Below are some of the things that the most vile former Recorder John H. Fryer-Spedding carried out against me to pervert the course of justice. His Masonic Mafia pals Auld and Pill both holding the title of Lords, protected him by refusing my application for leave to appeal his corrupt judgment. Both Auld and Pill will not agree or deny membership of Freemasonry. They both knew I had taken part in the Nolan Enquiry into Freemasonry within the Police and Judiciary. By denying me my right that they should declare any membership of Freemasonry, they have denied me my right to know whether or not the court over which they presides was impartial. Circumstances suggest that the court was not impartial, so their refusal to allow my appeal against the most vile recoders judgment is also considered as void. AN ACCEPTED PRINCIPLE OF JUSTICE IS THAT THE COURTS MUST BE IMPARTIAL TO PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THEM. WOOLF, BINGHAM, AND IRVINE ARE EXCLUDING MASONS FROM THIS PRINCIPLE. HOME SECRETARY STRAW ALSO APPEARS TO BE IMPLICATED. THIS WILL BE PUT RIGHT IN DUE COURSE.                                              

IN THE DURHAM COUNTY COURT Case Numbers DH400950, DH400898



 I, MAURICE KELLETT of 16A The Lyons, Hetton le Hole, Tyne and Wear,

MAKE OATH and say as follows:

1. I represented myself as Plaintiff in cases DH400950, DH400898, Defendant in case NE401650 and respondent in case DH500628. Those cases were wrongly tried as a consolidated action under case NE401650 before the former Recorder Mr. Fryer Spedding at the Newcastle County Court commencing October 21 to 24 1996. An Order was made by District Judge Scott Phillips at The Durham County Court on June 1st 1994 refusing an application by Shirley Carr for consolidation of the cases.

2. In the early stages of my cross examination of Shirley Carr she said that she had first met me in January of 1988. Shortly afterward, she then said that she had not met me until after she had occupied her property 16 The Lyons, which was on 26 August 1988. Immediately after she made this latter statement I then pointed out to Shirley Carr that it was completely contrary to her earlier statement. Only one of those two statements could have been true. Mr. Fryer Spedding did not allow Shirley Carr to reply to me and he immediately warned me not to highlight those things because I would not gain by it. Those dates were very material to my cases. Mr. Fryer Spedding thus deprived me of my basic right of cross examination which is to attempt to disclose the truth.

3. Mr Fryer Spedding did not allow me to carry out a full and proper cross examination of Shirley Carr.

4. Mr. Fryer Spedding interrupted my cross examination of Mr. Smales who was a surveyor who had been employed by Shirley Carr. Mr. Fryer Spedding entered into a discussion with Mr. Smales on the subject of the length of ladders that surveyors are allowed to carry. The subject had not been raised as an issue and it allowed Mr Smales to evade answering a material question which he had continually failed to answer.

5. Shirley Carr had used perjury as her means of defence and prosecution. I believe there can be little doubt that Mr. Fryer Spedding should have been aware of that. He took no action upon it. Exhibit MK1 attached hereto is an affidavit sworn by Shirley Carr on May 12 1994. It contains a substantial number of statements that were proved to be untrue and that Shirley Carr would no other than have known that those statements were untrue at the time that she swore them.

6. As examples of Shirley Carr's perjury, sworn in paragraph 3 of her affidavit of May 12 1994 attached hereto as Exhibit MK1. which contains a large number of untrue statements there is contained her following statement:

"The situation was eventually resolved when Mr. & Mrs. Green had the property connected to the main drainage system in February, 1988.".

7. Sunderland Local Authority confirmed in a letters to me that it had not been the Greens who had been applicants for that drainage work on the property 16 The Lyons. They verified that Shirley Carr was the applicant for the drainage proposals to it and that they had received her application on February 8 1988. Shirley Carr did not purchase the property No. 16 from the Greens until August 26 1988. Those two letters that I received from the authority were submitted as exhibits in evidence and were placed before Mr. Fryer Spedding as evidence of that perjury.

8. From information given to me in 1988 by a member of the Local Authority I know the cost of that work that was carried out by the Local Authority was in excess of two thousand pounds. Shirley Carr agreed in her reply to my interrogatories that the Local Authority had invoiced her for their work but then she alleged in her reply to those interrogatories that she had been invoiced for the cost of that work in error. The work carried out by the authority was in excavating the public highway to lay drains to the boundary of No. 16 The Lyons. The drainage work that was carried out concerned only the placing of the frontage of 16 The Lyons on to the public drains. The rear of the property No 16 was left without drains. The rear of 16 The Lyons has now remained without drains for ten years. Shirley Carr has occupied that property for most of that time.

9. Contained in paragraph 7 of her May 12 1994 affidavit attached hereto as Exhibit MK1 it is shown again that Shirley Carr again uses perjury by swearing:

"I have not altered or caused any alterations to my property's roof elevations, guttering, drains or rear yard".

10. Her perjury is proved by virtue of the Local Authority having confirmed her as the applicant in a Building Notice received by them on February 8 1988 for drainage proposals to No. 16 The Lyons. The Local Authority carried out the drainage work as was included in Shirley Carr's proposals and then invoiced her for the cost of their work.

11. Her deception is shown by her statement contained in paragraph 7 of her affidavit which is:

" Following the Plaintiff's complaints I contacted the Drainage Engineers at Sunderland Civic Centre who advised me that the sewerage and frontal drainage of my 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 of the property measures 21 foot by 45 inches wide and has no artificially channelled water entering it or draining from it".

21. My complaints to Shirley Carr in respect of problems of drainage coming from her property concerned only those problems suffered by us that come from the rear of her property No. 16 the Lyons. Her deception is also shown because she, like Mr Fryer Spedding, had omitted to say that the rear yard of her property is some two feet below natural ground level, is walled in on four sides, and itself not only collects rainfall, but it also acts as a basin for surrounding land drainage. In her sworn statement detailed above in paragraph 11, Shirley Carr not only shows that the rear of her property had been subject of consideration relative to drainage in February of 1988. She also confirmed by her statement in her affidavit above which she placed before Mr. Fryer Spedding, which is contained here in paragraph 11. that the rear of the property had no drains. Though that was material in the problems we suffer, Mr. Fryer Spedding made no mention of that fact when he delivered his judgement and gave ruling against me.

13. It is shown in paragraph 9) of Shirley Carr's affidavit attached hereto as Exhibit MK1 that Shirley Carr swears:

"My rear yard has no drainage problems".

14. In paragraph 12) of Exhibit MK1 she then swears:

" My yard has flooded on approximately four occasions since I purchased the property almost six years ago. The flooding occurs after several days of torrential rainfall".

15. In paragraph 13) of Exhibit MK1 Shirley Carr then swears:

"The flooding which has occurred occasionally in the past has been the result of nature, not deliberate or negligent acts of my own. The collection of water in my yard since March, 1994 has been the result of the Plaintiff's deliberate acts of nuisance".

16. In paragraph 9) Exhibit MK1 shows that Shirley Carr had sworn further perjury by her following statement:

" No water drains down my yard towards the Plaintiff's property".

17. Mr Smales, a surveyor employed by Shirley Carr said in his survey report that he had poured a bucket of water on the rear yard of Shirley Carr's property. He had watched it flow in the direction of our property. It went into a gap between two paving stones. He wrote that he had lifted one of those paving stones and he had found a hole beneath our wall that led through into our property. He said he considered that hole had not been formed by natural means. He failed to add that the video evidence that was produced before Mr. Fryer Spedding showed other holes had been made on the rear yard of Shirley Carr's property. There is absolutely no doubt that they too were put there to allow the drainage to flow from the rear yard of Shirley Carr's property onto the rear yard of our property. Mr. Fryer Spedding agreed in his judgement that the levels between the rear yards of the two respective properties No. 16 and 16A was significant and that our property's rear yard is at a lower level than the rear yard of Shirley Carr's property. Our property's rear yard is of course also below ground level, and is walled in on four sides. Mr. Fryer Spedding stated while giving his judgement that he could not understand why anyone would want to make those holes either for the benefit of No. 16 or 16A The Lyons That astonishing statement along with the others that I refer to him having made herein are contained in his approved transcript of judgement.

18. Part of my action against Shirley Carr was to obtain an injunction to stop that drainage coming from her property on to ours. An application was made for legal aid to assist with that action. The Legal Aid Board then refused legal aid on the grounds that insufficient information had been given and that there was already an injunction in place to prevent that drainage on to our property from taking place. The appeal against refusal of legal aid, was itself refused on the same grounds. I have been able to obtain a copy of the application made to The Legal Aid Board. It did not imply whatsoever that there was an injunction in place to prevent the drainage from taking place on to our property. The application made to the Legal Aid Board stated that the legal aid was required in an: "Application for injunction". relative to that drainage. The former Lord Chancellor was supplied with copy of that application. The Parliamentary Commissioner has agreed to investigate that matter. I have received a letter within this past week from the office of the Parliamentary Commissioner saying that they are to give an extension of time to allow me to submit my evidence to him in that matter. A copy of the original documentation that was submitted in the original application for legal aid was supplied to the office of my Member of Parliament, Mr. Fraser Kemp.

19. Throughout the trials there was considerable body language by way of facial expressions between Mr Fryer Spedding and Counsel representing Shirley Carr, Mr. Merritt. At times Mr. Fryer Spedding made quiet prompting statements to Mr. Merritt while I delivered my cases. Lord Justices Pil and Auld gave their opinion that this would have been due to the familiarity between Mr. Merritt and Mr. Fryer Spedding.

20. Mr. Fryer Spedding allowed Mr. Merritt to introduce into those proceedings my arguments with Freemasons. It had no bearing whatsoever on the issues to be decided.

21. During the site visit to the respective properties subject of dispute, Mr Fryer Spedding warned me not to speak to him without Mr. Merritt being present. Mr. Fryer Spedding and Mr. Merritt carried out discussions during the site visit without my presence.

22. Mr. Fryer Spedding made statements during those proceedings which I believe were meant to detract from the truth of that which had been shown to him in evidence. One such statement, that I have previously mentioned herein was that he could not understand why anyone would want to make a hole beneath a wall on our property either for the benefit of No. 16 or our property No. 16A. Those holes were shown by the video film evidence to have been made next to and beneath our wall from Shirley Carr's property No. 16. His reasoning is not accepted because he failed to add the material facts of which he was fully aware. These facts included that both respective properties are built below natural ground level. While delivering judgement Mr. Fryer Spedding agreed that our property No 16A is at a significant lower level than Shirley Carr's property No 16. Both rear yards of the two properties are walled in on four sides. Should our drains block, the only route by which the drainage can flow is into our home. This has only been prevented by my wife and I having to bale out water from our property's rear yard.

23. He failed to add the other very material fact that there are no drains on the rear of Shirley Carr's property . She had purchased her property in the full knowledge that it was without a means of drainage to the rear of it. The video and photographic evidence which were seen by Mr Fryer Spedding, show very clearly indeed the work that Shirley Carr, or those under her instructions, had carried out to ensure that our property received all of the rear drainage from her property No. 16 The Lyons. Her property's rear yard is sloped in the direction of our property. Guttering serving the rear roof of her property has been deliberately sloped in the direction of our property. The slope of that guttering is so substantial that drainage entering it could only flow in the direction of our property. That is very clearly shown indeed on the video film evidence that Mr. Fryer Spedding viewed during those proceedings. He made statements that defied reasoning about that as well.

24. Evidence was placed before Mr Fryer Spedding in quadruple concerning false information that had been sworn in a Statutory Declaration by a solicitor Mr. Paul Graney. Mr. Graney was the solicitor who acted for the Green's. The Green's were the predecessors in title to Shirley Carr's property No. 16 The Lyons. That Statutory Declaration had been used in an application to HM Durham District Land Registry. When Mr. Graney was approached by my wife and I with evidence to show that he had sworn that very material false information he agreed to swear an affidavit to retract it. That too was placed before Mr. Fryer Spedding in quadruple along with the Statutory Declaration containing that false information as an exhibit of Mr. Graney's affidavit. It is shown by Mr Fryer Spedding's transcript of judgement that he attached some great importance to that application to HM Durham District Land Registry. While delivering his judgement Mr. Fryer Spedding alleged that he had not looked at those Statutory Declarations that had been use in the application to the Durham District Land Registry. By that statement he shows that he had not looked at all of the evidence that was put before him. That Statutory Declaration of the solicitor Mr. Paul Graney containing that false information was duplicated in quadruple in the evidence submitted for Mr. Fryer Spedding's examination.

25. Though other judges have been in receipt of the evidence showing the admission of Mr. Paul Graney which is contained in his affidavit of 9 March 1995 that he had sworn false information in his Statutory Declaration of 26 April 1988, there has been no action taken on it by them. My understanding is that the judiciary are duty bound to act when they are aware that perjury has been used and also when a person is found to have sworn false information in a Statutory Declaration. Police say that swearing false information on a Statutory Declaration is a matter for the Civil Courts not the criminal courts to deal with.

26. On October 17 1995 an application for an injunction by Shirley Carr was heard before District Judge Cuthbertson. A solicitor, Alison Stott attended that hearing with Shirley Carr told Mr. Fryer Spedding in January of 1996 that up until that time she had not been acting for Shirley Carr but had only been assisting her. At the start of that hearing of October 17 1995 the judge said to Alison Stott, "You dont expect me to grant this today do you". Whereupon Alison Stott replied, "Yes I do sir". The judge made us aware that he had little time that day. It was then agreed in principle that joint undertakings between Shirley Carr should be substituted in place of the injunction of which application had been made. District Judge Cuthbertson granted the work of drafting the wording of the joint undertakings to Alison Stott. He said that a return to the court could be made when that work was completed. The hearing was then adjourned and my wife and I left the courthouse believing that proceedings would recommence on another day.

27. Within days of that hearing I received an order by District Judge Cuthbertson granting the injunction in full of which application had been made by Shirley Carr. Alison Stott and Shirley Carr had returned back to the judge sometime after my wife and I had left the courthouse. In the injunction so granted, I was forbidden, (whether by myself or by instructing or encouraging any other person)

1. Monitoring either by photographing, videoing, or recording by any means 16 The Lyons, Hetton-le-Hole.

2. Contacting the Plaintiff's employers, business associates, public bodies and persons generally regarding her private life and personal affairs and from similarly contacting her resident partner, Norman Pringle.

3. Encouraging his dogs to bark incessantly or cause damage to the Plaintiff's fence and her property generally.

4. Speaking directly to the Plaintiff or making comments to or about her in her presence.

28. Shirley Carr had made that application for the injunction under case number DH400950 where I was the Plaintiff and Shirley Carr was the Defendant. The Order made by the judge then cited me as the Defendant in my own action under case DH400950. When I raised that matter later with District Judge Cuthbertson, he said he was aware of it but he knew what had been meant by it.

29. I decided to appeal on the grounds that the injunction so granted was unfair because we had not been told when the hearing was to recommence. My wife went to the Durham County Courthouse and requested a form on which to lodge my appeal against the injunction Order of District Judge Cuthbertson. I used the form that my wife had been given by the Durham County Court to lodge my appeal.

30. My appeal against the granting of the injunction went before District Judge Cuthbertson who had granted it. The time that the court had allocated for the appeal was five minutes. District Judge Cuthbertson did not accept that it had been unfair that we had not been informed as to the time that a return was to be made back to him by Shirley Carr and Alison Stott. During that hearing District Judge Cuthbertson asked if I would be agreeable to give an undertaking in those same terms of the injunction. I was not agreeable to that because he did not ask Shirley Carr to give similar undertakings. The time allowed for that hearing would not in any event have been sufficient for anyone to draft the wording of any joint undertaking if Shirley Carr been asked to agree to them. District Judge Cuthbertson ordered that the injunction would stand.

31. On legal advice I approached the Durham County Court to ask for an explanation of why my appeal had gone before the same judge as whose Order was subject of my appeal. The reply that I received was that I had used the wrong application form on which to make my appeal. The reply was that as the wrong form had been used, my application had been regarded as an application for the removal of the injunction. My understandings are that an appeal against an Order is an appeal for its removal.

32. From that time, Shirley Carr and her resident partner Norman Pringle took every opportunity to intimidate me into breaching that injunction. Police attended on some of those occasions at our request when it was very clear that it was their intent to harass and intimidate me into breaching that injunction.

33. In June of 1996 I received a complaint from the Public Health Authority saying that Shirley Carr had made complaint about our two dogs barking. We had those two dogs for approximately nine years and there had never been complaints about them from anyone during all of that time. The following day while I sat in our garden, one of our dogs started to bark. I became aware of a scratching noise on the fence adjoining our property with that of Shirley Carr's property. I ignored it at first. When our dog continued to be alarmed at the scratching noises coming from the fence, I placed some steps against a wall and looked behind the fence from which the scratching noise was coming. I saw that Shirley Carr was making those noises on the fence and I became aware that Shirley Carr and Mr. Norman Pringle were tape recording my dog barking. I was extremely depressed at that time because I had only just cancelled an operation due to take place that same month to remove bone fragments from my ankle. I had waited for more than a year for that operation. I had taken alcohol that morning as it does relieve pain that I suffer from that ankle. I did react to Shirley Carr's action in carrying out that act which clearly was to encourage our dogs to bark to enable her to tape record them barking.

34. Shirley Carr then made an application for my imprisonment on the grounds that I had shouted abuse at her following her act that day. She alleged that I had breached that injunction so obtained on October 17 1995. When I received an alleged copy of the tape recording used to make a transcript for use in evidence to have me committed to prison I found that it had been subject of editing. I too had been shouted at by Shirley Carr that day. Shirley Carr had alleged that I had called her names before that incident and that appeared to have been accepted by District Judge Cuthbertson without any proof or evidence. I did call her some of those names that day which she had wrongly alleged I had previously called her. My dogs could not be held responsible for barking when Shirley Carr had set about to make them bark. Her tape recorded evidence, although it had been subject of editing, had clearly shown that the tape recorder had been deliberately set up to record the result of Shirley Carr's attempts to make them bark. As Shirley Carr had alleged that I encouraged our dogs to bark, in defiance of those untrue allegations, I asked my two dogs to bark. I dont think they knew what I meant but they were then heard on the tape recording to stop barking.

35. Included as evidence in that application for my imprisonment was the fact that I had a security video camera mounted in a window at the rear of our property. In July of 1994 Shirley Carr's resident boyfriend Norman Pringle had entered our property and had made alterations to our guttering. He had also damaged our guttering while he carried out the alteration. In a written submission to the court Mr. Pringle agreed that he had carried out that act while my wife were away from our home on holiday in July of 1994. Also in July of 1994 other work was carried out on our property by others not yet identified but had most certainly carried out that work under the instructions of Shirley Carr. That work also involved alteration and damage to our property.

36. When my wife and I went on holiday the following year of 1995 we placed a video security camera in a window on the rear of our property. It was impossible for me to use that video camera while we were away on holiday. A video tape cannot in any event record for that period of time. Shirley Carr included in her application for my imprisonment a complaint that we had put that video camera in the window of our house when we went on holiday that year. She said that the camera remained there for several weeks. Shirley Carr employed a man who attended at her garden with a camera fitted with a telephoto lens. He took photographs of that security camera. It was decided by Judge Paling that the security camera was pointing in the direction of Shirley Carr's garden and it was ruled as an additional breach of that injunction granted on October 17 1995. There is a fifteen foot hedge in between most of our boundary bordering on Shirley Carr's garden. When I had cut parts of it down to around 10 feet high, Shirley Carr complained to the court in her affidavit and alleged that I had cut those parts of our hedge so as to get a better look into her garden. The security camera had scanned along the boundary between our properties which is from where Mr. Norman Pringle, her resident partner, had unlawfully entered and damaged our property in July of 1994.

37. Shirley Carr's application for my imprisonment was to be heard before Judge Paling. I was represented by a solicitor and Michelle Temple QC. Counsel advised that I should not put up a defence because it was said that Judge Paling had a reputation for harsh sentencing and it was considered that by putting forward a defence it might be prejudicial to me. No defence was put forward and Judge Paling sentenced me to three months imprisonment.

38. When I was imprisoned, in protest at the injustice that I had suffered by the way that District Judge Cuthbertson had granted that injunction, and the situation arising as a result of it, I refused food, drink, and essential medication. Prison staff were extremely sympathetic at my course of action other than one prison officer, a Yorkshireman referred to as Peter who had attempted to antagonise me. Other prison officers advised that I should not react to him because it was said that he was a former Freemason Grandmaster. After about three days of imprisonment I had a stroke. I was admitted unconscious to Dryburn Hospital in Durham. It was while I was there that the prison officer named as Peter attempted to antagonise me. Following one of the other prison officers having wished me luck with my appeal against imprisonment, the prison officer named Peter rushed at him and an argument took place between Prison officer Natrass and the officer named Peter.

39. In her attempt to keep me imprisoned Shirley Carr had her solicitor Alison Stott send a fax letter to the Court of Appeal saying that I was not of previous good character and alleged that I had been to court before and had been bound over. Those allegations were part of her lies so consistently used by her throughout proceedings. I have never been bound over by any court and my character I consider is at least as good as that of Shirley Carr's. Police have issued a certificate that I have no criminal record whatsoever and that there are no entries on their records for any offences ever having been committed by me. I believe that another reason for Shirley Carr being prepared to go to such a serious length and lie in that matter was that she would have been aware that I, as a Councillor, had made it known that I did not agree with housing proposals on land at Easington Lane covered under The City of Sunderland Unitary Development Plan. Shirley Carr owns 12 acres of land under those housing proposals. I was included in the catalogue of those who were to attend before the Government Inspector in his consideration of the Unitary Development Plan. Shirley Carr had set about a course of action most certainly meant to defame me. Evidence for this will be produced during the planned libel proceedings against her. Her solicitor, Alison Stott broadcast to others that there was an application for my imprisonment. I also hold evidence to show that.

40. I had been legally aided from late January 1996 until five weeks before the trial in October of 1996. Legal aid had been granted up until trial. It has been said that the cost of lodging the appeal for my release from prison could have been instrumental in the decision to withdraw legal aid from me. If those were the circumstances, the injunction that District Judge Cuthbertson granted on October 17 1995 was also instrumental in my having to represent myself at trial, without all of my files, without an agreed bundle and having to attempt to prepare my case at very short notice while I still suffered from the effects of the stroke that I had suffered in prison.

41. Mr. Fryer Spedding ruled in January 1996 that the cases were fit for representation by Counsel. When I went before him on October 24 1996 he did not ask why I was representing myself. That seemed to suggest that he had been aware of my predicament.

42. Shirley Carr swore in an affidavit that I had told her that I had taken an overdose and that I had received treatment at Cherry Knowle Mental Hospital. Her statement was grossly untrue.

43. District Judge Cuthbertson said that he had seen that sworn statement and suggested that I should not commence with a libel action against Shirley Carr on that matter and others, until after the duration of the present litigation. Cherry Knowle Mental Hospital have provided a letter to verify that I have never received treatment at that hospital. My doctor has provided a letter verifying that I have never received treatment at any mental hospital.

44. Shirley Carr has been informed and is fully aware that I am to commence proceedings against her for libel. I will commence those proceedings before the duration of the three year limitation period.

45. Mr. Fryer Spedding had agreed that my father was the one most likely to have gained title to the disputed land. My father commenced an action to allow him to go back into possession of it. District Judge Cuthbertson then Ordered that my fathers action should be heard before former Recorder Mr. Fryer Spedding. It was learned by District Judge Cuthbertson that Mr. Fryer Spedding had gone into retirement. almost immediately after those trials before him of October 1996.

46. Shirley Carr had made a further application for my imprisonment and it was to have been heard during those trials before Mr. Fryer Spedding. I had questioned the lawful validity in the way that Judge Cuthbertson had granted that injunction on October 17 1995 which had again allowed Shirley Carr to apply for my imprisonment on allegations that I had again breached that injunction so obtained. Shirley Carr alleged that I had breached that injunction by allowing my dogs to bark and growl at her. She alleged that she had been in her garden at that time. Our dogs were in our own garden and the two respective gardens have a six foot high solid fence, and a fifteen foot hedge between them so compacted that a dog can not even see from one garden into the other. Mr. Fryer Spedding advised Shirley Carr against pursuing that new application for my imprisonment. Instead he ordered that Shirley Carr be allowed a further twenty eight days in which to make a further application for my imprisonment. He said that any such further application for my imprisonment should be reserved to be heard by him. Around two weeks after those trials I reported some of Mr. Fryer Spedding's unjust actions to the former Lord Chancellor, Lord Mackay. I was told by Mr. Abley, a Clerk of The Newcastle County Court that Mr. Fryer Spedding had went into retirement around that time.

47. Following his learning of the retirement of Mr. Fryer Spedding, District Judge Cuthbertson then ordered that my father should show cause why there was not an abuse of court time in commencing his action to go back into possession of the disputed land. I was informed by a member of court staff that District Judge Cuthbertson had reserved matters concerning my fathers application to the court for himself. I was also told that the files on the actions between Shirley Carr and myself had been bundled with those in my fathers application. I have had a number of arguments with District Judge Cuthbertson because I do not accept that it was justice in the way that he granted that injunction of October 17 1995 and had refused my appeal against it. My wife and I attended the court on October 17 1995 after Shirley Carr had applied for that injunction. The hearing had been adjourned and we were not given notice when it was to recommence. Had we been informed by the judge that a return back to him was to be made that same afternoon, we would have remained in the courthouse. It was in our interest to do that as I was the one subject of that application for the injunction.

48. Mr Fryer Spedding had ruled that Shirley Carr did not hold title to the disputed land. His opinion was that my father was the one most likely to have gained title to it. My father and others swore affidavits and Statutory Declarations in support that both my father and I had jointly used that land for well in excess of nineteen years without question or interference from anyone. Mr. Fryer Spedding gave his opinion that I had only used that land and planted trees on it because I was a member of the Kellett household that adjoined the land.

49. His opinion like many of the statements that he made, which are shown herein, was also untrue. Those affidavits and Statutory Declarations in support of my and my fathers use of the land were placed before Mr. Fryer Spedding. Shirley Carr had not be able to produce any evidence whatsoever that she had title to that land as she had falsely alleged at the outset of her action against me for trespass.

50. The injunction order made by District Judge Cuthbertson on October 17 1995 was instrumental in Shirley Carr and Mr. Norman Pringle being able to antagonise and harass me at will. I could not react to it in any way. I could not record in any way their intimidation and harassment of me. District Judge Cuthbertson had effectively given Shirley Carr and Norman Pringle a means to beat me because he should have known the result of granting that injunction in the favour of Shirley Carr.

51. The injunction also prevented me from taking further evidence. I could not film the work that was carried out after that injunction to incorporate the disputed land into the garden of Shirley Carr's property. I was deterred from contacting others to obtain further evidence because Shirley Carr would most certainly have considered those actions as a breach of that injunction. That injunction had clearly been meant for that purpose.

52. Shirley Carr visited our property, number 16A The Lyons, Hetton-le Hole several times on Wednesday August 27th 1997. She carried with her a concealed tape recorder. When it was apparent to my wife and I that she had that concealed tape recorder on her, and we expressed our concern at her action, she produced the tape recorder from her pocket and told us that she was not recording our conversation. Shirley Carr then said that if we were tape recording that conversation while she was present at our front door, it would have been an invasion of her privacy.

53. In her affidavit received this week for use in her application to enforce the unjust judgement of Mr. Fryer Spedding, she has included part of a tape transcript of that conversation between us. It shows that she had been recording our conversation from its start.

54. It would seem that she had forgot to edit out her statement that if we had been tape recording that conversation, she would have regarded it as an invasion of her privacy.

55. By her act, fully proven by her own affidavit and its exhibit, Shirley Carr has shown that she regards it as her right to enter our property with a concealed tape recorder and secretly tape record our conversations, but she has now shown by her own evidence, that if we had been tape recording those same conversations she would have regarded it as an invasion of her privacy.

56. It can be shown that the transcript detailed in the above paragraph which is being used by Shirley Carr as an exhibit to act upon Mr. Fryer Speddings unjust judgement has had edited from it, her admission that she had deliberately left out documentation when she had prepared the bundles ready for the above trials where it is now shown and proved had been wrongly consolidated and tried as a single action under case NE401650. She had not been authorised by the court to carry out that work.

57. One month ago I was arrested following an allegation made by Shirley Carr of harassment under the new June 16 law after I had contacted her employer, the Department of Social Security on matters of concern which are considered as being in the public interest. A boyfriend of Shirley Carr's had alleged in a written statement, submitted in the above proceedings, that Shirley Carr's Welfare Ofiicer at the DSS had said that I had been monitoring her telephone calls. At no time have I done that and I asked British Telecom to carry out an examination into that allegation. My approaches to the DSS to investigate that allegation have met with their warnings to me not to contact them.

58. In November of 1993 at their request, I had supplied the DSS Fraud Section with a document and video film of six men who had replaced Shirley Carr's property roof on the weekend of 13 and 14 November 1993. That work resulted in damage to our property. The roofing people refused to give their identity and Shirley Carr, an employee of the DSS, also refused to name them. That material was given in confidence to the DSS Fraud Section. It was then supplied by the DSS Contributions Agency to Shirley Carr for her use in her private actions against me. The document was a record of times that Shirley Carr was at home or carrying out other activities when it was reasonable to believe that she should have been engaged with her employment at the DSS. It was alleged that the record that I had made had been investigated by the DSS Contributions Agency and had been found to be without foundation. The records in that document had not been fabricated in any way. In these circumstances I can not and will not accept that there had been a proper investigation into the contents of that document. I can not accept that the DSS had the right to furnish their employee with documentation given in confidence to the DSS Fraud Section which was for use in her actions against me.

59. It is now some four years since the damage to our property took place and during this time we continue to suffer from the intake of water into our kitchen. The damage is to a wall which has been detached from its base and is leaning over and it still threatens to collapse through our kitchen roof. The former Recorder Mr. Fryer Spedding also saw that situation when he visited our properties. He concocted a story that the wall is not a party wall so we had no right to carry out any work on that damage. The damaged wall is and remains a party wall and that is clear to those who have looked at it. The vendors of our property No. 16A, also agree that the wall was intended to be a party wall at the time they sold our property to us. The declaration made in the title to our property declares the adjoining wall as party walls. That was another of Mr Fryer Spellings acts that defied the facts that were shown to him.

60. Sometime in July of this year my wife and I had seen Shirley Carr and her boyfriend at a store in Spedding's, near Sunderland, Tyne and Wear on a Wednesday afternoon. As Shirley Carr has continually said in proceedings that she is in full time employment with the DSS, I reported that matter by telephone to the DSS. I understand the DSS recorded that conversation for use by Shirley Carr. It has now been agreed that Shirley Carr was at that store at the time my wife and I saw her there shopping with her boyfriend. Now it is alleged that she was just taking some time off work.

61. A discussion that I have previously mentioned took place between Shirley Carr, myself and my wife Joyce Kellett took place on that day of Wednesday August 27th 1997. When Shirley Carr visited our property she had a tape recorder concealed on her person and though she denied at that time she had been recording our conversation, she has agreed in her affidavit that she was in fact secretly tape recording our conversation. Later that same day Shirley Carr returned again to our property and I tape recorded our subsequent conversation. Police have listened to part of that recording where in it Shirley Carr agrees that she knew that there had not been consolidation of the above cases. Police are to examine the rest of the contents of that tape recording. Shirley Carr had been informed earlier, that as a result of her actions earlier that day, when she had used that concealed tape recorder while she was on our property, that I would therefore tape record any subsequent conversation between us should she return back to our property.

62. In 1996, Shirley Carr tape recorded a private conversation between my wife and I while we sat in our kitchen. It is believed that Shirley Carr had placed the tape recorder near to a partly open window in our kitchen to enable her to carry out that despicable act.

63. The solicitor, Alison Stott, of Durham City had been delegated the work in 1995, by the Durham County Court of preparing the bundles ready for the trials of cases DH400950, DH400898, and NE401650. Alison Stott had stated on January 17th 1996 before the following persons, former Recorder Mr. Fryer Spedding, Michelle Temple QC, my wife Joyce Kellett, and I, that up until that time of January 17th 1996 she had not been acting for Shirley Carr but had only been assisting her.

64. Up until January 17th 1996 Alison Stott had never made me aware that she was not acting as advocate for Shirley Carr, and I have no knowledge whatsoever of her ever having mentioned that fact to any judges when prior to January 17th 1996. she attended hearings with Shirley Carr

65. It was found, following the receipt of my copies of the bundles ready for trial that a large amount of documentation was missing from them. I then contacted the Durham County Court to report the missing documentation, and court staff confirmed to me that they would make an approach to Alison Stott Solicitors on the matter. I also contacted Alison Stott who on my first approach to her did not immediately inform me that she had not been responsible for carrying out that work of preparing the bundles ready for trial. My further approaches to Alison Stott Solicitor brought her reply that Shirley Carr, who was the Defendant in cases DH400950, and DH400898 had carried out the work herself of preparing the bundles ready for trial.

66. Files that belonged to me have been held by lien at the former Nancy Bone Solicitors, of Durham for three years. Nancy Bone Solicitors have now been subject of investigation by The Law Society and have now been closed down by them. Under the circumstances I was not in a position to verify the full extent of the documentation that was missing from the bundles which had been prepared by Shirley Carr. My files that were held by the former Nancy Bone Solicitors have now been returned to me by the consent of the Law Society.

67. During the discussion of which I have referenced above, which took place with Shirley Carr on August 27th 1997, she agreed that she had prepared the bundles ready for trial, she also agreed that she had deliberately excluded documentation from them which concerned her application to the Durham County Court for consolidation of the cases NE401650, where she was the Plaintiff, and cases DH400898 and DH400950 where I was the Plaintiff. In addition, she had also excluded the documentation relevant to the courts refusal for her application for consolidation of those cases. Shirley Carr did not have the authority of the Court to carry out that work. She was the Defendant in two out of those three actions.

68. When the former Recorder Mr. Fryer Spedding delivered judgement under the cases, DH400950, DH400898, NE401650, DH600628, he did not tell the truth when he wrongly alleged that all cases had been consolidated under case number NE401650.

69. Mr. Fryer Spedding tried the cases as if consolidated into a single action under case number NE401650 where I had been the Defendant in that single action. Though, by evidence that I produce here, I was and remain the Plaintiff in actions DH400950, and DH400898, after the trial of the cases I found myself being referred to as the Defendant in all actions. At no time before or during those trials was I aware that Mr. Fryer Spedding regarded those actions as having been consolidated under the single case No. NE401650.

70. In our discussions with Shirley Carr on August 27th 1997, she agreed that the cases had not been subject of consolidation and that the allegation made by the former Recorder Mr. Fryer Spedding that the actions had been consolidated had been untrue. Exhibit MK2 hereto attached is a copy of an Order made by District Judge Scott-Phillips on 1 June 1994. It is shown by Exhibit MK2 that the consolidation of the actions was refused by District Judge Scott Phillips on June 1 1994. There were thereafter no further applications made by any party for consolidation of the cases.

71. On June 6th 1997 I went before Lord Justice Pil and Auld at the London Court of Appeal to put my argument to be allowed leave to appeal against the judgement of Mr. Fryer Spedding. I told their Lords that the cases had never been subject of consolidation. At that time I had no documentary evidence available to prove that statement. That evidence has now been made available to me and is shown herein as Exhibit MK2. The rules of the Court of Appeal are that the time allowed to present a case for leave to appeal in a single case is twenty minutes. It is shown by the evidence of exhibit MK2 that as the cases had never been subject of consolidation, and the court had refused an application for the cases to be consolidated, there were therefore four separate cases subject of my application for leave to appeal. I was before Lord Justice Pil and Auld for twenty two minutes which is all the time that they allowed me to present my application. In these circumstances I was not therefore given sufficient time to present my application for leave to appeal. Under the court rules, the time that should have been allocated for my appeals should have been no less than eighty minutes. I have shown herein that this situation resulted from Mr. Fryer Spedding's false statement that the cases had been consolidated into a single action.

72. The former Recorder Mr. Fryer Spedding did not tell the truth when he wrongly alleged while he delivered judgement that there had been an agreed bundle. There had not been an agreed bundle. Five weeks before the trials legal aid was withdrawn from me. My former solicitors Jacksons of Darlington, Co. Durham required my files for costing purposes and did not release them to me until weeks after the trials had taken place. At no time during those proceedings had it been said by any parties other than Mr. Fryer Spedding, that a bundle had been agreed. though I had some copies from my files, during and after the trials it was found that I did not have all of the documents that I needed.

73. The former Recorder Mr. Fryer Spedding did not tell the truth when he wrongly alleged that the two respective properties number 16A The Lyons which is owned by myself and my wife Joyce Kellett, and number 16. The Lyons, Hetton-le-Hole, subject of part of the dispute, had been divided on February 2nd 1976 when my wife and then purchased our property from my parents William and Elizabeth Rhoda Kellett. Mr. Fryer Spedding did not tell the truth when he wrongly alleged that after February 2nd 1976 what was formerly known as No. 16 The Lyons, then became known as No 16A The Lyons. Mr. Fryer Spedding had before him the copies of the title deeds to both respective properties No. 16. and No 16A The Lyons. Contained in those titles is a declaration in a conveyance dated April 20 1948 which states " AND WHEREAS the said hereditaments were on the first day of July one thousand nine hundred and forty eight used as two private dwellinghouses and their curtilages".

74. Attached hereto is Exhibit MK3 which is an extract from the titles of both 16A and 16 The Lyons. Mr. Fryer Spedding had them before him when he wrongly made the allegation that the respective properties had been divided on February 2nd 1976.

75. Shirley Carr had also included in paragraph 1 of her affidavit of May 12 1994, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit MK1, which she submitted in those proceedings the following statement: " The property formerly known as 16, The Lyons was divided into two dwellings at some date between 1935 and 1949".

76. I first moved into No. 16A The Lyons as a child in 1947. My parents were then tenants in this property. My parents purchased both No. 16 and 16A The Lyons, Hetton-le-Hole on April 20th 1949. Afterwards they moved from No. 16 A The Lyons, into No. 16 The Lyons. They then let our present property No 16A The Lyons, to tenants. Those tenants used the rear garden of No. 16 and the disputed land as access to the rear of our property No. 16A The Lyons. That remained the situation up until February 2nd 1976 when my wife and I then purchased No. 16A The Lyons from my parents.

77. Adjoining No. 16 The Lyons, there is the strip of land which is subject of dispute in case NE401650. I was the Defendant in that action and Shirley Carr of No. 16 The Lyons was the Plaintiff. She had commenced an action of trespass against me by wrongly alleging that she had title to that land. Mr. Fryer Spedding ruled that she does not have title to it. The land that has been subject to the action under case number NE401650 had been the access route to the rear of our property No. 16A The Lyons for at least the past one hundred years along with a route across the garden of Shirley Carr's property No 16 The Lyons. That was the route not only used by my parents when they were tenants in our property, but by those tenants who occupied our property up until the time we purchased from my parents on February 2nd 1976. It was the common intention of ourselves and my parents that the route should continue to be the rear access to our property. My father confirmed these facts in his affidavit produced to Mr. Fryer Spedding.

78. By his wrongful act of not telling the truth when he delivered judgement by falsely alleging that the respective properties had been divided on February 2nd 1976 Mr. Fryer Spedding has seriously breached our rights under Section 62 of The Law of Property Act 1925 by ruling that I was a trespasser on that land which forms part of our right of way to the rear of our property. By his wrongful act of not telling the truth Mr. Fryer Spedding has created for us a situation whereby the only route to the rear of our property is now via the living room of our property.

79. At the rear of our property there is built brick pig sty's and a poultry house which have been in existence since at least the turn of the present century. We have an extensive garden amounting to almost one quarter of an acre. By his wrongful act of not telling the truth Mr. Fryer Spedding has created a health hazard for us because garden waste and refuse cannot be disposed of through the living area of our property. We have attempted to dispose of some of the waste by burning it but Shirley Carr then makes complaints about it to the Local Public Health Authority.

80. During one of his quiet prompting's to Mr. Merritt during proceedings before Mr. Fryer Spedding he said " There could be a question of a right of way here". Mr. Merritt was Counsel representing Shirley Carr.

81. By virtue of Mr. Fryer Spedding falsely alleging that the respective properties were divided on 2nd February 1976 in the circumstances he has, irrespective of the title to the disputed land, granted an injunction in the favour of Shirley Carr whereby I am no longer allowed to enter upon that land. He has ruled that Shirley Carr has no title to that land but ruled I was a trespasser on it. Mr Fryer Spedding wrongly alleged that Shirley Carr was in possession of the disputed land. The video film evidence that he saw during those proceedings before him assists in showing that Shirley Carr was not in possession of that land.

82. Shirley Carr commenced proceedings against me for trespass by falsely alleging that she had title to the land subject of dispute in case NE401650. At the time she commenced proceedings against me, my father and I were in possession of the disputed land. District Judge Baird only allowed Shirley Carr to go into possession of the land and remove our fence from it on the weight of her having wrongly alleged that she had title to that land. Despite the large number of untrue statements made by Mr. Fryer Spedding in the favour of Shirley Carr, he still ruled that she has no title to that land. Both my father and I had been using that land for well in excess of nineteen years. This was verified in the Statutory Declarations of my father William Kellett, my wife Joyce Kellett, my brothers Thomas, and William Kellett Junior. The predecessor in title to Shirley Carr's property, Robert William Green also swore in a Statutory Declaration that we had planted that land with trees and shrubs. Those Statutory Declarations and affidavits were put before Mr. Fryer Spedding. As it is shown that Mr. Fryer Spedding agrees he had not looked at all of the evidence, it is considered possible that he had not looked at those documents as well.

83. Mr. Fryer Spedding agreed that I had planted trees and shrubs on the land subject of the dispute which still presently grow there. By his unjust judgement based upon his statements that are now shown to be untrue, Mr. Fryer Spedding has granted an injunction preventing me from returning back onto that land which is presently occupied by those trees and shrubs that are my property. It is proved in any event that Shirley Carr could not have been in possession of land which was occupied by my trees and shrubs. In these circumstances, by his unjust judgement Mr. Fryer Spedding has also allowed theft of my property.

84. A statement is contained in the judgement of Mr Fryer Spedding where he agrees that my father William Kellett is the one most likely to have gained title to the land subject of the dispute. My father commenced an action to go back into possession of the land. It is presently subject of case DH604359. The court presided by District Judge Cuthbertson then ordered that my father was to show cause why it was not an abuse of court time to commence that action. Previously he had ordered that the case should be heard by Mr. Fryer Spedding. This case has been in court now for almost a year and the matter to show cause has not yet been resolved. In a recent appeal on that matter I represented my father. The appeal was to be heard before Judge Paling. When she came into the courtroom we stood. Then we were told to sit. When I sat down Judge Paling then shouted at me to stand. As it would seem that I did not get to my feet quick enough for her and was trying to get up on to my feet Judge Paling shouted at me again to stand up. I have problems with my legs and an ankle. One of my ankles is permanently swollen and I walk with the aid of a stick .A planned operation on my ankle in June 1996 was postponed because of these litigation proceedings. It was abandoned late in 1996 because it was considered after further medical examination on my ankle that there is nothing that can be done now with it to help me. I cannot jump to attention, not even on the order of a judge.

85. The time allocated for the appeal before Judge Paling was three hour hearing. It lasted approximately five minutes. I was ordered not to speak to present the appeal and Judge Paling then dismissed it. My father, who is eighty three years old took ill when he saw the way that I was treated by Judge Paling. My father says that he considered Judge Palings treatment of me on that day as nothing short of humiliation. I agree with my fathers opinion.

86. The court Usher expressed concern for my father when he hurriedly made an exit from the courtroom. By the rules of the court I cannot represent my father unless he appears with me. When Judge Paling refused me leave to speak. I had attempted to speak to present the appeal, but after that hearing the court usher said that had I continued to try to speak I could have been sent to prison for it. I can not regard an appeal as an appeal if the appellant is refused leave to speak to put the case for appeal. Shortly before that hearing I supplied a ninety six page affidavit with exhibits to show that Mr. Fryer Spedding had not told the truth when he delivered his judgement. I presently await a reply from the Lord Chancellors Department after the Newcastle County Court referred that matter to them.

87. Mr Fryer Spedding made the following grossly untrue statement while delivering judgement:

"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"

He was referring here to the enquiries before contract of the sale of No. 16 The Lyons to Shirley Carr. Nowhere in any documentary or verbal submissions was any such allegation made by any party.

88. Mr. Fryer Spedding made the following grossly untrue statement while delivering judgement :

"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."

89. The video film evidence that was shown to Mr. Fryer Spedding that was filmed only very shortly before Shirley Carr commenced an action for trespass shows that the above statement is grossly untrue. The video film taken in mid February 1994 shows a scene of rubbish, remnants of bonfires that had been left and had grassed over. It shows no cultivation on any part of the rear of Shirley Carr's property. There is shown bottles and crates strewn over the area. The video film used in evidence shows that the above statement made by Mr. Fryer Spedding was a continuation of his many untrue statements.

90. At no time certainly up to the time we fenced off the land from the garden of No. 16 The Lyons in mid February 1994 had Shirley Carr planted any vegetables whatsoever upon the land subject of dispute in case NE401650. This fact is borne out by that which is shown on the video film evidence that I submitted in those proceedings.

91. Mr. Fryer Spedding made the following statements while he delivered his judgement, the "alleyway land" of which he refers is the land subject of dispute:

" In a limited way also the alleyway (disputed 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"

92. It is shown above that Mr Fryer Spedding agrees that the disputed land was used as the access route to get to the rear of our property No. 16A. It has been shown herein that Mr Fryer Spedding falsely alleged that the properties were separated on February 2nd 1976 when my wife and I purchased our property from my parents who were then owners of No. 16. He was most certainly aware from his site visit that our property No. 16A. has been in existence for at least two to three hundred years. The property owned by Shirley Carr was built around the turn of the present century as a lean/to structure against the west wall of No 16A. No 16 was built as an extension to 16A. Shirley Carr has agreed that the alleyway land which is the land subject of this dispute is shown as a footpath on maps dating back to at least the 1850's. That alleyway land therefore was in use as the rear access to No. 16A long before the property owned by Shirley Carr was built as an extension to our property No. 16A.

93. Mr. Fryer Spedding went on in his judgement to say :

"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".

The Green's were Shirley Carr's predecessors in title to No. 16. My parents sold their property No. 16. to the Green's on 10th December 1982.

94. From Mr. Fryer Spedding's statement referred to above, it is implied that his knowledge of Section 62 of The Law of Property Act is called into question. It is very clear that Section 62 of The Law of Property Act 1925 became law for the very reason to protect those rights not reserved in the conveyance of property. If such rights were required to be reserved in the conveyance of property, there would be no requirement for Section 62 of the said 1925 Act.

95. Mr Fryer Spedding has allowed Shirley Carr to place tiles on our property which overhang our garden space. Previous to Shirley Carr having her property roof replaced on the weekend of 13 and 14 November 1993 there had never at any time been tiles laid in that position. The overhang of the tiles is unnecessary and have been placed that way only to match in with the overhang of tiles on Shirley Carr's property. Mr. Fryer Spedding therefore ruled that Shirley Carr was allowed to carry out trespass upon our property.

96. Mr Fryer Spedding made the following statement while he gave judgement on 24 October 1996:

"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 persons who might wish to claim title to it".

97. There is no provision in law that a person who has fulfilled the requirements of the limitation period in respect of title by adverse possession for it to be a condition that such a person be required to make enquiries of others who might wish to claim title to the land, before a declaration of title can be made. Mr. Fryer Spedding's knowledge of the law in respect of Prescription is again called into question here.

98. Mr Fryer Spedding and Mr. Merritt were in the full knowledge that our property No. 16a The Lyons is jointly owned by my wife and I. Shirley Carr had applied to the court to be allowed an easement to place a gutter on our property to collect drainage from part of her property's roof. Mr. Fryer Spedding said that it had been agreed that I would install a gutter on our property and maintain it, and allow it to drain part of the roof of Shirley Carr's property into the drains upon our property.

99. There had not been any such agreement. The matter had been privately discussed between Mr. Merritt and I. He said that he could not be sure that Shirley Carr would be agreeable to pay a fee to use our drains. Afterwards, without further consultation on the matter ,he wrongly announced to the court that we had reached agreement on that matter.

100. I was the respondent in that application by Shirley Carr to be allowed to fit guttering on our property and drain her property into it. My wife's joint title to our property was never considered by Mr Fryer Spedding or Mr. Merritt. My wife was not cited as co.-respondent in that application. My wife's views on those matters as joint owner of our property were therefore not taken into consideration.

101. Mr. Fryer Spedding made an order that I should install guttering on our property serving only Shirley Carr's property, to have it drain into the drains on our property, and to continue maintain it, indexed linked to inflation every three years, for a sum of fifteen pounds per annum. My wife as joint owner of our property does not wish to be burdened by that unjust order. In these circumstances I believe that my wife's rights have been seriously breached in that respect in the Order made by Mr. Fryer Spedding. In these circumstances, it is considered that the Order should not be carried out.

102. In the light of the of the evidence that is available to show that Mr. Fryer Spedding had not told the truth in so many of the statements that he made while he delivered judgement, I believe that there is now sufficient reason for an enquiry to investigate the possibility of whether his acts had been subject of mistake or were intended to pervert the course of justice.

103. I also raised the question with Shirley Carr on August 27th 1997 as to the whereabouts of two Statutory Declarations. One of them had been sworn by me, and the other had been sworn by my father William Kellett, which I had handed over at the first hearing of case NE401650 to Deputy District Judge Baird, and Mr. K. Kerrigan of the University of Northumbria Law Clinic who then represented Shirley Carr. I became aware afterwards that those Statutory Declarations should have been sealed by the court, but in fact they had not been. Shirley Carr had also not included these Statutory Declarations when she prepared the bundles ready for trial, and says that she does not know of their whereabouts.

104. The very foundation of justice is that everyone is entitled to a fair trial and that truth shall prevail. The former Recorder is shown to have made so many statements that were untrue and carried out acts that prevented the truth from being shown. When the indisputable truth was shown he made statements that were contrary to that which was shown to him. In these circumstances alone those trials are shown to have been unfair. A litigant cannot be held by a judgement of a man who made so many untrue statements where it can be shown that they assisted with the fabrication of reasons for his judgement.




SWORN this 4th day of November 1997

Before me


At The Durham County Court,

Hallgarth Street,



Go to contact links

Please send E-mail to:

Back to opening page

Back to page list