Wednesday, 1 June 2022

Congratulations Johnny Depp on his case against Amber Heard!

It's about time that men started to stand up for themselves when faced with false allegations, and I am very pleased that Mr Depp took the risk and won.

Quite frankly, I have had enough of all this me-too nonsense. Every week we have to read how men are the enemy, and how every man is a rapist. No. This is completely wrong.

The truth is Amber Heard is a malicious liar. She tried to ruin Mr Depp's life making false accusations, and it royally backfired.

When I watched Heard give evidence (via live stream) she reminded me of Eleanor de Freitas: Intelligent, yet calculating and utterly wicked.

Throughout Mr Depp's case, Heard tried every trick in the book to twist around the facts, just like Eleanor did to me. It really outraged me, and I am so pleased this innocent man has won. 

Johnny Depp is the real victim.

At the end of the day these liars only have themselves to blame for the mess they created. Remember, they could have retracted at anytime, instead they chose to keep lying. 

And it is lairs like Amber Heard and Eleanor de Freitas that cause major problems for the real victims of abuse, because they are less likely to be believed. Shame on them.

Well done Johnny. Keep on rockin'. Victory to justice and truth!



 




Tuesday, 8 March 2022

How to successfully defend a false accusation of harassment in court.

In 2016 I was falsely accused of 'harassing' David de Freitas. What happened is that Mr de Freitas went to the newspapers saying his daughter had been raped by me.

I was in distress and wrote to him and his lawyer several times protesting my innocence, sending them material that showed his daughter to be a liar. This included cctv of us buying sex toys the day after she said she was raped.
 
The idea was that he would realise he was wrong and stop giving press interviews. I also published that material online to oppose the inaccurate press reports.

According to him and the authorities who prosecuted me: Contacting him, accusing his (dead) daughter of being a liar and publishing photos of her buying sex toys was 'harassment'.
 
So what happened?
 
The trial took place at Westminster Magistrates Court on the 26th and 27th May 2016. A week later I was cleared of harassment with the judge saying I was a man 'wrongly accused' in his 12 page  judgement. But it was not an easy process. Understanding the law was an important part of my case.

Tip 1
There is no statutory definition of harassment, so it is open to (mis)interpretation by the authorities and the courts. Depending on what type of harassment you are accused of, the Harassment Act 1997 itself creates various defences, one of which is: 
 
'That in the particular set of circumstances the pursuit of the course of conduct was reasonable'.

Some lawyers or even the court might  believe that the defendant needs to prove that their actions were reasonable. This is completely wrong. I know of at least two people who were wrongly convicted and then won on appeal because the Magistrates did not understand the law. The burden is actually on the prosecution to show the course of conduct was beyond unreasonable. Your lawyer needs to make this clear to the court, who might otherwise get confused on who needs to prove what.

Tip 2
Text messages, emails or what you said to 3rd parties (during the alleged harassment) might be of relevance to show your innocent state of mind. I.E. In my case I presented to the court messages I had sent to the police that were similar to what I had sent Mr de Freitas, (which showed that Eleanor was a liar and a prostitute). In my case the judge stated: "The fact that he sent them to the police is, in my judgement, significant, as he clearly did not think he was doing anything wrong"
 
Tip 3.
The third most important thing, is to define what 'unreasonable' is, in terms of harassment. I.E. Where is the line between reasonable and unreasonable. Your lawyer will need to explain to the court what that is, or they will make their own interpretation. Never assume the court knows the law. Also don't assume your lawyer knows it either. Make sure they know about the below authorities:
 

Majrowski v Guys and Thomas’ NHS Trusts [2007]
‘Where the quality of the conduct said to constitute harassment is being examined, courts will have in mind that irritations, annoyances, even a measure of upset, arise at times in everybody's day-to-day dealings with other people. Courts are well able to recognise the boundary between conduct which is unattractive, even unreasonable, and conduct which is oppressive and unacceptable. To cross the boundary from the regrettable to the unacceptable the gravity of the misconduct must be of an order which would sustain criminal liability under section 2 ……….. Harassment is not defined in the Act, but it includes causing anxiety or distress. A course of conduct means conduct on at least two occasions …... A great deal is left to the wisdom of the courts to draw sensible lines between the ordinary banter and badinage of life and genuinely offensive and unacceptable behaviour’

Lord Justice May in that case said (para 82):

"Thus, in my view, although section 7(2) provides that harassing a person includes causing the person distress, the fact that a person suffers distress is not by itself enough to show that the cause of the distress was harassment. The conduct has also to be calculated, in an objective sense, to cause distress and has to be oppressive and unreasonable. It has to be conduct which the perpetrator knows or ought to know amounts to harassment, and conduct which a reasonable person would think amounted to harassment.
 
Levi v Bates [2015]
The case of Levi v Bates [2015] is also pertinent because it stated that harassment had to targeted behaviour, namely behaviour aimed at someone, rather than behaviour which caused alarm or distress without being aimed at anyone, Thomas explained. Provided that it was targeted at someone, the conduct complained of did not have to be targeted at the claimant, if he or she was foreseeably likely to be directly alarmed or distressed by it; there was no reason why Parliament should have deliberately excluded from the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, persons who were foreseeably alarmed and distressed by a course of conduct of the targeted type contemplated by the word harassment.

Dowson v Chief Constable of Northumbria [2010] EWHC 2612 (QB)
The threshold for harassment was described as being at the point where the torment of the victim is of an order which would sustain criminal liability.

Scottow v Crown Prosecution Service 2020 EWHC 3421
This was a landmark case (with recent press coverage) concerning social media publications in which the Court of Appeal affirmed the right to offend. Paragraph 43 states: "The prosecution argument failed entirely to acknowledge the well-established proposition that free speech encompasses the right to offend, and indeed to abuse another".

Sunday, 6 February 2022

Harriet Wistrich and Julie Bindel: The feminists who mislead the public.

Eleanor de Freitas was a  liar. In 2013 she falsely accused me of rape. In 2012 she falsely accused her parents and landlords of abuse. Even her parents have admitted the latter in court documents.

Both the Attorney General and the Director of Public Prosecutions have made public statements confirming that it was correct to prosecute Ms de Freitas for perverting the course of justice. The DPP noted that her prosecution relied on no less than 10 pieces of evidence. This included witness statements as well as cctv and text messages, including one from Eleanor herself saying that she had "huge fun" with me, sent at the exact time she was supposedly raped.

For the record, I was never charged with  rape. It was Eleanor who was charged with lying, not the other way around.

This month, some nine years after the allegations, an organisation called Centre for Women's Justice is using Ms de Freitas name to promote their cause, implying she was a victim. This organisation is run by Harriet Wistrich, a well-known feminist.

Last week Julie Bindel (Wistrich's partner) wrote an article which appeared in The Critic magazine stating: 

"We live in a rape culture where legions of men feel entitled to commit sex crimes, secure in the knowledge that they will very probably get away with it.". 

The final paragraph ends by saying the Eleanor de Freitas case is "one example" of this, thus implying  I'm guilty of rape. This is not only untrue, it is seriously defamatory.

Even if they don't believe me, then surely they can recognise that both the Attorney General and DPP looked at the case and concluded there was strong evidence that Eleanor had lied? Even the coroner said there were many things on Eleanor's mind before she died. In a psychiatric report, Eleanor complains extensively about her family, not me.

The real truth is that Wistrich and Bindel are seriously misleading the public, and they know it. But they are not alone. There are  other feminist organisations who follow their example.

Back in 2014, when this case hit the press, a huge number of women's groups jumped on the bandwagon, parading Eleanor's name as if she was a hero. I was alarmed because it implied I was a rapist, which is categorically untrue. I contacted the charities, offering to show them evidence that proved I was innocent.

Every one of these charities declined. They didn't want to know. They did not want to see the cctv, text messages or any other evidence. They were prepared to support Eleanor, unconditionally, without looking at the facts and continued to peddle false information.

When I read about the same charities making statements on other cases in the press,  I just can't take them seriously. Because I know how they operate. The charities in question are: 

Refuge, Justice For Women, Women Against Rape, Rape Crisis, Eaves, One in four, Nia, Liberty, Centre for Women Justice, Victim Support, Campaign to End Rape, End Violence against Women.

Below: Harriet Wistrich and Julie Bindel.