THE TRUTH ABOUT BRIAN PEAD - PART TWENTY-FIVE

50

Brian walked back into the dock behind the glass and with a Serco guard present, the jury filed in.

Judge:        How do you find the defendant, guilty or not guilty of the                        charge of exposure?

Foreman:   Not Guilty.

Judge:        And how do you find the defendant, guilty or not guilty on                      the charge of incitement?

Foreman:   Guilty.

Judge:        And by what margin?

Foreman:   By 10 to 2.

The jury was thanked for ‘all their hard work’ and they filed out. Brian tried to make eye contact with them, but only two did so. Were these the two who knew him to be innocent?

The judge looked directly at Brian: “If you appeal, you will go to prison. If you continue to deny Count 2, I will send you to prison.”

Did you notice the less-than-veiled threat to Brian? It was bad enough, we believe, that Brian had been convicted of a charge which he could not be guilty of and – we believe – he had been convicted because of what Marcia Weise told him on 4 June 2008 (18 months previously!) : “You have out-stung a police sting operation and they will be out to get you.”

They had got him. He had been outmanoeuvred at every possible turn. Witnesses were not called. Witness statements were not signed. Trials had been collapsed. Disclosure had not been met. Perjury had been committed but not investigated. The criminal procedure rulebook had been thrown out along with the concept of British justice.

In trying to placate the angry Brian, Loraine-Smith said the following on the public record:

“…You didn’t turn up at Southwark to have a meeting. That is powerful mitigation. A non-custodial sentence would be conditional that you embark upon a treatment programme for sex abusers. If you continue to fight this claim, I will be forced to commit you to prison…”

We regard that as not only an improper threat by a Crown Court judge, but also a breach of Brian’s human rights. Any person has the inalienable right to continue to claim that they are innocent without being threatened with prison.

Outside, Brian discussed with Bell what had transpired inside the court room and particularly the grounds of appeal because Brian was still going to appeal, despite the threats made by Loraine-Smith.

Bell said, “He should have discharged the Jury because Count 1 was not guilty. He should have removed Count 1 and discharged the jury. The grounds of appeal are takeable. Pay close regard to what the Judge has said – he will send you to prison if you maintain your innocence. Your PLJ stays with the Prosecution. You must return here on 27 January 2010 for sentencing. You have 28 days from today to lodge an appeal, though you can appeal out of time up to a week late.”

Brian left the Court both angry and disconsolate. He had wanted to be acquitted on both counts because he knew himself to be innocent of both charges and because he wanted to speak with his daughter again and to hug his grand-children again; look into their eyes and see their souls; see their innocent smiles and hear their voices and learn about their dreams and their disappointments.

It had not been lost on Brian that the ‘verdict’ had arrived just before the doors were being closed for the Christmas break. It seemed to him – as it does to us – that this had been ‘stage-managed’ all along, just as it had been at Woolwich Crown Court in February 2009, and just at it had been at the Employment Tribunal when he took Lambeth Council to court in March 2008 for wrongful dismissal.

Brian began calling his friends. At 6.41pm he called Michael Bird who was in Prospect Close, Southend, Essex.

Brian: Hi Michael, I’m just calling to let you know the verdict.

Michael: Great! Not Guilty I take it?

Brian: No. On the Exposure case, not guilty ... on the Incitement case, Guilty by 10-2.

Michael: [Silence] No fucking way! That’s impossible. The Judge clearly said to the jurors that you could not be found guilty because there was no victim. That woman juror even asked him the question, “Are you saying that if there is no victim, then we can’t find him guilty?” and he said, “Yes, that is exactly what I’m saying.”

Brian: Well, it gets worse. When I return for sentencing on 27 January [2010], they said I must sign the Sex Offenders’ Register. The judge said that he would send me to jail if I continued to protest my innocence.

Michael: Under no circumstances must you sign that register, regardless if they send you to prison for years, you never sign to say you did something that you didn’t do.  It’s irreversible once you’ve signed and said you’re guilty.

Brian: Well, I am innocent, so I’m not gonna sign it. 

Michael: Brian, this will be a turning point in your life. If you do say you’re guilty just to stay out of prison, you will never be able to prove your innocence. But if you stick to your guns now, however difficult they may make it for you, you will always be able to look at yourself in the mirror.

Brian: Well, I want to be able to look at my grand-children and get the truth to them. I’m gonna write a letter to my daughter and put it through their letterbox tomorrow. As you know, my grand-children mean everything to me and they have to learn the truth. Whatever their parents have told them, it must be lies. I want them to grow up with the truth, not with lies.

Michael: Well, let them bring it on. It’s gonna be hard for you, but let them bring it on.

Brian: Ok. Well, I’ll call you again over Christmas. Take care, bye.

Michael: Yeah, good luck, bye.

 Between 23 December 2009 and 17 January 2010, Brian did not hear a word from either Dominic Bell or Angela Shaw. This is not only unprofessional, but also incredibly disrespectful. Whilst Brian had sacked Bell during the trial, there is no reason why Angela Shaw (of AA Mirsons) should not have contacted her client.

Brian felt strongly that corruption had taken place and we agree with that conclusion based on the evidence we have seen and our knowledge of his character.

He called Angela Shaw on 17 January and a meeting was arranged between her, Brian and Bell at Charter Chambers in John Street, London.

Brian secretly recorded the meeting. We believe that it shows that Bell was not ‘playing with a straight bat’ and that he was wholly negligent in his handling of this case to Brian’s detriment. We leave you, the reader, to reach your own conclusion.

The meeting commenced at 5.30pm. Note the time: it suggests that the meeting – held at the end of a day – was merely ‘fitted in’. A proper meeting had not been scheduled.