Submitted by a Victim in Bristol - July 2012In 2003 the writer was interviewed for an allegation of having savings in excess of £8000 when applying for benefit. When out of work, the writer made applications for benefit. He explained that the amount of money in a bond was a pension provision agreed by DWP (Department of Work and Pensions) in 1999. This is because he was self employed and had no other effective scheme. In 2003 DWP disagreed claiming that the annuities should have been declared as savings to invalidate claims for benefit.
At interview he was charged but this did not represent an offence in law. He was asked to pay more than £12000 back as overpaid benefit which he did immediately on the grounds that there must have been a mistake.
In 2004 he was summons by Elaine Laken of North Avon Magistrates Court on informations served by Carl Roberts of the DWP prosecution. The summons charges were never mentioned before. Indeed, they were false charges.
DWP and the Court also failed to disclose a document of the case and witnesses, but this was controlled by his solicitor Mrs Hays of Hoole & Co Bristol. She had failed to realise that the summons was a fake. Also the monies were falsely claimed back and no redress was permitted by the judiciary despite the law.
However, the trial was conducted on the dispute (not the charges) with a guilty verdict. The writer did not understand the case or the law at that time because his conviction was labelled using the charges in the summons. He took this to Crown appeal but this took a year since the DWP refused to make disclosures causing the appeal to be dismissed.
However, Judge Darwall-Smith the Crown Judge granted an appeal by case stated on the grounds that the summons charges were defective. This was later struck out by Sir Andrew Collins Admin Court, because, The Barrister for DWP Eric Waley with the Judge forged a document (made false testimony) to portray itself in the form of an application to refuse judicial review to bi-pass the appellant.
On subsequent unsuccessful appeals and refusals without grounds from High Court judges, the DWP eventually disclosed in 2010 the document of the prosecution’s case. This could not prove the charges in the summons. Indeed it was not a true testimony of the case against the accused and had not been verified in law. Further it described the complaint against the accused at interview and did not touch on the summons.
In a Judicial Review of 2011, the compelling evidence grew against the Courts criminal conduct. The defendants, Elaine Laken & Dominic Box, who served the false summons, hid evidence with the DWP to conceal acts of Perjury. No submissions were made by them to defend this conduct. So the presiding Justice Silber swapped the defendants to render their immunity from claim: he then inserted the DWP prosecution team, instructed by Ministers Steve Webb and Ian Duncan-Smith. He then struck out the case and awarded costs accruing to in excess £2000 against the writer. To cap it all, Minister Steve Webb and Ian Duncan Smith applied for Civil Restraint to prevent all rights of appeal without any hearings, granted by Justice Silber.
The writer has since applied for a private prosecution against the Magistrates under subornation of Perjury with DWP. The police refuse to investigate these serious allegations which are now proven. This abuse of Government is defined as a crime against humanity.
Trackback from your site.