Anda di halaman 1dari 5


8 March 2016



(Magistrates Courts Act, s 1)

Failure under subsections (5) and (6) of Section 26 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act
2015 to exercise a power for the purpose of achieving the detriment of another person

On 11 November 2015, an officer serving with Humberside Police, Gillian Morley, 9614
improperly exercising police powers in responding to a reported offence of perjury to defraud,
by stating that the matter did not concern the Police as it was civil.


On 8 November 2015 the following report was submitted to Humberside Police:

North East Lincolnshire Council produced a false witness statement (thereby
committing perjury) with regards a council tax liability hearing at Grimsby
Magistrates' Court. The District Judge (Daniel Curtis) was aware that the
evidence surrounded a false and corrupt statement, but nevertheless granted the
council a liability order to enforce a fraudulent sum which presently stands at
120.00. This sum is likely to increase if the council appoints its criminal firm of
bailiffs, Rossendales. My allegations are that the council has committed perjury
with the intent to fraudulently obtain money from me by the use of Grimsby
Magistrates court and that Judge Daniel Curtis has perverted the course of justice
by being complicit to that crime.


On 11 November 2015, Humberside Police responded by wrongly stating that the

reported crime (one punishable as an offence whether occurring in criminal or civil
proceedings), was a civil matter, thereby improperly exercising police powers.
With regards to your report that was submitted to Humberside Police on
08/11/2015.....please be advised that this is not a Police matter and is civil which
I suggest you seek further advice from a solicitor/legal advisor.


The crime report followed proceedings instituted by North East Lincolnshire council
(NELC) to enforce council tax liability at Grimsby Magistrates' Court. The original
hearing 2 October 2015 identified issues and so the matter adjourned to 30 October.


NELC diverted payment intended to reduce the indebtedness of the current years
liability to a sum which was outstanding from the 2012/13 tax year thus engineering
default. The outstanding sum was disputed court costs which are under appeal to the High
Court. NELC had suspended the sum pending the court's decision so there was no
justification for engineering default by allocating payment to that sum as the case has yet
to be determined. The appeal has never withdrawn and consequently the costs still


On 16 October, NELC served court papers by electronic transfer on the Defendant and
the Magistrates court in respect of the 30 October court hearing. The Witness Statements
content caused the Defendant to suspect a deliberate intent to deceive the court. That
matter was specifically documented in the Defendants representations dated 29 October
where it was also contended the statement made by NELC that it had no further reason to
believe that the costs were being disputed.


NELC had supported its decision to allocate payment to the disputed costs based upon its
claim that it believed the High Court appeal had been withdrawn therefore the suspension
to collect the costs lifted. It is inconceivable that NELC honestly believed this which is
backed up by the exhibits supporting its Witness statement. The Defendants current
council tax bill (exhibit 1) itemised the sum as a separate balance from the current
liability and describes it as a sum subject to court proceedings. NELC had
simultaneously submitted an item of evidence to the court claiming it had no reason to
believe that the costs were still being disputed and another implying that they were
suspended until the outcome of the proceedings. The Council Tax bill expressed this in
the following terms:

Memorandum Note
Your instalments for 2015/16 do not include your 2014/15 account balance
As at 27-FEB-2015 your 2014/15 Council Tax account balance is 60.00
60.00 of the total is subject to court proceedings

On serving the court papers by electronic transfer, NELC had only been able to
successfully transfer to the Defendant, nine of the fourteen files which made up the
complete set of documents. It was apparent from the context of the 'Witness Statement'
which was successfully transferred that the missing content could be sourced elsewhere,
and NELC therefore informed.


A missing exhibit was identified in the Witness Statement to be a letter on which NELC
relied to justify having no further reason to believe that the costs were being disputed
[because the Defendant had withdrawn the] application for the Judicial review of the
costs'. It was verified by email records that a copy, which was a letter sent to the
Administrative Court Office dated 20th November 2013 had been sent to NELC and
acknowledged by way of a 'read receipt' on 22 November 2013.


There was no obvious disadvantage to not having received this exhibit. The letter,
however did not give any cause to lead NELC to believe that the High Court appeal (case
stated) challenging the summons costs had been withdrawn. The letter was in response to
the Administrative Court's recommendation to withdraw the judicial review claim as the
process had prompted the Magistrates to produce a draft case and deemed there no longer
a need for further action on their part as the process of stating a case was underway. The
judicial review claim, which was a separate matter from the application to state a case for
an appeal challenging the costs, was merely the vehicle used to get the Magistrates' court
to conform. The judicial review claim therefore was for a mandatory order, not a 'review
of the costs' and so the case stated appeal challenging the summons costs had never been

10. It is clear from the context of that letter alone that it was only the judicial review claim
for a mandatory order that was withdrawn and that the High Court appeal challenging the
summons costs was still being pursued.
11. NELC had acknowledged receiving letters (email attachments) by way of 'read
receipts' returned on 15 January, 14 February and 23 April 2014 in respect of letters dated
10 January, 13 February and 22 April 2014. Those letters, which were copies of

correspondence sent to the Justices' Clerk contained hard evidence that the high court
appeal was still being pursued, and sent after the judicial review claim for mandatory
order was withdrawn.
12. Acknowledgement of letters being read, regarding the 10 January and 14 February emails
concerned letters sent to the Justices Clerk, querying the failure to deliver the final
signed case stated. The email regarding the 22 April concerned a letter sent to the
Justices Clerk, requesting a certificate to state that the application had been refused.
13. The missing court papers were requested again on 2 November 2015 (after the court
hearing) in readiness for escalating the matter. NELC was successful in transferring them,
and on viewing the exhibit concerning the Administrative Court it was obvious that
contrary to the initial view, not having all the papers was a disadvantage.
14. The exhibit, provided additional evidence that NELC had wilfully made a statement
material in the proceeding, which was known not to be true. The letters were not copies
of the original; it can be confirmed beyond reasonable doubt that the contents were
obtained from the same source that recorded publicly everything relevant to the matter.
The source was a public help forum dealing with council tax issues, the same forum
which NELC had sourced the contents of another of its exhibits.
15. The letters contained in the exhibit (revealed 2 November) had been redacted and
matched the entries that were posted on the public forum. The forum is the only place
from which those letters could be sourced in that redacted form. The characteristics of the
letters which NELC submitted to the court were identical to the forum posts.
16. NELC had not sought the original letters and had presumably as a short cut referred to the
website where all correspondence connected with the matter (albeit redacted) where
conveniently in one place. It is likely that if NELC had made use of the forum to produce
its Witness Statement, it would have been informed from the regular updates posted that
the case stated appeal was still very much being pursued. Whether the forum was
regularly consulted by NELC would not be the deciding factor in determining that it
knowingly made a false statement; it would however reinforce the allegations. The crux
of the matter is that the post from which the content was sourced was accompanied with
some commentary (below) which reinforced the matter in itself:

Back almost to square one.

Although the judicial review claim for mandatory order was not entirely
successful in mandating the Magistrates' Court to state the case (other than the
draft), it would never have been known there was a possibility to negotiate the
terms of a recognizance at the hearing. It took this process to prompt a response
from the Justices at Grimsby Magistrates' Court.
The next move then will be to arrange to appear before the Magistrates Court to
agree terms of a recognizance.
17. NELC had made a statement (material in the proceedings) that was known to be false
with the intention of misleading the court to justify misallocating payment to a disputed
sum thereby engineering default for the current year enabling a further court application
for the purposes of fraudulently attaching a claim of costs.
18. It is a matter of public importance that a summons be issued directed to the police officer
to appear before the magistrates' court to answer the information for an offence of
improperly treating perjury as a civil matter.

The information of: Mr

, of


I believe the statement contained in this information is true to the best of my knowledge and

Dated this 8th day of March 2016