Details of Court Appearances in the Political Prosecution of Simon Sheppard and Luke O’Farrell

11 August 2006: We arrived well on time, passed through the metal-detectors designed to ensure that we were carrying no weapons, and waited for more than an hour, during which we learnt that the Max Gold firm was declining to represent Luke O’Farrell further, on the ground that its founder is a prominent member of Hull’s “Jewish community.” (It was from this firm that a duty solicitor had initially been provided.) O’Farrell hurriedly recruited the firm of Payne and Payne in their place. Sheppard had some little difficulty with an usherette bearing a remarkable resemblance to Dame Shirley Porter, who insisted that he could not be allowed into court without Further and Better Particulars of his Household Expenses. We then stuck our head around the door of the court to be told that, because O’Farrell’s new solicitor was shortly going on holiday and the court was awaiting a complicated video link in another case, we were being given an adjournment till 1 September. The prosecution lawyer proved to be an Asian woman from the Special Crimes Division of the Crown Prosecution Service, which is officially charged with fighting “Terrorism, War Crimes, and Crimes against Humanity.” Oh, and “Incitement to Racial Hatred.”

23 August 2006: Sheppard wrote to his solicitor instructing him to ask for an adjournment to resolve difficulties regarding the items seized.

1 September 2006: Arriving well on time again, we both issued verbal instructions to our solicitors that we wanted an adjournment, which amongst other things would allow O’Farrell time to read the large bundle of legal documents he had just received from Payne and Payne. Then in court the prosecution lawyer asked for an immediate committal on the ground that the scarce resources of her department should not be stretched further during a time of heightened terrorist threat. It was a blatant attempt to exploit a disaster created by the government’s own policies and pressure the magistrates into denying justice to two of the government’s critics. In response, O’Farrell’s solicitor asked for an adjournment. However, to the great surprise of both of us, Sheppard’s solicitor stated that he was “neutral” regarding the request for an adjournment, effectively supporting the prosecution. The magistrates then retired, returning after ten minutes to grant us a week’s adjournment till 8 September. When Sheppard’s solicitor spoke again, Sheppard intervened to say that he did in fact want an adjournment, to investigate the possibility that the police had acted improperly in the execution of the raids. His solicitor thereupon claimed that this was a matter for the Crown Court, but Sheppard replied that it was this court that had authorised the searches.

We then went for another fry-up in a local cafe, as custom demanded.

On 5th September Sheppard wrote to his firm of solicitors setting out his position.

8 September 2006: Adjourned for three weeks. Sheppard represented himself and O’Farrell was represented by a solicitor. The CPS lawyer was a lot more reasonable this time. O’Farrell was handed a ‘Case Summary’ which on its first page reveals that the whole prosecution has been instigated on the “invitation” of Michael Whine, sometime Chairman of the Board of Deputies of British Jews. The relevant section is quoted at the top of this page. This document is quite incredible in its attempt to criminalise rational sentiments and beliefs, makes it clear that the items detailed are merely “specimen charges,” and that the CPS would like to prosecute for much else besides. If they succeed, no-one will be safe. For example, the CPS appears to consider McKilliam’s High Treason to be unlawful. McKilliam was a lay-preacher and his booklet discusses the criminality of the current regime in the context of the British Constitution, including the legal basis of the laws under which O’Farrell and I are currently being prosecuted.

To be continued...