TO: BRISTOL CROWN COURT, CRIMINAL LISTINGS DEPT: (Shioban)
FROM: Mr. Graham Walker
Dear Shioban/ Criminal Listings Dept:
RE: CASE NUMBER: A990018 COURT CODE: 408
HEARING DATE: FRIDAY 5TH MARCH 1999 10:30AM
Case: APPEAL OF GRAHAM PAUL WALKER AGAINST A DECISION BY BATH AND WANSDYKE MAGISTRATES COURT ON 10TH DEC 1998
ABANDONMENT OF APPEAL BY APPELLANT (MR GRAHAM PAUL WALKER)
(Friday March 5th 1999)
With regard to my fax of 1st March 1999, asking for adjournment of the above case due to illness I am suffering, including a letter from my GP Dr. Alan Young, yesterday (March 2nd 1999), I received a message on my answerphone from Mr Malcom Nutbeam of Bristol Crown Court.
Because my illness has confined me to take more rest, it wasn`t until I awoke at 3:30pm that I received the message to call him back.
In returning his call, Mr. Nutbeam advised me that a Judge has ruled that morning that my letter and the letter from my doctor are not sufficient to adjourn the case. What was required was a Medical Certificate and a statement from my Doctor that he felt I was not in sufficient health to attend court.
On then telephoning my GP’s Practice to arrange another emergency appointment, I was told that Dr. Young was not unfortunately at the Practice, and was due to return only the next morning, i.e. today.
I then asked if I could see another doctor in the Practice, but was told that unfortunately even the emergency appointments had been already booked up.
Further to that, it was explained that as this wasn`t an actual medical emergency, and that it is the rule of the Practice that the same Doctor attends to the same case whenever possible, the best they could offer was an appointment with Dr. Young in the morning.
With this information, I tried to seek advice from the solicitors at Mowbray Woodwards. Mr. James Morton, a solicitor of that company, had been the Duty Solicitor at Bath Magistrates Court on the day of my original appeal. He had left the courtroom in the belief that an adjournment had been agreed, and the date of the next trial was the only decision being decided in the chambers by the Magistrates.
The prosecution had even handed their diary to them and Mr Simon Goacher, acting as defendant for Bath City Council, had already rejected two dates suggested from the chambers.
I had several reasons for asking for an adjournment:
1) Trying to find a solicitor with specialist experience had proved a difficult search. This despite several calls to the Law Society, as well as calls from myself to several firms of solicitors.
Eventually, following direction from the Law Society towards Mr. Andrew Gregg of Bristol, Mr. Gregg said he would take the case on, but his experience in the area was exceedingly small, with only
A few other matters he`d dealt with that could part-relate.
Further to this, on the initial telephone contact when I discussed my case with him, he made it known to me that while he was willing to represent me, that he could not make the hearing of Dec 10th. That unfortunately co-incided with his mothers birthday and had already arranged other cases to have that day off.
2) There was also the problem of Legal Aid. In my original discussions at the original Magistrate’s trial with Duty Solicitor Mr. James Morton, he was unsure if Legal Aid was granted in cases such as mine. If so he would have got an adjournment to allow me to apply for legal aid and receive proper legal support from Mr. Gregg.
After checking his "Stones", he was still unsure, and sent a message to Mr. Simon Goacher to ask if he happened to know? The reply that came back was that Mr. Goacher was sure that Legal Aid was not applicable in such cases and not grounds for adjournment.
3) A witness of mine, important to my defence, was unable to attend the hearing being out of the country, but would have been due back for any subsequent hearing.
4) The actors’ union Equity had offered to support me with free legal support if I became a member, and membership has become a lot more easier to attain, and that I certainly fitted the criteria.
As aforementioned, Mr. Morton left the courtroom believing that an adjournment had been obtained.
However, the Magistrates returned to the courtroom and asked the Clerk of the Court, "That if they decided to in fact proceed, even though I was now un-represented, could they later adjourn if they felt I was getting into difficulties presenting my case to the court?"
His reply was "No, the whole case must be heard today to a settlement." I was surprised they had even come back and asked the question. I was even more surprised when they came back, and to quote them said "We`re gonna go for it."
Two hours into the trial, while I was giving my testimony, one of these Magistrates declared that he knew me and felt he could no longer continue due to a conflict of interests. I must confess to not recognising him. But, as an entertainer, I do meet a lot of people.
The rest of the trial was heard by the other two Magistrates, who returned a verdict they "Found no Grounds for my Appeal." This despite the admittance of The Environmental Health Officer that he didn’t realise that there were two people playing when investigating the complaint. The Notice was served just upon myself. I had then drawn attention of the court, that the Notice lists amongst it`s "Appeals" procedure, that the Notice is not fairly served "If it could have been equally served on someone else." Just one of the points on which I based my case.
He also made a statement that admitted that the "Noise Level" infringement was done purely on his subjective opinion and that other buskers in Bath don`t use amplifiers. When I pointed out that they do, and he KNEW they did, having been in the job for three years, he stated they used their amplification purely for the playing of backing music from a tape. In his opinion, that didn`t categorise it as "Amplified Music". He declined my invitation to define what it actually was then?
It has always been my contention that I have used my amplifier with professional sensitivity. Of the `000s who saw me perform, he could only name 4 complaints he had received the whole summer.
He quoted in court that two of these were on the 24th & 25th Oct. In fact on the 24th Oct I did perform in the square, but with three other musicians. Using amplified bass guitar, un-amplified saxophone. Amplified flute and my amplified guitar and voice. I did not perform on Oct 25th.
We used the amplification purely to balance the sound to blend with the un-amplified saxophone.
Yes, the combined sound was louder then me playing individually. The lady who does the "Ghost Walk" did complain to my girlfriend. She stated that while she could compete with me playing alone, it was impossible to compete against four of us and that she hoped that this was just a one-off.
Which it was, and was very much enjoyed by both the audience and fellow performers. It wasn`t a planned thing, we just decided to do it for the fun of it, and played only for 30 minutes. And again, still attempted to play at a level that wouldn`t be too disturbing to the residents and businesses, with whom I`d formed a good relationship, and all of which signed my petition against the ban.
The third complaint had come apparently from a fellow busker. A touch jealous possibly. The other complaint was from Kate Brass, who works above the Café where I normally play. A lady who, in the middle of a song that around 40-60 people were listening to and enjoying, walked right up to me and screamed into my face "Turn Down that "Fu**ing amplifier."
Ms Brass had done this once before. This time I stopped the song, and tried to talk to her, explaining that I felt she was being un-reasonable, that I have every legal right to earn a living this way, that I felt I was playing at a reasonable level. I then said that if she felt she had a complaint, to go and contact the Environmental Health Officer. He had on two previous occasions asked me to turn down in the other Square, but had never done so in the Square facing the Café, where I was then playing.
She instead screamed at me again to turn it down, that it was giving her a headache. At this point I admit I told her to "Go Away", using that exact phraseology.
In court she testified that I had abused her verbally, and intimated that I had sworn at her. However when I asked to tell the court exactly what I had said to her, she finally admitted that all I had said was "Go Away"… but it was the manner in which I said it. (Which I did because I wanted her to go away!)
She couldn`t quite remember her words and actions to me though, in court.
The Environmental Health Officer in issuing the Noise Abatement Notice testified to the court that he went to the premises of the Complainant, a fair distance from where I was playing. He could distinctly hear me singing a song he recognised as being "American Pie", and so issued the Notice on me.
In fact "American Pie", is the "encore" of my set, something I can confirm from tape recordings of some of my performances in the Square. I do not sing the full version, singing only two of the 6 verses of the original. My version lasts for about four minutes.
I noticed when the Notice was issued, that my name had been printed on it.
This means that the Environmental Health Officer had heard the song at the Complainants premises, in his own admittance, a fair distance away, returned to his office, found a Notice, typed my name on it, then come from his premises to the Square where I was performing. Then waited for me to finish the song before then serving the Notice purely on me. Despite now discovering that in fact a flute player had been playing with me for the entire set, using my microphone as amplification. (The only song he doesn’t play on with me is "American Pie." The ban is on my amplifier, which I had a shared use of.)
I have suspected from the first instance that far more was behind this Noise Abatement Notice then the Notice itself. And in not defying the ban, but seeking a legal solution, I have received very little in "Legal Aid", especially from the legal system.
First I was denied an Adjournment at the Magistrates Trial, despite very good reasons for seeking one.
Secondly the case was heard by only 2 of the 3 starting magistrates, who seemed to have missed some of the actual evidence.
Thirdly, in rightly seeking an appeal, a Crown Court Judge has now decreed that I should present my appeal while obviously unwell.
I don`t think many will excuse me for thinking that I am not receiving any joy in pursuing this matter through the courts. I came to seek justice, not to feel more frustrated and humiliated. Neither am I willing to waste my doctors time when he has more pressing concerns, nor can I afford the Medical Certificate even if he was to provide one. He had already charged me for the original letter.
Neither am I willing to put myself through the stress of another trial. My Medical History will vouch that stress caused me to have a severe mental breakdown 3 years ago, which has permanently damaged my health. I am now at the end of my tether over this ban and it`s actual consequences upon me.
One of the main causes of my breakdown was the stress of the debt I found myself in. It was my sisters’ Doctor who advised me to return to entertainment as soon as I felt better. He had actually seen my show and had thoroughly enjoyed it. And felt that all I needed was a little more support.
In trying to relieve my debts and stabilise my life, I decided to busk in Bath, to add an extra income to that which I receive as a Childrens’ Entertainer.
Financially, it was rewarding, and my act was enjoyed by many, who even had the courtesy to express it to me in words, as well as in their donations. It wasn`t sympathy money, or "Begged money", it was a contribution towards the entertainment they felt they had received.
In fact of the `000s who saw me perform my show in Baths’ two Squares beside the Abbey, only one complaint can be held up as genuine against me playing alone. Even then, I was so confident that I was playing at a reasonable level I actually invited her to approach the Environmental Health Officer. Who didn`t even come and ask me to turn down or even notify me of the complaint on that day.
The ban though cut off a major source of income for me. I had moved to Bath for the specific purpose of busking in the centre, and believe I put on some very nice concerts that were enjoyed by both residents and tourists. And the businesses in the Square have always been very welcoming to me and had no hesitation in signing my petition.
The busking allowed me to continue the Childrens’ Entertainment service which I have done for seven years, and been enjoyed by `000s of children and families in Bristol, Bath and the South-West.
By withdrawing my appeal, I understand that the Ban will remain in force. This leaves me in a position where I see myself forced to re-locate to a City also famed for the quality of their busking acts, such as York, Chester, Stratford and the like. And re-start my Childrens’ Entertainment in that area. Or pursue a career in sales and marketing, which I was doing before trying the entertainment business.
I will reserve my current limited energies to a Childrens’ Show I have booked for this Friday evening, and will then effectively close down my Childrens’ Entertainment business. On Monday 8th March I will be signing on for un-employment benefits and rent benefits, until I can find a company who wants to employ a clown who can play the guitar and sing.
When on benefits, I will then be automatically entitled to Legal Aid. I will then seek advice on just how correctly my case has been dealt with from start to finish, and what compensation might be drawn from whom.
It is my understanding that a limited amount of money is allowed to be earned while receiving benefits. May I remind Bath City Council that, in their own words, I am only banned from performing with an amplifier. I am still allowed to perform un-amplified. As someone who enjoys and writes comedy, can I thank them for providing the material for my next act. And anything past my benefit earning limit I will donate to various Childrens’ charities. Nor am I banned from playing at venues in the city for free and to a paying audience. This, before I re-locate.
I will no doubt use the story of this "Bath Ban" when busking in other Cities, which have no objection to me using an amplifier. Though I reserve the right to perform my guitar/singing act in Bath, miming to some amplified taped music of my amplified busking act in these other cities, as amplified taped music IS allowed in Bath.
With much regret, I formally accept their offer not to press for any costs and renounce my Appeal.
Instead on March 5th I will be holding a Press Conference to explain to the media and public why I am abandoning my appeal, and closing my "Happy Graham Childrens’ Entertainer Business." in the area. The time and venue to be shortly confirmed.
Finally, in contacting Criminal Listings Dept on Monday, 1st March, I was advised by Scott that "Three clear days" included the day of receipt. That I could safely withdraw my Appeal right up to Tuesday afternoon. When I spoke to Shioban of the same department, in assisting me she told me that in fact the "three clear days" was from the Monday, and that I was too late not to expect some costs, which is why she contacted the defendant. Who agreed no costs if I withdraw by Wednesday morning. - But right to the end I have received incorrect advice and injustice, including now from the Crown Courts ‘ own administration.
Yours sincerely,
G.P. Walker.