By 2006, at the age of 53, Brian Pead had no convictions to his name. However, when he reported child abuse when working as the Head teacher of a Lambeth pupil referral unit (described as “the best in London” by independent observers), he was unlawfully suspended without being told why and then fraudulently dismissed on false evidence. That was the start of a 20-year campaign of persecution by the State and the following false convictions:
2009
Attempted incitement of a 14-year-old girl whom even the Police admitted did not exist.
Southwark Crown Court – no public record exists of this bogus trial.
To make it look as though there was a fair trial, the authorities also tried a case of alleged Exposure to three 20-something year olds before the same jury. Brian was found “Not Guilty” of this alleged offence, and the ordinary person in the street was likely to think, “Well, it must have been fair then because he wasn’t found guilty of that one.”
However, the jury – which had not been sworn in in accordance with due process – had heard two cases against Brian which was clearly prejudiced.
When Brian appealed this verdict, his solicitor, Andrew Keenan, OBE told him in an audio recording made on 29 May 2010: “The fact that Judge Byers at Woolwich Crown Court refused the Joinder Application and Loraine-Smith at Southwark accepted Joinder shows that something odd is going on here.”
2011
Harassment of his daughter and elder granddaughter.
Bexley Magistrates’ Court – neither family member had ever made a statement to the Police, who brought the case in order to isolate Brian from his beloved family.
2013
Criminal damage to a car belonging to undercover police officers.
King’s Lynn Magistrates’ Court – no defence witnesses called to the trial.
Proof: see the main video on the Videos tab in which pig farmer Richard Fulcher explains (39:56) that the driver of the car on his farm had caused damage to the car herself and that it had nothing to do with Brian Pead.
2015
Impersonating a Barrister
Cambridge Crown Court – case brought by a corrupt District Judge who had been reported to the appropriate authorities.
This case arose because Brian had been assisting a pig farmer, Richard Fulcher, with his case against Fenland District Council which former barrister and MP, Lord Henry Bellingham, agreed was a bona fide case.
During a bankruptcy hearing, Mr Fulcher was declared bankrupt by a corrupt District Judge. Immediately after the hearing, Mr Fulcher reported the District Judge, who then responded by making a complaint to the police that Brian (then lawfully calling himself Brian Freeman (Free-Man) had impersonated a barrister when attending the bankruptcy hearing. The truth of the matter is that Brian acted lawfully as a McKenzie Friend and not as a barrister, as the form below proves beyond all reasonable doubt:
2017
Breaches of Restraining Order preventing contact with daughter and grandchildren.
Woolwich Crown Court – refer back to 2011: no family member had made a statement against Brian.
Judge failed to deal with Fraud pointed out to him by members of the public.
Such was the level of obvious legal chicanery that Michael Bird, acting as a McKenzie Friend, resigned in a letter to the jury dated 17 December 2017:
“Dear Jury,
I am writing this testimony to you in regard to Brian Pead. As you will be aware, I was Brian’s McKenzie Friend for the first week of this trial – and I also want to make you aware that I have been a McKenzie Friend in two of Brian’s previous court cases to which there have been many. I have been present at, or seen communications from, many legal firms over the past 8 years and have witnessed first-hand how it is nearly impossible for Brian to get legal representation and ultimately a ‘fair trial’ here in the UK.
This is due to the fact that, despite contacting many solicitors’ firms, in many instances he does not get any responses to his requests by telephone or email. Also, on countless occasions, when in front of both solicitors and barristers, not one of them has been prepared to take on his cases, which is even more surprising when you discover that he is entitled to pension credit and ultimately a ‘guaranteed income’ by anybody who is prepared to represent him.
On one previous occasion – at this very court house in 2012 – Brian was heading into court alongside a barrister who had agreed to represent him when he was ushered into a room (with myself present) by his defence barrister and ‘advised’ to change his ‘not guilty’ plea to a ‘guilty’ one. Brian refused and the barrister informed the judge that he would not defend Brian in that case. Brian asked the judge to adjourn so he could find someone who would defend him, but the judge forced him to represent himself.
Brian went on to win the case because it was proved that police officers had entered false evidence (one of whom was the same arresting officer in the original trial back in 2011 to which this case relates).
So, by its very definition in law, ‘beyond reasonable doubt’, that if the same arresting officer had entered false paperwork against Brian in the trial that Brian won back in 2012, then this case is tainted by the fact that the same officer originally arrested him for this present case. If he had entered false paperwork in that trial is there not reasonable doubt that he could have done the same in this trial?
In a trial in 2009 Brian was arrested and charged under one law and later found guilty and sentenced under a completely different law. This case is currently being looked at by Brian’s MP, Sir Henry Bellingham, and I was present in a meeting with Brian and Sir Henry on Thursday the 14th December this year.
In all of the trials I have attended in regard to Brian, police have consistently entered ‘unlawful’ paperwork, whether it be unsigned or without reference numbers or in a way that doesn’t give the full story. You may be aware of historical cases in the press including such practices happening on a large scale as in the Hillsborough trial or at present on a more subtle level as in Saturday’s Daily Mail. can honestly say that this practice has been a common factor and is central to why Brian has not been able to receive a fair trial in any of his previous trials.
In this particular trial you have not been privy to many of the unlawful practices that Brian has had to endure including the prosecution not serving the necessary paperwork at Stage 1 and Stage 3 disclosure […] Brian also brought to the judge’s attention the fact that this case is ‘built on nothing’ or a ‘nullity’ in law as his daughter during her testimony said that she had never made a statement against him in any previous trial (this was corroborated by a letter given to Brian by the CPS back in 2011) which also said the same.
Mr Nelson – the solicitor who had been employed by the court [that is, not by Brian] to ask questions on Brian’s behalf – confirmed that in law if somebody’s name is on a court indictment, to get it that far you would need to have taken a statement from the alleged victim – in this case by Sorrel – to be able to prove harassment.
Such a case would not even be entered into court by the CPS as you must have a statement from the ‘victim’ to be able to even process the case, let alone be found guilty in a court of law. You may have also been made aware that there is a simple defence (and everybody’s human right) to harassment if (i) it was pursued for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime, and (ii) in the particular circumstances the pursuit of the course of conduct was reasonable.
All of the above underlines some of what I believe to be the unlawful acts that I have witnessed in this trial and a few of Brian’s previous trials. As you may or may not have heard from my previous statement, the reason that I removed myself as Brian’s McKenzie Friend in this case (something I have not done in previous cases) is because it was my opinion that many of Brian’s basic legal and human rights were being undermined both before and during this trial.”