CAAB

Friday 23 March 2007

York Crown Court

Lindis Percy v Martin Sheppard

In a difficult hearing In York Crown Court today and at the end of a list of sixteen cases, Jonathan Carroll (Counsel for the Defence) applied for a private prosecution to be dismissed. This case had been brought by Lindis Percy against Martin Sheppard (a Ministry of Defence Police Agency officer at Fylingdales) for falsifying a document (section 69 notice - Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994) in a criminal case against her.

Before Jonathan Carroll started his application, Lindis tried to ask to be given the same facilities as the Defence. There was no table for her to put her files on or to write notes. Paul Hoffman (Resident Judge at York Crown Court) would not allow her to have the same facilities. Lindis was told to sit behind the Defence - with no table to write at or put her files. When she pursued her application she was continually told to "SIT DOWN MADAM". She reluctantly had to sit down when Paul Hoffman said he would have her removed if she did not.

Paul Hoffman then said that he had had the advantage of considering both the Skeleton arguments (Prosecution and Defence). He declined to hear oral representations and would not allow any further submissions. He would allow Lindis five minutes and "no more than five minutes" to question Martin Sheppard. He would let Lindis to say anything more.

Paul Hoffman then delivered his ruling. He accepted the Defence case in full. The 'copy' of the document was a copy despite there being mistakes and criticised Lindis for bringing the case. He went on to dismiss the case.

He did however admonish Martin Sheppard for not putting in a statement to say that the 'copy' was not a true copy of the document. He said it was "ill judged and ill thought out".

At the end of the ruling Lindis drew Paul Hoffman's attention to the fact that he had not mentioned either of the authorities submitted by her. She attempted to address him concerning the lack of being able to speak. He ordered that she be removed from his court. Despite saying that she would walk she was taken out of the court by security people and three police officers. They had suddenly arrived in court before the case started.

Lindis was invited to come back into court as the Defence had applied for costs against her. She went back into the court to hear that they had applied for costs totalling £4,726 70p. Paul Hoffman asked on what legal basis could the Defence do this? Paul Hoffman retired from the court, giving the Defence five minutes to find the legal authority. The authority sited was that costs could be awarded if the prosecution was 'unnecessary' and/or if there was 'an improper act or omission'. Lindis was then invited to say why she thought she should not be ordered to pay for the Defence costs. She had just started to say that the prosecution was necessary and that a private prosecution was a vital constitutional safeguard for the citizen especially as the CPS had declined to take over the case, when Paul Hoffman stopped her by saying that he would not allow Lindis to use the court as her 'soap box'. She tried to continue but was once again removed from the court by the police. Lindis did not shout or was rude to the Judge throughtout the hearing. What she tried to raise was reasonable. However from the start Lindis was abused by Paul Hoffman.

Costs of £4,726 70p were ordered to be paid by Lindis.

COMMENT

When embarking on this legal action, Lindis knew that there was going to be a huge struggle ahead. It is always difficult to prosecute the police and be successful as the courts usually support the police. However no one is above the law; including the police and it was important to do.

What Lindis was not prepared for was the behaviour of Paul Hoffman who at both hearings displayed blatent bias in favour of the Defence. He was clearly intent on smartly dismissing the case and had made up his mind to deal with anyone who dared to bring a private prosecution against the police severely.

Maybe the positive thing to come out of this is that it is hoped that the Ministry of Defence Police Agency will take note of Paul Hoffman's criticism of Martin Sheppard and will not be so cavalier next time when submitting a document which purports to be a copy but was clearly not. It is always necessary to be hopeful in such a dark world.