It appears (if you believe everything you see in the news) Helen Pitcher the head of the Criminal Cases Review Commission, based in Birmingham, England, only works part time for the CCRC. I suppose therefore it is hardly surprising, we only get part time Justice in the United Kingdom.
It seems Helen Pitcher, spends a lot of time promoting her property empire in Montenegro.
On 4 July 2008 a warrant was executed at my home. Seven (all) of my Box files on the Lord Lucan case were removed by the vale of Glamorgan council, animal licensing officer (Amanda Ewington Gape). I had already made three formal complaints against her. She deceived Magistrates in to giving her a warrant to search my home. The warrants was issued, under the Animal Welfare Act 2006 section 52(5)(a).
Amanda had stated to Magistrate’s, she would find evidence of unnecessary suffering to animals at my home, specifically she stated ‘on a computer.’
The council spent thousands of pounds, having all my mobile phones, computers and children’s computer, forensically examined at great public expense, for this ‘alleged’ evidence. No evidence was ever found because there never was any to find.
Amanda then executed the warrant at my home. My solicitor correctly noted in his ‘Attendance notes of me, that no evidence of any animal suffering was found at my home, which justified the obtaining of a warrant.
Over a period of months, Amanda proceeded to build a fabricated case, against me, to save the council from a substantial claim for damages. It was Amanda who authorised all payments/invoices to their council employed Vet, Mark Evans, of valley vets, Gabalfa, Cardiff.
Realising the council were facing a substantial claim for damages, from me, the council had to rely on their own vet being prepared to state something, against me, in order for them to case build against me under the Animal Welfare Act. Foolishly he agreed.
By removing ‘my entire office contents,’ the licensing officer had achieved her aim, to simply disrupt my life as much as possible, without fear of consequence. My initial thought, when the warrant was executed, and the Lucan research material was removed, that perhaps security services were behind this. But that was not the case.
Removing ‘everything’ for ‘sifting later’ is an offence in itself under the Police And Criminal Evidence Act 1998. It was a further offence for journalistic material to have been removed. An offence known as ‘Ultra Vires’ was also committed by Amanda, as she was clearly investigating my company vat file. Ultra Vires is a legal term used, where the person executing a warrant, issued by a court, has exceeded the powers given to them by the court.
The crucial point to understand is, the Lucan box files contained, hand written extracts, from a Diary Lucan’s friend living in Ebury street made, when Lucan visited him, late on the night of the murder. As a result of publicity and my involvement in this case over many years, in 2008 his son now a grown up man, contacted me. After an exchange of emails, he emailed me extracts of his late Fathers Diary entry written on Friday the 8th November 1974. The man subsequently agreed to meet me in Hereford. However, my home was then raided under warrant.This caused me to suffer a mental break down.
It did not help, that all my mobile phones, computers etc remained in the possession, and under the control of Amanda Ewington Gape for the next six months.
Perhaps the vale of glamorgan council, (Legal Department) should explain why they removed, such substantial unrelated material from my home. They are responsible for why the investigation of the Lucan case, did not advance back in 2008.
When the vale of glamorgan council, returned my property, numerous records, and documents, including the extracts of the Diary entry written by Lucan’s friend, and the DNA sample in my investigation of the Ben Needham case, sent to me by the RCMP (Royal Canadian Mounted Police) were missing. The story concerning the missing DNA, was covered in a story published by the Mail On Sunday 24 January 2016.
The mans son did not ask me for money. I concluded there was simply, a desire on his part, to finally let some truth, emerge in this case. After all he was not a friend of Lucan’s as his late father had been. There was no question of loyalty to consider.
Ridiculous claims have persisted for far too long, that Lucan lived as Jungle Barry Halpin as a Buddhist in Goa, India. I now understand, Neil Berriman (one of Sandra Rivetts Sons’) believes Lucan is living as a Buddhist in Brisbane, Australia. These are all simply ridiculous. Mad ideas of wishful thinking.
I recently read a newspaper report, that back in the mid eighties, Lucan was allegedly living with another disgraced Lord and his wife in the Philippines. Why do these ludicrous stories, suddenly get reported upon by mainstream media, after all these years? Conveniently coinciding with fifty years since Lucans disappearance.
After hundreds of alleged sightings, why has there NEVER been a single finger print or photograph of Lord Lucan taken after the 7th November 1974? Because he died, in the honourable way, in London, in the early hours of Friday 8th November 1974.
His death confirmed by Lady Lucan, and John Aspinall who stated Lucan committed suicide. Lucan’s Son George Bingham, now the eight Earl of Lucan, said in the Channel Four Documentary, The Hunt For Lord Lucan, that it was his ‘intuition’ that his Father never got out of London.
You can follow my investigation and conclusion of the Lord Lucan case on my YouTube Channel. Just search The Lord Lucan Case.
On the 10th May 2024 I was invited to attend a gathering outside the Birmingham Offices, of the CCRC, Criminal Cases Review Commission.
A number of us gathered which included supporters of wrongly convicted victims, such as Jeremy Bamber.
The general view is that the CCRC do not have the staff to properly review cases of conviction, and when they do the bar is set to high. Therefore people who have been convicted of an offence, are not receiving Justice.
Social media reporting and comments, can be extremely damaging to a business, and an individual, especially if all the facts, are not known to those making such comments.
In 2009 I faced a prosecution under the animal welfare act, brought not by the RSPCA but by the vale of glamorgan council. This action was strangely taken after I had made two formal complaints against a council licensing officer, Amanda Ewington Gape.
I entered not guilty pleas to all summonses. Unfortunately I was then repeatedly poorly advised by my solicitor, Michael Morgan of Vale Solicitors, Llantwit Major, to change some of my pleas to guilty, and plea bargain on the others. Recovering from a breakdown, I eventually, very reluctantly had no option, but to take his professional advice.
Contemporaneous notes taken by the council vet, who was present at my home for the whole five hours, in which the same licensing officer (whom I had made the complaints against) searched my home, were never disclosed to me. The prosecution (the council) had a duty in criminal law to disclose these notes, they never did. Michael Morgan also never asked for these notes. I was not aware of this non compliance until sometime after my case had been concluded in the Magistrates court. I was then shown an email from solicitors representing the council employed vet, in which it states:
‘Mr Crosby has made repeated requests to see these notes. These notes must not be disclosed to Mr Crosby under any circumstances.’
I knew full well, what had been recorded in the contemporaneous notes, during the five hour search of my home, was completely different to what the council vet Mark Evans, then wrote in his report against me five weeks later. Had the council not had this veterinary report then the council would never have been able to prosecute me. I had always cared for all animals, under my control, to the highest of standards over the previous twenty odd years.
The incomplete reporting of this case, and the fact I subsequently felt left with no option, but to change some pleas to guilty, have ever since impacted upon my everyday businesses and personal life.
I was unaware until receiving written Barrister advice on 12th January 2023, that J A Hughes Solicitors, of Barry in the vale of glamorgan, (who were employed to deal with my appeal) had taken my appeal to the wrong court.
The Barristers Advice is very clear, the case should have been taken back to the Magistrate’s court, where an application to vacate the guilty pleas, should have been made, and a date for a trial would have been set down. There has never been a trial in my case.The failure of J A Hughes (now trading as quality Solicitors) to act within the law, is irreparable, and I will have to live with this conviction for the rest of my life.
There is now in process, a substantial claim against J A Hughes. Their professional indemnity insurers, have employed lawyers RPC of Bristol, who have until 30th June 2023, to either admit my claim, deny the claim, or settle my claim without making any admission of guilt. Should it prove necessary for me to issue a claim at the Kings bench, at the High Court, RPC have been advised, that my claim will be for a considerably higher amount.
This is a case, where the continued resurfacing, on social media about this case, and the loss of business I continue to suffer, where those commenting, do not understand, or do not wish to understand the facts, can now greatly enhance my chances, of a successful out come to my substantial claim.
There will soon be a YouTube video on my Channel, about this case called The Truth of The Lie.
Involved in this case are:
Licensing Officer Amanda Ewington Gape (whom I had registered two formal complaints against, and who then illegally obtained a warrant to enter my home, and executed it).
Mark Evans Valley Vets Cardiff (the vale of glamorgan council vet). www.valleyvets.net
Michael Morgan of Vale Solicitors, Llantwit Major. (Mr Morgan was the solicitor who failed to request disclosure of ‘contemporaneous notes’ taken by both Amanda Ewington Gape, and Mark Evans). This resulted in Mr Morgan advising me on numerous occasions to change some of my pleas to guilty. www.valesolicitors.com
J A Hughes solicitors of Barry (now called Quality Solicitors). They were employed to represent me in my appeal against conviction. According to Barristers advice dated 12th January 2023, J A Hughes should have taken my case back to the Magistrates court, made application to vacate my pleas, and a trial date would then have been set. Most importantly the reason for referral back to the Magistrate’s court, in my case, was because clearly, my guilty pleas were ‘equivocal.’ www.qualitysolicitors.com
RPC Solicitors. Have been instructed by the Professional Indemnity Insurers acting for J A Hughes (Quality solicitors). www.rpc.co.uk
The following House of Lords ruling, likely to be pivotal, in having the case prosecuted against me in 2008 vacated.
“Fairness ordinarily requires that any material held by the prosecution which weakens its case or strengthens that of the defendant, if not relied on as part of its formal case against the defendant, should be disclosed to the defence. Bitter experience has shown that miscarriages of justice may occur where such material is withheld from disclosure. The golden rule is that full disclosure of such material should be made.” (R v H [2004] UKHL 3; [2004] 2 Cr. App. R. 10, House of Lords).
The Vale of Glamorgan Council with held veterinary ‘contemporaneous notes’ knowing full well they were in direct breach of the above House of Lords ruling on disclosure.
The case against me was instigated by Licensing Officer Amanda. I had recently fallen out with Amanda. I had recently made three formal complaints against her, to her employer the Vale of Glamorgan Council. In over thirty years in the pet trade, this has been the only occasion, where animal welfare concerns, have ever been raised against me.
On the 20th June 2008 Amanda made an unannounced inspection of animals at my home (fully licensed premises). I was informed this was because she had received one complaint. She brought with her, the Council contracted Vet from a Cardiff company called Valley Vets Ltd. They found no cause for concern for any animal in my care. The Senior licensing officer present with Amanda, thanked me for my cooperation and everyone left.
The vet wrote a report of his visit, dated 24/06/08 he wrote:
‘Mr Crosby was polite and cooperative. I was granted access to the garage, the garden and a shed within the garden, as well as the kitchen and living room of the house.’
Two weeks later 4th July 2008, Amanda was back at my home with the same vet and a Police Constable. She served on me a warrant. This gave her the right, under the Animal Welfare Act 2006, to enter my home. Amanda seized hundreds of personal and business items. She also seized one hundred and fifty animals.
When I was eventually allowed access to my office, I was concerned though not surprised, that Amanda had seized my entire office contents. Every note I had on the walls literally everything. She left just a desk and a chair. This caused an immediate cessation to my Internet based business.
There was obviously no need for her to have sought a warrant, as their own vet had confirmed in his report, how willing I had been only two weeks earlier, in fully cooperating.
Amanda only sought the warrant, as it would give her the opportunity to remove anything she wanted to. By doing so she was fully aware her wilful action would cause an instant cessation to my business.
Bizarrely Amanda removed numerous boxes of my research material in the Lord Lucan and Ben Needham case. These could not, by any stretch of the imagination, be considered covered by the warrant she had obtained. A file she removed on Ben’s case also contained a DNA blood sample sent to me by a Detective working for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police
I had during the previous year, received the helpful services of Vale Solicitors. I had sought their legal advice, as I felt I was being subjected to frequent business harassment by Amanda. On one such occasion, I was on holiday in Spain. I received a telephone call from an employee Ryan who was caring for animals in my home in my absence. He informed me that Amanda was in my kitchen in my home!
It was my firm belief her aim was to put me out of business. By this time I had discovered documents, written by the Licensing Department at the Vale of Glamorgan Council, which made it very clear that they never wished to license me to operate a pet business from home. They licensed me, because they could find no reason not to issue my license to trade.
There are five main points which stand out in this bizarre case.
1. Why did my Defence solicitor, Vale Solicitors, fail to ask the Council if any contemporaneous notes or recordings, had been made of their inspection? That must surely be the first line of any Defence solicitor. Their website Criminal Law page states: ‘We believe that every case should be thoroughly investigated to achieve the best possible result for you.’
https://www.valesolicitors.com/criminal-law.html
2. My Solicitor correctly sought the advice, of an independent Vet (Great Western Exotic Vets) about the summonses I faced. It is clear from the letter I received from this vet, that my Solicitor had not sent him for consideration, the statements written by the Vale of Glamorgan Council vet.
My Solicitor had been served these statements by the Council, so unlike the contemporaneous notes which he failed to seek disclosure of, the vet statements were in his possession. Had he sent these statements, as the Vet from Great Western Exotic Vets states, the Professional opinion he gave to my Solicitor, ‘could have made a difference to the opinion which I would express in a witness statement.’
Not guilty pleas were entered on the 23rd March 2009, to all the summonses the Vale of Glamorgan Council issued against me. It was the persistent advice from my solicitor, which made me change some pleas to guilty. He advised me, on the basis of the evidence, given against me by the Council vet, if the matter went to trial, I would be convicted and would most likely go to custody. I didn’t want to risk going to custody for something I was innocent of. I thought I could change my pleas at a later stage.
It wasn’t too difficult for Magistrate’s, at the sentencing hearing to question when I informed them, that despite my guilty plea, I would be seeking to appeal both my conviction and sentence. But nobody bothered to ask me, why I was planning to do this. In UK Courts everyday, the Justice system actively invites defendants to plead guilty, although many are not guilty. In return they receive a more lenient sentence. This system should surely be questioned.
3. When I subsequently asked Amanda in an email if any notes had been taken, at her inspection on the 20th June 2008, why did she state: ‘I confirm there were no written notes.’
4. When I attempted to sue the Vet, his solicitor Hill Dickinson sent me a letter dated 29 June 2011. Paragraph two of this letter clearly states: ‘We confirm that notes were taken at the inspections on the 20th June and 4th July 2008.’
5. The final point is this. I have for pushed for eight years, for a Criminal Investigation to be conducted against Amanda and the Council Vet. My allegation is that they did, Conspire to Pervert the Course of Justice.
On 15th December 2016, a Detective Richard working for South Wales Police finally obtained a copy of the ‘contemporaneous notes.’
Why has the vet’s solicitor Hill Dickinson stated to Detective Richard: ‘Mr Crosby has asked for these notes under the Data Protection Act but we have refused to disclose them. These are being disclosed to you, on a strictly confidential basis and are not for onward disclosure to Ian Crosby under any circumstances.
Why would Amanda need to lie about the existence of the ‘contemporaneous notes’? Why does the Council Vet’s solicitor, insist the notes must not be disclosed to me ‘under any circumstances.?’ What are they hiding?
None disclosure of documents in criminal proceedings is currently very much a topical issue.
My allegation has always been, what the Vet discovered on his visit (4th July 2008) and what he then wrote in his report five weeks later (written at the request of Amanda) dated 12th August 2008 was significantly different.
It allowed Amanda to summons me with the most serious of the summons that she was building against me, to justify her actions in removing substantial property from my home. Vale solicitors wrote the following in their notes. ‘What he needed to bear in mind was that the evidence principally lodged at the Court by the Council did not in fact result from execution of the warrant. The main evidence was that of the Council vet.’
Amanda was probably happy, to asserted her power in my home, by removing my entire office contents, and causing the cessation of my business.
I believe she was subsequently advised, her actions, in exceeding the recommendation of Section 7.5 and 7.7 of the Police And Criminal Evidence Act 1998, could give cause on my part, to make a substantial claim for damages, against the Vale of Glamorgan Council her employers, potentially running in to hundreds of thousands of pounds.
I continue to press for disclosure of the ‘contemporaneous notes.’
In order to legally comply with the Data Protection Act 1998 I have ‘redacted’ individuals full names.
