It seems unbelievable that the CPS would behave in such a way by concealing evidence, as this is tantamount to perverting the course of Justice. But it is clear that the CPS was planning to convict the environmental activists involved, despite knowing that their organisation (the CPS) was withholding key evidence, as explained in the Guardian newspaper - many thanks to Paul Lewis and Rob Evans!! The Police knew all about the plans concerning the power station, because they had a recording of the meeting at the Iona Primary School where the campaigners met on Easter Monday 2009.
This may be big news to those naive enough to believe that the CPS is acting in the interests of Justice. But to people like myself this is simply confirmation that the CPS exists to convict those targeted by Government agencies as undesirable.
In August 1992, just days following my arrest for espionage, it was brought to the attention of the CPS that the key document in my case had been made obsolete in 1984. I only discovered this in 2007, despite efforts to prevent this information becoming known to myself and my Member of Parliament Andrew Mackinlay. The CPS had therefore concealed this evidence for many years, and they conspired to present an alternative story to the jury at my trial in October 1993, when it was claimed that that the document had in fact been used on British ALARM missiles deployed in the Gulf War of 1991.
This evidence that an obsolete document from 1984 was used to produce ALARM missiles in the early 1990s is plainly false, but the CPS cleverly used Professor Meirion Francis Lewis, an MoD scientist from Malvern, to claim that the document had been used on ALARM missiles during that war. He explained to the jury that the missile was vital to protecting the lives of British servicemen, and that the obsolete 1984 document would have enabled Iraqis to jam the missile and prevent it from working.
Perhaps many people will say: "that is OK, it doesn't matter as long as the guilty are convicted". However, this was the main evidence used at my trial to identify that I had handled sensitive material, and so it was crucial to my Defence that I had not dealt with military secrets at the time of my arrest. If a real expert had been called to give evidence at my trial, then it would have been made clear to the jury that the document could not have been used on ALARM missiles in the 1991 Gulf War.
The CPS chose to call a non-expert at my trial - Professor Lewis - and they used him to make false assertions about that document. I would call this perverting the course of Justice, and I would say that Professor Lewis knowingly committed perjury when he made his claims in Court. Will anybody listen to this? Is the CPS above the Law? Perhaps all those who know the truth at the CPS are merely liars and conspirators.
All I know is that the CPS acted unprofessionally in my case, and this Mark Kennedy case shows they also acted unprofessionally in that case as well. How many cases does it take to prove that the CPS in unprofessional?