Court Changed and Falsified Legal Decision Overnight
The Trial Judge remitted (sent back) the outstanding summary only copyright offences back to Richmond Magistrates' Court following the Crown Court conviction. As the original committal to the Crown Court was invalid, in law, any subsequent order of the Crown Court would also have no effect (e.g. trial, conviction, sentence etc), including the remittal back to the Magistrates' Court of the summary only offences upon which the prosecution now wanted to try. However, in this case, for some unknown reason, the law does not apply.
I was informed that the Copyright trial would take place on 17 March 2008 at Richmond Magistrates' Court. As the proceedings were null and void in law, I did not wish to be tried for the second time when the Court had no jurisdiction to try me. I therefore made an application to stay proceedings, which in essence was an application to ask the Court to put the trial on hold until the Court of Appeal have determined whether the proceedings are lawful or not. This is a reasonable request as further time and money should not be wasted on proceedings that were clearly a nullity in law.
The application to stay proceedings was lodged on 3 January 2008. On 28 January 2008, I was informed by Saunders Solicitors, a firm who was dealing with my appeal (until my legal aid suddently got withdrawn without any reason) that the proceedings had been put on hold until the outcome of my appeal. (exhibit)
I was greatly relieved as this meant that the trial on 17 March 2008 had been postponed pending the determination of my appeal.
However, the same sinister pattern continued which happened previously. History simply repeated itself. Just as the search warrant, my arrest details, the nature of the offence and the decision not to prosecute changed overnight, the legal decision to stay proceedings also suddenly changed overnight. The application to stay proceedings went from successful to unsuccessful overnight. On 12 March 2008, I was informed by Richmond Magistrates' Court that I would now be tried on 17 March 2008. (exhibit)
I could not believe what I was hearing. I submitted to the Magistrates' that a decision had already been made to stay the proceedings until the outcome of my appeal (my appeal was still outstanding).
I produced evidence to show the Magistrates' that on 28 January 2008, I was informed that the proceedings were on hold. However, the Magistrates' would not consider my submissions and continually repeated that I would be tried on 17 March 2008 whether I liked it or not, which was just 3 working days to prepare for a trial. There was no explanation why the decision suddenly changed as the Magistrates' could not justify how a legal decision which is set in stone could possibly change overnight.
Instead, the Magistrates' continually stated that I knew that the trial was to take place on 17 March 2008 and therefore I have had plenty of time to prepare. They refused to acknowledge that I was informed in writing on the 28 January 2008 that the trial had been cancelled and as such why would one prepare for a trial when one has already received notification that the trial has been cancelled? For instance, if you have booked a flight and then you receive notification that the flight has been cancelled, you are still not going to pack your suitcase and make arrangements to go the airport when you have received notification that your flight has been cancelled.
I pleaded to the Magistrates' for justice and I also repeated my pleas in a letter dated 14 March 2008 to HMCS Regional Justices' Clerk Mr Julien Vantyghem, Justice Secretary Mr Jack Straw, HMCS Chief Executive Sir Ron De Witt and Richmond Council Chief Executive Mrs Gillian Norton. I explained that it was impossible for me to prepare for a trial in just 3 days and that I have right to adequate time and facilities to prepare a defence, I have a right to obtain legal representatives and I have a right to call witnesses etc. (exhibit)
I asked for more time as I should not be penalised and tried without adequate time to prepare a defence simply because the Court decided to change and falsify a legal decision overnight to the prejudice of the defendant. However, despite my submissions to the Magistrates' and to senior officials, my pleas were simply ignored.