Title : CPS drops prosecution of Jacqui Thompson
link : CPS drops prosecution of Jacqui Thompson
CPS drops prosecution of Jacqui Thompson
The decision by the CPS to drop a prosecution for harassment against fellow blogger Jacqui Thompson marks the end, for now, of more than 18 months of a carefully planned and orchestrated legal onslaught against her by Mark James, Chief Executive of Carmarthenshire County Council, although he has the right to request a review of the decision and may yet have more legal surprises up his sleeve.
During this period, Jacqui Thompson has had to endure two separate and very slow police investigations into allegations of criminal harassment, a separate allegation of perverting the course of justice, threats to return to the High Court for contempt of court, and civil proceedings to try to force the sale of her family home.
All of the legal actions initiated by Mr James have now failed, and all bar the attempt to seize the Thompsons' family home have been funded by the public purse, as has the rest of his extraordinary campaign against her, with the council now lumbered with hundreds of thousands of pounds of costs which it cannot recover, and untold additional resources and costs incurred by council staff, the police and the CPS.
The decision by the CPS to pull the plug on the latest case very late in the day calls into question the judgment of both that body and the police in deciding to bring a prosecution in the first place, and more questions are now being asked about what appears to have been the use of council staff and IT resources to produce "evidence" in pursuit of what Mr James now insists is a purely private matter.
Central to Mr James's case alleging criminal harassment is his witness statement, accompanied by a printout of Jacqui's blog. This extraordinary document runs to seven pages. Because the case will not now go to court, unless Mr James launches a successful appeal, the statement is not in the public domain. However, for anyone who has seen it, it is hard to believe that Dyfed Powys Police could have spent seven months, untold hours and significant amounts of money on investigating these allegations when even a cursory examination should have kicked the farce into touch very early in proceedings.
Infamy, infamy, they've all got it in for me
We now enter a bizarre world where nothing is quite what it seems, a world of paranoia and delusion, half truths, omissions and facts built on shifting sands.
The first thing to say about the allegations of harassment is that they relate solely to Jacqui's blog. There is no suggestion that she has done anything else, although it has been put about in County Hall that there is something worse lurking in the undergrowth. If there were we would surely have heard about it by now, but the whispers have undoubtedly had an effect.
Mr James's statement kicks off with a general complaint that Jacqui Thompson has been waging a campaign against him through her blog.
He feels threatened, he says, before taking the police on a long detour containing edited highlights of his favourite bedtime reading, Mr Justice Tugendhat's verdict in the libel case, and the first complaint of harassment made in January 2016 which the police decided not to pursue after another 8 month investigation.
He had nothing to do with the decision by Dyfed Powys Police to issue her with a Police Information Notice, he tells Dyfed Powys Police, who could probably have worked that out for themselves.
Next up, Mr James notes that Jacqui Thompson did not react well to his decision to force the sale of the Thompson family home, and had sought to involve MPs, AMs and councillors. This was, he says, an attempt to bring pressure to bear on him to halt a private legal action which he had felt forced to bring.
In Mr James's view, he was entirely justified in bringing the action, and Jacqui Thompson had no right to complain. "I was mortified that Mrs Thompson was trying to get senior politicians to intervene in my private affairs".
If the prosecution had gone ahead, the courts would have found themselves being asked to rule that by asking for help from elected representatives and encouraging others to do the same, a constituent could be guilty of a criminal offence.
A very public private affair
Even if Dyfed Powys Police headquarters had been suspended in deep sleep in the manner of Sleeping Beauty's castle for the last few years, a little light Googling should have been enough to convince its occupants that Mr James's "private affairs" were nothing of the kind. Approved and funded by the County Council, with key elements of the decision ruled unlawful by the Wales Audit Office, this was never a private matter. And the press archives are littered with quotes from the publicity-loving chief executive heralding Mr Tugendhat's verdict as a victory for councils everywhere, with Mr James telling council staff that he had done it all for them.
If the libel action succeeded, he told the Executive Board, he would pay his winnings over to the council, or possibly "good causes" he later told the press, before his lawyers told a judge that he could do whatever he liked with the money, including "stuffing it in the gutter".
Such are the shifting sands on which Mr James's arguments rest.
To Mr James's evident horror, two county councillors, Alun Lenny and Cefin Campbell, last year sought to bring a Motion calling on him and the council's Executive Board to find a compromise which would not make the Thompsons homeless and "enhance the reputation of this council".
"As it transpired", Mr James writes as if what happened next had nothing to do with him, the then chair of council, Cllr Eryl Morgan, had given a detailed ruling, including an extensive quote from Mr Justice Tugendhat, setting out why the Motion was not admissible.
Even Cllr Morgan's family and friends would have been surprised by his sudden in-depth knowledge of the Tugendhat verdict and the legal ins and outs of libel damages.
The rather more prosaic truth is that a furious Mr James was determined to have the Motion stuck down. The council's Head of Legal and Monitoring Officer, Mrs Linda Rees Jones, appointed by Mr James in a way which bypassed the need for the involvement of elected councillors in the appointment of a senior officer, was persuaded to issue a fatwa in Cllr Morgan's name, with the elderly councillor being reduced to a ventriloquist's dummy.
All of this had come about because of the interference of Adam Price AM, Mr James concludes, adding that this was something "I find to be intimidating".
Cock and bull
We are now on page 4 of Mr James's statement, and alert readers may have realised that so far Mr James has not presented the police with a single example of harassment by Jacqui Thompson.
The first actual example produced from the blog is a post about the Pembrey Park scandal, in which Jacqui pointed out the seriousness of the accusations and not unreasonably suggested that knowledge of them went right to the top. In short, there had been a cover-up.
Nonsense, says Mr James. The council had investigated the matter, referred it to the police, and an officer had been convicted by a court of law.
A cursory examination of this account would have shown the police that it was at best spin and a highly selective account of what actually happened down at Pembrey. The conviction of a council officer came about because of a complaint of assault brought by the proprietor of the park café who was planning to take legal action against the council for the way in which it handled a shambolic and corrupted contract tendering process.
The prosecution related solely to the facts of the assault, and a recording exists of a very senior council officer pleading with a whistleblower not to go to the police about wider allegations of corrupt practices.
It won't cost you a penny
During this period, Jacqui Thompson has had to endure two separate and very slow police investigations into allegations of criminal harassment, a separate allegation of perverting the course of justice, threats to return to the High Court for contempt of court, and civil proceedings to try to force the sale of her family home.
All of the legal actions initiated by Mr James have now failed, and all bar the attempt to seize the Thompsons' family home have been funded by the public purse, as has the rest of his extraordinary campaign against her, with the council now lumbered with hundreds of thousands of pounds of costs which it cannot recover, and untold additional resources and costs incurred by council staff, the police and the CPS.
The decision by the CPS to pull the plug on the latest case very late in the day calls into question the judgment of both that body and the police in deciding to bring a prosecution in the first place, and more questions are now being asked about what appears to have been the use of council staff and IT resources to produce "evidence" in pursuit of what Mr James now insists is a purely private matter.
Central to Mr James's case alleging criminal harassment is his witness statement, accompanied by a printout of Jacqui's blog. This extraordinary document runs to seven pages. Because the case will not now go to court, unless Mr James launches a successful appeal, the statement is not in the public domain. However, for anyone who has seen it, it is hard to believe that Dyfed Powys Police could have spent seven months, untold hours and significant amounts of money on investigating these allegations when even a cursory examination should have kicked the farce into touch very early in proceedings.
Infamy, infamy, they've all got it in for me
We now enter a bizarre world where nothing is quite what it seems, a world of paranoia and delusion, half truths, omissions and facts built on shifting sands.
The first thing to say about the allegations of harassment is that they relate solely to Jacqui's blog. There is no suggestion that she has done anything else, although it has been put about in County Hall that there is something worse lurking in the undergrowth. If there were we would surely have heard about it by now, but the whispers have undoubtedly had an effect.
Mr James's statement kicks off with a general complaint that Jacqui Thompson has been waging a campaign against him through her blog.
He feels threatened, he says, before taking the police on a long detour containing edited highlights of his favourite bedtime reading, Mr Justice Tugendhat's verdict in the libel case, and the first complaint of harassment made in January 2016 which the police decided not to pursue after another 8 month investigation.
He had nothing to do with the decision by Dyfed Powys Police to issue her with a Police Information Notice, he tells Dyfed Powys Police, who could probably have worked that out for themselves.
Next up, Mr James notes that Jacqui Thompson did not react well to his decision to force the sale of the Thompson family home, and had sought to involve MPs, AMs and councillors. This was, he says, an attempt to bring pressure to bear on him to halt a private legal action which he had felt forced to bring.
In Mr James's view, he was entirely justified in bringing the action, and Jacqui Thompson had no right to complain. "I was mortified that Mrs Thompson was trying to get senior politicians to intervene in my private affairs".
If the prosecution had gone ahead, the courts would have found themselves being asked to rule that by asking for help from elected representatives and encouraging others to do the same, a constituent could be guilty of a criminal offence.
A very public private affair
Even if Dyfed Powys Police headquarters had been suspended in deep sleep in the manner of Sleeping Beauty's castle for the last few years, a little light Googling should have been enough to convince its occupants that Mr James's "private affairs" were nothing of the kind. Approved and funded by the County Council, with key elements of the decision ruled unlawful by the Wales Audit Office, this was never a private matter. And the press archives are littered with quotes from the publicity-loving chief executive heralding Mr Tugendhat's verdict as a victory for councils everywhere, with Mr James telling council staff that he had done it all for them.
If the libel action succeeded, he told the Executive Board, he would pay his winnings over to the council, or possibly "good causes" he later told the press, before his lawyers told a judge that he could do whatever he liked with the money, including "stuffing it in the gutter".
Such are the shifting sands on which Mr James's arguments rest.
To Mr James's evident horror, two county councillors, Alun Lenny and Cefin Campbell, last year sought to bring a Motion calling on him and the council's Executive Board to find a compromise which would not make the Thompsons homeless and "enhance the reputation of this council".
"As it transpired", Mr James writes as if what happened next had nothing to do with him, the then chair of council, Cllr Eryl Morgan, had given a detailed ruling, including an extensive quote from Mr Justice Tugendhat, setting out why the Motion was not admissible.
Even Cllr Morgan's family and friends would have been surprised by his sudden in-depth knowledge of the Tugendhat verdict and the legal ins and outs of libel damages.
The rather more prosaic truth is that a furious Mr James was determined to have the Motion stuck down. The council's Head of Legal and Monitoring Officer, Mrs Linda Rees Jones, appointed by Mr James in a way which bypassed the need for the involvement of elected councillors in the appointment of a senior officer, was persuaded to issue a fatwa in Cllr Morgan's name, with the elderly councillor being reduced to a ventriloquist's dummy.
All of this had come about because of the interference of Adam Price AM, Mr James concludes, adding that this was something "I find to be intimidating".
Cock and bull
We are now on page 4 of Mr James's statement, and alert readers may have realised that so far Mr James has not presented the police with a single example of harassment by Jacqui Thompson.
The first actual example produced from the blog is a post about the Pembrey Park scandal, in which Jacqui pointed out the seriousness of the accusations and not unreasonably suggested that knowledge of them went right to the top. In short, there had been a cover-up.
Nonsense, says Mr James. The council had investigated the matter, referred it to the police, and an officer had been convicted by a court of law.
A cursory examination of this account would have shown the police that it was at best spin and a highly selective account of what actually happened down at Pembrey. The conviction of a council officer came about because of a complaint of assault brought by the proprietor of the park café who was planning to take legal action against the council for the way in which it handled a shambolic and corrupted contract tendering process.
The prosecution related solely to the facts of the assault, and a recording exists of a very senior council officer pleading with a whistleblower not to go to the police about wider allegations of corrupt practices.
It won't cost you a penny
Next, Mr James takes the police on a brief trip to Boston, Lincolnshire, where he was chief executive before taking up his current position all those years ago.
Mr James's biggest legacy to Boston is what is now called the Princess Royal Sports Arena, a huge project built on a delusional business case which came to be a burden on local taxpayers.
Mr James departed Boston before the grandiose scheme was completed, and it subsequently attracted the attention of the Audit Commission which issued a report highlighting grossly inaccurate and wildly optimistic revenue forecasts, how councillors had been kept in the dark and how contract tendering procedures had not been adhered to.
True, the Audit Commission report named no names, and its purpose was to highlight lessons to be learned rather than act as an indictment.
According to Mr James's account to Dyfed Powys Police, he was not aware that the auditors had become involved, which suggests that their report and criticism somehow escaped his attention. Perhaps that might help explain Parc y Scarlets, cynics would say.
The man or woman on the Cilycwm omnibus may find it difficult to believe Mr James was unaware of the Audit Commission's involvement, but it seems that Dyfed Powys Police agreed that by linking the damning report to the council chief executive whose pet project this was, Jacqui Thompson merited prosecution for criminal harassment.
More examples now follow in quick succession. References to the controversial and heavily criticised Scarlets car park deal; a petition launched by a man in Trimsaran; a letter calling for Mr James's dismissal published in a local newspaper; Private Eye's decision to award Mr James its prestigious "Shit of the Year Award" and a protest outside County Hall by members of the public (but not Jacqui Thompson) involving a pig's liver are all evidence of harassment by Jacqui Thompson, Mr James tells the police.
It is all "draining, oppressive, distressing, harassing and intimidating", Mr James concludes after raiding the thesaurus for a list of adjectives.
It is also "distressing and humiliating" to have his private affairs brought to the attention of the council, "Cardiff Bay" and an MP.
You bet it is.
Own goal
Throughout the document, Mr James is at pains to make the police understand that Jacqui Thompson's "campaign" has been designed to damage his otherwise spotless reputation in the view of reasonable persons.
More perceptive readers than Dyfed Powys Police's finest may have spotted that this argument is more than slightly flawed because Mr James offers up numerous examples of how the press, politicians and members of the public have a rather less than flattering view of his virtues than he does himself. These include the pig's liver, an online petition, critical remarks made by politicians, letters to the editor, the "Shit of the Year" award and the outrageous Motion on Notice with its diplomatically phrased call for a compromise. Not to mention (which Mr James doesn't) a heavily subscribed petition from a couple of years back calling for him to be sent away empty-handed when he applied for voluntary redundancy and all of the other public criticism he has attracted over the years. Not forgetting other exhibits, such as a dead rat which a Carmarthen resident handed in at the reception desk in County Hall, for Mr James's attention.
As such, the witness statement is a spectacular own goal unless you believe that Private Eye, the press, councillors, MPs, AMs and numerous members of the public are all under the control of Jacqui Thompson, master criminal extraordinaire.
Alongside the argument about his tarnished reputation, the main thrust of the witness statement is to try to persuade Dyfed Powys Police that Jacqui Thompson was guilty of harassment by trying to deter him from exercising his legal right (to seize her home), something which amounted in his view to contempt of court:
I end my renewed complaint of harassment with Mr Justice Tugendhat's words in his Judgment which the Chair of County Council himself repeated when rejecting the Motion on Notice: "Pressure put upon a litigant to deter him from pursuing a legal right, or to punish him for having pursued a legal right, can be a Contempt of Court". I certainly regard it as also being harassment.
According to Mr James's account to Dyfed Powys Police, he was not aware that the auditors had become involved, which suggests that their report and criticism somehow escaped his attention. Perhaps that might help explain Parc y Scarlets, cynics would say.
The man or woman on the Cilycwm omnibus may find it difficult to believe Mr James was unaware of the Audit Commission's involvement, but it seems that Dyfed Powys Police agreed that by linking the damning report to the council chief executive whose pet project this was, Jacqui Thompson merited prosecution for criminal harassment.
More examples now follow in quick succession. References to the controversial and heavily criticised Scarlets car park deal; a petition launched by a man in Trimsaran; a letter calling for Mr James's dismissal published in a local newspaper; Private Eye's decision to award Mr James its prestigious "Shit of the Year Award" and a protest outside County Hall by members of the public (but not Jacqui Thompson) involving a pig's liver are all evidence of harassment by Jacqui Thompson, Mr James tells the police.
It is all "draining, oppressive, distressing, harassing and intimidating", Mr James concludes after raiding the thesaurus for a list of adjectives.
It is also "distressing and humiliating" to have his private affairs brought to the attention of the council, "Cardiff Bay" and an MP.
You bet it is.
Own goal
Throughout the document, Mr James is at pains to make the police understand that Jacqui Thompson's "campaign" has been designed to damage his otherwise spotless reputation in the view of reasonable persons.
More perceptive readers than Dyfed Powys Police's finest may have spotted that this argument is more than slightly flawed because Mr James offers up numerous examples of how the press, politicians and members of the public have a rather less than flattering view of his virtues than he does himself. These include the pig's liver, an online petition, critical remarks made by politicians, letters to the editor, the "Shit of the Year" award and the outrageous Motion on Notice with its diplomatically phrased call for a compromise. Not to mention (which Mr James doesn't) a heavily subscribed petition from a couple of years back calling for him to be sent away empty-handed when he applied for voluntary redundancy and all of the other public criticism he has attracted over the years. Not forgetting other exhibits, such as a dead rat which a Carmarthen resident handed in at the reception desk in County Hall, for Mr James's attention.
As such, the witness statement is a spectacular own goal unless you believe that Private Eye, the press, councillors, MPs, AMs and numerous members of the public are all under the control of Jacqui Thompson, master criminal extraordinaire.
Alongside the argument about his tarnished reputation, the main thrust of the witness statement is to try to persuade Dyfed Powys Police that Jacqui Thompson was guilty of harassment by trying to deter him from exercising his legal right (to seize her home), something which amounted in his view to contempt of court:
I end my renewed complaint of harassment with Mr Justice Tugendhat's words in his Judgment which the Chair of County Council himself repeated when rejecting the Motion on Notice: "Pressure put upon a litigant to deter him from pursuing a legal right, or to punish him for having pursued a legal right, can be a Contempt of Court". I certainly regard it as also being harassment.
For the umpteenth time in the statement, Mr Justice Tugendhat is wheeled out of retirement, and Cllr Eryl Morgan is cited as a legal authority on the strength of an e-mail written by Mr James's legal protection squad.
The statement, dated 27 January 2017, came before a court hearing in March of this year when a judge sitting in the County Court ordered Jacqui Thompson to pay the chief executive £250 a month in return for being allowed to stay in her home.
By the time Dyfed Powys Police got round to making its very belated decision to prosecute, that ruling and Jacqui Thompson's compliance with it meant that Mr James's complaint was demonstrably invalid.
But they decided to press charges anyway.
Sigh of relief
That this complaint got as far as it did suggests that there may be some truth in the oft-repeated claims that elements within Dyfed Powys Police see themselves as Mr James's personal protection squad.
Had the matter gone to court, the outcome would almost certainly have been red faces at Dyfed Powys HQ and the CPS, and yet more damage to the council's reputation.
It is not just Jacqui Thompson and her family who are probably breathing a sigh of relief that someone in the CPS put a stop to this nonsense.
"It was also considered that MJ could be looking at having 'two bites of the cherry' in making a criminal allegation as the civil case was finalised some three years ago and the timing of the allegation when CCC and MJ are actively pursuing Mrs Thompson for the outstanding monies from the civil action must be questioned".
Dyfed Powys Police clearly had misgivings about Mr James's motives, noting that in October 2016 a new phase of the onslaught had begun after he initiated legal proceedings to force the sale of the Thompson family home.
By December of 2016 Mr James decided that it was time to launch a new assault, with renewed complaints of harassment being sent to the police.
The second complaint of harassment would appear to have been triggered when two councillors (Alun Lenny and Cefin Campbell) submitted a motion calling for a compromise which would allow the Thompsons to stay in their home.
The motion was rejected by the then Chair of Council, Eryl Morgan, or rather the council's legal department which issued an e-mail in his name. Here is a statement issued by Cllr Lenny at the time:
"Cllr Cefin Campbell and I had submitted a Notice of Motion to next week’s full meeting of Carmarthenshire County Council urging the Executive Board and Chief Executive to seek means of settling the libel issue involving Jacqui Thompson in a way which would not result in her being forced to sell her home to pay damages and costs. The NoM was drawn up with the best of intentions, in an attempt to bring a conciliatory note to a toxic issue which has dragged on for several years. I’m sorry to say that the Chair has refused to place our NoM on the Agenda. The Chair was guided by the legal department, who e-mailed us in his name. Basically, it said we had no business to interfere in the Chief Executive’s “private and personal” affairs and legal rights. It warned that such action could constitute contempt of court. Cefin and I were also accused of showing “extreme discourtesy” to the Chair by making the Press aware of our Notice of Motion before he had time to consider it.
For now, I will just say this.
Many would perceive that the Chief Executive’s action was hardly “private and personal” as his counter-libel action was publicly funded by the Council, an indemnity deemed unlawful by the Welsh Audit Office. As regards “extreme discourtesy” shown towards the Chair, that it utter nonsense. An elected member has the democratic right to make public an intended Notice of Motion at any time. Giving the public an opportunity to discuss such NoMs – or intended NoMs – is a key part of the democratic process. Cefin and I discussed seeking independent legal opinion, but came to the conclusion that enough money has been pocketed by lawyers and barristers in this matter already. We shall leave the court of public opinion to make its own judgement for now. But this is not the end of the matter…"
Dyfed Powys Police clearly had misgivings about Mr James's motives, noting that in October 2016 a new phase of the onslaught had begun after he initiated legal proceedings to force the sale of the Thompson family home.
By December of 2016 Mr James decided that it was time to launch a new assault, with renewed complaints of harassment being sent to the police.
The second complaint of harassment would appear to have been triggered when two councillors (Alun Lenny and Cefin Campbell) submitted a motion calling for a compromise which would allow the Thompsons to stay in their home.
The motion was rejected by the then Chair of Council, Eryl Morgan, or rather the council's legal department which issued an e-mail in his name. Here is a statement issued by Cllr Lenny at the time:
"Cllr Cefin Campbell and I had submitted a Notice of Motion to next week’s full meeting of Carmarthenshire County Council urging the Executive Board and Chief Executive to seek means of settling the libel issue involving Jacqui Thompson in a way which would not result in her being forced to sell her home to pay damages and costs. The NoM was drawn up with the best of intentions, in an attempt to bring a conciliatory note to a toxic issue which has dragged on for several years. I’m sorry to say that the Chair has refused to place our NoM on the Agenda. The Chair was guided by the legal department, who e-mailed us in his name. Basically, it said we had no business to interfere in the Chief Executive’s “private and personal” affairs and legal rights. It warned that such action could constitute contempt of court. Cefin and I were also accused of showing “extreme discourtesy” to the Chair by making the Press aware of our Notice of Motion before he had time to consider it.
For now, I will just say this.
Many would perceive that the Chief Executive’s action was hardly “private and personal” as his counter-libel action was publicly funded by the Council, an indemnity deemed unlawful by the Welsh Audit Office. As regards “extreme discourtesy” shown towards the Chair, that it utter nonsense. An elected member has the democratic right to make public an intended Notice of Motion at any time. Giving the public an opportunity to discuss such NoMs – or intended NoMs – is a key part of the democratic process. Cefin and I discussed seeking independent legal opinion, but came to the conclusion that enough money has been pocketed by lawyers and barristers in this matter already. We shall leave the court of public opinion to make its own judgement for now. But this is not the end of the matter…"
As with the first harassment complaint, it took Dyfed Powys Police some seven months to conclude their investigations, and this time they decided to recommend prosecution to the CPS which concurred.
The decision to abort the process came just a couple of days before the first scheduled appearance in front of magistrates, and appears to have come about after someone higher up the chain of command in the CPS pressed the alarm button.
The decision calls into question the judgment of both Dyfed Powys Police and the lower echelons of the CPS in allowing the case to get as far as it did, with all of the time and money expended since January 2016 on a complaint which, as we shall now see, should have been rejected within a few weeks rather than months.
Another bite of the cherry
The decision to abort the process came just a couple of days before the first scheduled appearance in front of magistrates, and appears to have come about after someone higher up the chain of command in the CPS pressed the alarm button.
The decision calls into question the judgment of both Dyfed Powys Police and the lower echelons of the CPS in allowing the case to get as far as it did, with all of the time and money expended since January 2016 on a complaint which, as we shall now see, should have been rejected within a few weeks rather than months.
Another bite of the cherry
The time and effort spent by someone in County Hall trawling through Jacqui's blog immediately prior to visits by police officers investigating Mr James's complaints suggest that the chief executive was not confident that Dyfed Powys Police know how to use the internet, and Mr James's detailed witness statement, which presumably formed the basis for investigations, would seem to confirm that he was right to have his doubts.
If the investigating officers had done even just a little light googling, they would have realised that the accusations were nonsense and, quite possibly, that Mr James's account was not exactly reliable.
Fortunately for all concerned, the case did not get to court. If it had, the reputation of the council, Dyfed Powys Police and the CPS would have taken a hammering.
As a result of the CPS's decision to pull the plug, Mr James's statement is not in the public domain, but it makes for interesting reading.
The document runs to seven pages. In page after page Mr James says that he feels that he is a victim of a campaign; he feels threatened, he says. He takes the police through the libel trial, he even explains to them that he had no part in their decision to issue Jacqui Thompson with a PIN - something they could have worked out for themselves -
Fortunately for all concerned, the case did not get to court. If it had, the reputation of the council, Dyfed Powys Police and the CPS would have taken a hammering.
As a result of the CPS's decision to pull the plug, Mr James's statement is not in the public domain, but it makes for interesting reading.
The document runs to seven pages. In page after page Mr James says that he feels that he is a victim of a campaign; he feels threatened, he says. He takes the police through the libel trial, he even explains to them that he had no part in their decision to issue Jacqui Thompson with a PIN - something they could have worked out for themselves -
Firstly, the complaints of harassment related only to the content of Jacqui's blog, although as this blog noted last week, there has been a sustained and anonymous whispering campaign in County Hall to blacken her character by suggesting that there was something much worse involved than a few critical blogposts.
Readers of Jacqui's blog will know that she does not indulge in vulgar abuse, make threats or stray into people's private lives. Her criticism of Mr James is limited to the way in which he carries out his job, and her views are shared by many both within and outside the council.
It is understood that one of the blogposts printed off for the police included the phrase "lumpy carpets", suggesting that Carmarthenshire County Council might sometimes be guilty of covering up scandals.
Surely not?
Just about every council and other public body come to that has been accused of cover-ups at some point or other. Does that constitute harassment?
In particular, did the phrase "lumpy carpets" constitute harassment when, as County Hall would have known, Mrs T was merely quoting a column in a local newspaper which had been commenting on the same story?
Dyfed Powys Police and local representatives of the CPS
Also, I rather hope someone asks Mr James for a comment...
It would also be interesting to find out if council computers were used prior to the forced sale hearing in March, as the blog was used as evidence. He makes much about how the enforcement of damages was a 'private affair'. I didn't keep any logs at the time but maybe worth a mention to the WAO along with the earlier stuff.
On Tuesday, 11 July 2017, 10:19, Richard Vale <richard_vale1@yahoo.com> wrote:
Thanks Jacqui. I'll ask Jon to put in a request to Dyfed Powys asking how many man-hours have been spent on the various investigations since Jan 2016 and what the cost is. That will obviously not include costs incurred by the CPS and the council.
One intriguing thing I noticed on one of your posts was a few lines you quoted from a Dyfed Powys report, saying that MJ seemed to be hoping to have more than one bite of the cherry.
We'll never know, but I wonder if common sense and caution at junior levels was brushed aside by someone further up the chain.
Again, we'll probably never know, but I have heard that there is something called the "Curry Club" where MJ, police top brass and other worthies meet to tackle matters of mutual interest.
From: K THOMPSON <kthompson855@btinternet.com>
To: Richard Vale <richard_vale1@yahoo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2017 7:37 AM
Subject: Re: Blog post
Yes the first complaint was in Jan 2016 - by MJ writing a letter to the chief constable (harassment and perverting the course of justice). The police clearly thought they'd better go through the proper procedure although it seems MJ was difficult to pin down. They took his formal complaint on 18th April (same day as first saved council computer search). They took his full statement on 27th June (few days after the second saved search)
11th April 2016 I had the letter from solicitors threatening high court and that I'd been reported to the police.
He started the forced sale action in October 2016.
I now know that his second complaint was made on the 15th Dec 2016. This is around the same time, and seems to have been triggered by, the attempts by the Cllrs to bring the Motion about his 'private affairs'. My crime seems to have been publicly asking JE and AP to intervene. He wrote his witness statement on the 27th Jan 2017.
I will also ask Tim Minogue today whether the Eye ever received a complaint from him over the 'award'.
As far as I understand, the PIN (warning letter from August 2016) still stands and is not due to be reviewed for another 4 months, I will have another go at shifting that at some point.
I'm still a bit shellshocked. I only had a couple of lines from MP. I emailed back to ask what I could say about it but he hasn't got back to me. I'll just put a few lines this morning and hope the discontinuance notice arrive in the post later as it may, or may not, contain a reason why.
I will blog fully on the whole episode later on today. I can't think of a good reason why not. It's been a bloody nightmare.
I don't know if he'll try anything else, eg the high court, or ask the CPS to reconsider. Surely not.
On Tuesday, 11 July 2017, 6:45, Richard Vale <richard_vale1@yahoo.com> wrote:
Hi Jacqui
I'll wait for you to post, but am preparing a piece for the blog.
What I am having trouble with is establishing a timeline for the harassment complaints.
A rummage through your blog seems to show that:
1. The first complaint was made in January 2016
2. The council accessed your blog in April 2016 - presumably to produce 'evidence' to back up MJ's complaints.
3. The investigation was eventually closed in August 2016 when the police issued the PIN.
When did MJ make his second complaint of harassment?
I intend to go on to make it clear that the complaints related only to the blog - as one of your posts last year made clear - and that this whole farce has dragged on for 18 months and been a complete waste of public money and the resources of the police, CPS and council. Quite apart from the ethical considerations and the appalling torment and stress you have been subjected to.
rgds
Richard
Thus Article CPS drops prosecution of Jacqui Thompson
that is all articles CPS drops prosecution of Jacqui Thompson This time, hopefully can provide benefits to you all. Okay, see you in another article post.
You are now reading the article CPS drops prosecution of Jacqui Thompson the link address https://updatedsnews.blogspot.com/2017/07/cps-drops-prosecution-of-jacqui-thompson_17.html
0 Response to "CPS drops prosecution of Jacqui Thompson"
Post a Comment