My lawyers were puzzled why the authorisation had not been given earlier, and I was becoming hopeful that my prosecution was about to be dropped. Then, late on the day prior to the deadline, Sir Nicholas Lyell signed the document, and my prosecution was authorised to continue.
In hindsight it should now be asked: on what legal basis was my prosecution authorised by the Attorney General? Knowing now that the key exhibit was falsely presented in court by the CPS and their MoD witness Dr Meirion Francis Lewis, it must now be doubtful whether the Attorney General had been provided with the correct reasons to justify him authorising my prosecution.
This needs to be investigated further, and so as first step I sent an e-mail to the Attorney General’s office to complain about what had happened. This is what I wrote:
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008
From: Mike Smith
To: complaints [at] attorneygeneral.gsi.gov.uk
Subject: Complaint to the Attorney General
To: The Rt Hon the Baroness Scotland of Asthal QC
Dear Baroness Scotland,
Re: My Prosecution under the Official Secrets Act in 1993
I am writing to you to make an official complaint about my treatment at the hands of the British Justice System.
I understand that Sir Nicholas Lyell authorised my prosecution under the Official Secrets Act in November 1992, and that this authorisation was based on false information provided to your office by the CPS.
Subsequently this false information was repeated in the Central Criminal Court where I was tried, and on the judge’s instructions I was duly convicted of alleged crimes based on that false information.
I am now in a position to prove that the information, on which the Attorney General based his authorisation for my prosecution, was in fact false and that this information was known by my prosecutors to be false.
I respectfully ask you to investigate this matter and advise me of whatever steps I may take to remedy the injustice that I have suffered.
Yours sincerely,
Michael John Smith
I received an acknowledgement of my e-mail from Mr Shariq Ali:
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008
From: Shariq Ali Shariq.Ali [at] attorneygeneral.gsi.gov.uk
To: Mike Smith, complaints [at] attorneygeneral.gsi.gov.uk
Subject: RE: Complaint to the Attorney General
Dear Sir,
Thank you for writing to the Attorney General's Office.
We hope to be in a position to respond to your request in the near future.
Yours faithfully
Shariq Ali
Correspondence Unit
Attorney General's Office
Followed 3 weeks later by this disappointing reply:
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008
From: Shariq Ali Shariq.Ali [at] attorneygeneral.gsi.gov.uk
To: Mike Smith
Subject: RE: Complaint to the Attorney General
Dear Sir,
Thank you for your e-mail of 20 March 2008.
I regret that Baroness Scotland cannot provide you with legal advice regarding your case. It is open to you to take legal advice or to approach the Criminal Cases Review Commission if you wish to raise questions regarding your conviction. If you consider that a criminal offence has or may have been committed, you should refer the matter to the police.
Yours faithfully
Correspondence Unit
Attorney General's Office
This reply was completely unsatisfactory, and so I had to reply in a stronger fashion than before:
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008
From: Mike Smith
To: Shariq Ali Shariq.Ali [at] attorneygeneral.gsi.gov.uk
Subject: RE: Complaint to the Attorney General
Dear Mr Ali,
Thank you for your e-mail.
You appear not to have read my original message, which was a complaint against the Attorney General for having authorised my prosecution based on false information. If I have not made my position completely clear, I AM MAKING A COMPLAINT AGAINST THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.
I am not asking Baroness Scotland for any legal advice, but I do expect her to investigate why I was prosecuted using false information. I am surprised that you have not even asked me what information I am talking about - perhaps the Attorney General is already aware that the CPS perverted the course of justice in my case (Case no T921648)?
For your information the CCRC has been "investigating" my case since 1998 (Case No 00946/98), but have so far failed to identify the evidence I discovered quite easily, evidence that proves a miscarriage of justice.
I have today logged an official complaint to the Metropolitan Police, that the Police, the MoD and the CPS were all involved in perverting the course of justice - there is no other explanation. Whether the Attorney General was also a party to this criminal act, no doubt will become apparent over the course of time.
Yours sincerely,
Michael John Smith
Mr Shariq Ali’s reply was even more surprising, particularly because, up to this point, nobody at the Attorney General’s office had bothered to enquire what I had written to complain to them about. Were they mind readers, or simply not interested in what I was writing about?
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008
From: Shariq Ali Shariq.Ali [at] attorneygeneral.gsi.gov.uk
To: Mike Smith
Subject: RE: Complaint to the Attorney General
Dear Sir,
Thank you for your response.
I note the points you include in your e-mail and should state for your assistance that the AG does not authorise CPS prosecutions. In the event you wish to complain about the CPS conduct of your case you will have to instigate a CPS complaints procedure. In the event you remain dissatisfied your complaint will then be picked up by the Attorney General's Office. I believe that all complaints to about the CPS must be addressed to the CPS and be made in writing for the formal procedure to begin.
I trust this is of assistance to you.
Yours faithfully
Shariq Ali
Correspondence Unit
Attorney General's Office
I investigated what the Official Secrets Act 1911 said on this point, because I was becoming confused about what I was being told. However, the OSA is quite clear on the relevant point, as can be seen on the official website. I had to respond again to the misleading information I was being given by Mr Ali:
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008
From: Mike Smith
To: Shariq Ali
Subject: RE: Complaint to the Attorney General
Dear Mr Ali,
Thank you for your reply,
I am aware of the CPS complaints procedure, and have been in contact with them about this matter. I am in the process of preparing a formal complaint against the CPS.
However, unless I am very much mistaken, I believe that you are wrong in stating that my prosecution was not authorised by the Attorney General. In 1992 I was charged with 4 counts under section 1 of the Official Secrets Act 1911, and that Act appears to confirm that the AG was responsible for authorising my prosecution:
Para (8) 'A prosecution for an offence under this Act shall not be instituted except by or with the consent of the Attorney-General'
I remember, at the time, my solicitor told me that they were awaiting the authorisation of the AG before my case could proceed. So are you telling me that the AG was not responsible?
If, as I believe, the AG did authorise my prosecution, then I return to my complaint: that he did so based on false information provided to him, albeit that the CPS may have prepared the material on which the AG acted.
Yours sincerely,
Michael John Smith
No doubt this matter will continue for some time, and I will keep my readers updated on this saga. All I want to discover is whether the CPS had misled the Attorney General, and wrongly convinced him to authorise my prosecution based on false information. There is a fault somewhere in the chain of events that led to my conviction, and I am determined to discover who has acted illegally in this matter.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment