ix and x
(b) admits those in sub-paragraphs i and iv.
4. It is admitted that the Defendant made the affidavit referred
to in paragraph 5 but it is denied that
it is in any way false. Sub-paragraphs i to iv are
denied.
5. Paragraph 6 of the Statement of Claim is denied.
6. Paragraph 7 of the Statement of Claim is denied.
7. Save in that it is denied that the Defendant's books have
been tampered with, the Defendant does
not plead to paragraph 8 of the Statement of Claim.
8. Paragraphs 9 to II of the Statement of Claim are denied.
9. The Plaintiff's Statement of Claim is scandalous, frivolous
and vexatious and/or discloses no
reasonable cause of action and/or is an abuse of
the process of the Court.
I0 It is denied that the Defendant is liable to the Plaintiff
as alleged or a~ all and it is denied that the
Plaintiff is entitled to the relief claimed or any
relief.
Served this I0th day of April I997.
The Solicitor had served a document that he knew should have provided particulars that provided answers to the allegations and known facts relied in the Statement of Claim. He obviously could have done that, if it hadn't been for the fact that, the allegations had been denied and the only way the particulars could have been provided was if the allegations had been admitted. To serve such a document, I thought, was outrageous and its adverse inference was very plain.
We all know that a Solicitor is bound to do his, or her, best for a client, but in preparing the defence document purportedly on Mrs. West's behalf, it appears that his best was designed to prevent her from. being put in a position where she would necessarily have to implicate Judge Simpson: to say that it was his idea and that she had just followed his instructions. I'm not sure that the Solicitor was doing his best for Mrs. West by apparently not advising her to put her side of the story and in doing so, placing the blame where it properly belongs. I do bear in mind that the Solicitor may well have received his instructions from the Treasury Solicitor's office.
I immediately started to draft a 'Request for Further and Better Particulars', which title, in the context of this case is something of a misnomer, because none at all had been provided.
I served the 'Request' by hand at the Solicitors' office, on the I4th of April only four days after having received the purported Defence.
REQUEST FOR FURTHER AND BETTER PARTICULARS OF THE DEFENCE
The Defendant is required to answer the facts relied on by the Plaintiff as set out in the Statement of Claim and to set out any new facts on which the Defence relies, Because the Defence served is outrageous in that it denies facts relied on by the Plaintiff without providing any particulars for the denials, or without setting out any new facts and it is patently not a real Defence and its service is an abuse of the process of the Honourable Court.
OF PARAGRAPH 3 (a) OF DEFENCE
Denial of 4, ii, of Statement of Claim :-
REQUEST
It is noted that in a previous litigation the Defendant in her purported
Defence, dated I2th September I995, admitted the alleged fact of receipt
of a transcript of evidence by the Plaintiff's Solicitors', which fact
is set out in paragraph 4, ii, of the Statement of Claim and that
she now denies that same alleged fact without providing particulars that
answer the fact and without setting out any new facts.
Unless the Defendant has no real Defence, the particulars that answer
her admission and subsequent denial of the fact are requested.
Denial of paragraph 4, iii, of Statement of Claim :-
REQUEST
The Defendant having failed to provide any particulars on which she
must rely for her denial of the facts relied on by the Plaintiff in 4,
iii, of the Statement of Claim, 'that on the 7th of August the Plaintiff
commenced a civil action against her by serving on her a Writ setting out
a claim alleging
conspiracy to pervert the course of justice and the subsequent fabrication
of transcripts, which allegation of corruption together
with the claim that the Defendant swore a false affidavit is the cause
of this action' - Unless the Defendant has no real defence it is requested
that she particularize
with full details of the the facts relied on for her denial of these
apparent indisputable facts relied on by the Plaintiff.
Denial of paragraph 4, v, of Statement of Claim :-
It is noted that the Defendant has answered the indisputable and relevant
fact relied on by the Plaintiff in 4, iv, of the Statement of Claim
by admitting that the claim of conspiracy against the Defendant was struck
out as disclosing no reasonable cause of action on the I3th of February
I996, but has elected to deny the equally indisputable and relevant fact
relied on by the Plaintiff in paragraph 4, v, that it was
established and agreed by Counsel on the 22nd of May I996 that
the Statement of Claim alleging conspiracy plainly does disclose an
alleged cause of action.
REQUEST
What are the facts relied on by the Defence for the Defendant's denial that it has been established and agreed that the claim plainly does disclose an alleged cause of action as is demonstrated in the certified transcript of the Plaintiff's appeal on the 22nd of May I9967
and
What are the facts relied on by the Defence for the Defendant's , again without particulars, that Counsel for the Defendant requested an adjournment to allow the Defendant to produce evidence and an affidavit to try to demonstrate that the claim was scandalous, which true facts are again proved in the certified transcript of the Plaintiff's appeal on 22nd May?.
Denial of paragraph 4, vi, of Statement of Claim :-
Provide full particulars, none of which have been provided, on which the Defence must rely, for the Defendant's denial of the relevant facts in 4, vi, of the Statement of Claim, which facts are, that on the I2th of November I996 the above named Defendant produced her shorthand books numbered 667 and 668 as evidence and which books demonstrated beyond any doubt that they had been tampered with and the Judge could not find the claim scandalous, but nevertheless, dismissed the Plaintiff's appeal, having said in her Judgement, that conspiracy is unsustainable.
and
in the light of the Order by the Court, sealed on the 6th of March
I997, a copy of which Order was sent to the Defendant's Solicitors', specify
the facts on which the Defence must rely, for the Defendant's denial that
the Court of Appeal, upon application by the Plaintiff, for leave
to appeal, refused the Plaintiff's application and held that conspiracy
is unsustainable.
Denial of allegation in paragraph 4, x, of Statement of Claim :-
Again the Defendant has failed to provide particulars of her denial of the fact relied on by the Plaintiff in 4, x, of the Statement of Claim, which allegation is that the false part of the transcript relating to the time that she made up her notes, purported to be I2.30 is patently untrue as is demonstrated by the accurate transcript of the trial Judge's Summing Up, which has been certified according to the rules governing verification and which states that the Special Constable's evidence was that she made up her notes at 1.30 in the morning and which accords with the evidence given by the Officer in the case.
REQUEST
Is the fact relied on by the Defence for the Defendant's denial of the allegation :-
(a) The trial Judge misinformed the Jury;
(b) the transcript of the trial Judge's Summing Up is untrue;
(c) the Defendant's transcript of the Special Constable's evidence is untrue;
(d) some other reason and if so give full details:
OF PARAGRAPH 4 OF DEFENCE
Denial of Paragraph 5, i, of the Statement of Claim :-
REQUEST
Full particulars of the facts are requested for the denial of the fact
on which the Plaintiff relies in 5, i, of the Statement of Claim,
that the Defendant left her purported certificate undated to disguise the
fact that she did not prepare a certificate of accuracy pursuant to the
Order of the Court dated 2Ist of February I995. If the Defendant persists
in refusing to particularize as to why her certificate is undated she can
have no defence to the fact relied on by the Plaintiff and the obvious
inference is
that not only does she know that her transcript is false, but is also
aware that she acted corruptly by fabricating evidence.
Denial of paragraph 5, ii, of the Statement of Claim :-
REQUEST
The Defendant, without providing particulars and having denied the alleged
fact in paragraph 5, ii, of the Statement of Claim, 'that a Court
Order dated the I3th of April I995, made by a District
Judge, states categorically that the Defendant had failed to provide
a certificate of accuracy within I4 days pursuant to his earlier dated
the 2Ist of February I995' and the Defendant having been served with sealed
copies of the said Orders, what facts does she rely on for her denial that
the District Judge made such Orders? If the Defendant fails to provide
the particulars to answer the allegation she has no. defence to the allegation.
Denial of paragraph 5, iii, of the Statement of Claim :-
REQUEST
Provide full details of the facts on which the Defence relies for the
Defendant's denial of the allegation contained in paragraph 5, iii,
of the Statement of Claim, because again, no particulars have been provided
in the Defence and the allegation is contrary to paragraph I374, (b) Criminal
Law, Evidence and Procedure, Volume Eleven, (2) and if the Defendant has
no facts on which she
relies to answer the allegation that her certificate of accuracy does
not comply with the rules governing verification, does she then admit that
she has no defence to the allegation?
Of paragraph 5, iv, of the Statement of Claim :-
REQUEST
(a) On the basis that all Defences must be pleaded, does the
Defendant require the defence to
paragraph 5, iv, to be waived?
(b) If it is not to be waived, does the Defendant admit to receiving
numerous letters from the Plaintiff
requesting verification of her transcripts?
OF PARAGRAPGH 5 OF DEFENCE
Denial of paragraph 6 of the Statement of Claim :-
REQUESTS
(a) What are the facts relied on by the Defence for the denial
that a Defence was served on the
Plaintiff on the I2th of September I995?
(b) What are the facts relied on by the Defence
for the denial that the said Defence purported to
be the Defence of
the above named Defendant?
(c) What are the facts relied on by the Defence
for the denial that the said purported Defence was
served without any
material being provided by the Defendant and prepared before she had
given her consent
to anyone to act for her?
(d) What are the facts relied on by the Defence
for the denial that the date 5th of September has
been deleted from
the said Defence and substituted by the date I2th of September?
(e) What are the facts relied on by the Defence
for the denial that the said Defence is not the
Defendant's Defence?
OF PARAGRAPH 6 OF DEFENCE
Denial of paragraph 7 of the Statement of Claim :-
(a) What are the facts relied on by the Defence for the denial
that on the 30th of October I995,
Further and Better Particulars of the Defence
were served on the Plaintiff?
(b) What are the facts relied on by the Defence for the denial
that the said Further and Better
Particulars state that the Defendants'
refuse to answer any questions or requests the answers to
which would tend to expose them to criminal
penalties?
(c) What are the facts relied on by the Defence for the denial
that the Defendant refuses to
personally deny the allegations of corruption
and conspiracy?
(d) What are the facts relied on by the Defence for the denial
that it is the notes that were not made
at the time and which have been inserted
into her shorthand books and her transcripts that
are false?
OF PARAGRAPH 9 OF DEFENCE
REQUEST
What are the facts relied on by the Defence for the allegation that
the Plaintiff's Statement of Claim is scandalous, frivolous and vexatious
and/or discloses no reasonable cause of action and/or is
an abuse of the process of the Court? If the Defendant has no facts
on which she relies to demonstrate the allegation she is hereby invited
to amend the purported Defence by withdrawing the allegation. - End
Mrs. West's Solicitor responded to my request for particulars by letter,
written on the same day that it was served, stating that he considered
that the Defence is adequately pleaded and that it is
impossible to give further particulars of a denial and in the circumstances
did not propose to advise his client to give further particulars of a denial.
I couldn't dispute that the Defence is adequately pleaded, because my allegations had been denied, but for him to say that it is impossible to give further particulars of a denial is astonishing. 'Further particulars' he'd said. - Not one particular had been provided and it is only impossible to give particulars for a denial if the denial is false. If a denial is sincere it can't truly be said that it's impossible to provide particulars; it is only impossible when the denials are false and when the Defence refuses to acknowledge that fact.
The Solicitor didn't propose and didn't advise Mrs. West to answer, or to admit these indisputable allegations and known facts :
That my trial transcripts had been obtained by my Solicitor, despite an earlier defence in the action against his client having admitted that fact;
that I commenced a civil action alleging conspiracy and subsequent fabrication of transcripts against Mrs. West;
that it was established and agreed b v Counsel, on the 22nd of May I996 that the Statement of Claim alleging conspiracy plainly does disclose an alleged cause of action, despite the certified transcript that proves that fact;
that on the I2th of November I996 Mrs. West produced her shorthand books as evidence, which demonstrated that they had been tampered with;
that upon application by myself, leave to appeal was refused, despite the Court's sealed Order to that effect;
that Mrs. West's transcript purports that the Special Constable's evidence
about the time that she made up her notes was I2.30 and that Judge Simpson
told the Jury that the Constable's evidence
was that she made up her notes at 1.30 in the morning, despite the
evidence of the transcripts;
that she left her purported certificate undated, despite the evidence of the purported certificate itself;
that Mrs. West failed to provide to provide a certificate of accuracy within I4 days pursuant to the Order made on the 2Ist February I995, despite the sealed Court Order of the I3th of April I995 confirming that fact;
that Mrs. West's purported certificate of verification doesn't comply
with the rules governing verification, despite the rules stated in paragraph
I374, Criminal Law, Evidence and Procedure;
that a Defence was served on me on the I2th of September, despite the
evidence of the Defence document itself;
that the Defence is purported to be the defence of Mrs. West, despite the heading on the document;
that the Defence was served without any material being provided by Mrs. West, despite there being no particulars in it that could have been provided by her;
that the date 5th has been deleted from the Defence and substituted by the date I2th, despite it being clearly evident on the document;
that it declined to provide the facts on which it should rely for the denial that it is not Mrs. West's Defence;
that further and better particulars were served on me on the 24th of October I995, despite the date on that document retained by myself;
that the further and better particulars state that the Defendant's refuse
to answer my questions or requests the answers to which would tend to expose
them to criminal penalties, despite the
evidence in that document:
Quite clearly all of these requests for particulars could have been provided had not the allegations of corruption been denied and that is why Mrs. West's Solicitor chose to say that it is impossible to provide particulars.
When Mr. Shepheard had refused to provide particulars for the purported
Defence in the action against Judge Simpson and Mrs. West by saying that
answers would tend to expose them to criminal
penalties, it appeared that he was aware that my allegations were true
and upon receiving the letter from Mrs. West's Solicitor I suspected that
he also knew that Mrs. West had provided false
transcripts, because I could think of no valid reason for him to say
that he doesn't propose to advise his client to provide particulars.
A Solicitor who truly believed in his client's innocence would be anxious to make that fact known and to at least comply with the procedure of the Courts by providing particulars, but here was Mrs. West's Solicitor doing exactly the opposite by trying to evade the issues and advising his client to do the same. He must be aware that she is required by the Supreme Court to provide particulars for a defence of an action that is denied.
t seemed to me that everyone connected with the case realized that Judge
Simpson and certainly Mrs. West had been corrupt and that thought pleased
me, because I knew that even those that
challenge my credibility, in truth, know that I am correct. Although
I knew from the acknowledgment of service of the Writ, which was served
on Mrs. West's behalf that the action was to be contested, I also knew
that she could have no defence and that, therefore, no real defence could
be served, consequently I took out a summons, applying for ,judgement to
be entered against her on that ground; the application to be heard at Hull
District Registry on the 7th of May I997.
It was twelve days after the service of my summons that Mrs. West's Solicitor served a summons on me, applying for the action to be struck out, with the summons stating the grounds for the application as being :
(i) that it disclosed no reasonable cause of action and/or
(ii) is scandalous, frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of the process of the Court and/or
(iii) would seriously prejudice, embarrass, or delay the fair trial of the action.
I had expected a summons to be served, applying for the action
to be struck out, but I was disappointed to notice that it had been given
the same time and date as had been given for the
hearing of my application and because the same thing had happened
in the action against Judge Simpson and Mrs. West, I telephoned the Court
to query the decision. Not only did the Court confirm that both applications
would be scheduled to be heard at the same time, but that they would
be heard by District Judge Weston. It was going to be the same thing
all over again.
Judge Weston had been wrong in striking out the action against Judge Simpson and Mrs. West and no real defence had been served in that action, so I had no reason to suppose that the same thing wouldn't happen again.
The Court had given the Defendant's application to strike out the action the same fixed time and date as my application and had listed it to be heard by Judge Weston, in spite of a recorded delivery letter addressed to the District Registrar, sent four days before the Defendant's summons had been issued by the Court, which letter I'd sent to forestall that from happening:
District Registrar,
Combined Court Centre,
Hull.
I4th April I997.
Dear Sir,
RE: CASE No. I997 - H - 0085
Further to a telephone conversation with a member of your pre-Court
staff relating to the hearing of my application for Summary judgement to
be entered against the Defendant, which is listed for
hearing on the 7th May next. I hereby ask for your assurance in writing
that should the Defendant take out a summons applying for the action to
be struck out that it will be listed for hearing on a
date later than the 7th May and also ask for your assurance that my
application will not be before District Judge Weston because in the circumstances
that would be against the interest of justice.
The grounds for this request are :-
1. That on the I3th of February I996 an action against this same
Defendant and another alleging
conspiracy was struck out by District Judge Weston
on the ground that it disclosed no
reasonable cause of action and as in this case the
action alleged fabricated transcripts of evidence.
2. On the 22nd May I996, :upon appeal, it was established by
a High Court Judge that there was
plainly a cause of action alleged, which was
agreed by Counsel for this Defendant.
3. I have no faith in Judge Weston as he was wrong to strike
out that action on that ground and the
matter is currently being considered by a firm of
Solicitors' specializing in civil liberty cases with a
view to taking the matter to the CFI. of the European
Court and I believe it would be quite wrong
for Judge Weston to hear my application.
The grounds for my concern that my application should be heard before
any application that the
Defendant might make are :-
I. That on the Ist November I995 I took out a summons asking
for an Order for this same
Defendant to serve a Defence, which was heard by
District Judge Weston on the 5th of
December I995 and which was adjourned by him Sine
Die on that date.
2. On the IIth January I996, eleven weeks later, the Defendant
took out a summons to strike out
the Statement of Claim, which was then listed to
be heard by Judge Weston at the same time as
the continuation of my application for the Defendant
to serve a Defence and despite my plea to
the Judge for my application to be heard in advance
of the Defendant's application as it should
have been, because he had already part heard it,
he refused and struck out the action.
I enclose herewith, the document purported to be a defence that I consider to be outrageous, because it demonstrates that not one of the denials provide any particulars whatsoever that answers the facts relied on in the Claim and it doesn't set out any new facts on which the defence relies.
I also enclose my request for further and better particulars that has
been served, to be lodged with the Court, which together with enclosed
purported defence makes it clear that the Defendant has no
defence.
I look forward to your acknowledgment of this letter with the assurance that I ask for.
Yours sincerely,
Although receipt of the recorded delivery letter to the Court wasn't acknowledged, it must have been considered, because on arrival at the Court on the 7th of May and after looking at the Court list, I saw that it wasn't to be heard by District Judge Weston, so I took it for granted that my objections had been effective, or perhaps, Judge Weston himself considered it inappropriate to hear the applications.
Janice and Gary accompanied me and I'd been hoping that Janice could
be with me at the hearing, but upon my request for her to be with me, to
the Court Usher, who passed on my request to
the Judge; my request was refused.
I had given a time estimate for the hearing of my application as being
one hour and Mrs. West's
Solicitor had not given any time estimate at all for the hearing of
the application for the action to be Struck out. As it developed the hearing
lasted for less than twenty minutes.
No applications were heard, because the District Judge, who who had
apparently familiarized himself with the case, wanted to know if I had
paid the costs of the action against Judge Simpson
and Mrs. West, which had been struck out by District Judge Weston.
After I informed the Judge that the costs hadn't been paid, because I hadn't
been presented with the Bill of Costs, he asked Mrs. West's Solicitor why
I hadn't been asked to pay the costs. The Solicitor seemed to be at a loss
as to how to answer the question and said that the Treasury Solicitor hadn't
yet decided whether to tax the costs.
The Solicitor's answer may not have seemed strange to the Judge, but
it did to me, because both District Judge Weston's and Justice Smith's
Orders state that the costs were to be taxed if not agreed and it was Mrs.
West's Solicitor who had drawn up those Orders, so he knew that it wasn't
the Treasury Solicitor's prerogative to decide whether to tax the costs;
it was mine, in the event that I didn't agree with the demand and I hadn't
even been asked to agree to a demand, nor had I been
sent one.
Upon the Judge hearing that no demand for costs had been made he stayed the action until such time as they had been paid.
I assumed that those who represented Judge Simpson and Mrs. West knew
that my allegations against them were completely true and that, they therefore,
thought it would be overdoing it a bit
to demand costs after all of the trouble and anxiety I'd been caused:
better to let sleeping dogs lie.
The Order that the costs be paid before the applications could be heard
encouraged the Treasury Solicitor's office to send me a letter of demand
for the modest sum of £I.500.00 and the letter went on to explain
that the costs amounted to much more than that.
To date I have sworn six affidavits relating to the matters of Judge
Simpson's and Mrs. West's corruption and in doing so I have been aware
that to swear a false affidavit would leave me
open to charges of perjury, so Judge Simpson and Mrs. West and/or their
legal advisors can bring charges of perjury against me if they believe
that I have sworn to one word that I knowingly
believe to be false and if they do consider that possibility, they
will have to be prepared to perjure themselves.
Without doubt, as far as I'm concerned the prime culprit is Judge Simpson
and he would be as far as a Jury would be concerned if the matter came
before one in a civil action, because I believe a Jury would find for me
on the basis on which all civil trials are decided; the balance of probabilities,
but I am unable to be as confident if an action against a Judge was decided
without a Jury.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Chapter Fourteen
~~~~~~~~~~~~