AS LITIGANT in PERSON in Cambridge Court: no chance to progress the case whilst in prison

English: A barrister on a mobile phone outside...

English: A barrister on a mobile phone outside Southwark Crown Court. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Reported by a McKenzie Friend:

Brian Pead aka William Freeman had no representation.

The case brought before him is ‘impersonating a barrister’ on I believe the 13th of May. Mr Freeman told the judge that he had been moved to 8 prisons in 11 weeks.

For the last 11 days he has not been able to access his money which is in the amount of £400 in his prison account.

He has not seen any of his legal papers because of the ‘ghosting’, i.e. moving him from prison to prison, and would find it difficult to defend himself for this reason. But he did indicate that he does want representation from Imran Khan Solicitors and has been trying to contact them to let them know this.

The court said that at this point in time there is nothing to suggest that Imran Khan Solicitors have accepted representation. Therefore they have scheduled the next hearing of this case for 10th November 2014. A pre trial hearing is scheduled for 17th October 2014 in the Crown Courts Cambridge, where the defence statement is expected to be served.

Mr Freeman asked that the case be moved to the Inner Crown Court London and that the judge allow more than the scheduled 2-3 days for the hearing as he has some 12 witnesses to call. The judge suggested that the witnesses would not be relevant unless they were present on the day in court (13th May) when the charge of him impersonating a barrister was committed.

Meanwhile, could you maybe phone HMP Thameside and ask about William Brian Freeman’s [A9705DE] access to money, phone and visitors’ list? 317 9777.


About Sabine Kurjo McNeill

I'm a mathematician and system analyst formerly at CERN in Geneva and became an event organiser, software designer, independent web publisher and online promoter of Open Justice. My most significant scientific contribution is
This entry was posted in Charges, Court Hearing, Impersonating a Barrister, Legal representation and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to AS LITIGANT in PERSON in Cambridge Court: no chance to progress the case whilst in prison

  1. bodge says:

    Did he knowingly and wittingly present himself as a barrister at law and qualified to represent a defendant in the high courts? or has he merely claimed to represent himself as his own barrister?


  2. Richard says:

    Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2014 11:10:33 +0000
    Sabine, I was copied into this email

    7 August 2014
    Dear All

    I have signed the petition. My concern is that the inquiry must be able to get at the truth of what happened, despite the large amount of lies that must have been told and concealment that must have occurred.

    In my view, if you want to get to the truth of PIE and child abuse in the UK, the Commission is absolutely necessary because it will be comprehensive and on oath.

    We all know that paedophiles are specialist liars and masters of concealment. Most of them seem to have several names. They need to be cornered and questioned in public on oath, if you want a better chance of finding the truth.

    We also all know that even good people defend their department/position when they or others loosely connected to them/their department are accused of paedophilia or covering it up. It is almost instinctive and it is all about damage limitation and protecting reputations “for the greater good” or perceived national interests. Look at Margaret Hodge and the White report for example – a former Minister with positive views on whistle-blowers who when at Islington allegedly denied and criticised the CSA whistle-blower and later (if true) rightly paid compensation to him, according to media reports.

    Similarly, when we were acting for the Baby P whistle-blower (Nevres Kemal) we wrote to four Government Ministers and the CSC (Ofsted) six months before Baby P died to say that child protection procedures had failed completely at Haringey and if they did not act a child may die. My client whistle-blew to Sharon Shoesmith that she would have “blood” on her hands if she did not act. In the event, we were ignored and Baby P was subsequently killed in very preventable circumstances. When Shoesmith then said you can’t stop evil people doing evil things, we whistle-blew again to say that the Government and Shoesmith were fully aware of the CSA issue 6 months before Baby P was killed. Only then did Ed Balls rightly set up an inquiry and only then did Ofsted miraculously find the CSA procedural flaws we had informed them of years before but which two previous inspections (one after and one before Baby P’s death) had failed to identify. So here again we had people blindly protecting reputations and a child dying in preventable circumstances.

    That is what happens in practice.

    On the alleged St Helena child abuse cover up by the FCO (we are acting for several UK whistle-blowers) we see much more evidence of how corruption, or blindly protecting reputation, can stop/delay paedophiles being convicted (in this case, a policeman who raped a 4 year old, among other horrible examples) and how UK whistle-blowers are harassed, imprisoned and punished. The FCO is currently investigating the alleged cover up by its own employees on the island. We need a public inquiry. To put it another way, the last FCO investigation did not go well. Mark Simmonds was aware of the child abuse and police corruption allegations in November 2012 (he had been informed by Mark Hoban MP) but the Lucy Faithful Foundation only arrived on the island about 6 months later, in May 2013, and their report was never published by the Government. That report showed that child abuse was a major problem on the island, despite the denial of that fact by the Chief of Police. This is an island the British taxpayer is paying £220 million to a South African firm to build an airport on; the airport may lead to the island becoming another child sex tourist paradise. The FCO funds the police on the island.

    Similarly, Leon Brittan has already denied he was aware of the Dickins dossier which he was then forced to admit was inaccurate. Of course, his memory was unlikely to have failed him. How many people forget receiving a report that names 8 of the most senior people in our society as paedophiles? It just does not happen. He met Dickins twice. He passed the dossier on to the civil service, the DPP and probably others. They all forgot about it or failed to action it. Now we are told 114 of the files were then lost by the Home Office. Further it now seems likely that the Dickins dossier was not the only CSA evidence given to and not acted upon by Mr Brittan. We need an on oath investigation to get to the truth from Mr Brittan and those to whom he gave the dossier or who were aware of it. Otherwise many will forget what they know and there will be no legal consequences for them.

    Further, the Tory Cabinet minister allegedly caught on the child sex tape seized by Customs in Dover in 1982 is unlikely to be revealed by the current inquiry. The Home Secretary should see if the customs officer whistle-blower can be released from any OSA duties and be allowed to tell the truth on oath about what he and his colleagues saw on that videotape. Certainly there needs to be a facility within the CSA investigation that allows secret evidence on the CSA cover up to be imparted lawfully, whether or not that must be done in private eg: with special advocates. A Royal Commission would be best placed to effect that.

    Otherwise we will end up with more questions than answers after the CSA inquiry, which would be tragic.

    We need to do much more if we are to root out this CSA problem.

    We need a Royal Commission.

    Please sign the petition.

    Kind regards

    Lawrence Davies

    Director of Equal Justice Solicitors
    Head of Employment Litigation
    Please note our new address below
    Bloomsbury House
    4 Bloomsbury Square
    WC1A 2RL
    Tel: 020 7405 5292


  3. alexhorne says:

    Hello Sabine,
    I am a journalist interested in finding out more about this story. I would be very grateful if you could contact me via email.

    My address is ALEXLHORNE91@GMAIL.COM



  4. Pingback: IT’S IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN: the Police runs the Adult (and Child) Porn Industry in the UK | Flying Vet challenges South Wales Police

  5. Pingback: | 12.08.14 UK bail conditions aka MET gag order

  6. thirdeye47 says:

    In my struggle against justice I have found that unfortunately the only way to get people to sit up and listen you have to make them listen by spelling out the law to them when they refuse to act


  7. Pingback: Tuesday 19/08/14 next hearing in the Inner London Crown Court – with or without legal representation? | National Inquiry into Organised Child Sexual Abuse

  8. Pingback: VICTORY: adjournment until after release on 12 September – from which prison? | National Inquiry into Organised Child Sexual Abuse

  9. Pingback: WHO DECIDES on releasing or not releasing? Serco, Cambridge, Norfolk or Inner London Courts? | National Inquiry into Organised Child Sexual Abuse

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s