Oh where oh where art thou?

The regular readers of this site, will be aware of the strong feelings that the Abbott family have, about the totally inadequate defence provided for their son Kristian, by the then newly qualified solicitor Joanne Stephens and the barrister Charlotte Crangle, both in the run up to and during their son's trial in 2008.

Over the last 4 years one things has become all too obvious. Greater Manchester Police and the Greater Manchester Police Authority will do anything to prevent Kristian's conviction being overturned.

The allegations by S A were first  made in April 2007.

Kristian was devastated to be arrested and accused in front of his fellow officers at Littleborough Police Station. He had not long been on shift and here he was in the awful position of a criminal. The complainant, S A, had made a complaint to the people who ran the care home she lived at in Todmorden West Yorkshire, which is where the incident was alleged to have taken place.

Why Not West Yorkshire Police?

For whatever reason the manager of the care home, Rochelle Hay, chose to ring the Greater Manchester Police at Littleborough rather than the West Yorkshire police who were the force responsible for the area covering both the offence and the care home. This decision by Rochelle Hey was to have far reaching consequences for Kristian. it is arguable that had Kristian been investigated by the West Yorkshire police, that this case would never have come to trial. 
Instead, it was investigated by the corrupt officers from the GMP Professional Standards Unit (PSD). The inspector who took the initial control of the case at Littleborough, Inspector Liz Holdershaw, was herself a former member of the PSD and she handed it off to them straight away. S.A. has a record as long as your arm  and has made several allegations of a sexual nature before and after Kristian's case  if you read the article about her you will see that she really is not a very nice person.

Corrupt officers

The investigating officer from the GMP PSD was one Inspector Brian Dorian and his second in command was one detective Sgt. Paul Barnard who was aided by PC Natalie Kershaw.  The Police Regulations, which govern how the police conduct investigations, state quite clearly that an investigating officer should not be familiar with the officer under investigation.  Barnard was known to Kristian and had a run in with him prior to the first allegation and, worse, he lives only 200 metres from where Kristian lived at the time of his investigation and trial.  Indeed, Barnard told Kristian when he could not lay a false charge on him, "I will get you one day".  Natalie Kershaw used to work with Kristian at Littleborough police station for almost 2 years. There was no love lost between the two as Kristian is a good looking young man and Ms. Kershaw is not exactly page 3 material. So it is difficult to see how Kristian could have had a fair investigation.

This was to prove all too true in the months before the trial and it continued over into the trial. With hindsight, we can now see how Barnard set out to trap Kristian and stitch him up. He, Barnard, withheld evidence, destroyed evidence, deliberately ignored evidence that could have helped Kristian, committed perjury in Court, conspired to pervert the course of justice on at least two occasion that we know about. He, and Kershaw, set out on a vendetta which would lead them, helped by Dorian, to interfere with witnesses whilst the trial was in progress. Why is it you may ask that nothing has been done about this unholy group of perverted, corrupt police officers who, by rights, should be behind bars for a very long time. Well attempts have been made to make complaints to GMP about this evil crew, but GMP under the auspices of its Chief officer, Peter "Rainbow Warrior" Fahy, have simply used every method they can to try to shut the family up and deny their complaints.  In doing so, Fahy, aka Commandant Lefarce, the chief constable, has managed to turn himself into a lawbreaker by refusing to deal with our complaint. You can read more about that in the articles about GMP.

Lawyers who lie

On this site we also accuse the barrister and solicitor of deliberately throwing the case and failing miserably in their duty to put forward an effective defence for Kristian. We will also accuse the barrister, Charlotte Crangle of deliberately lying to both the family of Kristian and to her own head of chambers. These are strong claims and this site would not publish them unless it was absolutely sure of it's facts. The evidence is there.

The trial itself was a farce whereby the "defence team" failed to put up any kind of defence and agreed most of the evidence with the prosecution prior to the trial and without consulting Kristian at any stage.  Why did a barrister of supposedly 15 years experience and, allegedly, an expert in this field, lose a case that was there to be easily won? We may never know but we hope to show you on behalf of Kristian and his family, just how this terrible miscarriage of justice came about.

The trial was made up of two allegations by different girls. One the allegation by S A, was the one that Kristian was found guilty of by a majority verdict after many hours of jury deliberation.  The other, equally taking a long time for a verdict, found Kristian Not Guilty, probably due to the conflicting lies told by the witnesses, a cast iron alibi that Barnard failed to find, an identification parade where the complainant not only did not identify Kristian, but she actually identified another person as the alleged offender. We shall be dealing with the S. A.  case but will also publish the details of the DG allegation to show how hard Barnard worked to try to stitch Kristian up.  On the one hand you could say that one allegation could be false, but bring in  two allegations and you are talking "no smoke without fire". The truth is that Barnard deliberately set the second allegation up to bolster the first one in Court. The main complainant not only could not identify Kristian on an ID parade, She actually positively Identified someone else.

We shall not shirk on this site to expose the whole corrupt tissue of lies by Barnard and his cronies and we have absolutely no fear that they will take legal action as all of it is true.

The force that Kristian was once so proud to belong to has a lot of questions to answer in this matter. The parents of Kristian Abbott made a complaint to the then Chief Constable Michael Todd, about the behaviour of the investigating officer in the case,way back in November 2007.

Finally after 3 years of trying, Kristian's family have forced the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) to act properly and make Greater Manchester Police(GMP) look into their complaints against Paul Barnard and other members of the Professional Standards Department (PSD) of GMP.

In 2007 Kristian's father David Abbott made a complaint about the "investigating" officer in the complaint against Kristian. This officer, Paul Barnard, works in the "Professional" Standards Department of GMP. It took the threat of a Judicial Review to bring them to heel. Only when a Judge granted permission for a Judicial Review, into the decision by the IPCC to refuse to look into his complaint did they crumble and do what they should have done in the first place.

When a member of the public makes a complaint against a police officer they have to first make that complaint to the Chief Officer of the relevant force. The Chief Officer is required by law to record the complaint or give reasons in writing as to why they won't record the complaint. If the complainant is not satisfied with a refusal to record, then they can go to the IPCC and ask them to consider the refusal. The problem is that the IPCC is staffed by a whole load of ex police officers so they invariably side with the police. Just me ranting? No, a recent report (2010) by a House of Commons select committee absolutely slated the IPCC, for failing to investigate complaints stating that less than 1% of complaints were investigated. Also what most of the public don't realise is that the police investigate complaints against themselves. Yes that is right, the "Independent" Police Complaints Commission hand all complaints back to the police to investigate. Just like  putting Dracula in charge of the Blood Bank.

So which department of the police carries out that investigation? It is the Professional Standards Department of a particular force who carries out all investigations into complaints about police officers. And if that complaint is about a member of the PSD then they carry out the investigation into one of their own colleagues. That sounds fair and reasonable doesn't it? Not to me I am afraid. There are guidelines under the Police Act that are quite clear, as to the criteria for carrying our investigations into a complaint about a police officer. The investigating officer must not be related or known to or familiar with the officer against whom the complaint has been made. Pretty much rules the PSD out of investigating one of their own then. Also pretty much rules out Barnard investigating Kristian as he lived only 200 metres from Kristian's former home.

So it seems that the IPCC and GMP pretty much ignore the rules and make their own up. So what does this cave in by the IPCC mean to Kristian and his family? Probably not a lot as they will find some way of evading justice and wriggle out of it again. We are aware that David Abbott has written to the Greater Manchester Police Authority (GMPA) and demanded that they instruct GMP to call in an outside force, to conduct a thorough investigation into the activities of the PSD and in particular Det. Sgt Paul Barnard the corrupt police officer who stitched Kristian up in the first place. Will they do it? Nah that would be too easy and then they might be forced to do their job properly instead of always wasting so much time and money trying to cover everything up. We are also told that David has written to Ivan Lewis the Member of Parliament for Bury South and asked him to write to Fahey and the Inspector of Cosntabulary to ascertain as to why all this has gone on. Some in Bury think Mr. Lewsi is overfriendly with GMP and the police in general, but we are sure he will put the needs of his constituents above all personal beliefs.

FOR GOD'S SAKE JUST DO YOUR JOB

As you can see the IPCC have been forced to back down by David Abbott taking out an application for Judicial Review against their decision not to uphold David's complaint against members of the PSD of GMP.

Despite what is written in the preamble to this category, the truth is very different. From the police to the Court system and on to what happens after sentence the Justice system in England is deeply flawed and Kristian's case shows up all of those flaws.

The police are overseen in any investigation where a complaint has been made against an officer by the IPCC. The problem is that this is not always the case as the lines are blurred. The local Police authority has the right to investigate complaints about senior officers and is the body responsible for the actions of the Chief Officer. In normal practice, especially outside London, the Police authority is very closely linked to the police and acts for the police and not the public who, supposedly put them there. In any event, the police are investigated by the police.

Solicitors are overseen by the Solicitors Regulatory authority and the Legal Complaints Service. If you are unhappy with their answers then you can go to the Legal; Services Ombudsman. The problem is that like the police these organisations are mainly set up and run by lawyers whose first loyalty is to lawyers.

Barristers are under the authority of their chambers and the Bar Standards Council which is set up and run by barristers.

If you also include the probation service and the social services as well as the prison service, any complaints about these organisations go back to the organisations themselves and they always take the word of their own before they will take yours.

Why is this a bad thing? Well if the people investigating any part of the Justice system are unwilling to properly investigate their own part of that system, then the system deteriorates and miscarriages of justice are ever more likely. If bad practices are not stamped out then they will flourish and become the norm so that the whole arena of justice becomes ever more corrupt. The problem of nepotism is rife amongst legal circles with ever more jobs going to family members as well as access to the legal system becoming limited to those who went to private schools. That means a shared educational experience and a limiting of the vision of barristers and solicitors as to their view or experience of society.

When you are facing  trial in any circumstances, you want to believe that the people defending you are up to the job and will do their best on your behalf. In Kristian's case his solicitor was provided by the police federation.

The Police Federation almost exclusively use Russell Jones & Walker as their solicitors of choice. The solicitors then choose your barrister for you. The problem with this system in Manchester and, possibly elsewhere, is that it leads to a form of corruption. The solicitor, Joanne Stephens, who was newly qualified when assigned to Kristian's case, chose a female barrister whom she said was experienced in cases of sexual allegations. What she did not tell Kristian, was that this barrister worked on both defence and prosecution cases. Now, what we have is a solicitor whose company gets a lot of work from the police and a barrister who works, on occasions, for the police. This cosy relationship will be discussed elsewhere.
The Barrister

This article is about the barrister Charlotte Crangle and the appalling defence she gave for Kristian. Not only that, this article is designed to warn anyone who might have her foisted upon them, that she is a liar. Yes that is right she is a liar. At the first meeting that Kristian and David Abbott attended with Crangle, they were impressed to some degree with a woman who appeared to have the right ideas. She said that they would have to engage someone to drive the route that Kristian was alleged to have taken to see if it mattered in the defence. This never happened, There was much more that was said at that meeting that never materialised.

What did Crangle do that was so wrong? In a nutshell she provided absolutely no defence to the charges.  Had Kristian had a decent barrister who wanted to fight his cause, then he would never have been convicted. Now the Bar Standards Council, in a response to a complaint laid against Crangle by the Abbotts, said that the issue of whether or not a defence was good or not was in the eye of the beholder. As there was no evidence to show that the defence was poor then they had to take the word of the barrister against that of the Abbotts. Well, an organisation set up by barristers and operated by barristers would do that wouldn't they? Be that as it may, the one thing that brings into question as to whether or not Crangle provided a good enough defence is whether or not she can be believed. The Abbotts say no she cannot be believed because she is a liar.

Crangle was accused by the Abbotts of not preparing Kristian's wife Carrie for her entrance into the witness box. Crangle stated that "I had met and spoken to Carrie Abbott on several previous occasions during the course of proceedings" which of course was a downright and absolute lie. She met Carrie Abbott twice at two separate Court hearings and, at the first the conversation was brief and only concerned Carrie's pregnancy and the second was no more than saying hello. At no time did Crangle discuss the case with Carrie.  At no time did she check that Carrie had read and agreed her statement. When challenged about this and asked to provide evidence of these meetings, there was the sound of absolute silence. Did she meet Carrie at her chambers? No, and if she had there would be a record as all visitors have to sign a visitors book.

So now we have Crangle caught in a deliberate lie. How can we know that anything she has said subsequently about the case was not also a lie.

Alibi versus Identification
One grave instance is that on the 28th of October which was towards the end of the trial, the Abbotts approached Crangle and asked her to seek to have the second charge against Kristian, dismissed by the Judge because the prosecution evidence had given him an alibi for the time of the offence. In truth the evidence that the 3 girls gave in Court were so obviously lies and so obviously different from each other and their original statements, that this alone should have been enough reason for the Judge to stop that particular case. The idea behind the Abbotts application to Crangle was that it would then affect the way the Jury thought about the other case. The second case was so obviously one made up between these girls and Barnard that it should never have reached Court.

Crangle told the Abbotts that she would make the application to the Judge. Imagine the surprise of the Abbotts when Crangle stood up and made an application to the Judge to dismiss the second case on the basis of poor identification!! When asked why she just became evasive. When the Abbotts complained at a later stage Crangle denied ever receiving such an approach and that she instigated the idea of approaching the Judge to make an application. One might wonder why it was then, that David Abbott produced a note that had been typed on the morning of the 28th, containing points to be raised at the morning meeting with Crangle wherein he had written "ask the judge to dismiss the second case on the basis of an alibi"? Could that note have been written at a later date? Well, any document written in MS Word or Open Office, will always show the date it was originally written and that cannot be changed. Now even if Crangle was telling the truth, and the Abbotts had not asked her to make such an application, why did she choose the identification issue and not the proven alibi? Either way she got it wrong. The Abbotts say this is just another example of her lying.

In the first case, the one Kristian was convicted on, the main prosecution witness was a habitual liar, who had made several false allegations of sexual abuse and even rape against other people including police officers on earlier occasions. When she was being questioned by the prosecution on the Act that Kristian was being accused of, she said, "I did not really see it". In an answer to a subsequent question she said " I did not see it because it was dark and it was night as well". You would think that this would be something that the defence barrister would seize on wouldn't you? The prime prosecution witness stating under oath that she did not see what the defendant was being accused of. Well, if your barrister was Crangle then you would be wrong. She did not ask her about the actual act. Had she done so she may have shown to the jury that the complainant was lying about the whole thing. When Crangle was asked afterwards why she had not questioned the witness on the act itself, she said she did not want to upset the jury and give the witness chance to endear herself to the jury. Really? so She could have proved that the complainant was lying and she chsoe not to do that?

In the second case Kristian was found Not Guilty due mainly to the fact that 3 prosecution witnesses had given evidence to say that he was on a job elsewhere when the alleged offence took place. This was despite the witnesses suddenly changing the time of the offence halfway through. Wonder who got them to do that? Had it been up to Crangle and Joanne Stephens, those witnesses would not even have appeared in Court. Despite having a letter from the CPS asking if these witnesses would be called, on the day that they should have appeared they had not been warned to appear. When challenged about it Crangle stated that she could just agree their evidence with the prosecution. Having seen how much important evidence she had already agreed with the prosecution up to that point Kristian Abbott angrily insisted that they be called. Had he not done so then he might have been wrongly convicted of that charge as well. Crangle subsequently said in her response to the Abbott's complaint to the BSC " they (the prosecution witnesses) had not been called bby the prosecution and so the Crown asked if they were capable of being agreed and read to the Jury." She goes on to say " I took instructions on this point. The defendant wanted the witnesses called so that is what happened." Well isn't it good to know that she was out there batting for Kristian!

Agreeing all the evidence
On the question of evidence being agreed, it seems to be common practice to save time when evidence is not contentious or contested.  Crangle states in her response to the BSC " Massive amounts of the prosecution evidence were not agreed. Certain matters, for example, the forensic evidence, the journey timings and the Viper (identification) procedure evidence were reduced into formal admissions. Just the main points of the prosecution evidence then.

The forensic evidence consisted of a pair of trousers that had semen stains on them but were not, according to Kristian, the trousers he was wearing on the night of the alleged offence. At a main interview with Kristian in the police station, Barnard gave extra disclosure about these trousers to Kristian's solicitor who was then Emma Dunne also of RJW. That disclosure was that DNA had been found on Kristian's trousers. Her exact words according to the witness statement were:    "Yeah. I've received additional disclosure now which informs me that forensic, after forensic examination items have been found in the car and DNA of PC Abbott has been found on trousers outside." The truth of the matter is that no DNA testing had taken place at the express demand of GMP via Barnard and Paul Dorian. So why was this evidence agreed? It should have been pulled to bits in Court and shown for the lie that it was.  Any half decent barrister would have questioned whether or not the semen on the trousers belonged to Kristian or had been placed there by Barnard.
In a statement to the Court of Appeal. Joanne Stephens states that Emma Dunne was misled by Barnard at that interview. Oh well that is OK then.

The journey timings were of vital importance and should never have been agreed by Crangle. The complainant alleged that Kristian had taken her up a dark lane and stopped the car and then committed the Act. The police driving team were instructed by our old friend Barnard to test the journey that Kristian said he had taken, which was a direct route to the Home where he dropped the complainant off. Why did they not drive the route that the complainant alleged Kristian had taken. Maybe that was because, that would have shown that there was no time to have committed the offence according to the prosecution witnesses own timings. So why did Crangle agree that evidence and not challenge it?

On the Viper evidence which concerned the second case, the main complainant not only did not identify Kristian but actually identified someone else. So why was that agreed? It seems that Crangle agreed everything that might have helped Kristian's case.

Again, Crangle, in her response to the complaint to the BSC states in regard to evidence agreed, " The only part he (Kristian) that he did not accept was what had happened in the car, which was fully challenged and explored   Erm, in which Court was that? Crangle never asked one question about the incident in the car. The prosecution did but Crangle didn't. What that did was to leave in the jury's mind, that what the prosecution had got the witness to say was the facts. For Crangle to say then that this part of the evidence was fully explored is a bare-faced lie.

In the same letter Crangle says that "the defendant and his family seemed very pleased during the trial with how cross examination of important witnesses was conducted." Oh Really? In the same letter Crangle states that " I spoke to an extremely angry David Abbott and admitted that I should have checked that she (Carrie Abbott) had read a copy of her statement." So which is it, very pleased or extremely angry? And, given that Carrie Abbott was the only witness for the defence, does that not show how highly Crangle regarded Kristian's defence, when she could not even be bothered to check if Carrie Abbott had read her statement. This was in contrast to the prosecution preparing their witnesses thoroughly.

In the same letter, Crangle talks about a discussion held with David and Kristian Abbott about possible grounds for appeal if Kristian were to be convicted. She tells us that "the conversation then became rather heated with the Abbotts suggesting that they wanted to appeal on the basis of incompetence of legal representation, directing this mainly towards Miss Stephens. There then followed some unpleasant and offensive remarks directed at both myself and Miss Stephens, at which point I terminated the discussion." Notice if you will that it has now gone from "The Abbotts were very pleased with cross examination of important witnesses" to extremely angry and abusive.  David Abbott refutes the latter part saying he was calm throughout that meeting. Crangle also omits to tell us exactly what these unpleasant and offensive remarks were. Crangle also states in the same letter, about any possible grounds for appeal " whilst my provisional view was, that there were no grounds for appeal, I would research them and advise in due course if necessary." Yeah you got it she never did. David Abbott tells us that she said straight away that there were no grounds for appeal.

One other major lie that Crangle told was about the signing of the sex offenders register. She claims that she was in the Court House when the register was signed but had been told to go back into Court on the advice of the Court Police officers, because David Abbott was so rude and aggressive towards her. David admits to being angry about the conviction but says that he was justifiably angry, because it should not have happened and that Crangle's incompetence, whether through negligence or deliberate connivance, had played a large part in that wrongful conviction being obtained. So that brings us to the question of whether Crangle is telling the truth or not, about being in Court when the register was signed. Kristian was told to wait outside the Court for the signing of the register. The Clerk of the Court came out with the document and told Kristian he had to sign it. Kristian protested that he needed legal advice and the Clerk of the Court asked him where his solicitor was. Kristian replied she has gone home with the barrister as he, and his family, had seen the solicitor and the barrister leaving the front entrance of the Court. According to the Abbotts, The Clerk went back in to the Court and spoke to the Judge about the problem. The Judge sent the message back that Kristian must sign the register and seek legal advice on the next day about it. The question that the Abbotts have is that, if Crangle was in Court as she said, why did the Clerk of the Court not know that. Further, why did the Judge not tell Crangle or Stephens to come out and deal with the matter. Oh wait it was because she was so frightened of the nasty aggressive David Abbott (a pensioner in his sixties) that she would not come out. Or was it because she was lying yet again and had left the Court and that her claim that David Abbott had been spoken to by the Court Police was untrue? The truth is that the Court was empty at that time and Crangle and Stephens had already left.

Given that quite a lot of what Crangle has said appears to be untrue we might assume that this was also untrue.

Crangle then goes on to say that the Judge in the case made comments at the conclusion of the case, thanking both counsel for the way in which they had handled the case. The Abbotts have expressed surprise at this given that they were not in the Court at the time. It seems that this very rarely happens and one wonders why the Judge felt it necessary to make such a comment, given that he had expressed the view that it was "unusual for the defence to rely on the prosecution evidence for the alibi". This is not quite how the Abbotts remember it, but then a statement was made by the Judge which for reasons unknown to the Abbotts does not appear in the transcripts of the trial.

An observer stated to the Abbotts, that it may have been because the Judge knew Crangle's father, but the Abbotts discounted this whilst still wondering why it was said. The salient point is that Crangle did not prepare a defence other than to try to refute the prosecution's evidence. Given that she agreed most of the important points prior to trial without the consent of Kristian and without taking instructions from him on this important matter, the jury were left to decide if the prosecution's evidence was the truth or not. A half decent barrister would have contested the points in Court, not agreed them especially whether clients freedom and job were on the line.

So, was Crangle merely an incompetent barrister who had too many problems at home to prepare the case properly, or is she a conniving liar who deliberately threw the case because she and her friend Joanne Stephens had decided that Kristian was guilty and had worked up some deal with the Professional Standards Department of GMP. We don't know what do you think?
Now if someone called us liars we would be heading for the Courts if it wasn't true. Do you think Crangle or Barnard will be taking legal action? No we don't either because then the truth would come out and they would both be shown to be liars

Throughout the last couple of years there has been a growing realisation throughout the United Kingdom, that corruption and Institutional Arrogance is the norm rather than the exception.