The following is the Abuse of Process application which the Court listed for hearing but surprisingly skilfully avoided hearing.
SKELETON ARGUMENT FOR THE DEFENDANT IN PERSON
Supplementary overview to the Outline of the Defendants abuse of Process application giving further details as requested. The matter is complex, novel and will require lengthy investigation but a brief overview is outlined below
1.BACKGROUND TO THE CURRENT PROSECUTION 1. BACKGROUND TO THE CURRENT PROSECUTION
1.1 In December 2009 The Defendant was advised that plain clothes men claiming to be from ‘the Met’ were making enquiries about her home in North Wales by asking neighbours questions. The Defendant was not approached directly by these men who are believed to have been police officers from a force outside of Wales.
1.2 The Defendant understands her business colleagues Denis and Phil Holt of MOAS Mail Service, Hyde, Cheshire had given information to DC Winnard and DS Hunt during inquiries into a former client calling himself Robin Jacob who was living in Thailand and who was suspected of committing a substantial fraud. The information included the Defendants address telephone number and e-mail. No telephone call or message or e-mail or letter was received by the Defendant from the Police and, to her knowledge, a Production Order was not applied for and or served.
1.3 On the 5th of January 2010 DC Stephen Winnard obtained a search warrant to search the premises Flat 1A, where the Defendant lives, and Flat 1B and Manchester House. The warrant did not name the defendant or anyone who lived at the premises. The warrant was issued under section 352 Proceeds of Crime Act. This is permission to search premises. I refer to search and Seizure 4.40 POCA (2002).
“A search and seizure warrant under s352 is a warrant to seize material likely to be of substantial value to the investigation. It does not allow carte blanch seizure no-matter how valuable it might be. The material seized must relate to the particular investigation for which the warrant has been granted.”
1.4 Flat 1b was occupied by an individual who held a firearms certificate issued by the North Wales Police registered to the address, the individual had also been vetted and had held top Secret Clearance. This individual was not approached by or contacted by the Prosecution either before or at the time or subsequently although the Prosecution retain his property
1.5 On the 13th of January 2010 The Defendant’s Flat was searched by 13 male police officers. The Defendant was in bed and woken up and subsequently kept in her nightdress all day until on or around 17.00 hrs whilst the 13 male officers searched the premises. The Defendant was prevented from getting dressed or leaving the property and prevented from making a phone call. The Defendant’s request for a female Officer to be present was also refused. The warrant did not permit the officers to restrain the Defendant as the Defendant was not under arrest but the officers illegally held the Defendant in her nighclothes all day.
2.Unconscionable behaviour by the Executive
2.1.The Defendant repeats paragraph 1- 1.25
2.2.In the 1980’s and 1990’s the defendant investigated covert arms shipments and the financial network underpinning this. In 1989 The Defendant was chosen to communicate with the Labour Party in Opposition and advice them the Conservative Government of the Day were selling arms to Iraq. The Defendant did this and subsequently worked in the background assisting with information to expose the covert trade. The Defendant was a key player in a secret Intelligence War which put her life is danger.
2.3.The Defendant gave evidence to the ‘Scott Inquiry’ into Arms to Iraq and was an intelligence adviser to the Trade and Industry Select Committee into arms to Iraq. 2.4.When the exposure was complete the Defendant was told by an intelligence organisation she worked with that despite the danger she was in she would not be given a new identity but would be protected. She was told to keep a low profile and protect herself by keeping her identity obscure.
2.5.Although the Defendant retired from the front line and did go back into obscurity, no-one ever actually retires from Intelligence work and the Defendant had been important. The Defendants small business had the potential to attract persons who may be a danger to the Security of the Nation. This proved to be the case when the Defendant helped to prevent a fraud against NATO in 2004 by unearthing Mr Brock who was involved in a massive fraud against NATO and the Defendant was advised by the Ministry of Defence Fraud Squad to “carry on doing what you are doing“. 2.6.The Defendant submits it is quite wrong of the Executive to guarantee protection and to encourage the Defendant to lead a lifestyle which they now seek to use against her in a belated prosecution for minor alleged offences. The Defendant submits that the current Conservative Government are attempting to silence the Defendant because the Defendant held evidence against them which they have seized and because the Defendant continued to assist in the exposure of corruption within the establishment. 2.7.The Defendant also submits that members of the Conservative Government and those who are behind them are deeply involved in fraud and corruption and are because of this determined to silence those who have worked for the good side of intelligence.
2.8.The Defendant, in January 2010 was working on exposing who really owns the Britain’s nuclear deterrent and who really benefits financially from the contracts. 2.9.The Derby police seized the Defendants current investigations into the British Nuclear Deterrent and its ownership by a foreign power. Its relationship to the lies made in the house of commons with regards to the previously placed contracts to develop a new nuclear weapons programme after the withdrawal of support from the USA. The support being withdrawn due to the infiltration of the British security services by Middle Eastern powers; including the removal of support from the United Kingdom ballistic capacity by the USA. This included the full cost breakdown for the replacement of the British Nuclear deterrent not only in the weapons systems but also the delivery system and the delivery platforms all of which had been discussed with the MOD. Provisional contracts being placed and classified presentations made to the contractors involved (2007 2008). This information is currently being disseminated piecemeal to the British public through government sources although they are saying that none of this has been formally agreed by the British Parliament
2.10.No-one has lost any money or been harmed by the Defendant. It is in fact the Defendant who has suffered losses and been harmed because of the Prosecution which has been brought with the sole purpose of silencing the Defendant.
2.11.The Defendant is a former Investigator of serious crimes and although her illness and age have dulled her abilities it is clear and has always been clear to the Defendant that the pursuit of the Defendant by the Prosecution is extraordinary, disproportionate and unwarranted.
2.12.The Police failed to investigate the evidence which proved the Defendant was not involved in the International Fraud although they had seized all the evidence. The Police had the passwords to access the Defendants e-mail clients which proved beyond doubt a person calling himself Robin Jacob has sent a scanned copy of his passport in 2008 and had opened two Accommodation Addresses accounts with the Defendant. These addresses, along with numerous others supplied in the UK and around the world by other Virtual Office and Accommodation Address suppliers, none of whom have been arrested, were used by the Fraud Gang on their websites and for document delivery. Regal and Archer used the Cheshire address the Defendant supplied to them on their Website.
2.13.The Police seized two of the Defendants work computers on which the evidence of the scanned passport of Robin Jacob existed. 2.14.The Police failed to investigate and prove the innocence of the Defendant instead they have conducted a long campaign of harassment and intimidation with an unknown objective against a vulnerable disabled senior citizen who has harmed no-one. There was accumulative investigative failure on behalf of the prosecution. I refer to the Chronology of events. (AD6 page 27-28)
2.15. What is clear is that the Prosecution have not been and are not impartial or fair and the Defendant has been seriously prejudiced by the Prosecutions delay, oppressive behaviour and Gross negligence which undermine the dignity and integrity of the judicial process.
2.16.A complaint has been made to Derby Professional Standards and the complaint has been recorded. 2.17.Breach of Code B PACE An officer obtained a search warrant under Section 352 of the Proceeds of Crime Act authorising the search puff premises including the hoe address of the complainant and seizure and retention of material likely to be substantial value to the investigation. The complaint is that items subject to legal privilege and excluded material were seized which had no connection with the investigation.
Almost every documents and every movable item of value was seized from the premises including £100 and $0 Euro, under the £1000 limit. The seizure included a large amount of documents and items not related to the investigation and also included documents subject to legal privilege and excluded material.
2.18.Oppressive Conduct Harassment Officers encouraged the journalists to harass her causing a series of articles adverse to her to be published contrary to her convention rights. 2.19.Irregularity in evidence /Perjury An officer stated to be a financial investigator made a witness statement in support of a Restraint Order which was fanciful, did not make full and frank disclosure and contained false statements such as the Defendant, who was of pension age, was in receipt of Benefit Payments when she was not. In consequence the Defendant was prevented by the Court from buying anything at all even those things necessary to sustain life because the Restraint order prevented the Defendant from spending any money other than “State Benefits from the Department of Social Security” and she was in receipt of none.
The Restraint Order which first describes the Defendant Andrea Davison as the Defendant states that the Companies Regal and Archer and Quantum Holdings are controlled by the Defendants and that the associated bank account in Cyprus are to be treated as the personal property of the Defendant. And the defendant on pain of imprisonment for Contempt of Court is ordered to repatriate the one use from the Cyprus Bank accounts with 21 days of the Order.
2.20.Improper disclosure of information Officers provided journalists with an incident number in respect of allegations about her involvement in the alleged murder of the deceased in the Chinook disaster on the Mull of Kintyre. This incident number encouraged the journalist to pursue the complainant, causing her acute distress and putting her at risk.
Officers encouraged the journalists to harass her causing a series of articles adverse to her to be published contrary to her convention rights.
Officers provided information about her to two named journalists, including her bail dates and details of the investigation against her whilst she was on pre-charge bail. The journalists have no connection in any way with the case the officers were investigating or with the Defendant. The Officers knew or were careless whether the course of justice would be impeded by talking to and encouraging the journalists.
RESTRAINT ORDER DATED 16th APRIL 2010
2.21.The Defendant had already been deprived of all her business files and her computers on the 13th of January 2010 and was materially hampered in carrying out her legitimate work on which she was entirely dependent. The Restraint order finally prevented the Defendant from continuing her business activity which was her only source of income. 2.22.The Restraint Order personally prevented the Defendant from buying any item even those essential for life 2.23.The Restraint Order commercially prevented the Defendant from continuing with her legitimate work as she was unable to pay her suppliers or buy any other item essential for her work 2.24.The Restraint Order conferred a risk on the Defendant of serious and irreparable harm both financially and mentally. 2.25.The Defendant has suffered anxiety, distress, loss of work prospects, feelings of injustice, deterioration of her way of life over a prolonged period. 2.26.The Restraint Order placed the Defendant from the 7th May 2010 in Contempt of Court because she could not repatriate monies from 6 Cyprus Bank Accounts the she had no knowledge of or interest in. This allowed the Prosecution an ultimate intimidation as they could arrest the Defendant and charge her with Contempt of Court at any time. 2.27.The restraint order prevents the Defendant from having legal advice or assistance 2.28.The Serious fraud office (SFO) says “a restraint order is a powerful measure that has a considerable impact on a person named in the order. The Protections given to an Defendant and other individuals under the European Convention on Human Rights must be considered at all stages of the restraint process” and as to orders under condition 1, as is this order, the SFO says “the power to make an order under this condition is particularly draconian” The Prosecution did not and do not consider the Defendants Human Rights at any stage of their pursuit of the a disabled senior citizen who has harmed no-one. 2.29.The witness statement in support of the Restrain Order has been written in such a way as to extrapolate meanings that the facts cannot possibly bare. D.C Winnard made statement of fact on oath that were designed to pervert the course of justice and or careless whether the course of justice was perverted or not. 2.30.Following the arrest and conviction of the member of the Boiler Room Fraud gang instead of apologising to the Defendant for wrongly arresting her for International Fraud and wrongly removing her property and the property of Mr Mills and wrongly causing her substantial losses and substantial damage to her mental and physical health, the Prosecution compound the abuse by not discharging the Restraint Order and charging the defendant with minor offences which could have been brought shortly after January 13th 2010, if they were brought at all. 2.31.The Prosecution know that the Defendant is not involved in any way with the International fraud for which she was arrested but seek to cover up their own abuses by using the Court Process to cause further harm to the Defendant. The Defendant submits the Court should not permit its process to be abused in this way.
3.ADVERSE PUBLICITY 3.1.Two Journalists Peter Eyre and Gordon Bowden, both from Derby, began writing about the Defendant in the Palestine Telegraph in September 2010 it was in the Palestine Telegraph Newspaper that the Defendants name and full address were first published and details of the Police investigation against the Defendant. Their articles revealed that the Journalists had been provided with information and encouragement from the Derby Police. The Journalists have named the following Derby Police Officers in their articles, and e-mails, who have made improper disclosure or been involved in harassing the Defendant.
3.2.The Derby Journalists have been deliberately misled by the Prosecution and given false information which has led to them writing over 49 articles with various unspecified allegations against the Defendant. These articles have spread all over the internet and damaged the Defendants ability to have a fair trial. The Journalists repeated the lies which the prosecution told them to the detriment of the Defendant..
3.3.The Prosecution were responsible for and are aware of the adverse publicity against the Defendant. This includes the publication of the Defendants name and address together with allegations which put the Defendant at risk. Knowing the Defendant is a vulnerable adult against whom proceedings are active the Prosecution have not taken any action to halt the flow of publicity in print and by TV broadcasts
. 3.4.An Application for disclosure has been made to the Chief Constable of Derby and this has now been listed for a one day hearing on February 2nd 2012 4.
4. Excessive AND UNJUSTIFIABLE delay
4.1.The defendant repeats paragraph 1 .21 to 1.25 and paragraph 2.11 to 2.12 and refers to the Chronology (AD6 page 27 – 28) 4.2.The Defendant was arrested on the 13th of January 2010 for International Fraud and will plead with a chronology extensively on the excessive delay and prejudice to the Defence. The Defendant has been re- bailed 20 times... (please view Part 2)