Embedded Files
Claim for civil relief in respect of City of London (sic.) Economic Crime Report reference CR6836/11, starting from crime report dated 23 October 2006, multiple offences under the Thefts Act (property, data, cash, legally privileged information), conspiracy to steal, blackmail and extortion, multiple offences under the Human Rights Act, including action to deprive the Claimant and her family of autonomy in their lives from early 2006, multiple abuses of court including sham proceedings against the Claimant using the Claimant’s own assets, data, property, legally privileged information and those of her family and attempts to fund same by theft from the Claimant and her family, in actions to pervert the course of justice, avert crown and regulatory proceedings, and deny the Claimant and her family civil relief for remedy and reparation properly due from early 2005, failure to apply POCA business acceptance rules on business take-on, the Solicitors Accounting rules (where relevant), Bar Council and/or SRA licencing rules, including in the case of Reynolds Porter Chamberlain LLP, to prepare proper bills on a billing system that is independently audited, in the case of Boodle Hatfield to work out who their client is, failure to comply with and act in accordance with the Data Protection Act and respond appropriately by providing the Claimant with her personal data within 40 days
prescribed in law (Boodle Hatfield, Cumberland Ellis); effecting prolonged public humiliation and systematic denigration in public courts of the Claimant and her family in sham proceedings to discredit the Claimant and her family and steal assets including contingent assets (civil relief and loss of opportunity), forgery of evidence, money laundering (December 08 to April 09), in conjunction with theft (Boodle Hatfield, Ben Wood, Jamie Smith and others 7EX00719); breach of contract by
Russell Jones Walker including but not limited to:
1. contract between Russell Jones Walker and Allianz Legal Protection on behalf of the Claimant
2. failure by Russell Jones Walker to secure injunction against Allen & Overy LLP, solicitors to the Claimant and her family since the mid 1980’s, acting in opposition to the Claimant and her family by early March 2006 (with consequence of need for claim on 6 year statutory deadline, Claim 0LV30091, Judgment in Default of Acknowledgement of Service or Defence entered 15 April 2011 by the Claimant, where an Admission was the only proper return that could be made);
3. failure by Russell Jones Walker to undertake Companies House research and establish by early April 2006, that PwC had resigned without reporting properly, either the date it decided to resign, proper reasons or the agreement entered with Allen & Overy to create a record as persuasive audit evidence relied on by PwC to exit without reporting properly; and failure to make mandatory regulatory report on a timely basis or at all; including by not asking for specific disclosure from PwC and A&O on time or at all (29 August 2006 requests being general);
4. Receipt by Russell Jones Walker of monies in excess of £647k, paid to them or to third parties to their order, stated by them to be advances for the purpose of securing civil relief in the matters before leading counsel in February and 1 March 2006, requiring leading counsel to sign off before making a claim (“purpose trust”); upon unilateral refusal thereafter, by walking out, subsequent to promise by Geoff Drake Finance Director to provide a proper account, and the intervention of Edward Cooper, upon failure of the purpose of the trust of which the sums were provided, that were held by the partners as trustees to the instructions of the Claimant and the purpose of the trust; upon the failure to account for the purpose of the trust, the failure to account for the sums including by their return and accounting for the effect of the walk-out properly or at all; and the costs and financial loss as well as wasted costs and damages and consequential damages
5. Agreements between RJW, Boodle Hatfield, Angus McNicol, Foot Anstey, Tim Manning, Sophie Hoffman, Simon Rylatt, Jamie Smith, Ben Wood, Blandy & Blandy, Jonathan Gater that no account would be provided; that Angus McNicol would receive some £130k to remove so-called interim charging orders; that the Claimant would be sued on a receipt for cash of some £49,350 and that the Mayors & City County Court would be told that RJW refused a referral to the SCCO;
and false information to the SCCO that the Claimant agreed a withdrawal of proceedings started there;
In the case of Baker Tilly UK Audit LLP
6. Signing auditor’s report and accounts on Reynolds Porter Chamberlain LLP, when not
independent, and permitting RPC to launch proceedings against the Claimant (together with Cumberland Ellis and Christopher Semken and Carl Trouman and Boodle Hatfield and named individuals from Boodle Hatfield) and seek to recover several thousand pounds of costs following sham proceedings stated to be to protect the reputation of Baker Tilly;
In the case of Kingston Smith LLP
7. Signing auditor’s report and accounts on Baker Tilly UK Holdings Limited and Baker Tilly UK Group LLP and other LLPs in the Baker Tilly Group, without disclosing that the going concern basis of incorporation did not apply and that Baker Tilly had undertaken off balance sheet financing to keep its liabilities in particular owed to the Claimant out of its accounts, to protect its profit stream, and proceeding to occupy the Claimant and her family in the courts from 2006 to 2012, including discrediting her and her brother in sham proceedings in June 2009
In the case of Alistair Rose PwC statutory auditor of Allen & Overy LLP
8. Wearing two hats and not able to report independently, as partner responsible to the Claimant as notified by Chris Maidment and Fiona Kelsey in March 2005, reporting on matters to which both he and PwC were principals and to which A&O were witness including facilitating PwC’s exit without reporting properly, causing a public Company for which the Claimant was personally liable to fail and personal knowledge of the Claimant and her family to be used against her, including by orders from A&O to the Royal Bank of Canada to alienate her and her family from their assets
In the case of Boodle Hatfield and Reynolds Porter Chamberlain LLP
9. Arrangements to bring about organised co-operation against the Claimant and her family as before Master Leslie (HQ0X02310) on 18 March 2011, 21 April 2011 before Master Lennard in the SCCO and the Court of Appeal 2011/p.i./11350
In the case of Andrew Clark and David Sui
10. Falsely reporting to the Court of Appeal in August 2009; ordering the Royal Bank of Canada to close family files, and all activity behind the Claimant’s back and that of her family with the consequences in the Chronology in Claim 0LV30091
11. Declaration that Claimant is entitled to damages and consequential damages on an indemnity basis
12. Relief for costs including financial loss from 2005, and interest and forex loss
13. Loss of opportunity from January 2005 to date.
14. Punitive damages in cases in which an Admission is not filed.
End of Rider 2
Erratum:
Claim for civil relief in respect of City of London (sic.) Economic Crime Report reference CR6836/11
should read:
Claim for civil relief in respect of City of London Police Economic Crime Report reference CR6836/11
From: "XXXXXXXXX" <XXXXXXXXXXX@city-of-london.pnn.police.uk>
Subject: cr/6836/11 (NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED)
Date: 15 February 2012 at 18:20:54 GMT
To: <mira.makar@btinternet.com>
NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED
Dear Mira,
I am sorry not to have telephoned you today as I said I would, I have been making some further enquiries with BIS today and thought it would best to contact you afterwards and I have only just spoken to them. I now have to leave for the day and am on a course Thursday & Friday so I will be in a position to call you on Monday although I will have access to e-mails over the next two days.
I am also very sorry to hear that your house in Colchester was burgled, I understand that Essex Police are dealing with the matter and that an officer from City of London Police will attend to take a statement from you so I am confident the matter is being progressed well for you.
On Monday we will be able to discuss this further and you can provide me with any further information you think necessary.
With Regards, XXXXXX.
T/Detective Sergeant XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX
National Fraud Intelligence Bureau (NFIB)
City of London Police | 21 New Street | London EC2M 4TP
Tel: 020 XXXX XXXX
Mob: XXXXX XXXXXX
Email: XXXXXXX.XXXXXX@cityoflondon.pnn.police.uk
Visit the NFIB website|Find out more about the City of London Police|Report a fraud to the national fraud reporting centre - Action Fraud
P Plase consider the environment before printing my email
#####################################################################################
Note:
This message is for the named person's use only. It may contain confidential, proprietary or legally privileged information. No confidentiality or privilege is waived or lost by any mistransmission. If you receive this message in error, please immediately delete it and all copies of it from your system, destroy any hard copies of it and notify the sender. You must not, directly or indirectly, use, disclose, distribute, print, or copy any part of this message if you are not the intended recipient. City of London Police and any of its subsidiaries each reserve the right to monitor all e-mail communications through its networks.
Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the message states otherwise and the sender is authorised to state them to be the views of any such entity.
All incoming and outgoing emails are virus checked, however we cannot guarantee that this message or any attachment is virus free or has not been intercepted and amended. City of London Police accepts no liability in respect of any loss, cost, damage or expense as suffered as a result of receiving this message or any attachments
City of London Police
Website: http://www.cityoflondon.police.uk/
#####################################################################################
#####################################################################################
This e-mail message has been scanned for Viruses and Content and cleared
by MailMarshal
#####################################################################################
Search results
Search results
Showing 1-10 of 21 results for structured approach
Feb 23, 2018, 6:31 PM by Custodian of Information
Feb 23, 2018, 6:31 PM by Custodian of Information
on page Additional Resources (replication Dropbox 12 10 23 in Resources Apr 2, 2013, 7:00 PM)
Additional Resources (replication Dropbox 12 10 23 in Resources Apr 2, 2013, 7:00 PM) > pp0943 12 04 24 -Structured Approach to SFO support to CITY OF LONDON POLICE .pdf
Offences Concerning Witnesses and Jurors
Intimidating or Harming Witnesses and Others -
Criminal Proceedings
Attempts are often made to threaten or persuade a witness not to give evidence, or to give evidence in a way that is favourable to the defendant. Such offences go to the heart of the administration of justice. If there is sufficient evidence the public interest requires that normally such cases be prosecuted.
Section 51 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 creates two offences:
s.51(1) creates an offence directed at acts against a person assisting in the investigation of an offence or a witness or potential witness or juror or potential juror whilst an investigation or trial is in progress; and
s.51(2) creates an offence directed at acts against a person who assisted in an investigation of an offence or who was a witness or juror after an investigation or trial has been concluded.
The offences are triable either way. In the magistrates' court, the maximum penalty is six months' imprisonment and/or a fine to the statutory maximum. In the Crown Court, the maximum penalty is five years' imprisonment and/or a fine.
Section 51 is concerned with the protection of persons who are involved with criminal, as opposed to civil, investigations and/or trials. The section is not concerned with protecting evidence from being tampered with or fabricated, which may amount to an offence of perverting the course of justice, or one of the other statutory alternatives relating to written or other forms of evidence, referred to elsewhere in this Charging Standard.
Section 51(1): Intimidation of Witnesses/Jurors
A person commits an offence contrary to s.51(1) when doing to another person:
an act which intimidates, and is intended to intimidate, that other person;
knowing or believing the other person is assisting in the investigation of an offence or is a witness/potential witness or a juror/potential juror in proceedings for an offence;
intending thereby to cause the investigation or course of justice to be obstructed, perverted or interfered with.
Note, there must be an investigation underway at the time of the alleged act. It is insufficient that the doer of the act believes this to be the case R v Singh (B) and Others (1999) CLR, Aug, 681-682. In a case in which the Defendant believed (wrongly) that there was an investigation underway, it may be appropriate to charge him with attempting the s.51(1) offence
If a person does an act which intimidates another with the requisite knowledge or belief then he is presumed to have done so with the necessary intent unless the contrary is proved (s.51(7)).
Examples of the type of conduct appropriate for a charge of intimidating include:
orally or in writing threatening a witness not to make a statement to the police;
damaging or threatening to damage the property of a potential witness in such a way that the witness will know or believe that it is linked to him assisting an investigation or giving evidence;
staring at witnesses waiting to give evidence at court or at jurors, in an intimidating manner;
intending to intimidate a juror by following a juror away from the court building before the trial is concluded;
assaulting or threatening to assault a relative or friend of a witness or juror in such a way that he/she will know that it is linked to him/her giving evidence or trying the case.
There is an overlap between conduct which amounts to an offence contrary to s.51(1) and conduct which amounts to the more serious offence of perverting the course of justice. Regard must be had to the factors outlined General Charging Principles, above in this chapter and Charging Practice for Public Justice Offences, above in this chapter, which help to identify conduct too serious to charge as s.51.
There may be an overlap between intimidating under s.51 and contempt in the face of the court. A s.51 offence should be considered unless the court deals with the behaviour as a contempt. When it does so, the court will act of its own motion.
Section 51(2): Harming People who have Assisted the Police/Given Evidence/Been a Juror
A person commits an offence contrary to Section 51(2) when doing to another person:
An act which harms and is intended to harm another person, or intending to cause another person to fear harm, threatens to do an act which would harm that other person.
Knowing or believing the person harmed or threatened to be harmed (the victim), or some other person, has assisted in an investigation into an offence, or has given evidence or particular evidence in proceedings for an offence or has acted as a juror, or concurred in a particular verdict in proceedings for an offence, and
the act is done or the threat is made because of that knowledge or belief.
Note, if within (the relevant period) a person does or threatens to do an act to another person which harms or would harm that other person, with the required intent and knowledge or belief, he is presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to have done so with the necessary motive. (For definition of "the relevant period" see Section 51(9)).
Harm done or threatened may be financial or physical, whether to person or property. Such cases apart, harm in this context is to be given its ordinary meaning of "physical harm" (R v Normanton 1998, CLR, May 220). In that case the harm alleged was spitting in the face of the victim. Whilst that amounted to an assault, it was held the impact of the spittle would not, in itself, cause harm as required under the Act.
The Section 51(2) offence is directed at acts committed after an investigation or trial is concluded and is aimed at those who wish to take revenge against witnesses, jurors and those involved in the investigation of offences. It is unlikely, therefore, there will be an overlap with other public justice offences.
Examples of post trial conduct appropriate for a s.51(2) charge are:
attacking or threatening to attack the home of someone who provided a police observation point, or police informant;
attacking or threatening to attack the home or family of a police officer or other witness;
assaulting or threatening to assault a former juror or witness who gave evidence;
scaring customers away from a former juror's business.
Application to Set Aside a 'Tainted' Acquittal
Where a person who has been acquitted of an offence is later convicted of an administration of justice offence involving interference with, or intimidation of a juror or a witness (or potential witness) in the proceedings which led to their acquittal, application may be made to the High Court to have the acquittal set aside as "tainted" - see Section 54 and 55 Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996.
If granted, such an application opens the way to fresh proceedings for the original offence.
Interfering or Harming Witnesses - Civil Proceedings
Two new offences were created by Sections 39 and 40 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001:
Section 39 creates the offence of intimidating a witness in the course of civil proceedings. An offence is only committed where an act of intimidation occurs after proceedings have been commenced;
Section 40 creates the offence of harming a witness in civil proceedings. For this offence the act must be committed after the commencement of proceedings and within a year of proceedings being finally concluded.
The offences are triable either way. In the magistrates' court the maximum penalty is six months' imprisonment and/or a fine to the statutory maximum. In the Crown Court the maximum penalty is five years' imprisonment and/or a fine.
Section 39 - Intimidation
A person commits an offence contrary to Section 39 when doing to another person:
An act which intimidates, and is intended to intimidate another person (the victim)
Knowing or believing that the victim is, or may be a witness in any relevant proceedings, and
Intending by his act to cause the course of justice to be obstructed, perverted or interfered with, and
The act is done after the commencement of those proceedings.
It is immaterial:
Whether the act is done in the presence of the victim.
Whether the act is done to the victim himself or to another.
Whether or not the intention to cause the course of justice to be obstructed, perverted or interfered with is the predominant intention of the person doing the act.
A witness is defined as a person who provides, or is able to provide information or documentation which might be used in evidence in proceedings, or might confirm other evidence which will or might be admitted in those proceedings, be referred to in the course of evidence given by another witness in those proceedings or be the basis for any cross-examination during those proceedings
There is a presumption that the Defendant intended to pervert, obstruct or interfere with the course of justice if it is proved that he did an act that intimidated and was intended to intimidate another person, and did the act knowing or believing that the person in question was, or might be a witness in relevant proceedings.
Section 40 - Harming
A person commits an offence contrary to Section 40 when doing to another person:
An act which harms and is intended to harm another person, or
Intending to cause another person to fear harm, he threatens to do an act, which would harm that other person.
The offence is committed where the offender does the act knowing that the person harmed or threatened has been a witness in relevant proceedings, and he does or threatens to do that act because of that knowledge or belief. The act must be committed after the commencement of proceedings and within a year of proceedings being finally concluded.
It is immaterial whether the act in question is carried out in the presence of the person who it is intended to harm, or whether a threat is made in the presence of that person; whether the motive set out in the offence is the predominating one, or whether the harm done or threatened is physical, financial or harms a person or property.
For the purpose of Section 40 a witness is defined as a person who has provided information, a document or something else which was, or might have been used in evidence in the proceedings, or which tended or might have tended to confirm other evidence which was, or could have been given in those proceedings; was or might have been referred to in the course of evidence given by another witness in those proceedings; or was or might have been the basis for cross-examination during those proceedings.
For both Section 39 and 40, relevant proceedings are defined as proceedings in or before:
The Court of Appeal;
The High Court;
The Crown Court;
Any County or magistrates' court,
which are not proceedings for an offence and which were commenced on or after the date these provisions came into force (1st August 2001).
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/public-justice-offences-incorporating-charging-standard
Access date and time: Custodian 28 April 2021 21:00
Apr 28, 2021, 10:24 PM Custodian of Information edited Triad Group Plc: Electronic Handling of Data Subject to Privacy and Copyright: Supplemental Authority Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 [2006] EAT 0513_06_18.10 -18 Oct 2006-Makar v TRD 2012 Folio 336 (protection from prejudice) Rider 2
Apr 28, 2021, 9:08 PM Custodian of Information edited Triad Group Plc: Electronic Handling of Data Subject to Privacy and Copyright: Supplemental Authority Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 [2006] EAT 0513_06_18.10 -18 Oct 2006-Makar v TRD 2012 Folio 336 (protection from prejudice) Rider 2
Apr 28, 2021, 8:10 PM Custodian of Information edited Triad Group Plc: Electronic Handling of Data Subject to Privacy and Copyright: Supplemental Authority Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 [2006] EAT 0513_06_18.10 -18 Oct 2006-Makar v TRD 2012 Folio 336 (protection from prejudice) Rider 2
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse