Crimes Without Consequence
Those of you who follow this site, or our social media, will be aware of our friend Jimmy Boyle. Some will know something of his story. Convicted and imprisoned as the result of false and malicious allegations, Jimmy was eventually to secure what passes for justice. But not until the system had extracted from him every ounce of his humanity. His convictions quashed by the Appeal Court, Jimmy was nevertheless returned to prison to await – for a year – the re-trial at which he was finally exonerated.
The stark reality is that those whom we wrongfully imprison do not, on their eventual release, live happily ever after. Jimmy’s post-exoneration experience is eloquent testimony to that.
This month brings the 20th anniversary of the beginning of Jimmy’s nightmare, and the 13th anniversary of his eventual exoneration. In recognition of these milestones, we publish today Jimmy’s own analysis of, and conclusions on, the system that, to this day, denies him the right to recover his life. These are Jimmy’s words, and his experience. We are happy to offer him this platform to express them in his own terms.
(Criminal?) Misconduct in a Public Office
Early February 2023 will mark the twentieth anniversary of the levelling of the first in a series of criminal threats against me, designed to “destroy (my) career in teaching.” Later that month falls the thirteenth anniversary of my acquittal of fabricated charges and release from false imprisonment.
The law supposedly binds police, Crown Office Procurator Fiscal (COPFS), General teaching Council (GTC) and Disclosure Scotland personnel to conduct independent and impartial investigations of allegations put to them. Throughout the course of this ongoing criminal enterprise, resulting in the continuing imposition of the criminals’ purposes upon me, none of the above-named public agencies discharged this duty.
Sheriffs and Judges DID NOT require evidence this supposed duty had been discharged – jurors were routinely lied to: albeit no evidence of an investigation was put to them, they were expected to assume such duty had been discharged.
The routine misleading of jurors is a pronounced and dangerous feature of Scotland’s legal, system.
This first threat advised my career in teaching was to be “destroyed”.
I brought this threat to the attention of my employers on the following day.
Some weeks later, the criminal who issued this threat fabricated a supposed “recovered memory” incident, thereafter taking it to the police.
Police and COPFS personnel chose NOT to investigate this claim, choosing instead to deem it true.
The obvious question arising is: how can threat precede the ‘trigger’ event that supposedly led to the issuing of these threats?
The next question is: why, if the evidence could have been revealed during the initial stages of an independent and impartial investigation by police personnel, did they choose NOT to investigate, instead designing decades of abuse for the victim of their crimes, a free pardon for themselves and their criminal clients, whilst spending your and my taxes pursuing very obvious criminal purposes that would have revealed themselves in early 2003 had they opted to discharge their supposed legal duty.
Police Scotland officers committed perjury in the course of the 2005 proceedings and later, emboldened by the success of their crimes, fabricated a ‘conviction’ in my name that was disseminated with a view to giving effect to the criminal threats and purposes they chose NOT to investigate.
In the High Court at 10th February 2010 a criminal complainer who, acting in tandem with others, issued various threats against me, admitted she had indeed issued these threats, thereby corroborating my report to my employers.
High Court Transcription 10th February 2010. (click on page number to open)
P49. L’s 3 – 5:
The initial threat to “destroy” my career is here expressed as a threat to “ruin” my career.
P181. L’s 20 – 23:
Here the number of threats is increased: “I would destroy him, uh huh, and his career.”
P184. L’s 22 – 24:
Here the criminal complainer further corroborates my report of her threat to “destroy (my) career in teaching.”
P185. L’s 1 – 3:
The urge to lie – perjury being inconsequential when a Crown client – in pursuit of her shared criminal purposes was such that she went as far as to contradict her own evidence; now she meant to “ruin” my career but not my life, before reiterating her threat she would “ruin” my life.
NB: in the 2005 proceedings she swore she had not contacted a friend of mine, now she swore she had.
For good measure my aunt, Chrissie Boyle, gave evidence of a further threat, this delivered by another of the criminal complainers.
High Court Transcription 15th February 2010. (click on page number to open)
P’s 13 and 14: this further threat, issued around September 2005, identifies another of the criminal complainers’ purposes, that of leaving me “penniless” (simultaneously hoping to enrich themselves in the process).
Now, twenty years after the levelling of the first of these threats against me, and thirteen years after one of the criminals’ described and admitted her threats against me, these have yet to be subjected to investigation, impartial or otherwise, by Police Scotland and the COPFS.
The General Teaching Council, understanding these admissions, nonetheless refused to investigate them – its Chief Executive, Anthony Finn, likewise refused to accept the Appeal Court verdict, describing this verdict as a matter of my perception. Its personnel went on to lie and fabricate willy-nilly such was their commitment to the criminals’ purposes.
Simultaneously, the GTC was registering convicted sex offenders fit to teach.
Disclosure Scotland’s attitude to its supposed legal duties is best understood by way of its refusal to discharge these supposed duties, instead choosing to deem each of the fabrications put to it true.
Not content with deeming other people/agencies’ fabrications true, Disclosure Scotland personnel got in on the act by fabricating a psychological diagnosis.
It is important to consider the fact there is no “effective remedy” to these crimes because this, as each of the Rights and Freedoms supposedly guaranteed to each of us by the ECHR, Scotland’s Government and Courts, is NOT secured in any way shape or form.
There are NO such Rights and Freedoms, the assertion there are is a con.
No psychological or medical evidence was led by the police, COPFS, the GTC and Disclosure Scotland, at any time.
In the course of the 2005 proceedings, police officers DC Raqual Harper Tichener and DC Elizabeth Shepherd swore there had been an investigation of the fabrications put to their colleagues. No evidence of such an investigation was offered to this or any other jury or proceeding. In 2010 the Crown chose NOT to call police personnel to the stand. Why? Because they would have been obliged to produce evidence of such an investigation and they could not produce that which does not exist. Thus, jurors would understand there had been no discharge of duty and that police officers had lied on oath and that that jury had been lied to by police personnel and an Advocate Depute.
These same police officers fabricated an allegation there is a conviction in my name unrelated to this criminal enterprise. This too is a criminal fabrication. Nonetheless, the Crown Office presented it to the GTC and Disclosure Scotland as true, in circumstances in which each agency refused to address the fact Police Scotland and COPFS had lied to them, instead of investigating deeming the fabrication true.
Three judges in the Court of Session could not see the problem with this widespread criminal misconduct; indeed, in the course of a procedural hearing the Lord Justice Clerk advised she could not see how this criminal fabrication could comprise an appeal point.
The GTC, Disclosure Scotland and the Court of Session had an Enhanced Disclosure Certificate before them that clearly spelt out the fact there was and is no such conviction.
Michael Matheson MP, when masquerading as a Justice Secretary in the Scottish Government, described these threats, as founded in her evidence she had indeed threatened me as I reported to my colleagues, as allegations on my part. He had the relevant transcription from the High Court to hand as he designed this further fabrication that facilitated crimes. There is, of course, no “effective remedy” to his misconduct in a public office.
Throughout the course of this egregious criminal enterprise, funded from the public purse, judicial office holders repeatedly, apparently systematically, facilitated each of the criminals’ purposes. Not merely turning a Nelson’s Eye to Police, COPFS and GTC criminal misconduct but actively promoting the criminal interest.
The only bulwark against this systematic State sponsored criminality was the jury. Can you begin to understand why Sturgeon, Dorrian and Bain want to remove juries from such proceedings?