STATEMENT OF WITNESS
(C.J.Act, 1967, S.9, M.C. Act, 1980, S. 102; M.C. Rules, 1981, S.70)
Statement of : Mrs. Charity Sweet
Age of Witness : 46
Occupation of Witness : mum, artist, author, peaceful activist for positive change
Address & Tel no : witheld
I, Mrs. Charity Sweet, make this statement and declare that the content within it is true, to the best of my knowledge and belief and that it was made knowing that, if it were tendered in evidence, I would be liable to prosecution if I willfully stated in it anything which I knew to be false or did not believe to be true (known as a `perjury declaration’).
Dear President Zuma of South Africa,
1.) I am versed in the law and it is my intention to first clarify my understanding of the Magna Carta 1215 – “…. no free man shall be taken or imprisoned or disseised or exiled in any way or in any way destroyed except by the lawful judgement of their peers or by the law of the land” – specifically.
2.) As this is a Habeus Corpus application, the basis upon which the Baylis boys are currently being detained must be established by themselves being brought to court to testify and give evidence regarding their current detention with their abductor Dennis Gordon Nissen given that the children have a Hague order backed by the United Nations that specifically is meant to protect them from this specific man and prevent them from being under further detention from him specifically as this is not the first time that these children have been abducted from their legal and biological parents by this man.
3.) Habeus Corpus is an ancient common law prerogative writ – a legal procedure to which anyone has an undeniable right which is predominantly of Anglo-Saxon common law origin, preceding the Magna Carta as early as early the 13th century.
4.) The Magna Carta was a reaction to the incursion of european civil law via William in 1066 and following the beheading of King Charles I in 1069, the people’s Parliament clearly established the respective position of King and citizen.
5.) Habeus Corpus was codified by Parliament in 1679 by enactment of the Habeus Corpus Act. There are constitutional provisions that the Writ of Habeus Corpus is never to be suspended.
Part II UK Sentencing Guidelines and Various Human Rights breeches:
1.) a) 1.1 – The 5 purposes of sentencing are punishment, reducing/deterring crime. reform and rehabilitation, protection of the public and reparations to those affected by their crime.
b) 1.3 – Using very corrupt international and domestic legal gymnastics to imprison two non -UK national children is a gross abuse of the judicial process and a gross abuse of the position of trust as a UK judge bound by HRA 1998.
c) 1.4 – The sentence should be commensurate with the seriousness of the offence. The Baylis boys have committed no crimes – they have been unlawfully abducted.
d) 1.7 – What foreseeable harm do the Baylis boys pose as abducted children being held hostage in a silent war of trafficking children?
e) 1.8 – Exactly who is at risk of coming to harm – the UK abductor or the victim children?
f) 1.23 – Are there factors indicating a serious degree of harm posed? The Baylis children would now appear as concentration camp starvation victims if they were allowed to make a public appearance in court and speak for themselves which they are more than capable of doing – hence they are gagged and remain hostages.
2.) citing Archbold 2007 Section IV (dont have a recent copy) and HRA 1998
a) 16-43 Article 5 Right to Liberty and Security
b)16-55 Habeus Corpus Article 5(4) guarantees the right to challenge the legality of detention.
3.) There have been serious procedural irregularities and gross abuse of process regarding the unlawful detention of the Baylis boys.
4.) Various breeches of the Human Rights Act have occurred with reference to the forced detention of the Baylis boys:
a) Art. 3 – inhumane and degrading treatment
b) Art 5 – right to liberty and security
c)Art 6 – right to a fair trial
d)Art 7 – no punishment without law
e)Art 8 – right to privacy
f)Art 9 – freedom of thought, conscience and religion
g)Art 10 – freedom of expression
h)Art 11 – freedom of assembly
i)Art 14 – prohibition from discrimination
j)Article 1 of first protocol – protection of property
***** Grounds for an URGENT WRIT OF HABEUS CORPUS *****
1.) Archbold 2007 Section II – soliciting or inciting to commit a crime – an indictable offence
2.) ENTRAPMENT is a matter which must be raised.
a) 4-63 Teixa de Castro v. Portugal, 28 E.H.H.R.R. 101 (post 16-68a)
i) It is not acceptable that the state through it’s agents should lure it’s citizens into committing acts forbidden by law and then seek to prosecute them for doin so. Such conduct would be entrapment, a misuse of state power, and an abuse of the the processes of the courts.
ii) … every court has the inherent power and duty to prevent the abuse of its process. The courts can ensure that executive agents of the state do not misuse the coercive law enforcement functions of the courts and thereby oppress the citizens of the state.
iv) … the doctrine of the abuse of process is reinforced by HRA 1998. The doctrine of abuse of process enables a court to stay proceedings when it would not be fair to try a defendant; one such situation would be when the proceedings resulted from the executive action that threatens either basic human rights or the rule of law.
3.) so now these little autistic boys that cant testify against nissen had in 18 ,months done the following
1 send evidence to every fbi office in the usa
2 send evidence to interpol on 5 occasions
not counting today
3. send evidence to every police station in sa
now thats a good kick in the bollocks
4 send evidence to evry europol office
5. wrote to the un and supplied evedince
6 wrote to human rights court and had a responce
7 supplied evidence to the white house
8 supplied evidence to the pgr
9 supplied evidence to nelson mandela whom both boys knows personally and to zuma
10 wrote to uk press and got told they to young to make it public
so theb only thing they haven’t done is kill or injure nissen more seriously
11 supplied evidence to 10 downing street
12 declared war on britian 8 weeks ago via downing street website if not reunited with their parents by day of the child in mexico
13 emailed all international police angencies and i mean all in the world that they will kill nissen if they are not rescued
14 today they made interpol attened their home Jenvey made all officers milky coffee with ingredients supplied by xxxxx through the window and kevin made scones with cream
15 they promised to keep doing this till recued
Dear Mr. or Ms. UN Ambassador and Head of states and Countries
WE are writing an appeal to you. Please don’t judge our writing; we are only 15 and 12 years old. I also suffer from dyslexia, so please take time in reading our letter.
We are, Kevin Christian Baylis 15th Years old, DOB. 11th October 1996, South African citizen with dual nationality with America due to our father and Jenvey Trevor Baylis, 12th years old. We were abducted by fraud and trafficked to the United Kingdom by Dennis Gordon Nissen; he had the support of the United Kingdom embassy. We need to state this is not the first time he did it. We would you like you to reunite us with our loving parents Jeremy lynn Baylis and Maryna Baylis
We are not going to go over the full 14 years of abuse, attached you will find Jenvey’s view of his life so far and my view of my life so far.
A small break down of what happened:
This letter can be viewed in full on the family website.
ON BEHALF OF THE BAYLIS FAMILY
At 5.15am Monday 10th October 2011 in Mexico City 35 including Mr Nissen and a UK DR Jennifer Mary Gray Hogg people broke into the Family Home of the Baylis Family and Forcibly abducted two boys aged 11 and 15 who were then taken to the British Embassy and held until a court hearing and then they were taken out of Mexico to the UK against their will under the auspices of the British Embassy & Foreign and Common Wealth Office where they are now held incommunicado and missing. The 35 people included and were led by British Embassy Staff and agents and the snatch is being treated as an unlawful kidnap and abduction by Mexican Federal Authorities and as a serious diplomatic incident and assault on the Sovereignty of Mexico by Great Britain.
The two boys Kevin & Jenvey, who are the natural children of their parents Maryna & Jeremy Baylis as evidenced by DNA testing, have been subject to international custody proceedings where by a Dennis Gordon Nissen has claimed them as his children, after the mother fled the UK where she had been trafficked to by Dennis Gordon Nissen many years previous. Mr Nissen applied to UK court for the children to be made a ward of court and for them to be placed in his care. But the matter was decided by a Hague Convention International Court ruling in 2009 that the children were not the children of Mr Nissen and were the natural children of Maryna & Jeremy Baylis and that Mr Nissen had no rights to them.
The South African government step forward and provided proof that Nissen never had rights of custody to Kevin and Jenvey Baylis, he is not the Natural nor the legal father of the children, and has no legal claims to the children. The UK decided to ignore international law on international citizens.
They family’s supporters published a website before the kidnap with the background history which itself is quite shocking: www.baylis-family.info
(Reported Attack Page!
This web page at http://www.baylis-family.info has been reported as an attack page and has been blocked based on your security preferences.
Attack pages try to install programs that steal private information, use your computer to attack others, or damage your system.Some attack pages intentionally distribute harmful software, but many are compromised without the knowledge or permission of their owners.)
The family who are USA and South African Nationals as follows:
Father-Jeremy Baylis USA National
Mother- Maryna Baylis South African National
Kevin – Son Dual South African & USA National
Jenvey – Son Dual South African & USA National
They mother and children have Since fleeing the UK, with the help of their father, have been living under the Humanitarian Protection of the Mexican Government against being taken by Mr Nissen and the UK including being under the guard of the Mexican Police Authorities, there have been several attempted snatches.
Whilst there was a court hearing at 9am+ that day in Mexico City by Mr Nissen it was not a Hague Convention Application but was one of the type made where children’s parents are not living and did not account for either the Hague ruling or the fact that the family were under state protection or the fact that the children’s parents were alive.
Britain declared foreign nationals dead without informing their embassies. Britain snatched children without informing the South African or American goverments.
The children have effectively been kidnapped by force and fraud by both Mr Nissen and the British Government along with the following breaches:
The Sovereignty of the Mexican Government
International Law and Treaty
The Lawful Protection of the Mexican Government
The Hague Convention and Ruling of The Hague Court.
The Safety and Welfare of the Children
The Criminal Law of Mexico
A report was made by the UK representative of both the Parents and the Children in the UK in the very early hours of Tuesday morning to the United Kingdom Human Trafficking Centre (UKHTC) part of SOCA (The Serious and organized Crime Agency) which runs 24/7 who said this it was hardly believable but would make enquiries and call back either that night or the next morning, no call back was received and so a report was made directly by 999 call to a Detective Inspector of the Serious Crime Unit of Hampshire Constabulary. The details of the matter kidnap and abduction, and the call to SOCA were given and a crime number was asked for but not given stating that enquiries would be made of SOCA first. The DI from Hampshire Police rang back very fast after enquires with UKHTC SOCA stating that the Police would not be dealing with Matters further.
The UK police decided straight away that they will not investigate the crime commited by Nissen. Just like they would not investigate the death threats he made against us.
We had our human rights violated, our children’s rights. Who does the damn UK think they are that they can tell us we will not see our mommy and daddy anymore, we will no longer be South African and American’s we are now British, who the hell do they think they are telling US WE ARE NO LONGER BAYLIS BUT HAVE TO USE THE SURNAME OF THE ABUSER NISSEN.
Who the hell do they, the United Kingdom think they are to do this to us, we are not the only children they do this to.
We are South Africans with dual nationality to America, we are proud of our roots, we aint British, and we are glad we are not British. WE don’t want to be British. We want our identities back.
We have been held against our will in the UK for the past nearly 9 months with no contact with our mother or father or our biological family. The following rights has been violated and ignored by the UK.
1. Our Human right to a family life
2. Our right to be living with our loving parents
3. Our right to medical care
4. Our right to freedom
5. Our right to an education
6. Our right to live a life without any abuse
7. Our right to be protected and to be kept safe
8. Our right to have contact with our family
9. Our right to privacy
10. Our rights to Free Speech
11. Our rights to Safety from violence
12. Fair trial
13. To be a citizen of a country We are South Africans with dual nationality to America, why did the UK take that away from us and made us British without our mothers permission
14. Our rights To think freely
15. The right to love, our parents.
16. Our rights to have our own identities
Starvation, lack of medical help, lack of food, torture, human trafficking under the hands of political lords, etc, all come under human rights violations. When the freedom to speak, express, write, move around one’s own country or city are curbed and put under restriction, it results in human rights violations. Laws that do not allow intra-racial marriages, inter caste marriages, same-sex marriages also form violation of human rights. One cannot take away the right to love whosoever the heart desires from an individual. There are still many human rights violations that involve racism and skin color. Individual’s are still singled out based on their skin color, ethnicity and nationality.
So the UK is allowed to do the above to two children while the UN look on and do nothing to safe them.
Our children’s rights that are violated:
1. The right to Education:
2. The right to Expression: Every child has a right to express himself freely in which ever way he likes
3. The right to Information: Every child has a right to know his basic rights and his position in the society.
4. The right to Nutrition:
5. The right to Health & Care
6. The right to protection from Abuse: There are approximately 2 million child commercial sex workers between the age of 5 and 15 years and about 3.3 million between 15 and 18 years. 500,000 children are forced into this trade every year.
7. The right to protection from Exploitation:
8. The right to protection from Neglect: Every child has a right to lead a well protected and secure life away from neglect.
9. The right to Development: Every child has the right to development that lets the child explore her/his full potential.
10. The right to Recreation: Every child has a right to spend some time on recreational pursuits like sports, entertainment and hobbies to explore and develop.
11. The right to Name & Nationality: Every child has a right to identify himself with a nation. THE UK IS BREAKING THIS RIGHT BY CHNAGING OUR NATIONALITY AND NAME
12. The right to Survival
The following is being violated as well under the UK owns children law
The UK ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) on 16 December 1991. That means the UK government now has to make sure that every child has all the rights outlined in the treaty except in those areas where the government has entered a specific reservation.
So why do they violate that of Jenvey and myself.
1. the right to life, survival and development
2. the right to have their views respected, and to have their best interests considered at all times
3. the right to a name and nationality, freedom of expression, and access to information concerning them
4. the right to live in a family environment or alternative care, and to have contact with both parents wherever possible
5. health and welfare rights, including rights for disabled children, the right to health and health care, and social security
6. the right to education, leisure, culture and the arts
7. special protection for refugee children, children in the juvenile justice system, children deprived of their liberty and children suffering economic, sexual or other forms of exploitation
The rights included in the convention apply to all children and young people, with no exceptions.
So lets see we go and abduct 2 children from Mexico, who is South African and American we bring them back to England, then change their names and their identies and we claim it is in the best interest of the child.
Lets declare them too stupid to know what they need and where they want to live. Lets cut their mom and dad out of their lives. We the United Kingdom know the UN wont do anything to protect these boys.
The above cover our rights that are being violated.
We were removed by force from a 3rd party country that was protecting us from Nissen and Britian. This is what the word FORCE mean in the area of law.
In the field of law, the word force has two main meanings: unlawful violence and lawful compulsion. “Force” is an expression that can be used as falling under the category of either unlawful violence or lawful compulsion.
“Forced Entry” is a special case that can be an example of unlawful violence or lawful entry dependent on who is exercising the violence (or threat thereof) and their legal right and/or responsibility to do so. The same would apply to someone being taken away by force if there was or was not lawful authority to do so.
Where there is forced entry and someone is taken away without lawful authority these are criminal acts in any national law and this is called kidnapping.
Where there is forced entry and someone is taken away by officials of one country in and from the territory of another without lawful authority this is an incursion into Sovereign Territory by one state into another with intent to commit criminal acts and is an assault on sovereignty on one nation by the other and a breach of the entire basis of lawful relations between countries.
In particular this is so where the person/child being taken by state officials of one country is being taken from the specific protection of another under sovereign state rights of protection not only in law but also under lawful decisions taken in court under international law but in this case from under the specific protective measures of that countries security services and where there is a specific court injunction not to. This is a gross and knowing and willful violation of both lawful authority and sovereignty by force and if this also involves not only force but fraud it shows contempt for not only for sovereignty but also all levels of law and international treaty.
It might be arguable that if the person under state protection is say an international criminal being protected by one country from the exercise of law in another, there could be some justification. But where the incursion and kidnap is of children that are not nationals of the country of those officials that take them, and the person (in this case children) have not committed a crime and are indeed under state protective measures to protect them then there can be no legal or moral justification. Especially where there is a Hague Convention Ruling that says the Children must remain with their parents and when the family are being protected there is no arguable case and the respect for law by the United Kingdom has broken down.
These are matters that should rightfully be taken to the UN Security Council and the Human Rights Commission by Mexico as they are that serious, no country should be involved in the kidnapping and abduction of minors and not only should any country that does be severely censured but universal outrage should be expressed.
The United Kingdom is increasingly being seen not only in the UK but internationally as a pariah and rogue state in regard to not only the treatment of its own citizen’s children but also those of non UK nationals.
Now the following is being violated as well.
The Vienna convention is violated under article 36 the following should happen:
Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, to which 170 nations are party, requires a nation arresting or detaining a foreign national to afford the detainee access to his or her consulate and to notify the foreign national of the right of consular access.
The Hague convention is violated, The Hague ruled we should be living with our mother and father, the UK is ignoring it. They are violating our parents’ rights of custody to us and also our rights to a life free of abuse.
Article 13b Grave Risk of Harm
We can proof and we did in Mexico that Nissen sexual abuse us, he now has cut our parents out of our lives. He is still placing us currently at Grave risk and abuse. BUT THE UK ALLOWS THAT.
With all the above, given to you.
Please Mr UN ambasodor and head of states return us to our loving parents Jeremy and Maryna Baylis. We would like to go home to have a family life and a stable life. We would like to grow up knowing a real life not one of abuse.
Kevin Christain and Jenvey Trevor Baylis
Part V – Contemperaneous Notes and Accomplices
1.) contemporaneous notes: https://whatisthisukbollocks.wordpress.com/ copyright
************************************************************************************3.) … and is this the real one globally true and only Uk Mrs. Nissen and does she have my fucking tattoos on her weak back? This sad bitch would not pretend she is me in court, would she? Dare she?Take a look at this page and show your support by liking. This is about a personal friend who’s children were abducted by his wife. He has since been very lucky and the children have been reunited with him. Please feel free to share this page with your family and friends as this will help raise awareness about child abduction.
(Please like the page and not the link)
Thank you for taking the time to read this and showing your support.
b.) And who are u Chrissy Brown – she who publicly supports an internationally known and wanted murderer and child-trafficker – you support Dennis Gordon Nissen – have you lost the plot woman?d.) Excuse me bitch and you also don’t want to be interfering in my business. The Mexican embassy received a phone call from myself personally last week from a UK line -from me n my shit Canadian accent that you could not fake nor any other female – there is no one in this world that sounds like me. I am the one and only Charity Sweet n don’t you fuckin well forget that you sad stupid cow.e.) Conversation started today
or is this fukin well u messagin urself as u seem to think u can claim my name and my identity and testify on my behalf – u that stupid to think i wOnt shame the shit out of you publicly? WATCH ME
c.) Is this you Babs and who did u marry? https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151411954808102&set=a.500607008101.293495.651703101&type=1&theater
d.) Is this your husband or/and partner in crime? https://www.facebook.com/densenboats?fref=ts
e). Did you have your own daughter statemented so she could not testify against you personally?
f.) Is this your business Babs? https://www.facebook.com/babs.floristry?fref=ts
g.) “STAY THE FUCK OUT OF MY BUSINESS”
And who are u Chrissy Brown – she who publicly supports an internationally known and wanted murderer and child-trafficker – you support Dennis Gordon Nissen – have you lost the plot woman?
Excuse me bitch and you also don’t want to be interfering in my business. The Mexican embassy received a phone call from myself personally last week from a UK line -from me n my shit Canadian accent that you could not fake nor any other female – there is no one in this world that sounds like me. I am the one and only Charity Sweet n don’t you fuckin well forget that you sad stupid cow.
p.s, u have now added urself onto my wordpress site – not a very fuckin smart move woman trying to spread ur bullshit n nissens bollocks when u dont know who you are dealin with – you truly are a moron and u are fukin with the wrong woman. as i told ur m8 babs – i will publicly expose n shame the shit out of urlies
bet that fat ugly ass is laughin
is it flat and hairy like ur ugly mooie?
pmsl ta ta love xoxoxoThe other profile Chrissy Brown is using claiming that she uses her sisters profile so that people like abducted angels and Mark heselhurts cant attack her business while she attack them as cons; all parents fighting for their children**************************************************************************5. a.) Is this your husband Chrissy and did he send me a text from 447455918588 with a picture of an ‘Anonymous’ hoodie character wearing a Guy Fawkes mask with a quote ” I am anonymous – expect me”? Is his name William Brown Sr.?Is that supposed to be a threat cuz I am still pissing myself laughing that ur man thinks he is a baller from anonymous n can send this Canadian chick in UK some messed up text at midnight when earlier you were claiming I was Maryna from Mexico – you both are, seriously are, thick as shit. It’s a UK number you just put evidence on – morons.b.)c.)Is this your business Chrissy? https://www.facebook.com/groups/TheBreakfastbox/?fref=ts
- d.) “STAY THE FUCK OUT OF MY BUSINESS”
******************************************************************************Part VI1.) “The children have effectively been kidnapped by force and fraud by both Mr. Nissen and the British Government along with the following breaches:
The sovereignty of the Mexican Government
International Law and Treaty
The Lawful Protection of the Mexican Government
The Hague Convention and Ruling of the Hague Court.
The Safety and Welfare of the Children
The Criminal Law of Mexico”
2.) “Whilst there was a court hearing at 9 am+ that day in Mexico City by Mr. Nissen. It was not a Hague convention Application but was one of the type made where children’s parents are not living and it did not account for either the Hague ruling or the fact that the family were under state protection or the fact that the children’s parents were alive.”
3.) “These are matters that should rightfully be taken to the UN Security Council and the Human Rights Commission by Mexico as they are that serious, No country should be involved in the kidnapping and abduction of minors and not only should any country that does be severely censured but universal outrage should be expressed.”
4.) WTF !!! This content is not available in your country due to a legal complaint from the government. Learn more.
Videos removed on Government orders ? WTF !!!
This content is not available in your country due to a legal complaint from the government. Learn more.
Witness interference and intimidation
111. It is an offence at common law to interfere with a witness by unlawful means, such as violence, bribery, threats or improper pressure 34. Such conduct amounts to an offence of perverting (or attempting to pervert) the course of justice. It does not matter that no criminal proceedings have yet been commenced, provided investigations which could or might bring about proceedings are in progress 35. Interfering with exhibits is also an offence 36.
112. The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (CJPOA) contains two further offences of intimidating a witness and taking revenge on a witness 37.
113. The first offence covers acts which intimidate and are intended to intimidate either a witness or a person assisting in the investigation of an offence, intending to cause the investigation or the course of justice to be obstructed, perverted or interfered with 38.
114. The second offence covers doing, or threatening to do, an act which harms and is intended to harm a person, knowing or believing that person to have been a witness or to have assisted in an investigation 39. The harm may be physical or financial, to that person, their family and friends, as well as their property.
115. Where you have taken a statement from a witness who will not give oral evidence at court because of fear, the court may give leave to allow the written statement to be admitted in evidence 40 (see Exceptions to the hearsay rule).
116. The courts have been reluctant to allow a written statement to be admitted in these circumstances, as the witness will not be cross-examined. It also means that the jury will not be able to assess the credibility of the witness. You should therefore consider whether any of the special measures that the court can take to protect witnesses, for example use of screens or video links, will assist the witness to give evidence 41.
117. If you become aware of information suggesting that a witness has been interfered with or intimidated, you should report this information to the police
Statement of : Private Joe Glenton
Age of Witness : 27 ( at time this statement written)
Occupation of Witness : Real Hero
Address & Tel no : witheld
This statement consisting of 1 page is true to the best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have willfully stated in it anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.
CDRILS – Values and Standards of the British Army
Courage – The courage to do the right thing, to not look the other way when you know something is wrong. Even if it is not the accepted attitude of your peers or superiors.
Discipline – Discipline to control your fear to make the difficult choices which face you.
Respect for others – To treat others respectfully. To make those around you a priority.
Integrity – Being honest with yourself and others. The integrity to say what must be said.
Loyalty – Looking after your comrades and putting them first. Loyalty to a team however does not mean you cover up illegal or immoral activity.
Selfless commitment – Teamwork. Putting yourself at risk for others> risking death, injury or even liberty to do what is right.
Standards must be lawful – All soldiers are subject to law wherever they are. International law, Law of armed conflict, Local law.
Appropriate – Honesty. Putting others first. Teamwork. Professionalism. Control alcohol. No Drugs. Control debt. No media.
If you follow these values/standards your superiors will victimize you, harass you, hang you out to dry. If you try to speak out you or protect yourself you will be gagged, submitted to trial, and imprisoned.
This is the price of Courage, Discipline, Respect for others, Integrity, Loyalty and Selfless commitment.
Ask your own conscience if what’s happening is right.
Because “Just following orders” stopped being an excuse in 1949.
No matter how noble your intentions.
Private Joe Glenton
2.) Protection from Harassment Act 1997
You are here:1997 c. 40Whole ActTable of ContentsContentMore Resources Help about More ResourcesPreviousNextPlain ViewPrint Options
What Version Help about what versionLatest available (Revised)Original (As enacted)Advanced Features Help about advanced featuresShow Geographical Extent(e.g. England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland)Show Timeline of Changes Opening OptionsExpand opening options Help about opening optionsMore Resources Help about more resourcesOriginal Print PDFView more
Changes to legislation:There are outstanding changes not yet made by the legislation.gov.uk editorial team to Protection from Harassment Act 1997. Any changes that have already been made by the team appear in the content and are referenced with annotations. Help about Changes to LegislationProtection from Harassment Act 19971997 CHAPTER 40An Act to make provision for protecting persons from harassment and similar conduct.[21st March 1997]Be it enacted by the Queen’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:—
England and Wales1 Prohibition of harassment.(1)A person must not pursue a course of conduct—
(a)which amounts to harassment of another, and
(b)which he knows or ought to know amounts to harassment of the other.
(2)For the purposes of this section, the person whose course of conduct is in question ought to know that it amounts to harassment of another if a reasonable person in possession of the same information would think the course of conduct amounted to harassment of the other.
(3)Subsection (1) does not apply to a course of conduct if the person who pursued it shows—
(a)that it was pursued for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime,
(b)that it was pursued under any enactment or rule of law or to comply with any condition or requirement imposed by any person under any enactment, or
(c)that in the particular circumstances the pursuit of the course of conduct was reasonable.
2 Offence of harassment.(1)A person who pursues a course of conduct in breach of section 1 is guilty of an offence.
(2)A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or both.
F1(3). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.) Bear Robinson > Parliament – Shame on You
What are the authorities doing about the Mary Moss list of paedophile suspects?
THE ELM GUEST HOUSE – LIST OF VISITORS CURTOSY OF MARY MOSS
Sexual abuse of children must be one of the worst evils ever known, and I for one cannot understand why so many go to great lengths to keep it hidden.
As the days turn into weeks and the weeks into months we are hearing less and less of the ongoing investigations into the sexual abuse of children, which happened over the last 4 decades.
Remember it was last November that the Metropolitan Police started Operation Fairbank, only after Mr Tom Watson MP made alligations in the house of Commons, about a “powerful paedophile ring” with links to a previous prime ministers senior adviser
The Metropolitan Police stressed that Operation Fairbank was a “scoping exercise” aimed at a preliminary assessment of the evidence rather than a formal inquiry, does this mean that if they find any truth in aligations that may prove to be far too incriminating they will just be able to kill the whole investigation?
The Elm Guest House was run by a Carole Kasir from 1979 to 1982 the house was a well known place where homosexual men could meet and enjoy themselves away from the glares of others. After the very suspiscious death of 47 year old Carole Kasirin 1990, two social worker friends (Mary Moss and Christopher Fay) of hers made allegations of sexual abuse of children, which were carried out by rich and very powerful men. These alligations were never persued or did they do yet another “scoping exercise” and made it go away?
a few weeks ago Mary Moss decided to go public with her alleged Elm House evidence and she put them on the internet. A series of reversed photographs show her holding hand written notes of photocopies images, 130 of these pictures have now been flipped they reveal details of some of those so called powerful men alleged to have been visitors of Elm Guest House between 1979 and 1982
A COUPLE OF POP STARS, A BISHOP, POLITICIAN AND POLICE OFFICERS ARE ON THE LIST OF ELM GUEST HOUSE
Anthony Blunt, Royal Connections, MI5, Russian spy deceased.
Harvey Proctor, Monday Club, well known convicted paedo.
Sir Peter Bottomley. Worthing MP and Monday Club
Leon Britton, Lord, ex Thatcher Minister
Peter Brooke, Life Peer
John Rowe, MI5, former MP
Cyril Smith, deceased, ex Rochdale MP
Colin Jordan, ex National Front
George Tremlett, Former GLC Leader
Peter Campbell, Monday Club
Gary Walker, Sein Fein
Cliff Richard,aged Pop Star, known at Elm as ‘Kitty’
Jess Conrad, aged ex Pop Star.
Ron Wells, aged Musician, aka ‘Gladys’ at Elm.
Ken Clarke, metioned BUT unsure of exact role.
Richard Miles, Monday Club
Chris Denning, ex DJ, convicted paedo.
R Langley, Buckingham Palace Equerry
Louis Minster, Richmond Social Services
Colin Peters, QC
Steve Everett, Westminster Social worker
Ray Wire, so called expert on Paedo therapy
Peter Glencross, editor of Monday Club newsletter
Guy Hamilton Blackwell, son of Westland Helicopters Chairman
Colin Peters, Police informant
D. Naismith, Chief Constable Wandsworth
DC Chris Carter, CID Richmond
DC David Lines, CID Barnes
DC Ron Thornton, CID Richmond
PC Roderick Smeaton
WPC Sheila McInnes
PC Chris Wicks
WPC Elizabeth Meredith
PC Alan Jones
Part X – Perverting the Course of Justice
Guidance Perverting the Course of Justice – Charging in cases involving rape and/or domestic violence allegations
- Perverting the course of justice
- The decision-making process
- Observations on the evidential stage of the Full Code Test
- The evidential stage in relation to “double retractions”
- The public interest stage
- The public interest stage in relation to “double retractions”
- Handling Arrangements
1. This guidance applies to cases where a complainant of rape or domestic violence:
- makes a false allegation,
- retracts an allegation, or
- withdraws a retraction.
For the purposes of this guidance any reference to rape should be read to include other sexual offences.
2. It should be read with the:
- CPS Policy on Prosecuting cases of Rape
- CPS Legal Guidance on prosecuting rape and sexual offences cases
- CPS Policy on Prosecuting cases of Domestic Violence
- CPS Legal Guidance on Domestic Violence (including Aide-memoire)
- CPS Legal Guidance on Violence against Women
- CPS Legal Guidance on Public Justice Offences incorporating the Charging Standard
- CPS Legal Guidance on Youth Offenders
Perverting the course of justice
3. Perverting the course of justice is a serious offence. It can only be tried on indictment and carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. The offence is committed where a person:
- does an act (a positive act or series of acts is required; mere inaction is insufficient)
- which has a tendency to pervert and
- which is intended to pervert
- the course of public justice.
4. The course of justice includes the police investigation of a possible crime (it is not necessary for legal proceedings to have begun). A false allegation which risks the arrest or wrongful conviction of an innocent person is enough. The word pervert can mean ‘alter’ but the behaviour does not have to go that far – any act that interferes with an investigation or causes it to head in the wrong direction may tend to pervert the course of justice. All the prosecution needs to prove is that there is a possibility that what the suspect has done “without more” might lead to a wrongful consequence, such as the arrest of an innocent person (Murray (1982) 75 Cr. App. R. 58).
5. Intention is not the same as motive. (However, the motive of the suspect is likely to be important if the public interest stage is reached.) The prosecution must prove an intention either to pervert the course of justice or to do something which, if achieved, would pervert the course of justice. All that is necessary is proof of knowledge of all the circumstances, and the intentional doing of an act which has a tendency, when objectively viewed, to pervert the course of justice.
6. Where the prosecution case is that a false allegation has been made, all that is required is that the person making the false allegation intended that it should be taken seriously by the police. It is not necessary to prove that she/he intended that anyone should actually be arrested (Cotter  2 Cr. App. R. 762).
7. In some circumstances, where for example a false allegation has not resulted in the arrest of an individual, prosecutors may consider charging an offence of wasting police time rather than perverting the course of justice.
8. The offence of perverting the course of justice in the context of rape and domestic violence covers the following situations:
- Where someone makes a false allegation of rape or domestic violence. (See paragraph 10 and paragraphs 26-28 below.)
- Where a complainant of rape or domestic violence retracts an allegation, whether false or true, an offence of perverting the course of justice may be committed. However, there may be credible reasons why a complainant of rape or domestic violence may retract a truthful allegation and prosecutors will need to ensure that the reasons for the retraction are fully explored and understood. (See paragraphs 12-16 and paragraph 24 below.)
- Where a complainant of rape or domestic violence withdraws an earlier retraction (referred to in this guidance as a “double retraction”). (See paragraphs 17-19 and paragraph 29.)