Statement by John
I am pleased that the
Police have now made it clear that there has been a concerted effort
to promote false criminal allegations against me and that the
allegations had no substance whatsoever.
I would like to thank
Emily Cox, my children, Ayaz Iqbal (my Solicitor), my local lib dem
team and many others who supported me through this dreadful
experience. There are many worse things that happen to people, but
this was a really bad experience.
It is bad enough to
have false allegations made about yourself to the police, but to have
a concerted campaign involving your political opponents and many
others in public creates an environment in which it is reasonable to
be concerned about ill founded vigilante attacks on your family and
yourself. Luckily there was a more substantial lobby to the contrary
as well, which included many people who were themselves real
survivors of abuse, which has helped.
I am normally someone
who helps other people fight injustice. …
It was recently reported that the police were not investigating the allegations of Perverting the Course of Justice that I had made. This came as a surprise to me as I had been told for some time that my allegations were to be considered once the VRR had been rejected. I have now had a very constructive meeting with Staffordshire police on Friday 29th June 2018 and the misunderstandings have been resolved.
At that meeting the evidence relating to the perversion of the course of justice and the harassment campaign against my family were discussed. The police have decided to investigate both the perversion of the course of justice and also the harassment campaign. I would like to thank them for changing their decision and I accept their apology for the way in which they did that.
I am also in possession of written confirmation a police force would be investigating allegations that a vulnerable witness has been harassed for trying to expose the campaign against me. I hope that the aut…
I have only just found this one which I think is accurately reported below (but if it is not please give me an accurate report).
KING’S BENCH DIVISION
R v SUSSEX JUSTICES ex p McCARTHY  1 KB 256
November 9 1923
Editor’s comments in bold.
Here, the magistrates’ clerk retired with the bench when they were considering a charge of dangerous driving. The clerk belonged to a firm of solicitors acting in civil proceedings for the other party to the accident. It was entirely irrelevant that there had been no evidence of actual influence brought to bear on the magistrates, and the conviction was duly quashed.
LORD HEWART CJ: It is clear that the deputy clerk was a member of the firm of solicitors engaged in the conduct of proceedings for damages against the applicant in respect of the same collision as that which gave rise to the charge that the justices were considering. It is said, and, no doubt, truly, that when that gentleman retired in the usual way with the justices, taking with him the…