James Hookway was one of the investigating officers involved in the alleged conspiracy to pervert the course of justice by working with social services to coach a vulnerable girl following the break up of an engagement to her mother, to say that she was raped on many occasions, but that on inspection by Melanie Liebenberg it transpired that she was intact, hence a virgin so could not have been raped.


It is alleged that on this discovery, Mr Hookway and Gordon Staker ignored or otherwise failed to collect evidence from the so-called crime scene that would have exonerated their target, Nelson Kruschandl contrary to their:



Sections 3.4 and 3.5 of the CPCIACPO require the investigating officers in a case to:-

“ pursue all reasonable lines of inquiry, whether these point towards or away from the suspect” 

It follows that any failure on the part of the investigating team, to reasonably secure evidence which they could obtain, may render the eventual trial unsafe, since such evidence, had it been obtained – had the potential to yield exonerating facts or cast doubt as to the reliability of claims, etc. Such investigations must fall under the duty umbrella imposed by Article 6(1) – the right to a: “fair and public hearing,” which is governed by a Code established by the Attorney Generals Guidelines, seen in Archbold’s Criminal Pleadings, and other common law precedents, in addition to the above Order.


It is alleged that Sussex police conspiring with the Crown Prosecution Service obstructed solicitor Timothy Stirmey and Julian Dale and may even have threatened them, bribed or otherwise traded or influenced them not to defend their client as well they might, in the knowledge that their client was Legally Aided and did not have the resources to challenge the might of the state where the Sexual Offences Act 2003, introduced by David Blunkett, reverses the burden of proof contrary to Articles 10 and 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.


It is alleged that knowing that the defendant in the case went into the courtroom presumed guilty, that it was all the more important for the investigating officers to properly collect evidence for the defence, where they had no access to the crime scene, to allow the defendant a reasonable chance of acquittal, but that the investigating officers failed to secure videos of episodes of The Bill and Casualty and the complainant's computer, that would have proved that she had an attention seeking disorder and a fascination for crutches and wheelchairs and had been communicating with unknown men on the then Habbo Hotel website.


It is alleged that these investigating officers failed to secure a work diary belonging to the claimant's mother that if available to the defence as colour copies, would have exonerated the defendant - but that the existence of this vital evidence was only discovered during the trial when the psychiatric nurse being questioned admitted that shed hidden her work diary in her attic to prevent the police from finding it.


Whereas, in a site raid on the defendant's home at that time the police did secure all of his computers and thoroughly searched in all rooms and building spaces - and that in relation to a site raid in 2014 that the Sussex police repeated their search technique - again thoroughly searching the premises including breaking down four doors and frames and destroying a padlock to gain entry to the entire building.


There is thus a pattern of unfavourable treatment established suggesting bias on the part of Sussex police, most likely stemming from a Petition in 1997, where this same police force conspired with Derek Holness and other officers of the Wealden District Council to pervert the course of justice - in failing to contact any one of 12 independent witnesses to take their evidence, yet supplying a blank sheet of police headed paper to this council for their officers to write what they wanted their members and the public to believe.


That at this time in 1997, the chief constable of Sussex police was Paul Whitehouse. In relation to their operations and the murder of James Ashley by Chris Sherwood, Hampshire police 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 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."


These factors alone render the conviction of Mr Kruschandl unsafe, but coupled with the virginity and diary evidence that Judge Cedric Joseph wrongly attributed to the defendant in his summing up - and we wonder at the state of British justice where the Criminal Cases Review Commission and the High Court have said that they are entitled to take a view.


What that really means is that it does not matter if you are wrongly convicted in Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth's Britain, the United Kingdom has no obligation to provide an effective remedy - and that is why Article 13 is not contained in the Human Rights Act 1998. It was deliberately omitted to allow the state to operate above international law - and that omission is an admission as to intent.





The European Court of Human Rights provides no remedy either, where they are insistent that there is an effective remedy in the United Kingdom, but that if the Courts block any avenue to appeal as they have done by condoning discrimination, then the mental torture and other social hardships that being wrongly convicted of such an offence carries with it, continues unabated.





The great British public imagine their police forces are comprised of officers they can trust to uphold the law come what may.  What most people don't know is that if you are targeted by a Mason, or a member of a Mason's family, you may find trumped up charges are brought to interfere with your private life.


Not only is this contrary to the Human Rights Acts, but this kind of attention is designed to completely rob you of the ability to defend yourself.  Quite often equipment and evidence is seized, which equipment and/or evidence may be essential to a healthy defence. Unethical police may then refuse to inspect seized equipment, suggesting a lack of resources, or the expense. This is not a reasonable excuse as any Judge will tell you. However, the aim is to keep your equipment to cause maximum inconvenience and expense to the individual, and of course continue to hamper defence preparations. We would advise that this is a criminal offence which may be challenged. The police concerned are guilty of perverting the course of justice, and where caught lying to the Court, perjuring themselves. 


You may be locked in a cell while your home is ransacked.  The police have the power to do this on just about any pretext, any arrest-able offence.  So, they don't need a warrant, they just need to invent an excuse to march in and wreak havoc.


Remember to obtain transcripts of all Court hearings where dishonest officers pull this stroke. By this means you may be lucky and trap them. Crimes of this nature should be reported to the Police Complaints Commission, or possibly to an outside force for investigation.


What are your chances of obtaining compensation. Slim to nothing we'd say.  Hence, if you have upset any member of a Mason's family. Be warned and do some homework on secret societies.  They control more of your life than you'd imagine.





Many policemen are Masons.  This can lead to corruption at high levels, where fellow Masons, members of the public, might obtain favours, charges dropped, or charges brought against someone, as examples.  The law is quite often used incorrectly (illegally) to further the objectives of private causes. But who is there to investigate? Since many, if not most high ranking officers are Masons, in whichever force, even an outside force is unlikely to identify an officer who will make any effort to investigate a fellow officer.  It's a club, for a favoured few.


A - Z of officer investigations


Giles York

Joe Edwards

Ken Jones

Paul Whitehouse

Martin Richards

Timothy Mottram


The above is just a few of a number of persons likely to be investigated in respect of certain cases brought against Wealden Action Group members, on the instigation of known Masons, councillors, or planning officers, many of which are themselves Masons.



Our advice to the public, is to log every complaint to the Police by recorded delivery.  If possible tape record, or even better video record the event.  Believe us, there is no substitute for hard footage to combat the lies of a police officer failing to do his duty and lbe complacent they will be!



Every regional Police Force has its own website which contains information and advice about police activity in the area it serves. You can select your local force, or the force for another region below:  However, you will not find any information as to how to report planning crime.  If you do report a planning crime, the force you have contacted will write back explaining it is a civil matter, despite the criminal sanctions in the Town & Country Planning Act as amended by the Planning & Compensation Act.  If you really push for a crime to be logged, they will tell you they do not have the resources and to take out a civil action.  Clearly, this is a crime in itself as in R v Dytham and R v Bowden - failing to perform one's duty to uphold the law.  Please also see the Police Act and Code of Conduct elsewhere on this site.  Just click the links.


It appears the UK Police Service works alongside a number of Government organisations, masquerading as independents, to stifle planning crime and suppress public outcry.   The best thing you can do if you recognise any of the symptoms, is to lobby your Member of Parliament for a change in the law.  The Ombudsman, District Auditor and Office for the Supervision of Solicitors are all their to preserve the status quo, regardless of the ongoing injustice:-




Hammer Lane, Vines Cross, East Sussex, 3 March 2004



If you have experienced of or been witness to any untoward attention, why not contact the Chief Constable:-


Joe Edwards

Chief Constable

Police Headquarters, Malling House, Church Lane

East Sussex,  BN7 2DZ

Tel.  0845 6070 999

Fax.  01273 404263

Email.   joe.edwards@sussex.police.uk 



News Line  Join the Force  Information Centre  Find A Police Station  Report Crime Online

Forms Online  Recovered Property  Current Operations   Crime Prevention   Changes to the Law

 Performance Figures   About Sussex Police   Your Police in Action

 Your Police in Person   Freedom of Information   Publications   Race and Diversity

 Sussex Police Authority  Text only version  Accessibility  Contact Sussex Police  Useful Links  Site Map









This site is protected under Article10 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.




This 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 educational purposes. 


For 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 copyright owner.




Paul Whitehouse (1993-2001) Ken Jones (2001-2006) Joe Edwards (2006-2007) 

Martin Richards (2008-2014) Giles York (2014 >>)


This site is free of © Copyright except where specifically stated 1997 - 2018.  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 UK Limited.   All trademarks herby acknowledged.