Denial of Freedom of Speech at HMP Bure breachesArticles 9 , 10 and 14





A member of the [Country Landowners Association] was served a Notice by his District Council under section 25 of the Land Drainage Act  1991: to remove and cut back vegetation in three small watercourses, to remove silt, gravel and other debris from then; to replace a 225mm diameter pipe carrying a footpath with one of 450mm and to install a similar pipe in one of the other watercourses.  the works were estimated to cost approximately 1000.   

The decision to take enforcement action had been taken under delegated powers and no enforcement report had been prepared.  The member offered to carry out the works at his own expense provided the Council explained its justification and indemnified him against any flooding that might subsequently arise.

But since neither justification nor indemnity were forthcoming he was legally advised not to carry out the works and to lodge an appeal under section 27 of the Act.  This view was further strengthened by a drainage expert who said the works were unnecessary.

An appeal was duly made to a magistrates court, but it then transpired that  it had no power to order disclosure of documents.  Disclosure of the council's documents therefore took place only after the Member had presented his case.  The council then successfully opposed the introduction of a supplementary rebuttal report prepared for the member, and the appeal was dismissed subject to allowing extra time for the Member to carry out the works prescribed in the Notice.

The Member, finally in possession of the council's case appealed against the decision of the magistrates court.  The appeal was successful in the crown court, with the council being held responsible for 80% of costs, with an abatement of his costs arising from his appeal to the magistrates court. 

The Notice was served under section 25 of the Land Drainage Act 1991.  It was contended by the Member that this section related to maintaining flows in watercourses not improving them. A different section applied to improvements - which could certainly result from installing new culverts.  In addition, improvements and new works were funded  by the beneficiary not the owner.

The Judge accepted the force of these arguments, but considered it was not necessary to make a formal decision on this point.  The case was won not on a point of law, but on its technical merits, with the council and it's expert witness failing to demonstrate that increasing the size of the existing pipe and installing a new pipe were justified in order to maintain proper flow in the existing watercourse.

In summing up the Judge referred to "three piddling ditches" an apt description for three watercourses that could be stepped over with ease........................





What is not revealed from the legal victory as reported in the CLA magazine, is why this council decided to pursue the Member, when it must have been obvious to their legal and enforcement staff that they had no legal jurisdiction.  The answer to that question is simple.  The Wealden legal and planning departments are riddled with corruption.  The Member in question had a neighbour who was a Parish Councillor.  This council had already applied pressure to this Member to assist his neighbour, who was in litigation with the Member over an access issue.

The council concerned had already lost against this Member concerning a bridleway, where he was supported by East Sussex County Council.  Wealden's enforcement department does not like losing and will never admit to being wrong.  Neither will Wealden's legal department.  Consequently, WC were looking for an issue to avenge their earlier defeat - regardless of the rights and wrongs.  In so doing they were seeking to increase their recharge budget and make themselves look more important.  This sort of action is termed a malicious prosecution.  What a waste of the ratepayers money!





It may only have been three tiny ditches but it might well have been the English Channel and Nazi Germany when considering the tactics used by Wealden to force improvements to drainage where the Act says no such thing. Also, why would any authority refuse to explain themselves as to why they thought it necessary. You may like to know that another neighbour who had a dispute with Mr de Rivaz was a prominent mason: George Herbert Day, thought to have been a member of Castrum Lodge in London. There may be no connection here, but Ian Kay, the assistant district planning officer at Wealden was connected to Denis Bernard Best by marriage to his daughter. Mr Best was not only a local builder in the Wealden area, but another prominent mason at the Tyrian Lodge in Eastbourne. It is possible then that a conflict of interests existed generating bias. It is alleged by others that discrimination is institutionalised in the Wealden district.


George Day was eventually brought down by persons who cannot be named for legal reasons, being accused and found guilty of sexual crimes against children.





In 1997 the land owner affected by this case joined 12 other members of the public to present a Petition to Lord Newton, Eddie Powell and Jack Gore, the panel members who were selected to represent Wealden.


While this panel went through the motions of looking into the complaints, in reality they were being guided by the officers who were the subject of the complaints.


The panel found that the complaints were more criminal and should go to the police for investigation. This should not have been the local force, but an independent force in another geographical location where there was less chance of a conflict of interests. In hindsight it is easy to see this but at the time the Petitioners had no reason to suspect collusion and believed that there would be a genuine investigation.


There was of course no investigation at all. Not a single complainant was interviewed and neither were any of the council's staff. How then can there have been an investigation? There was not even a crime number.


Then we find out about the level of corruption in Sussex Police with the murder of James Ashley.


Inspector Peter Coll was at Deer Paddock, George Street in Hailsham, meeting with Richard de Rivaz and councillor Brian West, who attended as an independent witness.


At this meeting it is alleged that Inspector Coll admitted to Mr de Rivaz and Cllr West that Sussex police had simply provided a blank sheet of paper on which Wealden wrote what they wanted written for Valerie Chidson to read out at the next full council meeting. It was confirmed at this meeting that there was no investigation - but then the complainant's already knew that because not one of them had been contacted by Sussex police.


Had any investigation taken place, Mr de Rivaz would have been the 13th petitioner. Thirty-nine (39) more member of the public came forward to add their names to the list of wrongdoing. At that point the council officers, and more than likely the chief councillors, realising that some of their high ranking staff would be bound to be found out if an investigation were to get going, decided not to accept any more petitions. It appears that they had already done a deal with their friends at the CPS to avoid prosecution.




If on investigation these allegations prove to be correct, and at the moment we have no reason to doubt the allegations where Sussex police and the CPS are refusing to provide any counter statement. What we are describing here is a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice of some magnitude. Given that it involved several high ranking members of the Council concerned and the Police we are looking at state sanctioned organised crime.




There is not a lot of point in having a justice system where the foot soldiers can plant evidence, fake investigations and simply refuse to investigate real crimes against the person or property. Britain is at the moment a country that is riddled with protections for some and persecution for others as a result of the lack of transparency and accountability of British police.







Our grandparents fought in two World Wars to protect us from perverse authority in two world wars.  What's will it take to ensure perverts don't stay in positions of power once they have been found wanting?  If these were crimes against children by child minders, the authorities would press charges (reluctantly).  Nonetheless, these are serious crimes going unpunished with consequential ruination to many of the victims.  Insurers become party to these crimes when terms of cover require Council's to keep quiet.





With thanks to Action Groups across the country for the supply of real case history and supporting documents.  *THAT THE PUBLIC MAY KNOW*


This site is free of Copyright except where specifically stated.  Any person may download, use and quote any reference or any link, and is guaranteed such right to freedom of information and speech under the Human Rights and Freedom of Information Acts.  However, be aware that we cannot be held liable for the accuracy of the information provided.  All users should therefore research matters for themselves and seek their own legal advice and this information is provided simply by way of a guide.  Horse Sanctuary Trust.