~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DISTRICT JUDGE WESTON
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I very much doubt whether Mr. Shepheard would have served such documents on behalf of the Defendants' had I been legally represented, but even I could see that he hadn't served an adequate Defence, so ten days after he had served the purported Further and Better Particulars, I served a Summons applying for an Order that the Solicitors' who were instructed by the Lord Chancellor's Department to act for the Second Defendant, to serve a Defence on her behalf, or alternatively, an Order that the Second Defendant  file and serve an affidavit swearing that the Defence served, purportedly on her behalf, is, or isn't her Defence and/or the application be treated as Order I4.

The Summons listed these grounds for my application:-

I.   That the acknowledgement of service filed and served by the Treasury Solicitor's office,
      purportedly on the 2nd  Defendant's behalf, is ineffective.
 
a) That it was filed with the Court eight days after the 2nd Defendant had acknowledged service
    of the Writ of Writ on her own behalf.

  b) That it was filed with the Court without the 2nd Defendant's consent.

  c) That it was filed with and still has false reasons in paragraph 4, for requesting transfer of the
      action to the Royal Courts of Justice. (It was so transferred there, but it was re-transferred to
      Kingston upon Hull District Registry after a successful application to the Court by the
      Plaintiff, it being  stated in correspondence to the Court by the Treasury Solicitor's office that
     the transfer transfer is erroneous) :

2.  That the Defence document prepared by the Treasury Solicitor's office, purportedly on the
     2nd Defendant's behalf, is inadequate and, or ineffective.
 
a) That although the Defence was served on the I2th of September it was prepared, as can
    clearly be seen on the document, on the 5th of September, which is 2 days before the 2nd
    Defendant gave her consent to the Treasury Solicitor's office to act for her and therefore the
    Defence was not prepared on the 2nd Defendant's instructions.

b) That identical Writs were served on both Defendants, with identical Statement of Claims,
     but the Defence served purports to be the Defence of both Defendants.

c) That the Treasury Solicitor's office were not on Court record as acting for the 2nd Defendant
    when the purported Defence was prepared.

3) The Defence served is not the Defence of the 2nd Defendant.

a) The refusal in the Further and Better Particulars of the Defence dated 24th of October,
    to provide the particulars requested, which particulars were requested to determine whether
    the allegations in the Statement of Claim are personally denied by the 2nd Defendant,
    the Defence as stated, having been prepared before she consented to the Treasury
    Solicitor's office to act on her behalf ;

b)  The 2nd Defendant has quite rightly, consistently refused to provide the Plaintiff with a
     certificate of accuracy for the transcripts to the because she knows that they are fabricated
     in part and that is the only valid reason for her refusal to certify them as she is required by
     law to do. (para. I374, (b) Criminal Law, Evidence and Procedure, Volume eleven.)
 
     i     Six letters from the P!aintiff to the 2nd Defendant requesting a certificate.
          (Statement of Claim, para I0, i, to vii)
 
    ii     Judgement Order, made on the 2Ist of February, inviting the 2nd Defendant to certify
          the transcripts.

    iii    A Judgement Order, made on the I3th of April, which confirms that the 2nd Defendant
          had failed to comply with the order of the 21st February.

   iv     The provision of certificates to the Plaintiff, from two shorthand writers, including Mrs.
          West's former employer, for transcripts of evidence from the same trial and without
           hesitation, which indicates that the firm by whom the 2nd Defendant was employed do
           have a policy of providing certificates to individuals.

    v     The transcript provided by the 2nd Defendant is accurate only to the extent that it is an
           accurate account of the false evidence as dictated by the Ist Defendant and the Plaintiff
           says that the 2nd Defendant's probable Defence is that she did as she was ordered by
           the Ist Defendant and says further, that is the probable reason for the Defence being
           prepared before consent was given by the 2nd Defendant.

4. That the Notice of change of Solicitor is ineffective between the period 29th of August and the
    date it was served, or dated, during which period the 2nd Defendant's purported Defence was
     served.

    a) That it purports to be effective from the 29th of August, the date on which the Treasury
         Solicitor's office acknowledged service of the Writ, which is 9 days before the 2nd
         Defendant gave consent to the Treasury Solicitor's office to act for her;

    b) The Notice of change is dated 22nd September.

    c) The Notice was served upon the Plaintiff on the 25th September; (dated envelope retained)

The date given by the Court for the hearing of my application was the 5th of December and I
 served the Summons to the Treasury Solicitor's office on The 3rd of November.

Six days later I sent the Defendants' Solicitor twelve copy documents in support of the application, the copy documents being filed with the Court on the 3rd of November.

Two days before the hearing of my application was due to take place in Hull, I received a letter
from Mr. Shepheard, dated 2nd of December I995, making me aware that he had instructed Hull
Agents to attend the hearing, he also enclosed a copy of an affidavit that he said he proposed to rely on in resisting my application.

When reading the affidavit that had been sworn by Mr., Shepheard on the Ist of December I995,
the day prior to my receipt of it, I became particularly interested in paragraph three, because it
contradicted the second ground listed in my application for the second Defendant to serve a Defence.

The affidavit states that he began to settle a Defence on the 5th of September and that after
receiving confirmation that the second Defendant wished him to act for her, which was the
6th of September, he completed the Defence on the I2th of September using material provided by the second Defendant on the 6th of September.

Mr. Shepheard was flatly denying that the Defence wasn't that of the second Defendant and denying that she hadn't provided any material, though he did admit, in his affidavit that the date 5th of  December had been deleted by him and substituted by the date I2th. He couldn't very well have said anything else, because the deleted date 5th is still plainly visible.

I hadn't expected Mr. Shepheard to swear an affidavit, particularly to something that is plainly untrue and demonstrated by the fact that there are no particulars in the Defence and not one piece of information that could possibly have been provided by Mrs. West and also shown by the indisputable fact that Mrs. West was not permitted, or refused to answer requests, or questions for fear of exposing herself to criminal penalties and I wondered if Mr. Shepheard had forgotten about those facts when he swore his affidavit, or perhaps he thought that I wouldn't put two and two together.

When one swears to something knowing it to be untrue it's taking a big risk of being found out of committing perjury and if it's done in defence of conspirators the perjurer becomes inevitably
involved in the conspiracy and I realized that, but the affidavit was to be used in three days to oppose my application for a Defence to be served and it was too late for me to do anything
about it before then, but I had no intention of letting the matter drop.

I was hoping that my application would be heard by the District Judge that had ordered that the action against the Police be outside of Hull so that Justice could be seen to be done,  but on
arriving at the Court and reading the list I saw that the hearing was to be heard by District Judge D.J.R. Weston.

Although Janice went to the Court with me she didn't go with me into the room where the hearing took place. I would have liked her to be with me, but as she was not a party to the proceedings
I thought it unlikely that she would be permitted into the room, so she sat in the waiting room while my application was heard, or more accurately, as it turned out, while it was partly heard.

The time estimate for the hearing was one hour, ample time, as I thought, for the Judge to examine the Defence and the Further and Better Particulars and therefore to determine that no answers had been provided in response to the known facts spelt out in the Statement of Claim; as is required and all he had to do then, again as I thought, was to allow my application and either order a Defence to served, or alternatively,  order that the second Defendant serve and file an affidavit to the effect that the Defence served was, or wasn't her Defence. A simple enough matter and no harm could have resulted from Mrs. West swearing an affidavit if as the Defence document states, she denied the allegations. That is to say no harm would have resulted unless she swore an affidavit to the effect that the Defence isn't hers. That she hadn't provided any material and that she doesn't deny the allegations. However, she was given no opportunity to either swear a false affidavit, or a true one admitting liability, perhaps also explaining that she'd only done as she was told, but that wasn't to be allowed.

The following is my note of the hearing that includes District Judge Weston's reasoning for adjourning the hearing, which has been taken from the brief note that I took at the hearing and which I typed out on the same day as the hearing. I believe it to be accurate, but it is not necessarily a verbatim note. :-

Date of Hearing - 5th December I995.

Persons Present- Judge D.J.R. Weston.

               Mr. J.I. Swales (for Defendant)
               Mr. J.F. Hulbert (Applicant)

 Mr. Hulbert made application for an Order to .Mrs. West to serve a Defence, or an Order
 that she serve and file an affidavit and/or the application be treated as Order I4.

 then

Judge Weston - "She's already served a Defence."

Mr. Hulbert - "No she hasn't sir, the Defence served isn't her Defence. May I read my application?"

Judge Weston - "Yes."

I then read out grounds for the application from my summons, which grounds were :-

I.  That the acknowledgement of service by the Treasury Solicitor's office, purportedly on the
     second Defendant's behalf is ineffective.

2. That the defence document prepared by the Treasury Solicitor's office, purportedly on the
    second Defendant's behalf is inadequate and/or ineffective.

I'm not sure whether I got as far as reading out grounds 3, 4, and 5, from the summons

when

Mr. Swales to Judge Weston - "I'd like to give you this affidavit in opposition to the application.
                                                I only received it this morning."

Judge Weston- "No you won't, an hour isn't long enough. Mr. Hulbert will have to make application for a new date."

Me - "I have to enter hospital tomorrow for Heart bypass surgery. I'm not sure how long it will
         take to recover."

Judge Weston - "I'll adjourn it Sine Die and you can let the Court know when you are well enough."

Me - "Will I have to file and serve another Summons?"

Judge Weston - "No. you apply for a new date."

Hearing adjourned.

I was very disappointed at the manner in which Judge Weston had adjourned the hearing and in adjourning it he had   perhaps unwittingly, paved the way towards my Statement of Claim being
struck out.

It is impossible to say with any certainty that the stress and anxiety about the cause of the action contributed to a Heart attack that I suffered on the 3rd of May, but it can be said
with certainly that it did nothing to prevent it, but in any event, I did enter hospital for bypass surgery, which took my mind away from Judge Simpson and Mrs. West for a few days and
my stay in hospital was almost like a holiday after the worry and distress caused by the false transcripts.

Janice visited every day and Gary visited a few times. I looked forward to being visited by Zoe who was so bright and cheerful..

 I was well on my way to recovery when I received a Summons served by Mr. Shepheard  after I'd  applied to the Court for a new date for my application to be  heard.

The Summons was for an application to the Court to  strike out my Statement of Claim and the action dismissed, or alternatively for Judgement to be entered for the Defendants',
 but the disturbing thing was that it had been given the same date as the resumption of the hearing of my application.

Seven weeks had passed since my application had been adjourned and now both applications were to be heard on the same date. I was disturbed about that, because I had a gut feeling that my application wouldn't be heard even though Judge Weston had part  heard it and it is inconceivable to suppose that he didn't read the purported Defence and the purported Further and Better Particulars prior to the hearing, which documents were filed with the Court and it's also inconceivable to think that having read them he didn't know, at the very least, that the Defence is inadequate. Despite that, I somehow knew that he would strike out the action on one, or other of the patently unreasonable grounds submitted by Mr. Shepheard.

 My response to the Summons applying for the action to be struck to prepare an affidavit in opposition to the application that I swore on the 9th of February, filing it with the Court
and serving it upon the Solicitors' acting for the Treasury Solicitor on the same day.

 Affidavit in opposition :-

I James Frederick Hulbert, Plaintiff of Kingston Upon Hull, make
OATH and say as follows.

I make this affidavit in opposition to the Defendants' application made by summons, issued on the 18th of January I996, for an Order that the Statement of Claim be struck out pursuant to
RSC. Order I8, Rule I9, or alternatively for Judgement under Order I4 of the rules of the Supreme Court. I make this affidavit of my own knowledge and belief.

I.   The Statement of Claim discloses a reasonable cause of action. Paragraph 1O, (ii) states that
     the 2nd applicant, Mrs. West was informed on the I9th of September I994, of the date of
     the hearing of my application form the legitimate use of transcripts at the trial of an action
     against the Humberside Police, which was to have taken place in Sheffield on the I5th of
     January this year and, because Mrs. West failed to provide correct transcripts, or to certify her
     partially fabricated ones in accordance with the rules governing verification of transcripts,
     I have obliged to agree to a settlement.
     Mrs. West is required by law to certify her transcripts as being correct and complete accounts
     of the proceedings to the best of her skill and ability, but she has the best reason not to comply
     with the rules governing verification and that is that she knows that the transcript is not a
     complete account of the proceedings, so I had no option, but to agree a settlement with the
     Police, as it would have been quite wrong for fabricated transcripts to be used, which could
     have led to an injustice being done and that, in itself, is a cause of action, that in turn prevented
     my wife and myself the opportunity of being awarded adequate exemplary damages.

2.  Paragraph II of the Statement of Claim states that T suffered distress, injury to my feelings,
     loss and inconvenience, which as with the apparent unconcern of the applicants, about
     false transcripts being used, are more than reasonable causes of action.

3.  Paragraph 2 of the Statement of Claim discloses that Mrs. West took down false notes,
     purported to be the evidence given by the witnesses at my trial.

4.  Paragraph 3 of the Statement of Claim states that transcripts were prepared and supplied by
     Mrs. West, which contains the false evidence and the same paragraph gives details of the
     fabricated parts of the transcript.

5.  Paragraph 7 of the Statement of Claim discloses that I directly accused Judge Simpson of
     conspiring to alter evidence.

6.  The indorsement on the Writ, which was served with the Statement of Claim states that
     conspiracy to pervert the course of Justice arising out of a trial at Kingston Upon Hull Crown
     Court and subsequent fabrication of transcripts of notes of evidence is the cause of this action
     and full particulars are contained in the Statement of Claim.

7.  I maintain that the allegations contained in the Statement of Claim are ones of serious criminal
     mis-conduct and were committed outside of the Judicial capacity of the Crown Court Judge.

8.  I submit and truly believe that there is a reasonable cause of action that has been clearly stated
     in both the Statement of Claim and the indorsement to the Writ and the Humberside Police
    are currently investigating my allegations.

9.  With respect, I rely on the dictums of Lords' Denning and Buckley in the case of Sirros versus
     Moore (I975 QB I18) Court of Appeal, I974, May I5, I6, I7 and July 30th.

LORD DENNING :-

"If the Judge had been the least degree corrupt, or perverted the course of Justice, he can be
punished in the criminal Courts, that apart however a Judge is not liable to an action for damages."

The allegations in this case are that the Judge, as did the 2nd Defendant, act corruptly and did conspire to pervert the course of Justice and they are both therefore, liable to an action for
damages.

LORD  BUCKLEY :-
"If the act was non-judicial, there is no doubt that no immunity arises from the fact that the doer hold the office of  Judge, whether of a superior, or an inferior Court."

!O. I say that the Statement of Claim is not otherwise scandalous, frivolous, vexatious, nor is it an
      abuse of the Court.

II. My Statement of Claim is true and the clear adverse inference contained in paragraphs 6, 7, 8,
     9 and I0 are denied by the applicants in paragraph 6 of the Defence. It states that those
    5 paragraphs are denied insofar as they are allegations of fact and the Defendants do not plead
    to argument. Those 5 paragraphs have been denied, so they have been pleaded, but I
    accept that Mrs. West didn't plead those 5 paragraphs, because the Defence isn't hers.

12. I believe that it's significant that the applicants' don't attempt to deny paragraphs 6,7,8,9 and
      I0 of the Statement of Claim for any other reason than that they are allegations of fact and
      they can't, or don't attempt to aver that those 5 paragraphs are untrue and again, that is
      because the Defence served isn't Mrs. West's Defence.

I3. The Defence document doesn't deny that Mrs. West hadn't certified her transcripts even
      though paragraph I374, lb) Vol. eleven of the Criminal Law, Evidence and Procedure,
      states that the verification of transcripts must be by certificate with, or without leave to the
      Court.

I4. Mrs. West has deliberately certified her transcripts as being a complete and correct account of
     her shorthand notes and as an accredited shorthand writer she knows that the rules governing
     verification state that the verification must state that the transcript is a complete and correct
    account of the proceedings. I submit that the inference is very clear.

15.  I have sworn 2 previous affidavits that support the allegations contained in the Statement of
       Claim. I swore them because I am absolutely certain of my ground, so for this action to be
       struck out without the applicants' swearing one, or more importantly without the applicants'
       saying in the Defence that paragraphs 6,7,8,9 and I0 in the Statement of Claim are untrue is
       with respect, unjustifiable.

16.  I aver that Mrs. West's failure to provide me with a certificate as to the truth and accuracy of
       her original transcript before I started this action is not only that she knows that they are
       false, but also that she knows that both Judge Simpson and her former employer (probably)
       know them to be false.

17.  A Judgement Order had been made inviting Mrs. West to correct her transcripts, if
       necessary, before providing certification and Mrs. West has failed to provide me with a
       certificate, or corrected transcripts simply because she won't certify false transcripts and
       corrected transcripts will prove the originals false. I aver that if Mrs. West's transcripts are a
       complete and correct account of the proceedings, she would certainly have provided me
       with a certificate to that effect in compliance with the rules governing verification as did two
       of  her colleagues.

18.  A Judgement Order was made for the legitimate use of transcripts supplied by Mrs. West
       and as I've mentioned, the Defence document doesn't deny that Mrs. West hadn't been
       prepared to provide a certificate and this after my repeated requests and the Judgement
      Order that is referred to in paragraph I7 herein, inviting her to do so.

19.  I say that the Statement of Claim is not an abuse of this honourable Court. If Justice was to
       have been done at the trial of my action against the Humberside Police it was essential that
       only accurate transcripts should be used and because partially fabrics. ted transcripts could
       not be used justice was prevented from being done. To ask this Court to strike out the
       Statement of Claim on the basis that it is an abuse of the Court, which if granted would
       inevitably have the effect of preventing justice being done again, may itself be considered to
       be an abuse of this Court.

20.  In summary I respectfully ask the Court to consider these facts  that cannot be disputed :-

I.  I was at the trial;
2. It was me that was on trial and my acquittal can not be considered a motive for making false
    allegations against the applicants ;
3. I've sworn 2 previous affidavits' accusing the applicants and I'm aware of the consequences if
    I've been untruthful ;
4. I've accused Judge Simpson directly, by letter, of fabricating evidence ;
5. Mrs. West's former employer has not been prepared to say that he has confidence in her
    integrity, or that he doesn't know that the transcripts are fabricated ;
6. Neither Mrs. West, nor Judge Simpson have been prepared to call me a liar ;
7. Mrs. West has consistently ignored my requests for verification;
8. Mrs. West has ignored a Judgement Order inviting her to certify her transcripts with
    corrections, if necessary :

21.  There is no substance at all for the applicants' claim that the Statement of Claim is
       scandalous, frivolous, vexatious and/or an abuse of this honourable Court.

22.  There is no merit to any of the applicants' grounds for striking out the Statement of Claim
       and to say that the Statement of Claim would seriously prejudice the fair trial of this action
       is with respect, ludicrous. The trial Judge will ensure a fair trial.

I ask that this application be dismissed and my costs be paid by the Defendants' in any event.

This affidavit was sworn by the above named Plaintiff of :-
Kingston Upon Hull on the 9th day of February I996.

Signed .J.F. Hulbert

Janice and Gary accompanied me to the Court on the I3th of February I996 for the hearing and
considering the remark made by Judge Weston on the 5th of December to the Solicitor for the Defendants, that an hour wasn't long enough, we expected to be there for some considerable
time, but that wasn't to be the case, it lasted, I believe a little over twenty minutes, so it didn't take Judge Weston long to come to his conclusion and on reflection why should it have taken him very
long if he knew in advance what his Order was going to be, because I can't conceive that he
listened to argument,  examined documents and considered his verdict in such a short space of time with an open mind. Judge Weston explained that he would hear the Defendants' application
strike out the Claim in advance of my application for Mrs. West to serve a Defence despite my
objections, informing him of what he ready knew, that my Summons was issued over eleven weeks before the Defendants' application and that he had part heard my application in
December of I995.

The  Judge explained that if the action was struck out then my application would not apply,
which I suppose sounds plausible enough the face of it, but he didn't bother to say that if my
application was heard first and was successful that the Defendants' wouldn't then apply.

If  Mrs. West had been ordered to serve a Defence, or to swear an affidavit stating that the
Defence was, or wasn't her Defence, she would have had to comply with that Order, which
would have made the application to strike out void and my application was, after all, made
eleven weeks before the Defendants' and it was Judge Weston who had allowed them those eleven weeks grace by adjourning the on the 5th of December when he could apparently have dealt the matter well within the time allowed, which was one hour.

It seemed to me that the Judge hadn't wanted to deal with my application, because he could plainly see that it was a reasonable one, which would have had to have been granted, however, he made the Order that the Statement of Claim be struck out as disclosing no reasonable cause of action, so it seemed he would have me believe that conspiracy to pervert the course of  Justice and the subsequent fabrication of transcripts of evidence wasn't a reasonable cause of  action, or possibly, he just didn't care what I believed.
~~~~~~~~~~
Chapter Seven
~~~~~~~~~~