Authorities Changed and Falsified Search Warrant

 

On 5 June 2006, my mother and I were shown a search warrant that was issued under the Copyright, Designs & Patents Act 1988. The search warrant clearly stated that it could only be used on one occasion only. Three weeks later, the authorities stated that the search warrant executed was issued under the Trade Marks Act 1994 (click here for exhibit). 

 

Richmond Trading Standards did not leave a copy of the search warrant on the day of the raids which they must do under sections 16(5)c & 16(7) Police & Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE).  The law under PACE states that for a search to be lawful, the person carrying out the search must leave behind a copy of the original search warrant in the premises that have been searched.

 

By failing to leave behind a copy of the original search warrant on 5 June 2006, this provided Richmond Trading Standards with the perfect opportunity to cover up their unlawful entries by changing the search warrant to provide themselves with greater powers of entry in retrospect. They assumed there would be no evidence to prove the contrary, however, the evidence below proves that the Trade Marks Act search warrant was never issued or executed.

 

Evidence to Prove Trade Marks Act Search Warrant Was Never Executed

 

The official search record (click here for exhibit) is conclusive evidence in itself to prove that the search warrant that was executed at my property was issued under the Copyright, Designs & Patents Act 1988. The officer in charge of the search, PC Hardy confirms on the official search record that the search warrant executed at my property was issued under the Copyright, Designs & Patents Act 1988. PC Hardy confirms that the Copyright, Designs & Patents Act 1988 search warrant was issued on 1 June 2006 and executed at my property on 5 June 2006.

 

As a copy of the official search record was left at my property on 5 June 2006, this could not be subsequently changed in retrospect.

 

The following evidence conclusively proves that the search warrant executed on 5 June 2006 was issued under the Copyright, Designs & Patents Act 1988 and not under the Trade Marks Act 1994:

 

  • Official Search Record confirms that the executed search warrant was issued under the Copyright, Designs & Patents Act 1988. (click here for exhibit)

  • PC Hardy's evidence book confirms that the executed search warrant was issued under the Copyright, Designs & Patents Act 1988.(click here for exhibit)

  • Sgt. Dan Turner's evidence book confirms that the executed search warrant was granted in relation to unauthorised CD's contrary to the Copyright Act. (click here for exhibit)

  • A Police Intelligence Report confirms search warrant executed issued under the Copyright, Designs & Patents Act 1988. (click here for exhibit)

  • Duty solicitor notes confirm search warrant executed was issued under the Copyright, Designs & Patents Act 1988. (click here for exhibit)

  • Police officers confirm investigation was in relation to CD's breaching Copyright. (click here for exhibit)

  • Police officers confirm in their evidence books that I was arrested on suspicion of Copyright breaches. (click here for exhibit)

  • Authorities brought along a Copyright expert from the BPI - Ms Deborah Killick. (click here for exhibit)

 

In the above exhibits, there is not one mention of the word Trade Marks. If the search warrant executed was issued under the Trade Marks Act, then this would have recorded on the official search record that was left on the day of the raids. Additionally, police officers evidence books, police intelligence reports and duty solicitors notes would have recorded that the search warrant was issued under the Trade Marks Act if this was actually the case. Furthermore, I would have been arrested under the Trade Marks Act if the actual search warrant and investigation was in relation to Trade Marks and the authorities would most certainly not have brought a Copyright expert from the BPI if this was an investigation into Trade Marks.

 

Only on 23 June 2006, when my mother went to Richmond Magistrates' Court to request a copy of the search warrant, everything changed. The warrant officer at Richmond Magistrates' Court called the Richmond Trading Standards officer who executed the warrant into his office while my mother waited outside. My mother had to wait over 45 minutes outside the warrant office and then was handed a new search warrant under the Trade Marks Act 1994 (click here for exhibit). My mother immediately knew that this was not the correct search warrant as it looked completely different and it did not state that it can only be used on one occasion only.  

 

Evidence To Prove Trade Marks Act Search Warrant Was Never Issued

 

For a search warrant to be lawful, it would need to comply with the provisions set out in the Police & Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE). It is straightforward matter to prove that the Trade Marks Act search warrant was never issued as: -

 

  • There is no written application/information to support the issuance of the Trade Marks Act Search Warrant thus breaching sections 15(3) PACE, s. 8(1C) PACE, s. 8(3) PACE, s. 15(5A) PACE, s.15(2) PACE & s. 16(2) PACE.  A search warrant cannot be issued without a written application/information to support its issuance.

  • The Trade Marks Act search warrant does not specify how many entires are allowed thus breaching sections 15(5A) PACE & s. 8(1C/1D) PACE.

  • There were no copies of the Trade Marks Act search warrant made thus breaching sections 15(7) PACE & s. 15(8) PACE.

  • The Trade Marks Act search warrant does not contain any endorsements thus breaching section 16 (9) PACE.

  • The Trade Marks Act search warrant was not returned back to the issuing court thus breaching section 16(10) PACE.

 

A failure to comply with just one section of PACE renders the search warrant unlawful in itself, however, in this case, there are over twelve fragrant breaches of PACE as the Trade Marks Act search warrant was never issued in the first place. If the Trade Marks Act search warrant had been issued, it would have been supported by an application/information in writing with grounds to support its issuance.

 

However, to conclusively prove that the Trade Marks Act search warrant is falsified can be seen from the application/information that was provided to me by Richmond Magistrates' Court and Richmond Council. They have passed off a document as being the written application/information when this is clearly not the case and can be easily proven.

 

The actual written application/information would look like this (click here for exhibit) and Richmond Magistrates' Court and Richmond Council have repeatedly passed off this document instead (click here for exhibit) as being the written application/information. The application is supposed to provide a proper record of the full basis upon which the search warrant had been granted and would identify whether the statutory pre-conditions of PACE were satisfied in the issuance of the search warrant.

 

However, the document passed off as the being the written information contains no information whatsoever to justify a grant of a search warrant and it does not satisfy any of the statutory pre-conditions of PACE which must be satisfied for a search warrant to be lawfully issued as stated in sections 8(1C) PACE, s. 8(3) PACE, s. 15(5A) PACE, S. 15(2) & s. 16(2) PACE. 

 

This clearly demonstrates the unlawfulness and to further emphasise this, I refer you to the following case.

 

In Redknapp V Commissioner of Metropolitan Police, the Judge ruled that the search warrant was unlawful and awarded damages to Mr and Mrs Redknapp based on a failure to comply with section 8(3) PACE. The failure to indicate the conditions which made the search necessary by failing to delete the inapplicable boxes in section 8(3) PACE on the application rendered the search warrant unlawful. In my instance, the unlawfulness is plain to see as there is not even an application to support the falsified search warrant, let alone any boxes to delete on the application.

 

On 6 October 2006, the Bench Legal Manager of Richmond Magistrates' Court Mr Charles Rees confirmed in writing that the Trade Marks Act 1994 search warrant was not executed on 5 June 2006 (click here for exhibit). This is further evidence to prove that the Trade Marks Act 1994 search warrant was never lawfully issued and never executed.

 

Summary of Evidence To Prove Trade Marks Search Warrant Was Not Issued or Executed

 

  • There is no written application/information to support the issuance of the Trade Marks Act search warrant which all search warrant's must have for a search warrant to be lawfully issued. 

  • The Bench Legal Manager at Richmond Magistrates Court confirms that the Trade Marks Act Search Warrant was not executed on 5 June 2006. 

  • The official search record confirms that the Trade Marks Act search warrant was not executed on 5 June 2006.

  • PC Hardy's evidence book confirms that the Trade Marks Act search warrant was not executed on 5 June 2006.

  • Sgt Dan Turner's evidence book confirms that the Trade Marks Act search warrant was not executed on 5 June 2006.

  • A police intelligence report confirms that the Trade Marks Act search warrant was not executed on 5 June 2006. 

  • Duty solicitor notes confirm that the Trade Marks Act search warrant was not executed on 5 June 2006. 

  • Police documentation and evidence books on the day of the raids confirm that the investigation was in relation to copyright offences on 5 June 2006. 

  • Police and Trading Standards brought along a copyright expert from the BPI not a Trade Mark Act expert on the day of the raids. 

  • I was arrested on the day in relation to being in possession of CD's which were allegedly in breach of Copyright. 

A notice of publication was sent to London Borough of Richmond Upon Thames Council (click here for exhibit), the Metropolitan Police (click here for exhibit) and Her Majesty's Court Service (click here for exhibit) to see if they have any issues or objections to this publication and to provide them with their right of reply. All parties chose not to respond to my notice of publication. 

     A cover up by the British Government and Authorities   
  1. © 2015 -  What The Public Never Gets To Hear About

Can You Help? Please Share