JUDGE MITCHELL:  Yes, now, Miss Lindridge, I gather you want a witness summons, is that right?

MRS. LINDRIDGE: Yes, I mean I was told – I asked about some last week and nobody came back to me,  about something that had not been heard yet, and I understood that I could serve them up to 48 hours before.

JUDGE MITCHELL:  The rules provide that witness summonses must be served a week in advance. I think you will find that in the criminal courts it might be 48 hours but in the civil courts it is seven days.  That is Part 34 of the Rules. The reasons for that are simple. People just cannot be hauled up to Court to attend at the drop of a hat.  So you know the Rules provide that people should be given a reasonable period of notice. Who is it that you are wanting to summon to attend?

MRS. LINDRIDGE: I have given  all the people notice.  Because of the problem with the original twelve summonses that were issued – and I spent £360 --  yet never had a hearing and that was on the 8^th August last year and only one of them turned up to Court. What I did this time round was I issued voluntary witness statements on the Court forms back in November. So I issued 69 of them and people voluntarily responded with eighteen of them at the time. Then once I had got a Court date – because there were lots of problems with the Christmas period – it happened at Christmas and the Courts were shut. I issued them again voluntarily, you know, straight after the New Year, on the 2^nd, with the voluntary request for them to be returned – because there was 50 of them – you know to be returned by - - - -

JUDGE MITCHELL:  You cannot have issued summonses in November because - - - -

MRS. LINDRIDGE: Yes, I did.

JUDGE MITCHELL:  As I understand it, this case was not listed until after that, was it?

MRS. LINDRIDGE: Yes,  but what I have been trying to do is to get, since the 8^th November, I have been trying very hard to get protection from this Court, the Ashford Court, and the Maidstone Magistrates Court, so to support that I issued the voluntary witness summonses at the time. 

JUDGE MITCHELL:  There is nothing voluntary about a summons. It is a contradiction to say a “voluntary summons” because a summons means that you are directed to attend.

MRS. LINDRIDGE: Yes, except that the voluntary one in November had no date on it and it had no case numbers on it. It was just a voluntary request for people to comply and a number of people did comply. In fact inside one of those red bundles you have got No. 32 and No. 19 which were voluntary witness statements that people supplied.

JUDGE MITCHELL:  They made voluntary witness statements in answer to the questions that you asked them, but there is nothing voluntary about a witness summons. What I am getting rather concerned about in this case is that I have got a host of letters here from people – and legal advisors – saying, “We have received purported  summonses” – from you.

MRS. LINDRIDGE: Yes.

JUDGE MITCHELL:  “Which purport to come from this court.”

MRS. LINDRIDGE: Yes.

JUDGE MITCHELL:  They do not.

MRS. LINDRIDGE: No, not they do not purport to come from the Court because there is a letter attached with them that says that they are voluntary.

JUDGE MITCHELL:  I am sorry, but I will warn you, because this is quite serious, section 136 of the County Courts Act provides that  it is not lawful to deliver, or cause to be delivered, to any person any document which was not issued on the authority of a County Court which by reason of its form, or contents, or both, has the appearance as having been issued under such authority. The punishment is a fine.  Now you listen. We are getting people writing to this Court saying, “I have got this witness summons. I cannot attend. I am doing this, I am out of the country, I am doing that,” and they firmly believe that it is an official document.

MRS. LINDRIDGE: There are two samples in there.  You will see that on the samples in their styles, No. 19 and No. 32, it does not actually say that. I mean I have got letters that actually show that I have written to people saying that it is voluntary. I mean, I have had to shut my business because of the intimidation. I am not working.

JUDGE MITCHELL:  You  have had to shut your business because it seems to me you are getting obsessed with Court proceedings, according to this. I mean, it does not take five minutes to put that together, it takes months.

MRS. LINDRIDGE: Yes, on the last trading day before Christmas, the Monday before Christmas, I had intimidation at my office. I made the decision to shut my business because of this.

JUDGE MITCHELL:  Look, I have got here letters from various people saying – and some of them are solicitors – of course the solicitors pick up on the fact that these witness summonses are not validly issued.  Look. It makes it look like – that one does bear the stamp of the County Court.  Some of these documents are simply photocopies of the form used for witness summonses.

MRS. LINDRIDGE: Yes.

JUDGE MITCHELL:  You are not allowed to do that.

MRS. LINDRIDGE: But it is voluntary - - - -

JUDGE MITCHELL:  That is not voluntary.  That is purporting to come from Maidstone County Court. Listen, I am not having this. This is very serious.   Sixty people have been sent documents on the basis that this County Court is issuing summonses and it is not. You know it is not and I know it is not.   But people firmly think that they are being obliged to attend.

MRS. LINDRIDGE: I have not told anybody they had to attend unless it has come through the Court. I mean I spent £360 on the 8^th August last year issuing twelve witness summonses for a hearing in the Maidstone Court. Eleven out of the twelve people totally ignored it. The Judge, Judge Milward, directed that there would be a hearing. All those eleven did not turn up. But there never has been. I have not got money, because of all of this that is going on, to keep piling into the Court and not having any hearings.

JUDGE MITCHELL:  You can have a hearing on Friday. I gather you are applying for an injunction and a breach of the injunction back in 1980.

MRS. LINDRIDGE: Perjury from last year.

JUDGE MITCHELL:  This Court does not deal with perjury, but I  am afraid you may have some problems.  I have only been able to scratch the surface. Look, the fact is that you are swamping people with documents that purport to come from this Court. It is wholly inappropriate.

MRS. LINDRIDGE: I do not want – you know I do not want to live in fear of my life or - - - - -

JUDGE MITCHELL:  There is no useful evidence that most of them can give. I have seen the responses. Most of them have not seen you for twenty or thirty years.

MRS. LINDRIDGE: But a lot of the stuff goes back to that period of time.

JUDGE MITCHELL:  The first thing I need to see is the injunction that was granted in 1980. I have not seen a copy of it.

MRS. LINDRIDGE: I asked the Court for a copy of it.

JUDGE MITCHELL:  Apparently we destroy them when they are more than six years old.

MRS. LINDRIDGE: All right. I did not know that.

JUDGE MITCHELL:  I am told that because that was the first thing. So you have got a mammoth problem there in proving that there was an order.

MRS. LINDRIDGE: I have not got a mammoth problem because there is medical evidence in the file showing the date of the actual Court hearing.

JUDGE MITCHELL:  That does not I am afraid – but that apart you also have taken twenty years before you have started to enforce that injunction.

MRS. LINDRIDGE: No, it is not just that one because I went to Court in October 2001 in relation to recent issues and I went to Court in front  of Nigel Peck on the 3^rd January - - - -

JUDGE MITCHELL:  Was the October 2001 hearing, the hearing that was struck out, because you had issued an action against him -- is that the one?

MRS. LINDRIDGE: No,  I first of all tried to issue proceedings, a private prosecution in the Maidstone Court, but they said, no, over the telephone and so I did not. So I came down here and what I wanted to do was make a public record of what he had done in the past and what he was doing at that time.  I thought by making  a public record of it that would stop him. What I had forgotten was that when I did that, back in 1980, he then went on and committed a serious crime. He came home and he told me about it. What happened on this occasion was that I did not find out about why the thing was struck out in October until I came down to the Court on the 13^th November, over another issue, and basically when I found it had been struck out I appealed. Now I should have got a hearing - - - -

JUDGE MITCHELL:  You were there.  You were there in front of District Judge Beach, were you not?

MRS. LINDRIDGE: No. DJ Milward struck the order out and I found out about it on the 13^th November. I appealed and my understanding of an appeal is that basically it should have been heard in front of the Circuit Judge.

JUDGE MITCHELL:  Yes.

MRS. LINDRIDGE:   Therefore, I still have not had a proper appeal hearing.

JUDGE MITCHELL:  Yes.

MRS. LINDRIDGE: I had the hearing on the 3^rd January in front of the wrong level of Judge. I have evidence now of clear perjury in relation to serious criminal offences that were made at that hearing and made in a statement to the Court, by Nigel Peck, on the 30^th October.

JUDGE MITCHELL:   Let us just clear this up. Let us just clear the air.  Who were you wanting to summons at the moment? You are applying to issue a summons out of time.

MRS. LINDRIDGE: Yes, all right. I would like to summons – and they are all named in the statement that I have filed in Court.  The eleven summonses that have never had a hearing from the 8^th August 2002  because - - - -

JUDGE MITCHELL:  Which is that?

MRS. LINDRIDGE: It was in case CR005220. There are various doctors and medical people. 

JUDGE MITCHELL:  That has been struck out.

MRS. LINDRIDGE: No, it has not been struck out.

JUDGE MITCHELL:  You cannot issue summonses for that. You want to come for Friday?

MRS. LINDRIDGE: I am sorry, the ones that have been issued on the 8^th August of last year have not been struck out. Judge Milward ordered that they have a hearing. They have not had a hearing yet and that is - - - - -

JUDGE MITCHELL:  I  want to know who you want on Friday?

MRS. LINDRIDGE: I would like on Friday, in addition to the eight ones that I have issued through the Courts, because there are eight that have been issued through the Courts, and served through the Courts, and service filed at the Court. I would like Dr. Tim Harland.

JUDGE MITCHELL:  Yes.

MRS. LINDRIDGE: I would like Helen Penman. 

JUDGE MITCHELL:  All right.

MRS. LINDRIDGE: I would like Barbara Adams.

JUDGE MITCHELL:  Yes.

MRS. LINDRIDGE: I would like Rob Venn.

JUDGE MITCHELL:  Yes.

MRS. LINDRIDGE: I would like Chris Talbot.

JUDGE MITCHELL:  Yes.

MRS. LINDRIDGE: I would like Tom Hezeldon, sometimes known as Hezelton.

JUDGE MITCHELL:  Yes.

MRS. LINDRIDGE: I would like Simon Rossi and a passport to identify him.

JUDGE MITCHELL:  Yes.

MRS. LINDRIDGE: Giles Smith.

JUDGE MITCHELL:  Yes.

MRS. LINDRIDGE: Gary Spraggon.

JUDGE MITCHELL:  Gary Spraggon?

MRS. LINDRIDGE: Yes.

JUDGE MITCHELL:  Yes.

MRS. LINDRIDGE: Sergeant Salt. 

JUDGE MITCHELL:  Yes.

MRS. LINDRIDGE: Anna Preace.

JUDGE MITCHELL:  Yes.

MRS. LINDRIDGE: That is it. 

JUDGE MITCHELL:  Now, as I understand it, your application on Friday is to commit Mr. Peck for breach of an injunction which I have not seen but you say was made in 1980 or thereabouts?

MRS. LINDRIDGE :