Winter Cottage, Goongumpas, St Day, Cornwall, TR16 5JL
01209 820146 email@example.com
12 December 2013
DRAFT COPY E&OE
NOT POSTED OR EMAILED AS OF DOCUMENT DATE
Detective Inspector Adam
Head of Crime and Gross Misconduct
Professional Standards Department
Devon and Cornwall Constabulary
And by email to – see list below
Dear DI Adam
Thank you for your letters of 8 August 2013, 12 September 2013 and 21 October 2013 (enclosed / or click here to view on-line copies).
You have been sending me very similar letters roughly every month since you took over this case about a year ago. During that time I have asked to speak with you on numerous occasions but you have declined. I have asked for a response to my communication of 21 December 2012 on equally numerous occasions but again have received no response. I have contacted the OPCC regarding this and have been advised that I should write to my MP (Sarah Newton) and ask her to write to the Chief Constable and request a response to my 21 December 2012 letter and an interview with him as the OPCC inform me he must respond to her, I am in the process of writing to Sarah and will copy my letter to you.
As can be seen your 12 September and 21 October letters are “out of time” as regards to keeping me informed within 28 days and the expected November one is already some three weeks overdue but that hardly matters. What does matter is my concern that you are not dealing with my actual complaint but are instead trying to break it down into several lesser “misconduct” complaints and then applying to the IPCC to dispense with them for various reasons but usually (falsely) claiming that I am out of time in making the “misconduct” complaint.
My complaint concerns the PACE Notice issued on 25 January 2004 and withdrawn for no given reason on 3 December 2004 and the near 10 years of litigation and expense that have resulted because of it
1. The Police should not have issued a PACE Notice against one party in extant civil litigation to the advantage of the other party in the same litigation.
2. At the time the PACE Notice was issued the Police were aware or should have been aware that Mr Arthur’s original 15 July 2002 Claim had been a “valuation dispute” + damages Claim in which Mr and Mrs Arthur (Claimants) had claimed that Mr and Mrs Layte’s (Defendants) valuation of £120,000 - £130,000 of their jointly owned property was approximately double what it was worth and would delay the sale if an attempt to market the property at this level was made. The Claim stated that damages were to be assessed after the sale of the property.
3. At the time the PACE Notice was issued the Police were aware or should have been aware that the Judge who had found in our favour at the earlier 17 June 2003 counterclaim had also adjourned Mr Arthur’s “valuation dispute” Claim with “liberty to restore” although he stated that he thought it was unlikely that Mr Arthur would want to restore it as at the time it looked like the property was just about to be sold for £105,000 which was nearer our valuation than Mr Arthur’s (in the event Mr Arthur refused to sell to this buyer but was willing to sell to Mr Everard for £110,000 which of course was even nearer our valuation).
4. At the time the PACE Notice was issued the Police were aware or should have been aware that Mr Arthur had lost his “valuation dispute” Claim by virtue of the fact that we had applied to the Court for an Order for a “sealed” bid auction of the property and as a result of our Order the property had, on 19 November 2003, been sold (to Mr Everard) for £132,500 thus vindicating our original valuation. On learning that our jointly owned property had finally been sold at over double his valuation as a result of our Order one would have thought Mr Arthur would be pleased with the extra £70,000+ profit we had made for the partnership but apparently not because three days after learning that the property had been sold Mr Arthur applied to restore his valuation dispute Claim and one day after that attempted to re-sell to Mr Everard for about £5000 less than he had paid and (according to the Police) on 19 December 2003, exactly one month after learning the property had been sold, reported “his” FRM stolen in a successful attempt to procure evidence from the Police in support of his newly restored Claim – which a year later was to become a breach of fiduciary duty Claim against us!!! I would say we should have been the Claimants and not the Defendants in such a Claim!
5. At the time the PACE Notice was issued the Police were aware or should have been aware that the litigation was extant in that the Court had, at Mr Arthur’s request, restored his Claim by Court Order dated 27 November 2003. The 27 November 2003 being about three weeks before the 19 December 2003 when the Police say Mr Arthur reported “his” FRM missing presumed stolen (by person(s) unknown) and about eleven weeks after the 9 September 2003 when Mr Arthur told the Judge he reported it stolen (by person(s) unknown).
6. At the time the PACE Notice was issued the Police were aware or should have been aware that the 27 November 2003 Court Order restoring Mr Arthur’s Claim pointed out that there was no evidence or pleadings to support the Claim.
7. At the time the PACE Notice was issued the Police were aware or should have been aware that Mr Arthur had threatened to supply the Court with amended pleadings (presumably with evidence!) but had told the Court he was currently unable to do so because of backache.
8. At the time the PACE Notice was issued the Police were aware or should have been aware that J Layte had not committed a crime in removing the fabric rolling machine when he did because at the interview, which preceded the issue of the PACE Notice, J Layte had explained to DC Exelby that he was perfectly entitled to remove it when he did, he owned 50% of it, the FRM was not awarded to Mr Arthur at the 17 June 2003 counterclaim trial (as Mr Arthur had told the Police it had been) and the only thing the Judge had awarded Mr Arthur was some “damp, musty smelling and unfashionable” stock which Mr Arthur had told the Judge he had given to a Mr Fox in exchange for his “clearing” the property. DC Exelby had to agree that the FRM was not a stock item (The shop sold fabric – not fabric rolling machines!) furthermore it could not be described as “unfashionable” although it probably was “musty smelling” as it had been stored in the same damp alleyway alongside the shop as the fabric that Mr Arthur was witnessed loading onto (presumably) Mr Fox’s trailer on 10 July 2002 (see enclosed DVD or click here). It should be noted that whereas any fabric stored in the alleyway, that Mr Arthur told the Judge he gave to Mr Fox, could probably be described as “damp and musty smelling” the vast majority of the stock was stored in the shop itself which was not in the least damp. What became of this stock? Many years later I was told that in June or July 2002 Mr Arthur had hired a lorry from MY Motors (Redruth) and the then manager of Pool Market had been the driver – half of this stock (about £10,000 worth) actually belonged to us at the time by virtue of the 14 June 2002 agreement with our joint tenants that Mr Arthur had negotiated on the partnership’s behalf but unfortunately “accidentally” kept it secret from the Layte half of the partnership.
9. At the time the PACE Notice was issued the Police were aware that no crime had been committed as can be seen from the fact that the “and may well be stolen” statement on the PACE Notice was deleted and initialled by the Police (before I would sign it) and the “(brief description of crime)” on the 25 January 2004 “NO FURTHER ACTION AT THIS TIME” notice is blank because there had been no crime.
10. At the time the PACE Notice was issued the Police had been made aware at the interview preceding the issue of the PACE Notice that our appeal about certain aspects of 17 June 2003 counterclaim trial Judgement were still the subject of an appeal in that we had written to the Court of Appeal challenging their decision to refuse permission to appeal. It was not until 7 June 2004 that the Court of Appeal confirmed our request to re-open the appeal. For the record our appeal was obviously not challenging the Judges decision as he found for us. Our appeal concerns the Judges comment that we had given Mr Arthur permission to sell our half of the stock “for his own account”. Mr Arthur had negotiated a settlement with our joint tenants which was confirmed by fax on 14 June 2002 but instead of telling us about the settlement he phoned us on the evening of 14 June 2002 and volunteered to move the tenant’s property to his own (so that the shop could be marketed empty) provided we give him permission in writing. We immediately faxed him giving permission to clear the shop of the tenant’s property unaware that we owned half of it. Our appeal concerns the Judges statement that whereas he concedes Mr Arthur concealed the agreement from us his Judgement states that he did not consider Mr Arthur did this deliberately. We also challenge the Judges statement that our 14 June 2002 fax gives Mr Arthur permission to sell our half of the stock “for his own account” as it obviously gives Mr Arthur permission to clear the shop of the stock belonging to the tenant. We were clearly not aware that we actually owned half of it and consider Mr Arthur’s concealment of the approx £20,000 settlement finalized earlier in the day to be deliberate fraud regardless of the fact that the Judge thinks Mr Arthur had “no intention to conceal it”. In view of the fact that there is no time limit mentioned on the 7 June 2004 Court of Appeal permission to re-open this case and the post issue evidence that Mr Arthur almost certainly only gave a small and insignificant proportion of our property to Mr Fox and employed the Pool Market manager to drive a MY Motors lorry to secrete the rest perhaps the Police should look into this as a £10,000 fraud is something Mr Arthur should not be seen to get away with.
Mr Arthur had made a serious allegation of theft against me and had apparently told the Police -
1. That he had not visited the property since January 2003.
2. That he had only just noticed the FRM was missing in December 2003
3. That he did not know who had “stolen” it.
4. That he owned 100% of the FRM by virtue of (his interpretation) of the Counterclaim Judgement.
5. That the FRM was worth about £6,000.
What I cannot understand is the almost incredible incompetence displayed by the Police in not checking any of Mr Arthur’s 5 statements. If the Police had checked then they would have found that all of his statements could be verified and all of them were either lies or (at least) very debateable. If the Police had checked then instead of arresting me before checking they would have arrested Mr Arthur for attempted malicious prosecution with the aim of attempting to pervert the course of Justice by tricking the Police into providing him with evidence to use against us in the extant civil litigation. Unfortunately the arresting Officer, DC Roger Exelby, who it was later discovered just happened to be a neighbour of Mr Arthur, did not check and neither would he let me explain about Mr Arthur before arresting me for (“no reason given” at time of arrest). Although I was able to explain things to DC Exelby at the interview some hours after my arrest DC Exelby, in what appears a sour grapes fit of pique rather than common sense, insisted I sign a PACE Notice before being allowed to leave the Police station (which I had attended voluntarily in an attempt to explain about Mr Arthur and why I removed the FRM and make a counter allegation against Mr Arthur regarding the concealment of the settlement with our joint tenants).
If the Police had checked Mr Arthur’s story before even contemplating investigating his allegation of theft they would have found that -
1. Mr Arthur had visited the shop since January because on 9 September 2003 following a break-in he and a Police officer attended so the Police, from their own records, could have ascertained that Mr Arthur’s statement 1. (that he had not visited the property since January 2003) was a lie. Mr Arthur was later to tell the Judge “that he immediately reported the FRM missing to the Police when he first noticed it was missing on 9 September 2003 but that at the time he did not suspect that I had “stolen” it” (see enclosed DVD or click here to see extracts from 27 April 2005 Judgement). I was eventually arrested (then interviewed) on 25 January 2004 so if Mr Arthur was telling the truth it would appear it took the Police 138 days to discover the blindingly obvious - It was me that had removed a machine I owned half, from a building I owned half of, with a large van and two helpers, right in front of a CCTV camera just after our solicitor had said it had been sold and one day before I learnt that Mr Arthur refused to sell to the purchaser (who’s surname wasn’t Everard BTW) Are Devon & Cornwall Police really that stupid? Or did the Police tell Mr Arthur to wait until the outcome of our appeal of part of the 17 June 2003 Judgement (see 10. Above) was known before reporting the theft? (Mr Arthur’s claimed 100% ownership of the FRM relied on his interpretation of this Judgement and whilst it was under appeal obviously meaningless). If the Police did tell Mr Arthur to wait then Section Inspector Lyn Gooding’s reply to my 28 July 2005 fax in which she says the crime was reported on 19 December 2003 is a lie. Maybe it was DC Exelby that told Mr Arthur to wait? Maybe DC Exelby hadn’t informed the Police that his neighbour had already reported the “crime” (to him) 101 days before 19 December 2003? I am aware that the IPCC have dispensed with the need for the Police to investigate DC Exelby but I think that answers to these questions are important to your investigation into the PACE Notice (issued on DC Exelby’s instruction). I remind you that the IPCC have refused your request for dispensation regarding investigating the PACE Notice and I don’t see how you can divorce DC Exelby from the PACE Notice investigation.
2. Mr Arthur had noticed the FRM missing when he visited the shop on 9 September 2003 (and says he told the Police about it immediately) so the Police could have ascertained that Mr Arthur’s statement 2. (that he had only just noticed it missing in December 2003) was a lie.
3. Mr Arthur was aware that I had removed the FRM and the reason it had been removed (on 10 August 2003) was because on 8 August 2003 our solicitor had informed us that following a Court ordered contract race the property had been sold and the new purchaser (Cornish Blue Interiors Ltd) wished to complete the sale by 15 August 2003 (meaning that, under the contract, the property needed clearing of rubbish and items not included in the sale by that date or the new owners could charge us for the removal of rubbish or keep whatever had been left in the property for themselves). Mr and Mrs Arthur would not answer their phone so I left a message on their answer machine (“have you signed the contract? and have you removed the rubbish from the shop”?) but as I received no response I visited the property on 9 August 2003 to see if anyone had already removed the rubbish or items not included in the sale. On finding piles of rubbish and a few items (such as the FRM, several fire extinguishers, a ladder and a few other things) had not been removed and because of the size of the FRM I hired a van and two helpers (for £135) to remove it and the ladder and some of the rubbish (I left the fire extinguishers deliberately because of the remote possibility there might be a fire before completion date on 15 Aug 2003 and mindful of the fact that at least two of Mr Arthur’s own properties had previously suffered serious fires I did not want to be blamed if the same fate should befall this one). I intended to remove the remaining rubbish (several trips to the dump) using my own estate car before completion date however before I started to do this I learned that Mr Arthur had refused to sell to the new purchaser. The purchaser was Cornish Blue Interiors Ltd and not the other potential purchaser in the contract race Mr DT Everard. Mr Arthur had changed the name on the draft contract (that we had signed) from MS Butler to Mr Everard without our knowledge or permission and attempted to exchange with this forged document. However Ms Butler had wanted to exchange in the name Cornish Blue Interiors Ltd instead of her own name which appeared on the Order and Mr Arthur objected stating the Mr Everard had won. Incidentally Mr Everard, we later discovered, had (allegedly), on Murdock day 2000, discussed with Mrs Arthur the possibility of his purchasing the shop which he apparently valued at about £60,000 at that time. We were not made aware of this discussion and it is certain that if we had been made aware of it we would have pointed out that the shop was being rented at about £8,500 PA at the time which represents about a 14% return on £60,000 and we would thus have suggested that we ask a higher price could be achieved by selling it at say £110,000 which would still give Mr Everard (or any other purchaser) a decent return on investment. Coincidently (not?) at around this time (June 2000) the tenant stopped paying the rent (that Mr Arthur insisted only he would collect – then distribute – as had been the case since 1988). Mr Arthur told us the tenant had moved and couldn’t be traced (we later found out Mr Arthur was not telling the truth). In November 2001 the tenant “vacated” owing 18 months rent. The partnership agreed to put the shop on the market following the re-decoration of the façade which took a lot longer than it should have done because Mr Arthur insisted we use his “cherry picker” rather than scaffolding for the re-decoration. On completion of the redecoration in about June 2002 we attempted to market the shop as agreed but we disagreed about value. We had the shop valued at £120,000 to £130,000 (by a local estate agent) but Mr Arthur said this was far too much and it would never sell at this figure and told me about £60,000 - £70,000 was the true value. Mr Arthur threatened us with litigation if we didn’t allow him to sell the property at his valuation (or at auction with no reserve) without interfering. We wouldn’t allow Mr Arthur to sell our jointly owned property at a price we did not agree with without our input (interference as Mr Arthur/Mr Everard call it see HERE and HERE). Because we did not agree with Mr Arthur’s valuation he carried out his threat of litigation with his 15 July 2002 Claim in an attempt to gain sole control over the marketing of the property (at his valuation) without interference from us via an interlocutory Injunction. He lost his valuation Claim. The Police became involved because of Mr Arthur’s lies. Here we are today!!
4. Mr Arthur actually owned 50% of the FRM and his interpretation of the Judgement was obviously flawed so the Police could have ascertained that Mr Arthur’s statement 4. was at best “debateable” if not a deliberate lie.
5. Mr Arthur’s statement that a rusty old FRM that had been stored in a damp alleyway, partially open to the weather, for several years was worth £6,000 was obviously ludicrous and Mr Arthur knew it because when the Judge at the 27 April 2005 Hearing asked him about the value he replied “that it was virtually valueless or maybe £10”. See copy of the Judgement on enclosed DVD or click here for the relevant extracts from the 27 April 2005 Judgement.
The consequences of the PACE Notice can be felt even today some 10 years after its issue. You will be aware of the benefit of the PACE Notice as your salary for the past year has been paid because of it. I am aware of its detriment because of my and my ex-wife’s loss of earnings over the last 10 years defending Mr Arthur’s various Claims against us, preparing bills of costs and trying to get the Court to see that they are paid.
It was a mistake for Mr Arthur’s neighbour to issue the PACE Notice. It was a mistake for the Police to miss the opportunity of revoking it before Mr Arthur used it as evidence to prolong this case and an even bigger and much more expensive mistake for the Police not to inform the Court as to why it was revoked after Mr Arthur had used it as evidence in his applications and before the Court had allowed them or adjudicated on them.
If I had received a reply I would have informed the Court that Mr Arthur’s main (only) evidence in support of his £40,000 two claims had been issued by a neighbouring Police officer following an incompetent investigation into a false allegation of theft and Mr Arthur’s motive was not ownership of the FRM (as the Police seem to think) but an attempt to pervert the course of justice by supplying the Court with such evidence. If the Court had received such information then I very much doubt that it would have allowed either Mr Arthur’s £33,000+costs AMENDED PARTICULARS OF CLAIM or his £6,000 ACCUSATION OF THEFT claim and that would have been the end of the matter.
Alternatively if the Police had taken some action against Mr Arthur for either wasting their time in making a false allegation of theft or more seriously lying to the Police in the hope of procuring evidence against the Defendants in his £40,000 claims then Mr Arthur’s litigation career would have come to an abrupt halt.
There is no doubt whatsoever that Mr Arthur lied to the Police and if his statement in his 4 November 2004 application that “the claimants spent significant time communicating with the police to try to establish who had stolen it and thereafter trying to recover it” is true then he caused the Police significant unnecessary expense over a £10 machine that he knew I had legitimately, not unlawfully, removed from our jointly owned property.
Because of Mr Arthur’s “amended” Claim and his accusation of theft application we were obliged to yet again employ solicitors to enter a defence to the amended Claim but decided to defend the accusation of theft ourselves as we considered it not worth employing solicitors at £150 per hour over a machine we thought had very little value but at the same time we couldn’t not defend the claim or let Mr Arthur have the machine as that would be admitting we had unlawfully removed it and we had, as the Police knew, legitimately removed it. The new solicitors resulted in a further £9,000 bill on top of the £11,000 we had already spent on solicitors in defence of Mr Arthur’s original (pre-amendment) “valuation dispute” Claim which he had lost.
The new solicitors (Hancock Caffin) wanted us to give them 3 copies of all the papers produced in the case from November 2001 to date (November 2004) and a chronology of events which would have meant about 18,000 sheets of paper! Instead I decided to scan the papers and link them to a chronology on a CD and provide them with this rather than 18,000 pages + a paper chronology. This CD marked the birth of the DVD used at the trial and attached to this letter and the many on-line copies of it viewable on the www today. All because of a PACE Notice and the Police refusal to withdraw it or explain to me or the Court why it had been withdrawn once it had been used as evidence or to prosecute Mr Arthur.
Mr Arthur’s “Theft of Fabric Rolling Machine (FRM)” claim was heard by Recorder Parish on 27 April 2005. Mr Arthur had especially requested that Recorder Parish take the hearing as this was the same Judge that had presided at the Counterclaim at which Mr Arthur claimed this Judge had awarded him the whole contents of the shop (including the FRM) and not just the “worthless unfashionable and musty smelling stock” that Mr Arthur had claimed he had given to Mr Fox in exchange for clearing the shop).
At the hearing on 27 April 2005, before Recorder Parish, Mr Arthur changed the story he had told the Police in the following main ways –
2. He immediately reported it missing to the Police on 9 September 2003. Not on 19 December 2003 as the Police confirm.
3. He had no idea who had taken it and did not suspect me of removing it. This is a lie.
4. He had spent a considerable time communicating with the Police to try and discover who had stolen it. The police refuse to confirm or deny this as did the Police data protection department who said it was only Mr Arthur who could request the information I asked for in my 28 July 2005 letter to DC Exelby and my 28 February 2008 fax reminder to Camborne Police which I believe is important.
5. It had taken the Police over four months to determine that it may be me who had removed it. If this is true then Camborne CID must be a very stupid lot.
6. The FRM was not worth the £6000 he had told the Police it was worth but it was more or less worthless or maybe £10. If true this means that Mr Arthur had spent a considerable amount of his time and money and the Police’s time and money and obliged me to spend a very considerable amount of my time and money over a machine worth about as much as a bottle of vodka! The value of the machine is actually more than £10 as scrap but a great deal less than £6000. I had hoped to sell it to recover the £135 I had spent on removing it and am of the opinion that is about its true value.
Whereas the Police state there is no evidence that Mr Arthur attempted to pervert the course of Justice there is certainly evidence that he lied to the Police in an effort to obtain evidence against the Defendants to use in his extant Claim against them (us!). Do the Police really think that Mr Arthur’s motive in reporting the FRM stolen was anything other than an attempt to pervert the course of Justice? Do the Police still think what he told them was the truth?
Mr Arthur had hoped that the Judge would allow his FRM claim and he would then have evidence that the Defendants were dishonest to use in his forthcoming £33,000 damages Claim against us but as his FRM Claim had been dismissed he did not have this evidence to rely on. In fact his forthcoming damages Claim now had no evidence in support.
Realizing that his forthcoming £33,000 claim now had no evidence in support Mr Arthur had another go to attempt to pervert the course of Justice by supplying us with what he said was evidence to support his Claim.
Mr Arthur had, on 8 February 2004, already supplied us with a draft Witness Statement which he said had been prepared by Mr Everard and asked us if we minded it being submitted as evidence. We replied. The Draft Witness Statement was full of “errors” and almost certainly the work of Mr Arthur not Mr Everard. Some comments that point out the “errors” can be seen by clicking HERE.
The Court had ordered that witness statements should be served and filed at Court by 4:00 PM on 1 November 2005.
On 1 November 2005 we received by post from Mr Arthur another document purporting to be a witness statement prepared by Mr Everard and apparently signed by him on 30 October 2005 as being the truth. It was not a live signature and once again the document gave the distinct impression that Mr Arthur had authored it “on Mr Everard’s behalf” and may even have scanned his signature and pasted it to the witness statement.
Bearing in mind that Mr Arthur had named Mr Everard as his only witness to appear at the trial and “his” witness statement was the only evidence that Mr Arthur had in support of his £33,000 (+£16,000 estimated costs) Claim against us it was very important to try and ascertain whether or not it was genuine and had been filed at Court by the due date of 1 November 2005. On checking with the Court it was discovered that it had not been filed so I wrote to Mr Everard to ask if it was genuine and he would be appearing at Court as a witness at the forthcoming trial. I did not receive a reply.
At the Trial on 21 – 23 November 2005 Mr Everard, unsurprisingly, did not attend – Mr Arthur told the Judge that he had attempted to get the Court to order him to attend but he had apparently left the County and could not be contacted. Mr Arthur told the Judge that his daughter Natasha was dealing with this and he expected that Mr Everard would attend on the second or third day of the trial but in the event the elusive Mr Everard could apparently not be contacted and did not attend the Court.
We had obviously wanted Mr Everard to attend so that we could cross examine him regarding “his” Witness Statement. The content of which was no more truthful that “his” Draft Witness Statement had been
Within the first few minutes of the trial Mr Arthur told the Judge that he wanted to withdraw his Claim. The Judge said we should all leave the Courtroom to attempt to agree a settlement figure in our favour. Mr Arthur refused to speak let alone attempt a settlement.
On returning to the Courtroom Mr Arthur insisted that the Judge should determine whether or not there had been a 1988 agreement, prior to purchasing the properties, that they were purchased for development as per Mr Arthur’s post purchase development suggestions for 3 and 4 Station Hill + 52 Fore Street and his 1993 (5 years post purchase!) development suggestion for 52 Fore Street. Mr Arthur also wanted the Judge to confirm that the partnership financial loss as outlined in his “AMENDED PARTICULARS OF CLAIM” were real and attributable to the Layte half of the partnership.
Three days were spent whilst Mr Arthur tried to convince the Judge that there had been such an agreement and financial loss whilst we maintained there had been no such agreement and the partnership had made a profit over the years which Mr Arthur himself had estimated to be about £200,000 and about £70,000 of this was only because we had thwarted Mr Arthur’s plan to sell to Mr Everard at half price.
Our solicitors had entered a counterclaim - that Mr Arthur should provide an account. The main parts of which were -
1. An account of the price he had obtained for the non stock items and the stock items that Mr Arthur had not given to Mr Fox and which were not “musty smelling and unfashionable” and which formed part of the agreement with our joint tenant that Mr Arthur had “forgotten” to tell us about. Estimated at about £10,000 plus interest from July 2002.
2. An account of what had happened to the 26 June 1989 £4930.77 that Mr Arthur had transferred from the Arthur-Layte partnership account to his own private account without informing us about it at the time – we only became aware of it in 2002 when Mr Arthur supplied the Barclays statement to our solicitor.
Concerning (1.) Mr Arthur told the Judge that he had been awarded all the contents of the shop by the Judge at the counterclaim Hearing (Not true – the Judge only awarded him the musty smelling unfashionable stock that Mr Arthur had given to Mr Fox thus only part of the contents and obviously not the FRM or any of the other non stock items that Mr Arthur refuses to return) but did agree he would re-pay the £4930.77 PLUS INTEREST (approx £30,000) provided we agreed to withdraw our counterclaim.
We did not agree with Mr Arthur’s explanation regarding (1.) but the Judge said there was not enough time left for the Court to adjudicate on this and because Mr Arthur had told the Judge he would re-pay (2.) £4930.77 PLUS INTEREST we agreed to withdraw our Counterclaim (see 24 November 2005 Order) but needless to say Mr Arthur has not repaid a penny of this to-date.
At the end of the trial we pointed out that “Mr Everard’s” Witness Statement provided to the Court for the trial (by us – as part of our evidence) was a copy that Mr Arthur had served us with and had a non live signature and according to the Court the original had not been filed with them, as it should have been, by the due date of 1 November 2005. The Judge asked Mr Arthur if he had filed the actual Witness Statement (with the live signature) at the Court. Mr Arthur replied that he had. The Judge asked him “when?” Mr Arthur replied “Ages ago”.
Following the trial
1. On 25 November 2005 I asked the Court for permission to inspect the Court file. This was sent CC The Arthurs.
2. On 3 December 2005 Mrs Layte received a letter from Mr Arthur starting “Dear Mary” (a reference to Mary Archer who Mr Arthur seems to think Kath acts like) and going on to threaten to appeal the trial verdict because of my 25 November 2005 letter requesting permission to inspect the Court file regarding Witness Statements etc - note Mr Arthur’s reference to Mr Everard’s Witness Statement paragraph 6 in his 3 December 2005 letter. Whereas Mr Everard may well have been able to prove he negotiated the £110,000 finance “later in 2002” it was not until 11 March 2003 that we learned that Mr Everard was interested in purchasing and if he had previously negotiated the finance then I doubt that he told his lender about the boundary dispute which was extant between about June 2002 until 14 May 2003 when D Arthur was told to sign the consent Order by the Judge at the Hearing (The Order to sell to Butler could not proceed if there was a boundary dispute as her lender would not lend on a property with one). It is perhaps pertinent that at the meeting at the shop on 11 March 2003 Mr Everard said that he thought the boundary dispute had been resolved which is why he was considering making an offer but it had not been until Mr & Mrs Arthur also signed the consent Order ending the boundary dispute.
3. On 5 December 2005 the Court refused our request to inspect the Court file.
4. On 10 December 2005 we received a copy letter from Mr Arthur claiming he had filed “Mr Everard’s” Witness Statement at the Court on 7 November 2005.
5. On 16 December 2005 I faxed the Court asking if Mr Arthur had filed the witness statement on 7 November 2005 as he claimed.
6. On 4 January 2006 The Court replied that they could find no record of Mr Arthur filing “Mr Everard’s” Witness Statement in the Court file.
7. On 21 February 2006 we faxed the Court with a with a summary of our bill of costs which was not CPR compliant but something had to be served and filed to be within the 3 months allowed to serve and file bills of costs.
8. See Post Trial Chronology for what followed our 21 February 2006 fax to the Court.
Paragraphs 22 – 25 of “Mr Everard’s” Witness Statement refer to the Gas Board’s 9 September 2003 “break in” when Mr Arthur first noticed the FRM missing. Considering that this is supposed to be Mr Everard’s Witness Statement then it is surprising why he includes these paragraphs.
I was not aware Mr Everard attended the shop with Mr Arthur and the Police Officer on 9 September 2003 and thus how he knew that the Gas Meter had been removed or the position of the “very large quantity of unopened mail” or that some envelopes were “clearly labelled British Gas”.
Even if I am wrong and Mr Everard did attend with Mr Arthur and the Police Officer what is the relevance of paragraphs 22 – 25 of “Mr Everard’s” Witness Statement to this case?
What “Mr Everard” is trying to get across in “his” witness statement is that it was me who had moved the pile of envelopes from the porch to inside the shop and by not informing the Arthurs about this I am in breach of my fiduciary duty! But what “Mr Everard” (AKA Mr Arthur) is actually getting across is the fact that he knew I had visited the shop. How did Mr Arthur (AKA Mr Everard) know I had visited the shop? I had not left a visiting card in the normal sense but I had left a clue that I had visited in that I had removed the FRM (and some of the rubbish).
Mr Arthur had already admitted he had noticed the FRM missing on 9 September 2003 (and not 19 December 2003 as the Police say) and had told the Judge that he immediately reported it to the Police but had not suspected I was involved in its theft/removal at the time. I can’t see how Mr Arthur can have it both ways and say he didn’t suspect that I had removed the FRM but he did suspect I had moved the envelopes! For the record I had noticed the pile of envelopes in the porch at the time I removed the FRM but didn’t notice any were from British Gas nor that some were inside the shop (as Mr Arthur says they were). I didn’t take any interest in the post at the shop as I was there only to remove the FRM before the new owners completed in a few days time and it would be their responsibility to deal with the post and not mine (or the Arthurs). At the time I was not to know that the next day Mr Arthur would refuse to sell to them and alter the draft contract (that we had already signed) to sell to Mr Everard and would present this forged contract to our solicitors in an attempt to exchange. We, nor our solicitors, would not accept this forged contract and exchange with Mr Everard meaning the property remained unsold. We wrote to the Court on 11 August 2003. The Court ordered yet another contract race between Mr Everard and Ms Butler (in her own name this time and not Cornish Blue Interiors Ltd) to be conducted by Grylls & Paige solicitors. On 19 August 2003 Mr Arthur threatened Grylls & Paige with litigation and to appeal this Order if they refused to sell to Mr Everard immediately in contravention of the Order to conduct a contract race. Grylls & Paige refused. Mr Arthur appealed the Order. On 13 October 2003 the appeal Judge ordered another contract race again with Grylls & Paige conducting. On 21 October 2003 Grylls & Paige refused because of Mr Arthur’s threat. More delay. It was not until the 19 November 2003 that the property was sold as a direct result of the 7 November 2003 Court Order (that the First Defendant composed at the Court).
Whereas the Police state there is no evidence against Mr Arthur of a criminal nature I would say that it is a crime to –
1. Attempt to sell a partnership asset to a third party for far less than it was worth.
2. Conceal a £20,000 settlement with the partnership’s tenant from the other half of the partnership.
3. Remove, give away, sell or otherwise dispose of proceeds of the settlement without permission of all members of the partnership.
4. To request one half of the partnership give permission to clear the property of the tenant’s property in full knowledge that the property no longer belonged to the tenant by virtue of the settlement.
5. To make a £33,000 Claim against the other half of the partnership which had no evidence in support, was vexatious and was intended only to cause the Defendants needless expense by employing solicitors in defending it.
6. Procuring evidence in support of the Claim by lying to the Police which resulted in them issuing a PACE Notice.
7. Using the PACE Notice as evidence in support of the Claim in full knowledge it was procured dishonestly and possibly in the knowledge it had been procured with the assistance of a corrupt Police Officer(s).
8. Supply a Witness Statement as evidence in support of the Claim purporting to have been authored and signed by Mr Everard when in reality it was almost certainly authored by Mr Arthur and the signature is a forgery.
9. Tell a Judge he had signed the draft contract to sell to MS Butler when in fact he had not.
10. Tell a Judge he had filed “Mr Everard’s” Witness Statement when in fact the Court has no record of this.
11. Accuse the First Defendant of secretly negotiating to sell the partnership’s property (52 Fore St Redruth) to Mr Everard without informing him about this negotiation! Despite this accuse the First Defendant of refusing to sell to Mr Everard!
12. Transfer £4930.77 from the partnership joint bank account to Mr & Mrs Arthur’s personal bank account without informing the other half of the partnership at the time or accounting for this transfer once it was discovered.
There is a lot more but surely fraud, perjury, theft, embezzlement and attempting to pervert the Course of Justice by providing the Court with false or fabricated evidence are crimes despite taking place within Civil litigation.
TO BE CONTINUED
To be included as an addendum in the final version of this letter
The Police justified the issuing and retention of the PACE Notice in Mr Hayes’ 9 March 2004 letter which contains the following paragraph –
I am afraid you have completely misunderstood the purpose served by the PACE Notice. The Constabulary have not endorsed Mr Arthur’s claim as being superior to your own. The Constabulary have merely acknowledged that you and Mr Arthur have differing claims, claims which the Constabulary cannot and will not judge.
I had not misunderstood the purpose of a PACE Notice and completely understand its purpose in “normal” circumstances but this was not a “normal” circumstance. What the Police had completely misunderstood was Mr Arthur’s motive in reporting the FRM stolen. Mr Arthur was no more interested in “owning” the £10 FRM than I was. What Mr Arthur wanted was evidence against me that he could use in his newly restored Claim (which at the time the Court had advised lacked pleadings or evidence). What Mr Arthur had actually wanted was a prosecution against me but what he got was perhaps even better - a PACE Notice. A PACE Notice was better (for Mr Arthur) because a Police attempt at prosecution would have failed at the time and probably resulted in Mr Arthur being found guilty of attempted malicious prosecution / attempting to pervert the course of Justice but anyway he would not have been able to use a failed prosecution as evidence against me in his (yet to be amended) restored Claim whereas he could, and eventually did, use the existence of the PACE Notice as evidence against me (us).
The reason Mr Arthur wanted such “evidence” was because his threatened new/amended Claim relied on the existence of a verbal agreement that Mr Arthur alleged was made in 1988 before we purchased the properties. We disagree that any verbal agreement such as Mr Arthur described it ever existed. The trouble is that it would be as difficult to prove that there wasn’t such an agreement as Mr Arthur would have in proving there was. It all depends on who the Judge thinks is telling the truth and evidence that Mr Arthur’s opponent was dishonest (or might be) could possibly sway his/her decision especially if the Judge believed any of Mr Arthur’s own opinion of himself (and his wife) as described in his hilarious 31 May 2002 first threat of litigation.
Mr Hayes’ 9 March 2004 goes on to state –
Your suggestion that the PACE Notice served on yourself be withdrawn is, with respect, misconceived. The PACE Notice remains entirely valid and proper because it is necessary to preserve the position of property which was the subject of a police investigation, is no longer the subject of a police investigation, although there is still a dispute as a matter of civil law as to who owns the machine. When there is no longer a dispute as to who owns the machine, the PACE Notice will be cancelled.
This suggests that at the time the PACE Notice was issued the FRM was the subject of a criminal Police investigation concerning its theft but that is not true since the Police had already determined that no crime had taken place before the PACE Notice was issued. The only issue at the time the PACE Notice was issued was that Mr Arthur claimed he owned 100% of the FRM whereas I maintained he, like me, owned 50% of it as is evident from the following paragraph in Mr Hayes’ 9 March 2004 letter –
The Constabulary’s position regarding the fabric rolling machine is that it is for Mr ARTHUR to prove as a matter of civil law any interest that he has in that property. However, as even you concede that he has at least a 50% interest in the property, it would be reckless in the extreme for the Constabulary to blind itself to the reality of a genuine dispute over the ownership of the property by cancelling the PACE Notice already in place before that dispute has been resolved.
I did not “concede” that Mr Arthur had at least a 50% interest in the FRM. I told the Police that I, with my wife, had exactly a 50% interest in it and that was fact and Mr Arthur’s claim that he owned 100% of it was fiction. I also pointed out that in my opinion the FRM was worth very little but if Mr Arthur wanted to buy out our 50% share for £3,000 (half what he told the Police it was worth) then he was welcome to. Needless to say he didn’t because it was not the FRM he wanted it was evidence that I was a thief.
I did not (nor do not) consider my request that the PACE Notice be withdrawn was misconceived because of the danger that Mr Arthur might use it as evidence against me (us) in the extant civil Claim against my wife and I. I am sure, in hindsight, Mr Hayes bitterly regrets not withdrawing the PACE Notice because Mr Arthur did indeed use it as his only evidence in support of his amended claim (and FRM ownership Claim) filed some eight months after his letter. If the Police had withdrawn the PACE Notice when I requested they did Mr Arthur’s “Amended Claim” would almost certainly not have been filed and that would have been the end of the matter.
Despite the fact that Mr Arthur had lost his 15 July 2002 valuation dispute Claim and the Judge had found for us in our 17 June 2003 counterclaim Mr Arthur wrote to us stating that he had really won the Counterclaim and made us a CPR36 offer to settle at this juncture whereby if we paid him £56,000 (of the £95,657.87 he claimed we owed him) he would not take this any further but if we didn’t pay him £56,000 or agree to mediation then he threatened -
If you do not accept this offer or agree to mediation you will oblige us to pursue our claim, which we shall obviously do with our usual sedulousness.
This is typical of Mr Arthur whereby he falls out with his business partner and then demands they pay him money (that they don’t owe) otherwise he threatens litigation against them. Another example of Mr Arthur demanding money (£30,207.59) from his business partner is the 1997 Wendy Fair Markets-v-Arthur Case. Mr Arthur’s case against us appears to be that we failed to comply with an (alleged) 1988 verbal agreement that before purchase of the 2 properties we had agreed to “develop” them as Mr and Mrs Arthur had suggested. In truth we had found both properties and the Arthur’s agreed with us that they had potential but there were no agreed plans before purchase save that 3 & 4 Station Hill could be rented (following re-decoration) or used as offices for our respective businesses and 52 Fore Street could possibly be developed as a wine bar (see 19 April 1988 Arthur note of meeting).
Mr Arthur’s own contemporaneous note explains why 3 & 4 Station Hill was purchased and why it was almost immediately sold – at a gross profit of £27,500. His note is obviously nothing to do with avoiding paying tax on his half of the £27,500 profit of course (note: According to Companies House Mr Arthur’s company - Pool Market Ltd has recently been struck off by Companies House for failing to provide annual accounts).
It was only after purchase of the properties that Mr and Mrs Arthur came up with harebrained development suggestions for both 3 & 4 Station hill and 52 Fore Street. As for 3 & 4 Station Hill we suggested that Mr & Mrs Arthur buy us out if they really wanted to attempt his development on his own because we considered it had zero chance of returning a profit or we auction the property “as is”. The Arthurs declined to buy us out (neither did they manage to persuade us that their plans had any merit whatsoever) so it was auctioned “as is” 3 months after purchase and sold for a gross profit of £27,500 which is described as a £7,636.68 loss in Mr Arthur’s threat of litigation! Following the abandonment of the 52 Fore Street wine bar development (Kath and I tried but there were too many obstacles to overcome such as obtaining a licence with residential properties on either side) and attempts to sell 52 Fore Street “as is” the shop was rented (at our suggestion) for a while but once the tenant left (in May 1993) Mr Arthur came up with another very expensive scheme to develop the first floor into living accommodation (two flats this time) with access from Station Road. As before we did not agree that such a scheme would return a profit and suggested selling the property at a low price or adopting our much less expensive scheme. Mr and Mrs Arthur agreed to adopt our scheme and it resulted in the property producing a rental income of about £68,000 between 1993 and 2001 at which point we agreed to put the property on the market which resulted in the “valuation dispute” and eventually Mr Arthur’s 15 July 2002 Claim against us. Mr Arthur’s 2004 threat of litigation suggests that because we refused to have any part of his 1993 very expensive scheme the partnership might have lost £36,586.84 !
Mr Arthur’s threat of litigation is a Claim against us for breach of fiduciary duty in that because we refused to have anything to do with his schemes (and we did refuse) the partnership had lost £95,657.87 (although he would very generously settle if we paid him £56,000).
A later document supplied to the Court by Mr Arthur states that the partnership actually made a (gross?) profit of about £200,000 between 1988 and finally selling the second property in November 2003. The £200,000 “profit” that Mr Arthur refers to can be broken down into –
1. The £27,500 gross profit made from the 1988 sale of 3 & 4 Station Hill which was only sold because we refused to be part of Mr & Mrs Arthur’s harebrained development suggestions and insisted that property be put on the market if Mr & Mrs Arthur refused to buy us out (which it was because they did).
2. The £2,500 (approx) rent received from the first tenant (1992-1993) because of Layte’s 1990 attempt to rent for £8,500 PA because Arthur’s 1989 attempt to sell for £95,000 (with Layte’s approval) has fallen through.
3. The £68,000 (approx) rent received from the second tenant (1993-2001) because of the Layte’s refusal to undertake the Arthur’s 1993 revised development of 52 Fore Street and the adoption of the Layte’s scheme by the Arthurs.
4. The £78,000 gross profit made from the 2003 sale of 52 Fore Street which was only achieved because of the Layte’s success in thwarting Mr and Mrs Arthur’s attempt to sell to Mr Everard for (allegedly) £60,000. If the Arthurs had been successful in selling to Mr Everard for this figure then the partnership would have made £5,000 gross profit on the sale instead of £78,000.
5. The estimated £1,000 that Mr and Mrs Arthur received from renting 52 Fore Street to some Pool Market traders in December 1989. The Arthurs did not pay any of this to the Laytes.
6. The estimated £10,000 - £15,000 that Mr Arthur sold the stock for. The stock that had been part of the agreement with our joint tenant (that Mr Arthur forgot to tell us about) and which he told the Judge was “worthless, unfashionable and musty smelling” and he had given to Mr Fox in exchange for his clearing the property.
These amounts do add up to near the £200,000 profit that Mr Arthur claims the partnership made between 1988 and 2003 but all except 5 and 6 are because of the Layte’s input.
The £78,000 (4. above) gross profit for the partnership was only achieved because of the 7 November 2003 Court Order that Mr Arthur, on the one hand, claims that the Defendants must have seriously misled the Judge that made the Order and on the other hand states in his threat of litigation -
Incidentally, I am told by the barrister who represented Grylls and Paige at the last Overend hearing that you did not attend and the order confirms his statement.
Virtually all Mr Arthur’s threat of litigation is lies but why should he lie about the fact that I attended the hearing? Most probably Mr Arthur wants to wipe the fact that I attended the hearing from his mind because not only does he know I attended the hearing (and contrary to what Mr Arthur says the Order confirms I attended) but he also was made aware that I composed the order and not Judge Overend (who left the Court whilst it was composed and approved it unaltered on his return). It was the Order that put an end to Mr Arthur’s attempts to sell to Mr Everard for a bargain price although he made one last desperate attempt to reduce the price after Mr Everard had purchased for £132,500 in that he stated he would accept £128,000 in his 23 November 2003 letter and his 3 January 2004 letter states that he didn’t think Mr Everard need pay the late completion interest (about £500) to the partnership. In other words Mr Arthur (half the partnership) was willing to accept £5000 less than Mr Everard had paid the partnership. This begs the obvious question –why?
Mr Arthur was in partnership with us and obviously in breach of his fiduciary duty to us in attempting to re-sell to Mr Everard for less than he had already paid. The only explanation that I can think of is that Mr Arthur was also in partnership with Mr Everard and would have been in breach of his fiduciary duty to him if he did not try and obtain the lowest purchase price he could. Perhaps the Police would like to investigate because if Mr Arthur had any financial connection with Mr Everard then his 15 July 2002 valuation dispute “Claim” against us was actually an attempted £70,000+ fraud to try and gain sole control of the sale of our jointly owned property and then sell it to Mr Everard for the £60,000 that Mrs Arthur had allegedly agreed to sell it to him for on Murdoch Day 2000.
We did not accept Mr Arthur’s CPR 36 offer to settle in his favour by paying him £56,000 which meant that Mr Arthur’s threat to “pursue our claim” remained
If you do not accept this offer or agree to mediation you will oblige us to pursue our claim, which we shall obviously do with our usual sedulousness.
We wrote to the Court on several occasions to try and get Mr Arthur to file his threatened amended pleadings / evidence in support of his “Claim” that the Court had restored on 27 November 2003 or it be struck out - even at one (5 Jul 2004) time making an application to this effect.
Nearly a year after restoring the “Claim” Judge Griggs (no relation to His Honour Judge Griggs) made an Order on 12 October 2004 “Unless Claimants (Mr and Mrs Arthur) comply with paragraph 1. of 3 September 2004 Order (supply pleading / evidence in support of Claim) by 4:00 PM 26 October 2004 the Claim is struck out.
At 3:40 PM on 26 October 2004 (20 minutes before the deadline and nearly a year after threatening to amend his Claim) Mr Arthur delivered (by hand) his “AMENDED PARTICULARS OF CLAIM”.
On 4 November 2004 Mr Arthur made another application to the Court for the return of the FRM or in default payment of £5,730 plus interest and costs. The application contains several untruthful statements but Mr Arthur does admit that he had first noticed the FRM missing on 9 September 2003 and not 19 December 2003 when he allegedly reported it stolen (by person(s) unknown?) to the Police thus obviously his alleged statement to the Police that he had not visited the property since January 2003 was also proved to be a lie by this admission. Attached to his application was a document titled “FIFTH AFFIRMATION OF DAVID JOHN ARTHUR”. Paragraphs 5 and 6 state –
5 Due to the defendants delaying the sale of the property the disposal of the rolling machine was not urgent. On 09 September 2003 I visited the property following a break-in. The rolling machine had been removed.
6 The disappearance of the rolling machine was reported to the police and the claimants spent significant time communicating with the police to try to establish who had stolen it and thereafter trying to recover it. The first defendant has made statements to the police which are clearly untrue, but no prosecution is pending although I am told a PACE Notice as been served on the defendants.
For the record - We had not delayed the sale of the property but Mr Arthur had. I had not lied to the Police but Mr Arthur had. Mr Arthur was aware I had legitimately removed the machine prior to 9 September 2003 and he knew it had not been stolen. If, as he says, he had first noticed the FRM missing on 9 September 2003 then why did he wait till the 19 December 2003 to report it stolen? If there was “significant time spent communicating with the police to try to establish who had stolen it” then why are the Police so reluctant to supply me with copies? I make a third request for copies of the “significant communications” referred to in Mr Arthur’s application to be supplied to me.
Mr Arthur’s AMENDED PARTICULARS OF CLAIM had changed from the original “valuation dispute + damages to be assessed after the sale of the property” Claim (as succinctly précised on the first two pages of the 17 June 2003 Judgement) into simply a damages Claim for £33,000 for alleged “breach of fiduciary duty” occurring after an alleged “verbal agreement” supposedly made in 1988 before the purchase of the properties. Of the 24 heads of claim 23 are lies, utter nonsense or pure speculation (such as 5. “if we had agreed with Mr Arthur’s development “idea” for 52 Fore Street (which we didn’t) then the partnership would have made a profit of £30,000”. None of the 24 heads of Claim had any evidence in support with the one exception -
22.0 Without advising the claimants the defendants unlawfully removed from the second property a rolling machine belonging to the claimants and they refuse to return it. The claimants were obliged to contact the Police and have suffered further loss trying to discover who stole it. The defendants are liable to pay the claimants the replacement cost of £5,730 plus consequential damages.
Item 22.0 had a PACE Notice as evidence that the Police may have supported Mr Arthur in that the “rolling machine” (FRM) may have been stolen albeit the words “and may well be stolen” had been deleted and the Police were actually fully aware at the time of issue of the PACE Notice that the FRM had NOT been stolen and thus it had not been unlawfully removed. As for “not advising the claimants” I did leave a message on their answer machine asking “if they had cleared all the rubbish from the shop” and it was only because they did not return my message that I visited the shop and discovered that the rubbish had not been cleared and the FRM was amongst it.
I spoke to the force solicitor (Robert Glass) regarding my concern about the PACE Notice being used as evidence against us in both Mr Arthur’s amended Civil Claim and his “ownership” of the FRM / attempted private prosecution application and mentioned that parts of the claims were untrue as the Police were aware.
Mr Glass wrote to me on 30 November 2004 regarding our phone conversation and that he had contacted Camborne Police and on 3 December 2004 DC Exelby, in what can only be described as shutting the stable door after the horse had bolted, withdrew the PACE Notice.
On 10 December 2004 I sent a fax to DC Exelby and copied it to DS Cook, Mr Glass (Force legal), The IPCC and posted a copy to Truro Court . I asked them to give me a reason it had been withdrawn and why it had been issued in the first place but I did not receive a reply.
On 17 Dec 2004, having not had a reply to my 10 December 2004 fax, I sent another fax to DC Exelby DS Cook, the Chief Constable and the IPCC again asking them to give a reason for withdrawing the PACE Notice and asking if they were going to take action against Mr Arthur for wasting Police time / attempting to pervert the course of Justice by making false statements both in his original allegation of theft and in his applications (that the Police were aware were false).
Because I did not receive a reply and because I had also copied my 10 December 2004 fax to Truro Court this would have given the Court the impression that the Police believed that Mr Arthur’s statement “That I had unlawfully removed the FRM” (i.e. stolen it) and Mr Arthur’s statement “That I had made statements to the Police that are clearly untrue” were thus likely to be fact and that there was a case to answer which probably explained why the Court did not answer our 2 November 2004 letter requesting that the Court do not allow Mr Arthur to amend his original 15 July 2002 Claim over two years after first filing it but of course our 2 November 2004 letter was written just before Mr Arthur had made his 4 November 2004 second application to the Court so the Court had two applications to consider, one of which had the (silent) support of the Police.
It is undeniable fact that in late 2004 the Police
1. Knew that I had legitimately removed the FRM.
2. Knew that I had not stolen it.
3. Knew Mr Arthur had lied to them in reporting the “crime” as regards to when he first noticed the FRM missing, what it was worth and when he had last visited the shop.
4. Knew that Mr Arthur’s statement in his 14 February 2004 letter to PC Carveth “that I had deceived the Police regarding the House of Lords appeal” was itself untrue. Because they -
5. Knew that I had applied to the Court of Appeal to re-open the appeal prior to applying to the House of Lords.
6. Knew that on 7 June 2004 the Court of Appeal had granted permission to re-open the appeal.
7. Knew that Mr Arthur’s statement in his 14 February 2004 letter to PC Carveth “that I know that Mr Arthur owns (100%) of the FRM” was not true.
8. Knew that Mr Arthur’s statement in his 20 February 2004 letter to DC Exelby “that the Symes Robinson & Lee document dated 17 June 2003 records the transaction whereby ownership of the stock, fixtures, plant and other items then located at 52 Fore Street, Redruth was transferred” does not mean that Mr Arthur owned the items but does confirm that the Arthur Layte partnership did and by concealing this and the 14 June 2003 document from us Mr Arthur was almost certainly committing a crime.
9. Knew that Mr Arthur’s statement in his 20 February 2004 letter to DC Exelby “that Mr Layte was supplied with copies in the course of the litigation” is true but deceiving since we should have been supplied with the documents at the time and not some weeks later when we found out about the agreement Mr Arthur had made with our joint tenant..
10. Knew that Mr Arthur’s statement in his 20 February 2004 letter to DC Exelby “That our solicitor had conceded that Mr Arthur owned the above items (contents of the shop)” was untrue.
11. Knew that Mr Arthur’s many statements that our counterclaim was “misconceived, dismissed, failed, etc” were untrue since the counterclaim was found for us (the Defendants) with the exception that the Judge had awarded Mr Arthur some “stock” which Mr Arthur had told him was “worthless, unfashionable and musty smelling” and had given it to a Mr Fox in exchange for his “clearing” the property. The Police knew this part of the counterclaim was under appeal and in view of the new evidence that it seems very likely that Mr Arthur did not give the bulk of the “valuable, fashionable and sweet smelling” stock to Mr Fox but kept it for himself then I think the permission to re-open the case in light of this new evidence should proceed.
12. Knew that the only tangible actual “evidence” that Mr Arthur had mentioned in his two 2004 applications to the Court was the existence of a PACE Notice which the Police had withdrawn soon after the applications without informing the Court that it had been withdrawn or giving a reason as to why it had been withdrawn before either of Mr Arthur’s application had been heard or even allowed which may well have given the Judge who allowed Mr Arthur’s applications (Judge Mitchell) the impression it was still extant and the Police tacitly supported Mr Arthur’s claim that the FRM had been stolen.
Despite the Police being aware of the above the fact that they took no action against Mr Arthur and gave no reason for withdrawing the PACE Notice meant that the litigation continued. If the Police had taken action against Mr Arthur at this time or at least informed the Court that his PACE Notice evidence had been obtained by deceit then the litigation would have gone no further.
EMAIL RECIPIENTS LIST