Stitch up in Stevenage: 8 days to
resumption of appeal in St Albans Crown Court on 10th Sept
TOP TEN COUNT DOWN EXPOSING THIS FARCE of A
Coming in at 8: Destruction of CCTV
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
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
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.
DATA PROTECTION REQUEST:
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.
CCTV FOR YOUR PROTECTION?
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
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