NWO is like taking a heavy dose of the red pill the truth maybe hurts put it is essential to survive as many of this group have almost been destroyed by the SYSTEM. The MATRIX is a surreal film exposing the real controllers of this world THE MASONS . We are dumbed down by heavy propaganda created in their media that covers up their crimes while promoting them as the good guys of this world. The war mongers are seen as strong leaders while they are killing men,women and children across the globe to satisfy their greed.

British royalty surround themselves with a million images of wars and their lackeys who have assisted the building of the British empire by the rape and pillage of every country that fell to the crooks they truly are. Despite mountains of media propaganda promoting this MOB they are at every level interfering and undermining our lives through their LAWS. Judges maybe the biggest single power royalty use over Britains long suffering citizens. For anyone still to be captured by their system and have no reality of how this system operates ,this group first and foremost needs to educate those as yet to be touched by these evil BASTARDS.

There are certain ploys they use so as not to arouse the population to much.

1.They leave younger people alone to earn enough and to build up wealth using mortgages to ensnare the unsuspecting dupes. When you have ALL your money in bricks and mortar it can't be easily stuffed in a case and removed elsewhere when they come to thieve it.

2. They only have a percentage of the population in their legal vice .To many at one time would arouse the population as a whole.

3. They use family courts BIG TIME to fleece all the victims who thought this was a JUST country. Until you witness the ravages of MASONIC run family courts you will never truly understand what is seriously going on in this country. The UK is the divorce capital of the world due to the appalling state of the secret star chamber courts that are destroying families , but more importantly our childrens future inheritance. They can weaken and control men who are not part of their creepy masonic network.

4. The media play a major part in covering this evil up .Without the media burying their crimes they would quickly get exposed in the scams they are pulling in their dens of iniquity.

5. The British Crown is one of the most dangerous parts of the injustice that flows from courts controlled by masonic judicial patsies primed to ensure British Royalty remains the richest dynasty on the planet.

6. All that flows in British courts ultimately goes back to the British Crown and LIZZIE via a complex web of financial routes that do not provide ANY paper trail . Only the opening up of Freedom of Information will we get answers as to where all the billions have gone that the Crown thieves each year .

The Legal Aid Boards are one major area were billions of pounds are fleeced via third party lawyers acting on their behalf . This is one area this group have been working heavily on for some years. Despite repeated attempts using FOI requests we have been so far unable to open up their books to scrutiny. Although at every opportunity,in the press, we have exposed their evil tactics when legal aid spins out legal cases for many years the ultimate goal to fleece you of your worldly possessions.


  • The Matrix lawyers
  • In the Matrix, which pill would you take, the red or the blue?
  • The Centre for the Study of Global Governance

  • How Britain screws the rest of the world.

  • The British Institute of International and Comparative Law

  • One of the most dangerous organisations across the globe.Judges heavily involved in comparative law conferences were they make sure every other country follows UK laws so when they get exposed they can say they are doing the same thing everywhere else.In other words all other legal systems that copy the UK's are screwing their citizens to. They also use charities to fund their trips around the world to these comparative conferences

  • Comparative Law Governors

  • (All the top legal toe rags of the day .Every one of them a legal parasite.Noticable the connections with royalty with all the sirs and CBE's .All of them royal lackeys stealing from the rest of us to keep the establishment crown raking it in.)

  • Broken marriages 'a ticking time bomb'

  • But not for the legal parasites redistributing assets from family court theft. No lawyer or indeed the UK politicians who support the Law Society and its members want to preserve marriage.Divorce allows the states lackeys, Britains utterly corrupt masonic judges, to ruthlessly relieve you of all your worldly possessions.The biggest racket and terrorist threat in the UK.Our childrens future inheritance being frittered away in the UK's dens of iniquity.
    To the UK Human Rights Inquiry

    There are NO human rights in the UK for the ordinary citizen ,only if you are a serial criminal, pervert or mason. The exclusive use of legislation to award human rights only to crooks and decided by panels of MASONIC judges is the main reason human rights are an utter joke in the UK.

    We have written to the ECHR commissioner stating the ECHR courts are run by the same bunch of crooked masonic judges that run the UK. Human rights will only be sensibly applied when panels of juries, not masonic judges, decide on human rights merits. Human rights legislation has been highjacked by masons running the show in the UK's evil civil courts.Victims mostly unrepresented and persecuted for standing up to massive land,property ,business and child theft are having their lives destroyed by a small clique of legal parasites who use our courts for enrichment of their own personal finances at the utter expense of their victims human rights.

    ECHR rules state judgements should be made by impartial tribunals.Their own courts do not even provide for that, as only judges sent from the various countries party to it are used. Star chamber court systems were abandoned in the middle ages because of the failure to provide impartial decisions. Why are ECHR courts failing to use juries(the only impartial tribunal) to decide on human rights issues ?

  • UK Human Rights Inquiry
    The gunman shot dead by police after a five-hour siege in Chelsea was named this morning as 32-year-old barrister. Officers in body armour used stun grenades to storm Mark Saunders' £2.2million flat in Markham Square, which is just off the King's Road.

    Saunders began firing from a window with a shotgun at about 5pm yesterday, following a row with his ex-partner Elizabeth Clarke. The lawyer was said to have been drinking heavily after the argument with Ms Clarke, who fled the property in tears moments earlier.

    law book Secrecy is In, Disclosure is Out by Larry Bolin

    One of the more interesting publications produced by the educational arm of the federal courts in recent years is A Guide to the Preservation of Federal Judges' Papers, 1996$file/judgpaps.pdf
    (hereinafter, the "Guide"). Just as the title suggests, this concerns the preservation of judges' papers.

    There is a little gem found in this book that proves there are two types of justice. Despite what you may think, there is one type for the rich and another for the poor. These types of justice are discussed in the publication as private versus public. Our very own modern-day Star Chamber, only more sophisticated; and it is found in every federal courthouse throughout this country. Everyone who becomes involved in a federal case --civil or criminal, rich or poor, black, white, yellow or brown -- will be treated in a way this man with hair now white would have considered impossible just five years ago.

    There is an old saying about the proof of the pudding. In the federal courts today, we have two (2) sets of books: one set -- the "official record" for public consumption -- will be handed to you by the clerk from behind the counter at the Federal Courthouse (for a fee, of course). As described by the Federal Judicial History Office, "The official court record, with its focus on formal procedures,does not reflect the full complexity of the judicial process and the work of individual jurists." Guide, p. 3. Where then is that record that contains the full measure of the judicial process? That is a private record that lowly litigants will NEVER see. That record is found in the Star Chambers of the twenty-first century: the Judges'Chambers! The Guide describes this record as "chambers papers."

    "Chambers papers reveal the challenge and difficulty of the judicial trade more clearly than official case files by helping to explain the internal work of the federal courts and the process of judicial deliberation. Chambers papers also describe exchanges between the bench and the bar and the relationship between the court and the community in ways that published opinions and official case files cannot." Guide, p. 3. In other words, those secret deals between judges and lawyers about which we have read and heard take place in judges' chambers. This is not the creation of some radical group,two scoops short of a full load, espousing conspiratorial theories on some obscure Web site. This was written by and with the approval of bar members themselves and published under the auspices of the United States Government.

    These chambers papers must be very important if they are not public information. Just what sort of data do these records hold that cannot be revealed? "Chambers papers frequently include predecisional material, such as draft memoranda, draft opinions,orders, correspondence, and research. Often included among chambers papers are documents relating to the administration of courts or justice . . ." Guide, p. 3. Material so important that it is only handled by confidential employees of the Court, including law clerks, student interns, and secretaries. Standards Relating to Court Organization, p. 99, American Bar Association, 1990.

    If you desire to open the vault containing the information that really decided your case, forget it! As things stand now, the chief judge - though the administrative officer of each court - will simply ignore any and all F.O.I.A. requests. A letter this humble author addressed to Chief Judge Lanier Anderson of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals did not even elicit a response. My letter requested information such as "the names of all individuals who prepared any and all bench memos, draft memoranda, draft opinions, orders, and correspondence, and who conducted other research relative to" certain cases filed with the Eleven Circuit. The request was ignored.

    After waiting several weeks, I telephoned the Court of Appeals and was informed that such F.O.I.A. requests should be addressed to the Clerk of Court, Mr. Thomas Kahn. However, the clerk's answer to the same request made to the chief judge stated that the F.O.I.A. "does not apply to federal courts," and cited 5 U.S.C. 551(1)(B);5 U.S.C. 552(f)(1) as the basis for his decision.

    What conclusions may we draw from this foray into legal slime? Public trials are a fantasy; there is no meaningful access to the courts; and due process is a distant memory. The Star Chamber proceedings, which caused our forefathers to leave England in the 17th century and land in Massachusetts, apparently stowed away like rodents that invaded this country and today continue to eat away at the roots of an increasingly dysfunctional judicial system.

    Ed. Note: Secrecy is an important tool in the exercise of state power, and the term "secret law" may also be applied to the following situations: Unpublished opinions and other court proceedings that are withheld from the public. See:

    Tactics that judges use to shield colleagues and one another from public scrutiny of wrongdoing. See: Gwen Filosa, "Case against ex-judge sealed; Gag order also issued in unusual move," The Times-Picayune, New Orleans, April 21, 2004, p. A-1. See also: Mary Swerczek, "TP files protest in Copeland suit; Sealed documents violate access, it says," The Times-Picayune, New Orleans, May 13,2005, p. B-3.

    The long term imprisonment of individuals suspected of being enemies of the state and held without charges or access to legal counsel. See: Linda Greenhouse, "Justices cool to legal limits on detainees;600 denied chance to defend themselves," The Times-Picayune, New Orleans, April 21, 2004, p. A-1 (from The New York Times).

    napier MICHAEL NAPIER, former head of the Law Society and a government adviser responsible for regulating lawyers, has just spent £350,000 in court trying to stop Private Eye reporting the fact that he has been formally disciplined over a bitter conflict of interest case involving a whistleblower and the huge multinational, Exxon.

    Not only did Napier and his law firm Irwin Mitchell not want anyone to know that he, along with Ellen Windsor, at the time also a partner at the firm, had been formally reprimanded by the Law Society; they also wanted to stretch the law on confidentiality to keep secret the fact that he and the firm were the subject of a highly critical ombudsman’s report into the Law Society’s investigation into the affair.

    The report questioned whether the investigation may have been affected by the fact that Napier, now a QC and CBE, was a past president of the Law Society and remained a council member. Five months after the Eye first contacted Napier for his response - only to be slapped with a temporary high court injunction courtesy of Carter Fuck, bizarrely asserting that Napier was protected by “confidentiality” - the court of appeal last week ruled unequivocally in favour of Private Eye and press freedom.

    ‘Singularly unattractive’

    “Freedom to report the truth is a precious thing both for the liberty of the individual, and for the sake of wider society, and it would be unduly eroded if the law of confidentiality were to prevent a person from reporting facts which a reasonable person in his position would not perceive to be confidential,” said lords justices Toulson, Hughes and Sullivan, ordering Napier and his firm to pay the Eye’s legal costs.

    “It is singularly unattractive to argue that confidentiality should be recognised by the law in order to protect the interests of a solicitor against whom an adverse finding has been made,” they added. The Law Society was carrying out its public duty to “provide a proper means of regulating the profession and maintaining public confidence in it. It was not to protect the reputations of solicitors.” Napier’s determination to argue otherwise in the appeal court must call into question his recent appointment by the government to sit on the new Legal Services Board, effectively the lawyers’ regulators’ regulator. It is not known if he declared his professional sanction before being appointed to all the various official positions he now holds, including one as justice secretary Jack Straw’s pro-bono envoy, an assessor on the panel currently reviewing civil litigation costs (of which he now has personal experience!) - or indeed before he received his gong.

  • PAGE 2
  • PAGE 3
  • PAGE 4
  • PAGE 5
    The biggest problem for the UK is the Crown and her employees otherwise known as the Crown Mafia.
    Solicitors (lawyers) barristers etc. also hold the titles as of Officers of the Courts. Herein lies a part of our problem. UK courts will never be independent or impartial just so long as the Crown influences them. Total control by the Crown employed Mafia of all of the authorities in the UK is a fact not a fiction. This control goes much deeper than most people might think. The fact that the Crown is also the Patron of the Secret Society of UK Freemasonry is not a coincidence.

    The UK does not have any of the authorities required under Article 6(1) of the European Human Rights Convention. The ruling Mob may have placed the word Independent in front of some authorities, but in fact they are not independent at all. This is all a part of the deception that UK people live under. Does anyone try to suggest that Queen Elizabeth II is not aware of this fact? Former Prime Minister and war criminal Tony Blair remains in receipt of my damages claim served on him a number of years ago for the damage this criminal has caused to me by denying our rights under Article 6(1). Queen Elizabeth II was served with my damages claim for her integral part in the massive Judicial Oath (of fairness) which means absolutely nothing at all, except possible as a further means to deceive the UK public. I wonder just how ,any victims of the Crown there have already been in the Judicial Oath fraud like myself. Treason is indeed being used by the UK Crown against the UK general public. Further, I am quite certain that only the UK Crown has Members of Parliament but not the UK general public. This is only another way which Crown deception is being used against an unsuspecting UK public.

    Many of those who become wealthy people, not by hard work, have or will continue to be given Royal titles? Wealth and how to keep it is all a part of the UK Crown. I think that many wars in which the UK is involved is so that wealthy people in the UK and the power which goes with it, can be maintained in their positions. Many such people have been given titles by the Patron of the UK Secret Society of Freemasonry, Queen Elizabeth II.

    The UK is definitely not a democracy. I dont think it has been one for a very long time. Just so long as the UK has a Head of State who is also the Patron of UK Freemasonry, we can never be called a democracy. What I have written here is only the tip of a very large iceberg called Crown Deception.

    A long but excellent description of what is going wrong in society.



    The trials and tribulations that many people accused of “criminal offenses” are a direct result of not understanding the nature and cause of the accusation. The end result of this lack of knowledge and understanding is that the United States and the States have the largest prison population in the world and execute the most people. Lives and families are destroyed. Family farms are stolen by unscrupulous judges and attorneys. Hard-working folks who have done no wrong have lost their homes and savings and have been reduced to a state of poverty by an encounter with the American system of injustice.

    The horror stories are limitless. This author believes that this lack of understanding is the result of the “dumbing down of America,” a part of a scheme devised and orchestrated by foreign and domestic enemies of the people of the United States of America, not the least of which are the American Bar Association and the various State Bar Associations which sprang from England. These Bar Associations have concocted a Luciferian scheme bringing the maritime jurisdiction onto the land and the scheme undoubtedly includes every member of every bar association up to the dishonorable justices of the Supreme Court. These foreign and domestic enemies of the people of the united States of America are believed by many, including the author, to have schemed for years, at least since the founding of our nation, to establish a total takeover of not only our country, but the entire planet and to enslave the people in their demonic quest to establish a One World Government or “New World Order” created out of the chaos of the destruction of Liberty and to be founded upon the ruins of the principles on which our once great nation was established and with the slave labor supplied by a once free, self sufficient and proud people.

    Yes, Virginia, there is a conspiracy. There is a conspiracy by attorneys to steal everything that you have and to make you a slave. The members of the bar have bestowed honors, privileges and immunities upon themselves in direct violation of the very constitutions that they have sworn an oath to uphold so they can steal with impunity. They have defecated on the principles of law and justice. This author has personally witnessed them laugh about their “license to steal” when referring to their membership in the bar. Lawyers have infiltrated and taken control of the legislatures so they can enact laws for their own unjust enrichment. For the most part, they occupy or control the offices of the executive branches of the governments of the several states so they can sign the legislative enactments into law.

    They absolutely control the judicial branch so they can adjudicate and enforce the laws and divide the spoils among themselves. They control the banks so they can launder their ill-gotten gains. These zealous advocates of injustice will strip you of everything of value you have if they are given the least opportunity. If you hire one to help you out of a scrape with the law, for the most part, you will end up in prison while your lawyer is sipping margueritas on the beach in Cancun, paid for with your money. Your ex-wife might even be with him. Only if you have as much money as T. Cullen Davis or O.J. Simpson once did, might you be able to buy yourself some justice.

    The justice these two colorful characters bought for themselves cost them their fortunes, but they evaded imprisonment and possible execution for a price paid in money. Most people don’t have the financial resources with which to bribe the members of the bar, so they languish in prison while the lawyers take what little property they had, plus a bonus from the State for their “services.” When you go into a court accused of a “crime,” and are inclined to hire a lawyer or accept a court appointed lawyer to help you out, remember that the lawyer is being paid by the STATE and is licensed by the STATE, the judge is licensed and paid by the STATE, the jury is licensed and paid by the STATE (they at least have driver licenses, don’t they?), the prosecutor is licensed and paid by the STATE.

  • Courts Shift from Common Law to Equity and Admiralty Courts
    Admiralty Courts were a prominent feature in causing the American Revolution.

    For example, the phrase in the Declaration of Independence “For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury” refers to the practice of Parliament giving the Admiralty Courts jurisdiction to enforce The Stamp Act in the American Colonies.

    See the Stamp Act, March 22, 1765, D. Pickering, Statutes at Large, Vol. XXVI, p. 179 ff. (Clause LVII relates to jurisdiction in admiralty). Because the Stamp Act was unpopular, a colonial jury was unlikely to convict a colonist of its violation. Since Admiralty Courts do not grant trial by jury, a colonist accused of violating the Stamp Act could be tried before a judge of the Admiralty Courts without a jury.


    A wealthy lawyer who killed his wife after she had an affair is set to inherit nearly £1million from her will after being freed from jail. Christopher Lumsden, 54, was said to have "snapped" after his wife Alison, 53, announced she was leaving him for a family friend.

    He attacked her at their £1.4million mansion, slashing her on the face and neck with a knife so badly a pathologist could not count the number of wounds she had suffered. Lumsden, a partner at the international law firm Pinsent Masons, was cleared of murder but jailed for five years for manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility.

    The jury heard that the father-of-two was suffering from a "depressive condition" at the time of the attack after being diagnosed with muscular dystrophy. He was released on licence last September after serving around 18 months of his sentence and is now in line to receive £1million from her will, made five years before her death. By law, a person convicted of manslaughter cannot inherit money from his victim.

    But the courts can make an exception if the killer suffered from a mental disorder at the time of the crime. Mrs Lumsden's relatives are said to be "devastated" by his apparently lenient punishment but were too upset to comment. Campaigners at Support After Murder and Manslaughter, a charity for relatives of those who have been killed, condemned the inheritance. Rose Dixon, the group's national development officer, said: "It is absolutely ridiculous that someone who has killed their wife, partner or lover is able to benefit from their will.

    "We see many, many families who are devastated by this issue every year and find it completely unjust. "It is astonishing that someone who commits a crime like this can go on to benefit. "We are lobbying the Home Office for a change in legislation because it is simply unfair."

    Lumsden led a seemingly happy life amid the dinner parties, tennis clubs and bridge evenings of the Cheshire set in the exclusive suburb of Bowdon, near Altrincham. But his wife of 24 years, a former Sotheby's auctioneer, was having an affair with married businessman Roger Flint, 58. In March 2005, she told her husband and asked for a divorce.

    But, after spending several days putting his affairs in order, he attacked her when she returned home after spending the evening with her lover. Despite the horrific attack, his wife's family stuck by him for the sake of their children, Thomas 22, and Kate, 20. It later emerged that Mrs Lumsden, 53, left her husband a £950,000 legacy as part of her estate which also included the family's home. The mansion was sold last November to Warrington-based Greenlink Estates for £1.4million.

    Lumsden began a legal battle last year to get the money from the will and sale of the house. The former solicitor, who was banned from practising law for life, will remain on licence until March 2010. He can be instantly recalled to prison if he commits any other offence. Manchester-based solicitors Lomax Geddes and Co, which represents the family, refused to comment.
  • Lawyer who killed wife may inherit £2m
    A solicitor who stole more than £1million from a paraplegic Croydon client has been jailed for 10 years today.Manchester Crown Court heard Thomas McGoldrick had lived a life of "extravagance" on funds stolen from Keith Anderson.

    The 59-year-old Cheshire solicitor was convicted of 59 counts of fraud in February.His client, a Jamaican van driver, was paralysed from the chest down after a road crash in November 1996. He was awarded £1.8million after Mr McGoldrick's firm, which had a practice in Croydon, won a claim for damages following the accident.

    But the court heard McGoldrick took about £1.2million of the money after forging a letter purporting to be from Mr Anderson which said his client wanted him to have half the money.The solicitor splashed the stolen cash on a new kitchen, a children's climbing frame, and private school fees.During sentencing Roger Thomas QC said McGoldrick had shown no remorse for his crime by choosing to contest the case.

    "You are guilty of serious offending over a long period of time with the very worst breach of trust you can imagine from a professional man," the judge remarked.

    A Crown Prosecution Service spokesman said: "McGoldrick abused his position as a solicitor to embezzle funds belonging to the clients of his firm and using the funds for his own gain. "The bulk of the award was not paid to the victim and McGoldrick did not account for the total funds received on behalf of his client.

    "Instead he drew funds from the client account and utilised them for his own purpose "The CPS is pleased that McGoldrick has finally been punished for his actions."

  • Solicitor guilty of £1.2m fraud
    Disgraced former lawyer Kennedy Forster was jailed for over 6 years on 34 charges of dishonesty. He had systematically stolen from charities,churches and elderly and dying clients since 1993.

    Now he has won, through a court battle, the right to have a pension from his former employer.


    A second clip from the BBC with absolute proof Bailiff's and Sheriff Officers in the UK are illegally forcibly entering properties with complete support from the police. This man was attacked and assaulted by bailiff's but when the police were called they instead took the side of the bailiff's who were the aggressors.

    A very typical scenario by British police while innocent victim's are being menaced by bully boy bailiff's and sheriff officer's. The BBC for once have exposed the grave danger people are being placed in due to the heavy handed tactics of an unregulated bunch of thugs

    The BBC have finally exposed what they have been protecting for far to long the judicial BULLYBOY network of Bailiff's and Sheriff officers that illegally force entry into homes across the UK with British police in full support.

    Victims lives destroyed by asset stripping and house theft that is headed by masons working for ALL the law enforcement agencies behind the scenes.


    police raid The UK parliament is considering legislation to allow forcible entry into homes to recover parking ticket debt.

    The UK parliament is considering legislation that would authorize bailiffs to break into the homes of motorists accused of not paying parking tickets. Under legislation currently making its way through the House of Commons, bailiffs would seize items out of the home in order to pay off the amount owed in tickets, plus hefty fees. Any homeowner attempting to stop the bailiff would face up to a year in prison.

    "The bill as it stands will overturn two fundamental principles of our common law on bailiffs' power to enter private property: that bailiffs may only enter peaceably and with the permission of the debtor," said Conservative Member of Parliament Henry Bellingham. "Those rights are fundamental. That force may not be used to effect entry has been established in law since at least the 14th century."

    In 2005, the Labour government announced its intention to create a National Enforcement Service to break into homes to recover unpaid fines. Various amendments have been offered to the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Bill to soften the effect of the proposal. One amendment would forbid bailiffs from seizing household pets as well as, "any dog on which a blind person relies."

    Excerpts from the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Bill
    Part 3 Enforcement by taking control of goods

    Chapter 1 Procedure

    Enforcement by taking control of goods

    (1) Schedule 12 applies where an enactment, writ or warrant confers power to use the procedure in that Schedule (taking control of goods and selling them to recover a sum of money).

    (2) The power conferred by a writ or warrant of control to recover a sum of money, and any power conferred by a writ or warrant of possession or delivery to take control of goods and sell them to recover a sum of money, is exercisable only by using that procedure.

    (3) Schedule 13—

    (a) amends some powers previously called powers to distrain, so that they become powers to use that procedure;

    (b) makes other amendments relating to Schedule 12 and to distress or execution.

    (4) The following are renamed—

    (a) writs of fieri facias, except writs of fieri facias de bonis ecclesiasticis, are renamed writs of control;

    (b) warrants of execution are renamed warrants of control;

    (c) warrants of distress, unless the power they confer is exercisable only against specific goods, are renamed warrants of control.

    Paragraph 24
    Other provisions about powers of entry

    The power to enter and any power to use force are subject to any restriction imposed by or under regulations.

    A power to use force does not include power to use force against persons, except to the extent that regulations provide that it does.


    bailiff Lord Lucas asked Her Majesty’s Government:

    Whether a person who represents himself to be a certificated bailiff, but is not, and intends by so doing to obtain a payment or goods from a debtor, commits a fraud within the meaning of Sections 1 to 5 of the Fraud Act 2006; and, if so, which sections of the Act apply; and whether it would be right for the police to claim that such an action is a civil and not a criminal matter.

    Baroness Scotland of Asthal:

    The Fraud Act 2006 created a new general offence of fraud. This can be committed by three means, one of which is false representation. Fraud by false representation is set out in Section 2 of the Act. Where a person dishonestly makes a false representation and intends, by making the representation, to make a gain for himself or another, or cause a loss to another, or expose another to a risk of loss, that person will be committing an offence.

    A person who dishonestly represents himself to be a certificated bailiff, but is not, is likely to be committing an offence under this section. It will be necessary to show that the person was acting dishonestly in making the false representation, as well as that they intended to make a gain or cause a loss. The decision on whether to investigate a crime rests solely with the police, who will take into account available resources, national and local policing priorities, the likely eventual outcome and the competing priorities of fraud and other criminal cases already under investigation. Such operational issues are a matter for the chief officer of the force concerned.

    Lord Lucas asked Her Majesty’s Government:

    Whether bailiffs who illegally obtain entry to a debtor’s premises with the intent of obtaining payment from a debtor, or of taking possession of goods, commit a fraud within the meaning of Sections 1 to 5 of the Fraud Act 2006; and, if so, which sections of the Act apply; and whether it would be right for the police to claim that such an action is a civil and not a criminal matter.

    Baroness Scotland of Asthal:

    The basic rule regarding the powers of entry for bailiffs is that there is a right of entry that may be exercised into any relevant premises. In circumstances where a bailiff illegally obtains entry to a debtor’s premises, their conduct will amount to fraud only if they dishonestly, and with the intent to make a gain or to cause a loss, make a false representation, fail to disclose information or abuse their position. While an illegal entry may be made with the intention of making a gain or causing a loss, it may well not involve the other elements necessary to commit a fraud.

    The decision on whether to investigate a crime rests solely with the police, who will take into account available resources, national and local policing priorities, the likely eventual outcome and the competing priorities of fraud and other criminal cases already under investigation. Such operational issues are a matter for the chief officer of the force concerned.

  • Exposed: violent and corrupt world of bailiffs

    echr We as an International activist legal group inform the ECHR that the manner ECHR courts are being conducted are failing the many citizens,particularly from the UK,who are not being provided with the ONLY true impartial tribunal A JURY OF OUR PEERS.

    The manner in which the ECHR courts are functioning in fact undermine the very principle in which you are supposed to judge human rights.That is primarily with impartial tribunals.NO JUDGE is impartial in any of the countries that come under ECHR as they are ALL funded by that state.Only made worse when the ECHR courts are using those same state judges for their own judgements.

    The continued FAILURES of British courts to create those very impartial tribunals is only made worse by the failures at ECHR level. Where many British citizens, unable to get representation, are faced with their own case undermined by ECHR judges deciding on UK appeal judges decisions.

    We challenge the jurisdiction of the ECHR courts as the utter failure to create a court operated by the people of Europe for the people of Europe.Not merely another appeal stage of a long time wasting process.Where member state judges are deciding on the decisions of appeal judges from those member states.



    "It also says police do not stop such practices"

    Here are the EVIL bastards that head the masonic theft of homes and assets finally being exposed by their PROTECTORS the Big Brother Corporation. Bailiffs/Sheriff officers in the UK have been getting away with MURDER and ONLY because the likes of the BBC have been covering their ass for far to long.

    We have a retired Sheriff Officer who has advised us that most of them are acting unlawfully and are breaching human rights laws EVERYTIME they act for the bankers,lenders and councils.They bully and abuse the victims of a sick culture supported by Britains masonic judges who head the appalling decisions that they think allows them to act like brutes.

    Bailiffs 'unlawfully enter homes'

    Bailiffs are illegally entering homes to confiscate people's possessions, the National Debtline has warned. The charity says many bailiffs are guilty of harassment and intimidation, with 40% misrepresenting their powers of entry into people's homes. It also says police do not stop such practices because many officers do not fully understand the law themselves.

    The government says new legislation, passed last year but still to be implemented, will clarify the rules. While the National Debtline says it accepts a system needs to be in place to make people pay their bills, it says it is being abused and the charity is receiving complaints on a daily basis.

    It is also concerned bailiffs' powers to enter properties will be expanded when new laws, part of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Bill, come into force.

    'Clear framework'

    Research of 500 cases by the Citizens Advice service in March last year also showed that almost two-thirds of bailiffs were guilty of harassment or intimidation, while 40% misled people about their powers of entry. A select committee of MPs warned a month earlier that only a certification scheme for bailiffs would fully protect the public.

    The Joint Committee on Human Rights said a "clear regulatory framework" was needed to protect the human rights of debtors. The government says new laws will simplify current rules, which are currently a mixture of different types of legislation, much written in "obscure language" and difficult for most people to understand.


    What have Britain's judiciary got to HIDE? We have spy cameras all over the UK except when we enter Britains masonic gulags the crown and civil courts were their mobsters dish out draconian punishment without any form of video to capture the true nature of those who are in the same mind set as the NAZI's.

    Child murder case - sensational new twist

    Three men have appeared in court today charged with filming part of the Lesley Molseed murder trial at Bradford Crown Court. As well as video equipment, it is understood the charges also cover an audio device alleged to have been used to record a part of the case.

    The men were held yesterday and were taken to a courtroom separate to the one which was hearing the case. The three men - Noel O'Gara, George Westcott and Patrick Cullinan - were allegedly spotted making audio and video recordings of yesterday's proceedings.

    They are all charged with contempt of court. Yesterday they declined legal representation. Judge Stephen Gullick, who is hearing the contempt case said: "I am told they took possession of photography equipment and a full audio recording in relation to a case. This is a very serious case and contempt of court."

    One of the accused, O'Gara said: "I don't want a lawyer because I have done nothing wrong." But the judge replied: "On the contrary you have done something extremely wrong. You could face up to 2 years in custody. It is a extremely serious criminal offence."

    This morning the men appeared in court again and all three asked for legal representation. They were taken back to the cells and will be sentenced later.

    Man on Lesley murder charge remanded

  • Pair jailed for recording court hearing
  • Child murder case - sensational new twist

    Seven years for ex-solicitor

    Drummond was sentenced at the High Court in Edinburgh

    A former chairman and secretary of Dundee Football Club has been jailed for seven years for stealing thousands of pounds from a dying centenarian. Solicitor Andrew Drummond, 39, was supposed to be looking after the trust fund which paid Violet Cuthbert's nursing home bills. But instead he used his law firm's access to her bank accounts to siphon off £48,000 for his own purposes. Even when the old lady was virtually on her death bed in a Newport-on-Tay nursing home, Drummond was still taking her cash. The money was part of a total of nearly £84,000 which Drummond took from clients of Drummond, Robbie and Gibson, the law firm he ran from offices in Meadow Place Buildings in Dundee between March 1993 and June 1995.

    Drummond took clients' money
    Appealing for leniency, defence advocate Neil Murray QC told the High Court in Edinburgh that Drummond - who was struck off the Law Society's list of solicitors in November 1994 - was now a broken man. "This was not a situation where money was being taken to finance a life-style high on the hog," he said. "He is an individual who has fallen - prior to today's appearance - from professional grace. "He has fallen a seriously long way ... and to all intents and purposes, as far as his profession is concerned, there is no way he will ever be re-admitted into the profession to which he devoted himself and which he trained for for many years." But Lord Penrose said: "Clearly you are well aware I have no alternative but to impose a significant custodial sentence on you."

    Referring to Drummond's attempts to dodge embezzlement charges by producing bogus letters and loan documents, the judge said he would be "well entitled" to add to the sentence - but considered that to be unduly harsh. An earlier trial heard how Drummond used some of Mrs Cuthbert's trust money to pay off massive rent arrears on his then boyfriend's debt-ridden gift shop. Drummond also used the old lady's cash to complete a pay-off to a former partner who had retired from the law firm. He was previously convicted of illegal sharedealing and related to his involvement with Dundee FC. He was fined £1,500.

    He bought a 30% stake in the Dens Park club from a millionaire property developer in 1991. But Drummond used companies he controlled to try to disguise the size of his holding and avoid a legal responsibility to make a cash offer to other shareholders. The offence also resulted in an £8,000 fine by the Scottish Solicitors' Discipline Tribunal for professional misconduct.

    Thursday, 31 August, 2000, 11:30 GMT 12:30 UK


    Ex-soccer chief took clients' money

    Drummond was found guilty at the High Court

    A former chairman and secretary of Dundee Football Club has been found guilty of embezzling almost £84,000 from clients of his law firm. Andrew Drummond's victims included a 100-year-old woman, who lost £48,000. The 39-year-old, who has since been struck off, also used siphoned off cash that his Dundee-based firm had won for council worker Ian Robb, 46, who was injured in an industrial accident. Drummond, from Dundee, had denied embezzling £84,000 from clients of Drummond, Robbie and Gibson, the law firm he ran between March 1993 and June 1995. The High Court in Edinburgh had heard how Drummond was supposed to be managing a trust fund which paid for centenarian Violet Cuthbert's nursing home bills.

    The court heard how Drummond took clients' money However, over two years Drummond, who the court heard was homosexual, took tens of thousands of pounds from the fund, even when she was dying. He used that money and the council worker's compensation to pay off massive rent arrears on his live-in partner's gift shop. At that time, Drummond and partner Robert Prentice were living together in a £250,000 house in Forfar. Drummond also used the pensioner's money to complete a pay-off to a former legal partner who had retired from his law firm. He told the court that some of the missing money had been honestly earned and other sums had been loaned to him.

    Tape-recorded statements
    However, the jury found him guilty of taking the money and of attempting to conceal what he had done by falsifying papers given to police and prosecutors. The jury also rejected Drummond's attempt to blame an ex-colleague, Ritchie Myles, for some of the embezzlements. Mr Myles had been brought out of retirement to keep the law firm going after Drummond was struck off the Law Society's list of practising solicitors in November 1994. He died in January.

    A former partner pointed the finger at Drummond
    Before he died, he had made tape-recorded statements to the police, accusing Drummond. The court heard how Mr Robb was awarded £10,000 after an accident at work but no money was handed over by Drummond. The compensation and interest went to pay back rent on the Tayside China shop in Dundee's Overgate, a business Drummond and Mr Prentice, 40, ran as partners. Drummond had previously appeared in the dock when his involvement with Dundee Football Club resulted in a conviction for illegal share dealing.

    Professional misconduct
    He had bought a 30% stake in the Dens Park club from a millionaire property developer in 1991. But Drummond used companies he controlled to try to disguise the size of his holding and avoid a legal responsibility to make a cash offer to other shareholders. He was fined £1,500 at Dundee Sheriff Court and also received an £8,000 fine from the Scottish Solicitors' Discipline Tribunal for professional misconduct. The tribunal ordered Drummond to be struck off after complaints about the way he handled his clients' business. The judge, Lord Penrose, ordered Drummond to be remanded in custody and delayed sentence pending background reports.
    11 August, 2000, 14:54 GMT 15:54 UK


    Ex Dens chief in court

    Mr Drummond faces four charges
    A former chairman and secretary of Dundee Football Club has appeared in court charged with embezzling more than £84,000 from a firm of solicitors.

    Andrew Drummond, 39, made no plea at the High Court in Stirling. Mr Drummond is accused of embezzling £52,571 from the Dundee firm of Drummond, Robbie and Gibson between 1 March and 30 November 1993. He is also charged with embezzling £31,625 while acting as the manager of the company, between 1 January and 30 June 1995. It is further alleged that between 30 November 1994 and 6 July 1995, he practised as a solicitor or held himself out as entitled to practise, without a certificate in force, contrary to the Solicitors (Scotland) Act.

    The alleged offences are said to have occured at Drummond, Robbie and Gibson's offices in Dundee and elsewhere in Scotland. Mr Drummond faces another charge of attempting to pervert the course of justice, by the hands of his own lawyer, producing fabricated documents to avoid prosecution for embezzlement. The case was continued for two weeks at the request of his advocate, Hugh Irwin.

    Monday, 13 March, 2000, 18:06 GMT


    How a corrupt lawyer walks free 28 Jan 2003

    A JURY finds DRUMMOND guilty ,he takes an appeal before his legal pals at the APPEAL COURT they uphold the appeal but instead of returning to case for a jury to consider on the technical hitch they conspired to get him off with ,they dismiss his case and let him walk free.

    The Scottish Legal system has NEVER been shown so despicable as a lawyer who embezzled £84,000 from 6 dead clients walks FREE. One of his living clients over 100 years of age .

    Here is ONE of the many legal parasites defrauding and getting off and free to carry on their fraudulent ways. The message to the rest of the crooks is carry on ,we wont jail you even if you get caught. Below the judgements which went out just before Christmas to ensure it received very little impact in the media .



    18 December 2002,
    Lord Justice General+Lord Cameron of Lochbroom+Lord Marnoch

    Lord Justice General
    Lord Cameron of Lochbroom
    Lord Marnoch
    Appeal No: C681/00

    delivered by LORD MARNOCH


    Appellant: I. Duguid, Q.C., Hamilton; Gilfedder McInnes

    Respondent: G. Hanretty, Q.C., A.D.; Crown Agent

    18 December 2002

    [1] In this case the appellant was convicted of two charges of embezzlement and a third charge of attempting to pervert the course of justice. He has lodged a Note of Appeal containing a number of grounds but this court is presently concerned with only the first of these which is in the following terms:"(1) A material part of the proceedings took place outwith the presence of the appellant, contrary to the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 Section 92. More specifically, on or about 7 August 2000, during the course of the appellant's evidence at trial, legal debate regarding the admissibility of evidence took place before the Court. The appellant was removed from the Court room for the duration of this debate. There was no question of the appellant being subject to Section 92(2) of the 1995 Act. These circumstances constitute a material breach of said Section 92(1)."

    [2] To this ground, however, the court, at the outset of the hearing, allowed the following supplementary ground to be added:"Senior counsel for the appellant, in the course of the trial proceedings, outwith the presence of the appellant himself, acted entirely without the instruction or authority of the appellant. He stated that he (senior counsel) was 'content to put on record that I do not take any point with regard to competence on that matter.' (Page 74 of transcription of the evidence-in-chief of the appellant). Counsel had neither consulted with the appellant nor had he taken instructions from him upon said matter. In any event, the provisions of Section 92, as aforementioned, were not waved (sic) by the appellant. Representation of the appellant was accordingly defective. Justice was not seen to be done."Somewhat remarkably, the "matter" referred to was left unspecified but, by reference to the transcript, it became clear that it was the fact that the appellant was removed from the court during the "legal debate".

    [3] The precise circumstances which gave rise to the "legal debate" are not important, it being sufficient to say that the trial judge appeared to have some concern that questioning of the appellant on an issue raising sharp questions of credibility was in danger of proceeding on a false premise. The trial judge himself intervened in order to clarify matters and the first thing he did was to invite the jury to retire. It appears that the appellant at that point was also ushered from the witness box to a corridor outwith the court room. A few minutes later the trial judge is recorded as observing that the accused was "missing part of the trial". Unfortunately this is immediately followed by an inaudible part of the tape. However, counsel for the appellant then volunteered that "it was probably better that he (the appellant) be not here unless any suggestion be made with regard to his being influenced" and he followed this up by saying, in terms, that he did not take any point with regard to "competence" The "legal debate" then continued, during which the trial judge is recorded as saying, inter alia, as follows:"Well, I don't intend to seek to establish precisely what the evidence was by having the tapes replayed. That is not my purpose. My purpose is simply to give you a warning because I did anticipate that we had reached this point that if you take a particular line with the jury I will have to be critical of it on my own notes and that could be damaging."

    [4] Shortly thereafter the appellant was brought back to the witness box and before the jury returned the trial judge addressed him directly in the following terms:"Mr. Drummond, simply to explain to you what has been going on and why before the jury comes back. I have a different note of the evidence than perhaps is available to Mr. Murray and my anxiety was that this line should not be pursued without him being fully aware of that so we have discussed what the position is but you should know to that extent what has been doing on."

    [5] For the sake of completeness we should perhaps record that in his Report to this court the trial judge explains the position as follows:"I thought it necessary to ask the appellant to leave for his own sake. It could have been disadvantageous for him to listen to the discussion of what notes parties had about a matter on which he was giving evidence at a time when he was in the middle of his own evidence, since there was a risk that deliberately or otherwise, he would have reacted to that to his disadvantage."

    [6] We note in passing that in his Report the trial judge suggests that what took place outwith the presence of the accused might not, at least technically, have been part of the "trial" for the purposes of section 92 of the 1995 Act. However, this suggestion was not taken up by the Crown and we are clearly of opinion that what transpired was indeed part of the trial within the meaning of that section which is in the following terms:

    "(1) Without prejudice to section 54 of this Act [Insanity in bar of trial], and subject to subsection (2) below, no part of a trial shall take place outwith the presence of the accused.

    (2) If during the course of his trial an accused so misconducts himself that in the view of the court a proper trial cannot take place unless he is removed, the court may order -

    (a) that he is removed from the court for so long as his conduct makes it necessary; and

    (b) that the trial proceeds in his absence,but if he is not legally represented the court shall appoint counsel or a solicitor to represent his interests during such absence...."

    [7] In the hearing before us Mr. Duguid, Q.C., for the appellant, commenced by submitting that in this case a "very serious irregularity" had taken place and that, justice having not been seen to be done, there had inevitably been a miscarriage of justice. However, in the course of the ensuing debate, Mr. Duguid did not peril his submission on "justice not having been seen to be done" and concentrated increasingly on what came to be described as an irregularity "of a quite fundamental nature". Mr. Duguid frankly accepted that he was unable to demonstrate any actual, as opposed to "potential", prejudice to the appellant. The Advocate depute demurred to the suggestion that this was a case in which justice had not been seen to be done and pointed out that all that had transpired had been in full view of the public and that there was, moreover, a transcript of the taped proceedings which now showed to all concerned, including the appellant, exactly what had transpired. In the absence of actual or imputed prejudice there was no miscarriage of justice and the appeal should be refused.

    [8] Section 92 of the 1995 Act has a long pedigree replacing, as it did, section 145 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975, which in turn had been substituted for section 10 of the Criminal Justice Act 1587. That section declared and ordained, inter alia, that:"in all tyme cuming the haill accusatioun ressoning writtis witnesses and utheris probatioun and instructioun quhatsumeuer of the cryme salbe allegit ressonit and deducit to the assyse in presence of the pairtie accusit in face of iudgement and na utheris wayes."

    [9] However, even without reference to this statute, Hume is clear regarding the principle involved. In volume 2 of his Commentaries, at p. 269, he says this:"Let us now suppose, that the accused is absent at calling the libel, but the prosecutor appears and insists. With one exception, which was introduced in evil times, in cases of treason, it has been our invariable custom, that no sort of proceeding can here take place, as for trial of the crime libelled. It is considered, that unless the accused is present to take charge of his own interest, there can be no security for doing full justice to his case; for pleading all his defences, bringing forward all his evidence, stating all objections to the evidence on the other part, and still less for taking advantage of all those pleas and grounds of challenge, which may arise in the course of the proceedings in the trial. Besides (though this is certainly an inferior consideration,) the Judges ought not to be called on to apply or declare the law, except in circumstances which afford the means of carrying their sentence into effect. On these grounds, the peremptory rule has long been settled, of requiring the personal presence of the pannel in every step, from first to last, of the trial, with the exception only of continuations of the diet; so that if he even withdraw at the last stage of all, after a verdict of guilty has been returned against him, still the court cannot proceed to apply the sentence of the law."Later in his work, at pps. 404-405, with reference to the 1587 Statute, Hume observes that "under this excellent law the pannel enjoys, in the first place, full security against all private insinuation of evidence to the assize, during the time of their continuance in court".Moreover, he says, the consequence of an attempt to make such an insinuation "is not in the loss of the particular conviction only, but of all right of prosecution on the matter of this libel, for the future".

    [10] In the course of the hearing we were referred to a number of much more recent authorities but, perhaps not surprisingly, all were clearly distinguishable on their facts. Most involved the leading or taking of evidence outwith the presence of the accused. There are, however, three which we find helpful on the wider issue of principle. The first is Aitken v. Wood 1921 J.C. 84. In that case at the conclusion of the evidence the magistrates called the complainer into their retiring room in order to examine her injuries. In delivering the leading opinion of the court the Lord Justice General (Clyde) said:"This procedure, however well intended, and however harmless it may have been in this particular case, strikes at the principle - deeply rooted in the criminal law of Scotland - that no proceedings in a criminal trial, and particularly no proceedings connected with the taking of evidence, can go on outwith the presence of the accused. The examination of the arm was just a means of taking evidence additional to that which was presented at the proof. The taking of such evidence, in the absence of the accused, is plainly an irregularity which vitiates the proceedings; and there is therefore nothing for it but to quash this conviction."

    [11] The next case to which we make reference is that of Brims v. MacDonald 1993 S.C.C.R. 1061. That was a case in which the sheriff, in the course of a summary trial, went and viewed for himself the locus of the alleged offence. Although the sheriff stated that his decision would have been the same even had he not viewed the locus the court suspended the conviction. In delivering the Opinion of the Court the Lord Justice Clerk (Ross) described what had occurred as a serious irregularity and stated that "as in the case of Aitken v. Wood we have come to the conclusion that it vitiated the proceedings."

    [12] Both the foregoing cases involved summary procedure and, whether in terms of section 75 of the Summary Jurisdiction (Scotland) Act 1908 or sections 442 and/or 454(2) of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975, the court had a choice of viewing the matter in issue as involving either, on the one hand, incompetency or oppression or, on the other hand, prejudice and a miscarriage of justice. It is clear to us that in each case the court chose the former route.

    [13] The case which is perhaps most directly in point is that of Cunningham v. H.M. Advocate 1984 J.C. 37, a case in which the giving of directions to the jury by the court through the clerk of court, after the jury had retired, was held to be a breach of section 145(1) of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975. At p. 44 the Lord Justice Clerk (Wheatley) expressed the view that it would all depend on circumstances whether a breach of section 145(1) would give rise to a "miscarriage of justice" which by then had effectively become the only ground of appeal in solemn proceedings. It was possible, he said, that the contravention could be "so academic or lacking in materiality that it could not be said that any miscarriage of justice resulted from it." Lord Hunter and Lord Robertson, however, took a different approach and, whether or not consciously reflecting the passage in Hume's Commentaries, both judges described the provisions of the section in question as "peremptory". Moreover, it is clear from the Opinion of Lord Robertson that he regarded a breach of such provisions as being, in effect, an end of the matter. For instance, at p. 50, having said that the convictions could not stand, he goes on to say that it is "therefore not necessary to examine in great detail ... the exact happenings which occurred after the jury had been enclosed." And, later in his Opinion, having reached the view that it could not be certain that a miscarriage of justice had not been perpetrated, he goes on to comment: "This underlines the necessity for section 145(1) being complied with." Later still, he narrates a submission on behalf of the appellant that since there had been a miscarriage of justice the result should be a quashing of the convictions and acquittal. Lord Robertson, however, responds as follows:"I do not agree with this result. The reason for the setting aside of the convictions is that there was a breach of section 145(1) of the Act ... The reason has nothing to do with the merits of the case ... I would set aside the convictions ... and grant warrant to bring a new prosecution ... if so desired."

    [14] It is interesting that Lord Robertson says all that he does in the context of an appeal which was necessarily based, as is the present appeal, on an alleged "miscarriage of justice". In our view, however, this simply serves to emphasise that that phrase, which now encapsulates the single test in both solemn and summary appeals, must on occasion be given a somewhat extended meaning. It must, for instance, now cover all the various situations which in the past, under summary procedure, were viewed in terms of incompetency and/or oppression, including those referred to above. In this connection we are of opinion that the current editors of Renton and Brown's Criminal Procedure are well-founded in suggesting, at para. 29-14: "In certain circumstances, the only proper conclusion will be that the appeal should be upheld and the conviction quashed." The text goes on to give examples of "fundamental irregularities" where, it is suggested, that should be the necessary result. These include situations where the trial court acts in excess of jurisdiction, where the diet is not properly constituted, and where the verdict is one which was not open on the indictment.

    [15] In our opinion a breach of what is properly described as a "peremptory" provision of the common law or statute will generally give rise to a "fundamental irregularity", with the necessary result that any ensuing conviction will fall. The breach of such a provision will often be so fundamental that it is quite simply otiose to look behind or beyond it. And, in our opinion, the breach of section 92(1) of the 1995 Act which is complained of in the present case falls into that category. We consider that Lord Hunter and Lord Robertson were correct in describing the identical provisions of section 145(1) of the 1975 Act as "peremptory". The strictness of the law of Scotland on this matter, as compared with that in England, was highlighted by Lord Rodger of Earlsferry in his speech in the recent case of R. v. Jones [2002] 2 W.L.R. 524 at paras. 43-46. We consider, as we have said, that a breach of section 92(1) will generally lead to an appeal being allowed. Were the position otherwise, there would have to be enquiry in every case as to whether the breach in question could be said to have given rise to a miscarriage of justice in the ordinary sense of that term. In point of fact, however, such an enquiry would often be fruitless since it could seldom be established with any certainty that events would have followed a materially different course had no breach taken place. In the present case, for example, it is possible that counsel for the appellant varied his line of questioning in light of the trial judge's intervention and it simply cannot be known whether any different course would have been followed had the accused been present and in a position to tender instructions. In our view, however, this simply highlights the fundamental nature of the breach in question. The situation might be different if it could be affirmed with certainty that no prejudice to the accused could possibly have occurred. This was the way in which the court treated an adjournment in the absence of the accused in Gardiner v. H.M. Advocate (1976) S.C.C.R. Supp. 159, cf. Bennett v. H.M. Advocate 1980 S.L.T. (Notes) 73. As to whether there are other types of situation which may be treated similarly as exceptions we reserve our opinion.

    [16] As regards actual prejudice, we are very conscious that, as the trial judge makes clear in his Report, there were a number of quite distinct components in the jury's verdict and, while no separate argument was addressed to us on the matter, it is difficult to see how more than one of these components could have been directly affected by what took place. At the same time, it can never be known how the appellant's credibility on one part of the case may be taken to affect his credibility in relation to another part of the case. In the end, therefore, we come back to, and reiterate, the view that where, as here, there is a fundamental irregularity in procedure arising out of breach of a peremptory statutory provision, a miscarriage of justice can be said to have resulted even without the demonstration of actual or imputed prejudice. While, therefore, we agree with the Advocate depute that it is not necessary or, perhaps, appropriate, to categorise the present case as being one in which justice was not "seen" to be done, we find ourselves unable to accept his other submissions. It only remains to add, as regards the supplementary ground of appeal, that in our view counsel's implied mandate does not go the length of enabling him to waive an irregularity of the type described above.

    [17] For all the above reasons this appeal must be allowed.


    24 December 2002, Lord Justice General+Lord Marnoch+Lord Macfadyen


    Lord Justice General

    Lord Marnoch

    Lord Macfadyen

    Appeal No: C681/00










    Appellant: Shead; Gilfedder McInnes

    Respondent: G. Hanretty, Q.C., A.D.; Crown Agent

    24 December 2002

    [1] On 18 December 2002, having heard submissions in regard to certain of the appellant's grounds of appeal against conviction, the court delivered its opinion that one of them was well-founded and that on this ground the appeal should be allowed. The Crown then moved the court to grant authority, in terms of section 118(1)(c) of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995, for the bringing of a new prosecution against the appellant. In these circumstances the court did not at that stage pronounce an interlocutor disposing of the appeal, but continued the case to 20 December for the purpose of then hearing submissions in regard to the motion for the Crown.

    [2] The appellant was convicted on 11 August 2000 on three charges. The first and second of the charges related to, respectively, embezzlement, and embezzlement and theft, committed while the appellant was practising as a solicitor. The third charge was of an attempt to pervert the course of justice.

    [3] A number of points about the history of the case may be noted. The first of the charges was concerned with the conduct of the appellant between 1 March and 30 November 1993. The second related to the period from 1 January to 30 June 1995. The appellant was charged by the police in regard to these matters on 12 August 1996 and 15 January 1998. He appeared on petition in the Sheriff Court on 27 April 1998, when he was liberated on bail. The case against the appellant was originally set down for trial on 6 April 1999. However, the trial did not proceed, and he was re-indicted twice thereafter. He came to trial on a third indictment on 24 July 2000. Following his conviction on 11 August 2000 he was sentenced on 31 August 2000 to seven years imprisonment. On 8 November 2000 a note of appeal was lodged on his behalf, containing a total of six grounds of appeal. He was granted interim liberation on 21 December 2000.

    [4] We consider first the implications of the protracted character of the proceedings, and in particular the time which has elapsed since the periods to which the first and second charges related. The Advocate depute did not dispute that this was a factor for consideration in regard to whether the Crown should be granted authority to bring a fresh prosecution, and Mr. Shead, who appeared on behalf of the appellant, stressed its importance. We were informed that the evidence on which the Crown and the defence founded was partly documentary and partly that of witnesses. It is obvious that the time which has elapsed raises a question as to whether the reliability of the recollection of witnesses may have been adversely affected. The Advocate depute said that he could not provide the court with any information on this subject; no attempt had been made to check on the availability or recollection of significant witnesses. He sought to rely on the fact that a complete transcript of the evidence at the trial would be available at the re-trial of the appellant and that in appropriate circumstances this could be used to prompt the recollection of witnesses. He also stressed that the trial judge could give appropriate directions to the jury regarding the importance of the onus of proof where the recollection of witnesses had been dimmed. However, it is plain that that it is far from satisfactory to have to rely on such methods in an attempt to compensate for loss of recollection.

    [5] We consider next the circumstances which gave rise to the appeal court concluding that the appeal against conviction was well-founded. The court was satisfied that there had been a breach of section 92(1) of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995, that this breach was of a fundamental nature, and that this had caused a miscarriage of justice.

    [6] It is right for us to bear in mind that the conclusion reached by the appeal court was not based on the view that actual prejudice to the appellant had been caused by the breach of section 92(1). However, the court could not and did not exclude the possibility that there had been such prejudice. The circumstances in which that breach occurred are of significance for present purposes. It happened at a stage in the course of the examination of the appellant by his counsel when the trial judge interrupted the line of questioning to point out that it was proceeding on a mistaken basis. The trial judge thereupon invited the jury to retire, and, according to his report, asked the appellant also to leave the court room, for the reasons which the court noted in its opinion of 18 December 2002. Thereafter there was an extensive discussion between the trial judge and counsel for the appellant, in the course of which the trial judge adverted to the fact that the appellant was "missing part of the trial", and counsel indicated that he did not take any point in regard to the competence of that.

    [7] It is clear that at the outset of, and throughout, the period when the appellant was absent from his trial the Advocate depute took no steps to point out that, however well-intentioned the trial judge had been, it was not competent for the trial to proceed in the absence of the appellant, let alone to propose the repeating of the part of the proceedings which had taken place in his absence so as to eliminate any possible prejudice to him.

    [8] It is important to note that section 92(1) is not expressed as prohibiting the trial judge from directing or permitting the trial to proceed in the absence of the accused. It is expressed in general terms, stating that "no part of a trial shall take place outwith the presence of the accused". Underlying that provision, which is of a fundamental character, is the objective of securing that an accused person receives a fair trial. No doubt this means that the trial judge should not act in such a way as to bring about a breach. However, it is also plain that the Advocate depute, who has the responsibility of conducting the prosecution which has been brought at the instance of the Lord Advocate, has a strong interest in preventing the proceedings from being rendered invalid by reason of a breach of section 92(1), and hence in seeking to forestall or terminate a situation in which part of the trial takes place in the absence of the accused. The fact that counsel for the appellant waived objection was of no moment in the light of the fundamental nature of the irregularity which occurred. In these circumstances we consider that what happened was to a significant extent due to the fault of the Crown. It is well recognised that the fact that the ground on which an appeal is successful involves fault on the part of the Crown is an important factor in weighing against the granting of authority for the taking of fresh proceedings against an appellant.

    [9] In the light of the two considerations which we have discussed, we conclude that it is not in the interests of justice that authority should be given for a fresh prosecution of the appellant. In these circumstances we do not find it necessary to hear submissions in regard to a minute by the appellant which seeks to raise a devolution issue based on the ground that for the Lord Advocate to continue to seek authority for a new prosecution would be in breach of the appellant's entitlement to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time.

    [10] The motion by the Crown will accordingly be refused

    In our many battles with Britain's law Societies over vast theft of our land,business's and properties we have noticed all phone calls are greeted with foreign accents.

    We have finally concluded that Law Societies worldwide ONLY employ foreign staff for menial work like clerical ,typing and call centres.The reason they WONT employ locals is that they require to keep as much of what they do away from the general public who have time and again had their lives destroyed by persecution campaigns orchestrated by these law societies against anyone who challenges their monopoly powers.

    If ONE supermarket controlled the entire food chain their would be an outcry yet that is exactly what these devious organisations represent.Total power and control over our legislation using illegal monopolies that control the ability of clients to get trustworthy ,economical representation .Something many of our group have found virtually impossible to do.Indeed if you complain about a lawyer you will be targeted and find you are dropped and will be unable to pursue claims against an errant lawyer as they have an almost complete monopoly on how they are insured.

    Suing one lawyer will increase the fees for ALL lawyers of that insurance scheme. This is a RACKET of monumental proportions that we as victims over time have identified and why law societies ensure no local people will find out through their employment what they are up to by using only staff from overseas.Phone any of the British law Societies and if you can find one that doesn't have a foreign accent that will be a rare experience.

    We as a group of victims will continue to expose the evil way our legalites operate to the enormous advantage of their own financial position and to the enormous detriment of the many thousands of clients fleeced of their life by what can only be described as paper shufflers.Never has so much wealth been created by so few with almost NO effort other than to shuffle a few A4 sheets of paper before the right judge NEVER a jury.