1 Pares Land Walk
Rochdale OL16 5SX
21 May 2007
The Clerk to the Justices
Rochdale, Middleton & Heywood Magistrates Court
The Courthouse
Town Meadows
Rochdale OL16 1AR
Dear Sirs
R. v Thomas Moore
Rochdale, Middleton & Heywood Magistrates Court
22 May 2007, 0945
I attended the first hearing of the above on 30 March 2007. The solicitor I appointed, Ian Thomas, who agreed to represent me, did not attend. I hope he will attend the next hearing, but I am not confident.
The Learned Judge told me on 30 March 2007 that if a solicitor did represent me on 22 May 2007 that I would be committed for trial at the Crown Court without reading the statements to the Court. Otherwise, the Learned Judge told me, I would be committed for trial at the Crown Court after the Prosecution had read its statements to the Court.
For the sake of clarity, I do dispute that there is a case of any kind for me to answer. As far as I can see, the documents handed to me on 30 March 2007 do not amount to a case that anyone should answer. The Court, Police and Prosecution presumably agree since otherwise they would allow me solicitors.
On 30 March 2007 Counsel for the Crown said that summary trial would not be available to me in any event. Should the Crown not retract that statement, it affirms my need for proper disclosure and a proper explanation of the allegation I am expected to answer.
I am concerned, although it may be standard practice that the documents I have, presumably prepared by the Crown, are not paginated, are not signed and have no indicated as to their source.
The Crown Prosecution Service should not need an opportunity to change the disclosure documents without admitting as much, but at least in my case, the Crown Prosecution Service has reserved to itself at least an opportunity to dispute the documents handed to me on 30 March 2007.
Worse, I have no way of knowing if the bundle is complete and the omissions intentional and lawful. In this particular case, I do dispute the Crown Prosecution Service not furnishing me with sufficient exhibits.
Certain comments in the documents I was handed on 30 March 2007 are not admissible, I am sure. Logically it must follow that the case for my committal to the Crown Court will be different to whatever is supposed to be implied by the documents handed to me on 30 March 2007.
Since I have no legal qualification of any kind, I cannot say with sufficient certainty, what the case against me will be, if it is based on those documents alone. Hence, whatever the Court determines on 22 May 2007, I cannot have had sufficient time, and knowledge of the case I must meet. On that ground, I appeal all your decisions in the above matter on or about 22 May 2007.
I object to staff and judicial rudeness on 30 March 2007. The Learned Judge accused me of not appointing solicitors. That statement was false.
The Learned Judge accused me of not wanting to speak and disregarded every note I attempted to have passed to him. The Usher dissembled the messages I attempted to pass to the Learned Judge.
Your Complainant, the Barrister Miss Sarah Branson, is demanding that I be subjected to yet another psychiatric assessment. I object to these demands, which have not been determined, but as I left the Learned Judge told psychiatric social worker Mr Steven King to follow me out of the Court.
The Learned Judge had found me guilty of being in need of psychiatric attention, without any hearing. The Learned Judge is not qualified to make such an assessment.
King shouted abuse at me when I was taking you leaflet OJC2. This was outside the Court. King followed me as I was leaving the building. I have told King to leave me alone. King was acting for The Learned Judge and harassing me.
One can never tell, but normally in these circumstances, I am subjected to entirely false allegations of violence, coincidental with a breakdown of CCTV cameras. Miss Sarah Branson objects to me pointing out that allegations of violence against me are always coincidental with CCTV breakdowns.
I ask that my words are represented properly. I have instructed solicitors, in this and other matters, and they have all disregarded my instructions.
Solicitors are not permitted to work for me. This is not a complaint about Legal Aid.
One important reason I ask for trial on indictment, is I think the matter too complicated for Summary Trial. The charge is under Section 3(6) of the Protection from Harassment Act, which mixes civil and criminal law and that will almost invariably lead to less than simple questions about the state of the law. Were I allowed solicitors, I might think differently, but I have been forced to draw that conclusion without the benefit of legal advice.
On 30 March 2007 the Learned Judge said he was entering a plea of "not guilty" on my behalf. I have not said that. I do not understand the charge.
Please will the Court note that there are no allegations of violence, at least to my knowledge, and there is, therefore, no reason to deprive me of my liberty.
In the past three weeks, Royal Mail has again suspended mail deliveries to my home, and restored mail deliveries. Royal Mail and I have reached an agreement that will, I hope, bring these periods of mail theft, to an end.
I cannot say if mail from the Court or Prosecution is missing. Should that be in question, I hope the Court will allow me time, and legal representation, in order that a case may be presented in my defence.
I hope I can attend Court at the required time on 22 May 2007, and subsequently, however, I am suffering increasing illness, owing primarily to being deprived of a prescribed dental device that aids breathing. I ask the Court not to punish me for the actions of others in depriving me of an Anterior Mandibular Positioner.
I appeal against any decision other than to dismiss the charge or commit me for trial on indictment at the Crown Court with unconditional bail. I cannot dispute a decision to dismiss the case against me. I have had no notice of the possibility of any decision other than to commit me for trial at the Crown Court, and therefore could not prepare a case.
I ask that Court staff and Judiciary refrain from further abuse. I am not rude to you, and neither you nor any of your staff have any need to be rude to me.
I attach a copy of a page from the Legal Aid application of solicitor Ian Thomas, in which he undertakes to represent me. May I please remind the Court that its complainant is a Barrister, and that both the Police and Crown Prosecution Service have not only the best qualified staff, but also unlimited resources?
Does the Prosecution need a litigious jackboot on its side of the Scales of Justice?
Yours faithfully
T Moore
