Mr R. Boyes M.P.                                             16a, The Lyons,

5a Grangewood Cres,                                          Hetton-le-Hole,

Shiney Row.                                                            Tyne-Wear DH5 OHT


                                                                                Tele. Wearside 5264555

Date: July 29 1994

 Dear Mr Boyes

Relative to the problems encountered with my neighbour the DHSS employee Miss S. Carr, of which you have had some involvement inmatters relative to it, I sought legal aid in the matter of seeking an injunction and damages to prevent her from unlawfully draining her property onto our own that has caused problems with flooding. I was advised by the solicitors Nancy Bone and Co of Gilesgate Durham to apply for legal aid because they felt sure that I would be able to get it with this particular matter.

Nancy Bone solicitors made the application to the Legal Aid Board. It was refused on the grounds: "Insufficient information has been supplied to show any basis for granting

legal aid. In particular more information should have been given clearly setting out all proceedings and disputes to date. As an injunction is already in place, prohibiting further drainage, more information should also be given regarding the actual damage caused to the property to date."

I accepted as possible confusion with Nancy Bone solicitors the fact that there is no injunction in place prohibiting further drainage onto my property. I decided to appeal against refusal of legal aid on the grounds that no injunction is already in place preventing further drainage onto my property.

I supplied Nancy Bone solicitors a written summary of events that set out the outline of all matters of which the Legal Aid office had requested. A copy of this is enclosed under the heading, "SUMMARY OF EVENTS". This morning I called at the offices of Nancy Bone solicitors, and, although I was unable to see the solicitor that has been handling the matter, I have been told that the, "SUMMARY OF EVENTS" sheet was sent to the Legal Aid office with my appeal application. I appeared in front of the Legal Aid Board on Monday July 25 1994. One ofthe first things that was said to me was that they understood I was now including a further application in the matter for help with a charge of assault and damage. I expressed my surprise to the Board and denied any new inclusions in my appeal application. There are no charges whatsoever for assault in any of the matters relative to the problems at hand. I was asked what had happened at the County Court hearing on July 7 1994, I replied that the hearing had been postponed until August 11 1994. I stressed to the Legal Aid Board that all I requested was aid relative to Durham County Court Case No. 00950 in my action seeking an injunction preventing my neighbour Miss Carr from draining her property onto that of my own, along with damages in the matter. This is clearly set out in paragraphs 5. and 7. of my "SUMMARY OF EVENTS. It would seem the Board had a copy of my "SUMMARY OF EVENTS" because I was asked by the person sitting at the opposite end of the table, "what happened at the hearing of July 7 ?", it was then I informed the Board that the hearing had been postponed until August 11 1994. Amember of the Board nearest to me, sitting on my right, asked, " why could the cases not be amalgamated?", I replied that the judge had said case number 00950 had different procedures to the other cases therefore amalgamation was not possible, the man on my right side nodded approval. Paragraphs 8. and 9. of my, "SUMMARY OF EVENTS" give details of this, so again, I presume that the Board had a copy of my summary that I supplied to Nancy Bone solicitors. The Board member previously mentioned, sitting nearest on my right said in an enquiring statement, "your application applies only to case number 00950?", I replied that it was. It was then the Board concluded my meeting with them.

The appeal refusal has been dismissed on the grounds given in the original refusal for legal aid, i.e. that insufficient information had been give to them on the original application, and, that an injunction is in place already preventing further drainage onto my property.

There is no injunction in place preventing further drainage onto my property, indeed that is what my application for legal aid is for, the action that I now have underway requesting the court to grant me an injunction preventing drainage onto my property, and damages in the matter has not yet been heard in full.I cannot see in any documentation supplied to the Legal Aid Board, any clear reason why they continue to say that an injunction preventing further drainage onto my property is in place.

My reason for appearing in person before the Board was in order that any possible confusion they might have had, could be cleared up. The Legal Aid Board did not, at the appeal hearing, state that an injunction was already in place. I was there to answer any questions that they might have had in the matter. I was of the opinion at the meeting that I was not allowed to do anything else other than answer any questions that might be put to me, this I did.

Because the reasons given for legal aid refusal is on false grounds, I do not accept the decision that has been made is final. I request the assistance in the matter of my M.P. Roland Boyes and would hope that matters can be sorted out quickly in order that I might possibly be granted legal aid in my application to the court for an injunction preventing drainage onto my property by my neighbour, and damages in the matter. Since my application to the court for an injunction, and indeed my application for legal aid, my neighbour, the Defendant in this matter, has, while I have been absent from my home, employed others to remove parts of my property and alter it. The alterations that have been made are in fact defiant to the fact that there is no right of drainage by my neighbour onto my property . I have further evidence to present before the court that will prove beyond any reasonable doubt the validity of my case.

 Yours faithfully

 Mr M. Kellett.


Some time after this I was able to obtain a copy of the application that was placed before the Northern Area Legal Board at Fenkle Street, Newcastle-upon-Tyne. There was nothing whatsoever in it to lead the Board to believe that there was already in place an injunction to stop the drainage problem. I supplied a copy of the application that had been made to the Legal Aid Board to former Lord Chancellor Mackay. The reply which I received from his department was that I could supply that evidence to the Parliamentary Commissioner. The Lord  Chancellors Department were duty bound to act on that matter but failed to do it. As I  considered then that my prime concern was with the litigation underway it was not until later that I contacted the Parliamentary Commissioner.

I was eventually able to obtain legal aid in January of 1996. Some six weeks before the trial, but should have been "trials" of four cases, it was withdrawn by the Legal Aid Board again falsely alledging that Counsels opinion representing me, Michelle Temple, was not favourable both to my prosecution cases and defence cases. They  lied in that matter as well. Michelle Temple's opinion was more than favourable to my cases both in prosecution and defence. My solicitor Mrs. P. Tench, then of Jacksons Solicitors of Darlington County Durham, sent a long letter of protest to the Legal Aid Board about the matter. That was also ignored. In due course I will place on these pages a copy of Michelle Temple's opinion. Judge for yourselves whether I am telling the truth when I make this allegation.

Because I had little choice after legal aid was withdrawn to continue on my own, I approached Jacksons Solicitors for the return of my files that they held. I was told that they required then for costing purposes so they could not return them to me. Though I was able to obtain some copies of my files, I went into court proceedings before the corrupt Recorder Mr. Fryer-Spedding without all of the documentation that I required. My opponent Carr, was represented by a Mr. Merritt. The trials had been delayed because Carr's choice of Counsel had been Merritt but he had not been available, so an adjournment was granted.

I would like to make a point of adding that the work of preparing what is termed, the judges bundle had been granted by the court to Alison Stott Solicitor of Aykley Vale Chambers, Aykley Vale, Durham City, to carry out. At the time she was granted that work she was not acting for Carr but as she later admitted to the Court, presided over by Fryer-Spedding  on January 17 1996, "I have not been acting for Miss Carr I have only been assisting her". Spedding then replied in very sharp words, " you are either acting for Miss Carr or you are not". Stott's reply was, "well I am now sir". Counsel Michelle Temple was present at that hearing and expressed to my wife and I her astonishment that Stott has made that statement to the Court.

If further relevance, when Stott had been given that work of preparing the judges bundle ready for trial, without prior knowledge of the court or myself, she passed it on to Carr. That only came to light when I received my bundle and there was a considerable amount of known documentation missing from it. As part of my files were being withheld by Nancy Bone Solicitors, now thankfully closed down with Nancy Bone being struck from the Register of Solicitors, I was not in a position to identify all of the documentation which Carr had not included in my bundle, which in fact should have been identical with the one that she had prepared for the judge.

After Stott had tried to bluff her way out of it, after I informed The Durham County Court of the situation, she agreed that she had passed on that work for Carr to carry out. The corrupt Recorder Mr. Fryer-Spedding alleged that the four cases before him had been consolidated into a single action. He tried them as a consolidated action. I had been unable to show that on 1st June 1994 an application by Carr was heard in The Durham County Court for consolidation of the cases into her own case No. NE401650. The court, presided over by District Judge Scott-Phillips refused that application. After the trial Carr agreed that she had deliberately excluded from the judge's bundle her application and refusal by the court to allow consolidation of the cases. I had prepared my defence and prosecution, at very short notice because of the unjust act of The Northern Area Legal Board previously mentioned here, in the knowledge that the cases were to be tried one after the other. On 1st June 1994 District Judge Scott-Phillips made an Order that the cases could not be consolidated. Carr did not appeal the Order so at the time of the trial that Order still stood. I had no way then of backing up my later allegations of this fact. Now I have a copy of that Order of 1st June 1994.

Lord Justice Pill and Auld were informed about this fact but obviously ignored it. Most of I think Auld's summing up was in trying to persuade me that Freemasonry had not had a hand in matters. Though my application for leave to appeal covered three separate cases, the time which their Lords injustices allowed me to present my case, (which should have been cases) for appeal was that which is allowed only for a single case. They refused me leave to appeal the judgment of the corrupt Recorder mr. Fryer-Spedding, which, in the circumstances I should have known the outcome before I went before them.

Maurice Kellett.

January 24 1999.


Go to contact links

Any E-mail please to:

Back to opening page

Back to page list