Private Prosecution against Police Informant Paul Turner denied by District Judge McGarva

District Judge McGarva, sitting at Sefton Magistrates, denied an application for a private prosecution against a police informant, Paul Turner.

His ‘bizarre‘ rejection was his suggestion that the application was ‘revenge’ yet admitted there was clear prima facie evidence of perjury…  i.e, The judge confirmed a criminal offence occurred but blamed the victim for pursuing a prosecution!

District Judge McGarva was made aware of the full history of what the police informant had done and how Lancashire police had protected him ,  even so, the Judge blamed the victim.

This shows that police, Judges and police informants are seemingly above the law, and those in authority turn a blind eye!

For those that have followed my years of hell at the hands of Lancashire police, you will know that I have been repeatedly maliciously targeted by a police informant named Paul Turner, including threats to KILL my wife and children.  All of his attacks have been reported to but ‘protected’ by Lancashire police.

There are now suspicions that the judiciary may well be protecting him as well..!

During a malicious prosecution against me in 2014 for which I was fully acquitted, the prosecution by Lancashire police was found to be ‘malicious’ and I subsequently sued Lancashire police in 2018 and settled out of court for £35,000 including a (half-hearted) letter of apology from the Chief Constable.

One of the four fabricated charges brought against me was ‘Malicious Communications‘ for posting that Paul Turner is, (or at least was) a police informant.  I posted this to show that Lancashire police were protecting him in light of the sick and horrific things he was writing about me and getting away with it.  The charge against me was ‘odd’ to say the least, as the fact is, Paul Turner was a police informant and thus could never constitute Malicious Communications.  Yet, without any CPS advice, the police brought the charge anyway.  Even I knew this charge would never in a million years succeed.

During the trial, my defence solicitor asked Paul Turner 3 simple questions.

1. Are you a police informant?
2. Have you ever told anyone you are a police informant?
3. Have you ever written anywhere that you are a police informant?

Paul Turner, on oath, answered NO in turn to each of these 3 questions.

On answering No to the final question, he was handed a copy of his own Industrial Tribunal and asked to read out a highlighted paragraph.

Paul Turner read aloud in court the following snippet taken from his own signed industrial tribunal application…

“On the 14th May my local Gym was contacted with an anonymous email saying they had a police informant on the premises and named me as Paul Turner, the email said I was actively giving information to the police about people in the area , Paul [Ponting] was the only person who knew about this”

This was a clear admission of being a police informant (also confirmed in recorded police phone calls.).

Not only that, but Paul Turner admitted that I (Paul Ponting) was the only person that knew about that.  That is true, as I have said all along, I knew 100% Paul Turner was a police informant as he was enrolled by (an ex-friend) police officer of mine who worked in Special Branch (CID) in Lancashire police.

The solicitor then asked Paul Turner, ‘…then, who wrote this‘?

This was a rhetorical question as we had in our possession the court sealed document from the Tribunals Court in Manchester, signed by Paul Turner.

Paul Turner looked like he had shit his pants and said openly in court, ‘HE FORGED IT‘, (pointing to me).  What a fucking shit house!

Obviously, the magistrates had to then ‘consider’ what Paul Turner had said as he was only reading a photocopy, fortunately, the original documents in our possession were provided to and inspected by the Magistrates which confirmed to them that Paul Turner was intentionally lying, under oath, to magistrates, with an attempt to convict me of something I was not guilty of. Perjury to the letter!

I was of course acquitted and the police highly criticised by the judiciary.

The police were later asked to investigate Paul Turner for perjury. A serious offence and contempt of court.  Of course, Lancashire police did not do this, making their usual bullshit excuses etc.  It was pretty obvious they would never bring charges against their own police informant and witness that they coached to lie!

The alleged offence of perjury against Paul Turner was vastly more serious than the ‘bungled charges’ brought against me, in fact, the offence of perjury was an indictable offence and could only be handled by the Crown Court yet, police refused to follow it up.

So after a lengthy complaints procedure that lasted over THREE YEARS, a private prosecution was started against Paul Turner, for the indictable offence of perjury.

This was heard is Sefton Magistrates by District Judge McGarva who clearly did not want to issue the summons.  A summons is NOT a guilty verdict, it is a decision that the offender is answerable to the allegations made.  A right to bring a private prosecution is a protected right and prima facie evidence is sufficient for a summons to be granted.

To ensure the case was correctly presented, a specialised barrister was hired to present the case and he confirmed pre-hearing that it is almost ‘a certainly’ the summons will be issued based on the conclusive evidence presented to the court.

How wrong he was… District Judge McGarva provided what has been described as irrational logic for ‘DENYING’ the summons, this decision is in full below.

Notice how District Judge McGarva received some sort of ‘report’ from Lancashire police which I am sure contained highly confidential information about the status of the offender and the impact if he was summoned.  This is most likely evidence of perverting the course of justice.

District Judge McGarva denied the application saying that  I was seeking ‘revenge’, not justice?

Rubbish!

I was seeking justice and had fought against the police to get justice for over 3 years.  Only after being denied justice by the police, I then used my legal and protected right to bring a private prosecution and this was ‘denied’ by a judge who had received a ‘secret report’ from Lancashire police.

I have made a subject access request for this report that the judge was supplied and clearly relied upon. (details to follow)

I cannot say that District Judge McGarva was ‘persuaded’ by police or ‘participated’ in the protection of an offender, that would be ‘wrong for me to infer’ but absolutely CRIMINAL if true.  so I ask you to make up your own minds…  I certainly have my own views..!

What District Judge McGarva did though, as he confirmed that a prima facie offence was committed.   An offence that has No defence.

Yet, in his decision, District Judge McGarva accused my fight for justice as somehow seeking revenge… wtf!

Another specialist barrister who I will not name, quickly confirmed that in essence, all private prosecutions could be said to be revenge for trying to see a conviction against someone who has criminally wronged you.  Yes, you could say wanting your aggressor to held to account is  revenge, but the sole intent was seeking justice and the judge was wrong!

Blatantly PROTECTING a police informer from ever facing charges is…,well,  sinister… and criminal.

The findings of District Judge McGarva were as follows:

IN THE LIVERPOOL MAGISTRATES’ COURT
IN THE MATTER OF A PROPOSED PROSECUTION FOR PERJURY

ON THE APPLICATION OF PAUL PONTING

DECISION

1. This is an application brought by Paul Ponting for the issue of a summons containing an allegation of Perjury contrary to section 1[1] of The Perjury Act 1911. I have read the Applicant’s witness statement along with a report of the handling of a complaint by the Applicant prepared by Lancashire Constabulary and dated 19th November 2017. The matter was listed for a hearing for further representations to be made and for the Applicant to supply the Court with draft charges. Mr Walker of counsel attended to make representations on behalf of the Applicant.
2. The allegation is that during a criminal trial at Chorley Magistrates’ Court on 24th and 25th November 2014 that Paul Turner whilst giving evidence made 3 statements that were materially false; he denied he was a police informer, he denied he had ever told anyone he was a police informer and he denied that he had ever written he was a police informer.
3. The decision whether to issue a summons is within the discretion of the court and that discretion must be exercised judicially. The discretion to issue a summons is not unfettered or unlimited. The general position is the court ought to issue a summons unless there are compelling reasons not to do so; examples of where it would be appropriate not to issue a summons would be if there was an abuse of process or an impropriety .
4. It was held in R [on the application of Charlson] v Guildford Magistrates’ Court and the South Western Magistrates’ Court and Walsh interested [party] 2006 EWHC2318 admin in relation to applications by private prosecutors for the issue of a summons that;

   “Bearing in mind that the code for Crown Prosecutors does not apply, the following Principles ….appear to be applicable:

   1. • When Magistrates are considering whether to accede to issue a summons for private Prosecution, where the Crown Prosecution Service has already brought and Discontinued a prosecution arising from the same events, the magistrates should Not require special circumstances before agreeing to the issue of the summons.
      • In such a case the magistrates should ascertain in deciding whether to issue a Summons [a] whether the allegation is an offence known to law and if so whether The ingredients of the offence are prima-facie present;[b] that the issue of a summons
        For the offence is not time barred [c] that the Court has jurisdiction, [d] whether the Informant has the necessary authority to prosecute; and [e] any other relevant facts.
        
5. The authorities on the issue have recently been reviewed by the High Court in the case of R[on the application of Martin Kay and Scan-Thors UK ltd v Leeds Magistrates’ Court and Marek Karwan. It is well established that the Magistrates should issue a summons unless there are compelling reasons not to do so- the most obvious example would be that the application is vexatious [which may involve the presence of an improper ulterior purpose and/or long delay], or is an abuse of process or is otherwise improper. This requires the Magistrates’ Court to consider the whole of the relevant circumstances and even where there is evidence of the offence should consider whether the application is vexatious, an abuse of the process or otherwise improper.
6. In this case perjury is an offence known to law and the bringing of a prosecution is not time barred, although there has been a delay of nearly 3 1/2 years; there has been no previous prosecution based on these facts. There are other facts which are relevant to the decision the Court has to make.
7. In this case the Applicant has made a number of allegations against Mr Turner which the Police have declined to prosecute. I have limited information about the history of the matter but it appears that in 2013 Mr Turner was dismissed from his employment with Danoli solutions a company run by the Applicant. An employment tribunal case was issued and withdrawn by Mr Turner but only after the Applicant had incurred £2500 in legal expenses. The Applicant made a complaint to the police that he and his family had received death threats from Mr Turner who then received a harassment warning from the police. A further complaint was made by the Applicant to the police alleging that Mr Turner had harassed him, made threats to kill and misused a computer which CPS declined to prosecute. A further allegation was made by the Applicant in January 2014 which resulted in Mr Turner being interviewed by the police but he was not charged because the police concluded there was not a realistic prospect of a conviction.
8. The Applicant also made an allegation that during his trial in November 2014 Mr Turner committed perjury; although this is the same offence for which the Applicant now seeks to issue a summons the particulars are different. This allegation related to a statement made during the trial by Mr Turner that he had not produced a document for the tribunal but that the Applicant had forged it. The police declined to prosecute saying the statement was not perjury. The current allegations do not appear to have been raised in that investigation. The perjury alleged in the new information involves the same trial.
9. The Applicant has also made complaints about various police officers in the case alleging they have failed to properly investigate Mr Turner and that have also been guilty of harassing the Applicant.
10. What is clear is that the Applicant has a long standing dispute with Mr Turner and that he is extremely aggrieved about the way in which the police have investigated it. From my reading of the papers the Applicant has made at least 4 separate allegations to the police about Mr Turner harassing him and an earlier allegation of perjury. The trial was nearly 4 years ago and this is the second allegation of perjury that has been made in relation to it. I must be careful about how much weight I attach to the views of the police officer who considered Mr Ponting’s complaint, but the police investigation into the complaint clearly shows that the Applicant has what may be described as an obsession in pursuing complaints against and relating to Mr Turner. Counsel on Mr Ponting’s behalf says that should be argued at a later stage and agrees that the Court does have the option of hearing an application for the summons to be withdrawn as well as well as considering an application to stay for abuse of process. Whilst I agree that the Court does have the ability to consider abuse of process at a later stage and also that the CPS may use their power to take over the proceedings and discontinue them I do not believe that I am absolved of my obligation to scrutinise the proposed proceedings and in exercising my discretion I am of the view I must carefully consider the propriety of the proceedings and in this case consider whether there is an improper ulterior motive on the part of the Applicant in issuing the proceedings.
11. My conclusions are as follows;
12. Perjury is an offence known to law.
13. Some of elements of the offence are clearly prima-facie present; there is evidence, albeit which may be subject to challenge, that statements were made at the trial in Chorley Magistrates’ Court which were false and which were made wilfully. For a prosecution to succeed it would need to be proved that the false statement was material; the Applicant says it was because it was what the malicious communications he was said to have sent were about; I do not know if the statement is material and cannot without knowing more about what happened at the trial but I would observe that not every false statement made in court will amount to perjury.
14. The offence is not statute barred, although the Court is bound to look at the delay of nearly 4 years in bringing a prosecution in deciding whether this application is vexatious.
15. The Court does have jurisdiction.
16. Authority is not required before bringing a prosecution.
17. I am required to consider “Any other circumstances” which would include whether this is a vexatious allegation. The matters I am concerned about are the number of allegations brought by Mr Ponting against Mr Turner and the way they have been pursued and the delay of 3 ½ years in bringing the matter before the Court. The report on the handling of the Applicant’s complaint by Lancashire Constabulary does give quite a lot of information about the Applicant. I do view it with a degree of caution because I know its conclusions are not accepted by the Applicant. In particular I do not rely on any assessment made by the police of the likely credit-worthiness of the Applicant as a witness. I do however feel able to rely on the number of complaints made by the Applicant and the fact that there has been a previous complaint of perjury based on a different statement made during the trial. I also bear in mind the delay of nearly 4 years. What I find particularly striking is the statement made by the Applicant to the police that Paul Turner was “starting an employment tribunal without merit following his dismissal from Danoli solutions in May 2013 and then withdrawing the tribunal claim following the Ponting’s spending £2500 on legal fees”. This leads me to the view that the Applicant is motivated by a wish to seek retribution against Mr Turner rather than simply to secure a conviction for a crime, or to put it another way to bring an offender to justice. I believe it is a way for the Applicant to subject Mr Turner to the same sort of stress and expense he was put to by the bringing of the tribunal claim.
18. In the circumstances I am of the opinion that this is an exceptional case where the Applicant has an improper ulterior motive in applying to issue this summons over 3 ½ years after the events of the trial in November 2014 and I decline his application to issue a summons.

DISTRICT JUDGE JOHN MCGARVA

 

District Judge McGarva had NO intention of issuing the summons even though prima facia evidence of a serious indictable offence was present.

He says I had an obsession with complaining about Paul Turner…fucking right I did…

• Paul Turner threatened to kill my wife and kids.
• Paul Turner posted dozens of posts on the internet calling me a paedophile.
• He Paul Turner posted malicious websites about me.
• Paul Turner reported me for harassment resulting in false arrests.
• Paul Turner posted information abut my 13 year old son on the internet.

Judge McGarva has either been fed a pack of lies by police or…. has made a ‘secret handshake‘ with the police.

Think I am gonna let this drop..?

 

Comments welcome below…