Facts or Lies


Until the in-absentia trial, I have for more than 56 years, naively, expressed respect for Britain, and even partly educated my sons here and seen some of my grandchildren partly educated here.

After witnessing in the 1980s and 1990s, the huge corruption in local and central government in London, including the police and politics, I lost my naïve belief. Nevertheless, I still had some regards as to the British justice system. In the late 1980s, I even went, in front of 17 countries judges in Strasbourg, from 17 countries in the European Court of Human Rights, making positive reference to the British human rights and the independence of the British judges.

Alone the fact, that after 13 years, since ‘my’ in-absentia trial took place, I have not been able to see the transcripts from the 6 weeks jury trial, speaks for itself. To hold an in-absentia trial, without the defendant, defence lawyers, defence documentation and witnesses and not let the defendant see the judgement, the judge’s several directions to a 12-member jury – nothing, after 13 years, reflect the status of justice in today’s Britain.

Having witnessed the truth, how total dysfunctional, the British justice and penal systems are, I have lost all respect. Having witnessed, the ineptitude of most parts of the criminal justice system, I am not surprised, as to the blatant abuse of power in my case and extradition obtained, because of executive misconduct.

When the authorities blatantly lied to get me extradited from Germany and grossly abused the European Arrest Warrant, it is not at all surprising that they could create a case and hold an in-absentia trial. The executive abuse of the EAW is nothing, compared to the holding of the in-absentia trial. Such trials were prior to 2002, referred to by a large group of senior members of the British judiciary and the parliament, as “kangaroo court”.

A kangaroo court is a judicial tribunal or assembly that ignores recognized standards of law or justice, a term may also apply to a court held by a legitimate judicial authority who intentionally disregards the court’s legal or ethical obligations.

An affront to justice

To start with, how was it possible, to go along with such an outrageous allegation, made by a 86 years old women, suffering from Korsakoff’s syndrome and dementia, as a result of 50 years of alcohol abuse. How was it possible, to even note, the incoherent allegations made by her 64-year-old drug-addicted son, who had depended on his mother all his life and never worked. Much worse, for the police not to proper instigate the documentation for such shocking allegation and try to find the truth.

How could a low-rank corrupt police constable, Mark Loftus make dishonest representation to the court and fabricate a case, ignoring the facts, and not even request, elementary documentation and proof, like bank statement from the many foreign bank accounts involved? To even start an investigation based on such obvious lies. All founded on outrageous untruthfulness and lies. Moreover, for the police to cover-up and hide documentation and facts from the court. DC Loftus peddled lies and distortions with innuendoes and conjectures, demonstrably untrue fabrication – an affront to justice.

All this would not have been possible, without that the police exploited and later the prosecution, my illness, and the illness and death of my soul mate. Therefore, I am responsible for not stopping this madness. Yes, I am responsible, if I can be ‘blamed’ for being mentally and physically ill.

In fact, I suffered from severe depression and grief after the death of my soul mate. Further, the police knew from the first day, after seizing documentation from my laptop and files from the London apartment, that I had since 1980 suffered PTSD and severe depression from my 309 solitary confinement torture and 55 days hunger strike in Denmark. All this was exploited, fully and effectively.

Having witnessed, that on average 30-35% plus, of all the prisoners in London prison are mentally ill, and should be under medical treatment and not imprisoned, it is common, and that mental illness are exploited by the police and prosecution and later ignored by the courts. In fact, in the UK, large amounts of people are jailed, in effect, for being ill.

If I had not suffered a heart attack, upon hearing these outrageous allegations and lies in 2006, and my soul mate had not to fight 15 months of illness with brain tumours and die, there would be no case. Moreover, I would not at age 75, find myself in a dank Victorian dungeon, and not seen the sun for 3 years. Further, having to wait, more than 5½ months to urgently, see a doctor and dentist.

I was not only wrongful convicted, but the trial itself contravened the foundation for justice and the European Convention of Human Rights Article 6, the right to a fair trial. This was even pointed out to the judge, before the in-absentia trial, by the court-appointed counsel.  Further, he told the court in 2008, that the EAW could not be used, if I was convicted. Therefore, the British authorities deliberately set about to deceive and lie to Germany, in order to get me extradited in 2013.

It is fundamentally clear to me, that when the Crown Prosecution Service could blatantly lie to the German authorities and courts, as to the case, that the defendant had defence representation, at the six-week in-absentia trial, and me they simply cannot be trusted.

Lying about, that I had two defence barristers representing me at the in-absentia trial, an absolute lie, as there was no defence representation, during the 6 weeks jury trial.

I, the defendant, was not even informed about the trial, according to Interpol’s documentation, and had no form of representation at all during the trial, therefore, the Crown deliberately planned to lie to the German authorities as to the basis for extradition from the outset.

The Court-appointed counsel, the amicus, had prior to the in-absentia trial submitted to the Court, that the European Arrest Warrant could not be used, if the trial resulted in a conviction, due to the fact, that the in-absentia trial would be against Article 6 of the Convention.

The two people, who deliberately lied, from the police and prosecution, were the main participant in the in-absentia trial, the investigation and indictment and the following cover-up.

It was clear to the defence lawyer back in 2007, that DC Loftus pre-empted the normal police enquiry, from the early days of the investigation, with an intriguing tangle of inadequacies, lies and downright fabrication and withholding crucial evidence, possibly with a corrupt motive.

The defence lawyers made an official complaint, in 2008 to the Commissioner and IPCC (Independent Police Complaints Commission), as to DC Loftus, which naturally caused additional animosity between the defendant, the defence and DC Loftus.

Defence lawyer Morag Rea stated already in July 2007: “that the integrity of the prosecution is fatally flawed due to the dishonest representations of DC Loftus. This has tainted the subsequent prosecution to such a degree that to proceed with it would amount to an abuse of process.”

Five months later, at my arrest in December 2007, HH Justice Mitting, granted me immediately bail, having found: “a serious abuse of the court’s process involving the officer in the case (DC Loftus) lying to Mr Hauschildt’s solicitor…” At the time, I had flown into London for the day, to be interviewed, having left my partner-in-life in our home, dying at any moment from a brain tumour.

All this should be seen in relations to the police and the prosecution’s stake to obtain a conviction, at all costs, by taking advantage of my illness and grief.

They proceeded with the in-absentia trial and it is clear from their actions, that they did not really want me to attend such a trial. They wanted to obtain a conviction, whatever it took, even when, not all the jury members agreed. This should be seen in relation to the court-appointed counsel’s role and his observation, that “the judge acted as the second prosecutor” and that the 46 witnesses were led in front of the 12-member jury. This court-appointed amicus, a colleague to the Crown’s prosecutor and came from the same chamber, reported objectively, what he witnessed during the 6 weeks in-absentia trial. It took me years to get these submissions by amicus.

When white is black

When someone says that something white is black, it is not a matter of shades, degrees or balanced view, not a degree of grey, no, it is black. Such an obvious and blatant lie reflects no basis for objectivity.

It is in this light that the whole case must be seen. If judicial professionals can say that something, which is clearly white, is black, there is no basis to proceed or argue.

It was a fact that I, the defendant, was not present or had any form of legal representation at the six-week in-absentia jury trial in 2008. A trial held conveniently, at a time that my life and person, had totally fallen apart into severe depression and grief after the death of my partner-in-life for 19 years. All known to the British authorities at the time from the many medical reports submitted during 2008 and before.

When David Williams, the prosecutor, told the German authorities, in writing, that two defence barristers represented me, he knew it was a direct lie, as he himself attended the trial for 6 weeks as the main participant. Where are the law and justice?

I knew that the case is riddled with procedural errors and demonstrably untrue statements, with material irregularities full of inaccuracies, innuendoes and corrupted evidence – an affront to justice.

The prosecution in bad faith failed to investigate the truth behind these outrageous allegations. I did not know for years, that there was no form of legal representation – none so ever, at the 6 weeks jury trial!

Falsified Court records

Even the court records of the trial were falsified. The Wood Green Crown Court’s official records and computer files (Record Sheet T20080141) showed that barristers daily attended for the defence. They had listed the court-appointed counsel, the amicus, as defence lawyers. Therefore, any journalist or authority enquiring would be under that false impression and lie.

Even I, the convicted, until two years into my incarceration, and more than 6 years after the trial, was under that specific belief, that I had been represented by two defence barristers. I knew that these appointed ‘defence barristers’; had not been in contact with my defence team (who had already cost in excess of £100,000); attempted to contact me; had any defence documentation and witnesses, all this I knew. However, I still believed that a British court would not directly breach not only, the European Convention of Human Rights, but also the most fundamental to justice, that the two parties are there in court or represented in front of a judge and a jury.

As to any of the other grave abuses and a misdemeanour by the police, prosecution and the court, they just pile up in one big process, where there was a blatant abuse of power – an injustice.

One can argue about the interpretation of laws, rules and procedures, the objectivity of the parties involved, but when the authorities completely ignore the facts and resort to downright fabrication,  one has to question the moral and ethics of the highest authority.

To lie about the most fundamental part, as to holding a fair trial; that the two parties are presented; that when the accused is not present; that he/she is represented in court. I find this not only deplorable but also immoral. We all know what people is cable off when moral values go out of the window.

The Judge and Crown maintained that the trial was held in accordance with the basis of a fair trial, why did they then later, have to resort to lies about the defendant’s legal representation. Could it be that they had taken note from the court-appointed counsel’s submissions to the Court, as to a breach of the European Conventions of Human Rights? Further, that the trial was not adversarial and using outrageous hearsay evidence and downright fabrication to blacken my person.

Unfortunately, I have no access to any legal, law books in my incarceration, and as I am without legal representation, I cannot argue much as to this fundamental issue of law and ethic. Further, the judge, who acted as the second prosecutor during the in-absentia trial, according to the Court-appointed amicus, took very early retirement, at the age of 53, after passing the ten-year sentence.

When a lawyer saw in print that the police (DC Mark Loftus) and the Crown (David M. Williams) had lied to the German authorities, he expressed great importance to this. I was a little surprised, as I had a long list of lies and misdeeds by the police and prosecution and had not placed so much importance in – just another lie. I had not realised the importance of this lie about a fundamental legal issue, as it truly reflected the whole case and showed the authorities will do anything for a conviction, whatever they had to do.

With non-disclosure, outrageous untruthfulness and lies the police and prosecution abused the system and had restrain orders issued, with grave consequences and I maintain, a criminal intent. This allowed lawyers to take maximum advantages of the situation, selling my property, above Monaco, for less than we paid 13 years earlier, in addition to lining their own pockets with outrageous fees.

Locked up 24/7 in a dunk Victorian dungeon, in filth and squalor

Objectively, looking at the shocking treatment, I have been subject to; my age and illnesses, the many moves, from prison to prison, from cell to cell; with the loss of my clothes and possession for months; worst with no access to urgent medical care, sometimes for up to more than 4 months. Further, not allowed legal aid to engage lawyers; not allowed facilities to work on my case; I have to ask – what was the objective?

I am into near 3½ years’ incarceration, including in Wandsworth, Pentonville and Wormwood Scrubs prisons; Prime Minister David Cameron has subjected me to “the most repressive regime in filth and squalor”, as even described.

The Times, 9th December 2015, as to HMP Pentonville, headline:  “Lack of humanity is most shocking” “I predict a riot…… Dickensian prisons are ready to explode”

“There were piles of rubbish on the wings and bloodstains on the sheets at Pentonville when inspectors arrived. It was such a health risk that the team leader threatened to take his staff out unless it was cleaned up.” “Revolting would be the right word,” says Nick Hardwick, the chief inspector of prisons. We found filth and squalor. It is not about money. Violence is rising. There were 267 deaths in custody in the year to September. The number of self-inflicted deaths has zoomed. In fact, there were 18,874 assaults and 30,706 incidents of self-harm during 2015.

As to HMP Wormwood Scrubs, Nick Hardwick stated: “The prison officers have a reputation of being tough, yet I had officers coming up to me and saying ‘go and look at these cells because I wouldn’t keep a dog in them’.” The Guardian headline on the 8th October 2014, “Wormwood Scrubs cuts led to ‘Chaos and dysfunction’.” This article raised serious concern as to the dirty, dilapidated and filthy state of the prison.

I have witnessed in the last three years, the total failure and the dysfunctional penal system in UK. However, prisons are a symptom of social failure, and as much a cause of crime as a cure for it. I have always maintained that you can judge a nation’s democracy by its jails.

Denied lawyers and a ‘real’ trial

Despite being denied a legal aid lawyer, to advise on appeal, and denied access to the court transcripts from the in-absentia trial (after 8 years), I was able to file an application for an appeal last June for a new and “fair trial”. I submitted a 176 pages submission with hundreds of exhibits of documentation. As of writing, near 12 months after submitting this, I was recently told that a large amount of my submissions and documentation had been lost or mislaid by the Court!

According to the Crown’s own submission to the Court dated the 30th November 2008, I, the defendant, should “personally be served with the decision, without delay, after the surrender, and thereupon be informed of his right to a re-trial...” That should have taken place in May 2013, when returning to London. Moreover, it was an obligation for UK to offer me a re-trial, when I was extradited from Germany, in accordance with

As with everything, I have been denied my rights for a new trial, an obligation set out by the European Council Framework Decision, since I arrived three and a half year ago, falsely extradited from Germany, by abuse of executive power. In view, that I had many physical illnesses and suffered severe depression, I was subjected to being moved around 6 times to 4 London prison and more than 20 cells, all part of the process, to destroy my ability to fight and expose the truth of the miscarriage of justice.

As a Danish national, in my 75th year, I have not received any assistance from the Danish Embassy or from Denmark.

Injustice anywhere is the threat to justice everywhere!