I've been unlawfully bailed again.....
Today was notionally the last day of my police bail, but yesterday there was an email, from Robin Young, remember him, the bent copper who has:
- Given a certain individual private police information,
- Falsified evidence and
- Given me a medical seizure.....
This email from him said that there was no need for me to attend Kingston Police station tomorrow, because my bail had been extended until the 17th of August.
This is the email exchange... Remember this is happening the day before I meant to present myself at Kingston Police station:
From: Robin.Young@met.police.uk
Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2023 7:32 AM
Subject: Notice of extension of bail re Mr Hart
Dear Mr Hart ,
Please see attached notice of bail extension for Mr Hart for the new date of Friday 18th August 2023 at 1100 hours at Kingston Police Station.
Mr Hart does not need to attend Kingston police station on Wednesday 17th May 2023.
Bail conditions remain;
1. No direct or non-direct contact with occupants of [DELETED]
2. No to post comments, images or make reference to [DELETED], [DELETED] or [DELETED] or occupants of [DELETED] on any social media platform including (but not excluding) NEXTDOOR, FACEBOOK, TWITTER, YOU TUBE , CHANGE.ORG
This extension of bail has been authorised by Superintendent Mooney.
A copy of the bail extension has been sent to you by recorded post for your records."
That was the initial message, and here is what we wrote back:
"Subject: RE: Notice of extension of bail re Mr Michael Hart
Robin,
This is not good enough.
If you refer to PACE 47ZDA (3) and (4) (reprinted below for your convenience) no authority can be given for extension without prior notice or consultation, and that the extension can not be longer than a date 6 months after the initial bail date (so any date in August is too long) added to which it is clear that Conditions A to D can not be met.
You know perfectly well that Michael has no case to answer, he should have been released without charge long before now, no further enquiries can possibly be made, if any were conducted at all, and this purported extension of bail is just a ploy to extend your period of coercive control over Michael which started with your illegal arrest of him for the benefit of your friend [DELETED].
The 17 May was already a period longer than allowed for as an initial period of bail, so to make a decision now is also a breach of (1)(b).
We can not believe that a Superintendent would not know this, so must assume that your statement Michael does not need to attend Kingston Police station tomorrow is also invalid, and to suggest we rely on something arriving by recorded delivery, with little chance of it arriving before tomorrow morning, is absurd.
We will have no option but to be attending at Kingston tomorrow morning unless we receive today from Superintendent Mooney a written explanation of why such flagrant breaches of PACE are allowed, and being given the chance to make our representations as to why Michael should be discharged from bail.
Because this fiasco is a clear continuing breach of your obligations as a police officer, I am copying in the Police complaints investigating officer, Commissioner Kelland and our political representatives.
PACE says:
[F147ZD Applicable bail period: extension of initial limit in standard cases
(1) This section applies in relation to a person if—
(a) The applicable bail period in relation to the person is the period mentioned in section 47ZB(1)(b),
(b) That period has not ended, and
[FAILED AS EXTENSION WAS DONE AFTER THE PERIOD ENDED]
(c) a [F2 relevant officer] is satisfied that conditions A to D are met in relation to the person.
[WHICH THEY WEREN'T]
(2) The [F3 relevant officer] may authorise the applicable bail period in relation to the person to be extended so that it ends at the end of the period of [F4 6 months] beginning with the person’s bail start date.
[FAILED AS EXTENSION WAS TO A DATE 7 MONTHS AFTER THE PERIOD]
(3) Before determining whether to give an authorisation under subsection (2) in relation to a person, the [F5 relevant officer] must arrange for the person or the person’s legal representative to be informed that a determination is to be made.
[NEEDLESS TO SAY THIS WASN'T DONE]
(4) In determining whether to give an authorisation under subsection (2) in relation to a person, the [F5 relevant officer] must consider any representations made by the person or the person’s legal representative.
[NO OPPORTUNITY WAS GIVEN FOR US TO DO THIS]
(5) The [F5 relevant officer] must arrange for the person or the person’s legal representative to be informed whether an authorisation under subsection (2) has been given in relation to the person.
[ONLY DONE AFTER THE EVENT]
[F6(6) For the purposes of this Part “relevant officer” means a police officer of the rank of inspector or above.]]