John Kelsey Fry QC is also boasting about his involvement in my case here. Why is he proud to have been connected with a case that shows he was guilty of the manipulation of evidence, that included the culpability of Dame Stella Rimington, Oleg Gordievsky, and Professor Meirion Francis Lewis in framing me?
Why can British lawyers get away with legal fraud? How is it that they are not behind bars for telling lies in court?
E-mail:
from: Mike Smith
to: Sir John Nutting QC
cc Sir Derek Spencer QC
date: Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 12:24 AM
subject: Thank you for using false evidence at my trial
To: Sir John Nutting QC & John Kelsey Fry QC
It is fortunate for me that you continue to boast about the role that you played in presenting false evidence at my trial:
UK Legal Forum post
I shall now feel quite justified in making you one of the main targets in my campaign to expose the lies that were presented at my trial under your prosecution case. You know what you did, and you do not need me to tell you what a despicable distortion you presented as "evidence" in order to convince a jury that your arguments were valid.
We shall see who was right in the final countdown.
Please reply to this email, because if you do not I shall simply name you and shame you as the liars and cheats I believe you to be.
Yours sincerely,
Michael John Smith
Posts
Well done. Even if you (M.J Smith) are guilty as sin, you are still showing the absolute necessity in a just society of having a (verifiably) independent body which investigates senior barristers who can be shown to have manipulated and distorted evidence, presented false evidence and lied to the court. Cases can be extremely complex, and many "facts" can be contested, but the reprehensible practice of knowingly presenting unsupported assertions as though they were the established facts, and that there were no contrary established facts requiring refutation, should be universally discouraged. In a court setting even intelligent and attentive jurors cannot, for the most part, be apprised of more than a brief summary of the careful enquiries, gathering of evidence and painstaking reasoning that has gone into producing 'the established facts' in a complex case. That doesn't mean all of these 'established facts' are correct and that they cannot be rationally contested, discredited or downgraded, or shown to be of lesser or no relevance, but how can it be right to allow them to be swept away by persuasion alone? How can it be right that wealthy clients and taxpayer-funded public authorities can be effectively shielded from the law by massively overpaid barristers whose principal role is to distort the truth, lie far more convincingly than could their clients, and use sophistry and legal trickery to persuade relatively uninformed and uninterested juries? How can this be tolerated, and how can the ethical standards the legal perpetrators are supposed to meet allow them to remain unaccountable? Naming and shaming is not enough, the worst examples and worst offenders should be investigated as a matter of course. A determined, transparent, no-privilege and no-exceptions drive must be made to clean out the stables, in order to make the justice system capable of delivering justice. Appropriate and consistent sentencing needs much improvement, but it is getting to the truth (or as near as is reasonably possible) which is the major part of that battle. While investigative procedures and techniques have made tremendous progress, all this honest endeavour is constantly offset by the quite extraordinary encouragement given by the courts to dishonest, unaccountable barristers. Indeed, the ones most skilled in defeating justice are also among those most likely to be made QCs or even judges.
ReplyDeleteWell done. Even if you (M.J Smith) are guilty as sin, you are still showing the absolute necessity in a just society of having a (verifiably) independent body which investigates senior barristers who can be shown to have manipulated and distorted evidence, presented false evidence and lied to the court. Cases can be extremely complex, and many "facts" can be contested, but the reprehensible practice of knowingly presenting unsupported assertions as though they were the established facts, and that there were no contrary established facts requiring refutation, should be universally discouraged. In a court setting even intelligent and attentive jurors cannot, for the most part, be apprised of more than a brief summary of the careful enquiries, gathering of evidence and painstaking reasoning that has gone into producing 'the established facts' in a complex case. That doesn't mean all of these 'established facts' are correct and that they cannot be rationally contested, discredited or downgraded, or shown to be of lesser or no relevance, but how can it be right to allow them to be swept away by persuasion alone? How can it be right that wealthy clients and taxpayer-funded public authorities can be effectively shielded from the law by massively overpaid barristers whose principal role is to distort the truth, lie far more convincingly than could their clients, and use sophistry and legal trickery to persuade relatively uninformed and uninterested juries? How can this be tolerated, and how can the ethical standards the legal perpetrators are supposed to meet allow them to remain unaccountable? Naming and shaming is not enough, the worst examples and worst offenders should be investigated as a matter of course. A determined, transparent, no-privilege and no-exceptions drive must be made to clean out the stables, in order to make the justice system capable of delivering justice. Appropriate and consistent sentencing needs much improvement, but it is getting to the truth (or as near as is reasonably possible) which is the major part of that battle. While investigative procedures and techniques have made tremendous progress, all this honest endeavour is constantly offset by the quite extraordinary encouragement given by the courts to dishonest, unaccountable barristers. Indeed, the ones most skilled in defeating justice are also among those most likely to be made QCs or even judges.
ReplyDeleteDear Anonymous, I do not know if you are referring to a particular case (which?), or are making more of a general point, but I agree with your sentiments. Unscrupulous barristers and QCs should be put on trial and sent to prison for their unethical support of our corrupted justice system. Only when there is a fear of exposure of wrongdoing will these criminals in the legal system get flushed away to where they belong.
ReplyDelete