Judicial Review      Yolande Lindridge v Kent Magistrates Court Service, Maidstone County Court, Kent County Constabulary, Kent CPS, KM

Section 3            Details of the decisions to be judicially reviewed

There are 6 decisions to be reviewed:

1          The decision that pursuing lawful Court proceedings is an arrestable criminal and imprisonable offence. Yolande Lindridge was arrested, on 22.12.2003, and imprisoned for 7 days for complying with the Judicial Review pre-action protocol.  It was decided on 29.12.2003 to keep Yolande Lindridge in prison for a further 29 days in case she re-offended by complying with any further Judicial Review pre-action protocols. 

 2         The decision to impose bail conditions on 4.7.2003, with the intention of barring lawful High Court, and other lawful, legal actions eg in the Maidstone County Court on 17.7.2003 and applications for Judicial Reviews.  The decision to keep these bail conditions on 10.7.2003, 24.7.2003, 18.9.2003, 16.10.2003, 12.12.2003, 22.12.2003, 13.1.2004 and 15.1.2004.     

3          The decision by the Maidstone Magistrates Court that there is no appeal to the decision to keep Yolande Lindridge in Holloway Prison for 25 days for complying with the Judicial Review Pre-Action protocol

4          The decision that there is no appeal to the decision to prosecute / convict /fine / put points on Yolande Lindridge’s driving licence for an alleged speeding offence when she was driving within the speed limit and Elizabeth Howe, CPS Chief Prosecutor, had excused attendance at the Kent Magistrates Courts on 18.9.2003. 

5          The decision not to investigate a suspicious car incident involving Tom Lindridge on 25.7.2003 as being connected to those on the Kent Operation Ore list.   

6          The decision of Kent Police to retain legally privileged papers, special procedure and excluded items needed in on-going court and medical proceedings.

Detailed Statements of Grounds / background:

On in a letter dated 10.3.2003, Elizabeth Howe, the Kent CPS Chief Prosecutor wrote to Yolande Lindridge advising that DCI Steve Corbishley was in charge of an Investigation into ‘Rapes, Perjury and Conspiracy to Pervert the Course of Justice’ and to expect a phone call from Maidstone Police Station.  Maidstone CID asked Yolande Lindridge to attend Maidstone Police Station to be interviewed on 14.3.2003 in their investigation SI/CZ/119/2003.  Yolande Lindridge was questioned about rapes ie her own and the rape of another woman at the hands of Nigel Peck etc

Yolande Lindridge complied with the request of Maidstone CID and supplied all the evidence they requested, some of which only surfaced on 17.3.2003 in the Maidstone County Court via access to a 1980 Court File.  On 17.3.2003, the Maidstone Court Manager supplied a letter giving Kent Police access to all court files in relation to Yolande Lindridge.

At 5pm on 3.4.2003, Kent Police ‘cased’ the home of the Lindridge family;  they terrified Lauren Lindridge and were seen by Brett Lockyer, a local plumber.  There were a mixture of plain and uniformed officers, and the vehicles attending included a riot van.  Both Yolande Lindridge and Lauren Lindridge spoke with Kent Police about this incident, but they simply lied and said that they had not been there.

The specific time of 5pm on 3.4.2003 was chosen because Kent Police tap phones and heard this deadline being given over the phone to the freemason, John Bonomy JP during a conversation between Yolande Lindridge and Malcolm Denyer.

On 8.5.2003 Yolande Lindridge followed the directions of the Office of the Sheriff of Kent and applied to the Maidstone County Court to enforce an Undertaking with a penal notice attached.  The Maidstone Court Bailiff served the enforcement application on Nigel Peck on 9.5.2003.  In breach, and in contempt of the Undertaking/ Court Order of 5.8.80, Peck sent DC Benson to harass Yolande Lindridge at her home on 9.5.2003.

Yolande Lindridge was arrested on 11.5.2003, and legal papers taken, to conspire to pervert the course of justice in a Queens Bench Division Permission to Appeal Application ie CC/2003/PTA/0378.  

There is no Crime Log for the visits by Kent Police to Yolande Lindridge’s Maidstone home on 9 May 2003, 10 May 2003 and 11 May 2003.  Although 4 police officers attended Little Caring Farm on 11.5.2003 ie 2 CID from Ashford and 2 uniform police from Maidstone in a Riot Van.

On 9.5.2003, Kent Police were represented by DC Benson of Ashford CID alone in an unmarked car;  he was ignored and he went away as the Appellant was in the bath and did not know who he was.

On 10.5.2003, Kent Police were represented by DC Benson and a woman in the same unmarked car, they were ignored and they went away.

On 11.5.2003, the man and woman came back in the unmarked car and said that they were Kent Police.  DC Benson said that he had come to arrest the Appellant and then search her home, without a warrant, for evidence to send her to prison for 5 years.  This was in relation to alleged harassment via:

1          an application to the Maidstone County Court on 8.5.2003 for enforcement proceedings of a Court Order for breach of an Undertaking.  This application was served on the Appellant’s ex-husband by the Maidstone County Court bailiff on 9.5.2003

2          a Permission to Appeal application proceeding through the Queens Bench Division of the Royal Courts of Justice ie CC/2003/PTA/0378

DC Benson phoned for a Riot Van from Maidstone Police Station after he had been shown a Court Order / Undertaking showing that he was in Contempt of the Court Order. 

Only one police officer got out his pocket book and this was at the request of Yolande Lindridge to one of the Maidstone officers.  He was asked to write in it ‘DCI Corbishley’ and SI/CZ/119/2003 and to contact him immediately.

Yolande Lindridge was never interviewed or charged with harassment via lawful court proceedings, and yet key legal paperwork in relation to both CC/2003/PTA/0378 and enforcing the breach of the Undertaking have been retained by Kent Police.

On 11.5.2003, DC Benson of Ashford CID, unlawfully seized legally privileged files in CC/2003/PTA/0378.  This included both the Appellant’s copies of a 5 page application in CC/2003/PTA/0378.  On 14.11.2003, neither the Appellant nor Mr Justice Douglas-Brown, had copies of this 5 page Application (we only had the first page); Permission to Appeal was denied.  Someone had removed pages 2-5 of the Maidstone County Court copy of the application too leaving the Defendant and Kent Police with the only full copies (which they chose not to hand over). 

Prior to the Hearing on 14.11.2003, the Appellant had visited the Maidstone County Court for access to this document or the Court File but Peter Gordon, a Kent Police employee, intimidated me and I left without it.  Last month, the Appellant attended the Maidstone County Court twice on legitimate business re:  Grout and Peck.  On both occasions Peter Gordon of Kent Police followed the Appellant around, intimidating her. The Maidstone County Court have been using men to intimidate Yolande Lindridge since 6.6.2003 when she has been pursuing her lawful rights in a lawful way.  The Court of Appeal wanted a copy of CJ Mitchell’s Order in relation to the application of 8.5.2003 to enforce the undertaking;  this application was decided without a hearing and the Appellant has never received a copy of any order arising.

Last week the Maidstone County Court supplied a copy of an order in relation to another application which was heard on 6.6.2003.

I would ask that the RCJ Administrative Court requests the Maidstone County Court to review their decision not to supply a copy of the order arising out of the application of 8.5.2003, as it is needed by the Court of Appeal.

In correspondence from the Defendant’s solicitors, Heringtons, prior to the hearing in front of Mr Justice Douglas Brown, Heringtons checked to see if the Appellant had the whole of this missing 5 page application.  2 months after the Queens Bench Hearing ie on 13.1.2004 whilst I was in Holloway Prison, Ashford CID returned this 5 page application in its entirety.  Ashford CID also returned some Witness Statements had compiled for the original case being appealed, whilst retaining those Witness Summonses with knowledge of the defendant, Peck, being a rapist.

Those who have witnessed the actions of Kent Police have asked what have they got to hide?  Why couldn’t they simply let CC/2003/PTA/0378 proceed to a hearing without taking the fundamental paperwork?   

Witnesses have expressed concerns as how 2 alleged breaches of bail conditions imposed by Ashford CID could be treated in such different ways by the Folkestone Magistrates Court ie re:  Deborah McMullen and Yolande Lindridge.

Yolande Lindridge, of Good Character, was remanded in custody for 7 days on 22.12.2003 in Holloway Prison for complying with a Judicial Review pre-action protocol.  On 29.12.2003, Folkestone Magistrates decided that Yolande Lindridge should continue to be remanded in custody and serve a further 29 days in prison for complying with a Judicial Review pre-action protocol.

Debbie McMullen, a convicted drug dealer and drug user had breached bail by not reporting to Ashford Police Station because she was spending Christmas with relatives in Appledore.  Debbie McMullen shared a cell with Yolande Lindridge at the Folkestone Magistrates Courts on 29.12.2003.  Debbie McMullen was called up before the Bench just before Yolande Lindridge.  Debbie McMullen was released from custody, and Yolande Lindridge was not.  The Folkestone Magistrates decided that Yolande Lindridge needed to be sent to Holloway Prison for a further 29 days in case she decided to comply with Judicial Review protocol again.

Debbie McMullen has had her Crown Court trial, she did not receive a custodial sentence.  Yolande Lindridge was removed from her children on 22.12.2003 and spent 25 days in Holloway Prison at the request of her alleged rapist.  I defy anyone to listen to the ‘rape’ tapes of the Maidstone CID interview of 14.3.2003, and examine the evidence, and tell me that Nigel Peck did not rape me or bugger me;  and that the impact of the breach of trust in abusing and raping a recovering rape victim was not pure evil?

The rape tapes give evidence that in common with Yolande Lindridge’s medical records being unlawfully passed around Kent, these rape tapes were passed around too eg PS Piddock, the Ashford Custody Sergeant on 11.5.2003 told me that he had authorised my arrest and then he quoted words to me from the rape tapes ie He said that ‘Mr Peck is a Pillar of Society’, I complained to Kent Police Professional Standards about this comment.  PS Piddock bullied me and let me know that he thought I was scum.  DC Benson told us on 11.5.2003 that SI/CZ/119/2003 no longer existed;  it took my 25 day imprisonment to get the ‘rape tapes’ handed over to my barrister on 23.1.2004.  I was given copies of 12.3.2004 and have now transcribed them.  After the ‘rape interviews’ in Maidstone Police Station, which were badly handled, I was given no support, even though I phoned and spoke to Vicky Nixon in the Domestic Violence Unit there. Instead Victim Support wrote to me after the interviews saying that they could no longer help me as I needed the support of a Rape Crisis Counsellor.

I believe that Kent Police’s attitude to Rape & Domestic Violence stinks, but I am aware that there is a common factor and I am not alone in the way Kent Police abuse rape victims.  I am aware that Maidstone CID believe that certain freemasons should be permitted to rape and escape prosecution.  Yvette Harvey told me about her husband Nigel Harvey and the way freemasons get support from the Kent Messenger ie she and I have been publicly humiliated in the KM.  In my case the KM humiliated me in the full knowledge of the rape background and the Attorney General’s guidelines in rape cases;  indeed my photograph was published on 22.1.2004 in the Kent Messenger, again in contravention of the Attorney General’s guidelines in rape cases.

Yesterday a man from Rye told me that Nigel Peck is a member in his Rye Lodge ie Wellington Lodge No 341, as well as being a customer in the shop he used to manage in Rye before taking over the management of my local shop.  The Kent Messenger was in the Maidstone County Court on 10.1.2003 when Peck stated that he was not and had never been a freemason, I will today, for the purpose of these proceedings ask his fellow lodge member if Peck was a member of Wellington Lodge on 10.1.2003, as I believe that perjury is a contempt of court.

Yolande Lindridge would like to know under what law in our land, Kent Police consults a rapist about the sentence he would like his victim to serve?

The Appellant does not understand how could the Kent Messenger be permitted to publish what they did 22-26 January 2004?  How can a victim of rape be named, with a photograph, and shamed in the Kent Messenger?  It is a rape victim’s greatest fear to be ridiculed in the press once they have had the courage to come forward and speak to the police.  The Kent Messenger had full knowledge of the background to the situation and knew the Attorney General’s guidelines in such cases and had been instructed not to report by CJ Mitchell on 10.1.2003. Yolande Lindridge would like to know under what law in the land, the Kent Messenger has the right to publicly humiliate a rape victim, and in the same article show the highest respect for her rapist? 

What is the Kent Messenger’s approach to rape, domestic violence and attacks on children?

The Appellant does not understand how Folkestone Magistrates Court accepted a Private Prosecution for rape by Yolande Lindridge on 18.11.2002, but declared that they could not proceed due to a conflict of interest with one of the Folkestone Bench – and yet 13 months later could proceed when the same circumstances prevailed.

The Private Prosecution was accepted by the Folkestone Magistrates Bench on 18.11.2002, but when transferred to the Maidstone Magistrates Bench, due to conflict of interest, the transferring Magistrate’s Court decision was over-turned.

On 22.12.2003, the Appellant was arrested at her home by Maidstone Police on the instructions of Ashford CID ie DC Benson.  If Maidstone Police were interviewing the Appellant as a Witness in SI/CZ/119/2003, they must have had grounds to suspect the alleged rapist.  So why did Maidstone Police put the alleged rape victim in the cells on 11.5.2003 and 22.12.2003?

Since my release from Holloway Prison, I have been told that Acting Supt Steve Corbishley from Maidstone Police Station has lost his job.  In Kent we are aware that 4 out of the 5 top Police in Kent have lost their jobs last year ie the Chief Constable, the Acting Chief Constable and 2 asst Chief Constables ie Kelly & Phillpot.

Was the Appellant’s business and pension smashed up by Kent Police on 11.5.2003 in an act of Revenge?  Was the Appellant arrested by Kent Police and sent to Holloway Prison as an act of Revenge by the out-going Acting Chief Constable?

How can the Kent CPS Chief Prosecutor instigate a Maidstone CID investigation for rapes on 10.3.2003, and then on 22.12.2003 send the rapist’s victim to Holloway Prison to support the wishes of the rapist/abuser?

How can both the Folkestone and Maidstone Magistrates Courts accept my applications for a Private Prosecution for Rapes on 18.11.2002 and 20.11.2002, and then both Magistrates Courts remand me in custody unlawfully on 22.12.2003 and 29.12.2003?   

Both the Maidstone County Court and the Kent Magistrates Courts refused to allow my prosecution for rapes to proceed.  A Trauma Expert gave the Appellant medical advice in March 2001 ie the only way to recover from the pain of rape and move on with your life, is to face your rapist in Court and see justice being done.  Please can the RCJ Administrative Court help this rape victim understand why the Maidstone County Court, the Kent Magistrates Courts, Kent Police and the Kent CPS do not want me to overcome what I suffered at the hands of Nigel Peck?  Why do they want what he wants ie that I never recover from what he did to me? 

Please can the Administrative Court help me to understand why I needed to be sent to Holloway Prison by Kent Police, Kent Courts and Kent CPS at the request of my alleged rapist? 

There was a Judicial Review Hearing on 19.1.2004 ie Yolande Lindridge vs Kent County Constabulary.  I had been released from Holloway Prison just prior to the Hearing, my solicitor advised me to ask the Administrative Court for a postponement in case attending the Hearing was an arrestable or imprisonable offence.  The Administrative Court would not postpone and I lost my case against Kent Police, 

My solicitor has written to the RCJ Administrative Court and explained, but I am not aware of the outcome of this letter.

Kent Police made me unemployed and still do not permit self-employment

On 11.5.2003, Kent Police seized all the Appellant’s means of communications, business tools etc ie databases, computers.  By retaining all the Appellant’s business, personal and charitable databases and tools of trade – Kent Police have effectively smashed up Yolande Lindridge’s pension and taken away her right to be self-employed (something she has been for 16 years).

The Appellant has also been refused KCC-funded teaching and lecturing positions.  The evidence is that despite my national teaching awards, KCC would rather appoint someone less suitable or leave the vacancy open, than appoint me.  The Appellant is aware that the Kent Police Authority is controlled by KCC, and that the leader of KCC was on the appointment panel of 3 who appointed our new Chief Constable.

The Appellant has asked KCC for details of their Child Protection Policy, but they chose not to supply it, and I am being prosecuted for trying to protect children via the KCC Child Protection Policy.  20 days after I was charged with trying to protect children my 17 year-old son was nearly killed in a car crash involving a bald tyre being placed on his car;  this was the second time a tyre had been changed on his car ie the first being on 27.6.2003.  The Appellant will supply the evidence to the RCJ Administrative Court that Kent Police were involved in the attempt on my child’s life and that they have been mis-using Kent Police resources to track the Appellant’s car on 15.8.2002, and refuse to investigate to 2 suspicious car incidents of 20.2.2002 and 20.12.2002 – despite evidence that they were attempts on the Appellants life.

Who was the marksman who fired at the Appellant’s moving car on 20.12.2002, just 2 days after 30 decent police and judges received evidence of serious irregularities at Kent Police and Kent Police Professional Standards received phone calls from the recipients?

Kent Police will not permit me to be a self-employed teacher and KCC will not permit me to be a teacher/ lecturer employed by KCC.    Why do Kent Police want me to be unemployed and not have a pension?

The Appellant wishes to resume the right to work and support her family.  Please can the Administrative Court assist.

The Appellant’s Bail Conditions were changed on 23.1.2004 to permit High Court actions, with the direction of the High Court.  Why does the Appellant need bail conditions?  The Appellant was charged because she was trying to protect children;  is it normal to charge and bail someone of good character for trying to protect children?

On 4.7.2003, the Appellant was maliciously charged by Kent Police with an offence carrying a 10 year prison sentence ie forgery and counterfeiting a Maidstone County Court Witness Summons and serving it on her arresting officer ie DC Benson to attend court on 6.6.2003.  This ridiculous charge, carrying a maximum 10 year prison sentence was eventually dropped after 2 Court appearances ie 2 months later.

On 14.3.2003, the Appellant was interviewed by Kent Police about forgery and counterfeiting of medical records by third parties – evidence was supplied to support a criminal prosecution.  Why did the Kent County Constabulary maliciously charge the Appellant for offences that they know that others have committed?  Why not charge those that have committed the offences, rather than the victim of crime?

The knowledge and the evidence supplied in the rape tapes of 14.3.2003, and after, in the honest belief that this was a real police investigation – have been used to hurt the Witness ie the Appellant to protect those who have committed criminal offences to protect Nigel Peck.

Kent Police operate in contempt of Court eg

1          A Witness Summons was served on the Chief Constable to attend the Maidstone County Court on 15.8.2002, Kent Police do not turn up and the Appellant is served with a speeding prosecution for 15.8.2002, by the Chief Constable – but the problem is that there are no speed cameras going up Blue Bell Hill and the speed limit is higher than 52mph, so the Chief Constable had given evidence of tracking the Appellant’s car on 15.8.2002 

2            Catherine West (Baker) of the Kent Police Serious Crime Squad was served a

Witness Summons to attend the Maidstone County Court on 10.1.2003.  She did not turn up

3          2 Kent Police Officers were served with Witness Summonses ie DC Benson of Ashford CID and DCI Steve Corbishley to attend the Maidstone County Court on 6.6.2003.  They did not turn up.  DC Benson laughed at the Appellant when it was suggested that he would be in contempt of court by not turning up, but then he had been in contempt of court on 11.5.2003 as the Appellant refused to leave her home to get arrested before showing DC Benson that he was in contempt of a court order – which was passed through the letterbox to him.

Kent Police have provided evidence that they see themselves above the law, working outside the law, and working in contempt of the courts.  They selectively prosecute victims of crime such as Yolande and Tom Lindridge to protect the real criminals, some of whom work for Kent Police.

Kent Police, the Kent CPS, the Kent Magistrates Courts and the Maidstone County Court has provided evidence that they act as one – and in contempt of the laws of this land.  Collectively they believe that it is acceptable to abuse a woman and a child, and indeed have joined to protect one freemason, and to comply with his wishes.

Is the answer in the Province of East Kent Mason charity account in Canterbury?

Do Charitable Donations buy the services of rogue solicitors and the Kent public sector, funded by the tax payer?

The purpose of Witness Summonsing DC Benson of Ashford CID and DCI Corbishley of Maidstone CID to appear before CJ Mitchell in the Maidstone County Court on 6.6.2003 was to save further mis-appropriation of public monies; and to assist the High Court with an Appeal that was progressing there.  But the ‘rape tapes’ and what followed, shows that all these public bodies work as one and all have the knowledge of what was on those tapes.

The Appellant had hoped that on 6.6.2003 that CJ Mitchell, DC Benson and DCI Corbishley would be able to assist the Queens Bench in CC/2003/PTA/0378 due to their knowledge. On 7.1.2003 CJ Mitchell had told the Appellant to report rapes, perjury etc to Kent Police, these instructions were followed on 10.1.2003.  DS Hooks and DC Davies interviewed the Appellant  re:  Rapes, Perjury and Conspiracy to Pervert’ on 14.3.2003.  On 3.4.2003, Kent Police ‘cased’ the Appellant’s home and terrorised her daughter.  On 11.5.2003, DC Benson raided the Appellant’s home on behalf of the alleged rapist, perjurer etc.

The Appellant had hoped that on 6.6.2003 that CJ Mitchell, DC Benson and DCI Corbishley would be able to communicate together and save on public expenditure.

This did not happen as Kent Police did not attend.

There has never been a Hearing of the application of 8.5.2003 for breach of the Undertaking, and due to Bail Conditions I cannot go back to the Maidstone County Court without the directions of the High Court.

My solicitors, Hickman & Rose, advised in July 2003 that bail conditions imposed on 4.7.2003 were designed to prevent my attendance at a Maidstone County Court Hearing on 17.7.2003.  I did not attend for fear of imprisonment and I lost my case.

This Hearing was to discover what Peck had been spending his money on as the Appellant had been advised that he had been making sizeable donations to the East Kent mason charity fund since it opened in 1993, and the appellant has been made aware that Rob Venn came into about £20,000 in 2001 and that DC Benson came into a similar amount last summer.

The Appellant continued to serve legal papers between July and November 2003 for a RCJ Permission to Appeal Hearing on 14.11.2003;  the case failed because Kent Police had unlawfully seized all my copies of the application form needed on 11.5.2003 and would not return them until 13.1.2004.  Someone had gone into the Maidstone County Court and removed the court copy of the same application form – this was discovered at the Hearing on 14.11.2003 before Mr Justice Douglas-Brown. 

In November 2003, Heringtons’ solicitors gave the Appellant specific instructions as to the service of legal papers in relation to their client in letters dated 5,11 and 12 November 2003.  The Appellant followed these Solicitors instructions in relation to their Client and those the Administrative Court in relation to Judicial Review Pre-Action Protocol.  The Appellant was arrested and imprisoned for following the instructions of Heringtons in relation to their client, and for following the Pre-Action Protocol issued by the Administrative Court.  The Appellant was not permitted by Kent Police, the Kent CPS or the Kent Magistrates Courts to prove that she had done nothing wrong by reference either to the Administrative Court or copies of the Herington’s letters.  On 22.12.2003, the Appellant was not permitted to have either medical treatment or legal advice from a solicitor of her choice.

The Appellant was assaulted on 22.12.2003 whilst waiting to go into the Maidstone Magistrates Courts by a prisoner in her cell who was high in drugs, which were being lit by the jailer.  It was 10 hours before the Appellant was able to get the medical treatment needed, and by that time she was quite traumatised and in Holloway Prison and is still recovering from the ordeal.  The Appellant was released from Holloway Prison on Thursday 15.1.2004 at 3.08pm;   she went home and there she cried for 3 hours as she no longer felt safe in her own home as the Kent Police attacks / intimidation of the Appellant and her children had been on-going since 10.6.2001.

Is Holloway Prison really the appropriate place for a victim of crime at Christmas?

Why Holloway, as this is believed to be the worst women’s prison in the UK?

CJ Mitchell threatened Yolande Lindridge with 3 days in Holloway Prison and a 28 day section order on 6.6.2003 as part of his intimidation to undermine the Permission to Appeal Hearing proceeding through the High Court at that time.  Miss Pearson, the Official Solicitor, would not support CJ Mitchell in his unlawful activities and so Yolande Lindridge was released from the custody of the Maidstone County Court, having unlawfully spent the day in the cells there.  Since that time the Maidstone County Court find it amusing to let Peter Gordon of Kent Police follow around the Appellant and intimidate and reduce her to tears. 

The Appellant’s criminal solicitors, Constanti Shah, believed that she was at risk of being arrested again if she attended the Judicial Review Hearing on Monday 19.1.2004 ie Yolande Lindridge v Kent County Constabulary, so she followed the Constanti Shah instructions and asked for a postponement of the Hearing on 19.1.2004.  The Hearing was dismissed because I did not attend. A letter from Simon Slidders, ACO lawyer is attached of 11.2.2004.  Constanti Shah has since written to Simon Slidders confirming their instructions to me re:  the Administrative Court Hearing and being in breach of bail conditions (see also above)

The bail conditions were designed to intimidate the Appellant and to maximise negative publicity about her and her charity work in the local press.

In a letter dated 8.3.2004, The Kent Magistrates Courts Service states:  “I write to you in connection with your wish to appeal against a decision in relation to breach of bail.  There is no right of appeal against the decision of Breach of Bail.  If you are arrested for breach of bail conditions, you are either re-released on bail or remanded into custody.  This is just dealt with in the

Car Tracking (see also above)

Kent Police have unlawfully been tracking the Appellant’s car.  They gave evidence of this on 15.8.2002.  They prosecuted the Appellant for driving within the speed limit in an area where there are no speed cameras.  The Appellant was excused attendance on the day of the Hearing by the CPS Chief Prosecutor due to car safety concerns over her son;  the proceedings continued in her absence.  The Kent CPS Chief Prosecutor refuses to put right the error.  In January 2004, the DVLA wrote to the Mid-Kent Magistrates Courts asking that they review their decision to put points of the Appellant’s licence and fine her for driving within the speed limit, whilst being unlawfully tracked by Kent Police.  No one will put right their mistake.

Kent Police were Witness Summonsed to attend the Maidstone County Court on 15.8.2002 re:  a suspicious car incident involving me and Gary Spraggan and my car being tracked. Kent Police ignored the Witness Summons, and took revenge on me by tracking me and prosecuting me.

Kent Police decided in January 2004 to maliciously prosecute my son for an attempt on his life on 25.7.2003, in response to a fax to 2 suspected paedophiles about the Kent Operation Ore list.  The Case Review Officer at Kent Police ie Christine Turner let me know on 30.1.2004 that the following decisions were personally motivated:

.1         not to prosecute Gary Spraggan for writing off my parked car with me in it, and permanently disabling me on 20.2.2002

.2         to prosecute me in revenge for wanting Gary Spraggan prosecuted ie by producing photographic evidence of tracking me up Blue Bell Hill for the purposes of a ‘fake’ speeding incident on 15.8.2002

.3         to prosecute my son in revenge on me for a fax of 24.7.2003 about disclosure of the Kent Operation Ore list

Who tracked the Appellant’s car on 20.12.2002 when she went down Blue Bell Hill and a missile was fired at her car.  Who was the marksman?   Why did the Chief Constable of Kent resign just after this incident?

The Appellant has photographic evidence that shows that Kent Police has been monitoring her and tracking me since May 2001.  What for?  The Appellant is a law-abiding citizen/ charity worker.  The Appellant was told that Kent’s Special Branch were visited by DI Smith about her in April 2001 after she had returned to Kent after a visit to Bermuda and reported details of an overt paedophile Tourist Trade in Bermuda. 

The Appellant has photographic evidence that points to Kent Police interfering with her son’s car tyres twice ie on 27.6.2003 and 25.7.2003 (ie the day after the Operation Ore fax)

Circumstantial evidence points to Kent Police having removed a security key from the Appellant’s home for the purpose of burgling it and removing legal papers.

The Appellant has evidence that ‘unofficial visits’ by Kent Police to her home links to phone tapping.  Mail is interfered with in relation to legal proceedings eg High Court.  Kent Police are in contempt of a Court Order on 5.8.80 as they have been acting as an agent.  Kent Police conspired to protect Kent rogue doctors by unlawfully seizing medical reports requested by Henry Palin of the Shipman Inquiry from the Appellant’s case file at the GMC.  Kent Police would not permit the supply of these medical reports to the GMC/ The Shipman Inquiry, why not?

Was the new Chief Constable of Kent, Michael Fuller, protecting Kent’s paedophiles when the decision was made in January 2004 to maliciously prosecute the Appellant’s son for an attempt on his life by paedophiles on the Kent Operation Ore list?

Why would a family man with children, and a policeman, want to prosecute a child to protect paedophiles?

On 6.2.2004, the Appellant phoned in a crime report to Kent Police – but no crime reference has been produced, harassment continues and includes Kent Police at the Maidstone County Court.

What people in Kent cannot understand is why so many people in the highest places in Kent are willing to overtly and publicly break the law and put their professional reputations at risk, just to protect one man.  Perhaps the RCJ Administrative Court can explain this?