Times Higher Education
23 July 2010
by John Morgan
An academic has been cleared of harassing his former vice-chancellor via a “satirical whistleblower website.”
To read more click HERE
July 22-23 2010
Dr Fredrics now faces re-trial on the charge of Harassment and a trial on the charge of Breaching Public Order on 22-23 July, 2010.
In the case of Dehal v DPP [2005] EWHC 2154 (Admin), the lower court found that the defendant intended to insult and harass
the President of the temple and that what he said was unjustified. The Divisional Court did not disagree with that factual finding.
Mr Justice Moses said "there has been and could be no challenge to the finding as to the appellant's intention, but that does not
help in any way as to the proportionality of the criminal prosecution...". He went on to hold that "However insulting, however
unjustified what the appellant said about the President of the Temple, a criminal prosecution was unlawful as a result of s.3 HRA
and Art 10 ECHR unless and until it could be established that such a prosecution was necessary in order to prevent public disorder."
On the above basis, and despite the fundamental differences in the nature of this public interest website, the entire prosecution of Dr Fredrics cannot legally go forward. But that hasn't deterred the overzealous CPS, who quite apparently, works not for the people, but for the private interests of Sir Peter Scott and Kingston University.
Below are key witness statements served to the Court in defence of Dr Fredics that explain why he and his wife, Lori Fredics are unable to attend. The British government has not offered to ensure the safety of Dr and Mrs Fredrics were they to return to the UK to attend trial.
Further more, the cost of airfare is prohibitive, over $2000 to attend.
Also, Dr Fredrics has documented illnesses that render it impossible for him to travel to and participate in a trial.
Last, but not least, Dr and Mrs Fredrics do not have permission to enter the UK, and are advised that they would be turned away by the UK Border Agency were they to attempt to enter the country.
Thus, it is literally impossible for them to attend a trial. The question remains, will the Court allow their witness statements to be entered into the record and will they excuse Dr Fredrics' absence on reasonable grounds given the substantial and compelling evidence supporting his case for non-attendance. Will they instead allow Dr and Mrs Fredrics to give testimony by video link, as is permitted under the law?
Stay tuned to learn more about how the Court will respond.
The following witness statements concern the allegations of harassment against Dr Fredrics. You, the virtual jury, are asked to decide for yourself whether or not Dr Fredrics knew or ought to have known that his conduct would cause 'harassment' of Prof Peter Scott. Or would it merely have been an exercise of Dr Fredrics' legitimate right of free speech to reveal facts about public officials and public institutions in the public interest, and therefore is not subject to criminal prosecution?
Public Order Trial
In addition to the charge of harassment, Dr Fredrics has been further charged with breaching S.5 of the Public Order Act 1986 stemming from a chance encounter along with his wife with Prof Peter Scott in the shopping district of Kingston in July 2009.