Monthly Archives: January 2012

It is easier to get sent to prison in England for contempt of court than for assaulting a fellow human being. I don’t mean that it is easier to prove. I mean that once proven, contempt of court is more likely to result in imprisonment than assault – even a gang assault that leaves one’s victim seriously injured.

In the case to which I refer, a tribunal of arrogant bullies – sorry judges – has sentenced a juror by the name of Theodora Dallas to six months imprisonment for carrying out internet research at home on the defendant in at a criminal trial on which she was sitting. The tribunal, consisting of Lady Justice Hallett, Mr Justice Openshaw and the risibly named Lord Judge, also denied their victim – sorry the convicted party – leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.

Of course she can apply directly to the Supreme Court for leave to appeal. But the fact that the judge’s denied her this right – in a case that obviously has implications that require the Supreme Court’s attention, shows that they are more concerned with flexing their muscles than with the administration of justice.

Now first of all – lest any criminals or their friends accuse me of missing the point – let me stress that checking out a defendant online IS contempt of court and that the jurors were all warned not to. And contempt of court can draw a custodial sentence. But this was a first offence and we are always told – by our judges no less – that first-time offenders should be treated with leniency. At least that is what we are told when they have committed assault or affray or even ABH.

Yet apparently those offences are not as serious, in the eyes of our esteemed judiciary, as checking out an accused online. It seems that the same judges who let violent criminals off with non-custodial sentences and who water down the sentences of even the most serious violent offenders, choose to get tough on a woman who committed contempt of court. In other words, beat the crap out of a private citizen by all means but don’t dare ruffle the feathers of the judiciary.

Unfortunately for their Lordships, ruffling the feathers of judges is what I do. So let’s consider the judges who reached this decision.

Only a week ago, Lady Justice Hallett reduced the prison sentence of Viktor Akulic who had raped a woman, knocked her to the ground and stamped on her head. Then when the woman reported the attack to the police, Akulic went round to her home and threatened to kill her. Akulic had already spent half his adult life in prison for other offences, including the rape of a SEVEN-YEAR-OLD GIRL. And Lady Justice Hallett KNEW ALL OF THIS. Yet although it would be obvious to all but a mental defective that Viktor Akulic WILL re-offend as soon as he gets the chance, Lady Justice Hallett and her co-conspirators – sorry judges – reduced his sentence from a minimum of eight-and-a-half years before he could apply for parole to seven.

Okay so much for Lady Justice Hallett, but what about Lord Judge? Well he’s an interesting case. In 2009 parliament finally decided to get rid of that legal dinosaur that allowed people who kill their spouses to use their spouse’s adultery or infidelity as a defence, watering down murder to manslaughter. The new law stated that “In deciding whether a loss of self-control had a qualifying trigger, the fact that a thing done or said constituted sexual infidelity IS TO BE DISREGARDED.” So although loss of control could reduce murder to manslaughter, alleged infidelity  (and it was very easy for the man’s lawyer to invent such infidelity) could no longer be used to achieve such reduction.

This reform was long overdue for many reasons, including the fact that the old law was almost invariably used by men to get off the hook for murdering their wives and almost never in those rare cases of wives murdering their husbands. But Lord Judge decided that he and his colleagues didn’t have to bother with something so trivial as the law or the will of parliament (nor indeed for the right of women not to be murdered). So he decreed – in brazen defiance of the law – that infidelity could be considered as adding to the “potency” of any other conduct which might cause a loss of self-control.

In other words, Lord Judge knowingly subverted the will of parliament and willfully deprived women of adequate protection of their right to life, by deliberately misinterpreting the law in pursuit of his nefarious, misogynistic agenda.

The Honourable Justice Openshaw on the other hand, seems to be a reasonably decent judge who does not let criminals get away with it. This might be because his own father – also a judge – was stabbed to death by a criminal whom he had sentenced to borstal for theft.

However, there is something deeply troubling in the case of Theodora Dallas. The reason that she was caught was because she told other jurors what she had found about the accused and one of them reported it to an usher. But the thing is that jurors swear an oath not to disclose anything said in the jury room and jury ushers also swear oaths not to ask the jurors any question other than have they reached a verdict and not to “suffer” that anything be disclosed to them.

So in order for Miss Dallas to have been caught, at least two other people must have breached their oaths. I’m not saying that what Miss Dallas did was right. But the fact that she was sentenced to six months for a non-violent first offence while thugs walk out of the courtroom laughing, child rapists get off early and murderous husbands get off with the lesser charge of manslaughter, suggests that there is something deeply wrong with the priorities of our much vaunted judiciary.

 

Once again, British justice has been perverted by a criminal-friendly judge who has allowed two vicious thugs to escape custodial sentences for viciously beating up an innocent man – despite the fact that the pair of scumbags were obviously unrepentant for their vicious crime. It started when 24-year old Joseph O’Reilly (left) was walking with his girlfriend, sales adviser Lucy Blackledge (22) outside Piccadilly station in the centre of Manchester in January last year. They were heading home when they saw the three hooligans walking towards them aggressively, tipping over rubbish bins and scattering their contents in the road.

Like any decent, civic-minded citizen, Mr O’Reilly challenged their boorish behaviour by asking: “What on Earth are you doing?” But in what has now become an all-too- familiar pattern, the thugs responded by viciously attacking Mr O’Reilly.

First the cowardly, yellow-bellied, lily-livered little Mama’s Boy Thomas Lane (a 24-year-old sign writer from Stockport), feigned punches against Mr O’Reilly that he didn’t have the guts to actually throw. Then the similarly spineless Daniel Chrapkowski (24) – knowing that he had the backing of his mates – punched Mr O’Reilly in the face and then tripped him up in a well-coordinated move. (Although the attack was supposedly spontaneous, the routine was quite well-polished. These little boys knew that they were doing.)

After the thugs had brought their victim to fall to the pavement, they continued with their little-boys-playing-at-being-men routine by viciously punching and kicking Mr O’Reilly in the face and stomach before running off like the namby-pamby little squirts they really are. The thugs also included Oliver O’Neill, 23 of Bramhall, Stockport.

Mr O’Reilly sustained a broken jaw and bleeding to the brain and required a metal plate fitted into his face. He needed 40 hours of hospital treatment and had to go back into hospital several months after the attack after collapsing. Although only 24, his life has been ruined by these young thugs – who were presumably brought up by the scum of the earth. Mr O’Reilly still suffers severe dizzy spells and numbness in his mouth and can chew food on only one side of his mouth.

The experience has also affected him psychologically as he now worries about going out alone from his home in east Manchester.

But the worst was yet to come because when the crime came to court, the threesome – aided by smooth talking lawyers and the connivance of a criminal-friendly judge – were able to pervert justice by getting away with excessively lenient sentences.

Firstly the spineless Thomas Lane claimed that that he had made no physical contact with the victim. He disingenuously described his aggressive feigning of punches towards his wholly innocent victim – the event that triggered the violence – as “shadow boxing” and was allowed to plead guilty to affray rather than Grievous Bodily Harm. His lawyer, Paul Hodgkinson, said: “He accepts he had been out drinking and engaging in tomfoolery, but that mischief doesn’t cross the custody threshold.”

Now there’s a dishonest statement if ever there was one. It was not “tomfoolery” or “mischief” that Lane was engaged in, but thuggery. And his lawyer well-knows it. This is an example of the way in which lawyers use language in a conscious effort to cheat justice.

The unemployed (and unemployable?) Daniel Chrapkowski admitted causing grievous bodily harm but his lawyer Katie Jones, falsely claimed that “He is extremely remorseful and wishes to apologise to the court. It is extremely out of character.” We saw just how remorseful he was just a few minutes later when this picture was taken outside the court building.

At Manchester Crown Court, Judge Martin Steiger QC, who decided earlier in the week to pass non-custodial sentences on Chrapkowski and Lane, instead gave Chrapkowski a 12-month suspended sentence.  He also ordered that he be electronically tagged for two months and complete 160 hours unpaid “community service” – which as we all know is a joke that basically means sitting around for two hours reading the newspaper.

The spineless, sissy-boy Thomas Lane was given a 12 month community order, ordered to pay £250 costs and do 120 hours community service. He also has to comply with a curfew.

23-year old Oliver O’Neill, who was on bail for another attack at the time, was jailed for 27 months after pleading guilty to two other grievous bodily harm charges.

But that’s not the end of the matter, because the two who did not get the custodial sentences that they deserved demonstrated their dishonesty, arrogance and contempt for the law outside the court as these pictures show.

The question is, did their lawyers really think their clients were remorseful. The law holds that lawyers represent their clients and act on their client’s instructions. But would such stupid people as Thomas Lane and Daniel Chrapkowski have had the brains to pretend they were remorseful in court, if some one had not put the idea in their heads? Clearly their behaviour outside the court suggest that they were not clever enough to have thought of it by themselves. So some one must have told them to pretend that they were remorseful to get lower sentences.

I wonder who.

 

The next book in the Dov Shamir Adventures is now available. In Checkmate at the Beauty Pageant (The Dov Shamir Adventures) top Israeli intelligence officer Dov Shamir is called in to locate and rescue a bunch of 32 beauty queens kidnapped by eccentric computer software entrepreneur Lee Chadwick and taken to a secret island somewhere in the Caribbean.

Chadwick threatens to kill the girls unless former American and world chess champion Billy Segal is persuaded to come out of retirement and play against a super-powerful computer chess program that runs on the internet. But Segal has lost his nerve…

Follow the link to get the book – and for a few days it is available FREE!!!!

 

 

On the 11th and 12 of January – for two days only – the Kindle edition of The Year of Compulsory Childbirth is available free of charge.

This book is the successor to Huxley’s Brave New World an Orwell’s 1984. It is a seminal work of dystopian literature, destined to go down in history. The links above are to the UK kindle store. If your Amazon account is with the Amercan kindle store, click on that preceding link to buy it there.