THE TRUTH ABOUT BRIAN PEAD - PART ELEVEN

This is the first search warrant presented to Roy and Geoffrey Bacon. You are asked to look at the word ‘Executed’ and the position of the letter ‘D’ – it comes across the word ‘Gravelwood’. Also note the annotation by Nicholas Evans – it comes on top of the words ‘of the’ in Justice of the Peace. Now compare these facts with the second search warrant overleaf (there should only ever be one ‘Eexecuted’ search warrant and any copies taken must be exact copies. These are different. You might like to ask yourself why.

This is a second search warrant obtained under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. It should be an exact copy of the original. Notice that the ‘D’ of ‘EXECUTED’ is now over the word ‘Evidence’. Notice also that the annotation by Nicholas Evans is now over the word ‘Justice’. These warrants were not shown to the jury in Brian’s trial.

 24

The Bacons invited Brian over to dinner during the following week to discuss the search of their house. They showed him the paperwork that had been left by the police, and Brian started examining it. He also resolved to obtain a copy of PACE 2008, knowing that it would be a significant move on his part.

He also felt terrible that his friends had been dragged into the police investigation.

Roy Bacon was like a father to Brian. Both men respected each other immensely and although Brian’s father was alive, they were at that time estranged.

“Brian,” said Roy, “you have uncovered something huge here. You’ve stepped on a landmine and they are putting a load of shit your way. That ‘girl’ is nothing more than a fart in the wind and what you found at Lambeth is obviously connected to all this shit. When I worked as a builder, I was sent to the Hollies in Sidcup which was, I believe, owned by both Lambeth and Southwark, and we were aware of sex abuse in that home. Some of the workers told us builders about it. There was definitely dodgy stuff going on there.”

Both Roy and Geoffrey Bacon regaled their own version of the events of the evening of 31 July 2008.

Geoffrey was upset with the fact that he had made a statement which he was not at all happy with now that he was not under the influence of alcohol and now that he had had time to reflect. He decided that he wanted to make a second, more thorough statement. He has given his permission for his second statement to be reproduced in its entirety here:

“…Statement from Geoffrey Thomas Bacon

My name is Geoffrey Thomas Bacon.

I have known Mr Brian Pead of 89 Days Lane, Sidcup, Kent, DA 15 8JP for approximately 18 years.

I have known him in many different social situations, including when we were both members of Sidcup Round Table. Each year Sidcup Round Table organised an event called Marafun, which raised money for charity and this event involved contact with all members of the public and all age groups.

At no time did I, or other Round Table members, have any cause for concern regarding Brian’s behaviour around young people or especially young women.

I have also observed him at parties, in the pub and other social events and have never had any cause for concern.

On the night of 15 May 2008, Brian came to my house and we went on to the internet together. Brian did not have the internet as he had given it up, as well as his BT landline.

During our time online, Brian and I were having normal conversations with one or two people. At some time during that evening, Brian received an Instant Message from somebody claiming to be 14 years old.

Brian was at the computer, and I was sitting on my bed drinking a cup of tea. After about ten minutes, Brian turned to me and said, “I’ve been contacted by someone claiming to be 14. It clearly isn’t a 14-year-old, but she - if it is a ‘she’ - came into an adult chatroom and claimed to be after money. Let’s string ‘her’ along and have a laugh.”

After a few messages, Brian then turned to me and said, “This is clearly not a 14-year-old sending these messages, but an adult.”

I asked him what made him think this and he replied, “Because the profile is clearly fake, it’s just a photograph with no text, and because of the language the person is using.”

He then said to me, “This weirdo can just fuck off, pretending to be 14 and pretending to be after money for sex.”

After a couple more minutes, Brian logged off MSN, saying to me, “I’ve had enough. I don’t want to use this anymore. During all my research, I’ve come across a lot of weirdos and potential paedophiles on MSN and on Faceparty and I think it’s very scary. I want nothing more to do with it, and I certainly won’t be going into chat rooms again.”

Since the accusation, I have still had Brian round my house, both for social and practical reasons and I have no reason to believe the accusations brought against him.

He has used my computer to write letters for job applications, but he has not accessed the internet or chatrooms.

On 31 July 2008 I had a visit from police claiming to be from the Paedophile Unit, at about 6.30/7pm. They had a search warrant and a notice to seize my computer in respect of the allegations against Mr Pead.

After letting the police in, and telling them they can have the computer because they will find nothing on it, I then undid all the connections to my pc, and went back downstairs. Julia Godfrey asked me if I would like to make a statement. I said I did not have a problem with that as I believe Mr Pead to be innocent of all charges.

Whilst under the influence of alcohol, I gave Julia Godfrey my statement, which I signed and kept a copy. I have since found out that it is improper of the police to extract a statement when they know the person making a statement is under the influence of alcohol.

The male officer - whom I believe to be Jason Tunn - said, “Do you realise the nature of the allegations against Mr Pead?”

I replied, “Yes, and I do not believe for one minute the allegations against him.”

One officer - I can’t remember which - asked me, “Do you know if Mr Pead was researching on the internet?”

I replied, “It’s nothing to do with me. What he does is his own business.”

My father replied, “He’s an author – he’s always doing research!”

In closing, I would say that over the years Mr Pead has been a good friend and someone who would help anyone who is in need of help…”

One point needs to be cleared up here – the issue of ‘research’. People who know Brian Pead know that he is a man who is always conducting research on a wide variety of subjects. If something or someone catches his imagination, he may well conduct research. But those who know him well wouldn’t necessarily call it ‘research’, they would say that it’s “Brian being Brian”. They accept him as a man who has a wide vocabulary, reads extensively and who thinks a lot about life and what it is to be human.

Thus when he was asked on 31 July 2008 whether Brian had been undertaking any specific research, Geoffrey Bacon said that he did not know of any research because in that moment, having had his dinner interrupted, being under the influence of alcohol and wanting the police to go, he was unable to immediately recall any. He accepted – like his father Roy – that, as an author, Brian was almost always in ‘research mode’. Once Geoffrey had had an opportunity for further reflection, he recalled the incident of 15 May 2008 (some two and a half months before the unlawful house search) in which he had observed Brian on Faceparty.

25

It is said that ‘Justice delayed is justice denied’, and the case against Brian for exposure was taking its time to be heard before a jury. On 7 July 2008 he had appeared at Bexley Magistrates’ Court and a date had been fixed for the trial at Woolwich Crown Court on 7 August 2008.

Before that trial, Brian decided to have a short break with his friend John Callow in the Forest of Dean, “a beautiful part of the country,” as Brian describes it. The two men – both counsellors – had been away on holiday together to Malta and they were both members of the Esporta gym just off the A20 in Sidcup. They enjoyed one another’s company and would often discuss many diverse topics, putting the world to rights.

The trip to the Forest of Dean was to be a back-to-nature camping holiday, though they did stay a night or two in a local bed and breakfast.

It was Brian’s intention to stay away until the 30 July 2008, but he returned early for a number of reasons. He needed to let off some steam whilst John Callow needed complete rest and time to think alone. The two men spoke about their differing needs as the holiday unfolded and took the mature decision for Brian to return to Sidcup so that John Callow – who was driving – could remain in the Forest. Maya Walker drove down to Gloucestershire to pick Brian up.

Upon his return, Brian found a letter dated 15 July 2008 from Laurie Smith of Nelson, Guest and Partners. Enclosed was a first draft of Brian’s statement in his defence against exposure. “…Please knock it into shape or make any amendments you think appropriate…” the letter urged.

Brian did, indeed, knock it into shape and made several important amendments.

There was a preliminary hearing on 7 August and he did not want to waste any time.

On 23 July 2008, Smith sent a further letter in which he said that he had a list of witnesses, but that he needed to know precisely what each witness could ‘bring to the table’.

On 24 July 2008, Bridget Mcguire, the Nurse Practitioner to Dr Scott at the Barnard Medical Practice in Granville Road, Sidcup, sent a letter to Laurie Smith in which she confirmed that Brian had attended Queen Mary’s Hospital in Sidcup on 8 May 2008 and that he received a diagnosis of gout.

On 4 August 2008, Laurie Smith wrote to Glen Meeking regarding his offer to attend court as a character witness (a) for Brian and (b) against the female students at 62 Days Lane.  

On 5 August 2008, Laurie Smith sent Brian a letter stating the following:

“…The proceedings themselves contain one allegation against you notwithstanding that the statements seem to cover a number of allegations. It follows that the one charge that you are now facing is that on 7 May you intentionally exposed your genitals intending that someone would see them and be caused alarm and distress. You will notice that no specific person has been mentioned although the complaint has originated from the girl students who occupied a property at that time diagonally opposite to your own property…”

Notice that once the rhetoric had been stripped away, there was only one allegation against Brian. This appeared to be similar to what occurred at Lambeth where many spurious allegations had been made, but once they had been stripped away, they boiled down to nothing.

Notice also that no specific person had been named, which was also similar to the events at Lambeth and was certainly a mirror of the incitement allegations because no-one had been named there because no-one ever existed – the ‘girl’ was a “fart in the wind” as Roy Bacon so aptly described it.

Laurie Smith continued:

“…All three witnesses do seem to graphically describe your alleged actions and therefore it must follow that there are three young ladies, probably without any previous convictions (although we will enquire about that) who apparently have very little reason to make up the allegation so therefore it must be considered to be a strong case against you…”

The letter continued:

“…However turning to the other side of the coin, we have the geography of the properties concerned which seems to be in your favour in that because of the height of the window sills it is difficult to understand how these girls could see from the distance involved (a) your genitals, (b) with your hand inside your trousers at night, sometimes in a darkened room, and (c) the evil expression on your face. I understand that the girls are drama students and it may be of course that they have exaggerated what they have seen out of all proportion or context as to what actually took place.

Also we have the point that there was scaffolding and noticeboard advertising the scaffolders, which would have been an impediment to an unobstructed view. Taking these matters into account and the height of the window sill which would come up to your waist it would be very difficult in my view for you to have exposed your genitalia unless you stood on a chair or some other object to bring yourself up above the window sill.

I wait to see the evidence of the surveyor who is going to deal hopefully with these matters and also with the projection of the adjoining house [Authors’ note: 87 Days Lane, the home of Glen Meeking and his family] beyond your building line which might also prove to be an obstruction at least to one of the windows.

You are a man without any previous convictions therefore your defence appears on the face of it to be strong too.

Now most cases of this kind are won and lost in the evidence given actually in the court. I have not seen the girls concerned and it may of course be that they will not be keen on giving evidence against you but we must work on the assumption that they will in fact give evidence although I am curious about the 4th girl who hasn’t apparently made any statement and this is something I will take up with the prosecution…”

Brian intended to maintain his plea of ‘Not Guilty’ and on 7 August 2008 he met Pamela Brain, of 1 Inner Temple Lane, the defence counsel arranged by Laurie Smith. He had chosen a female barrister so as to soften the impact of having defence counsel cross-examine three female students.

Pamela Brain met Brian at Woolwich Crown Court and she gave him a copy of the Defence statement she had made out. The defence statement denied that he had been watching Elizabeth McIntyre in the way that she had described, that he had had his hands down his trousers on 5 May 2008 and that he was naked and masturbating at his bedroom window on 7 May.

The defence statement also included the fact that he had a bad attack of gout on the evening of 7 May.

Pamela Brain also asked for the following disclosure:

(a) the Crime Proforma dated 8 May 2008

(b) a copy of the 999 tapes

(c) any notes dealing with contact between the police and civilian witnesses where the substance of the allegation was discussed

(d) whether any of the civilian witnesses have a history of mental illness or have made similar allegations previously.

 Note what she does not ask for: whether Christine Holloway, the fourth student living at 62 Days Lane, had ever made a statement. Just two days earlier, Laurie Smith had assured his client that he would enquire about that so it is difficult to comprehend why Pamela Brain would omit to ask for such a critical piece of disclosure. Furthermore, Pamela Brain failed to obtain copies of the 999 tapes that she said she would seek and nor did she obtain the notes dealing with contact between the police and civilian witnesses where the substance of the allegation was discussed.

On 26 August 2008, Laurie Smith wrote to Brian and informed him that the trial for exposure would take place at Woolwich Crown Court in the week commencing 2 February 2009.

In September 2008, Brian heard that Sub19, the sister charity to Off Centre, had lost its funding and been closed down. He lost contact, therefore, with all of his former colleagues in that organisation, though after a little research, he found that Matt Doocey (his former line manager at Sub19) had secured employment at The Tavistock clinic.

On 2 September 2008, Brian received a letter from Nicola Noone, Off Centre’s director of support services. He had written to the charity complaining of his unlawful summary dismissal and he also requested assistance from Off Centre confirming that he had taken Staff Training on 28 March 2008 on the subject of child sexual abuse.

Nicola Noone refused to co-operate. Her final paragraph read:

“…We are clear that Off Centre has responded to a most unfortunate situation fairly and sensitively with full consideration to due process. You have chosen not to progress an appeal in line with Off Centre’s Disciplinary and grievance procedures. Consequently our position is that you are an ex-employee whose contract and association with Off Centre, its work and its clients has been terminated as a result of gross misconduct…”

The self-styled ‘Support Services Director’ was not supporting Brian Pead, who had been summarily dismissed without being charged by the police. Furthermore, her letter is inaccurate because Brian had initiated an appeal, just as he had done so at Lambeth. His friends would corroborate this and also his lover, Maya Walker, who was now beginning to feel uncomfortable about working at Off Centre.

But this was not the end of Nicola Noone’s unhelpful attitude towards Brian. It should be pointed out that Off Centre was – at this time in its history – part-funded by Hackney Council and the Metropolitan Police Service.

In October 2008, John Callow – a counselling friend – visited Brian’s house with a sketch pad, camera and measuring wheel. He spent almost the whole day of available light taking the numerous measurements he needed in order to compile an accurate drawing of the area between 89 and 62 Days Lane, Sidcup. The end product was a set of professional drawings which were good enough to be entered as evidence in Court in support of Brian’s obvious innocence.

Between September 25 and 17 December 2008, Laurie Smith apparently fell ill and a different solicitor, David Sadeh, took over Brian’s case.

However, on 19 January 2009, just two weeks before Brian’s trial date, he received a letter from Sinem Ibrahim, a young female solicitor at Nelson, Guest and Partners. She had recently joined the firm. Notice the sleight of hand. Initially, Brian had been given a genuine old-school worldly-wise solicitor. He had ‘fallen ill’ and been replaced by a man whom Brian had never met, and then he, in turn, was replaced by the newest recruit to the company.

In her letter of 19 January 2009, she informed Brian that there was now to be a pre-trial review at Woolwich Crown Court on 26 January 2009. The police were certainly keeping his mind off Lambeth and his Appeal and they were certainly making him jump through a large number of hoops. The legal system of England and Wales – often put forward as ‘the best in the world’ - is easily manipulated by those employed in it.

Notice what Ms Ibrahim states in her letter:

“…The purpose of this hearing is for the defence and prosecution to highlight any outstanding issues to ensure that there no problems in respect of your trial. This is to ensure that your trial takes place on 2 February 2009…”

 This all seems straightforward enough, but as the events played themselves out, it was to prove far from straightforward. Skulduggery was being orchestrated, sleight of hand being administered and Brian’s human rights were being abused with every decision taken by the legal profession.

On 26 January 2009, Brian attended Woolwich Crown Court with Maya Walker. Sorrel Pead was no-where to be seen. She had long ago faded into the background.

Those readers who have a deep-rooted need to cling to the notion that the legal system in England and Wales is the best in the world, those readers who have a notion that the police force is one of the finest, and those readers who believe that barristers and judges are upright and honest citizens at all times would be advised to put this book down and cling to their beliefs.

Those readers who decide to remain with the book will hardly believe what occurs next in this most amazing of true stories.

26

With Geoffrey Bacon’s computer still in police custody (but no official chain of custody to prove that it had been seized), and with a trial for Exposure scheduled for February 2009, Brian was working hard to prove his innocence.

He knew that he had to secure as much help as he could and with this intention, he set about writing to Off Centre, who had unlawfully dismissed him on 13 June 2008.

He decided to write to the Clinical Manager, John Hilton. The American had recently joined the charity. He employed some unusual strategies with his staff which some found challenging and uncomfortable, but Brian felt that he understood what Hilton was trying to do.

He would frequently visit the office that Brian shared with Maya Walker, his lover, and Mark Elmer. It was in this office that the three counsellors would share information about therapeutic approaches and, of course, each of them would share personal information about themselves. John Hilton would randomly walk into the office and say things like, “Why is it that all sex offenders have been sexually abused, but that not all those who have been abused become sex offenders?” before turning on his heels and leaving the office.

He knew, of course, that this would provoke discussion amongst the staff and get them thinking about their own clinical practice. Brian admired this aspect of John Hilton’s character a lot, partly, it must be said, because he uses similar strategic devices. He will sometimes drop a ‘bombshell’ into a conversation just to see how people react. Their reaction – or lack of it – will tell him much.

Once John Hilton walked into the office and said, “Who wants to see my photos of cottaging?” and this, again, was just another device to stimulate discussion between the counsellors. (In the event, it turned out that he had actually once put on an exhibition of such photographs).

Brian decided that he would write to John Hilton, because he believed the Clinical Director to be more approachable and more ‘worldly wise’ than – in Brian’s view – the highly judgmental Administrative Director, Nicola Noone.

Taking this story as a whole, this letter is of great significance. We ask you to do two things when reading the letter: to pay regard to (i) the language and tone used by Brian Pead and (ii) to the information (the content) of the letter itself, to what has happened and to what has not happened.

“…Dear John,

Earlier this month, I wrote to Ms Noone with regard to two important issues. I have not yet received a reply. In an effort to avoid an escalation of this matter, I am now writing to you so that I have demonstrated my willingness to provide Management with an opportunity in which to reply and take appropriate action. Let me reiterate my request to Ms Noone.

1.               Under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (and notwithstanding my other legal entitlements) I am requesting a true copy (i.e. an unadulterated copy) of the two meetings which I had with yourself, Ms Noone, Maya Walker and myself.

Neither myself nor Ms Walker has ever received a copy of the notes which were taken in these meetings.

It is reasonable for me to expect to receive true copies of these meetings (or statements read out) by Wednesday 22 October 2008.

2. I want to know what has happened to all of the notes, records and files that I created on the work-station allocated to me.

Furthermore, should these notes and files no longer exist, I want to know who ordered the deletion of them, and when this was executed.

Again, it is not unreasonable of me to expect to receive this information by Wednesday 22 October 2008…”

In the circumstances, we believe that that was a respectful letter and an equally respectful tone that Brian had adopted towards an organisation which had unlawfully suspended him and unlawfully dismissed him.

However, it is the content of the letter that intrigues us the most. Under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, Brian asked for a copy of all of the Minutes created at the two meetings he had:

1.          his unlawful suspension and

2.         his unlawful dismissal

By law, Brian should have been sent these documents.

He then also sought clarity about all of his research which resided on his work-station which itself resided on the Off Centre main servers.

Brian knew that his directory on the main server (brian.pead) contained all of the research that he had undertaken on any psychological topic, but especially his research into child sexual abuse, and he also knew that his planning and Powerpoint presentation were sitting on the Off Centre server. Apart from a desire to ensure that he took possession of all of his research, he deliberately wrote this letter because he had ‘inside’ information from Maya Walker, who was still his lover at this point in his life.

Brian was unlawfully suspended (just as he had been at Lambeth) by Nicola Noone on 5 June 2008.

That same day, he asked Maya Walker to log on to the main server as if she were him, that is, of course, that she typed in his name and his password.

She did this.

Only to find that the entire directory “brian.pead” had been deleted.

This was an exact mirror of what occurred to him at Lambeth Council as the Head Teacher of the OLCVS pupil referral unit. He had been suspended on 8 December 2006 and in the following week his office had been ransacked and all his files, research and notes had been destroyed.

By writing to Off Centre and requesting this information, he knew he was placing them between a ‘rock and a hard place’. He knew they would never admit to destroying all his evidence and he knew they would never provide Minutes of the two disciplinary meetings because they did not exist.

And, of course, they never did admit to these crimes. We use the word ‘crimes’ advisedly and we use it because it is true – Nicola Noone gave instructions for vital evidence in a forthcoming trial to be destroyed, and this was in itself a breach of the Computer Misuse Act 1990, as well as perverting the course of justice.

But Nicola Noone had not completed her criminal activities – much worse was yet to come from her.

It should not be forgotten by the reader that during this period, Brian was not seeing his daughter or beloved grand-children. There was no support from the family quarter - Julia Godfrey had seen to that by telephoning Sorrel Pead and telling her that her father was a ‘paedophile’. Not only is Brian not such a person, but Godfrey’s description was inaccurate in any event. The term ‘paedophile’ refers to pre-pubescent children.

If this girl existed (which she didn’t) and if ‘she’ was 14, then one would expect her to have passed through puberty. The term for adults interested in children who have passed through puberty is ‘ephebophile’, from the Greek for ‘adolescent’ - ephebos.

The police and the government have created mass hysteria around the word ‘paedophile’. And while the mass of the population are looking over their shoulder to see if a paedophile is behind the next tree, the Government siphon off funds meant for social improvement into other ‘ventures’ or other ‘pockets’.

Between 15 October 2008 and 30 January 2009, Brian was unemployed and also on bail, being required to attend Charing Cross police station each month.

The police were determined to keep him busy.

On 30 January 2009, Brian attended Charing Cross police station. On this occasion, Marcia Weise was not present. Her place had been taken by a solicitor called Richard Jameson, whom Brian had never previously met.

It transpired that – after months of ‘investigation’ - the police had discovered that Brian had called the mobile number given to him by the alleged ‘girl’.

There was no evidence – it was just a claim by the police who were, by now, desperate to defame Brian because of his investigation into them.

Julia Godfrey was accompanied by a Richard Morgan. The interview was brief, and Brian denied calling the telephone number provided by the over-keen ‘girl’.

The interview became more and more farcical and Brian called a halt to it by asking to speak with his solicitor without the tape being played.

Richard Jameson was a worldly-wise solicitor and he was able to see that the interview was somewhat farcical and that the police were determined to ‘get’ Brian. He suggested that he issue a written statement and, when they returned to the interview room, Brian gives a ‘No Comment’ interview.

The statement read as follows:

“…In relation to the allegation disclosed to me on 30 January 2009 regarding a telephone call made to a number provided by ‘Shelly’, I previously gave a full account in relation to other associated matters, in interview under Caution, and I have no comment to make now, regarding any telephone call made on 26 April 2008, other than to state that I never made any telephone call (on any date) to any person known to me as ‘Shelley’…”

Brian signed the statement, dated it 30 January 2009 and Richard Jameson witnessed the signature. The two men returned to the interview room and the tape recording machine was started again. Within less than five minutes, the interview was over. Brian had answered ‘No comment’ to all of the police questions.

As authors, we wonder how many of our readers noticed that Richard Jameson had used two different versions of the name ‘Shelley’ in writing out the statement on Brian’s behalf?

27

The trial for alleged Exposure did not take place, after all, on 2 February 2009. It had been mysteriously adjourned at the last minute and he was, instead, called away to Charing Cross police station where he was charged with “...inciting a child aged under 16 to engage in sexual activity...”

Note that the age group has now changed from the earlier one of under-13 to this one of under-16.

Note that he has been charged with ‘Incitement’ and not an ‘attempt to incite’. This is of crucial significance, as will be discussed in a later chapter.

Note that he was first investigated in this matter as long ago as January 2008, though the authors believe he was under surveillance and a ‘person of interest’ even before that.

Article 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 confers the Right to a Fair Trial on defendants:

“…Article 6(1) In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law…”

The emphasis is the authors’. Regrettably, the Human Rights Act (HRA) does not actually specify what constitutes ‘a reasonable time’, but in practice it appears that most trials will be conducted within a few months and usually within a year of a defendant being arrested.

However, it is not widely known that the clock actually starts ticking not at the time of arrest as one might imagine, but from the moment that the police commence an investigation. The reason for this is, again, common sense. Were this caveat not in place, it could lead to all sorts of abuses of process.

On their own admission, the police had been monitoring Brian from January 2008. It was now February 2009 – some 14 months after they had first started their investigations (if we subscribe to their version of events). By charging him, the police were already dangerously close to a breach of the HRA because they would not be able to bring him to trial ordinarily for at least another two months, by which time the ‘reasonable time’ limit would surely be stretched beyond credibility and fairness.

But to return to the case for Exposure at Woolwich Crown Court.

Having been adjourned, it was re-scheduled for Monday 9 February 2009.

However, on Friday 6 February, Brian was required to attend Court for a last-minute hearing to ensure that both parties were ready to go to trial on the following Monday.

Brian attended with Maya Walker. Up until this stage, she been supportive and had taken a keen interest in the case. Being from Slovenia she was not too familiar with the legal system of England and Wales. She was also outraged about Elizabeth McIntyre, whom she had herself witnessed performing and putting on shows.

The prosecutor was Timothy Forster. The judge was Charles Byers. The defence counsel was Pamela Brain.

Being a self-proclaimed anorak, Brian started researching both the prosecutor and the judge. (He had already undertaken some research into Pamela Brain. He is a man who likes to be forewarned.)

Living in Kilburn, the 6ft 3in tall Forster, who described himself as ‘carrying some extra baggage’, had been practising at the Criminal Bar for 17 years. At the time of the trial he was 41 years old, married with two children. (The authors will spare their blushes by refraining from printing their names here.)

Timothy Forster was, in some ways, not unlike Brian Pead because he was an avid collector of music, especially from the USA in the late 1960s. He describes himself as ‘obsessive’. He also used to be in a band called ‘Gay Dad’, though elsewhere describes his sexual orientation as ‘straight’.

Forster describes himself as a music journalist, a record collector and ‘wearer of colourful clothes’.

A smoker and a drinker, the Piscean Forster also described himself as an agnostic white Caucasian. <source: www.myspace.com/timothy_forster>. The data in the above paragraphs was still valid as of 12 December 2009.

The Hearing itself was procedural. Judge Byers asked Forster, “Are your witnesses ready to go?”

“Yes, m’Lord,” replied the self-proclaimed obsessive music collector prosecutor.

“There are three female witnesses, Elizabeth McIntyre, Natalie Ryan and Katie Prouse?’

“Yes, m’Lord.”

“And they have been informed of the trial date and they are ready to attend on Monday?”

“Yes, m’Lord.”

“Apart from the police officer in the case, are there any other witnesses?”

“No, m’Lord,” responded the prosecutor.

“Well then, it seems to me that we are all ready to go. Can you assure me, Mr Forster, that your female witnesses are ready to go?”

“Yes, m’Lord.”

Note that judge Charles Byers asked the prosecutor on three separate occasions whether his female witnesses – the students who had lived at 62 Days Lane - were ‘ready to go’. On all three occasions, prosecutor Forster said that his witnesses had been given the date of the trial and that they were, indeed, ‘ready to go’.

Brian left the courtroom and found a space behind a pillar to gather his thoughts.

He could not be seen behind this pillar and before long he heard a familiar voice – that of Timothy Forster. He was speaking with DC Saib, the officer in the case.

 “So, where are the girls then?” asked Forster.

“In a hotel nearby,” replied DC Saib.

The fact that the females were nearby meant, of course, that the trial could go ahead on the following Monday.

The weekend of 7 and 8 February 2009 was naturally a tense one for Brian and his partner, Maya Walker.

On Monday 9 February 2009, the day of the trial at Woolwich Crown Court, Maya drove to the Court.

They parked a little way from the building and walked to the Court, crossing the busy dual carriageway.

They met Pamela Brain outside the court. After a brief exchange of pleasantries, she then led them into the courtroom.

Forster was there. Judge Byers was there. Pamela Brain was there (as defence counsel in the exposure case). Brian Pead was there. Maya Walker was there. Dominic Bell was there (as defence counsel in the incitement case). The Court usher was there. The Court clerk was there. The officer in the case was there.

The females were nowhere to be seen.

28

 Ordinarily, there would have been no case to answer because the females had not arrived at Court. On the previous Friday, Forster had assured Judge Byers that the females were ‘ready to go’, but they had not now shown up.

The trial had been deliberately collapsed to gain an unlawful advantage, there had been a deliberate abuse of process, and the police officer and the Crown were guilty of perverting the course of justice.

Katie Prouse lived in Plymouth and she had journeyed up from that city on Friday 6 February 2009 to attend the trial. Why would she do that if – as Forster lied to the Judge – the police had ‘got the dates wrong’?

This trial could have gone ahead in any event because it was not necessary for all three witnesses to be at the trial as the Crown claimed.

However, Forster and the officer in the case, DC Saib, the man who offered Brian a deal to accept ‘only a caution’ back in the police station at Bexleyheath on 20 May 2008, came up with a solution. Instead of natural justice taking place and Brian walking free, Forster and Saib concocted a plan.

“Your honour, if I might explain,” ventured Forster.

“Go on.”

“The police inadvertently gave the witnesses the wrong date, m’lord.”

“The wrong date? You told me only on Friday that they were ready to go.”

“Yes, I’m sorry m’lord. But the officer in the case put the wrong date on the letters that were sent out to the witnesses.”

“Well, I’m not very happy about this at all. It leaves me in a bit of a predicament.”

At this point, Byers consulted with the clerk to the Court. After a few moments, he looked up and said, “I’m going to give the prosecution one more chance. Can I have a date for a new trial?”

Clerk: March.

Forster: They won’t be able to make March, m’lord, because they are involved in a college production.

[Authors’ note: Research has shown that Natalie Ryan’s CV lists all of the productions that she has been associated with. She was not involved in any college production at the time Forster claims here – Judge Byers was misled.]

Byers: I should have thought they would want this case out of the way as soon as possible. [To the Clerk]. Please suggest a new date.

Clerk: April.

Forster: They won’t be able to make that because one of the girls is going on a cruise.

Byers: [Incredulously] Please provide me with another date.

Clerk: May.

Forster: They won’t be able to make that date either because they have their dissertations to finish and hand in.

Byers: Well, there is a date in the calendar of 27 May 2009 and they had better be ready for that trial.

That may well read as a sketch in a comedy, but it actually happened and the Court records (and the judge’s notes, as well as Pamela Brain’s notes) show that this farce actually played out in a criminal court in England in the year 2009.

Thus the prosecution had another bite of the cherry. We ask ‘Whatever happened to natural justice?’

Forster then attempted to pervert the course of justice again. (The authors invite a trial for Defamation.)

“The prosecution makes an Application for Joinder. Mr Pead has two defence counsel, Ms Brain and Mr Bell, and we see no reason for the public purse to be subjected to such expense. The Crown submits that the two cases are Joined and tried together and that the defendant has only one defence counsel for both cases.”

“Is the case for Incitement ready?”

“The defendant has been sending emails to several women…”

“Is the matter available to try?”

 “No, m’lord.”

“The second case is a bail matter and likely to take a while to come to trial. It won’t be fixed until about February 2010. Why is the Incitement case not ready for case management?”

“Well, m’lord, the defendant disposed of his laptop.”

Note that each time Forster is asked a reasonable and legitimate question by the judge, he fails to answer it and uses the questions to attempt to further defame Brian Pead. That he disposed of his laptop is not in question. That it contained child pornography is certainly in question because it did not. It had simply broken down beyond repair.

“Well, I have to think of these female witnesses. It isn’t in their interest to put off a trial until 2010. You won’t get an earlier case in London. It is not in anybody’s interest to try a matter of May 2008 in February 2010. What has occurred here today is appalling. I am not prepared to countenance it any further. The trial needs to be set for 27 May 2009. The defendant is entitled to closure in this matter.”

The emphasis is the authors’ – on 9 February 2009, Judge Byers declared in open court that it was not fair to the Defendant (Brian Pead) that this matter should be dragging on and that he was entitled to ‘closure’.

Prosecutor Forster’s Myspace profile declared himself to be obsessive, and it seemed an accurate description when he then mentioned the Incitement case, which he was to also prosecute.

He seemed to be trying the patience of Judge Byers.

“Are the CPS going to get someone to measure Mr Pead’s house? It seems to me that it ought to be done. Mr Callow has entered cogent and relevant evidence with scientific measurements … is anyone going to check these measurements on behalf of the Crown? Indeed, what are the CPS going to say to Mr Callow?”

[A pause for thinking time].

“The Incitement case can go back to Southwark,” said Byers. “The case is not ready. There should be a Section 39 Order for reporting restrictions.”

It can be seen from this exchange that judge Charles Byers is drawing the prosecutor’s notice to the fact that Brian Pead had instructed a former surveyor for British Telecom to visit his house and prepare a set of professional drawings which showed the height of the windowsills in Brian’s house, the (low) height of the ceilings, the distance between the two houses and the angle between the houses. All of these measurements had been meticulously drafted by John Callow, who had also taken a second set of photographs to go alongside those taken by Maya Walker.

Yet Byers mentions that the Crown Prosecution Service had not even asked the police to take their own set of measurements. The reason for this will soon become apparent.

Forster obsessively applied for Joinder. This is a legal term in which two different counts are put together (‘joined’) against a defendant. Forster was attempting to claim that there were two separate indictments against Brian and that because both of them were of a sexual nature against younger females, they should be heard together before the same jury.

Do not confuse the words ‘counts’ and ‘charges’. ‘Counts’ refers to the number of instances a person has committed the same crime – for example, a burglar might burgle three houses in one evening. The ‘charge’ would be burglary, but there will be three ‘counts’ of burglary (or three occasions on which the same crime was committed.)

Brian, however, had two completely separate ‘charges’ against him: one of exposure, the other of incitement. They are separate in law. The manner in which a defendant carries out each crime would be different – one would be that he exposed himself to real people, the other alleged crime is that he incited someone via the internet.

For good reasons, there are very strict rules around Joinder because it is obvious that this rule could be abused and a defendant might not receive a fair trial as the result of mis-Joinder.

The authors offer the following extract from Archbold by way of explanation:

“…Rule 14.2(3) of the Criminal Procedure Rules 2005, provides that an indictment may contain more than one count if all the offences charged are (a) founded on the same facts, or (b) form or are part of a series of offences charged of the same or similar character…” 

Put simply, this means that a single indictment (or charge) may contain more than one count if – and only if – each misdemeanour is founded on the same facts or forms part of a series of offences.

By way of example, if a person has burgled three houses, he may be prosecuted under one indictment of burglary but have to answer to three counts because all of the burglaries were similar in their execution and they formed part of a series of house break-ins.

However, if a man steals a television set from a shop, for example, and then steals a car in the street, it would not be right or proper to try these crimes under one indictment because the commission – or execution – of each offence is very different in nature. And they might not have formed part of a series of thefts because it is likely that the thefts were executed differently.

In this situation, the Crown Prosecutor was attempting to sway the judge into believing that Brian Pead had committed two offences - both of a sexual nature (it was alleged) – and that they formed part of a series of offences against younger women.

There was no validity to that argument, of course, because (if we accept that both offences actually occurred), one was perpetrated against a lone under-aged female on the internet, and the other was perpetrated against three 20-something females in the ‘real world’. Although both might be described as sexual offences (and this is precisely what the CPS wanted them to be seen as), the manner of committing each offence was vastly different.

Alive to the Criminal Procedure Rules, Judge Byers was not convinced by Forster’s arguments, stating quite forcefully that “they are wholly different allegations and the only reason to Join is to prejudice the Defendant.”

The emphasis is the Authors’. Judge Byers has explained that there is no legal basis for Joinder to be exercised, and if the two cases were to be joined, then it would prejudice the defendant. This was said in open court and before a witness – Maya Walker.

With a new date set for a trial, with the Incitement case being sent back to Southwark Crown Court, and with Joinder having been rightly refused on the grounds that there was “no common nexus (similarity)”, we now arrive at the reasons why the CPS wanted a delay and deliberately collapsed the trial. The trial transcript will show that the Crown had applied for Joinder with a separate Indictment of inciting a child to engage in some form of sex (not penetration).

The trial transcript will show that Defence counsel on the Incitement case (Dominic Bell) asked for the trial to be moved to a different court because there had been a newspaper report in the local press about the forthcoming Incitement trial. Strangely, there had been no such mention of the Exposure case in the local press for the reason that the females in the case (the alleged ‘victims’ did not want to be named.)

The authors imagine that some readers might well be thinking that all this could not possibly have happened, and, if that is the case, we refer them to the trial transcripts. We refer them to Brian Pead’s contemporaneous notes. And we suggest that they contact Judge Byers, Timothy Forster, Dominic Bell and Pamela Brain. We suggest that they also contact Sarah Morris, from 1 Inner Temple Lane, who deputised for Pamela Brain. And, of course, we suggest that they contact Maya Walker so that she can give them her own account of the farce that masqueraded as ‘the finest legal system in the world’.

Brian was so angry at the farce that he was moved to write a lengthy letter to Sarah Morris in which he stated that Forster and Saib had conspired to ensure that the females did not attend the trial because they sought Joinder, that he wanted his defence counsel to mount a legal challenge to the judge’s decision to proceed with the trial once the females had failed to show, that the police had failed to conduct an investigation and were merely relying on the ‘evidence’ of the three witness statements, that his defence counsel should inquire of the police the name of the hotel that Katie Prouse stayed at, that his defence counsel should write to Rose Bruford College in Sidcup to obtain written evidence that the students were, in fact, involved in a college production (as if this would be a reason to postpone a criminal trial), and that he wanted his defence counsel to contact Victim Support to inquire whether the females actually used their service (which we believe they would have done had they genuinely been ‘traumatised’ as they had claimed in their unsigned witness statements.)

In the event, his defence counsel did not act upon a single one of Brian’s legitimate and reasonable requests.

Having had the trial for Exposure deliberately collapsed when the alleged ‘victims’ failed to turn up in Court, Brian Pead was forced to attend Charing Cross police station on 16 February 2009 at 4pm.

He was formally charged at 16:07. The charge read:

“…Offender 18 or over cause/ incite a girl 13 to 15 to engage in sexual activity – penetration – SOA 2003.

Between 28 January 2008 and 8 May 2008 within the area of Central Criminal Court, London, being a person aged 18 or over, you attempted to intentionally caused or incited a girl aged 14, not reasonably believing she was aged 16 or over, to engage in sexual activity involving the penetration of her mouth with a person’s penis.

Contrary to Section 10(1)(a), (b), (c)(1) and (2) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003.

Contrary to Section 1(1) Criminal Attempts Act 1981…”

Ignoring the obvious grammatical flaws with regard to mixed tenses in the charge, the precise language of the charge is of great significance. The very section of the Act is also of great significance. The dates are of great significance.

On its face, the charge looks bad. This charge has been shown to dozens of people – every single one of them believed, when reading it, that a real girl existed, that she was 14 and that Brian had caused or incited this real girl to engage in sexual activity. This is the smoke and mirrors - the sleight of hand - as practised by the legal profession. There never was a girl and Brian always knew this.

Brian had thus been charged with something the police might well have charged him with on 4 June 2008 – some eight months earlier. He had not, in fact, incited anyone under 16 (or over 16) to engage in sexual activity, but the drama that was unfolding was taking the following course: in order to turn Brian’s attention away from the skulduggery at Lambeth, he was arrested for exposure and then incitement. The trial for exposure was collapsed – the Authors say deliberately – and the CPS applied for Joinder of two entirely different alleged offences. The incitement case had been sent back to Southwark and no doubt the CPS would re-apply for Joinder so that the same jury would hear such terrible things that were alleged to have occurred between a grey-haired middle-aged man and younger females. The Crown needed a conviction of a sexual nature against Brian Pead so that he would be discredited about his findings at Lambeth and on Faceparty.

But we must now examine – and examine very carefully – the charge sheet and the alleged offence.