1 Pares Land Walk
Rochdale OL16 5SX
24 May 2007 (2nd letter)
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
24 May 2007 (two hearings)
I refer to my letter of 23 May 2007 and my first letter of 24 May 2007 (copies attached). You appointed a solicitor who disregarded my instructions today.
You received my first letter of 24 May 2007 at 1348 today. You received my letter of 23 May 2007 at 2244 yesterday, 23 May 2007. At the first hearing today, shortly after midday on 24 May 2007, I handed the Court further copies of my 23 May 2007 letter.
Contrary to this solicitor’s statement to the Court, I did not, and do not, agree to the adjournment obtained by the Prosecution today.
The Learned Judge told me, in Court, on 30 March 2007, that the matter would be committed to the Crown Court for trial on indictment, at a hearing this week.
Instead, the Crown handed to me a “courtesy bundle,” a term I do not understand, and the Crown’s request for an adjournment filed untruthfully in my name.
I appeal today’s determination. I was arrested on 23 August 2006, by officers of the City of London Police Force, in respect of this matter. I was then subjected to numerous confusing requests that I attend Rochdale Police station on different dates, apparently in response to Bail.
I was eventually charged on 19 March 2007, although as far as I know I had no obligation to attend Rochdale Police Station on 19 March 2007. The Police, having switched the matter between the City of London and Greater Manchester Police Forces, appear to have transferred the task of inflicting delays on the Prosecution and the Crown Prosecution Service.
The Police and the Crown have enjoyed more than sufficient time to compile their case. The delays are an injustice. I still do not understand the case against me, despite it being over fours years old.
The hearings today appear to me to be part of a process of concealing the block on my access to justice.
The matter should have been dismissed. Had the Court thought otherwise, presumably it should have committed the matter for trial in the Crown Court.
I note in the media that adjournments are blamed on Defendants and their representatives. I have not asked for any adjournment.
This particular matter has been before the Courts since February 2005. The matter in general, the question of web sites and allegations I do not understand accusing me of somehow harassing people, is the subject of correspondence to me, third parties, the Greater Manchester Police and Crown Prosecution Service, starting no later than October 2003.
The Crown should not have been allowed a further adjournment, the Crown should not have been allowed to blame its adjournment on me, and solicitors must represent their clients, including me, properly and truthfully.
I ask and, to the extent that I may and it is needed, I also require that Court tells me what it is doing with this appeal.
I ask again that the Court and its staff represent my words properly. While we were waiting for the Duty Solicitor the Court sat doing nothing.
I suggested that the Court adjourn, since otherwise Magistrates’ time was being wasted. The Clerk dissembled this into a rejection of legal help. I had to repeat the request, because we were doing nothing. The Magistrates have better things to do. This gives an appearance of hostility towards anything helpful from the Defendant.
Please may I have the names of the Magistrates that dealt with me today? I do not want their addresses, simply their given and family names, preferably written.
Yours faithfully
T Moore
1 Pares Land Walk
Rochdale OL16 5SX
24 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
(adjourned [twice] to) 24 May 2007
I attended a hearing of the above today, 24 May 2007, which you adjourned to 2.00 pm today, to give the solicitor I J Owen a further opportunity to attend.
Solicitor Mr I J Owen did not attend on 30 March 2007, neither did he attend on 22 May 2007, nor did he remind me of the hearing today.
I do not want to be rude, but is someone trying to conceal the fact that my access to legal services is blocked? My access to legal services is blocked, and the Court has seen evidence of it. Forcing a solicitor to attend at the last moment, and/or obscuring the block on my access to legal services, does not resolve the problem of me being denied access to justice.
I have skimmed the additional document bundle handed to me at the first hearing today, shortly after midday, 24 May 2007. I still cannot see any case to answer.
I have not had sufficient time to consider the new bundle, and prepare a case, if such a case needs to be prepared.
Please may I have the names of the Magistrates dealing with me today? I do not want their addresses, simply their given and family names, preferably written.
I affirm that I exercise my right to trial in the Crown Court. This letter is untidy because I am over tired. I apologise.
Yours faithfully
T Moore
1 Pares Land Walk
Rochdale OL16 5SX
23 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
(adjourned to) 24 May 2007
I attended the first hearing of the above on 30 March 2007, and on 22 May 2007 when you informed me the hearing date was to be 24 May 2007.
I will likely be late on 24 May 2007. I put my best effort into attending as instructed on 22 May 2007, and suffer numerous diagnosed and mostly untreated sleep disorders. Not one of those disorders is psychiatric.
The solicitor I appointed, Ian Owen, who agreed to represent me, has not attended. 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, presumably now 24 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.
I dispute that there is a case for me to answer. The documents handed to me on 30 March 2007 are insufficient for a proper finding of guilt. Court Staff, Police and Prosecution must agree, otherwise they would allow me solicitors.
On 30 March 2007 Counsel for the Crown said that summary trial would not be available to me, owing to what she said was the seriousness of the allegations I face, and the limited penalties available to summary Courts.
That statement affirms my need for proper document 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 indication as to their source.
The Crown Prosecution Service should not need an opportunity to change its disclosed documents without admitting as much, but at least in my case, the Crown Prosecution Service has reserved to itself an opportunity to dispute the documents handed to me on 30 March 2007.
I have no way of knowing if the bundle is complete, if the omissions are intentional, if the omissions are lawful, or even the extent of the omissions.
Certain comments in the documents I was handed on 30 March 2007 are not admissible, I am sure. 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 24 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 and 24 May 2007.
I object to staff and judicial rudeness on 30 March 2007, which was not repeated on 22 May 2007. On 30 March 2007, the Learned Judge accused me of not appointing solicitors. That statement is a falsehood.
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 found me guilty of needing psychiatry, without any hearing. The Learned Judge is not qualified to make such an assessment.
King shouted abuse at me when I was taking your 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.
Normally in such circumstances, I am subjected to entirely false allegations of violence, coincidental with a breakdown of CCTV cameras. Miss Sarah Branson claims my saying that "allegations of violence against me are always coincidental with CCTV breakdowns" harasses her.
I do not know, but I think it highly likely, that as with the CCTV camera malfunction phenomena I mention above, the Court’s recording of its 30 March 2007 hearing is also lost, the machines broken or there was some other failure. If not that, then something is needed to bridge the gap between the claims of the Prosecution on 30 March 2007 about the seriousness of the allegations, and the allegations in the documents handed to me on 30 March 2007.
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 the availability or otherwise of 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 24 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. 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 Owen, 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?
By blocking, and/or allowing my access to legal services to be blocked, the Prosecution demonstrates a lack of confidence in its own case and enjoys the benefit of a "litigious jackboot on its side of the Scales of Justice." Since the Prosecution does not believe its own case, neither should the Court.
This letter is untidy because I am over tired. I apologise.
Yours faithfully
T Moore
