MRS. LINDRIDGE:   (Tape commences at this point.) > . . . I don’t the Sheriff coming round my house unlawfully.

JUDGE MITCHELL:    Have you made an application to set aside?  I have got a lot of papers here.

MRS. LINDRIDGE:    There’s applications in the High Court.  I am waiting to go – Mr. Justice Sullivan has been dealing with it, and he’s made one stay, but he could only do 14 days without both of us being in front of the court.  The Royal Courts of Justice have told me yesterday that there has to be an application where we both have to go back up there in front of them, and that may not happen by next Friday, when the Sheriff’s coming round.

JUDGE MITCHELL:    As far as I can see, you are not making any such application to this Court.

MRS. LINDRIDGE:    I am seeking an application that supports that, and supports what’s going on in the High Court, since you’ve got the knowledge down here that they haven’t got.  I want the support of this Court in connection with what the High Court are now managing. 

I also have serious concerns about what is happening to my health as a result of it.

JUDGE MITCHELL:    I am not surprised.  You see, I have got a Notice of Application here, dealing with the two cases that I dealt with in January, that says: “I request that Judge Mitchell makes an order that these two police stations communicate with each other about myself and Peck”.

MRS. LINDRIDGE:    Yes.

JUDGE MITCHELL:   “I request that he makes an order that the Ashford returns the court files and evidence and computers that are needed as part of the court proceedings.  I request that Judge Mitchell and Kent Police both contact the Royal Courts and the Office of the Sheriff of Kent re the writ of fieri to clarify the position with the knowledge and evidence they have”.

            I really do not understand what you are saying.

MRS. LINDRIDGE:    Well, basically there is perjury involved in this – clear perjury involved in getting the writ of fieri and getting the court order from you.  You have knowledge of that.  There is a file that now is in your possession that was not there in January; i.e. the one that we got out of the court records, Mrs. Norris and I, in March, and the file that went down to the police station – the one that goes back to 1980 and 81.  You made decisions back in January without the knowledge that was in those files.  You now have those files, and they support what I was saying.  And what this document does, it brings up-to-date the position in terms of bringing in the evidence that wasn’t available at the hearings in January.  So all I’ve done is summarise and précis the key issues to correct what wasn’t in front of the Court in January ------

JUDGE MITCHELL:    Sorry.  In spite of the fact I brought all these papers in, there are one or two missing.  I will just go and collect them.  (Pause).

            As I understood it, you were appealing my orders ------

MRS. LINDRIDGE:    That’s in the High Court, yes.

JUDGE MITCHELL:    But you applied to set aside the orders.

MRS. LINDRIDGE:    No, that never went through.

JUDGE MITCHELL:    No.  You made an application which seemed to me to be an application to set aside ------

MRS. LINDRIDGE:    No, I withdrew that.  I did that having had the Sheriff come round, and I did it under duress, and I didn’t pursue it.

JUDGE MITCHELL:    It has not been formally withdrawn. 

            So you are not pursuing that.

MRS. LINDRIDGE:    No, because it’s in the higher court at the moment.  What I am trying to stop is – to use your knowledge in this matter and to stop further problems, because you’ve got the knowledge, you’ve got the evidence, you’ve got the power – and I’m asking for your help.

JUDGE MITCHELL:    Yes.

MRS. LINDRIDGE:    Basically, the document I’ve put together incorporates the files.  It updates what was happening from January.  It incorporates the files that were found in March and brings the situation up-to-date. I just think it will be helpful to the High Court, who are trying to manage this situation, if we can work together to help them.

JUDGE MITCHELL:    I am afraid that sort of language does not help anybody. I do not really understand what you are wanting me to do.  We do not work together in the sense that we simply make orders which – so I am not quite clear.

MRS. LINDRIDGE:    But you are now aware.  I mean, you told me in court in January that you were not interested in perjury or rapes, or anything like that, and you told me to go and see the police.  And I went to see the police straight after the hearing on the 10^th January.

JUDGE MITCHELL:    I do not think I did say that, actually.

MRS. LINDRIDGE:    You did.  You told me that perjury and rapes weren’t of your interest.  The tapes are with the transcription people now, so whatever.  But, I mean, basically, because when I raised the issues of perjury and rapes, you let me know that they were a police matter ------

JUDGE MITCHELL:    Oh, you mean in relation to the M25 rapes, or whatever they are called.

MRS. LINDRIDGE:    No, in relation to these.  The rapes that I brought up.  My rape and the rape down in Sandling and Borley Woods. You directed me to the police.  And on the 10^th January I went up to Bexleyheath Police Station ------

JUDGE MITCHELL:    No, I do not think I did direct you to the police.  I think I took the view in January, as I do today, that you are nothing less or more than a thorn in their side.  It does not sound as though I would have directed you to the police, because you clearly have caused them a lot of difficulties.  But anyway, you went to the police, did you?

MRS. LINDRIDGE:    I went to the police after the hearing on the 10^th January to do what you had said during the hearing on the 7^th, and also to try and prevent a further crime taking place.

JUDGE MITCHELL:    My recollection of the hearing of the 7^th is you wanted to apply to issue ten witness summonses, or eleven I think there were, out of time, in other words, before the seven day time limit, and I gave a judgment – which may be the subject of appeal, and that is a matter entirely for you – which refused you permission to do that.

MRS. LINDRIDGE:    During that hearing I brought up the issue of rapes and perjury, and you said that they were a matter for the police, and so, after the hearing on the10th, I went to Bexleyheath Police Station for two reasons: to report the perjury and the rapes, and to prevent a further crime.  I was seen by DC Hallett.  He spoke to Kent Police.  I was told that I was permitted to report two rapes, which I did.  I reported two rapes.

            In March I was invited to go to Maidstone Police Station re the rapes, conspiracy and perjury.  I spent three hours being interviewed at Maidstone Police Station by DS Hooks and DC Davies, and the interview was videotaped and taped.  I believe that, as a result of that, plus the evidence that was supplied by the Maidstone Court, that the police have irrefutable evidence of rapes and perjury.

JUDGE MITCHELL:    Why did you witness summons Detective Chief Inspector Corbishly and Detective Constable Benson to come to court today?

MRS. LINDRIDGE:    Because basically they have got the evidence.  By putting everything together, it can be put together and given to the High Court so that they can manage what’s going on at the moment.

JUDGE MITCHELL:    Why today?

MRS. LINDRIDGE:    Because I had a phone call yesterday afternoon from the Sheriff of Kent telling me that he came around my house on the back of perjury to steal £4,000 worth of my goods next week, and I need to stop that.  And the court has got the power, you have got the power, the police have got the power to actually stop that.  Now, you know a lot more about this than the High Court.  You have got the evidence.  You have got the files.  You can support me in my rights for justice under the Human Rights Act.

JUDGE MITCHELL:    Is it right – it would seem that on the 4^th June the witness summons was faxed by Laurom Health and Safety, which I think is your company ------

MRS. LINDRIDGE:    That’s an old fax number.  That company doesn’t exist any more.  I just haven’t changed the fax number on the ------

JUDGE MITCHELL:    It would seem that the one against Mr. Benson was faxed on the 5^th June.  Is that right?

MRS. LINDRIDGE:    No, they were first faxed when I first filed them.  They were first faxed after they were issued through the court.  When they were issued and processed by the court, that’s when they were first faxed over, with an update of when the date changed.  And then, of course, that hearing was vacated.  But then they still had – I mean, that 6^th June was always – has been a date that’s been here at this court for two weeks.  So when I first issued this – I mean, that handwriting, the ‘6^th June’ ------

JUDGE MITCHELL:    Is the Court’s.

MRS. LINDRIDGE:    . . . Corbishly.  It’s not mine, it’s Mrs. Norris’ ------

JUDGE MITCHELL:    Yes, I appreciate it is not yours.

MRS. LINDRIDGE:    . . . who did it two weeks ago.

JUDGE MITCHELL:    But, you see, the difficulty is this.  You are issuing a witness summons.  I have got the fax here, if you want to look at it.  The thing is this.  The police have faxed these over to us this morning, as I understand it.  I will just get them from the court.  But certainly, what these witness summonses show is that on the – well, certainly we have had them faxed from the police, and the police fax number is on some of them but what we have is a witness summons of the 4^th June, indicating that you faxed the police at 5.14 that evening – or that Laurom Health and Safety fax machine ------

MRS. LINDRIDGE:    No.  Yesterday.  I faxed them yesterday.  Not the 4^th.  Yesterday.

JUDGE MITCHELL:    You faxed them yesterday.  One of them was faxed yesterday, and one of them was faxed on the 4^th.

MRS. LINDRIDGE:    No, I did them both yesterday.  That was the second time of faxing, because obviously the first time of faxing – with the same date and the same time – was two weeks ago.  All I did was re-fax the same thing.  So, I mean, it was the second fax for the same date ------

JUDGE MITCHELL:    Mrs. Lindridge, you cannot do that.  You did this ------

MRS. LINDRIDGE:    Why can’t I?

JUDGE MITCHELL:    . . . with over sixty orders.  These are serious orders issued by the Court.  They have to be served and dealt with properly.  They have to be served personally, or by first-class post, and they have got to have conduct money with them.  Do you remember what I said to you about this behaviour?

MRS. LINDRIDGE:    I do.  I’ve forgotten about the conduct money, but I remem – I mean, all I know is that they were properly processed by the Court. They were properly served two weeks ago by ------

JUDGE MITCHELL:    They should not actually have been issued.  Well, maybe they should, maybe they should not. 

MRS. LINDRIDGE:    They were actually issued two weeks ago.  They were properly processed and served by the court.  What I am trying to stop is any more intimidation or harassment at my home.  You and the police have got the evidence of perjury.  You have also got the evidence – the police have got the evidence of all these crimes, and so have the courts, and I don’t think it’s fair basically that I should be a victim of crime on a regular basis over the last three years, for which the police will not investigate, and yet the minute there is this witness summons that goes out to Mr. Corbishly, I get arrested.  There’s got to be some sort of stage where somebody actually follows the law, and that basically they stop a miscarriage of justice actually happening.  And all I am asking is that this document that I – do you agree with the contents?  Does the Court agree with the accuracy of these documents that I’ve sworn on this affidavit?  Do you actually agree that?

JUDGE MITCHELL:    Which documents are they because, to be quite honest, we are besieged with documents?

MRS. LINDRIDGE:    The application that I filed today, sworn as an affidavit, the one dated the 6^th June, does this Court agree that what I’ve got in this application, before I start asking for any orders, that the basic facts are actually true?  Do you agree with that?

JUDGE MITCHELL:    I cannot agree or disagree.  It is your evidence.  But I have to say that these seem to me to be the ravings of a deluded person, to be quite honest.

MRS. LINDRIDGE:    Well, you are not medically qualified.  I haven’t got a mental health condition.  I am suffering from stress and trauma as a result of all of this, and I am still as terrified of my ex-husband today as I was all those years ago.  The evidence is he is back in my life, he has been back in my life.  The evidence is there.  It’s in the courts.  Now, for whatever reason, the court has not chosen to help or protect me in the past, nor have the police.  But I think there comes a time when things have got to change and people accept the facts, and the facts I would like you to accept – I mean, the evidence of all these points, 1 to 16, are actually filed into the court.  Do you accept that they are all true?

JUDGE MITCHELL:    I am afraid I am not here to answer questions.

MRS. LINDRIDGE:    I am asking ------

JUDGE MITCHELL:    But I have told you what I thought they were.  Now look, what I am quite concerned about is this.  I told you, and I do not think you dispute this, that you must not go faxing summonses to people, otherwise I would treat it as a contempt.

MRS. LINDRIDGE:    But the Court told me to do it two weeks ago.  All I did was ------

JUDGE MITCHELL:    No, they did not tell you to do anything.

MRS. LINDRIDGE:    They told me to serve them.

JUDGE MITCHELL:    They issued, at your request, the summonses that you requested.

MRS. LINDRIDGE:    But you gave an order back in January that all stuff had to go through you and ------

JUDGE MITCHELL:    I certainly did, so ------

MRS. LINDRIDGE:    And it did.

JUDGE MITCHELL:    It should have had to come to me actually but, that apart, that is the court ------

MRS. LINDRIDGE:    I was told it went to you and you had changed the hearing date from the 29^th to the 6^th June because you were going to be here this week, so I know that I was told that it went to you for clarification of the date and the week that you were going to be here, because you were only going to be here for a week.  So I was told to serve it.  And I could not have served it with a date on it unless you had said that it was okay.

JUDGE MITCHELL:    The problem is you did not serve it properly, did you?

MRS. LINDRIDGE:    I did it by fax.

JUDGE MITCHELL:    I told you in January that you cannot serve witness summonses by fax.  I told you that if you did it again I would send you to prison.  And here you are, in breach of the Court’s indication.

MRS. LINDRIDGE:    No.  I did exactly what I was told to do.  I discussed it with Mrs. Norris and I said I would fax it over in the first instance, and then – because it all got put on hold – I didn’t go to the second stage of personally serving it, because you withdrew the hearing date.

JUDGE MITCHELL:    No.  I did not do anything of the sort.  I indicated that the matter ought to be listed before me, because the order that I made is that you cannot go any further in your actions against Mr. Peck, and you cannot take any further actions without reference either to myself or Judge Hamilton.

MRS. LINDRIDGE:    Which is what we did.

JUDGE MITCHELL:    Look, these witness summonses are serious documents.

MRS. LINDRIDGE:    Yes.

JUDGE MITCHELL:    They are meant to compel the attendance at court of the people who are named in them.

MRS. LINDRIDGE:    And I did what I was told.  I served them ------

JUDGE MITCHELL:    I told you, you must not fax witness summonses ------

MRS. LINDRIDGE:    All right.  Is Mrs. Norris your agent, or is she not?  When you are not here and you’re in Bromley, and she tells me she’s spoken to you and has got this court date and tells me to serve it.  In the first instance I sent it by fax.  Then she told me to say that I shouldn’t do it, that it had been a mistake, so I didn’t go ahead and formally do it.  I did as I was instructed.  I have merely followed the instructions of the Court to the letter.  Both of these were actually served  at the time ------

JUDGE MITCHELL:    Mrs. Lindridge, you cannot serve witness summonses by fax.  You know that, because I told you that in January.

MRS. LINDRIDGE:    I let them know that basically it had come via the court, it was coming that way in advance.  I was giving them advance knowledge.

JUDGE MITCHELL:    What do you mean “advance knowledge”?  This summons, if it were obeyed by the police, means that Detective Constable Benson and Detective Chief Inspector Corbishly would be here this morning.  That is what you intended to happen, is it not?

MRS. LINDRIDGE:    Listen.  I followed the instructions.  When you said you wanted to see me again I assumed that you were picking up on this and ------

JUDGE MITCHELL:    I did not want to see you again.  You had made application to set aside my order of ------

MRS. LINDRIDGE:    No, I rang in ------

JUDGE MITCHELL:    . . . the 10^th January.

MRS. LINDRIDGE:    I rang in yesterday afternoon, after I had the phone call from the Sheriff of Kent, and spoke to Mrs. Norris.  Mrs. Norris said she spoke to you, and you said that you would see me in connection with that, and I thought that you were going to ------

JUDGE MITCHELL:    I am not recording what ------

MRS. LINDRIDGE:    . . . you were going to help me with what is happening in relation to the Sheriff of Kent.

JUDGE MITCHELL:    Mrs. Lindridge, the Court is not here as some sort of judicial social work institution.

MRS. LINDRIDGE:    But you made a mistake back in January, and the High Court is now dealing ------

JUDGE MITCHELL:    What I am going to do is – I cannot make any orders at all on what you are seeking in this Notice of Application.  It just is not anything that has got to do with this County Court.

MRS. LINDRIDGE:    So you cannot help.

JUDGE MITCHELL:    It is not a question of helping.

MRS. LINDRIDGE:    I just want to make sure that I do not suffer any more crimes when they could be prevented, and I believe that you could help prevent another crime.  But I respect your decision not to do that, and I’m sorry that I hoped that you would help me today, and I’ve taken up your time.

JUDGE MITCHELL:    Just a minute.  I am sorry.  I am not allowing this matter to slide any further.  I cannot make any orders on the application.  At your behest, if you are withdrawing an application to set aside my order of the 10^th January – the fact is I am very concerned.  You are causing untold problems in this County with the issue of witness summonses wholly unjustified.  The fact is that I warned you specifically ------

MRS. LINDRIDGE:    Sorry, but those witness summonses are also incorporated in my High Court application, and they have been accepted by the High Court as acceptable, and I think they are a higher court in this matter, so basically these two witness summonses are actually incorporated already in the higher court, who have the higher jurisdiction.

JUDGE MITCHELL:    They are not incorporated.  They are here today compelling these officers ------

MRS. LINDRIDGE:    They are not.  They are part of a section 10 in my Appellant’s Notice.

JUDGE MITCHELL:    Mrs. Lindridge, it seems that you will not cease, as I warned you, to issue witness summonses.  Issue them, yes, but serve them and deal with them properly, and that is what you are not doing, and I specifically warned you. These are important documents.  When we appeared in January there were over sixty that had been issued.  This court was inundated with people who were worried sick.

MRS. LINDRIDGE:    I did exactly – can we please have Mrs. Norris in here and ask her bout this, please, because she has knowledge about this.  She ------

JUDGE MITCHELL:    I told you that you were not permitted to fax witness summonses.

MRS. LINDRIDGE:    I don’t remember you saying that at all.  I’ve got no memory of faxing any witness summonses.   I don’t know anything about not being able to fax witness summonses.  I’ve got no knowledge of that whatsoever.  When I get the transcript of judgment back from the transcribers I will check it to see if that’s what you said, but I do not remember ------

JUDGE MITCHELL:    It was not said on the judgment.  It was said during ------

MRS. LINDRIDGE:    There is nothing in writing anywhere about ------

JUDGE MITCHELL: What do you seek to achieve by issuing these witness summonses?

MRS. LINDRIDGE:    I want to stop another crime happening.

JUDGE MITCHELL:    I am afraid this time, Mrs. Lindridge, given what I have warned you, I cannot overlook what is going on in this court.  The fact is that you brought your action.  I am going to give a short judgment.

JUDGE MITCHELL:    You brought your action against Mr. Peck ------

MRS. LINDRIDGE:    Sorry, I don’t feel well.  I need to go outside.

JUDGE MITCHELL:    I am sorry, you are not going home today.

MRS. LINDRIDGE:    I am just going outside for a minute.

JUDGE MITCHELL:    I am going to order that you be arrested and detained.  Could you just come in and detain this lady, please, at my behest.  I am going to give a short judgment as to why that is happening and what is going to take place, Mrs. Lindridge.  I am sorry it comes to this.  I really am.

            I am going to give a short judgment.  Please just sit down.

JUDGMENT

JUDGE MITCHELL:    This case comes back before me again today involving allegations against Mr. Nigel Anthony Peck.  I dismissed two actions on the 10^th January, and I also would not enforce Mrs. Lindridge’s application to take out an injunction, or to enforce an injunction, or an undertaking, in fact – as I have subsequently discovered it to be – given as long ago as 1980. 

            What I perceive in this case is a campaign of vilification and hatred and allegations which appear to me to be utterly baseless not only against Mr. Peck, but against people in this County who are members of the police force, the judiciary and, indeed, the medical profession, to name but three.

            When this lady appeared before me in January to seek to issue another eleven witness summonses.  I refused to do that.  I specifically warned her, during one of those hearings, that if she continued to fax witness summonses to persons I would have no alternative but to lock her up.  The fact is that she has accepted faxing witness summonses relating to Detective Constable Benson and Detective Chief Inspector Corbishly, which is in direct contravention of the indication I gave her.  She said that she had in fact issued them yesterday, albeit one of them is actually faxed on the 4^th June, but the fact of the matter is that the police receive these summonses almost with regularity, and they have sent them to the Court this morning, I can only imagine, for the Court to take some action.

            The fact is that when witness summonses are issued in this way the police at least are aware that they do not have to attend, because they are not properly served, but I indicated to this lady in no uncertain terms, given the history of this matter, that it must not be done again.

            On the face of it, that is a contempt of court.

            The reality of this matter, as I have indicated during the course of this hearing, is that these ravings and rantings, which are in writing and can be there for all to see, are in fact the product of a deluded mind.  The fact of the matter is that it appears that this lady is in contempt of court.  Before dealing with that issue, and she says in relation to it – and I should make this clear, the Court did issue the summons.  Perhaps it should not have done.  The Court did alter the date, because the matter was put before me.  But the fact is that she persisted in faxing a summons through to the police officers, something which I expressly forbade her to do.

            On the face of it, there is a contempt of this court.  Witness summonses are important documents.  They are not to be faxed around the County like confetti.  They are to be treated with the gravity which they deserve.  They are meant to produce people and documents at court.

            The fact is that, before this issue of contempt can properly be tried, I take the view that I need a psychiatric report to help me decide whether this lady is in a position to appreciate the nature of the alleged contempt and is fit to instruct and see persons on her behalf to represent her interests. 

            I am therefore proposing to remand her in custody for that to be done.

            I intend to telephone immediately the Official Solicitor to act on Mrs. Lindridge’s behalf.  I will ensure that I remain at court all day so that council or solicitors can see her in custody with a view, if necessary, to coming straight back before me to refer me to any matters of fact or law which help me in what I perceive to be a very difficult situation.

            If, when she has been seen by a doctor, there is an indication that she can properly be considered in the realms of a perfectly ordinary hospital, or a psychiatric unit, or whatever, I would be more than happy to grant her bail so that that can be done.

            It is not my intention that she should simply remain in custody for no good reason at all.  That would be a wholly inappropriate exercise of power.  What I am desperately keen to do – given the massive history of this matter, the volume of paper, the outpourings of her against people who are not actually connected with the proceedings – is to have her examined.  She herself says that she has suffered stress. I think that is probably almost certainly true, but it seems to me that most of it may well be self-induced.

            I will have this matter mentioned later today.  I will endeavour to get representation via the Official Solicitor.  I will also have the matter further mentioned on Monday at Canterbury if the Official Solicitor is in a position on that day to give me an update. 

            As I have indicated, I would be only too willing to look at bail in connection with this case, but I really do feel that, before this matter can progress any further, a psychiatric report has to be obtained.

            I should say, because Mrs. Lindridge’s legal advisers, as they will be, will no doubt wish to consider, but I have had regard to the extremely recent case decided by the Court of Appeal in Wilkinson v S, dealing with a contempt within the face of the court.  This is a slightly different situation, I accept.  That case is reported at 2003, 1 WLR at page 1254.

            Mrs. Lindridge, I am not having you languish in custody.  I am contacting the Official Solicitor to act on your behalf.  I will see that counsel or solicitors come to see you before anything else occurs.  Do you understand?  This is specifically to get me a psychiatric report before I try the issue of contempt thoroughly.  There appears to have been a contempt, but I am willing to listen to any representations that will no doubt be made on your behalf.

            Please take her down.  I am going to make the phone call now.  I will have your interests properly represented.

MRS. LINDRIDGE:    Can you explain to me what this means?  What is this Official Receiver?

JUDGE MITCHELL:    The Official Solicitor acts on behalf of those who are not properly capable of acting on their own behalf – whether it is because they are in custody or because there is some other problem.  It will give you legal representation.

MRS. LINDRIDGE:    My solicitor is Berry & Berry in this matter.

JUDGE MITCHELL:    I am pleased that you said that.  They may well take it on. The Official Solicitor could instruct Berry & Berry.  I will make a note of that.

MRS. LINDRIDGE:    Lynne Osmond is representing me currently.

JUDGE MITCHELL:    What is he called?

MRS. LINDRIDGE:    Lynne Osmond.

JUDGE MITCHELL:    Is that a lady or a man?

MRS. LINDRIDGE:    A lady, and she is about 100 yards from here in Berry & Berry.

JUDGE MITCHELL:    Right.  Strictly, the Official Solicitor will be your solicitor, but he or she can contact Berry & Berry with a view to having you represented today.

MRS. LINDRIDGE:    Does this mean you are going to keep me locked up and away from my children?

JUDGE MITCHELL:    I am afraid it does.  I am going to have this matter re-listed later today.  I am going to have it re-listed on Monday.  I simply would like a medical report on your condition to see whether or not there is anything that can be done.

MRS. LINDRIDGE:    Does this mean I am going to be locked up over the weekend?

JUDGE MITCHELL:    Yes, I am afraid it does.

MRS. LINDRIDGE:    For three days.

JUDGE MITCHELL:    I am afraid so.

MRS. LINDRIDGE:    Away from my ------

JUDGE MITCHELL:    Unless the Official Solicitor can draw to my attention – and this is what I am anxious should be done – if I have acted in any way unlawfully or outside my powers, I will be only too willing to reconsider.  That is why it is imperative that you have legal representation.

MRS. LINDRIDGE:    Right.  Well I would like to make an undertaking to the Court, in whatever you want me to do, so that basically I do not remaining custody and I can look after my son, who is traumatised by recent events as it is.

JUDGE MITCHELL:    For the moment – it is not open-ended.  At the very least I will hear you later today.  I will certainly have it re-listed on Monday.  I am moving to Canterbury.  I want you there.  Or, rather, I want to know what the situation is.  This is not an exercise in simply locking somebody up.  It is an exercise in obtaining an indication as to their mental capacity to understand what is going on, to appreciate the situation therein and, indeed, to instruct people to act on their behalf.

MRS. LINDRIDGE:    Right.  I mean, you are aware that there are two cases that are currently in the higher court at the moment, and one of them involves doctors in this area, including –(inaudible)–

JUDGE MITCHELL:    Well ------

MRS. LINDRIDGE:    . . . experts.  Basically, there is evidence under SI/C –(inaudible)– stroke whatever, 119, 2003, about some unusual practises in this area involving children experts.

JUDGE MITCHELL:    Well, Mrs. Lindridge, what you have just said just endorses my concerns about your mental health.  I may be completely wrong.

MRS. LINDRIDGE:    –(inaudible)–

JUDGE MITCHELL:    It just alerts one.  For the moment you must go into custody with these officers.  I am going to pick up the phone and get you legally represented, and I will listen to any ------

MRS. LINDRIDGE:    Lynne Osmond.

JUDGE MITCHELL:    Yes.  I have made a note.  I am going to telephone the Official Solicitor now.

MRS. LINDRIDGE:    Could I make phone calls via my mobile phone to my children, and also to my – the doctor, when I was arrested in Ashford, said that I was not to be interviewed without, whatever, an appropriate person because I am vulnerable because of all of this, and the concept of my rapist having the power he has got, and the person that has been nominated as the appropriate person was a rape crisis counsellor, and is a lady called Pat Shanahan, who works as a prison officer over on the Isle of Sheppey.  Can she please come over and be with me when I am being ------

JUDGE MITCHELL:    You are not being interviewed. You are not being interviewed.  This is not a criminal matter.  It is a civil contempt.  It is a quasi criminal matter.  Now, look, the answer to that is no, there is no need for it.  You are not going to be interviewed.

            As far as phoning your relatives are concerned, that is a matter for the authorities.  These gentlemen who are with you are a part of the Escort Service.  I will certainly have the court telephone your – it is a 19 year old and a 17 year old, is it not?

MRS. LINDRIDGE:    18 and 17.  There is also my car that is parked across the road.  I am quite willing to give an undertaking to this Court now  ------

JUDGE MITCHELL:    We will make arrangements for you to be seen.

MRS. LINDRIDGE:    I will make an undertaking to the Court now about witness summonses that I didn’t know that I wasn’t supposed to issue that I issued on behalf – I will make an undertaking to this Court now that I will never ever, ever issue any more witness summonses in this Court ever again.

JUDGE MITCHELL:    That may be sufficient in due course, but I am very, very anxious, and I hope it is ------

MRS. LINDRIDGE:    I will make an undertaking, a written undertaking to this Court now that I will never – I will write it out now – that I will never issue any more witness summonses in this Court again, even if they are officially endorsed by the Court, like these two were.  I will never, ever – I promise, I will never issue any more of these summonses again ------

JUDGE MITCHELL:    All right.

MRS. LINDRIDGE:    And I will put that into writing now.

JUDGE MITCHELL:    All right.  Well, you have put everything into writing, which is what is causing some difficulties at this Court.  Look, Mrs. Lindridge, you are not simply leaving this Court and going into prison now.  You will be seen by a representative later today, and the matter will come back before me.  I do not take these steps lightly at all.  I take my public duty seriously.  This is an area which is difficult.  I need whatever legal assistance I can get.  At the moment my very serious concern for your mental health is such that I really feel I absolutely have to have a psychiatric report.

MRS. LINDRIDGE:    Yes.  My concern for my mental health is basically the concept of my rapist, my attempted murderer, having me arrested.

JUDGE MITCHELL:    He has not had you arrested.  This is entirely promulgated by me.  You blame me for this.

MRS. LINDRIDGE:    No, recently.

JUDGE MITCHELL:    Take this lady down.  I am going to make arrangements for her to be seen by ------

MRS. LINDRIDGE:    Can I please understand.  Is it likely that you are going to keep me locked up indefinitely?

JUDGE MITCHELL:    No.  No, it is not.

MRS. LINDRIDGE:    What is the maximum –(inaudible)–

JUDGE MITCHELL:    What is going to happen is I am going to hold you today pending you being seen by a legal representative.  No doubt that legal representative may wish to address me on the question of holding you in custody.  The worst scenario, as far as I can see, is that you will be back before me on Monday.

MRS. LINDRIDGE:    Okay.

JUDGE MITCHELL:    But it is still bad enough, I am well aware of that.  But certainly I am happy to listen to any representations made later today, and I am certainly not going to let this matter slip.  We do not just remand people in custody and leave them there.