As the celebrated author Philip K. Dick observed, "The basic tool for the manipulation of reality is the manipulation of words. If you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use the words." This profound observation directly pertains to the tactics employed by the Landlord Employee (ASB Officer) in this case. His deliberate use of language as a weapon, and his consistent attempts to redefine the Victim's reality through fabricated accusations and distorted narratives, exemplify this very manipulation. By seeking to control the interpretation of events and characters through malicious falsehoods, he aimed to control the 'reality' perceived by authorities and the wider community, ultimately leading to severe injustice.
This appendix details the profound psychological, moral, ethical, and legal implications of the Landlord Employee (ASB Officer)'s actions, establishing a clear pattern of malicious intent through their documented communications, fabricated allegations, and manipulation of official processes. According to publicly available social media (circa August/September 2019), it is understood that the Landlord Employee (ASB Officer) had prior experience as a police officer with Norfolk Constabulary for approximately nine months and prior to this as a 'Volunteer Street Outreach Worker' for Norfolk County Council. This background is critical, as it implies a heightened awareness of official protocols and the severe impact of misusing authority, making his subsequent malicious conduct a profound betrayal of enhanced public trust.
The Landlord Employee (ASB Officer)'s conduct demonstrates a consistent and calculated pattern of behaviour aimed at inflicting severe harm, discrediting a witness, and manipulating the justice system. These actions far exceed professional responsibilities and clearly fall into the realm of criminal and civil misconduct, proving a deliberate malicious intent.
This subsection provides a detailed examination of the procedural misrepresentations and false claims of authority that underpin the initial civil injunction process, demonstrating a deliberate attempt to pervert the course of justice from its inception.
On 04/11/2020, the N16a (General Form of Application for Injunction) was served to the Victim via Royal Mail. This service was accompanied by a letter that contained a demonstrably false claim regarding a prior legal proceeding. The letter explicitly alleged: "Claim GO1NR161. We are the claimant in the above action which is an injunction order made pursuant to the provisions of the Anti-Social Behaviour (Crime and Policing) Act 2014. Following the hearing in this matter held on 16 September 2020 we have received final order and power of arrest in this matter."
This assertion is directly contradicted by official documentation. The N205c Notice of Issue, dated 14/10/2020, conclusively proves that the civil process (Claim GO1NR161) was not initiated until after this date, thereby debunking any claim of a prior hearing on 16/09/2020 granting a "final order and power of arrest". The inclusion of this clearly false claim in a formal accompanying document demonstrates a deliberate procedural misrepresentation by the Landlord.
Furthermore, the N16A itself included a fraudulent statutory declaration from the ASB Officer who, while very well aware of the consequences, declared “No” in response to the section concerning issues under the Human Rights Act 1998. That declaration is placed in direct legal juxtaposition with the fact that the same ASB Officer was the originating complainant whose report initiated the police process that led directly to the Victim’s arrest and detention, matters which inherently engage Convention rights. By framing the proceedings as solely a civil property dispute, the application operated to exclude the Victim from access to Legal Aid. This collective presentation of misleading information from the outset evidences a malicious intent to secure an injunction through deceit while simultaneously deploying criminal enforcement mechanisms, thereby impeding the Victim’s ability to obtain legal representation for his defence. As recorded in the chronology, these actions, including the making of false statements to the police and within sworn civil documentation, potentially amount to perjury or an attempt to pervert the course of justice.
The recurring pattern of police conduct in this case reveals systematic failures in due diligence, impartiality, and adherence to legal protocols, culminating in significant and demonstrable harm to the Victim.
Despite the Victim explicitly requesting privacy regarding his 28/07/2022 arrest, confidential details of this arrest were improperly disclosed and subsequently utilized in civil proceedings. This improper information sharing was explicitly detailed in the Witness Statement of Nick Bunn (dated 18/08/2022), submitted as part of the second committal bundle.
Nick Bunn's statement (Paragraph 5) explicitly records: "On 1 August 2022 Sgt Benton of Suffolk Police informed my colleague, Pete Sharples, that the Defendant had been arrested on 29 July 2022 for an alleged theft from a local store and an alleged public order offence against his neighbour, Dawn Mackinder. The Defendant denied both offences. Sgt Benton also informed Pete Sharples that on 30 July 2022 the Defendant had been given a mental health assessment, that he engaged with professionals, denied he was hearing voices or was unwell, had no intention of carrying out his suicide threat (and had only made this threat out of frustration with the Claimant)."
The repeated and cumulative nature of these failures underscores a systemic problem within Suffolk Constabulary regarding its handling of the Victim's case, amounting to gross negligence, abuse of power, and potentially criminal misconduct by individual officers and the force as a whole. The settlement in the 27/09/2020 arrest case provides concrete evidence of police wrongdoing, and the ongoing claims further demonstrate a pattern of misconduct that requires thorough investigation and redress.
On 30/08/2018, the Victim was expecting a visit from the Landlord Housing repair officer (female). However, the Landlord Employee (ASB Officer) also accompanied her, unannounced. The Landlord Employee (ASB Officer) dropped a 'letter' onto the Victim's desk, where he had been sitting. It was after the Landlord Employee (ASB Officer) had left the Victim noticed something odd about the 'letter', it was in fact an email from Pete Sharples to Pete Sharples that had then been printed off, why would someone feel the need to do this?
Attempt to hide or obfuscate the record of its author? Realizing during the visit that the Landlord Employee (ASB Officer) was "hitching a ride" on the repair manageress's visit, the Victim asked the Landlord Employee (ASB Officer) to leave, which he did, waiting outside for the repair manageress. This incident further illustrates the Landlord Employee (ASB Officer)'s pattern of harassment and attempts to intimidate the Victim.
Between the serving of papers for the Civil Process Finding of Fact trial hearing (around 14/02/2021) and the trial hearing itself (19/02/2021), the Victim meticulously reviewed the bundle of documents. It was during this review that, on pages 66 and 67, the Victim discovered the same communication detailed in the 30/08/2018 chronology entry. This document, which was originally an internal email from the Landlord Employee (ASB Officer) sent to himself that this time had been printed on his employer's headed notepaper, was included as part of the evidence submitted in a sworn Statement of Fact for the civil trial. This revelation underscored the Landlord Employee (ASB Officer)'s deliberate intent to use misleading or maliciously-generated internal communications as formal, sworn evidence in legal proceedings against the Victim.
The email dated 14/01/2021, sent by the Landlord Employee (ASB Officer) to police sergeant T/Sgt 1845 BENTON, contained a grossly false and highly malicious allegation of "paedophile-type behaviour" by the Victim. This email, which was already demonstrably disproven by official police confirmation (15/01/2021) and later used to undermine the Victim's credibility in professional mental health assessments, was subsequently found on pages 244 to 248 inclusive of a Statement of Fact submitted as part of the civil process.
The inclusion of this explicitly false and defamatory communication within a sworn legal document further demonstrates the Landlord Employee (ASB Officer)'s systematic and malicious intent to pervert the course of justice and inflict severe reputational and psychological harm upon the Victim through the deliberate use of fabricated evidence in formal legal proceedings. This act escalates the severity of the Landlord Employee (ASB Officer)'s alleged misconduct, reinforcing claims of malicious prosecution and potentially perjury.
While reviewing the ASB documentation, I noted that a subset of documents attributed to different named officers appear to bear signatures with highly consistent visual characteristics (including pen type, stroke formation, and execution style). These documents are presented as originating from multiple independent individuals, yet the signatures appear visually indistinguishable to a lay observer. I make no allegation as to authorship or intent. However, given the reliance placed on these documents as independent corroboration, this apparent consistency raises a question of procedural integrity that I believe warrants independent examination.
This communication, received by the Victim on 14/01/2021, demonstrates a continued pattern of malicious intent and misuse of authority by the Landlord Employee (ASB Officer), building upon the coercive tactics seen in the 30/08/2018 communication (refer to Appendix A for detailed analysis of malicious intent).
This Appendix unpacks specific, critical misrepresentations within pages 61 and 62 of the Statement of Truth submitted for the Finding of Fact Trial on 18th February 2021 (HHJ Stevens in Hearing). These misrepresentations, supported by falsified official records and a deliberate manipulation of narrative, constitute a foundational fraud on the court, ultimately leading to the Victim's unlawful incarceration.
Page 61 of the Statement of Truth presents a photograph of injuries to the Victim's knees. The accompanying narrative (implied from Page 62 and the SoT's overall context) asks the court to believe these injuries were sustained during the first assault on 20/10/2017. This is factually incorrect. These specific injuries were sustained during the second assault, which occurred in July 2018.
The first assault on 20/10/2017 (Crime reference: 37/68425/17 by Crystal-25) itself followed directly from the ASB Officer Mr. P. Sharples' initial attempt to discredit the Victim. Around September 23, 2017, the Victim inadvertently encountered ASB Officer Sharples in a compromising situation at Crystal-25's rear garden gate (approx. 11 pm at night). This direct observation triggered ASB Officer Sharples' immediate fear of ethical/reputational exposure.
His response was the swift and baseless "stalking" allegation (approx. 27/09/2017) against the Victim. This fabrication was unequivocally shredded by the Victim's own 24-hour CCTV footage, which proved the allegation false. The failure of this initial, amateurish attempt to discredit the Victim, combined with the ASB Officer's fear of the observed ethical compromise, became the direct genesis of his systematic misconduct and "conspiracy of one."
Crystal-25's subsequent physical assault on 20/10/2017 (for which police took no effective action) can be understood as retaliation for this shredded credibility.
The Statement of Truth relies heavily on a police log entry (Crime reference: 37/46851/18) purportedly detailing an incident on 17/07/2018. This log misleadingly focuses on "criminal damage to a car," while critically omitting any mention of the assault on the Victim or the attendance of paramedics (who were called to treat the Victim's injuries). This log entry forms a cornerstone of the ASB Officer's fraudulent narrative within the Statement of Truth, but it is demonstrably false:
The Statement of Truth also draws from a pattern of false and damaging allegations. The "paedophile" rumour, which spread from late 2017 (or even earlier, as hinted by the ex-wife's later false report alleging child abuse in 2008/2009), was actively perpetuated by the ASB Officer. His January 14, 2021, email to T/Sgt 1845 BENTON contained explicit false paedophile-type allegations, which T/Sgt Benton himself confirmed as false the following day. The inclusion of this email, or references to these false claims, in the Statement of Truth constitutes defamation and a deliberate attempt to poison the court's perception of the Victim.
Furthermore, the pattern of suppression is evident in the police's suspension of the Victim's personal website, www.parrotwisdom.co.uk, in 2022. This occurred shortly after the Victim began publicly posting court documents (N16A, N205c) exposing alleged fraudulent declarations related to the very civil injunction underpinning this Statement of Truth.
Crucially, further evidence of the systematic construction of this "molested reality" came to light later. While not part of this 18/02/2021 Statement of Truth bundle, the Witness Statement of Nick Bunn (dated 18/08/2022), submitted for the second committal, explicitly details an improper information chain: T/Sgt 1845 BENTON → Mr. P. Sharples → Nick Bunn. This later disclosure provides direct, sworn evidence of how confidential police information was funneled through the ASB Officer, corroborating the methods by which the fraudulent narrative was sustained and utilized in subsequent legal proceedings.
The evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates that the Statement of Truth (pages 61 & 62), and by extension the civil injunction and subsequent judgment of 13/10/2022, were underpinned by a "molested reality" constructed from falsified police logs, misrepresented timelines, and deliberately misleading assertions. This is not a matter of simple error but points to conscious and deliberate dishonesty intended to deceive the court and secure an unjust outcome.
This Appendix, supported by the extensive, externally verifiable evidence in the Linked Evidence archive, substantiates the claim that the judgment against the Victim was obtained through fraud, making it vulnerable to being set aside under the principle that "fraud unravels all."
This Appendix provides the full text of a character reference submitted on November 16, 2020, from a local business. This independent testimony serves as a crucial counter-narrative to the Landlord Employee (ASB Officer)'s "molested reality paradigm," unequivocally affirming the Victim's positive character, community standing, and proactive efforts to address genuine Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB) issues.
To Whom it may concern,
We have lived at the above address since 21 December 2001. I am pleased to say that overall, we have good relations with our neighbours, including good relationships with most of our neighbours that we back onto at Shrub House Close, especially [Victim}. We have on the other hand had some issues which were were not dealt with at all, namely dog and cat breeding, a schizophrenic and a prostitute which I am sure [Victim] has also had to endure and cope with over time. [Victim] has always been friendly and polite. He is good with animals and I quite often hear him chatting with his elderly neighbour. He looks after the property and keeps it looking tidy, we have never had a cross word in all the time we have known him. We feel sure that if there was any issue, we would be able to talk it through and come to a compromise. That could not be said for the man that lived at 24 Shrub House Close for approximately 3 years and was aggressive to wards his animals, which were kept in cages and sheds outside 24 hours per day 7 days per week, and aggressive towards both of us.
We once had an attempted burglary at the back door of our property while we were on holiday and the police had tried to use the CCTV that [Victim] had but it was quite dark. I believe [Victim] was very compliant and helpful to the police. We have always felt safe with him as a neighbour and hope it continues to stay that way. Hopefully the CCTV was a deterrent to the burglar as they did not break in.
[Victim] has always seemed a nice chap; we think he would always help if you needed him. I (Sean) once locked myself in the bathroom whilst changing the door handle and I called out the window and [Victim] brought me a screwdriver to free myself.
If anyone would like to discuss this character reference verbally we would be happy to do so.
Yours faithfully"
This character reference serves as powerful contextual evidence, demonstrating that the Landlord Employee (ASB Officer)'s negative portrayal of the Victim was a deliberate distortion of reality, essential for substantiating the claims of malicious intent and misconduct.
This section highlights the stark and irreconcilable contrast between the Victim's consistently positive reputation within the community and the consistently negative, often fabricated, narrative aggressively propagated by the Landlord Employee (ASB Officer) and, at times, seemingly adopted by elements within the police and mental health services. This deliberate juxtaposition underscores a pattern of malicious intent and misuse of authority that significantly contributed to the Victim's unjust treatment and resulting profound harm.
The consistently positive community perception of the Victim, as demonstrated by the Local Business Character Reference and the Landlord Area Manager's earlier assessment, stands in stark contrast to the calculated and malicious narrative propagated by the Landlord Employee (ASB Officer). This deliberate distortion of the Victim's character, seemingly adopted at times by elements within the police and mental health services, underscores a pattern of abuse of authority and a concerted effort to discredit the Victim and undermine his legitimate complaints.
The entries in Appendix SCLE, which document internal police and official summaries, consistently reveal a pattern of bias, misfeasance, and inadequate investigation that exacerbated the Victim's plight. These internal records often contradict external evidence or the Victim's own accounts, suggesting a systemic failure to address the Victim's complaints objectively.
Collectively, these internal police and official records underscore a pattern where the Victim's legitimate complaints were not only dismissed but actively twisted and used to support false narratives, often leading to unjust and traumatic interventions.
This appendix is provided to supply longitudinal relational context relevant to later safeguarding, policing, and civil process events involving the Victim. It documents a sustained pattern of allegations, narrative manipulation, and third-party engagement occurring within the Victim’s former marriage, which predates and temporally overlaps later institutional actions. The material herein is not advanced as standalone proof of any single allegation, but as contextual background illustrating how earlier interpersonal dynamics may have contributed to later problem-framing, credibility asymmetry, and institutional risk perception.
The appendix is intended to assist the reader in understanding how discrete interpersonal events, when viewed cumulatively, can create latent contextual conditions that later influence reactions and decision-making within formal systems, even where those later systems are temporally removed from the original relationship.
This narrative provides essential context to the Victim's experiences, revealing a consistent pattern of malicious fabrication, deception, and manipulation by his former wife, Tracey Ann Wollard. This understanding is crucial for contextualizing the 22/07/2021 allegation and its potential intersection with the broader narrative against the Victim.
The Victim met Tracey Ann Wollard in early 2004. Tracey, a near neighbor, offered to help with the overwhelming issues stemming from the Victim's taxi incident on October 1, 2000. While initially helpful, the Victim soon developed reservations. He later discovered, after they were married, that Tracey had a deeply manipulative past, characterized by calculated deceit rather than genuine belief or ethical conduct.
At the time, the Victim's PTSD and anxiety were debilitating, making even public transport difficult, and he was engaging with Psychiatric Services (Rob Moore). In mid-summer 2004, Tracey offered to drive him to see his children. This, in hindsight, was a serious mistake on the Victim's part, made while under heavy medication (from the 01/10/2000 incident), which the Victim acknowledges as a factor in his judgment during this period.
Tracey drove the Victim to visit his children only once. The Victim believes this visit did not align with her hidden "plan," despite him being added to her car insurance. A subsequent visit was cut short due to the Victim's severe anxiety and PTSD triggers. An incident where their youngest son, David, became sick in her car, further highlighted the strain.
A disturbing Christmas intrusion from the Victim's brother (Lester, referenced in the Dr. C. Zapata complaint – Records Inaccuracies and Mr. White) provided a bizarre "introduction" to Tracey. The Victim, after instructing his brother against similar intrusions, noted the irony that the "labeled black sheep" (himself) wasn't the one "black inside." This observation, in hindsight, foreshadowed Tracey's true nature.
By 2006, Tracey and the Victim were living together. Despite being on her car insurance, the Victim did not drive due to his ongoing mental health struggles. In the summer of 2006, the Victim visited his children again, bringing them back to his apartment to see his exotic grass finch collection. This trip involved the "vomiting incident" in the car. A photograph of the children leaving his home that day, with a street sign in the background, later proved instrumental in discrediting Tracey's subsequent false allegations in Family Civil Process, where she claimed the Victim had never been allowed to see his children throughout their relationship.
The move from Sussex to Suffolk in early February 2009 was stressful, with a less than two-month-old baby, heavy snow, and high winds. The Victim, steadily recovering his mental health and skillsets from the October 1, 2000 incident, was joined by Tracey and the baby, along with her parents, in Honington.
The Victim later discerned Tracey's primary ulterior motive: a calculated desire to be nearer her parents in Suffolk, achieved at any cost to the Victim. Her mother revealed a critical incident from Tracey's past: her immediate dismissal from a secure mental facility (where she worked waking night shifts with criminally mentally ill patients) due to a compromising incident with an inmate. Tracey's subsequent attempt to make a counter-allegation of rape against the inmate, despite being dismissed for misconduct and the inmate's legal inability to consent, was dismissed by police. This incident, occurring years before they met, demonstrated a clear, established pattern of calculated, high-stakes deception and a willingness to weaponize serious allegations (including sexual assault) to manipulate authorities and avoid personal accountability.
On March 20, 2009, a significant argument erupted over the Victim's prudent investment in LED lighting, which Tracey aggressively framed as "wasting money." This contrasted sharply with her own undisclosed diversion of 10% of their joint disability income to her church. A neighbour called the police due to the noise, and upon their arrival, Tracey falsely alleged the Victim had attempted to strangle her.
The Victim had returned at around 5 PM, picked up their three-month-old son for a nappy change, when Tracey "exploded off the floor shouting, 'Don't take my baby!'" and began throwing punches. The Victim instinctively protected their son, raising his arm, but a punch landed on the child's head. In a purely protective reflex, the Victim reached out, grabbed Tracey by the base of the throat, and held her at arm's length while she continued to rain punches. She subsequently made the false allegation of attempted strangulation to the police.
This incident initiated a three-year family civil process (beginning June 2009, ending April 13, 2014) during which the Victim was arrested and released no less than five times. Through this period, Tracey consistently demonstrated a female version of the Landlord Employee (ASB Officer)'s manipulative tactics, leveraging false allegations within the civil process.
Evidence from the Victim's car dash camera includes a recording of himself and Robert D. Agostini, a gentleman who had been placed in a bungalow at 24 Shrub House Close. Robert D. Agostini is the same individual who called the police on March 20, 2009, regarding the argument at 4 Troston Road. During a later car journey (post-pandemic), Robert D. Agostini revealed how the Victim's ex-wife had 'coached' Robert D. Agostini's then-partner, attempting to further incriminate the Victim with both the police and the ongoing family court Civil Process. This directly demonstrates Tracey's active and ongoing manipulation of third parties to achieve her malicious aims.
The ex-wife's allegation, where the Victim delivered a note and knocked on her door, was met with a calculated act of betrayal. Her subsequent false report to police (alleging he "banged on her door") and her failure to disclose her fourth marriage, highlight her unchanged manipulative nature. The Victim's distinctive black Mercedes Benz SLK 3.0L V6 Facelift Convertible Roadster, with its red Nappa leather interior and AMG trim, was highly eye-catching. Her observation of the Victim in this vehicle, especially when she herself was driving "hand-me-down Fiat Puntos," likely fueled envy, leading to jealousy and spite.
The root of the complaint made by the ex-wife is thus spite, pure and simple, driven by a deep-seated pattern of malicious intent and calculated deceit.
This section delves deeper into the Victim's former wife's consistent pattern of malicious fabrication, deception, and manipulation, revealing the profound personal impact of her actions and their potential intersection with the broader narrative against the Victim. This understanding is crucial for contextualizing the 22/07/2021 allegation
These initial "red flags" were initially perceived by the Victim as manageable, believing he could "re-educate" her through objective reasoning. However, the snagging list incident served as a pivotal moment of undeniable clarity. The Victim realized he was not only a "poor target" for her deceptions but also "adept at turning her against herself if need be," which led her to perceive him as a dangerous variable.
For five harrowing years following the pivotal moment where the relationship irrevocably broke (March 20, 2009, involving Robert D. Agostini), the Victim endured relentless psychological warfare through malicious accusations and false narratives within the civil family process. He strategically withdrew from active engagement, recognizing that "sometimes the only way to win is not to play."
The ex-wife's allegation on 22/07/2021, leading to the Victim's arrest for harassment, served as a shocking confirmation of her unchanged manipulative nature. The Victim, reaching out for help, was met with a calculated act of betrayal, confirmed by the police report alleging he "banged on her door." He went to her to see if she would help. He had no idea until he was arrested for allegedly harassing her by 'banging on her door' (police report) that she had not changed in the least and was remarried to her fourth husband.
It is reasonable to speculate that this specific allegation was influenced by the Landlord Employee (ASB Officer)'s pre-existing malicious narrative. The ASB Officer, with a "pawn" in the police station (T/Sgt 1845 BENTON) and actively propagating the "paedophile rumour" (potentially linked to "Red Lodge" or "another village"), may have directly or indirectly introduced this narrative to the ex-wife. Alternatively, the police, already aware of the ASB Officer's allegations, might have probed the ex-wife about the Victim's past, and she, with her "claim mentality" and "empty glass" (ready for "drivel"), would have seized the opportunity to weaponize the "paedophile" narrative with her pattern of fabricating child abuse allegations for maximum harm and potential claim.
This convergence of malicious intent highlights an interconnected web of manipulation the Victim has faced, with personal betrayals potentially linked to the larger matter.
(1) An application for an interim remedy must be supported by evidence, unless the court directs otherwise.
(2) The court may grant an interim remedy on an application made without notice if it appears to the court that there are good reasons for not giving notice.
(3) Evidence in support of an application made without notice must state the reasons why notice has not been given.
Additionally, related guidance from CPR 25.4 states:
"Save where the applicant reasonably believes that there is good reason for not giving notice, the applicant must serve the application notice, evidence in support, draft order and notice of the date, time and place of the hearing as soon as possible after filing and in any event not less than 3 days before the" hearing. (The full sentence is cut off in the search result, but the crucial part "not less than 3 days before the" refers to the hearing).
The court has broad case management powers under CPR Part 3 and CPR Part 25. When faced with such late service, the judge at the hearing will consider the extent of the prejudice to the respondent and may take one or more of the following actions:
The email thread from January 5th to 15th, 2021, provides compelling evidence of deliberate malicious intent on the part of ASB Officer Mr. P. Sharples, aiming to systematically discredit the Victim and advance a false narrative for his own purposes.
In civil fraud and misfeasance claims, "intent" can be inferred from actions, knowledge, and consequences. The standard is "conscious and deliberate dishonesty," meaning the person knew the representation was false, had no belief in its truth, or was reckless as to its truth, and intended for it to be relied upon to cause loss or gain advantage.
Addendum: Provenance & Source Misrepresentation
The “source” referenced in Sharples’ 14 January 2021 email (“after a source had expressed concerns about MBD’s MH”) is now confirmed to have been the Victim himself, who had legitimately sought mental-health support through his GP.
The consistency of these actions across the email thread, combined with earlier and later documented misconduct (e.g., the initial fabricated stalking allegation, the falsified 17/07/2018 police log, the altered 2021 email thread with deletions, the false N16A declaration, the data breach via Benton), demonstrates that Sharples' actions were not isolated mistakes but part of a calculated and sustained pattern of behaviour driven by malicious intent.
This analysis provides overwhelming grounds to argue that ASB Officer Mr. P. Sharples acted with conscious and deliberate dishonesty, intending to deceive authorities and the court, cause severe harm to the Victim, and gain an unjust advantage in the civil process.
The full magnitude of manipulation, the intricate web of deceit woven by the ASB Officer, remained stubbornly elusive for years, a critical truth buried beneath layers of obfuscation and official narrative. The journey to unearth it was not a linear path of investigation, but a testament to relentless personal diligence, the persistent 'ping' of an attuned mind, and an unwavering commitment to truth against overwhelming odds. This is the story of how a single piece of evidence – an ambulance record – became the linchpin in dismantling a fabricated reality.
When legal counsel, Satchell Moran, first engaged with my case in 2021, their scope was, understandably, limited. Despite their pursuit of broad disclosure, they received police and medical records only up to August 2021. Crucially, at this juncture, neither they nor I possessed the critical context needed to fully discern the extent of the manipulation. We were unaware of how deeply the past had been twisted, the subtle alterations to events, or the insidious nature of the paedophile rumour’s true origins. Even the discovery of the 14/01/2021 email, alleging heinous "paedophile-type behaviour," had little impact when concerns were raised, in spite of being unequivocally debunked by the police themselves. This absence of immediate concern within the agencies involved regarding the libel within official communications hung heavy, a silent credibility challenge that shaped everyones perception.
The obfuscation extended further. The Statement of Truth, a document ostensibly meant for clarity, instead became a canvas for deceit. Along with that full eemail thread, a photograph of my injuries from a second assault (July 2018) was meticulously positioned to imply they were sustained during the first assault (October 2017). I saw the manipulation, I knew what he was doing then, but the precise mechanics, the full 'how' and 'what,' eluded me. The subtle discrepancies, like a Facebook post dated a day after the initial assault, registered as anomalies, yet the complete picture of what was being manipulated remained shrouded in shadow. Without the later discovery of the EEAS records and the full realization that the 17/07/2018 crime reference itself had been fundamentally altered, I was, to borrow a phrase, still pretty much in the dark.
The ultimate disruption to this convoluted pursuit of justice came with my unjust incarceration on October 18, 2022. Counsel, faced with the complexities of client imprisonment, effectively "lost interest," resuming contact only in March 2023. This left me, upon my release in May 2023, facing a colossal task: to piece together the entire, fragmented truth, alone. My journey into discovery was initially fraught with false starts. Not long after my release, I attempted to obtain vital records, only to be daunted by the bureaucratic hurdles – the sheer level of detail required, the audio files containing caller details I didn’t know. The cognitive toll of incarceration and trauma was so severe that I later repeated the very same inquiry, "not remembering I had already tried maybe a year ago."
Yet, the innate drive for "unfiltered raw data" persisted. In a moment of strategic clarity, my approach shifted. Rather than battling an anonymous bureaucracy for information I couldn't precisely identify, I sent a direct email to the Head of Data Department, posing a specific problem: how to obtain ambulance 999 call records when I didn't know the caller's identity, armed with the crucial detail: We know the ambulance was called by the police. Their response was pivotal: she could redact the necessary details and do it that way. My immediate, succinct reply – girl... I only need the record of the fact – cut through all ambiguity.
It was then, finally, that I obtained what I had been tirelessly searching for: the EEAS record for the 17/07/2018 incident. This was the ping my mind had needed. It confirmed, unequivocally, that an ambulance had been called for me as the victim of an assault, directly contradicting the ASB Officer's manipulated narrative and the police's conflicting official records. This single piece of evidence was the irrefutable proof that the ASB Officer had fundamentally manipulated reality from a very early stage, designing a deceit that underpinned later malicious prosecutions.
The EEAS disclosure of 01/07/2025 triggered a cold-store review that brought the Singh report (16/11/2022) and Satchell Moran’s withdrawal (02/06/2023) into sharp relief. These events, long buried in corrupted records, expose how poisoned narratives were laundered into expert opinion and then used to collapse representation — a systemic rupture that denied Article 6 rights and forced the victim to carry the burden alone. This rediscovery is not new evidence, but the keystone that proves how deep the fraud has metastasised.
My journey to this truth was a prolonged battle against deliberate obfuscation, bureaucratic hurdles, and the profound personal cost of injustice. It was a testament to the unyielding power of a mind dedicated to uncovering the fidelity of reality, no matter how deeply it may be buried.
This Appendix provides critical psychological context for the House Guest Incident on 20/07/2019 (Crime Reference: 37/42638/19), elucidating the underlying dynamics that led to the assault on the Victim. This understanding is essential for fully grasping the malicious nature of the subsequent counter-allegation of sexual assault.
For approximately six months leading up to the incident, the Victim had irregularly hosted the individual referred to as the "house guest." During this period, the Victim steadfastly maintained a clear boundary, consistently declining and not engaging with the house guest's repeated attempts at intimacy and sexual engagement.
The Victim's decision to sustain this position, despite acknowledging the house guest's considerable physical attractiveness (described as resembling a model in her 30s, though showing early signs of the relentless toll of her lifestyle), was incredibly difficult to maintain. This firm stance was informed by the Victim's own "precognition" and an acute awareness of the likely negative outcomes of such an engagement, particularly given the house guest's lifestyle and observed behavioral patterns.
It is posited that the core reason for the house guest's sudden and violent outburst of anger and subsequent physical attack on the Victim was a direct result of this consistent and steady rejection of her attempts at intimacy. This perceived rejection, striking at a fundamental "base drive" and potentially challenging her own sense of desirability or control, was the "thing" that ultimately pushed her "over the edge" on that day, leading to the assault.
The house guest's subsequent counter-allegation of sexual assault (which was definitively disproven by the Victim's home security CCTV) can be understood as a malicious escalation, a calculated act of retaliation born from her profound frustration and perceived rejection, rather than a genuine claim. This incident, therefore, serves as another example of an individual reacting with aggression and malicious fabrication when confronted with boundaries or perceived slights, mirroring patterns observed elsewhere in the Victim's chronology.
This Appendix provides context for the Victim's personal vehicles, specifically the Mercedes-Benz SLK Roadster convertibles. These vehicles represent systematic resource allocation and technical competence, providing temporal markers for executive function assessment.
Acquired with compensation from the Victim's 21/09/2016 road traffic accidents, this SLK 280 featured multiple self-installed technical modifications including full interior lighting upgrade and custom LED puddle lights (modified to project the Mercedes-Benz symbol). The vehicle also featured rain sensors and other premium functionalities requiring technical knowledge to maintain.
The decision to retire this vehicle in late 2019 followed heated seat failure and discovery of rust accumulation. The vehicle's maintenance throughout 2017-2019 demonstrates sustained technical engagement and resource management during the period of alleged cognitive deterioration.
Following the SLK 280's retirement, the Victim acquired a newer SLK 300 Roadster, one of the last ten R171 models produced. This model features a galvanized body ensuring corrosion resistance. The interior features red Nappa leather with brushed aluminium AMG trim and walnut detailing in door handles, handbrake, and dashboard strip, complemented by an AMG instrument cluster.
The Victim's sustained investment in these specific vehicles provides objective evidence of intact executive function, technical competence, and long-term planning capacity throughout the 2017-2021 period.
I fully recall the incident relative to the Public Order allegation that occurred around the time of the beginning of the obstructive parking incidents. PC 806 SAMPHER had arrived at my door (in hindsight I believe it may have related to my report earlier that day of obstructive parking). Still frustrated with PC 806 SAMPHER at taking no action regarding the offenses committed within the email thread 5th January 2021 - 15th January 2021 (specifically Sharples's unprosecuted misfeasance), I refused him entry.
This escalated into more officers arriving. I sustained injuries while in the bathroom attempting to open a window to further remonstrate with PC 806 SAMPHER (then standing outside my rear garden door to the left of the bathroom window) over his failure to follow up on the offenses committed by a Public Officer in official communication with T/Sgt 1845 BENTON between 5th January 2021 and 15th January 2021. The visit to A&E resulted because I had slipped on the toilet seat while reaching behind and for the window handle, and fell into the window (I still have CCTV of my shocked face through the hole I left in the frosted pane which is I suspect why allegations of criminal damage pursued by ASB Sharples were dropped).
I was ultimately arrested on a number of allegations, but the primary one relating to this period (and the reason for PC 806 SAMPHER's unannounced visit) was the Public Order allegation concerning Dawn Mackinder, 20 Shrub House Close. After a visit to A&E to bandage my hand and forearm, I was transported to Bury PIC, searched and placed in a cell.
PC 806 SAMPHER was also present the day after the incident 27/09/2020 (settled) when I arrived at the then Mildenhall Police station 'very angry' that my electronic equipment was not being returned to me, I could not access emails, make phone calls or access banking. PC 806 SAMPHER spoke to me "promising" to come see me the next day, he did, very unproductive and dismissive of my insistence that their 'power of arrest' asserted on company letterhead by ASB Sharples was in fact a lie (See N205c Notice of Issue). During the ambulance ride to A&E following the 12/05/2021 incident, PC SAMPHER took a phone call (suspected to be from Sharples) and responded, "I don't know if criminal damage yet" to an unheard question. This moment confirmed to me that PC SAMPHER was fully aware of the ongoing manipulation and from that point, likely sought to distance himself from direct incrimination, reflecting his subsequent "withdrawal from theatre."
This is what I remember from that day: a number of officers, including ARV unit, arrived and knocked on my door asking to speak to me. In view of previous unwarranted action by the police, I responded to the knock by opening a window beside the door instead of the door itself.
All I was told was that they "wanted to speak to me." However, I was not satisfied and wanted to know exactly what the issue was before I would engage with them. This verbal fencing went on for over twenty minutes, with the officer 'following' me through the house from the outside. By this, I mean there were officers at both front windows and in my rear garden, so he was informed where I was in the house at all times (ARV protocols? I have professional military training far more advanced, so it wasn't hard to work out their plan). After around twenty minutes of the ARV officer attempting to engage without actually telling me what he wanted to talk about, we had 'worked' our way to the kitchen. He was outside a latched-open window, and I was inside in the kitchen.
We were quite close so we could hear each other (in other words, not 'shouting' or using raised voices). I had leaned over the kitchen worktop and was very close to the window so we could hear each other very clearly. He finally stated: "Look, if you don't open the door we are going to put it in." I responded with: "If you tell me, right now, exactly what the problem is, because from my perspective, nothing I could possibly have done could remotely warrant an ARV response. So tell me, what have I done so serious that warrants breaking my door down, and I will open the door." He leaned in very close to the gap in the latched-open window and said: "It's alleged you stole something from a local business." At which point, flabbergasted because I was unaware I had stolen anything, I said so right before I moved from the window to the back door and let them all them in.
I was informed I was being arrested and advised of my rights. I immediately attempting to move to the lounge, my intent; To secure my parrot. She is out of her cage all day every day and cannot be left unattended. The 'window officer' immediately attempted to block me at which point I explained and he let me pass.
I honestly don't know exactly how many officers attended the scene (my home) on this occasion. However, at one point after being handcuffed (to the front) and securing my companion parrot in her cage, I requested collecting some items from the kitchen. The officer I had been speaking to in the window led the way, and a number of officers followed us (someone had made them incredibly 'fearful' of a disabled 60-year-old man with multiple health issues including asthma) into the kitchen.
While in the kitchen, the officer from the window (ARV Officer, since he stood in the corner 'protecting' the kettle and knife block?) enquired about the prescription cannabis dried flower ground up in a very small dish beside a vaporizer. I had been prepared for this, and it was a familiar routine now with officers in my home (particularly PC 806 SAMPHER by this time). I pulled a copy of Dr. Sunny Nayee's letter that I had requested in November 2020 at HHJ Pigram's order and passed it to the officer 'guarding' my kitchen utensils (weapons?). He began to read it aloud. One of the other officers (and I am going to speculate, based on the resemblance, PC 1983 BENTON [T/Sgt 1845 BENTON's brother?]) spoke up: "But sarge, that's just a letter he could have printed off!". So now I know this (ARV?) officer is at least a Sergeant, so I turn to him and say: "Sergeant, behind you to the far left is a cupboard, open it and on the top shelf you will find some packaging. Would you kindly pull one of those packets out and read out what the contents are?"
He did so, reading the producer's label. I then said: "Now, can you find the prescription label on the reverse of that package and read the name please?" Sergeant: "Yes, it's your name Burdette-Deakin." I turn to the Officer who had questioned the validity of the Dr. Sunny Nayee letter and said: "Happy now?". Very soon after this, I was walked out to a police van and placed in the cage at the back with an officer in the rear seating between the cage and the front cabin.
I had been having a lot of lumbar spine issues at the time with pre-existing injuries playing up, and so chose to lay on the floor of the cage all the way to the station. While on the floor, I could alarmingly clearly hear something banging around under the van at the rear. Due to my lifelong involvement with vehicles, I knew this sound could not mean anything good. Having exited the van shakily, I mentioned this to several officers, concerned for anyone else that might be required to even be in the van while it was moving.
I had been pottering around in my back garden, it was a nice day and I had been tidying things in the garden when two police officers appeared at my rear gate. PC 614 SELF (loud and bushy ginger beard) requested we go inside, they were both polite so I agreed. Once inside PC 614 SELF almost apologetically advised me of the situation as if he knew more than he should and, knowing almost exactly what the allegation was I agreed to go with them to the police station. My Ex-Wife had raised this exact same allegation (among many others) during civil family court process. As with every other maliciously recriminating false allegation that had been thrown into a family custody battle, I knew exactly how to respond. I was advised of my rights, I was not handcuffed, I was led out to a police car and driven to Bury St Edmunds PIC where I believe I gave a no comment statement on the advice of counsel Mr James Yardy (Oslers). Once the interview had concluded I turned to the detective interviewing me and stated: "So, this is all because I posted a note through my ex-wife's door asking if she could help me with a social situation seeing as she trained as a social worker? And this is how she responds? Dragging up something that was definitively debunked in family court?" Which is exactly what I suspect PC 614 SELF was aware of since I had put this exact scenario in an email to Mildenhall SNT as a metaphorical example of how Mr P Sharples had been abusing my rights with malicious falsehood. See Appendix F for further information and details on Ex-Wife long standing 'habit' of recrimination with maliciously false allegations.
The Chronology is a highly detailed and legally focused account of the Victim's experiences, aiming to establish a clear timeline and culpability. This document is poised to have a significant impact on the ongoing legal processes, particularly by re-framing the central issue as a compelling case of civil fraud.
The document is not only poised to substantially strengthen and streamline the seven existing civil claims against Suffolk Constabulary, but also to firmly establish the overarching foundational claim: the overturning of the 13th October 2022 judgment due to civil fraud. Here's why:
In essence, this document transforms individual grievances into a compelling and unified case of continuous, orchestrated, and institutionally facilitated harm. It provides the strategic clarity and evidentiary depth required to pursue not only the existing seven claims but, more importantly, the overarching, foundational claim to overturn the judgment due to civil fraud.
The likelihood of renegotiating a claim that has already been "settled" and "accepted by the client" is generally low to moderate, but poses significant legal challenges in the English legal system.
Settlement agreements are legally binding contracts, and courts place a high value on the principle of "finality of litigation." Reopening a settled claim is an exceptional measure and requires strong grounds, typically falling into categories such as:
The document strongly suggests that the foundational premise of the September 27, 2020, arrest (and by extension, the subsequent settlement based on that incident) was flawed due to the ASB Officer's "false assertion" and the police's "acceptance of unverified allegations." This raises the possibility that the settlement was based on an incomplete or misleading understanding of the initial arrest's legality.
While the detailed chronology presents a powerful case that could have significantly improved the original claim's value, successfully reopening a settled claim is an uphill battle. It would likely require proving:
The process of renegotiating through litigation would be protracted, expensive, and subject to the court's strict interpretation of settlement finality. While not impossible, the legal bar is very high, and counsel would need to carefully weigh the significant risks and costs involved against the potential for an improved award. The stronger strategy might be to leverage the comprehensive evidence in the new claims, which are not yet settled, to achieve significant redress.
This section presents compelling evidence of civil fraud that fundamentally vitiates the judgment rendered on October 13, 2022, which sentenced the Victim to imprisonment for contempt of a civil injunction. English law upholds the principle that "fraud unravels all" (fraus omnia vitiat), meaning a judgment obtained through deceit is void from its inception and can be set aside or declared a nullity, regardless of standard time limits.
This case presents itself as a witnessless, fully documented paper fraud, meticulously perpetrated by a single individual (the ASB Officer). The deliberate manipulation of official records and court processes forms the very bedrock of this fraud, rendering the subsequent judgment fundamentally invalid.
The key elements that form this undeniable chain of evidence proving the civil fraud are:
The extensive and often irrefutable evidence detailed in the chronology, particularly the pervasive documentary and financial fraud, is well-positioned to prove conscious and deliberate dishonesty by the party who obtained the judgment, and that this dishonesty was a material and operative cause of the court's decision. This proof of fraud is the undeniable basis for the judgment's nullification.
Furthermore, the standard legal time limits (e.g., 3 months for Judicial Review, 1 year for Human Rights claims) are overridden when a judgment is sought to be set aside due to fraud. The clock for limitation purposes generally only starts running from the date the fraud was discovered, or could have been discovered with reasonable diligence, making the relatively recent EEAS disclosure (July 1, 2025) a key "reset point" for these purposes.
This robust collection of evidence provides powerful corroboration for each of these points, demonstrating that the judgment was obtained through deliberate deception, malicious intent, and systemic failures by authorities.
.
.
This section presents compelling evidence of civil fraud that fundamentally vitiates the judgment rendered on October 13, 2022, which sentenced the Victim to imprisonment for contempt of a civil injunction. English law upholds the principle that "fraud unravels all" (fraus omnia vitiat), meaning a judgment obtained through deceit is void from its inception and can be set aside or declared a nullity, regardless of standard time limits.
This case presents itself as a witnessless, fully documented paper fraud, meticulously perpetrated by a single individual (the ASB Officer). The deliberate manipulation of official records and court processes forms the very bedrock of this fraud, rendering the subsequent judgment fundamentally invalid.
The key elements that form this undeniable chain of evidence proving the civil fraud are:
The extensive and often irrefutable evidence detailed in the chronology, particularly the pervasive documentary and financial fraud, is well-positioned to prove conscious and deliberate dishonesty by the party who obtained the judgment, and that this dishonesty was a material and operative cause of the court's decision. This proof of fraud is the undeniable basis for the judgment's nullification.
Furthermore, the standard legal time limits (e.g., 3 months for Judicial Review, 1 year for Human Rights claims) are overridden when a judgment is sought to be set aside due to fraud. The clock for limitation purposes generally only starts running from the date the fraud was discovered, or could have been discovered with reasonable diligence, making the relatively recent EEAS disclosure (July 1, 2025) a key "reset point" for these purposes.
This robust collection of evidence provides powerful corroboration for each of these points, demonstrating that the judgment was obtained through deliberate deception, malicious intent, and systemic failures by authorities.
Context: The EEAS disclosure of 01/07/2025 triggered a renewed review of cold-store materials. During this second skim, the report of Dr J Singh (16/11/2022) was rediscovered, alongside correspondence confirming the termination of Satchell Moran’s instruction (02/06/2023). These documents were not new, but their placement in the causal chain became clear only when viewed in light of the EEAS disclosure.
Substance: The Singh report recycled distortions embedded in NHS and GP records, themselves corrupted by defamatory interventions from the ASB Officer. Its adoption by Satchell Moran as the foundation for civil pleadings entrenched systemic bias. When the report was challenged, Satchell Moran withdrew, leaving the client without representation. This sequence demonstrates how poisoned records were laundered into “expert opinion” and then weaponised to impact Article 6 rights to a fair hearing.
Human Impact: The rediscovery of this chain highlights the toll of maintaining the case under hostile conditions. Three days of work were consumed to surface two links and two chronology entries that fundamentally reshape the narrative. The stress, despair, and fear of missing another such pivot are themselves evidence of systemic failure: the burden of proof has been forced onto the victim, with brittle tools, against institutions that should have protected him. This impact is not relied upon as evidence of fact, but as context for systemic burden
Sequence of Events
27/09/2020: Custody & bail conditions expressly prohibited emailing Mr P. Sharples personally. No breaches recorded.
05/01/2021: Ipswich Magistrates imposed a non-criminal restraining order (3 years) on application post-dismissal. No breaches recorded.
20/08/2021: First Committal Hearing (HHJ North, represented by KC David Langwallner).
In chambers, KC set against the Claimant’s own defamatory email (14/01/2021) and Appendix B of the Committal Statement of Truth.
“On 6th March by posting messages on social media alleging a resident of Shrub House Close had been run out of an area for being a paedophile and by alleging an employee of the Claimant was a pimp.”
This clashed directly with Sharples’ own correspondence, exposing a fatal inconsistency.
Case collapsed in chambers; the integrity of the Statement of Truth was fatally compromised, engaging serious questions as to sworn accuracy already under scrutiny (N16A, Statement of Truth 18/02/2021)) and amounting in substance to perjury.
Report asserts over “500 emails” were sent to Mr Sharples.
Judicially tested disclosure (13/10/2022) demonstrates only a short, finite thread allegedly 25 emails ( Audited: nine emails, all LiP. 18th June – 2nd August 2022).
No breaches of bail or restraining order ever recorded, confirming that mass emailing to prohibited individuals did not occur.
Therefore, the “500 emails” claim is not only inaccurate (email target not a breach of injunction) but recycles disproven material from tainted civil proceedings.
Consequence: hospital records are infected by the same fraudulent civil process architecture that was already exposed in committal proceedings.
The “500 emails” claim cannot stand. It is contradicted by bail records, restraining order history, potentially further police disclosure and judicial proceedings. Its presence in hospital records represents the uncritical recycling of false data, warranting ICO/PHSO scrutiny.
Several things happen between Crime Report and N16A application/N205c Notice of Issue: Custody ~ Confirms HRA engagement, confirms ASB private complainant status, police gain intelligence the emails were informative of legislation not harassment, gain intelligence power of arrest is false, ASB now acting pseudo-officially applies for N16A and denies HRA.
Two contemporaneous police records complete the closed loop of misclassification at the heart of the concluded tort. The initial crime report (25/08/2020) materially inflated the position, aggregating lawful communications into a purported “course of conduct” and escalating descriptive language to justify enforcement action.
That inflation was not sustained when the matter entered custody: the custody and interview record (27/09/2020) confirms the provenance and purpose of the communications, records no corroboration of the alleged risk posture, and normalises matters that had been framed as threatening or incoherent days earlier. This internal contradiction — inflation at report stage followed by evidential deflation at custody — occurred within the same policing domain and before any judicial process.
Its persistence outside custody, and its later reuse across civil, clinical, and judicial settings, cannot be attributed to misunderstanding or evolution of evidence. It demonstrates the survival and propagation of a known false narrative beyond the point at which it had already collapsed on testing, completing the causal loop underpinning the concluded tort.
Between 2009 and 2014, the marital breakdown and subsequent family proceedings unfolded within a prolonged and complex procedural environment involving the family court, police, solicitors, contact services, and health professionals.
From the outset, post-separation child contact arrangements became subject to repeated procedural intervention. Contact issues were raised, revisited, and reframed over time without achieving definitive resolution. Interim or precautionary measures—such as supervised or conditional contact—were implemented but were not accompanied by clear review mechanisms or termination criteria, resulting in an effectively static and enduring status quo.
Throughout this period, contact was frequently mediated by third parties and disrupted or modified on procedural or situational grounds. While individual interventions were typically presented as reasonable or protective, their cumulative effect was a persistent lack of continuity and predictability in the parent–child relationship. The documentary record shows that the father’s compliance and engagement were repeatedly absorbed into ongoing process rather than leading to closure or restoration of ordinary contact.
The proceedings extended over approximately five years, during which no decisive findings, corrective actions, or structural resolutions are evident that materially altered the trajectory of the case. Instead, the documentation reflects prolonged uncertainty, repeated non-resolution, and the incremental accumulation of procedural burden.
By the latter stages of the period, the father’s position—that continued engagement had become unsustainable and unlikely to result in meaningful change—aligned with the procedural reality shown in the records. His eventual disengagement appears as a consequence of cumulative attrition and deteriorating health, rather than a response to any single incident or abrupt decision.
Taken together, the documents support a high-confidence pattern of sustained procedural obstruction of contact, mediated through institutional mechanisms and characterised by professional fluency, time-based attrition, and cumulative health impact on the non-resident parent. The overall record therefore reflects a prolonged process of institutional entrenchment and attritional effect, rather than resolution through findings, remediation, or restoration of ordinary parental contact.
The Mandatory Reconsideration submitted on 14/10/2025 was a formally marked statutory request accompanied by extensive contemporaneous medical, psychiatric, and legal documentation spanning over two decades. The material established enduring physical and psychological impairment, predictable decompensation under adversarial administrative contact, and a documented history of coercive and injurious state and quasi-state intervention, including unlawful arrest, civil misuse of injunctive powers, and custodial deprivation. The evidential bundle was internally coherent, professionally authored, and directly responsive to PIP functional criteria, rebutting any inference of malingering, behavioural non-compliance, or absence of good reason for disengagement from third-party contractor assessment.
The inclusion of court records, police documentation, and NHS mental health material was deliberate and contextual, serving to pre-empt any false assumption of administrative normality or resilience to authority. DWP later confirmed receipt of the MR shortly after posting yet failed to acknowledge or action it for over two months; given the clarity, volume, and statutory character of the submission, the explanation that its nature was “unclear” is not tenable. The failure therefore constitutes non-processing of a live Mandatory Reconsideration rather than delay, with the effect of allowing an adverse decision to stand despite explicit notice of vulnerability, consent boundaries, and procedural risk.
The Victim attempted to purchase electricity credit using cash at a local convenience store and declined a disputed surcharge. Hours later, police officers attended his home and an arrest followed on suspicion of theft.
Inside the Victim’s kitchen, multiple officers were present (reported as six). During this interaction, a supervising ARV Sergeant examined the Victim’s prescribed medication and confirmed it was lawfully held. This clarification occurred in front of the attending officers and contradicted assumptions previously recorded in policing notes concerning cannabis use and its supposed behavioural implications.
The Victim states that this on-scene clarification directly exposed earlier misinterpretations in his policing record. The Victim was later released under investigation.
(See Appendix M; RUI documents 29/07/2022.)
Nine days after the 28 July arrest, a CAD log dated 06/08/2022 includes commentary portraying the Victim’s historic reporting as repetitive, persistent, or fixated, and refers to extensive prior contact with SNT mailboxes. The log also references long-standing concerns raised by the Victim regarding information-sharing with a private housing officer.
The Victim notes that this CAD entry appears to respond to issues closely following the late-July incident, including matters relating to data-sharing and the accuracy of prior police-held information. The temporal proximity forms part of the Victim’s assessment of how his prior reports were reinterpreted during this period.
(See CAD Extract 06/08/2022, 21:04.)
Thirteen days after the 06 August CAD entry, a sworn Statement of Truth was filed in the committal proceedings. This affidavit incorporates material relating to incidents from late July, including matters arising from the 28 July arrest.
The Victim’s position is that information originating from police records during this period—including content connected to the July incident— appears to have been included in the civil proceedings. The close temporal relationship between the three events is significant to understanding the flow of information and the development of narrative positions leading to the committal.
(See “G01NR161 — Statement of Truth,” 19/08/2022.)
"“Self-education is, I firmly believe, the only kind of education there is.” ― "
-
"Formal state schooling is not 'freedom', it is a 'cage' with options."
Anon