Kathleen Sullivan – Mind Controlled Slave

Trigger Warning – pictures and text are disturbing

Kathleen Sullivan’s book Unshackled, about her life as a mind controlled slave is less well known than Cathy O’Briens and Brice Taylor’s books on mind control. It should not be.

It is a true story of a girl abused and mind controlled by torture and trauma since a baby, by her father, various US secret services and covert personnel and institutions.

Kathleen’s mind was shattered into over a thousand alters, many of which were black ops and assassination alters.

My post on Fiona Bartlett – My Story Fiona Barnett – “Hang on for the Ride”  [9] which comprised pictures that she had drawn in therapy is extremely popular, partly I think because it crosses any language barriers. This present post on Kathleen Sullivan includes the pictures Kathleen drew in therapy, which all come from her book Unshackled [2] pdf download [2a]

Further information from Kathleen can be found on her archived personal website [8] and her archived survivor help website Parc-Vramc [1].

Kathleen adopted the policy of not revealing names in her book, as the blowback was potentially too great, but she made a revealing comment after these articles, The True Story about Mark Phillips [6]. The articles make a good case that Mark Phillips,  partner of Cathy O’Brien, who saved her – is actually her controller. Kathleen gives her experience of this and includes that Kissinger was one of her primary owners, along with the White House, the CIA and Robert Maxwell of Great Britain.

After the drawings in Appendix 1, I have also included lists of people and institutions who were involved in Mind Control which are from Kathleen Sullivan website archive U.S. Government Human Research Project Lists:CIA’s MKULTRA and other related projects [8b] There is a section on British involvement.

In Appendix 1 and 2 there is also information about people who worked for the False Memory Syndrome Foundation with some of their quotes from the above link and Kathleen Sullivan website archive Head Games [8a]

Kathleen Sullivan’s Drawings c 1990 from her therapy

 

After the Murder of Baby Rose

Fear clutched my heart as I held my baby girl tightly. I felt doom,
although I didn’t know why. When I looked at Dad again, he held out a
large, sharp knife with a black handle, similar to the knife he’d used in
rituals when I was a child, putting his hands over mine and forcing me to
kill precious babies.
My mind short-circuited. Dad looked into my eyes and said, “If you
don’t kill her, I will.” Instantly, a succession of ritually conditioned alterstates
emerged. Each one frantically assessed the situation, trying to figure
a way out. When one part saw no way out, that part went under and
the next part came out.
They knew they could try to run with Rose to the distant houses and
yell for help, but since Dad was a cross-country athlete, they couldn’t
outdistance him. They could try to fight him, but he was much stronger,
and where could they put the baby to keep him from hurting her in the
struggle? And if he killed me or I killed myself, there was no telling what
he’d do to her.
A mother-part emerged and stared at my baby’s sweet face. She tried
to comfort herself with the knowledge that Rose would soon be with
God in heaven, where He’d keep her safe and surrounded with His love.
And even if it killed the mother-part, she was determined to be the one
to do it with every ounce of love in her. She would not allow Dad’s cruel,
filthy hands to touch Rose’s innocent body. She’d seen Dad rape baby
girls to death. He was not going to do it to Rose! She’d kill her first, with
love and gentleness. She wanted the love and reassurance in her own
eyes to be the last thing Rose would see.
As she prepared to cut Rose’s carotid arteries, she felt such piercing
pain, she realized she couldn’t go through with it. She couldn’t kill the
most important person in her universe. When she submerged and a
ritually conditioned child alter-state emerged, Dad noticed the shift and
grinned. As he’d done so many times in the past, he put his right hand
atop mine and forced it to cut Rose’s soft neck. I believe it was a mercy
that the child alter-state didn’t recognize Rose as her child. Dad forced
my hand to cut Rose’s carotid arteries, one at a time.
After the deed was done, the mother-part reemerged. She wanted to
scream with wild grief as she saw the blood pulse and Rose’s precious
eyes faded to dull, then black. She was losing her baby, dear God, she
was losing her baby. As Rose’s eyes stopped seeing, she told herself,
“She’s with God now. She’s safe.” But the dark pain of her baby’s leaving
was unbearable.
She didn’t move as she watched Dad carry Rose by her ankles to keep
from getting her blood on him. He wouldn’t allow the alter-state to bury
Rose. He said that since the baby came from my body, she was garbage.
He put her precious body in a black, plastic garbage bag and threw it into
a nearby commercial sized, metal dumpster.

Dad clamped me to his saw table to torture me with electricity

 

Woman Ritually Murdered by Dad

Dad with ritual robe and knife

 

Dad ritually killing boy atop me

 

Dolly/Dreia Ritualistic Energy Transfers

Dolly, who also answered to the cult name Dreia, was developmentally
stuck at the age of seven. Dad had taught occult beliefs to her that he’d
said he had mostly gotten from the writings of the infamous British
Satanist and intelligence operative, Aleister Crowley.
Sometimes, Dad’s cult had met in a large old gray stone building in or
near Reading. A thick, gray, granite altar, upon which babies were murdered,
was in one of the rooms. Dad told Dolly that the most powerful
life-energy was stored in the blood of babies because they hadn’t sinned
yet. He said that a weaker but still effective life-force was stored in the
semen of animals and humans. He seemed to believe that his body would
never deteriorate or grow old if he continuously ingested both. He made
Dolly do the same.
As Dolly tried to explain these beliefs to a nurse at Bethesda, she said
that Dad acted as if he were a battery that needed to be recharged by
blood and semen–either human or animal. In my sketchbook, she drew a
succession of diagrams of hooded adult cult members positioned in and
around the encircled hexagram. She drew pictures of the sequence of one
ritual from beginning to end. Dolly was proud to have been an occult
practitioner and wrote a page–with graphic illustrations–about the
Magick that Dad had taught her during those rituals.
Eventually, Dolly felt the horror of what she’d been involved in
as a child. Alone in the hospital bedroom, she frantically searched
for something to kill herself with. She tried to remove metal screws
from a metal window frame to cut her wrists, but they wouldn’t
come loose. She tried to escape by opening an emergency door–it didn’t
budge.
There wasn’t any point of trying to walk out the building’s main
door–the staff constantly checked with me and other clients to make
sure that unfamiliar alter-states wouldn’t break and run if we strolled
around the hospital grounds. Dolly was trapped with no way out, other
than to talk and heal.Catalina channeling little Kathys rage

Catalina and Andreia – Dad beat man to death

Andreia – Teenaged Part
Andreia recalled having watched Dad beat a male cult member to
death in a ritual room in Pennsylvania. In the picture, the unconscious
man hung by his wrists that were tied with a rope that was attached to a
pulley Dad had previously fastened to the ceiling. (These were the same
pulleys Dad used, when making me and other children hang from the
ceiling in cages—sometimes for days.)
Andreia mourned the red-bearded man’s death. Although she’d been
one of his sexual “partners” during orgies, he’d been kind to her. And
because of what she’d seen Dad do when he lost control of his rage,
Andreia feared her own anger and worried that her rage might go out of
control and hurt others.

 

Andreia – My Rainbow Programming

 

Renee – her part of the memory of Dad Ritually Murdering a female cult member

During Friday night rituals, Dad had created Renee and then triggered
her out by name. Each time, he had commanded her to sit naked on a
wooden altar. The guilt of not being harmed, while being forced to watch
Dad hurt other children and adults, had been unbearable. Renee still felt
partly responsible for what was done to them because she was, after all,
Dad’s daughter. She had also been conscious during a part of the New
York City ritual. She provided more details about that event. Softhearted,
Renee wept every time she emerged. She was so full of grief that she had
great difficulty speaking.

Renee wrote that she’d watched Dad commit several daytime murders
of adult cult members in Pennsylvania. They were so gory and inhumane
that Renee was convinced nobody could save her from Dad. He was allpowerful,
not just at home, but even within the cult! Because he first
accused each victim of having told outsiders about cult activities, Renee
also believed she must never talk about what she’d witnessed.

 

Andreia Coffin Memories

Andreia remembered another terrible childhood memory and drew
four sequential pictures of it. I was about six years old. It was a warm
day; the grass was green and Andreia was clad in blue shorts and a red,
short-sleeved T-shirt. At first, she stood near Dad and several other male
cult members in a cemetery. She clearly felt helpless because in the first
picture, in which she stood next to a deep dirt hole holding an unearthed
coffin, she didn’t draw her legs or feet. She wrote, “They made me stand
beside the coffin they put the dirt on the black cloth.”
In the second picture, she was lying on her back inside the open
coffin, down in the hole. She drew her legs, but her hands and feet were
still missing–signifying that she’d been unable to run or fight against
the men.
She wrote, “They take the lady [fresh corpse] out and make me lay in the
coffin and shut it. I pretend I am dead then they open it and put her back in
on top of me. I will not draw that she has no head. This is just a bad dream.
I will wake up soon. She has juices come out of her neck, they get on my
face and hair and top. Bad Bad Bad. I am dead. No more bad things.”
The memory of the “juices” was, by far, the most gruesome part of the
entire memory. It was beyond any horror I’d previously relived. Because
I couldn’t stand the physical sensations and visual flashbacks, I called
Bethesda and asked one of the nurses for help. She talked to Andreia and
asked her to draw a closed coffin. On that page, Andreia wrote: “The lady
told me to close my memory until I can see the doctor. Coffin U R Locked
until I say so!”


Exactly one week after the memory first emerged, Andreia met with
the therapist in his office. Having a supportive listener helped Andreia,
tears and snot flowing, to survive the memory of the decapitated woman
lying atop her, crushing her to where she could barely breathe.
At home that night, she drew a picture of the open coffin, with Andreia
lying beneath the decapitated body that still wore a dress. Because young
child Andreia was now blending and sharing information with me, and
me with her, she now used grown-up words to explain the logic that had
kept her sane: “Her body was there but her soul was gone. My body was
there and my soul was still there too. She was dead but I was alive. Not
the same! Who was she? Was she somebody important to them? What
was the purpose in them doing this?”
Underneath the picture, she wrote: “I got gooey stuff–slimy–on my
face and hair and shirt. They took me to [a female cult member’s] house.
She made me take a shower and she washed my clothes so no one would
ever know.”
In this journal entry, Andreia seemed to be describing the trauma that
had initially created her. Because her personality was like mine, and
because she didn’t identify herself by a new name during that horror, Dad
hadn’t realized that she wasn’t the host alter-state. I believe this is why
Andreia was able to stay hidden from Dad for decades, conserving my
sense of innate goodness and my ability to love.

 

Gloria – Recurring Childhood Nightmare

Gloria – tortured by Dad with Cattle Prod

Teenaged Gloria held my grief over a fetus that Dad had forced me
to abort and then ingest during a ritual, when I was a teenager. She
held other memories, too. She was the female I had seen in the bathroom
mirror in recurring childhood nightmares. During each of those
dreams, I was unable to cover my ears or turn away as she screamed.
I’ve never forgotten waking up from these nightmares, drenched with
sweat, praying that I wouldn’t see the screaming lady again in my
sleep.
When Gloria drew pictures of her experiences in my sketch pad, I
finally learned why she had screamed in the nightmares. Dad had bound
her to a wooden cross and had vaginally tortured her with a cattle prod.
Gloria seemed to compartmentalize my blackest rage and my strongest
memories of physical pain.

 

Margaret Bed of Nails    Margaret tortured by Fire

A child part that Dad had named Margaret was my only fully analgesic
alter-state. Because she’d been created through torture paired with
hypnosis, she was able to block out all physical pain. Margaret had
stopped developing, mentally and emotionally, at the age of nine.
One day at home, Margaret proved to me that she could feel no pain if
injured. She took control of the body while I watched (at those times,
I visualized my body as a vehicle; the dominant alter-state “drove” while
I observed from the “back seat”). She pushed a fairly large sewing needle
through the web of skin between my left thumb and index finger. As long
as she had control of the body and I just watched, I felt no pain at all;
neither did she. When she receded and I regained full control of the body,
however, I felt the pain. I was in awe.
Margaret drew several pictures of childhood torture sessions. She
wrote about a gray-haired man she’d known as a “pain giver.” He had
spoken kindly to her while he’d done the most awful things. His gentle
voice and demeanor had been crucial in helping Margaret to dissociate
completely from the pain he’d inflicted. By focusing on his voice, she
totally blocked out what he did to the body.
In one picture, Margaret drew a picture of him holding the flame of a lit
candle under my left arm’s soft flesh. She wrote, “Old Man Gray har [sic]
likes me.” The cognitive dissonance created by what he was doing, as
opposed to his presenting himself as a caring person, was mind-splitting.
Suppressing her fear and horror, Margaret emotionally attached to the
torturer. He was much kinder in his face and voice than Dad had
ever been.
During another “test,” Margaret noted that Dad seemed fascinated as
he stood silently, watching. First, the older man threw a live cat on a bed
of nails that were affixed to a large wooden board that had been set on
the floor, the points of the long nails sticking straight up. The cat
screeched loudly as it scrambled off, bleeding. Then the older man told
Margaret to lie on her back. When she obeyed, she felt no pain. As he
examined her back afterwards, he said, “Very impressive,” and commented
on the absence of blood. Dad seemed pleased, which added to
Margaret’s sense of pride.
The older sadist’s final act was to dislocate all the fingers on one of my
hands. Again, Margaret felt nothing. The torturer popped each digit back
into place, telling Margaret that she had “passed the test.” Again she felt
proud.
The ability to block out pain when injured, and to trance so that I
didn’t bleed, was crucial when I was sent into dangerous situations as an
adult. I was made to believe that if I was disabled by any injury, my handlers
would kill me. Since I wanted to stay alive, I tranced to stop any
bleeding. I didn’t want them to notice an injury and kill me!

 

Melissa Aged 8 Split off Dick Tracey Alter State 

Triggered by the robes, I developed a new part, Melissa, that was able
to remember both the rituals and portions of my experiences in this big
building.
Knowing that Melissa couldn’t express her rage directly at the blackrobed
men, Dad pointed at the “bum” and said, “Kill the bad man.” After
he told the man to “start running,” Dad then handed Melissa either a large
knife or a loaded handgun. He never ordered Melissa to go after more
than one “bad man” per training session.

Because I loved reading Sunday morning comic strips, I created a new
alter-state that split off from Melissa. Dick Tracy visualized himself
wearing a black fedora and overcoat as he chased after each man, fully
intending to end the bad man’s life. Each time he cornered the man, he
brutally killed him. (I think this happened because: the rage made me
unusually strong; the street people that Dad chose were probably weakened
by malnutrition and debilitating alcoholism; and the shock of being
attacked by an eight-year-old girl may have kept them from fighting back
until it was too late. Knowing Dad’s bag of tricks, he may also have
drugged them.) My Dick Tracey alter-state felt completely justified
because Dad had said they were bad men.

Marla was taught how to cut a body and remove organs. Annie shared consciousness

Marla, an adult alter-state, wrote that when she was young, she’d
been sent to “special classes” to learn how to dismember bodies. She
wrote about a black liquid that had been poured into the stomach cavities
by an adult male trainer. She’d been given black gloves with a red border
around the wrists, and had used a special set of surgical tools kept in a
black velvet-lined case. She wrote that she’d only emerged to dismember
bodies after the victims were dead. She’d used “precise, scientific thinking
and over-awareness of colors and artistic patterns of the bodies as
coping mechanisms.” She had no noticeable emotions.

 

Left Hand Writing The drawing above has not reproduced in correct proportion. I leave it in to illustrate that when Kathleen wrote with her left hand, memories stored on the right side of her brain came out, instead of the usual memories.

 

Group of child alters as diagrammed by a child part

At home, Dad-the-engineer drew flowcharts of my “systems” of alterstates,
leaving them on his easel in our upstairs screened-in porch.
Because he drew the systems in code, only he and some of my alterstates
understood what the charts represented. Those parts believed him
when he told them he knew me better than I knew myself.
Although non-traumatic hypnosis could have effectively been used to
control my mind, Dad clearly preferred using trauma-based programming
to split it. To create a new system (group) of alter-states, he first triggered
(called out) a primary alter-state that he’d previously created. When that
alter-state emerged, he traumatized that alter-state, sometimes using electricity,
until that part couldn’t take any more pain. That part “went under,”
leaving another part of my mind conscious to endure the next trauma.3
Dad called this technique chain programming. He traumatized one
alter-state after another, verbally assigning each one an individualized
code name, until I stopped functioning altogether. When that happened,
he knew he’d gone as far as he could. He’d start the next session on
another day, again calling out a primary alter-state and then traumatizing
that part to create another succession of linked alter-states and personality
fragments.
Somehow, Dad knew that if a trauma was familiar, a previously conscious
part would emerge that had coped with that type of trauma before.
The only way he could create new alter-states and personality fragments
was to expose me to traumas that I hadn’t yet learned how to cope with.
Using this technique, Dad eventually created over a thousand alter-states
and personality fragments in my shattered mind. He assigned each one a
code name that was later used by him and other professional handlers to
trigger them back out into consciousness. He also took me to spend time
with other adults, allegedly working for the CIA, who used more sophisticated
techniques to program and train many of these alter-states.

Through methodical manipulations via drugs, hypnosis, torture and
training, it is possible to create a Manchurian Candidate; a programmable
person with absolute obedience. There seems to be no limit to the
complexity and ingenuity employed in this process. Handlers pick and
choose alters, assign them duties, and give them their own set of memories,
instructions, triggers, and fail-safe booby traps, to ensnare anyone
attempting psychological reconstruction of the self. Once the ability to
fragment has been established, other alters are cultivated to amplify their
skills and taught how to best serve their master. Examples of controlled
programming can be found among serial killers, mass murderers, and
even terrorists whose “inexplicable” crimes explode in living color on
our television screens.

These are some of the activities that my covert op programmed alterstates
performed while under the control of professional handlers:
• Protection, body-guarding, and escorting
• Assassinations
• Hostage interventions and rescue
• Arms smuggling, including transportation of small rockets
• Bombings and sabotage
• Teaching children how use standard and makeshift weapons
against mock adult attackers
• Kidnapping
• Taking out snipers
• Surveillance
• Torture and interrogation
• Clandestine photography
• Clandestine search of an organization’s files
• Killing assassin-programmed individuals who had gone out of
control and were an imminent danger to those around them.
(Because they were so dissociated they felt no pain when injured,
I was trained to kill them in a particularly gruesome way.)
Professional handlers used a succession of my pre-programmed covert
op alter-states to successfully perform each operation. Afterwards, I was
transported home with no memory of the event.
My black op (assassin) trained alter-states were even more specialized.
Through hundreds of repetitive acts, each was conditioned to kill in at
least one of the following ways: zip wire, gun, knife, or chemicals. Other
methods were also used on certain ops. The zip wires were sometimes
sewn into loosely-basted hems of garments, particularly blouses and
jackets, with soft ends to protect my hands from being sliced through.
Each black op alter-state was trained to use at least one type of
weapon. Some were also trained to select a certain number of objects or
surfaces in any environment to use as makeshift weapons.
In the early 1990s, I was severely re-traumatized as I remembered
the crimes that I’d been forced to commit. As I resuscitated the dead
parts of my soul, I felt the immense emotions of pain, grief, and horror
that I hadn’t felt during the actual ops.

Reversing Dads Guilt Messages

Appendix 1

Hospitals, Universities and Government Facilities involved in human experimentation

The information is from Kathleen Sullivan website archive U.S. Government Human Research Project Lists:CIA’s MKULTRA and other related projects [8b]

The following list is of hospitals, universities, and other facilities and organisations that were, in some way, involved in the hosting, funding, and/or enactment of government-sanctioned human experimentation in the past.  This list is not intended to implicate any organizations or individuals connected to them, who neither condoned nor participated in harmful human research.

British

  • Clifton Hospital, York
  • Marlborough Day Hospital, Wiltshire
  • Powick Hospital Malvern, Worcestershire
  • Roffey Park, Lincolnshire

Mainly US

bulletAero Medical Laboratory, Directorate of Research, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio bullet Air Force 657 1st Aeromedical Research Laboratory bullet Allan Memorial Institute, Canada bullet American Psychological Association  bulletBoston University School of Medicine, Massachusetts  bullet Army Chemical Corps bullet Canada�s Defense Research Board  bullet Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) bullet Children�s International Summer Villages, Inc., Mainebullet Clifton Hospital, York, England bullet Columbia University bullet Commission on Viral Infections, Armed Forces Epidemiological Board, Office of the Surgeon General  bullet Cornell University, Cornell Medical Human Ecology Programbullet Creedmore State Hospital, Children�s Unit, Queen�s Village, New York  bullet Dugway Proving Ground, Utahbullet Edgeware Arsenal bullet Edgewood Arsenal, Edgewood, Marylandbullet Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia bullet Florida State University bullet Fort Benning, Georgia bullet Fort Sam Houston bullet Georgetown University Hospital, Washington DC bullet George Washington University bullet Geschickter Foundation bullet Geschickter Fund for Medical Research  bullet Hanford Nuclear Facility, Richmond, Washington  bullet Harvard Medical School, Massachusetts bullet Hollywood Hospital, Vancouver, Canada  bullet House of the Good Shepherd, New York bullet Human Ecology Foundation bullet Ionia State Hospital bullet Johns Hopkins University  bullet Leler University of Georgia  bullet Los Alamos bullet Louisiana State Penitentiary bullet Marlborough day hospital, Wiltshire, England bullet Massachusetts General Hospital bulletMassachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) bullet McGill University, Department of Psychiatry, Canada  bullet J. P. Morgan and Co., Inc. bullet Montana State University bullet Montreal Neurological Institute, Canadabullet NASA bullet New Jersey Neuropsychiatric Institute, Bureau of Neurology and Psychiatrybullet New Jersey Neuropsychiatric Institute, Clinical Investigative Unit of the Bureau of Research  bullet New Jersey Reformatory at Bordentown  bullet New York State Department of Mental Hygiene  bullet New York State Psychiatric Institute bullet New York University, New York bullet New York University School of Medicine Committee on Human Experimentation bullet Oak Ridge Institute of Nuclear Studiesbullet Oak Ridge National Laboratory bullet Oak Ridge, Tennessee bullet Office of Naval Researchbullet Ohio State Penitentiary at Columbusbullet Penetang Psychiatric Hospital, Oak Ridge Division, Penetanguishene, Ontario, Canada bullet Powick Hospital, Malvern, Worcestershire, England  bullet Public Health Service bullet Rand Corporation bullet Roffey Park, Lincolnshire, England  bullet Rome State School, Rome, New York  bullet Scottish Rite Foundation bullet Scottish Rite Foundation Schizophrenia Research Foundation bullet Scottish Rite Research Committee bullet Society for the Investigation of Human Ecology  bullet Seventh Day Adventist Church bullet Stanford Research Institute (SRI)  bullet Stanford University bullet St. John�s Orphan Asylum, New York  bullet Texas Research Institute of Mental Sciences (TRIMS), Houston, Texas bullet Tulane University, New Orleans, Louisiana bullet UCLA Violence Project bullet University of Denver, Colorado bullet University of Illinois bullet University of Indiana  bullet University of Maryland  bullet University of Minnesota, Department of Psychiatry  bullet University of Oklahoma, Department of Psychiatrybullet University of Pennsylvania bullet University of Rochester, New York  bullet University of Texas bullet U.S. Air Force bullet U.S. Army bullet U.S. Army Chemical Research and Development Laboratory, Edgeware Arsenal bullet U.S. Army Medical Research and Development Command bullet U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases, Fort Detrick, Fredrick, Maryland bullet U.S. Army Special Operations Division, Fort Detrick, Maryland bullet U.S. Department of Defense bullet U.S. Department of Energy bullet U.S. Federal Penitentiary, Atlanta, Georgia bullet U.S. Navy bullet Utica Community Chest, Utica, New York bullet Vacaville State Prison bullet Vanderbilt University, Tennessee  bullet Walter Reed Army Medical Center  bullet Wayne State University College of Medicine, Lafayette Clinic, Detroit, Michigan bullet Willowbrook State School, New York bullet Worcester Foundation for Experimental Biology, Shrewsbury, Massachusetts bullet Worcester State Hospital  bullet Yale University

Connected Individuals

The next list is of individuals who are documented to have either participated in or supported human experimentation, or to have worked closely in the past with those who did.  The descriptions of any positions or affiliations are of those that were held in the past; they may not apply now.  

Several of the listed individuals have openly testified about their past  involvement in human experimentation; many others still refuse to acknowledge their  connections.  Some of the researchers who administered biochemical agents to subjects also administered it to themselves.  Not all human experimentation was harmful to participants. 

This list is not intended to incriminate any innocents who may be named along with perpetrators of civil rights violations.  It is for educational purposes, only.  Some of the named individuals who worked closely with government contractors, may not have been directly involved in human experimentation.

Member of the FMSF’s Scientific and Professional Advisory Board
# =  1995
+ =  2002

British

  • Dr. Ewen Cameron
  • Dr. William Sargant, British authority on brainwashing

Mainly US

Harold Abramson, M.D., MKULTRA contractor
Dr. William Ross Adey, brain electrode researcher
Erik Allardt, University of Helsinki, MKULTRA contractor, Dr. A. Ames, contractor to Office of Naval Research, created the Ames leaf room bullet James A. Anderson  bullet James Angleton, Chief of Counterintelligence Staff, CIA bullet William Sinclair Augerson, M.D., Commander of the US Army Medical Research and Development Command bullet Dr. Hassan Azima, psychiatrist at Allan Memorial Institute  bullet Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Bahlin, Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Research and Development) bullet Dr. Maitland Baldwin, neurosurgeon, MKULTRA contractor, MKSEARCH contractor bullet Dr. Elliott T. Barker, President of the Canadian Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children  bullet Gregory Bateson, anthropologist, Mead�s husband, funded by the OSS/CIA  bullet Dr. Lauretta Bender, child psychiatrist  bullet Eva Bene, Ph.D. bullet Edward Bennett, University of Houston, MKULTRA contractor bulletSandor Borsiczy, M.D. bulletDr. Neil Burch, CIA contractor and co-author with West, Director of the Research Division of the Texas Research Institute of Mental Sciences, co-author with Heath  bulletBurton, W. D., co-author with Burch, Saltzberg, etc.  bulletSister Callista, Utica Community Chest bulletDr. Ewen Cameron, McGill University, Canada, CIA MKULTRA contractor bulletEmily Farrell Carota, wife and co-author of Martin Orne bulletJohn Carrol, Harvard University, MKULTRA contractor bulletDr. James Cattell bulletDr. Cholden bulletDr. Cleghorn, associate of Cameron and Azima bulletDr. Sidney Cohen bulletWilliam Boyd Cook, MKULTRA contractor bulletRobert Cormack, Children�s International Summer Villages Inc., MKULTRA contractor  bulletCramer, colleague of Azima  bulletMelvin DeFleur, University of Indiana, MKULTRA contractor bulletDr. Jose Delgado, neurosurgeon, professor at Yale bulletE. W. Demarr bulletA. J. Derbyshire, Director of the Utica Community Chest  bulletGeorge Devereux, Ph.D. bulletDr. Bruce Dill, Director of Medical Research at the US Army Chemical Research and Development Laboratory, Edgeware Arsenal bullet#+David F. Dinges, Ph.D., co-author with Orne. Associate Professor of Psychology, Department of Psychiatry; Chief, Division of Sleep and Chronobiology in the Department of Psychiatry, Cardiopulmonary Disorders During Sleep; and Director of the Unit for Experimental Psychiatry at the University of Pennsylvania as of 2002 bulletKenneth R. Dirks, M.D., Brigadier General, MC, Assistant Surgeon General for Research and Development bulletDr. Keith S. Dittman, Research Psychiatrist, UCLA Neuropsychiatric Institute, UCLA Department of Psychiatry  bulletAllen Dulles, Director, CIA bulletBrigadier General Don D. Elickinger, ARDC, U.S. Air Force bulletDr. Joel Elkes, Chairman of the Department of Psychiatry at Johns Hopkins bulletDr. George H. Estabrooks, has acknowledged “the building of Manchurian Candidates,” associate of Martin Orne bulletW. J. Estelle, Jr., Director of Texas Department of Corrections bulletFrank R. Ervin, M.D., psychiatrist, Director of Stanley Coob Laboratories for Psychiatric Research, Harvard Medical School bulletF. J. Evans, co-author with Martin Orne bulletDr. H. J. Eysenck, MKULTRA subcontractorbulletDr. Fenimore, TRIMS bulletForgy bullet#+Dr. Fred Frankel, MbChb, DPM., co-author with Martin Orne, Harvard University Medical School as of 2002 bulletDr. Daniel X. Freedman bulletDr. Frank Fremont-Smith  bulletDr. Peter Freyd, husband of Pamela Freyd (FMSF’s Executive Director) bulletCharles Fritz, University of Florida, National Research Council, MKULTRA contractor  bulletFunk bulletDr. Charles Geschickter, MKULTRA contractor, MKSEARCH contractor bulletDr. John Gittinger, lead psychologist for CIA�s MKULTRA bulletDr. Jacques S. Gottlieb, psychiatrist bulletSydney Gottlieb, Chief of Medical Staff, Technical Services Division, CIA bulletWilliam J. Grace, M.D.bulletDr. Wilson Greene, Technical Director, Chemical Corps, Chemical and Radiological Laboratories, Army Chemical Center bulletDr. Robert D. Hall, Worcester Foundation for Experimental Biology bulletDr. James Hamilton, Vacaville State Prison, CIA MKSEARCH contractor, MKULTRA contractor, associate of Mead bulletDr. P. L. Harriman, U. S. military psychiatrist, “experiments done to create multiple personality” bulletDr. Robert G. Heath, Chairman of the Department of Psychiatry and Neurology, Tulane UniversitybulletDr. Donald Hebb, Head of the Department of Psychology at McGill bulletDr. Carl Heller bulletWilliam Hermann, Westbrook�s control officer, Stanford Research Institute, Rand Corporation  bulletLawrence Hinkle, Human Ecology Foundation Director, co-author with Gittinger bulletDr. Hudson Hoagland, Ph.D., Executive Director, Worcester Foundation for Experimental Biology  bulletDr. Paul Hoch, psychiatrist bulletHarold Hodge, MKULTRA contractor  bulletDr. Abram Hoffer, associate of Osmond bulletJ. Edgar Hoover, FBI Director bulletAldous Huxley, author, associate of EstabrooksbulletDr. Robert Hyde, MKULTRA contractor, associate of Hoaglund  bulletDr. Gilbert Jensen bulletHarris Isbell, MKULTRA contractorbulletDr. Franz Kallman (eugenics expert)bulletDr. A. Herbert Kanter bulletDr. George Kelley, MKULTRA contractorbulletDr. Seymour S. Kety, Chairman of Psychiatry at Johns HopkinsbulletDr. Ari Kiev bullet#John Kihlstrom, Ph.D., co-author of Martin OrnebulletClyde Kluckholm, anthropologist, associate of MeadbulletAndrew G. Knapp bulletA. B. Kristofferson, Children�s International Summer Villages, Inc., MKULTRA contractor  bulletDr. Saul Krugman bulletKurt Lang, Queen�s College, MKULTRA contractor  bulletDr. Robert Lashbrook, physician, CIA bulletKurt Lewin, associate of Mead bulletDr. William T. Lhamon, associate of Burch bullet#+Harold Lief, M.D., coauthor with Dr. Heath, psychiatrist for Dr. Peter Freyd (Pamela�s husband), founder of the Center for the Study of Sex Education in Medicine. Professor emeritus at the University of Pennsylvania as of 2002  bulletDr. Robert Lifton, psychiatristbulletDr. John Lilly (LSD, dolphins, flotation tanks)bulletDr. Ogden R. Lindsley bulletDr. Morris A. Lipton bulletStanley Lovell, OSS  bulletLynch bulletDr. William Malamud, Medical Research Director of the Scottish Rite Foundation  bulletDr. Vernon Mark, co-author with Delgado bulletDr. Amedeo Marrazzi bulletEdwin May bullet#+Paul McHugh, M.D., Department of Psychiatry. Began teaching at Cornell in 1964, “where he founded the Bourne Behavioral Research Laboratory.” Phipps Professor of Psychiatry at Johns Hopkins University as of 2002.  bulletMargaret Mead, anthropologist, funded by and did work for the OSS/CIA, colleague of Cameron and Wittkower bulletRichard Meisch, M.D., co-author with Marrazzi bulletRhoda Metraux, associate of Mead, co-author with Gittinger and Wolff bulletMarvin Minsky  bulletJuhani Mirvas, University of Helsinki, MKULTRA contractor bulletJames Moore, chemistry professor, MKULTRA contractor bulletDr. Thelma Moss, Assistant Professor, UCLA Neuropsychiatric Institute bulletJohn Mulholland, magician, CIA MKULTRA contractor bullet Robert C. Murphy bullet William Malamud, M.D., co-author with Overholser bullet H. B. Murphree bullet Maria H. Nagy, Ph.D.  bullet #+Ulric Neisser, Ph.D., N.A.S., associate of Shor. Teacher in the psychology department at Cornell University as of 2002 bullet#+Richard J. Ofshe, Ph.D., coauthor with Singer, professor at the University of California, Berkeley as of 2002 bulletThomas J. O�Grady  bullet#+Emily Carota Orne, B.A. (see Emily Carota). Co-director of the Unit for Experimental Psychiatry and research associate of Psychology in the Department of Psychiatry at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine as of 2002  bullet#Martin Orne, M.D., Ph.D., Institute for Experimental Psychiatry (founder), Institute of the Pennsylvania Hospital, master hypnotist, CIA MKULTRA contractor, deceased  bulletCharles Osgood, University of Illinois, MKULTRA contractor bulletHumphry Osmond bulletDr. Winfred Overholser, Sr., “in the center of” the OSS mind control network,” Chairman of the Scottish Rite Research Committee bulletDr. Talcott Parsons, associate of Mead, Army Intelligence and State Department, recruited Nazis for the US Government bulletGodfrey D. Pearlson, M.D., Professor of Psychiatry and Mental Hygeine, Director, Division of Neuroimaging, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine bulletT. T. Peck, Jr.  bulletDr. Wilder Penfield, neurosurgeon at McGill, associate of Baldwin  bullet#+Michael A. Persinger, Ph.D., Laurentian University (Ontario, Canada) as of 2002  bulletWilliam L. Pew, M.D., co-author with Marrazzi bulletDr. Carl Pfieffer, New Jersey Neuropsychiatric Institute, MKULTRA contractor, MKSEARCH contractor bulletCaptain Clifford P. Phoebus, Chief, Biological Services Division, Office of Naval Research bullet#+August Piper, M.D., associate of McHugh. Private practice of psychiatry in Seattle, Washington, writes a semi-monthly column for the FMSF newsletter as of 2002  bulletDr. Seymour Pollack bulletDr. Raymond Prince, psychiatrist at McGill, self-identified CIA MKULTRA contractor  bulletHal Puthoff bulletRonald Reagan, former President, befriended by L. J. West, personally approved West�s UCLA Violence Project  bullet C. H. Van Rhijn bullet Dr. Ernst Rodin, neurologist  bulletCarl Rogers, Ph.D., a Director of the Society for the Investigation of Human Ecology, MKULTRA contractor  bulletBernard Saltzberg, Ph.D. bulletRonald Sandison bullet#+Theodore Sarbin, Ph.D., co-author with West. “Much of Dr. Sarbin’s work has involved hypnosis, for which he has received awards from the International society for Professional Hypnosis, the Society of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, and the American Psychological Assocation.” Professor of psychology and criminology at the University of California, Santa Cruz as of 2002  bulletDr. William Sargant, British authority on brainwashing  bulletDr. Sarwer-Foner, colleague of Azima bulletDavid Saunders, MKULTRA contractor bulletCharles Savage bulletDr. Daniel Schachter, Harvard  bulletEdgar Schein bulletJoseph Schoolar, Ph.D., M.D., Director of TRIMS bulletJay Schulman, M.A., MKULTRA contractor bulletDr. John Schwab, founder of the Special Operations Division at Fort Detrick, Maryland bulletAlden Sears, MKULTRA contractor bulletSaul Sells, Texas Christian University, MKULTRA contractor  bulletMuzafer Sherif, University of Oklahoma, MKULTRA contractor  bulletRonald E. Shor, Ph.D. bullet#+Margaret Thaler Singer, Ph.D., psychiatrist, long-term associate of West and Orne.  Adjunct professor emeritus of psychology at the University of California in Berkeley as of 2002  bulletDr. C. Smith bulletDr. Robert Smith, TRIMS  bulletJohn R. Smythies, Worcester Foundation for Experimental Biology, associate of Pfeiffer bulletO. M. Solandt, Chairman of Canada�s Defense Research Board  bulletRichard M. Stephenson, Ph.D. bulletH. A. M. Struik, MKULTRA contractor  bulletDr. William Sweet, neurosurgeon, co-author with Delgado bulletRussell Targ bulletWilliam N. Thetford, Ph.D., co-author with Gittinger, MKULTRA contractor bulletDr. James Tyhurst, Allan Memorial Institute, Hollywood Hospital in VancouverbulletGeorge Wasson, MKULTRA contractor bulletProfessor George Wendt bulletDr. Sidney L. Werkman, associate of Wolff  bullet#Louis Jolyon West, M.D., Professor and Head of University of Oklahoma�s Department of Psychiatry, Director of UCLA, Neuropsychiatric Institute, MKULTRA contractor, deceased  bulletColton Westbrook, CIA, Vacaville State Prison bulletGeorge White, OSS/CIA officer, MKULTRA contractor  bulletDr. John Clare Whitehorn, Chairman of the Department of Psychiatry at Johns Hopkins University, Director of the Human Ecology Foundation (CIA) bulletDr. Eric Wittkower, McGill, co-author with Azima bulletDr. Harold Wolff, Professor of Medicine, Cornell University, MKULTRA contractor bulletDr. Herbert Zimmer  bulletLeonard M. Zunin, Assistant Chief, Neuropsychiatry, Naval Hospital, Camp Pendelton, California 

Quotes are from the FMSF Scientific and Professional Advisory Board – Profiles website, retrieved 7/2002.

False Memory Syndrome Foundation FMSF Advisory Board Members Employed by Above-listed Universities and Hospitals

Just for fun, I cross-referenced the Hospitals, Universities, and Facilities list with the employers of those listed in the FMSF’s advisory board (as of 7/02). I was curious to see how many of these professional members are connected to universities, hospitals and facilities that have histories connecting them to human experimentation.  Please be aware that although some of the connections may be significant, others may just be coincidence.

bullet

     Aaron T. Beck, M.D, D.M.S. – University of Pennsylvania , Philadelphia

bullet

    David F. Dinges, Ph.D. – University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia

bullet

    Fred H. Frankel, MbCHb, DPM – Harvard University Medical School, MA

bullet

    George K. Ganaway, M.D. – Emory University, Atlanta, GA

bullet

    Henry Gleitman, Ph.D. – University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia

bullet

    Lila Gleitman, Ph.D. – University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia

bullet

    Ernest R. Hilgard, Ph.D., N.A.S. – Stanford University, CA

bullet

    John Hochman, M.D. – UCLA Medical School, Los Angeles, CA

bullet

    Philip S. Holzman, Ph.D. – Harvard University, MA

bullet

    Harold I. Lief, M.D. – University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia

bullet

    Paul R. McHugh, M.D. – Johns Hopkins University, MD

bullet

    Ulric Neisser, Ph.D., N.A.S. – Cornell University, NY

bullet

    Emily Carota Orne – University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia

bullet

    Harrison Pope, Jr., M.D. – Harvard Medical School, MA

A minimum of 29% of the advisory board members were employed by universities and hospitals that, according to CIA records, were involved in human experimentation.  There are other members who have been been employed in the past, and there probably are other involved facilities that we do not have records on.

Of the 14 members who worked at these universities and hospitals as of 7/02, 43% were employed by the University of Pennsylvania (remember, Pamela Freyd claimed that the University of Pennsylvania and Johns Hopkins were instrumental in the formation of the FMSF) and 21% were employed by Harvard University.  Dr. Paul McHugh’s employment at Johns Hopkins is significant, because he may have been instrumental in recruiting that university’s initial support in creating the FMSF.

The lists on this web page are compiled from Dr. Colin A. Ross’s book, Bluebird: Deliberate Creation of Multiple Personality By Psychiatrists.  Manitou Communications, 2000.

The following books also provide pertinent information:  

Constantine, Alex. Psychic Dictatorship in the USA. Venice, CA: Feral House, 1995.

Constantine, Alex. Virtual Government: CIA Mind Control Operations in America. Venice, CA: Feral House, 1997. 

Emery, Carla.   Secret, Don’t Tell: The Encyclopedia of Hypnotism.  Acorn Hill Publishing, 1998.

Rutz, Carol.  A Nation Betrayed: The Chilling True Story of Secret Cold War Experiments Performed on Our Children and Other Innocent People. Grass Lake, MI: Fidelity Publishing, 2001.

Thomas, Gordon. Journey Into Madness: The True Story of Secret CIA Mind Control and Medical Abuse. New York: Bantam Books, 1989.

Thomas, Gordon.  Mindfield: The CIA and Its Secret Experiments with Germ Warfare — America’s Great State Secret. Tempe, AZ: Dandelion Books, 2001.

 

Appendix 2

Quotes from various researchers from Kathleen Sullivan website archive Head Games [8a]

Aaron T. Beck, M.D., D.M.S., University of Pennsylvania. “‘…known as the father of Cognitive Therapy’… Asked about the outlook for the repressed memory crisis, Dr. Beck replied: ‘I think it will fade away like historical episodes of mass hysteria.'”

This suggests that those who recover memory are hysterics. By convincing the public that we are mentally and/or emotionally unstable, such professionals hope that we will not be believed if we tell the truth about what was perpetrated against us.  

Terence W. Campbell, Ph.D. “…a highly regarded lecturer, therapist, and teacher…called the attention of psychologists to the ‘blame-and-change’ maneuver in therapy…[he wrote] ‘Indicators of Child Sexual Abuse and Their Unreliability’, [he also wrote] ‘Beware the Talking Cure (1994), which discusses the hazards of irresponsible psychotherapy.'”

Three FMSF tactics seem to be used here: 1) Awakening survivors are often accused of shifting the responsibility, the “blame”, for their problems on the people they claimed abused them – as if abuse doesn’t cause problems in their minds and lives.  2) Many of the FMSF’s spokespersons also go overboard in discrediting children’s memories of being sexually assaulted.  3) Some of them are fighting to ban “talk therapy” so that survivors cannot remember, or speak of, what has been done to them.

Rosalind Dymond Cartwright, Ph.D., Rush Presbyterian-St. Luke’s Medical Center. “Personal knowledge of a repressed-memory tragedy led Dr. Cartwright to join the FMSF board. ‘A friend and colleague had an adult daughter in therapy accuse him of childhood sexual abuse,’ she says. ‘It was my best judgment that this was unbelievable of the person I knew and could only been induced by the therapist.'”

Perhaps the real tragedy is that the man abused his child.  This is a common pattern of behavior I’ve seen in some of the FMSF’s most outspoken members. 

First, they say: “I believe the accused couldn’t have done it.”  Then they insist that because they believe the accused is innocent, then he or she is innocent.  Then they claim that their opinion of  accused’s innocence “proves” that the alleged victim “fabricated false memories.”  Then they expect everyone believe that, because they say the accused is innocent, he or she is.  This process has been used repeatedly in books written by FMSF proponents who write about repressed memories and ritual abuse.  They claim that the accused didn’t commit the alleged crime and/or they successfully testify for the accused in court, claiming that the alleged victim has “false memory syndrome.”  Because the judge and/or jury doesn’t know that the syndrome is bogus, they believe that the victim’s memories are false.  After the accused is found not guilty, they claim that the verdict “proves” that the accused was innocent.  Then they use that “proof” to prove that recovered memories are false. 

Frederick C. Crews, Ph.D. – University of California, Berkeley.  “I see my role in the FMS controversy as a dual one…first I have repeatedly tried to draw the attention of intellectuals and educated general readers to the reality and the urgency of the epidemic itself.  And second, I have been trying to show that the FMS virus, even if it subsides over the next several years, will only recur in some mutated form unless the water that it swims in is drained.  By this I mean that the ‘psychodynamic’ model of the minds lends itself all too readily to demonological theories…”

When you figure this one out, please let me know.  Hello, earth to Dr. Crews?

Robyn M. Dawes, Ph.D. – Carnegie Mellon University, PA. “…freely admits being ‘fired for insubordination’ from his post as vice-president of the Oregon Research Institute in 1974…Citing research in the field and his general knowledge of memory, Dr. Dawes declares: ‘I was quite dubious that these constructive memories of implausible events could be historically accurate.'”

“Implausible?”  That’s his personal opinion, not fact.  

George Kenneth Ganaway, M.D. – Emory University, GA. “‘Freud would be turning over in his grave,’ says Dr. Ganaway in discussing many of the current fad therapies being foisted on the public.  In fact, Dr. Ganaway coined the word ‘McTherapy’ to describe what he calls the ‘fast foods psychotherapies of the 1980s and 1990s’…I have emphasized a psychoanalytically-oriented approach to understanding and treating dissociative syndromes.'”

I love Dr. Ganaway’s audacity.  How clever to recruit the help of a famous dead doctor he never met, by attributing a fabricated behavior to his corpse! And here is another tactic you’ll see over and over again, coming from the most disrespectful FMSF professionals.  Ganaway calls modern psychotherapy “McTherapy” and “fast food” and “fad therapies.”  (I wonder if tens of thousands of successfully recovering trauma survivors would agree.) By belittling his colleagues and downplaying the effectiveness of their techniques, Ganaway shames us into turning away from their help and believing that he must have a better way.  What a salesman!

Martin Gardner – author and math wizard.  “His latest book, from Weird Water to Fuzzy Logic…is mainly a collection of Gardner’s Skeptical Inquirer columns, including two he wrote about the false memory phenomenon.  He continues to contribute to the Skeptical Inquirer, where his ‘Notes of a Fringe-Watcher’ column takes frequent potshots to the humbug surrounding junk science. Mr. Gardner holds out hope for dispelling the repressed memory bugaboo.  Answering a recent inquiry, he said, ‘I think jurors, attorneys, judges, and media bigwigs are slowly becoming educated about the crisis.'”

Here we go again.  Using unscientific labels to make legitimate therapy look like “junk,” distorting repressed memory into a crisis (it’s not, it’s been with us throughout history), a bugaboo, a false memory phenomenon.  Such labels are constantly being introduced by Gardner and other FMSF advocates – particularly through the media.  The uninformed public doesn’t know that they are being fed a steady diet of totally unprofessional, unscientific garbage. 

Henry Gleitman, Ph.D. – University of Pennsylvania.  “‘The class was just spellbound when he lectured.’ The speaker, a former student, was referring to Dr. Gleitman, a dedicated teacher who estimates he has performed his classroom magic for 25,000 students in the last 50 years’…Dr. Gleitman has viewed with concern the controversies surrounding psychotherapy, and particularly the repressed-memory conflict.  Regarding repressed memories, Dr. Gleitman laments what he calls ‘the suspension of common sense,’ and appeals for a return to the ‘Yankee way of looking at things – Show me; prove it!'”

Spellbound?  I thankfully am not.  I am, however, confused.  We’re to believe that accepting our recovered memories indicates a suspension of common sense, even though recovered memories are a regular and oft-proven event.  But, but wait.  You said it suspends common sense.  So – if I believe in my memories that will not go away,  I suspend common sense.  That leaves only one reality – yours.  How convenient!  And you say, “show me.”  Excuse me?  No one owes you that.   

Ernest R. Hilgard, Ph.D., N.A.S. – Stanford University, CA.  “His first work, Conditioning and Learning, appeared in 1940 and soon became a classic.  As his interest turned more and more to hypnosis, Dr. Hilgard published in 1965 Susceptibility to Hypnosis, one of three books on this subject.”  “To Dr. Hilgard, the hypnotic process is ‘imaginative involvement,’ and thus, hypnotic subjects are liable to form pseudomemories. 

Here’s another irony.  The FMSF constantly claims that therapists are guilty of implanting “false memories” of childhood abuse in clients minds.  But they are not willing to acknowledge that some of their own colleagues implanted false “screen” memories in their victims’ minds to block out what the victims really endured at their hands.  Typical perp behavior: they must keep the focus turned outward, lest someone take a hard look at their own past actions.  

John Hochman, M.D. – UCLA Medical School, CA.  “A forceful writer and a respected researcher, Dr. Hochman refuses to mince words when he writes about the recovered memory issue.  ‘Welcome to the strange world of memory recovery therapy … This is pseudoscience … The real message being sold by these new therapy messiahs is the ultimate crybaby solution to everyone’s pitiful human problems.  It’s all someone else’s fault.  Reminding readers of the inadequate training of most repressed-memory therapists, Dr. Hochman pointed out that the most widely-read book of the survivor movement ‘was written by two women with no formal training in memory, psychology or psychiatry’… He continues to devote considerable time to speaking and writing, frequently about ‘repressed’ memories, cult phenomena, and ‘multiple personality.'”

Like some of the others cited on this web page, Hochman was listed in Bluebird as having been involved in human experimentation.  I wonder if he displayed the same attitude towards human subjects.  If they cried from pain or stress, I wonder if he looked at them with disgust and anger and called them “crybabies, “pitiful,” or worse.  Some psychiatrists have a vested interest in discrediting awakening trauma survivors.  I wonder if Hochman is one.  Another point:  I’d much rather receive advice and support from an uneducated survivor in recovery, than from a professional who comes across as cold and condescending. 

David S. Holmes, Ph.D. – University of Kansas.  “Professor David Holmes first raised concerns about repression in 1974 when he reviewed the laboratory evidence and concluded that despite 60 years of research, there was no evidence for the concept…It was Holmes who suggested only half in jest that a ‘truth in packaging’ or ‘protective product warning’ should accompany the use of the concept: ‘Warning: The concept of repression has not been validated with experimental research and its use may be hazardous to the accurate interpretation of clinical behavior.'”

In the face of volumes of evidence that prove that ones theories are false, there’s only one thing left to do: deny, deny, deny.  (For legit information about repressed memory, go to the NAFF web site and click on the “Memory Recovery” web page button.)  Holmes claims that repression hasn’t been validated with experimental research.  Actually, it has – especially by some of his seedier FMSF associates. 

Robert A. Karlin, Ph.D. – Rutgers University, NJ.  “…in 1974, Dr. Karlin’s early work focused on brain function, hypnosis, and the ability to hallucinate the absence of pain…By 1985, Dr. Karlin felt the battle was over, only to find he had been mistaken.  ‘What had been a peripheral bother – ignorance by numbers of practicing clinicians about how memory and suggestion work – became a catastrophe as the recovered memory movement gathered steam’…As an example of ‘obvious nonsense,’ Dr. Karlin turns to what he calls ‘the epidemic of multiple personalities.’ ‘True psychogenic amnesia is extraordinarily rare,’ he points out.  ‘I have seen one case in over two decades of research and practice. Yet all of a sudden there were numerous cases of MPD where amnesiac barriers shifted from moment to moment in response to hypnotic suggestion…It was like hearing reports of people running the mile in two minutes; the organism does not work that way. It was clear for that and other reasons that MPD was not a defense mechanism employed by overwhelmed children, but a dramatic role maintained by the support of certain therapists and ‘self-help’ groups.'”

Oh my.  This one made my blood freeze.  In 1974, Karlin “focused on brain function, hypnosis, and the ability to hallucinate the absence of pain.”  Can you spell e-x-p-e-r-i-m-e-n-t-a-l-t-o-r-t-u-r-e?  Dr. Karlin could be one of the professionals hiding behind the FMSF’s skirts while spewing scientifically unproven disinformation out of fear of former subjects who perhaps could remember and identify him in court some day.  Or worse.  Our recovered memory movement gained steam;  he said it “became a catastrophe.”  For him, I believe it truly is.  

Harold I. Lief, M.D. – University of Pennsylvania.  “As a member of the FMSF board, Dr. Lief notes several advances in the crusade against false accusations based on repressed memory therapy.”

If we accuse perpetrators based on our recovered memories, we’re participating in a witch hunt against them, and that’s unacceptable by FMSF standards.  But it is acceptable for the FMSF to have a crusade against recovering victims (and their therapists).  How bizarre.

Elizabeth Loftus, Ph.D. – University of Washington.  Little in Elizabeth Loftus’ early career suggested that she was destined to become a lightning rod in the gathering storm called the repressed-memory controversy…In the repressed-memory wars, she has become the most visible and vocal defender of those victimized by false memories of childhood sexual abuse…her view of the false-memory phenomenon, which she describes as a ‘world-wide crisis.’  No one should be surprised by Dr. Loftus’ dedication in her recent book.  It reads, ‘Dedicated to the principles of science, which demand that any claim to ‘truth’ be accompanied by proof.'”

“Lightning rod?”  How about glory-hound? After talking with three different female professionals who spent time in Loftus’ presence and came away as new Loftus-worshippers (I kid you not), I’ve come to the reasonable conclusion that Loftus must crave attention.  She also seems to enjoy testifying in behalf of accused defendants.  To find out what the media (and the FMSF) fails to tell you about Loftus’ most recent memory experiments and her seeming inability to respect the personal boundaries of others, use any search engine and type her name, and then “Lynn Crook” or “Jennifer Freyd.”

Paul R. McHugh, M.D. – Johns Hopkins University, MD.  “‘I believe that this crisis will ultimately resolve, as all crazes do, to the shame of those who contributed to this injustice.’  With those words, Dr. McHugh summarizes the outlook for the repressed memory crisis, which first attracted his attention several years ago. Dr. McHugh has been outspoken in his opposition to the use of repressed memory therapy, declaring: ‘To treat for repressed memories without any effort at external validation is malpractice, pure and simple.’ On the subject of Multiple Personality Disorder, he flatly states: ‘MPD is a iatrogenic behavioral syndrome, promoted by suggestion and maintained by clinical attention, social consequences and group loyalties.'”

McHugh’s name is in list #2. I’ve heard many horror stories about the Bourne Behavioral Research Laboratory that he set up at Cornell University, decades before recovered memory was considered controversial.  I believe that because Orne and West are deceased, McHugh may have the most to lose if the memories of mind-control experimentation survivors (especially those with Dissociative Identity Disorder, formerly known as MPD) are taken seriously.  I believe this is why he is so vocal in his attempts to discredit those with recovered memories.  And I believe that he truly considers public acceptance of our recovered memories to be a crisis, as well as an injustice – to him?  Perhaps time and additional documentation will tell. 

Please note that victims of abuse may be triggered by reading this information. These links are generally UK based.

  • The Sanctuary for the Abused [A] has advice on how to prevent triggers.
  • National Association for People Abused in Childhood [B] has a freephone helpline and has links to local support groups.
  • One in Four [C]
  • Havoca [D].
  • Useful post on Triggers [E]  from SurvivorsJustice [F] blog.
  • Jim Hoppers pages on Mindfulness [G]  and Meditation [H] may be useful.
  • Hwaairfan blog An Indigenous Australian Approach to Healing Trauma  [J]
  • Survivors UK for victims and survivors of male rape or the sexual abuse of men [K]
  • Voicing CSA group [L] helps arrange survivors meetings in your area
  • A Prescription for me blog Various emotional support links [M]
  • ShatterBoys -“Male Survivors Of Childhood Sexual Abuse Inspiring change, Through Shared Experience Whilst Building Connections…Together We Can Heal” [N]

Links

[1] Parc-Vramc http://web.archive.org/web/20040624043213/http://parc-vramc.tierranet.com/

[2] 2003 Amazon Kathleen Sullivan Unshackled https://www.amazon.co.uk/Unshackled-Survivors-Story-Mind-Control/dp/1893302350/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1492544031&sr=8-1&keywords=kathleen+sullivan+unshackled

[2a] 2003 Kathleen Sullivan Unshackled pdf  https://archive.org/stream/2003SullivanUnshackledASurvivorsStoryOfMindControl/2003%20%20Sullivan-%20Unshackled,%20A%20Survivor%27s%20Story%20of%20Mind%20Control_djvu.txt

[3] Gordon Thomas webpage http://web.archive.org/web/20040604202417/http://www.gordonthomas.ie/

[3a] Gordon Thomas Mindfield 1 http://web.archive.org/web/20060426134134/http://www.gordonthomas.ie:80/mindfield.htm

[3b] Gordon Thomas Mindfield 2 http://web.archive.org/web/20060426134134/http://www.gordonthomas.ie/mindfield.htm

[4] https://www.amazon.co.uk/Mindfield-Gordon-Thomas/dp/1842100785/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1491249489&sr=8-2&keywords=mindfield+gordon+thomas

[5] gordon@gordonthomas.ie

[6]  Rense.com The True Story about Mark Phillips http://www.rense.com/general2/phil.htm kissinger/sullivaan Kissinger – He was one of my primary owners, along with the White House and the CIA and Robert Maxwell of Great Britain.

[7]  ??? http://ww1.aches-mc.org/?subid1=3c053416-18af-11e7-a8b9-d584ce0012bf

[8] Kathleen Sullivan website archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060427185134/http://www.kathleen-sullivan.com/

[8a] Kathleen Sullivan website archive Head Games http://web.archive.org/web/20060513074055/http://www.kathleen-sullivan.com/Head_Games.htm

[8b] Kathleen Sullivan website archive U.S. Government Human Research Project Lists: CIA’s MKULTRA and other related projects http://web.archive.org/web/20060513074100/http://www.kathleen-sullivan.com/Government%20Research.htm

[9] 2015 Nov 30 Cathy Fox Blog My Story Fiona Barnett – “Hang on for the Ride” https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2015/11/30/my-story-fiona-barnett-hang-on-for-the-ride/

Paedophile in other languages
pedophile, pedofiel, педафіл, pedofil, ፔዶፋይል, մանկապիղծների, педафіл, যৌন নিপীড়নকারী, pedofil, педофил, pedòfil, wogona ana, 恋童癖, 戀童癖, pædofil, pedofiel, Pédofile, pedofilo, pedofiil, pedofiili, Pédophile, pedofyl, pedófilo, Pädophile, παιδεραστής, પીડોફિલ, פדופיל, पीडोफाइल, barnaníðingur, pedofilo, 小児性愛者, scary, ಶಿಶುಕಾಮಿ, педофил, ជនរំលោភកុមារ, 소아 성애, pedofîlê, болгон зөөкүр, pedofils, pedofilas, pornographeschem, педофил, പീടിയാട്രീഷ്യനെ, मनोविकारग्रस्त महिलेने अपहृत, پدوفیلیا, pedofilem, Pedófilo, ਬਦਫ਼ੈਲੀ, Педофил, педофил, faroxumeeyaha, pedófilo, abanukubeza, పెడోఫిలె, เฒ่าหัวงู, Sübyancı, педофіл کیpedophile, Sübyancı, Ấu dâm, bedoffilydd, ulala,   פּעדאָפילע , pedophile ,  الاستغلال الجنسي للأطفال

Posted in #OpDeathEaters, #pedogate, Armed Forces, cathy fox blog, Child Abuse, Child sexual abuse, Child trafficking, Criminal Cabal of People in Power, Health Professions, Medical abuse, Mind Control, pedophile, Politicians, Ritual abuse, US of America Child Abuse, VIP CSA | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 6 Comments

Judge Accused of being “Bent as a Banana” in child abuse case

Investigative journalist Richard Carvath has called Judge Jeremy Lea “as bent as a banana”

It has been hard to work out the truth of this case in Nottinghamshire.

Partly this is due to

  • lack of information
  • court restrictions
  • having worked out the establishments official story, there is the problem of judging how close this is to the truth.

Naturally I have no wish to adversely affect any cases that may be brought, nor do I wish to fall foul of any restrictions that I do not even know about.

It appears a family court judgment made a mothers two boys, ward of the court. It was critical of her but the mother (Samantha Baldwin) ignored the judgment took the children with her, against the wishes of the authorities. She was “missing” for several days and then went to police who have taken now taken the children from her. In the meantime the police and family courts have issued statements. It appears that family members were threatened with charges of helping the mother take the children.

                                                    Samantha Baldwin in happier times

Two useful posts on the case are from the Transparency Project.

2017 Apr 3 Police hunt for mother who has abducted her own children – what on earth is going on? [15]

This post summarises what was known on the 3rd and 4th of April and has links to several corporate media articles if people wish to research them. They do not seem to add much to the facts, and corporate media almost never link to sources, so I will not reference them here.

The Transparency Project article states that on 27 Mar the Family Court held a hearing about these two boys. It decided to declare the boys wards of court. Probably on 3 Apr the Family Court then issued a statement via the police website, which now appears to be unavailable, which included

Miss Baldwin is now missing. It is assumed that she has abducted [the children]. The children have now been made wards of Court. Miss Baldwin is considered to pose a risk of harm to the children.”

Superintendent Richard Fretwell of Nottinghamshire Police was in charge of the search for Samantha Baldwin.

The article then explains some useful definitions such as abduction and custody.

The next article, 2017 Apr 10 Samantha Baldwin – another side to a very sad story [16] has more useful information.

It contains links and copies of

  • text of a judgment read out in open court (and hence reportable)
  • statement from the children’s father David Madge

The article states

  • the mother made allegations of sexual abuse of the boys by the father, and others, some years ago;
  • these were the subject of a lengthy fact-finding hearing very recently (12 days, which is a significant duration for a trial in a private law case), but it seems likely that any criminal investigation associated with this hearing did not lead to charges against the father;
  • after 12 days of evidence from the parents, and a host of other witnesses and consideration of more than 2,000 pages of documents, the judge decided that the mother had failed to prove that it was more likely than not that her allegations were true, although she did genuinely believe them to be true;
  • more than that, he found that she was so convinced that the allegations were true that she had gone to the lengths of drugging the boys in order to bolster the case that the children were victims of abuse – in essence she fabricated evidence in the hope of securing the finding she believed was justified;
  • and the judge found that when the mother realised the writing was on the wall, she made a plan and then whisked the children away to her chalet to prevent the court from acting on its judgment.
  • The children are now temporarily in foster care – the reason given for them not returning immediately to the care of their father is that as a result of their mother’s own irrational belief, they may now have a false belief that they were in fact abused by their father. It also appears that they have not had contact with, let alone been cared for by their father for some years.

That then appears to be a summary of the official position. Supporters of Samantha Baldwin, which include investigative reporter Richard Carvath think this is not an accurate picture. He also claims court papers have been served on him and he has been gagged.

He says that he has to balance getting the truth to the public whilst still protecting the legally admissible evidence that is needed to seek justice for them. (OBO stands for On Behalf Of, and it appears that someone is operating his twitter account, presumably with his permission)

He thinks that the Judge Jeremy Lea is as “bent as a banana”

Richard Carvath seems worried for his own safety

He says

  • there is an international network of child traffickers
  • satanic ritual abuse is involved
  • the judge should recuse himself
  • the mother could not fabricate evidence of sodomy

This demand for recusal of the judge would appear to suggest that Richard Carvath thinks  the judge has a conflict of interest which may include knowing people who are involved in the abuse network.

                                   Judge Jeremy Lea is being called to recuse himself

Richard Carvath’s latest communication is this video

2017 Apr 3 Richard Cavath Gagged journalist Richard Carvath 13 April 2017 [1] 

It is said the children have disclosed sexual abuse by multiple men and that Greater Manchester Police were told but carried out completely unprofessional interviews and even maintained that the alleged perpetrator was innocent [10] .

The child trafficking and ritual abuse network is believed to have infiltrated Greater Manchester Police.

Nottinghamshire Police and GMP both have poor historical records for investigating child sexual abuse, and have been accused of covering up child sexual abuse.

Whilst not judging this particular case in any way, certainly it is the feeling of many survivors that

  • establishment figures such as judges, doctors and lawyers are involved in child sexual abuse
  • establishment figures such as judges, doctors and lawyers cover up child sexual abuse by adversely affecting judicial proceedings by false reports and other means
  • one method of covering up child sexual abuse is to fabricate charges against the whistleblower or innocent parents
  • custody of abused children in many cases goes to the abuser
  • in cases of ritual and satanic abuse the establishment binds even tighter together and is even more vigorous in covering up the truth. There are a number of “usual suspects” in the corporate media who get paid for repetitive “satanic panic” theories to deny any ritual, satanic or luciferian abuse. This denial extends to social media, where one such barrister troll recently received a harassment warning [18]
  • the deniers may be delusional, DID, in denial, abused but in denial, blackmailed, under the influence of the deep state, security services, gladio or even genuinely misinformed. Of course some cases of alleged abuse may be made up by used as obfuscation by the powers that be

Several whistleblowers on child sexual abuse have been targetted by the police and judicial system over the past few years, Child Sexual Abuse Campaigners and Whistleblowers targeted by state organisations [19] 

Richard Carvath has been investigating the seamier side of Greater Manchester Police for several years. This is a 70 page Report (including many appendices) authored by him in 2012 Prostitutes & Police – A Report on the Vice Trade Policy of Greater Manchester Police [8]. It is well worth a read.

Demonstrations of support for Samantha Baldwin in Nottingham and London are set to go ahead on Sat 22nd April.

2017 Apr 22 1.00 Facebook Justice4S Protest – Nottingham Council House [22]

2017 Apr 22 10.00 Facebook #justice4s Protest – London Charing Cross [23]

Change.org Official #justice4s Petition  [24]

Official #justice4s Support group facebook.com/groups/justice4s [25]

Family Courts have been criticised for some considerable time for their secrecy, and gagging clauses which are ostensibly for the protection of the children but which often have the effect of silencing the truth.

This leaves the family courts untransparent, unaccountable and also open to be used for nefarious purposes by the establishment and professionals to cover up dodgy practices and criminal activities.

Sir James Munby, President of High Court Family Division pushed for greater transparency in 2014 [14] [13], and new guidance was brought [12] in but appears to have had little effect [11]

Please note that victims of abuse may be triggered by reading this information. These links are generally UK based.

  • The Sanctuary for the Abused [A] has advice on how to prevent triggers.
  • National Association for People Abused in Childhood [B] has a freephone helpline and has links to local support groups.
  • One in Four [C]
  • Havoca [D].
  • Useful post on Triggers [E]  from SurvivorsJustice [F] blog.
  • Jim Hoppers pages on Mindfulness [G]  and Meditation [H] may be useful.
  • Hwaairfan blog An Indigenous Australian Approach to Healing Trauma  [J]
  • Survivors UK for victims and survivors of male rape or the sexual abuse of men [K]
  • Voicing CSA group [L] helps arrange survivors meetings in your area
  • A Prescription for me blog Various emotional support links [M]
  • ShatterBoys -“Male Survivors Of Childhood Sexual Abuse Inspiring change, Through Shared Experience Whilst Building Connections…Together We Can Heal” [N]

Links

[1] 2017 Apr 3 Richard Cavath Gagged journalist Richard Carvath 13 April 2017 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KM0XncwXFCU&feature=player_embedded

[2] Richard Carvaths Blog https://carvath.wordpress.com/

[3] 2017 Apr 6 Huffington Post A Broken System: Oaths Betrayed In Family Law http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/a-broken-system-oaths-betrayed-in-family-law_us_58e3f97be4b09deecf0e1b1b

[4] Change. Org #Justice4S Petition https://www.change.org/p/justice4s

[5] Just Giving Crowdfunding #Justice4S https://www.justgiving.com/crowdfunding/sbsupport

Official #justice4s Petition – change.org/p/justice4s
Official #justice4s Support group facebook.com/groups/justice4s
Official #justice4s Page – facebook.com/justice4sNottingham #justice4s demo – facebook.com/events/397808920592955/
London #justice4s demo – facebook.com/events/1520329401318921

[6] Richard Carvath website http://www.richardcarvath.net/

[7] 2017 Apr retrieved Facebook Womens Coalition  https://m.facebook.com/TheWomensCoalition/photos/a.1464723457135309.1073741828.1459888504285471/1896844423923208/?type=3

[8] 2012 May 16 published on Richard Carvath blog 2014 Feb Prostitutes & Police – A Report on the Vice Trade Policy of Greater Manchester Police https://carvath.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/vicetradepolicygmp2012.pdf

[9] https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:https://carvath.wordpress.com/

[10] https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C8y4PAWUwAQ6qct.jpg:large

[11] 21 Jun 2106 Guardian Why are we still waiting for transparency in the family courts? https://www.theguardian.com/social-care-network/2016/jun/21/family-courts-transparency-law-judgements

[12] 2014 Gov.UK Transparency in Family Courts https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/publications/transparency-in-the-family-courts/

[13] 2014 Jan 16 Mail  At last! Victory on secret courts: Rulings in family cases to be made public after Mail campaign http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2540919/At-Victory-secret-courts-Rulings-family-cases-public-Mail-campaign.html

[14] 2014 Jan 16 Guardian Senior judge orders greater transparency in family court judgments https://www.theguardian.com/law/2014/jan/16/judge-transparency-family-court-judgments

[15] 2017 Apr 3 Transparency Project  Police hunt for mother who has abducted her own children – what on earth is going on? http://www.transparencyproject.org.uk/police-hunt-for-mother-who-has-abducted-her-own-children-what-on-earth-is-going-on/

[16] 2017 Apr 10 Transparency Project Samantha Baldwin – another side to a very sad story http://www.transparencyproject.org.uk/samantha-baldwin-another-side-to-a-very-sad-story/

[17] Facebook Safe Kids International https://www.facebook.com/SafeKidsInternational/photos/a.404998956187025.89722.402177413135846/894180027268913/

[18] 2017 Apr 12 Mail Lawyer who was dubbed the ‘bolshiest barrister on Twitter’ and called for age of consent to be lowered to 13 ‘made death threats’ to law student http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4404324/Barrister-death-threats-law-student.html

[19] 2015 Jul 12 Cathy Fox Blog Child Sexual Abuse Campaigners and Whistleblowers targeted by state organisations https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2015/07/12/child-sexual-abuse-campaigners-and-whistleblowers-targeted-by-state-organisations/

[20]

[21] 2014 feb  https://carvath.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/vicetradepolicygmp2012.pdf

[22] 2017 Apr 22 1.00 Facebook Justice4S Protest- Nottingham Council House facebook.com/events/397808920592955/

[23] 2017 Apr 22 10.00 Facebook #justice4s Protest London Charing Cross – facebook.com/events/1520329401318921

[24] Change.org Official #justice4s Petition – change.org/p/justice4s

[25] Facebook  Official #justice4s Support group facebook.com/groups/justice4s

Posted in #OpDeathEaters, #pedogate, cathy fox blog, Child Abuse, Child sexual abuse, Child trafficking, Criminal Cabal of People in Power, Manchester, Nottinghamshire, Police, Ritual abuse, Trafficking, VIP CSA | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 7 Comments

Children Abused in Institutions – Lessons Still to be Learned by Wally Harbert

Wally was Hackneys Director of Social Services, later Avon County Council Director of Social Services, President of the Association of Directors of Social Services in 1978/9 and was awarded the OBE in 1984.

His other posts on this blog are here Wally Harberts posts [1]

Time and again we do not learn the lessons from the past about child abuse. IICSA could start by publically releasing all reports about child sexual abuse but years in to the investigation, still no documents. If we cannot read about the past how can we learn from it?

This is another informative post from Wally Harbert.

 Children abused in institutions – lessons have still to be learned

The abuse of children is as old as the hills but has only recently been the subject of polite conversation. Every cohort of children has faced challenges. Mine was sent away to live with strangers to avoid Hitler’s bombs. We found hay barns were used for purposes other than storing hay. Children who returned to live in towns discovered that windowless, scream-proof air raid shelters had a different use after the all-clear sounded. We were all survivors.

 This paper describes my experiences as a director of social services from 1970 to 1990. The Children and Young Persons Act 1969 had designated approved schools Community Homes with Education, responsible to social services departments.  Most were run by charities whose trustees served as governors. Some trustees and staff resented “outside interference” but were obliged to follow a local authority’s rules to receive funding. Some homes were, what Erving Goffman called total institutions – isolated, enclosed social systems whose primary purpose was to control residents’ lives; total institutions include prisons, mental hospitals and military training camps – all unsuitable models for establishments to enhance the social development of children – unless staff are well trained and supervised.

 The absence of child-centred policies

Approved schools were in a time warp well before their transfer with disagreement about whether their purpose was care or punishment. Staff came from a variety of backgrounds, including the military; in the absence of appropriate skills, homes often adopted militaristic regimes because that was the cheapest and easiest way to run them. Respect from peers, trustees and governors depended on staff being seen to be in control. There was little or no understanding of how to prevent or contain aggressive and violent behaviour. Research showed that, when violence occurred between staff and children, staff commonly struck the first blow.

 Lacking necessary skills, some homes invented control systems with pseudo-professional titles like “regression therapy” and “pin-down” or encouraged bullying by older children. Like routines in military training camps, they were designed to command obedience by stripping children of their dignity and sense of worth. They represented crude retaliation, humiliation, abuse and sexual domination as sophisticated therapies. Fearful, docile and acquiescent children could be regarded as a prized outcome. Typically, homes were located in extensive grounds – too remote for neighbours to hear a child’s screams. Child care experts derisively called them Mouldering Bastions.

 Responsibility for children’s services was nominally held by social services departments but, in practice, decisions were often fragmented between officers of several departments including education, human resources, legal services, estates services, equal opportunities, public relations and finance; each department was responsible to a different committee with its own regulations, protocols, objectives and timescales. Everyone and no one was in charge. Children and their needs fell through the cracks.

 How denial became the default response to abuse

Investigating allegations of wrongdoing in homes risked bad publicity and tension with trades unions. Litigation might follow which, unless carefully handled, could invalidate council insurances. It was seen by some as grossly unfair that wayward and untrustworthy children might wield power over the careers of blameless staff. Some considered it better to give the staff concerned a metaphorical clip round the ear and tell them to be more careful in future rather than risk receiving an embarrassing report requiring action. 

 When I told a governor of a home that I was about to investigate allegations of abuse he said I was trying to engineer its closure. During investigations staff were confident that there would be an inquiry into the conduct of the investigation and, without consulting me, the chief executive began a clandestine inquiry into how it was being conducted. My investigators were confronted by a wall of silence. “Squealers” received threats of violence to themselves and their families and mysterious scratches appeared on their cars. The inquiry revealed widespread malpractices and revealed that governors discussed the investigation with staff as it progressed.

It was difficult to uncover the truth about abuse in homes but, when abusers knew governors actively opposed an investigation and that the chief executive was questioning its conduct, the home was rendered unmanageable. While they surreptitiously chased imaginary conspiracies, the governors and the chief executive placed abused children, as well as innocent staff, in danger, abandoning them to the bullies. I found I had regained control when, following the investigation, there was no murmur from the chief executive or governors as I disciplined staff. But it is no surprise that some abuse was not detected until several years later.

 A lawyer told me that, due to a legal technicality, I had no authority to discipline or exclude an abusing staff member from a specialist home accommodating some of the most troublesome and troubled boys in England. The chief executive (also a lawyer) confirmed this decision. When I told the Health Department I no longer regarded myself as responsible for the home it threatened to close it. The edifice of half-truths constructed to justify children being left at risk now crumbled and the staff member was moved to the education service where he continued working with children until arrested for an offence against a child some years later.

 In my experience, lawyers in the public service did not represent the interests of the public or of children. Their clients were councillors. The Shirley Oaks Survivors’ Association, with over 700 members, has expressed a profound distrust of lawyers. Many victims of abuse who encounter lawyers find them acting for third parties seeking to prove that claims of abuse are false, exaggerated, out of time or all three. The Hillsborough Family Support Group had similar experiences and fought twenty five years for justice. He who pays the lawyer usually has the deepest pockets and, almost invariably, calls the tune.

 I sat through many passionate Council debates about the needs of children but, too often, the children councillors had in mind were their own and those of other aspiring middle-class families. Children from dysfunctional working class families seldom came under scrutiny. There was no Lord Shaftesbury, Barnardo or Mary Carpenter to champion an unpopular cause or nudge the public conscience. Residential care had some high quality staff but a few rotten apples were allowed, largely by an arcane system of governance, to infect the whole barrel.

Envoi

The need to improve staff training in children’s services is unfinished business from 1969. Reforms promised at that time were not fully achieved due to inadequate funding. Following the death of Adam Rickwood at the age of 14 in a Secure Training Centre, a recent Freedom of Information Request obtained the Waplington Report. 2017 Mar 21 Cathy Fox Blog Waplington Report (Youth Justice Board, Hassockfield STC) [2]. It concludes that physical restraint is applied to children in Secure Training Centres too soon and too frequently, escalating tensions between staff and children and leading to violence.

 If hospital Accident and Emergency units were run by inadequately trained staff we would expect poor outcomes and a clamour for change from a shocked public. But these are friendless and frightened children. They provoke public indifference, even, hostility. Vulnerable children suffer life-changing traumas unheeded and sometimes, die alone. The struggle to persuade governments to invest in quality services for working class children goes on; it will be greatly strengthened by a combined attack from professionals and survivors’ groups.

Please note that victims of abuse may be triggered by reading this information. These links are generally UK based.

  • The Sanctuary for the Abused [A] has advice on how to prevent triggers.
  • National Association for People Abused in Childhood [B] has a freephone helpline and has links to local support groups.
  • One in Four [C]
  • Havoca [D].
  • Useful post on Triggers [E]  from SurvivorsJustice [F] blog.
  • Jim Hoppers pages on Mindfulness [G]  and Meditation [H] may be useful.
  • Hwaairfan blog An Indigenous Australian Approach to Healing Trauma  [J]
  • Survivors UK for victims and survivors of male rape or the sexual abuse of men [K]
  • Voicing CSA group [L] helps arrange survivors meetings in your area
  • A Prescription for me blog Various emotional support links [M]
  • ShatterBoys -“Male Survivors Of Childhood Sexual Abuse Inspiring change, Through Shared Experience Whilst Building Connections…Together We Can Heal” [N]

Links

[1] Cathy Fox Blog Wally Harberts posts  https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/?s=harbert

[2] 2017 Mar 21 Cathy Fox Blog Waplington Report (Youth Justice Board, Hassockfield STC) https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2017/03/21/waplington-report-youth-justice-board-hassockfield-stc/

Posted in Avon, cathy fox blog, Child Abuse, Child sexual abuse, London | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | 5 Comments

Human Hunting of Becki Percy

I have already posted three stories of human hunting

  • A Most Dangerous Game – Human Hunting [6] 
  • Hunting Children in Kent [7] 
  • Brice Taylor was Hunted by George Bush Senior [8]

This is another story of human hunting from Becki Price.

I have only recently seen a few of Becki’s videos and so I am not too familiar with her story.

[Updated  5 Apr 2017 – Thanks to the comments below more details on Becki who was brought up around Hull, and her parents can be found here (Voat archived) [9] ]

She was abused by her natural parents Ann and Lee and trafficked to be abused by others from the age of 9.

She went to America in 2015 and claimed asylum, and so she was locked up. She is now released but has to wear a tag, whilst her claim is being processed through the courts.

The first video starts as Becki talks about the hunting of her.

[1] 2016 Dec 24 Becki Percy Testimony (Part 1)

All of Becki Percy’s videos are on her You Tube channel [4] Following are a few more of her videos

[2] 2016 Dec 24 Becki Percy Testimony (Part 2)

[3] 2017 Jan 2 Becki Percy My Experience with Immigration and Sex Trafficking

Becki is now taking part in a documentary about survivors to help others

[5] 2017 Mar 22 Becki Price Documentary On Child Sex Trafficking: A Message For Survivors

Becki Percy’s  You Tube channel [4]

Other human hunt stories

  • A Most Dangerous Game – Human Hunting [6] 
  • Hunting Children in Kent [7] 
  • Brice Taylor was Hunted by George Bush Senior [8]

[Updated  5 Apr 2017 – Thanks to the comments below more details on Becki who was brought up around Hull, and her parents can be found here (Voat archived) [9] ]

Please note that victims of abuse may be triggered by reading this information. These links are generally UK based.

  • The Sanctuary for the Abused [A] has advice on how to prevent triggers.
  • National Association for People Abused in Childhood [B] has a freephone helpline and has links to local support groups.
  • One in Four [C]
  • Havoca [D].
  • Useful post on Triggers [E]  from SurvivorsJustice [F] blog.
  • Jim Hoppers pages on Mindfulness [G]  and Meditation [H] may be useful.
  • Hwaairfan blog An Indigenous Australian Approach to Healing Trauma  [J]
  • Survivors UK for victims and survivors of male rape or the sexual abuse of men [K]
  • Voicing CSA group [L] helps arrange survivors meetings in your area
  • A Prescription for me blog Various emotional support links [M]
  • ShatterBoys -“Male Survivors Of Childhood Sexual Abuse Inspiring change, Through Shared Experience Whilst Building Connections…Together We Can Heal” [N]

Links

[1] 2016 Dec 24 Becki Percy Testimony (Part 1)  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MdELZJk4YgM

[2] 2016 Dec 24 Becki Percy Testimony (Part 2) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xo9gcTNZNlk

[3] 2017 Jan 2 Becki Percy My Experience with Immigration and Sex Trafficking https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NvkiVvXptcw

[4] Becki Percy’s  You Tube channel https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCJ2WchHhGBXo7AF8z9lS5aA/videos

[5] 2017 Mar 22 Becki Price Documentary On Child Sex Trafficking: A Message For Survivors https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-rVykiib6U

[6] 2017 Apr 2 Cathy fox Blog A Most Dangerous Game – Human Hunting https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2017/04/02/a-most-dangerous-game-human-hunting/

[7] 2015 Sept 19 Cathy Fox Blog Hunting Children in Kent https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2015/09/19/hunting-children-in-kent/

[8] 2017 Apr 3 Cathy Fox Blog Brice Taylor was Hunted by George Bush Senior https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2017/04/03/brice-taylor-was-hunted-by-george-bush-senior/

[9] 2017 Apr 5 archived, Voat re Becki Price  http://archive.is/7x5JJ

Posted in cathy fox blog, Child Abuse, Child sexual abuse, Humberside, pedophile, Sex trafficking | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 9 Comments

Brice Taylor was Hunted by George Bush Senior

Another example of the pathetic psychopathic people in power playing human hunting, this time with a William Tell twist.

These people need to be rounded up and face justice.

I have blogged previously on Cathy O’Brien’s experiences  A Most Dangerous Game – Human Hunting [4] and what British policeman Clive Driscoll found Hunting Children in Kent [5]

This is from 1999 Brice Taylor Thanks for the Memories: The Truth Has Set Me Free! the Memoirs of Bob Hope’s and Henry Kissinger’s mind-Controlled Slave via Amazon [1] or pdf  [3]

Hunted by Bush on Hope’s Jordan Ranch p235

George Bush was one of the men in safari uniform on Bob Hope’s property who hunted me when Kelly was little. Bob was laughing when he laid down the rules. “There will be no running, or hiding, you will simply stroll along the path, skipping, if you like, dancing if you wish, but NO running, until you are TRAPPED. It’s inevitable, there is no escaping it, especially with an expert hunter like George.” Looking me in the eye, Bob said, “Are there any questions?”

I shook my head no.

“Good, then remember, every step you take may be your last.” As a helicopter touched down off in the distance in this rural Jordan Ranch area, Bob said, “Bush will be coming from a different angle.”

I walked down the road, which with every step I took, became more and more like The Yellow Brick Road that I had been programmed since childhood to follow. I was absolutely terrified, waiting to be attacked, killed. . . whatever; I didn’t know what they had in store for me this day. I walked for a long time and it felt like I was hallucinating along the way. In my mind, playing over and over like a horror movie were Bob’s words, “Every step you take may be your last.”

In my blue jeans and red checkered shirt, I kept walking. I was still walking when it got dark and I was really scared then because I was so far away from where I had begun. My arm ached from the injection they had given me in the bend of my arm and I rubbed it wishing I wasn’t so alone in the world. I was getting frantic, totally panicked by now and I just kept walking. Nothing seemed real anymore. I felt like a caged animal and I couldn’t remember the rules any longer. I was trying so hard to remember exactly what Bob had said, thinking if I just did it right that I wouldn’t get hurt and my children would be safe. But my drugged terror was escalating, and I couldn’t think anymore, I felt like I was losing control.

After what seemed like a very long time, George Bush stepped out from an old outhouse-type structure that was on Bob’s ranch and calmly walked over to me, “Betcha didn’t think I’d ever be hiding in there, did ya?” and he laughed. “Well, I like to play hide and seek a lot but there’s only two of us here so let’s play another game that only requires two, the two of us.”

I nodded, frozen in terror.

“I just happen to have an apple. A beautiful red apple here in my pocket.” He pulled the apple out and said, “I know the game is supposed to be played with a bow and arrow (I’d been accidentally shot with an arrow in the jaw when I was five) but I forgot mine. I did remember however to bring my revolver.”

And he pulled a gun out of his other pocket. “Now, this game is called William Tell, and you get to play William. Here, you stand over here, so if I miss, the bullet will go into the tree instead of traveling wildly out of control.”

He placed me in front of an oak tree and put the apple on top of my head. By now I was crying. I couldn’t help it, I just couldn’t control it. “Please don’t hurt my kids anymore,” I begged.

Bush said, “Shhh, don’t interrupt. We’re playing a game now. Now just stand real still and remember your name is William Tell, and this is what happens if you don’t.” Slowly, he
cocked the gun and took aim at the apple on my head or me, I couldn’t tell which. Then, taking his time he said very slowly as he took aim, “Ok are you ready for the games to begin? Will you tell?”

I squeezed my eyes shut and he lowered the gun as he sighed real disgustedly, “No, no, you can’t close your eyes, you have to see this coming, otherwise it won’t be any fun at all.”

So, I opened my eyes and George, took aim again and said, Remember this is what happens if you don’t TELL.” He kept aiming and re-aiming trying to get it just right
and then he asked me again if I was ready.

“Yes, Sir,” I answered.

He put the gun down to listen to me, then took aim again, “Now what’s the magic message?”

“Don’t tell,” I answered. Immediately, he fired and shot the apple off my head. It blasted a hole in the middle of it and blew out a huge chunk and he walked over, picked it up off the ground and said, “Looks like we both won this time. You wait for your ride, I’ll take mine another way,” and he disappeared.

I tried to see where he went in the dark but I couldn’t locate him. Shortly after, a couple of cowboys that tended the cattle on Bob’s ranch came driving by in their old pick up truck and angrily said, “Get in, we’ll give you a ride back to the end of the road. You’re trespassing lady.” So I climbed into the back of their pick up truck, not even on the seat in the cab and bounced all the way back to the end of the road. Then, I walked the short distance home.

When I walked in the house, Craig said, “Where have you been? I got dinner started and was getting worried.”

“Oh, I was over at the neighbor’s,” I answered, falling into line helping with the kids and the dinner. During dinner, I just wanted to hold Kelly, who was two years old, and kept feeling so glad she was safe, at least for now.

I kept rocking her at the dinner table and it was a good thing my daughter was in my lap or I probably would have appeared as I really was, “psychotically experiencing an episode.” That’s what they told me the doctors would say if I went to them for help.

“They’ll say you’re psychotic,” Bob said, “and it won’t take them long to figure it out. It will be obvious.”

George Bush lorded and ruled over me for years once I had children. There were lots of scary program tactics they installed to insure the safety of his use of Kelly and me.

Please note that victims of abuse may be triggered by reading this information. These links are generally UK based.

  • The Sanctuary for the Abused [A] has advice on how to prevent triggers.
  • National Association for People Abused in Childhood [B] has a freephone helpline and has links to local support groups.
  • One in Four [C]
  • Havoca [D].
  • Useful post on Triggers [E]  from SurvivorsJustice [F] blog.
  • Jim Hoppers pages on Mindfulness [G]  and Meditation [H] may be useful.
  • Hwaairfan blog An Indigenous Australian Approach to Healing Trauma  [J]
  • Survivors UK for victims and survivors of male rape or the sexual abuse of men [K]
  • Voicing CSA group [L] helps arrange survivors meetings in your area
  • A Prescription for me blog Various emotional support links [M]
  • ShatterBoys -“Male Survivors Of Childhood Sexual Abuse Inspiring change, Through Shared Experience Whilst Building Connections…Together We Can Heal” [N]

Links

[1] 1999 Brice Taylor Thanks for the Memories: The Truth Has Set Me Free! the Memoirs of Bob Hope’s and Henry Kissinger’s mind-Controlled Slave via Amazon https://www.amazon.co.uk/Thanks-Memories-Truth-Memoirs-KissingerSmind-Controlled/dp/0966891627/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1491167352&sr=8-2&keywords=thanks+for+the+memories

[2] 1999 Brice Taylor Thanks For The Memories https://archive.is/o/7Za1i/https://archive.org/details/BriceTaylorThanksForTheMemoriesLARGEFONT_201603

[3] 1999 Brice Taylor Thanks For The Memories  pdf https://cathyfox.files.wordpress.com/2017/04/thanks_for_the_memories.pdf

[4] 2017 Apr 2 Cathy fox Blog A Most Dangerous Game – Human Hunting https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2017/04/02/a-most-dangerous-game-human-hunting/

[5] 2015 Sept 19 Cathy Fox Blog Hunting Children in Kent https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2015/09/19/hunting-children-in-kent/

Posted in #OpDeathEaters, #pedogate, Books about Child Abuse, cathy fox blog, Child Abuse, Child sexual abuse, Child trafficking, US of America Child Abuse | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | 8 Comments

A Most Dangerous Game – Human Hunting

The criminal cabal in power like to hunt humans.

This appeals to their psychopathic personalities and sick minds.

Their time of judicial immunity must end.

It is time they were rounded up and face justice.

I have already blogged ex British Policeman Clive Driscoll’s account of his experiences  Hunting Children in Kent [2]

These examples comes from Cathy O’Brien and Mark Phillips 1995 book TRANCE Formation of America: True life story of a mind control slave – Amazon [1] pdf [1a]

Wyoming p101

Dick Cheney, then White House Chief of Staff to president Ford, later Secretary of Defense to President George Bush, documented member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), and Presidential hopeful for 1996, was originally Wyoming’s only Congressman. Dick Cheney was the reason my family had traveled to Wyoming where I endured yet another form of brutality— his version of “A Most Dangerous Game,” or human hunting.

It is my understanding now that A Most Dangerous Game was devised to condition military personnel in survival and combat maneuvers. Yet it was used on me and other slaves known to me as a means of further conditioning the mind to the realization there was “no place to hide,” as well as traumatize the victim for ensuing programming.

It was my experience over the years that A Most Dangerous Game had numerous variations on the primary theme of being stripped naked and turned loose in the wilderness while being hunted by men and dogs. In reality, all “wilderness” areas were enclosed in secure military fencing whereby it was only a matter of time until I was caught, repeatedly raped, and tortured.

Dick Cheney had an apparent addiction to the “thrill of the sport”. He appeared obsessed with playing A Most Dangerous Game as a means of traumatizing mind-control victims, as well as to satisfy his own perverse sexual kinks.

My introduction to the game occurred upon arrival at the hunting lodge near Greybull, Wyoming, and it physically and psychologically devastated me. I was sufficiently traumatized for Cheney’s programming as I stood naked in his hunting lodge office after being hunted down and caught.

Cheney was talking as he paced around me, “I could stuff you and mount you like a jackalope and call you a two legged dear. Or I could stuff you with this (he unzipped his pants to reveal his oversized penis) right down your throat, and then mount you.

Which do you prefer? Blood and sweat became mixed with the dirt on my body and slid like mud down my legs and shoulder. I throbbed with exhaustion and pain as I stood unable to think to answer such a question. “Make up your mind,” Cheney coaxed. Unable to speak, I remained silent.

“You don’t get a choice, anyway, I make up your mind for you. That’s why you’re here. For me to make you a’ mind, and make you mine/mind. You lost your mind a long time ago. Now I’m going to give you one. Just like the Wizard (of Oz) gave Scarecrow a brain, the Yellow Brick Road led you he re to me. You’ve “come such a long, long way” for your brain, and I will give you one.”

The blood reached my shoes and caught my attention. Had I been further along in my programming, I perhaps would never have noticed such a thing or had the capability to think to wipe it away. But so far, I had only been to MacDill and Disney World for government/military programming. At last, when I could speak, I begged, “If you don’t mind, can I please use your bathroom?”

Cheney’s face turned red with rage. He was on me in an instant, slamming my back into the wall with one arm across my chest and his hand on my throat, choking me while applying pressure to the carotid artery in my neck with his thumb. His eyes bulged and he spit as he growled, “If you don’t mind me, I will kill you. I could kill you—Kill you—with my bare hands. You’re not the first and you won’t be the last. I’ll kill you any time I goddamn well please,” He flung me on the cot-type bed that was behind me. There he finished taking his rage out on me sexually.

On the Long trip back to Michigan, I lay in a heap behind the scats of the Suburban, nauseated and hurting from Cheney’s brutality and high voltage tortures, plus the whole Wyoming experience. My father stopped by the waterfalls flowing through the Tetons to “wash my brain” of the memory of Cheney, I could barely walk through the woods to the falls for the process as instructed, despite having learned my lessons well from Cheney on following orders.

Swiss Villa p122

Swiss Villa, like the Mount Shasta, California compound, was also used as a training and operations camp for the Shadow Government’s paramilitary projects referred to by Senator Tnouye (D.HI). I learned that this not-so-secret military buildup, sanctioned by corrupt members of our government, consisted of special forces trained robotic soldiers, numerous black unmarked helicopters, and the highest technological advancements in TOP SECRET weaponry and “Star Wars” electro magnetic mind-control equipment. These paramilitary compounds were intended for global policing of the New World Order through the Multi-Jurisdictional Police Force.

“A Most Dangerous Game” was often played at Swiss Villa and involved CIA agents, politicians, and others who would attend the resort just for the sport of hunting humans. Kelly and I both were hunted at Swiss Villa. The tortures and rape after being caught were extensive and sufficiently traumatized our minds for ensuing programming, as well as for creating memory compartmentalization for the high level operations we witnessed behind the villa’s patrolled fences. It was at Swiss Villa that I was taught “THE Most Dangerous Game” was one where a slave tried to escape and reveal what he or she had learned. If the hunters could not catch and stop the slave, then the  black helicopters patrolling the area would. And if all else failed, the “Eye in the Sky” would locate him or her, and a torturous death was supposedly imminent.

According to my abusers, my deprogrammer and primary advocate Mark Phillips and I have embarked on “THE Most Dangerous Game” through efforts such as releasing this book and turning a spotlight on the Shadow Government to reveal its members’ identities and their crimes against humanity, Mark Phillips and I are determined to beat them at their own “game” by arming the “95%” with the truth that perpetrators “don’t want them to know!

Mount Shasta p196

George Bush was highly active in both the Lampe, Missouri and Shasta, California retreat compounds. Just like Lampe, Shasta’s cover was country music. According to everyone I knew, singer and songwriter Merle Haggard supposedly ran the show at Lake Shasta, diverting any and all attention from the nearby Mount Shasta compound.

Shasta was the largest, covert mind-control slave camp of which I am aware. Hidden in the wooded hills, military fencing corrals an enormous fleet of unmarked, black helicopters and more mind- controlled, military robots than I saw in all of Haiti. This covert military operation served its own agenda, not America’s. I was told and overheard that it was a base for the future Multi-Jurisdictional Police Force; for enforcing order and law in the New World Order.

In the center of the high security compound, was another well-guarded military-fenced area that was regarded as a “Camp David” of sorts for those running our country. George Bush and Dick Cheney shared an office there, and claimed the outer perimeter woods as their own hunting ground where they played “A Most Dangerous Game”. Predicated on conversations I overheard between the two, it was this world police military background that earned Dick Cheney his cabinet appointment as Secretary of Defense with the Bush Administration.

Houston stayed at Haggard’s Lake Shasta resort while Kelly and I were helicoptered to Mount Shasta for our scheduled meeting with Bush and Cheney. The helicopter pilot directed our attention to the military fencing surrounding the outer perimeter of the compound. Rarely did pilots ever speak to either of us, but this one smiled wickedly as he told us we would need to know the outer limits for A Most Dangerous Game.

As soon as we arrived at Bush and Cheney’s inner sanctum, I noticed George Bush, Jr. was with them. It was my experience that Jr. stood by his father and covered his backside whenever Bush would become incapacitated from drugs or required criminal backup. It appeared that Jr. was there to serve both purposes while his father and Cheney enjoyed their work-vacation.

Hyper from drugs, Cheney and Bush were eager to hunt their human prey in “A Most Dangerous Game”. They greeted me with the rules of the game, ordered me to strip naked despite the cold December winds, and told me in Oz cryptic to “beware of the lions and tigers and bears”. Kelly’s life became the stakes, as usual, which resurrected my natural and exaggerated programmed maternal instincts. Tears silently ran down my cheeks as Bush told me, “If we catch you, Kelly’s mine. So run, run as fast as you can. I’ll get you and your little girl, too, because I can, I can, I can. And I will.”

Cheney, daring me to respond, asked, “Any questions?” I said, “There’s no place to run because there’s a fence—the kind I can’t get over. I saw it” Rather than physically assault me. Cheney laughed at my sense of “no where to run, no where to hide and explained that a bear had torn a hole in the fence somewhere, and all I had to do is find it. He lowered his rifle to my head and said, “Let the games begin. Go.”

Wearing only my tennis shoes, I ran through the trees as fast and as far as I could, which wasn’t very far at all. Bush was using his bird dog to track me, the same one that had recently been used with me in bestiality filming as a “Byrd-dog” joke on my owner, Robert C. Byrd. When caught, Cheney held his gun to my head again as he stood over me, looking warm in his sheepskin coat. Bush ordered me to take his dog sexually while they watched, then he and Cheney ushered me back to their cabin.

I pulled on my clothes and sat in the office part of the cabin awaiting instructions. I had no idea where Kelly was, nor do I in retrospect. Bush and Cheney were still in their hunting clothes when the programming session began. Bush said, “You and I are about to embark on A Most Dangerous Game of diplomatic relations. This is my game. You will follow my rules. I will have the distinct advantage of hunting you with my Eye in the Sky (satellite). I’ll watch every move you make. As long as you play the game by my rules and make no mistakes, you live. One mistake and I’ll get you, my pretty, and your little girl, too. You die, and Kelly will have to play with me. I prefer it that way. Then it will be her Most Dangerous Game. The cards are stacked in my favor because, well, it is my game! Are you game?”

There was no choice. I responded as conditioned, “Yes, Sir! I’m game.” The parallels to The Most Dangerous Game that had just occurred in the woods were deliberate and intended to make retrieval of memory “impossible” due to cryptoamnesia scrambling. “Good. Then let the games begin. Listen carefully to your instructions. You have no room for error.” Cheney flipped his “game timer”—an hourglass.

Bush continued, “This game is called the King and Eye, and here’s the deal. You will be establishing stronger diplomatic relations according to order between Mexico, the U.S., and the Middle East. Your role will require a change of face at each new place. I’ll chart your course, define your role, and pull your strings. You’ll speak my words when I pull your strings. There is no room for error,”

Cheney was half lying across the plain, military issue style desk in an apparent drug stupor as Bush talked. Still wearing his hunting coat and hat, Cheney aimed his rifle at me from the desk and threatened, “Or a-hunting we will go.” Bush finished Cheney’s threat by singing, “We’ll catch a fox and put her in a box and lower her in a hole.”

Bush looked at Cheney and burst out laughing. The sight of him dressed in his hunting clothes with a huge bore, double-barreled shotgun to his shoulder inspired Bush to tell him he “looked like Elmer Fudd”.

Cheney, imitating the cartoon character, said, “Where is that waskily wabbit?” Operation The King and Eye would involve Reagan’s #1 envoy Philip Habib (who cryptically played the Alice In Wonderland role of the White Rabbit with slaves such as myself) and Saudi Arabian King Fahd.

So when Bush referred to the two as “Elmer Fahd and the Waskily Wabbit,” he and Cheney laughed until they cried. Since both were already high from drugs anyway, they had a great deal of difficulty maintaining composure long enough to complete my programming.

Please note that victims of abuse may be triggered by reading this information. These links are generally UK based.

  • The Sanctuary for the Abused [A] has advice on how to prevent triggers.
  • National Association for People Abused in Childhood [B] has a freephone helpline and has links to local support groups.
  • One in Four [C]
  • Havoca [D].
  • Useful post on Triggers [E]  from SurvivorsJustice [F] blog.
  • Jim Hoppers pages on Mindfulness [G]  and Meditation [H] may be useful.
  • Hwaairfan blog An Indigenous Australian Approach to Healing Trauma  [J]
  • Survivors UK for victims and survivors of male rape or the sexual abuse of men [K]
  • Voicing CSA group [L] helps arrange survivors meetings in your area
  • A Prescription for me blog Various emotional support links [M]
  • ShatterBoys -“Male Survivors Of Childhood Sexual Abuse Inspiring change, Through Shared Experience Whilst Building Connections…Together We Can Heal” [N]

Links

[1] 1995 Cathy O’Brien and Mark Phillips TRANCE Formation of America: True life story of a mind control slave https://www.amazon.co.uk/TRANCE-Formation-America-story-control-ebook/dp/B00PF19VY0/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1491161397&sr=8-1&keywords=trance+formation+cathy+o%27brien

[1a] 1995 Cathy O’Brien and Mark Phillips TRANCE Formation of America: True life story of a mind control slave https://cathyfox.files.wordpress.com/2017/04/cathy_obrien__mark_philips_-_trance_formation_of_america_mkultra_-_1995.pdf

[2] 2015 Sept 19 Cathy Fox Blog Hunting Children in Kent https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2015/09/19/hunting-children-in-kent/

[3] Liz Crokin thread re Dutch human hunting https://twitter.com/LizCrokin/status/847284279109230594

 

Posted in #OpDeathEaters, #pedogate, Books about Child Abuse, cathy fox blog, Child Abuse, Child sexual abuse, CIA, Criminal Cabal of People in Power, pedophile, US of America Child Abuse, VIP CSA | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments

Kenneth Kevin O’Dowd and the Ted Heath Photos

The “Heath Pictures Case” was one in which a person who was accused of rape, Kevin O’Dowd produced a photocopy of a photograph of Sir Edward Heath.

I have published 5 appeals involving Kevin Vizzard aka Kenneth William O’Dowd aka Kevin Kenneth O’Dowd as below, so as much as the information is public as possible. Also included are 3 newspaper articles – two from Australia, one from Glasgow [HT @thewakeupcall09] . It is not clear whether there were reporting restrictions about Heath and if that was dictated by the Court or elsewhere.

You might think that court transcripts should routinely be made public free, and past transcripts should be digitised and made available, but we do not live in a world of justness and transparency, we live in the country of the Crown Justice System, which naturally serves the Crown not the public.

Appeals

1975 Jul 25  [O’Dowd1] Kenneth Vizzard 25 July 1975 Court of Appeal [5]

1978 May 18 [O’Dowd2] Kenneth William O’Dowd 18 May 1978 Court of Appeal [6]

2008 Nov 28 [O’Dowd3] Kevin Kenneth O’Dowd 28th November 2008 Court of Appeal [7]

2009 May 12 [O’Dowd4] Kevin O’Dowd 12 May 2009 Supreme Court [8]

2010 Sept 21 [O’Dowd5] Kevin O’Dowd 21 Sept 2010 EHCR [9]

 

The one directly relevant which mentions Heath is Kevin O’Dowd 12 May 2009 Supreme Court [8]

As the appeal reveals

” 34….At the trial the appellant produced a photocopy of a photograph of AB with Sir Edward Heath and alleged there were photographs depicting her in compromising sexual circumstances in front of their child. AB denied that she had an affair with DI Wallace or that there were compromising photographs in front of their child.

35. On 14 March 1984 the appellant was acquitted of the charges of threatening to kill AB and of raping her. Subsequently the photocopy of the photograph produced at the trial was found to be a forgery, and the appellant was tried for perjury, making false statements and perverting the course of justice. He agreed that the photographs he had produced were forged but maintained that there were original photographs of AB, DI Wallace, Sir Edward Heath, and his children in pornographic poses. He maintained that those photographs were taken from him by the police. In October 1985 he was convicted of the forgery and perverting the course of justice.” [8]

The other appeals show what kind of a witness and man the defendant was. However whatever kind of witness and man he was he could still have been telling the truth. It is not clear from these disclosures, but a bit more light is thrown on this saga.

 

Timeline

1975 Jul 25  [O’Dowd1] Kenneth Vizzard 25 July 1975 Court of Appeal [5]

1978 May 18 [O’Dowd2] Kenneth William O’Dowd 18 May 1978 Court of Appeal [6]

1983 Oct 25 Canberra Times Parliament Focus on mystery MP [3]  

1984 Jan 19 Canberra Times Heath Leads Revolt against Government [4] 

Mar 1984 O’Dowd was acquitted of the charges of threatening to kill AB and of raping her [8]

1984 Mar 15 Glasgow Herald Accused in “Heath Picture” Case jailed [10]

2008 Nov 28 [O’Dowd3] Kevin Kenneth O’Dowd 28th November 2008 Court of Appeal [7]

2009 May 12 [O’Dowd4] Kevin O’Dowd 12 May 2009 Supreme Court [8]

2010 Sept 21 [O’Dowd5] Kevin O’Dowd 21 Sept 2010 EHCR [9]

 

Index of Newspaper and Journal articles on this blog [1]

Index of Court Appeals on this blog [2]

Please note that victims of abuse may be triggered by reading this information. These links are generally UK based.

  • The Sanctuary for the Abused [A] has advice on how to prevent triggers.
  • National Association for People Abused in Childhood [B] has a freephone helpline and has links to local support groups.
  • One in Four [C]
  • Havoca [D].
  • Useful post on Triggers [E]  from SurvivorsJustice [F] blog.
  • Jim Hoppers pages on Mindfulness [G]  and Meditation [H] may be useful.
  • Hwaairfan blog An Indigenous Australian Approach to Healing Trauma  [J]
  • Survivors UK for victims and survivors of male rape or the sexual abuse of men [K]
  • Voicing CSA group [L] helps arrange survivors meetings in your area
  • A Prescription for me blog Various emotional support links [M]
  • ShatterBoys -“Male Survivors Of Childhood Sexual Abuse Inspiring change, Through Shared Experience Whilst Building Connections…Together We Can Heal” [N]

 

Links

[1] Index of Newspaper and Journal articles on this blog https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2015/05/23/newspaper-stories-index-timeline/

[2] Index of Court Appeals EWCA on this blog https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2015/05/08/a-timeline-of-court-and-ewca-documentation-on-cathy-fox-blog/

[3]  1983 Oct 25 Canberra Times Parliament Focus on mystery MP via Cathy Fox Blog via Trove HT @thewakeupcall09 http://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/116414059  archive

[4] 1984 Jan 19 Canberra Times Heath Leads Revolt against Government via Cathy Fox Blog via Trove HT @thewakeupcall09 http://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/116385294

[5] 2017 Mar 31 Cathy Fox Blog [O’Dowd1] Kenneth Vizzard 25 July 1975 Court of Appeal https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2017/03/31/odowd1-kenneth-vizzard-25-july-1975-court-of-appeal/

[6] 2017 Mar 31 Cathy Fox Blog [O’Dowd2] Kenneth William O’Dowd 18 May 1978 Court of Appeal https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2017/03/31/odowd2-kenneth-william-odowd-18-may-1978-court-of-appeal/

[7] 2017 Mar 31 Cathy Fox Blog [O’Dowd3] Kevin Kenneth O’Dowd 28th November 2008 Court of Appeal https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2017/03/31/odowd3-kevin-kenneth-odowd-redact-28th-november-2008/

[8] 2017 April 1 Cathy Fox Blog [O’Dowd4] Kevin O’Dowd 12 May 2009 Supreme Court https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2017/04/01/odowd4-kevin-odowd-12-may-2009-supreme-court/

[9] 2017 April 1 Cathy Fox Blog [O’Dowd5] Kevin O’Dowd 21 Sept 2010 EHCR https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2017/04/01/odowd5-kevin-odowd-21-sept-2010-ehcr/

[10] 1984 Mar 15 Glasgow Herald Accused in “Heath Picture” Case jailed via Google newspapers via Cathy Fox Blog HT @thewakeupcall09 https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=GGgVawPscysC&dat=19840315&printsec=frontpage&hl=en

Posted in cathy fox blog, Court, London, VIP CSA | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 11 Comments

[O’Dowd5] Kevin O’Dowd 21 Sept 2010 EHCR

Redaction

Some court reports have had victims names redacted and some assault details redacted.

This is a difficult balance –  normally I would think that  I should not “censor” details but on consultation with various people I have taken the decision to redact. This is mainly to protect victims, their friends and relatives from unnecessary detail and to stop the gratification of those who seek salacious details.

In addition to the obvious “victims redaction” to protect victims details, there may also be “assault redaction” across most of the spectrum of abuse. The assaults are left in the charges, but mainly redacted when repeated with reference to the individual. I have also redacted unnecessary detail of assaults.

Redaction may obscure sometimes the legal reason for the appeal, but should make no large difference to the vital information for researchers that these documents contain. That vital information is mainly names of the perpetrators, past addresses, institutions where assaults occurred, the actual charges the perpetrators faced, and dates – on which newspapers are pathetically inaccurate and this information enables the links between people and places and abuse at various times to be ascertained.

Some transcripts may have been subject to automatic reading software and whilst effort has been made to correct these, the text should not be regarded as definitive.  Common mistakes in reprinting here are that quotation marks are sometimes not correct, replaced by odd symbols.

If you think that the balance is not correct or that a particular redaction needs reconsideration, please say.

This appeal is slightly redacted by cathy fox blog

For a summary of O’Dowd court cases and newspaper articles see  2017 Apr 1 Cathy Fox Blog Kenneth Kevin O’Dowd and the Ted Heath Photos [3]

Index of Newspaper and Journal articles on this blog [1]

Index of Court Appeals on this blog [2]

 

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS

FOURTH SECTION

CASE OF KEVIN O’DOWD

v.

THE UNITED KINGDOM

(Application no. 7390/07)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

21 September 2010

This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Kevin O’Dowd v. the United Kingdom,

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:

Lech Garlicki, President,

Nicolas Bratza,

Giovanni Bonello,

Ljiljana Mijovic,

David Thór Björgvinsson,

Ledi Bianku,

Mihai Poalelungi, judges,

and Lawrence Early, Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 31 August 2010,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

PROCEDURE

1. The case originated in an application (no. 7390/07) against the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a British national, Mr Kevin Kenneth O’Dowd (“the applicant”), on 24 January 2007.

2. The applicant was represented by Clarke Kiernan, a firm of solicitors based in Tonbridge. The United Kingdom Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms H. Upton, of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

3. The applicant alleged that his pre-trial detention was unlawful under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention alone and taken together with Article 14.

4. On 16 April 2009 the President of the Chamber decided to give notice of the application to the Government. It was also decided to examine the merits of the application at the same time as its admissibility (Article 29 § 1).

5. The applicant requested an oral hearing but the Chamber decided not to hold a hearing in the case.

THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

6. The applicant was born in 1946 and lives in London.

7. On 6 December 2001, the applicant was arrested, interviewed and charged with rape, false imprisonment and indecent assault. It was alleged that over a period of days in mid-September 2000, the applicant had raped a woman in her flat, imprisoned her in his car and then indecently assaulted her in his flat. Nine months later, the complainant gave birth to a baby boy and four months after that, in October 2001, she made her first complaint to the police.

8. On 7 December 2001, the applicant’s case was sent for trial at the Central Criminal Court pursuant to section 51 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998.

9. On 17 December 2001, the applicant made an application for bail. As he had served 14 years’ imprisonment in respect of a previous conviction for rape and an offence of violence in 1989, under section 25 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 as amended (“the 1994 Act”) bail could only be granted if the judge was satisfied that there were “exceptional circumstances” which justified the grant of bail. The judge was not so satisfied and bail was refused.

10. On 28 January 2002, the applicant pleaded not guilty to all charges and a trial date was fixed for 8 April 2002. A further bail application was refused.

11. On 22 March 2002, the applicant dispensed with the services of his solicitors and counsel and served his own defence statement. The judge did not alter the trial date but gave the applicant time to reconsider his position. On 3 April 2002, the applicant indicated that he would like to have the services of his former legal team and the judge reinstated the representation order. As valuable time had been lost, the trial date was vacated and rearranged for 6 June 2002. A further bail application was refused.

12. At the end of May 2002, the applicant again dispensed with the services of his lawyers. When the case was called on 6 June 2002, however, he was represented by leading and junior counsel. After a midday adjournment, the applicant once again dispensed with the services of his lawyers. The next day, he asked for his legal team to be reinstated and this was done. Defence counsel then indicated that as there had been a delay in disclosure, an application to stay the proceedings would be made. It was agreed to hear the application the next day.

13. Under the Prosecution of Offences (Custody Time Limits) Regulations 1987 (“the 1987 Regulations”) as amended, the maximum period of custody between the sending for trial and the start of the trial (taken to be the date on which the jury is sworn in) in a case such as the applicant’s was 182 days. That period was due to expire at midnight on 7 June 2002. The prosecution accordingly applied to extend the custody time limit. Under section 22(3) of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 (“the 1985 Act”), a request for extension of the custody time limit must be refused where the court is not satisfied that the prosecution has acted with all due diligence. The application made by the prosecution in the applicant’s case was refused because the court was not satisfied that the prosecution had acted with all due diligence and expedition in relation to disclosure.

14. However, under the 1987 Regulations, the right to bail upon expiry of the custody time limit was subject to section 25 of the 1994 Act (see paragraph 45 below). Accordingly, on 7 June 2002, a further application for bail was refused by Judge Norris in the Crown Court because he was not satisfied that “exceptional circumstances” justifying the grant of bail existed.

15. On 8 June 2002, the defence requested access to hospital and telephone records for the first time. As a result, the case was removed from the court agenda and relisted for mention on 21 June 2002. On that date, the trial was re-fixed for 4 November 2002 and a further application for bail was refused.

16. On 20 August 2002, an application for bail was made in the High Court and was refused on the basis that no exceptional circumstances existed.

17. On 10 October 2002, the case came before Woolwich Crown Court for the consideration of two preliminary matters of law. The applicant once again dispensed with the services of his lawyers and the representation order was revoked. As a result, it was not possible to deal with the issues of law, which were accordingly held over for consideration on the first day of trial.

18. On 4 November 2002, the trial began. The applicant was acting in person but counsel had been appointed by the court to cross-examine the complainant. Issues arose regarding discovery, abuse of process, admissibility of photographs and the use of screens. The applicant from time to time absented himself from the court room.

19. On 6 November 2002 the court began to swear in the jury. However, one member of the panel had been at school with the applicant and another, who was related to the applicant, made an observation in public which made it necessary to release the entire panel. The applicant then applied for and was granted legal representation. On 15 November 2002, the applicant’s case was transferred to Harrow Crown Court as he was too well-known in the Woolwich area.

20. On 5 December 2002, the case came before Harrow Crown Court. The court indicated that it was prepared to hear the case in January 2003 but the applicant declined this date on the ground that it was unsuitable. The judge subsequently fixed the trial to begin on 2 June 2003 in order to accommodate the needs of the defence regarding preparation and availability of counsel. Outline submissions as to the grant of bail were made and discussion was adjourned until 9 December 2002 in order for skeleton arguments to be prepared in writing.

21. A further application for bail was heard on 9 December 2002. The applicant’s counsel made extensive submissions in support of the application, with particular reference to the Court’s judgment in Caballero v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 32819/96, ECHR 2000-II. She argued that once the time limit under the 1987 Regulations had expired and was not extended, a defendant should be admitted to bail. Accordingly, in her submission, the applicant had been unlawfully detained since 7 June 2002.

22. Judge Sanders disagreed. He considered, first, that the words “subject to Section 25” in the 1987 Regulations meant “unless this is a case where Section 25 applies”. He found that section 25 clearly did apply in the applicant’s case and continued:

“… it is lamentable that the prosecution have been shown to be wanting as far as the custody time limits were concerned and indeed had it also been shown that they were deliberately defalcating [sic] on their duty and relying on Section 25 as a stop gap, believing that they could still persuade the Judge to keep [the applicant] in custody come what may, that might in itself and in certain circumstances amount to exceptional circumstances for reconsidering his bail position.

But I am not satisfied from the chronology and the history of this trial that that is at all the case. I am satisfied however that no exceptional circumstances did arise at the time that that application was made; that the regulations on custody time limits do not out-weigh the serious considerations of Section 25 and that I consider that it is a completely separate consideration and that I have separate jurisdiction to deal with it and so notwithstanding that the custody time limits did expire and that he might have been entitled to his release in any other case, that is not the case here and so he must, unless I am persuaded otherwise on a straightforward application regarding Section 25, then he must find himself bound by Section 25.”

23. Judge Sanders recalled that he had recently been persuaded to grant a “very long adjournment” to June 2003, at the request of the applicant. He indicated that he was of the view that defendants should not be detained for excessively long periods of time before their trials took place, but noted:

“On the other hand, everything that was done by me on his behalf was for the defendant’s assistance because it was explained that he yet needed to get his independent DNA; that there were papers missing that have not been properly served upon his defence team and thirdly, since counsel have built up a rapport with the defendant and counsel who have been briefed fairly late in this matter … had herself commitments that precluded her from safely being able to undertake this work until June.”

24. He added:

“If your client, by my ruling on the bail matter and Section 25, feels aggrieved then I would take up [counsel for the prosecution’s] suggestion and bring the case forward come what may …”

25. He continued:

“…two things strike me of interest. Bearing in mind the sad chronology I also note that the defendant at the outset had suggested that this was a fabricated tissue of lies by the complainant for motives that he would explain to the jury in due course.

A lot of the disclosure arose because of that and he was offered the opportunity to have his own independent DNA as far back as last June, an offer that he never took up … he then spoke in open court … of automatism, which again left one … curious as to know whether there was a need for DNA and whether he was denying intercourse took place, which of course to an alleged victim of rape is an important issue, which of course she is entitled to be aware of in order that she does not have to go through the ordeal of being accused of being sexually promiscuous or a liar and such things, and we still do not know the answer to that.

So what is going on? You have come up with another DNA application.”

26. Counsel for the applicant responded that she did not have full instructions and could therefore not speak on behalf of the applicant. The judge again reiterated that the trial date for the applicant might need to be reconsidered, a matter on which the applicant’s counsel undertook to seek instructions. The judge expressly pointed out that the effect of his ruling on section 25 was that, if the applicant persisted with his request for a June 2003 trial, he would have to remain in custody for another six months.

27. The applicant’s counsel appeared before the judge later that day to confirm that the applicant was content that his trial be held on 2 June 2003, notwithstanding the section 25 ruling.

28. On 30 January 2003, the applicant issued a claim for judicial review of the court’s decision of 9 December 2002 to refuse him bail, arguing that his continued detention following the expiry of the custody time limits was in breach of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention. The matter was considered on the papers on 6 February 2003. It was referred for an oral hearing and permission was granted on 26 February 2003. On 20 March 2003, solicitors acting for the applicant indicated that he would also apply for a writ of habeas corpus contending that since the expiration of the custody time limit on 7 June 2002 his custody had been illegal.

29. On 16 April 2003, the applicant’s applications for habeas corpus and judicial review of the decision refusing bail were rejected by the Divisional Court. In dismissing the argument of the defence that the amendments to section 25 to allow the grant of bail in “exceptional circumstances” were insufficient to restore the judicial control required under the Convention, Kennedy LJ held (at paragraph 28) that:

“… there is nothing offensive or contrary to Convention law about Parliament reminding the courts of the risks normally attendant upon the grant of bail to those to whom section 25 applies. A reminder can properly be given by creating a statutory presumption against the grant of bail, but if judicial control is to be effective courts must be left free to examine all the relevant circumstances and, in an appropriate case, to override the presumption.”

30. Kennedy LJ considered the Convention authorities and accepted (at paragraph 32) that section 25 would not be compatible with the Convention if “exceptional circumstances” were too narrowly construed or if the court set too high a threshold at which it would be prepared to conclude that “exceptional circumstances” existed. In considering the application of section 25 in practice, Kennedy LJ explained that:

“[Section 25] establishes a norm. The norm is that those to whom it applies if granted bail are so likely to fail to surrender to custody, or offend, or interfere with witnesses or otherwise obstruct the course of justice that bail should not be granted. If in fact, taking into account all the circumstances relating to a particular alleged offence and offender he does not create an unacceptable risk of that kind he is an exception to the norm, and in accordance with his individual right to liberty he should be granted bail.”

31. As regards the expiration of the custody time limit, Kennedy LJ considered that the custody time limits set out in national law and the “reasonable time” requirement under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention were not one and the same. Accordingly, in assessing whether the prosecution had acted with “special diligence” as required by the Convention, the finding of the lower court that it was not satisfied that the prosecution had acted with all due diligence as required by section 22(3) of the 1985 Act (see paragraph 46 below) was not decisive. Although Kennedy LJ accepted that in a case where the prosecution had not demonstrated all due diligence, a court may well conclude that it had not displayed the necessary “special diligence” required under Article 5 § 3, he considered that this was not the case here.

32. Finally, in respect of the applicant’s argument under Article 14 of the Convention that section 25 operated in a discriminatory manner, Kennedy LJ considered that the applicant was not in a situation analogous to a person charged with a serious offence because he also had a previous conviction for a serious offence which was relevant to the risk attendant on a grant of bail. He further found that the distinction made was justified, was based on relevant factors, pursued a legitimate objective and was proportionate.

33. In conclusion, he stressed the importance of setting out reasons for refusing bail in order to show that careful and appropriate consideration had been given to the question whether exceptional circumstances exist.

34. Hooper J agreed with Kennedy LJ in all respects, save that unlike Kennedy LJ he considered that section 25 did impose the burden on the defendant to show “exceptional circumstances” which, in light of Convention case-law, was inconsistent with Article 5 § 3. Accordingly, he considered that section 25 should be read down in accordance with the obligation in section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998 to impose merely an evidential burden on the applicant to point to or produce material which supports the existence of “exceptional circumstances”, thereby ensuring compliance with the demands of Article 5 § 3.

35. The applicant appealed to the House of Lords, arguing that once the custody time limit had expired there was, by virtue of the expiry of the time limit itself, a breach of Article 5 § 3 by his continued detention under section 25; and, in the alternative, that the effect of section 25 was to place a burden on the applicant to establish exceptional circumstances required for the grant of bail, which was a breach of the applicant’s Convention rights.

36. In the meantime, the applicant’s trial commenced on 1 September 2003. However, on 25 September 2003, the prosecution was permanently stayed as an abuse of process, for reasons which are unclear, and the applicant was released from custody.

37. The House of Lords handed down its judgment in the judicial review and habeas corpus proceedings on 26 July 2006. Delivering the leading judgment, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood considered that an approach under section 25 which required the applicant to provide good and sufficient reason for bail would be “irreconcilable with the Strasbourg case law” (at paragraph 27). However, as regards the operation of section 25 in practice, he continued (at paragraphs 34-34):

“Importantly, however, both members of the [divisional] court decided that section 25(1) (subject only to its effect in cases where the custody time limit has expired, the important second issue yet to be addressed) has no substantive effect upon the way in which bail applications by section 25 defendants would in any event fall to be determined under the Bail Act. It serves merely to ‘remind’ the courts of the risks normally posed by those to whom section 25 applies and ‘will merely assist the court to adopt a proper approach’ in relation to bail in their cases. In my judgment they were right in that conclusion and it seems to me unsurprising that the Scots, placed in a similar position by the Caballero judgment, decided against introducing an ‘exceptional circumstances’ test, believing that it would ‘add nothing to a clear common law position in Scotland’ …

Whether or not, strictly speaking, section 25 needs to be read down to achieve the agreed result is a question of little moment. I myself, however, have a mild preference for Hooper J’s approach. Like him I read the section as placing a burden on the section 25 defendant. He has to rebut a presumption and if he fails to do so is to be denied bail. True it is, as [counsel for the defendant] himself accepted, that in the vast majority of cases the court will reach a clear view one way or the other whether the conditions for withholding bail specified by Schedule 1 to the Bail Act are satisfied. But just occasionally the court will be left unsure as to whether the defendant should be released on bail-the only situation in which the burden of proof assumes any relevance-and in my judgment bail would then have to be granted. That must be the default position. Section 25 should in my judgment be read down to make that plain.”

38. As to the lawfulness of the applicant’s continued detention after the expiry of the custody time limit, Lord Brown reviewed the facts of the case, noting that the applicant had a previous conviction for rape; indeed, he had 30 previous convictions for a wide variety of offences. He also observed that the applicant had dispensed with his lawyers and had them reinstated on no fewer than four occasions, two of which had caused delay. A further five months’ delay was caused by the applicant’s decision to reject the offer of a January 2003 trial date in favour of a date in June 2003, to suit his counsel’s convenience. Lord Brown noted that it was unclear, in the absence of a transcript of the court’s decision of 7 June 2002 or any further information on the subject, why the lower court was not satisfied that the prosecution had acted with all due diligence and expedition in relation to disclosure. However, he concluded that even where there was a lack of due diligence under domestic law, this was not in itself sufficient to establish the lack of “special diligence” required for a breach of Article 5 § 3. Lord Brown concluded (at paragraph 63) that:

“By the very nature of things, the Strasbourg Court will be looking at the case in a different way from the domestic court, in particular from a longer and wider perspective. Strasbourg will have the whole picture before it and will take an overall view as to whether the reasonable time guarantee has been exceeded. Grisez illustrates the point well: the ultimate question addressed by the court was whether ‘the total length of the detention pending trial appear[ed] excessive’. So too in Contrada: the court took account of the trial court’s post-delay offer to increase the rate of the hearings (akin perhaps to the offer of a January 2003 trial date in the present case, similarly declined). The domestic court, by contrast, is inevitably having to decide a much narrower question and within a shorter time-frame. And it is doing so within the strict confines of section 22(3) which, despite the marked similarity between its language and that used in Strasbourg, in fact imposes a more rigid formula for the extension of custody time limits than Strasbourg does with regard to the reasonable time guarantee under article 5(3). For my part I would not expect there to be many cases where, as here, bail is refused notwithstanding the court’s refusal to extend the custody time limit. But I conclude that there is no necessary inconsistency between the two and that Article 5(3) is not necessarily breached. Nor, in my judgment, is there any other reason for thinking that this appellant was wrongly refused bail: on the contrary, the case for his continued detention in custody appears to have been a strong one.”

39. The House of Lords found no violation of Article 5 § 3 and unanimously rejected the applicant’s appeal.

II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE
1. Trial on indictment

40. Section 51 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 provides that where an adult appears before a magistrates’ court charged with an offence triable only on indictment, the court shall send him forthwith to the Crown Court for trial for that offence.

2. Bail

41. The Bail Act 1976 (“the 1976 Act”) regulates the grant of bail. Section 4 provides that defendants:

“shall be granted bail except as provided for in Schedule 1 to this Act.”

42. Schedule 1 of the 1976 Act provides, under paragraph 2, that:

“The defendant need not be granted bail if the court is satisfied that there are substantial grounds for believing that the defendant, if released on bail (whether subject to conditions or not) would-

  1. (a) fail to surrender to custody, or
  2. (b) commit an offence while on bail, or
  3. (c) interfere with witnesses or otherwise obstruct the course of justice, whether in relation to himself or any other person.”

43. Paragraph 9 of the Schedule provides that:

“In taking the decisions required by paragraph 2 … the court shall have regard to such of the following considerations as appear to it to be relevant, that is to say-

  1. (a) the nature and seriousness of the offence or default (and the probable method of dealing with the defendant for it),
  2. (b) the character, antecedents, associations and community ties of the defendant,
  3. (c) the defendant’s record as respects the fulfilment of his obligations under previous grants of bail in criminal proceedings,
  4. (d) … the strength of the evidence of his having committed the offence or having defaulted,

as well as to any others which appear to be relevant.”

44. Section 4(8) of the 1976 Act provides that the right to bail under section 4 is subject to section 25 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (“the 1994 Act”).

45. The 1994 Act makes specific provision for bail in a case where a suspect is charged with a serious offence and has previously been convicted and imprisoned for a serious offence. Section 25 provides:

“(1) A person who in any proceedings has been charged with or convicted of an offence to which this section applies in circumstances to which it applies shall be granted bail in those proceedings only if the court or, as the case may be, the constable considering the grant of bail is satisfied that there are exceptional circumstances which justify it.

(2) This section applies, subject to subsection (3) below, to the following offences, that is to say-

  1. (a) murder;
  2. (b) attempted murder;
  3. (c) manslaughter;
  4. (d) rape under the law of Scotland or Northern Ireland;
  5. (e) an offence under section 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956 (rape);
  6. (f) an offence under section 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (rape);
  7. (g) an offence under section 2 of that Act (assault by penetration);

(3) This section applies to a person charged with or convicted of any such offence only if he has been previously convicted by or before a court in any part of the United Kingdom of any such offence or of culpable homicide and, in the case of a previous conviction of manslaughter or of culpable homicide, if he was then sentenced to imprisonment …”

3. Custody time limits

46. The Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 allows the Secretary of State, under section 22(1), to make regulations setting custody time limits. Section 22 also provides the appropriate court with the power to extend the time limit in a given case:

“(3) The appropriate court may, at any time before the expiry of a time limit imposed by the regulations, extend, or further extend, that limit; but the court shall not do so unless it is satisfied- “

  1. (a) that the need for the extension is due to-
    1. (i) the illness or absence of the accused, a necessary witness, a judge or a magistrate;
    2. (ii) a postponement which is occasioned by the ordering by the court of separate trials in the case of two or more accused or two or more offences; or
    3. (iii) some other good and sufficient cause; and
  2. (b) that the prosecution has acted with all due diligence and expedition.

47. The Prosecution of Offences (Custody Time Limits) Regulations 1987 as amended set out the custody time limits applicable. Regulation 5(6B) provides that where an accused is sent for trial under section 51 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, the maximum period of custody between the accused being sent to the Crown Court for an offence and the start of the trial shall be 182 days. Under section 22(11A) of the 1985 Act, the start of a trial on indictment shall be taken to occur when a jury is sworn in.

48. Under Regulation 6 of the 1987 Regulations, upon the expiry of the custody time limit, an accused in custody must be granted bail, subject to section 25 of the 1994 Act:

“(6) The Crown Court, on being notified that an accused who is in custody pending trial there has the benefit of a custody time limit under Regulation 5 above and that the time limit is about to expire, shall, subject to section 25 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (exclusion of bail in cases of homicide and rape), grant him bail in accordance with the Bail Act 1976, as from the expiry of the time limit, subject to a duty to appear before the Crown Court for trial.”

49. In R (Quereshi and Others) v Leeds Crown Court [1999] EWHC Admin 454, the High Court considered the scope for extending custody time limits. Lord Bingham CJ noted:

“14. … The court made plain in ex parte McDonald, as indeed is plain on the face of the statute, that when seeking an extension or a further extension of a custody time limit the Crown must show that there is good and sufficient [cause] for making the extension and that it has acted with all due expedition. What, however, was not made plain in ex parte McDonald (because the question did not arise) is that these two provisions are in my judgment linked. It is not in doubt that the Crown must show proper grounds for keeping a defendant in prison awaiting trial for a period longer than the statutory maximum. But the Crown must also show that such an extension is not sought because it has shown insufficient vigour in preparing the case for trial. Put crudely, the prosecution cannot prepare for trial in a dilatory and negligent manner and then come to the court to seek an extension of the custody time limit because the prosecution is not ready for trial. Nor, if the effect of its dilatoriness is to put the defence in a position where the defence is not ready for the trial can the Crown seek an extension and show that it has acted with all due expedition. It is in the ordinary way the business of the prosecution to be ready. If therefore the Crown is seeking an extension of the time limit it must show that the need for the extension does not arise from lack of due expedition or due diligence on its part. It seems clear to me, however, that the requirement of due expedition or due diligence or both is not a disciplinary provision. It is not there to punish prosecutors for administrative lapses; it is there to protect defendants by ensuring that they are kept in prison awaiting trial no longer than is justifiable. That is why due expedition is called for. The court is not in my view obliged to refuse the extension of a custody time limit because the prosecution is shown to have been guilty of avoidable delay where that delay has had no effect whatever on the ability of the prosecution and the defence to be ready for trial on a predetermined trial date.”

4. “reading down” under the Human Rights Act 1998

50. Section 3(1) of the Human Rights Act provides that, so far as it is possible to do so, primary legislation and subordinate legislation must be read and given effect in a way which is compatible with the Convention rights.

THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 § 3 OF THE CONVENTION

51. The applicant complained that following the court’s refusal to extend the custody time limit on 7 June 2002 on the ground that it was not satisfied that the prosecution had acted with all due diligence, his detention was unlawful under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows:

“Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 (c) of this Article shall be … entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial. Release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial.”

52. The Government contested that argument.

A. Admissibility

53. The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.

B. Merits
1. The parties’ submissions
a. The applicant

54. The applicant accepted that his detention prior to 7 June 2002 fell within the respondent State’s margin of appreciation. His complaint related to the period after 7 June 2002, at which point, he contended, the finding that the prosecution authorities had failed to act with the requisite diligence entitled him to release pending trial. In the applicant’s view, at this point, the balancing exercise between the public interest in continued detention and the presumption of innocence tipped in favour of the latter. He did not dispute that the charges against him were serious, but argued that there were a number of flaws in the prosecution case including the delay in the making of the complaint to the police and inconsistent telephone record data. He further emphasised that he had no previous convictions for failing to surrender, for interfering with witnesses or for otherwise obstructing the course of justice and that his previous convictions did not support the conclusion that he was likely to commit further offences while on bail.

55. The applicant contended that the requirement in section 22(3) of the 1985 Act (see paragraph 46 above) that the prosecution conduct itself with “all due diligence” amounted to the same requirement as “special diligence” in the context of Article 5 § 3. He recalled the need to interpret the provisions of the Convention in a manner which was practical and effective and not theoretical or illusory. It was open to Judge Norris, on 7 June 2002, to find that there had been prosecutorial delay but that this had not impacted on the ability to try the applicant within a reasonable time. The applicant pointed out that under the applicable domestic law at the time, it was clear that not every finding of a lack of diligence would result in the domestic courts refusing to extend the custody time limits (citing R (Quereshi and Others)– see paragraph 49 above). He submitted that in that case, Lord Bingham CJ’s reference to the requirement for due diligence operating as a protection for defendants by ensuring that they were not kept in custody pending trial for longer than was justifiable was identical to the requirement in Article 5 § 3 that a defendant is entitled to trial within a reasonable time or release pending trial. The applicant argued that this must have been the approach adopted by Judge Norris on 7 June 2002 and that his refusal to extend the custody time limits must therefore have been due to his conclusion that the lack of due diligence by the prosecution had adversely impacted upon the possibility of his trial taking place within a reasonable time.

56. The applicant further argued that Article 5 § 3 should be interpreted as conferring specific minimum guarantees, capable of being invoked in the domestic courts. In this context, he noted that it was of little practical consequence to an individual detained contrary to Article 5 § 3 against whom the proceedings are ultimately stayed as an abuse of process that he might eventually gain financial compensation for excessive pre-trial detention. He further pointed out that, as he had not been convicted of the offence with which he was originally charged, this was not a case where his pre-trial detention could be deducted from the sentence eventually imposed. He considered that the wording of Article 5 § 3 was mandatory and referred to the liberty of the individual pending trial, and not to the ability of an individual to obtain compensation for excessive pre-trial detention.

57. It was further of relevance to note that, had the applicant not had a previous conviction, he would have been entitled to automatic release upon the expiry of the custody time limit. In this context, he emphasised that his previous conviction was imposed in respect of events which took place in 1988 and he concluded that the list of “relevant” previous convictions in section 25 was arbitrary.

58. The applicant further contested that his case was not a marginal one as regards the burden of proof and argued that the views expressed by Lord Brown on the matter (see paragraph 37 above) were without the benefit of arguments regarding the applicant’s bail situation and the specific weaknesses of the prosecution case.

59. The applicant also disputed the relevance of the judgments cited by the Government in support of their position (see paragraph 65 below), as in none of those cases was there a finding that the prosecution had failed to act with all due diligence and that this failure had adversely impacted upon the ability to ensure that the trial could commence within a reasonable time. In particular, he distinguished the case ofWardle v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 72219/01, 27 March 2003, as it had been decided domestically prior to the clarifications provided by R (Quereshi and Others) (see paragraph 49 above).

60. The applicant concluded that notwithstanding the failure of the prosecution authorities to conduct the case with “special diligence”, the burden was placed on him to show “exceptional circumstances” even after 7 June 2002. Relying on Ilijkov v. Bulgaria, no. 33977/96, § 85, 26 July 2001, he argued that this was not a legitimate approach. He argued that the Government did not contest that the prosecution had not acted with due diligence, nor did they seek to explain or detail the delay in disclosure. They had also failed to explain why those to whom section 25 applied were considered to be at a greater risk of absconding, committing further offences or otherwise obstructing the course of justice. The applicant argued that there was no rational basis for the difference in treatment.

b. The Government

61. The Government reiterated that the sole complaint made to the Court by the applicant was that his detention following the refusal to extend the custody time limits because of the prosecution’s failure to demonstrate due diligence was in violation of Article 5 § 3. The applicant had not sought to argue before the domestic courts that the bail decisions had failed to take into account all the facts of his case or any other relevant considerations in refusing bail. It was therefore not open to him to seek to go behind the unappealed findings of the domestic courts that there were sufficient public interest reasons to justify his continued detention after 7 June 2002.

62. The Government argued that there was sufficient judicial control of the applicant’s pre-trial detention. They distinguished the applicant’s case from the cases of Caballero v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 32819/96, ECHR 2000-II and S.B.C. v. the United Kingdom,no. 39360/98, 19 June 2001 as those cases were concerned with the previous version of section 25, which excluded the possibility of any consideration by the judge of pre-trial release. Under the amended section 25, the court had the possibility of granting bail to any defendant where it was not satisfied that the defendant would, if released on bail, fail to surrender to custody, offend, interfere with witnesses or otherwise obstruct the course of justice. The Government contrasted the case of Ilijkov, cited above, where the domestic courts had refused to consider relevant arguments.

63. The Government relied on the assessment by the domestic courts as to the effect of, and correct approach to the interpretation of, section 25. In particular, they emphasised Lord Brown’s explanation of the burden of proof in bail applications where section 25 applies (see paragraph 37 above). In this regard, the Government disputed that the Crown Court had wrongly approached the question of the burden of proof, arguing that it was clear that as regards each bail application made by the applicant it was satisfied that, having regard in particular to the nature of the charge against the applicant together with his previous convictions for serious offences, including rape, there were no exceptional circumstances justifying his release. Accordingly, in the Government’s submission, the case was not a marginal one where the burden of proof was relied upon by the court in refusing the bail applications.

64. As to whether there were specific indications of a genuine requirement of public interest which justified the refusal to grant bail in the applicant’s case, the Government responded in the affirmative. They pointed out that the applicant had been charged with very serious offences, namely rape, false imprisonment and assault, alleged to have occurred over a period of days (see paragraph 7 above). Further, the applicant had previous convictions, including for rape and for an offence of violence, and the seriousness of those offences was reflected in the fourteen year prison sentence imposed. He was now accused of another rape, alleged to have been carried out in similar circumstances, where his defence was unclear and changing. Although the applicant had originally denied having sexual intercourse with the complainant, DNA evidence obtained by the prosecution revealed that the child was his. He had announced an intention to challenge this evidence but had failed to take up the opportunity to arrange his own DNA test. At one stage he had referred to a defence of “automatism” but at the hearing of 9 December 2002, when questioned on the matter by Judge Sanders, his counsel was unable to provide any further particulars (see paragraphs 25-26above). In the Government’s submission, the domestic courts had reasonably taken the view that there was a risk that the applicant would abscond, commit further offences, interfere with witnesses or otherwise obstruct the course of justice if he were released. The Government added that the applicant had not drawn attention to any competing factors in his case which could lead to the conclusion that the domestic courts had erred in their assessment of the risk and that bail should have been granted, nor had he sought to challenge their assessment in a straightforward application for release under section 25, although he was invited to do so by Judge Sanders (see paragraph 22 above).

65. As regards the question whether the domestic authorities had demonstrated “special diligence”, the Government submitted that they had, and disputed in particular the applicant’s assertion that the finding on 7 June 2002 that the prosecution had failed to act with all due diligence and expedition in relation to disclosure amounted to a general finding that the authorities had failed to show “special diligence” as required by Article 5 § 3. They further did not accept that it could be inferred from the refusal to extend the custody time limit that the judge had concluded that the applicant had not been, or could not be, tried within a reasonable time. They noted in particular that on 7 June 2002, the applicant had been detained for only six months and that a first trial date set for April 2002 had been vacated as a result of the applicant’s conduct in dismissing and then reinstating his legal team. A second trial date in June 2002 was vacated for the same reason. The finding that the prosecution had failed to act with all due diligence related to disclosure only, and no other instances of delay were found. The applicant does not allege that the prosecution caused delay after 7 June 2002 and it was clear that all such delay was caused by the conduct and the decisions of the applicant. In this regard the Government emphasised that in assessing whether there has been a breach of Article 5 § 3, this Court takes into consideration the whole period the accused has spent in detention and all the circumstances and special features of his case (citing Punzelt v. the Czech Republic, no. 31315/96, § 73, 25 April 2000). By contrast, in considering whether to extend the custody time limit the domestic court considers only the position at the point at which the application to extend is made. Accordingly, a failure on the part of the prosecuting authorities which has led to some element of delay in the proceedings could result in a refusal to extend the custody time limit notwithstanding the fact that, if the period of detention were examined in its entirety and all the facts of the case taken into account, there would be no violation of Article 5 § 3 (citing Contrada v. Italy, 24 August 1998, § 67, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-V; Grisez v. Belgium, no. 35776/97, § 53, 26 September 2002; andWardle, cited above).

66. The Government noted that the applicant spent a total of twenty-two months in pre-trial custody and complained only on the ground that at some point prior to 7 June 2002 the prosecution had failed to act with all due diligence as regards disclosure. They emphasised the seriousness of the charges and the issues raised in the proceedings – including the reliability of DNA evidence – and noted that the applicant had pointed to no default on the part of the authorities other than the matter of disclosure prior to June 2002. The Government further emphasised that it was apparent that the prosecution and judicial authorities had on a number of occasions sought to progress the proceedings both before and after the expiry of the time limit. It was the applicant’s own conduct in dismissing his legal team on a number of occasions, in making late applications for disclosure and in refusing the court’s offer of a trial in January 2003 which resulted in the extension of his detention. The Government considered that in the circumstances of the case, the authorities did not fail to act with special diligence and invited the Court to find no violation of Article 5 § 3.

67. Finally, the Government disputed that it was arbitrary to treat those who had a previous conviction for a serious offence differently as regards access to bail. They considered that the fact that the applicant had a previous conviction for a serious offence was clearly relevant to the question whether, when charged with a further serious offence, he should be granted bail. They relied in this regard on the conclusions of the Divisional Court (see paragraph 32 above), which were not appealed to the House of Lords.

2. The Court’s assessment
a. General principles

68. The Court reiterates that the question whether or not a period of detention is reasonable cannot be assessed in the abstract. Whether it is reasonable for an accused to remain in detention must be assessed in each case according to its special features. Continued detention can be justified in a given case only if there are specific indications of a genuine requirement of public interest which, notwithstanding the presumption of innocence, outweighs the rule of respect for individual liberty laid down in Article 5 of the Convention (see, among other authorities, Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 110, ECHR 2000-XI; and Contrada, cited above, § 54).

69. It falls in the first place to the national judicial authorities to ensure that, in a given case, the pre-trial detention of an accused person does not exceed a reasonable time. To this end they must, paying due regard to the principle of the presumption of innocence, examine all the facts arguing for or against the existence of the above-mentioned demand of public interest justifying a departure from the rule in Article 5 and must set them out in their decisions on the applications for release. It is essentially on the basis of the reasons given in these decisions and of the well-documented facts stated by the applicant in his appeals that the Court is called upon to decide whether or not there has been a violation of Article 5 § 3 (see Kudla, cited above, § 110; and Contrada, cited above, § 54).

70. The persistence of reasonable suspicion that the person arrested has committed an offence is a condition sine qua non for the lawfulness of the continued detention, but after a certain lapse of time it no longer suffices. The Court must then establish whether the other grounds given by the judicial authorities continued to justify the deprivation of liberty. Where such grounds were “relevant” and “sufficient”, the Court must also be satisfied that the national authorities displayed “special diligence” in the conduct of the proceedings (see Kudla, cited above, § 111; and Contrada, cited above, § 54). In assessing whether the “special diligence” requirement has been met, the Court will have regard to periods of unjustified delay, to the overall complexity of the proceedings and to any steps taken by the authorities to speed up proceedings to ensure that the overall length of detention remains “reasonable” (see, for example, Contrada, cited above, §§ 66-67; and Chraidi v. Germany, no. 65655/01, § 42-45, ECHR 2006-XII).

b. Application of the general principles to the facts of the present case

71. The Court notes that the applicant’s complaint in these proceedings concerned his detention following the refusal of the Crown Court on 7 June 2002 to extend the custody time limit. He argued that the court’s finding that the prosecution authorities had not acted with “due diligence and expedition” meant that they had not displayed the “special diligence” required by the Court in the context of Article 5 § 3. He did not contest that his pre-trial detention prior to 7 June 2002 was in accordance with Article 5 § 3, nor did he complain that, before or after 7 June 2002, there were in his case no specific indications of a genuine requirement of public interest which, notwithstanding the presumption of innocence, outweighed the rule of respect for individual liberty laid down in Article 5 of the Convention. Accordingly, the Court will proceed on the basis that there were sufficient reasons for the applicant’s continued detention and will limit its examination to whether the national authorities displayed “special diligence” in the conduct of the proceedings.

72. The period of detention falling to be examined lasted from 7 June 2002 until 25 September 2003, the date upon which the applicant was released. The period in question thus amounted to one year, three months and eighteen days. However, the Court will also bear in mind that as at 7 June 2002, the applicant had already been in detention for a period of six months (see, mutatis mutandis, Jablonski v. Poland, no. 33492/96, § 66, 21 December 2000; Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, § 111, ECHR 2002-VI; and Stasaitis v. Lithuania, no. 47679/99, § 80, 21 March 2002).

73. As noted above, of particular significance in the present case is that in June 2002, the court refused to extend the custody time limit on the ground that the prosecution had failed to show due diligence and expedition as regards disclosure (see paragraphs 13 and 71 above). No further details of this failing have been provided and no subsequent failing on the part of the prosecuting authorities has been alleged by the applicant. Like the Government, the Court does not consider that “due diligence” in terms of section 22(3) of the 1985 Act (see paragraph 46 above) can be equated to “special diligence” as required by Article 5 § 3 of the Convention. Although in R (Quereshi and Others)(see paragraph 49 above) Lord Bingham CJ explained that there was in his view no obligation on domestic courts to refuse an extension where the prosecution was guilty of avoidable delay, provided that the delay had no effect on the ability of both parties to be ready for trial on a predetermined date, there is no evidence in the present case to suggest that the Crown Court on 7 June 2002 proceeded on the basis that the delay in disclosure by the prosecution had affected the possibility of trial within a reasonable time. It is to be noted in this regard that by the time of the court’s June 2002 ruling, the trial had already been vacated twice due to the conduct of the applicant (see paragraphs 11-15 above). In particular, in finding in June 2002 that the prosecution had not acted with all due diligence, there is no evidence that the Crown Court made its assessment by reference to the need for “special diligence” under Article 5 § 3 or with regard to the criteria established in the jurisprudence of this Court. Unlike the approach of the domestic courts to compliance with the 1985 Act, in assessing compliance with Article 5 § 3, this Court will examine the proceedings as a whole and assess any particular periods of inactivity or delay by the authorities within the context of the overall period of pre-trial detention, with particular regard to any recognition by the authorities of the length of time already spent in detention and the need to take additional steps to bring about a more speedy trial (Grisez,cited above, § 53; Contrada, cited above, § 67; andPantano v. Italy, no. 60851/00, §§ 72-74, 6 November 2003).

74. In the present case, the failure to act with all due diligence and expedition as regards disclosure occurred at some time prior to June 2002. At that point, the applicant had been in detention pending trial for six months, a period of time which is not in itself unreasonable given the seriousness of the charges. As noted above, within that six month period, the trial had twice been vacated as a result of the applicant’s conduct (see paragraph 73 above).

75. The applicant does not complain about any period of delay following 7 June 2002. As to the reasonableness of the duration of the applicant’s detention as a whole, the Court observes that following the hearing in June 2002 and the subsequent first request by the defence for access to telephone and hospital records (see paragraph 15 above), the trial was fixed for November 2002, some five months later. A hearing scheduled for October 2002 to consider preliminary matters of law did not take place as the applicant had once again dismissed his legal advisers (see paragraph 17 above). The trial in November 2002 subsequently had to be vacated due to difficulties with the jury (see paragraph 19 above), a matter in respect of which no blame can be attributed to either party. When the case came before a different court less than a month later, in December 2002, a trial date of January 2003 was offered to the applicant. Despite the fact that the judge made it clear that the applicant would remain in detention until trial and suggested on several occasions that the applicant consider the January trial date, the applicant insisted on postponing the trial until June 2003, some five months after the date offered, in order to ensure the availability of his preferred counsel (see paragraphs 23-27 above). It is clear that even by this stage, the applicant had failed to obtain the DNA evidence which he had previously indicated he required for his defence and had not yet clarified the nature of his defence to the charges (see paragraph 25 above). Neither the applicant nor the Government have explained why the trial in fact commenced on 1 September 2003, and not in June as previously agreed.

76. In the circumstances, the Court is satisfied that the authorities in the present case displayed special diligence in progressing the applicant’s case and that any delay attributable to them did not, in the circumstances of the case, exceed what was reasonable (see Pantano v. Italy, cited above, § 72). In particular, the Court considers that the applicant substantially contributed to the overall length of his pre-trial detention through his conduct of his defence and his choices regarding his legal representation. On several occasions, he dismissed his legal advisers shortly before hearings, which resulted in the hearings being postponed. In particular, his decision to refuse the January 2003 trial date had a significant impact on the duration of his detention. While the applicant was entitled to be represented by legal counsel of his own choosing and no blame can be attributed to him for insisting on the presence of his preferred counsel at trial, he must nonetheless bear the reasonable consequences of his choices on the overall length of his pre-trial detention (see, mutatis mutandis, W. v. Switzerland, 26 January 1993, § 42, Series A no. 254-A). The Court further observes that throughout this period, it was open to the applicant to make a bail application on the traditional grounds, namely to argue that the conditions for refusing bail were no longer valid in his case. Indeed, a total of six bail applications were made on this basis prior to December 2002 (see paragraphs 9-11 and 14-16 above).

77. In conclusion, the Court finds that there has been no violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention in the present case.

II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 § 3 TAKEN TOGETHER WITH ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONVENTION

78. The applicant complained under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention taken together with Article 14 that section 25 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 unfairly discriminated against those with previous convictions for certain offences.

79. Article 14 provides:

“The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in [the] Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.”

80. The Court observes that section 25 applies to those with serious previous convictions for, inter alia, rape. In the event that a person to whom the section applies is subsequently charged with another serious offence, exceptional circumstances must exist to justify the grant of bail, even when the custody time limit has expired (see paragraphs 45 and 48 above).

81. In the present case, the applicant, who had a previous conviction for rape and violence for which he had been sentenced to fourteen years’ imprisonment, was charged with a second offence of rape and indecent assault. The Court notes in particular that in the applicant’s case, the previous convictions arose from an incident which was factually very similar to the alleged offences which took place in 2000 and can therefore be considered comparable both in nature and degree of seriousness to the offences charged in 2001 (see paragraph 64 above and compare and contrast Clooth v. Belgium, 12 December 1991, § 40, Series A no. 225).

82. In the circumstances, the Court does not consider that the applicant can claim to be in an analogous position to a defendant charged with the same offence who does not have a previous similar offence.

83. The Court therefore concludes that the applicant’s complaint under Article 5 § 3 taken together with Article 14 is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. It must therefore be rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 4.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY

  1. 1. Declares the complaint under Article 5 § 3 admissible and the remainder of the application inadmissible;
  2. 2. Holds that there has been no violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 21 September 2010, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Lawrence Early (Registrar) Lech Garlicki (President)

ECHR case 7390/07 –

For a summary of O’Dowd court cases and newspaper articles see  2017 Apr 1 Cathy Fox Blog Kenneth Kevin O’Dowd and the Ted Heath Photos [3]

Index of Newspaper and Journal articles on this blog [1]

Index of Court Appeals on this blog [2]

Please note that victims of abuse may be triggered by reading this information. These links are generally UK based.

  • The Sanctuary for the Abused [A] has advice on how to prevent triggers.
  • National Association for People Abused in Childhood [B] has a freephone helpline and has links to local support groups.
  • One in Four [C]
  • Havoca [D].
  • Useful post on Triggers [E]  from SurvivorsJustice [F] blog.
  • Jim Hoppers pages on Mindfulness [G]  and Meditation [H] may be useful.
  • Hwaairfan blog An Indigenous Australian Approach to Healing Trauma  [J]
  • Survivors UK for victims and survivors of male rape or the sexual abuse of men [K]
  • Voicing CSA group [L] helps arrange survivors meetings in your area
  • A Prescription for me blog Various emotional support links [M]
  • ShatterBoys -“Male Survivors Of Childhood Sexual Abuse Inspiring change, Through Shared Experience Whilst Building Connections…Together We Can Heal” [N]

Links

Posted in cathy fox blog, Child Abuse, Court, London | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments

[O’Dowd4] Kevin O’Dowd 12 May 2009 Supreme Court

Verdicts were not safe and appeal allowed. This case is of interest due to the Ted Heath connection. 

Redaction

Some court reports have had victims names redacted and some assault details redacted.

This is a difficult balance –  normally I would think that  I should not “censor” details but on consultation with various people I have taken the decision to redact. This is mainly to protect victims, their friends and relatives from unnecessary detail and to stop the gratification of those who seek salacious details.

In addition to the obvious “victims redaction” to protect victims details, there may also be “assault redaction” across most of the spectrum of abuse. The assaults are left in the charges, but mainly redacted when repeated with reference to the individual. I have also redacted unnecessary detail of assaults.

Redaction may obscure sometimes the legal reason for the appeal, but should make no large difference to the vital information for researchers that these documents contain. That vital information is mainly names of the perpetrators, past addresses, institutions where assaults occurred, the actual charges the perpetrators faced, and dates – on which newspapers are pathetically inaccurate and this information enables the links between people and places and abuse at various times to be ascertained.

Some transcripts may have been subject to automatic reading software and whilst effort has been made to correct these, the text should not be regarded as definitive.  Common mistakes in reprinting here are that quotation marks are sometimes not correct, replaced by odd symbols.

If you think that the balance is not correct or that a particular redaction needs reconsideration, please say.

This appeal is redacted by cathy fox blog

Index of Newspaper and Journal articles on this blog [1]

Index of Court Appeals on this blog [2]

[2009] EWCA Crim 905

Case No: 2007/03874/B1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE


Royal Courts of Justice

Strand, London, WC2A 2LL

Date: 12 /05 /2009

Before : Lord Justice Scott Baker

Between Kevin O’dowd

v.

Regina

MR R. KOVALEVSKY QC and MR J. HODIVALA for the Appellant

MRS P. MAY and MR K. BARRY for the Respondent


(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of WordWave International Limited A Merrill Communications Company 165 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2DY Tel No: 020 7404 1400, Fax No: 020 7404 1424 Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)

Hearing date : 2 April 2009

Judgment

As Approved by the Court

Mr Justice Beatson:

Introduction:

1. The court has to consider the safety of the conviction of Kevin O’Dowd of a number of offences against a woman to whom we shall refer as OP committed between 15 and 18 September 2004. He was tried at the Central Criminal Court before HH Judge Hawkins QC and a jury. The trial began on 6 December 2006 and the jury returned its verdicts on 22 June 2007, so the total length was about six and a half months. For a trial involving just one defendant and the relatively simple issues that the jury had to decide to have lasted for this length of time with the consequent vast cost to the public is not only disproportionate but a serious blot on the administration of justice. There is no single reason for the trial having lasted this long. Many of the delays could be justified individually but viewed collectively it is entirely unacceptable for the case to have taken anything like this length of time.

2. A major reason for the length of the trial was the introduction of bad character evidence admitted pursuant to the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (hereafter “the CJA 2003â€) concerning three other allegations of rape, two of which related to events that occurred 22 and 17 years before the indicted charges. The first of these allegations, by AB, resulted in an acquittal, the second, by CD, in a conviction, and the third, by EF, was stayed on the ground of abuse of process. If ever there is a case to illustrate the dangers of satellite litigation through the introduction of bad character evidence this is it.

3. The overriding objective of the Criminal Procedure Rules 2005, S1 2005 No. 384 (the Criminal Procedure Rulesâ€) is that all criminal cases should be dealt with “efficiently and expeditiously.â€This we regard as of core importance in the interests of justice. Those interests include the interests of the prosecution, the defence and, not least, the jury. We shall refer later in this judgment to the Protocol for the Control and Management of Heavy Fraud and Criminal cases 22 March 2005, although we would observe that this case was not in essence a particularly complex criminal case.

4. The Crown alleged the appellant had locked OP in her flat, frightened her so that she did not dare try to escape, threatened to kill her with a knife, made her consume largactil tablets, sexually assaulted her by making her masturbate him when she did not consent, and raped her vaginally and orally. The appellant was convicted by majority verdicts of 10 to 2 of falsely imprisoning, threatening to kill, twice raping, sexually assaulting, and poisoning OP. He was sentenced to life imprisonment on counts 1, 4 and 7 with a minimum term of 9 years before his case could be considered by the Parole Board, to 7 years concurrent on each of count 3 and count 6, and to 4 years concurrent on count 5.

5. Limited leave to appeal against conviction was granted by the Full Court. The court stated that, after giving due allowance for the reasons for the time taken, “the case took a wholly exceptional period of timeâ€. Much of the hearing before us concerned the first ground. Mr Kovalesky QC, on behalf of the appellant, submitted that the trial judge was wrong to admit the bad character evidence of the three other allegations of rape because they were all disputed and to admit evidence of them was likely seriously to complicate and lengthen the trial and unfairly to divert its focus from the events charged on the indictment. These difficulties have been considered by this court on a number of occasions: see Hanson [2005] 1 WLR 3169 and Edwards and others [2006] 2 Cr. App. R. 4 , and, since the judge’s ruling in the present case, McKenzie [2008] EWCA Crim. 758 and DM [2008] EWCA Crim. 1544 . None of those cases concerned a trial of anything like this length.

6. The second ground upon which leave to appeal was granted concerned the judge’s directions as to the use the jury could make of the bad character evidence. This ground has two limbs. The first concerns the direction that the bad character allegations were capable of mutually supporting the truth of the other allegations. The second is that the judge failed to direct the jury adequately or at all as to the weaknesses the defence alleged in relation to each bad character allegation. Mr Kovalesky did not pursue the first limb. He was right not to do so. It was unarguable in the light of the decisions of this court in Wallace [2007] 2 Crim App. R. 30 ; DM [2008] EWCA Crim 1544 , and Freeman and Crawford [2008] EWCA Crim. 1863 .

7. The decision to admit the evidence of bad character was made by the judge on 15 February 2006, after a two-day pre-trial hearing. On 5 December 2006, the day before the trial was listed to start, he rejected an application to exclude the bad character evidence under section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. On 20 February 2007 at the conclusion of the prosecution’s evidence relating directly to OP’s complaints, and before the bad character evidence was called, the defence submitted there was no case to answer and that the bad character evidence should not be admitted. The judge rejected these submissions.

The circumstances of the trial:

8. Following the ruling permitting the admission of the bad character evidence it was estimated that the trial would last four months and would end in the middle of April 2007. In the event it started on 6 December 2006 and lasted six and a half months. The defendant completed giving evidence and the defence case was closed on 23 May 2007. The judge started his summing up on 7 June. The jury retired on Thursday 14 June and returned verdicts on Friday 22 June. We have set out the chronology in an Appendix to this judgment. Before turning to the facts of the case and the rulings concerning the bad character evidence, we refer to the factors other than the bad character evidence that contributed to the length of the trial.

9. There were anticipated breaks for holidays including Christmas and New Year, and Easter. The condition of the appellant’s health meant that there had to be frequent short breaks during the trial to enable him to take medication. There were also other breaks to enable his condition to be assessed by Matron at the Central Criminal Court and for him to receive treatment. The trial was adjourned between 10 and 23 January 2007 (during OP’s cross-examination) because the appellant went into hospital for colon surgery. The Crown’s skeleton argument states that because the defendant had apparently instructed his legal team not to concede any point the Crown was required to prove matters which in many trials would have been uncontentious or admitted. The unpredictability of breaks because of the appellant’s health and his general approach undoubtedly made the judge’s task a difficult one.

10. After the judge’s ruling on 20 February 2007 (see [7] above) the appellant dispensed with the services of his counsel, Mr James Turner QC and Mr Hodivala. He was given some days to consider his position and decided to represent himself. It appears from the court record that the appellant acted on his own behalf between 23 February and 21 March 2007. Following an application by the Crown that the appellant not be allowed to cross-examine the three women whose allegations of rape were admitted as bad character evidence (see rule 31.1(2) of the Criminal Procedure Rules) the judge instructed Mr Bruce Houlder QC to cross examine them.

11. Mr Houlder and the applicant were provided with papers and given time to read and prepare. The court did not sit between 24 February and 6 March to enable Mr Houlder to prepare his cross-examination of CD. The evidence relating to CD’s allegations was heard on three days and completed on 9 March. The court did not sit between 10 and 14 March to enable Mr Houlder to prepare his cross-examination of AB. The evidence relating to AB’s allegations was heard on 6 days between 15 and 20 March.

12. During this time the jury sent a note expressing concern at the appellant’s ability to represent himself, and he chose to reinstruct counsel. Mr Hodivala was able to return to the case but professional commitments precluded Mr James Turner QC from doing so and the defendant did not wish to instruct Mr Houlder. A second leading counsel Mr Kovalevsky QC was instructed. There was a further adjournment and delay between 21 March and 17 April while Mr Kovalevsky was given time to read and prepare. The trial thus resumed at about the time the judge had told the jury it would end.

13. The defendant was admitted to hospital on various dates between 16 and 22 May, while he was being cross-examined, because of concerns about his health. Mrs. May, who led for the Crown at the trial, informed us that, after the defence case was closed on 23 May, there was a two week break in the trial to accommodate a pre-booked holiday by a juror.

The charges on the indictment; OP’s allegations

14. We return to the allegations that led to the charges concerning the index offences. OP was a registered drug addict. She said that she met the appellant on 8 September 2004 at the home of a man called QR where crack cocaine was being smoked. She agreed to rent him a room in her flat. She said she did so because she wanted a shoulder to cry on and needed a friend, and that she allowed him to cuddle her, but told him she was not interested in men because she liked women. On 15 September she allowed him to perform oral sex on her but pushed him away when he tried to have sexual intercourse with her. She said she smoked crack supplied by the appellant and, against a background of continued use of crack, remained in his company. She said she felt that he expected her to have sex with him and was threatened. She said he said he wanted to have sex with her, accused her of “sucking cocks for rocksâ€, and kept on about the fact that she slept with her dealer who was black, and could not understand why she would not sleep with him.

15. OP said the appellant continued to ask her for sex and on 16 September she told him she would have sex with him if he could get her some crack. While he was out getting the drugs, she changed her mind and, when he returned, told him she did not want to have sex with him. She said he became angry because she was blowing hot and cold and told her that, but for the children, he would have killed his wife when he found she had cheated on him, and that he burned prostitutes and made them jump out of the window. He got a large knife from a kitchen drawer and said he would make her death look like suicide, held the knife to her throat, threatened her, and told her to swallow the largactil tablets. She said he used shoe laces to tie her to the bed and, after he noticed that she had not taken the tablets, made her take them. At some stage he untied her so she could use the bathroom but then told her to jump from the window. She said she was frightened he would kill her and submitted to sexual intercourse with him from behind in order to get away. She screamed while it was occurring.

16. OP said that the following morning, Friday 17 September, she was expected to visit her sister but the appellant said he would keep her hostage until Monday and demanded that she “fuck himâ€, but she refused. She said he then made her masturbate him and perform oral sex on him and then left the flat briefly. When he returned he told OP that she could go to her sister but when she told him she did not want to see him again he locked the door, picked up the knife, and said she was staying with him all day. She said he continued to threaten her with a knife, and then pulled her out of the flat and said he was going to kill members of her family. Eventually he threw the knife away saying he did not want to hurt her. They went to where her sister lived by bus and he returned her keys.

17. OP said she told her sister about the events and that on Saturday 18 September the appellant telephoned asking where she was and made threats to kill her family. She complained to the police on Monday 20 September.

18. The appellant claimed that OP’s account was completely unreliable. He maintained that he was a client of an escort agency for which OP worked as a prostitute and that he had had a number of paid encounters with her. He told police officers that as far as he knew OP was working for an escort agency and produced an escort agency’s card from his wallet. He said he knew that OP was a drug addict, was concerned about this and wanted to help her. He thought that over the months a romantic attachment had grown between them and said he believed all the sexual relations between them were consensual. He did not admit the particular offences alleged between 15 and 17 September but said that if they did occur, there was consent or he believed there was consent. His case was that OP had been put up to making the allegation by a woman named ST with whom she had formerly been in a lesbian relationship.

19. When the appellant was arrested he had a handwritten letter in his possession which purported to be signed by OP giving him authority to remain in her flat. He claimed he wrote the body of the letter and she signed it. He said he thought he should have a letter of this sort to avoid any aggravation with neighbours who did not know him. A handwriting expert considered that there was strong evidence that OP did not write the letter but was not able to give an opinion about who wrote the signature. The owner of the escort agency gave evidence. She said the agency knew the appellant as a customer but was sure that OP had not worked for them and said that the agency avoided drug users.

20. SS denied that she was a prostitute or had been in a consensual relationship with the appellant. She admitted that she had consensual sex with her drug dealer. She was cross-examined over 4 days during which time her credibility and her character were challenged. She agreed she had not told police what had happened when she first contacted them. She said she had not told the police about the allegation of rape because she had not found it easy to speak about rape to the police and she felt she had brought it upon herself. She was cross-examined about this and other failures and about inconsistencies between her statement and her evidence. For example, she was cross-examined about the fact that her statement said that on the Wednesday night she let the appellant perform oral sex on her followed by his starting to have sexual intercourse with her until she pushed him away, but in her evidence she had insisted it was only on the Thursday that the appellant had sex with her and that it was rape.

21. There was medical evidence that OP had serious problems probably linked to drug and alcohol abuse and a history of sexual abuse. Analysis of her blood and urine detected alcohol and a number of drugs including largactil and citalopram. Professor Forrest stated that taking the largactil and then falling asleep after sexual intercourse was consistent with her account, but the findings of largactil in her system was also consistent with her taking it at other times. Accordingly, he could not exclude the possibility that the largactil had been taken at an earlier date. He said that in combination largactil and crack cocaine might result in aggressive and unpredictable behaviour.

22. The defence relied on a number of weaknesses in the prosecution’s case about OP’s allegations and in particular in her evidence. These were set out in a schedule. They included the unreliability of her evidence as to when she first met the appellant because she said that when she first met him she was “cracked out of her nutâ€. When giving evidence she said she met him at QR’s home, but also said that she had not met the appellant before she went to his flat. The defence also relied on inconsistency between her evidence that they only had sex once and the contents of her statement, and on changes in her evidence as to the date on which she was imprisoned. As well as 15 September (the commencement of the indictment period), she referred to 14 and 10 September, but a CCTV image dated 14 September shows her standing in a queue at the Post Office with the appellant.

23. The court also heard evidence from OP’s parents, her two sisters, J and K and from ST, QR, and the police officers who attended her flat in response to a request to assist in getting a person out of it. Her family gave evidence of telephone calls from the appellant asking for OP, claiming to be her partner and saying she was pregnant and was having his baby. OP’s sister J, who lived at the family home, said she opened a letter addressed to OP and found a photograph of herself inside with a message from the appellant on the back to OP to call him or else he would “come down your mum’sâ€which she took to be a threat although the appellant denied this. Her mother said his manner was angry and she took what was said as a threat and her father said he found the appellant’s tone threatening.

24. SS’s mother said that, after her she spoke to the appellant on the telephone, OP, in distress, told her that she had been held hostage but did not mention any sexual assault. OP’s father said that after OP complained about the appellant and said he had been involved with a firearms offence, he called the police. ST was a reluctant witness. She said OP told her about the events including that the appellant hit her, knocked her over, gave her different tablets and raped her. She also said she had not seen a man in OP’s house during August and September, and had never seen the appellant before although the appellant claimed he had met her.

25. QR said that OP first met the appellant when they smoked crack at his (QR’s) flat. Later the same day or within a couple of days she said she liked the appellant and wanted to go to bed with both the appellant and QR, adding that she was a lesbian. QR said that a week later she passed him a note for the appellant to the effect that the appellant was a nice man and the appellant may have misread the note as a sexual advance. He said that after that the appellant and OP visited his address on two further occasions. On the first of these he understood that the appellant was lodging with OP. On the second visit he was holding her by the arm and dragged her in. He thought that on the second visit when the appellant was holding her he was being possessive but not holding her prisoner.

26. One of the police officers who attended OP’s flat in response to a request to lend assistance in getting somebody out of it said OP said she had not asked the appellant to leave because she was scared and he had forced her to have sex with him. He said her account included threats to kill, use of a knife, making her swallow pills, and crying when he penetrated her from behind. She said that she had given in to the appellant’s demands on the Friday because she just wanted to get out of the house but that he then prevented her from leaving. The officer stated that OP was shaking and distressed while she gave her account.

The relevant legislation:

27. Before turning to the evidence of the allegations by the three other women; AB, CD and EF we set out the relevant parts of sections 101 and 103 of the CJA 2003.

“’Defendant’s Bad Character’

101.–(1) In criminal proceedings evidence of the defendant’s bad character is admissible if, but only if —

…

(c) it is important explanatory evidence,

(d) it is relevant to an important matter in issue between the defendant and the prosecution …

(3) The court must not admit evidence under subsection (1)(d)… if, on an application by the defendant to exclude it, it appears to the court that the admission of the evidence would have such an adverse effect on the fairness of the proceedings that the court ought not to admit it.

(4) On an application to exclude evidence under subsection (3) the court must have regard, in particular, to the length of time between the matters to which that evidence relates and the matters which form the subject of the offence charged.

‘Important explanatory evidence’

102.–For the purposes of section 101(1)(c) evidence is important explanatory evidence if –

(a) without it, the court or jury would find it impossible or difficult properly to understand other evidence in the case, and

(b) its value for understanding the case as a whole is substantial.

‘Matter in issue between the defendant and the prosecution’

103.–(1) For the purposes of section 101(1)(d) the matters in issue between the defendant and the prosecution include—

(a) the question whether the defendant has a propensity to commit offences of the kind with which he is charged, except where his having such a propensity makes it no more likely that he is guilty of the offence;

(b) the question whether the defendant has a propensity to be untruthful, except where it is not suggested that the defendant’s case is untruthful in any respect.

(2) Where subsection (1)(a) applies, a defendant’s propensity to commit offences of the kind with which he is charged may (without prejudice to any other way of doing so) be established by evidence that he has been convicted of –

(a) an offence of the same description as the one with which he is charged, or

(b) an offence of the same category as the one with which he is charged.

(3) Subsection (2) does not apply in the case of a particular defendant if the court is satisfied, by reason of the length of time since the conviction or for any other reason, that it would be unjust for it to apply in his case.â€

28. Section 101 requires a two-stage procedure. The first stage is to determine whether the bad character evidence meets the “gatewayâ€criteria for the admission of evidence of a defendant’s bad character contained in section 101(1). Mr Kovalesky accepted that the evidence of the allegations made by AB, CD and EFmet the criteria in section 101(1)(c) or (d) and was accordingly prima facie admissible: see Weir [2006] 1 WLR 1885 at [35]-[36]. This appeal is concerned with the second stage of the statutory procedure, which is contained in section 101(3). That requires the court to exclude bad character evidence that is prima facie admissible under section 101 if it would be unjust to admit it.

29. Section 101(3) only applies to bad character evidence relevant to an important matter in issue between the defendant and the prosecution (section 101(1)(d)) and where the defendant has made an attack on another person’s character (section 101(1)(g)). It is in mandatory terms. Its wording is more emphatic than that of section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 which uses the word “mayâ€. However, if, when considering the application of section 78, the court decides the admission of the evidence would have such an adverse effect on the fairness of the proceedings, it cannot, as Auld LJ stated ( Chalkley [1998] QB 848 , at 874), logically exercise a discretion to admit. Accordingly, this difference in the wording of section 101(3) and section 78 may in itself not be significant: see Tirvanenanu [2007] 1 WLR 3049 .

30. The bad character provisions in the CJA 2003 are based on recommendations made by the Law Commission: Evidence of Bad Character in Criminal Proceedings, Law Com. No 273, (2001). They do not, however, contain the main safeguard proposed by the Commission. The Commission’s proposal was that, subject to limited exceptions, the prosecution should only be permitted to adduce bad character evidence with the leave of the court. As we have observed, the Act provides that bad character evidence that meets one of the gateway criteria in section 101(1) is admissible. Professor John Spencer, in his Evidence of Bad Character (2006) at [1.15 ] has said that by this and other changes the Law Commission’s proposals “had been significantly ‘bent’ to make evidence of the defendant’s bad character more readily admissibleâ€. The only safeguards contained in the 2003 Act are those in section 101(3) and section 107. Section 107 only applies after the close of the case for the prosecution and requires the judge to stop the case where the evidence is contaminated in a way that would make a conviction unsafe.

31. The importance of section 101(3), to which we return later in this judgment, is that where bad character evidence qualifies under the criteria and is prima facie admissible, it is the only provision in the 2003 Act itself available to a court when considering whether in fact to admit such evidence. This court indicated in Highton [2005] 1 WLR 3472 that that section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 also applies in this context, although it did not consider the provision should have been applied to exclude the evidence in that case. In Weir [2006] 1 WLR 1885 (the appeal of Somanathan), it was said that there was “no reason to doubtâ€that section 78 should be considered where section 101(1)(f) is relied on (and section 101(3) does not apply), but again the court did not consider the provision should have been applied in that case to exclude the evidence. Although we note that in Davis [2008] EWCA Crim 1156 , it was said that the role of section 78 is “possibly controversialâ€under the CJA 2003, we agree with the indications in Highton and Weir that section 78 should be considered, as the judge did in this case.

The bad character evidence:

32. We have referred to the defence position. At the pre-trial hearing the defence submitted that admitting evidence of the bad character allegations by the three women would make a simple case complicated and would expand it out of all proportion and would be unjust. It would expand the case because the appellant denied the allegations, two of which had not resulted in a conviction, and the Crown would have to prove them. It would be unjust to admit the allegations because the defence would be handicapped in dealing with them. This was because of the age of the first two allegations, and because of the absence of some key statements and transcripts. In relation to the allegations by CD for which the appellant had been convicted it was argued the defence would be handicapped because the appellant had represented himself and absented himself from part of the trial.

33. The judge was referred to and considered the decisions of this court in Hanson [2005] 1 WLR 3169 , Edwards [2006] 2 Cr. App. R. 4 , and to the decisions of the House of Lords in O’Brien [2005] 2 AC 534 ; UKHL 26, and Z [2000] 2 AC 483 . The judge stated his task was to assess the potential significance of the evidence in the context of the case as a whole and assuming it to be true. In doing so he said, in the light of the decision in O’Brien , it was necessary for the evidence to have “enhanced evidential valueâ€, and that the lengthening of the trial by the additional evidence must not render the trial process unfair because what is required is a trial process fair to all parties. The judge had regard to the decisions in Edwards and Hanson and in particular the three questions set out in Hanson:

“1 Does the history of conviction(s) establish propensity to commit offences of the kind charged? 2 Does that propensity make it more likely that the defendant committed the offences charged? 3 Is it unjust to rely on the material and, in any event, will the proceedings be unfair if the material is admitted?â€: [2005] 2 Cr. App. R. 21 at [7].

34. We turn to the evidence of the allegations. The earliest allegation was by AB, who had lived with and entered into a bigamous form of marriage with the appellant, but they parted. She claimed that on 22 September 1982 he had smashed his way into her home, threatened her with a knife, threatened to kill her, and raped her. In his defence the appellant claimed he had gone to AB’s house to see the children and, in order to get him out of her life, AB made up the allegations with the encouragement of a Detective Inspector Wallace with whom she had had an affair. At the trial the appellant produced a photocopy of a photograph of AB with Sir Edward Heath and alleged there were photographs depicting her in compromising sexual circumstances in front of their child. AB denied that she had an affair with DI Wallace or that there were compromising photographs in front of their child.

35. On 14 March 1984 the appellant was acquitted of the charges of threatening to kill AB and of raping her. Subsequently the photocopy of the photograph produced at the trial was found to be a forgery, and the appellant was tried for perjury, making false statements and perverting the course of justice. He agreed that the photographs he had produced were forged but maintained that there were original photographs of AB, DI Wallace, Sir Edward Heath, and his children in pornographic poses. He maintained that those photographs were taken from him by the police. In October 1985 he was convicted of the forgery and perverting the course of justice.

36. In the present case the Crown submitted AB’s allegations were admissible under sections 101(1)(c) and (d) of the CJA 2003 as important explanatory evidence, and relevant to an important matter in issue between the defendant and the prosecution. The Crown submitted that AB’s evidence showed a propensity by the appellant to commit offences of the nature and with the same characteristics as those alleged by OP. It argued that AB’s allegations had the following common elements with OP’s allegations; an association that turned sour, threats to kill, use of a knife, reversion to a more normal state of mind after submission by the woman, and an attempt to discredit the complainant by calling into question her moral standards.

37. The judge did not consider the evidence was admissible under s 101(1)(c), but decided that it was admissible under s 101(1)(d). The principle in R v Z [2000] 2 AC 483 that similar fact evidence of an allegation which had led to an acquittal was in principle admissible had survived the CJA 2003 and AB’s allegation was one of reprehensible conduct by the appellant. The judge found that, because of the similar features he had identified, the evidence had the necessary enhanced probative value in relation to the allegations by OP. He took into account how long ago AB’s allegation’s were made, the fact that some statements were missing, there was only a partial transcript of AB’s evidence, and the need to ensure the trial of the charges based of OP’s allegations did not degenerate unreasonably into trial of satellite issues. He concluded that AB’s evidence showed a propensity to commit offences of the type charged, and made it more likely that the appellant committed the index offence, and that it was not unjust or unfair for it to be relied on.

38. As far as the convictions for perjury and perverting the course of justice are concerned the Crown argued the conviction was admissible to show a propensity for untruthfulness (sections 101(1)(d)) and 103(1)(b)) in that the appellant falsely sought to blacken AB’s character in defending the charge of rape by presenting her as a woman of loose morals and gross untruthfulness. The judge referred to the letter the Crown alleged the appellant had forged indicating OP had given him authority to stay in her home. Although the convictions were 20 years earlier the judge found the convictions by their nature showed a propensity for the appellant to be untruthful, and by their nature made it more likely he committed the offences charged.

39. The evidence concerning AB’s allegations came from her and three other witnesses, and took six days of court time. In his evidence the appellant maintained the account he had given at the two trials.

40. When summing up, the judge drew attention to the aspects of AB’s evidence which the defence relied on to show she had lied. These included the absence of any reference to rape in her initial complaint, which the defence said was a significant inconsistency, AB saying that her daughter had been present at the time but that the daughter was keen to go to Margate with the appellant the next day, and her admission to lying on oath at the appellant’s committal hearing. The judge told the jury that it was not very clear what AB was admitting to lying about, that it was all a long time ago, and that they should bear that in mind in assessing the appellant’s ability to defend himself on these matters. He said “that is a ground for considering [AB’s] evidence with caution. Take a special care over her evidence in those circumstancesâ€.

41. The second tranche of bad character evidence related to the allegations made by CD. She said she had a friendly non-sexual relationship with the appellant who gave her cannabis which she could not afford to buy, and that he frequently made sexual advances to her which she indicated were not welcome. She said that in December 1987 she went out with him and her three-year old son to find the boy’s father. They did not do so and, after visiting various public houses in which she drank some two pints of lager and smoked some cannabis with the appellant, they returned to the flat.

42. CD said that in the flat the appellant made sexual advances and she made it clear they were not welcome. When he tried to kiss her and she pushed him away he punched her in the face and then kept her in the flat against her will for 12 hours. She said he threatened her and she submitted to sexual intercourse through fear. She escaped with her son when he fell asleep. The appellant said that he paid for sex with CD, and that she was on the game. He said she made the allegations up after they had a row because he realised she was ripping off charities. On 9 November 1988 the appellant was convicted of raping CD and sentenced to 6 years imprisonment. In March 1989 he was also sentenced to a consecutive sentence of 8 years imprisonment for grievous bodily harm and a firearms offence, making a total of 14 years. It appears from the ruling on the bad character applications that the judge was told the appellant was released on 9 October 1997.

43. The Crown relied on section 101(1)(d) and 103(1)(a) of the CJA 2003, submitting that CD’s evidence showed the appellant has a propensity to commit offences of the same nature and with the same characteristics. Those characteristics were; befriending a victim, paying for her cannabis, and making sexual overtures which were repulsed, and then telling the victim she could not leave, threatening to kill her, and using violence against her which led to her being scared into submitting to sexual intercourse. The judge found that the similarities in the allegations were significant and cumulative and that the enhanced probative value of the evidence well exceeded the prejudicial effect of introducing it. The judge took into account the time since the conviction, but also the fact that during that time the appellant had spent a lengthy period in custody.

44. The jury heard evidence about CD’s allegations and the conviction from her, four other live witnesses, and two witnesses whose statements were read. It took three days of court time. In his evidence to the jury in this case the appellant substantially repeated his account at the earlier trial. He denied he had supplied CD with cannabis or threatened her and said she was on the game and he paid her for sex.

45. When summing up the evidence about CD’s allegations, after summarising the appellant’s account, the judge referred to the aspects of CD’s evidence which the defence submitted showed she had lied and the inconsistencies in her evidence. He also referred to the evidence of the doctor who examined her that he had found no marks on her body, and that CD had consumed more alcohol than was wise.

46. The third allegation was by EF. She, like OP, was a drug addict. In her case the addiction was to cannabis. She alleged that in 2000 the appellant raped, falsely imprisoned and indecently assaulted her. She said the appellant struck up a friendship with her and her boyfriend, supplied them with cannabis and visited their flat frequently. There was a row when they requested him to stop calling on them so much after he showed EF photographs of a person who he said he had shot in the kneecaps, and she did not want him to visit. EF said that about a week later he apologised and, after spending the day in her flat, sat on her bed and said he wanted to have sex with her and knew she felt the same. She said he behaved aggressively. Although she did not consent she submitted to intercourse through fear. She did not shout out because she was scared. She also said that he made her sit in his car and drove away with her. While they were in the car he threatened her, saying he was going to kill her and dump her body. She said he also told her that if she was pregnant he did not care if the boyfriend was the father because he would treat the baby as his, and only drove her back to her flat when she agreed to tell her boyfriend she was leaving him for the appellant. At the flat he pushed her into the bedroom, made further threats and tried to have sex with her. EF said her boyfriend banged on the door and the appellant took a knife saying he would stab the boyfriend. She said she persuaded the appellant to call the police whose arrival defused the situation. She fled to Scotland with her boyfriend a few days later and did not report the matter for a year.

47. As a result of EF’s allegations the appellant was charged and tried at Harrow Crown Court in September 2003. However, the judge in that case stayed the proceedings on the ground of abuse of process. She did so because, while being cross-examined by defence counsel, EF said, “you are trying to put a rapist back on the street for a second timeâ€and thus confirmed an earlier submission made by the defence that her evidence had been contaminated because she had been told of the appellant’s conviction for rape.

48. The Crown also relied on section 101(1)(d) and section 103(1)(a) of the CJA 2003 in respect of EF’s evidence. The similarities in her allegations and those of OP were said to be; the appellant striking up a friendship with a drug addict victim, supplying the victim with cannabis, recounting stories of violence committed against others, making sexual advances to the victim in her flat, and, after rejection of those advances, forcing her into sexual intercourse through fear.

49. The defence submitted EF’s allegations had been contaminated and should not be admitted in the present case. They relied on section 107 of the CJA 2003 which requires a case in which bad character evidence has been given to be stopped if the evidence has been contaminated and a verdict would be unsafe. The judge rejected this submission. He said he had power to keep the admission of evidence under control and did not consider the matter had so undermined EF’s credibility that she should not be regarded as reliable in relation to her allegations against the appellant. He also considered that he could deal with this issue by an appropriate direction about contamination. Again the judge found the similarities showed enhanced probative value and that the evidence should be considered by the jury. It showed a propensity by the appellant to commit offences of the kind charged and it was not unfair to admit it.

50. The evidence concerning EF’s allegations came from her and three other witnesses and took seven days of court time. In his evidence the appellant claimed EF was lying. He said he had a consensual sexual relationship with her for about two months and had paid her for sex.

51. The judge drew the attention of the jury to the discrepancies between EF’s account and doctors’ notes, and her acknowledgement that she had lied to doctors. He directed the jury that they should take special care about EF’s evidence in the light of a comparison of her account that her boyfriend was not violent and certain 999 calls which she had made. He also drew their attention to EF’s failure to complain about being sexually assaulted and falsely imprisoned in any of the large number of telephone calls she made at the material time, or to the police when they called at the appellant’s flat, and to the different reasons she had given for failing to report matters for a year.

Discussion:

52. Mr Kovalesky submitted that the judge erred in his approach to the balancing exercise required by section 101(3). Although some of what subsequently happened during the trial had not been foreseeable, the difficulties of allowing evidence of the three allegations of rape, each of which amounted to a complicated case, were foreseen. As a result he submitted the convictions are unsafe.

53. At the heart of the appellant’s case is the submission that, although the bad character material may have been admissible, it seriously diverted the focus of the trial and amounted to the sort of satellite litigation which this court in Hanson and in Edwards (which were before the judge when making his ruling) stated should not occur. In Hanson [2005] 1 WLR 3169 at [12] this court stated that “where past events are disputed the judge must take care not to permit the trial unreasonably to be diverted into an investigation of matters not charged on the indictmentâ€. In Edwards and others [2006] 2 Cr. App. R. 4 , at [1(vii)], in the context of an allegation rather than a conviction, the court stated; “this is an area in which it is important to guard against satellite litigationâ€. Similar injunctions against this danger have been given in the recent decisions of McKenzie [2008] EWCA Crim. 758 at [22]-[24] and DM [2008] EWCA Crim. 1544 at [22].

54. There were a number of difficulties with the bad character evidence the Crown wished to adduce in this case. One was the age of the incidents involving AB and CD. In the case of CD the conviction was for conduct some 17 years before the allegations made by OP. The allegations by AB were even older. They alleged conduct by the appellant 5 years before those by CD; that is 22 years before those by OP. Secondly there was only a single conviction. In the light of what this court stated in Hanson at [9] it is normally difficult to show propensity from a single conviction in itself. It is only where the conviction shows a tendency to unusual behaviour or where its circumstances demonstrate probative force in relation to the offence charged that a single conviction may show propensity.

55. The third and, in our view, the most serious difficulty with the Crown’s application to adduce evidence of all three allegations and to call all three complainants is that so much of what the Crown wished to adduce was disputed. It was known at the time the Crown’s application to adduce the bad character evidence was first considered that all the facts of the allegations by the three women were contested. Accordingly, particularly in the case of the allegations that did not result in a conviction, proof of the previous alleged misconduct would require the trial of a three collateral or satellite issues as part of the trial of the applicant for the offences with which he was charged.

56. This was not a case like McKenzie [2008] EWCA Crim 758 , in which the allegations of prior misconduct had never been investigated by the police and the incidents had not been drawn to the defendant’s attention at the time they were said to have happened. What was said in that case about the difficulties is, however, relevant. Delivering the judgment of this court, Toulson LJ referred to three potential difficulties that need to be considered in such cases. The first is the need to consider whether admission of such evidence would result in the trial “becoming unnecessarily an undesirably complex even if not unfairâ€: [2008] EWCA Crim. 758 at [22]. The second is the danger of a trial of collateral issues not only adding to the length and cost of the trial but “complicating the issues which the jury has to decide and taking the focus away from the most important issue or issuesâ€(ibid at [23]). The third is what the court described as the dilemma that “…if allegations of previous misconduct

[2009] EWCA Crim 905

17

are few in number, they may well fail to show propensity even if they are true, but the greater the plethora of collateral allegations, the greater the risk of the trial losing its proper focusâ€: (ibid at [22–24]).

57. In this case the Crown, perhaps mindful of the difficulties in prosecuting rape cases, considered it needed the evidence of all three bad character complainants. It did so because it considered the appellant was masterly at manipulating vulnerable women such as OP, a drug addict, and defending himself by reviling them in a way which, but for the evidence of similar allegations by others and similar defences, might well cast doubt on her allegations. Mrs May did not accept the suggestion that the bad character evidence was adduced to bolster a weak case. She submitted that in this case the evidence was vital to a fair consideration of OP’s allegations. She submitted that the judge clearly understood the test in Hanson to which we have referred and directed himself correctly in admitting the evidence. Indeed, she said the judge applied a more stringent test than was required because he required each element of the bad character evidence to possess “enhanced probative value, a requirement greater than in fact necessary for admissibility under the CJA 2003: see Weir [2006] 1 WLR 1885 , at [36].

58. It is undoubtedly the case that the feel of a trial judge for the case in hand is very important in this context and that an appellate court should hesitate before interfering with the trial judge’s conclusion on a matter of judgment: see Renda [2006] 1 Cr App R 380 at [57]; Edwards and others [2006] 2 Cr. App. R. 4 , at [1(viii)], [27] and [51], and DM [2008] EWCA Crim 1544 . The Crown submitted that in this case the judge was in a particularly good position to weigh the strength of the prosecution case and the other issues concerning the admission of the bad character evidence before that evidence was admitted. This is because, apart from the extensive pre-trial hearing at which the matter was first considered, he reviewed the position on 20 February 2007 when considering the renewed application after all the evidence directly linked to OP’s allegations had been adduced.

59. The judge approached the question of admitting each of the three categories of bad character evidence with considerable care. There were undoubted similarities between OP’s allegations and the three other allegations. There were particular similarities to the allegations made by CD and EF. Both were vulnerable young women who alleged the appellant befriended them, supplied them with their drugs, when they rejected his sexual advances because unpleasant, threatened to kill them and raped them. In both cases the appellant had sought to discredit them in the same way he sought to discredit OP; by saying that he had paid them both for sexual favours to which they consented.

60. We have referred to the importance of section 101(3) of the CJA 2003 at the stage the court first considers an application to admit bad character evidence: see [29] – [31]

[2009] EWCA Crim 905

18

above. It is incumbent upon a judge considering the application to try to project forward to see the problems which might later arise in the trial as a result of the disputed bad character evidence being admitted before ruling on the application. This is because, once the evidence is admitted, unless it has been contaminated (and section 107 applies) the question is of its weight. The judge will then only have limited remedies open to deal with problems that arise thereafter. After a decision to admit the evidence the prosecution will, absent a direction not to do so, open the case on the basis that the bad character evidence will be adduced. If, during the trial but before the evidence is adduced, it becomes clear that admitting it will be unfair or will so complicate the trial that the jury cannot properly consider the matters before them, since they have been open to the jury, there may be difficulties in revisiting the matter and it may be necessary to discharge the jury. After the evidence has been adduced the difficulties will increase.

61. The judge’s concern to give the appellant every opportunity to put his case was evident both in conducting the balancing exercise under section 101(3) when making his ruling in February 2007, and during the course of the trial. While recognising the difficult task that the judge had in this case, we have concluded that he fell into error in his consideration of the section 101(3) matters. This is because he did not or did not adequately consider the cumulative effect of the introduction of three separate contested issues into the trial on its overall length and on the jury, or how the evidence might be timetabled or truncated. A judge has wide case management powers under the Criminal Procedure Rules. We have referred to the overriding objective, as set out in Part 1 Rule 1.1(2)(e), which requires all criminal cases to be dealt with “efficiently and expeditiouslyâ€. All participants in criminal proceedings must prepare and conduct the case in accordance with the overriding objective; see Part 1, Rule 1.2 (1)(a) and the judge’s powers under the rules include power to give directions on the court’s own initiative (rule 3.5(2)(b)), and to identify a timetable (rule 3.10 (h)).

62. The importance of controlling the length of trials and of their being conducted in a way that enables juries to retain and assess the evidence which they have heard was emphasised by Lord Woolf, then Lord Chief Justice, when handing down the Protocol for the Control and Management of Heavy Fraud and Complex Criminal Cases on 22 March 2005. We have observed that this case was in essence not even a particularly complex criminal case, but what is stated in the Protocol is of relevance. The Protocol states that if the jury cannot retain and assess the evidence which they have heard “the trial is not fair either to the prosecution or the defenceâ€. It also states that “there is a consensus that no trial should be permitted to exceed a given period, save in exceptional circumstances; some favour three months, others an outer limit of six monthsâ€. Lord Woolf favoured the three-month period and, when handing down the Protocol, stated that: “it is implicit in the Protocol that trials of six months are just not capable of satisfactory disposalâ€. The ruling that evidence of the three bad character allegations could be adduced led to an estimate that the trial would last for four months. That in itself should have rung warning bells to the judge when undertaking the balancing process under section 101(3), especially since this was a trial of a single defendant concerning a single complainant, albeit on an indictment containing seven

[2009] EWCA Crim 905

19

counts. If as we understand to be the case when the decision to admit the bad character evidence was made it was estimated that the trial would last for four months, this indicates to us that those who subscribed to this view were in the wrong mindset. The judge should have told the parties it was not going to last for four months and taken steps accordingly, the most obvious being to limit or exclude the bad character evidence; other steps include setting a firm timetable.

63. In Hanson (at [12]) the court stated it is necessary to examine each individual conviction rather than the name of the offence or the defendant’s record as a whole. In principle the same is true of allegations. When considering the impact of the bad character evidence on the fairness of the trial where there are several convictions or allegations, it is also necessary to consider their cumulative effect on the trial. The judge considered the position of the defendant in relation to dealing with each individual conviction or allegation, but does not appear to have considered the cumulative effect of the three disputed allegations on his position. But it is not only the position of the defendant that must be considered. It is particularly important to assess the cumulative effect on the jury of receiving the evidence where it is disputed.

64. Although, as was said in McKenzie, the greater the number of collateral allegations the greater the risk of the trial losing its proper focus (see [56] above), it is not the number of allegations in itself which is problematic. For instance, in Z [2000] 2 AC 483, there were four previous complainants and the defendant had been acquitted on three occasions. As Mrs May observed, there are many trials involving charges of sexual offences by a number of complainants where the jury is able to cope. The important factor is not the number of allegations but their nature and complexity, and the time it will take to put them before the jury where they are contested.

65. In this case there were significant complications with the allegations. Only one was supported by a conviction, which this court in McKenzie (at [23]) referred to as the launch pad for establishing propensity. Without that launch pad, a trial of the collateral or satellite issues is necessary with the dangers to which we have referred. Because the evidence was disputed, significant factual issues would have to be explored in relation to all three allegations, each of which needed witnesses. As Moses LJ stated in DM at [22] the jury would need “to consider with as much detail and concentration all the factsâ€in relation to each of the three allegations as they would in relation to the offences with which the appellant was charged, before relying on it in relation to the index offence. This is because the jury would have to be sure those allegations were true before relying on them in relation to the index offence. Our summary of the bad character evidence shows that the issues that would have to be explored in relation to each of the allegations and each of the bad character complainants were not straightforward: see [32] – [33], [38], [43], [45] and [49].

[2009] EWCA Crim 905

20

66. Additionally, because the appellant had been acquitted of the rape of AB and the proceedings arising from EF’s allegations had to be stayed, the judge had to consider and direct the jury as to the meaning of, in AB’s case, the implications of the acquittal, and in EF’s case of the stay. The position has similarities to that in DM where the Scottish proceedings resulted in a verdict of not proven and if bad character evidence were admitted the judge presiding over in DM’s trial would have to direct the jury as to what that meant. In that case Moses LJ stated this, together with the need for the detailed examination and scrutiny of the evidence to which we have referred, combined “to provide a paradigm of the satellite trial which a trial judge ought to avoid lest the focus of the jury should be diverted and deflectedâ€.

67. In this case the Crown’s response to the difficulties the defence said it would face if the bad character evidence were adduced was to offer to make admissions and to call witnesses other than AB, CD and EF, whom they wished to call. For example, in relation to the oldest set of allegations, those by AB, the defence pointed to the absence of a contemporaneous note of her original complaint or transcripts of her evidence. The Crown maintained that the difficulties said to arise could be met by a combination of admissions on some matters and the availability of transcripts prepared for the perjury trial, including transcripts of the appellant’s evidence at the earlier trial, and of the original prosecution papers. In relation to CD’s allegations, while there was no transcript of her evidence and no statement by the person to whom she first made the complaint, there was a statement by UV, to whom she went very soon afterwards and whom the Crown offered to call and who was called. The Crown also offered to call and called Dr Craig who had examined CD after she made her allegation, and a forensic scientist. The judge accepted the submission that the fairness of the proceedings would be ensured by the admissions, the additional evidence and the available transcripts. The effect of admitting the evidence was, however, significantly to increase the number of issues the jury had to consider.

68. Mrs May submitted that, although the Crown wished the three bad character complainants to give evidence, it was not that which complicated the trial. She submitted the complications that arose from this evidence were the result of the position of the defence in relation to it, including the request that other witnesses give evidence. The remaining complications and delays did not result from the bad character evidence but from the appellant’s various health problems and his dismissing his legal representatives in February.

69. The appellant’s health problems, his instructions that no point was to be conceded, and the later disruption when he sacked his counsel and subsequently sought new representation undoubtedly caused significant and unforeseeable delay and understandable difficulty for the judge. The appellant was responsible for the delays caused by sacking his counsel and some three weeks later deciding he did after all want legal representation. He cannot, however, be criticised for the delays caused by his significant health problems during the trial. We also consider that the

[2009] EWCA Crim 905

21

complications that arose from the bad character evidence cannot be ascribed to the defence in the way suggested by Mrs May.

70. Although the Crown wished to reduce the evidence to be put before the jury in respect of each allegation, it wanted all three bad character complainants to give evidence. Since the evidence was challenged it was inevitable that more witnesses would be required and that, in particular there would be substantial cross-examination of the three bad character complainants. Delivering the judgment of this court in L [2007] EWCA Crim 1912, Latham LJ (V-P) stated at [12]:

“… the proper position in cases where the prosecution, in order to put forward evidence of bad character in these circumstances, effectively has to ask the court to evaluate the evidence at a previous trial; is that, whilst the prosecution will inevitably seek to reduce to a necessary minimum the amount of material which goes before the second jury, nonetheless it can only do so if it is prepared to be in a position to put before the jury all the evidence which was available at the previous trial if that is the only proper way to ensure fairness to the defendantâ€.

The duty that lies on all parties to prepare a criminal case in accordance with the overriding objective includes consideration of the nature and extent of any application to admit bad character evidence. Here it was clear from the outset that the allegations by the three women were disputed and that they would be subjected to detailed examination and scrutiny.

71. What should a judge do when faced with an application to admit bad character evidence which is disputed but which the Crown submits is, in the light of the position to be taken by the defence, vital to a fair consideration by the jury of a complainant’s allegations? In the light of the particular warnings about the admission of such evidence given in Hanson and Edwards , warnings reiterated in McKenzie and DM , a number of matters should be considered. These include the exercise of the judge’s wide case management powers under the Criminal Procedure Rules to impose a timetable on both the Crown and the defence, and, after ascertaining whether evidence can be truncated without unfairness, to give directions to this effect. In this case consideration should have been given to directing the Crown to pick the best of the three allegations and only to consider whether to admit that evidence. Although, in Hanson it was said that it is normally difficult to show propensity from a single conviction in itself, the court did not rule it out in an appropriate case. Consideration should also have been given to the use of section 74(3) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 in respect of the appellant’s convictions for raping CD and for forgery and perverting the course of justice. It was common ground before us that these matters were not considered at the pre-trial hearing that considered the admission of the bad character evidence.

72. The need for the witnesses and the extent of the issues concerning the bad character matters that were contested and would have to be scrutinised in detail were, as we have noted, known at the time of the pre-trial hearing and the judge’s subsequent ruling. The approach of the defence was known then. In the light of the nature of the

[2009] EWCA Crim 905

22

similarities of the allegations made by the three women, we accept that there was a good case for some of the evidence to be put before the jury. But what happened was that all three allegations were put forward and there was no consideration of timetabling or whether the evidence could be truncated in some way. The judge was concerned to give the appellant every opportunity to put his case.

73. Mrs May submitted that the bad character evidence lengthened the trial by only some two weeks. In fact, it was lengthened directly by 16 days; that is by three weeks and one day of court sitting time. The Crown also relied on the fact that there were no indications that the jury was not focussed whether by notes from them or in any other way. Indeed, a juror who had serious problems with his feet towards the end of the trial was keen to remain part of the jury and to return, and did so. Mrs May also relied on the fact that all the questions asked by the jury were about the allegations concerning OP and not the allegations by the three other women. This is, however, not altogether surprising. The jury were told by the judge, as they had to be, that the bad character material was only of help to the prosecution if it helped them to come to conclusions so far as OP was concerned.

74. We have referred to the number of court days taken by the bad character evidence. In total 16 out of 42 days, i.e. some 38% of the days on which evidence was heard were taken up with bad character evidence. The significance of the bad character evidence in the duration of the trial can also be seen from the proportion of the summing up concerned with it. The summing up runs to 434 pages, of which 148 pages, about one third of the summing up, deal with the bad character evidence. This is a greater proportion than the quarter of a much shorter summing up in McKenzie’s case, and about which the court (at [33]) expressed concern.

75. We have been primarily concerned with the position at the time of the original decision to admit the evidence. After the significant delays caused by the appellant’s ill health and the adjournments that resulted from his dispensing with his original representatives the consequence for the duration of the trial was manifest. As we have said, after the trial started and the Crown had referred to the bad character evidence in opening its case, the judge’s remedies were limited. But, nevertheless, after the other problems in the trial had occurred and the consequences were appreciated, the various methods by which the bad character evidence could be timetabled, truncated or otherwise controlled should have been considered or, if they had been previously considered, reconsidered. They were not. We also understand there was no consideration at that stage of longer or more flexible sitting hours, again out of concern for the defendant. It might, for example, have been possible to sit more flexible hours to accommodate the appellant’s health problems without losing sitting time.

The adequacy of the judge’s direction to the jury

[2009] EWCA Crim 905

23

76. We have noted (at [6]) that only the second limb of the second ground upon which leave to appeal was granted was pursued. Mr Kovalesky submitted that the judge failed to direct the jury adequately or at all as to the weaknesses the defence alleged in relation to each bad character allegation.

77. The judge directed the jury that they should only take into account those items of bad character evidence of which they were sure were reliable, that if it were possible that any of the evidence was contaminated that went to its weight and, “if there is a real possibilityâ€a witness’s evidence was “contaminated in a significant wayâ€they “should ignore that witness’s evidence entirelyâ€. The remainder of his directions followed the Judicial Studies Board’s Specimen Directions. The judge said that, if the jury were sure a witness was independent and that it was not possible that the witness was lying or mistaken, they should consider how similar the allegations were, and should not take account of the evidence if they thought it was insufficiently similar. Secondly, he said bad character evidence could not be used to bolster a weak case, and it was for them to decide whether the evidence showed a tendency to behave in the way alleged by SS, to be untruthful, or to make false attacks on prosecution witnesses. Thirdly, he directed them that the bad character evidence was only one factor to be taken into account and did not mean the appellant had the tendencies alleged or had made a false attack on a witness.

78. After giving the jury his directions on bad character the judge briefly outlined the various accounts given by the complainants and the defendant’s answer to them. The judge then summarised what the prosecution said and what the defence said. The prosecution’s case was that the bad character complainants had given remarkably similar accounts of their experiences at the hands of the defendant and that their evidence demonstrated his conduct to vulnerable women who came into his sphere. He said he did not specifically set out at that stage the significant similarities relied on by the prosecution because he had seen that many members of the jury noted them when Mrs May listed them. As to the defence he said:

“[The defence say] that the witnesses are not reliable, plainly they say that the evidence of [OP] is not reliable and they say that the evidence of the three other women is likewise not reliable and counsel invited you, in effect, to look at their background in assessing their reliability. He submitted boldly that they are all liars. He included his client in that description, the defendant, he said, lies to the police, but he has admitted that he lied to the police. … The defence say there are common features between the allegations but are they significant? None are unusual in themselves, that is what the defence are saying. Indeed, they developed matters by saying there are significant differences between the accounts. So those are all matters that you will have to consider.â€

79. Mr Kovalevsky said that the direction that bad character evidence could not be used to bolster a weak case came towards the end of “complicatedâ€bad character directions and did not explain to the jury in what ways the defence suggested the case was a weak one or in what circumstances they should ignore the bad character evidence.

[2009] EWCA Crim 905

24

Our summary of the judge’s directions shows that the second of these submissions is misconceived. The judge directed the jury as to the probative force and limits of propensity evidence, and as to the circumstances in which they should ignore the bad character evidence in this case.

80. What of the submission that the judge did not explain to the jury in what ways the defence suggested the case was a weak one? We have referred to what the judge said about the weaknesses in the bad character evidence when summarising the evidence about each of the three allegations and as part of his narrative about those allegations: see [40], [45], and [51]. He dealt with AB and CD’s evidence on 7 June, the same day as his direction on bad character. He dealt with most of EF’s evidence on 12 June, but had also referred to it, mainly in relation to the contamination issue, on 7 June.

81. As to the weakness of OP’s allegations, the judge’s summary of her cross-examination runs to 57 pages of the transcript. Individual criticisms, for example that she did not initially allege she had been raped, her drug-taking, hallucinations, mental health, previous convictions, and alleged promiscuity, are dealt with in that narrative. This part of the narrative was dealt with on 12 and 13 June, the third and fourth day of the summing up, and five and six days after the judge’s directions on the bad character evidence. All that he said on 7 June, the day he directed the jury about bad character evidence, was the passage we have set out stating the defence suggested the evidence of OP was not reliable, but giving no particulars or examples.

82. We consider that in the case of bad character evidence, save in the simplest of cases, it is ordinarily desirable not just to comment on the strengths and weaknesses of the evidence as part of a narrative summary of the evidence of a witness, but also to draw the threads together. As well as directing the jury as to the probative force and limits of propensity evidence, we consider that it is ordinarily desirable to draw those threads together by giving guidance as to the strengths and weaknesses of the bad character evidence tailored to the facts of the case. This would put the cumulative impact of bad character evidence; both its strengths and its weaknesses, directly before the jury. In the present case, although the judge did not do this, in the light of all that he did say to them when summing up the case, we do not consider that this in itself affected the safety of the conviction.

Conclusion

83. Although an appellate court should hesitate before substituting its view for that of the judge in this context, for the reasons we have given, and notwithstanding the care with which the judge approached his difficult task, we consider that this is a proper case to do so. The admission of the totality of the bad character evidence and the consequent need to scrutinise the evidence concerning the three disputed allegations, two of which concerned events 17 and 22 years before the allegations made by OP, made the trial unnecessarily and undesirably complex.

[2009] EWCA Crim 905

25

84. In the end we have to ask ourselves whether the conviction of the appellant is safe. This trial should not have lasted for six and a half months or anything approaching that. In our view the combination of the introduction of bad character evidence that led to the intensive investigation of satellite issues combined with the numerous interruptions to the trial and its overall length made it very difficult for the jury to keep its eye on the ball. Each member of the court is regrettably driven to the conclusion that the verdicts of the jury are not safe and therefore cannot stand. The appeal is accordingly allowed.

R v O’Dowd Appendix: Chronology of trial 2006

15 February Decision to admit bad character evidence after two day pre-trial hearing. In the light of ruling the trial was estimated to last four months

5 December Application to exclude bad character evidence under section 78 of PACE rejected.

6 December Trial starts.

16 Dec. 2006 – 2 Jan 2007 Adjournment for Christmas and New Year.

2007

10–23 January Adjournment because appellant in hospital.

20 February Conclusion of prosecution evidence relating to OP

‘s complaints; rejection of submissions of no case to answer and that the bad character evidence should not be admitted. Appellant dismisses his legal representatives.

24 February– 6 March Adjournment to enable Mr Bruce Houlder QC, instructed by the court, to prepare his cross-examination of CD.

7–9 March Evidence relating to CD’s allegation heard.

10–14 March Adjournment to enable Mr Houlder to prepare cross-examination of AB.

15–20 March Evidence relating to AB’s allegations heard. Following expression of concern by jury about appellant’s ability to represent himself, he chooses to reinstruct counsel.

21 March – 17 April Adjournment to enable new leading counsel to read and prepare.

15 April Original estimated date of end of trial.

17 April Trial resumes.

[2009] EWCA Crim 905

26

16–22 May Defendant admitted to hospital on various dates in this period because of concerns about his health.

23 May Defence case closed.

24 May – 6 June Adjournment to accommodate a pre-booked holiday by a juror.

7 June Judge starts to sum up.

14 June Jury retire.

22 June Jury return verdicts.

For a summary of O’Dowd court cases and newspaper articles see  2017 Apr 1 Cathy Fox Blog Kenneth Kevin O’Dowd and the Ted Heath Photos [3]

Index of Newspaper and Journal articles on this blog [1]

Index of Court Appeals on this blog [2]

Please note that victims of abuse may be triggered by reading this information. These links are generally UK based.

  • The Sanctuary for the Abused [A] has advice on how to prevent triggers.
  • National Association for People Abused in Childhood [B] has a freephone helpline and has links to local support groups.
  • One in Four [C]
  • Havoca [D].
  • Useful post on Triggers [E]  from SurvivorsJustice [F] blog.
  • Jim Hoppers pages on Mindfulness [G]  and Meditation [H] may be useful.
  • Hwaairfan blog An Indigenous Australian Approach to Healing Trauma  [J]
  • Survivors UK for victims and survivors of male rape or the sexual abuse of men [K]
  • Voicing CSA group [L] helps arrange survivors meetings in your area
  • A Prescription for me blog Various emotional support links [M]
  • ShatterBoys -“Male Survivors Of Childhood Sexual Abuse Inspiring change, Through Shared Experience Whilst Building Connections…Together We Can Heal” [N]

Links

 

Posted in cathy fox blog, Child Abuse, Court, London | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments

[O’Dowd3] Kevin Kenneth O’Dowd 28th November 2008 Court of Appeal

Redaction

Some court reports have had victims names redacted and some assault details redacted.

This is a difficult balance –  normally I would think that  I should not “censor” details but on consultation with various people I have taken the decision to redact. This is mainly to protect victims, their friends and relatives from unnecessary detail and to stop the gratification of those who seek salacious details.

In addition to the obvious “victims redaction” to protect victims details, there may also be “assault redaction” across most of the spectrum of abuse. The assaults are left in the charges, but mainly redacted when repeated with reference to the individual. I have also redacted unnecessary detail of assaults.

Redaction may obscure sometimes the legal reason for the appeal, but should make no large difference to the vital information for researchers that these documents contain. That vital information is mainly names of the perpetrators, past addresses, institutions where assaults occurred, the actual charges the perpetrators faced, and dates – on which newspapers are pathetically inaccurate and this information enables the links between people and places and abuse at various times to be ascertained.

Some transcripts may have been subject to automatic reading software and whilst effort has been made to correct these, the text should not be regarded as definitive.  Common mistakes in reprinting here are that quotation marks are sometimes not correct, replaced by odd symbols.

If you think that the balance is not correct or that a particular redaction needs reconsideration, please say.

This appeal is redacted by cathy fox blog for personal and assault details.

Index of Newspaper and Journal articles on this blog [1]

Index of Court Appeals on this blog [2]

[2008] EWCA Crim 3252

No: 200703874 B1

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL CRIMINAL DIVISION

Friday, 28th November 2008

Lord Justice Hooper

Regina

v.

Kevin Kenneth O’dowd


Computer Aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of WordWave International Limited A Merrill Communications Company 190 Fleet Street London EC4A 2AG Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838 (Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)

Mr J Hodivala appeared on behalf of the Applicant

JUDGMENT

(As approved by the Court)

1. SIR PETER CRESSWELL: On 22nd June last year at the Central Criminal Court before His Honour Judge Hawkins QC, after a trial which took place over a period exceeding six months, the appellant was convicted by majority verdicts of 10 to 2 and sentenced to life imprisonment (less 1001 days spent on remand) as follows:

Count 1—false imprisonment, life, minimum 9 years to be served.

Count 3—threatening to kill, 7 years concurrent.

Counts 4 and 7—rape, life as for count 1.

Count 5—administering poison with intent, 4 years concurrent.

Count 6—sexual assault, 7 years concurrent.

Count 2 (which charged rape) was quashed.

2. For a period during the trial the applicant dispensed with counsel and represented himself.

3. The renewed application for leave to appeal against conviction has come before the court today after refusal by the single judge. The applicant has been represented today by Mr Hodivala, pro bono, in respect of the original grounds 2, 7 and 8.

4. We grant leave in respect of two revised grounds, 1 and 2 as follows:

1. The learned judge was wrong to admit as bad character evidence an acquittal of rape in relation to [AB] , a conviction for rape in relation to [CD] and an alleged rape (where the complainant was [EF] ) stayed as an abuse of process.

2. The learned judge misdirected the jury as to the use that could be made of this bad character evidence and/or failed to direct the jury adequately, or at all, as to weaknesses the defence alleged in relation to each bad character allegation.

For the record, those two grounds replace earlier grounds 2, 5, 6, 7 and 8.

5. The appellant seeks leave in respect of grounds 1, 3 and 4. For reasons which appear below, we refuse leave to argue those grounds.

6. The alleged offences were said to have occurred between 15th and 18th September 2004. The prosecution case was as follows. The appellant locked the complainant in her flat and frightened her so that she did not dare to try to escape. He threatened to kill her with a knife, intending that she should fear that he would carry out his threat. He [Assault redacted] without her consent. He made her consume largactil tablets. He [assault redacted]

7. The defence case was that the complainant’s account was completely unreliable. The applicant maintained that he was the client of an escort agency and had had a number of paid encounters with the complainant. It was his perception that a romantic attachment had grown between them over the months. He knew, and was concerned, that she was a drug addict and wanted to help. He believed that all the sexual relations between them were consensual. He did not admit the particular offences alleged between 15th and 17th September, but if they did occur he said there was consent or he believed there was consent.

8. In February 2006 the Crown sought to introduce the following matters under the Criminal Justice Act 2003:

1. The alleged rape of AB in 1982 by calling evidence from AB. (The appellant was acquitted of rape of AB in March 1984)

2. Convictions for perjury and perverting the course of justice in October 1985 arising out of the rape trial.

3. The conviction of rape of CD in November 1988, by calling evidence from CD.

4. The evidence which supported the allegations by EF of rape, false imprisonment and indecent assault in 2000 by calling evidence from EF. The indictment arising from these offences was stayed in September 2003.

9. The defence argued that these matters would make a simple case complicated, expanded out of all proportion and unjust.

10. The judge’s reasons for permitting the introduction of these matters is found in volume II of the transcripts.

11. In December 2006 the defence made an application under section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 to exclude the bad character evidence on the basis that the Crown’s approach to adducing such evidence was unfair, contending that there had been difficulties with disclosure and that it was unfair to rely on the evidence. No transcripts from the trials relating to the complainants AB and CD were available, so the defence argued that it was not possible to know whether their evidence had been consistent with or had contradicted their statements. The applicant defended himself in the CD trial.

12. The judge referred to the defence list of reasons for exclusion and the extent of the evidence which the Crown was prepared to call, tender or read. The judge concluded that a fair trial was possible by the introduction of the evidence of the other complainants and the allegations arising out of the AB matter.

13. Once the complainant had given her evidence, the defence repeated the submissions that the bad character evidence should not be admitted under the 2003 Act or excluded under section 78 of PACE, adding that there was no proper case to answer on the basis that what evidence there was was vague, inherently weak and inconsistent. The judge ruled that the interests of justice were such that the jury should hear the evidence and that it was not unfair to admit it.

14. Mr Hodivala, for the appellant, has drawn the court’s attention to the case of R v McKenzie [2008] EWCA Crim 758 , and in particular to passages at paragraphs 22 to 26 and 33. He submits that the decision to admit the bad character material was wrong, improperly diverted the jury’s attention from the indictment evidence, and resulted in an unfair trial. Further, he submits that the summing up was insufficient to ensure the fairness of the trial.

15. In our opinion, the substituted grounds 1 and 2 merit consideration by the Full Court. We refer to the summing up volume VI, pages 10 D to 13 E, where the judge refers to some of the principal reasons for the time taken, including the defendant’s health problems and his dispensing with his counsel. After due allowance for these matters, the case took a wholly exceptional period of time.

16. We refuse leave in respect of grounds 1, 3 and 4. Our reasons briefly are as follows.

Ground 1

17. The judge was entitled, in the exercise of his discretion, to refuse the defence application that OP be called to give live evidence at the application to dismiss. The exercise by the judge of his discretion was not perverse or open to attack on other grounds. Further, in the light of all the material before him, the judge was justified in refusing to dismiss the prosecution case.

Ground 3

18. The judge was, in our opinion, entitled on the material before him, to conclude that QR was “not desirous of telling the truth to the court at the instance of the Crownâ€. As the single judge pointed out, the difference between QR’s evidence, summarised at 3 B to E of the ruling (transcript volume IV), and the material parts of his statement was considerable. The judge’s directions to the jury in this connection at volume IX, page 95 F and following, were adequate and appropriate.

Ground 4

19. In our opinion, the judge was justified in refusing to accede to a submission of no case at (a) the conclusion of the indictment evidence, and (b) the conclusion of the prosecution case, broadly for the reasons which he gave.

20. In the result, the appellant has leave to argue the two grounds to which we have referred, which replace the earlier grounds 2, 5, 6, 7 and 8. Leave is refused in respect of grounds 1, 3 and 4.

21. LORD JUSTICE HOOPER: Just going back to your grounds of appeal, are you objecting to the conviction for rape or of the evidence relating to the conviction for rape?

22. MR HODIVALA: Both, because it would be an argument that the single conviction for rape in 1988 did not amount to a propensity.

23. LORD JUSTICE HOOPER: Thank you. Make that clear, will you, when you do your skeleton argument?

24. MR HODIVALA: Yes, indeed.

25. LORD JUSTICE HOOPER: Make it clear you are complaining about, first, the fact that the evidence was called rather than just the conviction, and secondly, in any event, the conviction.

26. MR HODIVALA: Yes. Thank you very much.

27. LORD JUSTICE HOOPER: I think it would be helpful if you did a new skeleton argument which superseded everything you have done before, all your grounds of appeal. Essentially, cut and paste from what you have done before. Will you make it clear on the front that this is the only skeleton argument, and the others are to be discarded or tell the Registrar accordingly?

28. MR HODIVALA: Yes.

29. LORD JUSTICE HOOPER: As we have said, one day for the hearing. The court should have one day for reading. Can you do your skeleton argument in 14 days or 28?

30. MR HODIVALA: I have a heavy case load at the moment.

31. LORD JUSTICE HOOPER: Tell us how long.

32. MR HODIVALA: The early part of the New Year would be very much appreciated.

33. SIR PETER CRESSWELL: January 12th?

34. MR HODIVALA: I am grateful.

35. LORD JUSTICE HOOPER: If you can liaise with the Crown so we have a joint bundle.

36. MR HODIVALA: Certainly, I will liaise with the Crown.

For a summary of O’Dowd court cases and newspaper articles see  2017 Apr 1 Cathy Fox Blog Kenneth Kevin O’Dowd and the Ted Heath Photos [3]

Index of Newspaper and Journal articles on this blog [1]

Index of Court Appeals on this blog [2]

Please note that victims of abuse may be triggered by reading this information. These links are generally UK based.

  • The Sanctuary for the Abused [A] has advice on how to prevent triggers.
  • National Association for People Abused in Childhood [B] has a freephone helpline and has links to local support groups.
  • One in Four [C]
  • Havoca [D].
  • Useful post on Triggers [E]  from SurvivorsJustice [F] blog.
  • Jim Hoppers pages on Mindfulness [G]  and Meditation [H] may be useful.
  • Hwaairfan blog An Indigenous Australian Approach to Healing Trauma  [J]
  • Survivors UK for victims and survivors of male rape or the sexual abuse of men [K]
  • Voicing CSA group [L] helps arrange survivors meetings in your area
  • A Prescription for me blog Various emotional support links [M]
  • ShatterBoys -“Male Survivors Of Childhood Sexual Abuse Inspiring change, Through Shared Experience Whilst Building Connections…Together We Can Heal” [N]

Links

Posted in cathy fox blog, Child Abuse, Court | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments