TheKeyAuthor's Blog, page 3

Stolen Data

Audio files were destroyed in 2008 at the High Court, but they weren't the only records that year to suffer a strange fate. On Friday 12 December, a break-in occurred at the offices of the Bar Council, which houses its regulatory arm, the Bar Standards Board (BSB):

Contact addresses of Lay members of Bar Council and Bar Standards Board committees were also stolen along with approximately 1500 original complaints records being used for new IT system testing, which includes names and contact details of the complainants, witnesses, barristers and details of the complaints....A Bar Council help line has been set up...for anyone with specific concerns about the implications of the theft.

I found out about it a few months later, as this book extract shows:

On 16 April, I received a letter from the Bar Council. They informed me that my complaint details were among those stolen in the burglary last December. My first reaction was to wonder why it had taken them over four months to tell me that. The letter provided some details of the subsequent investigation and events. The police investigation confirmed that CCTV evidence showed the theft appeared to have been committed by three young men. However, the police didn't know who they were and it seemed they couldn't match them from their files. The police were of the opinion that the chances of retrieving the hard-drives were slim. Twenty thousand barristers and Disciplinary Panel members had so far given no indication that any of the data had been read or used.
The stolen files covered my two complaints against my own barrister and Eva's. The documentation was considerable. I knew the contents of those files would interest a number of parties. Had this burglary anything to do with my case? After the destroying of audio recordings at the RCJ [Royal Courts of Justice, High Court], I didn't rule anything out.
I gave it some thought. The police were not making a lot of effort to catch the burglars. Not a single attempt had been made to make use of the financial information. But it was the timing of the theft that I found intriguing. It came the day after I sent my recorded delivery application to the ECHR [European Court of Human Rights, France]. The post-office clerk entered details of the transaction via a keypad device, which meant records were stored electronically. At that time, the British authorities knew everything that was going on and had access to everything except the records held by the BSB and the SRA.

So is there any tracking of Royal Mail post by government agencies? Well, it is owned by the British government, and they do it in the USA.

More information can be found at my campaign site. Free eBook.

Evidence Destroyed

In June 2008, I applied for a transcript of the hearing presided over by Judge M at the Royal Courts of Justice (RCJ). Judge M, an "acquaintance" of my MP (elected representative), was still under investigation by the Office for Judicial Complaints (OJC). The OJC, a Ministry of Justice office, were in possession of a transcript from an earlier hearing, presided over by Judge F who was also under investigation, which exposed the existence of a secret document: the government knew these transcripts were very damaging.

Unlike previous RCJ transcriptions, this new process was troublesome from the start. First, the analog tape sent to the transcription company did not have my case on it -- the transcription company confirmed that this had never occurred before. The next week, another analog tape was sent, but the recording was damaged and was of such poor quality that it could not be used. When the transcription company informed the RCJ's Court Recording and Transcription Unit (CRATU), they promised to send a copy of the digital backup. A week later, the CRATU manager phoned me directly because they couldn't find a digital backup, none existed.

However, the manager himself had sent me a digital copy of the recording on Compact Disc (CD) in February 2007- - I had the CD all the time but needed a written & certified transcript, and that is why I applied in June 2008. Without my CD, the recording of that hearing would have been lost forever. How convenient that would have been.

This is a recording of that phone conversation on 7th July 2008 with the CRATU manager. The recording is not the best in quality, but you can tell that we are discussing the loss of the digital backup and the manager has no idea how it could have happened. The following extract from my book covers the exchange:

A few minutes later, the phone rang. It was [the manager]. He sounded agitated, confused even.
He said, “There is no digital recording of the hearing. In fact, I can't find any recording for the whole day.” I was stunned. That simply couldn't be.
He continued, “I can't understand how you can have in your possession a crystal clear digital recording of the hearing on compact disc, yet the analogue tape recording is so poor as to be unusable.”
He explained, “...it goes through a machine then into the digital machine, so in theory, there should be no difference whatsoever.”
I agreed and said, “That's right.”
He continued, “So this is what makes it even more strange. Have you listened to it? Is it definitely your case on that day?”
Thinking he meant the analogue tape, I said, “I haven't listened to it.” Then realising he meant my own CD recording, I said, “But the recording I've got? Yes, that is definitely mine. I was there, it definitely is that one.”
[He] was clearly bewildered at what had happened. He spoke very loudly and quickly, almost rambling at times. He said, “Audio quality on a CD will be a little bit better than on a tape, but not to the extent that everyone keeps saying that it was so poor you can't transcribe, because the one you got is crystal clear. It wouldn't be that different. Same line for recording, same wireless, same cables, same microphone, same everything. The only difference is CD is a little bit better quality. But nothing near the difference here. This is just what I can't understand.”
I agreed and said, “I know. Modern technology for recordings has come on leaps and bounds.”
He went on to describe the digital and analogue systems again, with the same conclusion that there should not be much difference between them. He asked, “I would like to see that CD, so do you want to send it to me, or...”
I said, “Leave that with me at the moment because that is quite an interesting situation as err...because I know the full reasons for various things that are going on with regard to that case. I think that the digital recording has disappeared from the Royal Courts of Justice for that day, which is quite unbelievable. And the analogue tape is unusable, which is in itself, as you have just said, also extremely strange.”
He said, “Well, I haven't listened to the analogue master tape to be honest to you, I want to see what the quality is like..., as far as the digital recording goes it cannot be deleted. There is no way it can be. This is why it is very weird how you have got it from us.”
I asked, “So how on earth can I have a digital recording then?”
“I don't know. Especially as you say, I sent it to you.”
“You did. I recognise your name because I saw your name on the emails.”
He later told me he didn't normally handle customer requests because he was made the manager of the department in July 2007, five months after he sent me the recording. He signed off by saying he wanted to check the quality of the analogue tape and he would get back to me later.
Well, that was quite a phone call. His explanation of the recording hardware left no doubt that there shouldn't be much difference in quality between the digital and analogue recordings. As both recording systems used the same audio source, he couldn't understand why I had a crystal clear recording, yet the analogue one was unusable.
Even more intriguing was his statements that there were no digital recordings on the backup system for the entire day and it wasn't possible to delete them. Here was the manager of the facility, the man who sent me the CD containing the digital recording of Judge M's hearing, completely lost for an explanation as to what happened to the recordings and how on earth I had one. Given his reaction, it was fair to say such an event had never happened before.
I was truly shocked at this. I had a feeling it was coming, but even so, when it did, I couldn't believe it. Yet, there was absolutely no doubt about it. Someone had deliberately tampered with the recordings so that no one could ever hear what was said in that courtroom. Whoever was behind it would never have reckoned that I had a digital recording of the hearing at home. Members of the public were not supposed to get such recordings. That was made very clear by Judge F's response to my request to get one.

More information can be found at my campaign site. Free eBook.

Smear and Coverup

Twenty years later, the truth is coming out about the Stephen Lawrence murder investigation: undercover officer Peter Francis says he was instructed in 1993 to find information that could discredit the family and anti-racism campaigners.
The police were heavily criticized over the investigation, so their response was classic: they tried to protect their image and defuse widespread public tension by smearing both the victim's family, and anyone promoting related issues that reflected badly on the Establishment and had the potential to further inflame a united public.

Extracts from the article:

Francis ... had posed as an anti-racism campaigner in a hunt for "disinformation" to use against those criticising the police.
He said the Metropolitan Police were concerned the reaction to the Lawrence murder might result in rioting similar to that following the beating of Rodney King in Los Angeles.
he came under pressure to find "any intelligence that could have smeared the campaign"
the aim of his operation was to ensure that the public "did not have as much sympathy for the Stephen Lawrence campaign" and to persuade "the media to start maybe tarring the campaign".
Doreen Lawrence [mother, campaigner and writer] said... "It just makes me really, really angry that all of this has been going on and all the time trying to undermine us as a family."

If you have a quick look at the Fact Sheet, you can see that the authorities basically did something similar to the McCanns & myself. If the public had found out about my case at that time, there may well have been a public reaction. I wasn't smeared because nobody knew anything about my case, so they covered it up instead. And in my book I wrote: "Although the McCanns couldn't answer back, a number of damaging leaks from the police investigation did end up in the Press that smeared them."

The truth is, the authorities pursue self-interests in direct violation of their duty to the public even if it hinders justice or causes immense damage to the victims of serious crime.

Health Watchdog Cover-up

I can't help but compare the cover-up of my daughter's abduction with this health watchdog cover-up scandal. The things being said are clear: public interest overrides everything, wrongdoing should be prosecuted and institutions must be honest about mistakes. All of that is applicable in my case but all I get is a continuation of the cover-up and mainstream media silence. But then the cover-up in my case is surely a candidate for the UK's worst: they actually removed my daughter from the country to pay for judicial and governmental mistakes; it was as slick and cold-blooded as can be; it took place at the Royal Courts of Justice where secret evidence was not disclosed and not kept (it has simply gone) and recordings of a hearing destroyed.

The courts are public funded services (clerks, legal advisers, judges, recording staff etc. are on the public payroll). When they are used to abduct children and involved in the cover-up, I think there is an overriding public interest issue! I have informed senior politicians and the police, but my pleas have repeatedly fallen on deaf ears.

NHS watchdog cover-up extracts:

So far as the Data Protection Act is concerned... if you are a senior official then there are issues about the point at which your privacy is set aside because of over-riding public interest.
the public has a right to know what goes on in public funded services.
if wrongdoing was proved there should be prosecutions
the government was introducing measures...to compel the health service to be open and honest about mistakes

For more information have a look at the fact sheet.

The Big Picture

More information can be found at my campaign site. Free eBook.

When a Speeding Ticket is More Important than Child Abduction

The UK's most high-profile female judge is fighting allegations she perverted the course of justice in connection with a speeding ticket case that went to trial:

The 56-year-old is accused of two counts of perverting the course of justice. The first alleges that, between May 2011 and last October, she provided police with two statements that were inaccurate. The second alleges that on 6 October she produced a copy of her witness statement that had been altered, yet said that it was the correct version.

CPS [Crown Prosecution Service (public prosecutors in UK)] senior lawyer Deborah Walsh said: "We have determined that there is sufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction and that these charges are in the public interest."

In my case, amongst a number of serious departures from due process, lawyers submitted a sworn affidavit (which the law firm produced) to the High Court knowing it contained an inaccurate key statement and didn't inform the court of that at two hearings.
If a judge is being accused of perverting the course of justice for allegedly providing the police with inaccurate statements, why not those lawyers for doing essentially the same during court proceedings? Are we to believe "the course of justice" does not include the actual court proceedings! How can it be in the public interest to prosecute over a speeding ticket but not for what amounts to child abduction?

But then again, my family's fate was compromised by judicial and Ministry of Justice (Government) mistakes from the outset. The entire affair is surely a candidate for the UK legal profession's worst nightmare.

Pressure Tells On Justice System?

The pressure beginning to tell on the justice system? I welcome this, but it could be just window dressing as lawyers are in the loop once again. A concern for me is that these changes do not apply to decisions not to charge by the police, which is how my own case has been blocked -- actually Scotland Yard refuse to even investigate or acknowledge documents sent recorded delivery.
An interesting aspect here are the words of the Director of Public Prosecutions, Keir Starmer QC: "Refusing to admit mistakes can seriously undermine public trust in the criminal justice system." It was that refusal to admit judicial & Ministry of Justice mistakes that resulted in my daughter being traded like a commodity to pay for them. That is child abduction; that is criminal!
I wrote to Starmer complaining the police were not investigating & provided evidence of that, my case & of the cover-up. His office's response, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), was to tell me they didn't investigate allegations of crime from the public & that I needed to go to the police! -- Hmmm... constitutionally the CPS are supposed to be independent. Anyhow, at least that was better than my initial contact with his boss, the Attorney General Baroness Scotland. Apparently those documents went missing, an all too common occurrence. Here are the more relevant extracts from the article (all emphasis added):

Victims of crime in England and Wales are being given the right to challenge decisions to stop prosecutions or not charge suspects.
The victims' right to review covers any decision by the Crown Prosecution Service not to pursue a case.
Director of public prosecutions Keir Starmer said victims had been treated as "bystanders" in the past. Mr Starmer said the move could affect about 70,000 cases a year, but would not cover those dropped by the police.
The new policy, which is in effect now, follows a 2011 Court of Appeal ruling which stated that "as a decision not to prosecute is in reality a final decision for a victim, there must be a right to seek review of such a decision". [BUT THE SAME CAN BE SAID IF POLICE REFUSE TO INVESTIGATE!]
Announcing the proposals, Mr Starmer said: "The criminal justice system historically treated victims as bystanders and accordingly gave them little say in their cases."
He said this approach was supposed to inspire confidence in decisions that, once made, were final.
"But in reality it had the opposite effect," he said. "Refusing to admit mistakes can seriously undermine public trust in the criminal justice system."
Charity Victim Support welcomed the move, saying it would strengthen victims' rights and "help to reposition victims back at the heart of our justice system".
Chief executive Javed Khan added: "Too often victims tell us that they don't have much of a voice in our justice system."
Helen Grant, Minister for Victims and the Courts, said: "If a victim has the strength to come forward, it is right that we give them every possible chance to get the justice they so deserve."

Why Won't Scotland Yard Investigate?

This recent power abuse case highlights how sorely I've missed proper legal representation. There are a number of similarities: search orders falsely procured, false imprisonment (restriction on "Lily's" movement) & behaviour amounting to "misfeasance" - an abuse of power, not to mention misleading a judge and fabrication of events.

But what really struck me is that the police can indeed investigate a lawyer for perverting the course of justice (PCJ) after a case has finished, something Scotland Yard, MET's Special Crime Directorate, police told me they couldn't do when a member of the public makes the complaint. That is increasingly looking like a poor excuse: if they can do it themselves with seemingly no hard evidence, why can't they do it when a member of the public provides evidence? This was effectively child abduction, not money laundering. It also looks increasingly suspicious that the recorded delivery documents I sent to Scotland Yard have never been acknowledged to this day.

Also, with such huge payouts, it makes my failed attempts to secure legal representation even more baffling.

Media Censorship

One of many serious issues my case raises is media censorship. Whether you believe "Lily" was illegally removed or not is up to you, but if you aren't informed, your curiosity won't be triggered and you can't form an in-depth opinion.

It is ironic in the current post-Leveson climate (media regulation debate) that the UK mainstream media are telling the Public how important it is they are an effective check and balance against power abuse. Really? Then I would ask you to point the media to this and ask why they won't print so much as a column inch of it. If they say it's because they can't, ask them to google "Spycatcher Guardian ECHR". And then tell them that covering up such information is not just an insult to my family but to the Public in general, and in fact such collusion only encourages more power abuse.

Such legal arguments really aren't needed though because anything in the public interest trumps any censorship law. The Establishment selling out the Public's children, covering it up and destroying evidence to mask its mistakes is most definitely in that category.

The media are trusted by the Public to keep powerful institutions honest. Throughout the world it seems, the mainstream media have violated that trust.

Cover-up at the Top?

The House of Commons (British Parliament) 2009 summer recess lasted from 21 July 2009 to 12 October 2009. I emailed my MEP during that period and predicted the Minister for Europe would be sacked. On 13th October 2009, the day after the House returned, the sacking was duly announced in the Press.

The sacking of the Minister for Europe was not your average dismissal as the following extract from my book indicates:

My post that day contained a letter from MEP Glenys Kinnock. It seemed Mrs Kinnock and not Eluned Morgan MEP had stepped forward to deal with my issues. I was pleased about that development because Glenys Kinnock was a household name in Britain. I had seen her on television and heard about her for the best part of two decades.

Glenys Kinnock came to real prominence when her husband, Lord Kinnock, was leader of the Labour Party from 1983 to 1992. She was one of the first wives of a political leader in Britain to take a leading role in politics. She had been an MEP for Wales since 1994. During his US presidential campaign, Senator Joe Biden had famously plagiarised Neil Kinnock's speech in 1987 and since then, they had become firm friends. Barack Obama had recently picked Joe Biden to be his vice-presidential running mate in the race for the White House. Like the Blairs and the Clintons, when you have been in politics for a long time, I guess you get to know everybody. Glenys Kinnock knew Cherie Blair very well and quite likely Hillary Clinton, both of whom had helped Lady Meyer.
...
The position of Europe Minister had also been downgraded: the new incumbent wasn't allowed to sit at cabinet meetings; it was the first time in recent memory that the post wasn't held by a Minister of State;...

While the Baroness held the position of Europe Minister, the political elite could offer no excuses:

The post of Minister of State for Europe was seen as the most important outside of the full cabinet and it entitled the holder to attend cabinet meetings. Baroness Kinnock could indeed talk to Jack Straw and Gordon Brown and raise my issues within the most powerful circle of politicians in the land....Therefore, along with Chancellor Merkel, Secretary Clinton, ambassadors, the Prime Minister and the Lord Chancellor, we had the leader of the Conservative Party, the leader of the Liberal Democrat Party, a UKIP MEP, two British newspapers, a human rights group and two other national charities that had all been informed of illegal child abduction and Baroness Kinnock knew all about it. Consequently, they knew there could be no excuses whatsoever for the Baroness to do nothing or for the Prime Minister and the Lord Chancellor not to know my allegations had substance. Therefore, there were no excuses why leaders of the other main political groups, UKIP, Liberty or the Press couldn't ask difficult questions of the government, as you would expect in a functional democracy, yet there wasn't a murmur from anyone.

Her sacking has profound implications:

They were obliged to give Baroness Kinnock another Foreign Office ministerial job because her husband, Lord Kinnock, resigned after four-and-a-half years as head of the British Council due to a conflict of interests when she became a Foreign Office [Europe] minister in June. Baroness Kinnock, a long-time campaigner on African issues, took over the much less prestigious post of Minister for Africa because Lord Malloch Brown resigned. As Minister for Africa, my issues were not part of her remit and she wouldn't be attending regularly at cabinet meetings. So, that all worked out rather nicely.
The main question in the Press was an obvious one: if Baroness Kinnock was the right woman for such an important job four months ago, why was she the wrong woman now? Of her seventeen predecessors, only one had served less time than she did, but he was promoted to Defence Secretary. Her sacking was even more bemusing when you consider that Parliament had been in recess from 21 July 2009 to 12 October 2009: she had only been in office during a sitting Parliament for seven weeks!
Although (some of) the Press and the public were puzzled at Kinnock's demise, I was not; I called it correctly several weeks ago in my email to John Bufton MEP: “unless Glenys Kinnock has done something I don't know about, I can't see how she could remain as a cabinet minister....
As I thought it through, I realised the implications were profound: it meant Gordon Brown knew about my issues, had directly engaged in protecting his government because of it and must have been at least aware of the cover-up. It also meant that if the other political parties continued to do nothing, then they were aiding the government in the cover-up, which made no sense to me whatsoever. Why would the Conservatives, Liberal Democrats, UKIP, Liberty and the Press not want to kick up a fuss?

All the politicians, including the Baroness, will state her sacking had nothing to do with my case, but the circumstances strongly suggest otherwise. In a proper functioning democracy with a truly free and independent Press, the story should have been published to allow the public to make their own minds up, particularly as the General Election had to be called in a matter of months. But that never happened.