A meagre yet nonetheless revealing Subject Access Request (SAR) has finally arrived from Derbyshire Constabulary. The most important revelations are as follows:
Reports against me all were made to local forces outside Derbyshire. In simple terms, therefore, I am being forced to carry out Serf Labour as “payback” to a community that has no complaint against me. Indeed, there exists (thankfully) not a single synagogue within the entire county.
The SAR confirms (finally) that I did indeed deliver more anonymous post (including another, unopened “greetings card”) to Glossop police station shortly before I was first arrested November 2016. The officer in charge at the time had expressly asked me not to open any more of these greetings cards before handing them over to police. Why wasn’t this unopened card sent for DNA testing? Why was this case only partially investigated and why was this new evidence not taken into account? Why was I suddenly informed that the investigation had been dropped a week before I was the one being arrested for alleged harassment of the suspected sender and why was this person never interviewed by local police? – The SAR states categorically that my reports concerning this particular individual span a period of over 28 months.
The SAR also contains a short report of the interview I gave to police after my first above-cited arrest. Why did the CPS Counter Terrorism Unit prosecution barrister, Karen Robinson, then claim in court March 2018 that a second interview I gave in October 2017 was the first time I had ever been interviewed by police about my songs? What happened to the process of full disclosure?
A number of reports from the usual suspects are vaguely alluded to, one of which accuses me of “selling a CD” of my songs! It appears that Derbyshire police weren’t too fond of the idea of having me re-arrested for alleged breach of my bail conditions throughout most of 2017, despite reports coming thick and fast. Perhaps that’s why the Met was sent to do the dirty work outside court, October 2017, resulting in two nights in the cells and then bizarrely, according to the SAR, two days later “all charges dropped” by my own local force?
Before detailing my recent experience of Jewish Chronicle (JC) editor Stephen Pollard’s refusal to grant my Subject Access Request (SAR), I would briefly like to return to last June and the day of my sentencing at Westminster Magistrates Court.
When I was called once more to the dock, I immediately recognised solicitor Mark Lewis, seated next to both my accusers from Campaign Against Antisemitism. I was able to quickly alert my barrister, Adrian Davies, that Lewis had sent me several death threats on Twitter, a fact which Mr Davies revealed during mitigation that same day.
During my second visit with the Probation Service in August, I produced screenshots of Lewis’ tweets along with several other examples of abuse sent to me on Twitter, abuse that is still ongoing today despite the obvious fact that I am unable to respond directly owing to my 12-month ban from social media. Shortly after my meeting with probation, Lewis’ prosecution by the Solicitors Regulatory Authority was quietly announced by the media.
According to the British Sentencing Council’s definitive guidelines on the imposition of custodial sentences:
• A custodial sentence must not be imposed unless the offence or the combination of the offence and one or more offences associated with it was so serious that neither a fine alone nor a community sentence can be justified for the offence.
Furthermore, the Criminal Justice Act 2003, part 12, chapter 3, para. 9 (5), states:
Before making a suspended sentence order imposing two or more different requirements falling within subsection (1) [mine has no less that five], the court must consider whether, in the circumstances of the case, the requirements are compatible with each other.
And again quoting from the above guidelines:
• A suspended sentence MUST NOT be imposed as a more severe form of community order. A suspended sentence is a custodial sentence. Sentencers should be clear that they would impose an immediate custodial sentence if the power to suspend were not available. If not, a non-custodial sentence should be imposed.
At my conviction last May, District Judge John Zani was fairly precise in his indication that my offences were serious enough to warrant custody. My musical malice had “on the face of it”, passed the custody threshold and therefore I was facing a spell behind bars or – as it turned out – a custodial punishment in the form of a Suspended Sentence Order including slave labour plus four other requirements.
Are these requirements compatible? Not really. Forced labour plus a 12-month social media ban plus a fine prevent me from earning a crust. The strangest part of my order is the 20-day “Rehabilitation Requirement Activity” (RAR). Let me explain.
For the fifth time in 12 months, I walked free from court again yesterday – this time in a breach trial brought against me by the National Probation Service (NPS) for refusing to comply with the slave labour part of my Suspended Sentence Order.
First off, a brief explanation is necessary regards the difference between a Community Order (CO) and a Suspended Sentence Order (SSO). As one District Judge commented in a research paper published in 2008:
‘Well, prison is an ever-present part of one isn’t it [the SSO], but not of the other, and that’s the difference in a nutshell. There’s a real threat. As I see it, a Community Order is – look, we’re trying to help you – and anything to do with imprisonment is – look, we’re trying to threaten you.’