31
On 24 February 2009, Stephen Nelson, a partner in Nelson, Guest
and Partners of 80 High Street, Sidcup, wrote the following
letter to Brian:
“…As I understand the position, matters are
most unsatisfactory in that the Crown had told the court that all witnesses
were available for trial yet when the case was listed, this turned out not to
be the case. I understand there is a new warned list of 27 May 2009 … I
understand that you were quite understandably peeved about this matter no more
so I assure you than we are…”
Mr Stephen Nelson may well have been as peeved as Brian, but he
failed to bring these appalling instances of the perversion of the course of
justice to the attention of the appropriate authorities as his professional
duty required. He failed to act in the best interest of his client, and he
allowed a miscarriage of justice to take place.
On 27 February 2009 at 9:45am, Brian attended the City of Westminster
Magistrates’ Court (then housed at 70 Horseferry Road) with Maya Walker so that he could enter his plea of “Not
Guilty” to Incitement and the case be committed to Southwark Crown Court.
Notice how busy the authorities were keeping Brian at this stage. It
was just as well, one might imagine, that he was now currently unemployed because
the court appearances were coming thick and fast.
On the same day at 13:13, DC Godfrey added another entry to the CRIS live report. We reproduce it here:
“…On 16/2/09 at 16.07hrs Mr Pead was charged
with attempting to incite a child aged 14 to engage in sexual activity. He
replied, “I’m not guilty.” He was bailed to City of Westminster Mags on 27
February 2009…”
Notice the word child. It is clear from the wording of this charge
that the assumption to a casual reader of the charge is that a real 14-year-old
child exists. However, the police, the CPS and Julia Godfrey know that this child does not exist and that
the charge is ill-conceived on its face.
For further corroborative evidence to support our claim that Julia
Godfrey knows that there is no real child (and
therefore no crime) is by examining the previous entry in the very same CRIS report. Note carefully the word
child in that previous entry:
“…On 30/1/09 Mr Pead answered his bail. He was
further interviewed in the presence of his solicitor regarding a telephone call
made from his mobile phone to the number given by the ‘child’ on the chatlog…”
Did you notice the sleight of hand used by DC Godfrey? On 27 February 2009 at
13:13hrs, she puts the word child in quotation marks (‘child’) to indicate that
she knows that there really is no child.
Yet, at 13:15hrs (that is, just two minutes later), she does not put
the word child in quotation marks on the charge sheet. This is because she
knows that if she does place the word child in quote marks on the charge sheet,
then there is no charge. It is all smoke and mirrors.
Just two minutes. At 13:13, it’s ‘child’ and at 13:15 it’s child. A whole
world of difference to Brian Pead.
But the duplicity of this person calling herself DC Julia Godfrey knows no bounds because she adds a further
line to the entry at 13:15hrs – “He has been given bail with the condition that
he has no unsupervised contact to (sic) any child aged under 16 years.”
And then she adds the following line: “I today contacted his daughter
Sorrel, and advised her of this bail
condition.”
Notice that sleight of hand, too. We should ask ourselves what purpose
that telephone call served. By this stage, DC Godfrey knows that Brian has no contact with his
daughter or grand-children because of her duplicity. Although he was divorced
in 1983, Brian remained a ‘family’ man and friends often commented on his
devotion to his daughter, and then to her children. The police were out to
break Brian down psychologically, emotionally, financially and in any other way
possible. He represented a great danger to them. He was capable of ensuring
that several officers would go to prison. For this reason alone, he had been
deemed a ‘fixated threat’ who must be stopped at any cost.
DC Godfrey, of course, the woman who
told Geoffrey and Roy Bacon that their friend was a ‘paedophile’, also
worked hard on staff at Off Centre (principally Nicola Noone) and also on Sorrel Pead.
The police set out to defame anyone who seeks to undermine their own
criminal activity. It would have been easy for DC Godfrey to turn Sorrel’s
mind against her father because his daughter already had several reasons for
angst against her father. Furthermore, the conversation will have been “If you
have anything further to do with your father with such bail conditions in
place, we will have to inform Social Services and your children will be taken
away and placed in care.”
Sorrel Pead, due to the devious and cunning police
officers (it’s almost always a female officer who ‘befriends’ the family and
pretends to be their ‘friend who is only acting in your best interest’), had no
choice but to sever all contact with her father and focus on her children.
The police have no remorse for breaking families apart. The niceties
of human nature fall by the wayside in their cunning machinations.
But this chapter about the CRIS report is not quite finished. We will examine the
next entry made by DC Godfrey at 15:27hrs on 04 March 2009:
“…This investigation resulted from a police
operation whereby a covert internet investigator (CII) posing as a 14-year-old
female child interacted with the suspect via the internet. The suspect engaged
in overly sexualised chat with the CII, and offered them money to perform
sexual acts.
A warrant was executed at the suspects (sic)
home address and suspect arrested. He was subsequently charged with attempting
to incite a child to engage in sexual activity. This crime is now complete…”
This is, once again, false representation by Godfrey. Notice first how she does not use quotation
marks when using the word child. Notice, also, that she states what Brian had
told the police on 4 June 2008 – that he had known from the start that it was
not a child. He had also told his friend Geoffrey Bacon this fact on 15 May 2008, when using his
friend’s computer.
The suspect did not engage
in ‘overly sexualised chat’ with the CII – we have seen the transcripts and it
is obvious that he asked a number of questions about what services the person alleging to be the girl was
offering because he was ‘smoking her out’, knowing ‘her’ not to be a real
child.
Notice how DC Godfrey claims that a warrant was executed at Brian’s
address – it was not. The house search was illegal.
Notice, too, that DC Godfrey also claims that Brian was arrested – which is
true, but she fails to state why he
was arrested. The CRIS report is supposed to have this information added to
it, for obvious reasons.
Notice, too, that DC Godfrey claims that Brian offered money to perform
sexual acts. This is also untrue, as can be seen from the transcripts.
At 17:40, her supervising officer, DS Jason Tunn (the man who illegally seized Geoffrey Bacon’s computer) made an entry
into the CRIS report:
“…This suspect has now been charged and is
now within the court system. This report can now be closed accordingly…”
The man who had perpetrated criminal activity of his own was now happy
– it would seem – to allow an innocent man to be charged with a crime against a
girl when no such girl ever existed!
But if you now begin to feel that the completion of the CRIS report signals an end to the police corruption, you
would be very much mistaken.
It has only just begun. Brian Pead was about to embark upon a journey
which no innocent person should have to embark upon. But he was, however, not
alone … his beloved grand-children were also suffering because of his absence,
but at least he had them in his heart. It was a love which would ensure he had
the courage to fight institutionalised corruption not only inside the police,
but also within the judicial system.
32
With the deliberately collapsed trial for Exposure at Woolwich in the
Court of Judge Charles Byers, the trial was transferred to
Southwark Crown Court.
However, New Scotland Yard were keen to destroy Brian Pead because (i) he
had uncovered child abuse within Lambeth Council and (ii) he had uncovered illicit police
activity on the Faceparty website. From their perspective, he was a very
dangerous man. Throughout history, almost all Governments or their agencies
have gotten rid of or defamed people who speak out against them.
Many people are unaware that a considerable proportion of the stories
about crime that appear in their local (often free) newspapers actually
originate from the vast press office at Scotland Yard.
The Bexley Times dated 07 May 2009 carried the story below. We
will reproduce it here in its entirety and then discuss it:
“…A COUNSELLOR called Brian Pead has
appeared in court accused of offering to pay a 14-year-old girl for sex. Pead,
55, of Days Lane, Sidcup, allegedly tried to arrange the illicit deal while
chatting over the internet but she turned out to be an undercover policeman.
He contacted fake teen through a social
networking website and the conversation became sexually explicit as they moved
to MSN, it is claimed.
The grey-haired and suited defendant spoke
only to confirm his identity during a brief preliminary hearing at Southwark
Crown Court. Judge James Wadsworth, QC transferred the
case to Woolwich Crown Court for
legal reasons. The judge allowed him bail as before ahead of a hearing there on
May 27.
Pead faces a charge of inciting child sex
between January 28 and May 8 last
year…”
Notice the first line of the report. It has been deliberately written
this way to try to force the reader to believe that there is a real 14-year-old
girl. The first piece of information
that the reader sees is “14-year-old girl”. A seed has been sown. A false lead
in the reader’s mind is already being followed.
The article then provides Brian’s age (so that now the reader is
thinking ‘14-year-old girl, 55-year-old man – pervert!’) and also Brian’s
address (for all the people who like to go ‘paedo-bashing’.)
The use of the word ‘allegedly’ covers their backsides in claims of
defamation. But look at the second part of the second sentence – we will highlight
in bold the key words: ‘…but she turned
out to be an undercover policeman…’
Note that the author of the piece (a Scotland Yard press officer) appears not be able to make up
his/ her mind about the gender of the alleged undercover cop.
But the third sentence is of great significance in this story:
“…He contacted fake teen through a social networking website and the
conversation became sexually explicit as
they moved to MSN…”
The emphasis is ours. This clearly states that there were two distinct
steps in the first encounter between Brian and the ‘teen’:
1.
they spoke on a social networking website, and
2.
they
moved to MSN.
We will explain the significance of this two-step process in a later
chapter.
Notice that Brian Pead is described as ‘grey-haired’, which provides
the reader with an even better image of an older man.
But examine the final
sentence, because that, too, is of great significance:
“…Pead faces a charge of inciting child sex between January 28 and May 8 last year…”
A relatively short sentence, but full of errors in the game of smoke
and mirrors.
Brian Pead was charged with inciting child sex, even though there
never was a real person. Note that he was not
charged with an attempt to incite
child sex. From a legal perspective, this is of crucial significance.
But also note how the end date of 15 May 2008 (when Brian used
Geoffrey Bacon’s computer and had told the
‘girl’ “You are a fake!”) has been removed from the original data added by DC
Godfrey to the live CRIS report on the police national computer.
In a relatively short account of the court hearing, it is full of
inaccuracies which the average reader would never see unless they were familiar
with the man or the case.
But the police ‘dirty tricks’ campaign did not stop there. They
ensured that the account was put online and that, of course, opens the story
out to a much larger audience, many of whom use their anonymous status to post
all manner of defamatory and inaccurate comments.
We have seen several posts against this story shouting words like
‘Pervert!’ and ‘Monster!’ The posts are always left by anonymous people – how
brave of them – and these people include police officers.
33
The ‘obsessive’ (his own description) Timothy Forster made a second application for Joinder and a hearing was scheduled before Judge
Robbins. We cannot stress too
strongly that it is unlawful to join two such indictments and that Joinder had
been refused by Judge Byers on the grounds that there was “no common
nexus”.
In court were Forster, Bell, Julia Godfrey and Brian.
The judge explained that there were two indictments and he felt that
there was some overlap in dates – the females accusing him of exposure had
complained in May 2008 and there had been communication between Brian and the
‘girl’ in May 2008. For those not au fait
with the finer points of legal intricacies, these are not sufficient reasons to
try to join two entirely different cases to be heard before the same jury.
The judge then lied when he said in open court: “…Judge Byers, when refusing Joinder at Woolwich did not hear the merits of the
case…”
But Judge Byers had
heard and discussed the merits of Joinder and – having heard the lack of merits for
Joinder – he refused it. At this point in the hearing, Brian was aware of their
‘game’.
Forster claimed in his submission that Brian was
sexually aroused by the females living opposite him and that “this equates to
the sexual arousal he had when interacting with the 14-year-old girl on the
internet.”
Did you notice the sleight of hand in Forster’s submission? Brian had never been sexually aroused by the
females living across the road from him, and he had certainly never been aroused when interacting
with the person whom he knew not to be a teenager. But those in the legal
profession (which includes the police in our view) often make a statement with
such force that those listening to it believe it to be true.
Then Forster went a step further, claiming “…he had got
arrested and then he got rid of his
computer and a jury should know!” (Perhaps his self-description as an
‘obsessive’ is more accurate that we authors realised.)
Brian Pead did not ‘get rid of his computer’ because he had been
arrested by the Bexleyheath police on suspicion of exposure. He had disposed of
the laptop because it was broken (as we have seen in an earlier chapter) and
there were witnesses to this fact. Furthermore, he had disposed of it before he was ever arrested, a fact
which was actually corroborated by DC Peter Thompson of Bexley Police because when he (unlawfully) entered Brian’s
bedroom to take photographs of 62 Days Lane, Sidcup, he said that he had not
seen a laptop in a search of the house.
Playing the game of “I’m going to look as though I am on my Client’s
side”, Dominic Bell said, “The application is misconceived. The
two indictments are not based on the same facts, form or character. The ages of
the alleged victims are significantly different. A man said to be interested in
20+ year olds is not usually interested in under-aged girls. In both cases the
alleged conduct is different. The mode of commission of each alleged offence is
different. The only similarity is
that both cases involve a sexual element.”
Notice how Mr Bell uses the word ‘alleged’ for each point that he
makes until he states – as fact – “both cases involve a sexual element.” More
sleight of hand.
At this point, Dominic Bell relates the fact that a story about the
alleged incitement had appeared in the Bexley Times - a paper which Brian had
featured in on a number of occasions as a teacher, an author and as a Charity
fund-raiser.
Mr Bell states that “this story emanated from the
press office at New Scotland Yard. The journalist could relate
the story only if told to him by New Scotland Yard.”
In a previous Hearing at Woolwich Crown Court, the very same Dominic Bell had failed to apply for reporting
restrictions, so his righteous indignation against Scotland Yard is mis-placed. No client should ever believe
that their barrister is working in their best interest – it is simply not true.
Their allegiance is to themselves, the Court and then perhaps the client.
Timothy Forster claimed, “Mr Pead has an advantage with two
barristers, one for each case. This is a waste of public funds!”
Note that this entire farce has been a waste of public funds, just as
the deliberate collapsed trial at Woolwich had been. Forster took part in that grand deception.
Forster: “The CPS says that the age difference is important –
there’s 30 -40 years difference!”
Judge Robbins added to the farce that was playing itself out
– all made to give the appearance of
being a real encounter. “A renewed application is a rare beast. There is
some overlap with regard to dates. The matter came before Judge Byers because it was in a Warned List. He felt that
there should be no Joinder. He said that he was of the
mind that Joinder would be prejudicial
to the defendant, not in the interest of justice and for purely pragmatic
reasons he refused Joinder.”
This was a lie. Judge Byers had rightly refused Joinder because there was not a common connection
(‘nexus’) between the alleged crimes and also because it would be prejudicial
to any defendant to have one jury
hear two entirely different crimes based on sexual misconduct, particularly
when that defendant is a middle-aged man and the alleged victims (not that any
actually existed) are all considerably younger than him.
Judge Robbins then allows the two indictments to be Joined. Read
carefully his reasons:
“…These two matters
can and should be Joined in the interest
of justice. I think we should allow 5 days for the trial…”
And, in that moment, all the principles of the Criminal Procedure
Rules had been discarded.
Marcia Weise had been so right: “…You have out-stung their
sting operation and they will be out to
get you.”
34
Brian was pro-active and on 8 July 2009 he fired off an email to his
solicitor, Angela Shaw. It is reproduced below:
“…APPEAL
application
Dear Angela,
I trust that you’re
well.
Since the Judge at Southwark decided to join
the two cases together, I have had a number of conversations with a good number
of my friends, colleagues and associates.
Every single one of
them has ‘protested’ at the Judge’s decision because of its lack of ‘fairness’ -
joining the two cases together prejudices me in no uncertain terms and flies in
the face of fairplay and justice. Since
it is also completely obvious that the ‘Paedophile Police’ charged me on the
basis of me having already been charged for a ‘sexual’ offence, it would seem
that my friends are right in their assertion that this is not fair at all.
Bearing this in
mind, I would like to enter an Appeal against the Southwark Judge’s decision,
and to start the process with immediate effect.
No doubt you will
need to revert to Dominic, so I look forward to hearing from you in due course.
Kind regards…”
She sent back the following reply on the same day:
“…Dear Brian
I am well thank you.
I agree with you entirely. I was shocked to
learn that both cases had been joined. I have forwarded a copy of your email to
Dominic who will look into and let me know.
On another point, I’ll be away from 13 to 17
July so if you have any other queries, please get them in, if you can before
the end of the week.
Kind regards…”
It must be recorded that Dominic Bell failed to initiate an Appeal against Joinder and that Angela Shaw failed to follow up on these emails upon her
return from holiday.
You might like to ask yourself why Brian’s legal team had been so
negligent.
Angela Caroline Shaw (Solicitor
ID: 349377) undertook her legal training at the University of Westminster in
1997, where she undertook an LLB (Bachelor of Law) before undertaking her LPC
(or Postgraduate Diploma in Legal Practice) which is the final vocational stage
for becoming a solicitor in England and Wales.
In September 2005 she began
working at Elliott Stern solicitors in north London. On 1 November 2005 she was
admitted on to the register of solicitors. Ms Shaw left in May 2008 and then
started work at AA Mirsons Solicitors in Temple Chambers in EC4 in June 2008,
the time of Brian’s arrests.
Ms Shaw, who describes herself
as a ‘criminal defence advocate’ on LinkedIn, became a Higher Rights advocate in
November 2009 and a team manager in December 2009. We pose the question: “Did
she achieve these promotions on the back of Brian Pead’s trial?” We ask this
because she only attended the trial on one occasion, she failed to call
witnesses in Brian’s case and she also failed to enter 125 exhibits into Court.
In January 2012, she commenced
work at Leslie Franks Solicitors in Camden. As of May 2013, she was listed on
the City of Westminster duty solicitors list for the extradition rota.
35
Now that he was unemployed and with no income other than State
benefits, Brian decided to rent out his house and find a room elsewhere. He
approached three estate agents and one, Belvoir! in Station Road, Sidcup, were particularly
keen to find him tenants.
In June 2009, Richard White, manager of the Sidcup branch
of Belvoir!, called round to Days Lane, and
informed Brian that he had ‘the ideal tenants’. It transpired that White had
four female tenants on his books who were all drama students at Rose Bruford (the very same college that the females at 62
Days Lane in the Exposure case apparently attended) and living in the Halls of
Residence at the University of Greenwich in Avery Hill Road. Richard White was keen to place these females within Brian’s
house, but Brian was not particularly interested because of his experience with
the female tenants at 62 Days Lane. White, however, was almost desperate to place four females in
the house and said that the student nurses had paid their deposit and that
their parents would act as guarantors and underwrite any losses.
Against his better judgment, Brian accepted the contract. He met with
the parents of the students and the students themselves with Maya Walker – his lover – present. A DVD was created of
the property. Brian continued to put some finishing touches to his
almost-completed refurbishment programme prior to the females moving in. He
also sought a room to rent in a house in Eltham.
During the week commencing 13 July 2009, two of the females began to
move in. Thus Emma Jesse Catalan and Joanne Warrener became tenants at 89 Days Lane. Jennifer ‘Jenny’ Campbell and Liz Essex were still on holiday and thus did not move in
at this time.
On Saturday 18 July 2009, Brian walked from his room in Eltham to
Avery Hill Park to read the paper before moving on into Sidcup to view a
possible new room in a road off Days Lane. He viewed the room and then walked
along Days Lane in the direction of Welling to visit an internet café run by
Darren Worton. He spent four hours there
preparing a manual for the students which covered all aspects of how to run the
house and conducting research into his criminal cases.
He then received a text from his lodger friend, Marek Trefny, an intelligent Czech. The
two men had only recently met at the house in Eltham and became friends. Marek
invited Brian to the pub for an evening meal.
Brian left the Internet café and walked along the entire length of
Days Lane towards the 286 bus stop in Halfway Street, Sidcup.
What happened next is so extraordinary that we have decided to
reproduce an almost minute-by-minute account of the extreme brutality.
Saturday 18 July 2009
11:00 Brian left new place of residence
Walked to Eltham High
Street
Sat in Avery Hill Park
reading newspaper
12:00 arrived at 1, Hambledown Road, Avery Hill to view a possible
new room
13:00 left 1, Hambledown Road
walked to Internet
Cafe, Welling
13:41 phone call from Maya Walker
13:50 arrived at Internet cafe
did research on cases
sent emails
17:50 left Internet cafe
walked along Days Lane
to 286 bus stop
18:23 noticed a grey-haired PCSO coming out of a house at end
of Days Lane and getting on his bike
18:25 arrived at 286 bus stop in Halfway Street, Sidcup
sat down
18:30 bus arrived
simultaneously the
PCSO arrived said, “There has been an incident at 89 or 91 Days Lane today and
the police need to speak with you in relation to the incident.”
Brian P: What kind of incident? And how do you know who I am?
PCSO: I don’t know what kind of incident.
BRIAN: Are you arresting me, or stopping me or what?
PCSO: No, none of those. I have been asked to tell you that you are
wanted for questioning regarding an incident at 89 or 91 Days Lane today.
That’s all the information I have. Do you live at 89 or 91 Days Lane?
BRIAN: No.
PCSO: The officers should be here in about one minute.
Brian uses his mobile phone to call Maya
Walker, his lover. BRIAN gives Maya Walker the
PCSO’s badge number, and leaves his mobile on.
About 15 minutes later another 286 bus arrives and leaves.
At approximately 6:40 a police car arrives. It is unmarked, except for
the ‘Metropolitan Police Safer Neighbourhoods’ sticker affixed to the
side. [Authors’ note: This is an oxymoron given the events that were about
to unfold.] Two officers get out, along with a second PCSO, a much younger
male.
With his mobile phone still on and with
Maya Walker still listening in and taking notes, BRIAN
gives her the numbers of the two officers. The taller and slightly older
officer, who Brian later knew to be the ARRESTING OFFICER [AO]and RY166 spoke
first. His colleague, about 28-35 and shorter was identified as
RY562. This officer was particularly vindictive, Brian later learned.
AO: Can you identify yourself?
BRIAN: I’m Brian Pead. What do you want with me?
AO: Can you tell me your bail conditions?
BRIAN: What is the point of this and what do you want with me?
AO: You have broken your bail conditions by not continuing to stay at 89
Days Lane.
BRIAN: I do not believe that to be true.
AO: When were you last in Court?
BRIAN: Around May/ June this year.
AO: You were in Court on 18 June 2009 and a condition of your bail was
that you must always reside at 89 Days Lane.
BRIAN clarifies this for MAYA WALKER -
that the officer is telling him that he has breached his bail conditions and he
has informed the officer that he does not believe that to be the case.
BRIAN: I do not believe that to be true and I want time to check
with my solicitor. [into phone]
Maya, please check with my solicitor for me. Can you call them now please
while I wait?
AO: I am arresting you for breaking bail. Anything you say [etc]
RY562: Give me the phone!
BRIAN: [Holding phone away from his
lunge and high into the air] No, I’m awaiting confirmation from my
friend who is calling my solicitor.
RY562 lunges at Brian in an attempt to
grab the phone.
BRIAN instinctively brings up his right arm to protect his face.
Both AO and RY562 man-handle Brian, grab the phone, grab his laptop bag; each
officer takes an arm and pushes it far up his back.
BRIAN: I am making you aware that that hurts and you shouldn’t be
using excessive force on me.
RY562: You just elbowed me in the face and you’re resisting arrest!
BRIAN: I am not resisting arrest! [This was definitely heard by MAYA WALKER on mobile phone]
AO: You just punched me in the face and you’re resisting arrest!
Brian is handcuffed, both arms behind
his back and feels a punch/ knee/ truncheon in his lower back. The cuffs
are far too tight and RY562 continues to force the arm higher up Brian’s back,
despite it being handcuffed.
BRIAN: [staying calm] I am informing you that I have not resisted
arrest and the handcuffs are far too tight. Please slacken the cuffs now.
RY562 frisks Brian. Finds nothing. The CPSOs search his laptop bag
on the pavement by the bus stop.
Both the AO and RY562 push Brian against
the glass back wall of the bus shelter and then force his face even harder
against the glass.
At this point a woman known to Brian as
Adrienne drives up the dropped kerb and across the
pavement next to the bus shelter and on to her front drive. With Brian’s
face continuing to be pressed against the glass back wall of the bus shelter,
he sees her drive up to her house.
Also at this point, another 286 bus comes along. Cars slow down and shout
abuse at the Police for their brutality. One driver shouted, “Fucking cunts!”
AO [to CPSO] Get that driver’s plate. We’ll follow that up later.
AO: As you’ve resisted
arrest, I’m calling for a van to take you to the station.
Brian continues to complain in a calm yet assertive manner about the
excessive use of force and the use of handcuffs. Brian also complains
about the tightness of the handcuffs and
requests from both officers separately that they either remove the handcuffs
completely or slacken them off so that they do not cause him injury.
RY562: Only the Arresting Officer can do anything about the cuffs.
BRIAN implores the PCSOs to do
something, but they say nothing and look away.
BRIAN repeats that he is no threat and that he willingly co-operated by waiting
for the officers to arrive so that he might answer their questions.
A van
arrives. Brian is roughly man-handled into the back of the van. There
is little space in the back. It has a male driver [bald, around 40] and a
female escort [blonde, 35-45]. BRIAN later learnt that this woman was known as Constable Edwards. The AO sits behind them.
BRIAN is driven to Bexleyheath Police Station along an extremely
convoluted route.
Eventually, upon arriving in the car park at the rear of the Police Station,
the female escort - Constable Edwards - gets out and opens
the door.
BRIAN: The cuffs are too tight and I want them removed.
There is no reason for me to be handcuffed any further. I have not
resisted arrest and I can hardly escape, being surrounded by all these police
and 15 foot high walls.
CE: [extremely sarcastically] Aaaah, are they too tight for
you? O well....
BRIAN: I want the handcuffs removed. I am offering you no physical
threat whatsoever and I can’t see the need for cuffs when I am in the back of a
van and in the back yard of a police station with walls fifteen feet high.
CE: I can’t take the cuffs off, only the AO can and he’s not here.
BRIAN: Where is he then?
CE: I don’t know.
BRIAN: Can you not go and get him then?
CE: No, I don’t know where he is.
BRIAN: Well, he can’t be very far.
CE: I can’t take off the cuffs. [Closes back door of van and goes back to sit in front of van]
It is now 19:15. There is no sign of anything happening.
At approximately 19:25 CE opens the van door and tells Brian to get out and sit
under the porch which covers the rear door to the Police Station.
BRIAN: The cuffs are far too tight. Please remove them or loosen them.
CE: [again very sarcastically] Awww, they still too
tight? No, I’m not taking them off.
Brian
sits on a chair outside of the rear door to the Police Station.
At approximately 19:30:
BRIAN: I need the toilet.
CE: I’ll have to see about that.
The
AO and RY562 come out. The AO takes the cuffs off. RY562 manhandles
Brian.
BRIAN: Please take your hand off me. There is no need for
you to hold me.
RY562: Are you going to behave this time?
BRIAN: [Pauses ... thinking time about how best to respond]
RY562: [shouting] Answer me! Are you going to behave this
time?
BRIAN: Please don’t shout at me. I was going to answer, but you
didn’t give me a chance. [Slight pause] I am going to behave as you
put it and I have always behaved. I co-operated by waiting with the CPSO.
BRIAN is led to a cell. The
handcuffs are taken off in such a way to inflict more pain. This process
lasts approximately 1-2 minutes and is deliberately prolonged.
Brian urinates. Asks where the sink is to wash his hands.
Both AO and RY562 cannot find one. Eventually BRIAN uses the sink
opposite the entrance to the cell.
AO puts handcuffs back on, this time in front.
Brian taken back to chair in porch outside rear door. The driver
of the van and his female escort [CONSTABLE EDWARDS] are nowhere to be seen,
but the tyre to their van is being pumped up. The AO and RY562 are present.
At approximately 19:50 the Desk Sergeant [RY7] comes out and speaks with
Brian.
DS: Please confirm your name, date of birth and your place of
residence.
BRIAN: Brian Pead. 12 June 1953. 182 Eltham Palace Road,
Eltham.
DS: Do you know the full postcode?
BRIAN: Sorry, I don’t. I’ve only just moved there temporarily.
DS: How long do you expect to live there?
BRIAN: I don’t know. I just went to view a new room today and
so I don’t know yet. I’m considering my position.
DS: OK. Well, I have checked out your bail conditions on the Police
National Computer and it does not say you have to stay at 89
Days Lane, so you have been wrongfully arrested and you are free to go. Because
you have not actually entered the police station and been processed, there will
be no official record of this, but I am making up a Custody Sheet.
BRIAN: I’ll need a copy of whatever it is you’re recording.
DS: That’s fine.
The AO gives the DS the serial number of
the handcuffs he used and explains that they were used behind the back.
BRIAN: [to DS] I need a word with you in private.
BRIAN: I informed the officers all along that they were wrong to
arrest me and that the information they claimed to have was wrong. I was
on the phone to a friend to check out the details via my solicitor but these
officers used excessive force and wrongly arrested me and searched my bag and
confiscated my mobile phone.
I wish to make a formal complaint.
DS: If you wish to make a formal complaint, you will have to go to the front
desk.
BRIAN: I’ll do it via my solicitor on Monday. However, I want you to
record my verbal complaint on that sheet.
DS: Yes, ok.
BRIAN: Two more things. (1) I want a full copy of that written
record and (2) I’d like a lift back.
DS [to AO, RY562 and both PCSOs] Can you give him a lift back?
AO: Yes.
Brian checks his laptop bag - it has no
laptop in it - to see if his wallet and mobile phone are there. The bag
contains a bottle of water, a half-full bag of peanuts in the shell and various
papers which form part of his research. It is obvious from even a cursory
glance that his wallet and laptop bag have been rifled through, since some things
are not in the same position as he left them.
BRIAN confirms to the Desk Sergeant that his wallet is there and also his
mobile phone.
BRIAN tells the Desk Sergeant that he has not thoroughly checked to see if
anything is missing or if anything has been planted.
BRIAN gets into the police car - the same car as they drove up to the bus
shelter in.
The Arresting Officer drives; the PCSO (RY7214) sits alongside. BRIAN
sits behind the PCSO and RY562 sits behind the driver.
No words are exchanged except for the AO asking BRIAN where he’d like to be
dropped off.
BRIAN initially tells him “Eltham Palace Road”, but then changes his mind and
says “Old Farm Avenue, Sidcup”. (BRIAN has a friend, John Callow, who lives there. Brian thinks it
would be sensible if he takes photos of Brian’s injuries.)
The right wrist in particular is swelling up. There are deep ‘rings’ cut
around the whole wrist and they are very red.
The hand is extremely hot, and BRIAN cannot make a fist.
There are also marks on BRIAN’s left wrist, though the injuries are not as
severe.
BRIAN has a good deal of pain in his lower back, and at the elbow joints and
his shoulders.
The police car pulls up in Old Farm Avenue. Just as BRIAN is about to get
out, the AO speaks.
AO: Erm, just before you go, I want to say sorry for your wrongful
arrest. I was acting on information about you which turned out to be
incorrect.
BRIAN: What was this information and where did you get it?
AO: Erm, just that you had broken your bail conditions. I got
the information from the PNC (the Police National Computer).
BRIAN: [recognising that this is clearly another lie because the Desk
Sergeant had already told Brian that there was no such bail condition, and that
Brian was free to go, wishes to give the AO another opportunity to speak the
truth] The PNC?
AO: Yes, the PNC. [He repeats his lie]
BRIAN: [getting out of car] Goodnight gentlemen.
Brian walks down Old Farm Avenue to JOHN
CALLOW’s house. His lover, Maya Walker, is already there.
Several photographs are taken of Brian’s injuries.
After a cup of tea at John Callow’s house, Maya
Walker drives Brian back to the bus stop in Halfway
Street, Sidcup where Brian was arrested.
BRIAN calls at Adrienne Tear’s house and asks her what she saw.
AT: I saw the police use
excessive force on you. You didn’t resist arrest. You appeared calm to
me. I called my daughter to watch from my front window. It’s
disgusting. We are both prepared to write a statement about what we
saw. I will have them typed out and ready for you to collect on Monday.
Maya Walker then drives Brian to the Accident and Emergency
Department at Queen Mary’s Hospital, Sidcup.
BRIAN is seen by a female wearing a dark blue uniform. He informs her
that he has been wrongfully arrested by the police and that he was physically
man-handled with the use of excessive force.
She examines Brian’s wrists.
She takes his blood pressure on 3 separate occasions. It is very
high. “It’s only to be expected after your trauma.”
She tells Brian that he needs to be seen by a doctor because of the police
involvement.
Brian is examined by a male Doctor.
Dr: What injuries do you have?
BRIAN: Both wrists - particularly the right one. My arms are painful where
they were forced up my back. My kidneys/ lower back is very painful. I
think it was punched, or a knee or truncheon was jammed into my back.
Dr: You will need X-rays on the wrist and you need to provide a urine
sample for traces of blood.
Brian has X-rays. No fracture.
Brian provides a urine sample - no blood.
Brian goes back to doctor.
BRIAN: [to Doctor] I’d like a copy of these notes for my personal
records.
Dr: We send a copy to your GP, so you need to apply to him/ her for a
copy. We will also send a copy to the police if they request it.
Brian leaves hospital at approximately
9.30
Monday 20 July 2009
Brian visits Adrienne Tear’s house and collects statements from her
and her daughter.
Statement 1:
I
arrived home on Saturday just before 6.30pm and noticed a police officer on a
bike talking to a man at the bus stop outside my house.
I went into the house and 2 minutes later looked out of my bedroom window to
see that there was now 4 police officers and a police car (but it was not a
squad car) outside and they had a man handcuffed behind his back and were
pushing him against the glass on the back of the bus stop.
The man was not putting up a fight and did not look like he wasn’t
co-operating, but one particular police officer was being very rough with him
and holding his arms tight back, even though they were handcuffed.
Another police officer then went through his pockets and brief case in full display
of the road/ houses and emptied everything out.
As I was getting ready to go out, I didn’t continue watching anymore, however,
Mr Pead saw that somebody was watching and came back later to show us his
injuries inflicted, which he then felt needed hospital treatment.
The handling from the police officers did seem very extreme considering Mr Pead
was surrounded and also handcuffed and I am therefore registering a formal
complaint.
Miss Victoria Tear
Statement 2:
As
I was driving home just before 18:30 on Saturday evening, I turned into my
drive at 253 Halfway Street to witness a commotion at the bus stop outside my
house.
A number of police officers were treating a man very harshly and pushing him
forcibly against the glass bus shelter. He was outnumbered by about four
officers to one man, and in my view the nature of the restraint used against
him was completely unnecessary.
I am therefore registering a formal complaint against your officers for the
very rough handling of Mr Brian Pead, who called at my home later in the
evening to show me his injuries.
Mrs Adrienne Tear
So, just four months before two criminal trials, Brian was
unceremoniously beaten up by four officers from Bexley Police. These officers are paid by
the taxpayer to uphold the law – but
all four of them broke the law.
However, whilst Brian was held in the back of a van at Bexleyheath
Police Station, other officers were at 89
Days Lane, informing his tenants that he “...is a dangerous sex offender and
you should leave this house immediately…”
They moved out the next day.
Did you notice that sleight of hand? This is how the police tactics
work:
(i)
arrest Brian and beat him up before his trial
(ii)
tell his tenants to leave and run him out of
money
(iii)
cause him as many problems simultaneously as
possible
(iv)
have a police presence in the neighbourhood in
order to turn his neighbours against him
(v)
defame Brian at every possible opportunity
(vi)
cause him disruption before his trial
And, of course, all this deceit and corruption is being paid for by
the taxpayer and real criminals are left free to commit their crimes.
Do you really want such a police force? If not, what are you going to do about it?
Now, Brian was beaten up by four officers and had his tenants leave
his house.
And if that were not enough, now read the following text exchanges
between Brian and his daughter, Sorrel:
July 22, 2009 at
11:59
“...Hi. I hope
you’re feeling better and the kids are doing well. I thought you should
know that I was arrested and roughly treated on Saturday night while at bus
stop in Halfway Street. I have witnesses to police
brutality. I went to hospital. Just so you know what is REALLY going
on. Love to all...”
Notice the reply
that he received:
July 22nd 2009 at 19:14
“...What exactly were you doing then to
warrant being arrested? ...”
July 22, 2009 at 19:38
“...Nothing at
all. The police admitted it was a false arrest. Solicitor said open and
shut case of abuse. Two members of the public have made official complaint
about police brutality...”
July 22, 2009 at 19:56
“...To clarify, I was sitting on my own,
minding my own business waiting for the 286 bus when 4 police surrounded
me. They later admitted at Bexleyheath that it had been a false arrest...”
July 22, 2009 at 20:01
“...How’s the other court situation going?
Any news?...”
July 22, 2009 at 20:14
“...Trial
postponed after police tried to blacken my name by putting article in local
paper. Moved from Woolwich to Southwark in December. Am working hard
on my defence, but it’s difficult without a computer. Look up my
barrister, DOMINIC BELL and the Orpington postman...”
The authors
believe that no real comment is necessary here because, we believe, the texts
speak for themselves.
Brian received no
enquiry from his daughter about his condition after he told her he had been to
hospital, that he had been beaten up by the police, that he had no access to a
computer, that he was working hard on his defence to two criminal trials and
that he was innocent. Sorrel Pead offered no assistance. She had other
plans and was busy preparing to change her name by marrying the father of her children
in Barbados. Her father was not invited to the wedding.
The authors wanted
to approach Sorrel Pead (now Sorrel Birch) but on 1 November 2011 at Bexley
Magistrates’ Court, Brian was ‘found guilty’ of the
harassment of his own daughter by sending her a letter about police corruption
and of his grand-daughter, Emily, then aged 12, by sending her a
birthday card.
There was no trial
bundle in Court. No evidence against him. Neither
Sorrel Birch nor Emily Birch were in Court to give evidence – but
still Brian was dragged from Belmarsh Prison (where he had been incarcerated on an
unfounded allegation of the witness intimidation of Emily Birch who has never been a witness in any case
at all) to be found guilty of a crime which he was never guilty of.
But this is all
part of the overall police strategy – it was well-known that Brian had forged a
great relationship with his grand-children. His daughter claimed that he gave a
lot of his time to them and their overall development as human beings, more
than any other of their grand-parents, according to his daughter. In order to
break Brian, they wanted to remove him from his family and isolate him.
This also has the
added bonus that they could lie to Sorrel, show her false documents which
appeared to incriminate her father, tell her he is ‘a paedophile’ and then
threaten to remove her children if she maintained any contact with her father.
Even though the
18-month ‘restraining order’ was due to end in May 2013, the authors took a
decision not to contact Sorrel or her family on the grounds that we wanted to
protect Brian.
In time – and with
this book available freely on the internet – the truth will eventually come
out.
Neither Brian nor
the authors apportion any blame whatsoever on to Sorrel Birch. She was placed in an impossible
position by the police and Bexley Social Services, which was made worse by her
already strained relationship with her father, whom it would appear, she had little
emotional understanding of and no understanding, it would appear from the
evidence, of her father’s intellectual ability.
