Blog Image

Stockport Council News

The worse than useless Stockport Council complaints officer, Anwar Majothi.

Andrew Webb, CYPD, Anwar Majothi, Barry Khan, Eamonn Boylan, Ged Lucas, LibDem Councillors, Stunell MP, Sue Derbyshire, Town Hall Protester Posted on Sat, June 05, 2021 16:52

Dear Sheila
Response to Majorthi reply
Mike

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange


From: mickysara@btinternet.com

Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 11:19:44 +0000

To: anwar.majothi@stockport.gov.uk<anwar.majothi@stockport.gov.uk>

ReplyTo: mickysara@btinternet.com

Subject: Re: Assault complaints


Mr Majothi

Re: reply to your email

Thank you for your prompt reply, your response does not grasp the issues that was submitted, your reply does not mention what is the main issue founding the grounds to my complaint Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council’s DUTY OF CARE.

In addressing your reply in the first line you state that “I am afraid that I will not be investigating your complaint further, at this stage.” If this is a correct statement then could you correctly follow procedures and confirm the next course to take if a complainant is not in agreement with your findings (appeal or direction towards the local government ombudsman),

To my submission formally I present my representation, Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council has failed in its Duty of Care to protect me from harm when attending as a service customer at council service counters, the harm suffered is both physical injury and psychological trauma, (with reference to your reply one officer has since left the council, this doesn’t take away the councils liability, to the behaviour causing injury, and that the other officer has been warned in relation to his dealing with myself (M Parnell),
You state ” I therefore see no purpose in investigating your complaint further”, this representation is not a complaint about those officers behaviour but is to Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council’ liability to the injuries and trauma’s caused by the council’s officers while performing their council duties.

In representation to the failing of the Duty of Care, my application is made to an award for damages under Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council’s Public Liability.

Michael Parnell

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange


From: Anwar Majothi <anwar.majothi@stockport.gov.uk>

Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 15:14:55 +0000

To: ‘mickysara@btinternet.com'<mickysara@btinternet.com>

Subject: RE: Assault complaints

Dear Mr Parnell,

Thank you for your email.

I am afraid that I will not be investigating your complaint further, at this stage. You previously drew attention to video clips which appeared on a website involving you and two members of Council staff which I was not aware of until quite recently (as you know one
Officer has since left the Council). I have been advised that the remaining Officer has already been warned in relation to his dealings with you during the period relating to when the video footage appears to have been shot. I therefore see no purpose in investigating your complaint further, unless you have further video footage which I would be happy to review. You may recall that I have already asked you for further information, which has thus far not been forthcoming.

Yours sincerely,

Anwar Majothi

Corporate Complaints Manager

Stopford House

Stockport Council

SK1 3XE

Tel: 0161 474 3182

Fax: 0161 474 4006

http://www.stockport.gov.uk

From: mickysara@btinternet.com [mailto:mickysara@btinternet.com]
Sent: 09 June 2013 13:47
To: Anwar Majothi
Subject: Fw: Assault complaints


Mr Majothi

RE: Complaints of assaults that took place on council property, “Duty of Care”

Following correspondence from the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC), received on 22/05/2013 i must inform you that I complain that Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council has not complied with its statutory duty of care,

I formally complain that Stockport metropolitan Borough Council has failed in its Duty of Care to protect me as a service requesting customer in the council’s service center stockport from harm (injuries sustained while attending council offices) on more than one occasion with results of injury occurring causing alarm distress and severe ill well-being.

For your further information supplied below please read previous correspondence sent to you (please read fully, skipping over the fact doesn’t represent your previous findings).

As instructed please correspond receipt of the complaint within 5 days, further delays would be open to complaint.

Michael S Parnell.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange


From: MICHAEL PARNELL <mickysara@btinternet.com>

Date: Sun, 9 Jun 2013 12:41:58 +0100 (BST)

To: <Mickysara@btinternet.com>

Subject: Fw: Your Stage 2 complaints



— On Fri, 4/5/12, MICHAEL PARNELL <mickysara@btinternet.com> wrote:
From: MICHAEL PARNELL <mickysara@btinternet.com>
Subject: Fw: Your Stage 2 complaints
To: “anwar.majothi@stockport.gov.uk” <anwar.majothi@stockport.gov.uk>
Date: Friday, 4 May, 2012, 2:54     —– Forwarded Message —–
From: MICHAEL PARNELL <mickysara@btinternet.com>
To:mickysara@btinternet.com” <mickysara@btinternet.com>
Sent: Friday, 4 May 2012, 2:43
Subject: Fw: Your Stage 2 complaints   Dear Anwar Majothi   I write in reply to your Email dated 2nd May 2012 10:54hrs which I opened on the 3rd May 2012 at 16:00hrs.   In rely to your request for the dates and names to progress my complaint to stage 2, the facts for further investigation must be those that would cause no further delay to the same as those said to have been already investigated at stage 1.   So as not to duplicate my complaint, please could you supply to me the dates and names that were investigated by Mr Denis McCarthy at stage 1 which was found by him not to contain any evidence that the security guards had assaulted me or made threats to my life.   There are many assaults on different dates that are required to be submitted separately for investigation and each of those individual complaints justification.   Following our meeting on Monday the 30th April 2012 I forward in this reply submit a further complaint that is one of the many assaults that have been reported to the police, following levies paid to the police service from the council tax I forward the correspondence (below) sent of the assault by coumcil employee’s, the council has a duty for submitting complaints to the policing service within the stockport community neighbourhood policing teams.    (As above) letter submitted to the police along with attached statement   Chief Superintendant Neil Wain Stockport Police Station Lee Street Stockport Greater Manchester  SK1 3DR Mr M S Parnell 5 Osborne Street Bredbury Stockport SK6 2BT Tel 0161 430 2611 Mob 07857047543 Email mickysara@btinternet.com Date 17th February 2009 Dear Chief Superintendent Neil Wain   Hello Chief Superintendent Neil Wain I hope you are well, I Michael Stewart Parnell write to you. following my visit to Cheadle Heath police Station Sunday 15th February 2009 at 08:00 hrs, on that day I was called there to give statement to the assault that happened on the 11th February 2009 the FWIN number is 1317, 12/02/09. I call upon you to look into this on my behalf and please accordingly write stating why this matter is not being investigated by GMP, this matter on Sunday 15th February 2009 between 15:00 hrs 19:00hrs was brought to the attention of Cheshire Constabulary headquarters at Blacon Chester, the advice I was given there over the four hours attended was that if this matter was put forward to their force they would have to investigate, There was contact between Greater Manchester Police and Cheshire Constabulary on Sunday night, as there was concerns for my safety. I will be truly grateful if you could look into this matter and also answer to the letter I sent to you on 17th January 2009 I have not yet received a reply or acknowledgement, please accept my statement I tried to put forward Sunday morning for the assault 11/02/09 the enclosed 5 pages. Yours Sincerely M S Parnell, esq.                 Tuesday 10:02:2009 16:54 hrs On passing Stopford House to return to my car, Steve (Mr Duggan) came to the doors of the lobby, and shouted to myself “sad mad man you’re an idiot, don’t start taking your pictures” and indicated to the notice on the window, and then said, “in five minutes I’m off duty and then you’ll know about it“. Notice on window Important Notice NO ONE IS PERITTED TO TAKE PHOTOGRAPHS OF COUNCIL BUILDINGS OR STAFF WITHOUT PRIOR ARRANGEMENTS   I have taken photographs and video clip of this notice, but where are the notices warning the public that CCTV is being taken of them, no one has ever got permission by prior arrangement to take images of me, CCTV codes of practice, signs of at least A3 should be displayed to show that images are being monitored, and the recordings are under protection of the data protection Act 1998. Local authorities whose premises have CCTV systems in operation must alert the Information Commissioner that they are gathering personal information about the people they are recording. They must also put up signs at entrances into, to warn the public that recording is taking place. On finishing the writing of these notes and setting of to go to my car I noticed Steve was sat in his parked car , he was parked on the pavement of Edward street opposite the magistrates court between the entrance and exit to garage and snooker club, I started to walk and cross over Piccadilly, he started his car and with his wheels screeching sped towards me, I had my camera in my hand in my pocket I flicked the lens cover open took it out of my pocket, pointed to the oncoming car and got behind bollards, top of Piccadilly, Steve on seeing camera was shouting and swerved to the other side of the road and stopped, with the fear of what he might do I proceeded to Lee Street Police station, Steve had got out of his car and was following me he came into the station shouting to officers that I had his picture on my camera, and he didn’t what me to have it and was insisting that the police took my camera and deleted the picture, this I believe is recorded on the Police’s legal obtained correctly signed CCTV system, the time was approximately 17:20 hrs, Steve was quite aggressive and was told to leave because the matter was a civil one, I don’t know if panic alarm was activated but a number of plain clothed officers came into reception to see what was happening, when a short while had passed I was told it was ok for me to leave and has Steve had gone to the left, I should leave and go to the right, on exiting the door Steve was stood at the top of lee street watching towards police station, I came back through the door and while looking through glass saw Steve turn and leave, I quickly exited the door to the right and went down to Hillgate, I went and got in my car and then drove home, I didn’t rest or sleep very well that evening and night, I believe that Steve, because of what he has commented to me he has got my address from my correspondence in Stopford House and that he and frank know where I live, this is a concern to me I feel he could be capable now of doing something bad. Wednesday 11:02:2009 13:30 hrs Attended Stockport Police Station Lee Street, the purpose of this visit was to discuss last nights incident, and to ask about Chief Superintendent Neil Wain and his reply to my letter 17th January 2009, his secretary was on lunch but the desk clerk passed on information to myself that the request had been sent to Chester House Police Headquarters and I should have had a reply from them by now, was given phone number 856 2534 to contact them as the delay might be to do with data protection issues, I put to the desk clerk about last nights incident and I informed him that the pictures I took last night were still in my camera in the memory and I would not delete them as they are required as evidence, I pointed out about my safety and the security trying to hurt me although the desk clerk was sympathetic the long standing issues being civil he could only advise that I just took care of myself, I left police station and went round to magistrates court there was to be no court sitting that afternoon so I did not stay and decided to, if it was clear check Stopford House to further evidence, no signs too, of CCTV is displayed to public about monitoring and recording of data. Wednesday 11:02:2009 14:00 hrs Arrived Stopford House no one in entrance lobby, entered freely for the purpose to gather evidence of CCTV signs, took a number of pictures from 4 different angles that are of and from the inside of the lobby only, I stood and waited and went no further than the centre of the lobby, Frank the security guard come in and started making suggestions (14:15 Approx) using threatening comments of what he would do and he got on his walkie talkie and called for Steve there was a notice that had been put up that came from GMP about making false allegations and what can be done during February there was also some small cards with on one side telling you what to do, and on the other side showing the word Liar, what is this now in the lobby of Stopford House, Frank pointed to this notice and cards and suggested to me I take one of the cards, which I did and give it to him he just threw it on the floor, Steve arrived and they both, Frank and Steve started and ganged up on me and were making comments to my sanity, I quoted Things must be done within the law, they both replied to this Steve first You think your Perry Mason Frank after Steve then said “More like Ironside, (what I know of Ironside is he was in a wheelchair) I asked Frank does that mean you are going to break my legs, Frank said I didnt say that but thats what it means, third security guard arrives, and the three stood talking then the fourth and fifth security arrive, and all five start talking to me at the same time one guard keeps telling me not to look away from his eyes and keeps repeating why am I there, why am I there, when I try to reply the others keep interrupting and giving their answers, the guard who told me to look at his eyes was not standing for any of this and took me by my right elbow and wrist, someone tried to take my bag this contains my life, I held this close to my body another guard took my left elbow and shoulder and another guard was pushing in my back, I was commenting reasonable force to equal resistance we are not going to move anywhere unable to move my arms and activate my personal attack alarm I tried to stand firm I felt at this time if they carried me out through the doors they were going to push me into the hand rail and throw me down the stairs what happened next was they forced me down to the ground, with being held by my right wrist my hand was pushed hard to the floor with the whole weight of that guard down on it which caused injury of lacerations and stiffening finger joints and tender wrist, it was then said leave it and call the police, Frank was wanting more and two female reception staff were trying to calm him down and take him away he didn’t immediately take their advice he wanted to get at me I had got up and then just stood there waiting for the police to arrive, I saw through the window to Edward street turning right to Piccadilly a fast response police car arrive. The police came into Stopford House, spoke to security Guards and myself and they asked if I would leave, at this time my hand was bleeding, and I was taking in what had happened, I commented to the officer I would leave, and in my mind was trying to think how to put to them what had happened, if I was taken outside, it would again be that I would be told to go on my way, this has happened before when I was previously injured, and also when my property taken or when my laptop was damaged, I understand that the officers have to do what they see is needed, and in me taking time to collect myself together it might have seemed that I was not moving, the officer told me has he had asked me to leave but it seemed I was not doing so he informed me he would have to arrest me to prevent a further breach of the peace this I acknowledge and was arrested and put in the police car and conveyed to Cheadle’s Heath Police Station. I was the one arrested on what the police had been told by security and what they could see, and the long standing issues, it is now about time that this matter is sorted out so the police are no longer being used in the councils unlawful criminal actions. The council again has acted disproportionably, and have stepped well beyond reasonable grounds all I am doing is trying to be patient and wait (the council is sorting things out) I am doing this minding my own business in the glass entrance lobby of Stopford House, What is the lawful restriction imposed legally, I put it to you now there is none, the actions of the council are all unlawful towards myself, the council is taking the law unto themselves and imposing their judgement and punishment as only they see fit, and with no regards to the law. Gang intimidation, five sledgehammers to crack one nut, well this nut has now cracked and blood is spilt that is assault by beating, and it is now required to be reported to prevent further occurrence, or the event of a permanent injury or loss of my life, by others who are already acted unlawfully and are getting away with it. Note:- this is made in relation to the following question, when myself is being asked to leave, this when I am asked to leave, I ask why, the answer I always get is you know why, I do not know why, it is only said to hearsay of a disturbance that could be caused, I have never caused a disturbance, it is the others trying oppress myself in uncovering their unlawfulness (whistleblowing on the council wrongdoings) they have been causing the disturbances in trying to cover up that which I am uncovering, being asked to leave politely or with a gentle hand of encouragement on ones shoulder might be permitted by me (technically an assault) but 1 plus another 3 Persons with force taking hold of my person is unreasonable excessive on anyone’s terms and is totally unacceptable. Wednesday 11:02:2009 14:00 hrs -15:00 hrs Stopford House. Assault occasioning actual bodily harm. Offences against the Person Act 1861 (section 47) Specified offences for the purpose of:- section 224 Criminal Justice Act 2003. This Assault is recorded on SMBC own CCTV Stockport councils representatives acting in a gang caused me to apprehend the fear of unlawful violence and the fear of that with the force of actual bodily contact (assault by beating) has occurred resulting in a bodily injury to my person, There was 5 other person involved that caused this assault, intentionally or recklessly against myself, Two of whom are known to me, one I have seen but don’t know, one that I have not seen before, one also not known that left had been involved in the fear of the act towards myself, the two security guards known to me are :- Mr Steve Duggan, Mr Frank Craughwell, the third guard I believe is their lead security officer, the forth man came in a Solution SK van, the fifth I don’t know and don’t know where he came from. Part of Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council unlawfulness. Butterworths STONES JUSTICES MANUAL PART VI —– Family Law 6-3195a 1, considerations applying to exercise of powers 6-3195b 2, basic definitions 6-3195c 3, maintenance of Adoption Service 6-3195d 4, Assessments etc for Adoption Support Services (1) A local authority must at the request of:- (a) any persons mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (c) of section 3(1) or (b) any other person who falls within a description prescribed by regulations (subject to subsection 7(a)) carry out an assessment of that persons needs for adoption support services. The case is that the Local authority keeps telling me to report the children to the police, how can I do this when I know of their suffering and what are to their needs, the Council has put me in dispute with them over me requesting support under the laws of, the Children’s Act 1989, the Adoption Act 1976, and the Adoption and Children’s Act 2002. I have requested Assessment of Adoption Support Services.         —– Forwarded Message —–
From: Anwar Majothi <anwar.majothi@stockport.gov.uk>
To:mickysara@btinternet.com” <mickysara@btinternet.com>
Sent: Wednesday, 2 May 2012, 10:54
Subject: Re: Your Stage 2 complaints   Dear Mr Parnell,   I write following our meeting on Monday. I would be grateful if you could provide me with the dates, rough times and the names of individuals you have stated have assaulted you; including your recent report last week.   I would be grateful to receive the dates via email and can arrange another meeting with you to go through any additional CCTV footage you have in support of your complaint.   I look forward to hearing from you soon.   Yours sincerely,     Anwar Majothi Corporate Complaints Manager Stopford House Stockport Council SK1 3XE   Tel: 0161 474 3182 Fax: 0161 474 4006 http://www.stockport.gov.uk    
Remember to use your vote in local elections on Thursday 3rd May 2012. For more information about voting and Stockport Council elections go to http://www.stockport.gov.uk/services/councildemocracy/elections/localelections2012/  

Confidentiality:- This email, its contents and any attachments are intended only for the above named. As the email may contain confidential or legally privileged information, if you are not, or suspect that you are not, the above named or the person responsible for delivery of the message to the above named, please delete or destroy the email and any attachments immediately and inform the sender of the error.


You can do more than you think online: Find it. Report it. Apply for it. Pay for it. Visit us at www.stockport.gov.uk and find out more.

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG – www.avg.com
Version: 2013.0.2904 / Virus Database: 3199/6405 – Release Date: 06/12/13



Mr Parnell’s humour – if you give Andew Stunell and extra n, he will claim expenses for it ;o)

Andrew Webb, CYPD, Anwar Majothi, Barry Khan, Eamonn Boylan, Ged Lucas, LibDem Councillors, Stunell MP, Sue Derbyshire, Town Hall Protester Posted on Sat, June 05, 2021 08:52

Dear sheila

              hello, thanks for the spelling, his name only has one “n” we shouldn’t give him more than he deserves, or he might use it against us he is my MP but my initials are MP wonder if MP can or should help MP or whether MP’s should help themselves, give him an extra n and he might claim expenses for it.

Mike

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

—–Original Message—–

From: “Sheila Oliver” <sheilaoliver@ntlworld.com>

Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2013 17:27:44

To: <mickysara@btinternet.com>

Subject: Re: Failure Notice

Mike

It is Stunell.  Try that.

If he sent you enquiries@andrewstunnell.org.uk then he is deliberately misleading you.  If you have mis-typed it, then we have to give him the benefit of the doubt.

He sent a snotty letter to the Guardian about them spelling his name wrongly (so they kept spelling it incorrectly after that to annoy him)

Hope you are OK

Love

Sheila

—– Original Message —–

From: <mickysara@btinternet.com>

To: “sheila oliver” <sheilaoliver@ntlworld.com>

Cc: <mickysara@btinternet.com>

Sent: Sunday, April 07, 2013 6:57 PM

Subject: Fw: Failure Notice

> Dear Sheila

>                Hello, mike here just to let you know I received a letter

> from andrew stunnell MP on saturday 6th April 2013 with an email address

> which fails to deliver too, the request I have made to him for his help,,

> see below

> Mike



Mr Parnell’s gentle niceness and good humour, despite all that was done to him by the Stockport LibDems.

Andrew Webb, CYPD, Anwar Majothi, Barry Khan, Eamonn Boylan, Ged Lucas, LibDem Councillors, Stunell MP, Sue Derbyshire, Town Hall Protester Posted on Fri, June 04, 2021 18:31

Dear lighthearted folk

Just a quick hello, if you phone stockport council like I did last week you could be put on hold and left listening to the attached song by snow patrol, I was left for 20 minutes listening so while I was waiting I put the words to script and went and waited in fred perry house I sat on the floor and while waiting played the song and lyrics on my phone, the funniest thing a lady on an internal phone was also waiting and laughed because she was listening to the same from two different sources, she liked mine best because she followed the lyrics with a smile followed by many others there who were also waiting, a kind police desk clerk informed myself the police had been called and were on their way, so to avoid arrest might I leave before they arrived, council security guards were not very pleased, but it is quite ok for us to be kept waiting, take note of the words that are sung in the lyrics the council should read and listen themselves then they will understand, I did not get arrested and later contact the police haven’t commented they will be taking any action only smiles the lighter side of peaceful protest make people smile and they will be on your side.

From Mike. Keep your chin up and a smile a day will keep the council at bay.

Click below and enjoy

snow patrol chasing cars – Bing



Back off and don’t mention the fact that the Stockport LibDems framed you and sent you to prison, eh.

Andrew Webb, CYPD, Anwar Majothi, Barry Khan, Eamonn Boylan, Ged Lucas, LibDem Councillors, Stunell MP, Sue Derbyshire, Town Hall Protester Posted on Fri, June 04, 2021 17:58


Mr Parnell’s useless LibDem MP, Andrew Stunell, fails to sort out his simple problems and tells him to stay away from the Council and presumably wait another decade or two for help. Also, he saw the video of the threats and abuses and did nothing.

Andrew Webb, CYPD, Anwar Majothi, Barry Khan, Eamonn Boylan, Ged Lucas, LibDem Councillors, Stunell MP, Sue Derbyshire, Town Hall Protester Posted on Sun, May 30, 2021 19:27


Mr Parnell’s useless MP, LibDem Andrew Stunell, finally gets off his bottom and helps with a problem he has been asking for help with for well over a decade.

Andrew Webb, CYPD, Anwar Majothi, Barry Khan, Eamonn Boylan, Ged Lucas, LibDem Councillors, Stunell MP, Sue Derbyshire, Town Hall Protester Posted on Sun, May 30, 2021 18:35

Because she had the wrong details on her official papers, if Mr Parnell took his daughter to Accident & Emergency, she didn’t exist and couldn’t be treated. It could be and was eventually sorted out, but why did even that take so many years? Answer, he was dealing with LibDems.



The Crown Prosecution Service dropped all charges when they realised Mr Parnell was dying. They’re all heart.

Andrew Webb, CYPD, Anwar Majothi, Barry Khan, Eamonn Boylan, Ged Lucas, LibDem Councillors, Stunell MP, Sue Derbyshire, Town Hall Protester Posted on Sun, May 30, 2021 18:22


Mr Parnell always said he was learning law from a lawless Council, and Goddard now sits in the House of Lords deciding on laws for us all.

Andrew Webb, CYPD, Anwar Majothi, Barry Khan, Eamonn Boylan, Ged Lucas, LibDem Councillors, Stunell MP, Sue Derbyshire, Town Hall Protester Posted on Tue, May 25, 2021 20:16

Mr M. S. Parnell

Date 29th November 2010

Dear Mr Simon E Morton

Re: instructions for application to discharge s5 PHA 1997

Following procedures in court I feel that it is required that I forward my concerns and give you my instructions by the way of this letter and in quoting the laws, regulations and guidance, which in being given and to my understanding as to why I wish to follow in the interest of justice, that in to my justice to be heard and be given chance to a full account of  the facts.

Section 5(4) of the PHA 1997 permits the prosecutor, defendant or any other person mentioned in the section 5 or 5A orders to apply to the original court for the order to be varied or discharged. Section 12(4) of the DVCVA 2004 inserts a new section 5(7) into the PHA 1997, which permits the court to vary or discharge the section 5 order when it deals with a person for the offence of breach of the order.

My instructions to you are, that you act at my request and apply to the court with an application to discharge the Restraining Order pursuant to Section 5 Protection from Harassment Act 1997, being that in my understanding 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, Section 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.

What 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 distress.

Section 5A only applies where there has been an acquittal.

DVCVA 2004 section 12(5) inserts Section 5A(1) A court before which a person ( “the defendant”) is acquitted of an offence may, if it considers it necessary to do so to protect a person from harassment by the defendant), how does this effect me with the serving of an restraining order, who needs protection, have they ever been put at risk and has any other person been caused any alarm or distress, I put it that the question is, one named person on the incorrect order as stated prior to the order being applied no longer works for the council the other named person then had other duties that keeps him away from stopford house, has any other person been caused alarm or distress, I put it no this has not ever been the question, how I have ever behaved, but just that I was there. The test to be applied by the court is whether the order is necessary to protect the persons named in it from harassment. This necessitates an evaluation by the court of the evidence before it. It will require the court to determine whether there is sufficient evidence in front of it to enable it to form a view that an order is necessary.

The 2004 Act does not specify the standard of proof to be applied by the courts. Nor is there any reference within the legislation to the defendants previous or future behaviour. Rather, the court is told to have in mind the question of whether the victim or person to be named in the order requires protection from harassment. Before making an order, the court will have to be satisfied that it is necessary to do so.

What do I want by the discharging of the section 5 PHA 1997 that the application of the correct order of a section 5A(1) PHA 1997 be applied for, and by following the correct procedure if it is shown to be required to do so for the protection of a person from harassment by a defendant, on application of the correct order, section 5A (2) as to subsection (3) to (7) of section 5 PHA 1997, and with applying subsection (4A) of said act, Any person mentioned in the order is entitled to be heard on the hearing of an application under subsection (4).

On conclusion what is it that I want you to do, and that this is made at my request with the full understanding that I take full responsibility of any outcome, my instructions are

I Michael Stewart Parnell do request to instruct you Mr Simon E Morton to make application to Manchester Crown Court at Minshull Street, to discharge the restraining order made 15th January 2010, section 5 PHA 1997 on the basis that I believe it was made on the grounds as to the wrong section and the correctness of the order and procedure  had not been followed when it was made.

I also request that you inform the court that the section 5 PHA 1997 on conviction should technically be a section 5A PHA 1997 on acquittal and that an application for the correct order will be met with my defence is it necessary to do so, The purpose of a restraining orders are preventative, not punitive – it is a measure designed to protect someone from harassment. Before making an order the court will have to be satisfied that it is necessary to do so, this I believe requires evidence and Prosecutors should follow the rules of civil evidence in order to adduce further evidence to enable the court to determine whether to make a restraining order. The procedural rules for making applications are set out in Part 50 of the Criminal Procedure Rules 2005. These apply in both the magistrates court and Crown Court. These procedural rules are the same as those relied upon for applications for post-conviction.

And finally could you look at and advise me, of that which I believe is a technicality in law, how did I receive an order to the wrong section, how did that order produce an arrest and that following the police investigation still not showing to be wrong in law to the correct section, arrested on the day for breach of ASBO then two days later changed to a section 5 PHA 1997 and then prosecuted under a wrongly applied order as submitted by the police to the CPS and then presented to the court for prosecution, who professionally knows what they are doing, where is the CPS order and which section is it for, well on acquittal it should be section 5A(1) PHA 1997 and not an order made on conviction by amendment to section 5 PHA 1997 by Section 12 Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 (in force from 30 September 2009) Section 12 DVCVA 2004  introduced the new section 5A into the PHA 1997, this by my mind is I could not be given section 5 by conviction, only section 5A can be given on acquittal, which is it? “convicted innocent or guilty until proven”.

Yours sincerely ……………………………….M S Parnell esq.

Date                   ………………………………  29th November 2010



« PreviousNext »