I wasn't there for most of it.
I only caught the last 5 minutes.
I'd gone up to Cambridge, on a spying trip, to see whether or not
there was a CCTV that would show a better view of the incident.
There was one that was fixed high up on the wall, and should have
captured the 'incident' in much more detail. We suspect that the
footage for this camera has been 'deleted' by the Security Guard who
complained of assault ... because (apparently) he was the one in
charge of it. The fox is in charge of the hen-house.
The Prosecution's case is now complete (having had all their
so-called Witnesses cross-examined).
So the whole thing was adjourned until 10th September.
What will happen, on the 10th, is that Michael ... who has done
nothing so far except sit behind his Brief ... prodding his Brief
with the occasional 'note' ... will take the Witness Stand ... to be
This will be a Day to Remember ... as Michael will explain ... WITH
EVIDENCE ... exactly what happened ... since a
hell of a lot of important detail has been glossed
over by the Prosecution. (As they do ...)
And, in this case, the 'devil is totally in the detail'. For
example, the hand that Michael was supposed to have used to 'punch'
the Security Guard ... was actually holding Michael's Mobile Phone
... to Michael's ear.
But then, the Security Guard says he "Anticipated being punched,
was wearing expensive spectacles, and stepped backwards out of the
way". (Except that the CCTV doesn't show him stepping
backwards ... but ... ho hum ...)
So there was no 'physical connection' ... according the guy who
supposed to have been 'hit'. (Actually, there WAS a physical
connection when HE pushed Michael ... in the chest)
But the Security Guard's 'best mate' Security Guard says he "Saw
Michael swing a punch" .... ummmm ... except that ... before
... in Stevenage ... he said "He couldn't see Michael's hand ...
only his arm & wrist".
A 'punch' requires a 'closed fist' ... as far as I know.
However ... this is all 'bye the bye'.
Because the Security Guard, who has alleged to have been
'assaulted', says that he was ejecting Michael under "Section 53
of the Courts Act".
When asked (on Day 1 ... when I was there) if he had actually read
Section 53, he said "No".
The first Witness on Day 1 was a woman who is an Usher. She said
that she had told Michael that he "Had to contact Peterborough,
and make an Appointment".
Michael's Brief then pointed out to her that Michael DID NOT have to
make an Appointment in order to LAY INFORMATION.
THIS IS AN IMPORTANT POINT.
So on Day 1, in St. Albans Crown Court ... THAT POINT WAS MADE, IN
COURT, TO THE VERY FIRST WITNESS.
The "laying of information", for a Private Criminal Prosecution,
occurs when the Indictments ARE HANDED OVER TO THE CLERK OF THE
WHO ***MUST*** ACCEPT THEM.
AND DATE/TIME THEM with a Court Stamp.
This is important ... because ... if the Private Prosecution goes
ahead ... IT IS 'TIMED' FROM THAT TIME/DATE.
The Application can be HEARD sometime later (maybe a later DATE).
If accepted as an Application the DATE/TIME goes back to when it
was "laid" i.e. handed to the Court Clerk.
This can be crucial in the case of a Common Assault Indictment
where (apparently ... according to Michael) there is a 6-month
Time Limit. Thus, if you turn up on the Last Day (of the 6-months)
and HAND OVER THE INDICTMENTS ... even if the Application itself
isn't heard, and accepted, for another week ... you still
made the Time Limit.
Any 'judgement' ... in a Court of Law ... MUST be based on as many
FACTs as possible.
So here are FOUR of them:
Fact 1 (Intent):
Michael went to Cambridge Magistrates' Court (Star Chamber) on
the 7th August last year, to attempt to LAY a Private
Michael was LAWFULLY ENTITLED to do that
... is one that does not seem
to gained much traction … possibly because it is the most
ESSENTIAL fact … is
that IT WAS PART OF THE FUNCTION OF CAMBRIDGE MAGISTRATES COURT
TO GIVE MICHAEL AS
MUCH HELPFUL ASSISTANCE AS THEY POSSIBLY
Another way of saying that is: What Michael
attempted to do WAS A
PART OF THE COURT’S BUSINESS. He was attempting to PLAY HIS PART
in the Court’s
Business for that day. Thus all waffle (on Day's 1 & 2)
about ‘disrupting the Court’s business’ was – de facto –
NULL & VOID … ab initio.
One CANNOT – under any circumstances – be
COURT’S BUSINESS (as per Section 53) by PLAYING ONE'S ASSIGNED
ROLE IN THAT PROTOCOL (or ATTEMPTING
TO … as Michael was).
It has never been in the remit of Cambridge Magistrate's
Star Chamber (or any other Star Chamber) to be UNHELPFUL IN ANY
WAY … let alone THROW YOU OUT … let alone FORCIBLY.
Those are THE FACTS.
And those FACTS create a Judgement, in Law.
Which, put simply, is: OUT OF IGNORANCE OF THE LAW, The Clerk of the
Court refused to accept Michael's Indictments ... which she had no
right to do. Only the basis of her stomping off, Mister Security
Guard immediately 'escalated' the situation ... because he knew ...
by squeezing a goat's testicles ... what Michael was going to do
(i.e. 'turn nasty'). Mister Security Guard also operated OUT OF
IGNORANCE OF THE LAW.
But ... "IGNORANCE OF THE LAW IS NO EXCUSE FOR BREAKING IT"
And, OUT OF IGNORANCE, they ALL broke the Law ... except Michael.
So ... if the Crown Court Judge (Warner) RULES ANY OTHER WAY THAN TO
ALLOW MICHAEL'S APPEAL ... and thereby quash Michael's Conviction
... the Judge would be saying: "Ignorance of the Law IS
an excuse that absolves the Clerk & Security Guards from all
wrongdoing ... when they forcibly ejected Michael
... breaking the Law as they did that".
An allowed Appeal would, of course, maintain what we
have all been told: "Ignorance of the Law is NO EXCUSE".
And, since they broke the Law when they forcibly ejected Michael,
every claim they make to anything at all
(e.g. 'assault') is 'out the window'. As many High Court Judges
(Lord Diplock, Lord Denning, etc) have said: "You can't build
a claim out of nothing".
So that's the situation as it stands.
Michael will, I sincerely hope, be making those points when he
stands up and speaks on the 10th September.
Please Note: THERE ARE ONLY 15 SEATS IN THE PUBLIC GALLERY ... and
they don't allow people to stand.