A Travesty of Justice – not once, but twice!
My confrontation with the Danish Inquisitorial legal system ended up at the European Court of Human Rights, where Denmark lost their first case. I had not received a fair trial, the foundation of justice.
The Danish authorities prevented me from making the most serious complaint, for me, to the European Commission of Human Right, namely about my 309 days of total solitary confinement, ending in a 55 days hunger strike. This they were able to do as they held all communication with the Commission back for 26 months, something, totally against the Convention itself.
The British were even more calculated by making sure that my Application to the Court of Human Rights would not happen, as to my in-absentia jury trial in London. They deliberately took a laptop (which had taken me 15 months to get from the Ministry of Justice) with the completed Application to ECHR with documentation in January 2017, only days before the six months limit, imposed by the Convention in Article 35. They had been listening to my telephone calls to my lawyer and family.
My cup of endurance runs over, and my human personality cries out “I can’t take it no longer” Underneath my impossible meek exterior, a fire rage inside me. I have been pushed around; humiliated with my dignity gone and a moment comes that I can’t take it anymore. My wounds from Denmark lasted a lifetime. 27 June 2014 MH
A Travesty of Justice
“A miscarriage of justice; an act of the legal system that is an insult to the system of justice”.
The verdict at the flagrantly unfair in-absentia trial in London, a show trial, a jury trial without the defendant, me, any defense lawyers, defence documentation, and witnesses. The judge acted as the second prosecutor at the six-week jury trial in 2008-2009, and all the prosecutions’ witnesses were led – that was a travesty of justice.
An in-absentia trial where the accused (me) had not even seen the final indictment, an indictment that was ambiguous and changed during the six-week jury trial based on manufactured evidence, by corrupt police and prosecution, all out to destroy my reputation and impugn my character.
A special “Court-appointed counsel” was appointed to the “Court“, days before the in-absentia trial, he advised the Judge before the commencement of the trial, that the trial could not go ahead, as it would be against the European Convention of Human Rights, Article 6, the right to a fair trial. Moreover, that a European Arrest Warrant could not be used later if the trial ended in a conviction. He wrote in his submission to the Judge in December 2008 (Amicus Submission Re Closing Speeches – 13.12.2008):
“This has been a trial in which the defendant has:
i) not been present;
ii) not been represented;
iii) not given evidence;
iv) not called any witnesses;
v) not advanced a positive case
Accordingly, the nature of the proceedings has not been adversarial“
This Court-appointed Counsel also observed that the Judge acted as the second prosecutor during the in-absentia trial and worse all witnesses were led. None of the witnesses was ever questioned by the defense.
No transcript exists from this in-absentia trial, nor have records of the Judge’s Direction or Summing-up, even the detailed judgment never been seen by the defendant.
The jury could not agree on the most important charges and therefore, had to be decided on a majority vote.
The Judgement handed out from the in-absentia trial, was a ten-year sentence. This sounds more like a banana republic than the home of the Magna Carta. The amount in question was £312,000 as to a mortgage. Considering I had full power as trustee, even this charge should never have entered a court.
The same month, that the Judge, Anna Guggenheim, delivered the Judgement, she asked for early retirement at the age of 53, after being one of the youngest female judges appointed to the High Court.
Fabricated Documentation sent from Denmark
A substantial part of the documentation to blacken the defendant, Mogens Hauschildt (me), who was not in Court, had been supplied by Denmark.
Denmark had translated hundreds of pages from a Danish trial 28 years earlier. A trial, which in 1989 was judged by the full Court of 17 Judges of the European Court of Human Rights, was against Article 6 of the Convention, the rights to a fair trial.
These documents translated by the Danish authorities to English was manufactured transcripts, dictated by a Judge convicted by the ECHR, and from the Danish trial 28 years earlier to cover up the truth of the real political reason behind the case in 1980-84.
Transcripts, that the Commission and later the European Court of Human Rights, did not wish to see since they were well aware that they been manufactured.
These transcripts had been created by subjective dictation by the trial Judge, sometimes weeks after the Court hearings, and never reflected what really took place in the hundreds of court hearings
This Judge, Claus Larsen, was later judged by the full Court of 17 Judges Court of Human Rights, from all member countries at the time, not to have given the defendant, Mogens Hauschildt, a fair trial.
Nevertheless, these Danish manufactured transcripts were used to blacken the defendant 28 years later in the in-absentia trial in London. Hundreds of pages with smear slander and lies in front of the 12-member jury, who was never able to hear anything from the accused or the defence.
Before and after the in-absentia trial, the British police press releases were appalling spiteful, full of lies and false accusations and totally outrageous, displayed inexplicable and unjustified prejudice against the defendant. Again, the Danish tabloid press just copied such police press releases, without any responsibility to the truth of what had taken place.
The defendant, Mogens Hauschildt (me) was at the time of the in-absentia trial, in my home in South of France, ill from severe depression and bereavement, under the treatment by two doctors and prescribed strong medication making him unfit.
I had been bailed to my home, Villa les Anges, in France, in December 2007 by HH Justice Mitting at the High Court in London, who declared that the police had subjected the defendant to blatant abuse of process and lied.
No attempt was made to contact me, neither before the in-absentia trial nor after.
As Interpol’s records clearly show, the French police did not go to my home, Villa les Anges, before one year after the in-absentia trial. Further, I first received a letter from the High Court in London ten months after the trial, telling me of the judgment, but not showing the indictment or anything else.
Now if this had been a parking ticket, but it was a sentence of ten years, for something I did not have a clue about. The bankers involved with the recent fraud “The men who plundered Europe’: bankers on trial for siphoning €60bn” if convicted, they will only receive ten years imprisonment.
As to our case, firstly, as there could not be any form of a criminal act, my partner Romana, her son and me in relation to Pamela Schutzmann, we had all acted in accordance with her instructions and indeed for her best. Secondly, how could there be any trial, without the accused, any defence and defence documentation?
My adopted son Alexander, having lost his dear mother in 2008, grieving and coming back to Europe for Chrismas, from China where he worked, was subject to a horrendous treatment by the British, despite they knew he was innocent. Nevertheless, they issued a European Arrest Warrant on him, based entirely on total trumped-up charges, which had no possibility to stand up in court. He had been a director of Pamela Schutzmann’s property company in Panama.
Alexander was arrested in Nice and kept in prison over Christmas, extradited to London to be held incarcerated in terrible condition for another month, denied bail until my son Mark posted a half a million-pound cash bail. If this was not enough, they insisted that he stayed in London for 11 months under restrictive conditions, despite he lived and worked in China. The trumped-up case was in December 2009 thrown out of court. Alexander never received any compensation, absolutely outrageous and disgraceful.
The Case – a Payback
The case, was payback from the Conservatives Party, the Masons, and parts of the Jewish community – three very powerful elements of the British establishment. Later It becomes a payback from Denmark, who saw an opportunity to blacken again my character.
They used a systemic corrupt system with a corrupt judge, prosecution, and police. An outrageous allegation made by a very ill 87 years old woman and her drug-addicted and dysfunctional 64 years old son, all motivated by greed.
The case was handled by a corrupt low rank and uneducated police constable, Mark Loftus, he was able to act deceptively with criminal behaviour, despite he had many serious complaints against him, and even had been demoted to lower rank. The police cover-up and protect their own people, just read the Operation Tiberius, just some of the headlines “Shocking report on corruption in the Met ‘buried’ by police who let dodgy officers quit”
The Operation Tiberius document — suppressed by the Met Police for more than a decade — identified 34 then-serving officers linked to some of Britain’s most ruthless villains. Another 22 ex-Met officers were involved in corruption and acted as go-betweens for cops and eight crime networks in North and East London. The damning report states: “Organised crime is currently able to infiltrate the Metropolitan Police Service at will.” Tiberius — produced in 2003 — gathered material from cops and MI5, who bugged The Nightingale pub close to East London’s Snaresbrook Crown Court, often frequented by police. Tiberius identified 80 corrupt individuals with links to the police, including 42 then-serving officers and 19 former detectives.
It was clear to the defence lawyer back in 2007: that DC Loftus pre-empted the normal police inquiry, from early days of the investigation, with an intriguing tangle of inadequacies, lies and downright fabrication and withholding crucial evidence, even worse, making perjury to the Court, by misrepresentation under oath.”
My defence lawyers made an official complaint about DC Loftus, in 2008 to the Commissioner and IPCC (Independent Police Complaints Commission). He should have immediacy been removed. Unfortunately, I was unable to see to anything, unfit with my soul mate dying.
Systemic Corruption in Local Councils
The depressing truth is that corruption is endemic in Britain’s bureaucratic planning system. As Rohan Silva recently wrote: “In every corner of the country, you can find stories of bribery, with local councillors and officials rigging the planning process for their own gain…….In other words, corruption is systemic and it’s caused by the inadequacy of Britain’s property rights. Outmoded development laws allow crime to thrive.” These words by a former adviser to David Cameron, printed by the Sunday Times. Read “CORRUPTION IN UK LOCAL GOVERNMENT”
Well, this corruption was there in London’s most powerful borough Westminster City Council (WCC) in the 1980s and 1990s. I worked for a long time to expose the systemic corruption in the early to mid-1990s with the Conservatives running the Westminster City Council, headed at the time, by Lady Porter Shirley Porter and the Conservatives.
Lady Porter, the heir to the Tesco fortune had ultimate to flee to Israel after being found guilty of willful misconduct and ordered to pay £36.1 million.
The systemic corruption by the Conservative Party and indeed other political parties with their corrupt practices is still endemic. Moreover, at the time, the corrupt local police with its hands in the till it appears that this is still the case from time to time.
Mayfair and Soho shared the ward, during the years I helped to expose considerable police corruption in Westminster, a place where the whole police squad (the so-called Porn squad) including, the Commander was exposed and sent to jail.
Corruption on a scale, which beggars’ description. Eventually, there were two major corruption trials and George Fenwick, Bill Moody, Wally Virgo and Kenneth Drury were all given between ten and fourteen years in prison. Most of this corruption is covered up by various secret societies and indeed the Masons.
Sadly, police corruption still remains a big issue, specific in local licensing, however, the real big corruption is in property, for hundreds of millions, even billions is still is so deep-rooted and even endemic in councils across Britain (see: Bricks, bribery and mortar, Sunday Times December 17, 2017).
As recently (June 2020) Communities Secretary Robert Jenrick and his supporters today argued “no impropriety” in his decision to overrule his planning inspector and give the green light to a controversial 1,500-home Docklands development by former newspaper owner Richard Desmond. See https://www.onlondon.co.uk/ This corruption is small money, Robert Jenrick’s accepted that his approval of one-time Conservative-supporting billionaire Richard Desmond’s project at the Isle of Dogs was unlawful. Jenrick’s decision was made just 24 hours before the Tower Hamlets CIL would have cost Desmond at least £40m. All the top of the iceberg and nothing unusual – always lots of money to the selected few. A call for police investigation will go no where.
On behalf of the Residents’ Association of Mayfair (RAM), I fought the greed of landowners and property developers wanting to build offices and commercialise Mayfair. I fought to keep Mayfair mostly residential, as a local village, as I recalled back in the 50s, 60s, and 70s.
On behalf of RAM, I fought against the continuation of use of temporary granted office space, with the aim of getting residential space back to the Mayfair community. Not more offices which were advocated by the main landowner Grosvenor Estate and many property companies. I believed that one day, residential space would be far more valuable then offices.
As to corruption, the UK is sadly one of the most corrupt places I know. I see recently that Anti-corruption campaigners have backed an Italian mafia expert who claimed the UK was a global centre for corruption.
In an attack on how London helps criminals launder their money, Roberto Saviano, who has been under police protection since exposing the activities of Naples crime syndicate the Camorra, told recently an audience: “If I asked you what is the most corrupt place on Earth you might tell me it’s Afghanistan, maybe Greece, Nigeria, the South of Italy, and I will tell you it’s the UK.”
He has now been backed by the campaign group Transparency International, whose head of UK advocacy and research Rachel Davies told The Independent: “It’s absolutely true that the UK is one of the leading financial centres for the laundering of corrupt money from overseas, whether through the property market, luxury goods or other sectors.”
“The UK has been a prime location for stashing away illicitly gained wealth, as anti-money laundering systems are weak and sectors such as UK property represent a safe investment, as well as a place to hide corrupt money.”
The fight for the change of use of prime Mayfair space, from offices to residential was a hard and bitter fight. At the time we were up against a wall of money, the interest of the landowners, property companies, and leaseholders, all with huge political clout. We won, and today Mayfair have so much more residential space, all with much higher values, however, it was for me at a great personal cost, with my in absentia trial and incarceration. At the time we knew it was a fight for hundreds of million pounds, now we know that possibly billions of pounds have been made from the residential space.
Our fight was subject to a lot of press coverage, even the Danish daily financial newspaper covered the fight. Although, wrongly as normal, they reported we had lost the battle. The above article tells in Danish about my case in Denmark and wrongly reports my win against Denmark. Since all means were used in our fight for residential space, I had many times been more or less blackmailed as to this event in Denmark, nothing new.
We, the Residents’ Association, fought against the Grosvenor Estate and other property owner’s interest to maintain these offices as commercial offices, where our interest was to revert them to residential property, after all these properties had only been granted the temporary use of office license, after the war. One of the henchmen of the Grosvenor Estate was a local estate agent, who argued very strongly for the Grosvenor Estate and other property owner’s interests, trying to keep the offices and not allowing them for residential use. What is interesting, this agent did later make millions on the fact that these properties all returned to residential use – That is Life!
After my involvement stopped with the Association and we left for South of France, the Mayfair Residents’ Association was for many years the tool and a lapdog for property peoples interest in Mayfair, they were in total control. It appears now, after 25 years, that we have completed a full circle, as my son Alexander is now in charge of dealing with planning issues in Mayfair on behalf of the Association.
I, later, near 30 years ago, instigated the fight against Crossrail going under Mayfair and went to the House of Lord fighting Crossrail project, we wanted a different route. Considering this project would make billions for the advisors, lawyers, and bankers, this was not very popular.
The Crossrail project was due to a cost max of ₤6 Billion, now I see that the final cost could be more than ₤20 billion. The fees earned by the “City Mafia” must be in excess of ₤2-3 billion – yes, indeed, I created powerful enemies.
No doubt that I created many powerful enemies at the time, all waiting to pounce on me one day. I had already back in the mid-90s received warnings by very senior people, including from a member of the Privy Council and a former Conservative Government minister.
More than 12 years later the opportunity came, with the outrageous allegation, first giving me a heart attack and later the death of my soul mate. All making me totally incapable of dealing with these allegations, ill with severe depression and bereavement. Unable to deal with anything, including a case that never should have gone to a Court of Law.
LIES, LIES, AND LIES AGAIN
I wrote in early 2016, I have been incarcerated, mostly for 24 hours a day, in abject conditions, in dank Victorian dungeons for 3½ years, I have had ample time to reflect on what happened to me and why. Until this event, 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 regard 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 8 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, defense lawyers, defense documentation, and witnesses and not let the defendant see the judgment, the judge’s several directions to a 12-member jury – nothing, after 8 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
The defendant has been denied legal aid for an appeal. Not been offered a lawyer to assist him for a new trial or his appeal Art. 6 (1) of ECHR. His right to have legal advice to an appeal: “equality of arms” (égalité des armes) has been totally ignored. It took the defendant 21 months to get access to an old laptop without spellcheck.
Until now, the defendant has been denied a re-trial. Art 6 ECHR (3) (c) or have not been proper capable of applying re-trial, further, since the absence of legal representation at this stage could in certain circumstances affect the fairness of the proceedings as a whole
Protocol 7 Art.2.“ everyone convicted of a criminal offense to have his or her conviction or sentence review by a higher tribunal”. It is at least arguable that the words of the text do not achieve this as to “application for leave as a form of review under this provision” Protocol No.7 to the Convention as amended by Protocol 11. Article 2. The right to appeal in criminal matters.
The defendant had been denied his rights under Art 6 (3) (6) “requires the accused to have “at his disposal for the purposes of exonerating himself, or of obtaining a reduction in his sentence, all relevant elements that have been or could be collected by the competent authorities” Further, as to EHRR Art 6 (3)(c) as to representation and “….that representation must be effective” [Ebanks v. UK (2010) 51 EHRR 2 and Art 6 (3)(d) as to hearsay evidence. “
Article 6: Right to a fair and public hearing
1. In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interest of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice.
2. Everyone charged with a criminal offense shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.
3. Everyone charged with a criminal offense has the following minimum rights:
- to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him
- to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defense
- to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require
- to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him
- to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court.
An Affront to Justice
How was it possible, to go along with such outrageous allegation, made by a 86 years old woman, 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, had a criminal record and never worked. Much worse, for the police not to properly instigate the documentation for such shocking allegation and try to find the truth.
I had known the “victim” since 1976, and acted for more than ten years with her power of attorney and 6 years as her trustee, always acting in her interest, as my partner-in-life considered her as her English mother. I succeed in 1997 to get a property back into her estate, a property she had given to her much younger boyfriend, a Barbados property worth half a million.
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 statements 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, making everything opaque. Constable Loftus peddled lies and distortions with innuendoes and conjectures, demonstrably untrue fabrication – an affront to justice.
The recent Attorney General’s review of disclosure in the United Kingdom, published in 2018, sadly fails to address the plight of innocent people who have been wrongly imprisoned.
Geoffrey Cox QC MP’s review found that police are “not always” following reasonable lines of inquiry, meaning leads that could point to a defendant’s innocence are not being pursued.
The report also admitted that police and prosecutors are “not always applying the disclosure test correctly, which means that material should be disclosed is not disclosed”.
When the police do not in cases where they are facing the defendant and his defense in Court, disclose material that could point to a defendant’s innocence, one can clearly understand, what an in-absentia trial means with the defendant and lawyers.
The review failed to address problems with the current law on disclosure after conviction, which makes it almost impossible for those seeking to overturn their convictions to discover and access to evidence wrongly withheld from them at trial.
While this review accepts that there are serious problems that need fixing, it ignores the plight of those who are already wrongly imprisoned because of police and prosecutors failing to disclose key evidence.
The Attorney General failed to address issues with the law that currently governs access to evidence after conviction, which means it is almost impossible for the innocent to access justice.
As to my case, 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.
The 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, 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 is 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 old age, find myself in a dank Victorian dungeon, and not see the sun for more than three and a half years. Further, having to wait, more than 4-5 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 defense representation, at the six-week in-absentia trial, and me they simply cannot be trusted.
Lying about, that I had two defense barristers representing me at the in-absentia trial, an absolute lie, as there was no defense representation, during the 6 weeks jury trial.
I, as 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 inquiry, 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.
My 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: “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 by the police, having left my partner-in-life in our home, dying at any moment from a brain tumour.
All this should be seen in relation 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 trial. They wanted to obtain a conviction, whatever it took, even when, not all the jury members agreed.
This action 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 see these submissions by amicus, in fact, 18 months into my incarceration in London.
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. The Court totally ignored that I was appointed a trustee and had the general power of attorney to act. Further, I had a duty to protect Pamela Schutzmann as to the “real” ownership of her estate.
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. After all, she had also been falsely accused in the case.
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 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! It took me 18 months into my incarceration, to know this.
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 misdemeanor by the police, prosecution, and the court, they just pile up in one big process, where there was a blatant abuse of power – and 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 ethical 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 Convention of Human Rights? Further, that the trial was not adversarial and using outrageous hearsay evidence and downright fabrication to blacken my person.
Unfortunately, I had no access to any legal, law books in my incarceration, and as I was without legal representation, I could not argue much as to this fundamental issue of law and ethics. 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 restraint orders issued, with grave consequences and I maintain, with criminal intent.
This allowed lawyers to take maximum advantages of the situation, selling my property, above Monaco, to themselves at arm- length for less than we paid 13 years earlier, and stealing the proceed.
Locked up 24/7 in a dunk Victorian dungeon, in filth and squalor
I wrote in 2016, objectively, looking at the shocking treatment, I have been subject to at my age and suffering many 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 4-5 months. Further, not allowing me legal aid to engage lawyers; not allowing facilities to work on my case; I have to ask – what was the objective?
It is a sad reality, that when people are innocent, it takes on average 17 years to expose the injustice, in the meantime, by leaning on the prison service, they know how to destroy and even kill this person, who fights for justice.
“You can judge a society by the way it treats its prisoners”
– Winston Churchill
I wrote in 2016: I am into 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 in The Times.
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 should know, as I was one who had stayed longest, at the time, in the notorious D-wing of Pentonville prison, a place where murders took place, lots of suicide, despondency, distress and suffering. According to seasoned prisoners, the worst hellhole in Britain. I caught many mice and kept 15 in my cell, never mind the rats and cockroaches.
I have witnessed in the last three and a half years, the total failure and the dysfunctional penal system in the 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.
Since I did not see the sun for three and a half year, as it was too dangerous to go outside into a prison yard with piles of rubbish and constant threats of violence, I developed acute deficiency of D vitamin, the D-vitamin deficiency caused me considerable pain with rheumatoid arthritis, added to my depression and ultimately gave me diabetic. Over time research has linked low vitamin D levels with diabetes, cardiovascular disease, autoimmune disease, osteoporosis, and cancer.
Denied lawyers and a ‘real’ trial
In the years after my initial arrest in 2006, I spent more than ₤120,000 on lawyers and after my 2013 arrest more than ₤310,000 was spent in total, just lawyer’s usual billings, basically doing nothing in return, as I did not have a Court case. Moreover, it was me who ultimately got access to what had taken place with the in-absentia trial. Therefore, I simply could not allow more money to be spent on such leaches, I wanted the British taxpayers to pay for their misdeed.
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 in June 2015 for a new and “fair trial”. I submitted a 176 pages submission with hundreds of exhibits of documentation. Near 12 months after submitting this, I was told that a large number 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 the UK to offer me a re-trial, when I was extradited from Germany, in accordance with the EAW.
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 years 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.
Injustice anywhere is the threat to justice everywhere!
A Travesty of Justice
“A miscarriage of justice; an act of the legal system that is an insult to the system of justice”.
The verdict at the in-absentia trial in London, was a travesty of justice.
A six week jury trial in 2008-2009, without the defendant, any defence, defence documentation or witnesses.
An in-absentia trial with 12 member jury, which the accused had not been informed about, nor seen the final indictment, as this indictment was changed during the six-week jury trial. The main charge had no legal basis.
A special advisor “a Court-appointed counsel” was appointed to the court, he advised the Judge before the commencement of the trial, that the trial could not go ahead, as it would be against Article 6, of the European Convention of Human Rights – the right to a fair trial. The judge ignored this and went ahead with the in-absentia trial.
This Court-appointed Counsel, amicus, also observed that the Judge acted as the second prosecutor during the six weeks in-absentia trial and worse all witnesses was led. None of the witnesses was ever question by the defence or seen by the defendant.
No transcript exist from the six-week in-absentia trial, nor records of the Judge’s Directions to the jury or Summing-up. The defendant have never seen a detailed judgement. Even the official court registration of the daily proceedings was false.
The jury could not agree on the most important charges. This meant these charges (outrageous in the first place) had to be decided by a forced majority vote by the 12-member jury.
The Judgement handed out, by the judge, from the in-absentia trial, was a ten-year sentence. There was no defense to question any witnesses or documentation during the six week trial. This sounds more like a banana republic than the home of the Magna Carta.
The same month, that the Judge, Anna Guggenheim, delivered the Judgement, she asked for an early retirement at the age of 53, after being one of the youngest female judges appointed to the High Court.
A substantial part of the documentation to blacken the defendant and sway the jury, against the defendant, Mogens Hauschildt (me) had been supplied by Denmark from manufactured transcripts 28 years earlier.
Denmark had translated hundreds of pages from a Danish trial 28 years earlier. A trial, which in 1989 was judge by 17 Judges of the European Court of Human Rights, was against the Article 6 of the Convention, the rights to a fair trial.
These documents translated by the Danish authorities to English, was manufactured transcripts from the Danish trial 28 years earlier to cover up the truth of the real political reason behind the case in 1980-84.
Transcripts, that the Commission and later the European Court of Human Rights, did not wish to see, since they were well aware that they been manufactured by the Danish authorities to justify the political case against me.
These transcripts had been created by subjective dictation by the trial Judge, Claus Larsen, sometimes weeks after the Court hearings, and never reflected what really took place in the hundreds of court hearings
This Judge, Claus Larsen, was later judged by the full Court of 17 Judges Court of Human Rights, from all member countries, not to have given the defendant, me, Mogens Hauschildt, a fair trial.
Nevertheless, these Danish manufactured transcripts were used to blacken the defendant 28 years later in the in-absentia trial in London. Hundreds of pages with smear slander and lies in front of the 12-member jury.
Before and after the in-absentia trial, the British police published press releases, which was appalling spiteful, full of lies and false accusations and total outrageous, displayed inexplicable and unjustified prejudice against the defendant. Again, the Danish tabloid press just copied the British police’s press releases.
The defendant, Mogens Hauschildt (me) was at the time of the in-absentia trial, in his home in South of France, ill from severe depression and bereavement, under the treatment by two doctor and prescribed strong medication making me unfit.
No attempt was made to contact the defendant, me, neither before the in-absentia trial nor after. As Interpol records show, the French police did not go to my home, Villa les Anges, before one year after the in-absentia trial. I first received a letter from the High Court in London ten months after the trial, telling me of the judgement.
The case, was a payback from the Conservatives Party, the Masons and parts of the Jewish community – three very powerful elements of the British establishment. Later it become a payback from Denmark, who saw an opportunity to blacken my character.
They used a systemic corrupt system with a corrupt judge, prosecution and police. Outrageous allegation made by a very ill 87 years old alcoholic woman and her drug addicted and dysfunctional 64 years old son, who had never worked in his life.
The case was handled by a corrupt low rank and uneducated police constable Mark Loftus, he was able to act deceptive with criminal behaviour, despite he had many serious complaints against him, and even, had been demoted to lower rank.
It was clear to the defence lawyers back in 2007, that DC Loftus pre-empted the normal police enquiry, from early days of the investigation, with an intriguing tangle of inadequacies, lies and downright fabrication and withholding crucial evidence.
My defence lawyers made an official complaint about DC Loftus, in 2008 to the Commissioner and IPCC (Independent Police Complaints Commission. Loftus should have immediacy been removed. Unfortunately, I was unable to see to anything, unfit with my soul mate dying.
I worked for a long time to expose the systemic corruption in the early and mid-1990s with the Conservatives running the Westminster City Council (WCC), in London. WCC is the most powerful borough in London, headed at the time, by Lady Porter Shirley Porter and the Conservatives.
Lady Porter, the heir to the Tesco fortune had ultimate to flee to Israel after being found guilty of wilful misconduct and ordered to pay £36.1 million. She was appointed Dame Commander of the Order of the British Empire in 1991 by John Major after delivering “a spectacular victory” in Westminster for the Conservatives in the 1990 elections.
The systemic corruption by the Conservative Party and indeed other political parties with their corrupt practises is still endemic. Moreover, at the time, the corrupt local police with its hands in the till, it appears that this is still the case from time to time.
Mayfair and Soho shared the ward, during the years I helped to expose considerable police corruption in Westminster, a place where the whole police squad (the so-called Porn squad) including, the Commander was exposed and sent to jail.
A corruption on a scale, which beggars’ description. Eventually there were two major corruption trials and George Fenwick, Bill Moody, Wally Virgo and Kenneth Drury were all given between ten and fourteen years in prison.
Sadly, police corruption still remain a big issue, specific in local licensing, however, the real big corruption, for hundreds of millions, even billions, is still is so deep rooted and even endemic in councils across Britain (see: Bricks, bribery and mortar, Sunday Times December 17 2017)
On behalf of the Residents’ Association in Mayfair, I fought the greed of landowners and property developers wanting to build offices and commercialise Mayfair. I fought to keep Mayfair mostly residential, as a local village, as I recalled back in the 50s and 60s.
I, instigated the fight against Crossrail going under Mayfair and went to the House of Lord fighting Crossrail project, we wanted a different route. Considering this project would make billions for the advisors, lawyers and bankers, this was not very popular.
The Crossrail project was due to cost max ₤6 Billion, now I see that the final cost could be more than ₤20 billion. The fees earned by the “City Mafia” must be in excess of ₤2-3 billion – yes, indeed, I created powerful enemies.
No doubt that I created many powerful enemies at the time, all waiting to bounce on me one day. I had already back in mid-90s received warnings by very senior people, including from a member of the Privy Council and a former Conservative Government minister.
More than 12 years later the opportunity came, with the outrageous allegation, first giving me a heart attack and later the death of my soul mate. All making me total incapable of dealing with allegation, which never should have gone to a Court of Law.
The worst part of these trumped-up criminal charges, other innocents people, including my soul mate Romana and her son Alexander, who I had adopted, was accused. Romana died of a brain tumour before anything could happen to her as to these outrageous charges.
Alexander’s case was thrown out of Court. First, he had to suffer a horrendous experience of imprisonment for 8 weeks (in France and London); further, he had to stay in London for 9 months. No compensation has ever been paid.
The background for the outrageous allegation from the 87-year-old woman and her son was greed. A property development for potential more than ₤100 million, involving her property. I had already worked for years to see that one day she would make money from such development. She could have made millions; instead, lawyers, the son, grandson and others stole it all.
The Magna Carta
NO FREE MAN
SHALL BE SEIZED OR IMPRISONED…
EXCEPT BY THE JUDGEMENT OF HIS EQUALS
OR BY THE LAW OF THE LAND
MAGNA CARTA 1215
(Text is taken from the British set of six stamps celebrating the 800 years anniversary)
I wrote on the 15 June 2015, the 800 years anniversary of the Magna Carta,
On the 24th November 2008, an in-absentia trial was held in London with a 12 member jury. The trial ended on the 9th of January 2009. A trial in a British Crown Court.
– without the defendant;
– without any defence representation;
– without defence documentation;
– without defence witnesses;
– without any statement by the defendant;
The defendant, I Mogens Hauschildt, a Danish citizen, had not made any statement as to the outrageous allegation and the various indictments produced by the prosecution, accept – a not guilty plea. I never saw the main indictment produced just days before the in-absentia trial and the alteration to this indictment at the end of the jury trial.
No defence lawyer questioned the 46 prosecution witnesses. The Court-appointed counsel, amicus curiae, stated in his submission to the Court prior to the in-absentia trial, that the trial would be in breach of Article 6 (1) of the European Convention of Human Rights and the defendant’s right to a fair trial.
When the in-absentia trial was held, I was very ill, being treated by doctors in my villa above Monaco in South of France, a place to where a British High Court judge had bailed me to stay. I was unfit to plea and totally unaware of such trial taking place, or anything really, ill with severe depression and grief. All this was known to the British police and prosecution and confirmed by many medical reports, latest in September 2008.
The Court-appointed counsel, asked ten days into the trial for the Crown just to call witnesses, rather than lead them and invited the Court to indicate what his “peculiar duties” were, pointing out that the Court had gone beyond that. He also noted that the judge acted as the second prosecutor at the trial – a trial without any defence representation. Despite this, the jury could not agree on the main convictions. The amicus wrote in his submission on the 13th December 2008 to the Court:
“This has been a trial in which the defendant has:
– not been present;
– not been represented;
– not given evidence;
– not called any witnesses;
– not advanced a positive case
…..Accordingly, the nature of the proceedings has not been “adversarial” in the usual sense of the word”
The jury could only agree on a majority vote, and the judge sentenced me to a ten years imprisonment.
I am innocent and was unfit to plea when the trial took place, after the death of my dear partner in life, a soul mate of 19 years. Since her death in 2008, I have been lost in a void of grief.
I have been unable to see any transcript from the trial, nearly seven years ago; been denied any legal assistance; denied proper medical supervision (e.g. it took me 5 months to see a doctor and 4 months to see a dentist); incarcerated most days 24 hours in a squalid Victorian dungeon.
The British prosecution and police deliberately lied to the German authorities in 2012/13 in order to get me extradited on a European Arrest Warrant by:
– misinforming the German Supreme court (Bundesgerichtshof), that extradition was based on “criminal investigation” and not that an in- absentia trial had been held and I was convicted with a ten years imprisonment;
– lying about that I was represented by two barristers, which was untrue, I had no defence;
– lying about that I had not supplied a medical confirmation of my illness to the Court in 2008, something, which I had;
– lying about that I had been contacted many times by the French police. The Interpol documentation clearly shows that the French police, first after more than a year after the in-absentia trial went to my home for the first time;
What is even more shocking, the court-appointed Counsel, amicus, submitted to the Court before the trial, that any European Arrest Warrant (EAW), would if the truth is known, not be valid, as I had not given a mandate to my lawyer to defend me in absence, moreover, I had no defence representation at the in-absentia trial, a fundamental requirement. So in order to get the German to execute the EAW and have me extradited, the British had to deliberately lie to the German!
Pernicious lies, disinformation, orchestrated media campaign with non-factual statements. A prosecution based on deceit, material irregularities, non-disclosure and collusion, all manufactured and to support the allegation against me, all without foundation – all are malicious lies, by an old alcoholic woman and a criminal drug-abusing son trying to blackmail my family and me.
Without that I had a heart attack being confronted with these outrageous charges in 2006 and my partner in life of 19 years becoming ill with a brain tumour and dying, there would not have been a case to bring to Court. The whole case is constructed on a foundation of lies motivated by greed, exploiting my illness and grief, and by using a dysfunctional, corrupt and outdated justice system.
The British authorities tried to destroy my adopted son’s life. He was arrested on his return from China where he lived, held over Christmas and New Year in France, thereafter, weeks in a squalid London prison. He had just prior to his arrest, lost his mother, but was forced to stay in London and attend every day a police station for 11 months. He was totally innocent, and his case was thrown out by the Crown Court the first days of trial. Nonetheless, he was used as a hostage to blackmail me and forcing me to London after the in-absentia trial.
It is grotesque and shameful that the United Kingdom this June celebrate the 800 anniversary of the Magna Carta and at the same time allowing such an in-absentia trial to take place. Moreover, blatantly abuse the European Arrest Warrant, with lies and deceit. A bad reflection of a justice system which once led the world and advanced human rights.
It is hopeful, that the prime minister David Cameron, acknowledge in his speech celebrating the Magna Carta, at Runnymede today, that in Britain, the good name of human rights had sometimes been “distorted and devalued”. His older brother, Alexander Cameron QC, was part of my defence team, who never attended the trial in-absentia in 2008!
It is my contention that the Danish authorities bent backwards to “assist” the British prosecution and produced hundreds of pages of translated transcripts from my Danish trial in 1982, a political prosecution. Transcripts which the European Commission of Human Rights, did not even wish to have translated in 1983, since they had been manufactured by the Danish authorities in their case against me. A case where I had been arrested for alleged tax evasion in 1980 and held 309 days in solitary confinement, ending with my 55 days hunger strike.
Nonetheless, 12 jury members in a British court 27 years later was confronted with such fabricated and made up hearsay evidence, entirely in order to blacken my person. This material was taken from the trial in Denmark, which was found to be in breach of the European Convention of Human Rights. Judged by the full Court of 17 judges from 17 European countries, on the 24th May 1989 to be a violation of Article 6, that Denmark had denied me a fair trial. At the time, Denmark had never lost a case at the Court, since Denmark was the first signatory to the European Convention of Human Rights, nearly forty years earlier.
Having fought injustice in Denmark to the highest Court and won, I will now, the short time I have left on this journey in life, do my best to bring the United Kingdom in front of the same Court and for the same breach of Article 6. of the European Convention of Human Right – the right to a fair trial! In doing this, I hope to generally stop the manifested abuse by countries using in-absentia trials, and specifically the United Kingdom, a country I once respected.
As to Jury Trials
Although only available to those whose cases are heard in the crown court, trial by jury has been a long-held tradition of British criminal justice for centuries, going back to Anglo-Saxon times when an accused could be acquitted if he found enough people to swear his innocence. The right was enshrined in law by Magna Carta, which in 1215 stated that no freeman should be imprisoned without the “lawful judgment of his peers”, and firmly established following the trial of William Penn and William Mead in 1670.
William Penn and William Mead were arrested for preaching in Gracechurch Street, London, in 1670.
The two men, who were Quakers, were arrested for preaching in Gracechurch Street, London. The recently passed Conventicle Act forbade gatherings of more than five to worship other than for services of the Church of England. But the jury of 12 men refused to convict the pair of “leading a dissident form of worship”, despite being directed to by the judge and imprisoned without food or water. They found the men “guilty of speaking” in Gracechurch Street”, and then modified their verdict to “guilty of speaking to an assembly in Gracechurch Street”.
The judge declared that the jury “shall not be dismissed until we have a verdict that the court will accept” and ordered Penn to be bound and gagged. Penn shouted to the jury: “You are Englishmen, mind your privilege, give not away your right.” The foreman, Edward Bushel, replied bravely: “Nor shall we ever do.”
After two days, the jury returned a not guilty verdict, prompting the furious judge to send them to prison for contempt of court until they paid a fine.
Those lawyers who oppose any move, even for a limit time, to permit judge-only trials believe it would set a dangerous precedent. They hold up the case of Penn and Mead to demonstrate the importance of being judged by a jury of 12 randomly selected members of the public.
Nigel Pascoe QC, a criminal barrister who has written a play about the trial, says: “It is impossible to overstate the importance of the case. It is the difference between an administrative judicial mindset which would exclude emotional factors and the instinctive judgement of our peers.”
In an action brought by Bushel, who refused to pay a fine, the chief justice of the Court of Common Pleas, Sir John Vaughan, said: “The jury must be independently and indisputably responsible for its verdicts, free from any threats from the court.”
It is that independence that underlines one of the key reasons for maintaining trial by jury, rather than having cases decided by professional judges.
Toilet paper – this is what the British think about the Magna Carta
Pre-trial and trial disclosure
No, the current disclosure framework has inherent faults which cause an unacceptably high risk of defendants receiving unfair trials and miscarriages of justice resulting.
The Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 (as amended by the Criminal Justice Act 2003) and its accompanying Code of Practice are structurally flawed in three key respects, which are interlinked:
• They require the police and prosecution to act in an impartial and inquisitorial manner when in practice they act as adversaries to the defence;
• They require police officers to make critical legal decisions regarding the sensitivity of the material when they are not legally-qualified;
• They require police officers and prosecutors to make decisions regarding the relevance and value of the material, when in fact it is the defence who will almost always likely know better what will help establish their client’s innocence or lesser culpability.
Evidence that police officers and prosecutors are inherently the wrong people to be tasked with ensuring the defence receives fair disclosure is provided by CPS focus group notes and survey answers obtained by the Centre for Criminal Appeals from HMCPSI under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). In these, prosecutors state that: “officers… put undermining material on the [MG6]D [the sensitive unused material schedule] to hide [it from the defence]”;
“officers are reluctant to investigate a defence or take statements that might assist the defence or undermine our case”; some “lawyers simply refuse to disclose undermining material”. These comments illustrate why in an adversarial system it is too risky to assign one side (the police and CPS) responsibility for providing fair and full disclosure to the other (the defence).
See the Disclosure Report: 2018_00_00_CCA_and_CLSIP_Disclosure_Report