Invitation:

To the people and to those who have been unlawfully deprived of their
homes, property, businesses, health, families and livelihoods.

Greetings.

You are cordially invited to witness the citizens arrest of the fraudster,
Mr Baruch, acting as agent of Baruch Enterprise Ltd., whose illegal
activities deprived Mr & Mrs Ebert of their property at 23 Cranbourne
Gardens, London NW11 0HS.

The arrest will be attempted at 2.0pm on Tuesday the 22nd of February

2011 at the above address.

It is proposed to meet at Brent Cross underground station (Northern Line,

one stop after Golders Green), at 1.0pm for onward passage aboard the
Routemaster Battle Bus to Cranbourne Gardens. The bus will be at this
location from 12.45 to 1.30pm.

Alternatively you may wish to go direct to 23 Cranbourne Gardens for the

2.0 o’clock arrest.

This is an open invitation, so please pass it on to all your contacts who

may be interested.

Mr. G. Ebert. R.S.V.P.

de8765@hotmail.co.uk
0208 9055209

See attached:

1. www.force4justice.co.uk + bus
2. Notice to the Rt. Hon. Teresa May, Secretary of State for Home Affairs.
3. Nobody is above the law.
4. “MPs can’t pick and choose which laws they wish to obey!” Ken Clarke
 GEbert
23 Cranbourne Gardens ** London NWll OHS
Email: de8765@hotmail.co.uk
Tel/Fax: 0208 905 5209
Mobile: 07815 008 775
(Reside at 66 Woodville Road ** NW11 9TN)

2 February 2011
BY POST & E MAIL
Rt Hon Theresa May MP (In person)
Home Secretary
2 Marsham Street
London SW1P 4DP

DATA SUBJECT REQUEST & NOTICE

Dear Rt Hon Theresa May MP,

You were elected to sort out the broken society.

When Her Majesty the Queen then officially appointed you, you undertook - and
made very public your intention - to sort out the parts of the broken society that are
now under your responsibility.

One of our problems within the broken society that is now within your area of
responsibility is the Metropolitan Police Force. They are now under your watch.

In support of your intention to sort things out over the last two years, you have seen
some people who were convicted for life as murderers cleared on the grounds that the
police fabricated evidence in order to use them as scapegoats.

For your information, I and my family are amongst many hundreds if not thousands of
victims similarly tortured and deprived of our freedom and properties as a result of
unlawful action and subsequent cover up by the police.

I enclose hereby a press article describing how I have been arrested at one of my
properties (where I had my matrimonial home and which was the roof over our heads)
three times by the police without any legal justification.

Subsequently, trespassers removed all of our private belongings, demolished our

home without permission and erected a new building on the land, again, without
permission. The criminal nature of this activity was affirmed by Barnet London
Borough Planning Department and Land Registry Swansea Office.

As of today, I have made numerous crime reports about this. The latest one, with the
hard documentary evidence supporting it attached: Crime Report stamp date 24 May
2009, Cris No. 2411746/09. You will see from these documents that I and my family
have been unlawfully deprived of our properties by the police.

1
To our knowledge, there was never any court order with the required prime facia
evidence attached which could justify depriving us of our home and property.
Specially;
• No valid, enforceable possession order exists.
• No writ of possession exists.
• No valid registration at the land registry exists.

I therefore demand, that based on the documentation which I attach and the above
mentioned Crime Report which was never fully and justly investigated before your
appointment, that you ensure a full and proper enquiry/investigation into this matter
now, as requested under the law.

In doing so, you will not only be helping my family, but you will go down in history
for having taken a powerful stand - and made a significant inroad against - the
currently common police practise of acting without lawfully required prime facia
documentation to do so.

I am available at any time for an interview on this matter to assist the investigation.
Alternatively, I will force such an interview to happen in order to present my legal
rights under the law.

I further attach a notice dated 10th June, 2009 addressed to Inspector Corbet David.
I filed this notice with the Metropolitan Police in case I am arrested again on my
property. If I am arrested on my property again, it will have been done intentionally
and with full foreknowledge that this is an unlawful arrest.

I further attach a copy of a letter of instruction by Her Majesty the Queen to your
predecessor, the Secretary of State for Home Affairs for full consideration
(investigation) into this matter. Her Majesty's request continues to be ignored as of
today. Under your watch, you now have both the position and the power to rectify
this situation.

I await by latest 7 days from the date of this letter, for your acknowledgement of
receipt of the attached documents and for a full undertaking to be initiated, that the
matter will be speedily investigated and the lawful position restored, as required in
law.

Encloser: Exhibit 1 to 14
Financial Action Task Force

2
 - .
.-: ... ..._.~.- ~.-. ..- -
.:

POUCE walt outside the property In ~boume Gardens on July 8 ..

Ev{ctioll drama 'rn quiet ·stree~

PoLlCE:~
remove eightbuII.t-proof
people fro.tn-..a honaeh;upod -rhe ubd
in J bemc hou.eabou,
wa.the0~ ••...;~
]OiDdJ'~ bT
Golden Green-lUXlid c:I.aiznathe eTic:t.ioa GedaHaba Even aDd h.b wife DnaraIi,
1VUillepl.. and I do not think it ia lawtDl to e"rid him
Cranbourne Gardena was blocked off 1rilenhb Wifeown.. hall the houe.
at both enda •• the eviction took plaee at "'Iban written to che Lord ChaDceUor
9.3Oam. oa July tL Ten police can and aboat the 0lSe BeVeD times aDd I am atm
vans were on the Beene" 'lnliting for a reply. I QDdentaDd Mn
It ia not known why the IDgh Court Evert hu £Oneto the Wgh Co~
Sheriff"a Office brought along 30 POllee- A witness, who did Dot wiab to be
men, many of then:aW'~ bullet-proof b.am.ed, &aid:""Itwas quite ahockfoC to..,
:rest&. No fireana.. Were, ill the end, aueh
mvoJved. policemen
a quietwearing
road." bullet.proof varia. OIl•
The eviction lr1UI su~ and the The High Court Sheritf'. omce .•••
house wu ~rd.ay boarded up. unavailable for con:am.eniyesterday. It
,i
Ie
Bat Rudi
Golden Vl8, MP
Green, said: tor"'QQestlou.
Finchley andare I Evert.
wu not possible to speak to AIr aDdMn
::t i
 Tne Queen has asked the Private Secretary to thank M'1. Rben for his

letter, lL"1d to say thm: it has been puse.d to the Secretary of State for Home

Affairs so that this approacb to Her l-9"fajesty may ~ kDown. and considerauon

given to the points ~.d in tbc !etter.

21st February t 2001,

------ ~

MR. G. EBERT
23 Cranbourne Gardens**London NWll OHS
Mob: 07984 248536
E-mail: de8765@hotmail.co.uk

1ih October 2007

By Hand
To Robert & Anne Baruch
23 Cranboume Gardens
London NWll OHS

Title No. MX 439914

Crime Ref: 2416149/05
2437039/05

Final Legal Notice

1) Trespass
2) Theft

Re: Mv Matrimonial Home 23 Cranbourne Gardens, London NWll OHS

You are guilty of Trespass and Theft using and controlling our property which you obtained
by deception on false documents (data)

I and Mrs. D. Ebert are the legal owner registered in the Land Registry on 10th April 1992.
We never sold and/or authorized any person to sell our home.

The Land Registry affirmed that they do not have any application and/or any valid legal
document (data) to transfer the title (proprietor) to any person.

Trespass
Any registration obtained by deception on false documents are void.
(Section I 16 Land Registry Act 1925)

Theft
A person is guilty of an offense ifhe has in his possession or under his control any article for use in
the course of or in connection with any fraud. (Section 6 Fraud Act 1006)
 r:-.- .,

Rightful OWlletCan cliUm

COURT OF APPEAL
Publtsh II Mmli 21., 2002
Cl Ltd
MaloryEnterprIus
Cheshire Homes (UK} Ltdv
and Others
Befora Lord justice Schiemann,
Lord Justice Clarke
and latly JustIce Arden
, -J-.. Mr J '- Da--" " •.••.._••. , Dcvalopmenu Ltd (T1Ilr TTmI/ll Febrn-
1tK/J1frJentre.IJfZJSfY 22, 2002
----------
A party who had purebmed IIIlld
(rom a wrongdof!1'and had been en-
tered on the R!Jlster ulegal proprlll-
tor took the tltle subject to the rfsht
of the lAwtuJ owmr to seek ree:tlIlea-
tlon olthc fClIla«:t'.The rightful own-
er had an ovenidlnlllnterot by vir-
rue allts ablllty to dzrim r~·
rlrIhltul owner of the land had sufil- ~ capable of tniMmlssiOll through
dent intefeat to sue the purchaser different ownenhlpll: !Ce WllHtuns .
18 trespnss, whether the regbt«:T ' and Gl,y1l4 BlII'Ikv Bolmtd (1198111 AC •
cmJkt
and whether be red:lfied retroapect.lvely
the rlahtM hOO aD 487). .
In the event, It WlI8 not nea:uary
O'lerrldlng lnttlr=t In the land eOf' to decide the point, but bel: Lady-
tIle purpose.tof S\1ctlon 82. ship said that rectIfu:lIt!on could not
. Mr Joful MJU1Jn, QC and Mr Rl- bemade retrospective.
e:lltmf Oughton for Malory Enter- KIn(pQ1lon Ud " Thomes Wat~r
'
P''''''''', OW. l!"~ .or .•..
u<:·]1..-27. 2(01) eatabl~ that terms .
Ire: Mr NJclwhui ~ddtc:k for the ~ not be imposed when grant-
OJlet Land RealmtH'. Ingor~g aD onlat torredifiea--
,LADY JUSTICE ARDBN lIllId I10n and It 'WU dUIkuk to see how a
that altbougb Malo\')' UK had no ct- retrospective order alUld be made
lie to convey, O1eshlre's poalJ:lon without doblg' JlO On terma to pro-
cn~ regi/ltered was governed by s«- teet auy lntervenlng interellt4 of
~on 69 of the 1925Act Md was thUs • thlrd parties which were llCJt prwld- .
deemed to ba'Ye Yerlted in It only the ed rot In the Act.' . , :
1. e&tlItC'. Malosy Bntex:Pd- bad caused

tlon and bad !bus suftlc:lent POlIw., ~y BW:e the transfer to flll1U3 to be Il1llInWned round the .; .
I In
SOtY ~t
trI!.s{JaBa
own«.
the registered
to maintain
Ilgll!nst an actlon lVlYeffect In law, not
OldUre could It eQUid not consti-
In Itself be of
tnte a ·dlsposltion· to wbkb sectlon
keep ~, blwdal out,
\lIl1d aod bad ac:ee!&
up wtndows
!rom ndJolnin(r land wbtch was man- .
to "
The Court of Appeal m held dls- ;~ could apply g\'Ilng abaoktte title ascd with It, sod had used tblllaod :
mlBSlng an appeal by l1f3t defend- to Chemire, to Si)J1le extent fOr stoolge. It waa ,
ant, e::nellil~ 'fWm,l!:l (UK) L:d, ,>"O:.ed1h~·! i!h\tu!, Il4regfstered tbeft!lbre In ~l OC1.'U,l)lllion at
/t'QmJOOgit
deputy Maddow.
ChJinary DivlsWn j~ as Joa
sitting 'proprietor waaMlliory
the rights of thettd'ore tD
tIUb.Ject as
Enterprllles tbe'l;wt
the within !li:l:tion 1Q(1){g)
1925Act.' ' or , .
thll Manchester DJstrlct Regbtry,ln . bene!ldal owner with the rl!S9lt that None of the aut~ had dealt

an
Uti, action
a Brltlshby Malo\}' E'nterprlses
VIrgin lshmd compa- Malocy ~
standing bad .wffIdent
to Ne fur tre:lpB.SS without with completely
the retjlliIIIte derelict land. but
pre:rence had to be I l
ny, seeking rt:ctlfu:atlon of the Land rectllkatlon: see Olowood v LjItl:ll llUth lI$ to put Ii pi:t'!on Impecting
Charges Register on the ground (Nil 2) (fl930] 2 Ch 156, 16.3-164). the land on notiCe that !lllmeone.
that entry on the register In relation Nelther U1ediscretionary nature 'W1I8 In oc:cupatlon.. " ' ;
to II property whlcl1 It owned hlld of the right to seek re~lkln nor Lord JUJrtlceOarke agreed ex~~;"
bl!efl altered PUr:luant to ~on82 the notlon that a claim to rect1fica- cept that. M was oat convinced that .
o( the Laud Regjamdon Act 1925, tlon was Itselt an avertldlng Interest the court could not make a retro-

c at a rellUlt ot"the fraUi!ulent conduct

oflndi'tidualtl who had set up II CIlIlI~ed

pany ClIled
sold t1re land Ma1orY,UK
to CbdblrC'. and then
mentioned In section 82(3) pnvlint-
the rliIbt from l\IlIountlng tQ an

overriding
WM In IcNalInterest f( thewithin
oceupatiol1 c1almant
:see-
•
JIllecttve order tor rectlfica1lan.

butLor1i
.

Suatlcc
fQefVed 5chielDAAn
his Q{llnlo~
'

on thea8l"'ed
ques- ,
While It was common ground "tlOD 7O(1)(g). . I.lonof $ospectlvity.
. the
that !3!UeSon
the reglater should
appeal be M
were rect!fled,
to the- , .. tight r1l:lht wuto the
_, TheIn reference 1\ transmla:dble
flUId. satisfy- SoUcltoa:
chew:r, ~:Il &.SQUn4em,
P11.wI~ Man·
Partners, M~
natua of the purchasllr. whether the Ing the requimnent that It should chester: TreB51.ll1 Solicitor. '
, . ., i'

,I
L;
I
 OFFICIAL COpy OF HISTORICAL REGISTER ENTRIES
This copy shows the entries subsisting in the register on 28 November 1999.
This edition was last updated on 24 September 1999 at 09:31 :00.
... . . . . .- .

l.Jndec\.61 qft!}e},@J1dAt:3giS1r9tiohJ\m<?002~thisSbpy is admissible in evidence to the same

()rt9 'pal :><" 'T?::>'"
exte.f:J~:as.th~. .. :::::::::. ':':.":.:., ...:'.:<.'::'

This::title'is:>~:tealt With:byJiind R~hi~hry:··Swan~ea>bffice.

Land l3egri~try> ":.::"::.- ... .":':.

Title Nurrlber : ::'MX439914

Edition Date: 24 September 1999

.......
........... ":. .... '"' ..... ':.

:·:::«:·:/A:·>P"opertyj~eglsfer ::{.:::{:::.
.":.....
:.:..:::.::::::
::'Th¥ regis.tEifd~cri~.s.<:tJW Jijild a./Jd :~~.te c#pprise(j)n the title.

GREATER LONDON LONDON BOROUGH

BARNET

r
'-"", 1-
(13 April 1962) The Freehold lanci shown edged with ..
red on the pla,n of the
above Title filed at the Registry andl:>eiJi92}.C.r~PJ;>0I4.rn.7.
Ga,rd.en,s,
Golders Green, (NWll DES). ." ...
..

B: Proprietorship Register
This register specifies the dass of tit/e and identifies the owner. It contains any entries that affect the
right .of disposal.

Title Abso lute

1. (10 April 1992) PROPRIETOR: GEDALJAHU EBERT and DEVORAE EBERT both of
23 Cranbourne Gardens, Golders Green, London NWll oas.

2. (9 September 1994) RESTRICTION: Except under an order of the registrar no

disposition by the proprietor of the land or made in exercise of the
power of sale in any Charge subsequent to that dated 9 August 1994 in
favour of Birmingham Midshires Mortgage Services Limited referred to in
,_.: --
the Charges Register is to be registered without the consent of the
L....LLHC
"\... --.:
UC:..l,.UIj
--
 ..
[15 GED. 5.] Land Regi8tration Act, 1925. [C1L 21.]

but no other persoll, may inspect a.nd'make copies of and A_D. 1925_
extracts from any register.or clqcument in the custody of
the registrar relating to such rand or charge. "'-;
113. Officecopies of and extracts from the register Office
and of and from documents and plans filed in the registry copies te be
evidence.
shall be admissible in evidence in all actions and matters.
and between aU persons or parties, to the same extent as
the originals would be admissible, but any person suffer-
ing loss by reason of the inaccuracy 0:£ any such copy or
extract shall be entitled to be indemnified under this Act,
~nd no solicitor, trustee, personal representative~ or other
person in a. fiduciary position shall be answerable in
respect of any loss occasioned by relying on any such
copy or extract.
114. Subject to the provisions in this Act contained F~aud~~ent
with
f or varespect to indemnity
'd era ti- on, and
IUB.ble conSI to registered
. 0 fdispositions pofslhons
any dis'posItion 1an d or 0 f dish

b owvoid
ar to
a charge, which if unregistered would be fraudulent and e .
void, shall, notwithstanding registration, be fraudulent
and void in like manner.

~-trar or the court in puxsuance of this Act any person suppressiOn

~~ in such proc~edingsas principal or a.gent, with ~~:eeds
mter:.t :-0 conceal
115. If in thethecourse
tiMe of
or any
claim of a.ny person,
proceedings beforeorthe
to Penalty
evidence. ~or \
subst.a.r:ti&te a .£aISe claim, suppresses, attempts to sup-

. press, c::x :.:: p-nry to the suppression of, ~ny document or

fact, the ~n so suppIessing7 attempting to su:p:
press, ox p=h5 to suppressio~ shall be guilty of a .
misdemeanor. ., -

116.-{1', If any
attempts
fraudulent fmn.d::L.cntIv
or alteration of the ~Er,
l=:
'"" person fraudulently
procu..~t toQ 7 any entry or is procures,
erasuretofrom
on,privy
or any land or charge
the fraudulentfor
Pena~ty
certam
t
ac s.
I"

certificate, he shall be gu:ilty of a misdemeanor.

fraud,(2)shall
.Anyjbe void..
entry, or alteration
a3 between
erasure, so made
aU persons by
who are I
1
parties or pnvy to the mud.
117. A person guilty of So misdemeanor under this Puni:'hmellt
Act shall- of mISde.
meanors.
(a) on conviction on indictment, be liable to im-
prisonment for a teIm not exceeding two years,
or to a fine not exceeding five hundred pounds;
83

;4 &
 (CH.21.] lA:nil, Regi3lratian Act, 1925. [15 GEO. 5.]

A.D. 1925. neither the mortgage nor a.ny instruments dealing

therewith nor discharges affecting other properly besides
the registered land shall be required to be permanently
retained at the registry.
Power for 107.-(1) Subject to any entry to the contrary on
proprietors the register, the proprietor of any registered land or charge
to bind
successors
and to may enter
manner as ifinto
theany contract
land in reference
or charge thereto
had not been in like
reO'istered, I
1
enforce and, subject to any diSposition for valuable consi~eratlOn
contracts. which ma.y be registered or protected on the register
before the contract is completed or protected on the
register, the contract may be enforced as a. minor interest
against any succeeding proprietor in like manner and
to the same extent as if the land or charge had not been
registered.
(2) A contract entered into for the benefit of any
registered land or charge may (if the same would have
been enforceable by the owner for the time being of
the land or charge, if not registerei4 or by a. person
deriving title under the party contracting for the benefit)
be enforced by the proprietor for the time being of the
la.nd or charge.

Acquisition 108. The- proprietor of registered land ma.y accept

of ease· for the benefit· thereof the grant of any easement, right, or
menta a.nd privilege or the benefit of any restrictive covenant or
other
benefits. provision (a.ff~cting other land, whether registered or not)
in like manner and to the same extent as if he were legally
c and beneficially entitled to the fee simple in possession, or
to the term c:reated by the registered lease, for his own
benefit free from incumbrances.

Restriction 109. Subject to the express provisions relating to

on exercise
of powers
leases and mortgages, nothing in this Part of this
off the Act shall be construed as authorising any disposition of
register. any estate, interest, or right 01' other dealing with land
to be effected under this Part of this Act if the disposition
or dealing is one which could. be effected. under another
Part of this Act, and any such disposition or dealing
8ha11be effected upder and in the manner required by
such other Part of this Act, and when so required shall
be registered or'protected as provided by this Act or the
rules. .
78
 GEbert
23 Cranbourne Gardens ** London NWll OHS
Bmail: de8765@hotmaiI.co.uk
TellFax: 0208 905 5209
Mobile: 07984 248 536
(Reside at 66 Woodville Road ** NWll 9TN)

To Inspector Corbet David

Director of Professional Standards
Colindale Police Station 10 June 2009
Graham Park Way By E-mail and post
Hendon Your ref: PC/5913/08
London NW9 5TQ

LEGAL NOTICE

Re: 23 Cranbourne Gardens, Golders Green London, NWll OHS

I Gedaljahu Ebert, the owner (with my wife D. Ebert), give to the Metropolitan Police a
Legal Notice that in case I will be arrested on my Property and/or any issue connected to the
property, this will be an unlawful arrest and deprive my Rights.

The ground for this Notice: I have been 3 times arrested in the last 10 years on my property
without any Lawful excuse.

In the case that the Met has any clarification and/or investigation of any issue, I am available
for a meeting and/or interview at any time. Any arrest is a violation of the guidance and my
freedom.

c Please ensure that this Legal Notice shall be transmitted to and placed on record with the
Metropolitan Police.

In case you do not accept and/or agree to any of the statements above, please give the reason
supported with documentary evidence no later than in 7 days from today

'''' Implied admission by absence of response.

Please acknowledge safe receipt.

/
MrG.
Enc.
I) Copy of Land Registry, Title of ownership
2) Land Registry Act 1925, section 107 & 116
Q
L)
 Freedoms
Article 6. Right to liberty and security
> Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person.

...b Article 7. Respect for private and family life

I
> Everyone has the right to respect for his or her private and family life,
home and communications.

Article 8. Protection of personal data

> Everyone has the right to the protection of personal data concerning him or her.
> Such data must be processed fairly for specified purposes and
on the basis of the consent of the person concerned or some other legitimate
basis laid down by law. Everyone has the right of access to data which has been
collected concerning him or her, and the right to have it rectified.
> Compliance with these rules shall be subject to control by an independent authority.

Article 9. Right to marry and right to found a family

> The right to marry and the right to found a family shall be guaranteed
in accordance with the national laws governing the exercise of these rights.

Article 10. Freedom of thought, conscience and religion

> Everyone hus the righl lo freedom of thought. conscience <Jnd religion.
This right includes freedom to change religion or belief and freedom.
either alone or in community with others and in public or in private,
to manifest religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.
> The right to conscientious objection is recognised. in accordance with the national
laws governing the exercise of this right.
 Citizens· rights l,
_ J
Article 39. Right to vote and to stand as a candidate at elections
to the European Parliament
> Right to vote and to stand as a candidate at elections to the European Parliament
> Members of the European Parliament shall be elected by direct universal suffrage
in a free and secret ballot.

Article 40. Right to vote and to stand as a candidate at municipal elections

> Every citizen of the Union has the right to vote and to stand as a candidate
i
I
ulmunicipnl elections in the Member State in which he or she resides
under the same conditions as nationals of that State.

1- Article 41. Right to good administration

t > Every person has the right to have his or her affairs handled impartially,
fairly and within a reasonable time by the institutions and bodies of the Union.
> This right includes:
- the right of every person to be heard, before any individual measure which would
affect him or her adversely is taken;
!. - the right of every person to have access to his or her file, while respecting
the legitimate interests of confidentiality and'of professional and business secrecy;
j - the obligation of the administration to give reasons for its decisions.
> Every person has the right to have the Community make good any damage caused "
by its institutions or by its servants in the performance of their duties,
in accordance with the general principles common to the laws of the Member States.
> Every person may write to the institutions of the Union in one of the languages
of the Treaties and mu~t have an answer in the same language.

·1 Artic~e 42. Right of access to documents

registered office in a Member State, has a right of access to European Parliament.

> Any citizen of the Union, and any natural or legal person residing or having its I"
Council and Commission documents.
 t2lwYEJr «)Jfi: ~b-ue
wee~; David Thomas
t\ CS So ~-; ~ ~ ( () 1"J C \-h---
tr.;~· ~-\i\.~ Z~t:... s
I
~--:i,::> .-r -, ,.....(""("" ~ 1 ( Ie- ,( 1-)
aDavid
SouthThomas,
London afirm,
solicitor
actedattor
Hartnells,
tenants
of Lambeth Borough Council after it I,Ijudgment's
Supreme Court is considering
implications the in
even now socialjustice.
brought possession proceedings : Manchester City Council v Pinnock, in What would your advice be to
against them, The leases of the . , which its ruling is expected shortly. anyone
'. :1' to MUcle 8 in this resl eel. The stand forwanting a career
those who wish toin fig,iltfor
law? In
properties they occupied, provided by my area ofthe law, these are difficult
a charitable housing trust, had been What was your worst day as a times. But I would not wish to
terminated in 1999. lawyel'? Going bust in my own legal
The House of Lords ruled in 2006
against the tenants, saying that they
aid practice after 17years, halfway
through this case, The margins in legal
that that was
discourage what who
people they felt
wanted to do.
strongly II
j

could not use the right to respect for a
private and family life under Article 8
of the European Convention on
lluman Rights as their defence against
the propcrties being repossessed. But
the European Court of Human Rights
in Strasbourg has now ruled that the
law lords' ruling volated the tenants'
right to respect for their private and
family life and homes. They were
awarded E2,000 each.
What were the main challenges in
this case ami possible implications?
The loss of one's home is the most
: IGM '(- •
extreme form of interference with the
right to respect for one's private and
family life and home under Article 8.
[n principle, everyone should be able
to have a court decide whether it is
necessary and proportionate for them,
to be evicted. The Strasbourg court has
now said several times that our UK
courts are n~! giving sufficient regard
aid work are so narrow that one bad
decision 01' piece of bad luck can put
you under.
Who has been the most intluential
person in your lite and why? lain
Robertson, a great actor (under the
name lain Anders) and criminal
practitioner, who was my business
partner and best friend un til his death
in 1997.
Why did you become a lawyer? Itis
not that the law is necessarily a force
for good, but it can afford a place to
If you had not become a lawyel', what:
would you have chosen and why? To \
be a teacher, an academic, a computer
programmer OJ' a tap dancer. I would
have enjoyed an)' ofthose.
Where do YOll see yourself in ten
years? Where 1am now. I have the
chance to do the sort of work I want to
do in a supportive environment and
among friends, I can't imagine wanting
to do alJything else.
UndaTsang
Ctsang@hotmail.com
--1?nnter .Fnendly Page 1 of2

TIMES
From The Times

May 21,2009

Ingrained arrogance in the police leads to

miscarriages of justice
John Bromley-Davenport, QC

Police attitudes have progressed by light years since the bad days of the 1980s and highly publicised
miscarriages of justice. So runs the prevailing wisdom. But the recent police operation at the G20
summit and instinctive reaction <2fsome officers to doctor the facts indicates that a deep-seated
corruption in policing still prevails.

It reared its head after the killing of Jean Charles de Menezes and stems from a self-righteous
arrogance within police forces and a belief, held widely by many officers, that they are above the law. It
leads to attitudes that have led to manipulation of evidence and wrongful convictions: victims include
Colin Stagg and Barry George. '

policing. More than 30 years ago police procedures made it easy to concoct and manipulate. These
I)' were epitomised
The history of the by the ubiquitous
criminal courts is "verbal".
littered with false convictions caused by overzealous and dishonest f
Until 1984 interviews with suspects were conducted in the absence of a defence solicitor and without
notes being taken. Officers would get together later and write up an account of the conversation,
invariably containing a confession.

Many criminals claimed falsely that they had been "verballed up" but there was a large number of cases
in which police officers concocted confessions. Verballing was endemic in every force, including
Lancashire, where the new Metropolitan Police Commissioner cut his investigative teeth - although I
do not suggest that he was involved.

The practice was obvious to those of us who defended in the criminal courts. A 25-minute interview
would, when reduced to writing, consist of a couple of pages of handwritten notes. When it was
suggested to police officers that a great deal of conversation had been omitted, they would claim that
they had faithfully recorded all questions and answers.~any judges seemed blind to police dishonesty
and, although juries tended to be more sceptical, there were numerous cases that resulted in
convictions based on lies.

Judicial myopia reached the very top. In the appeal of the Birmingham Six, Lord Denning said: "If the six
men win, it will mean that the police are guilty of perjury, that they are guilty of violence and threats, that
the confessions were invented and improperly admitted in evidence and the convictions were
erroneous ... this is such an appalling vista that every sensible person in the land would say that it
cannot be right that these actions should go any further."

Eleven years later it was accepted that the "appalling vista" was no less than the truth.

The introduction of contemporaneous notes meant that there were fewer confessions, which was
inconvenient for the police. It had been all too easy to threaten or mistreat a defendant into a confession
or, if that failed, to invent one. Now officers had to write down the conversation as it happened. Ever
resourceful, however, new methods were found to overcome the difficulty.

Notes were doctored with omissions or additions; in 1989 it was discovered that interview notes with
Patrick Armstrong, one of the Guildford Four, had been heavily edited and rewritten before trial. The
four were released after spending 15 years in jail.

In 1976 Stefan Kiszko was convicted of murdering an 11-year-old girl. He was interviewed without a
solicitor. As a result of threats, which were not alluded to in the notes or evidence of the police officers.

http://business.timesonline.co. ukItollbusiness/law/artic1e63 29052. ece?print=yes&rand... 21/05/2009

,,~i1ilterYnendly Page 2 of2

he confessed and spent 16 years in jail before his innocence was proved.

In 1977 Reg Dudley and Bob Maynard were convicted of murder. They spent 20 years in jail but in 2002
it was established that their confession notes had been fabricated.

The introduction of tape-recording prevented the doctoring of interviews. But the culture of falsity, of
deciding on guilt and fitting evidence to the decision, had become ingrained. Its tentacles spread into
other spheres of police investigation.

In recent years, I can attest that officers from Lancashire, Liverpool and Northumbria have used a
variety of ingenious methods in attempting to secure the convictions of innocent men. These cases
resulted in acquittals: they were "carriages of justice" that could so easily have become miscarriages to
rank with Kiszko, the Birmingham Six and many others.

The police have a difficult job and many officers are fair. I pay tribute to the thousands who would not
dream of lying or of manipulating evidence, who are capable of being objective, who are not blinkered in
their approach to an investigation. Nor do I suggest that any police officer sets out to secure the
conviction of people he or she believes to be innocent. The danger to liberty and to the rule of law lies in
the tendency of some to decide on guilt first and then look for evidence in support.

It is this tendency with its deep-rooted origins in the history of the police service that leads to injustice. It
is this tendency that can and does lead to the conviction of the innocent. And it stems from the same
malaise that causes the overreaction and brutality we saw at the G20.

The author is at Deans Court Chambers, Manchester, and 3 Paper Buildings

Contact our advertising team for advertising and sponsorship in Times Online, The Times and The Sunday Times, or place
your advertisement.

Times Online Services: Dating I Jobs' Property Search I Used Cars I Holidays' Births, Marriages, Deaths I Subscriptions I
E-paper
News International associated websites: Globrix Property Search I Property Finder' Milkround

Copyright 2009 Times Newspapers Ltd.

This service is provided on Times Newspapers' standard Terms and Conditions. Please read our Privacy Policy To inquire
about a licence to reproduce material from Times Online, The Times or The Sunday Times, click here.This website is
published by a member of the News International Group. News International Limited, 1 Virginia St, London E98 1XY, is the
holding company for the News International group and is registered in England No 81701. VAT number GB 243 8054 69.

http://business.timesonline.co. ukItol/business/law/artic1e63 29052. ece ?print=yes&rand... 21/05/2009

 -
- ~.~~- ~-
---- - --- _ .. - -

Fralld through
concealing
information
AdalTIS vThe Queen by i.lgr~eing to U$c l.1ishono(!y :.l
A ~~:son could b~ guilty of fr~ud ~)'stt:m of disguising tht:: ~ourL:;:
lnu utilisation of rnlm:.:y~ f::!l:~
whe:~ he. dishon~~r ly con~e:lleri
Iniufm:1tiol1 frUln :lrIOlh(::'" wniL::-t !L~[tim~le ~nJ~uiry hy tlh':. ~~i: .:;
uii~hurc:: "':OInpanil.·~~n~ han\... ..;.v
ht \...·a~ unt.i~:" J dULY to Ji~d(J~L;lu
char orh~r or which that ocher w;::.s
CDum:; :.lnd ;.l Nt;"' •.•. Z:::.l!~ntiIc~:.d

e:ui;ld tu n:quire him (0 disciuse.

firm.', ir~ .
Tn~ Judicb.l Commirrt:"": of In\.: Si m~~ :~\..:nn1pany W:.l:: ~n[ it1t:d ill
f(..•,,:l.)V<.:r ;':'tHIl t.lirt..'t.'~(jr:( .~C"...:n:1pruI-
Privy Cuum:il {Lon.! Tt:moit:man.
Lord Jaun~y of TulliL:ht:rtl~ Lord il~ m~u.h.:by t11t::n at lhL' cumpal1;( ....
Browne-Wilkinson, L)rd \Vcotr \.:.:'\pt::nsc. :.Iny di~honc:it :J.gre:::mt.:.."1:
by c.iin.•.•.:turs w impede :.l L1Jrnp:l~Y
i
~d Lord Uoyd Dr BerNl~) ~o in ·thl· ,~xl'rci:ic of it" righl ut .,' ....

,~ ,1'
sralt:d on Oerober 31 in di$mi$sino ~ "\

I1.w.:t)vl..:ry wuuld con~tituh,' .~ I

Jl1 ~ppe:1 by the ~ppdt.m[.Grant L1m::;pirJcy to def f::.lUt.L
'1'ls.~ Adarn::i,.irom the disI11issal by m~ in th~ else of four of the tiv~
..l~-:"
![
Caun at Appd of Nt:="vZ~bnd of
trans~lt..:!ions in question the appd ..
his apPe:.:llagninst his conviction of
Ia.n! had 'ocen parry to the use of
conspi~cy to defraud_ th~ overseas struclure for the
LO RO JA UN CEY said that rhe nur-~se of di$hone-sI conee:llmenr
appell~t•
had be~:1 charot:d with
• • • l:;;l
aiinformiltion which. as a direc!or.
consplnng wnh hIS co-a.CC'u.s~ to he was under a dury to disciose to
defraud anyone or more of th~ company. and so he h::ld
Equiticorp Holding~ Ltd. its properly re.:n convided of conspir ..
$ubsic:ibry companie; :lnd othe:-s -:'C'j to ddraud .
.r-
o~1<ij.~est
warrant for Musharraf over Bhutto murder - MSN News - MSN UK Page 1 or 4

ITN, \tn.co.uk, Updated: 12/02/2011 12:0Ll

Arrest warrant for Musharraf over Bhutto

murder
42

A Pakistan court has issued an arrest warrant for exiled former

president Pervez Musharraf over the assassination of Benazir
Bhutto.

Mrs Bhutto was killed in a gun and suicide bomb attack after an
election rally in the city of Rawalpindi in December 2007, weeks
after she returned to Pakistan after years in self-imposed exile.
~..... :~ .
Warrant for Musharraf over Bhutto murder Her assassination was one of the most shocking events in
Pakistan's turbulent history and remains shrouded in mystery.

A spokesman for Mr Musharraf said: "The court has issued an arrest warrant and asked that he should be produced
before the court during the next hearing on February 19."

Mr Musharraf has repeatedly dismissed suggestions he, the security agencies or military were involved in killing his
old rival.

The former military chief came to power in a bloodless coup in 1999 but has lived in self-imposed exile since he
stepped down under threat of impeachment in 2008. He spends most of his time in London and Dubai.

He has expressed his intention to return to Pakistan and said he aimed to establish offices for his new political party
by March.

The warrant for his arrest follows a similar court order in December for the arrest of two senior police officers on
allegations they failed to provide adequate security for Mrs Bhutto before her assassination.

A report by a UN commission of inquiry released last year said any credible investigation into the killing should not
rule out the possibility that members of Pakistan's military and security establishment were involved.

It heavily criticised Pakistani authorities, saying they had "severely hampered" the investigation. The initial
investigation blamed a Pakistani Taliban leader and al-Qaeda ally, Baitullah Mehsud, for Bhutto's murder.
42

Join the discussion!

Sort by: Oldest first

1-8 of 8

12 Februarv 201113:57:56
Mr. 10% and now Mr. 100% is to be blamed for murder of his wife!

12 February 2011 14:52:11

About time that someone got done for her murder, and good to see that they're taking it to the highest source
rather than just prosecuting some middle ranking stooge in a show trial.

13/02/2011
http://news.uk.msn.com/articles.aspx?cp-documentid=15611 0317
 .,i

Director of Planning, Housing and Regeneration

North London Business Park, Ground Floor, Building 4,
Oakleigh Road South
London N11 1NP

contact: Neil Goldberg

GEbert tel: 020 8359 4763
66 Woodville Road e-mail: neil.goldberg@barnet.gov.uk
London fax: 0870 8896821
NW119TN date: 23/07/2008
our reference: 23CranbourneGdns
your reference:

Dear Mr Ebert,

Re: 23 Cranbourne Gardens, London, NW11 OHS

Please find the letter sent to the agent (Mr Baruch) enclosed.
 Director of Planning, Housing and Regeneration
North London Business Park, Ground Floor, Building 4,
Oakleigh Road South
London N11 1NP

contact: Neil Goldberg

Mr R Baruch tel: 02083594763
Enterprise Ltd e-mail: neil. gOldberg@barnet.gov.uk
208 Acton Lane fax: 0870 8896821
London 23/07/2008
date:
NW107NH our reference: 23CranbourneGdns
your reference:

Dear Mr R Baruch,

Re: 23 Cranbourne Gardens, London, NW11 OHSApplication Reference C05707E/01

It has been brought to my attention that you have did not served notice on the owners of the above
property as part of application C05707E/01. Certificate A of the application form was signed declaring you
were the owner of the land to which the application relates. Certificate Bshould have been signed and
notice should have been served on the owners.

As a result your previous permission may be invalid. You need to be aware that your building could be
unlawful and enforcement action may be likely to proceed. Please can you contact me as soon as
possible disc your option
 Director of Planning, Housing and Regeneration
North London Business Park, Ground Floor, Building 4,
Oakleigh Road South
London N111NP

Mr. GEbert contact: Neil Goldberg

66 Woodville Road tel: 020 8359 4763
London e-mail: neil.goldberg@barnet.gov.uk
NW119TN fax: 0870 8896821
date: 27.08.08
our reference: 23CranbourneGdns
your reference:

Mr. Ebert,

Re: 23 Cranbourne Gardens, London, NW11 OHS Application Reference C05707E/01

Thank you for your query. I apologise for the delay in responding.

To date we have had no response from Mr. Baruch sent on the 23rd July 200B.

The council would like to stress that although we acknowledge and note your evidence of criminal activity, I
the council will not be pursuing the claim that flie declaration, signed by the applicant on application
C05707E/01, was done under deception. The planning permission was granted on its planning merits,
regardless of the applicant or ownership of the land. The grant of planning permission is not a grant to
carry out the building operations since other legislation requirement including land ownership need to be
satisfied. Issues of land ownership are civil matters and should be explored through the courts. The
council take the view that there is no justification in the interests of the public to revoke the grant of
planning permission.

The council do not consider they have made any error in their processes and therefore there is no further
action to take.

Cc.

Karina Sissman
Mr P. Oaks