For those interested, I have just had an article published in the Cold War Times August issue at page 37. This is the quarterly on-line magazine of the Cold War Museum run by Gary Powers, Jnr.
Following the publication of my article, I thought it proper that I should offer Professor Lewis the chance to reply, and to put his version of events to the scrutiny of those who are able to understand what is being challenged. I therefore sent an e-mail to Professor Lewis and to the Chief Constable of West Mercia Police:
Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2008
From: Michael John Smith
To: Professor Meirion francis Lewis, meirionfrancis.lewis [at] virgin.net
Cc: Chief Constable Mr Paul West, chief [at] westmercia.pnn.police.uk
Subject: Cold War Times article
Dear Professor Lewis,
I thought I should inform you that I have had an article published in the current August issue of Cold War Times, an on-line magazine edited by Gary Powers Jnr in the USA. The magazine can be downloaded from their website at:
http://www.coldwar.org/education/coldwar_magazine.asp
My article is on page 37 and refers to the evidence you gave at my trial.
I believe that Gary Powers will publish an answer from you should you wish to give your side of the story. This is your opportunity to challenge the statements that I have made about you, for example that you lied under oath at my trial.
I am openly sending a copy of this e-mail to the Chief Constable of West Mercia Police, so that he is aware that I am giving you a chance to reply and correct anything that I have said about you that may be wrong.
Yours sincerely,
Michael John Smith
31 July 2008
26 July 2008
Communist Britain - ARRSE finally gets the message
A member of the British Army Rumour Service forums, who calls himself heard_it_all_before, has posted an interesting comment on the way he perceives modern Britain:
After years and years of standoff against the former Soviet Union, are we fast becoming the newest State Controlled Communist Style Country?
Not content with the following big brother controls that are either already in place or still trying to be put in place:
DNA Data bases
National ID Cards
A country covered by CCTV
Pay per mile
500 powers for local councils to enter your home
Data tags on our Wheelie Bins
Congestion cameras monitoring Cities
Oyster Cards tracking your movement on the train or bus
And probably loads more that I can't think of right now. …
This was added to by another ARRSE forum member Brick, who said:
Don't forget the number plate recognition system that can apparently be tied into CCTV cameras. Now you can be tracked going around town or along the motorways.
It seems the message has got through. The penny has finally dropped. Yes, we do live in a Police State, and the Army is part of the forces that will be used to suppress any rebellion by the population, should they feel it necessary to rise up against repression.
Anybody who knows the truth can see that we have lived in a surveillance society for some time now. This fact has been commented on many times in the media, but nobody seems to worry about the consequences of surveillance until it is too late, when we wake up and realise that we are controlled in everything we do.
A few decades ago I remember hearing the point, often quoted, that we in Britain were “free” (never, never shall be slaves), and this claim was justified by contrasting life in Britain with the lives of those in totalitarian states - the real slaves. Well, the world has changed, and we no longer live in that idealised world of popular myth. Now it is the British who are being expected to conform to the demands and controls of the State. But wasn’t it always so?
If you look back over the history of the British Isles, we have always been subject to the controls of the State, probably since the times of the Domesday Book. It is no coincidence, when George Orwell created his vision of the future in 1984, that he was writing about the society he himself knew, the Britain of the 1940s. Those who believe they are free are the most deluded, especially when they spend a lot of their time proclaiming the virtues of freedom to other people. When we have freedom is obvious, and it is visible through such laws as habeas corpus.
Don’t believe for one moment that Bush is protecting the freedom of the Iraqis by deploying thousands of US troops in their country. Conquerors always talk about the freedom they have brought through their victories.
After years and years of standoff against the former Soviet Union, are we fast becoming the newest State Controlled Communist Style Country?
Not content with the following big brother controls that are either already in place or still trying to be put in place:
DNA Data bases
National ID Cards
A country covered by CCTV
Pay per mile
500 powers for local councils to enter your home
Data tags on our Wheelie Bins
Congestion cameras monitoring Cities
Oyster Cards tracking your movement on the train or bus
And probably loads more that I can't think of right now. …
This was added to by another ARRSE forum member Brick, who said:
Don't forget the number plate recognition system that can apparently be tied into CCTV cameras. Now you can be tracked going around town or along the motorways.
It seems the message has got through. The penny has finally dropped. Yes, we do live in a Police State, and the Army is part of the forces that will be used to suppress any rebellion by the population, should they feel it necessary to rise up against repression.
Anybody who knows the truth can see that we have lived in a surveillance society for some time now. This fact has been commented on many times in the media, but nobody seems to worry about the consequences of surveillance until it is too late, when we wake up and realise that we are controlled in everything we do.
A few decades ago I remember hearing the point, often quoted, that we in Britain were “free” (never, never shall be slaves), and this claim was justified by contrasting life in Britain with the lives of those in totalitarian states - the real slaves. Well, the world has changed, and we no longer live in that idealised world of popular myth. Now it is the British who are being expected to conform to the demands and controls of the State. But wasn’t it always so?
If you look back over the history of the British Isles, we have always been subject to the controls of the State, probably since the times of the Domesday Book. It is no coincidence, when George Orwell created his vision of the future in 1984, that he was writing about the society he himself knew, the Britain of the 1940s. Those who believe they are free are the most deluded, especially when they spend a lot of their time proclaiming the virtues of freedom to other people. When we have freedom is obvious, and it is visible through such laws as habeas corpus.
Don’t believe for one moment that Bush is protecting the freedom of the Iraqis by deploying thousands of US troops in their country. Conquerors always talk about the freedom they have brought through their victories.
16 July 2008
Professor Meirion Lewis’s complaint misfires?
I received a letter this morning from Malvern Police Station in the West Mercia Constabulary. Apparently Professor Meirion Francis Lewis has made a complaint to the Police, and made allegations that I have been harassing him and his neighbours. I must say I am rather surprised at his reaction, because all I have been trying to do is to get him into conversation about why he gave false evidence at my trial. I know his evidence was false because the truth can easily be proved by comparing what he said with the facts from reputable sources.
Anyway, below is the letter which I received today:
West Mercia Constabulary
Together - Working for Safety and Justice
Malvern Police Station
Victoria Road
Malvern
Worcs WR14 2TE
08457 444 888 FAX 01684 892274
www.westmercia.pnn.police.uk
OurRef: 0424-S-140708 Date. 14.07.08
Dear Mr Michael J Smith
A complaint has been received from Professor M F Lewis, regarding an allegation of Harassment, which is currently ongoing. A complaint has been obtained to this effect.
I assure you that this letter in no way indicates pre-judgement on the part of the Police, but the alleged behaviour, and course of conduct you have pursued namely, the sending of literature to his neighbours of a defamatory nature, and the sending of electronic communications which are causing alarm, distress and harassment.
I have to advise you that should you continue the course of conduct that has resulted in this complaint, and a further complaint be received then proceedings may be instigated as per The Protection From Harassment Act 1997.This will make you liable to arrest and upon conviction in court, a possible prison sentence.
It is only right that you be made aware of the robust line West Mercia Constabulary is taking in all cases of harassment.
Should you wish to discuss the matter with the Officer dealing, please telephone 08457 444 888, or you may wish to consult independently with a solicitor.
Yours sincerely
PC 1668 CONNOLLY
I feel if anybody is being harassed in this case it is me, because my life has been more or less ruined because of the evidence which Professor Lewis gave at my trial. No doubt this is not the end of the affair, but I have replied to the Chief Constable of West Mercia Police with the following letter:
16 July 2008
For the personal attention of the Chief Constable
West Mercia Constabulary
P.O. Box 55
Worcester
WR3 8SP
Dear Chief Constable,
I am writing to you to complain about the attached letter, received today from a member of your staff, informing me that ‘a complaint has been obtained(sic)’. The complainant has been identified as Professor M.F. Lewis, who has alleged that I have harassed him, and continue to do so. Your letter continues in paragraph 2 and 3 by assuring me ‘that this letter in no way indicates pre-judgement on the part of the Police, but the alleged behaviour and course of conduct [I] have pursued … should [I] continue the course of conduct … will make [me] liable to arrest … and a possible prison sentence’. I regard this letter to be your harassment of me.
You say a complaint has been received from Professor M.F. Lewis. May I ask if this complaint was in writing, or was it a verbal complaint? If it was in writing I would like to see a copy of this statement, and if a verbal complaint the words as recorded by the Police Constable concerned.
The next question is, did Professor Lewis complain to you directly of his own volition, or did one of your officers go to see him to invite him to complain against me? The facts and circumstances of this complaint could well become important in any subsequent court case.
The same question applies to the ‘neighbours’. Did any of the neighbours contact you of their own accord to complain about literature ‘of a defamatory nature, and the sending of electronic communications which are causing alarm, distress and harassment’? If that is so, can you supply me with the details of any neighbour who suffered ‘alarm, distress and harassment’ from me.
You say you have to advise me that, ‘should [I] continue the course of conduct’ I will be ‘liable to arrest and upon conviction, a possible prison sentence’. My response is to advise you that I shall take this matter up with the proper authorities, i.e. the Attorney General, the Lord Chief Justice, the CPS, the Ministry of Defence, the CCRC, et al, all of whom have received detailed complaints from me about the behaviour of Professor Lewis against me. I attach for your information a copy of the letter I received today from Malvern Police Station, and I can provide documents supporting my statements above if you wish to understand the details of the case that Professor Lewis and myself are contesting.
To précis the above, Professor Lewis is a professional perjurer. He attended my trial as a witness for the Prosecution and he lied his head off, in order to ensure my wrongful conviction at my trial in 1993. Because of Lewis and his perjury I, an innocent man, was wrongly convicted and sentenced to 25 years imprisonment, later reduced to 20 years on appeal, but I still had to serve 10 years and 3 months in prison.
It is hardly surprising, therefore, that I have for the past 15 years been trying to persuade this man to admit and/or justify the crime he has committed against me. As a result of his evidence I not only spent years in prison, but I lost my wife, my home, my career, and far more. Yes, I have written to Professor Lewis from time to time, to keep him aware of the continuing revelations of evidence proving and confirming beyond all doubt the lies he told the judge and jury at the Old Bailey Central Criminal Court, and which he has repeated since on several occasions.
I do not believe that Professor Lewis lodged this complaint with one of your local Police Constables in Malvern, because he has gone to great lengths to avoid instigating any situation which I could exploit, for example by taking him to court in response to further false allegations against myself. In my opinion, Lewis learnt his lesson many years ago during a continuing series of complaints to other organisations, e.g. he has complained about me to his friends in the MoD, who I believe put him up to perjuring himself to secure my conviction for political reasons, he has complained to the CCRC, the CPS, Special Branch, the Royal Academy of Engineering, the Institute of Physics, and to a number of other authorities.
For your information, these organisations were not interested in helping Professor Lewis in any way, and their advice to him was to “get on his bike”. They felt that he had been rewarded enough with an unearned professorship and a high order (the CBE) for his assistance in my case (both honours within the gift of the Intelligence Services). Another witness at my trial, Oleg Gordievsky, also lied against me in court, and after perjuring himself and giving false evidence against me he received an Honorary Doctorate of Letters and a CMG, and so he has also been rewarded in a like manner for perjuring himself to enable MI5 to achieve their then objective.
I believe that, having been corresponding with personages such as the Chairman of the CCRC, and having made frequent and persistent complaints of harassment against me, Professor Lewis was advised to “get on his way” or “get on his bike”. I don’t believe that he would have gone to Malvern Police Station, or stopped a policeman in the street, in view of our private history of attempted and rejected complaints. Since 2003, when I first contacted Professor Lewis by telephone, he has stubbornly refused to even discuss the lies that he told in Court. So, Lewis’s high level complaints went nowhere, but complaining to the local police station apparently did provide some result for him.
In my opinion, Lewis is now harassing or attempting to harass me, with the unwitting assistance of one of your most junior and naïve (?) police officers. No experienced police officer would undertake such an action, without the authority of a more senior officer. In fact, this action should really have come up almost to your own level of authority.
So, to list my complaints, I would first of all point out that the letter that I received from your Malvern office appears to be from an illiterate person, for example the terms ‘obtained a complaint’, professing ‘no pre-judgement’ of my conduct, but then making a pre-judgement. In the third paragraph I am advised that ‘should [I] continue the course of conduct’ this will result in my arrest, and this is a bare-faced threat which I find more annoying than intimidating, and I object to these words.
I do not believe the letter, implying that Lewis contacted the police to make the complaint, in view of the history documented above. I do believe that “some person” made contact with one of your officers in Malvern Police Station and instigated this alleged complaint of harassment. I would ask you to investigate this, as I would be surprised if the PC who signed this letter was the person responsible, but I would not be surprised if the more senior police officer who ordered PC Connolly to visit Lewis was the instigator of this complaint.
As a matter of interest to you, perhaps, is the fact that Lewis’s perjury involved third-hand hearsay evidence from a Dr. Humphryes, who was allegedly “an expert” on the ALARM missile (repeated in the Judge’s Summing Up). It had become obvious that Lewis had no knowledge of anti-radar missiles, and Lewis told the court that he had that morning telephoned the Director of Marconi (Dr Humphryes), who had confirmed to him that an exhibit in the trial (a document) was used on the secret ALARM missile. Professor Lewis then told the court that this document (found in my possession) in the hands of an enemy would enable the British missile to be neutralized, and this had a huge impact on the jury and the judge.
When I eventually emerged from prison, and started to prepare my Appeal, I contacted Dr. Humphryes and learnt the truth. Humphryes knew nothing about the ALARM missile, because that was dealt with in a different division of the company, and neither did he recall being asked on the telephone about it by Lewis. However, it seems it was not unusual for Lewis to phone Humphryes, because they had been friends and studied Physics together at Oxford University.
One of my friends, on seeing your entry on the website of West Mercia Police, commented that it was a remarkable coincidence that you also have a physics degree from Oxford. I just mention that this as a curiosity? I do not suggest for one moment that there is a connection between you and Professor Lewis, but I do expect you to properly investigate my complaint and to supply me with the information I have asked for.
Finally, with regard to threatening me with the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, I am sure you know more about this Act than I do. I have never had cause to look it up until today, but I will assure you that if any of my actions can be construed as harassment, then I am quite sure the succession of High Court judges previously contacted by Lewis would have been fully aware of this Act, and any possible transgression of it on my part. There is provision within the Act for a person such as myself to contact a person such as Lewis, to ask him questions in a civilised manner about relevant matters concerning a past shared experience.
I am pursuing Lewis, as you are aware from the references above, for his perjury against me. He is pursuing me for alleged harassment. His pursuit of me is in fact the harassment in this case, and I intend to consult my lawyers with a view to taking action against Lewis, and in that case your police officers will of course be called as witnesses to this offence. This is why I am asking you to supply me with all the evidence connected with this complaint.
Since receiving the attached letter I have received a number of telephone calls, with callers claiming to be connected to your force, either as a civilian member of a police call centre, or a PC, or a Sergeant. Please put a stop to this as I will only deal with you in future.
Yours sincerely,
Michael John Smith
Tonight I received an e-mail from a PC Chadwick of West Mercia Police:
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 20:44:19 +0100
From: "Chadwick,Paul", paul.chnadwick@westmercia.pnn.police.uk
To: Michael John Smith
Subject: RE: For the personal attention of the Chief Constable
sir,
sent your e-mail to pc connelly , who was the sender of your original letter
many thanks
pc 1794 chadwick
I get the impression that my e-mail to the Chief Constable will not reach his desk, and so tonight I have sent a further e-mail to the West Mercia Constabulary:
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 23:55:55 +0100
From: Michael John Smith
To: contactus@westmercia.pnn.police.uk
Cc: "Chadwick,Paul", paul.chnadwick@westmercia.pnn.police.uk
Subject: For the personal attention of the Chief Constable
Dear Chief Constable,
I note that my e-mail to you, marked "Private & Confidential" and "for your personal attention only", has been intercepted by a pc 1794 chadwick and diverted to pc 1668 connolly, the author of the ridiculous letter sent to me and which is the subject of my complaint.
To say that this is a most unusual procedure would be an understatement. This action is designed to complicate or thwart any investigation you may have decided to carry out into my complaint to you about Connolly. As for me, I am now more than convinced that there is something sinister going on here, probably one of your Special Branch officers and PC Connolly operating without your permission and behind your back.
Now you will see at this reference that I am now obliged to write to you publicly through this medium in order to circumvent the interference with my mail, apparently with the intention of preventing you from learning of certain events taking place within your Malvern sub-station.
I will be interested to see whether or not my Royal Mail letter to you will also be intercepted and diverted, which I believe is still a serious offence, and if so I will instigate an investigation into your office by the Post Master General.
I am now adding this to my blog in the sure confidence that certain officers within your force are actively conspiring behind your back to prevent you becoming aware of their illegal undercover operations.
Obviously MI5 are the originators of this whole episode and they are thereby confirming the general public's opinion that they are now 'out of control' (as said by Andrew Mackinlay MP).
Yours sincerely,
Michael John Smith
The Chief Constable of West Mercia, Paul West, with a string of letters after his name, has acknowledged my letter in which I answered the accusation that I had harassed Professor Meirion Francis Lewis.
West Mercia Constabulary
Together . Working For Safety and Justice
Paul West QPM MA (Oxon) MSc MA
Chief Constable
West Mercia Headquarters, Hindlip Hall
PO Box 55, Worcester, WR3 8SP
Tel: 01905 332233 Fax: 01905 331806
e-mail: Chief@westmercia.pnn.police.uk
Our Ref: OP/BOO/2085-1 Date: 21/7/08
The Chief Constable acknowledges receipt of your letter dated 16/7/08,
the contents of which have been noted and passed to the Divisional Commander, South Worcestershire Division, Castle Street, Worcester, for attention. You should expect to hear from the Divisional Commander or their representative in the near future.
This is my reply to the Chief Constable's acknowledgement:
To: Chief@westmercia.pnn.police.uk
From: Michael John Smith
Date: Thurs, 24 July 2008
Subject: For the personal attention of the Chief Constable
The alleged harassment of Professor Meirion Francis Lewis
Dear Chief Constable,
Thank you for your acknowledgement of receiving my letter dated 16 July 2008. I have again written to you directly because my previous correspondence to you was diverted by PC 1794 Paul Chadwick. I understand that you have allocated the issues raised in my letter of 16 July 2008 to be investigated by your Divisional Commander. I look forward to receiving the outcome to the investigation in due course.
Yours sincerely,
Michael John Smith
Worcester Division
Malvern Police Station
Victoria Road, Malvern, WR14 2TE
Tel: 08457 444 888 Fax: 01684 892274
www.westmercia.police.uk
Our Ref: CG/MC75
07 August 2008
To: Mr. Michael John SMITH
Dear Mr. SMITH,
I refer to your letters dated the 16th July and 28th July, 2008.
I can confirm that Professor LEWIS did approach us at Malvern Police concerning the contacts you have made to him.
I was not aware of your case until your correspondence, and have read your most enlightening Wikipedia autobiography with interest.
However, you will appreciate that there are proper channels by which to conduct challenges in law as you have already used them. You were convicted in the Crown Court, and you challenged that conviction in the Court of Appeal but the conviction was upheld. If you still wish to pursue your claim of wrongful conviction, please use the proper legal channels such as the CCRC rather than trying to communicate directly with any of those involved in your case.
Yours sincerely
Clive GRIFFITHS
Inspector
Geographic Commander, Malvern
Anyway, below is the letter which I received today:
Letter from Malvern Police Station
West Mercia Constabulary
Together - Working for Safety and Justice
Malvern Police Station
Victoria Road
Malvern
Worcs WR14 2TE
08457 444 888 FAX 01684 892274
www.westmercia.pnn.police.uk
OurRef: 0424-S-140708 Date. 14.07.08
Dear Mr Michael J Smith
THE PROTECTION FROM HARASSMENT ACT 1997
A complaint has been received from Professor M F Lewis, regarding an allegation of Harassment, which is currently ongoing. A complaint has been obtained to this effect.
I assure you that this letter in no way indicates pre-judgement on the part of the Police, but the alleged behaviour, and course of conduct you have pursued namely, the sending of literature to his neighbours of a defamatory nature, and the sending of electronic communications which are causing alarm, distress and harassment.
I have to advise you that should you continue the course of conduct that has resulted in this complaint, and a further complaint be received then proceedings may be instigated as per The Protection From Harassment Act 1997.This will make you liable to arrest and upon conviction in court, a possible prison sentence.
It is only right that you be made aware of the robust line West Mercia Constabulary is taking in all cases of harassment.
Should you wish to discuss the matter with the Officer dealing, please telephone 08457 444 888, or you may wish to consult independently with a solicitor.
Yours sincerely
PC 1668 CONNOLLY
I feel if anybody is being harassed in this case it is me, because my life has been more or less ruined because of the evidence which Professor Lewis gave at my trial. No doubt this is not the end of the affair, but I have replied to the Chief Constable of West Mercia Police with the following letter:
PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL
16 July 2008
For the personal attention of the Chief Constable
West Mercia Constabulary
P.O. Box 55
Worcester
WR3 8SP
Dear Chief Constable,
Your Ref. 0424-s-140708
I am writing to you to complain about the attached letter, received today from a member of your staff, informing me that ‘a complaint has been obtained(sic)’. The complainant has been identified as Professor M.F. Lewis, who has alleged that I have harassed him, and continue to do so. Your letter continues in paragraph 2 and 3 by assuring me ‘that this letter in no way indicates pre-judgement on the part of the Police, but the alleged behaviour and course of conduct [I] have pursued … should [I] continue the course of conduct … will make [me] liable to arrest … and a possible prison sentence’. I regard this letter to be your harassment of me.
You say a complaint has been received from Professor M.F. Lewis. May I ask if this complaint was in writing, or was it a verbal complaint? If it was in writing I would like to see a copy of this statement, and if a verbal complaint the words as recorded by the Police Constable concerned.
The next question is, did Professor Lewis complain to you directly of his own volition, or did one of your officers go to see him to invite him to complain against me? The facts and circumstances of this complaint could well become important in any subsequent court case.
The same question applies to the ‘neighbours’. Did any of the neighbours contact you of their own accord to complain about literature ‘of a defamatory nature, and the sending of electronic communications which are causing alarm, distress and harassment’? If that is so, can you supply me with the details of any neighbour who suffered ‘alarm, distress and harassment’ from me.
You say you have to advise me that, ‘should [I] continue the course of conduct’ I will be ‘liable to arrest and upon conviction, a possible prison sentence’. My response is to advise you that I shall take this matter up with the proper authorities, i.e. the Attorney General, the Lord Chief Justice, the CPS, the Ministry of Defence, the CCRC, et al, all of whom have received detailed complaints from me about the behaviour of Professor Lewis against me. I attach for your information a copy of the letter I received today from Malvern Police Station, and I can provide documents supporting my statements above if you wish to understand the details of the case that Professor Lewis and myself are contesting.
To précis the above, Professor Lewis is a professional perjurer. He attended my trial as a witness for the Prosecution and he lied his head off, in order to ensure my wrongful conviction at my trial in 1993. Because of Lewis and his perjury I, an innocent man, was wrongly convicted and sentenced to 25 years imprisonment, later reduced to 20 years on appeal, but I still had to serve 10 years and 3 months in prison.
It is hardly surprising, therefore, that I have for the past 15 years been trying to persuade this man to admit and/or justify the crime he has committed against me. As a result of his evidence I not only spent years in prison, but I lost my wife, my home, my career, and far more. Yes, I have written to Professor Lewis from time to time, to keep him aware of the continuing revelations of evidence proving and confirming beyond all doubt the lies he told the judge and jury at the Old Bailey Central Criminal Court, and which he has repeated since on several occasions.
I do not believe that Professor Lewis lodged this complaint with one of your local Police Constables in Malvern, because he has gone to great lengths to avoid instigating any situation which I could exploit, for example by taking him to court in response to further false allegations against myself. In my opinion, Lewis learnt his lesson many years ago during a continuing series of complaints to other organisations, e.g. he has complained about me to his friends in the MoD, who I believe put him up to perjuring himself to secure my conviction for political reasons, he has complained to the CCRC, the CPS, Special Branch, the Royal Academy of Engineering, the Institute of Physics, and to a number of other authorities.
For your information, these organisations were not interested in helping Professor Lewis in any way, and their advice to him was to “get on his bike”. They felt that he had been rewarded enough with an unearned professorship and a high order (the CBE) for his assistance in my case (both honours within the gift of the Intelligence Services). Another witness at my trial, Oleg Gordievsky, also lied against me in court, and after perjuring himself and giving false evidence against me he received an Honorary Doctorate of Letters and a CMG, and so he has also been rewarded in a like manner for perjuring himself to enable MI5 to achieve their then objective.
I believe that, having been corresponding with personages such as the Chairman of the CCRC, and having made frequent and persistent complaints of harassment against me, Professor Lewis was advised to “get on his way” or “get on his bike”. I don’t believe that he would have gone to Malvern Police Station, or stopped a policeman in the street, in view of our private history of attempted and rejected complaints. Since 2003, when I first contacted Professor Lewis by telephone, he has stubbornly refused to even discuss the lies that he told in Court. So, Lewis’s high level complaints went nowhere, but complaining to the local police station apparently did provide some result for him.
In my opinion, Lewis is now harassing or attempting to harass me, with the unwitting assistance of one of your most junior and naïve (?) police officers. No experienced police officer would undertake such an action, without the authority of a more senior officer. In fact, this action should really have come up almost to your own level of authority.
So, to list my complaints, I would first of all point out that the letter that I received from your Malvern office appears to be from an illiterate person, for example the terms ‘obtained a complaint’, professing ‘no pre-judgement’ of my conduct, but then making a pre-judgement. In the third paragraph I am advised that ‘should [I] continue the course of conduct’ this will result in my arrest, and this is a bare-faced threat which I find more annoying than intimidating, and I object to these words.
I do not believe the letter, implying that Lewis contacted the police to make the complaint, in view of the history documented above. I do believe that “some person” made contact with one of your officers in Malvern Police Station and instigated this alleged complaint of harassment. I would ask you to investigate this, as I would be surprised if the PC who signed this letter was the person responsible, but I would not be surprised if the more senior police officer who ordered PC Connolly to visit Lewis was the instigator of this complaint.
As a matter of interest to you, perhaps, is the fact that Lewis’s perjury involved third-hand hearsay evidence from a Dr. Humphryes, who was allegedly “an expert” on the ALARM missile (repeated in the Judge’s Summing Up). It had become obvious that Lewis had no knowledge of anti-radar missiles, and Lewis told the court that he had that morning telephoned the Director of Marconi (Dr Humphryes), who had confirmed to him that an exhibit in the trial (a document) was used on the secret ALARM missile. Professor Lewis then told the court that this document (found in my possession) in the hands of an enemy would enable the British missile to be neutralized, and this had a huge impact on the jury and the judge.
When I eventually emerged from prison, and started to prepare my Appeal, I contacted Dr. Humphryes and learnt the truth. Humphryes knew nothing about the ALARM missile, because that was dealt with in a different division of the company, and neither did he recall being asked on the telephone about it by Lewis. However, it seems it was not unusual for Lewis to phone Humphryes, because they had been friends and studied Physics together at Oxford University.
One of my friends, on seeing your entry on the website of West Mercia Police, commented that it was a remarkable coincidence that you also have a physics degree from Oxford. I just mention that this as a curiosity? I do not suggest for one moment that there is a connection between you and Professor Lewis, but I do expect you to properly investigate my complaint and to supply me with the information I have asked for.
Finally, with regard to threatening me with the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, I am sure you know more about this Act than I do. I have never had cause to look it up until today, but I will assure you that if any of my actions can be construed as harassment, then I am quite sure the succession of High Court judges previously contacted by Lewis would have been fully aware of this Act, and any possible transgression of it on my part. There is provision within the Act for a person such as myself to contact a person such as Lewis, to ask him questions in a civilised manner about relevant matters concerning a past shared experience.
I am pursuing Lewis, as you are aware from the references above, for his perjury against me. He is pursuing me for alleged harassment. His pursuit of me is in fact the harassment in this case, and I intend to consult my lawyers with a view to taking action against Lewis, and in that case your police officers will of course be called as witnesses to this offence. This is why I am asking you to supply me with all the evidence connected with this complaint.
Since receiving the attached letter I have received a number of telephone calls, with callers claiming to be connected to your force, either as a civilian member of a police call centre, or a PC, or a Sergeant. Please put a stop to this as I will only deal with you in future.
Yours sincerely,
Michael John Smith
Tonight I received an e-mail from a PC Chadwick of West Mercia Police:
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 20:44:19 +0100
From: "Chadwick,Paul", paul.chnadwick@westmercia.pnn.police.uk
To: Michael John Smith
Subject: RE: For the personal attention of the Chief Constable
sir,
sent your e-mail to pc connelly , who was the sender of your original letter
many thanks
pc 1794 chadwick
I get the impression that my e-mail to the Chief Constable will not reach his desk, and so tonight I have sent a further e-mail to the West Mercia Constabulary:
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 23:55:55 +0100
From: Michael John Smith
To: contactus@westmercia.pnn.police.uk
Cc: "Chadwick,Paul", paul.chnadwick@westmercia.pnn.police.uk
Subject: For the personal attention of the Chief Constable
Dear Chief Constable,
I note that my e-mail to you, marked "Private & Confidential" and "for your personal attention only", has been intercepted by a pc 1794 chadwick and diverted to pc 1668 connolly, the author of the ridiculous letter sent to me and which is the subject of my complaint.
To say that this is a most unusual procedure would be an understatement. This action is designed to complicate or thwart any investigation you may have decided to carry out into my complaint to you about Connolly. As for me, I am now more than convinced that there is something sinister going on here, probably one of your Special Branch officers and PC Connolly operating without your permission and behind your back.
Now you will see at this reference that I am now obliged to write to you publicly through this medium in order to circumvent the interference with my mail, apparently with the intention of preventing you from learning of certain events taking place within your Malvern sub-station.
I will be interested to see whether or not my Royal Mail letter to you will also be intercepted and diverted, which I believe is still a serious offence, and if so I will instigate an investigation into your office by the Post Master General.
I am now adding this to my blog in the sure confidence that certain officers within your force are actively conspiring behind your back to prevent you becoming aware of their illegal undercover operations.
Obviously MI5 are the originators of this whole episode and they are thereby confirming the general public's opinion that they are now 'out of control' (as said by Andrew Mackinlay MP).
Yours sincerely,
Michael John Smith
The Chief Constable of West Mercia, Paul West, with a string of letters after his name, has acknowledged my letter in which I answered the accusation that I had harassed Professor Meirion Francis Lewis.
Acknowledgement by Chief Constable Paul West
West Mercia Constabulary
Together . Working For Safety and Justice
Paul West QPM MA (Oxon) MSc MA
Chief Constable
West Mercia Headquarters, Hindlip Hall
PO Box 55, Worcester, WR3 8SP
Tel: 01905 332233 Fax: 01905 331806
e-mail: Chief@westmercia.pnn.police.uk
Our Ref: OP/BOO/2085-1 Date: 21/7/08
The Chief Constable acknowledges receipt of your letter dated 16/7/08,
the contents of which have been noted and passed to the Divisional Commander, South Worcestershire Division, Castle Street, Worcester, for attention. You should expect to hear from the Divisional Commander or their representative in the near future.
This is my reply to the Chief Constable's acknowledgement:
To: Chief@westmercia.pnn.police.uk
From: Michael John Smith
Date: Thurs, 24 July 2008
Subject: For the personal attention of the Chief Constable
The alleged harassment of Professor Meirion Francis Lewis
Dear Chief Constable,
Thank you for your acknowledgement of receiving my letter dated 16 July 2008. I have again written to you directly because my previous correspondence to you was diverted by PC 1794 Paul Chadwick. I understand that you have allocated the issues raised in my letter of 16 July 2008 to be investigated by your Divisional Commander. I look forward to receiving the outcome to the investigation in due course.
Yours sincerely,
Michael John Smith
Second Letter from Malvern Police Station
Worcester Division
Malvern Police Station
Victoria Road, Malvern, WR14 2TE
Tel: 08457 444 888 Fax: 01684 892274
www.westmercia.police.uk
Our Ref: CG/MC75
07 August 2008
To: Mr. Michael John SMITH
Dear Mr. SMITH,
I refer to your letters dated the 16th July and 28th July, 2008.
I can confirm that Professor LEWIS did approach us at Malvern Police concerning the contacts you have made to him.
I was not aware of your case until your correspondence, and have read your most enlightening Wikipedia autobiography with interest.
However, you will appreciate that there are proper channels by which to conduct challenges in law as you have already used them. You were convicted in the Crown Court, and you challenged that conviction in the Court of Appeal but the conviction was upheld. If you still wish to pursue your claim of wrongful conviction, please use the proper legal channels such as the CCRC rather than trying to communicate directly with any of those involved in your case.
Yours sincerely
Clive GRIFFITHS
Inspector
Geographic Commander, Malvern
15 July 2008
Corporal Daniel James faces an engineered civilian trial
It was not until Daniel James appeared at the Old Bailey on 19 February 2008 that the Prosecution reluctantly disclosed more evidence. The Prosecution had been holding on to this undisclosed evidence for more than a year, and had taken the position that it would not help the Defence case. I respectfully disagree.
Now Daniel faces his trial in the Old Bailey on 2 October, and they have brought in a Welsh judge Sir David Roderick Evans to preside over the case, presumably because a provincial judge is more pliable and will bend to the Prosecution’s way of thinking. Mr Justice Roderick Evans’ main claims to fame seem to be his campaign for a prison in North Wales and that Welsh should be spoken in the Welsh Courts.
Last June I advised Daniel that he should demand that he goes before a Court Martial, but his request has been denied by the Attorney general, who thinks he should be treated as a civilian. No wonder the Crown Prosecution Service want control of this case because they know they can engineer an unfair trial for Daniel, as they did in my own case. The last thing the CPS wants is for Daniel to be tried by the Army, because he will get a fair trial before his peers, and the following statements show that Army people will come out in Daniel’s favour.
These are 2 of the previously undisclosed statements:
Witness Statements of Lieutenant Colonel Stocks
Taken on 2 February and 4 May 2007
I am presently in Afghanistan on Operation Herrick as Staff Officer Grade One Interpreters.
I assessed Cpl James as the best possible person to do that job based on his competency and linguistic experience. As a soldier I found him very easy to get on with. He was well turned out and quite deferential to rank. I would see him about once or twice a month when I visited Kabul. He did ask about promotion and I believe he should have been given acting rank to Sergeant because of his linguistic skills and he was qualified due to military courses held.
In my dealing with Corporal James he never once mentioned to me his religion, or any issues around bullying. He did however have an issue about not being promoted and this seemed to frustrate him - he seemed to feel that he had been passed over. I explained to him the problems within the Territorial Army (TA). I tried to address this situation. I spoke to the AGC SPS Major attached to the ARRC who dealt with soldiers’ career management. I took this action because I felt he was qualified and competent enough to be promoted and in his position as the General’s interpreter I felt he deserved the rank of Acting Sergeant. I also assisted Corporal James in applying and completing his application for language exams, which would allow him to obtain a pay rise, which I felt he deserved.
When I visited ISAF HQ I came into contact with Corporal James approximately twice a month and discussed various issues around work matters and interpreting issues. I felt that Cpl James was well suited for his role and got a great deal of personal satisfaction from his job role. At the time he was the best qualified person in the role and he never discussed with me any of the conversations or translating work he had done with the General. In regard to my comment that I was astounded when I heard that he had been arrested I base this statement on the fact that Cpl James always came across as an extremely professional soldier.
Witness Statement of Major Blackmore
Taken on 1st February 2007
I am currently posted to the Allied Rapid Reaction Corps Support Battalion. I arrived at ISAF HQ in Kabul as Officer Commanding 14th Transport Squadron. As Deputy Commander of HQ Support Group I have additional responsibility for oversight of morale, welfare and activities on camp.
I came to know Cpl James directly in two distinct roles: firstly as a result of his involvement with ‘salsa’ classes on the camp and more importantly through using him on a number of occasions as an interpreter in relation to a school’s project that the Battalion had come to sponsor. He assisted me in all resultant dealings with the Headmaster, local elders, and miscellaneous local contractors/suppliers. It is my belief that Cpl James accompanied me on visits to the school on at least 4 occasions. On 18th 2006 after local contractors had first levelled the site, arrangements were made for a detachment of military personnel from ISAF to attend and erect between 18 and 20 heavy-duty tents purchased with money raised on the camp.
I recall him intervening on my behest at one point. It had not been possible to erect a number of the tents as intended because the ground had not been cleared for levelling by the contractors. We were worried that if left on site, these extra tents might possibly be stolen or sold because of the impoverished state that the local people found themselves living in. Cpl James stepped forward and spoke on my behalf to make the point that the people must ensure that this did not happen. I think he told them that we would be back to check up on them. Everyone was happy and I was personally very impressed by the manner in which he conducted himself.
On 19th October 2006 we returned to the site. The school was now open as a result of our efforts the previous day and the tents that we had been unable to erect were still intact. A large group of local people had gathered to inspect what had been done for them. Everyone was very excited. Cpl James himself was effusive he told me that the people were thanking him over and over again saying people have promised and promised in the past but you have delivered. A t one point as we were still at the school site, I remember looking to one side and seeing Cpl James in the process of handing a bundle of cash (possibly US dollars) to a local female. I immediately called out to him and said “Corporal James, what are you doing?” He replied “Sir, it’s only 65 dollars, she has 6 children” and then went on to add “it’s salsa fund, Sir” before finishing by saying “I help, I help where I can”.
The female in question was overwhelmed by such generosity and grabbed Cpl James by the hand. She then spoke to him evidently to express her gratitude. It was clearly a very emotional experience for both of them. I feel that it is safe to say that staff, pupils, parents and everyone else involved with the Saddudin Ansari School were totally overwhelmed. Local media coverage was also present and this served to project a very positive image of ISAF which no doubt contributed to overall efforts to win over the “hearts and minds” of the Afghan people as a whole. From what I had seen of him in action at the school, I would say however that the way he interacted with those we met was without exception excellent. He was animated, succeeded in winning the trust of the people, had them all smiling and was clearly passionate about what we were doing. He was in my view perfect for the role that I needed him for.
In my experience, Corporal James was always very positive about the role of ISAF and the assistance that was being rendered to the Afghan people. At no time did we discuss the current situation in Iraq or political opinions in general.
More details of this school project are available in the ARRC Journal of Spring 2007 at page 34 of the pdf document.
So why am I putting this information on my blog, and why is it relevant to me and anyone else facing a serious trial in the UK?
The statements above are a good example of the way that Crown Prosecutors can improve their chances of securing a conviction. They protect the Prosecution case by not disclosing anything which could help the Defence, and it is quite clear on reading the above statements that they do in fact help Daniel James, and go a long way towards showing the sort of person he really is.
British Justice is not open and fair, rather it is a secret operation where biased people can concoct their case from all the evidence available, and then decide what crumbs they will throw to the Defence. The Prosecution in my own case hid vital evidence from my Defence, and in so doing were able to secure a conviction based on lies.
The tragedy is that the British Public appears to believe that our Justice System is fair, and that it convicts only the guilty. The truth is that the jury has no idea what goes outside a courtroom, because Justice in Britain is administered by barristers, Police and judges who are both dishonest and corrupt.
NB My previous posts on the subject of Daniel James can be found below:
Soldier Daniel James Official Secrets spy case
Army interpreter Corporal Daniel James - Iranian spy?
Fair Deal for Daniel James?
Compare Daniel James spy case to Milos Stankovic
Daniel James wants to go before a Court Martial
Daniel James prepares to make his plea
Disinformation about Daniel James
Official Secrets Act Section 1 cases
Press Complaints Commission & Espionage
ARRSE ARmy Rumour SErvice Moderators
Daniel James spy trial is due to start tomorrow
Daniel James spy trial delay, no ARRSE support
Following publication of this post I received a letter from Daniel James’ solicitors:
From: Tank Jowett Solicitors
To: Michael John Smith
Date: 29th August 2008
Dear Mike
Re: Daniel James
I write in relation to the above named and further to the letter written by Danny, which was sent out to you from our office, during the week beginning 13th July 2008.
As you know the letter contained extracts from two statements which form part of the unused material in this case.
I also note that these extracts have appeared on your "parellic blogspot" as well as other websites. I appreciate that printing these extracts was done in an effort to highlight your view of the unfair tactics that the Prosecution employ when dealing with high-profile OSA cases like yours and Danny's.
However, it is important that you know that the disclosure of unused material is a criminal offence/contempt of Court, under the CPIA. This means that by publishing/disclosing this material you could be found guilty of a criminal offence, as could Danny. I am simply writing this so that you are aware of the situation.
I have discussed this issue at length with Danny and we have agreed that it is important that you were aware of the potential implications of disclosing this document both to yourself and him. Whether you remove it from your blog and any other sites is a matter for you, although my advice would be that you should.
Notwithstanding the above, Danny wanted me to reiterate that he appreciates the advice and support that he has received from you regarding this case.
Yours sincerely
David Sleight
Tank Jowett Solicitors
Now Daniel faces his trial in the Old Bailey on 2 October, and they have brought in a Welsh judge Sir David Roderick Evans to preside over the case, presumably because a provincial judge is more pliable and will bend to the Prosecution’s way of thinking. Mr Justice Roderick Evans’ main claims to fame seem to be his campaign for a prison in North Wales and that Welsh should be spoken in the Welsh Courts.
Mr Justice David Roderick Evans
Last June I advised Daniel that he should demand that he goes before a Court Martial, but his request has been denied by the Attorney general, who thinks he should be treated as a civilian. No wonder the Crown Prosecution Service want control of this case because they know they can engineer an unfair trial for Daniel, as they did in my own case. The last thing the CPS wants is for Daniel to be tried by the Army, because he will get a fair trial before his peers, and the following statements show that Army people will come out in Daniel’s favour.
These are 2 of the previously undisclosed statements:
Witness Statements of Lieutenant Colonel Stocks
Taken on 2 February and 4 May 2007
I am presently in Afghanistan on Operation Herrick as Staff Officer Grade One Interpreters.
I assessed Cpl James as the best possible person to do that job based on his competency and linguistic experience. As a soldier I found him very easy to get on with. He was well turned out and quite deferential to rank. I would see him about once or twice a month when I visited Kabul. He did ask about promotion and I believe he should have been given acting rank to Sergeant because of his linguistic skills and he was qualified due to military courses held.
In my dealing with Corporal James he never once mentioned to me his religion, or any issues around bullying. He did however have an issue about not being promoted and this seemed to frustrate him - he seemed to feel that he had been passed over. I explained to him the problems within the Territorial Army (TA). I tried to address this situation. I spoke to the AGC SPS Major attached to the ARRC who dealt with soldiers’ career management. I took this action because I felt he was qualified and competent enough to be promoted and in his position as the General’s interpreter I felt he deserved the rank of Acting Sergeant. I also assisted Corporal James in applying and completing his application for language exams, which would allow him to obtain a pay rise, which I felt he deserved.
When I visited ISAF HQ I came into contact with Corporal James approximately twice a month and discussed various issues around work matters and interpreting issues. I felt that Cpl James was well suited for his role and got a great deal of personal satisfaction from his job role. At the time he was the best qualified person in the role and he never discussed with me any of the conversations or translating work he had done with the General. In regard to my comment that I was astounded when I heard that he had been arrested I base this statement on the fact that Cpl James always came across as an extremely professional soldier.
Witness Statement of Major Blackmore
Taken on 1st February 2007
I am currently posted to the Allied Rapid Reaction Corps Support Battalion. I arrived at ISAF HQ in Kabul as Officer Commanding 14th Transport Squadron. As Deputy Commander of HQ Support Group I have additional responsibility for oversight of morale, welfare and activities on camp.
I came to know Cpl James directly in two distinct roles: firstly as a result of his involvement with ‘salsa’ classes on the camp and more importantly through using him on a number of occasions as an interpreter in relation to a school’s project that the Battalion had come to sponsor. He assisted me in all resultant dealings with the Headmaster, local elders, and miscellaneous local contractors/suppliers. It is my belief that Cpl James accompanied me on visits to the school on at least 4 occasions. On 18th 2006 after local contractors had first levelled the site, arrangements were made for a detachment of military personnel from ISAF to attend and erect between 18 and 20 heavy-duty tents purchased with money raised on the camp.
I recall him intervening on my behest at one point. It had not been possible to erect a number of the tents as intended because the ground had not been cleared for levelling by the contractors. We were worried that if left on site, these extra tents might possibly be stolen or sold because of the impoverished state that the local people found themselves living in. Cpl James stepped forward and spoke on my behalf to make the point that the people must ensure that this did not happen. I think he told them that we would be back to check up on them. Everyone was happy and I was personally very impressed by the manner in which he conducted himself.
On 19th October 2006 we returned to the site. The school was now open as a result of our efforts the previous day and the tents that we had been unable to erect were still intact. A large group of local people had gathered to inspect what had been done for them. Everyone was very excited. Cpl James himself was effusive he told me that the people were thanking him over and over again saying people have promised and promised in the past but you have delivered. A t one point as we were still at the school site, I remember looking to one side and seeing Cpl James in the process of handing a bundle of cash (possibly US dollars) to a local female. I immediately called out to him and said “Corporal James, what are you doing?” He replied “Sir, it’s only 65 dollars, she has 6 children” and then went on to add “it’s salsa fund, Sir” before finishing by saying “I help, I help where I can”.
The female in question was overwhelmed by such generosity and grabbed Cpl James by the hand. She then spoke to him evidently to express her gratitude. It was clearly a very emotional experience for both of them. I feel that it is safe to say that staff, pupils, parents and everyone else involved with the Saddudin Ansari School were totally overwhelmed. Local media coverage was also present and this served to project a very positive image of ISAF which no doubt contributed to overall efforts to win over the “hearts and minds” of the Afghan people as a whole. From what I had seen of him in action at the school, I would say however that the way he interacted with those we met was without exception excellent. He was animated, succeeded in winning the trust of the people, had them all smiling and was clearly passionate about what we were doing. He was in my view perfect for the role that I needed him for.
In my experience, Corporal James was always very positive about the role of ISAF and the assistance that was being rendered to the Afghan people. At no time did we discuss the current situation in Iraq or political opinions in general.
More details of this school project are available in the ARRC Journal of Spring 2007 at page 34 of the pdf document.
So why am I putting this information on my blog, and why is it relevant to me and anyone else facing a serious trial in the UK?
The statements above are a good example of the way that Crown Prosecutors can improve their chances of securing a conviction. They protect the Prosecution case by not disclosing anything which could help the Defence, and it is quite clear on reading the above statements that they do in fact help Daniel James, and go a long way towards showing the sort of person he really is.
British Justice is not open and fair, rather it is a secret operation where biased people can concoct their case from all the evidence available, and then decide what crumbs they will throw to the Defence. The Prosecution in my own case hid vital evidence from my Defence, and in so doing were able to secure a conviction based on lies.
The tragedy is that the British Public appears to believe that our Justice System is fair, and that it convicts only the guilty. The truth is that the jury has no idea what goes outside a courtroom, because Justice in Britain is administered by barristers, Police and judges who are both dishonest and corrupt.
NB My previous posts on the subject of Daniel James can be found below:
Soldier Daniel James Official Secrets spy case
Army interpreter Corporal Daniel James - Iranian spy?
Fair Deal for Daniel James?
Compare Daniel James spy case to Milos Stankovic
Daniel James wants to go before a Court Martial
Daniel James prepares to make his plea
Disinformation about Daniel James
Official Secrets Act Section 1 cases
Press Complaints Commission & Espionage
ARRSE ARmy Rumour SErvice Moderators
Daniel James spy trial is due to start tomorrow
Daniel James spy trial delay, no ARRSE support
Following publication of this post I received a letter from Daniel James’ solicitors:
From: Tank Jowett Solicitors
To: Michael John Smith
Date: 29th August 2008
Dear Mike
Re: Daniel James
I write in relation to the above named and further to the letter written by Danny, which was sent out to you from our office, during the week beginning 13th July 2008.
As you know the letter contained extracts from two statements which form part of the unused material in this case.
I also note that these extracts have appeared on your "parellic blogspot" as well as other websites. I appreciate that printing these extracts was done in an effort to highlight your view of the unfair tactics that the Prosecution employ when dealing with high-profile OSA cases like yours and Danny's.
However, it is important that you know that the disclosure of unused material is a criminal offence/contempt of Court, under the CPIA. This means that by publishing/disclosing this material you could be found guilty of a criminal offence, as could Danny. I am simply writing this so that you are aware of the situation.
I have discussed this issue at length with Danny and we have agreed that it is important that you were aware of the potential implications of disclosing this document both to yourself and him. Whether you remove it from your blog and any other sites is a matter for you, although my advice would be that you should.
Notwithstanding the above, Danny wanted me to reiterate that he appreciates the advice and support that he has received from you regarding this case.
Yours sincerely
David Sleight
Tank Jowett Solicitors
13 July 2008
Andrew Mackinlay MP is targeted for MI5 smear campaign
A politically motivated attack is currently being orchestrated by MI5 against Andrew Mackinlay, the British Member of Parliament. The attack is taking the form of a smear campaign, alleging that something suspicious is involved in Mr Mackinlay’s meetings with Russian diplomats, with the claim that he has met possible Russian spies. Incredibly, it appears that MI5 have been spying on Mr Mackinlay while he was actually within the Houses of Parliament. Mr Mackinlay’s defence is that he is just going about his normal business as a member of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee.
As usual, the Mail on Sunday is the main newspaper being used by MI5 to undermine Mr Mackinlay's position, and the tactics look all too obvious. The recent article that started these serious attacks on Mr Mackinlay is this one.
The plot involved planting information in an obscure Bulgarian newspaper named Standart, and it was a fairly crude but planned operation. The development of the story indicates that certain journalists at the Mail on Sunday are under the control of MI5, and that Glen Owen in particular is one of their agents.
Then, this weekend, Glen Owen has turned up the heat by writing another article to further damage Mr Mackinlay.
But what purpose could lie behind these savage attacks on an elected Member of Parliament? The reason becomes clear when we look at the role Mr Mackinlay has played in Parliament: he does not readily accept the dishonest answers given by the Prime Minister or other Cabinet Ministers, and instead he has asked many awkward questions to uncover the truth. It is said that Mr Mackinlay has been a thorn in the side of the government, and in standing up for democracy he is one of the few MPs prepared to challenge what is wrong in British politics.
Of all the MPs in parliament, Mr Mackinlay is one the few who steadfastly stands up for truth and honesty in politics, and that is why he is so dangerous to those who wish to undermine the system, and MI5 is an organisation that is attempting to attack our freedoms and to extend the surveillance society.
People like Andrew Mackinlay need our support, and I cannot say this better than the whistleblower and champion of human rights Craig Murray.
The background to this case is very worrying because it is an example of the strategy of the British intelligence services to isolate and demonise Russia, which in turn is part of the UK’s broader alliance with the misguided foreign policies being pursued by the USA.
As usual, the Mail on Sunday is the main newspaper being used by MI5 to undermine Mr Mackinlay's position, and the tactics look all too obvious. The recent article that started these serious attacks on Mr Mackinlay is this one.
The plot involved planting information in an obscure Bulgarian newspaper named Standart, and it was a fairly crude but planned operation. The development of the story indicates that certain journalists at the Mail on Sunday are under the control of MI5, and that Glen Owen in particular is one of their agents.
Then, this weekend, Glen Owen has turned up the heat by writing another article to further damage Mr Mackinlay.
But what purpose could lie behind these savage attacks on an elected Member of Parliament? The reason becomes clear when we look at the role Mr Mackinlay has played in Parliament: he does not readily accept the dishonest answers given by the Prime Minister or other Cabinet Ministers, and instead he has asked many awkward questions to uncover the truth. It is said that Mr Mackinlay has been a thorn in the side of the government, and in standing up for democracy he is one of the few MPs prepared to challenge what is wrong in British politics.
Of all the MPs in parliament, Mr Mackinlay is one the few who steadfastly stands up for truth and honesty in politics, and that is why he is so dangerous to those who wish to undermine the system, and MI5 is an organisation that is attempting to attack our freedoms and to extend the surveillance society.
People like Andrew Mackinlay need our support, and I cannot say this better than the whistleblower and champion of human rights Craig Murray.
The background to this case is very worrying because it is an example of the strategy of the British intelligence services to isolate and demonise Russia, which in turn is part of the UK’s broader alliance with the misguided foreign policies being pursued by the USA.
07 July 2008
Letter to The Queen about Prof. Meirion Lewis's CBE
It is my opinion that individuals should not be given honours if they can be shown to have a dishonest character, and giving false evidence under oath in court would seem to me to be a fairly dishonest action, especially when the person concerned will not attempt to correct the damage caused by such lies.
I thought it was about time to ask the The Queen to step into this affair, and for her to consider whether it is now time to revoke Meirion Francis Lewis's CBE:
From: Michael John Smith
2 July 2008
To: Her Majesty The Queen
Buckingham Palace
London, SW1A 1AA
Your Majesty,
Professor Meirion Francis Lewis, CBE, PhD (Oxford), FInstP, FREng
I have to make a serious allegation against a person who featured in Her Majesty’s Birthday Honours list of 1999.
Mr Meirion Francis Lewis was awarded the Honour of a CBE in that list, but I have to tell you that he is unworthy of such an award by reason of his dishonest behaviour.
In 1993 Mr Lewis was called to give evidence at a trial where I stood accused of offences under the Official Secrets Act. His evidence was instrumental in causing my conviction, and I spent more than 10 years in prison as a result.
A key issue in Mr Lewis’s testimony was that a particular document had been used to manufacture ALARM missiles deployed in the Gulf War of 1991, and that this document could have been used to devise jamming methods to nullify ALARM.
I have attempted to overturn my conviction during the past 15 years, and in so doing I have discovered important technical errors in Mr Lewis's evidence. Then, in October 2007, I have found that the document Mr Lewis claimed was used on ALARM missiles was in fact made obsolete in 1984, over 8 years before my arrest, and so could never have been used on any ALARM missile in service with our Armed Forces.
Whether by his own decision or through coercion from the MoD, Mr Lewis did mislead the Court at my trial. He is at least guilty of perverting the course of justice, but he may actually have committed perjury. If you need the proof, I can send you documents that demonstrate quite clearly that Mr Lewis told lies in Court.
Mr Lewis is aggravating the effect of his bad conduct by refusing to acknowledge that he gave false evidence in Court, and he continues to maintain that he did not lie on oath.
I see the behaviour of Mr Lewis as intolerable, and I believe he is an unfit person to hold such a national honour as a CBE. I therefore ask that you consider the revocation of his award as soon as possible.
Yours sincerely,
Michael John Smith
Copies sent to:
Ceremonial Secretariat, Cabinet Office
Dr John Hood, Vice-Chancellor Oxford University
Professor Roger Davies, Chairman of Physics Department Oxford University
Dr Robert Kirby-Harris, Chief Executive Institute of Physics
Mr Philip Greenish, Chief Executive Royal Academy of Engineering
The London Gazette
Richard Jefferies, solicitor at trial
Jason Lewis, journalist at Mail on Sunday
I thought it was about time to ask the The Queen to step into this affair, and for her to consider whether it is now time to revoke Meirion Francis Lewis's CBE:
From: Michael John Smith
2 July 2008
To: Her Majesty The Queen
Buckingham Palace
London, SW1A 1AA
Your Majesty,
Professor Meirion Francis Lewis, CBE, PhD (Oxford), FInstP, FREng
I have to make a serious allegation against a person who featured in Her Majesty’s Birthday Honours list of 1999.
Mr Meirion Francis Lewis was awarded the Honour of a CBE in that list, but I have to tell you that he is unworthy of such an award by reason of his dishonest behaviour.
In 1993 Mr Lewis was called to give evidence at a trial where I stood accused of offences under the Official Secrets Act. His evidence was instrumental in causing my conviction, and I spent more than 10 years in prison as a result.
A key issue in Mr Lewis’s testimony was that a particular document had been used to manufacture ALARM missiles deployed in the Gulf War of 1991, and that this document could have been used to devise jamming methods to nullify ALARM.
I have attempted to overturn my conviction during the past 15 years, and in so doing I have discovered important technical errors in Mr Lewis's evidence. Then, in October 2007, I have found that the document Mr Lewis claimed was used on ALARM missiles was in fact made obsolete in 1984, over 8 years before my arrest, and so could never have been used on any ALARM missile in service with our Armed Forces.
Whether by his own decision or through coercion from the MoD, Mr Lewis did mislead the Court at my trial. He is at least guilty of perverting the course of justice, but he may actually have committed perjury. If you need the proof, I can send you documents that demonstrate quite clearly that Mr Lewis told lies in Court.
Mr Lewis is aggravating the effect of his bad conduct by refusing to acknowledge that he gave false evidence in Court, and he continues to maintain that he did not lie on oath.
I see the behaviour of Mr Lewis as intolerable, and I believe he is an unfit person to hold such a national honour as a CBE. I therefore ask that you consider the revocation of his award as soon as possible.
Yours sincerely,
Michael John Smith
Copies sent to:
Ceremonial Secretariat, Cabinet Office
Dr John Hood, Vice-Chancellor Oxford University
Professor Roger Davies, Chairman of Physics Department Oxford University
Dr Robert Kirby-Harris, Chief Executive Institute of Physics
Mr Philip Greenish, Chief Executive Royal Academy of Engineering
The London Gazette
Richard Jefferies, solicitor at trial
Jason Lewis, journalist at Mail on Sunday
04 July 2008
Challenging Professor Christopher Andrew's version of the truth
I am waiting for The Cambridge Parrot to talk
I gave my old friend Professor Christopher Andrew a phone call tonight. I thought I ought to talk to him, because he has some errors or anomalies in his book, the Mitrokhin Archive. I think we need to talk about this to decide if he has wrong information, or possibly he has misunderstood the facts.
Well, let's see if he gets back to me. But I just want him to explain why I was convicted based on a KGB training mission to Oporto (Portugal) in 1977, when there is absolutely no mention of my visit to Oporto in his book the Mitrokhin Archive? Strange that, isn't it?
I spent just 3 days in Oporto in 1977, from 11th to 13th August 1977, as part of a camping and driving holiday with a friend. We pitched our tent in a camp site on the outskirts of the city, and then spent our time sight-seeing, visiting the Port works, as well as going on an excursion to the popular tourist restaurant O Fado. No Russians were involved in our activities in Oporto, but the Police, MI5, and the Prosecution at my trial were keen to tell the jury that this was really a KGB training mission.
It appears that this crazy fabrication by the Prosecution at my trial was meant to link up with what they knew would eventually be disclosed in Professor Andrew's book, the Mitrokhin Archive. For example, the Special Branch policeman who interviewed me in August 1992 said:
‘And you will be aware also, of the archivage leaks that have taken place over the last number of ...’ [Police interviews p.122]
During those interviews I was shown a tourist map of Oporto, which later became a key exhibit at my trial. As the interviewing officer DCS Malcolm McLeod put it:
‘I am putting it to you, that you carried out some work for the KGB, in clearing what is known as dead letter boxes. … why should Victor Oshchenko say that you carried out work for them in Oporto, or in Portugal?’ [Police interviews p.363]
‘During the search of your house we found some literature, and I’m going to produce exhibit JS/45, and this is a map, a tourist map, of the centre of Oporto.’ [Police interviews p.534]
It was not until 1999 that I learned the evidence given at my trial by Stella Rimington and Oleg Gordievsky contradicted information contained in the Mitrokhin Archive. In that book, published by Professor Christopher Andrew, there are two references to the Iberian Peninsula. On page 551 Andrew states:
'The first test, which Smith seems to have passed, was to remove two packets of secret material from a dead letter-box in Spain.’
On page 552 Andrew goes on to refer to another “test” that I was allegedly subjected to:
'… by instructing him to remove a container holding two rolls of film from a DLB in the Paris suburbs and to deliver it to a KGB officer in Lisbon,’
The single reference to Portugal in the Mitrokhin Archive is an alleged trip to Lisbon, some 200 miles away from Oporto, which is placed in 1979 or later. I never travelled to Portugal in 1979, and I have not visited Portugal at any time after 1979.
So what is going on here? There is one explanation that the agent recruited by Viktor Oshchenko in London, referred to as Mr E at my trial, did in fact go on a KGB training mission to Lisbon over the weekend of 21 to 22 July in 1979. MI5 were cynically trying to make it appear that I had done the same thing when I was on my holiday in Oporto. What MI5 hoped to achieve was to create links to both Mr E and Oshchenko through Portugal, and they succeeded because the jury did believe their lies in this fabricated story.
The obvious contradiction between the Mitrokhin Archive version and the Prosecution case at my trial
Following on from the above, I have been contacted by Nelly Symonds who I referred to in a previous post. In that post I reported how Professor Andrew had apologised to Nelly, and he undertook to ensure that the false allegations against her were not repeated in future editions of the Mitrokhin Archive.
Nelly has informed me that Professor Andrew has completely reneged on this agreement, and the false allegations which he agreed would be removed have been repeated all over the world in different language editions. Nelly thinks that this is the behaviour she would expect from a Cambridge pseudo professor aping the manners of an English gentleman.
Anyway, anybody who wants to contact Professor Andrew about this can ask him directly by contacting him at his home:
Professor Christopher Andrew
67 Grantchester Meadows
Cambridge, CB3 9J
Tel: (01223) 353773
02 July 2008
Michael John Smith’s reply to Guido Liguori
I believed that there were plenty of points on which I could work with the IPCC and Guido Liguori on the satisfactory resolution of my complaint against the police. I therefore replied to Mr Liguori’s letter with the following response:
From: Michael John Smith
30 June 2008
To: Mr Guido Liguori
Senior Lawyer
Directorate of Legal Services
IPCC
90 High Holborn
London, WC1V 6BH
Your reference: 2008/007545
Dear Mr Liguori,
Thank you for your letter of 27 June
I believe that you are mistaken when you state that only 2 issues (Delay and Abuse of the complaints process) were developed in the correspondence between the MPS, the IPCC and myself, as itemised on page one of your letter. There are 3 issues that have been identified by the MPS and the IPCC:
a) Delay,
b) Abuse of the complaints process,
c) ‘That it is not reasonably practicable to investigate your complaint as no electronic records of the case exist.’
I was amazed to read that it is being seriously suggested that records from my case may not exist, or have been destroyed. I find it hard to believe that this really could be the situation, and in any case I myself can supply most documents used in the case.
Turning now to pages 2 and 3 of your response:
I think we should both agree that you have correctly identified paragraph 7 schedule 3 of the Police Reform Act 2002 and used section 3 (2) of the Police (complaints and misconduct) Regulations 2004 as guidelines to my claims.
The essence of my claim, as you know, is that the clock should start ticking from that point in time when I could first prove Police misconduct with the false evidence Dr Lewis had given both in his sworn police statement and on his oath in Court, and not from a time when I had only suspected that he had given false evidence. You will agree, no doubt, that suspecting something is wrong is not the same as being able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was wrong - these are two very different concepts?
As you say, I suspected a long while ago that there was something wrong with Lewis’s evidence, but I had been misled by official replies (e.g. from the Ministry of Defence to Members of Parliament) that Lewis had not given false evidence. In any case, my suspicions about Lewis’s evidence were that it was technically flawed, not the shocking revelation that Exhibit pp.51-59 had been obsolete for more than 8 years at the time of my arrest.
You will be aware that my case was brought under the Official Secrets Act, and as a consequence of that Act no person(s) who could prove Lewis was lying about his claim that the ALARM missile was involved were available in the normal way, for example via a court summons. Indeed, my Defence lawyers were prevented from talking with potential witnesses and experts due to national security restrictions, because these people had either signed the OSA, or were in some way obligated to the Ministry of Defence for their employment.
It was not until August 2007 that my team were able to locate one of the original recipients of the supposedly secret document, and not until 11 October 2007 that we could confirm pp.51-59 had nothing whatsoever to do with the ALARM missile used by our Armed Forces.
My work colleague’s statement revealed for the first time that pp.51-59 became obsolete on or before 27 March 1984, and that components used in pre-production test models for missiles were manufactured to another specification, which was unclassified and identified as document ref. 1011-00435 Issue 1. There is no mention of this important evidence anywhere in the Police investigation, and that fact is surprising because my colleague states that he was called to a meeting with the Director of Hirst Research Centre, Dr Steven Cundy, probably on Monday 10 August 1992. Although the matter of pp.51-59 was discussed, and Dr Cundy gave numerous statements to the Police about my case, there was no record anywhere within those statements that the document was obsolete.
You have referred to my telephone conversation in January 2007 with an ex-Marconi Technical Director, Dr Reginald Humphryes, but you have incorrectly assumed that this conversation was linked to my complaint. At that time I already knew that Dr Humphryes had never been responsible for the ALARM missile or pp.51-59, because the CCRC had identified in 2005 that Humphryes (called “an expert” in the judge’s summing up) was not an expert in this field [CCRC Provisional Statement of Reasons, July 2006]. I did not ask Dr Humphryes about the document’s status, but I did ask him why Lewis had contacted him to confirm the document’s use on the ALARM missile. Dr Humphryes told me that he and Lewis had known each other since university days, and it was simply a personal friendship that Lewis was exploiting.
Therefore, clearly it was only in October 2007 that my suspicions about Lewis’s dishonesty were finally converted into proof, and I was able to show that the Police had not even tried to test Lewis’s claims that pp.51-59 was used in the ALARM missile. If I may draw your attention to the ratio in Lavender v Minister of Housing and Local Government [1970] 1 WLR 1231, and British Oxygen v Minister of Technology [1971] AC 610:
• An authority will be acting unreasonably where it refuses to hear applications or takes certain decisions without taking individual circumstances into account by reference to a certain policy. When an authority was given discretion, it cannot bind itself as to the way in which this discretion will be exercised either by internal policies or obligations to others. Even though an authority may establish internal guidelines, it should be prepared to make exceptions on the basis of every individual case.
There are of course other authorities I can cite, but I feel you will agree with me that I did not delay in contacting the MPS or the IPCC when I finally knew the truth, and could prove that Lewis had lied in his Police statements and on his oath, and that the date on which I could prove that truth was 11 October 2007.
Turning now to page 4:
With respect to your first paragraph beginning: ‘I now need to consider the second ground upon which the dispensation was granted. …’ You imply that dispensation was granted by Mr Stacey, I think you may mean it was NOT granted, and from the comments in your letter I understand you to be critical of the grounds on which Mr Stacey was attempting to dispense with my complaint.
I think it is right that we ignore any suggestion that I am being vexatious, or that I am trying to impose my views upon the IPCC. I am after all only seeking the truth, and that truth has to be supported by the facts, and be capable of standing up to independent examination.
Let us agree therefore that 3 (2) (d) should be applied to the issues in your ground b), and limited to whether I am trying to abuse the Police complaints process.
My complaint, as you know, is that Police officers supplied false evidence to gain improper convictions, regarding Russians, spy training and secrets. However, in your letter you seem to be suggesting that I should not use the Police complaints system to investigate Police misconduct. Rather, you suggest, that I am abusing the Police complaints system because I made a complaint about the Police.
Your suggestion that the CCRC are the correct investigating body to investigate my claim, that Police supplied false evidence regarding secrets, Russians and spy training, and/or that my Defence Team erred, is I think inappropriate when I am complaining that it was the Police who have done something wrong. I think we must agree that a complaint against Police is just that, a complaint against Police.
This is not a complaint against my Defence Team, or the CCRC, or anyone else and under those circumstances it cannot be considered an abuse of process. The ratio in Lavender v Minister of Housing and Local Government [1970] 1 WLR 1231; and British Oxygen v Minister of Technology [1971] AC 610 can once again be taken as your guide to avoid further attempts to fetter my complaint against Police:
• An authority will be acting unreasonably where it refuses to hear applications or takes certain decisions without taking individual circumstances into account by reference to a certain policy. When an authority was given discretion, it cannot bind itself as to the way in which this discretion will be exercised either by internal policies or obligations to others. Even though an authority may establish internal guidelines, it should be prepared to make exceptions on the basis of every individual case.
Turning to those general points made in your letter, concerning other bodies, I merely state the point again that I am making a complaint about the Police and NOT about anyone else. I have referred to the Prosecution, and to what happened during my trial, because this demonstrates quite plainly how flaws in the Police investigation led to false evidence being presented at my trial, and this has profound repercussions on my prosecution. What any other body did or did not do should be quite irrelevant to your considerations, as it is only the actions of the Police that we should be concerned with.
However, I do welcome your conclusion that Mr Stacey may have misapplied the law with regard to his reading of the IPCC guidance 5.8.2, which when contrasted against the ratio in Lavender v Ministry of Housing and local government does make it clear that 3 (2) (a) was not properly applied. Consequently, I hope that we can continue to develop further issues of Police perversion involving the creation of a spurious Russian (unknown to me) and spy training that never happened, without the need for me to press on with a judicial determination.
At least we do now have one point of common understanding to move forward on. However, rather than for me to formulate another complaint, I think it only fair that you let Mr Stacey know the outcome of your review to date, and under which ground you have found his rejection should be revisited. Of course, I realise you may now wish to make suitable adjustments to expand your recommendations that Mr Stacey include all 5 ratios listed in the case law references in my submission to you, and apply them to my other concerns that Police fabricated my supposed spy training and my supposed collaboration with a Russian:
I list for your guidance the considerations I would expect you to apply to my concerns that:
1. Police fabricated evidence of my supposed spy training (e.g. in Oporto).
2. Police fabricated evidence of my involvement with the Russian Viktor Oshchenko.
3. Police fabricated evidence that I had possession of a document used on ALARM.
(i) Error of fact - that my complaint is not outside the time limits. Compare with the ratio in R v Secretary of State Ex Parte Khawaja [1984] AC 74, and R v Hillingdon Borough Council ex Parte Pulhofer [1986] AC 484.
(ii) Ignored relevant considerations - that the matters in this complaint could not have been dealt with at trial, but they are the proper responsibility of the IPCC. Compare with the ratio in R v ILEA Ex parte Westminster City Council [1948] 1 KB 223, and Padfield -v- Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food [1968] AC 997; [1968] UKHL 1.
(iii) Irrationality - that the matters in this complaint could not have been dealt with at trial, but they are the proper responsibility of the IPCC. Compare with the ratio in Associated Provincial Picture Houses v. Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223.
(iv) Fetter - that the IPCC has not properly applied its discretion when considering the application for dispensation. Compare with the ratio in Lavender v Minister of Housing and Local Government [1970] 1 WLR 1231, and British Oxygen v Minister of Technology [1971] AC 610.
(v) Natural justice - that the matters in this complaint could not have been dealt with at trial, but they are the proper responsibility of the IPCC. Compare with the ration in McInnes v Onslow-Fane [1978] 1 WLR 1520.
Perhaps, by stating the ratios to Mr Stacey in all the cases I have listed in my pre-action letter, you may formulate a view that the Police have performed acts which are immoral and contrary to Natural Justice, and have also wilfully caused statements to be tendered in judicial proceedings which they knew or ought reasonably to have known were untrue.
I trust we can work together, and you will now send my complaint back to Mr Stacey with your recommendation that he revisit the material, under your guidance. The issues are that the Police have perverted the course of justice with respect to Mr Lewis’s evidence and any Russian involvement, and I hope you and I will explore the issues I have listed using the ratios I have given, without the need for me to ask a Judge to mandate you to review. I have covered the most urgent points from your letter, but I shall deal with the few remaining issues as and when it becomes necessary for us to discuss particular details.
Yours sincerely,
Michael John Smith
I sent this letter by e-mail to Mr Liguori, but I was surprised when only 67 minutes later he replied in a very unhelpful manner. His reply indicates that he wishes a judge to settle these matters, although he has already admitted that the IPCC are wrong on several of the issues involved with my complaint. It seems that dialogue fails when one party is unwilling to talk to the other, while a little talking may well resolve issues more efficiently as this is a perfectly straightforward complaint. This is Mr Liguori’s response:
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 17:20:51 +0100
From: Guido Liguori, guido.liguori@ipcc.gsi.gov.uk
To: Michael John Smith
Subject: RE: Complaint, your reference 2008-007545
Dear Mr. Smith, the letter that I have sent to you is our response to your pre-action letter. I have nothing further to add.
Regards
Guido Liguori
Senior Lawyer
Legal Services Directorate
Independent Police Complaints Commission
Tel : 0207 166 3949
Fax : 0207 166 3649
guido.liguori@ipcc.gsi.gov.uk
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael John Smith
Sent: 30 June 2008 16:14
To: Guido Liguori; enquiries
Subject: Complaint, your reference 2008-007545
Dear Mr Liguori,
Please find attached my response to your letter dated 27 June 2008.
Kind regards,
Michael John Smith
From: Michael John Smith
30 June 2008
To: Mr Guido Liguori
Senior Lawyer
Directorate of Legal Services
IPCC
90 High Holborn
London, WC1V 6BH
Your reference: 2008/007545
Dear Mr Liguori,
Thank you for your letter of 27 June
I believe that you are mistaken when you state that only 2 issues (Delay and Abuse of the complaints process) were developed in the correspondence between the MPS, the IPCC and myself, as itemised on page one of your letter. There are 3 issues that have been identified by the MPS and the IPCC:
a) Delay,
b) Abuse of the complaints process,
c) ‘That it is not reasonably practicable to investigate your complaint as no electronic records of the case exist.’
I was amazed to read that it is being seriously suggested that records from my case may not exist, or have been destroyed. I find it hard to believe that this really could be the situation, and in any case I myself can supply most documents used in the case.
Turning now to pages 2 and 3 of your response:
I think we should both agree that you have correctly identified paragraph 7 schedule 3 of the Police Reform Act 2002 and used section 3 (2) of the Police (complaints and misconduct) Regulations 2004 as guidelines to my claims.
The essence of my claim, as you know, is that the clock should start ticking from that point in time when I could first prove Police misconduct with the false evidence Dr Lewis had given both in his sworn police statement and on his oath in Court, and not from a time when I had only suspected that he had given false evidence. You will agree, no doubt, that suspecting something is wrong is not the same as being able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was wrong - these are two very different concepts?
As you say, I suspected a long while ago that there was something wrong with Lewis’s evidence, but I had been misled by official replies (e.g. from the Ministry of Defence to Members of Parliament) that Lewis had not given false evidence. In any case, my suspicions about Lewis’s evidence were that it was technically flawed, not the shocking revelation that Exhibit pp.51-59 had been obsolete for more than 8 years at the time of my arrest.
You will be aware that my case was brought under the Official Secrets Act, and as a consequence of that Act no person(s) who could prove Lewis was lying about his claim that the ALARM missile was involved were available in the normal way, for example via a court summons. Indeed, my Defence lawyers were prevented from talking with potential witnesses and experts due to national security restrictions, because these people had either signed the OSA, or were in some way obligated to the Ministry of Defence for their employment.
It was not until August 2007 that my team were able to locate one of the original recipients of the supposedly secret document, and not until 11 October 2007 that we could confirm pp.51-59 had nothing whatsoever to do with the ALARM missile used by our Armed Forces.
My work colleague’s statement revealed for the first time that pp.51-59 became obsolete on or before 27 March 1984, and that components used in pre-production test models for missiles were manufactured to another specification, which was unclassified and identified as document ref. 1011-00435 Issue 1. There is no mention of this important evidence anywhere in the Police investigation, and that fact is surprising because my colleague states that he was called to a meeting with the Director of Hirst Research Centre, Dr Steven Cundy, probably on Monday 10 August 1992. Although the matter of pp.51-59 was discussed, and Dr Cundy gave numerous statements to the Police about my case, there was no record anywhere within those statements that the document was obsolete.
You have referred to my telephone conversation in January 2007 with an ex-Marconi Technical Director, Dr Reginald Humphryes, but you have incorrectly assumed that this conversation was linked to my complaint. At that time I already knew that Dr Humphryes had never been responsible for the ALARM missile or pp.51-59, because the CCRC had identified in 2005 that Humphryes (called “an expert” in the judge’s summing up) was not an expert in this field [CCRC Provisional Statement of Reasons, July 2006]. I did not ask Dr Humphryes about the document’s status, but I did ask him why Lewis had contacted him to confirm the document’s use on the ALARM missile. Dr Humphryes told me that he and Lewis had known each other since university days, and it was simply a personal friendship that Lewis was exploiting.
Therefore, clearly it was only in October 2007 that my suspicions about Lewis’s dishonesty were finally converted into proof, and I was able to show that the Police had not even tried to test Lewis’s claims that pp.51-59 was used in the ALARM missile. If I may draw your attention to the ratio in Lavender v Minister of Housing and Local Government [1970] 1 WLR 1231, and British Oxygen v Minister of Technology [1971] AC 610:
• An authority will be acting unreasonably where it refuses to hear applications or takes certain decisions without taking individual circumstances into account by reference to a certain policy. When an authority was given discretion, it cannot bind itself as to the way in which this discretion will be exercised either by internal policies or obligations to others. Even though an authority may establish internal guidelines, it should be prepared to make exceptions on the basis of every individual case.
There are of course other authorities I can cite, but I feel you will agree with me that I did not delay in contacting the MPS or the IPCC when I finally knew the truth, and could prove that Lewis had lied in his Police statements and on his oath, and that the date on which I could prove that truth was 11 October 2007.
Turning now to page 4:
With respect to your first paragraph beginning: ‘I now need to consider the second ground upon which the dispensation was granted. …’ You imply that dispensation was granted by Mr Stacey, I think you may mean it was NOT granted, and from the comments in your letter I understand you to be critical of the grounds on which Mr Stacey was attempting to dispense with my complaint.
I think it is right that we ignore any suggestion that I am being vexatious, or that I am trying to impose my views upon the IPCC. I am after all only seeking the truth, and that truth has to be supported by the facts, and be capable of standing up to independent examination.
Let us agree therefore that 3 (2) (d) should be applied to the issues in your ground b), and limited to whether I am trying to abuse the Police complaints process.
My complaint, as you know, is that Police officers supplied false evidence to gain improper convictions, regarding Russians, spy training and secrets. However, in your letter you seem to be suggesting that I should not use the Police complaints system to investigate Police misconduct. Rather, you suggest, that I am abusing the Police complaints system because I made a complaint about the Police.
Your suggestion that the CCRC are the correct investigating body to investigate my claim, that Police supplied false evidence regarding secrets, Russians and spy training, and/or that my Defence Team erred, is I think inappropriate when I am complaining that it was the Police who have done something wrong. I think we must agree that a complaint against Police is just that, a complaint against Police.
This is not a complaint against my Defence Team, or the CCRC, or anyone else and under those circumstances it cannot be considered an abuse of process. The ratio in Lavender v Minister of Housing and Local Government [1970] 1 WLR 1231; and British Oxygen v Minister of Technology [1971] AC 610 can once again be taken as your guide to avoid further attempts to fetter my complaint against Police:
• An authority will be acting unreasonably where it refuses to hear applications or takes certain decisions without taking individual circumstances into account by reference to a certain policy. When an authority was given discretion, it cannot bind itself as to the way in which this discretion will be exercised either by internal policies or obligations to others. Even though an authority may establish internal guidelines, it should be prepared to make exceptions on the basis of every individual case.
Turning to those general points made in your letter, concerning other bodies, I merely state the point again that I am making a complaint about the Police and NOT about anyone else. I have referred to the Prosecution, and to what happened during my trial, because this demonstrates quite plainly how flaws in the Police investigation led to false evidence being presented at my trial, and this has profound repercussions on my prosecution. What any other body did or did not do should be quite irrelevant to your considerations, as it is only the actions of the Police that we should be concerned with.
However, I do welcome your conclusion that Mr Stacey may have misapplied the law with regard to his reading of the IPCC guidance 5.8.2, which when contrasted against the ratio in Lavender v Ministry of Housing and local government does make it clear that 3 (2) (a) was not properly applied. Consequently, I hope that we can continue to develop further issues of Police perversion involving the creation of a spurious Russian (unknown to me) and spy training that never happened, without the need for me to press on with a judicial determination.
At least we do now have one point of common understanding to move forward on. However, rather than for me to formulate another complaint, I think it only fair that you let Mr Stacey know the outcome of your review to date, and under which ground you have found his rejection should be revisited. Of course, I realise you may now wish to make suitable adjustments to expand your recommendations that Mr Stacey include all 5 ratios listed in the case law references in my submission to you, and apply them to my other concerns that Police fabricated my supposed spy training and my supposed collaboration with a Russian:
I list for your guidance the considerations I would expect you to apply to my concerns that:
1. Police fabricated evidence of my supposed spy training (e.g. in Oporto).
2. Police fabricated evidence of my involvement with the Russian Viktor Oshchenko.
3. Police fabricated evidence that I had possession of a document used on ALARM.
(i) Error of fact - that my complaint is not outside the time limits. Compare with the ratio in R v Secretary of State Ex Parte Khawaja [1984] AC 74, and R v Hillingdon Borough Council ex Parte Pulhofer [1986] AC 484.
(ii) Ignored relevant considerations - that the matters in this complaint could not have been dealt with at trial, but they are the proper responsibility of the IPCC. Compare with the ratio in R v ILEA Ex parte Westminster City Council [1948] 1 KB 223, and Padfield -v- Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food [1968] AC 997; [1968] UKHL 1.
(iii) Irrationality - that the matters in this complaint could not have been dealt with at trial, but they are the proper responsibility of the IPCC. Compare with the ratio in Associated Provincial Picture Houses v. Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223.
(iv) Fetter - that the IPCC has not properly applied its discretion when considering the application for dispensation. Compare with the ratio in Lavender v Minister of Housing and Local Government [1970] 1 WLR 1231, and British Oxygen v Minister of Technology [1971] AC 610.
(v) Natural justice - that the matters in this complaint could not have been dealt with at trial, but they are the proper responsibility of the IPCC. Compare with the ration in McInnes v Onslow-Fane [1978] 1 WLR 1520.
Perhaps, by stating the ratios to Mr Stacey in all the cases I have listed in my pre-action letter, you may formulate a view that the Police have performed acts which are immoral and contrary to Natural Justice, and have also wilfully caused statements to be tendered in judicial proceedings which they knew or ought reasonably to have known were untrue.
I trust we can work together, and you will now send my complaint back to Mr Stacey with your recommendation that he revisit the material, under your guidance. The issues are that the Police have perverted the course of justice with respect to Mr Lewis’s evidence and any Russian involvement, and I hope you and I will explore the issues I have listed using the ratios I have given, without the need for me to ask a Judge to mandate you to review. I have covered the most urgent points from your letter, but I shall deal with the few remaining issues as and when it becomes necessary for us to discuss particular details.
Yours sincerely,
Michael John Smith
I sent this letter by e-mail to Mr Liguori, but I was surprised when only 67 minutes later he replied in a very unhelpful manner. His reply indicates that he wishes a judge to settle these matters, although he has already admitted that the IPCC are wrong on several of the issues involved with my complaint. It seems that dialogue fails when one party is unwilling to talk to the other, while a little talking may well resolve issues more efficiently as this is a perfectly straightforward complaint. This is Mr Liguori’s response:
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 17:20:51 +0100
From: Guido Liguori, guido.liguori@ipcc.gsi.gov.uk
To: Michael John Smith
Subject: RE: Complaint, your reference 2008-007545
Dear Mr. Smith, the letter that I have sent to you is our response to your pre-action letter. I have nothing further to add.
Regards
Guido Liguori
Senior Lawyer
Legal Services Directorate
Independent Police Complaints Commission
Tel : 0207 166 3949
Fax : 0207 166 3649
guido.liguori@ipcc.gsi.gov.uk
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael John Smith
Sent: 30 June 2008 16:14
To: Guido Liguori; enquiries
Subject: Complaint, your reference 2008-007545
Dear Mr Liguori,
Please find attached my response to your letter dated 27 June 2008.
Kind regards,
Michael John Smith
01 July 2008
IPCC response to judicial review pre-action letter
I received a response from the Independent Police Complaints Commission to my letter before claim. The IPCC’s senior lawyer, Mr Guido Liguori, has conceded important points in my favour, although he tries to rubbish my grounds for bringing this action against the IPCC. This is the letter Mr Liguori sent me:
IPCC
Independent Police Complaints Commission
90 High Holborn
London WC1V 6BH
Tel: 020 7166 3000
Fax: 020 7404 0430
Minicom: 020 7404 0431
Email: enquiries@ipcc.gsi.gov.uk
Web: www.ipcc.gov.uk
DDI: 020 7166 3225
Email: guido.liguori@ipcc.gsi.gov.uk
Mr. Michael J Smith
Friday, 27 June 2008
Our reference: 2008/007545
Dear Sir,
The claimant
As above
From
Guido Liguori
Senior Lawyer
Directorate of Legal Services
IPCC
90 High Holborn
London WC1V 6BH
Reference details
Guido Liguori 2008/007545
The details of the matter being challenged
The Dispensation decision made by the IPCC on 4 June 2008
Response to the proposed claim
Your complaint was dispensed with on two grounds. These were
a) delay
b) Abuse of the complaints process
As I understand your complaint, it is as made by you on the on-line complaints facility offered by the MPS. The substance of your complaint is that in October 2007, through the statement of Mr ……, you obtained information that a document which you say was a critical part of the case against you was misrepresented to the Court that tried you. You argue that the police officers involved in the prosecution perverted the course of justice. You also argue that other agencies were involved. However, the police complaints system does not extend to these agencies and as such they do not fall to be considered as part of your complaint.
Taking the delay point first, your argument appears to be that the evidence of Mr. …… was not available to you until October 2007 and that this was the earliest date upon which you had evidence to confirm what you suspected all along. You argue that the date from which the 12 month period should be calculated is therefore this date and not the date that you were tried. Mr Stacey in his letter to you says that “[the] incident giving rise to your complaint was your trial in 1993”. This would be correct if on the information supplied, there was material to suggest that you were, in 1993 and in the years that followed, asserting that the police had perverted the course of justice. That assertion was not available in such direct terms on the background papers supplied and so arguably it was not open to us to say that 14 years had passed since the incident that is now being complained of.
However, the MPS did extract details from your web pages in their submission to us where it is clear that you assert that there was a cover up and that you were at least aware of this in 2006 (if not before) when you received the CCRC report. Additionally it appears that you became aware of the matters now raised as a complaint when you spoke to the Technical Director for Marconi in January 2007.
Whilst it may not be open to say that “over 14 years have elapsed since the incident” it is certainly open to the IPCC to take the view that matters were known to you for some time before you made the complaint. It is quite clear that you were fully aware of the substance of the complaint by the very latest, January 2007. The complaint you made was lodged in April 2008 and as such you would be outside of the 12 month time limit. It is however arguable that you were aware of the issues for longer and this brings me to another point.
This is that to accept your argument that you were only aware of matters in October 2007 would require the legislation that covers dispensation on this ground, to be interpreted in a very wide manner.
Paragraph 7 to schedule 3 of the Police Reform Act 2002 sets out the frame work for dispensations. It states at paragraph 7 (1) “if......... The appropriate authority considers (a) that it should [apply for a dispensation] and (b) that the complaint [is specified by regulations] the appropriate authority may apply to the Commission [for a dispensation]”.
Regulation 3 (2) (a) of the Police (Complaints and Misconduct) Regulations 2004 specifies “[t]hose complaints ..... where the appropriate authority considers that .... more than 12 months have elapsed between the incident or latest incident giving rise to the complaint and the making of the complaint and that either no good reason for the delay has been shown or that injustice would be likely to be caused by the delay”.
For your argument to succeed it would be necessary to read into the legislation a need for evidence to support a complaint. There is no scope for this and a plain reading of the language used makes it clear that the complaint relates to an incident. Your incident would be the process by which you were convicted and the manner in which evidence was presented. This being the case, it would be the events of 1993 that would be the incident and not what you have discovered since. You assert that Mr. Stacey has made an error of fact by not taking the date of 11 October 2007 as being the relevant date. That is in my view the wrong date. You knew - or had suspicions - about how the case was prepared and presented before this date. This date (11 October) is the date when you first had your evidence.
I am satisfied that the complaint (that officers perverted the course of justice) was known to you before 11 October 2007. As stated above you knew this in 2006 (if not before) but if I am wrong about this, then it is clear that you knew this after you had spoken to the Technical Director in January 2007.
The determination of delay is only a part of the dispensation ground under regulation 3. Mr. Stacey was required to consider either “no good reason .... has been shown [for the delay]” or “that injustice would be likely to be caused by the delay”.
The letter that DCI Lawrence sent to you makes it clear that the limb that is being relied upon is that you have not provided any good reason for the delay but Mr. Stacey has determined this aspect of the dispensation by reason of injustice. Whilst he is entitled to do this, it is at least arguable that his decision to do so is illegal on the basis that Mr. Stacey may have misapplied the law.
The IPCC statutory guidance (5.8.2 Dispensations) states
In such cases the presumption will be made that it is not fair for those complained against if a complaint is made more than 12 months after an incident. Each case will however be considered on its merits and the IPCC will take into account the reasons given for the delay and the public interest in the case.
The MPS did not as part of their application provide material to support the injustice ground and for it to have been properly considered it would have been necessary for Mr Stacey to balance public interest in proceeding with a complaint against the injustice to the officers concerned. The only material available to Mr Stacey was the retirement of the officer and the possibility that the case papers no longer existed. I am not satisfied therefore that ground 3 (2) (a) was properly applied.
I now need to consider the second ground upon which the dispensation was granted. Mr Stacey is quite right when he says that only one ground needs to be made out. The second ground considered relates to 3 (2) (d) “the complaint is vexatious, oppressive or otherwise an abuse [of process]”.
It is only the latter part of the ground that concerns your application, namely abuse. Mr. Stacey does not consider vexatious or oppression and therefore neither will I.
What I will say at the outset is that I agree with Mr. Stacey’s arguments in support for finding that your complaint is an abuse of the complaints process because the scheme was not set up, or intended, to provide an additional avenue for aggrieved defendants to proceed under when trying to overturn convictions. The correct avenue is the CCRC.
Looking at your complaint as a whole, you state; that the restricted document was a key exhibit; that the prosecution ambushed the defence; that 16 potential witnesses were not interviewed as witnesses by the police or called to give live evidence and that there may have been material non-disclosure of the fact that the document had an obsolete classification. You also imply that Dr. Lewis may have perjured himself. Save for the last matter, your complaint is in essence directly related to the trial process and how that was regulated. Your defence team were at liberty to speak to the 16 potential witnesses and they were additionally at liberty to challenge the admissibility of the further evidence provided by Dr. Lewis. The trial judge would also not have allowed matters to proceed unfairly. The additional evidence of Dr. Lewis on that face of it appears to be called in rebuttal to your defence. Such evidence would generally need leave of the Court to be admitted as evidence. Your defence team would have been allowed to make submissions to the judge.
As regards the suggestion that Dr. Lewis may have committed perjury, this is not a matter that the complaints system was intended to deal with. It is outside the scope of the Police Reform Act.
Turning to your pre-action letter and email dated 2nd June 2008 (which email was not brought to Mr Stacey’s attention before he made his decision) it is quite clear that the matters that you are raising are trial issues and not matters of police misconduct. You say for instance in your email that the police did not interview any witnesses who “knew the truth because that would have destroyed the [Crown’s] case”. This ignores the fact that the CPS and Counsel are responsible for presenting the evidence at Court. The police do not direct any aspect of a prosecution. Additionally, at the risk of labouring the point, your defence team could have addressed this at your trial.
You also state in your email that a complaint may or may not uncover evidence useful to your cause. It is quite clear that your primary motivation is to have the conviction over-turned and to do this you are relying upon the complaints system.
Also, in your pre-action letter you state “The NEW (sic) evidence was in fact available before my trial and has the capability to clear my name if investigated”. This additionally shows your motive for the complaint but additionally it confirms that if the material was available prior to your trial then it can hardly be classified as fresh evidence. It also means that it may have been available to your defence team as well. I do not know why they did not have access to it.
Turning now to the 5 points that you raise at paragraph 5 I can comment as follows
(i) Error of fact - For the reasons outlined above, the IPCC does not agree with you that the relevant date is 11 October 2007.
(ii) Ignored relevant considerations - For reasons outlined above, the matters that you have raised are all matters that should and could have been dealt with at your trial and later through the appeal avenues open to you.
(iii) Irrationality - For reasons outlined above, the matters that you have raised are all matters that should and could have been dealt with at your trial and later through the appeal avenues open to you.
(iv) Fetter - the IPCC has properly applied its discretion in considering the application for dispensation. The reasons for this are set out above.
(v) Natural justice - For reasons outlined above, the matters that you have raised are all matters that should and could have been dealt with at your trial and later through the appeal avenues open to you. It is not the IPCC's role to undertake a investigation into the integrity of the trial process. That is for other bodies to do.
Details of the action that the defendant is expected to take
(a) The defendant was asked to consider a dispensation and as such it would not itself investigate matters. Additionally, the claimant is asking the IPCC to undertake a review of the evidence with a view to determining whether he had a fair trial
(b) The defendant is of the view that the Court cannot make the declaration sought.
(c) The defendant denies that the proper remedy is one of damages and in any event the defendant does not believe that it has acted incorrectly in granting the dispensation.
Details of any other interested parties
DCI Lawrence - MPS DPS Customer Service Team
Address for further correspondence and service of court documents
Guido Liguori
Directorate of Legal Services
IPCC
90 High Holborn
London WC1V 6BH
In closing, I should point out that in my view the force may have erred in their approach to your complaint. In my view, an allegation made that a police officer has tried to pervert the course of justice should be referred as a referable complaint to the IPCC. This was not done. I would suggest that you seek legal advice on this point so that you can consider what action to take, in any.
Yours faithfully
Guido Liguori
Senior Lawyer
Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC)
IPCC
Independent Police Complaints Commission
90 High Holborn
London WC1V 6BH
Tel: 020 7166 3000
Fax: 020 7404 0430
Minicom: 020 7404 0431
Email: enquiries@ipcc.gsi.gov.uk
Web: www.ipcc.gov.uk
DDI: 020 7166 3225
Email: guido.liguori@ipcc.gsi.gov.uk
Mr. Michael J Smith
Friday, 27 June 2008
Our reference: 2008/007545
Dear Sir,
The claimant
As above
From
Guido Liguori
Senior Lawyer
Directorate of Legal Services
IPCC
90 High Holborn
London WC1V 6BH
Reference details
Guido Liguori 2008/007545
The details of the matter being challenged
The Dispensation decision made by the IPCC on 4 June 2008
Response to the proposed claim
Your complaint was dispensed with on two grounds. These were
a) delay
b) Abuse of the complaints process
As I understand your complaint, it is as made by you on the on-line complaints facility offered by the MPS. The substance of your complaint is that in October 2007, through the statement of Mr ……, you obtained information that a document which you say was a critical part of the case against you was misrepresented to the Court that tried you. You argue that the police officers involved in the prosecution perverted the course of justice. You also argue that other agencies were involved. However, the police complaints system does not extend to these agencies and as such they do not fall to be considered as part of your complaint.
Taking the delay point first, your argument appears to be that the evidence of Mr. …… was not available to you until October 2007 and that this was the earliest date upon which you had evidence to confirm what you suspected all along. You argue that the date from which the 12 month period should be calculated is therefore this date and not the date that you were tried. Mr Stacey in his letter to you says that “[the] incident giving rise to your complaint was your trial in 1993”. This would be correct if on the information supplied, there was material to suggest that you were, in 1993 and in the years that followed, asserting that the police had perverted the course of justice. That assertion was not available in such direct terms on the background papers supplied and so arguably it was not open to us to say that 14 years had passed since the incident that is now being complained of.
However, the MPS did extract details from your web pages in their submission to us where it is clear that you assert that there was a cover up and that you were at least aware of this in 2006 (if not before) when you received the CCRC report. Additionally it appears that you became aware of the matters now raised as a complaint when you spoke to the Technical Director for Marconi in January 2007.
Whilst it may not be open to say that “over 14 years have elapsed since the incident” it is certainly open to the IPCC to take the view that matters were known to you for some time before you made the complaint. It is quite clear that you were fully aware of the substance of the complaint by the very latest, January 2007. The complaint you made was lodged in April 2008 and as such you would be outside of the 12 month time limit. It is however arguable that you were aware of the issues for longer and this brings me to another point.
This is that to accept your argument that you were only aware of matters in October 2007 would require the legislation that covers dispensation on this ground, to be interpreted in a very wide manner.
Paragraph 7 to schedule 3 of the Police Reform Act 2002 sets out the frame work for dispensations. It states at paragraph 7 (1) “if......... The appropriate authority considers (a) that it should [apply for a dispensation] and (b) that the complaint [is specified by regulations] the appropriate authority may apply to the Commission [for a dispensation]”.
Regulation 3 (2) (a) of the Police (Complaints and Misconduct) Regulations 2004 specifies “[t]hose complaints ..... where the appropriate authority considers that .... more than 12 months have elapsed between the incident or latest incident giving rise to the complaint and the making of the complaint and that either no good reason for the delay has been shown or that injustice would be likely to be caused by the delay”.
For your argument to succeed it would be necessary to read into the legislation a need for evidence to support a complaint. There is no scope for this and a plain reading of the language used makes it clear that the complaint relates to an incident. Your incident would be the process by which you were convicted and the manner in which evidence was presented. This being the case, it would be the events of 1993 that would be the incident and not what you have discovered since. You assert that Mr. Stacey has made an error of fact by not taking the date of 11 October 2007 as being the relevant date. That is in my view the wrong date. You knew - or had suspicions - about how the case was prepared and presented before this date. This date (11 October) is the date when you first had your evidence.
I am satisfied that the complaint (that officers perverted the course of justice) was known to you before 11 October 2007. As stated above you knew this in 2006 (if not before) but if I am wrong about this, then it is clear that you knew this after you had spoken to the Technical Director in January 2007.
The determination of delay is only a part of the dispensation ground under regulation 3. Mr. Stacey was required to consider either “no good reason .... has been shown [for the delay]” or “that injustice would be likely to be caused by the delay”.
The letter that DCI Lawrence sent to you makes it clear that the limb that is being relied upon is that you have not provided any good reason for the delay but Mr. Stacey has determined this aspect of the dispensation by reason of injustice. Whilst he is entitled to do this, it is at least arguable that his decision to do so is illegal on the basis that Mr. Stacey may have misapplied the law.
The IPCC statutory guidance (5.8.2 Dispensations) states
In such cases the presumption will be made that it is not fair for those complained against if a complaint is made more than 12 months after an incident. Each case will however be considered on its merits and the IPCC will take into account the reasons given for the delay and the public interest in the case.
The MPS did not as part of their application provide material to support the injustice ground and for it to have been properly considered it would have been necessary for Mr Stacey to balance public interest in proceeding with a complaint against the injustice to the officers concerned. The only material available to Mr Stacey was the retirement of the officer and the possibility that the case papers no longer existed. I am not satisfied therefore that ground 3 (2) (a) was properly applied.
I now need to consider the second ground upon which the dispensation was granted. Mr Stacey is quite right when he says that only one ground needs to be made out. The second ground considered relates to 3 (2) (d) “the complaint is vexatious, oppressive or otherwise an abuse [of process]”.
It is only the latter part of the ground that concerns your application, namely abuse. Mr. Stacey does not consider vexatious or oppression and therefore neither will I.
What I will say at the outset is that I agree with Mr. Stacey’s arguments in support for finding that your complaint is an abuse of the complaints process because the scheme was not set up, or intended, to provide an additional avenue for aggrieved defendants to proceed under when trying to overturn convictions. The correct avenue is the CCRC.
Looking at your complaint as a whole, you state; that the restricted document was a key exhibit; that the prosecution ambushed the defence; that 16 potential witnesses were not interviewed as witnesses by the police or called to give live evidence and that there may have been material non-disclosure of the fact that the document had an obsolete classification. You also imply that Dr. Lewis may have perjured himself. Save for the last matter, your complaint is in essence directly related to the trial process and how that was regulated. Your defence team were at liberty to speak to the 16 potential witnesses and they were additionally at liberty to challenge the admissibility of the further evidence provided by Dr. Lewis. The trial judge would also not have allowed matters to proceed unfairly. The additional evidence of Dr. Lewis on that face of it appears to be called in rebuttal to your defence. Such evidence would generally need leave of the Court to be admitted as evidence. Your defence team would have been allowed to make submissions to the judge.
As regards the suggestion that Dr. Lewis may have committed perjury, this is not a matter that the complaints system was intended to deal with. It is outside the scope of the Police Reform Act.
Turning to your pre-action letter and email dated 2nd June 2008 (which email was not brought to Mr Stacey’s attention before he made his decision) it is quite clear that the matters that you are raising are trial issues and not matters of police misconduct. You say for instance in your email that the police did not interview any witnesses who “knew the truth because that would have destroyed the [Crown’s] case”. This ignores the fact that the CPS and Counsel are responsible for presenting the evidence at Court. The police do not direct any aspect of a prosecution. Additionally, at the risk of labouring the point, your defence team could have addressed this at your trial.
You also state in your email that a complaint may or may not uncover evidence useful to your cause. It is quite clear that your primary motivation is to have the conviction over-turned and to do this you are relying upon the complaints system.
Also, in your pre-action letter you state “The NEW (sic) evidence was in fact available before my trial and has the capability to clear my name if investigated”. This additionally shows your motive for the complaint but additionally it confirms that if the material was available prior to your trial then it can hardly be classified as fresh evidence. It also means that it may have been available to your defence team as well. I do not know why they did not have access to it.
Turning now to the 5 points that you raise at paragraph 5 I can comment as follows
(i) Error of fact - For the reasons outlined above, the IPCC does not agree with you that the relevant date is 11 October 2007.
(ii) Ignored relevant considerations - For reasons outlined above, the matters that you have raised are all matters that should and could have been dealt with at your trial and later through the appeal avenues open to you.
(iii) Irrationality - For reasons outlined above, the matters that you have raised are all matters that should and could have been dealt with at your trial and later through the appeal avenues open to you.
(iv) Fetter - the IPCC has properly applied its discretion in considering the application for dispensation. The reasons for this are set out above.
(v) Natural justice - For reasons outlined above, the matters that you have raised are all matters that should and could have been dealt with at your trial and later through the appeal avenues open to you. It is not the IPCC's role to undertake a investigation into the integrity of the trial process. That is for other bodies to do.
Details of the action that the defendant is expected to take
(a) The defendant was asked to consider a dispensation and as such it would not itself investigate matters. Additionally, the claimant is asking the IPCC to undertake a review of the evidence with a view to determining whether he had a fair trial
(b) The defendant is of the view that the Court cannot make the declaration sought.
(c) The defendant denies that the proper remedy is one of damages and in any event the defendant does not believe that it has acted incorrectly in granting the dispensation.
Details of any other interested parties
DCI Lawrence - MPS DPS Customer Service Team
Address for further correspondence and service of court documents
Guido Liguori
Directorate of Legal Services
IPCC
90 High Holborn
London WC1V 6BH
In closing, I should point out that in my view the force may have erred in their approach to your complaint. In my view, an allegation made that a police officer has tried to pervert the course of justice should be referred as a referable complaint to the IPCC. This was not done. I would suggest that you seek legal advice on this point so that you can consider what action to take, in any.
Yours faithfully
Guido Liguori
Senior Lawyer
Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC)
IPCC reply to letter before claim p.1
IPCC reply to letter before claim p.2
IPCC reply to letter before claim p.3
IPCC reply to letter before claim p.4
IPCC reply to letter before claim p.5
IPCC reply to letter before claim p.6
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
