THE CROWN PROSECUTION SERVICE

My experience with the Crown Prosecution Service from 2018-2019. First, I would like to provide an overview of the CPS, which I consider to be an organisation of extremely low standards, not fit for purpose and indeed not fit to be impartial in dealing with accused individuals and advising the Police correctly before charges are made. The CPS is an entirely political organisation, as are the Police, the court system, the Judges, magistrates, and down to the level of junior support staff within the CPS and courts. They have had their budget cut and are forced to employ cheap, low-grade staff, many of whom start as so-called apprentices from the age of 16 with no formal qualifications. They are trained in-house by their inadequate staff, who indoctrinate them into the woke, biased way of accessing and presenting cases. They are progressed to paralegal status by the CPS by assessment without external examination. They are then allowed to present some low-level cases in the magistrates' court, which is exclusive to CPS paralegals and significantly cheaper than hiring qualified solicitors. PAY PEANUTS, GET MONKEYS; the significant danger is that the government wants paralegals to prosecute all Magistrate court cases. They also wish magistrates to handle more serious cases and have increased powers of imprisonment. Still, the poor quality of some of our magistrates, many of whom are involved in local politics, does not look good for the future of justice. With very few able to afford a solicitor, you either defend yourself or have a low-grade legal aid who will persuade you to plead guilty, as they are incapable of defending you, as they are part of the system that processes you and pretend, they have dispensed justice. The paralegals and casework assistants prepare and organise the case files for the Crown Prosecutors, and these individuals are often young, straight out of school, and not well-educated, but indoctrinated and lacking life experiences. They seem to lack any impartiality when assessing the evidence provided by the Police, and whatever is said by the alleged victim is true, this derives from the chief constables and other senior people stating that victims, particularly women, must always be believed. They do not consider that the alleged victim could be lying and making false statements, often as a form of revenge. This is more common with women, with the disgraceful, useless police classing any incident as misogyny, deserving special attention; they even tried to pressure the government into making alleged crimes against women misogynistic hate crimes, carrying heavier sentences. The evil, extreme left-wing former Chief Constable of Nottinghamshire even wanted wolf-whistling to be made a misogynistic hate crime and was teaching this nonsense to Law students at Nottingham Trent University; she also used council money to fund misogyny courses for Police officers run by the Nottingham Women's Centre. This was a significant step into the woke, two-tiered political policing to which we are now subject. The inept case preparation of the prosecution extends beyond the low-level case workers; when they have completed the case file, it must be reviewed by senior personnel. This is supposed to be carried out by a specially trained lawyer at the CPS who will review all the evidence. Together with a second reviewing lawyer, they will determine whether there is sufficient evidence to proceed to trial. The CPS will then notify the police of the decision regarding whether to charge the suspect or request additional evidence to upgrade the case files. Who are these specially trained reviewing lawyers at the CPS? In my opinion, they are low-grade and that is why they work for the CPS; as they are unemployable anywhere else and incapable of working on their own account, which I found out by my own failed political prosecution. We are now living in a corrupt political society, with the whole of the judicial system run by political activists who are unelected, including Judges, CPS, and police. I believe that people who control our lives and make or overrule laws should be elected to represent and serve the citizens of our country. This includes chief constables, Judges, and the head of the CPS.

MY EXPERIENCE WITH NOTTINGHAM CPS OFFICE AND ITS INTRANSIGENT STAFF

This is my story of dealing with the Nottingham office of the corrupt, lying, highly political, lowlife, uneducated, supposedly highly trained legal professionals who review the information and evidence to decide if it is viable to bring a prosecution. The CPS states on its website that the following principles apply.

1. The independence of the prosecutor is central to the criminal justice system of a democratic society. Prosecutors are independent from persons or agencies that are not part of the prosecution decision-making process. CPS prosecutors are also independent from the police and other investigators. Prosecutors must be free to carry out their professional duties without political interference and must not be affected by improper or undue pressure or influence from any source.

2. It is not the function of the CPS to decide whether a person is guilty of a criminal offence, but to make assessments about whether it is appropriate to present charges for the criminal court to consider. The CPS assessment of any case is not in any sense a finding of, or implication of, any guilt or criminal conduct. A finding of guilt can only be made by a court.

3. Similarly, a decision not to bring criminal charges does not necessarily mean that an individual has not been a victim of crime. It is not the role of the CPS to make such determinations.

4. The decision to prosecute or to recommend an out-of-court disposal is a serious step that affects suspects, victims, witnesses and the public at large and must be undertaken with the utmost care.

5. It is the duty of prosecutors to make sure that the right person is prosecuted for the right offence and to bring offenders to justice wherever possible. Casework decisions taken fairly, impartially and with integrity help to secure justice for victims, witnesses, suspects, defendants and the public. Prosecutors must ensure that the law is properly applied, that relevant evidence is put before the court and that obligations of disclosure are complied with.

6. Although each case must be considered on its own facts and on its own merits, there are general principles that apply in every case.

7. When making decisions, prosecutors must be fair and objective. They must not let any personal views about the ethnic or national origin, gender, disability, age, religion or belief, sexual orientation, or gender identity of the suspect, defendant, victim or any witness influence their decisions. Neither must they be motivated by political considerations. Prosecutors must always act in the interests of justice and not solely for the purpose of obtaining a conviction.

8. Prosecutors must be even-handed in their approach to every case and have a duty to protect the rights of suspects and defendants while providing the best possible service to victims.

I did not find the CPS upholding the above principles; rather, it is poorly run by lawyers who are underpaid and staffed with many young, indoctrinated, and uneducated individuals with little life experience, who are incapable of making independent, unbiased decisions.

The entire justice system is heavily influenced by politics, with a strong left-leaning bias. This is reflected in the police, the CPS, court staff, and judges, who often act as a law unto themselves. This was evident in my 2018 trial, and it has become even worse, as seen in the recent Southport trials. In my case, I believe there was a significant influence of misandry by the female police officer who had been on a Women’s Centre Course on misogyny by men, which was linked to the # MeToo movement and made her biased against me. I believe WPC Parkes then pressured a young, probably female case worker to ignore my complaint of being assaulted and prosecute me on false evidence. This makes a complete mockery of the claim that the Police and CPS are independent of each other.

The judges and court staff are liars and dishonest; in my case, they denied receiving a signed-for special delivery mail and refused to provide me with a copy of my trial transcript. I complained to the judicial conduct office, which stated that the recording was missing. This was a lie and a cover-up, as the recording would have exposed Judge Spencer's bullying and intemperate language. It is not the criminals who should be in the dock, but the scum who are the judiciary.

The CPS states that two qualified lawyers review all case files to ensure there is sufficient evidence for a conviction in court. This is an absolute lie. In my case, there was no substantial evidence; the key evidence was a fake phone video from the so-called alleged victim, which a 10-year-old child would find to be fake, and there were no independent witnesses. I believe this evidence was accepted by a case worker, who was probably a young, indoctrinated, and ill-educated person, in-house trained, lacking any real legal knowledge or life experience, and easily influenced by the corrupt police officer, WPC Parkes.

I do not believe a qualified lawyer reviewed this, as it was utterly lacking in proper evidence. If a CPS lawyer reviewed it, was it a person who was incompetent and, no doubt, politically motivated to proceed to trial?

At the Crown Court trial management hearing, my legal aid lawyer was incompetent, and part of the system was ready to agree with the CPS. I took it upon myself to make two copies of a list of what I believed were the flaws in the evidence, one for my lawyer and one for the prosecutor. The judge saw the list and showed annoyance. The list requested includes a forensic examination of the fake video and footage from six street cameras, two of which belong to the city council, and one located outside the court building where the incident originated. The management hearing was adjourned for a week to allow the prosecutor to consult with his CPS seniors.

The CPS has a prosecutor's duty to assess the evidential material provided by the police. Prosecutors should be proactive in identifying and, where possible, rectifying evidential deficiencies, and conclude cases early when further investigation cannot strengthen them. This proves my point that the CPS employs lazy, incompetent, untrained people who are ideologically inclined to believe they are above reproach, and anybody charged by the police must be guilty.

They know a low-grade legal aid solicitor will represent most people, or they will have no legal representation. They have no chance of a successful defence, and the cheap, pathetic legal aid solicitor will advise them to plead guilty, and they will receive a lower sentence. They are not a defence advocate, but a glorified clerk who is part of a system designed to give the impression of a fair and balanced system.

This makes the CPS lazy, believing you are guilty, failing to review the evidence, or disregarding allegations against you as malicious, often backed by false evidence.

All this leads to the conclusion that our whole Justice system is corrupt, with Judges free to hold extreme political views and able to make abusive, ill-tempered comments even in the courtroom.

Judges are not independent in the UK; they are part of the government, acting on instructions from politicians, which enhances their status, comfortable lifestyle, and generous pension, with the prospect of extra income and honours. I believe the majority of judges should be elected in local areas for periods of ten years, this way their political leanings if any will be known and people who they represent and hopefully this will be reflected by their conduct preventing them from believing they are immortal and beyond reproach.

I conclude that the CPS are liars and do not prepare cases with a proper review by a qualified lawyer before authorising a prosecution. Upon admission, they only review a case when you plead not guilty and elect for a Crown Court trial, indicating that they expect to secure a conviction and need to make an effort to verify the corrupt police evidence. DOES NOT SAY MUCH FOR THEIR ASSERTION THAT THEY ARE INDEPENDENT OF THE POLICE.

Proof of the CPS lies, and false evidence is in the attached CPS letter in reply to my complaint dated 20 November 2019 on page two where they state that I spoke on the “FAKE” video, which I did NOT, they said there was no street video evidence even though given them a list of six cameras.

THE POLICE AND CPS ARE JUST LIEING SCUM NEVER BELIEVE THEM, ALWAYS CHALLENGE VIDEO EVIIDENCE IT IS EASY TO FAKE.

My letter of complaint to CPS, 22nd October:

COMPLAINT OF LACK OF PROSECUTION

Dear Sir/Madam,

I wish to make a double complaint, firstly that you advised Nottinghamshire Police not to prosecute the man who physically and verbally assaulted me, and secondly, you advised the prosecution of me with false evidence which the complainant provided with malicious intent.

I realize this was over 12 months ago, but t can only now make a complaint due to the intransigence, obstruction and delay by the Police. l received a summons to appear at Nottingham magistrates court on 26/09/2018 and remanded to Nottingham Crown Court on 4/10/2018.

Crown Prosecution Service

King Edward Street

Nottingham

NGI IEL Edward Bellamy

T20180625. The only evidence was ridiculous false statements by Mrs Bellamy and Curtis, and a video from Mrs Bellamy's phone, which was so blatantly false that a child would know it was false. A trial date was set for May 2019, but I was recalled to court on February 11, 2018, where the prosecutor offered no evidence but wanted me to be Bound Over, which I refused, as I had committed no wrong. I told the Judge I wanted a trial as I wanted to be declared Not guilty by my Peers and to show up the corrupt police officer who pushed this case in connivance of Crown Prosecution Service had passed 5 street cameras during the alleged incident plus the fake video yet the Judge asked the prosecutor twice if there was any camera evidence; to which he replied NO and even stated that camera outside the court was not working. I ATTACH TO THE BACK OF THIS LETTER A COPY OF THE NOTES I GAVE TO MY ADVOCATE: I gave him 2 copies; one for the prosecutor, who no doubt showed it to the Judge.

The case was investigated by PC Parkes, who is a corrupt, biased, and lazy Officer whom I had previously complained about. The complaint was not investigated correctly. After I made a complaint to the IOPC, a second investigation was ordered, which explains my delay in contacting you. I disagree with the conclusions, but the Police state it was because of your directions that my assailant was not prosecuted. In 2nd investigation, I presented the Investigating Officer with 29 Questions, and in reply, he directed 2 of the answers in your direction. I list 2 questions with answers below.

Question 19: Were my complaints of Physical and Verbal assault by Curtis investigated? If so, why was no action taken, or why was I not informed that my complaint was not valid?

Police Answer to Question 19: - In summary, YES. The CPS adviser who decided to charge notes that you made a counter-allegation and that the push by Mr Curtis on you was recorded on the footage. She also notes that Mr Curtis can be heard being aggressive towards you. The adviser still decides to charge you and to advise that no charges be brought against Mr Curtis. I would recommend consulting the CPS to gain a deeper understanding of the reasons behind this decision.

I WOULD POINT OUT THAT CURTIS VIOLENTLY PUSHED AT LEAST 8 TIMES

AND HE VERBALLY ASSAULTED ME BY SHOUTING ABUSE AT THE TOP OF HIS VOICE, ALARMING A LARGE NUMBER OF PEOPLE. HE SHOULD HAVE BEEN CHARGED UNDER THE PUBLIC ORDER ACT.

Question 21: - Will Curtis be prosecuted for assault? PC Parkes admitted there is a video of him pushing me, and in his 2nd statement, he admits calling me a paedophile. I know these are summary offences with a 6-month limit, but the delay is due to Police misfeasance. There is a precedent of summary cases being charged up to 2 years later. Although, because of my age, a charge against Curtis could be ABH rather than common assault.

Police Answer to question 21: As stated above in Question 19, the full facts were presented to the CPS, and they have viewed the video footage of Mr Curtis pushing you but have not informed us to charge him.

THIS IS MY ASSESSMENT AND OPINION OF THIS CASE

I believe PC Parkes to be a very low-grade, poorly trained Police Officer who should not be in the Police Service. I contend that she is corrupt, biased, lazy, out of depth, and guilty of malfeasance in Public Office. It is clear she only investigated the Incident from the view of Mrs Bellamy and Curtis, who were victims, and I was a criminåi who needed to be convicted. I believe she promised Mrs Bellamy to get me convicted and imprisoned, and ignored my complaint of assault. It appears PC Parkes did not present my complaint to the CPS. Still, the CPS case worker picked it up from my statement, I thought I had made it perfectly clear in my statement that I was complaining of being assaulted by Curtis. PC Parkes was on a mission to have me convicted and ignored me, and only phoned me after 2 months when I had complained to a Senior Officer of a lack of contact and investigation. She refused my offer of a file of documents concerning the lead-up to the incident, saying they were not relevant. She finally read the documents on September 4th. I had already made my first court appearance, and her Sergeant phoned me to try to persuade me not to use this evidence. I told him he was bent and put the phone down. This Sergeant was even more corrupt than PC Parkes. This evidence would completely destroy the CPS case, although you had no case anyway.

This is my opinion of how the situation evolved: When The corrupt PC Parkes liaised with the

CPS's Case worker's mission was to have me convicted at any cost. I believe the Case Worker was probably a young person with no legal qualifications and very little oversight, and was easily persuaded by PC Parkes to make a file against me, but not against Curtis. At the management hearing, the hapless CPS Lawyer had no objective evidence. It appears the CPS use low, poorly trained staff; the result is a waste of money, and I made 3 Court appearances and suffered severe Stress.

I hope you will explain why I was exposed to this malicious prosecution, and the man who was assaulted was not prosecuted. This says a lot for our cheap, low-grade Justice system and puts us on par with the Third World.

Yours Faithfully,

Edward Bellamy

THE REPLY FROM THE CPS

CPS

PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL

Mr Edward Bellamy

20 November 2019 Reference: 31CF1002618

Dear Mr Bellamy

I am writing further to your letter of 22 October 2019 to the Victim Liaison Unit of CPS East Midlands requesting feedback, under the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) Complaints and Feedback Policy. The case has been passed to me as the Head of the Nottingham Crown Court Team to carry out that review.

In order to respond fully to your request, I have carefully considered the file of evidence that was submitted by the police and the prosecutor reviews completed at each stage of the process.

In your letter you raised two issues that relate to the CPS:

1. The reason for the charging decision to prosecute you.

2. The reason why Steven Curtis was not charged in respect of his conduct to-wards you.

I will try and explain as clearly as I can the reason for these decisions but before I do so, it may assist if I briefly highlight some guiding principles that all prosecutors must follow when reviewing cases. I apologise if you are already aware of them but it is very important that you understand the basis upon which these difficult decisions are made.

Relationship with the police

Although the police and CPS work closely together on cases, they are completely independent of each other. The police are responsible for investigating offences, conducting all reasonable lines of enquiry and gathering the evidence. They will then make a decision on whether to take no further action; charge the offender or refer the matter to the CPS for advice.

Crown Prosecution Service,

East Midlands,

2 King Edward Court,

King Edward Street,

Nottingham,

NGI IEL

Telephone: 0115 852 3300 9am —5pm Monday — Friday Email: Victimliaison.EastMidlands@cps.gov.uk

Web: www.cps.gov.uk

Please tell us if you need this letter in a larger print, another language or format

The Code for Crown Prosecutors

Crown Prosecutors review all cases referred to the CPS by the police in accordance with the two stage test set out in the Code for Crown Prosecutors (referred to as 'the Code'), when deciding whether or not to bring or continue with a prosecution.

The full Code test has two stages. The first stage is consideration of the evidence. Crown Prosecutors must be satisfied that there is enough evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction against the defendant on each charge. A realistic prospect of conviction is an objective test. It means that an objective, impartial and reasonable jury or bench of Magistrates or Judge hearing a case alone, properly directed and acting in accordance with the law is more likely than not to convict the defendant of the charge alleged. This is a separate test from the one that the criminal courts themselves must apply. A court should only convict if satisfied so that it is sure of a defendant's guilt. If there is any element of doubt that must be exercised in the favour of the defendant and they would be acquitted. If the case does not pass the evidential stage, it must not go ahead no matter how important or serious it may be. If the case does pass the evidential stage, Crown Prosecutors must proceed to the second stage and decide if a prosecution is needed in the public interest.

In analysing the strength of the evidence in a case, it is important to look at the accounts given by the victim, the suspect and any other evidence gathered by the police. This is in order to consider if there is any evidence that supports or undermines the credibility or reliability of the allegation. The Code for Crown Prosecutors also directs that we consider what the defence may be, and how it is likely to affect the prospects of conviction. You can access a copy of the Code on our website www.cps.gov.uk

1. The reason for the charging decision to prosecute you.

On 15 July 2018, the police submitted a file for charging advice. The file presented related only to you and the alleged Breach of Restraining Order that occurred on 14 June 2018.

As you will be aware, the Restraining Order made on 28 June 2017 prohibited you from contacting directly or indirectly, by any means whatsoever, Karina Bellamy (except though solicitors for the purpose of divorce proceedings) and Steven Curtis.

Mrs Bellamy and Mr Curtis alleged that after they left Nottingham County Court on 14 June 2019, you followed and instigated contact with them. In interview, you said waited before leaving court, you met them on the street, they initiated contact and Mr Curtis pushed you. When the case was initially reviewed, the prosecutor did have regard to the recorded phone footage and the behaviour of Mrs Bellamy and Mr Curtis, but was of the view there was sufficient evidence to conclude that your words and actions amounted to a direct breach of the Order and that you should be charged with the offence.

Prosecutors have an ongoing duty to review. After you elected trial at the Crown Court, the case was reviewed

Crown Court prosecutor, and they asked the police to provide CCTV footage of the route taken by you and the complainants after you all left the court. The police confirmed there was no CCTV covering this area. Consequently, it was not possible to prove independently who instigated the contact between you. Therefore, the prosecutor The Code for Crown Prosecutors

1. The reason for the charging decision to prosecute you.

On 15 July 2018, the police submitted a file for charging advice. The file presented related only to you and the alleged Breach of Restraining Order that occurred on 14 June 2018.

Prosecutors have an ongoing duty to review. After you elected trial at the Crown Court, the case was reviewed

Crown Court prosecutor and they asked the police to provide CCTV footage of the route taken by you and the complainants after you all jeft court. The police confirmed there was no CCTV covering this area. Consequentl it Was not possible to prove independently who instigated the contact between you. Therefore, the prosecutor concluded the evidential test was no longer met. This is why, at the hearing held on 2 November 2018, the barrister prosecuting the matter on behalf of the CPS offered no evidence and a Not Guilty verdict was entered.

2. The reason why Steven Curtis was not charged in respect of his conduct towards you.

As explained above, it is the police's responsibility to investigate offences. We can only provide advice to the police about charging a person when they provide us with a file containing the evidence and material they have collated during their investigation. The police will only refer cases where they are satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to charge. In some cases the decision whether or not to charge will fall to the police in any event. In this case, the police only sought advice in respect of the allegation of breach of Restraining Order; we were not asked to specifically advise on the assault allegation you made against Mr Curtis.

I see from your letter the police have informed you Mr Curtis' actions were considered by the charging lawyer. However, I can confirm this was only done as part of the prosecutor's evidential assessment of the case against you.

As part of considering your complaint I have considered the evidence in respect of your allegation. For the reasons I have outlined, the case was very finely balanced. In the absence of any independent witnesses or CCTV evidence to show what happened prior to the part of the incident recorded on Mrs BellamVs phone, I consider it unlikely we would have advised charge if we were asked to do so.

Conclusion

This concludes my handling of your complaint which is recorded as negative feedback in accordance with our Complaints and Feedback policy. I appreciate you may be unhappy about what happened, but I hope that my letter assists to explain the reasons for the issues you raised.

Yours sincerely

Michelle Mannion

District Crown Prosecutor

Crown Prosecution serviceEast Midlands,

Edward Bellam

2 King Edward Court,

King Edward Street,

Nottingham,

NGI IEL

19th December 2019

Your Ret 31CF1002618

Dear C P S,

I am making a delayed response to your letter, 20th November 2019. I was disappointed by your letter of 24th October 2019, stating that you would only record my complaint as negative feedback, even though I had pointed out that the delay was due to the inaction, obstruction, and delay by the Police to whom I had initially made a complaint of assault. The Police blame the CPS, and the C P S blame the police. What a corrupt, dysfunctional you both are.

I make no excuses for branding you absolute liars and a disgrace to our so-called Judicial System. I viewed the video from Mrs Bellamy's phone at the management hearing, and all it showed was a back view of me walking away. There was no speech from me. The only speech was Mrs Bellamy's hysterical shouting of what I was supposed to have said. The video was so obviously false that a 10-year-old child would have known the speech was a voice-over. What sort of cretinous, low-grade clerk carried out the case preparation in conjunction with the corrupt PC Parkes?

It has been admitted by the C P S and the Police that there was evidence on video of my been assaulted yet it was not on Mrs Bellamy's video, t)is leads me to believe it was either deleted or came from sreet CTV which you stated was not available, what happened to tie Police retaining evidence. All I can conclude is that you have been LIED to continually by the Police and the C P S, you should be looking into your organisations for some real crime. Why did you want me to be Bound Over? Was it to justify your unjustified prosecution, or was it to satisfy the corrupt PC Parkes' promise to have me convicted?

I realise that I am going nowhere with this and accept the matter is concluded. You are no doubt aware that I complained about the Crown Court administration, which denied receiving my special delivery signed for correspondence, and that the Judge in my case refused to authorise my purchase of a Transcript of my trial. His refusal of my request speaks volumes for the state of our so-called Justice System from a corrupt Police Officer, corrupt useless C P S, the corrupt court management, and me bullying an obnoxious Judge.

I believe our whole Judicial System is rotten and corrupt from top to bottom and would be compatible with North Korea or Iran. I suppose my only satisfaction will come from the COURT OF PUBLIC OPINION.

Your Disillusioned Citizen,

EJ Bellamy .

MY CONCLUDING LETTER TO THE CPS.

No surprise with this letter, they were never going to admit to incompetence and corruption or apologise for the ordeal they subjected me to, and CPS and the police just blamed each other for the disgraceful debacle.

List of services

THE CROWN PROSECUTION SERVICE