JOHN HOATH

Adolf Hitler is right in that if you want to take control of a nation as a dictator, you must disarm the ordinary citizen and put the fear of god up him, lest he complain about injustice. It is alleged that this is precisely what is happening in the United Kingdom, with legal aid cuts, no right of appeal and immunity form prosecution for police and council planning officers.

Sussex police are accused of Article 3 torture in the inhumane treatment of a 74 year old man during arrest and transport for breaching a bail condition in 2020.

It is alleged that tempers were frayed and orders given to quash the actions of a pensioner, John Hoath, where he was insisting that Sussex police should be investigated by an outside force for collecting firearms from a known criminal, knowing that Winston Leachman did not have a firearms certificate, and failing to prosecute the man, though they had prosecuted Mr Hoath for exactly the same offence.

Hence, we have Article 14 and Article 6 violations to consider. Article 14 because Sussex police prosecuted Mr Hoath for not having a firearms certificate (suspended sentence of 12 months) but not Mr Leachman, so treating the two cases differently, giving favourable treatment to Mr Leachman (that we should look at further) and unfavourable treatment to Mr Hoath, hence what may appear to be a clear discrimination issue arises.

1. That Mr Hoath as the complainant was entitled to a prosecution of Winston Leachman, for holding guns (and/or ammunition) without a firearms certificate - and please note that these were Mr Hoath's firearms.

2. That Winston Leachman gave evidence in his trial in 2007, but that Mr Hoath did not know that Sussex police had some kind of arrangement with Mr Leachman and that he had a criminal record, that the Judge and Jury should have been made aware of when considering the weight to give to Mr Leachman's testimony.

Unfortunately, in the United Kingdom, there is no 'Right' to an effective remedy. Indeed, the State appears to have gone out of its way to avoid such right, in leaving out Article 1 and Article 13 from the Human Rights Act 1998.

That only leaves the Criminal Cases Review Commission as an avenue back to the Court of Appeal, but we know that the CCRC believe that they are immune from Article 6 and Article 14, in that the High Court held that they are entitled to take a view.

That is of course wrong in law. No organization in the criminal justice system is entitled to discriminate, or in common parlance, treat one case more favourably than another. Justice has to be entirely fair and equal to all persons, no matter what the colour of their skin or beliefs.

Indeed, there is a duty to protect the citizen from such HR violations, as seen at Section 6 of the HRA1998:

6. - (1) It is unlawful for a public authority to act in a way which is incompatible with a Convention right.

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to an act if-

(a) as the result of one or more provisions of primary legislation, the authority could not have acted differently; or

(b) in the case of one or more provisions of, or made under, primary legislation which cannot be read or given effect in a way which is compatible with the Convention rights, the authority was acting so as to give effect to or enforce those provisions.

(3) In this section "public authority" includes-

(a) a court or tribunal, and

(b) any person certain of whose functions are functions of a public nature,

but does not include either House of Parliament or a person exercising functions in connection with proceedings in Parliament.

What is not immediately obvious to the casual reader, is that this complaint was made to the Metropolitan police, but somehow ended up being investigated by Sussex police. Anyone who understands the law will know that an organisation cannot be judge and jury in its own cause. See R v Sussex Justices ex parte McCarthy 1924.

According to this case precedent, Sussex police are barred from investigation any complaint involving themselves. In the case of the James Ashley shooting, it was Kent and Hampshire constabularies that investigated the murder committed by Chris Sherwood in Hastings.

Complaint was lodged with the Metropolitan police on the 21st of October 2019. Sadly, the Professional Standards Department of Sussex police answered this complaint, not the Metropolitan police. Why?

Mr Hoath had written to Katy Bourne and Gillian (Gilly) Jones (Surrey police) umpteen times, asserting that Sussex police had fixed his trial in 2007, and that their key witness, Winston Leachman was in their employ or under their protection, where this force had collected firearms from Mr Leachman, where he did not a firearms certificate, but did not prosecute Leachman, where he later gave evidence at his trial in relation to the growing of cannabis.

The suggestion is that Sussex police officers were involved in the growing of cannabis while Mr Hoath was out of the country, not Mr Hoath as Sussex police alleged and the CPS prosecuted to obtain a conviction. Mr Hoath was found guilty of harassment and sentenced to eight weeks in prison in July of 2020.

We understand that he intends to appeal the conviction. Perhaps the Crown should intervene, where clearly, there is no effective remedy as to his wrongful conviction in 2007, and also clearly, the police in England appear to be immune from prosecution.

John Hoath, 75, from Lewes, in East Sussex, accused force officials of helping people to evade justice.

He also threatened to carry out a citizen's arrest on those he contacted if they did not surrender to him. Anyone can effect a citizens arrest if they witness a crime. Normally, after such arrest, a regular police force would be called for assistance. In cases where it is the police who are guilty of crimes, such as a failure to investigate a crime (a criminal offence in itself), it is unclear who would prosecute the offending police officers.

He was jailed for eight weeks at Wimbledon Magistrates' Court after being found guilty in February.

His email was sent to Ms Bourne, two of the force's solicitors and its professional standards department on 9 July last year.

Hoath, denied he had intended any malice, but was convicted of sending an electronic message of a menacing character.

Magistrates also gave him a restraining order preventing him from contacting Ms Bourne or force solicitor Gillian Jones by any means until 22 July 2025.

Prosecutor Amanda McCae told the court Hoath had been involved in a dispute with Sussex Police over a "number of years" after a conviction led to his firearms being removed.

She said Hoath claimed officers were "complicit in handing over his firearms to his co-defendants".

During his trial, Ms Bourne is quoted as saying "Hoath had turned up to her office 22 times and sent her up to 150 pieces of correspondence."

She said Hoath's actions gave her "sleepless nights" and forced her to install extra security at her home. Though he had only ever seen her in her professional capacity and never at her home.

Ms Jones said she had also suffered emotionally and professionally after being targeted, and felt unable to do her job "without fear, intimidation or protection".

We wonder if Ms Bourne remains a suitable candidate for the position of crime commissioner in light of the murders of Sharna Grice and Sue Nicholson, and other cases that she remains silent on, but were not dealt with properly or at all under her watch.

In her victim impact statement, Ms Jones told the court she had been "bullied" online and called names including "bitch" and "prostitute" which have caused her "a great deal of upset and fear".

But any such name calling was not from Mr Hoath, and we wonder why the making of such statements designed to cloud the issue was allowed by the Court?

Katy Bourne is quotes as saying that: "Ms Gillian Jones became a victim because I engaged her services as a solicitor," adding: "I feel very responsible [for involving Gilly Jones]."

Ms Gilly Jones was contacted by Mr Hoath in her professional capacity as the defending solicitor for Sussex police. Though, a crime reported to any solicitor, especially a police solicitor, should properly be the subject of investigation or fall foul of the crime of: 'failing to investigate a crime.'

Shelly Burroughs, defending, is quoted as saying: Mr Hoath believed the case was not "investigated correctly" and he had "used the avenues open to him" to dispute it.

PROOF - Evidential proof that Sussex police took guns from Winston Leachman on the 26th June 2002 at 44 Farm Way, Dagenham. Mr Hoath alleges that as Mr Leachman had a criminal record, that he should have been prosecuted for possession of firearms without a certificate.

John Hoath had been the subject of enforcement action by Wealden District Council, where we know from a secret recording of a committee meeting, that they intended to take direct action to deny Mr Hoath his right to a fair hearing under Article 6.

The Injustice Alliance knows from other cases that Wealden and Sussex police work together (a potential conspiracy) to avoid the prosecutions of council officers. One such case is the Petition of 1997 and subsequent failure of Sussex police to investigate the alleged crimes by no less that 12 independent witnesses.

FREEDOM OF THOUGHT AND SPEECH - This website is protected by Articles 9 and 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The Injustice Alliance avers that the right to impart information is a right, no matter that the method of communication is unpalatable to the State.