OUTLINE OF CASE
Originial case: Pembrokeshire County Council (Trading Standards) v Thomas H Sinclair Jnr & Evolution Event Promotions [in the Swansea Crown Court]
Evolution Event Promotions Limited and its former director Thomas Hutton Sinclair Jnr were found guilty of making a single false statement by way of a letter to the chairman of Haverfordwest Carnival on 10th July 2002. The letter confirmed that Ali-G or real name Sacha Baron Cohen was to attend the carnival. The defendants were found not guilty of making two similar statements on the 2nd July 2002 and 10th July 2002. No evidence was offered on the second 10th July 2002 charge after the jury had been sworn in so the judge directed that a formal not guilty verdict be returned in respect of both defendants.
The jury returned a not guilty verdict for 2nd July 2002 charge but found the defendants gulty of making the same statement again, in effect, on 10th July 2002. All parties agree that at all material times all of the statements were false; however, the defendants aver that they were not aware of the falsity of the statements on 10th July 2002.
The defendants have maintained their innocence throughout.
The defendants aver that a mixture of mis direction, new evidence and impartiality of the prosecutors and jury have lead to a mis carriage of justice which must be appealed.
The alleged crime is somewhat unusual in that the local authority brought the case as a publicly funded private prosecution through their trading standards department where there had not been a single complaint by a member of the public or the Haverfordwest Carnival organisers who are the alleged victims of the offence.
G R O U N DS F O R A P P E A L
There was no complainant
The case was investigated by Pembrokeshire County Councils trading standards department which is under the umbrella of the Public Protection Division of the council. The trading standards department and the licensing department of the prosecuting authority are therefore synonymously linked and share the same senior management team and Divisional Director whose principle officer is Mr Gareth Watts. Mr Gareth Watts has been dealing with the principle defendant, Mr Sinclair, since 1998 when he was involved in the organisation of a 10,000 capacity charity rock concert in Milford Haven. Relation turned sour between Mr Gareth Watts and Mr Sinclair when he caused a noise abatement notice to be served on the Evolution Experience event at Haverfordwest Show Ground only days before the event was due to take place.
Mr Gareth Watts, in 2002, wrote a report regarding Mr Sinclairs standing and fitness to hold a public entertainment licence and stated:
Mr Sinclair is of insufficient propriety to hold a public entertainment licence and has the propensity to unfairly criticise the local authority, through a variety of public forums, on its licensing functions
The trading standards department of the authority took action against the defendants after reading an article in a local newspaper suggesting that the real Ali-G or Sacha Baron Cohen was not coming to the event as advertised.
Mr Sinclair was asked to attend the County Council offices for a recorded interview, but refused for fear of impartiality. Mr Sinclair issued a letter to the County Council stating he would welcome any investigation by the Advertising Standards Authority or an outside local authority. However, the local authority chose to offer the defendants a Local Authority Caution for the offences, which they refused to accept, protesting their innocence.
The authority confirmed to the Haverfordwest Magistrates Court, through its principle advocate Claire Incledon that no complaints had been received from The Haverfordwest Carnival, any member of the public nor Sacha Baron Cohen or his legal representatives.
THE DEFENDANTS QUESTION THE AUTHORITY OF PEMBROKSHIRE COUNCIL TO BRING A PROSECUTION OF THIS NATURE, WHICH SHOULD BE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST WHEN THE PUBLIC, NOR ANY OTHER PARTY ARE ALLEGING TO BE VICTIMS OF THE PUPORTED CRIME
AS A POINT OF INTEREST: THE COUNSEL FOR THE PROSECUTING AUTHORITY WRONGLY INSTRUCTED THE JUDGE THAT THE DEFENTANTS HAD ELECTED FOR TRIAL AT CROWN COURT, WHEN IN FACT THEY HAD INSISTED THAT THE CASE BE BROUGHT TO THE CROWN COURT.
Committal - The argument to commit to Crown Court was flawed and there was a danger of bias from the magistrates.
The case was brought to Haverforwest Magistrates Private Prosecutions Courts where after a number of adjournments on the request of the County Council the authority finally made the request, through its principle advocate Claire Incledon that the case be committed to the Crown Court.
Claire Incledons argument was that the case should be committed to the Crown Court because of the difficulties that the County Council were having with serving the company with legal papers. Claire Incledon told the bench that these technical difficulties would mean that it would be near impossible to expect the magistrates to deal with a case of such complexity so the case was committed to the Crown Court.
The chairman of the bench was Mr Peter Lewis who is the ex-chairman of Pembrokeshire County Council. Mr Lewis was making a decision in a case involving the County Council where he in fact is a past chairman of that authority.
THE DEFENDANTS AVER THAT THIS IN BREACH OF ARTICLE (6) 1 OF THE E.C.H.R. RULES - THE RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL.
The defendants wrote to the Clerk to the Justices at Haverfordwest Magistrates to complain about this situation, however, no reply was ever received.
THE DEFENDANTS AVER THAT THE MAGISTRATE COURTS FAILURE TO ACT IN BREACH OF ARTICLE (6) 1 OF THE ECHR RULES - THE RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL.
Following Mrs Claire Incledons accusation that Evolution Event Promotions Limited did not collect its recorded deliver post, Evolution Event Promotions Limited wrote a letter of complaint to Claire Incledon to which a reply was received denying that she had mis-lead the court.
Evolution Event Promotions Limited again wrote to Mrs Claire Incledon asking her to produce evidence that post was not being collected within seven days or a letter would be sent to the Monitoring Officer for Pembrokeshire County Council and Ombudsman for Local Government in Wales.
No reply was received to the letter so Evolution Event Promotions Limited wrote to Mr Mark James who is the monitoring officer for Pembrokeshire County Council.
A reply was received stating the matter was being investigated; however, no further correspondence was received from Pembrokeshire County Council, in breach of the councils own policy on complaints procedures.
Postal Fraud
On 7th August 2003, A few weeks following the complaints by Evolution Event Promotions Limited into the accusation that registered post was not collected by the company, a recorded delivery card was left at the registered offices of Evolution Event Promotions Limited by the post office. The card relating to a document which was from Pembrokeshire County Council was duly brought to the sorting office on 12th August 2003 by Thomas Sinclair Jnr in order that the item be collected. However, the item had already been collected by the senior trading standards officer for Pembrokeshire County Council Mrs Sandra McSparron who had claimed that she had got the permission of the addressee, Evolution Event Promotions Limited by telephone, to collect the item. A statement was made by the Post Office Employee who dealt with the package, the content of which is reproduced in facsimile below.
I, Terry Hicks, an employee of Milford Haven Sorting Office, 95 Robert Street, Milford Haven, in the county of Pembrokeshire, SA73 3AR at all times material in this statement will say as follows:
On 7th August 2003 the sorting office received a recorded delivery letter/packet addressed to Evolution Event Promotions Limited at 11A Hamilton Terrace, Milford Haven, Pembrokeshire, SA73 3AL. The letter/packet was not delivered immediately as there was no reply at the address. The packet was returned to the Sorting Office at 95, Robert Street following a card being left at the companys address. I exhibit the card as TH-1.
At approximately 2:15pm on the 12th August 2003, a lady claiming to be working for Pembrokeshire County Council came to the desk and asked me if she could have the letter/packet back. She told me that the letter contained a court order which she said was time sensitive. She said that she had contacted the addressee of the letter/packet, Evolution Event Promotions Limited and that they had said, on the telephone, that they had not received a recorded delivery card and did not know to collect the parcel.
Under the circumstances, I agreed to give the parcel to the female representative of the Council, who duly signed for the letter/packet, reference number RE 9115 4984 4 GB, using the name S R Mc. Sparron.
At approximately 11am on 13th August 2003, a gentleman known to me as Thomas Sinclair (jnr) came to the post office to collect a number of recorded delivery items relating to 11 & 11A Hamilton Terrace, Milford Haven. Mr Sinclair enquired as to the location of the recorded delivery item addressed to Evolution Event Promotions Limited. I duly explained to him that it had been collected the previous day by the Council. We had a conversation relating to the item which lasted for about five minutes.
I handed Mr Sinclair a post-it note, which had the package number and S R Mc Sparrons name on it which I exhibit as TH-2.
Mr Sinclair left with two other items, and obviously without the recorded delivery item which the Councils purported representative had already collected. I believe that the facts in this witness statement are true.
THE DEFENDANTS AVER THAT PEMBROKSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL, THROUGH MRS SANDRA MC SPARRON MADE A FALSE STATEMENT AND OBTAINED PROPERTY BY DECEPTION CONTRARY TO S(15)1 OF THE THEFT ACT 1964 IN THE UNLAWFUL OBTAINING OF THE RECORDED DELIVERY ITEM.
THE DEFENDANTS FURTHER AVER THAT THE PROSECUTING AUTHORITY WENT TO SUCH LENGTHS TO COVER UP THE FACT THAT CLAIRE INCLEDON HAD MADE FALSE STATEMENTS IN COURT ABOUT EVOLUTION EVENT PROMOTIONS LIMITED COLLECTING POST.
Mis-direction
The jury were directed that if they felt the fax was a forgery then Mr Sinclair was guilty of making a false statement. This is not the case.
New Evidence
Dixons Stores Group have released information which proves that the key false document was not faxed from PC World in Enfield as the prosecution claimed in the original trial
Two key witnesses; the defendants mother, and the company secretary at the time were not able to give evidence at the original trial and their evidence may have lead the jury to reach a different verdict.
Witness Statement of Mr Gareth Watts
Mr Gareth Watts witness statement should not have been included in the papers and should not have been read out in court. If it was known by the defendants that Mr Watts statement was to be read out then the statement would not have been agreed and he would have been called as a witness and cross-examined.
Impartiality
The Councils Principle Advocate may have been motivated by a personal grudge as the Defendants have made a number of official complaints against her. Principle Advocate, Claire Incledon, was furthermore refused planning permission to build a property near her existing home and the motion to refuse was made by Cllr Thomas Sinclair, father of Thomas Sinclair Jnr. Further, there is a danger that the jury may have overheard a defence witnesses comments about the defendant
It has now emerged that one jury member was a teacher of the son of one of a key defence witness. The defendant is involved with a number of actions against the Pembrokeshire County Council by way or judicial review, crown court appeal and interlocutory injunction proceedings at the High Court. This in itself should be grounds for appeal or re-trial.
