I've been taking advice from legal eagles.
1.The actions of the Readers Editor of the Observer have been found to have breached the Data Protection Act 1998. Despite an appeal by the Guardian, the ICO still ruled that they had breached the DPA 1998.
2. A document that Stephen Pritchard forwarded to a prosecution witness in my case had been contested and challenged for some 10 months prior to Pritchard sharing it. Ergo, he knew the contents had been challenged and part of that challenge was my assertion that it had been fabricated by someone. Why on God's earth would he share it knowing that I had claimed it was a fake. Why indeed? Maybe to pervert the course of justice? All the signs are there to suggest it was for exactly this reason.
3. Additionally, Pritchard's claim that the document was a legal affidavit fell on its face when it was compared to a bonafide legal affidavit. For example, any legal affidavit would probably have the date it was made on it somewhere. Not in this case, the document is undated. Not only that but throughout the pages, there are corrections and other scrawls that don't have any initials next to them. A real legal affidavit it is not.
4. Despite the offer of damages running into the thousands of pounds and a letter of regret the Guardian still refuse to disclose the origins of the document. They also refuse to acknowledge that the document is still out there and could be shared at any time to anyone. I have no way of knowing if it is already out there online.
5. Now, if you or I had behaved in such a manner, what do you think the consequences would be? If you or I had a tendency to pervert or had intended to knowingly pervert the course of public justice, do you think we would have been prosecuted? I think we would be facing a prison sentence should we be convicted. And rightly so.
6. Is there press immunity from prosecution? It would seem that thus far, justice has yet to be meted out to some who deserve it. Additionally, because the Guardian repeatedly refuse to accept what's staring them right in their faces and continue to act like an ostrich; Are they not as guilty as the man they employ and continue to support by denying me the right to clear my name? I doubt the readers would disagree with me.
7. As for any future legal action, I have been assured by the Guardian's lawyers that I will be liable for all their costs, interest included. But, only if I lose. Charles Prestwich Scott wouldn't recognise any of those involved in this saga as anyone who shares his values.
The values he described are: honesty; cleanness (today interpreted as integrity); courage; fairness; and a sense of duty to the reader and the community. From here
Judge for yourselves using the CPS guidance.
I'll update this entry as time passes.
Charging Practice for Public Justice Offences
The following factors will be relevant to all public justice offences when assessing the relative seriousness of the conduct and which offence, when there is an option, should be charged. Consider whether the conduct:
Perverting the Course of Justice
was spontaneous and unplanned or deliberate and elaborately planned;
was momentary and irresolute or prolonged and determined;
was motivated by misplaced loyalty to a relative/friend or was part of a concerted effort to avoid, pervert, or defeat justice;
was intended to result in trivial or 'serious harm' to the administration of justice;
actually resulted in trivial or 'serious harm' to the administration of justice.
Examples of 'serious harm' include conduct which:
enables a potential defendant in a serious case to evade arrest or commit further offences;
causes an accused to be granted bail when he might otherwise not have;
avoids a police investigation for disqualified driving or other serious offences;
misleads a court;
puts another person in real jeopardy of arrest/prosecution or results in the arrest/prosecution of another person;
avoids a mandatory penalty such as disqualification;
results in the police losing the opportunity to obtain important evidence in a case.
In cases of any seriousness, a prosecution will usually take place unless there are public interest factors tending against prosecution which clearly outweigh those tending in favour. Although there may be public interest factors against prosecution in a particular case, prosecutions for public justice offences should usually go ahead and those factors should be put to the court for consideration when sentence is being passed.
Perverting the Course of Justice
The offence of Perverting the Course of Justice is committed when an accused:
does an act or series of acts;
which has or have a tendency to pervert; and
which is or are intended to pervert;
the course of public justice.
The offence is contrary to common law and triable only on indictment. It carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment and/or a fine.
The course of justice must be in existence at the time of the act(s). The course of justice starts when:
an event has occurred, from which it can reasonably be expected that an investigation will follow; or
investigations which could/might bring proceedings have actually started; or
proceedings have started or are about to start.
1.The actions of the Readers Editor of the Observer have been found to have breached the Data Protection Act 1998. Despite an appeal by the Guardian, the ICO still ruled that they had breached the DPA 1998.
2. A document that Stephen Pritchard forwarded to a prosecution witness in my case had been contested and challenged for some 10 months prior to Pritchard sharing it. Ergo, he knew the contents had been challenged and part of that challenge was my assertion that it had been fabricated by someone. Why on God's earth would he share it knowing that I had claimed it was a fake. Why indeed? Maybe to pervert the course of justice? All the signs are there to suggest it was for exactly this reason.
3. Additionally, Pritchard's claim that the document was a legal affidavit fell on its face when it was compared to a bonafide legal affidavit. For example, any legal affidavit would probably have the date it was made on it somewhere. Not in this case, the document is undated. Not only that but throughout the pages, there are corrections and other scrawls that don't have any initials next to them. A real legal affidavit it is not.
4. Despite the offer of damages running into the thousands of pounds and a letter of regret the Guardian still refuse to disclose the origins of the document. They also refuse to acknowledge that the document is still out there and could be shared at any time to anyone. I have no way of knowing if it is already out there online.
5. Now, if you or I had behaved in such a manner, what do you think the consequences would be? If you or I had a tendency to pervert or had intended to knowingly pervert the course of public justice, do you think we would have been prosecuted? I think we would be facing a prison sentence should we be convicted. And rightly so.
6. Is there press immunity from prosecution? It would seem that thus far, justice has yet to be meted out to some who deserve it. Additionally, because the Guardian repeatedly refuse to accept what's staring them right in their faces and continue to act like an ostrich; Are they not as guilty as the man they employ and continue to support by denying me the right to clear my name? I doubt the readers would disagree with me.
7. As for any future legal action, I have been assured by the Guardian's lawyers that I will be liable for all their costs, interest included. But, only if I lose. Charles Prestwich Scott wouldn't recognise any of those involved in this saga as anyone who shares his values.
The values he described are: honesty; cleanness (today interpreted as integrity); courage; fairness; and a sense of duty to the reader and the community. From here
Judge for yourselves using the CPS guidance.
I'll update this entry as time passes.
Charging Practice for Public Justice Offences
The following factors will be relevant to all public justice offences when assessing the relative seriousness of the conduct and which offence, when there is an option, should be charged. Consider whether the conduct:
Perverting the Course of Justice
was spontaneous and unplanned or deliberate and elaborately planned;
was momentary and irresolute or prolonged and determined;
was motivated by misplaced loyalty to a relative/friend or was part of a concerted effort to avoid, pervert, or defeat justice;
was intended to result in trivial or 'serious harm' to the administration of justice;
actually resulted in trivial or 'serious harm' to the administration of justice.
Examples of 'serious harm' include conduct which:
enables a potential defendant in a serious case to evade arrest or commit further offences;
causes an accused to be granted bail when he might otherwise not have;
avoids a police investigation for disqualified driving or other serious offences;
misleads a court;
puts another person in real jeopardy of arrest/prosecution or results in the arrest/prosecution of another person;
avoids a mandatory penalty such as disqualification;
results in the police losing the opportunity to obtain important evidence in a case.
In cases of any seriousness, a prosecution will usually take place unless there are public interest factors tending against prosecution which clearly outweigh those tending in favour. Although there may be public interest factors against prosecution in a particular case, prosecutions for public justice offences should usually go ahead and those factors should be put to the court for consideration when sentence is being passed.
Perverting the Course of Justice
The offence of Perverting the Course of Justice is committed when an accused:
does an act or series of acts;
which has or have a tendency to pervert; and
which is or are intended to pervert;
the course of public justice.
The offence is contrary to common law and triable only on indictment. It carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment and/or a fine.
The course of justice must be in existence at the time of the act(s). The course of justice starts when:
an event has occurred, from which it can reasonably be expected that an investigation will follow; or
investigations which could/might bring proceedings have actually started; or
proceedings have started or are about to start.
