INJUSTICE UNVEILED: UNANSWERED QUESTIONS!
In this compelling case, we contend that the Court’s application of the law in imposing the Sexual Harm Prevention Order (SHPO) was flawed. Specifically, the inclusion of paragraph 21 of Schedule 3 from the Sexual Offences Act 2003, pertaining to under-age 13 individuals, is unjustified as the conviction does not involve an offense relating to those under the age of thirteen. Recognising the exceptional significance of this matter to the general public, we took the step of submitting the case to the Supreme Court, raising both the issue of police evidence falsification during the trial and the lower courts’ misapplication of the law in the SHPO imposition. Astonishingly, the Supreme Court declined to consider this case, leaving us to ponder the question: Why has justice been denied?
SHPO – Sexual Harm Prevention Order.
The SHPO was served upon Joseph Spencer for an indefinite period. We understand that whilst he may have been convicted in court for offence of a sexual nature, but we should remind ourselves that this is an offence based on Opinion-Evidence with no victim allegation that the offence took place.
In July 2020, Joseph submitted to the Bradford Crown Court his application to revoke the SHPO, so he could be reunited back home to his partner, but there had been certain power at work to deprived him of his Article-8 right to family life. It is here that the suspected attempt of those with the power to access people at will to tamper with material evidence and witnesses manifest. It is now appearing that witnesses are afraid of being prosecuted for something if they failed to do as they are told by the power that be. We are placing our faith on the CCRC to get to the bottom of these matters.
APRIL 2022 UPDATE ! ! !
The Sexual Harm Prevention Order (SHPO) case was heard at the Appeal Court on 8th-April-2022. In a nutshell, the Appeal-Court maintained the SHPO as “discretion” of the court to impose it. According to the English dictionary, the synonyms for the word ‘Discretion‘ are ‘Wish’, ‘Choice’ ‘Desire’ and so on. The question is asked: On what legal power or authority has the Court acted to impose the SHPO on such ‘Discretion’ in a case such as this? Whereas, we say that an act such as the imposition of a SHPO based on ‘Discretion’ requires prescribed legal authority under schedule-3 of the sexual offences Act 2003, but it is done without it in this case, and this is what is known in law as ‘Ultra Vires‘.
Let’s take a little peek at the SHPO Case for the introductory understanding of everyone. However, we have been mindful not to publish the minute of this case at the moment, (the full detailed process of how police conjured up all the lies and falsification of evidence contrary with witness-statement and factual evidence in guise of opinion-evidence on this case), so we don’t interfere with the CCRC ongoing process. We concentrate mainly on the imposition of the SHPO appeal case:
1.
Joseph Spencer was convicted on two separate grounds of Opinion: (1) That he incited his partner to engage in sex by masturbation when she was aged-fifteen; (2) That he forced her to dress up in bondage gears and inflicted her pain and she cried and in distress in sex images when she was aged-sixteen. We should remind ourselves that: First, no victim allegation or evidence of under-age sex activity on the case. The police and the CPS conjured up narratives and introduced at trial in their opinion-evidence. Second, both Joseph Spencer and his partner disproved the false super-imposed ‘crying and distress’ evidence the investigating police officer Donna Hector submitted at their trial on the selfie-images of a sexual nature with 50-shades Halloween costume.
2.
The law says that the Court may impose a Sexual Harm Prevention Order (SHPO) in relation to ‘any person who has been convicted for an offence listed in either Schedule 3 or 5 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003.’ But in submitting the SHPO application to the Crown-Court to revoke it, we’d effectively grant some grace to the Crown to amend its own error by that process and revoke it quietly without fuss, but it failed to do so. We escalated the case to the Appeal Court and challenged the imposition of the SHPO simply because the sentencing Judge had no jurisdiction to impose the Order since it was not listed on schedule-3 or 5 of the sexual offences Act 2003.
Since Joseph Spencer does not have parental responsibility to his partner, and they both submitted in their evidence that they were partners and within the legal age of consent when their family life relationship began, and the fact that they were engaged to be married with full parental consent as prescribed in law before their sexual activity began including their selfie sex images with the 50-shades of grey Halloween costume, the law do not prescribe jurisdiction for the imposition of the SHPO in such cases.
3.
In response, the prosecution challenged our application and claimed that it is only the opinion conviction of incitement to sex activity by masturbation when she was aged-fifteen empowers the Court to impose the SHPO. Whereas, we say that since it is not prescribed on schedule-3 of the sexual offences Act 2003, the Court has no jurisdiction to impose it on this case. The prosecution then invited the Appeal Court to apply paragraph-21 of schedule-3 of the sexual offences Act 2003 to justify the imposition of the SHPO. The schedule read as follows: “An offence under any of sections 8 to 12 of this Act (causing or inciting a child under 13 to engage in sexual activity, child sex offences committed by adults).”
This submission raised our eyebrows, not only the hairlines in every part of our bodies was raised when confronted with this opinion of aged-fifteen advancing to under aged-thirteen to justify the imposition of the SHPO in this case.
The Appeal Court Judges said the Paragraph-21 of schedule-3 covers the indictment of under aged-sixteen as well. Whereas, we say this law clearly stated ‘under aged-13‘ as we can all see with the evidence of our own eyes and not under aged-sixteen. The Judges said on paragraph-14 of their judgment that: “As for the Court’s exercise of its discretion to impose the SHPO, there is no arguable basis for challenging this.”
We say that the Court has not applied the law correctly to the facts of this case in the imposition of the SHPO, in particular, in drawing paragraph-21 of schedule-3 of the sexual offences Act 2003 that apply to under age-13 to have a bearing on this case, where the conviction does not relate to under age-thirteen. As such, as this is an exceptional case of general public importance, we submitted the case to the Supreme Court on a question of law, on both the police falsification of evidence at court trial and the lower courts’ misapplication of the law in the imposition of the SHPO, both of which are too obvious to ignore, but the Supreme Court said that this case is not one that it ought to consider. The question is, WHY???!!!
OUR CAMPAIGN
As we can all see with the evidence of our own eyes, as a matter of FACT Joseph Spencer posed no risk of sexual offending behaviour against anyone, but it is only on the OPINION of the Courts derived from the falsification evidence of police officer Donna Hector against the couple at trial that he was super-imposed to pose the risk of SHPO. The fact that the conviction was not listed on schedule-3 of the sexual offences Act 2003 exposed the civil nature of this case and not a criminal matter. Both the evidence of Joseph Spencer and his partner are the same, which involves disputes against the police opinion evidence.
All those media reporting have the legal obligation to update their articles that the conviction against Joseph Maxwell Spencer is merely based on Opinion, Discretion and Wishful-thinking and not Factual Evidence as prescribed in law in sex offence cases, so we can all agree to be on the same page in our accurate reporting of the case. It is crucial for all those media journalists and aficionados that hauled abuse against Joseph Spencer in their media reporting of this case to re-educate themselves the true meaning of Fake News.
According to Ján Višňovský and Jana Radošinská; authors of the book: “Fake News Is Bad News – Hoaxes, Half-truths and the Nature of Today’s Journalism” Citation: Višňovský, J. , & Radošinská, J. , (Eds.). (2021). Fake News Is Bad News – Hoaxes, Half-truths and the Nature of Today’s Journalism. IntechOpen. https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.87790
“Fake News means news stories that are untrue, not factual, and deliberate falsehood. Fake news does not mean unfavourable news, but news that were fabricated as a lie to mislead people, and cause chaos and anarchy among people. Fake news are formulated stories that are conjured as vendetta, and spread rumour mongering through the traditional media, social media, fake news websites, blogs, and other media outlets
Fake news are machineries of propaganda strategy to deceive, mislead, confuse, and coerce people to influence and further an agenda, so that they may be psychologically brainwashed to believe the falsehood being promoted for supports. Propaganda use different methods, according to Lee and Lee like name calling, bandwagon, transfer, card stacking, testimonial, plain folks, and glittering generalities to gain support for what Frank Jefkins identifies as “an opinion, creed or belief”.
For the understanding of everyone, we remind ourselves that the civil Courts standard of proof is proof on a Balance of probabilities. The criminal courts standard is proof Beyond a reasonable doubt. Whereas, it means that in a purportedly criminal case Joseph Spencer was prosecuted on ‘Opinion-Evidence’ (as opposed to Factual-Evidence); he was convicted on a ‘Balance of Probability (as opposed to Beyond Reasonable Doubt); and he was imposed a Sexual Harm Prevention Order SHPO on discretion derived from an incompatible area of law. Therefore, any media reporting of this case that failed to mention that this case is based on mere Opinion and not factual, is guilty of reporting fake-news and misleading their readers who are made to believe that the so-called sex offence reported on those articles took place in reality. Failure to mention the important feature of this case, that it is based on Opinion merely, contributes to the declining trust worthiness by the public in your news media.