Email sent – 24 September 2009 16:52
Dear C. Hramiak
I am concerned that Mr. Parnell was sent to Forrest Bank when his health was acknowledged to be bad. A judge subsequently decided he shouldn’t be there. I am concerned that CCTV of the original incident was not allowed to be shown at his original hearing, I am concerned at the apparently cosy relationship between Stockport Council and the Magistrates’ Court, with as you will know several councillors being magistrates and the partnership arrangement.
As you may know, Mr. Parnell is now tagged for two years, I believe, and can’t leave his home between 8am and 8pm. He has had the police called to him over 90 times, 12 arrests, one previous court case dropped on the day of the hearing, a CRASBO for an alleged sneeze (pre-swine flu) with intent to inflict a council employee with a cold. He got a ban on going within a mile of the town hall. I was at the town hall one Wednesday evening and arrived just after yet another arrest. The police car still had its blue lights flashing, so they were called as an emergency. His crime that time was to have used the town hall public lavatory. His crime this time, which again got him sent to Forrest Bank, was to attend the police station to make a complaint about the Leader of Stockport Council having sent an apparently gloating email to me about his imprisonment and enclosing confidential court documents. Was he not allowed to go to the police station to do that? His further crime that day was to sit on a bench to take a stone out of his shoe and to be spotted by a town hall employee who again called the police.
How much did the 90 times the police were called cost? How much did the 12 arrests cost? How much did the abandoned court case cost? How much have the subsequent magistrate court costs cost me? How much has his time in prison cost me as a taxpayer? How much will his appeal cost? All for an alleged sneeze, which was not on the CCTV footage of the incident!!! Are you all completely insane?
I shall cc this to the Editor of the Guardian who has taken an interest in miscarriages of justice and this most certainly is one. I shall also cc it to Liberty and the local press.
In addition, when I was in court at Mr. Parnell’s hearing lawyers and court officials were openly discussing cases during the recesses – apparently laughing and joking about and naming defendents. I work in the NHS and patient confidentiality prohibits patients being openly discussed in this way. Some relatives of the defendents were in the public gallery and could hear what was being said about their family members. It is really, really bad form, insensitve and probably illegal.
I look forward to hearing from you with regards to the further points I have made, and I shall pass your reply on to interested parties and the press.
Yours
Mrs S J Oliver
Stockport’s Freedom of Information Campaigner
