28 November 2008

Daniel James sentenced to 10 years imprisonment

It is sad that Daniel James had little chance of gaining an acquittal at his trial, even though the jury failed to reach verdicts on 2 of the 3 charges. The odds were stacked against him from the start. He should have faced a Court Martial, but was forced into a civilian Crown Court trial by the Attorney General, and then further restrictions were placed on him in preparing for that trial.

Giovanni di Stefano has released a statement about the case, which shows his disappointment with the way the English courts are allowed to get away with their medieval and unjust practices. I expect the English way of Law is a hangover from the days when burning at the stake and being hung, drawn and quartered were the standard methods of punishment.

GIOVANNI DI STEFANO: " I have stated in the past that there would be an issue of the 'effectiveness' of the legal representation of Danny James. It was my intention to make a detailed statement regarding, what I HAD considered, to have been serious failing from the solicitors that I had recommended to Danny James and of Counsel that I had spoken to and recommended to the solicitors.

Although my misgivings continue I am not of the view that both Solicitors (Tank Jowett) and Counsel (Colin Nichols QC) can be blamed entirely. The Crown placed both Solicitors and Counsel in a position whereby Danny James did not receive 'effective' legal advice of his own free choosing.

Now that will not succeed in the Court of Appeal Criminal Division because the said Court has slowly but steadily become seriously intellectually dishonest in the way appeals are conducted. However, these matters are issues which the European Court of Human Rights may well take heed.

At this stage, in my view, both the Solicitors and Counsel had no other choice but to follow the written undertakings that the Crown imposed imposed upon them which are similar undertaking that have been forced upon other lawyers in other cases. In my own view those undertaking detract the justice and 'fairness' out of any trial as it restricts unreasonable the right of an accused at consulting whoever the accused choses.

As a short example both Tank Jowett Solicitors and Colin Nichols QC could not discuss the case or the papers with anyone else even with lawyers of Danny's own choosing. The reason was that the papers contained elements that were so secret that only a select few could know. Yet, at trial the judge failed to impose any reporting restrictions or any order under the Contempt of Court Act.

For these reasons regardless of whether or not Danny James was guilty or innocent (I hold my own views) he did not receive a fair trial and NOTHING within his case EVER could have placed ANYONE in danger. Until such time as these kind of restrictions are precluded and justice becomes open there will always be miscarriages of justice in the English courts and the likes of Danny James will always have grounds to complain.

This trial and investigation has cost the taxpayer almost £2 MILLION pounds exclusive of legal fees for Prosecuting Counsel, defence Counsel and Trial Solicitors probably another £500,000-£750,000 or so and then the cost of a further three years imprisonment, remembering that Danny has already served two years so a further £1.5 million pounds. Then the cost of his supervision for two years upon release.

It makes no sense. The information that Danny had on a USB Flash memory was readily available on the internet and in greater detail. And if Danny was such a spy we must remember he was in the Military quite a while and that must say more about the methods of positively vetting and the UK Military than a simple interpreter that enjoyed salsa dancing. And all to the cost of the taxpayer." GDS

25 November 2008

Richard Glenister allowed dishonest evidence at my trial

One of Richard Glenister's offspring (as usual left as an anonymous comment) has apparently become upset by the way I wrote about him on one of my posts. I don't feel I have anything to apologise for, because I do believe he allowed false evidence into my trial.

Well, see what has been said at this page. Richard Glenister was the head of the Crown Prosecution Service team that prosecuted me in 1992/93.

06 November 2008

Britain contemplates war with Iran !!

It is interesting, but for the first time since 1913, a Defence Minister from the Ministry of Defence has declared at the Daniel James trial that "Iran is a country that one day we could be at war with".

So, does that mean that the new Obama regime will be declaring war with Iran next year? Or is Gordon Brown about to bomb Tehran.

Interesting stuff indeed. But the danger clearly is that the UK government are thinking right now about a potential war with Iran.

Professor Meirion Francis Lewis uses bully boy Police to arrest me

Email from: Michael John Smith
To: Mr James Duddridge MP

Dear Mr Duddridge,

I am not sure if you received my message yesterday, which I asked Police at the Police Station to deliver on my behalf.

Yesterday I was arrested on allegations that I had harassed Professor Meirion Francis Lewis, who you may remember was the expert witness who I have accused of committing perjury and/or perverting the course of justice at my trial under the Official Secrets Act in 1993.

I have been very careful not to give Professor Lewis cause to allege that I have harassed him, but I have requested his explanations about how he came to give false evidence at my trial, and I have asked him to criticise my analysis of the facts, if he can. As Professor Lewis did not find anything wrong in my interpretation of the facts, then I proceeded to use that interpretation in my campaign to overturn my conviction.

I will not go into the details here, of what was discussed at the Police Station, but I did robustly dispute that any harassment had taken place, and I expressed my belief that it was Professor Lewis’s inability to explain his false evidence that has led to him using the Police to act as his personal agents, in an attempt to gag me from telling the truth.

After an interview, in which I gave a full account of my actions, it appeared that not all of the evidence had been sent from West Mercia Police to the local Police, particularly relevant correspondence between myself and the Chief Constable of West Mercia Police.

Consequently, it is apparent that somebody has sent a misleading dossier of evidence to the local Police, which subsequently led to my arrest. I believe this is the correct interpretation, because after an assessment at the Police Station it was decided to release me with no further action required, i.e. I have been neither charged nor cautioned about any offence.

I am most upset at what has happened, for several reasons:

(1) I was subjected to an unlawful arrest because incomplete evidence had been provided to the local Police. I consider that my arrest is a form of harassment for which Professor Lewis is responsible.

(2) I was given the impression that serious allegations had been made against me for which I could face a court case.

(3) I was held in a Police cell, deprived of my freedom, and treated as though I had committed an offence, for which no satisfactory evidence was adduced.

(4) Two friends of mine, Nelly and John Symonds, had arranged to visit me yesterday. They travelled all the way from Folkestone, but were not told when I would be released, and neither was I informed that they had been left waiting in the car park for several hours.

(5) Even though the evidence of harassment was based wholly on a complaint made by Professor Lewis himself, I was subjected to a full arrest procedure, in which I was photographed, fingerprinted, and a DNA sample taken from me. I particularly objected to providing any DNA sample, as I believed I had done nothing to warrant an arrest, but I was told by the Custody Officer that if I refused to give a DNA sample, then I would be pinned to the floor by four officers who would forcibly take DNA from me. I regard the eventual taking of DNA from me as a physical assault.

As Professor Lewis has decided to exploit the Police to protect himself from my accusations of perjury/perverting the course of justice, I decided that I must make a counter complaint and formerly accuse Professor Lewis of his unlawful behaviour.

I therefore request your help to:

(a) Investigate why it was considered necessary to arrest me, when there was clearly insufficient evidence to support that the said offence had occurred.

(b) Why the local Police have refused to accept my counter complaint against Professor Lewis, that he did in fact commit perjury and/or pervert the course of justice.

Yours sincerely,
Michael John Smith