20 June 2008

Not the first time Blofeld has been accused

I was quite surprised to read less than a year after my trial that judge Blofeld was being accused of improper conduct in another case. I was always suspicious of why certain issues in my trial had been glossed over, such as the source of the money (MI5 I suspect), the cover-up over why Oshchenko did not appear as a witness, the bad rulings such as allowing an irrelevant witness Mr E to appear, the use of an apparently illegal fake phone call to my home, the use of hearsay evidence connected with a key witness (Marconi’s Technical Director). I could go on and on about the bad decisions and conduct of my trial, but it seems judges are a law unto themselves.

Sir John Blofeld QC

Anyway, all Blofeld’s rulings from my case are published on the Internet, so anybody can read them now. This is the newspaper article about the affair:

Times report dated 16 August 1994

Judges disclaim improper contact

By A Staff Reporter

THREE judges have denied allegations that they made improper contact with each other to discuss a drugs case.

Letters from Judge MacDonald, a circuit judge in the North East, Mr Justice Blofeld, a High Court judge, and Mr Justice Mortimer, an appeal judge of the Hong Kong Supreme Court, were read out in the Court of Appeal yesterday in response to newspaper publicity given to claims of impropriety against them by Paul Blanchard, a businessman. Blanchard, 49, was jailed for six years by Judge Macdonald in October 1992 for conspiracy to supply the drug Ecstasy, and is seeking leave to appeal.

He claims that the trial judge had telephone conversations about the case with Mr Justice Mortimer, an old acquaintance from the North-eastern circuit who, in 1978 when he was Barry Mortimer QC, had unsuccessfully defended Blanchard on a charge of fraudulent trading.

Blanchard has also alleged that Mr Justice Blofeld, who turned down his initial appeal application in February last year, spoke on the telephone to the other two judges. He claims he was denied a fair trial and proper consideration of his appeal application.

At yesterday’s preliminary appeal hearing, Lord Justice Russell insisted the judges’ letters denying the accusations be read out. He ordered Blanchard’s lawyers to decide as a matter of urgency whether they planned to pursue the allegations and, if so, return to court as soon as possible with details of the claims and statements from proposed witnesses.

In his letter, Judge Macdonald said he had received a telephone call, purporting to be from a clerk at counsel’s chambers in Leeds, asking him to call Hong Kong urgently. Mr Justice Mortimer said he had not asked him to call. “It became clear this was a hoax or some attempt at harassment,” Judge Macdonald said.

Mr Justice Mortimer said he had received a message to contact Judge Macdonald, but when they spoke he knew nothing about it.

Mr Justice Blofeld said he had never spoken to either of the other judges on the telephone in his life and certainly not on the occasion suggested.

Times article of 16 August 1994


  1. Anonymous3:30 AM

    wow I came across this VERY interesting.He is in the same chambers as David Cocks Q C who was resposible for getting his pupil pregnant a young orphan girl who had struggled alone to become a barrister.This guy stuck up for Cocks when he threw her out of chambers,never offered her a kind word and infact was unnessarily rude to her one day in court when she was struggling to bring up the baby,said she wasnt as well dressed as a rich member of his chambers.She was devistated as she had no money and was ill.She went to court with the help of SirDerek Spencer Soliciter General and won the case.The father shunns her and the child and though he was the 6th highest earner barrister in England according to Hansard paid her £16.24pence a week.Even when the child was on a life support machine and the father refused to help or see mother or child not a drop of kindness enter the equation.Well done having the courage to say your piece.You are a hero.

  2. Great expose

  3. Anonymous6:54 AM

    thank you for the exposure which I was alerted to,this guy is very rich very privileged.They have no more brains than the rest but were given silver spoons.He was so awful to that young pupil of David Cocks Q C that can never forget.He knew she was pregnant by his chambers chum but didnt raise a finger to help her,even when the child was on a life support machine.I was awful.Its good to see some one with the wit intelligence and courage to show the full monty well done

  4. Anonymous9:41 AM

    John Blofeld Q C is an utter ..... metaphorically speaking.He is a misogynist.I know how appalling he was to that young pupil,when she appealed to his better nature saying what shall I do I have no means and the father David Cocks is a millionare,he said I couldnt care less,and he endorsed Cocks' conduct in ridding her out of chambers and her and the child to be cut off.Blofeld ofcourse was a very rich and powerful man.When Bill Marshall stood up for her he endorsed a threat that Cocks got the clerk to make that he he represented her(Bill)he would be thrown otu of chambers.I doubt if John Blofeld has either conscience or remorse,but the older he gets the nearer his judgement gets.I heard the conversation myself.It was cruel and harsh and despicable.
    Well done raises the cruelty of this cruel man.

  5. Anonymous8:48 AM

    Well done bring these fellows to book cruel and unkind is an understatement.That David Cocks Q C could leave his sick child and his pupil without money and the child very ill and that Johne Blofeld Q C could relish and encourage such conduct defies belief but tells it all.You are a hero raising these hidden mattes that they are proud of in secret talks and bygone moralities but now hide them under a bush with any other hideous cruelties they might relish

  6. Anonymous11:34 AM

    Interesting to read what you have said shinning the light on things which would be otherwise hidden.Its so very necessary.

  7. Anonymous9:03 AM

    I have just read this ,amazing that you have brought it out .Some one had read your blog about John Blofeld and his treatment in the David Cocks scandal and it has certainly hit home.A man they say who behaves badly oneway generally behaves badly another,this conversation took place during an adjournment in the Court of Appeal where your blog was mentioned between barristers totally registering on the conduct of John Blofeld.I am glad that these things come to light you deserve a medal of the hightest order,not enough people speak out when they do it has enormous effect.

  8. Anonymous11:34 AM

    John Blofeld was unkind to a pupil I can never forget that i winess his cruel words