NOTTINGHAM  CROWN COURT IS AN UNDEMOCRATIC INSTITUTION

In the United States, even Murderers and serious criminals sit next to their Lawyers at a desk in the well of the Court, able to make notes and interact with their Lawyers. Other common law countries such as Ireland, Australia, and some European countries rarely use a dock; even some Eastern European countries have removed their metal cages. Why haven't our legal professionals objected to this disgraceful situation? I believe it suits the lazy lawyers not to interact with the Defendant,  who is exhibited in a cage at the back of the court, like an animal in the Zoo. Most Barristers and Solicitors seem to believe that they act a role in fancy dress; they probably believe you are guilty, and their role is making a good plea for mitigation. There is a big belief that the Police and CPS only take you to court because you are Guilty. This attitude is prevalent in the Magistrates Court, where you will have to defend yourself because of the lack of legal aid; if you do get Legal Aid, you usually get a low-grade, inarticulate solicitor, not interested, low-paid and unable to mount a robust defence. My main problem for a pleb like myself is I have little money and must settle for the 3rd class option. If I were wealthy, I would have instructed a top Solicitor at the start of this ridiculous saga, whom the Police would have had to respond; I doubt if the case with no real evidence would have proceeded to court. The corrupt, politically motivated, and lazy Police Officer refused to interview me and review the evidence but instead issued me a summons by post. The result was the Crown Trial, which collapsed at the management stage, wasting time and taxpayer's money. I received my summons, and as I was facing a serious charge and had no money, I had to settle for the 3rd class option and apply for Legal Aid. Suppose you are a high-profile wealthy person who can afford a top Barrister. In that case, you will be treated with respect, and your Barrister will not have to defer to the Local Judiciary and Court management and their way of administering our so-called justice.                                          I cannot really criticise my Advocate, who, like many, depends on poorly paid Legal Aid work and works on a daily basis with the same set of Prosecutors, Judges, and court managers, which leads to an interdependent atmosphere. My advocate was put under severe pressure by the Judge to get me to agree to a bind over admitting some form of guilt, which I believe is country to the Magna Carta and Trial by lied to me out of the Judge whom he to appear before regularly and needs to Kowtow too. He told me that being over just meant to be of good behaviour. Still, I was not badly behaved but the victim of a false accusation and a corrupt Police Officer, PC Victoria Parkes.
Bound over is an archaic law from the fourteenth century, used to control the Peasants without needing a proper trial, a form of cheap authoring justice. What was said was that the Crown Court does not frequently use Bound Over. The government has now decreed that judges should make more use of Bound Over and expand the conditions they can impose. This is for Political reasons because they do not want Not Guilty verdicts on the records as this reflects badly on the Justice system. If you have been Bound Over, this is considered a satisfactory result for the corrupt justice system and enables all those prosecuting and terrorising you, including your Lawyer, to feel justified in being involved in an unjustified trial. After the trial, a form CITM 3.0 will be completed, including comments and signatures from the prosecutor, defence, court clerk, and judge. My trial would be classed as a cracked trial. It would have been classed as a satisfactory result if they could have ticked the box “ E”, Bound Over, which is acceptable to the Prosecution, as it would indicate that I accepted some guilt and would be equivalent to ticking either box A or B which are for a  late plea of guilty, and would have satisfied their statistics that most people are guilty. In my case, they would have to tell the truth and tick the box “I”, insufficient evidence. [copy] of form CITM 3.0 attached at the end], this isn't classed as satisfactory and reflects badly on all concerned. I am disgusted with my advocate, who had to offer acceptance of being bound over to the prosecution without consulting me. I repeat this is a corrupt system where the Judge, lawyers and court staff all work together to process what they consider a satisfactory result; you are just a product to be dealt with, work, and they will carry on with it similarly in the future. They have jobs and Pensions to protect, and fairness and Justice are of no concern. If I had been bound over, I believe I would have been banned from the internet to satisfy a promise made to accusers. I would point out that I have never posted false or illegal material online. I believe there was an agreement between all the parties concerned to put restrictions on me without a proper trial! It felt like I was on trial in North Korea or Iran, where no evidence is required. When you read my correspondence with the Judicial conduct office, you will see I was subjected to a trial by terror. How dare this country criticise other countries' legal systems when our so-called independent Judges have their own politically motivated agenda?                        Probably the worst part of this saga is the lies and obfuscations by the court management, who are part of the system and are in awe of the judges. They denied receiving my first application for a trial transcript, even though it was sent Special Delivery at the cost of £6.50 and signed for. I supplied them with a copy of the Royal Mail delivery confirmation, complete with the signature of the receipt. I hand-delivered a second application to the court, which was ignored until I enlisted the help of Resolver. It took four weeks to get a refusal from the Judge for me to get a transcript, which proves my point that the Judge was trying to terrorise me: surly in a so-called free and democratic country, this is not acceptable and smacks at a totalitarian state [where is George Orwell]. You could ask why the judge would not authorise my transcripts in this cradle of democracy. Did he want to hide his bullying and intemperate language?             After the first hearing, I realised I was up against a completely corrupt, biased system stacked against the normal working citizen who does not have a huge amount of money or a privileged position in society and depends on a legal aid advocate who will do the minimum to make it appear you are receiving a fair trial. If you are wealthy, you buy Justice by hiring expensive Lawyers.                I was called back to court a week later, on 02/11/2018, for the actual trial. My advocate still attempted to persuade me to be bound over, which I had anticipated. I realised it was up to myself as my advocate would not defend me against the bound over vigorously. Therefore, I prepared two copies of a statement, which I have copied below. I gave two copies to my advocate. One for him and one for the CPS lawyer as we went into court. I believe the Judge was shown a copy, which probably explains his ill temper.