GRANTS COP IMMUNITY - Feb 2 2006
morning in the Eastbourne Magistrates Court, Deputy District Judge Irena
Ray-Crosby refused to issue a Summons naming Superintendent Coll as a
witness to be called in the famous Parking Ticket scandal now
try this at home children"
case is set to be heard in May 2006, but apparently will be allowed to
proceed by the court, without the defendant being allowed the
opportunity to question the Police adminstration who may be to blame for
the mix up. It seems the defendant in this matter will not be
allowed the right to a fair hearing. Deputy District Judge
Ray-Crosby said: "It's a waste of public money." However,
should there be a price ticket on justice, and if it's such a waste of
public money, why are the Police wasting it?
defendant alleges this is unlawful. He says he is entitled to
question witnesses, as set out in Article 6
of the Human Rights Act 1998
enough, it is alleged that the decision was made by the Clerk to the
Court, rather than the Deputy Judge. We have seen to original
application of the defendant, where there is a NO, clearly written, and
apparently not in the Judges handwriting. This application, which
takes the form of a letter, was handed to the Judge by the Clerk, then
handed back to the defendant, when he was told by the Judge, she would
not issue the summons requested.
question we would ask is, "If it's such a waste of public money,
then why are the Sussex Police pursuing this parking ticket, spending
their time seeking to gain a conviction, when the the alleged parking
ticket was mis-served.
with so many of the similar cases reported on this site, the defendants
only ever get a fair hearing in a higher court and usually on
appeal. The defendant alleges this case should never have been
brought, since service was not properly effected. The defendant
says he wrote to the Central Ticket office in Hove, pointing out the
error, but that the station manager, Inspector Coll, said the matter
should go ahead regardless. Apparently, the defendant also wrote
to the Crown Prosecution Service pointing out the problem, but they too
ignored the mis-service issue.
defendant alleges that the roles were reversed back in 1997, where he
was one of 12 Petitioners complaining about illegal activities within
Wealden District Council. Wealden refused to look into the
criminal complaints and passed the matter to Sussex Police.
However it is alleged the Sussex Police did not investigate at
all. The Petitioners claim they were not contacted.
some months later, Raymond Parsons, the then Leader of the Council read
out a letter from the Sussex Police, saying they had investigated the
matter and there was no case to answer. This stunned the
Petitioners, who knew they had not been contacted.
after this the Chief Executive retired, taking with him an enhanced
pension package. Then a few weeks later, another member of the
public was speaking with Police officers at Hailsham Police Station,
when these officers confided that there had been no investigation at
all. They went on to reveal that the Council's Chief Executive had
written the letter read out, himself. Apparently, he had used Police
headed paper, then given the letter to Councillor Parsons to read out as
if it had come from the Police officially.
appears therefore that there may have been a conspiracy to pervert the
course of justice. Now if that is the case, it is a serious
matter. Anyone who interferes with the course of justice may
become party to the crime. Especially, a Magistrate or a Judge.
defendant points out: "The Courts have a duty to protect the
right of the public, to a fair hearing." What do think
about Irena Ray-Crosby's decision today? Did she protect the right
of this defendant to call and question a witness to the parking ticket
mix up? See Article 6. 3. (d) for
details. Also, take a look at the cases below featuring
Irena. You will see that she defends people, she prosecutes and
she is a Judge. All rather cosy wouldn't you say? What role
would you like to play today maam! Do you think Irena would forget
her mates in a crisis?
you must cut this flesh from off his breast: the law allows it, and the
court awards it." - The Merchant of Venice
ON IRENA RAY-CROSBY:
Accused of Assaulting Son Through Circumcision -
Tuesday, May 3, 2005
A Muslim “assaulted” his five-year-old son by having him
circumcised against his mother’s wishes, a court heard today.
The father is alleged to have secretly taken the boy to a
doctor in north London for the procedure.
Lewes Crown Court heard he then told the mother – an
English Christian – what had happened and said: “There is
nothing you can do.”
The 27-year-old man – who lives in Crawley, West Sussex,
but cannot be named for legal reasons – denies committing an
assault occasioning actual bodily harm in August 2003.
Irena Ray-Crosby, prosecuting, told the court today that the
parents had been involved in a three-month relationship and the
mother realised she was pregnant after they broke up.
Once the defendant, who is of Moroccan origin, realised the
child was his he began raising the issue of circumcision in line
with his religious beliefs.
“He told (the mother) he wanted to have the boy circumcised
and she said she would agree with that only for medical reasons
and never for religious ones.”
The court heard that in August 2003 – shortly after the
boy’s fifth birthday – he went to stay with his father.
The defendant telephoned the mother and asked her to come out
of her house to talk to him, at which point he told her about
According to Ms Ray-Crosby, the mother accused him of
assaulting their son, and the defendant responded: “There’s
nothing you can do. I’ve looked into it and it’s perfectly
He later sent her a text message saying she should give the
boy salty baths in order to help him heal.
The court heard that the father had been “under pressure”
from fellow Muslims to get his son circumcised, and paid £100
in cash for the procedure to be carried out.
Ms Ray-Crosby said the defendant had admitted when arrested
and interviewed by police that he had not told the mother in
advance of his plans. She added that there had been no medical
reason why the boy needed to be circumcised.
“This is not a case that is anti-Islam or anti-any other
faith. It’s simply about a boy who was circumcised without his
Ms Ray-Crosby said the father had never applied for legal
parental responsibility, and therefore could not have provided
proper consent for the operation to take place.
British court has ruled that consent of both parents is
required for circumcision.
like a picture of Irena Ray_Crosby for our pages. Then if
any member of the public comes up before her, he or she will
know what they're in for.
would also like a clear picture of Superintendent Coll and any
other officer involved in this case.
will pay £200 for any clear picture, if it is published.
We believe this to be in the public interest.
CRASH DRIVER JAILED - Thursday 13th Jan 2005.
drink-driver has been jailed for five years for killing a
teenage girl in a head-on crash.
Sparks caused a horrific accident which claimed the life of
19-year-old Ria Reichl on his way home from a three-and-a-half
hour drinking session. He took the wheel of his Transit van
despite having drunk enough lager and Jack Daniels whisky to
take him almost twice over the legal alcohol limit. Ria, a
student from Crowborough, died at the scene after Sparks smashed
into her Vauxhall Nova on the A22 at Forest Row last March.
best friend and passenger Yvette Kubillus, now 16, was left with
broken bones and severe facial and internal injuries. Yesterday,
sentencing Sparks at Hove Crown Court, Judge David Rennie told
him: "The decision you made to get behind the wheel while
you were drunk sends shivers down the spine." Sparks, 29, a
lift engineer, of High Street, Nutley, near Uckfield, was found
guilty of causing death by careless driving. The court heard how
Sparks had driven into Forest Row with friends Tamehana Wrathall
and Timothy Warnett for a night out and planned to take a taxi
home. Sparks spent the evening drinking Jack Daniels and Coke
before the group finished up at the Chequers pub in the town,
where Sparks had parked his van earlier.
the court heard, Sparks claimed not to remember anything after
leaving the pub, denying any recollection of the decision to
drive the five-mile journey back to his home. Speaking at the
start of the seven-day trial, Joanna Cutts, prosecuting, said:
"Miss Reichl was driving in a careful way but as she
approached the bend at Forest Row everything changed. "A
white van came round the corner, it suddenly swerved sharply on
to the wrong side of the road and Miss Reichl had not time to
react. "He (Sparks) told police he could not remember
anything from when he left the pub until he was standing in the
road after the accident. "But there is forensic evidence
which shows he was indeed the driver and caused the death of the
court heard families living near the A22 rushed out of their
homes and tried to free Miss Reichl from the car. Sparks's
sister Louise, a policewoman, told the court of a conversation
she had had with her brother soon after the accident in which he
claimed he had not been driving but that he had been worried
about "getting into trouble over insurance". An
off-duty policeman helping at the scene also described how
Sparks had denied being in the van just minutes after the
accident. Irena Ray-Crosby, defending, said Sparks had no
previous convictions and appealed to the jury to consider
whether someone else had been driving. Ms Ray-Crosby said:
"Can you be absolutely sure that it was Christian Sparks
who was the driver - would he suddenly go out drinking and
driving for no reason?"
jury of seven men and five women took little more than an hour
to return a unanimous guilty verdict. Sparks was also
banned from driving for five years. Judge Rennie told him:
"Your position has always been you have no recollection of
being the driver and despite the overwhelming evidence you were
not able or not prepared to accept that you were driving."
court, Volker Kubillus, a friend of Ria's family, said on behalf
of her father Bernd: "It is not easy for us to be
confronted with all the detailed pain and tragedy that was
created by a drunken driver and it is very sad to learn that the
defendant has not shown any sign of insight after all." He
also said the accident had had a terrible impact on his daughter
News Friday 27 August 2004
COMPLAINT MAN GREW CANNABIS
A man who grew his own cannabis was given a condition discharge
by magistrates after they accepted he was smoking it to relieve
the symptoms of his severe eczema. A
Norfolk doctor leading clinical trials into the use of cannabis
in the treatment of ailments today said thousands more people
suffering pain and discomfort could be helped but for stigma of
taking the drug.
Dr William Notcutt, who spearheaded Britain's first clinical
trial of the drug at the James Paget Hospital in Gorleston, said
cannabis or its derivatives could help people with conditions
like eczema. "We know some cannabis derivatives have
an effect on pain in rheumatoid arthritis," he said.
"It doesn't surprise me that someone is using cannabis in
Deputy district judge Irena Ray-Crosby at Norwich magistrates
court had told Ian Howarth: "I totally accept the reasons
for cultivating cannabis. It was not done for fun. "This
is totally because of your exceptional circumstances. You
are obviously suffering."
Howarth, 25, of Falkland Close, Hellesdon, admitted growing
cannabis, driving off without paying for UKP15 worth of petrol
and stealing two packets of Germoline from the Asda in Hellesdon.
Prosecutor Ben Brighouse
said he went to the Wayside service station in Dereham Road,
He put UKP15 worth of petrol into his Nissan Micra car, but left
the garage without paying for it. Howarth
was traced through his car and when police went to his home they
noticed the powerful odour of cannabis.
The found cannabis leaves and also plants being grown under
temperature controlled conditions. There were a total of
17 plants, 10 of them just seedlings. Mr
Brighouse said the estimated value of the leaves and plants was
Anna Farquharson, for Howarth, said he was on sickness benefit
because of his acute eczema. "He
tells me smoking cannabis alleviates the itching and very often
the pain he suffers from eczema. He is regularly admitted
to hospital so bad is his eczema," she said.
"He also feels he is in a position to control the quality
of the cannabis to alleviate his symptoms." Dr
Notcutt has expressed his frustration that the Department of
Health had not yet agreed to make cannabis available as a
painkiller on the NHS. He
said: "There are more than 200 patients in my pain clinic
who want to use cannabis for relief from their pain.
"There may be an opportunity for people like that to use
this drug sensibly and safely without suffering side effects.
But it's being held up because it's cannabis. "There's
a perception of what cannabis does and politicians find this
difficult to handle." He
added that many GPs had their suspicions that some of their
patients were using cannabis for pain relief.
Using the drug as a legal painkiller, under the control of the
NHS, would guarantee its quality and people wanting to use
cannabis for this purpose would not have to seek out dealers in
order to get a supply, he said.
charity treasurer jailed - Jan 27 2005
79-YEAR-OLD Burma war veteran who swindled a charity out of £18,070
has been jailed for nine months.
Melrose used the current account of Victoria Almshouses in
Deerings Road, Reigate, and London Road, Redhill, to make
cheques out to himself, and when funds ran low he began selling
off the charity's stocks and shares. It
led to Melrose being found guilty at Guildford Crown Court on
Friday January 14 of nine charges of obtaining money transfer by
deception between late 2001 and August 2002.
was cleared of three similar offences from February to July
2001. Melrose, who denied
the charges, took up the voluntary role of treasurer in 1993
and, although he did not get paid, he was entitled to reclaim
expenses which he claimed had run up to £25,000.
Speak, prosecuting, told the court that in 2002 the company's
auditors discovered that a very large number of the charity's
investment units had been sold. "It
was the charity's nest egg," he said. "No-one, least
of all the defendant, had any authority to go and sell off the
charity's investment units without telling anybody."
Speak said further examination of the books revealed that he had
been stealing the charity's money for quite a long time and
trying to cover it up.
wrote cheques to himself on several occasions from the current
account then turned his attention to the investment
account. The jury heard how, on a ninth attempt to
withdraw money, the cheque bounced because he had reduced the
charity's current account so much.
2002 Melrose realised that matters were getting out of hand and
decided to repair some of the damage by buying back shares, Mr
Speak said. Melrose used both the charity's and his own
money before auditors discovered the mess.
Ray-Crosby, defending, told the court that Melrose, who claimed
he used some of the money to pay for a cataracts operation, was
a man of previous impeccable character. She said: "Custody
would weigh heavily on him, both because of his age and because
of the substantial ill-health of his wife. "She has
had two heart operations and takes a great deal of medication.
Without her husband's assistance she is really not going to be
able to cope."
of Highdown Drive, Littlehampton, told the jury how he had been
hit by personal losses on the American stock markets and had run
up credit card debts of £60,000. He
said: "It was just a question of paying some one month and
some another. I had always expected the golden goose to come
Melrose, Recorder Georgina Kent said: "These offences are
so serious only a custodial sentence can be justified. The
reason being that as honorary treasurer you were held in a high
degree of trust. This was a serious breach of that trust."
Lowe, chairman of the board of trustees, said after the case:
"It was a very sad affair right from the start, but it did
not affect in any way the residents of the almshouses.
"It was a shattering experience for us because he was a
trusted member of the board."
He told them I was 'psychotic'
From the Telegraph & Argus,
first published Friday 10th Nov 2000.
A Bradford psychiatrist diagnosed a woman as psychotic after
chatting to her through a window.
Doctor Sasi Bhusan Mahapatra, told solicitors the woman was
mentally ill after being asked to provide evidence in divorce
proceedings, a disciplinary hearing was told yesterday.
Doctor Mahapatra, of Woodlands Drive, Apperley Bridge, denied
serious professional misconduct when he appeared before a
disciplinary committee of the General Medical Council in London
He admits he failed to examine the woman or take a medical
history and that he wrote to the husband's solicitor saying she
was suffering from paranoid psychosis.
He denies he discussed her medical history with her husband's
solicitors, her church minister or her brother.
Ms Irena Ray-Crosby, for the GMC, said the woman's husband,
referred to only as Mr A, first approached his family doctor in
December 1993 after his wife began divorce proceedings.
Mr and Mrs A are both Jehovah's Witnesses and did not believe
in divorce, so Mrs A's petition for divorce therefore led to
greater tensions between the couple.
Mr A had been convinced his wife was suffering from mental
illness and put her under considerable pressure to undergo
The family GP asked Dr Mahapatra to assess Mrs A's mental
The GMC disciplinary committee was told that Dr Mahapatra
visited Mrs A at her home without an appointment or announcing
his arrival on December 15, 1993.
When he knocked on the door Mrs A had just got out of the
shower and was in her dressing-gown. She refused to let him in.
She told the hearing: "I did not like the way he came to
the house unannounced and without an appointment and the way I
had been discussed by my husband and GP without me."
Dr Mahapatra did not have face-to-face contact with Mrs A but
talked to her through a window.
Following the visit he wrote to the family GP saying he had
failed to persuade her to see him but, from information obtained
from her husband and two sons, she was clearly in need of
In October 1994, without further examination, Dr Mahapatra
wrote to solicitors Harrison & Tordoff acting for Mr A in
the divorce proceedings, stating that Mrs A was suffering from
paranoid psychosis and was being extremely unreasonable.
Dr Mahapatra asaid the information obtained from both Mrs A's
GP and Mr A had led him to believe that she would fall in the
category of paranoid psychosis. He said: " It is a shame
that I did not have the opportunity to examine her."
He accepted that he failed to make it clear that he had never
examined Mrs A and that the information about her was based on
He said: "In hindsight, I regret that I did not make it
clear in my report and regret if it caused distress to Mrs
The hearing continues.
Bradford Archive Home
cost to the country incompetence? Sloppiness and Negligence?
Do it online
Have your say
SITE CONTAINS MANY EXAMPLES OF BRITISH JUDGES AND UNREASONABLE BEHAVIOUR - With
thanks to Action Groups across the country for the supply of real case
history and supporting documents. *THAT THE PUBLIC MAY KNOW*