AS THE door swung shut behind me and I climbed the stairs, I was not prepared for the emotional impact of what I saw when I reached the courtroom balcony. My heart sank, and I had a feeling of helplessness and despair, as I saw my son below, caged inside a man-sized Perspex-sided box, custody officer sitting close by.
This was the culmination of 22 months of mental torture that resulted from racial tick-box motivated police charges and CPS persecution, with the threat of a custodial sentence that would seriously damage his life chances, and stop him from seeing his young children.
The consoling sense of hope in this trial was the jury, twelve men and women: that they would see through the spite-motivated concocted allegations; that the defence barrister could point out the prosecution’s deliberate manipulation of, and omissions from, the defendant’s statements to the police; and that the jury would recognise the intent behind the dishonesty and malice of the case – from the accuser, the police and CPS.
It all started two years before. My son undertook waste disposal work for a Muslim man of Pakistani origin, and a small up-front payment was made, the rest to be paid on completion. After the job was finished, the client demanded more work be done for no additional payment. My son decided it was not worth the hassle, and told the client he would do no further work. Final payment for the work done was withheld, and the customer furthermore demanded a refund from the upfront payment. In other words, it was a simple and not uncommon commercial dispute. But it escalated into something much worse: false charges of racial slurs and assault.
Two months later, long after the issue had been forgotten, my son received a visit from the police, saying that his former client had accused him of threatening him and attacking him with a knife. There was no evidence to sustain the accusations, despite the alleged crime being committed in broad daylight on a busy street with CCTV coverage, and it was assumed the whole affair would be dismissed.
The ex-client then made direct threats to my son in front of witnesses, including a threat to return with a knife, and other behaviour designed to intimidate. The police chose to ignore this.
When charges were officially made, my son’s solicitor had the case reviewed by a top barrister and a recently retired senior police detective. They concluded the case was laughable, and an exercise in ticking the racial hate crime box. There was no evidence to sustain the claims of the accuser, or for the CPS decision to pursue the case. Both detective and barrister believed the case would be thrown out at a pre-trial evaluation. It wasn’t.
During the trial, the jury foreman was seen shaking his head and quietly laughing at the statements given by the accuser, such was the total lack of evidence and the implausible answers given when cross-examined by the defence barrister. But come the time for the jury to consider their verdict, after some time in deliberation, they asked the judge: ‘Can jury members still find the defendant guilty, even if there is no evidence showing him to be so?’ The female judge’s response: ‘if you believe the defendant guilty, you don’t need evidence to confirm that opinion.’
My son was found not guilty by a majority of 10 to 2. The judge was clearly disappointed by the result, shouting at the gallery when a few people cheered at the result, and throwing me out of the courtroom despite the fact that I had neither raised an arm nor cheered, having only been silently praying for a just result. The judge publicly demanded the defence barrister give the defendant’s supporters a good telling-off for raising a cheer at the verdict. But what if there had been no jury? What if my son had been at the mercy of the quite clearly leftist judge?
Of course, my son’s experience is not unique. What we saw after the Stockport murders with Lucy Connolly, Peter Lynch and others; what we see with the constant state persecution of Tommy Robinson who has never had the benefit of a jury trial; the threats and intimidation by police across the country against those who stand up against Islamism, mass immigration, and other State-assisted crimes against the population, will now have an added threat – guilt or innocence decided by a body of politically motivated leftist judges, rather than a jury of their peers.
This is the furtherance of Keir Starmer’s dream of control over a disruptive citizenry that opposes his ideologically driven policies and actions. And I have no confidence, should 2TK be banished from 10 Downing Street by a Labour revolt, that this attempt to increase power over the working classes will go away. It’s not Starmer’s policies that are being held to account, it’s his failure to keep power, as demonstrated at the local elections. The continuation of the Labour party as a relevant political force is under existential threat, and the low-rent political rabble assembling to take Starmer’s position are not the type to baulk at continuing his authoritarian policies and gerrymandering to keep Labour in government. They will know that only extreme measures have any chance of keeping them anywhere near the reins of power.
If the right to trial by jury is removed, we will all be under the cosh of an oppressive regime, subject to the whims of an authoritative government that wants forcefully to impose its will on British pro-nation citizens. This is not about getting justice done more swiftly for those in the court pipeline; it is about taking away our back-stop protection from state tyranny, and leaving us nowhere to shelter from the forces that seek to destroy our country. If this is not stopped, you too could be the one walking up those stairs into the courtroom, or maybe the one caged in that Perspex box.
