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

Lee Balkwell death - Attempt to have the case of R v Bromley thrown out - Wednesday 8 October, Chelmsford Crown Court, 10.00am

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Lee Balkwell death - Attempt to have the case of R v Bromley thrown out - Wednesday 8 October, Chelmsford Crown Court, 10.00am

Post by Tony Bennett on 06.10.14 10:56

UPDATE:

As reported previously, an attempt will be made by the defence team employed by Simon Bromley to have the prosecution of him for the manslaughter of Lee Balkwell thrown out.

I mentioned before that part of the defence case will be that the trial of Simon Bromley has allegedly been prejudiced by previous TV and press reports and by comments on the internet, including on this forum.

The case was due to start on 6 October but will now commence at 10.00am on Wednesday 8 October, although the police have advised Les Balkwell to arrive at 9.30am - because of the previous incident where both Kent Police and the Crown Prosecution Service failed to notify Les of a change of hearing time, causing him to miss a vital hearing. 

This morning Detective Sergeant Gary Scarfe informed Les Balkwell of the precise grounds on which application will be made by the defence to have the case thrown out and he has disclosed those to me. He has however asked me not to disclose those grounds over the internet.

As stated previously, the prosecution of Simon Bromley is for causing Lee's death by negligence, i.e. by an accident. He has maintained that there exists no credible evidence that his death was an accident and that, on the contrary, there is overwhelming circumstantial evidence that he was deliberately killed.

A list of 141 reasons why the evidence suggests that Lee lost his life through deliberate acts and not by an accident were given on this thread:

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

____________________

                            "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: Lee Balkwell death - Attempt to have the case of R v Bromley thrown out - Wednesday 8 October, Chelmsford Crown Court, 10.00am

Post by Tony Bennett on 06.10.14 11:22

PRESS RELEASE

+++++++++++++++++++++++++

To all media contacts following the Lee Balkwell case:



UPDATE, 11am, 6 October:

Court hearing, R - v Bromley, Wednesday 8 October, 10.00am, Chelmsford Crown Court

As reported previously, an attempt will be made on Wednesday by the defence team employed by Simon Bromley to have the prosecution of him for the manslaughter of Lee Balkwell thrown out. (There has been a further adjournment, tfhe case was to have begun on Monday)

I reported previously that part of the defence case will be that the trial of Simon Bromley has allegedly been prejudiced by previous TV and press reports and by comments on the internet by Les Balkwell and myself. The defence team will therefore make a formal application for the case to be thrown out.

The case was due to start on 6 October but will now commence at 10.00am on Wednesday 8 October, although the police have advised Les Balkwell to arrive at 9.30am - because of the previous incident where both Kent Police and the Crown Prosecution Service failed to notify Les of a change of hearing time, causing him to miss a vital hearing.

This morning Detective Sergeant Gary Scarfe of Kent Police informed Les Balkwell of the precise grounds on which application will be made by the defence to have the case thrown out and he has disclosed those to me. He has however asked me not to disclose those grounds over the internet.

As you will all be aware, the prosecution of Simon Bromley is for causing Lee's death by negligence, i.e. by an accident. He has maintained that there exists no credible evidence that Lee's death was an accident and that, on the contrary, there is 'overwhelming circumstantial evidence' that he was deliberately killed.

At the Coroner's Inquest in 2008 Les Balkwell's barrister, Tony Ventham, submitted to the Coroner, Mrs Beasley-Murray, that there was 'overwhelming evidence' that Lee was murdered. But the Coroner refused to allow the jury to consider an Inquest verdict.

A list of 141 reasons why the evidence suggests that Lee lost his life through deliberate acts and not by an accident can be sent to you by attachment but can also be read here:

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


Les Balkwell is very keen to explain to the media, in advance of the hearing, his views on this latest development and may be able to help you further on the reasons for the defence's application:

Les Balkwell best contact nos.

07925 999607
07908 752522
01708 446850

On 1 April 2014 Les Balkwell wrote a letter and on 28 April 2014 made an application to the judge hearing the case, Judge Gratwicke, asking him to consider stopping this prosecution on the grounds that it was an entirely false prosecution, based on no credible evidence of an accident, and therefore a serious abuse of process. We are told that he has read both documents but we are not aware that he has acted on the information given in those documents. A copy of both documents can be supplied to you by attachment.


Tony Bennett
for Les Balkwell
01279 635789
07835 716537

____________________

                            "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: Lee Balkwell death - Attempt to have the case of R v Bromley thrown out - Wednesday 8 October, Chelmsford Crown Court, 10.00am

Post by ultimaThule on 13.10.14 21:41

Four days from start to finish for a trial by jury on a charge of unlawful killing by negligence suggests there was barely a case to answer.

My commiserations to Lee Balkwell's family - he and they have been singularly ill-served.

ultimaThule

Posts : 3355
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2013-09-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Lee Balkwell death - Attempt to have the case of R v Bromley thrown out - Wednesday 8 October, Chelmsford Crown Court, 10.00am

Post by Tony Bennett on 13.10.14 22:16

Now that this travesty of a trial is over, I can be relatively free to comment on it once again.

I will have a lot more to say about it in due course.

As some here will be aware, ever since Simon Bromley was charged with 'gross negligence', Les Balkwell and I have campaigned AGAINST that charge being brought.

The reason is simple: it is not true that Lee Balkwell died in a freak accident at 1.03am whilst still 'gunning-out' setting concrete from a lorry. The evidence is very clear:

* there was no 'accident'

* work on 'gunning out' the lorry ceased at arou8nd 9.15pm that evening

* he was violently assaulted between 12midnight and 1.03am on 18 July 2002

* he was placed by others with his head and arms in the inspection hatch of the drum and the drum deliberately switched on, either to kill him, or to mask injuries caused to him in the previous hour.

The charge of causing death by manslaughter through gross negligence was never the right charge.

As it happens, 'Not Guilty' was the right verdict, albeit for the wrong reasons. Kent Police and the Crown Prosecution Service now have a great deal of explaining to do, with both myself and Les Balkwell having in the past 18 months launched a series of complaints against individual police and CPS officers.

In this respect I refer to the threads on this forum about Operation Tiberius.

In the meantime, to give forum members an idea of the scale of the deception and dishonesty involved in the bringing of this trial, I can now reproduce the letter handed in to the judge, His Honour Mr Justice Christopher Ball, by Les Balkwell this morning:

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

      
From: Mr Leslie W Balkwell

To: His Honour Judge Christopher Ball

Sunday 12 October 2014

R v Bromley: Evidence which has seriously misled the Court, yourself and the jury

Your Honour,

After listening to the evidence put forward by Karim Kahlil Q.C. and by David Rudland, which was not challenged by the defence except on minor points of detail, I wish once again to inform you that you and the jury are being seriously misled in a way that will cause a serious injustice unless you are able to intervene.

On Friday, in my letter handed to Your Honour, I already pointed out various ways in which the evidence you and the jury heard was false and contrary to the facts.  During Friday I heard more evidence that was clearly untrue and I will explain what that false evidence was in this letter.

What is happening in your Court is an attempt by the prosecution, supported for obvious reasons by the defence, to allow the jury only to see a handful of facts about the case, many of them purportedly true but not true (as I shall explain below), in order to finally dispose of this matter after 12½ years, by trying to persuade the Court, yourself and the jury that this was no more than an accident. Moreover, the prosecution is suggesting that in effect my son’s death was contributed to by himself, allegedly by trying to climb out backwards out of a 39-cm wide inspection hatch in the dark after 1.00am on Friday 18 July 2002.

I had no idea before attending Court what evidence would be produced to promote the claim that my son died in a tragic accident. I am going to take Your Honour through the evidence presented in Court on Friday and show how it was either false or misleading in many key respects.

I do not know what evidence from me you have seen. I sent material to the Court in a letter dated 1 April and in an application dated 28 April. I do not know if you have seen it. It is important that you do.

A document dated 12 March this year titled: ‘Two Hypotheses as to How Lee Balkwell lost his life’, giving 141 separate evidential reasons why my son’s death was not an accident, but was caused deliberately, was referred to in your Court on Thursday. It was written by an adviser who has helped me for the past 7 years, Tony Bennett. I am attaching this now in case you have not seen it. This gives Your Honour an overview of the many lines of evidence, all of which show that my son’s death was no accident.

During Friday’s hearing, the defence barrister pointed out, and he was right, that ‘most of the evidence against the Defendant comes from the Defendant himself’.

But has it occurred to Your Honour that there may be an exceptional case, such as this one that is now in your court, where the prosecution and the defence may be conspiring together to present you with a grossly one-sided view of the evidence. Is it possible, Your Honour, that they have only presented you with bits of the evidence, half-truths and fabrications as well as making many major omissions, to lead you and the jury to believe that this is merely a simply choice of saying:

‘This was definitely an accident: was Simon Bromley guilty, or not guilty, of ‘manslaughter’ for causing or allowing his death by way of negligence’?

The defence began this case with an application to have the trial aborted because of an alleged ‘Abuse of Process’. They referred in particular to the long delay of 12 years and the fact that Simon Bromley had been repeatedly told in writing by the police and the CPS that he would face no charges for anything, including negligence. These were good arguments, and prompted Your Honour to ask the very good question: “Is it possible that the decision to prosecute was prompted by Mr Balkwell’s campaign and a desire to ‘Do Something’?” It was pointed out by the defence, quite properly, that the evidence against the Defendant was laid bare in that first interview of him on 6 August 2002. So why has it taken another 12 years to get to court?

Is it possible, Your Honour, that an even greater ‘Abuse of Process’ is taking place before your very eyes, namely that there may be an arrangement or understanding of some kind between the prosecution and the defence to keep out of this trial all the many lines of evidence that suggest that this was no accident?  In which case, Simon Bromley may be found guilty of ‘gross negligence by manslaughter’ when in fact he has never given a truthful account of what really happened that night.         

The evidence of Jason Weald – read out by the junior barrister and by Detective Constable Nick Baxter

Your Honour and the jury were taken through the interview under caution of Simon Bromley by Detective Sergeant Jason Weald. I find it very strange that this should prove to be the primary evidence against Simon Bromley when this interview was the one and only interview under caution (until 2012) in what the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) said in its final report (30 January 201) said was a ‘seriously flawed’ initial investigation and set of reviews.

Moreover, in upholding 26 instances of misconduct against 8 Essex Police officers in the case, mostly of very senior rank, and including no fewer than 13 separate misconduct findings against the Senior Investigating Officer in the case, Detective Chief Superintendent Graeme Bull, the IPCC also found Jason Weald guilty of two counts of misconduct, namely for:

“Not conducting a challenging interview under caution of Simon Bromley, beginning his interview by telling Simon Bromley that the police were treating Lee’s death as ‘a tragic accident’,” and

"Failing to identify all possible witnesses”.

Detective Sergeant Weald’s interview of Simon Bromley is dealt with in paragraphs 44 to 52 of the IPCC’s interim report, 29 June 2009: “IPCC Investigation into complaints by Leslie Balkwell regarding Essex Police Investigation: Investigation Update Report” by Amanda Rowe, Senior IPCC Investigation Officer. I respectfully suggest that Your Honour ought to read all of those paragraphs, bu the main points were:

“The interview…was extremely poor, lacking depth and clarity” (Para 45)

“Sgt Weald opened the interview by stating that Simon Bromley was being investigated for an offence of involuntary manslaughter but said (capitals as in the original IPCC report) “I PREFER TO SAY THAT WE ARE INVESTIGATING WHAT I CONSIDER TO BE A TRAGIC ACCIDENT ON THE 18th JULY”. This was an ill-judged comment that demonstrates a lack of independence by Sgt Weald” (Para 46)

“…Sgt Weald and DC Jose lacked sufficient knowledge of the workings of a cement mixer to probe or challenge Simon Bromley’s answers. At times, Simon Bromley is led in his answers by Sgt. Weald and assumptions are made about what he means when giving very vague or incomplete answers”. (Para 47)

“Following the interview a policy decision was made by Chief Supt. Bull at 17.00 hours the same day to submit the advice file to the CPS as ‘the enquiry has no information to suggest that the deceased died in circumstances other than as reported/described by the suspect’. As the interview had only concluded at 15.43 hours, it is apparent that there was no further investigation into Simon Bromley’s account or whether the version of events he put forward was possible or probable before the decision was made to submit the evidence collated to the CPS. The decision was almost certainly only made on a verbal account from the interviewing officers as a transcript of the interview would not have been available at that time. This is a serious failing of the initial investigation…” (Paras 49-51), and

“By 16th June 2004 it was apparent that a decision had been made to treat Simon Bromley as a witness as he was asked to give a witness statement. I cannot find a policy decision that determines Simon Bromley’s status deviation from ‘suspect for gross negligence/manslaughter’ to ‘witness’ (Para 52)”.  

The claim that Simon Bromley was ‘inching’ round the drum periodically all evening: 1. the tachograph evidence

In Bromley’s statement read out to the Court, he claims that he and Lee would take it in turns to stay in the drum while it is gradually turned (‘inched’) round by the other. It is claimed that the person inside the drum would ‘shout out’ when the drum was ‘in the right position’ for further work to be carried out.

This can be proved to be untrue by another vital piece of evidence denied to Your Honour and the jury by the police, the CPS and Karim Kahlil Q.C. The tachograph unerringly shows ‘strike marks’ showing when the lorry was moved that evening. It was moved:

* Twice between 7.10pm and 7.30pm
Twice between 9.00pm and 9.20pm.

These movements are also clearly shown at the same times on the CCTV.
The tachograph shows that the lorry did not move again (and that he engine was not switched on again) until 12.59am and again at 1.03pm.  The ‘inching round’ story is a clear fabrication. The jurors do not know this.

The claim that Simon Bromley was ‘inching’ round the drum periodically all evening:  2. the decibel evidence

Decibel tests carried out by (a) the HSE and (b) my expert John Bond showed that even if the ‘inching round’ claim was true, it would have been impossible for anyone outside the drum to hear what was (allegedly) being shouted from inside the drum. Dcibel readings of around 100 decibels were taken when both the engine and drum were moving.

Alleged lighting in the drum

Your Honour and the jury will have heard evidence read out during the trial about:

a)  ‘a light’ or
b)  'a torch’ or
c)   ‘torches’

allegedly used by Lee and Simon Bromley while they were (allegedly) carrying on working in the dark after 9.20pm (when as we say multiple lines of evidence show that the ‘gunning out’ work had ceased).
Your Honour and the jury are unaware that:

a)  the CCTV shows no evidence at all of activity, or of lights being used, after 9.20pm, EXCEPT FOR

b)  Simon Bromley being seen on the CCTV to bring out a brand new ‘head lamp’ at 12.12am. a lamp which was found OUTSIDE the lorry when the emergency services arrived (with evidence that it could not have been used inside)

c)  it would be impossible for ‘torches’ to provide sufficient light to operate inside the drum during the night, never mind the impossibility of using torches whilst drilling using 50lb. Kango hammers.        

The claim that Simon Bromley was ‘inching’ round the drum periodically all evening:  3. the evidence of Susan Lawrence (ex-partner of Simon Bromley)

Your Honour and the jury are also unaware of the following evidence fabricated by Susan Lawrence to help bolster the claim that the two men were working in the drum until late into the night:

a)  Susan Lawrence’s adamant insistence that she took drinks out to the men when it was dark. This was flatly contradicted by the CCTV tape which showed that no such thing occurred

b)  Susan Lawrence’s equally adamant claim that she ‘saw’ Lee climbing out of the hatch in the drum, initially putting his head and feet through the inspection hatch at the same time. This is a physical impossibility.    

Incorrect statements made to the Court made by Karim Kahlil Q.C.

These were too numerous to mention and if I can get a transcript of what he said I will be able to point out them all.

But just for illustrative purposes, I heard him make these statements to the Court about the timeline of the night’s events (Your Honour’s notes will have the actual words used):

a) time work started on the ‘gunning out’: ‘Around 8.15 to 8.30’
b) time when Lee left the premises for a while: ‘Around 10.30’
c) time when the incident/death of Lee was reported: ‘Around 1.15 to 1.30’.

The times of the first two events can be clearly seen on the 7-hour CCTV tape which was seized by police and runs from 7pm 17 July to 2am 18 July.

The time work started on the ‘gunning out’ was 7.40pm not ‘8.15 to 8.30’.

The time my son left the bungalow can also be seen on the CCTV at 11.35pm not ’10.30pm’.

And going by the combined records of the CCTV, the all-important tachograph records and the Essex Ambulance Service, Lee’s death (as is unanimously agreed) was at 1.03am precisely, not ‘1.15 to 1.30’.

In such ways and many others, inaccurate information has been given to the Court. If Your Honour and the jury were only to be shown the entire CCTV tape (which is still available to view), the way that you and the jury have been comprehensively misled about this case would immediately be clear.

Karim Kahlil also claimed to you and the jury that ‘the cab control lever in the cab was broken’. I dealt with that in part in my letter to you on Friday. I hope to be able to produce to you in Court today the written evidence of P C Slade, who wrote the Scene Log, which included the clear words: ‘Lever in cab used to move drum’, thuis contradicting Mr Kahlil’s claim.

Moreover, Your Honour will have heard the interview of the Defendant by Detective Sergeant Weald read out to the jury. Bromley is asked: “Did you know the can controls weren’t working?” Simon Bromley says he is unaware. Yet how could he be unaware of that, having himself admitted to driving the vehicle that evening, and the vehicle having been taken in earlier that afternoon to Scammells for a roller bearing fault but no other fault reported.

Besides that, we have the evidence of several expert engineers that the control rod to the cab controls was deliberately broken. If indeed ,as P C Slade confirms on the Scene Log, if the control rod was deliberately broken, this could only have happened after Lee was killed.      

The evidence of David Rudland

David Rudland was not able to say what happened. The purpose of his evidence was to back up in every way possible the scenario put forward by Simon Bromley of what was supposed to have happened that night. In particular, his evidence was used to try and provide some explanation for what other engineering experts said was impossible, namely the drum allegedly ‘turning/rotating unexpectedly’, as Simon Bromley claimed.

The following major points about David Rudland’s evidence must be made before you decide how to deal with my evidence that this whole trial is an abuse of process:

The jury has had a wholly one-sided account of the expert evidence

As I mentioned in Friday’s letter, my expert, Mr John Bond, commented in a report dated January 2014:

“On the assumption that Mr Balkwell was found fatally injured after the drum had been stopped it is my opinion that the drum would have rotated well in excess of one revolution before Mr Simon Bromley would have been able to stop the lorry engine, as he says in his statements, by stalling it. In this case there would have been evidence of an unbroken deposit of blood and body tissue round the whole periphery of the drum. It is my further opinion that it is highly improbable that the alleged incident as claimed by Mr Simon Bromley took place at all”.

I wish to inform Your Honour that Mr Bond was a former Senior Head of the HSE and indeed was formerly David Rudland’s boss. 

What would be the effect of allowing the jury to read his various reports on the case from 2009 to 2014? – in which he demolishes some of the arguments of Mr Rudland? Why should a jury in this country be deprived of that expertise? Both the prosecution and the defence know about this expert opinion of Mr Bond and indeed other expert engineering evidence, some of it obtained by the police, which contradicts the accident scenario?

The claim that the drum might have revolved ‘by accident’ as the result of the uneven load of concrete in the lorry

Your Honour asked Mr Rudland several questions about this. He said that when he tested the lorry, it ‘crept’ a short way on one or two occasions, but on another occasion ‘moved quite fast, about one-third of the way round.

He is referring to a movement that he witnessed but which then stopped. Unfortunately it appears that Mr Rudland did not take any film of these observations, in contrast to the police filming of two lorry demonstrations run in 2003.

However, it is Simon Bromley’s evidence that the lorry kept on revolving and that he ran round the back etc., then ran to the front, then the foot pedal, then had to stall it. I refer to what Mr Bond said above, which I believe is unchallenged by the police, namely:   “On the assumption that Mr Balkwell was found fatally injured after the drum had been stopped it is my opinion that the drum would have rotated well in excess of one revolution before Mr Simon Bromley would have been able to stop the lorry engine, as he says in his statements, by stalling it. In this case there would have been evidence of an unbroken deposit of blood and body tissue round the whole periphery of the drum”. 

There was no such blood line around the drum. The blood line was no more than 0.9m/3 feet in length. Once again, Karim Kahlil Q.C. has deliberately withheld this evidence form you and the jury. The evidence is clear from the police photographs. I do not know if the jury has seen any of these. But if they have, then this point would need to be made clear to them.

The claim that there was a substantial amount of ‘play’ in the lever when Mr Rudland examined it

This claim was put forward to suggest to the jury that the lever might have been inadvertently left in the ‘on’ position. What Mr Kahlil failed to tell you and the jury is that there exists a report from an engineer from the HSE, Mr Felsted (who also at one time worked under my expert John Bond), who inspected the lorry o n24 July 2002 (six days after the death of my son) saying that there was no play in the lever at that time. I will try and locate that report for Your Honour to see.

I have given evidence, based on the unanimous opinion of five engineering experts, that the control rod was deliberately broken. It is the breakage of that control rod that would cause there to be ‘play’ in the lever 7 years later when Mr Rudland examined it.

The claim that it would take ‘two minutes’ of the engine being used for the ‘stop button’ to work

What Mr Rudland completely failed to mention was that a start-up time of up to two minutes for the ‘stop button’ to function is based on starting on an ‘empty system’. i.e. the engine not having been running for some considerable time.

Yet the evidence in this case (confirmed by the tachograph and the CCTV which as it were ‘speak with one voice’) is that the lorry engine:

a)  was in use throughout the day until 7.10pm
b)  in addition was used to run the lorry down and up the lane at about 7.25pm
c)  was used again to run down and up the lane on two occasions around 9.05pm and 9.20pm.

Thus, by 12.59am, the first of two times the lorry was switched on (the second time was 1.03am), there was not an empty system.

Indeed, Mr Rudland concedes in Paragraph 5.2 (c) of his report (page 14) dated 22 September 2009 that

“If there was no or low pressure in the auxiliary circuit, it took approximately 2 minutes from starting the engine before the button could be used to stop the engine again”.  

Moreover, on that point of the two starts, the two separate starts four minutes apart are not consistent with the evidence from Simon Bromley that the jury heard read out.

You and the jury have not heard this evidence.

Evidence that the lorry was moved a short distance on each of these two occasions (12.59am and 1.03am)

Nor have you and the jury heard the evidence of Mr Williams, an expert consulted by the police, who insisted that the tachograph evidence showed that the lorry was physically moved (forwards or backwards) in addition to the drum being revolved. Simon Bromley has given no explanation for this finding. 

There are numerous other lines of evidence which show this was no accident in the attached list of 141 lines of evidence and in an 87-page document sent by-email to Your Honour overnight.

The possibility of police/CPS misconduct

Your Honour, I must draw your attention to the fact that I have found it very hard during these proceedings to hear the following phrase repeated many times: “We must be fair to Simon Bromley”.
I can’t remember anyone in the hearing saying:

“We must be fair to the victim, a 33-year-old man, and father of a young baby, and make sure he gets justice”.

Or:

“We must be fair to the 17-week old boy who lost his father that night”

Or:

“We must be fair to the partner of Lee, who truly loved my son, and who has had to bring up the young boy without his Dad”. 

For this reason, I am attending at your Court at Chelmsford this morning purely to give you this letter.

For the past 12½ years, my family and I have had to suffer the consequences not only of Lee’s death, but also the long fight for justice. You will not know about the two adjournments of the Inquest, the first because a corrupt Coroner’s Officer, Mr Derrick Bines, was overheard to say to an Essex Police officer: “I’m going to run this Inquest as a tragic accident”.

Naturally, he had to be dismissed by the Coroner, Mrs Beasley-Murray. It will all be in her notes on the case. You probably have not read the catalogue of serious misconduct found by the IPCC after a 4½-year investigation (late 2007 to 2012). You will not be aware therefore of the many obvious lies told by police officers, how they edited the CCTV tape before their editing was discovered, and so much more. It is all in the two IPCC reports.

You may do whatever seems right to you with my letter, I give you carte blanche.

I have for 12½ years tried to use the legal routes and my complaint rights to force the truth out of the police. You will probably not be aware that two Essex Police intelligence officers were so concerned with the corrupt actions of their bosses in this case (Lee’s death), and others, that they supplied me covertly with copies of most of the key documents in the case and three disks of all the digitised documents pertaining to Operation Portwing, including every single undercover interview  with the 14 drug dealers eventually successfully prosecuted by the police and the CPS, including Simon Bromley and his parents David and Linda Bromley. You will not be aware that within these documents is clear evidence of collusion by police, customs and excise officials and police dog handlers to aid drug dealers in their business. You will not be aware that at a meeting with me and my family in the Brentwood area in early 2003, these two intelligence officers - at risk to themselves - disclosed to me that my son was murdered.
Nor will you be aware that Karim Kahlil was so concerned about these and other issues I raised that, at his request, the current Head of the Metropolitan Police Professional Standards Department, Alaric Bonthron, and his Deputy, were summoned to meet me (which they did at my house) and spoke on numerous occasions to both me and Mr Bennett.

Unfortunately, the two whistleblowers, both now retired from Essex Police, are unable to speak as senior police officers have advised them that they will be prosecuted under the Official Secrets Act if they disclose what they know about the killing of my son.

This is all part of a pattern of serious police corruption that we have learnt about in recent years. Your Honour may have seen in  the Independent newspaper earlier this year references to Operation Tiberius, a lengthy covert investigation by senior Metropolitan Police Officers, in 2002 (the year my son was killed), which exposed endemic corruption not only of police officers, but also CPS officers and lawyers, Customs and Excise staff, and even Court officials. No wonder it was never published, and was left to an ex-police officer to leak the report to the Independent.

We have had Stephen Lawrence, Hillsborough, the cover-up by senior Met Police Officers of the killing of Daniel Morgan, the Rochdale, Oxford and Rotherham mass child abuse scandals, due to massive police failures, ‘Plebgate’ and many other recent examples of senior level police corruption. Not least the number of senior police and Special Branch officers who knew that Jimmy Savile was committing serious crimes but ordered more junior officers to stop investigating him. Please do not assume, Your Honour, that the criminal courts of Essex are free of such top-level police corruption. 

I have done what I can to prise out the truth via the legal route. It has ended up with this farce of a trial where the prosecution are concealing masses of evidence from Your Honour and the jury.

There has been no honesty shown to the eight women and four men of the jury.

So, having handed in my letter this morning, I will now turn my back on this Court.

But while I have breath left in my body I will continue to use every means still available to me to get justice for my son, and expose the facts and evidence that the police and the CPS have tried to hide for the past 12½ years.     

Signed __________________________________

Leslie W 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: Lee Balkwell death - Attempt to have the case of R v Bromley thrown out - Wednesday 8 October, Chelmsford Crown Court, 10.00am

Post by Dont Make Me Laff on 14.10.14 19:03

(Quote) I have done what I can to prise out the truth via the legal route. It has ended up with this farce of a trial where the prosecution are concealing masses of evidence from Your Honour and the jury. But while I have breath left in my body I will continue to use every means still available to me to get justice for my son, and expose the facts and evidence that the police and the CPS have tried to hide for the past 12½ years (Unquote)

 

ME (dmml) - I wish Mr Balkwell and his family my very best and hope they can one day come to erms with the injustice that they have been dealt.

 

I know how they feel. I really do.

Dont Make Me Laff

Posts : 304
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2014-06-18
Location : Kent

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Lee Balkwell death - Attempt to have the case of R v Bromley thrown out - Wednesday 8 October, Chelmsford Crown Court, 10.00am

Post by ultimaThule on 14.10.14 20:18

From BBC News Essex:

14 October 2014 Last updated at 17.11

Concrete mixer boss Simon Bromley jailed for cannabis cultivation

The boss of a man crushed to death in a concrete mixer has been jailed for growing cannabis with an estimated street value of £55,000.

Lee Balkwell, 33, died at a farm in South Ockendon, Essex, in 2002.

His boss, Simon Bromley, 45, was jailed for three years after admitting the drugs offence. Sentencing for breaching health and safety regulations over Mr Balkwell's death has been adjourned.

Bromley was cleared of manslaughter at Chelmsford Crown Court on Monday.

In mitigation for the defence, Peter Rowlands told the court that his client, of Baldwin's Farm, Dennises Lane, South Ockendon, cultivated cannabis to pay off debts incurred by a previous drugs case.

He said since Mr Balkwell's death Bromley had been subject to a campaign against him alleging murder, with him being "almost stalked" via social media and phone calls.

He added the death had been "deeply traumatic for him," and that he had been smoking cannabis, drinking heavily and taking cocaine "to cope with the stress".
'Lax attitude'

Passing sentence, Judge Christopher Ball, QC, said cannabis posed "a destructive element to people's mental health".

During the trial over Mr Balkwell's death, the court was told the 33-year-old had worked as an HGV driver before being employed by Bromley to drive a concrete mixer.

The jury heard that on the day he died, Mr Balkwell and Bromley had been working to clean out hardened concrete from inside the mixer.

Mr Balkwell died after he became trapped between the drum and chassis of the vehicle.

Prosecutor Karim Khalil, QC, claimed Bromley had a "lax attitude to safety".

The court heard Mr Balkwell had not been offered any training for using the mixer and Bromley had not provided him with safety clothing or equipment.

A jury found Bromley guilty of failing to discharge his duty as an employer under health and safety rules.

ultimaThule

Posts : 3355
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2013-09-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Lee Balkwell death - Attempt to have the case of R v Bromley thrown out - Wednesday 8 October, Chelmsford Crown Court, 10.00am

Post by ultimaThule on 24.10.14 0:44

Having been curious to know why sentencing of Simon Bromley in respect of his conviction for breaching health and safety regulations was adjourned to an unspecified date, I have now found explanation in the News & Features section of the Essex Police website: http://www.essex.police.uk/news_features/latest_news_updates/employer_found_guilty_of_healt.aspx

"A 44-year-old man has been found guilty of failing to ensure the health of safety of an employee who died after becoming trapped in a cement mixer almost 12 years ago.

Simon Bromley was cleared of the manslaughter of 33-year-old Lee Balkwell at Chelmsford Crown Court on Monday, October 13, 2014 but found guilty of an offence under the Health and Safety at Work Act.

Mr Balkwell died after becoming trapped between the drum and chassis of a cement mixer while working at Baldwin's Farm in Denisses Lane, Upminster on July 18, 2002.

The court heard how Simon Bromley from Upminster failed to ensure the health and safety of Mr Balkwell as he worked to gun out the inside of the Hymix concrete mixer.

Simon Bromley appeared at the same court for sentencing on Tuesday, October 14, 2014. The judge adjourned sentencing for the Health and Safety breach until a detailed report into his assets has been completed. He was however sentenced to three years' imprisonment for cultivating cannabis which he had already admitted at Basildon Crown Court in May 2013.

Senior Investigating Officer T/DCI Janine Farrell said: "This has been a long and complex investigation spanning a period of 12 years.  Evidence was presented to CPS, who deemed it worthy of charging Simon Bromley with Manslaughter by gross negligence despite the passage of time.  However, and rightly so, the verdict will always remain in the hands of the jury and they have found Simon Bromley not guilty.

"My priority at this time is to acknowledge that the last 12 years have been highly distressing for the next of kin of Lee Balkwell, his family and friends.  I realise that no matter what the verdict had been, nothing would ever bring Lee Balkwell back to those who love and miss him, my thoughts are with them."

Vicky Fletcher, HM Principal Inspector Health and Safety said: "The tragic death of Lee Balkwell could have been avoided had the necessary safety precautions been taken.

"I would like to take this opportunity to remind others of the need to stop and think before carrying out hazardous work activities so that appropriate safety measures can  be taken.""

ultimaThule

Posts : 3355
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2013-09-18

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