Bavidge has never replied to my letter copied below. I am of the opinion that as Bavidge was party to a cover up of illegal proceedings at the court below thirteen years ago, as is aware of my allegations regarding that, then that could well have prejudiced the outcome. Its likely that Bavidge is a mason and that at least one of the magistrates who heard the case against me was also a mason even though they said they were "not members of the craft." When Masons move against their victims, the likes of Bavidge must do their duty to Masons.
Mr. Bavidge, 16A The Lyons,
Clerk to the Justices, Hetton-le-Hole,
The Villa, Tyne-Wear,
Dairy Lane, DH5 OHT
Tyne-Wear DH4 5BL.
November 26th 1998 Our Ref: MK\ VT\GDB1
RE: Case number 0333900
Following a conversation with a policeman it seems that there may be grounds for declaring a mis-trial when I appeared before Houghton-le-Spring Magistrates on 16th and 17th November 1998. The grounds for this are as follows:
In 1986 I appeared for the first time before a court. That appearance was before Houghton-le-Spring Magistrates Court. I, and a Mr. Robert Willis Gardner Pringle were jointly charged with criminal assault on one another. In fact what had taken place was a very vicious attack upon me, first by Mr. Pringle having battered me and finishing it off by hitting me with his car which he drove at me. I think you may well recall this matter?
When the matter went before the two magistrates on the bench, one of them was a Mr. William Moseley. Mr. Pringle was then and remains as a good social acquaintance of Mr. Moseley. I too was well acquainted with Mr. Moseley. The cases were withdrawn in court.
I went to Mr. Moseleys home on the same evening as that appearance before the court. He then told me that even though he had remained seated on the magistrates bench that day, he alleged that he had stood down. Mr. Moseley frequented the Hetton-le-Hole Masonic Hall. Mr. Pringle supplied that Hall with fruit and vegetables for use in its functions.
Later after a talk with a police officer I wrote to you for confirmation that the remaining magistrate held the necessary qualification to enable him to fulfil the requirement of law to be referred to as a Stipendairy magistrate. I had difficulty in obtaining a reply from you but after several calls to your office, I received your reply which said that the magistrate concerned was on holiday and you had been unable to contact him to have him verify his qualifications as a stipendairy magistrate. After a further talk with the police officer it was established that the magistrate concerned held no such required qualification. I referred the matter to No. 10 Downing Street and they passed it to the Lord Chancellors Department. The reply which I eventually received was that as the information that I was seeking could have been construed as being for mischievous purposes it would not be given to me. It was a Mr. J.J. Death who replied to me.
I made this matter public and I know Mr. Moseley was well aware that I had done that.
On Monday 16th November 1998 when I appeared before them, the magistrates were asked to declare any membership of Freemasonry. The spokesman for the magistrates replied " no we are not members of the craft". If I might suggest, reference to the "craft" is normally a Masonic term anyway?
My grounds for suggesting the question of a possible mistrial are as follows:
It is envisaged that you yourself, the three magistrates who heard the action against me for alleged harassment will be well acquainted with the magistrate Mr. William Moseley and there is more than a reasonable probability that at some time my allegations that he should not have remained on the bench during those cases in 1986 would have been made known to them. There is also the additional question as to why you wrote to me saying that you had not been able to contact the remaining magistrate as he was on holiday. According to that police officer with whom I spoke, he said that you would not have needed to contact that magistrate I reference because you would have known whether he held such necessary qualification. I have spoken to many about that matter which took place in 1986. It was Mr. Bavidge one of the main reasons that I started my enquiries with regard to possible Masonic influence at that time. In these circumstances, I suggest that the trial should not have been held at Houghton-le-Spring Magistrates court. I urgently request your reply to the matters which I raise herein.
It was very apparent that video evidence which showed that the complainant to police of my alleged harassment , Miss Shirley Carr, my opponent of four year civil litigation, was not to be shown. Mention was made of something which sounded like a "Section 10" agreement between the CPS and my defence. The "Section 10" agreement was not made clear to me. The video film not only showed that Miss Carr had used perjury during the civil action but further that the former Recorder Mr. Fryer-Spedding had not only allowed that perjury, but had added to it himself. He retired shortly after I reported some of his acts to the former Lord Chancellor, Lord McKay.
In addition other documentation which showed additional perjury carried out by Shirley Carr was not produced and was not even in the hands of the solicitor whom acted for me. It had been loaned to another solicitor and had not been returned back to my solicitor. You see Mr. Bavidge, as my character was going on trial, it surely was only reasonable to show that Miss Carr was perfectly willing to use perjury in the civil actions, so as the prosecutions prime witness it was only right that this be shown to the magistrates? I dont think there is any question now that there was no prior intent that this material was to be used in my defence.
In May of 1996 I was thanked by the Rt. Hon. Lord Nolan for a dossier which I supplied to him for use by The House of Commons Home Affairs Select Committee Enquiry into Freemasonry within the police and judiciary. That too was common knowledge Mr. Bavidge. I understand the dossier was to be used in the Enquiry. I am sure you will agree therefore that any person involved both in prosecution and defence in any way whatsoever should not have been so involved in the harassment allegation if such person or persons were or had been former members of the Freemasons?
My solicitor Mr. Jackson agreed that he was a Freemason and was a member of what I believe he termed a Judicial Lodge. I wrote to him with the instruction that owning to my involvement in raising issues about Freemasonry at national level then I required all involved in my prosecution and defence to declare any such membership of Freemasonry. That of course meant both past and present. I included yourself., those involved in bringing the case against me, i.e. The Crown prosecution members,all police officers involved which included the Chief Constable of Northumbria. This requirement was apparently ignored by Mr. Jackson. All trials Mr. Bavidge as you of course know should be fair and impartial.
I believe there are grounds for declaring a mistrial, but if this is not agreed, then it is my intension to appeal the judgement and Order. In a telephone conversation with Mr. Jackson on Wednesday 18th November he implied that as the appeal would go to the Crown Court at Newcastle, which is where the former Recorder Mr. Fryer-Spedding sat as a judge, he asked, what chance did I think I would have of a successful appeal. He did not deny that both the video and documentary evidence shows that Shirley Carr had liberally used perjury during the civil court action. It also showed that the former Recorder Mr. Fryer-Spedding had not only allowed that perjury but in fact added to it by the use of his own lies and concoctions of untrue non facts. When I first insisted that such evidence be placed before the Houghton Magistrates Court, his reply was that to do that would only "invoke the wrath of the court". I replied to Mr. Jacksons opinion about that by letter.
Now it would seem there is an indication that any appeal lodged against the finding of the Houghton Magistrates Court would not succeed at Newcastle Crown Court because the evidence to show the perjury used by Shirley Carr in civil proceedings, it would in the course of showing such perjury, also include the question of why the former Recorder had allowed its use and why he effectively added to it.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Mr. M. Kellett
Go to contact links
Back to opening page
Back to page list