~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
MRS. JUSTICE SMITH
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

All things considered, I wasn't too disappointed with the way the hearing of the appeal before Mrs. Justice Smith had gone, despite realizing that the appeal should have been allowed, with District Judge Weston's  Order being overturned.

I was pleased that Mrs. West would have to provide her original shorthand books, that I knew must demonstrate that either, the notes of evidence, or the books themselves, had been tampered with. That had to be so, because there was no question in my mind about the evidence not having been tampered with. The only time that I'd had any doubt was when first I'd read the transcript purported to be the evidence given by Special Constable Watson, immediately after Janice arrived home with them and I thought I must be dreaming.

After the hearing, before Mrs. Justice Smith, I purchased a transcript of those proceedings from the official Court Reporter, based in Leeds, in order to be certain of what exactly had been said, because I'd again, been on my own, without being able to take notes of the proceedings.

I had realized of course, that the question that had to be answered by the High Court Judge: Mrs. Justice Smith, was that either the Statement of Claim did, or did not, disclose a reasonable cause of action and that question had been answered with Justice Smith saying: "There is plainly a cause of action alleged", which was immediately agree by Mr. Richard son: Counsel for the two Defendants' It followed therefore, that District Judge Weston had been woefully wrong in striking out the action on that false ground and consequently, I believed my appeal should have been allowed, for, after all, it was District Judge Weston's Order that I'd appealed against.

Mrs. Justice Smith, as the transcript states, didn't have the allegedly false transcripts before her at the hearing, but there was no necessity for her to see them, because an application for an action to be struck out as disclosing no reasonable cause of action is, or should be, judged solely upon examination of the Statement of Claim and that's what the appeal was all about: it had been struck out as disclosing no reasonable cause and had nothing whatsoever to do with evidence.

A Statement of Claim either discloses an alleged cause of action, or it doesn't, so examination of the transcripts, true, or false, couldn't change that fact.

I didn't submit the trial transcripts at that time and I would have been wrong to have done so, because if I'd have made them available to Justice Smith they could have had no possible bearing on as to whether the Statement of Claim revealed a cause of action, or not. On the other hand, evidence can be submitted to support an application to strike out a claim on the ground that it's scandalous, frivolous and/or /vexatious, which is what Justice Smith had explained to Counsel for the Defendants'.

Mrs Justice Smith, having held that the Statement of Claim plainly disclosed an alleged cause of action and Counsel having agreed, it was plain that District Judge Weston had been wrong to strike out the action as disclosing no cause and it was for that reason that she was looking for another ground to use in order that she could strike out the action herself, because my appeal, as she'd stated was a re-hearing of the application before the District Judge.

It was after Justice Smith had explained to Counsel that evidence could be submitted to demonstrate that the claim is frivolous that Counsel picked up on that suggestion, by offering, in good faith, believe, to produce the evidence of Mrs. West's original shorthand notes and an affidavit from her
to demonstrate to me that there had been no skulduggery.

"No skulduggery" that was hilarious, because I had and have ample evidence, by way of official documents, that demonstrate that very little done by Mr. Shepheard, in the name of the Treasury Solicitor, was anything other than skulduggery.

Neither Counsel, nor Justice Smith, could have known at that time, that production of Mrs. West's original shorthand notes were to reveal, not that the action was frivolous etc. but that the allegations against the pair are well founded.

It could only have  been because it had been established that the claim did plainly disclose an alleged cause of action that Counsel had fallen in with Justice Smith's suggestion, to produce the evidence and in doing so he inadvertently produced the evidence that I needed: that I'd been lacking.

It was confirmed to me, upon reading the official transcript of that first hearing before Justice Smith, that Counsel, perhaps unintentionally, mis-informed the Court of matters relating to Mrs. West's purported
certification of her transcripts. Firstly, when he had referred to her certificate of verification, he'd said that other shorthand writers' had produced similar certificates, when in fact, the certificates that had been produced by the other two shorthand writers' were quite different, because they did comply with the rules governing verification of transcripts, by certifying them as being an accurate account of the proceedings, (evidence) whereas Mrs. West had certified hers as being only an accurate account of her shorthand notes, which notes are alleged to have been tampered with.

Counsel also informed the Court that, in February and April 1995, a District Judge had made orders that Mrs. West produce authenticated transcripts of what took place in the trial before Judge Simpson and that on the 25th of April she produced the certificate and that it's production coincided with the District Judge's orders.

Presumably, he'd read my Notice of Appeal, that made it plain that Mrs. West's purported certificate doesn't comply with the order made on the 21st of February and he would, I assume,  have examined the certificates produced by the other two shorthand writers' to have made the comparison with Mr. West's certificate, but he still described them as being similar to hers. He should have been truthful by stateing that the other two shorthand writers' had complied with the rules governing verification of transcripts and that Mrs. West had not, which facts, in any event, were in my Notice of Appeal, which was before the Court.

It became clear to me that Mrs. Justice Smith wasn't going to allow my appeal when she had suggested that evidence should be produced, but I was pleased about that because I knew, as a fact, that the transcripts provided by Mrs. West were false and I knew that, if she produced the original shorthand books they would, inevitably,  either contain the false evidence with the evidence that had been given deleted, or they would have had to be tampered with, by the removal of pages containing the actual evidence given and the insertion of pages containing false evidence.

I didn't think  it very likely that, her original shorthand books would be produced with the true account of the evidence in them, because she couldn't allow them to be compared with her transcripts, so I didn't doubt that, when examined, her notes would correspond with the transcripts.

Counsel had also said, "There is plainly a mistake, something is wrong somewhere. It could be that the shorthand writer has taken it down wrongly, or any number of reasons." He'd given that as a possible reason, so it cannot be said that he, and/or those on who's behalf he was acting, denied
that the transcripts are not accurate. Clearly they knew that my allegations are not scandalous, or frivolous.

He'd said: "any number of reasons" but it, apparently, didn't enter his head to say that, one of them could be that I was mistaken . He could not have believed that I was mistaken, or wasn't sincere and that omission, I thought, was significant.

Mrs. Justice Smith didn't get around to hearing my application for Mrs. West to serve a Defence, but there was something said to her, by Counsel, during the hearing, relating to the justification of my application. He had said to Mrs. Justice Smith: "I didn't draft the Defence in this action," and "There
may have to be some amendment." He said that out of the blue and it seemed to me that he, knowing that the Defence is inadequate, didn't want Mrs, Justice Smith to run away with the idea that he'd had a hand in preparing that purported Defence that was not a Defence and I don't blame him.

When Mrs Justice Smith had told me that I would really have to demonstrate that there is something wrong with the shorthand note, I replied that I understood. I did understand what she'd said, but I didn't comprehend her reason for saying it, because of course I wasn't obliged to demonstrate anything of the kind before the trial of the action and certainly not at the hearing of my appeal against the District Judge's unjustifiable order striking out the action as disclosing no reasonable cause in the Statement of Claim where evidence is not permissible.

She did, however, go on to say that she wasn't suggesting that I should do anything further myself, because she had suggested that Counsel should take those steps, but those steps could not possibly reverse her ruling that the Statement of Claim plainly disclosed an alleged cause of action , or
demonstrate that District Judge Weston was correct in striking out the claim on a false ground.

She had said that she proposed to adjourn the matter for that to happen. Her suggestion to Counsel to produce the evidence, however, did meet with my approval, because it would, or certainly should, prove the truth of my allegations.

It had been said, by Justice Smith, that the difficulty  was that I'd not brought the transcripts of my criminal trial to the hearing, but she didn't deem it necessary to say that those who were representing Judge Simson and Mrs. West hadn't brought them, but of course, as I've already said, there
was no valid reason for anyone to bring them, least of all me, because those transcripts were not the issue that she was charged with resolving and which issue she had already resolved: that he Statement of Claim plainly disclosed an alleged cause.

I had no intention of discontinuing the action, knowing that if Mrs. West swore an affidavit denying the allegations, the affidavit would necessarily have to be false and would be proved to be false and also knowing that the production of her original shorthand books would show that they had been
tampered with.

Following the hearing, I wrote a letter, dated 1st of June, to Mr. Shepheard, who still had conduct of the case on behalf of the Defendants', requesting him to arrange to have Mrs. West's  original notes released for forensic examination, without the need for me to make application to the
Court for their release.

With no response to that letter, I wrote to him again, on the 19th of June, making the same request, but again, there was no response.

I began to suspect that perhaps Mr. Shepheard knew that if the books were forensically examined, it would be revealed that they had been tampered with, because I couldn't think that after Counsel had given an undertaking to have it demonstrated to me that there had been no skulduggery, that he
would disregard that undertaking given in the High Court, to show that the books are in good order.

My thinking was that any honourable legal advisor after giving such an undertaking would be bound to honour it, unless it turned out that his client's: Mrs. West's books had been tampered with and even more significant is the patently clear fact that if the books had not been tampered with, an
examiner's report most certainly would have be forthcoming in order to demonstrate that my allegations are frivolous, so there was something to hide.

With all that in mind I telephoned Mr. Shepheard on the 26th of June, reminding him that he'd not answered my letters and again requesting the release of Mrs. West's shorthand notes and I reminded him also, of Counsel's undertaking to produce them. During the course of that telephone conversation, Mr. Shepheard informed me that he would not release the original shorthand books, nor would he provide me with photo-copies, because of the rule of law called privilege, saying that he would only be prepared to provide me with a transcript by someone other that Mrs. West.

I'm not too bright, but even I could see what he had in mind and I refused his offer to provide me with a transcript, because it was a ridiculous one, that couldn't possibly have demonstrated the truth of Mrs. West's transcripts. and only she could vouch for their truth which she'd consistently refused to do. I'm not sure whether he really expected me to accept his offer, but if he did, he must have taken me for something of a fool.

As to his assurance about the rule of law called privilege, that is just pure nonsense, because my allegation of corruption was that Mrs. West had falsified evidence, so how on earth he expected me to accept that her notes are privileged material, when they are alleged to be false was beyond me and in any event, Justice Smith had already adjourned the hearing to allow the original notes to be provided.

Following that telephone conversation with Mr. Shepheard, I wrote him another letter, dated the 1st of July, informing him that Counsel had not considered the shorthand notes to be privileged when he asked for the hearing of my appeal to be adjourned in order to produce the books, nor Justice Smith when she granted his request.

Obviously: being a legal officer, Mr. Shepheard well that the notes are not privileged, so he'd been untruthful, but the very fact that he'd  found it necessary to be untruthful only served to strengthen my belief that he was/is fully aware that the allegations against Simpson and West are true.

With no response to that third letter, I sent him a fourth, by recorder delivery post, dated 24th of July to remind him that he hadn't answered, nor acknowledged receipt of my three previous letters and the letter informed him that I belied he was quite wrong about Mrs. West's notes being
privileged, also telling him that that I though the position that he was taking, in ignoring the letters of request, indicated that he was aware that he was wrong. This letter went on to ask him to do me the courtesy of acknowledging  the letters within seven days, or I wasn't sure what else I could do, other than to approach the General Council of the Bar, requesting their assistance. The recorded letter had the effect of prompting Mr. Shepheard to write back to me two days later, acknowledging my previous letters of the 3rd and 19th of June and the 24th of July and informing me that he'd been extremely busy on other matters.

It was again significant that this belated response from Mr. Shepheard didn't touch on the content of my letters to him: that he'd been untruthful in informing me that the original notes are privileged, because he'd made no attempt to deny that he'd been untruthful.

His letter did, at least, acknowledge receipt of my recorded delivery letter to him of the 24th of July, which had informed him that he was wrong, however, his letter didn't acknowledge my letter of the 1st of July, which had also informed him that I  believed he had been untruthful. I was obliged
to write to him once again, him to acknowledge receipt of the letter on the 27th of August.

Mr. Shepheard's acknowledgement of my letters of the 1st and 24th of July confirms that he did indeed tell me that the notes are privileged, because his acknowledgement of those letters make it evident  that he wasn't prepared to deny that he had been untruthful in trying to take advantage of
my ignorance of the law. It is certain that, if he hadn't lied to me, that he would have taken offence at my accusation instead of simply ignoring the matter.

Still not having received an affidavit, sworn by Mrs. West, by the 3rd of September, which was over three months after Counsel had assured Justice Smith that he was hoping to have it within my possession within one month, I sent another recorded delivery letter to Mr. Shepheard, reminding him of Counsel's undertaking and also reasserting my belief that what he'd said on the 26th of of June, about the notes being privileged material, was untrue. Perhaps not surprisingly, Mr. Shepheard has not acknowledged that letter, nor has he acknowledged three further letters dated I7th and 23rd of September and I4th of October I996, but again, significantly, receipt of the letters were acknowledged by the Assistant Treasury Solicitor on the I8th of October, which letter informed me that Mr. Shepheard was on sick leave. Again not surprisingly, there has been no further correspondence between Mr. Shepheard and myself.

I did eventually, receive a photocopy of Mrs. West's affidavit. It was sent to me together with photocopies of pages from her shorthand books, sent just six days short of six months after Counsel had informed Justice Smith that he hoped to have it in my possession within a month.

It's true that Counsel couldn't give a firm promise to have the affidavit in my possession within a month, because it was Mr. Shepheard that had control of the case on the Defendants' behalf and it appeared that Mr. Shepheard didn't concern himself with Counsel ' s undertaking.

 I wasn't surprised, when reading the affidavit, that Mrs. West  had perjured herself, because if she was going to swear one, without admitting the allegations, it would have had to be false, but  it contained one paragraph that could easily be proved to be  false.

She'd sworn that she had complied with an Order of the Court when  in truth, she hadn't, because I had in my possession a later  sealed Order of the Court that states that she had failed to comply with the earlier Order.

 I'm not sure why she had sworn to something that she must have  known could be proved to be untrue, but for whatever reason, she did.  She will have realized, I suppose, that even if I disputed that  she had complied with the Order, she could put up some sort of  defence by saying her certificate of accuracy had gone astray in  the post, even though she must have realized that she hadn't any evidence whatsoever to support that excuse.

It had taken some tim: all but two weeks short of six months after the hearing in Leeds I did get a sight of Mrs. West's shorthand books, that purportedly contained the true evidence. It was in Hull on the 4th of November, at the offices of the Solicitors' who were acting as agents for the Treasury Solicitor.

I knew that the books had to contain evidence that would reveal that they had been tampered with if the allegations were still to be denied and I was correct.

With the Solicitor present, I checked the pages to determine whether they were consecutively numbered and then counted them, to find out whether the books still contained the full complement of I60 pages, as was stated on the covers, but they didn't.

Book numbered 667 contained I56 pages, or 78 sheets with book 668 containing I58 pages, or 79 sheets.

Next I examined the wire coils at the tops of the books and as the photocopies had demonstrated, the left end of the coil on book 668, which contained the known false evidence, wasn't tucked back inside itself, as it should have been, for safety reasons, so clearly it had been tampered with.

To confirm that the wire coil had been removed I examined the tops of the pages and as the photocopies had also demonstrated, there was damage, consistent with the coil having been removed.

After examining the books I returned home to think things over, knowing that the books themselves demonstrated that they had been tampered with but not being quite sure how it had been done.

I was aware that it couldn't be disputed that there were less pages in the books than there should have been, nor could it very well be disputed that the wire coil page holder had been tampered with and the damage to the tops of some of the pages was there for all to see.

It would have been a simple matter to remove pages containing true evidence and to insert into the books pages containing false evidence with consecutive numbers and if more true evidence had been removed than the amount of false evidence inserted, that would account for the missing pages.

Everything seemed to fit in, consistent with pages having been removed and other pages having been inserted.

I examined the photocopies once more and noticed from the front cover copies of the books, that they were "Lairgate" books and with Lairgate being a street in Beverley, which is situated only a few miles from Hull, I decided to purchase two books.

One book I needed to find out how easy, or otherwise, it is to remove and insert pages and the second book, I required to show how the wire coil page holders are finished off after manufacture and before sale,

I did purchase two shorthand books from the "Lairgate" shop in Beverley and, as I'd expected, it was a very simple matter to unwind and remove the coil from the book and the new books demonstrated that the left ends of the coils are made tucked back inside themselves, unlike Mrs. West's book 668 now was.

Because I was in the position of knowing for certain that some of the evidence was false with true evidence omitted from the notes, I was convinced that pages had been removed and others inserted.

I concede that anyone, not knowing as a fact, that evidence had been falsified, couldn't be as sure as I  that pages had been inserted but I believe that any Civil Jury, after examining the evidence of the books, would come to the conclusion that on the balance of probabilities, I am correct.

If further confirmation were needed about the number of pages now contained in the books, confirmation came from the Solicitor acting as the Treasury Solicitor's agent, in writing, dated the 6th of November I996, that book 667 contains 78 sheets, that is I56 pages and book 668 contains 79 sheets.

It was unrealistic to believe that I would be able to secure the release of the books for provision to the forensic examiners' when all of my previous efforts' had failed, so I set about preparing a brief opening address to Justice Smith, ready for the resumption of the hearing of my appeal. :-

I. My Lady, if it's to be demonstrated that the Statement of Claim is scandalous, frivolous and vexatious, I submit that the second Respondent must demonstrate that her shorthand books couldn't have been tampered with.

2. She must demonstrate that pages couldn't be removed from the books and she must demonstrate that pages with false evidence couldn't have been inserted.

3. She must demonstrate that the books contain the full complement of pages. She hasn't done that and she can't do that now, because there are still six pages missing from the books.

4. She must demonstrate that those six missing pages didn't contain the true evidence that hasn't been transcribed.

5. She should demonstrate that she didn't remove the wire coils from the tops of the books, so that pages with false evidence could be inserted.

6. She should demonstrate why it is that the left end of the coil on book 668 isn't tucked back inside itself as it should be.

7.  She should demonstrate that the damage to the tops of some of the pages couldn't be caused by the removal of the coil and it's replacement.

8. I've purchased two "Lairgate" shorthand books from Lairgate in Beverley. One book is to demonstrate that the left end of the coil is tucked back inside itself for safety reasons. The second book is to demonstrate how simple it is to turn the coil through and off the book.

 9. Counsel undertook to have an affidavit served from Mrs. West, with demonstrable probity on that document. Mrs. West has failed to honour that undertaking, because the document purported to be her certificate of verification doesn't even comply with the rules governing verification and
the certificate is undated to disguise the fact that she failed to comply with the Order made by a District Judge on the 2Ist of February I995, which invited her to certify her transcript.

I0. I've served and submitted to the Court, copies of my reply to Mrs. West's affidavit.

II. Her affidavit states that I don't have a shred of evidence. I realize that I'm under no obligation to produce evidence to demonstrate that my allegations aren't scandalous, but I've done that in any event, by submitting evidence to the Court. With your permission I d like to refer to that evidence, which outlines my case and proves Mrs. West wrong, because I have more than just a shred of evidence.

I received the fixed date for the continuation of my appeal from the Court on the 11th of July I996. It was to be four months hence, on the I2th of November and that was a very long interval for an adjournment, a period of nearly six months.

I was disappointed about having to wait another four months for the resumption of my appeal, because I felt, that with the evidence that had come to light, Justice Smith would be bound to allow my appeal, by overturning District Judge Weston's Order, especially as she had adjourned
the earlier hearing to allow evidence to be produced and she wouldn't have adjourned for that reason unless she had needed the evidence that Counsel undertook to produce, on which to base  her judgement.

The evidence that had come to light including the evidence of Mrs. West's false affidavit and her books, was a witness statement that had been signed by the Special constable in preparation for the trial against the Police that had been halted in York and which witness statement gave an entirely
different account of her evidence relating to her notebook, to her purported evidence in Mrs. West's false transcript.

I know that two different accounts of a witness's evidence doesn't prove either one true, but even so, it's significant that the Special Constable was prepared to sign  her statement, whereas Mrs. West's undated, purported certificate of verification of the transcript, given with reluctance, doesn't even state that the transcript is an accurate account of the evidence.

One week before the hearing was to be resumed in Sheffield, I sent to the Court, by recorded delivery post, the transcript requested by Justice Smith, together with additional exhibits, which were.

I. The transcript of Judge Simpson's Summing Up at my trial;

2. Photocopies of pages from Mrs. West's shorthand books;

3. My reply to Mrs. West's affidavit;

4. A copy of the 2nd false Criminal Justice Act statement of the civilian. witness who testified at my trial;

5. The witness statement signed by the Special Constable, that differed with the transcript of her purported trial evidence in Mrs. West's transcript:

I arrived at the hearing in Leeds on the I2th of November, believing that my appeal couldn't possibly be dismissed, because Justice Smith now had the evidence that would prove that the claim couldn't be considered scandalous, after all, she had allowed Counsel's request for an adjournment to try to
demonstrate that it was.

My belief that the claim couldn't be considered scandalous proved to be correct, but I couldn't have been more wrong in my belief that it couldn't
possibly be dismissed.

I'd referred to the evidence that had come to light since Mrs Justice Smith had adjourned the hearing on the 22nd of May, pointing out the evidence that was before her, which included Mrs. West's suspect shorthand books that had been tampered with and her false affidavit, photocopies, the Special Constable's witness statement, the taxi driver's Criminal Justice Act statement and the evidence in Mrs. West's transcripts themselves, that indicated that other parts must be false.

Whilst I was referring to the evidence, Justice Smith interceded several times giving me the distinct impression that she was irritated with me and if she was, it could only have been that she was annoyed with me for referring to the evidence that couldn't possibly allow her to strike out the
claim as being scandalous, which is what Counsel must have hoped for after her suggestion on the 22nd of May.

Her apparent annoyance, I presumed, was because  I was attempting to put a spoke in the wheel,  as if I was interfering with a pre-laid plan and I began to think then, that no matter what I said to her, my appeal would be dismissed, perhaps not on the ground that the action was scandalous, as
Counsel had been hoping to demonstrate, because the evidence wouldn't allow that, but I did think a reason would be found.

She did dismiss my appeal, making me leave her Court very disappointed and I subsequently received her sealed Order, which reads thus:

"Upon hearing the Plaintiff in Person and Counsel for the First and Second Defendants' and upon reading the affidavit of the Second Defendant it is Ordered:

I. The Plaintiff's appeal against the Order of District Judge Weston dated I3th of February I996 be dismissed.

2. The Plaintiff do pay the Defendants' costs to be taxed, if not agreed, on a standard basis limited to £I,500.00.

I was dumbfounded, because not only had Justice Smith dismissed my appeal against District Judge Weston's Order, thereby apparently supporting him in that the Statement of Claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action, after she had established, on the 22nd of May, that it plainly did disclose an alleged cause of  action, but she had actually based her judgement, as her Order reveals, partly upon the reading of Mrs. West's affidavit, which was alleged and could be proved to be false and which, in any event, didn't prove anything. other than that she'd sworn an affidavit that couldn't prove its own truth.

No documents had been provided to demonstrate the truth of the affidavit, as Counsel, on the 22nd of May, had said would be the case. Quite the reverse, because there was the evidence of the Order of the York County Court that proved its untruth.

 The Order was nearly unbelievable to me and I was amazed, but after giving the matter some thought I could see that it wasn't so unbelievable after all. My allegation was against one of Her Majesty's Circuit Judges and I'd made a formal complaint against him as mentioned, to the Lord Chancellor. Enquiries had been made, without me ever having been informed of the outcome
of those enquiries.

I feel certain that if, at the conclusion of those enquiries, it had been found that my allegations contained no substance, I would have been informed, perhaps in no uncertain terms.

a plausible and the most probable reason for me not being informed of the outcome, is that Judge Simpson has made his corruption known during the course of those enquiries and it should be remembered that it's the Lord Chancellor's Department that instructed the Treasury Solicitor to act for the Defendants' and it should be remembered also, that it was Mr. Shepheard of the Treasury Solicitor's office, that prepared an inadequate Defence without material being provided by the
Defendants'.

It is realized that material couldn't very well have been provided if Judge Simpson had admitted his corruption to those who instructed the Treasury Solicitor. Everything seemed to me to fit in with what I believed could be a cover up.

There had been nearly a six month adjournment, which is ample time for something to have developed behind the scenes to account for Justice Smith's apparent change of attitude.

I remembered her saying on the 22nd of May: "It must not appear in any sense that a Judge is anxious to dispose of an action against another Judge." - which is a fine principle and I believe it was sincerely said at the time.

It could be that something happened behind the scenes during the course of those six months to put pressure on Justice Smith into abandoning that principle, because she certainly struck me as being a sincere and honourable person on the 22nd of May.

 I fully agree that it must never appear, in any sense that a Judge is anxious to dispose of an action against another Judge  and I don't think anyone would argue with that sentiment, but it certainly appeared to me that both District Judge Weston and Justice Smith were anxious and did dispose of
an action against another Judge Simpson.

It is also important and should be remembered, particularly by Mrs. Justice Smith,  that as the certified transcript of the proceedings on the 22nd of May show, she said - "If there is any basis for this case, it must be litigated. "How she could have come to the conclusion that there is no basis
for this case is known to God and her alone.

I didn't discount the fact that one's principles can easier be abandoned under pressure from one's paymaster. I set about preparing my Bundles for the Court, because I intended to make application for leave to appeal to the Court of appeal

Copies of the official transcripts of the 2nd hearing before Mrs. Justice Smith and her purported Judgement, are exhibited in the next chapter.
~~~~~~~~~
Chapter Nine
~~~~~~~~~