Subject: Fwd: Top ten - in at No:8 Destruction of CCTV evidence
From: Veronica
Date: 3/9/13 10:15 pm
To: undisclosed-recipients:;

Michael Doherty's Countdown:

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Top ten - in at No:8 Destruction of CCTV evidence
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2013 22:03:11 +0100
From: Michael Doherty <>
To: m d <>

Stitch up in Stevenage: 8 days to resumption of appeal in St Albans Crown Court on 10th Sept 10am


Coming in at 8: Destruction of CCTV evidence

Today we are told that public CCTV is there for our protection, that if we've nothing to fear we've nothing to hide. Yet time & time again CCTV evidence is abused by those entrusted to operate it - this case is no different

At the point of arrest, PC BARRACK permitted the alleged victim, a Mr Carder and the key witness a PSCO to be responsible for the collection of CCTV from the court premises. In the key foyer area there were no less than 3 CCTV cameras which were available to show the claimed assault. [this is a gross abuse of Criminal procedure rules]

Unsurprisingly 2 of the camera's footage was destroyed and not disclosed. The only camera disclosed was a rear view which permitted the prosecution to obscure as the majority of the shot is simply blocked by the security guard.

The other footage, were at such an angle that they would have been conclusive. In the first magistrate trial, the prosecution claimed that the CCTV camera's were broken and for this reason not operational. (another usual ploy in dodgy cases) Disclosure applications were made and surprise surprise there is NO record of any camera being either broken or fixed. [more witness lies]

Additionally, it is a requirement of criminal procedure rules to RECORD negative information in the course of an investigation. i.e there should have been a record made at the time of CCTV collection that the camera was non operational. Again, there is no such record.


To cover all bases, I made a subject access request the following day after the incident. The request being to RETAIN and disclose all CCTV footage from my entering to my exiting the court.

The Court failed to action this request, claiming ALL footage had been handed over to the police. Again this was FALSE


PC Barracks attention was brought to CCTV in the street, immediately opposite the court building. Again footage that would have conclusively established my innocence and the prosecution witnesses lies.

PC BARRACK falsely claimed that the city CCTV was not working. This have been proven to be false. Again these lies denied me material which could have assisted in defending these obviously false claims.


It is plain to see, indeed a hallmark of many deaths in custody cases, that CCTV is not there for your protection. If evidence is captured that would assist in the prosecution of agents of the state, it all too often disappears or claims that the CCTV is not working.

This is the kind of thing people are up against in the UK, another blatant example of the utter abuse of the Right to a Fair trial. The game is loaded as those in the criminal justice system play with peoples lives.


To view more from this case, an interesting write up from a retired
solicitor Tony Bennett who attended some of the appeal hearing see the
following links;

Page 1 -

Page 2 -

and a little run through of the case in a video 'film' titled Stitch up in

"STITCH UP" the film - PART 1         PART 2

Think about making a donation to the work of JusticeNOW