Dear Sir, I have read your robust and ethical defence of the rights of the White Aryan race and you are to be commended for your brave stand made on behalf of all White Aryans, whether they know it or not. I haven’t been to Hull for over twenty years but hopefully there are still enough sensible White Aryans up there and that twelve of them are in your jury. Regardless of the verdict you will have the honour bestowed upon you that is the preserve of the Heroes of our people. Regardless of what you do with the rest of your life you will, until the day you die, have the inward calm of the true WARRIOR.

My trial will be held in Court 1 of Hull Crown Court, Lowgate, Hull on the 12th and 13th June 2000.

Thanks to the many individuals who have emailed messages of support and helped with my defence.

Simon Sheppard
10 June 2000

– jury empanelled – (in the unlikely event that you see someone in the jury who is likely to be biased, for example if you know him, then you can say ‘challenge’ before he takes the oath and give reasons to the judge why the juror should not sit. The fact that a juror is black, Jewish etc. is not a cause for challenge.)

– prosecution and defence are entitled to make legal submissions to the judge before the trial begins

SUBMISSION THAT THE ENTIRE PROSECUTION CASE IS AN ABUSE OF PROCESS BECAUSE IT IS POLITICALLY MOTIVATED AND IN BREACH OF FUNDAMENTAL DEMOCRATIC FREEDOMS.

SUMBMSSION THAT THE CPS HAS REFUSED TO ALLOW A STATEMENT FOR THE DEFENCE TO BE READ OUT, AND THE WITNESS IS UNWILLING TO APPEAR BECAUSE HE HAS BEEN INTIMIDATED AND THREATENED WITH LOSS OF BUSINESS IF HE IS SEEN TO SUPPORT ME IN ANY WAY

– prosecution opening speech

– prosecution evidence. If a witness is called to give evidence, he will be examined by the prosecution, and then cross-examined. Examination-in-chief is always followed by cross examintion, like this:

witness 1: examined
witness 1: cross-examined
witness 1: re-examined

witness 2: examined
witness 2: cross-examined
witness 2: re-examined

and so on. If you have consented to written statements being read out, they will simply be read out and the jury will be told that you do not dispute the contents of them.

– when the prosecution has finished its case you have the opportunity of making a submission of no case to answer (unlikely to suceed in this case, though if you would like more details on this I will be happy to provide them).

HERE THE SUBMISSION OF ‘NO CASE TO ANSWER,’ IF POSSIBLE

– defence opening speech (only available if you intend to call at least one witness other than yourself)

– defence evidence: same rules as prosecution evidence, that is, you give evidence, are then cross-examined, then you can re-examine yourself, then you call your first witness who is examined, cross-examined, then re-examined etc.

– prosecution closing speech (only if you have called at least one witness to the facts other than yourself). In this case the prosecution probably won’t give a closing speech

– defence closing speech

– judge sums up

– jury retires, then gives its verdict

–– you wrote:

If there is any blacks or obvious Jews in the jury (I’m not so good at spotting them) I might challenge to make this point.

On the other hand, there is an obvious risk in this if the challenge fails.

My understanding is that if I make a submission of ‘no case to answer’ this takes place without the presence of the jury. Hence a large part of my defence will not even be heard by them.

You can request that the jury remain to hear the submission.

Thus I would like to make such a submission, but don’t want to jeopardise my ability to make the points in front of the jury in my main defence speech. If, for example, I repeat anything said during my submission of ‘no case to answer’ later on, during my defence speech, the judge might object that I am repeating myself and/or bringing up legal arguments which should take place in the absence of the jury. If you can think of a way round this I’d be interested to hear it.

A submission of no case to answer is made when the prosecution has adduced insufficient evidence to prove an ingredient of the offence. The law is in R v Galbraith [1981] 1 WLR 1039:

“(a) where a judge concludes that the prosecution evidence, taken at its highest is such that a jury properly directed could not properly convict on it, it is his duty on a submission being made to stop the case; (b) where, however, the prosecution evidence is such that its strength or weakness depends on the view to be taken of a witness’s reliability or other matters which are generally speaking within the jury’s province and where on one possible view of the facts there is evidence on which the jury could properly conclude that the defendant is guilty, then the judge should allow the matter to be tried by the jury.”

In other words such a submission should be confined to argument that the prosecution has raised insufficient evidence, or the evidence has been so discredited that a jury could not convict on it.

I think the best time to make your point that you do not recognise the jurisdiction of the court would be either at the very start of the trial (before the prosection starts but after the jury is sworn) or during your closing speech. If you chose the former, it is likely that the jury would not hear your submission, but the judge would be obliged to make a ruling on it. If you chose the latter the jury would hear it, but the judge wouldn’t have to make a formal ruling. For that reason I think your closing speech is the best time to make that point.

“– defence evidence: same rules as prosecution evidence, that is, you give evidence, are then cross-examined, then you can re-examine yourself, then you call your first witness who is examined, cross-examined, then re-examined etc.”

Please would you confirm that by the ‘evidence’ I give above means, in my case, my defence speech. This is significant as, since it is quite lengthy, it may mean that my witnesses have to stay overnight in Hull and give their testimony on the second day of the trial and not the first.

You have a right to make a speech which counts as your evidence (this would ordinarily be done by your barrister questioning you), which is given on oath. This is your version of events and your reply to the prosecution case. You also have a right to make a closing speech. During the closing speech you cannot give new evidence, but you can summarise and put your own ‘spin’ on the evidence that has already been heard, and you can make legal points to the jury. My advice would be to leave your legal arguments till your closing speech.