Why wouldn’t QC David Knifton want the ‘FACTS’ to prove a criminal allegation?

QC David Knifton is a part-time Judge and, against all ethics, sat as the recorder (judge), in a civil hearing where the police brought an injunction against Paul Ponting for speaking out about Lancashire police.

QC Knifton is, ‘in my opinion’, corrupt to the core. That is my honest held belief and my opinion is protected under Article 10 of the Human Rights Act, my rationale for this opinion is as follows;

QC David Knifton refused to allow evidence, an audio, recording to be played in court.  The recording was crucial because a female police officer, who gave evidence within the same proceedings, was committing perjury.

Perjury is a serious offence, and although the recording was made by a private individual, of a police officer in the execution of his duties as a public servant, QC David Knifton, spat his dummy, because of the ethics of recording covertly. (Even though it was of a public servant who proved another police officer committed perjury)

Although it is up to the judge what evidence is allowed to be used, it is common for covert recordings to be allowed to be played in court (see video below), especially where there is a significant dispute of facts and the recording provides evidence of those facts!

But no, QC David Knifton would not allow this, as, the finger would have pointed at a police officer committing perjury, and, we wouldn’t want that, would we?

This leads to my second reason why QC David Knifton is, in my opinion, corrupt.  Firstly, QC David Knifton is ‘NOT A JUDGE’, he is a recorder, (a part-time judge).  He is a FULL-TIME barrister at Exchange Chambers in Liverpool.

Exchange Chambers is the ‘go to’ Chambers that police use to defend themselves, this fact comes from ‘Legal500.com. Not only that, as a full-time barrister, QC David Knifton has published on his public profile that ‘the police‘ are his clients.

So, here we have ‘A Judge’, presiding over a civil trial, where the claimants are, his clients, I mean, the police.  The police (his clients) brought a claim against Paul Ponting, a man of no criminal record but who has a track record of being targetted by Lancashire police (Kniftons ‘clients’) and MR Ponting publishes their misconduct online.

Mr Ponting has substantial evidence that a female cop lied on oath, a lie that the police complaints system covered up and is now heading to appeal at the IOPC.  The appeal to the IOPC will put them on notice of a Judicial Review if the appeal is not upheld,  (not the first time Mr Ponting has required a Judicial Review against the IOPC defending Lancashire police).

Lancashire police apparently claim that the officer lying on oath is not something that should be investigated.  Oddly, they spent ten’s of thousands of pounds bringing a civil claim against Mr Ponting, one which the Chief Constable was aware of perjured evidence and is himself under investigation by the Police and Crime Commissioner (under the direction of the IOPC as the Crime Commissioner initially refused to do anything)

So, what this means is, in the very near future, the recording by the Superintendent will be released, at least, the section where he confirmed facts about a police officer. The facts prove that the female officer LIED intentionally on oath and prove that the Chief Constable was very much aware of these lies.

The person in the recording confirming her lies is a now-retired Superintendent of Lancashire police.  One who categorically expressed his honesty and integrity as a police officer so, is the Supt lying or, is the PC lying.  We shall let the FACTS determine that.

The lying officers’ statement will also be published, as will the several Subject Access Request proving her statement was all… bullshit lies.

This will then pave the way for further legal action, both civil and criminal.

Getting back to QC David Knifton, he presided over this farcical civil trial, QC David Knifton is responsible for the failure in the justice system and will have to live with that.

A recent video from a barrister emphasising the points above.



Be the first to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.