Welcome to
GlobalEyes

Your Weekly Window
in the Mirror of the World
Spartacus R.
editor of Global Africa Pocket News and author of " Violation " and " The Maãt Mystery " takes another look at the world.

British Justice

On the 11^th June 2004, at Camberwell Green Magistrates Court, I was convicted of Obstructing a police officer in the execution of his duty. My partner, Pettrige, was convicted of Assaulting the same officer and Obstructing another in the execution of their duty. A third person, Daniel, was also convicted of Assaulting this other officer.

These convictions arise from an incident last October 23^rd when, after an African History Month community meeting, a group of us witnessed two police officers brutalising Daniel, a bleeding, drunk, handcuffed, elderly African man, who it turned out, was suffering the effects of prescribed medication for Manic Depression and Alcoholism. Some of us asked them to ease his suffering caused by the male pulling up on the cuffs and the female pushing down on his shoulder but instead they called for backup. "Backup" waded into us with a vengeance, nearly strangling Pettrige to death and beating me into the ground in a vicious struggle to handcuff me.

We were subsequently charged as follows:

Daniel  - Breach of the Peace and Assaulting PC Bunton

Pettrige  - Obstructing PCs Bunton and Lyons and Assaulting PC Woods

Spartacus  - Obstructing PC Woods

As expected in a Magistrates Court where 97% of cases end in conviction, we were convicted by the racist pig, circuit judge Baldwin. But it was not just the blatant prejudice of the judiciary that convicted us. Daniel’s barrister, Claire Fraser, whom he first met on the opening day of the 5 days trial, was working hand in hand with the prosecution. She refused to have a group conference with us and even refused to give him a copy of his own statement saying that he did not need it. As a result of her collusion, none of us realised that Daniel’s Breach of the Peace charge was dropped until the Magistrate gave his guilty verdict for Assault, without any reference to the Breach of the Peace charge. We were fined a total of £550.00 and Pettrige was given a sentence of 80 hours community service.

The Magistrate’s behaviour was predictable from the beginning, when on the 3rd of June he refused to back a previous Magistrate’s order that the Crown Prosecution Service must surrender a copy of the 999 emergency call tape. An illegally edited version of this tape was eventually played to the defence on the first day of the trial.

Daniel’s barrister told him it was a simple case and it was going to be thrown out. She dealt mainly with the Breach of the Peace charge and hardly touched the Assault charge in her cross-examination of the police officers even though it was manifestly impossible for him to have bitten the pig in the way that they said he did. She had the trial notes of the previous barrister’s cross-examination from a first aborted trial, yet she chose not to use any of it.

On the morning of the second day of the trial I sacked my barrister, Michael Rogers and the solicitor, Marvin Roberts of Hallmark Atkinson and Wynter. The barrister, because on the first day he refused for a second time to carry out my instructions after being reprimanded and warned. I sacked the solicitor Marvin Roberts because of the multitude of cock-ups he had made, including not notifying any of the defence witnesses of the trial, continuing to ignore my instructions and not answering or returning my calls. I had come to the conclusion that this besuited buffoon was either the most incompetent solicitor that I had ever encountered in my thirty years of interaction with the British legal system or a traitor, working with the prosecution against the interests of his three clients.

Contrary to Article 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998, Chapter 42, Schedule 1, the Magistrate then refused to:

Being forced to continue without the benefit of reading the first days notes or even a coffee break, I asked the Magistrate to recall the first two officers that I may cross-examine them myself but, again, he refused. Instead of assisting me, as he was duty bound to do in the circumstances, he continuously attempted to undermine my cross-examination, contrary to Article 6 of the Human Rights Act. At one point he interrupted me to inform an oblivious court that one of our supporters in the public gallery was smiling and nodding his head.

That same afternoon, the Magistrate disrupted the case again to arrest Brother Omowale, one of our numerous supporters who filled the public gallery every day. Contrary to Article 5 of the Human Rights Act, he was detained because he refused to stand when the Magistrate entered the court. This Magistrate then banned our Brother from entering his court for the rest of the case and threatened to empty the public gallery of all our supporters who were in no way interfering with the conduct of the case.

I was accused of obstructing PC Woods in the execution of his duty yet, when my opportunity came to cross-examine him, the Magistrate would not allow me to question him. I reluctantly conceded to the Magistrate’s intervention but, in retrospect, I believe that his intervention was wrong and against my right to a fair trial, contrary to Article 6 of the Human Rights Act.

There were so many lies and contradictions to the prosecution case that the Magistrate asked the prosecution counsel at half time how he could safely convict me with all the confusion raised by the prosecution evidence, yet he refused my submission of no case to answer. One of the pigs even admitted under cross-examination that they had assaulted and wrongfully detained me, contrary to Article 5 of the Human Rights Act 1998, before finally arresting me.

The prosecution barrister was seen and heard coaching one of the police witnesses while I was cross-examining him but the Magistrate did nothing about it, saying I should leave such matters to him to deal with.

In passing judgement on Pettrige, the Magistrate said that his difficulty was that she could not explain to him how the officer received his injury therefore he had to accept the officer’s story and find her guilty. When did it become a legal requirement that a defendant should explain how an alleged crime was committed in order to prove their innocence?

All three of us have lodged our appeal to the Inner London Crown Court and are in the process of selecting a good solicitor to handle the case, so if you have any ideas, please forward.

May the Ancestors guide and protect you all on our way.

Love and life

Spartacus R.

Your comments, criticisms, observations, reactions, etc. are welcome and will be greatly appreciated. All contributions, positive or negative, may be published, unless you request otherwise.

Please feel free to publish this article, providing the source and the author are properly credited, text is not edited and descriptive terms or phrases are not altered in any way without written permission .

Please e-mail your comments and/or queries to Spartacus R.

Tel: 0044 0871 871 6616
To GlobalEyes Index
BACK HOME
© S. R. Bedeau 2004.   All rights reserved.