This aggravated my already fragile ill health as it was crystal clear that I would not be receiving a fair trial. As such, I wrote to the Court on 23 August 2007 stating that I could not attend a hearing namely due to illness and the way the court's have been severely ill-treating me. Once again, I did not receive a response to my letter (7th letter ignored).
Instead of receiving a response to any of my letters or the Court addressing any of the issues I raised, I was arrested for failure to attend Court as the Judge stated that a letter from the accused is not sufficient for non attendance of a court hearing and that I needed a medical note to certify illness.
Due to this, I was jailed (false imprisonment) and forced to attend Court when the Court were in full knowledge that they did not have any jurisdiction to hear the matter due to the unlawful committal and when the Court was in full knowledge that I was unwell.
As the Court had ignored all my letters and would not address any matters I had raised at the pre-trial hearings, I was forced to attend trial:
Without any case papers;
Without any witnesses;
When the Court had no jurisdiction to try me in the first place.
Court Forced Me To Attend Trial Without Any Witnesses, Without Any Case Papers and When The Court Had No Jurisdiction To Even Try Me
My health deteriorated rapidly as the Court's continued to subject me to constant ill-treatment. At court hearings, Judges repeatedly refused to deal with the issues in the case, refused to deal with the issue that the proceedings were null and void in law, the issue of my witnesses and the issue of non-disclosure (no case papers) from the prosecution.
I even explained to a Judge that I have evidence to prove that my solicitors have been corrupted by the other side, in which the judge stated "find an uncorrupted solicitor then." The last thing you would expect a Judge to say is "find an uncorrupted solicitor then", when one is bringing such a serious matter to the attention of the Judge. You would expect the Judge to ask to see the evidence to support such strong allegations and at the very least look into the matter.
As the court were refusing to deal with the serious issues I was raising in the pre-trial hearings, over the course of three months, I was forced to personally serve six letters to the Court requesting the Court to address the matters that I was raising:
The issue that the proceedings are a nullity due to the invalid committal and asking the Court to address this matter.
The issue that the prosecution had not provided any case papers relating to the offence that the Court were about to try me for and asking the Court to address this matter.
The issue that the Court refused to consider the witnesses I would like to call for my defence and asking the Court to address this matter.
The issue that the search warrant had been changed and falsified and asking the Court to address this matter.
Her Majesty's Court Service procedures and guidelines state that they have a ten day turnaround in providing a response to letters. However, all six letters personally served at Kingston Crown Court and confirmed with a date stamp as received, were never responded to and completely ignored by Kingston Crown Court. The Court, who must be fair, impartial and unbiased were refusing to deal with any of the issues I was raising in Court and even when I put them in writing, all six letters were completely ignored by the Court.
Trial Went From 1 CD Breaching the Trade Marks Act to a Whopping 4,000 CD’s Breaching the Trade Marks Act
I was on trial for one CD (Alicia Keys—Keys to the City) breaching the Trade Marks Act, however, at trial, every witness which can be verified from viewing the committal bundle gave evidence in relation to Copyright offences. To demonstrate the sinister nature of the proceedings, the first time I saw the Alicia Keys CD that I was on trial for, was at the trial itself as the CD in question was not even an exhibit in the committal papers.
At trial, I proved that I had never sold the CD in question, never brought the CD and the prosecution even admitted that the CD was not for sale on my website. Therefore, I had proved without any element of doubt, that there was no case against me as I had not possessed this one CD in a course of a business.
The case was going well. However, everything suddenly changed overnight. The prosecution and the trial Judge completely changed the case halfway through the trial by stating to the jury that I am actually on trial for 4,000 CD's breaching the Trade Marks Act 1994 when this was totally untrue as I was on trial for just one CD breaching the Trade Marks Act 1994 which was clearly stated on the Indictment. I was completely discredited by the Judge who continually made me out to be a liar.
I repeatedly stated to the jury that the charge against me is one CD breaching the Trade Marks Act and I have proven that I have not sold, purchased or possessed this one CD in a course of a business. The Judge however, continually overruled my statement by explaining to the jury that I was misleading them and that I am on trial for 4,000 CD’s breaching the Trade Marks Act. What chance do I have to win the case when the Judge adds the final nail to the coffin by adding an extra 3,999 CD’s to the trial and discrediting me in front of the jurors? The jurors also asked whether the proceedings were a nullity and whether the Court had jurisdiction to try me in which the Judge stated “Mr Sekhon is being tried, isn’t he”.
I was subsequently convicted. At sentencing after the jury were released from their duty, the Judge admitted that a mistake was made during the trial and sentenced me on the basis that four copies of Alicia Keys—Keys to the City CD were in breach of the Trade Marks Act 1994 (not 4,000 CD’s). An appeal was immediately lodged against the Trade Marks Act conviction.
Tried When The Court Had No Jurisdiction To Try Me Then…
Sentenced When The Court Had No Jurisdiction To Sentence Me
After the trial, a friend obtained a solicitor and a barrister for me for my sentencing hearing. Both the solicitor and the barrister could not believe that the Court tried me in breach of jurisdiction. They were so shocked and suggested that I must not have made it clear to the court that the proceedings were a nullity.
The solicitor and the barrister were so horrified with this situation that they both immediately wrote to the Court’s and confirmed that it would be wrong for me to be sentenced as the Court had no jurisdiction to try me in the first place. (exhibit)
Stephen Gilchrist, a solicitor and Chairman and head of Regulatory Law at Saunders Law Limited, who also has over 30 years experience explained in writing to the Court that "it seems clear to us that the trial should never have taken place, as the Crown Court did not have jurisdiction to try the matter. Accordingly it is our view that it would be quite wrong for Mr S to be sentenced on 30 November 2007." (exhibit)
However, the Court did not respond to these letters. At the sentencing hearings, the Judge explained that she is mindful that appeals can take quite some time to be heard and as such she would be sentencing me before my appeal has been heard.
My barrister then stipulated that if I am sentenced before my appeal is heard, then I could only be sentenced for four Alicia Keys CD’s breaching the Trade Marks Act. My barrister had to explain in her letter to the Judge that Trade Marks and Copyright are two separate pieces of legislation and that the case that was tried only concerned a breach of one CD (four copies), not four thousand CD’s that was wrongly disclosed at trial. (exhibit)
This speaks volumes that the barrister who was not even present at the trial had to point out to the Judge the issue of jurisdiction, the offence that I was tried for and the number of CD’s that were in breach of legislation in her letter to the Judge.
Member(s) of the jury from the parties involved in the case
It wasn't enough for the authorities to take me to trial without any case papers and without allowing me any witnesses to prepare a defence. They didn't want to leave anything to chance. I was not even allowed jury selection. There was old couple talking and smiling with each other when they came into the court room, I immediately thought that was a red flag and I asked the Judge if I could select other jurors and I received a blank no.
It later transpired that one of the jurors at the trial was an employee working for Russell Cooke Solicitors (who are part of this operation – see next section) and the Judge, fully aware of this still didn’t throw the case out or order a re-trial. The juror, towards the end of the trial said she wanted to be fair but she can’t because she works for Russell Cooke Solicitors. What a strange thing to say.
The Judge discharged the Russell Cooke juror during the trial, without a concern whether the juror had any influence over the other jurors and just proceeded.