You are on page 1of 7


(Criminal Procedure Rules, rule 34.3)

Case details
Name of defendant: Mr Xxx Yyyy
Address: 00 Xxxxx Xxxxx, Grimsby
Email address:


Mobile: N/A

Appeal from Grimsby and Cleethorpes Magistrates Court

Magistrates court case reference number: 16AY/2837/15
Appeal to the Crown Court at Grimsby

This is an appeal to the Crown Court about:

I was convicted of an offence under section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 on 22 December 2015, though I can
not say with any certainty whether the offence relates to indecent exposure, using threatening words, using
abusive words or using threatening behaviour. The arresting officer alleged indecent exposure but I would expect
Humberside Police, on realising the improbability this was the case may have determined the offence differently.
I have asked the magistrates court to reconsider my case



You may not need to appeal. Sometimes a magistrates court can change a decision which it has made, under
section 142 of the Magistrates Courts Act 1980. Ask at the magistrates court office.

I need an extension of time for this appeal



See the time limits listed below. If your appeal is late, you must answer question 1, on the other side of this form.
Only the Crown Court can extend the 21 day time limit for appeal.
Use this form ONLY for an appeal to the Crown Court about conviction, sentence, etc. under Criminal Procedure
Rules Part 34. There is a different form for applying or appealing to the Crown Court after a magistrates court
has made a decision about bail, under Criminal Procedure Rule 14.8.

1. Complete the boxes above and give the details required in the boxes below. If you use an

electronic version of this form, the boxes will expand . If you use a paper version and need more space, you may
attach extra sheets.

2. Sign and date the completed form.

3. Send a copy of the completed form to:
(a) the magistrates court, and
(b) the other party to the case (e.g. the prosecutor, if you are the defendant).
You must send this form so as to reach the recipients not more than 21 days after:
the date you were sentenced or your sentence was deferred (whichever was earlier), if your appeal is
against conviction or against a finding of guilt,
the date you were sentenced, if your appeal is against sentence, or
in any other case, the date of the order or failure to make an order about which you want to appeal.

Forms for use with the Rules are at:

1) Extension of time (if you need one: see the notes on the front page). My appeal is late because:
Explain why your appeal is late. Attach copies of any letters or other documents you want the court to see.

The application has exceeded the 21 day time limit for the reasons briefly set out below:
I am not a solicitor, lawyer or anything similar which would provide me with the required knowledge to be able
to navigate these proceedings, neither have I been given any information regarding my rights to legal
representation. Im therefore out of my depth and have had to fumble my way around in the hope I stumble upon
an approach which may allow me to produce this appeal after having this unfortunate matter dropped on me.
I have embarked upon a time consuming process to provide evidence to persuade the Magistrates court that it
would be appropriate that the case is reopened. This has involved my own research and investigations (obtaining
information via the Freedom of Information for example) but proved unsuccessful in changing the view of the
court. It is therefore, despite the sound reasoning, unlikely that the Magistrates court will agree to reopen the
case under section 142 the Magistrates' court Act 1980 under any circumstances.
It is without doubt this situation has arisen because the authorities have been able to rely on my ignorance as to
my legal rights and have been able to keep from me knowing about papers which I should have been served and
alerted to their importance. To avoid any possibility of a repeat performance and in order to achieve justice I
expect that at no cost to myself I am allowed legal representation.

2) The issues in this case are:

Magistrates court refusing to reopen case under section 142

The option most appropriate with regards appealing the conviction appeared to be to apply under section 142 of
the Magistrates' court Act 1980 (the "1980 Act") to have the court re-open the case for the reasons set out below:
I did not attend the trial on 15 December 2015, after discovering who would be trying the case. It was expressed
without reservation by writing to the court a number of days before the trial that I did not consider the Judge, 'a
fit and proper person to hear the case'. My assertion was founded on hard evidence relating to a previous matter
where the judge had unequivocally accepted a statement knowing it to be false, which enabled the claimant,
North East Lincolnshire Council to succeed in defrauding me through court costs claimed in proceedings that
were engineered to that end. The Council had therefore committed perjury to defraud me, and the judge assisted
by turning a blind eye to that breach of legal procedure.
Sub-paragraph 1 of s142 of the 1980 Act provides the following:
"A magistrates court may vary or rescind a sentence or other order imposed or made by it when dealing
with an offender if it appears to the court to be in the interests of justice to do so; and it is hereby
declared that this power extends to replacing a sentence or order which for any reason appears to be
invalid by another which the court has power to impose or make."
Sub-paragraph 2 also has relevance in which the following provides:
"Where a person is convicted by a magistrates court and it subsequently appears to the court that it
would be in the interests of justice that the case should be heard again by different justices, the court
may so direct."
I was asked at the 22 December hearing (sentencing) by deputy district judge Andrew Pascoe whether or not I
was guilty of failing to turn up for the trial on the 15 Dec 2015 without good reason. I pleaded not guilty as I
considered I had very good reason for not attending as I had no confidence in the judge trying the case fairly.
The court was informed in writing on 11 Dec 2015 as aforementioned.

Sub-section 2A of s11 of the Magistrates' court Act 1980 provides that:

"the court shall not proceed in the absence of the accused if it considers that there is an acceptable
reason for his failure to appear."
Notwithstanding the provision in sub-section 2A, there was no evidence that judge Andrew Pascoe was briefed
as he commented, after Id raised my objection to being found guilty when innocent, that I had a chance to put
my side of the story at the trial but did no turn up. This suggests that mitigating evidence documents, in which
my side of the story had been extensively set out and which had been sent to the court had not been considered in
my conviction.
I had already made it known at the initial hearing that I suspected the arresting officer had incited one of the
witnesses to make a false statement, and what that witness claimed to have seen, he had not. On reading both
members of the public's written statements afterwards which were handed to me minutes before the first hearing,
I can categorically state that they had both lied regarding their claim that I had indecently exposed myself. The
complaint made to the police about PC Thomas Blake who I suspected of inciting perjury, and an account stating
that the two members of the public had both made untrue witness statements, was also sent to the court on 11
Dec 2015.
It therefore seems contrary to the interests of justice that I had submitted extensive written evidence to the court,
and prohibited from cross-examining the witnesses that at the hearing for sentencing, deputy district judge
Andrew Pascoe said that I had a chance to put my side of the story.

Insufficient information about proceedings

I had assumed the matter would be in the hands of the duty solicitor who had been appointed on being falsely
imprisoned in a cell at Humberside police station (27.8.15), as I had not been informed otherwise. However, after
updating him (Mr Havery) well in advance of the 30th of September court appearance on the proceedings there
was never a reply.
Only minutes before being called into the courtroom did I find out from the usher I was not entitled to legal
representation. This was only discovered because I could reply with no certainty on being asked who my
solicitor was. I stated it may have been Mr Havery from John Barkers but because he had not kept in contact, i.e.,
replied to my correspondence, I was in doubt. The Crown Prosecution Service's case file was handed to me at
this point giving me no opportunity to read any of it before going into court.
Having no entitlement to legal representation presumably meant the solicitor was under no obligation to
acknowledge my correspondence and therefore the reason why he hadn't. However, in anticipation of being
unrepresented, despite having no background of criminal proceedings, and unsure if this was the correct
procedure, a statement was produced and sent to the court on the morning of the hearing.
At the 30th September hearing, a direction was made prohibiting me cross-examining the witnesses in person and
arrangement made for a solicitor to do so. Shortly before the 15th December hearing (and by chance) I learned
that a solicitor had been arranged but no details given as to who. However, it was confirmed after the 22
December hearing (sentencing) that Mr Havery, the solicitor who failed to acknowledge my correspondence, on
the lead up to the first hearing, had been appointed. It was also confirmed after more prompting that District
judge Curtis allowed Mr Havery to withdraw from the case and had done so because I had not attended.
It therefore seems contrary to the interests of justice that the solicitor was allowed to withdraw from the case by
the same judge who tried the case who had effectively made me surplus to proceedings by giving directions at
the first hearing prohibiting me from cross-examining the witnesses. Add to this that the Crown Prosecution
Service held no evidence to support the charge, but a guilty verdict found nonetheless, suggests all the more that
the outcome and proceedings were contrary to the interests of justice.
The above formed the basis of my initial representations submitted to the Magistrates court on 7 January 2016

for considering whether there were reasonable grounds to reopen the case under section 142.
Request to quash sentence under section 142 of the Magistrates' court Act 1980
I submitted further representations to the Magistrates court on 13 February 2016 after obtaining information
relating to CCTV coverage which reinforced my already held suspicions that the prosecution was part of a
conspiracy. My statement submitted to the court (30.9.15) sets out in paragraphs 30-37 the dispute Ive been
engaged in with Humberside police since 2009. It seems feasible that these circumstances have motivated the
force to seize the opportunity to exploit the criminal justice system, in the first instance with the arresting officer
encouraging the witness to make false allegations to aid a criminal case against me.
As I set out in my 13 February 2016 correspondence, Grimsby Magistrates' Court, with Humberside Police and
the CPS as accomplices have misused the Criminal Justice system in allowing fabricated evidence to convict me
for charges of which I am innocent in order to defraud me of a sum of 620. The court had no evidence
whatsoever with which to find a guilty verdict.
As the CPS had no evidence with which to justify prosecuting the case it is therefore suspected that Mr Martin
Howarth, the CPS Solicitor has been corruptly influenced by Humberside Police/Grimsby Magistrates' court to
proceed with a prosecution where the evidence fell below the standards which would be expected for a fair trial.
Moreover, I had insufficient information about the proceedings and did not know the position regarding my
rights to legal representation and left to produce representations myself. The case went ahead in my absence
during which I was found guilty and it appears the judge in sentencing at a later hearing, which I did attend, was
not briefed as the mitigating evidence documents I had sent to the court had not been considered in my
I believe the burden of proof is beyond all reasonable doubt in criminal cases and therefore satisfied that a crime
has been committed against me for which there are very good grounds. In their witness statements I have copies
of, both Arthur and Tammy Johnson lied and it is suspected that Police Constable Thomas Blake 1131 incited at
least one of them to commit perjury.
There are also very good grounds to suspect that CCTV footage, which would support my innocence, has been
destroyed. I have since obtained details of the arrangement Humberside police has for monitoring the public
grounds in front of the Victoria Street station. In respect of 27th August 2015 (the day of the alleged matter), a
total of 7 CCTV cameras covered relevant areas; one situated in the portacabin (temporary front office) and 6
covering the front of the station. The camera footage (it has been since discovered) is on a loop system and kept
for 90 days. I have learned that when asked for, video footage is retained, although Humberside police have
stated that no requests were received on 27th August 2015, and therefore the video footage has been overwritten.
If there were 7 cameras covering the area, it would seem beyond reasonable doubt that video footage, material in
a criminal case, would be available for proving the innocence of someone convicted of an offence alleged to
have been committed there on that date. Notwithstanding this, it could not have been known then whether video
footage would have determined the truth, so the fact I had voluntarily remained at the scene to help police with
their enquiries, speaks for itself. Being under no obligation to wait for an officer to arrive, reinforces the fact that
I was innocence, as I was clearly confident that if video footage existed it could not possibly have incriminated
me, but more likely disproved the accusations (paras 4 - 5, defendant's statement 30 Sept 2015). Someone who
had been guilty in the circumstances, with a possibility of being on camera would unlikely have voluntarily
remained to assist.
It is clear that the evidence (which appears to be none) fell short of the standard which would be required by the
criminal justice system to meet the criteria of a fair trial. It is therefore expected in the interest of justice that
under section 142 of the Magistrates' court Act 1980, the sentence is quashed.
Inconsistent witness statements
I submitted further representations to the Magistrates court on 10 March 2016 after identifying some
inconsistencies which supported the fact that both the civilian witnesses had committed perjury. I hold evidence
in the form of two witness statements dated 27 August and 1 September 2015 produced by Arthur and Tammy

Johnson about which there is no question that they contain outright lies. The witness statements are contained in
the CPS's case bundle which was handed to me minutes before the hearing at Grimsby Magistrates court on 30
September 2015.
The police are aware of my allegations but have so far avoided recording the matter as a reported crime. As a
consequence I have formally reported this to Humberside police as perjury on 29 February 2016.
The statements are inconsistent with what was said before they were produced and with the front office clerk, Mr
Warriners account in his witness statement (also part of the CPS case bundle):
1) Mr Warriner in his witness statement says he was approached by Mr Johnson who informed him that there is
a man pissing up the tree outside. However, by the time Mr Johnson produced his statement, this changed to it
looked like he was going to have a wee against the tree. This points to Mr Johnson being an unreliable witness
as he had not seen anyone urinating, only assumed he had, which was confirmed in-between informing Mr
Warriner and producing his statement which he changed accordingly.
2) Arthur Johnson, before accompanying the officer to the tree which he had accused me of urinating against,
stated that he had seen me zipping or unzipping my fly despite the jeans I wore having buttons. This anomaly
was raised with the arresting officer shortly after the alleged incident took place. However, by the time Arthur
Johnson produced his statement, the reference to operating a zip was omitted. Tammy Johnson on the other hand
did refer to buttons, but this was in her witness statement made after becoming aware there was no zip (1 Sept
2015). The first being the male appeared to be unbuttoning his jeans and later untruthfully stated I then saw
this male having unbuttoned his jeans and then describe in graphic detail the alleged offence, knowing this was
a complete fabrication.

I have because of the above crime wrongly been convicted of an offence and consequently now having a
criminal record and incurred a direct financial loss of 620, being the aggregate of the criminal courts charge,
costs and victims surcharge. Ive also had the inconvenience of being wrongfully arrested and falsely
imprisoned, and factoring in the damaged reputation and hundreds of hours engaged in pursuing this matter,
consider (if you can quantify this in monetary terms) have been caused at least a 10k loss.
Given the burden of proof required for criminal convictions, I am at a loss to know why Humberside police even
considered referring this matter to the CPS and even more bewildered that the CPS, considering the flawed
witness statements, have pursued the case knowing that under proper scrutiny there could be no prospects of a
successful prosecution.
Recent awareness of additional concerns
On or around 10 March 2016 I became aware of Criminal Procedure Rules which I consider relevant to
proceedings in my case. The Rules in force at the time were Part 37 (Trial and Sentence in a Magistrates Court).
These have been renumbered and now Part 24 of the Criminal Procedure Rules 2015. The Criminal Procedure
(Amendment No. 2) Rules 2015 amended Part 37 of the 2014 Rules, introducing a new provision, Single justice
procedure: special rules inserted as Rule 37.9; Part 37.11 (Procedure where a party is absent) became Part
37.12. Consequently, this Part was amended inserting the provision that the rule does not apply where the court
tries a case under rule 37.9 (Single justice procedure: special rules). The procedure is prescribed by sections
16A to 16D of the Magistrates Courts Act 1980 (Trial by single justice on the papers).
The amendment Rules came into force on 6th April 2015 and so applied by the time my case was underway.
It was confirmed after consulting the Magistrates court on 10 March 2016 that my case was not dealt with under
the single justice procedure where rule 37.9 would have applied and the relevant rule was 37.12 (Procedure
where a party is absent).
Under the circumstances, a trial on the papers would have been the procedure most in the interest of justice to
have taken and is questioned why it was not, given that I was disadvantaged by having no legal representation
and completely in the dark as to my rights, if indeed I had any. Trying the case on the papers would have been
the fairer option as I had submitted various documents of mitigating evidence. This, in a small way would have

compensated for my ignorance of the court system for which Im certain the court has exploited to my detriment
in open court. Being unable to ignore the submission and set against the prosecutions lack of evidence and the
questionable, inconsistent witness statements, it is inconceivable that the court could have found a verdict of
In any event, the procedure set out under rule 37.12 (where a party is absent) does not give the court power to
find a guilty verdict merely on account of the defendants absence. Sub-paragraph 3 states that were the
defendant is absent the court must proceed as if the defendant were present and had pleaded not guilty. That
would not have entailed the judge allowing the solicitor, who had been appointed to cross-examine the police
and witnesses to withdraw from the case (I was prohibited from doing so), nor would the absence have justified
the court dismissing for consideration the documents submitted as mitigating evidence.
The overall impression was that the court, despite what really happened, was intent on finding a guilty verdict,
but this was also part of a conspiracy with the police and CPS who had set out to falsely criminalise and defraud
me. Additional to those representations to the Magistrates court (13 February 2016) it has since been discovered
that the bundle I was handed by the usher minutes before the court hearing on 30 September 2015, contained
documents, which appearing by their nature, should have been served in a prescribed manner by the court, police
and/or CPS for which there was, I suspect a legal duty. That procedure would not have entailed passing papers to
the accused last minute which were material in the case and requiring acting on with no explanation as to their
A letter, apparently produced from a template used by the CPS was in among the papers I was handed by the
usher which contained what appeared largely irrelevant computer printouts compiled by the CPS. The letter
dated 22 September 2015 was discovered at around the same time (10 March 2016) I became aware of the
relevant Criminal Procedure Rules.
It is reasonable to assume that I should have been served this and other letters and because they concerned a
matter as serious as a criminal trial, I should have been alerted to any implications of not being legally
represented. The letters reference was as follows:
The opening paragraph suggested that if I was not aware of the letter I would be disadvantaged because the
material it referred to was considered capable of undermining the case for the prosecution, as quoted below:
I am required to disclose to you any prosecution material which has not previously been disclosed, and
which might reasonably be considered capable of undermining the case for the prosecution or of
assisting the accused's case.
The letter also set out the legal requirement for submitting a defence statement among other instructions. This
correspondence, though dated 22 September 2015 was in my possession only minutes before the 30 September
hearing, and in any event, because it was buried among irrelevant papers was not seen; that is until March 2016
when I furthered my investigations into the conspiracy I suspected.
The failure to explain and correctly serve these documents reinforces my assertion that the authorities were
complicit in disadvantaging me to the greatest extent possible as a means to succeed in falsely criminalising and
defrauding me.
A further denial of my rights was in evidence in respect of the sentencing hearing on 22 December. After two
people who I suspect falsely claimed they were the police hammered on my door and coerced me into attending
court, I was imprisoned and told while awaiting the hearing that I would have access to the duty solicitor. That
never happened and I was handcuffed and led to the courtroom to witness Grimsby Magistrates court, the CPS
and Deputy district judge Andrew Pascoe blatantly defraud me and impose falsely a criminal conviction.

3) Appeal against conviction: case management in the Crown Court.

Only answer these questions if you are appealing against conviction or a finding of guilt.

How long did the trial last in the magistrates court ?

I do not know what the trial refers to (there were three hearings in total). Though I have no experience of
criminal trials I expect that what occurred in relation to my case had no resemblance to a proper trial. In any
event I did not attend the hearing which was probably the trial hearing.
Which of the prosecution witnesses in the magistrates court do you want to ask questions if
they are witnesses again in the Crown Court ? Name them:
I have no wish to ask questions, rather I accuse both Arthur and Tammy Johnson of lying in their witness
statements and suspect that Police Constable Thomas Blake 1131 incited at least one of them to do so.
I fully expect in any event that at no cost to myself I am permitted independent legal representation and so that
person, if required can ask those witnesses questions.
How long do you expect the appeal to take in the Crown Court ?
My lack of experience in these matters precludes me from being able to make even the wildest guess.
4) Other applications. I am also applying for:
pending my appeal, the suspension of my disqualification e.g. from driving.
You can ONLY apply for the suspension of a disqualification imposed in this case.

pending my appeal, bail.

Give reasons for any application you are making:

I want my application(s) considered by

the magistrates court

the Crown Court

Each court can consider these applications. You can apply to both.



Date: 12 April 2016

If you use an electronic version of this form, you may instead authenticate it electronically (e.g. by sending it from an email address
recognisable to the recipient). See Criminal Procedure Rules, rule 5.3.