The hearing was supposed to start at 11am but on arrival we were told it had been scheduled for 11:30. Then there was a further delay while O’Farrell’s lawyer dealt with another case. We eventually got going at about 12:15. Following the usual protocol, the prosecutor, who was obviously Jewish, started first and admitted that the case was “borderline between free speech and an offence under the Public Order Act.” As soon as he had finished Sheppard rose to begin his submission. However he was interrupted by the court clerk and there was some discussion about whether he would be allowed to deliver it, until it was made clear that this was in fact a request for an adjournment and he was allowed to continue.

At least three people sitting at the back of the court can testify to the prosecution lawyer’s peculiar habit of putting his hand down the back of his trousers whenever he rose to address the court. When he rose to reply to Sheppard’s submission, quoting a completely irrelevant legal point, the rate at which he did this increased. During this speech, with characteristic chutzpah, he practically ordered the magistrates what to do: “Your duty under the such-and-such Act is to commit this case to the Crown Court.”

A further short discussion followed and then the magistrates retired for 10-15 minutes. We all thought the chances of getting the requested adjounment were good.

When we went back in however, the decision was negative. How these middle-class plebeians playing God can hear how the police have gone completely overboard in two raids on a publisher, and be practically ordered what to do by a you-know-who from the CPS, and still go along with this charade of democracy is astonishing. No wonder some privately refer to magistrates as “nodding dogs.”

At this point the committal proper was adjourned until 2pm. Two CID officers were in attendance as observers. As we left the court building the CPS lawyer was glimpsed in an interview room stuffing food into his mouth while simultaneously lecturing the CID men. He was probably trying to reassure them that the already limping ship of a prosecution case had not just been holed below the waterline by Sheppard’s exposure of the improper and unlawful nature of the raids.

But what characters the CPS are sending up! At an earlier hearing, the Asian woman prosecutor wore a split skirt and flashed her legs and thigh at Sheppard and O’Farrell as they sat in the dock to her side. Not content with subjecting them to early morning raids, harassing them in the courts, and threatening them with imprisonment, the CPS employ a woman who couldn’t resist the opportunity to use the defendants for her personal sexual gratification as well! Now we have a Chosenite who compulsively sticks his hand down the back of his trousers.*

With Sheppard being unrepresented by a lawyer, the rules specified that a “read out committal” take place. This is still much of a formality (the rules have been changed several times recently, and always in the prosecution’s favour) but takes a couple of hours. O’Farrell’s solicitor made the suggestion that he could represent Sheppard just for a few minutes, in which case the committal could go through as a more normal “paper committal” saving a lot of time. Sheppard had made his important submission and since there was little or nothing extra to be gained, especially before this lot of magistrates, everyone agreed that this would be the best option.

Eddy Morrison made his usual interjections of inane humour throughout, but the high point of the proceedings for Sheppard was the sacking of “his” lawyer afterwards. Sheppard said that in attacking the police he found no pleasure since they are only following the orders of the creeps in London. Having engaged O’Farrell’s lawyer for the brief paper committal, outside the courtroom Sheppard adopted mock anger and made a great play of shouting “You’re sacked!” at his lawyer of a few minutes’ duration. Then: “I’m enjoying this, I’ll say it again. You’re sacked!” Sheppard thought this great fun, and his co-defendant’s lawyer evidently shared the joke.

Pleas and Directions (or whatever it’s called this week) in early November (postponed slightly).

* Some things may be better left unsaid. There was some discussion about whether this paragraph should be included in the report. However at Sheppard’s previous trial, when he represented himself thoughout, he dealt with the CPS directly, and their attitude then can only be described as vicious. Memorably, letters were deliberately sent late and, at sentencing, when Sheppard was no longer able to reply, the CPS brief came out with a torrent of lies and exaggeration that was quite appalling. Therefore if the CPS would have preferred a more reserved account of our observations, they are only reaping what they have sown.

1. The Defendant believes that the primary purpose of this action is to harass him and his Co-defendant simply because they are saying things the puppet-masters in London do not like. The intent of this unprecedented prosecution is to cause maximum disruption to the Defendant’s normal and lawful activities as a publisher.

Use of the police and courts to accomplish this goal is an abuse of process. The police have acted improperly because they are being exploited for political ends, which is not their legitimate role.

2. The 1984 Police and Criminal Evidence Act stipulates that a warrant for search and seizure under the Act is to be issued when the offence is a serious, arrestable one. The instigators of this prosecution seem to be unusual in their opinion that publishing a comic book and running an eclectic website constitutes a serious offence. Interpretation of the term “serious” is clarified by a recommendation of the Royal Commission that “a compulsory power of search for evidence should be granted only in exceptional circumstances and in respect only of grave offences.” This point alone may be sufficient to render the raids endured by the Defendant unlawful.

3. In the police raid of 30 March 2005 the police acted beyond the authority of the search warrant issued by this court in seizing a large quantity of materials unrelated to the information on the warrant. According to the 1984 Police and Criminal Evidence Act, a constable may only seize and retain anything of relevance to that for which the search has been authorised. Among the articles seized during that raid were:

The entire stock of the ‘Suppressed Science’ series of scientific papers first published in 1998, two of which relate to medical matters;

The entire stock of Forged War Crimes by Udo Walendy, which has been officially published in Britain since 1996;

The entire stock of Did Six Million Really Die?, published by the Historical Review Press, which has been in print in Britain since 1974;

Approximately 500 copies of a humorous music CD, which has been distributed since 2001;

A computer base unit devoid of data, plus many items of proprietary computer software;

Numerous file copies of publication notices and miscellaneous records.

I am quoting the judgment in the Queen’s Bench Divisional Court, Regina v Chesterfield Justices and Others, Ex parte Bramley, made on 5 November 1999. This judicial review specified that the relevance of items seized must be established at the time of the search. It was stated that “if a police officer seized items which were later found to be outside the scope of the warrant, then under current provisions of the 1984 Police and Criminal Evidence Act, there was no defence to an action of trespass to goods based on unjustified seizure.”

I have not detailed here the materials seized, only those I can recall for which there can be no question of their legality. The Heretical Press may be a publisher of unorthodox material, but all its publications are officially registered through the proper channels in the normal way. If the police wished to obtain details of the publisher’s list all they had to do was go to a suitably equipped bookshop, such as their local branch of Waterstones, to obtain it.

4. Shortly after the first raid, on 1st April 2005 (U.S. time), the Defendant’s online payment account was entered and tampered with. This action could only have been undertaken by the police or some agency to whom the police had passed information contained on the Defendant’s computers.

5. The second raid of 12 April 2006 was unlawful on the following grounds:

Firstly, the police again acted beyond the authority of the search warrant, issued by a Justice of the Peace at Goole Magistrates Court, in seizing a large quantity of materials which were outside the scope of the warrant. Those items included:

Empty computer cases;

A computer base unit containing no data;

A further collection of blank hard discs and items of proprietary computer software, and;

Bank statements and other records.

Among the items on the seized computer was a summary of several weeks’ investigations into Freud’s cocaine addiction and a data file listing printer memory specifications, the result of two months’ work.

Secondly, since this was the second raid endured by the Defendant, it was inevitable that among the material searched and seized were items of privileged correspondence between the Defendant and his solicitor. That privileged material existed both in hard copy and as data on a seized computer. Search and seizure of material which includes items subject to legal privilege is covered under Schedule 1 of the 1984 Police and Criminal Evidence Act, and requires the authority of a circuit judge, not a magistrate.

Thirdly, the nature of the internet is that practically anyone can become a journalist, and thereby express their opinions without dishonest filtering by a Marxist media seeking to establish a false consensus. There are thousands if not millions of so-called blogs, or web logs, which are really just online diaries, which people are free to read. The website of the Heretical Press, being moderately popular, and featuring an irregular opinion column on political affairs, qualifies as a form of journalism. Professor Michael Zander on page 35 of his book ‘The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984’ states that “Journalism includes any form of publication and is not confined to publication for reward nor to full-time or even professional journalists.”

Among the material searched and seized on 12 April 2006 (and on 30 March 2005 also) were press cuttings, notes and letters from correspondents acquired and created for the purposes of journalism.

This is journalistic matter, which is specified in the 1984 Police and Criminal Evidence Act as “special procedure material.” Search and seizure of such material also requires the authority of a circuit judge under Schedule 1. Section 15(1) of the Act states that an entry on or search of premises under a warrant not complying with its requirements is unlawful.

The Defendant submits that more evidence exists for the unlawful activity of the police than does for him.

6. Lists of the items seized have been requested from the police. These lists are required to discover how far they have acted improperly, to give them an opportunity to return those items which have been seized unlawfully, and to determine which of the remaining materials are required by the Defendant for his defence.

7. The Defendant has suffered considerable inconvenience and distress as a consequence of these two raids, which is believed to have been the intention. Three working computers are still held by the police, with all their data, plus two spare computers, a large amount of book stock, records and other items.

The Defendant’s activities as a publisher have been greatly disrupted. Many titles which should normally be supplied from stock are out of print and orders for these publications are either cancelled or placed in back order. Many of these publications, such as the science papers, cannot be obtained anywhere else. Goods that have been seized unlawfully must be returned.

8. In summary, having regard to:

a) The improper and unlawful nature of the raids;

b) The obligation of the police to provide lists of the materials seized;

c) The obligation of the police to return those items which have been unlawfully seized, and;

d) The prejudice to the Defendant in mounting a full and proper defence when so much of his essential equipment and records have been removed;

the Defendant requests an adjournment with sufficient time to prepare a further submission on the conduct of this case.