|
|
This survey report was submitted to criminal former recorder John H.Fryer-Speddding. A look at Spedding's approved transcript of judgment published on this site will show just what lengths he was prepared to go to resulting in the perversion of the course of justice. He was in any event contempt of Supreme Court rules by wrongly trying the cases as a single consolidated action without first seeing a court order consolidating them. At the time he tried the cases as a single action, there was in fact a Durham County Court Order in force refusing that consolidation. Shirley Carr had excluded it from the judges bundle when she had secretly prepared it. This was all part of the fraud and conspiracy to defraud which Shirley Carr and solicitor Alison Stott had carried out against me. Had solicitor Stott informed the Durham County Court at the outset of her involvement in the cases in 1994 that she was only Carr's assistant, then there is little doubt the outcome would have been very different. Alison Stott and Shirley Carr are still being protected by Durham and Northumbria Police. Had police done the public duty required of them, Shirley Carr and Alison Stott would have been arrested by now and the situation I presently find myself in would have been a far more favourable one for me. The hole referred to by Smales in his report above, was not the only act that Shirley Carr had been responsible for having it carried out. Holes had been placed in her rear yards paving slabs. One had been lifted which adjoined our property to allow the water collecting on the rear sub ground level yard on Carr's property, to drain onto the rear yard of our property. My property rear yard is at a lower ground level than that of Carr's property. The guttering on all of the rear of Carr's property had been deliberately sloped in the direction of our property so we also received all drainage from the rear roof sections of her property as well. All of these facts were video filmed and shown to recorder John Fryer-Spedding. They remain available to anyone who might be interested in matters concerning judges who err in favour of crime to assist criminals.
We had agreed to allow Ian Smales to visit our property to carry out a survey on it. Smales was employed by solicitor Alison Stott. At the time solicitor Stott employed him she was as she later agreed in court had only been Carr's assistant. Weeks after that survey I had gone into an upstairs bedroom of our home. My wife had just changed her clothing and was about to visit her father residing nearby. It was considered that the location of the bedroom window and the fact that the nearest other houses are around a mile away, there was no need to close the bedroom curtains. When I looked out of the window, I saw a man on top of a ladder placed against a building on the smallholding adjoining our garden that Carr had started to establish where deceit was also used. This matter too will eventually be called to account. The man was holding what looked like a camera fitted with a very large telescopic lens and was looking into the rear of our property .When he saw me he made a very hasty retreat down the ladder and I saw that Carr was with him. As he left Carr's I called him to me. I saw that he was none other than Mr Ian Smales. He denied he had a camera and after a while produced from behind his back a pair of binoculars. I told him that what I saw him using was not binoculars. I expressed my anger at what he had been doing and told him that it amouted to Peeping Tom antics. The argument was all being secretly tape recorded by Carr. This was all part of Carr's normal antics. At one time she had even been able to tape record a conversation my wife and I had while we were in our kitchen. We presume that she had placed a microphone close to a slightly open window of our kitchen. I asked for police to attend as the matter. Smales action could have caused a breach of the peace. A police officer from Northumbria Police said they agreed that the incident was of a serious nature and they would interview Smales about it. They never returned back to us on the matter. Whether they had interviewed Smales is very doubtful. Smales resides within the Durham Police Force Area and the incident took place within the Northumbria Police force area.
When Smales appeared as a witness for Carr, he was very hostile to my questioning of him. That reflected in the waythat he attempted to avoid material questions during my cross examination of him. Recorder John H Fryer-Spedding assisted even more by breaking into a conversation with Smales during my cross examination. They discussed the length of ladders surveyors are allowed to carry. It had no relevance whatsover to my questioning of him. Spedding's interruption had the affect that it allowed Smales to avoid answering a very material question.
Solicitor Alison Stott moved from the address given above in Smales survey report heading. She sold her business in 1998. Its address was Alison Stott Solicitors, Aykley Vale Chambers, Aykley Heads, Durham City, Co. Durham. On January 17 1996 Stott declared to the Newcastle County Court that she had not been acting for Carr but had only been assisting her. Solicitor Alison Stott had accepted work from the courts from 1994 until January 1996 in the matter of the cases between Shirley Carr and I. Solicitor Stott had then secretly passed it on for Carr to carry out. That included the work of preparing the judges bundle. Carr secretly prepared it and then excluded important documents from it.
Carr is employed as a National Insurance Inspector. The question that I have asked myself is had Carr used her position of employment for personal gain? Had she struck up her bizzare relationship with solicitor Stott as a result of her visits to Stotts business in the normal course of her work? Had a similar situation arisen also in the case of Smales? Can it really be said to be a normal type relationship for both Stott and Smales to have carried out that which I have detailed above? Circumstances suggest that it was probably was. There is also a similar question arising in the involvement and acts of others who might have come into contact with Carr in the course of her employment.