Malicious Prosecutions and False Arrest by the Metropolitan Police Department !!!

What is Malicious Prosecution

Malicious prosecution is the wrongfully subjection of an individual or groups of people to a criminal or civil legal proceeding without reasonable grounds, other than malice or an improper purpose, by the Police, or a Prosecuting authority. It is often a wrongful legal action taken with malice and without sufficient grounds, leading to harm for the person subjected to the prosecution.

Key elements of malicious prosecution by a police department include:

1.    Initiation or Continuation of Legal Proceedings:

Police officers or the department must have initiated or played a significant role in continuing criminal charges or proceedings against the individual.

2.    Lack of Probable Cause:

The officers must have acted without probable cause, meaning there was no reasonable basis to believe that the individual committed the alleged crime. This can involve ignoring exculpatory evidence, fabricating evidence, or relying on unreliable witnesses.

3.    Malice:

The officers must have acted with malice, which involves an improper motive such as personal animosity, bias, or an intent to harm the individual. This can include actions taken out of spite, retaliation, or to achieve a personal or departmental goal.

4.    Favourable Termination:

The criminal proceedings must have ended in a manner that is favourable to the individual, such as an acquittal, dismissal of charges, or a finding of not guilty, indicating that the charges were unfounded.

5.    Damages:

The individual must have suffered harm as a result of the malicious prosecution. This can include emotional distress, damage to reputation, legal costs, loss of employment, and other personal or financial harms.

Malicious Prosecutions, Detentions and False Arrests, (of Campaign for Truth and Justice Members) to FORCIBLY Extinguish all Legitimate Demands for Systemic Accountability and Redress

As a result of the Metropolitan Police Department’s reluctance to record and investigate Criminal Judicial Corruption Complaints against violating members of the Judicial establishment, the members of Campaign for Truth and Justice sustained several Community Affirmative Action Campaigns outside London Police Stations and Court Venues in order to primarily bring publicity and awareness to the Judicial Authority’s Criminalities and Law-breaking.

The Campaign’s targeted Actions highlighting the Judiciary’s criminal violations and the Metropolitan Police Department’s hypocritical inactions, failures, and omissions resulted in false arrests, unlawful detentions, and imprisonments aimed at fragmenting the organisation and extinguishing all demands for accountability and redress directed at both the Judiciary and the Metropolitan Police Department.

Frustrated by the Campaign and its members' readiness to pursue Civil and Criminal Court action by any means necessary to compel the Judicial Authorities to enforce victims' rights to redress and compensation under Section 7(1)(a) HRA 1998 and Article 5.5 HRA 1998, (albeit rights that were unlawfully blocked and ignored by the establishment) the Metropolitan Police Department adopted malicious prosecutions of Campaign for Truth and Justice members as its preferred strategy.

These then is demonstrative of some of the Malicious Prosecutions, False Arrest and Unlawful Imprisonments, I was subjected to during the course a rightful demand for Institutional Accountability and Redress whilst performing the role of the active SECRETARY of Campaign for Truth and Justice.

Malicious Prosecution Case 1: Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm and Dangerous Driving

Facts:

• Charges: Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm and Dangerous Driving.
• Case No: T20030230
• Date of Acquittal: 7th April 2003.
• Court: Snaresbrook Crown Court.
• Outcome: Acquittal by jury.

Argument:

The prosecution of this case was founded on insufficient and flawed evidence, failing to meet the requisite standard for a criminal conviction. The acquittal by a jury of ordinary members of the public underscores the lack of credible evidence to support the charges. The initiation of the prosecution appears to have been driven by an ulterior motive to harass and intimidate the Campaign members, thereby constituting malicious prosecution. This case demonstrates a clear abuse of legal process by the Metropolitan Police Department, aimed at discrediting and disrupting the activities of the Campaign.

Malicious Prosecution Case 2: Having Article with Blade

Facts:

• Charges: Having Article with Blade.
• Case No: T20050199
• Date of Acquittal: 22nd July 2005.
• Court: Inner London Crown Court.
• Outcome: Acquittal by jury.

Argument:

The prosecution lacked credible evidence that the defendant had any intent to use the blade unlawfully. The acquittal by a jury suggests that the evidence presented by the prosecution was not only insufficient but also potentially fabricated or exaggerated to malign the defendant. This prosecution appears to have been pursued with malice, intending to undermine the Campaign and its members' efforts. The Metropolitan Police Department’s actions in this case illustrate a misuse of prosecutorial power, warranting a claim for malicious prosecution.

Malicious Prosecution Case 3: Intimidating a Witness, Common Assault, and Threatening with a Knife

Facts:

• Charges: Intimidating a Witness, Common Assault, Threatening with a Knife.
• Case No: T20140357
• Date of Acquittal: 22nd October 2014.
• Court: Inner London Crown Court.
• Outcome: Acquittal by jury.

Argument:

The defendant faced multiple charges, each lacking substantial evidence to support a conviction. The jury’s decision to acquit on all counts reflects the prosecution's failure to establish a prima facie case. The decision to bring these charges appears to be a strategic maneuver to intimidate and silence the defendant, indicative of malicious intent. This case highlights the pattern of the Metropolitan Police Department’s misuse of the criminal justice system to target and disrupt the Campaign’s operations, substantiating a claim for malicious prosecution.

Malicious Prosecution Case 4: Physical Assault

Facts:

• Charges: Physical Assault of former partner Sherina Paton.
• Case No: CJ88116
• Date of Dismissal: 3rd May 2014.
• Court: Camberwell Green Magistrates’ Court.
• Outcome: Case Dismissed with a Not Guilty Verdict.

Argument:

The charges in this case were dismissed outright by the court, indicating a profound lack of evidence to sustain the prosecution. The timing and nature of the charges suggest an attempt to exploit personal relationships to further discredit and destabilize the defendant. The dismissal of the case underscores the baseless nature of the allegations and the malicious intent behind the prosecution. This incident serves as a clear example of the Metropolitan Police Department’s pattern of engaging in malicious prosecution to thwart the Campaign’s efforts for justice and accountability.

In summary, these four Cases collectively demonstrate there are systemic issues within the Metropolitan Police Department, where malicious prosecution was deployed as a tactic to suppress and dismantle the Campaign for Truth and Justice's pursuit of Accountability and Redress. The repeated pattern of baseless charges and subsequent acquittals or dismissals underscores the necessity for legal redress and accountability for such prosecutorial misconducts.

Failure to Provide Redress and Compensation Following Acquittal Constitutes Unlawful Detention 

Furthermore, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner’s failure to provide redress and compensation following the total acquittal of all serious charges at trials before a jury constitutes an extension of unlawful detention. It violates fundamental legal principles and human rights protections, including the right to liberty, security, and an effective remedy.

This failure not only perpetuates the injustice experienced by the acquitted individuals but also undermines the integrity and accountability of the justice system. Ensuring redress and compensation is not only a legal obligation but also a crucial step in restoring justice and maintaining public trust.

1. Right to Liberty and Security:

• Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA): Article 5 of the HRA guarantees the right to liberty and security. It mandates that any deprivation of liberty must be lawful, and individuals who have been unlawfully detained are entitled to compensation.
• Article 5.5 HRA 1998: This article specifically states that victims of unlawful detention have an enforceable right to compensation.

2. Principle of Accountability:

• Judicial Acquittal: An acquittal by a jury signifies that the defendant has been found not guilty of all charges. This outcome should prompt an immediate review of the detention’s legality and an obligation to provide redress and compensation for any unlawful detention.
• Accountability of Authorities: The failure to provide redress undermines the principle of accountability, which requires that authorities acknowledge and rectify wrongful actions, especially when they result in deprivation of liberty.

3. Redress and Compensation:

• Legal Obligations: Following an acquittal, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner is legally obligated to compensate the individual for wrongful detention, as stipulated under Section 7(1)(a) HRA 1998.
• Moral and Ethical Duty: Beyond legal requirements, there is a moral obligation to restore the individual’s dignity and address the harm caused by the wrongful detention.

4. Unlawful Detention:

• Extended Unlawful Detention: The initial detention, followed by a failure to provide redress after acquittal, constitutes an ongoing violation of the individual’s rights. It prolongs the unlawful nature of the detention by denying justice and compensation.
• Violation of Due Process: Failing to address wrongful detention and provide compensation disregards the due process guaranteed under the law, perpetuating the injustice suffered by the acquitted individual.

5. Human Rights Violations:

• Right to Effective Remedy: Under international human rights law, particularly the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), individuals have the right to an effective remedy for violations of their rights. This includes compensation for wrongful detention.
• Continued Harm: The lack of redress exacerbates the harm suffered, as the individual remains without acknowledgment of the wrongful detention and its impacts.

Compelling Arguments Against the Metropolitan Police Commissioner for Misfeasance

Finally I wish to addresses the issue of misfeasance by the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, asserting that the Commissioner has willfully engaged in or permitted wrongful conduct within their official capacity, resulting in harm or loss to myself and other Campaign for Truth and Justice members for over two decades.

Utilising the Four Cases outlined earlier, it’s not difficult to sustain a LAWFUL argument that the Metropolitan Police Commissioner’s actions and omissions constitute misfeasances, entailing the willful and unlawful execution of authority.

In each distinct scenarios involving arrests, charges, prosecutions, and subsequent acquittals, each case highlights how the Commissioner’s failure to ensure proper conduct and adherence to legal standards resulted in significant harm and loss constituting misfeasance.

1. Mett. Pol1: Wrongful Arrest, Charge, and Prosecution Leading to Acquittal

Scenario: On 7th April 2003, an individual was arrested, charged, and prosecuted for one count of Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm and a second count of Dangerous Driving. The trial took place at Snaresbrook Crown Court, Case No: T20030230, where the individual was acquitted by a jury.

Argument: The wrongful arrest and prosecution of the individual demonstrate a clear failure by the Commissioner to ensure that charges were based on solid evidence. The acquittal indicates that the prosecution lacked merit, suggesting that the arrest and charge were executed with negligence or possibly malicious intent. This constitutes misfeasance, as the Commissioner permitted or failed to prevent actions that unlawfully deprived the individual of their liberty and caused significant distress.

2. Mett. Pol2: Unjust Prosecution for Possession of a Blade

Scenario: On 22nd July 2005, an individual was arrested, charged, and prosecuted under one count of Having Article with Blade at Inner London Crown Court, Case No: T20050199. The jury acquitted the individual.

Argument: The prosecution’s inability to secure a conviction despite the serious nature of the charge suggests that the case was brought forward without sufficient evidence or proper investigation. The Commissioner’s oversight in allowing this charge to proceed demonstrates a reckless disregard for the legal standards required for prosecution. This misfeasance has caused undue harm to the individual, infringing upon their rights and causing unwarranted reputational damage and emotional distress.

3. Mett. Pol3: Multiple Charges Without Merit

Scenario: On 22nd October 2014, an individual was arrested, charged, and prosecuted for one count of Intimidating a Witness, one count of Common Assault, and one count of Threatening with a Knife at Inner London Crown Court, Case No: T20140357. The jury acquitted the individual of all charges.

Argument: The multiple charges brought against the individual, all leading to acquittal, indicate a systemic failure within the police department to properly assess the validity of the charges before proceeding with prosecution. The Commissioner’s responsibility includes ensuring that such charges are substantiated by credible evidence. The failure to do so, resulting in wrongful prosecution, is a clear example of misfeasance. This has caused the individual undue hardship, legal expenses, and emotional trauma, all of which could have been avoided with proper oversight.

4. Mett. Pol4: Unfounded Physical Assault Charge

Scenario: On 3rd May 2014, an individual was arrested, charged, and prosecuted for one count of physical assault against former partner Sherina Paton at Camberwell Green Magistrates’ Court, Case No: CJ88116. The case was dismissed with a verdict of Not Guilty.

Argument: The dismissal of the case by the court signifies that the charge was unfounded and lacked sufficient evidence. The Commissioner’s failure to ensure that charges were based on substantial and credible evidence before proceeding to trial constitutes misfeasance. This improper execution of duty has resulted in the individual facing unnecessary legal battles, financial strain, and damage to personal reputation.

In each of the four scenarios, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner’s failure to ensure that charges were based on solid evidence and conducted with due diligence constitutes misfeasance. The wrongful arrests, prosecutions, and subsequent acquittals highlight a pattern of negligence or willful misconduct, causing significant harm and loss to the individuals involved. These actions violate fundamental legal principles and human rights protections, underscoring the need for accountability and reform within the Metropolitan Police Department to prevent future occurrences of misfeasance.

• Intentional/Unintentional Violations of Article 11, HRA 1998 - when the government or public authorities unduly restrict or interfere with the rights to peaceful assembly and Protest without lawful justification, by Harassing, intimidating, or persecuting individuals or groups based on their exercise of these rights to freedom of assembly and association.

• Resorting to Corruption - so as to avoid ACCOUNTABILITY and paying Compensation to VICTIMS in REDRESS.