The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Hi,

A very warm welcome to The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™ forum.

Please log in, or register to view all the forums, then settle in and start chatting with us!

Enjoy your day,

Jill Havern
Forum owner

Justice denied again - Les Balkwell shut out of court hearing - Hearing held before the advertised time

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Justice denied again - Les Balkwell shut out of court hearing - Hearing held before the advertised time

Post by Tony Bennett on 15.09.14 8:04

To: Mr Rob Price, Assistant Director, Kent Police
DCI Janine Farrell, Kent Police
Grace Ononiwu, O.B.E., CPS lawyer responsible for the conduct of the case of R v Bromley
Karim Kahlil Q.C., barrister responsible for the conduct of the case of R v Bromley
Nick Staite, CPS lawyer and/or Frank Ferguson, Head of East of England CPS
Chief Clerk, Chelmsford Crown Court

And copied to:

Ms Rachel Ireland, Head of Professional Standards, Kent Police and
Det Chief Supt Steve Corbishley, Kent Police

re: COMPLAINT FROM MR LES BALKWELL

As his representative, Mr Balkwell, has asked me to register the following formal complaint, under the formal complaints procedure of each agency, against each one of the above-named seven people, each of whom he states bears some responsibility for the following:

That I was informed on behalf of the court, the CPS and Kent Police by letter from DCI Janine Farrell that the procedure hearing in the case of R v Bromley would take place at 10.00am on 12 September. However, I arrived at the court in good time at 9.55pm to find that the hearing had started well before that and had already finished.

Mr Balkwell now requires:

1. A swift and wholehearted apology from all those responsible, directly or indirectly, for a hearing being conducted well before the advertised time

2. A full explanation from each of the above-named seven persons of why and how this occurred,

3. A full report from Karim Kahlil Q.C. to explain in detail, in a written report, everything that happened at that hearing (alternatively, a report by Ms Grace Ononiwu, and

4. A full refund of his wasted travel and parking costs for his fruitless journey to the court, estimated at £31.50.

Mr Balkwell wishes to add the following to his complaint:

"As the police and the CPS know, I always attend every hearing and take careful note of all that happens. I deny that this is an honest prosecution, as it is founded on the claim that my son suffered an accident on 18 July 2002, when it is plain that he died as a result of deliberate actions against him. A summary of the overwhelming evidence that Lee died as the result of deliberate actions against him was set out in two documents, one of 87 pages and one of 12 pages, handed to Mr Karim Kahlil Q.C. and Ms Grace Ononiwu on 13 March 2014, and has been set out in numerous letter to the police and the CPS over the past two years".

On Les Balkwell's behalf, I wish to add the following observation.

The personal stress on Mr Balkwell after having fought for truth and justice for his son for over 12 years, at great expense, time and emotional cost - and against the opposition and wiles of the CPS and the police, has never been greater. I have witnessed his emotional state almost every week since late 2006. The stress on him and his family members has been far greater ever since the police and the CPS took what we both say is a thoroughly corrupt decision by the both to prosecute Simon Bromley only for causing or allowing an accident by negligence.

Mr Balkwell's state of mind was most certainly disturbed at the news that the court, the CPS and the police had deliberately told him to attend at 10.00am but had knowingly completed the hearing before he arrived at 9.55am. His sister and brother-in-law, who had arrived minutes earlier and were only able to hear the last minute or two of the proceedings, also expressed concern for his state of mind.

Mr Balkwell has many times told me that there were two ways that he could tackle the injustice of his son being deliberately killed and the further injustice of the police and the CPS deliberately conspiring to cover up this way. There was the 'legal' way, i.e. using legal means, complaints procedures open to him, etc. Or there was another, more direct, way. At times when he burned with anger at the injustice of his situation, how Lee was killed, and how the IPCC in 2004, the CPS and the police have covered up this crime, he spoke of the alternative way of obtaining justice. On a number of occasions I have had to counsel him to continue to take the legal path to try and obtain justice. At present, his sense of outrage - at what can only have been a decision in which the court, the CPS and the police have deliberately colluded and conspired to prevent Les Balkwell and those who support him from seeing for himself what goes on in this trial and observing for himself how the case is dealt with - is very great. I fear therefore that his actions at present may be seriously affected by the manifest disregard by the court, the CPS and the police of his rights to see fair play in the court, regarding the trial of the person who one way or another is accused and charged with killing his son.

This further complaint follows soon after a complaint by Les Balkwell, now being investigated by Det Chief Sup Corbishley of Kent Police, that on two previous occasions at hearings in this matter DCI Janine Farrell and her colleague Det Sgt Gary Scarfe have fraternised at court with the defendant and his father, on the second occasion seen openly laughing and joking with them both in the court waiting roo and in front of Les Balkwell and members of his family. This conduct serves only to reinforce Les Balkwell's conviction that these entire proceedings are a total stitch-up between the Bromley family, the police and the CPS - a fact actively being broadcast in the local community by Simon Bromley's father as has been the subject of a written statement already submitted to the police and the CPS.

Finally, would each agency or person named above please supply me by return by e-mail an up-to-date schedule of its current complaints procedures.

And would you all please confirm in writing that the trial of Simon Bromley is due to begin at Chelmsford County Court at 10.00am on 6 October, unless otherwise notified.

This complaint should be recorded as a formal complaint by police against Rob Price and Janine Farrell, and as a Stage 1 complaint against the named persons from the CPS, Karim Kahlil Q.C. and the court official, presumably the Chief Clerk, who sanctioned this clear breach of procedure by holding and concluding the hearing on Friday before the time of the hearing notified to Lee Balkwell.

Yours sincerely

Tony Bennett
for Les Balkwell

____________________

                            "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?" - Amelie, May 2007 -  "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?"


Tony Bennett
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 13957
Reputation : 2141
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 69
Location : Harlow, Essex

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Justice denied again - Les Balkwell shut out of court hearing - Hearing held before the advertised time

Post by soundworks on 15.09.14 8:57

9-55pm?

he arrived 12 hours to late ?

need to amend?

soundworks

Posts : 79
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-10-17

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Justice denied again - Les Balkwell shut out of court hearing - Hearing held before the advertised time

Post by Tony Bennett on 15.09.14 9:14

@soundworks wrote:9-55pm?

he arrived 12 hours to late ?

need to amend?
Can't amend it now, of course it was 9.55am - yet another typo.

Thanks for reading the post

____________________

                            "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?" - Amelie, May 2007 -  "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?"


Tony Bennett
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 13957
Reputation : 2141
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 69
Location : Harlow, Essex

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Justice denied again - Les Balkwell shut out of court hearing - Hearing held before the advertised time

Post by Guest on 15.09.14 10:43

This is absolutely outrageous! I cannot imagine the distress this must cause to Mr Balkwell and how ill it could make him become if it hasn't already.

All he wants is justice for his son's death, why should that be so difficult to achieve?

This has been going on for 12 years?


Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Justice denied again - Les Balkwell shut out of court hearing - Hearing held before the advertised time

Post by Tony Bennett on 16.09.14 14:30

Les Balkwell 'phoned a little while ago to tell me that the senior investigating officer in the case, Det Chief Insp Janine Farrell of Kent Police, had just had a major 30-minute rant at him over the opening post of this thread.

It might have been a lot better had she addressed her part in telling Les Balkwell why she wrote to him before the court hearing on Friday telling him the hearing was at 10.00am, and then clearly colluded with the CPS and the court to hold the hearing before he could get there.

The court replied quickly to the complaint yesterday, promising a full and urgent investigation. To date, typically, neither Janine Farrell nor anyone else in the police or the CPS has even acknowledged the complaint, let alone apologised for what happened.

The other part of her rant, so Les told me, was over claims by the previous S.I.O. in the case, Det Chief Supt Lee Catling, that Kent Police had 'compelling' evidence that Lee Balkwell and his boss, Simon Bromley, kept working on gunning out setting concrete until 1.03am on 18 July 2002, the moment Bromley's father 'phoned the ambulance service and said that there had been an accident, beginning with the flippant words: "Yes, good afternoon, morning, evening..."

The problem with this is that there are shoals of evidence that work on the lorry that evening stopped by 9.20pm, when the lorry was taken down the lane for its final washout.

There are around 30 separate proofs of this, including:

* very clear tachograph evidence

* evidence from a CCTV camera running that night

* evidence from numerous witness statements

* evidence from still photos taken at the scene

* evidence from a video taken at the scene

* evidence as to the small amount of setting concrete left to drill out...

...and much more.

Despite a clear recommendation by the West Midlands Police review of this case in 2009-2010 that Les Balkwel's evidence and his views on the case should be carefully listened to, DCI Janine Farrell has for two years stood by Det Chief Supt Catling's claim that there was 'compelling' evidence of them working at 1.03am, and has refused point blank many times to say what this compelling evidence is.

We suggest that the police are lying - and not only do not have 'compelling' evidence of work carrying on until 1.03pm, but in fact have none at all.


ETA: 10-minute video on the case here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0b7bpOQIXM

____________________

                            "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?" - Amelie, May 2007 -  "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?"


Tony Bennett
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 13957
Reputation : 2141
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 69
Location : Harlow, Essex

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Justice denied - 1. Attempt by Defence to get CPS to withdraw the case 2. Judge reads evidence that Lee Balkwell's death was no accident

Post by Tony Bennett on 24.09.14 12:20

UPDATE:

The mystery of why Les Balkwell was not told that the hearing in the case of R v Bromley was going to start before 10.00am on 12 September has now been solved, as a result of letters received from the Chief Clerk at Chelmsford Crown Court and from Frank Ferguson, Acting Chief Crown Prosecutor for the East of England.

In short, the sequence of events was this:

1. DCI Janine Farrell of Kent Police told Les Balkwell by letter that the hearing would start at 10.00am. So Les Balkwell arrived at the court just before 10.00am.

2. The Judge in the case, His Honour Judge Gratwicke, told the court staff that he wanted a hearing at an earlier time, 9.45am.

3. The court informed the CPS of the changed time.

4. Neither the CPS nor the police fulfilled their duty to keep the victim's father informed of the time of the hearing.

5. The CPS have replied to the complaint, but not apologised.

6. The police have neither replied to the complaint nor apologised.

Other Developments - 1 An attempt by the defence to have the case thrown out because of 'prejudice against the Defendant in the media'

Last week Les Balkwell learnt through well-informed sources that the Defence team had made approaches to the media for evidence of what they said had been press and TV coverage 'unfavourable to the Defendant' (Simon Bromley).

This is somewhat ironic since the Defendant is merely being prosecuted for causing or allowing an accident to happen, whereas (we say) there is overwhelming circumstantial evidence that Lee Balkwell was deliberately killed.

When Les contacted the Senior Investigating Officer in the case. DCI Janine Farrell, she did not deny that this approach was being made, but turned o Les and said: "How did you find that out? Who told you?"

NOTE: Both the CPS and the police have a liaison duty to keep the victim's family informed of developments. Both have failed in this duty on a number of recent occasions. 

Other Developments - 2 His Honour Judge Gratwicke has read a summary of the evidence that this is a false prosecution based on no credible evidence that Lee Balkwell died from an 'accident'

The court staff at Chelmsford Crown Court have informed us that the judge in the case, Judge Gratwicke, has seen and read the evidence in the case that we submitted to him that this was no accident, yet has apparently taken no action, so far as we know, to halt the hearing. He has merely marked the evidence as 'noted'.

At least it is on the public record now that he has been made fully aware of the evidence as set out in the '141 Reasons' document that there is no credible evidence that Lee's death was an accident:

 http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t10311-141-reasons-why-the-death-of-lee-balkwell-was-no-accident

We wait to see if the case will go ahead as planned at 10.00am on Monday 6 October.

____________________

                            "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?" - Amelie, May 2007 -  "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?"


Tony Bennett
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 13957
Reputation : 2141
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 69
Location : Harlow, Essex

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Justice denied again - Les Balkwell shut out of court hearing - Hearing held before the advertised time

Post by Snifferdog on 24.09.14 12:41

Such a shame for Mr Balkwell, after all he has had to bear. It seems the interference in the case is hardly covered up. Perhaps some are so confident and secure in their knowledge that they will never be prosecuted for their collusion to pervert the course of justice. Sick.

____________________
“‘Conspiracy stuff’ is now shorthand for unspeakable truth.”
– Gore Vidal

Snifferdog

Posts : 1008
Reputation : 10
Join date : 2012-05-11
Location : here

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Justice denied again - Les Balkwell shut out of court hearing - Hearing held before the advertised time

Post by Tony Bennett on 24.09.14 12:44

@Snifferdog wrote:Such a shame for Mr Balkwell, after all he has had to bear.

It seems the interference in the case is hardly covered up. Perhaps some are so confident and secure in their knowledge that they will never be prosecuted for their collusion to pervert the course of justice.

Sick.
'Nail on the head', IMO, Snifferdog.

And I think that might apply to certain other cases, too.

Nevertheless, though it seems that we batter fruitlessly against a brick wall, that should not stop us from continuing to batter away...

____________________

                            "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?" - Amelie, May 2007 -  "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?"


Tony Bennett
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 13957
Reputation : 2141
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 69
Location : Harlow, Essex

View user profile

Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum