Judge Bernard

Crown Court



Saturday, January 14, 2012

Dear Judge Lever

Re: Mr Parnell

I am sure you will
remember the case of Mr. Parnell.

A restraining
order under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 Section 5 (which is what he
was given) can only be given on conviction. Mr Parnell has never been convicted
of any offence, so how can he have a restraining order? Mr Khan, as Council
Solicitor, must have been aware of this fact. It was certainly brought to his
attention repeatedly by Mr Parnell. Why did he not act? This order was made in
November 2010.

In a letter from John Derbyshire, Paralegal Officer, CPS, Stockport reference:
06jj0131510/DH/JD it states:

“I refer to the above named
and the Restraining Order made at the Crown Court on 15th January 2010 for a
period of 18 months. I enclose a copy of the said Restraining Order for your
reference. Unfortunately, within this order there is a discrepancy with the
wording in that the second paragraph refers to “Entering any part of
Stopford Direct Centre including the foyer” this is wrong, the Service is
Direct Centre and not Stopford.

Further since the Restraining Order was made the building Ponsonby House has
been re-named Fred Perry House.

The wording of the Order therefore needs to be varied to reflect the above and
with this in mind I would respectfully request the Court list this matter as
soon as possible”

So, on a Restraining Order
which should have only been imposed on conviction and not for a crime someone
was actually not guilty of, not only are vital details incorrect, further lies
are told. Ponsonby House has certainly not been re-named Fred Perry House.
Ponsonby House was completely demolished and a new building put in its place.

All this was brought to Mr Khan’s attention. He did nothing about this illegal
Restraining Order except to continue to enforce it.

On 24th February 201 the Crown Prosecution Service issued to Mr Parnell a Notice
of Discontinuance. Reference – 06JJ0007211/NB Operational reference No/PT1
URN:06jj007211. It states:-

“I am writing to inform you that I
have today sent a notice to the Justices’ Chief Executive, under Section 23 of
the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985, discontinuing the following charges
against you/your client:

Breach of Restraining Order

The effect of this notice is that you no longer need to attend court in respect
of these charges and that any bail conditions imposed in relation to them cease
to apply.

The decision to discontinue these charges has been taken because

There is not enough evidence to provide a realistic prospect of

On 12th December 2011 Mr Parnell had to appear before the Crown Court at
Manchester for being in breach of his restraining order (imposed for a crime he
didn’t commit) in that he had not done his community service. Mr Parnell had a
sick note at the time of his Fast Delivery Pre-Sentence Report from the
National Probation Service due to nervous disability, caused by the actions of
Stockport Council in repeatedly having him arrested, staff issuing threats to
kill him and swearing at him, the problems at home because no help had been
given to his troubled daughters, the attempted suicide in a police cell, the 2
years 8am to 8pm house arrest when he couldn’t even visit his dentist or doctor
etc etc. He has evidence that he was being seen by a Professor at Sheffield University for the problems caused to him by
Stockport Council and by a Psychiatric consultant at the local hospital. If
anyone thinks this is an unreasonable thing for him to claim to be affected by,
wait until I tell the entire story of what has been done to him over the years,
and everyone will understand his mental anguish. I am going to write a book about this case
and, no doubt, you will feature in it!

So, if he had a sick note at the time of the pre-sentence report and on this
report no mention was made of his illness, how can he still be being repeatedly
taken to court for being too sick to do his community service, when account
should have been taken of that fact at the outset prior to sentencing? Court
time, lawyers time – more anguish for Mr Parnell. Before a judgment can be made
in court to receive a sentence the pre sentence report must be filled in to
weigh up if people are actually in a position to do their community service.
Nothing was ticked on that report to make note of his quite serious medical
problems. Yet another failing – one of very, very many.

I have repeatedly
heard you in court refer to your dislike of the waste of public money. Well, I think you have been responsible
yourself for quite a lot regarding Mr Parnell’s case.

I would like to
think some common sense will prevail, but having watched what goes on at
Stockport Council and in your court, I am not hopeful.

Yours sincerely

Sheila Oliver

Local Human Rights, Freedom of Information and
Environmental Campaigner