~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
MY LOSS OF FAITH
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Upon phoning our Solicitor, I expressed my concern regarding Mrs. West's transcripts. I had been expecting him to give some indication of incredulity about what I considered to be a unique allegation, because it was an alleged offence levelled against an independent party: a party that everyone relied upon to record an accurate account Court proceedings.

We all know that allegations of tampering with evidence against the Police are not unknown, but when false evidence is presented by them, their motive for tampering with it is immediately apparent. When a case against a suspect is weak some unscrupulous Officers' will fabricate evidence to secure a conviction. We all know that. I believe that's accepted as a well known fact. As far as I'm aware, never had such an allegation been made against a person with absolutely no involvement with the case, other than to faithfully record what has been said.

The Solicitor did not express any surprise. He listened to me patiently, without once
interrupting. Although I've said that he did not express any indication of surprise, it does occur to me that he may well have been surprised, so much so that he was gob-smacked, which could accounted for his silence: stunned silence.

When I had finished explaining my concerns, he informed me that he would be leaving the firm and that our case would be passed on to another Solicitor, adding that he would arrange a meeting with him, which was subsequently arranged.

I attended the meeting full of hope, naively expecting the Solicitor, who I understood to
be a partner in the firm, to take up the cudgel for me. I left that meeting in a despondent mood, because the Solicitor had concluded that although he was certain that I was sincere in my belief that the transcripts had been partially fabricated, he just could not accept that the trial Judge was responsible.

During the course of that meeting I was made to feel as though it was I that was the
guilty party: for making that unheard of allegation. Far from trying to assist, that Solicitor appeared to be trying to convince me that a trial Judge would never involve himself in such a conspiracy. It could have been no more than an assumption on his part. He should not have assumed, or pretended such an assumption.

I knew that there was no direct evidence to implicate the trial Judge, but I was convinced that it was he that had instructed shorthand writer to do as she did, The Solicitor would have none of it.

My recollection of that meeting is that the Solicitor acted as if he was Judge Simpson's defence lawyer. I was made to feel as if I was the accused person, being asked to justify myself  making that  serious allegation against such a respected member of his own profession.

I should have known better than to have gone to that meeting with the naive expectation that I would be treated with anything other than resentment for making such an allegation.

I should have realized that the allegation is not one that most Solicitors' would be very keen to pursue, or become involved in. Even if that Solicitor acted as any other, upon hearing what must have seemed to be an outlandish allegation and even if he had been acting properly, the fact is that I was made to feel accountable for having the temerity to even suggest that a Circuit Judge could possibly commit such an act.

I do not know what it would have taken to induce that Solicitor to pursue the matter on my behalf. He surely could not have expected me to provide him with all of the details, because conspirators do their plotting in secrecy.

I did make it very clear to him that my allegation: that the transcripts are false, could be supported and corroborated, by every person who had been in Court: who had listened to the evidence.

I made it clear to him that the twelve independent Jurors' would support my allegation, but he poured cold water over that obvious possibility, which, if it had been pursued, would most certainly have confirmed my credibility.

He poured cold water over it by saying that I could not expect the Jurors' to remember everything that had been said, True, but they would have remembered the Sergeant's unsolicited change of evidence after they had been directed, by Judge Simpson, when he told them that they would be able to examine the handwriting on my custody record to determine whether the Sergeant had written the words 'Assault Police'.

They will have remembered that immediately after that: when the Sergeant had realized that he would be tumbled, he had chipped in with: "I've just remembered, I did write it".

They will have remembered that prior the that revelation, he had consistently perjured himself, by repeatedly swearing that he did not write those two words. Yes, they would have remembered  and probably still do, because being asked to try an accused person is not an everyday occurrence.

They will have remembered that the Sergeant was obliged to change his evidence, because it was they who would have discovered his perjury. The Sergeant is not a fool. He realized that it would be better to pretend that he'd just remembered, despite positively swearing, on a number of occasions, that he didn't know who had written those two words.

Judge Simpson must have remembered what the Sergeant's evidence had been and that evidence caused him to alter it, to the effect that the Sergeant had been consistent throughout, but what Judge Simpson forgot, or was careless about, is the evidence that still remains in the transcript and in Mrs, West's original shorthand notes, that demonstrate that he did invite the Jury to examine the custody record, to determine who had written those two words.

Would he have made that invitation to the Jury if the Sergeant had consistently testified that he had written those two words? I think not, because there would then have been no dispute from me, because I'd been wanting him to admit that fact from the beginning and he would not do so: hence Judge Simpson's invitation to the Jury.

Judge Simpson's carelessness in not having the  forethought to omit the evidence of his own invitation to the Jury has caught him out.

I accept that conspiracy to pervert the course of justice may have been a
new activity for the Judge, but even that is by no means certain.

The Jury could not easily have forgotten the Special Constable's performance in the
witness box.

They could hardly have forgotten her comic, but in those circumstances, most serious; repetitive perjury.

They will have remembered that she did not know the meaning of some of the words that she had used when writing up her notes and while writing her Criminal Justice Act statement.

They will have remembered that she was unable, after two attempts, to spell one of the words that she had written. The Jurors' could hardly have failed to remember.

Again, Judge Simpson did not forget; when he altered the Special Constable's evidence.

"I could not expect he Jurors' to remember everything that had been said." - With those words the Solicitor, seemingly, wished to dispose of my allegation and if that had not been the case, he could equally have said 'yes, you can expect them to remember, if not all, then some of the evidence'.
After all, the whole point of them being there was to listen and to remember what had been said.

At the very least the Solicitor ought have recognized the possibility that my allegation could have been supported and in my view, he should not have dismissed my suggestion out of hand.

He knew that our Barrister had advised that the transcripts be obtained for the sole purpose of being used as evidence at the trial of our action against the Chief Constable, even so, he was quite prepared to use them, despite being informed by myself, that they contain false evidence and that would have been quite wrong, because I would necessarily have to and want to, rely on accurate transcripts to prove our case against the Police and I would have to and want to, truthfully testify that the transcripts are false.

It would have been unlawful to rely on transcripts of evidence parts of which are alleged to be false and with evidence having been omitted.

If that Solicitor had realized the folly of going to Court using the transcripts that I would truthfully have to say are false, he gave me no indication of it. In that Solicitor's defence, I should point out that, after my persistent badgering, he did write to the Chief Clerk of the Court in an attempt to secure the addresses of the Jurors'.

As a result of the way in which that meeting with our Solicitor was conducted, which
included the stance he'd taken, a seed of an idea was planted into my head. I believed, that because our Solicitor had, or perhaps, pretended to have been, so incredulous and reluctant to believe that a Judge could possibly have been corrupt, it was a pound to a pinch of salt that most other Solicitors' would be like minded.

I believed that if I wished to pursue the matter and I had little option if the action against the Police was to be conducted in a lawful manner, I would have to pursue it myself, without the added burden of banging my head up against a brick wall by trying to convince other Solicitors' of something that they would not, in any event, want to believe.

On August 25 1993, our Solicitor wrote to me; advising that the way ahead was to simply issue proceedings against the Chief Constable and to get on with the matter, and subsequent to a letter; on September 14, he advised me that a Writ of Subpoena had been issued against him.

On September 22, he further advised me that if I persist in maintaining that the transcript of the trial is incorrect, or has been tampered with in some way, that I may well be in danger of losing some of my credibility. So my suspicions had been confirmed.

The Solicitor was prepared to use the transcripts in the action against the Police: the transcripts that I would have to swear are false and here he was, indirectly suggesting that I should retract, in order that the transcripts, that I had assured him were indeed false, could be used. He was wrong, because to retract was a sure way to lose some of my credibility.

Clearly the way ahead was to pursue the matter to obtain a true transcript, with only the evidence that had been given, for it to be used in the action against the Police. He will have known that Mrs. West did not add certification to the transcripts by stateing that they are a complete and correct account of the proceedings, but he was not, at that time, to know that she would go as far as ignoring two Orders of the Court, inviting her to certify them as being an accurate account of the evidence.

Even though our Solicitor had wrongly, in my view, advised that I was in danger of losing some of my credibility if I persisted in maintaining that the transcripts are false, despite that advice, he was still advising that we should go to trial using them.

I knew, what the Solicitor should have known: that we should not go to trial until the question of the transcripts had been resolved, because there was no way in the world that would induce me to agree to use false transcripts and there is no way in the world that would induce me to perjure myself by testifying that the transcripts contained only the evidence given by the witnesses.

If I had retracted, as our Solicitor had evidently wanted, and if I had subsequently perjured myself, as a consequence, by declaring the transcripts as being a true account of the Officers' evidence, then in those circumstances, we would still have won our case, because the other transcripts: prepared by other shorthand writers' are accurate and contain abundant evidence to have proved our case. Even so, the Solicitor was wrong. The lawful way ahead was to pursue my allegation against Mrs. West, if not against Judge Simpson.

The lawful way ahead was to make Mrs. West accountable, or for her to sue me for alleged defamation of character, although I knew full well, that was a step that she would not and never will take.

Our Solicitors' advice did nothing to give me any confidence that he would act upon our
instructions.

The germ of an idea that I had been contemplating, after my meeting with our Solicitor,
was that we would probably be better off if I conducted our case against the Police myself, because if I did, I would not have to do battle against our own Solicitor, who was not, seemingly, prepared to act upon our instructions.

I can accept that if we had not been reliant upon legal aid, my relationship with him would in all probability, have been much more amiable. He may even have been prepared to hear me out, without pre-judging the issue of the false transcripts, without making assumptions: without casting doubt on my credibility.

I could see that a change of Solicitor would be unlikely to improve matters, because the allegations and the circumstances surrounding them, would remain. I had no reason to believe that any other Solicitor would be any less reluctant to pursue the allegation against Mrs. West and the corrupt Judge who incited her to take down false notes of evidence.

I was, and still am, dogmatic, about these matters. I was, and still am, confident, that I
will be believed, regardless of whether people are prepared to admit that they believe my story. One thing is certain: nobody that I accuse of entering into the conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, will be prepared to have the matter  aired in open Court and with respect to readers' who may doubt my credibility, that fact tells it's own story.

In the light of the seriousness of my allegation, and the obvious implications, it is
understandable for the majority of those in the legal profession not to want to believe that such an unheard of criminal offence, (as I then believed) as a Court reporter and a Circuit Judge, getting their heads together to alter evidence, could actually happen, but it has happened and I am unable to realistically believe that it is the first time that it has  happened.

Not wanting to believe that such a thing could occur is akin to an ostrich burying its head in the sand. I retract: an ostrich knows no better: it acts in ignorance.

Although I had been contemplating taking over the conduct of the case for some time
shortly after the meeting with our Solicitor, I was hesitant about putting my thoughts into
practice; partly because of my lack of experience, and knowledge of procedure and
ignorance of the rules of the Supreme Court and also, believe it or not, I was concerned
about hurting the feelings of our Solicitor, despite his lack of enthusiasm and his apparent determination to conduct the case against the Chief Constable on his own terms and,  in my opinion, not strictly lawfully. I refer to the transcripts that he had consistently been told are false, but which he was nevertheless, prepared to use without making the Court aware of that fact.

The crunch came via a letter from the Solicitor dated October 7 1993, in response to a
letter from myself, requesting the trial against the Chief Constable to be by Jury, because I still had hopes of contacting the Jurors' to support me.

I had no intention of abandoning that action simply because the evidence given by two of the Police witnesses had been tampered with. The Solicitor's letter advised that it was not possible for a Jury to decide the matter and that, if the case went to trial, it would have to be before a High Court, or Circuit Judge. I was taken aback upon reading that advice, because I knew that he was completely wrong.

I knew that we were entitled to have a Jury try the matter. It was because I'd been hesitant, about taking over conduct of the case that I had made use of the Public library. I had learned that an allegation of false imprisonment is triable by Jury.

I had already experienced one bad episode and it had been the independence and wisdom of the Jury that had resulted in my acquittal in spite of the corrupt Circuit Judge. I considered the letter very carefully, but I couldn't bring myself to believe that an experience Solicitor would not be aware that the action was triable by Jury, if such was our wish, because if he had been ignorant of that fact, he would surely have had to have revised, to be certain that the advice he was about to impart was accurate.

He must have had access to the rules of the Supreme Court to put him right, in the improbable event that he was unsure.

I may be doing that Solicitor an injustice, but that letter, together with what had taken place at our meeting, convinced us that we should not allow him to continue as our legal advisor. Rightly, or wrongly, I believed that he was more interested in trying to stifle me with regard to Mrs. West's and Judge Simpson's corruption, than he was in taking care of our best interests and so what little faith I had in him to work in our best interests, before he imparted that patently false advice, completely evaporated.

I could see no advantage to transferring the case to another firm of Solicitors'. I considered that not only would another legal advisor be no less incredulous, but would also not wish to pursue the matter of the false evidence. With the immediate approval of Janice, I formally terminated our Solicitor's instructions on March 3 1994.

I had known, that if  we went ahead with  the plan to act in person, it would mean that we would no longer be entitled to legal aid and that things would therefore be hard on  my family as a consequence, because the costs of the action would then have to be funded from my invalidity and our income support benefits.

I had already had Janice's approval, of course and I was pleased that our son Gary was also right behind me.

I notified the Legal Aid Board of the decision to act in person, and on April 20 1994, our legal aid certificates were discharged. Shortly after that, upon my request, the relevant documents relating to the case, were passed on to us by our former Solicitor.
~~~~~~~~~~
Chapter Three
~~~~~~~~~~