Unmask Prejudice
When walking hand in hand with your partner on the street is a criminal offence!
APRIL 2015
On April 13, 2015, Joseph Spencer was arrested and charged for offence of rape (which was later dropped) by the West Yorkshire Bradford Police following an allegation that he was seen walking hand-in-hand with a young woman on the street. During the police interview, the couple provided evidence that their relationship was within parental consent to marry, by law. His partner was placed under police imposed protection, and Joseph Spencer was released on bail pending further police investigation.
MAY 2015
On May 5, 2015, Joseph Spencer voluntarily surrendered himself to the police, acknowledging that he had breached the bail condition prohibiting contact with his partner. Police Donna Hector placed him under arrest for Witness Intimidation and that he intimidated his partner when they had contact. Joseph was immediately brought before the Bradford Magistrate Court and subsequently remanded in HMP-Leeds prison.
However, during the 13 July 2015 hearing his partner submitted a witness statement to the Court that she was not intimidated by Joseph and that she had always wanted to see him and was happy that they had contact. The false ‘Witness Intimidation’ charge was rightly dropped.
However, the Court maintained his continued remand in prison custody following the police Donna Hector claim to have further allegation of offence against him.
JUNE 2015
On June 19, 2015, Joseph Spencer was charged with four counts by the police based on allegations made by the police Donna Hector during her recorded interview with Joseph’s partner. The allegation claimed that he engaged in sexual activity with her when she was under the age of sixteen but before her sixteenth birthday. (Note: The legal age of consent in the UK is sixteen, and parental consent is required for individuals aged sixteen and seventeen to marry.)
However, during the trial in April 2016, his partner testified before the jury that the first instance of sexual activity occurred after her sixteenth birthday. As a result, Joseph Spencer was acquitted of three counts related to underage charges, but he was convicted on one count of inciting his partner to engage in sexual activity when she was fifteen. This particular count is currently under review by the CCRC for appeal, as the discrepancy arises: how could he have incited her when she was fifteen when the first instance of sexual activity occurred after her sixteenth birthday?
AUGUST 2015
On August 3, 2015, Joseph Spencer faced further charges by the police Donna Hector, alleging that his partner suffered from a mental disorder that impeded her ability to make choices and that she attended a special school. However, during a hearing on March 3, 2016, held at the Bradford Crown Court, it was determined that the charge constituted an abuse of process and bad faith on the part of the police, under Section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence (PACE) Act 1984 – Police Code of Practice. Consequently, the opinion charges were rightfully dropped.
OCTOBER 2015
On October 5, 2015, Joseph Spencer was once again charged by the police Donna Hector, this time with possessing 50 Shades of Grey Halloween-themed sexual images of himself and his partner on his mobile phone and on their shared home computer. Among the images presented as evidence during the trial was a 29-second video selfie in which a female voice seemed to be crying and distressed. The prosecution alleged that this was evidence of Joseph tormenting or abusing his partner during sexual activity. The jury convicted Joseph Spencer on all counts related to the creation of the sexual photographs. However, these charges are currently under review by the CCRC for appeal, as both Joseph and his partner claim that there was never any crying or distress in their sexual relationship. They further assert that the video must have been tampered with by the police in order to secure a conviction on the sex offence charges.
APRIL-2022 UPDATE ! ! !
Following the outcome of the Sexual Harm Prevention Order (SHPO) part of the case, the Appeal Judge’s decision claimed that the SHPO was imposed because of the conviction of incitement of under-age sex activity by masturbation. Well, we lay criticism against this decision because there was no evidence or any allegation of witness statement of under-age sex activity on this case. The Appeal Judges omitted the stark fact that this case was prosecuted on ‘Opinion-Evidence’ and verdict on ‘Balance of Probability’ due to lack of any victim allegation of sex offence.
Whereas, the civil Courts standard of proof is proof on a Balance of probabilities. The criminal courts standard is proof Beyond a reasonable doubt. In a purportedly criminal case where a man ended up in prison on account of it, the narrative of the case turn out to be a civil matter. It now needs to be said, quite frankly in fact, as updated on our SHPO-Appeal page that this case is not a sex offence as a matter of fact and law. To put it rightly, this is a civil case of ‘Interference by a Public Body’ against a couple’s family life relationship under Article-8(2) of the Human Rights Acts 1998.
When the couple were arrested for walking hand-in-hand on the street, it was established that the couple’s family relationship is engaged to be married with parental consent present by law, and they lived together and did normal things that couples do in any given relationship, the Police could not find any justifiable reason to interfere with that relationship.
Instead of the Police Donna Hector raising a case on ‘Interference’ and to raise her opinion to justify that interference which would of course be challenged in court, she went for sex-offence against the male in the relationship and fashion the female in the relationship as the victim contrary with her evidence and voicing out that she does not want this happening against her partner. This was where the conflict arises from a legal-positivism point of view because the moral merit of the alleged age-gap relationship does not matter by law.
A case of such ‘Interference’ under Article-8(2) is what can be prosecuted against the Couple’s relationship on Opinion-Evidence, which is a civil matter and does not carry a prison sentence or imposition of a SHPO. Any case of sex-offence must be based on factual-evidence and that carry a prison sentence and imposition of a SHPO. And this sex offence has not been based on factual evidence. It was clearly stated on the court papers that this is a case of Opinion-Evidence. They abused the law, and abused this man on all accounts. Have they dealt with someone with no prior legal knowledge, they might have gotten away with this case. For:
1. In justifying their allegation of sex-offence police officer Donna Hector falsified the ‘crying and distress’ audio evidence on image-count 12 in court and withheld the last piece of evidence on image-count-11, she misrepresented image-count-8 as mouth oral sex. Whereas the photograph clearly showed a fully clothed female laughing face at the selfie camera and holding onto her partner in a sexual way and nothing in her mouth. She misrepresented the whole of the images and withheld lots of material evidence of the couple’s enduring family life relationship.
2. Immediately after his conviction in April-2016, Joseph Spencer wrote a letter to both his trial solicitor and the investigating Police officer Donna Hector, NOT to destroy any material evidence on his case because he require those images for his appeal. His solicitor replied to him that his office could not lawfully be allowed to keep the evidence, and he was later informed by his community police officer after his release from prison that they have destroyed those evidence. The question is: WHY???
3. Whilst representing himself on his appeal against conviction from prison custody, he sent a witness-statement court form to his partner’s parents for their attestation. The Prison-Authority intercepted that evidence posted to him by recorded royal-mail with tracking number in the prison post and destroyed it. The Prisons-Ombudsman intervened and got him an apology letter for the bad behaviour of the Prison-Authority.
To deprive him of that evidence at any cost, his prosecutors issued a threat and bullied his partner’s parents to deny attestation of that witness statement, and having achieved their pervasion of the course of justice against Joseph Spencer, they consequently used it as a weapon against his application to quash the SHPO that he ‘forged’ the witness statement himself to advance his appeal case.
Any sensible person can ask how could he have forged the signature on a witness statement that was posted to him whilst in prison custody and intercepted and destroyed by the prison services on arrival? A document which was consequently sent to the Appeal Court Office on his behalf, and he received directly from that court office some months later.
4. Raising the case as a sex-offence has become their undoing and a fundamental mistake, for they’ve messed with the wrong person. A person with the legal prowess to work as a magistrate where there is currently a shortage which currently in demand of passionate people like him from the ethnic minority in the Justice-system, but prevented from doing so now because of the conviction. Every step his prosecutors have taken to discredit his case, the more they complicate matters for themselves and expose their own faults. Any experienced investigating police should know that a high-functioning ‘autistic brain’ with a passion for legal work as a job can conscientiously be appealed with from a legal-positivism point of view.
5. The competency of the investigating police officer Donna Hector is here put in question. This campaign site should serve as a learning hub for all those conscientious citizens of any country serving as a court jury anywhere. To draw on one evidence from the material of this case, all those who have access to this case-file should go have a rethink and think conscientiously about the fundamental failure that had gone on here. At the police interview of this dyslexic woman, the investigating police officer Donna Hector presented to her to must read a ‘Timeline’ from paper put in front of her. The Timeline goes like this:
TIMELINE
September – October – November – December – January – February – March – April – May – June – July – August – September
6. The Timeline was dated between September-2014 and September-2015. This was raised between the trial-Judge and both the Defence and Prosecuting barrister during the trial in the absence of the jury. In the Judge’s Direction to the Jury, vol-24H: “The first time when it (sex) happened, was it before you went to Durham or after you went to Durham?” She replied “Before”.
The police then gave the Timeline paper for this dyslexic young woman to must read and answer. Police said: “Before, right, which is before – is before that way,” the witness intermediary present interjected the Police at this point, and the Police says, “Or before this way.” She replied, “Before,” and points to a calendar month on the Timeline.
The Police Donna Hector says, “Right, so going this way, so where up here did it happen, where did it (sex) start, show me whereabouts it started”? She points to “February”. Police consequently charged Joseph Spencer with an under-age sex offence between October-2014 and February-2015, and justified it by saying that during the interview she pointed to October 2014 on the calendar that she and Joseph visited their house in Durham and that they were already in a relationship then, and that she also pointed to December 2014 on the calendar that they were already in a relationship around that time also.
All those with vast experience with dyslexic people would understand what was going on in this young woman’s mind. She clearly said to the police on several occasions that her sex life with Joseph began after her sixteen birthday, in February 2015. As a dyslexic person who struggles to read and write, recognising that she could not read the wordings on the Timeline that she had been forced to must point to, with no help from the police witness Intermediary present at the police Interview, the result is this:
She pointed to October 2014 on the police calendar as the time she visited Durham with Joseph, and said that she had not seen him before Bonfire Night of November 2014. She pointed to December 2014 on the police calendar that they were already in a relationship, but said that their relationship began in February 2015. Both the police officer and the witness Intermediary were content to take October 2014 as the time sex first started between the couple, as opposed to what came out from the word of mouth of a dyslexic.
Joseph, in his evidence produced copy of their ticket itinerary to Durham, and since they only travelled to Durham once before his arrest and prosecution, he told the police to go and check stations’ CCTV of the relevant days and to even visit Durham and asked neighbours that saw them when they visited Durham on 10th April 2015, to prove that his partner could not read the wordings on the police calendar because she is dyslexic. Whereas, during the interview the Witness Intermediary, whom should had known better, encouraged the police Donna Hector that the dyslexic woman did well with the police directing her where to points to on their self-styled calendar.
It is clear from the evidence and on all accounts that this case is not a sex-offence case. All those media reporting that acquiescence to the abuse of this man should do the right thing and pull down all those false articles that reported this case as a sex offence. With all these facts and evidence at our disposal, we can all see who has falsified evidence, perverted the course of justice by interference with witnesses, and made a false allegation of forgery of a witness statement in this case.
To be clear, we have not published the minute of this case. This is just an introduction of what is to come if this case is not resolved on legal positivism that the British law is based and operates on.
Both this woman and her partner have been abused: This man was almost killed in prison and made wheelchair-bound on account of this case. His partner was manipulated and told to must point to a Timeline calendar knowing fully well that dyslexic people cannot read and write, and thus failed to accept her statement that sex started in February and not October that she unknowingly pointed to on paper. Making post-conviction appeal court statements on her behalf and saying she is in no mental capacity to make her own decisions without any historical medical evidence to say she does have that condition before interference on her Article-8 right. We are all humans. Abuse such as this is still happening in the 21st century. May God have mercy!