& DANGEROUS - There
are hundreds of policemen pounding British streets that will be involved
in crafting the evidence to obtain convictions, or otherwise cover up
their mistakes. Others will use their position of trust to groom
vulnerable children and adults for sex. Perhaps helping them to gain
revenge and then using that conspiracy to lever favours at a later date.
In other cases masonic influence infects the British justice system,
injecting discriminatory practices into an institution that should be
police were involved in the injunction to muzzle Matt
Taylor via their civil solicitors Weightmans LLP. At time of writing
attempting to use the same intimidation tactics on John Hoath
as the letter from solicitor Gilly (Gillian) Jones appears to confirm.
Legal Services Department
PO Box 101
Tel: +44 (0) 345 0739900
Fax: +44 (0) 345 0739950
Dear Mr Hoath
John Hoath – Injunctive Relief
Protection from Harassment Act
THIS IS A FORMAL LEGAL LETTER. YOU ARE ADVISED NOT TO IGNORE IT. IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT YOU SEEK LEGAL ADVICE.
I am the solicitor representing the Sussex Police and Crime Commissioner and her officers.
You have recently sent me several emails. Your e-mail of 30th April 2018 reads as follows:
I have e-mailed sound and solid evidence of corruption in Sussex Police, which proves beyond reasonable doubt that your client, the Sussex Police & Crime Commissioner, Katy Bourne is aiding, abetting and assisting Sussex Police and Chief Constable to pervert justice to conceal corruption.
This evidence is being prepared to be advertised and posted on the internet, therefore as your client refuses to act within the laws of aiding, abetting and assisting criminals with gun crime, it is in fact, a true statement of fact, therefore not libellous or a defamation of your clients character, therefore could be proved as such in a court of law….
I feel sure that you will advise your client as to her criminal conduct in continuing to support criminals with
You are aware that Katy Bourne and Mark Streater obtained an injunction preventing
Matthew Taylor from whether by himself or by instructing encouraging or permitting any other person or persons, from posting on the internet or otherwise publishing or broadcasting any video, comment, opinion or other material which directly or indirectly refers to either of them. You were in court for the proceedings.
You have made a threat that if you do not get a meeting with the Sussex Police and Crime Commissioner, you will upload material to the internet which refers to my client and your allegations that she and her officers are involved aiding and abetting the
Chief Constable of Sussex Police in perverting justice and concealing corruption. These are very similar allegations to those made by Matthew Taylor, and which were considered to be harassment.
Posting such allegations online is likely to amount to harassment and potentially defamation.
There is a defined route for complaints. As you were advised in the letter to you from the Sussex Police and Crime Commissioner’s Office dated 10th April 2018, that route is to appeal to the IOPC within 29 days of the date of that letter.
Protection from Harassment Act 1997 (The Act)
As a member of the public, you are of course entitled to make a complaint to the police if you are dissatisfied with aspects of the service which you have received from them.
You have waged a lengthy campaign against the Sussex Police Force, and the Sussex Police and Crime Commissioner.
In your various emails and correspondence both to me and my clients, you make a number of deliberate attacks on the personal and professional integrity of the Police and Crime Commissioner. Your claims of criminality are clearly designed to cause Katy Bourne and her officers alarm and distress.
The relevant parts of the Act provide as follows:-
1. Prohibition of harassment.
(i) A person must not proceed with a course of conduct :-
(a) Which amounts to harassment of another, and
(b) Which he knows or ought to know amounts to harassment of the other.
(ii) For the purposes of this section …, the person whose course of conduct is in question ought to know that it amounts to or involves harassment of another if a reasonable person in possession of the same information would think the course of conduct amounted to harassment of the other.
Were you to post your allegations online, it would be very difficult to envisage a situation where a court did not find your conduct amounted to harassment in breach of the Act. That conduct has currently been made as a threat if you do not get your own way with regard to a meeting with Katy Bourne.
The Act provides the following Defences to harassment:-
“(3) subsection (1) … does not apply to a course of conduct if the person who pursued it shows –
(a) That it was pursued for the purposes of preventing or detecting
(b) That it was pursued under any enactment or rule of law to comply with any condition or requirement imposed by any person under any enactment, or
(c) That in the particular circumstances, the pursuit of the course of conduct was reasonable.
You would only have a defence if you established, and the burden of proof is on you, that the conduct falls within one of the exceptions in Section 1(3)(1). Case law in respect of Section 1(3)(a) states that purpose is a subjective state of mind, and it is subject to a control mechanism to be found in the concept of rationality. Where the conduct is irrational, perverse, abusive, or grossly unreasonable, it cannot fall within Section 1(3)(a).
The Police and Crime Commissioner for Sussex, and her Chief Staff Officer are of the view that your publication of your allegations online would be irrational, perverse, abusive, and grossly unreasonable.
I am instructed by The Sussex Police and Crime Commissioner and her Chief Staff Officer to apply for an injunction restraining your behaviour if you do post online any material about them as you have threatened. If you do, I am instructed to automatically apply to the court for an injunction against you without further reference to you. Please be advised that I will seek the costs of and occasioned by the injunction application from you should my clients application be necessary, and succeed.
My client will not meet with you.
If you are unclear as to anything contained in this letter, then please contact a solicitor at the earliest opportunity. You are recommended to take legal advice in respect of this matter.
For and on behalf of Weightmans LLP
to the integrity of Sussex police and their chief constables, we should
look at the investigation of the shooting of James Ashley
under the lead of Sir John Hoddinott.
The Wilding report found a complete failure of corporate duty by Sussex police. The
Hampshire inquiry concluded that three police officers lied about intelligence in order to persuade Deputy Chief Constable Mark Jordan to authorise the raid. The report found that the raid was
"authorised on intelligence that was not merely exaggerated, it was determinably false ... there was a plan to deceive and the evidence concocted."
The report also showed that the guidelines on firearms put together by the Association of Chief Police Officers was breached. Experts on firearms and the law told
Kent police that even if the intelligence had been correct, the firearms should not have been authorised.
The chief constable was castigated. Sir John Hoddinott concluded that Paul
Whitehouse, the then chief constable,
"wilfully failed to tell the truth as he knew it, he did so without reasonable excuse or justification and what he published and said was misleading."
Sir John found evidence against Deputy Chief Constable Mark
Jordan. That included criminal misfeasance and neglect of duty, discreditable conduct and aiding and abetting the chief constable's false statements. There was suggested evidence of collusion between some or all of the chief officers and an arguable case of attempting to pervert the course of justice.
These statements were contained in those investigation reports. The reports have been kept secret - apart from the leaks made to the press - and have never been available for public scrutiny.
Information Access Team
PO Box 101
Telephone: 101 or 01483 571212
TextPhone: 18001 101
Police Link Officers for Deaf people (PLOD):
SMS text us on 07967 987179
Send an email to: firstname.lastname@example.org
In an emergency, when life is in immediate danger or a crime is in progress, call 999
BOURNE - Was elected
Commissioner, taking office with an oath to serve
the public interest. That is an oath that many are now questioning, where
she appears to be serving Sussex Police instead of policing the
organisation that has come under such flack for their blatant refusal to
investigate so many complaints of malfeasance in public office. What is
plain is that where there is criticism of her alleged inaction, that she
works with other forces to quash what many might agree is freedom of
speech. In the case of Matt Taylor obtaining an injunction and in the
case of John
crime allegation) threatening an injunction.
York is the chief constable of Sussex
Police taking over from a long chain of chief constables,
including Paul Whitehouse, who was finally
forced to resign after the Home Secretary insisted that he should go for
bringing the force into disrepute from his attempt to cover up the Jimmy
Ashley murder. Each
time one chief resigns, the next candidate learns from the mistakes of
his predecessor and makes effort not to be tripped up in the same way.
Unfortunately, that is not helping the situation, where in-effect Mr
York has nobody looking over his shoulder to make sure that he is not
breaking the law. The most common way of breaking the law, is simply
doing nothing when a crime is reported - so becoming party to the crime,
as with the Petition
scandal in 1997.
- Z OF SUSSEX POLICE OFFICER INVESTIGATIONS
Ken Macdonald QC
This site is protected under
Article10 of the
European Convention on Human
Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been
specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such
material available in our efforts to advance understanding of
environmental, political, human rights, economic, scientific, and social
justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such
copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright
Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this
site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior
interest in receiving the included information for research and
more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If
you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your
own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the
Whitehouse (1993-2001) Ken
Jones (2001-2006) Joe
Edwards (2006-2007) Martin
Richards (2008-2014) Giles York (2014