From For all enquiries relating to CPS Policy please contact the CPS at the following e-mail address. Please note that the CPS cannot give legal advice but may be able to provide practical information as well as information on its policies. Contact: policy@cps.gsi.gov.uk
John Charville
The Thatch, No.2 Church Walk
Church Road, Stowupland
Suffolk, IP14 4BG
Dear Sir/Madam
This is an open EMail sent in the Public Interest, and which has been published on the Internet at: -
http://www.uk-legal.mens-network.org/CPS.htm
In all information relating to the CPS it is stated that: -
* The CPS have the responsibility of prosecuting Criminal Offences that the Police have investigated and with which they have charged a defendant;
* To review cases to ensure that the correct defendant is prosecuted; and
* To advise the Police on possible Crimes and Prosecutions that may be pursued.
Point 1
Case histories reflect that the Crown Prosecution Service refuses to examine substantiated and scrutinised evidence of criminal offences when such evidence is submitted by ordinary members of the Public. Especially when the Crimes in question were committed by Persona Acting in Official Capacities (This is contrary to the Attorney General's statement on "Public Interests"), and/or the Police refuse to investigate such Crimes (As Corporate Bodies the Police can be asserted to be assisting offenders to escape justice under section 4(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1967).
How does the CPS advise the Police on possible Crimes that may be pursued if they refuse to consider evidence of possible crimes; Given that no one can be denied the protection of the Law (see the two most famous and still valid clauses of the Magna Carta which state that no free man shall be outlawed, and no one shall be denied the right of justice). Everyone has the right to the protection of the Law and to be heard as secured by the ECHR Convention. No one can be discriminated against.
How does the CPS justify refusing to act upon substantiated and scrutinised evidence of crimes, justifying its refusal to do so on the grounds that the evidence was not submitted by the Police. That is clearly discrimination.
Point 2
When the Police arrest an individual on suspicion of committing a serious arrestable offence, on the basis of evidence that was falsified, manipulated, or suppressed to create a belief in Guilt, and submit that evidence to the Crown Prosecution Service with a view to bringing charges and pursuing a prosecution. Please explain how the CPS can review a case to ensure that the correct defendant is being identified and investigated if the CPS refuse to consider the evidence of the falsely accused victim.
Again we refer to the still valid clauses of the Magna Carta to the effect that no one can be denied the protection of the Law, and to basic Human Rights which secure the right to defend one's reputation, to know the detailed nature and cause of accusations made against one, the right to answer such accusations and the right to be heard. These rights are of particular relevance when those advancing false evidence are persona acting in official capacities, and the Police themselves have refused to follow correct investigative procedures and are a party to the fabrication, manipulation and suppression of evidence. We again refer to the Attorney General's statement on "Public Interests"
Point 3
There is much case history to demonstrate that the CPS will pursue a prosecution, where the evidence given in Court is provable Perjury (Perjury Act 1911), and can be viewed in terms of Attempted Perversion of the Course of Justice (Criminal Attempts Act 1981), or Contempt of Court. And yet the CPS refuses to seek the prosecution of those who knowingly give false evidence.
The fact that witnesses who give false evidence do so in the belief that if they are ever discovered they will not be prosecuted, is clearly prejudicial to any coherent system of justice. In fact it is an open invitation for any immoral or malicious individual to bring false allegations, for there is no fear of consequences.
Again we refer to the two most famous clauses of the Magna Carta which are still valid in statutory law and state that no one shall be outlawed (denied the protection of the law) and no one shall be denied the right of justice.
The Government and the Judiciary cannot produce any Guidance or Direction to the effect that Perjury shall not be prosecuted. To do so would be illegal and to deny innocent victims the protection of the law, which can clearly be seen to be Assisting Offenders to Escape being brought to Justice (Section 4(1) Criminal Law Act 1967). In fact such actions can be interpretted as Incitement to Pervert the Course of Justice.
Point 4.
All of the above have particular relevance in 2 specific areas: -
1. False accusations of child sexual abuse, where to falsely accuse an innocent victim of such a heinous crime, will predictably cause the victim to suffer serious injury to both their mental and physical health, and this in terms of Torture (section 134 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988). We already acknowledge that the Human Rights Act 1998 deletes Article 15 of the ECHR Convention allowing the UK to derogate from Article 3 and the prohibition of torture, However, we rely upon Article 6 of the Consolidated Treaty on European Union to secure our rights to the protection of the real ECHR Convention and the European Charter on Fundamental Rights, which specifically prohibit Torture or Inhumane Treatment of any kind. We further rely upon Article 152 of the Consolidated Treaty Establishing the European Community in respect of issues of "Public Health" ~ Anyone who falls the victim of false accusations imputing guilt in the commission of serious arrestable offence
s will be subjected to serious Stress, an area of "Public Health" acknowledged by the European Community. The fear of false imprisonment is a serious stressor. Equally subjecting an individual to Torture that affects their mental and physical health is an area of "Public Health"
2. False accusations of child sexual abuse are still rampant, and often brought during Custody Disputes (Contact and Residential Responsibility Disputes). We are fully aware of the Institutional Bias in favour of Mothers (Discrimination contrary to Art 14 of the ECHR Convention) and the unreasonable justification for this contrary to "Wednesbury Principles" based in the Flawed research of Bowlby just after the second world war, to the effect that there is a unique bond between mother and child that cannot be replaced by anyone else. This flawed research was superceded by the substantiated and scrutinised research of Sir Professor Michael Rutter: -
"It is largely as a result of the work of Professor Sir Michael Rutter that it is generally accepted that the single concept of 'maternal deprivation' is misleading. Rutter also relied on the proofs of other researchers such as Newson (1974) who argued that mothering skills are not in any way innate or instinctive. Instead, they are skills, which are acquired through practice in communicating with that particular individual baby. As you get to know a baby, and see it as having human sensibilities and a 'personality', you also become more able to detect and understand that baby's responses. Babies, on their part, learn very fast, and respond more to those people who are sensitive to their actions. They are also, as Schaffer and Emerson (1964) showed, more likely to form attachments with people who respond sensitively to them. The implication here is that interacting with babies is a learned skill; and that fathers can acquire these skills just as mothers do, given motivation and oppor
tunity."
When a parent brings false accusations of abuse involving their children in ther psychoses to do so, they are involving those children in a serious form of Emotional Abuse that is known to cause the subject children long term damage to their mental health, where in fact the harm causes is as serious if not more so than the very real harm caused by sexual or physical abuse.
To understand this one has to realise that bringing false accusations of sexual abuse against one parent in the knowledge of the consequences for her/him betrays clinical evidence of psychopathic behaviour (sadistic, antisocial or borderline personality disorders) on the part of the parent alleging such falsehoods. Very obviously the subject children become involved in the psychopathology of the errant parent, whereby those children are placed at high risk of adopting such psychopathology such that they will develop Child Onset / Childhood Conduct Disorders, and eventually develop into psychopathic adults.
This very serious form of emotional abuse is usually seen in severe Parental Alienation Syndrome, which although Internationally recognised and the subject of an European Court of Human Rights Judgement in Elsholz v Germany (Application no. 25735/94) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 13 July 2000,) the UK refuses to act upon. However, this particular manifestation of the Syndrome, is adequately described by both the International Classification of Diseases and the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (ICD and DSM respectively), and should be considered by the UK Courts on this basis.
We assert that the CPS has a Primary Responsibility to the Children who are involved in false accusations of sexual abuse, and that this responsibility extends to protecting the falsely accused adult from the consequences of being identified as a child sexual abuser, for once accused, it is inevitable that the false accusal will be made public (the vindictive parent can be relied upon to do so) whereby the falsely accused parent's financial capacity to carry out their Parental Responsibilities will be destroyed, alongside their physical and mental health.
We assert that the CPS has a Primary Responsibility to the children who become involved in bringing false accusations of sexual abuse, and that this responsibility extends to ensuring that the correct defendant is identified and prosecuted. In this aspect of the matter we are looking forward to hearing why a mother cannot be prosecuted and imprisoned for a form of Child Abuse that is known to cause more harm than actual familial sexual or physical abuse, and yet there will be no mercy shown to the father if he were indeed guilty? Remember that through Arts 20 and 21 of the European Community Charter of Fundamental Rights everyone is Equal in the Eyes of the Law, and that there is no special or unique relationship between Mothers and their children.
It is with great anticipation that we await your fullest consideration and reasoned response to the above points.
Yours Truly
John Charville