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