Affidavit 1

	Sign In Sign-Up

Criminal District Judge Cuthbertson ruled that my fathers action to go back into possession of his land was an abuse of court time. The higher court, presided over by criminal recorder John H. Fryer-Spedding had ruled that my father was the one who was likely to have title to the land subject of dispute. Cuthbertson again demonstated his obvious intent that injustice should be the order of the day. Like all members of the Masonic Mafia, he has had to turn law an accepted principles of justice upside down to prevent either myself or my father from obtaining justice. My father died suddenly on April 5 1999. On April 3 1999 the Sunderland Echo newspaper had just published on its front page my alleged bankruptcy which had been engineered by fraud committed by the various judged named on this web site. Former Recorder John H. Fryer-Spedding (He fled the scene of his crimes) was forefront in the Masonic Mafiia operations against me. The Sunderland Echo was due to have published my expose of local corruption. It senior reporter Mr Paul Taylor expressed his sorrow at the death of my father and stated his concern at my expose of local corruption not having been published by the Sunderland Echo. The publication of April 3, 1999 did play a part in the death of my father. When masons are editors or deputy editors of newspapers, as many are, the truth about corruption rarely gets published in case it involves their Masonic Brothers. Cuthbertson is I consider, unfit to be even a shoe shine boy let alone a judge. But when the likes of Masonic Mafia boss Irvine employ the likes of him, his duty obviously lies to the Masonic Mafia and not to its victims.

In The Durham County Court Case Number DH6 04359

BETWEEN WILLIAM KELLETT PLAINTIFF

AND SHIRLEY CARR DEFENDANT

I, MAURICE KELLETT of 16A The Lyons, Hetton le Hole, Tyne and Wear, MAKE OATH and say as follows:

1. I was the Defendant in an action in The Durham County Court under case number NE401650 where the above named Defendant, Shirley Carr ,was the Plaintiff in that action.

2. I was the Plaintiff in actions DH400950, and DH400898 where Shirley Carr was the Defendant. Case DH400950 concerned a drainage problem affecting my property 16A The Lyons, coming from the property 16, The Lyons, Hetton le Hole, Tyne and Wear which is owned by Shirley Carr. The drainage problem has arisen as a result of the fact that the rear of the property 16 The Lyons, Hetton le Hole, is without any recognised form of drainage disposal. The rear of both properties 16 and 16A The Lyons are approximately some two feet below natural ground level, and the rear of my property 16A The Lyons, is below the level of the rear of the property 16 The Lyons, which is owned by Shirley Carr.

3. Shirley Carr was the applicant in a Building Notice to the Local Authority dated February 8 1988 for drainage proposals to 16 The Lyons. This fact is verified by a letter received from the Local Authority a copy of which is attatched hereto under Exhibit MK1. This Exhibit was placed before former Recorder Mr Fryer Spedding who appeared to have failed to have given it due consideration and further failed to take appropriate action on the fact that Shirley Carr had sworn statements in which she had alleged she had no responsibility in the drainage work that took place on 16 The Lyons in February 1988. The Local Authority invoiced Shirley Carr for the work that they had carried out to enable the frontage of 16 The Lyons to be placed on mains drainage. No drainage work was carried out on the rear of 16 The Lyons, and it remained without any means of drainage disposal.

4. Shirley Carr did not purchase 16 The Lyons until August 26th 1988. The predecessors in title to 16 The Lyons, were Mr Robert William Green and Audrey Green. On or around January 27 1988 I was informed by my solicitors, Smith & Graham of Durham, that Mr and Mrs Green had agreed to the creation of a license to use the drains on my property 16 A The Lyons. The agreed sum was £200 per annum which is confirmed in Exhibit MK2 attached hereto. Exhibit MK2 was submitted before former Recorder Mr Fryer Spedding who again appeared to have failed to have given due consideration to it.

5. I was the Plaintiff in case number DH400898 which concerned damage to my property, with subsequent intake of rain water into its kitchen. The action became neccesary when six men replaced the roof of Shirley Carr's property 16 The Lyons, on the weekend of November 13 and 14 1993. After damage to my property ocurred, the workmen refused to identify themselves, and Shirley Carr also refused to name them.

6 In 1995 Shirley Carr became the applicant in an Originating Application under case number DH500628 . Shirley Carr's application was for an easement to be allowed to drain her properties roof into guttering upon my property.

7. These four actions were tried before former Recorder Mr Fryer Spedding on October 21st, 22nd , and 23rd 1996 at The Newcastle County Court.

8. In addition, Shirley Carr had made a further application for my imprisonment on an allegation that I had further breached the injunction so obtained from District Judge Cuthbertson. This further application was also to have been heard before Mr Fryer Spedding.

9. Mr. Fryer Spedding made the allegation , which is confirmed in his authorised transcript of judgement, that there had been an agreed bundle for use in the trials that were heard before him. This statement made by Mr Fryer Spedding was untrue. There had been no agreed bundle for use in the trials. As a result of the injunction which was granted by District Judge Cuthbertson for the benefit of Shirley Carr on October 17 1995, and my subsequent imprisonment on allegations that I had breached the injunction so obtained, legal aid was withdrawn five weeks before the trials. My former solicitors required the case files for costing purposes, and as a result I did not have a full compliment of the files for my use at those trials.

9. Mr Fryer Spedding alleged that the actions under case numbers DH400950, DH400898, DH500628, and NE401650 had been consolidated and he tried them as if consolidated under case number NE401650 where I was the Defendant. This allegation made by Mr Fryer Spedding, which is included in his authorised transcript of judgement, was also untrue. Shirley Carr had made application to the Durham County Court for what she termed as "amalgamation" of the actions. Her application was refused. I believe that Shirley Carr may have excluded the documentation concerning this application and its subsequent refusal from the bundles which she had prepared for use in the trials. A solicitor, Alison Stott had been delegated the work of preparing the bundles ready for trial. When I received my bundle, I found a considerable amount of documentation was missing from it . I reported this to the Chief Clerk of The Durham County Court. On further enquiry, Alison Stott admitted that she had not carried out the work of preparing the bundles ready for trial, but had passed on the work to Shirley Carr, who was Defendant in two out of the three actions. The bundle that I had held was supplied to my former solicitors, who were Jacksons of Darlington Co. Durham. I did not have the bundles returned to me until after the cases were tried.

10. On October 17 1995 Alison Stott Solicitor had attended the Durham County Court with Shirley Carr at the injunction application hearing before District Judge Cuthbertson. As an alternative to the injunction that Shirley Carr had applied for, it was agreed in principle that joint undertakings would apply as an alternative to the injunction applied for. District Judge Cuthbertson had made it very clear at the outset of the hearing in respect of that application for injunction that he had very lttle time. His first comment to Alison Stott was, "You dont expect me to grant that today do you?". Alison Stott's reply was, "yes I do sir". District Judge Cuthbertson delegated the work of the drafting of the wording of the joint undertakings to be carried out by Alison Stott solicitor. The hearing of that afternoon of October 17 1995 was then adjourned. No indication whatsoever of when the hearining was to reconvene was given by either by District Judge Cuthbertson, or Alison Stott. My wife and I left the courthouse believing no other that the hearing would reconvene on another day after Alison Stott had carried out the work of drafting the wording of the joint undertakings. After my wife and I had left the Courthouse, Alison Stott then returned back to District Judge Cuthbertson that same afternoon ,who then granted the injunction in full in the terms which Shirley Carr had applied for.

It is considered that the granting of that injunction by District Judge Cuthbertson was improper due to the following reasons. It was my right to have been informed by District Judge Cuthbertson when the hearing was to reconvene. The District Judge gave no such information or indication whatsoever as to when that hearing was to reconvene. On January 17 1996 at the first directions hearing before former Recorder Mr Fryer Spedding, and Michelle Temple Q.C., my wife, and I, Alison Stott told Mr Fryer Spedding that up until that time she had not been acting for Shirley Carr but had only been assisting her. Mr Fryer Speddings sharp reply to alison Stott was, "you are either acting for Miss Carr or you are not". Alison Stott then replied to Mr Fryer Spedding, "well I am now sir". In these circumstances, it is considered that the granting of the injunction by District Judge Cuthbertson on October 17 1995 for the benefit of Shirley Carr was improper and therefore unlawful.

11. The injunction granted by District Judge Cuthbertson on October 17 1995 prevented me from collecting further evidence for use in the actions. It was also instrumental in providing Shirley Carr and her resident partner, Norman Pringle with a means to carry out provocation in their attempts to have me breach that injunction so obtained. On at least two occasions it became necessary for me to request the attendance of police when it was apparent that the provocation from Shirley Carr and Norman Pringle was meant in an attempt to make me react to it in their attempts to have me breach that injunction so granted by District Judge Cuthbertson on October 17 1995. Eventually I did react to the provocation of Shirley Carr and Norman Pringle in June of 1996 when I found that they were making noises at the fence adjoining our properties with obvious purpose to aggravate our two dogs to make them bark. When I saw that Shirley Carr and Norman Pringle had set up recording equipment to tape record the result of their action , I did react, and I believe that I was justified in doing that. On the previous day the Public Health Department informed me that Shirley Carr had made complaint to them alleging that our dogs barked incessantly. As Shirley Carr and Norman Pringle had the recording equipment in use, my verbal reaction to that situation was then tape recorded by them, and it became instrumental in my subsequent imprisonment and stroke. The tape recording submitted in those committal proceedings had been subject of editing ,and it is considered therefore that it should not have been used as evidence. These facts were contained in the files that were placed before former Recorder Mr Fryer Spedding.

12. Former Recorder Mr Fryer Spedding made the following statement and untrue allegations which are contained in his authorised transcript of judgement:

"There is an agreed bundle which contains amongst other things the title deeds". Mr. Fryer Spedding then went on in his judgement to say:

" On 2nd February 1976 No. 16 was divided and Mr. and Mrs. Kellett Junior acquired by purchase from Mr. and Mrs. Kellett Senior the property which became No 16A. What that property is can be seen from the registered title, because the title of that property 16A is now registered under title TY23554 and the filed plan shows which part of what was formerly known as No. 16 became No. 16A.".

Though Mr. Fryer Spedding agreed that he had the title deeds to the properties before him, still he wrongly alleged that the properies were divided on 2nd February 1976. In the title deeds of both properties No. 16 and 16A The Lyons, there is contained the following declaration:

"AND WHEREAS the said hereditments were on the first day of July one thousand nine hundred and forty eight used as two private dwellinghouses and their curtilages".

Not only was Mr Fryer Spedding's statement relative to the above untrue, but before 1948 and up until February 2nd 1976 when my wife and I then purchased No. 16A, there had been diversity of occupation of both properties. At the time we purchased No. 16A The Lyons, from my parents, William and Elizabeth Rhoda Kellett on February 2nd 1976 the accepted and agreed route to service the rear of our property was via the land which is subject to this action, and by additional route across the rear garden of No. 16. The Lyons. This had been the access route to the rear of our property since before the turn of the present century. In addition, at the time we purchased No. 16A from my parents, both properties No. 16 and 16A The Lyons were only accessed at the frontage of the properties by means of a joint driveway. Shirley Carr has erected fencing at both the front and rear of the properties which now obstructs our rights of access .

13. The result of Mr Fryer Spedding wrongly alleging that the properties had not been divided until February 2nd 1976 was to have the effect of bypassing the fact that in any event, irrespective of the dispute over title to the disputed land, my rights under Section 62 of The Law of Property Act 1925 were denied by the former Recorder Mr Fryer Spedding. In these circumstances alone I was not, contrary to the judgement of Mr. Fryer Spedding, made with the assistance of untrue statements, a trespasser on the disputed land.

14. Mr Fryer Spedding wrongly alleged in case DH400898 that there is a single brick wall at the east boundary of it, serving only No. 16 the Lyons, and that he alleged it was not therefore a party wall. I am well acquainted with the properties No. 16 and 16A and I carried out substantial work to the bathroom of No. 16 The Lyons in 1979. I know that there is no single brick wall serving only for the use of the bathroom of that property. Contrary to the allegation made by Mr. Fryer Spedding, On site inspection shows proof contrary to the allegation made by the former Recorder. The property No. 16 The Lyons was built as a lean-to structure against the west wall of No. 16A The Lyons. The site inspection by Mr. Fryer Spedding should have indicated to him this indisputable fact.

15. In March 1994 Shirley Carr alleged that she had title to the disputed land, and commenced an action against me for trespass on it. The case was heard before District Judge Baird who then granted an injunction restraining me from further entering upon it pending the case being tried. Shirley Carr provided no evidence whatsoever to District Judge Baird to support her allegation that she had title to the disputed land . District Judge Baird was supplied at the hearing before him with Statutory Declarations sworn both by my father, and Plaintiff in this case, and myself. Copies of those Statutory Declarations were also supplied at that time to Mr. Kerrigan who was a member of staff at the University of Northumbria Law Clinic who the represented Shirley Carr. Though the rules of the court had been fully adhered to in respect of the serving of submissions, I have no knowledge that Shirley Carr included them in the bundles which I consider she improperly prepared ready for trial.

16. In his judgment Mr. Fryer Spedding made the following statement:

Placed before Mr. Fryer Spedding for use in those proceedings were four separate sets of a Statutory Declaration that had been sworn by the solicitor Mr Paul Graney on April 26th 1988 for use in lodging the caution referred to by Mr. Fryer Spedding. He says that he had not looked at the Statutory Declarations but extremely contrary to his statement he then says that the caution that was lodged by the Greens was supported by the "usual statutory declarations" . If Mr. Fryer Spedding had not looked at the statutory declarations used to lodge the caution at HM. Land Registry relative to the disputed land, then there can be little doubt that he could not truthfully say that those were the "usual statutory declarations".

Mr. Fryer Spedding also had before him for use in those proceedings, four separate sets of an affidavit sworn by the solicitor Mr. Paul Graney on March 9 1995. That affidavit was sworn by Mr. Graney following evidence that was placed before him which confirmed the fact that he had sworn false information in his Statutory Declaration of April 26th 1988 which he had used in the placing of the caution at HM Land Registry. The Statutory Declaration of Mr. Paul Graney was an exhibit of his affidavit of March 9 1995, and there is evidence, which I will turn to later, to show that Mr Fryer Spedding had almost certainly looked at Mr. Paul Graney's affidavit of March 9 1995. In the circumstances, the allegation made by Mr Fryer Spedding that the statutory declarations that had been used to lodge the caution at HM Land Registry, were the "usual statutory declarations" was another statement made by him which is further proved to have been untrue.

Though Mr. Fryer Spedding said that he had not looked at those Statutory Declarations that had been used to lodge a caution at H.M. Land Registry, I believe that I do recall during the proceedings before him that he was handed a copy of Mr. Robert William Greens Statutory Declaration that he had sworn for use in his application to be registerd as title holder of the land, but then used it to lodge the caution at H.M.Land Registry. The proceedings were recorded, so it will be possible to verify that he was or was not handed a copy of that Statutory Declaration during those proceedings before him.

The matter of Mr. Paul Graney swearing false information in his Statutory Declaration of April 26 1988 was subject to complaint to The Solicitors Complaints Bureau, who advised that an approach to the police be made. Mr. Granery swore in his Statutory Declaration of April 26 1988 the following untrue

statements:

" The situation is that when they purchased Bowes Cottage on the 10th December 1982, they were given to understand that the land was part of that property. It does in fact form part of their back and side garden and since the 10th December 1982 no one has questioned their occupation thereof".

The Greens were never at any time given to understand that the disputed land was part of Bowes Cottage which is alternately known as 16 The Lyons. The conveyance of No. 16 The Lyons. on December 10 1982 between my parents as vendors and the Greens as purchasers verified that no interests whatsoever

in the disputed land were part of that conveyance. Any such interest would have had to have been subject of registration at HM Land Registry. Mr Fryer Spedding agreed that conveyancing procedures would have highlighted that no title or interest was part of that conveyance.

Mr Graney's statement included in his Statutory Declaration sworn April 26 1988 is:

"since the 10th December 1982 no one has questioned their occupation thereof"

Mr. Graney's false information contained in his Statutory Declaration, was proved by the retention of the letters which he sent to my father William Kellett, the Plaintiff in this action in February of 1988.

Mr Graney had sworn his Statutory Declaration on April 26 1988, for use in the placing of the caution at H.M. Land Registry in respect of the disputed land, it was an act that he carried out in the continuation of the dispute that had arisen relative to the disputed land. In the circumstances Mr. Paul Graney would have known at the time that he swore that false information, that it was no other than untrue. It will be seen from Mr. Paul Graney's affidavit of March 9 1995 , of which Mr. Fryer Spedding had four copies of it placed before him, that Mr. Graney swears in paragraph 10. that he based the information that he swore in his Statutory Declaration of April 26 1988 only upon information given by Mr. and Mrs. Green. His action of swearing that false information and then using it to lodge a caution at H.M Land Registry was an act in the furtherance of the dispute over the alleyway. Mr. Graney then swears that the false information that he swore was based only upon information that Mr. and Mrs. Green had given to him. From the evidence by way of the letters that were received by my father from Mr. Paul Graney dated February 12 and 16 1988 it is established that the information that Mr. Graney solicitor had sworn was indeed false. Of course the Greens were fully aware that a dispute relative to the alleyway had been in progress for some time prior to Mr. Graney swearing his false information, so that if Mr. Graney's action of swearing that false information had been as a result of some sort of confusion, and I do not hesitate to say that that facts show that it was not, then regardless, Mr. Graney has implicated the Greens in the deception caused by his swearing that false information.

Police agreed that the evidence by way of the letters dated February 12 and 16th 1988 which had been retained by my father from that time showed that Mr. Graney had sworn false information. They concluded that unless it could be shown that Mr. Graney had deliberately meant to swear false information, then they could not commence an action in respect of it.

17. Mr. Fryer Spedding made the following statement in his judgement:

"Then the sale took place to Miss Carr and her partner in 1988. Unfortunately the conveyancing file, particularly the document which would have been particularly enlightening, namely the enquiries before contract, is not available and cannot be found (it has been destroyed by termites I think) and so the court is not assisted by seeing that".

In those proceedings conducted before the former Recorder Mr. Fryer Spedding, there was not at any time any mention whatsoever that the conveyancing file referred to by him was not available and could not be found. He said he thought that the file had been destroyed by termites. In Mr. Paul Graney's affidavit which he swore on March 9 1995, of which Mr Fryer Spedding had four copies of it placed before him, there is contained in paragraph 8. the following statement:

"There was an infestation problem in my file room and I believe the file on the matter has been destroyed".

As there is no other alternative explanation to the statement referred to above which was made by Mr. Fryer Spedding, then the statement made by him relative to his allegation that the conveyancing file could not be found, can only have been a concoction of the statement made by Mr. Paul Graney in paragraph 8. of his affidavit which he swore on March 9 1995. The file which Mr. Paul Graney refers to in paragraph 8. of his affidavit does not refer to a conveyancing file. It refers only to the file in respect of the disputes that had arisen with regard to the land dispute subject of this case , and the drainage problems coming from No. 16 the Lyons when it was then owned by Mr. and Mrs. Green in 1987 to 1988.

18. Mr. Fryer Spedding made the following statement in his judgement which is a further deviation from the truth:

"At about the same time Mr. Kellett Snr. made an application to the Land Registry to be registered with good possessory title to the land".

Mr. Fryer Spedding refers here to a period of time around April 1988 when the caution at H.M. Land Registry was lodged on behalf of the Greens by Mr Graney using his Statutory Declaration which contained the false information. In fact in was not as Mr. Fryer Spedding had alleged, " At about the same time Mr. Kellett Snr. made an application to the Land Registry". Exhibit MK601 which Mr. Fryer Spedding had before him, showed that my father had made the application to H.M. Land Registry in 1987, and that his application was received by them on September 1st 1987. Following that the Greens then alleged that they were in possession of the disputed land. In those circumstances, it is the practice of H.M. Land Registry not to register such land when it is subject of dispute. Mr. Fryer Spedding would of course have been aware of that when he made his various statements relative to it.

Mr. Fryer Spedding was in receipt of the evidence which fully proved the following facts:

A) September 1st 1997. Documentation was received by H.M. Land Registry in an application by the Plaintiff William Kellett for registration of the disputed land.

B) October 1977. Dispute arose between myself and the Greens relative to drainage problems coming from 16 The Lyons, which is now owned by the Defendant in this action, Shirley Carr.

C) December 1977 under advice from Smith and Graham Solicitors of Durham, the drains leading from 16 The Lyons were sealed as a consequence of an assault made by Mr. Robert William Green on my wife after she had attempted to stop him from breaking a window at the front of our property. Threats had been received from a member of the Green family that we would be "stuck with steel". That threat was repeated by Martin Green to a police officer. Mr Robert William Green had demolished fencing at the front of our property and a beer bottle had been thrown at me by a member of the Green family which had showered me with broken glass. Police attended on each occasion these incidences took place.

D) Early January 1988. Mr. and Mrs. Green placed their property 16 the Lyons, for sale on the housing market not advising their Estate Agent, or prospective purchasers, that the property was without any form of drainage disposal.

E) Around January 20 1988. Shirley Carr and a former boyfriend , Mr T. McCabe, visited our home in response to a notice that I placed on our property which stated that No. 16 the Lyons was without drainage facilities. This action had became necessary when it came to light that the Greens had not informed their Estate Agent, or prospective purchasers that the property was without drains . Shirley Carr has agreed that she attended our home in January 1988. Miss Carr wrongly alleged that we had only told her that 16 The Lyons was without any form of sewerage disposal. The notice that had been posted made it clear that the property was without any forms of drainage. Shirley Carr swore the following statement in her affidavit dated May 12 1994 which she submitted in the proceedings before Mr. Fryer Spedding::

"Mr. and Mrs. Green placed the property 16. The Lyons on the housing market in early 1988, not advising prospective buyers of the disputes with the Plaintiff . I was informed by the Plaintiff that the property had no means of sewerage disposal after I had viewed the sign he had placed for all prospective purchasers to see. I contacted the local council offices and established that the drains had been blocked. The situation was eventually resolved when Mr. and Mrs. Green had the property connected to the mains drainage system in February 1988".

The evidence which I submitted before Mr. Fryer Spedding, which was by way of letters received from the local authority, proved beyond any doubt whatsoever that Shirley Carr had clearly been guilty of perjury by swearing the above statement. It was Shirley Carr who had been responsible for the drainage work that had been carried out to 16 The Lyons in February 1988.

Shirley Carr went on to swear the following statement in her affidavit dated May 12 1994 which she submitted before Mr. Fryer Spedding for use in her defence in those proceedings:

" I have not altered or caused any alteration to my property's roof elevations, guttering, drains, or rear yard . Until recently the Plaintiff has made no approaches to me regarding my property's guttering or rear drainage. Following the Plaintiff's complaints I contacted the Drainage Engineers at Sunderland Civic Centre who advised me that the sewerage and frontal drainage of the property was connected to the main drainage system in February 1988. No work was necessary on the rear of the property as the rear yard merely measures 21 foot by 45 inches wide and has no artificially channelled water entering it or artificially draining from it".

From the above sworn statement made by Shirley Carr on May 12 1994 it could no other than have been clear to Mr. Fryer Spedding that Shirley Carr had not only committed perjury, but had also attempted deception by stating that she contacted the Drainage Engineers at Sunderland Civic Centre to be advised on the drainage of her property. As she had been the applicant in a Building Notice Received by the local authority on February 8 1988 for drainage proposals to 16 The Lyons, she would not therefore have needed to contact the authority to be advised on drainage facilities on 16 The Lyons, when it was she, not as she had sworn, the Greens, who had been responsible for the drainage work that was carried out to 16 The Lyons in February 1988. In the circumstances, it is clear that Mr Fryer Spedding did not take the action relative to this perjury which is required to uphold law.

F) February 8 1988. The local authority received Shirley Carr's application in a Building Notice to the local authority for drainage proposals to Mr. and Mrs. Greens property 16 The Lyons .

G) February 10 1988 my father, William Kellett, the Plaintiff in this action having been made aware that Mr. and Mrs Green had alleged that they had title to the disputed land. My father wrote a letter to Mr. and Mrs. Green informing them that when 16 The Lyons had been sold to them on December 10 1982, no interest whatsoever in the disputed land had been part of that conveyance. He informed Mr. and Mrs Green that he held title to the disputed land.

H) On or around February 13 1988. A letter was received from Mr. Paul Graney Solicitor dated February 12 1988 asking for proof to back up my fathers statement that we had gained title to the disputed land. My father replied that we had used the disputed land for well in excess of the twelve year prescription period required by law to have gained lawful title to that land by undisturbed possession of it.

I) February 17 1988. Letter received by my father William Kellett from Paul Graney Solicitor , dated February 16 1988, asking for documentary proof of the statement made in my fathers previous letter to him. My father then delivered to Mr. Graney a copy of his Statutory Declaration that he had sworn on August 24 1987 confirming his own use of the disputed land. There was no further correspondence received from Mr. Paul Graney Solicitor.

J) February 18 1988. Mr. Frederick Seadon swore a Statutory Declaration stating that he had blocked off one end of the disputed land in 1952 or 1953. This Statutory Delaration was to be used in the placing of the caution at HM. Land Registry, but it is apparent from evidence submitted before Mr. fryer Spedding that it had been used in an unsuccesful attempt by the Greens to have the land registered to then with possessory title.

K) February 22nd 1988. Mr. Robert William Green swore a Statutory Declaration in support of a joint application to H.M. Land Registry for title to the land to be registered to them with possessory title.

L) Mid March 1988. A builder named Adamson was busy removing the drain pipes beneath the rear yard of 16 The Lyons. Gravel was laid by Mr. Adamson in the recess left by the removal of the drains. In addition, a hole was dug at a point adjoining the boundary of our property and filled with gravel. This hole extended beneath a wall on our property. As the rear of our property No. 16A The Lyons is below the level of that of Shirley Carr's property No. 16, drainage from the rear of Shirley Carr's property then freely flowed into our property. Shirley Carr alleged in a written submission which she submitted before Mr. Fryer Spedding that the builder named Adamson had only been carrying out work on the rear yard of No. 16 The Lyons, of levelling the flagstones on it which had become uneven through the passing of time. Mr Fryer Spedding was shown video film evidence taken in mid February 1994 which showed beyond any doubt whatsoever that the rear yard of 16 The Lyons, was, and presently remains sloped in the direction of our property. Shirley Carr swore in an affidavit used in her defence that no water flowed down her property's rear yard in the direction of our property. The video film shown to Mr. Fryer Spedding, which was filmed on a rainy day showed that water was flowing down the rear yard of No. 16 The Lyons in the direction of our property. A surveyor employed by Shirley Carr confirmed that the rear yard of No. 16 The Lyons was indeed sloped in the direction of our property. In addition, clear video film evidence was shown to Mr. Fryer Spedding which confirmed that steps had been taken to assist drainage from the rear yard of No. 16 onto the rear yard of our property No. 16A. Mr. Fryer Spedding was also shown video film evidence which confirmed beyond any reasonable doubt whatsoever that guttering on the rear of No. 16 The Lyons was so substantially sloped in the direction of our property No. 16A the Lyons, that allegations made by Shirley Carr that the guttering was meant to take roof drainage in the opposite direction to the slope of that guttering was a further lie, which I consider was assisted by Mr. Fryer Spedding when he made the following statement in his judgment:

"Whilst the Greens were occupying No. 16, following the disputes with them, Mr. Kellett decided that he would remove the east side gutter which he considered to be his. I need not go further back in time. However, when Miss Carr arrived on the scene, when she purchased, Mr. Kellett felt that it was reasonable to reinstate that gutter. He put the gutter back. I was connected to the gutter which runs round the south side of that building, and as I have mentioned eventually directs some water at least into the rainwater barrel on the alleyway land and there may or may not have been prior alterations carried out by builders during the Greens period of occupation of No. 16. But Mr. Kellett in his own evidence said that when Miss Carr arrived he put up that east side gutter again and connected it, without a blocker off or stopper or whatever it is called, to the east side gutter and that is the situation which exists today and that is the situation of which Mr. Kellett complains. His complaint is that water overflows from that gutter into his own property and is causing a nuisance".

The above statement made by Mr. Fryer Spedding makes no mention of the fact that so substantial is the slope of the south gutterering on the rear of No. 16 the Lyons, as is very clearly shown indeed on the video film evidence that was shown to him, that no number of what he terms blocker off's or stoppers could have prevented the drainage collecting in that guttering from flowing into our property No. 16A The Lyons. Surveyors had found no water in the rainwater barrel referred to by Mr. Fryer Spedding. Miss Carr then later claimed that the barrel had a hole in it.

There was clear evidence that a hole had been made beneath a wall on our property leading from the rear yard of Shirley Carr's property No. 16 the Lyons. Mr. Smales, a surveyor employed by Shirley Carr, confirmed that he had poured a bucket of water onto the rear yard of No. 16 the Lyons, and that the water had flowed down the yard in the direction of our property. It had flowed between two flagstones and when he lifted one one those flagstones he had found a hole leading through onto the rear yard of our property.

Mr Fryer Spedding stated in his judgment:

" As far as No. 16's side is concerned, there appear to have been steps taken to make some sort of seepage or collection point on the east side of the flagged walkway. A flag was raised by Mr. Smailes on his inspection, which shows that a hole has been made at some stage or other in the ground below the flag nearest the southeast corner of No. 16's dwelling house, which apparently goes through to No. 16A. Who made that hole and how is not clear. Mr. Smailes felt that it was not made from 16's side. But despite the contentious nature of things that happened between the parties, I cannot really understand any point in anybody making it for the benefit of either No. 16 or 16A. It should be said that the ground level at 16a on the other side of the wall, the est side of the brick wall, is somewhat lower than on the west side. The exact difference is not precisely established, but it is significant".

This extraordinary statement made in the judgment of Mr. Fryer Spedding did not include the very relevant fact that when he made that statement he was aware that the rear yard of No. 16, or what he now refers to as the flagged walkway, has no form of drainage disposal on it . In addition, he did not mention the fact that that the rear yard, or flagged walkway on the rear of No. 16 the Lyons, is approximately some two feet below natural ground level, and is itself a natural collection point for land drainage coming from the south which is sloped substantially towards the rear of No. 16 and 16A. If Shirley Carr had been unable to take the steps that she most certainly did to ensure that drainage from the rear yard of her property flowed into our property, she would then have had the problem that the only route that drainage could flow would be into the living area of her property. The actions taken to ensure that drainage from the rear of Shirley Carr's property No. 16 The Lyons, onto our property 16A The Lyons, has additionally ensured that it is we who have now been left with exactly that problem. Extremely contrary to Mr. Fryer Spedding's statement relative to the hole that had been made beneath our wall leading from the rear yard of No. 16 The Lyons through into our property which was:

" I cannot really understand any point in anybody making it for the benefit of either No. 16 or 16A."

There was every reason to understand why that hole had been made, and who had made it Though Mr. Fryer Spedding alleged that he did not think there was any significant amount of drainage coming from No. 16 The Lyons, onto our property. The video film evidence shown to him is proof which is contrary to his statement

Shirley Carr had sworn that the rear of her property had flooded on at least four occasions since August 26 1988, this fact alone, and the fact that that flood water had nowhere to flow, other than through into our property, which is at a lower level, and it was assisted in draining that way by the hole that had been made beneath our wall, and the making of other other holes in the flagstones adjoining our property which was shown to Mr. Fryer Spedding in the video evidence produced to him, though Mr. Fryer Spedding made no mention whatsoever to these additional facts, which also included the action of the propping up a flagstone next to the boundary of our property, which enabled the drainage from the rear yard of No. 16 flow even easier into our property. The statement made by Mr. Fryer Spedding, which is quoted above, can only be considered in the same light as many other statements that he had, I consider, wrongly made.

The surveyor Mr. Smales had told Mr Fryer Spedding that the difference in levels between 16 and 16a The Lyons was some two feet. This was incorrect, but it was indicative that Mr. Smales had not carried out a proper survey when he visited both respective properties to carry out his survey. Mr. Fryer Spedding was shown video film taken in mid February 1994 which showed that a flag had been lifted on the rear yard of No. 16 the Lyons at a point adjoining our property, where Mr Fryer Spedding , in his judgment stated:

" As far as No. 16's side is concerned, there appear to have been steps taken to make some sort of seepage or collection point on the east side of the flagged walkway".

As I have previously stated, Mr. Fryer Spedding now refers to the rear yard of No. 16 , as the flagged walkway. He also fails to to state the fact that the point which he refers to adjoins our property, and is on the lower side of the slope of the rear yard of No. 16 which is in the direction of our property.

Mr. Fryer Spedding also stated in his judgment relevant to the brick wall beneath which Mr Smales confirmed a hole had been made leading from No. 16 through to our property No. 16A:

"When Mr. Kellett built the brick wall he was of course himself interfering with the system, and it is that, as I see it, which substantially has been causing the water, since the brick wall has been built, to build up. Indeed the purpose of the brick wall was to cause it not to go on to No. 16.".

This was another statement made by Mr Fryer Spedding which was untrue. The wall had not been built to prevent drainage going on to No. 16. He has agreed that the level of our property No. 16A is below the level of No. 16. He agreed in his judgment that the difference in the lower level of our property No. 16A relative to the level of No. 16 is significant. So consistent with other statements that Mr. Fryer Spedding had made in his judgment, he had excluded the material fact that the wall had been built in early 1982 when my parents then owned No. 16. and at a time when the rear yard of No. 16 had a drain installed upon it. It follows that Mr. Fryer Spedding's reasoning on this particular issue, is that the wall should not have been built, which can only be considered as a statement made in contradiction to known and accepted law that one has the right to build any structure upon ones own land. And it is of more relevance especially when an adjoining owner of land had no objection to that structure being built. That was the situation in early 1982 when I built that wall with the full knowledge of my parents who the owned that adjoining property No. 16 The Lyons. After the Greens purchased No. 16 The Lyons on December 10 1982, they would not maintain the water gully that was situate on the rear yard of that property, which was part of the route cause of the action that was taken to seal the drains at the advice of Mr. K. Rainford of Smith and Graham Solicitors of Durham when it was agreed by the respective solicitors involved in that matter that there was no easement of drainage from No. 16 onto our property No. 16A. Extremely contrary to fact, is the statement made in Mr. Fryer Spedding's judgment which follows:

"I can see no reason for suggesting that Miss Carr or the Greens had to alter the lay out of their land in order to avoid happening that which had been happening over the years and was happening in each case when they purchased. They would have acquired when they purchased any pre existing easement under s. 62 of the Law of Property Act 1925".

Though Mr. Fryer Spedding wrongly alleged that the properties 16 and 16A The Lyons were divided on February 2nd 1976 when my wife and I then purchased No. 16A from my parents, it follows that had Mr. Fryer Spedding been confused in this matter, it would also follow that in any event he should have been aware that Section 62 of The Law of Property act 1925 does not apply in cases where two properties are under common ownership, when there has been no diversity in the occupation of those properties. But Mr. Fryer Spedding wrongly alleged that the properties had been divided on February 2nd 1976, so it would seem that he would have also wrongly understood that prior to February 2nd 1976, when my wife and I then purchased No. 16A The Lyons from my parents, that there had not been diversity of occupation of No's 16 and 16A. Indeed Mr. Fryer Spedding wrongly had alleged in his judgment, which I have previously referred to herein that on February 2nd 1976, " what was formerly known as No. 16 became No. 16A.". If Mr. Fryer Spedding had truly believed that was the situation prevailing on February 2nd 1976, then he would almost certainly have been aware that prior to that date, Section 62 of the Law of Property Act 1925 could not, and did not apply.

Contrary to Mr. Fryer Spedding's judgement in which he wrongly stated that the two respective properties were only divided on February 2nd 1976, the true situation as was as confirmed in the declaration in the titles of the properties that they had been divided before 1948. My understanding is that unless a vendor of a property reserves any rights that he wishes to exercise over the property which he sells, then there are no rights that he can exercise over that property. This was agreed by the respective solicitors for ourselves and the Greens in 1988, when it was agreed by the Greens that they would pay £200 per annum by way of a license fee to use our property's drains. Mr. Fryer Spedding was in full knowledge that there had been no rights of drainage over our property in the conveyance of February 2nd 1976.

Then Mr. Fryer Spedding says in his judgement that the Greens and Shirley Carr would have acquired any pre existing easement under Section 62 of the law of property act 1925 when they purchased 16 the Lyons. There were no pre existing easements over our property No. 16A under Section 62 of the Law of Property Act when Shirley Carr purchased 16 the Lyons on August 26 1988. The wall referred to by Mr. Fryer Spedding which is part of our property, was built in early 1982 and it was in existence at the time both the Greens and Shirley Carr purchased 16 the Lyons. Mr. Fryer Spedding's allegation that the wall had been built to prevent drainage from going onto one of the respective properties, If that situation existed at the time of the sale, which Mr. Fryer Spedding was fully aware that it had been, as he verified in his judgement, then it was fully covered under Section 62 of the Law of property act 1925. The right for that wall to exist, and for whatever purpose it existed, provided that it existed at the time of the sale, which it did at both times when the Greens and Shirley Carr purchased 16 the Lyons, that right of the existence of the wall certainly passed under Section 62 of the Law of Property act 1925.

In respect of the guttering on my side of the party wall on our property, Mr Fryer Spedding would have been aware by the documentation placed before him , and this is borne out by his statements contained in his judgment, that the guttering was not installed at the times when the Greens purchased 16 the Lyons, and was not in place when Shirley Carr purchased 16 the Lyons . In those circumstances, no easements passed under Section 62 of the Law of Property Act 1925 allowing that guttering to be situated in that position at the times of those sales of 16 the Lyons in December 1982 and August 1988. This was fully established by the facts that Mr. Fryer Spedding had before him.

To confuse the situation relevant to Section 62 of the Law of Property Act 1925 even further, Mr. Fryer made the following statements in his judgement:

"In a limited way also the alleyway land was apparently used for obtaining access to the rear of No. 16 and, after the properties were separated, of No. 16A also. This is because there is not another convenient rear access which does not involve going through one of the houses. There used to be, but no longer is, a side door from No. 16 on to the alleyway land and that could be used for obtaining access just to get there, but if you were carrying heavy things or garden materials then a different route might have to be used, and likewise in relation to to No. 16A. Mr. Kellett said that sometimes a ladder was kept for getting over the sleeper/wire fence at the north end of the alleyway land for getting things into the garden when it was not suitable to take them through the houses.

When the sale to the Greens came to take place there appears to have been no change in relation to the alleyway land. If Mr. and Mrs. Kellett Snr. had wished to retain that land, or if Mr. Kellett Jnr. felt that that he had some interest in retaining it, one might have expected that it would have been fenced off, or at least marked off in some way so that it was clear that it was not to become part of the garden.

Mrs. Kellett in her evidence said that she told the Greens that this land did not pass with their house. That indeed they would have discovered simply through the ordinary conveyancing process. They would know at any rate that they were not getting a paper title to it.

The conveyance to the Greens did not reserve any right of access across the southern part of the garden of No. 16 for the benefit of No. 16A, so that after that sale it was not possible for Mr. Kellett Jnr. to use the alleyway land for the purpose of obtaining access to his garden. He says nevertheless that he continued to enter upon the alleyway land to carry out acts there, amongst which were the picking of blackberries and elderberries and the taking of what he called "cuttings" from the Leylandii trees, which, a I have said, were planted earlier".

In the situation regarding the access to the rear garden of our property No. 16A, Mr Fryer Spedding states:

"The conveyance to the Greens did not reserve any right of access for the benefit of No. 16A, so that after that sale it was not possible for Mr. Kellett Jnr. to use the alleyway land for the purpose of obtaining access to his garden".

The above statement made in the judgement of Mr. Fryer Spedding was a contradiction to statements that he had already made regarding Section 62 , of the Law of Property Act 1925, and was contrary to the law concerning that Act. Section 62 , paragraph 1. of the Law of Property Act clearly states:

A conveyance of land shall be deemed and shall by virtue of this Act operate to convey, with the land, all buildings, erections, fixtures, commons, hedges, ditches, fences, ways, waters, watercourses, liberties, priviliges, easements, rights, and advantages whatsoever, appertaining or reputed to appertain to the land, or any part thereof, or, at the time of the conveyance, demised, occupied, or enjoyed with or reputed or known as part or parcel of or appurtenant to the land or any part thereof.

At the time of the sale of No. 16A The Lyons to my wife and I on February 2nd 1976, the route to the rear garden of our property, 16A The Lyons, was fully established and was by way of the alleyway (the disputed land) and the rear garden of No. 16 The Lyons. It was this route that was clearly used by all owners and tenants previously occupying 16A The Lyons. It is known, and has been proved beyond any reasonable doubt to Mr. Fryer Spedding that since before the turn of the present century, that was the route used to service the rear of our property No. 16A The Lyons. My father, William Kellett, additionally swore in his affidavit which was submitted before Mr. Fryer Spedding, that on the conveyance of 16A The Lyons to my wife and I on February 2nd 1976, it was intended that access to service the rear of our property would remain by that route of across the rear garden of No. 16 The Lyons. If common sense is to prevail, and I am determined that it shall, the fact that the rear garden of our property No. 16A The Lyons comprises of a brick pig sty and poultry house which it is established have existed since before the turn of the present century, then there can be no question whatsoever that the materials to contruct those buildings had not been transported through the living area of our property. Common sense suggests no other than that the pigs and poultry, and indeed the feedstuffs, that were kept in those buildings over the many years of their usage had not been transported to and from those buildings via the living area of our property.

The following statement which Mr. Fryer Spedding made in his judgment, clearly shows that he failed to give due and proper consideration to the fact that Section 62 of the Law of Property Act 1925 protects the rights which I, and my family clearly have. It is also clear that that the following statement made by Mr. Fryer Spedding contradicts Section 62 of the Law of Property Act 1925. On these facts alone, I was, and could not therefore be a trespasser as against Shirley Carr as Mr. Fryer Spedding had ruled that I was.

"The conveyance to the Greens did not reserve any right of access across the southern part of the garden of No. 16 for the benefit of No. 16A, so that after that sale it was not possible for Mr. Kellett Jnr. to use the alleyway land for the purpose of obtaining access to his garden"

M) April 26 1988. Mr. Paul Graney Solicitor swore his Statutory Declaration which contained false information. He then used that Statutory Declaration along with those of Mr. Frederick Seadon, and Robert William Green , in the placing of a caution at H.M. Land Registry. It is established that Mr. Graney was continuing to act for the Greens in the land dispute when he lodged the caution at H.M. Land Registry in April of 1988. There can be little doubt that Mr. Graney knew at the time that he swore his false information, which was, " since the 10th December 1982 no one has questioned their occupation thereof" that he was indeed swearing false information. Mr. Fryer Spedding had four copies of Mr. Paul Graney's Statutory Declaration before him which were included as exhibits in affidavits which included an affidavit sworn by Mr. Graney. He says that he had not looked at those so did not take them into account. In these circumstances, the question has therefore arisen as to which material evidence that was placed before Mr. Fryer Spedding had been looked at by him. Mr. Fryer Spedding made no reference whatsoever to the Affidavits and Statutory Declarations that were sworn in support of my and my fathers use of the disputed land. Shirley Carr said while she was under oath, that she had planted cabbages on the disputed land, Mr. Fryer Spedding was shown evidence which was extremely contrary to Shirley Carr's statement. From my knowledge gained by living very close to it, and being able to view the land, along with my visits to it, I know that Shirley Carr had never at any time cultivated and planted cabbages on the disputed land.

Mr. Fryer Spedding made a statement in his judgment which , among the many others shown herein, was grossly untrue, and evidence that was shown to him on video film proves that his statement is untrue. The statement of which I presently refer follows:

"There was no feature in between it and No. 16, there was no easy way in which anybody else could obtain access to it, and subsequently Miss Carr carried out acts on it of cutting grass, tidying up and some vegetable planting, which were carried out, I am satisfied, before these proceedings had either been started or immediately contemplated, so they were not hasty acts carried out sort of in the face of court proceedings. I am satisfied from the evidence that she carried them out because she treated that land as part of her garden, even though she did not have a paper title to it.".

The video film evidence shown to Mr. Fryer Spedding, was filmed in mid February 1994. This was very shortly before Shirley Carr commenced action against me by alleging that I was a trespasser on that land. The video film evidence that was shown to Mr. Fryer Spedding showed a scene of rubbish and dereliction. It clearly showed that certainly Shirley Carr had not been cultivating anything, let alone vegetables on the disputed land at that time. Shirley Carr's resident partner, Mr. Norman Pringle, submitted before Mr. Fryer Spedding a signed statement giving his description of the disputed land as he saw it when he commenced to reside with Shirley Carr in 1992. The contents of Mr. Pringles signed statement was further evidence that Shirley Carr had not at that time been carrying out the acts which were alleged by Mr. Fryer Spedding. Still in these circumstances, Mr. Fryer Spedding again made stements that were grossly contrary to the facts that were shown and proved to him. Mr. Fryer Spedding stated:

"I am satisfied from the evidence that she carried them out because she treated that land as part of her garden, even though she did not have a paper title to it".

I am unaware of any evidence whatsoever that was placed before Mr. Fryer Spedding which could have led him to make the statement referred to above. Evidence that was produced before Mr. Fryer Spedding was utterly contrary to the statements made in the judgment of Mr. Fryer Spedding.

Mr. Fryer Spedding stated in his judgment that he had been given no description of a boundary feature having ever existed between the alleyway land, and No. 16 The Lyons. This was also untrue because the submissions made by both myself and Shirley Carr , and I believe others, did describe the fact that there had been a boundary feature between the alleyway land and 16 The Lyons. It is apparent that he failed to consider that the fencing that I had erected on February 15 1994 along the boundary between the alleyway land and No. 16 The Lyons, had been removed by Shirley Carr.

Shirley Carr alleged that my action of fencing of the alleyway had resulted in stress which had prevented her from attending work, and accordingly included loss of earnings in her claim against me. Mr. Fryer Spedding saw the video film taken during that time of her absence from her employment, which shows her helping to unload a lorry load of timber and other materials. It would seem that Mr. Fryer Spedding also failed to give due consideration to that.

N) Though Shirley Carr had alleged from the outset of litigation that she had title to the disputed land, and that was the subject of her pleadings. Mr. Fryer Spedding ruled that Shirley Carr has no title to the disputed land, which of course in the given circumstances, was shown to be fact. My own defence was to show that Shirley Carr did not, as she had alleged, have title to that land. It is apparent that Mr. Fryer Spedding had to agree to this fact, but he then substituted in the favour of Shirley Carr his ruling of de facto possession of the land. Evidence that was shown to Mr. Fryer Spedding in fact showed that Shirley Carr was not in de facto possession of the land as is alleged by Mr. Fryer Spedding.

O) At the outset of my cross examination of Shirley Carr, she swore two material statements that were contrary to one another. I then referred to the fact that Shirley Carr had sworn these two contrary material statements. Before Shirley Carr made replied to this fact, Mr. Fryer Spedding immediately warned me not to do that as I would not gain by it. This was a gross breach of my rights of cross examination. When I commenced to question Shirley Carr on the particular area of the disputed land she had alleged that she planted the cabbages, Mr. Fryer Spedding then interrupted my cross examination of Shirley Carr, at a time when it was apparent that most certainly it was established that Shirley Carr had not, as she had alleged, planted cabbages on the disputed land.

P) Mr. Fryer Spedding interrupted my cross examination of the surveyor , Mr. Smales, who had been employed by Shirley Carr by entering into a conversation with him in respect of the length of ladders that Chartered Surveyors are allowed to carry. The matter of the lengths of ladders carried by Chartered Surveyors had not been raised by me as an issue in my cross examinationof Mr. Smales. Mr. Fryer Spedding again interrupted my cross examination of Mr. Smales when it was very apparent that he was avoiding giving a reason for his statement that he felt the hole that had been made beneath our wall which allowed drainage to freely flow from Shirley Carr's property onto our own, had not been made from No. 16's side. Mr. Smales did not therefore reply to that particular material question. At the site visit, I showed Mr. Fryer Spedding visible proof that the hole that had been made beneath our wall, could not have been made from our side of the properties. As in many other instances during those trials before Mr. Fryer Spedding, it would seem that he chose to ignore the facts of proof that was shown to him.

Q) During those proceedings before Mr. Fryer Spedding there was considerable body language by way of his eye to eye contact and facial expressions that he made to Mr. Merrit, who was Counsel representing Shirley Carr. In addition, while I was delivering my defence in case NE401650, Mr. Fryer Spedding made quiet remarks directed to Mr. Spedding which were, "there could be question of a right of way here", and "agent?". I consider these statements which Mr. Fryer Spedding made to Mr. Merritt as promptings, and that it was unfair that such promptings should have been carried out. Proceedings before Mr. Fryer Spedding were fully recorded on audio tape, and the facts which I give here, and in the latter paragraph will show that Mr. Fryer Spedding did indeed carry out those acts.

R) In those proceedings before Mr. Fryer Spedding, Shirley Carr had made a further application for my committal to prison by alleging that I had breached the injunction so granted by District Judge Cuthbertson on October 17 1995. In my defence to that application, I questioned the lawful validity of the circumstances under which that injunction had been granted, and my subsequent appeal against it. Mr. Fryer Spedding advised or suggested that the application for my further imprisonment should not be heard at that time. In the alternative he granted Shirley Carr a further twenty eight day extension in which she could make further application to the court for my committal to prison. He said that should such further application be made for my committal to prison, it should be reserved to be heard before him. After the trials, I reported to the Lord Chancellor, then the Honourable Lord Mackay, some of the actions that Mr. Fryer Spedding had carried out which I regarded as highly improper. I also informed Lord Mackay that contrary to Mr Fryer Spedding's statement contained in his judgement, there was no agreed bundle for use in the trials, and again, contrary to Mr. Fryer Spedding's statement, there had been consolidation of the cases that were heard before him. Application to the court for consolidation, or as Shirley Carr had termed "amalgamation" of the cases had previously been refused, and there had been no further application made for the consolidation of the cases. I am informed that Mr. Fryer Spedding went into retirement approximately two weeks after those trials. Circumstances suggest that Mr. Fryer Spedding had not intended to retire at the time that he allowed Shirley Carr a further twenty eight day period in which to make further application for my imprisonment. In a recent statement made to me by Shirley Carr, she said that Mr. Fryer Spedding had not retired, though she did not disclose how she had gained that information.

Mr. Fryer Spedding allowed Mr. Merrit to introduce into those proceedings my arguments with Freemasons. My arguments with Freemason was not an issue, nor material in any way to the issues in the cases the were being tried before the former Recorder.

S) I am informed that the Rt. Hon. Lord Woolf M.R. and the Lord Chief Justice have discussed the matter of my concerns relative to Freemasonry, and have decided that it should be left to Mr. Fryer Spedding whether or not he should declare any possible membership of Freemasonry.

T) On June 6th 1997 I appeared before Lord Justices Pil and Auld at the London Court of appeal. My application was for leave to appeal against the order made by former Recorder Mr. Fryer Spedding. As the cases before that were heard before Mr. Fryer Spedding had not been consolidated under case NE401650 as mr fryer Spedding had alleged, there were clearly four cases that were issue of the application for leave to appeal. High Court rules state that a maximum of twenty minutes is allowed in which to state the arguments to be used in the application for leave to appeal. I was before their Lords Justices for a total of twenty two minutes this being the time that they allowed me to place my arguments. In the circumstances there was only time to place the headings of my arguments before their Lords Justices, and not to go into detail of the arguments themselves. In the circumstances, I consider that at least eighty minutes should have been allowed in which to state my arguments before their Lords Justices. When it was apparent that their Lords Justices were referring to me as the Defendant in the actions that were heard before the former Recorder, when I was in fact the Plaintiff in two out of the three actions, and the respondent in the futher action, I then informed their Lords Justices that they were in error and that I was indeed the Plaintiff in cases DH400950 and DH400898 they hastily considered that whether I was the Plaintiff or defendant in those actions, it made no difference for the purposes of judgement. I sent a letter of concern relative this to the Rt. Hon. Lord Woolf M.R. and the Lord Chief Justice. Their reply to me, came via Mr. Mark Brodrick for the Registrar of Civil Appeals. which said that if I wished to seek leave to petition the House of Lords I should write to this effect to Lord Justice Auld. I then wrote to Lord Justice Auld to this effect, and received an order that I was not allowed to petition the House of Lords. I then submitted to the Royal Courts of Justice documentation and evidence which I requested be placed before The Master of the Rolls and the Lord Chief Justice.

U) On Monday August 4th 1997 I received a letter from the Royal Courts of Justice confirming that the documentation and evidence that I have sent to that court will be considered by The Master of the Rolls, and the Lord Chief Justice on their return from vacation. The evidence that I have supplied to the Royal Courts of Justice is only a token of the substantial evidence that is available to prove the various allegations that I have made relative to the litigation proceedings between Shirley Carr and myself. I have indicated in my documentation which has now been forwarded to their Lordships, that a full file on the matters concerning the litigation proceedings between Shirley Carr and I, along with evidence in support of the allegations that I have made, are under the course of preparation for distribution to various members of the House of Lords, and others. In addition, I have contacted the European Commission with a view to having the matters heard before the European Court should this become necessary.

V) To summarise other facts in addition to those included here, these were:

a) At the outset of litigation, the Legal Aid Board alleged that there was already an injunction in place preventing Shirley Carr from draining her property onto ours. At the subsequent appeal against the refusal of legal aid, the Legal Aid Board again said that the injunction was already in place and again refused legal aid. I was able to obtain copies of the documentation used in those applications for legal aid. That documentation clearly indicates that the Legal Aid Board could in no way have misinterpreted the application that had been made on my behalf for legal aid. I supplied that documentation to the then Lord Chancellor ,Lord Mackay, and it was suggested by his office that I make an approach to The Parliamentary Commissioner with it. It has been agreed that the Parliamentary Commissioner will receive the copies of the evidence that I had placed before Lord Mackay.

Nancy Bone Solicitors were responsible in the application for legal aid at that time. The subsequent actions carried out by Nancy Bone Solicitors, became subject of complaint to the then Solicitors Complaints Bureau. Nancy Bone was discharged from acting for me, and then held a lien over my files and evidence. District Judge Jones suggested that I could make an application to the court for Nancy Bone to release my files and evidence. I then made that application. There was further delay when District Judge Scott-Phillips decided that as it has been District Judge Jones who had made the suggestion that I could apply to the court for the release of my files and evidence, he decided that my application should be heard before District Judge Jones. In the circumstances that arose, it became necessary for District Judge Scott-Phillips to hear my application. It was agreed that I be allowed to attend the offices of nancy Bone Solicitors to take copies from my files. In the meanwhile, after Nancy Bone was made aware that I had prepared and submitted alternative video evidence for use in the cases, she then released the video evidence to me. I attended Nancy Bone's office on the day and time which had been stated by District Judge Scott-Phillips. It had been understood by myself, Nancy Bone solicitor, and Alison Stott solicitor, who was then acting as Shirley Carr's assistant, that my attendance at Nancy Bone's office had been by order of the court. Nancy Bone breached the terms that had been stated by District Judge Scott-Phillips. I returned back to the court by reason that I had not been allowed to carry out the work of taking copies from my files. District Judge Scott-Phillips then said that my attendance at Nancy Bone's office had not been by order of the court, but had only been done by Nancy Bone's consent. I have received letters from Nancy Bone solicitor where she refers to my visit to her office as an "order of the court"'. In the circumstances I was never able to obtain the copies from my files that were held by Nancy Bone.

Very recently, the Law Society have intervened in the firm of Nancy Bone Solicitors, and I understand that her license to operate that firm has now been revoked. The business of the Gilesgate office of Nancy Bone, where my files were held, has now been taken over by Alison Stott solicitor who was assistant to Shirley Carr until January 1996, and then commenced to act for her from January 1996. Alison Stott has written to me saying that she would hand the files back to Nancy Bone. Staff that were formerly employed by Nancy Bone are now employed by Alison Stott. Those staff had acted in my dealings with Nancy Bone, and are fully aware of the various issues in my unfortunate dealings with that firm.

b) I have said previously that Smith and Graham Solicitors of Durham, acted for us in 1987 to 1988 in the problems that arose in the land issues and drainage coming onto our property from No. 16 The Lyons, and with problems arising out of the actions of members of the Green family. Mr Paul Graney solicitor, represented the Greens at that time. When I asked Smith and Graham Solicitors for the release of the file that they held relative to the problems brought about by the actions of the Greens in 1987 to 1988, which would have been of substantial use to me, they wrote to say that the file had gone missing in what they termed , "the Bermuda Triangle of documentation". They wrote saying despite extensive searches, they could not find the file. They said that the file had not been thrown out.

When I learned that Mr. Paul Graney solicitor had sworn false information and I had approached him with evidence to show that he had committed that act, he then said that the file he held on those matters he believed had been destroyed by an infestation problem. It is apparent that Mr. Fryer Spedding later concocted a story from Mr. Graney's submission to the court that he believed the file had been destroyed by an infestation problem, because in his judgment he clearly substituted the statement that the file containing the enquiries before contract could not be found, and said that he thought it had been destroyed by termites, this statement was detached from the truth of the facts that were placed before him.

c) Mr. Fryer Spedding also said that my father William Kellett, would have received notice from H.M.Land Registry when the Greens lodged a caution on the land in April 1988. The Durham District Land Registry confirmed to me that in the circumstances my father would not have been served with such notice.

d) Mr. Fryer Spedding stated in his judgement:

"I have already mentioned the possibility that this land might belong to ( I think now clearly defunct) colliery which owned the land to the south. Mr Merritt has mentioned the possibility that this land might have vested in 1948 in The National Coal Board and subsequently passed down under the chain of changes of name and description which that organisation has taken on".

Shirley Carr fully confirmed by written and oral evidence that she had contacted the Agents for British Coal who said they had no interest in the land.

e) In addition, Mr. Fryer Spedding also made the following statement in his judgement which was contrary to the statements that Shirley Carr had made to him:

" Well no step has been taken to make enquiries of The National Coal Board or the Treasury Solicitor on behalf of the Crown in relation to this matter. I hasten to say I do not say that by way of criticism, but if there was any expectation that I might make a declaratory judgement in relation to the ownership of this land, I would have expected at least that enquiries should be made of other obvious persons who might wish to claim title to it"

Though I have to say that my knowledge of the law relative to title by Prescription and the Limitations period should not be as substantial as that of Mr. Fryer Spedding, I am however aware, contrary to the above statement made by Mr. Fryer Spedding, that there is no requirement whatsoever that a person who is in adverse possession of land, is required to make enquiries in an attempt to trace the owner of that land. A person who has fullfilled the requirements of prescription and the the Limitation period, can after the period of twelve years of undisturbed adverse possession, apply to H.M. Land Registery to be registered as proprietor of that land, and will normally be registered with a possessory title if the Land Registry is satisfied that the twelve year Limitation period has been fullfilled, and that there is no dispute arising from the occupation of that land at the time of the application for registration. After the proprietor has been registered with possessory title, should it be shown that the ownership of that land is vested in the Crown, then up to the period of thirty years the Crown can apply for rectification of the Register. After the thirty year period, even the Crown is barred from any claim to ownership of the land.

Mr. Fryer Spedding made no mention whatsoever of the sworn affidavits and Statutory Declarations sworn in support of my, and my fathers usage of the land which well exceeded the thirty year period. It is very apparent that Mr. Fryer Spedding did not look at other documentation by way of evidence that was put before him, so it is conceivable that he also may not have looked at thos affidavits and Statutory Declarations that were sworn in support of our usage of the land.

19) Shirley Carr has alleged that at the time she purchased 16 The Lyons on August 26 1988 the Greens had not told her of the disputes that had arisen between themselves and myself. She has confirmed in her submissions placed before Mr. Fryer Spedding that the Green had withheld from prospective purchasers of No. 16 The Lyons in January 1988 the fact that the property was without means of drainage disposal, which was clearly an extremely improper act. Mr. Paul Graney solicitor swears in paragraph 10 of his affidavit which he swore on March 9 1995 that in effect the swearing of that false information contained in his Statutory Declaration of April 26 1988 was as a result of information that the Greens had given to him. Mr. Fryer Spedding it would seem failed to give due consideration to those facts, and although evidence suggests tha Mr. Fryer Spedding had in fact looked at Mr. Graney's affidavit of March 9 1995, he says that he had not looked at the Statutory Declaration which contained that false information sworn by Mr. Graney, which was an exhibit attached to that affidavit. So it is apparent that in January 1988 the Greens were responsible for withholding the fact that their property was without drains, as Miss Carr has verified in her evidence, and from Mr. Paul Graney's sworn statement, the Greens were also guilty of deception by telling him that no one had questioned their alleged occupation of the alleyway land, despite the fact of course, that Mr. Graney had been acting for the Greens since at least January 1988 in the matter of the disputed alleyway land. These very material facts, which were effectively bypassed by Mr. fryer Spedding by him having said that he had not looked at the Statutory Declarations used to lodge the caution at H.M. Land Registry, despite having four copies of Mr. Graney's Statutory Declaration put before him, along with four copies of Mr. Graneys affidavit of March 9 1995, and four copies of each letter of evidence to show the deception that had been practiced by the parties. It is a misdemeanor to knowingly swear false information and use it in any application to H.M. Land Registry. No action has yet has been taken against those involved in the deception which I have detailed here.

Shirley Carr has sworn that at the time she purchased her property from the Greens, on August 26 1988, they had not made her aware of the dispute over the alleyway land, but she confirms that when she purchased that property the Greens supplied her with the copies of the Statutory Declarations that had been used to lodge the caution at H.M. Land Registry.

Shirley Carr has confirmed in her submissions that were placed before Mr. Fryer Spedding that she was unaware of any dispute in respect of the alleyway at the time she purchased No. 16. The Lyons. The calender of events which I have given here, clearly shows the sequence of events that took place in the early months of 1988. Those facts contained in the sequence of events make it clear that by February 8 1988, Shirley Carr was to become the prospective purchaser of No. 16 The Lyons following her application to the local authority in the Building Notice for drainage proposals to that property more than some six months before she was to purchase it. Circumstances make it clear that her purchase of that property was conditional upon it being possible to place the frontage of it onto mains drainage. Circumstances suggested by the sequence of events in early 1988 show that the Greens had agreed to a licence to drain their property into our drains at a fee of £200 per annum, as a safeguard against it having not been possible to place the frontage of that property onto mains drainage. Had it not been possible to place the frontage of that property onto the public sewers, then the cost of the excavation work that was carried out by the local authority would, in any event, have to have been met by Shirley Carr. On February 8 1988 the application relative to her drainage proposals for then the property owned by the Greens, 16 The Lyons, was received by the local authority.

Shirley Carr alleged in an affidavit that we had not told her that there were no drainage facilities on the rear of No. 16 The Lyons, and alleged that we had only told her that the property was without means of sewerage disposal. Contrary to her untrue allegation, she confirms in evidence that at the time the drainage work was carried out in February 1988 to place the frontage of the property on to mains drainage, that no work was necessary on the rear of the property. It is clear therefore that Shirley Carr had in fact given consideration to the drainage situation at the rear of No. 16 prior to her application in the proposals that she submitted to the local authority on February 8 1988. It is absolutely inconceivable that at that time she can allege that she was unaware that the rear drains from No. 16 The Lyons, had been sealed under the advice of the solicitor Mr. K. Rainford. She had found that the Greens had withheld the fact that the drains of that property had been sealed when she made an approach to the local authority. There is no question that the action of the Greens at that time of concealing such an important fact, would have led her to be extremely wary in her dealings with the Greens. Subsequently, as it is confirmed by her that her attention had been drawn to the drainage situation at the rear of that property, she would, regardless of her untrue allegations that she had not been made aware that the rear drains of the property had been sealed, have learned in the preparation of her drainage proposals, that the rear of No. 16 was also without drainage facilities. Shirley Carr had in fact been given a full account of all of the disputes when she and a former boyfriend, Mr. Thomas McCabe visited our home in January 1988 . She has denied that we gave her such an account. I suggest that these fact were made clear to Mr. Fryer Spedding, but it would again seem that he preferred to ignore those facts. In the interrogatories that I served upon Shirley Carr, she refused my requirement that her replies should be sworn, this is not surprising given the true facts.

As it was possible to connect the frontage of No. 16 The Lyons onto the public drains in February 1988 under the work that had been proposed by Shirley Carr, it is established that following that work Shirley Carr was then to become the purchaser of that property, and the fact is that she did indeed become the purchaser . So I again return to the land dispute in relation to the sequence of events that took place at that time in early 1988.

Shirley Carr alleges that she had no knowledge of the dispute over the ownership of the alleyway which is subject to this present action, at the time she purchased No. 16 The Lyons from the Greens on August 26 1988. There is the sequence of events in the swearing of the three Statutory Declarations of Mr . Seadon , Mr. Green, and Mr. Graney show that from February 18 1988 when Mr. Seadon swore his Statutory Declaration relative to the disputed land, and on February 22nd 1988 when Mr. Green swore his Statutory Declaration, and then on April 26 1988 when Mr. Paul Graney swore his false information for use in registering the caution at H.M. Land Registry. The caution that was placed by the Greens at H.M. Land Registry by the Greens in April 1988 was clearly for their benefit. But circumstances, in the sequence of events show that in February 1988, when Shirley Carr was responsible for the work that had been carried out to place the frontage of No. 16 onto the the public sewers, she was then most definately to become the purchaser of that property following that work. But then came the swearing of the Statutory Declarations

that were used to place a caution at H.M. Land Registry in April 1988. Mr. fryer Spedding stated in his judgement:

"The Greens for various reasons, connected I think not a little with disputes which I need not recite between themselves and Mr. Kellett, decided that they would like to clarify the position relating to the alleyway land, because they registered a caution at the Durham District Land Registry in relation to it. That caution of course was supported by the usual statutory declarations, but I have not looked at those and do not take them into account, but I do take into account the fact that the Greens felt that they did not want somebody else, without them having the chance to have a say to the Land Registry or if necessary a court, to claim title to the alleyway land. That is the purpose of registering a caution".

I have previously given an account of Mr. Fryer Spedding's statement regarding the statutory declarations referred to here. It is necessary to turn to the sequence of events to show that at the time the caution which is referred to above in Mr. Fryer Spedding's judgment was lodged in April 1988 Shirley Carr was by that time to become the purchaser of No. 16 The Lyons. I have previously said that the caution was placed for the benefit of the Greens, and Mr. Fryer Spedding also supports this fact by his statement detailed above.

If it had been the intention of the Greens to place that caution for their benefit, which it is confirmed by Mr. Fryer Spedding that this is the purpose of a caution, then there is the matter of how that caution was to be of benefit to the Greens when they were to sell their property No. 16 The Lyons to Shirley Carr. Facts show that after the Greens had sold their property to Shirley Carr on August 26 1988 they never returned back to the alleyway land. Mr. Fryer Spedding stated in his judgement that there was no easy way to access the alleyway land other than from No. 16 The Lyons. The Greens certainly registered the caution, and that would have involved no small financial cost, but this was at a time when Shirley Carr was to become the purchaser of the Greens property, No. 16 The Lyons. So that it is certain that the Greens could not benefit by the caution when they were to sell their property to Shirley Carr, other than if it was their intention at that time to to continue to claim that they possessed the alleyway land. When they sold No. 16 The Lyons, the Greens never returned back to the alleyway land, so it is clear that it was not their intention at that time to continue to allege that they had possession of the alleyway.

A further act which is indicative of the true situation existing at that time in 1988, was the fact that when Shirley Carr purchased her property, No. 16 from the Greens on August 26 1988, they supplied her with the copies of the three Statutory Declarations which had been used to lodge the caution at H.M. Land Registry. If Shirley Carr is to be believed, one would also have to believe also that she had not questioned the purpose of the swearing those Statutory Declarations, and their subsequent use in the lodging of the caution, and the purpose of the Greens having supplied those copies to her. It is inconceivable that Shirley Carr had not at the time she was supplied with copies of those Satutory Declarations, that she had not questioned their purpose and use. It is also clear, in the circumstances that I show here, that once Mr. Paul Graney's Statutory Declaration was passed from the Greens to Shirley Carr, then a further act of deception by the Greens then took place, if Shirley Carr was not in the knowledge that the information that had been sworn by Mr. Graney in his Statutory Declaration of April 26 1988 was false, which it is proved that it was. If it can be shown that Shirley Carr was in full knowledge when she came into receipt of Mr. Graney's Statutory Declaration that the the alleyway had been subject of dispute prior to Mr Graney swearing his false information, then Shirley Carr also becomes guilty of deception by any further use of Mr. Graney's Statutory Declaration if she was aware that the information it contained was false. In January 1988 Shirley Carr and a previous boyfriend Mr. Thomas McCabe attended our home and were given a full account of the dispute regarding the alleyway. It is clear in any event now that the sworn statement of Mr. Graney of March 9 1995 fully implicates the deception that was at work by the Greens. As there are now shown to be substantial grounds for the Greens to be brought before the court to explain the reasons for their deception, along with Mr. Graney, it would also be of benefit to justice that Mr. Thomas McCabe should also now appear before the court to give an account of what we had told him and Shirley Carr when they visited our home in January 1988. The Greens of course can then confirm before the court whether or not Shirley Carr had been in the knowledge that the alleyway had been subject of dispute before Mr. Graney had sworn his false information. It will also benefit justice if the Greens can confirm to the court if, and at whatever time, they may have informed Shirley Carr that the alleyway had been subject of dispute.

Alison Stott solicitor supplied me with the copy of Mr. Paul Graney's Statututory Declaration containing that false information, which had been passed to her from Shirley Carr. It can be shown that when Alison Stott supplied me with that copy of Mr. Graney's Statutory Declaration, in her attempt to have me drop my claim to the alleyway, and then wrote that Mr. Graney's Statutory Declaration would be used in an application to H.M. Land Registry for title to be registered to Shirley Carr, in the event that I would not drop my claim. She then offered me £1 to drop my claim. If Shirley Carr can be shown to have known that the contents of Mr. Graney's were untrue at the time that she passed it on for use by Alison Sott solicitor, then clearly it can be shown that Shirley Carr can then be shown to have participated in the deception that is shown to have been practised by the Greens, and I believe, that of Mr Graney.

There is also the additional question arising as to the lodging of a caution at H.M. Land Registry by Shirley Carr, relative to the alleyway land ,which I believe was in 1994 at a time when litigation relative to it had already commenced. My and my wifes interview with the solicitor at H.M. Land Registry who was handling the matter of the alleyway land, it appeared at that interview, that she knew nothing of the fact that the alleyway land was at that time already subject of Court action. The further question arises as to what Statutory Declarations Shirley Carr used to support her application in that caution, more especially if she did in fact use the Statutory Declaration of Mr. Paul Graney date April 26 1988 which contained that material false information.

After August 26 1988 when Shirley Carr purchased No. 16 the Lyons, it is established that the Greens abandoned their allegation that they held the alleyway by possession. Had they taken steps to enable them to return back onto the alleyway land after they had moved from No. 16 then one might consider that it had been their intention to continue to allege that they had continued possession of the alleyway. They took no steps wharsoever to be able to return back to the alleyway after they had moved away from No. 16 the Lyons on August 26 1988. So it is apparent that when they moved from No. 16 the Lyons, they abandoned any alleged claim that they had possession of the alleyway, so they themselves did not therefore benefit by the caution which they had placed. Mr. Fryer Spedding's statement detailed above, mentions that by placing that caution the Greens would have their chance to have a say about the alleyway, if necessary to a court. The litigation relative to the alleyway has been underway now for some three and a half years, and it should be made clear, and Mr. Fryer Spedding was also aware, that the Greens have not had their say to the court, and Shirley Carr submitted as evidence a letter received from Mr. Paul Graney solicitor saying that the Greens did not wish to become involved in the litigation. So the statement made by Mr. Fryer Spedding relative to the motive of the Greens in lodging that caution, is shown to be without substance. Only two alternative possible motives can therefore be concluded by the act of the Greens lodging that caution at H.M. Land Registry, and one could have been an a malicious act, or that it was intended that Shirley Carr would become the beneficiary of that caution. I do not believe that there are any possible alternative motives.

20) I have sworn this affidavit containing some of the facts and circumstances to support my belief that there can be no abuse of court time for my father now to apply to the court for possession of the disputed land. It is clear that it is my fathers lawful right, following Mr. Fryer Spedding's ruling that if anyone was likely to have gained title to the land it was more likely to have been my father. Though my father has agreed that we jointly used that land for well in excess of the Limitation period to have acquired title to it, it is apparent by the statements made by Mr. Fryer Spedding , often conficting with the true facts that were put before him, that he had a determination that I should be the loser in those actions. In the circumstances and facts which I detail herein, which are true to the best of my knowldge and belief, I do not accept that Mr. Fryer Spedding's judment should stand. It is not my intention, given the facts, some of which are detailed here, that I will conceed to such a clearly unjust judgment that was made by the former Recorder Mr. Fryer Spedding.

SWORN this 13th day of August 1997

BEFORE ME

AT Sunderland County Court

John St.

Sunderland

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Go to contact links

Please send E-mail to:justice@jiwalu.demon.co.uk

Back to opening page

Back to page list