Skip to content or view screen version

Mrs. Sarah Winfield - please remove your head from your arse

Mrs. Charity Sweet | 12.04.2008 07:55 | SOCPA | Repression | London

The head lawyer for the Met is talking shite as usual - aiding and abbetting the known FRAUDSTER - sir Ian Blair.

Addendum to CO/2460/2008 dated 7th April 2008

Response by Barbara Tucker to MPS Acknowledgement of Service.

Objectively my concise timeline neatly encapsulates what can reasonably be described as an ongoing two years plus politically motivated government dirty tricks campaign, against me and other members of the Parliament Square Peace Campaign.

As such when seen as both an ongoing government orchestrated campaign; including the latest arrests and proceedings between December 2007 and March 2008, all the interferences remain “within time”, in their entirety.

Contrary to the curious assertion of Mrs Winfield of the MPS Legal Directorate, of anything being “out of time”, in fact and reality, the most recent “arrest” or rather kidnap of myself, Steve Jago and The Ninja Ant in Parliament Square on 26th February 2008, under SOCPA 2005 ss 132-138, where we were held in police custody, with an Inspector referring to my arrest under SOCPA 2005 ss 132-138 as an “indictable” matter; did really happen, “within time”.

As the custody record attached to CO/2460/2008 shows, it really happened; it was not our imaginations so my application submitted on 11th March 2008, is well “within time”.

In any case challenges are allowed where any person is affected as indeed I am while campaigning.

In essence, essentially the same abuse of process argument has been on the table and repeatedly blocked from High Court proceedings, since February 2006, because best guess, even this ordinary legally unqualified person increasingly just doesn’t believe the public authorities can make case law over what they have really been doing.

The two main strands of my legal argument are sound commonsense based on well established case law.

The primary legal argument is that Parliament lack any “legitimate aim that is convincingly established in criminal law” to enact/impose SOCPA 2005 ss 132-138 in an area where peaceful general public access is not banned.

ie: where does the danger exist in wearing/holding a banner that does not exist in not wearing/holding a banner?

The absence of any legitimate aim being convincingly established in criminal law makes SOCPA 2005 ss 132-138 in its entirety incompatible with the Human Rights Act.

The absence of any legitimate aim obviously renders the question of whether one notified or not, irrelevant.
Since my argument is that with regard to SOCPA 2005 ss 132-138, Parliament lacks any legitimate aim that is convincingly established in criminal law, an obvious remedy that I have properly sought is a Declaration of Incompatibility.

An example of the lack of any legitimate aim is exemplified during proceedings at Southwark Crown Court on 20th December 2007.

During my cross examination of an armed Diplomatic Protection Police Officer whose attendance I queried, the following memorable exchange took place:

I asked DPG Hardiman what it was that was criminal on my part in the “incident” he had outlined to this criminal court.

After what I assume he would call thinking, DPG Hardiman replied: “We don’t like you”.

I asked “Which part of the Criminal Law or Human Rights Act is that ?

To which, DPG Hardiman replied “It’s the company you keep (and the Judges looked hopeful) …she was with Steve Jago; he was wearing a yellow fluorescent jacket with the words Police Farce written on the back.”

Some people might think it alarming that this was a police officer who carries a machine gun.

Further to the obvious lack of any legitimate aim, is the deliberate failure of the Commissioner where he had been delegated wide ranging discretionary powers, to fulfil his legal duty to put in place easily accessible published processes prior to “enforcing”, anything.

Contrary to the quite insulting comment of Mrs Winfield who has not been arbitrarily detained on numerous occasions because for example, “we don’t like you”.. I am quite clearly properly seeking judicial review of the Commissioner’s “decision” / omission to properly delegate or put in place proper processes.

The Commissioner had a duty to authorise and it is as clear as mud as to how he has legally fulfilled this legal obligation. It seems to me that Mrs Winfield is merely looking for avenues to allow the Commissioner to wriggle out of any responsibility that he clearly had.

For example, the legislation does not explain the process of authorisation or of imposing conditions, and Mrs Winfield would know full well that in law the Commissioner was not given unfettered powers to do whatever he wanted – regarding authorisations and the imposing of conditions – where obviously members of the public were affected.

Mrs Winfield, like the Commissioner gives an unhealthy appearance that they have either given no thought to the practical implementation of the legislation or they simply didn’t care about acting arbitrarily which will always translate into unlawfully.

When a member of Parliament asked about what guidance was given to the police about implementation, they were told that there was no specific guidance given; it was left to the Commissioner and anyone knows that you put in place processes, so the Metropolitan Police should stop trying to wriggle out of obvious responsibilities.

Instead with breathtaking arrogance that can only be described as an abuse of his public position, resulting in wholesale corruption, the Commissioner has been acting in a wholly reckless and arbitrary manner, with a complete disregard for the welfare of ordinary members of the public, who should not ever have needed to enter into any adversarial conflict, let alone with a whole criminal justice system every time they simply assert their convention rights.

Since, it is obvious that where there is an exchange between state and individual, differences will inevitably arise, there is substantial case law that makes it clear how unwritten law must be easily accessible, clear and foreseeable, with safeguards, including checks and balances.

SOCPA 2005 ss 132-138 gave the Commissioner wide-ranging, which is different from unfettered powers. It is his failure to put in place processes that I properly judicially review because we members of the public are subjected to the unnecessary interferences that directly result from his failure too.

The Commissioner has made no attempt to do anything properly and has not conducted himself professionally while being so comprehensively and disgustingly arrogant towards ordinary members of the public.

I offer my own observation, borne out of my own experience, that where there is any dispute arising over an issue of notification, (and worse where it is the public authorities who are shown to have wilfully and arrogantly refused to put in place any processes so that where anything has broken down can be properly indentified) the issue of notification, is at best an administrative, not criminal matter; the response of the public authorities to the issue of notification, has been wholly and disproportionately off the wall; a mountain out of a molehill.

With regard to the issue of the - undated - document where allegedly at some unknown time, the Commissioner purported to delegate authority, the judgment of the Lord Chief Justice quite specifically does not address the validity of this document for very obvious reasons, see DPP v Haw [2007] EWHC 1931.

The undated document is the piece de resistance/ the icing on the cake or the supreme example of the total arrogance of the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police.

An undated document that does not address when an action is alleged to have taken place is a worthless piece of paper legally speaking. It is insulting by any legal professional to suggest otherwise to any ordinary member of the public.

Without as a starting point a dated document delegating authority to authorise or impose conditions, staggeringly all the interferences, from reportings, arrests, detentions and prosecutions have been unlawful because no - one could get a valid authorisation anyway.

What is so appalling about this is that the Commissioner has knowingly lied about delegating authority, and has tried to cover it up that he did not, while all these peaceful members of the public have been repeatedly abused by any old police officers doing whatever they like, over when all is said and done nothing of any criminal nature.

Members of the public are quite justifiably angry at being arbitrarily detained and prosecuted etc, any old time while a Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police just hasn’t bothered to do his job properly.

What the Commissioner has essentially attempted to do is fraudulent because he has persisted in an awful lie that has had real consequences for others.

Parliament and the Metropolitan Police et al have treated people appallingly without any respect at all.

I included the very many other malicious prosecutions and unique interferences that were brought against me, because they amply illustrate the breadth and extent of bad faith on the part of a less than independent criminal justice system.

For example on 24th January 2007, I was quite seriously assaulted while having my hands ripped out of railings while trying to protect myself in Parliament Square, (where I had previously been viciously assaulted in the same place on 22nd November 2006 – pictures of 22nd November 2006 are included in CO/2460/2008) before being arrested, detained and prosecuted on the ridiculous grounds that while it was conceded, I was legally campaigning, I should have stopped campaigning for no other reason than just because any police officer said so.

The police violently stopped me peacefully campaigning and it was I who had to go through all manner of serious interferences, including being detained and prosecuted, before I won on appeal at Southwark Crown Court on 6th December 2007, when HH Judge Rivlin said the obvious – that I should never have been arrested. That is all very well to say many months later after all manner of interferences have taken place. It does not change that it is happening time and again.

When all is said and done, whatever the legal gymnastics of the criminal justice system, it is pretty simple and straightforward, including commonsense, that where there is no legitimate aim, nor any easily accessible processes, to bring criminal proceedings is an abuse, incl. of court processes.

RE: CO/8080/2007 & CO/8362/2007

In another apparent “administrative error” at the Royal Courts of Justice (see previous CO/4002/2006 or CO/4002/2007 as it was sometimes referred to, that sat in Town and Country Planning before the administrative office admit that I was not notified of/therefore invited to/able to take part in any hearing on 30th November 2007) the administrative court office appears to have listed one case that was filed on 13th September 2007, under two different numbers, CO/8080/2007 & CO/8362/2007 and I was not ever notified of or invited to any hearing or provided with any paperwork regarding CO/8080/2007 to which Mrs Winfield refers. I don’t have the foggiest idea about what she is talking about.

This member of the public does not concede for example; including that it is “proportionate” that the Metropolitan Police Commissioner or any of his officers are just “enforcing” a “general duty” in following “orders” (from an MP) to arbitrarily detain myself and others under SOCPA 2005 ss132-138 for twenty hours (hardly expeditious) not least since they lied in claiming it was an “indictable” offence and they knew all our details, and then did further rebails. It is “punishment without law”.

I do however personally believe that MP’s like Alan Duncan who “voted” to brutally murder innocent civilians, incl. the weakest/most vulnerable, the children – for money should be arrested, detained and stand trial at the Hague for very real and identifiable harms – war crimes; before hopefully receiving life-sentences behind bars.

Unlike disgraceful cowards like Mr Duncan et al in Parliament, I do not hide behind anyone or anything.

Mrs. Charity Sweet
- e-mail:


Display the following comment

  1. Homophobia — Stonewall