“The section 5 restraining order was
wrongly imposed, a section 5 is different from a section 5A in that one is on
conviction and the other is following acquittal and in all the guidance
available for my viewing these two sections following amendment by section 12
DVCVA 2004 are separate in that there are questions of conviction or acquittal,
12 of the DVCVA 2004 amends section 5 of the PHA 1997 to allow the court to
make a restraining order following a conviction now for any criminal offence,
where the conviction occurs after 30 September 2009 (Schedule 12, paragraph 5
of the DVCVA 2004 provides that section 12 amends the section 5 and also adds a
new section 5A and applies to conviction
or acquittal that occurs after the commencement date.) It follows that the
section 5 or 5A restraining orders can be made when the date upon which the
offence was committed is prior to 30 September 2009, this is an appeal after
that date appealing conviction before commencement date and overturns the
judgement of 10thJuly 2009, appeal conviction and acquitted when is
start date.”

does this mean for me, my now overturned conviction of the 10th July
2009 to the alleged common assault on the 22nd October 2008 with the submitted
appeal July 2009 is prior to the 30th September 2009 and in allowing
the successful appeal on the 15th January 2010 of the alleged
offence, therefore could not carry a section 5 PHA 1997 restraining order which
are imposed on conviction, If on conviction 10th July 2009 I did not
receive the s2 or s4 PHA order, then why is it that on the 15th
January 2010 following the successful appeal could a section 5 PHA 1997 on
conviction be imposed, technically only a Section 5A(1) Protection from
Harassment Act 1997 as inserted by section 12(5) Domestic
Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 could be, and that is only after the
commencement date if the court finds it necessary to do so.”

“Why is it that I am requesting an application to
discharge a section 5 PHA 1997, it is being sort so that I will correctly be
dealt with, in accordance to set
procedures and correct sections that are set out within the current laws.”

“Laws are made to protect and if they are
not enforced in the correct way then they only serve to destroy their own
purpose, I wish to uphold the law and respect everyone’s views of their
judgements to the facts they are given, a charge of a breach of an order that
has not been correctly imposed must not be allowed because it is wrong in law,
something that is wrong in law should not pursue a course of justice just for
conclusion it can only serve to damage common law of what is right or wrong.”

“My belief is that I have not breached
the order just because I thought it was wrong, if I did breach any order it was
by reasonable excuse, and if the order was enforced in the correct way then the
order and arrest would have been made to a section 5A(1) PHA 1997 as amended by
section 12(5) DVCVA 2004 and the charge would have been under those laws and
the correct sections, the charge in court for breach of the section 5 is
incorrect, the CPS have never produced the restraining order, I should only be prosecuted as to the correct
law and section.”

“Section 12 DVCVA 2004 introduced a new section 5A into
the PHA 1997, which will allow the court to make a restraining order after
acquitting a defendant of any offence if the court considers it necessary to do
so to protect a person from harassment by the defendant. Unlike restraining
orders on conviction, there is no power to protect a person from fear of
violence that falls short of harassment where the defendant has been acquitted.

The elements of the offence of harassment in section 2
PHA 1997 are:

a course of conduct;

which amounts to harassment of another;

which the defendant knows, or ought to know, amounts
to harassment.

Harassment is not
defined in the PHA 1997, except that it includes causing a person alarm or

Michael Parnell

Mr Parnell was battling dodgy Stockport Councillors and senior council officers, dodgy Magistrates’ Court decisions, dodgy CPS decisions and dodgy senior police officer decisions – and in the end they all helped drive him to his grave aged 58 and destroyed his lovely family in the process.