At Southwark Crown Court in December 2009, the person calling himself Dominic Bell acted outside of the Rule of Law and Misconducted himself in Public Office.
Additionally, he later committed Attempted Blackmail against his former client, Brian Pead, by trying to force him to remove from the internet a secret audio recording of him lying to Pead and perverting the course of justice (with instructing solicitor Angela Shaw also present) in his London chambers.
At all material times, Bell knowingly and deliberately failed to properly represent his client by entering false evidence into court, by failing to enter crucial evidence into court and by failing to call a material witness (Geoffrey Bacon) to court.
On the Goldsmith Chambers’ website, Bell has posted the following (and been reported to Roderick Johnson, KC and Victoria Wilson – joint Heads of Chambers):
It is evident that Mr Bell is being protected by posting Fake News. His Joint Heads of Chambers should be ashamed of themselves, but they won’t be. Mr Bell claimed that he was the victim of highly defamatory posts on a website which the authorities unlawfully removed (www.allaroundjustice.com) and yet failed to sue Brian. That would be because the posts were not defamatory because they were true – unlike the deliberate disinformation on his webpage:
Mr Bell displays significant difficulty with grasping essential facts – he knew that there never was a 14-year-old girl to groom (even the Police and the CPS admitted that) and as for the “three young females”, he can only be referring to three drama students (all aged over 21) and all three stated they had never seen Brian’s genitals. Indeed, in his Closing Statement, Mr Bell said, “The CPS charged him with Exposure and the witnesses all stated that they did not see his genitals.”
As for his threat of “Litigation soon!”, Brian Pead is still waiting for Mr Bell to sue him…
Nor did Mr Bell “withdraw before sentencing” – he was sacked by Brian, a fact which can be corroborated by solicitor Angela Shaw (below). Brian sacked Bell, who informed the judge that he was waiting for the instructing solicitor to attend court to confirm his sacking before the bogus court case could continue.
Following the bogus trial at Southwark, Brian went to Charter Chambers in St. John’s Street, London in January 2010 for a conference with sacked barrister Bell about “Sentencing” – the trial judge had threatened to jail Brian if he continued to maintain his innocence. As Brian entered the premises, he found Angela Shaw sitting in Reception. Below is a true copy of part of the transcript of the secret audio recording that he made that day:
BP is Brian Pead; AS is Angela Shaw, R is Receptionist.
BP [Enters Charter Chambers, notices Angela Shaw, instructing solicitor, sitting in Reception area] Hi Angela
AS Hello … Brian
BP [to Receptionist] Hi there, I’m Brian Pead and I’m here to see Dominic Bell.
R Would you like a drink?
BP I’d like a cup of tea thank you very much. [Sits down in Reception Area]
BP So, Angela, what did you think of the result?
AS It was disappointing…
BP … because?
AS …because you were found guilty.
BP I think it was disappointing for a lot of reasons to be honest.
AS Primarily in my mind it was disappointing that you were found guilty because of the repercussions … of it … is there’s just so many different things …it’s very disappointing.
[The solicitor is clearly aware of the full impact on Brian’s life of this obvious miscarriage of justice – described as such by Brian’s MP (a former barrister) some 8 years later.]
If the Law were to take its course, Mr Bell would be arrested, charged and imprisoned for his obvious and provable crimes.
Baroness Nuala O’Loan famously defined institutional corruption as the act of “concealing or denying failings, for the sake of the organisation’s public image,” characterizing it as “dishonesty on the part of the organisation for reputational benefit.”
She established this milestone definition in June 2021 as the chairwoman of the Daniel Morgan Independent Panel, which investigated the Metropolitan Police’s systemic failures and handling of the unsolved 1987 murder of private investigator Daniel Morgan.
Key Aspects of Her Definition
Rather than sticking to traditional definitions of corruption that only focus on financial bribery or individual greed, Baroness O’Loan expanded the scope to look at how an institution behaves collectively. Her framework emphasizes two major elements:
- Organisational Defensiveness: Actively hiding mistakes, covering up institutional incompetence, or stonewalling investigations to protect the brand or public image of the institution.
- Failing to Confront Corruption: She noted that institutional corruption involves a dual failure—both acting corruptly and failing to confront or investigate corruption when it occurs inside the ranks.
By shifting the definition toward systemic cover-ups and reputational protection, O’Loan’s framework has since been widely cited across the UK public sector to hold other bodies and ombudsmen accountable for lack of transparency.
However, Baroness O’Loan did not dismiss the reality of Fraud and Corruption perpetrated by individuals either within an organisation or acting alone.
Leave a Reply