I found this abuse of process argument for Andrea Davison which gives some a background to this stange case. Its a hall of mirrors.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[/FONT]
[/FONT]
The following is the Abuse of Process application which the Court listed for hearing but surprisingly skilfully avoided hearing
SKELETON ARGUMENT FOR THE DEFENDANT
Supplementary overview to the Outline of the Defendants abuse of Process application giving further details as requested. The matter is complex, novel and will require lengthy investigation but a brief overview is outlined below
1.BACKGROUND TO THE CURRENT PROSECUTION
- In December 2009 The Defendant was advised that plain clothes men claiming to be from the Met' were making enquiries about her home in North Wales by asking neighbours questions. The Defendant was not approached directly by these men who are believed to have been police officers from a force outside of Wales.
- The Defendant understands her business colleagues Denis and Phil Holt of MOAS Mail Service, Hyde, Cheshire had given information to DC Winnard and DS Hunt during inquiries into a former client calling himself Robin Jacob who was living in Thailand and who was suspected of committing a substantial fraud. The information included the Defendants address telephone number and e-mail. No telephone call or message or e-mail or letter was received by the Defendant from the Police and, to her knowledge, a Production Order was not applied for and or served.
- On the 5th of January 2010 DC Stephen Winnard obtained a search warrant to search the premises Flat 1A, where the Defendant lives, and Flat 1B and Manchester House. The warrant did not name the defendant or anyone who lived at the premises. The warrant was issued under section 352 Proceeds of Crime Act. This is permission to search premises. I refer to search and Seizure 4.40 POCA (2002).
"A search and seizure warrant under s352 is a warrant to seize material likely to be of substantial value to the investigation. It does not allow carte blanch seizure no-matter how valuable it might be. The material seized must relate to the particular investigation for which the warrant has been granted."
- Flat 1b was occupied by an individual who held a firearms certificate issued by the North Wales Police registered to the address, the individual had also been vetted and had held top Secret Clearance. This individual was not approached by or contacted by the Prosecution either before or at the time or subsequently although the Prosecution retain his property
- On the 13th of January 2010 The Defendant's Flat was searched by 13 male police officers. The Defendant was in bed and woken up and subsequently kept in her nightdress all day until on or around 17.00 hrs whilst the 13 male officers searched the premises. The Defendant was prevented from getting dressed or leaving the property and prevented from making a phone call. The Defendant's request for a female Officer to be present was also refused. The warrant did not permit the officers to restrain the Defendant as the Defendant was not under arrest but the officers illegally held the Defendant in her nighclothes all day.
- The Officers also searched Flat 1b and seized from the individual's firearms cabinet legally registered firearms and a quantity of gold items. They also seized a large unlocked filing cabinet from the individual and a computer he used whilst working on Top Secret matters for the Atomic Weapons Establishment. The computers had no connection in any way with the Prosecutions investigation. The Filing cabinet included documents subject to legal privilege and excluded material and had no connection with the investigation in any way.
- Almost every document and every moveable item of value was seized from the premises including £100 and Euro 40 under the £1000 limit. The Seizure not only included a huge amount of documents and items not related to the investigation but also included documents subject to legal privilege and excluded material. The Prosecution also seized the Defendants passport and driving licence. The Prosecution even seized documents on paedophiles in the police and in the former conservative Government and documents on covert arms shipments to Iraq, Iran and the former Yugoslavia and Hospital documents about the Defendants medical problems. Even a leaflet from the hospital needed by the Defendant to alert her to symptoms of a detached retina was seized.
- The Defendant had a file for her former client Robin Jacob and his company Regal and Archer. The files were properly marked and included, as per Trading Standards recommendations for accommodation addresses, a copy of the passport of Robin Jacob and a copy of the Company Documents of Regal and Archer and financial documents.
- After being held illegally all day The Defendant was formerly arrested in the evening and taken to Caernarfon Police Station. The Defendant was arrested for International Fraud during 2007 and 2008
- On April the 16th 2010 a Restraint Order (AD6 page 1-20) was served which names the Companies Regal and Archer and Quantum Holdings as being "controlled by the Defendant" and named 6 Bank accounts in Cyprus belonging to the said companies and stated these were to be "treated as the personal assets of the Defendant". The Witness statement stated at paragraph 32 "It is strongly suspected that DAVISON has been involved in a conspiracy to defraud WRIGHT-HOGELAND and others "
- The Restraint Order was improperly obtained. DC WInnard made a supporting witness statement using false statements and fanciful fabrications. No attempt was made to make full and frank disclosure as required by law. The Prosecution knew at the time the Restraint Order was made that the Defendant had no involvement in the International Fraud or alternatively knew it was extremely remote that the Defendant had any involvement in or knowledge of the International Fraud. The application for and service of, and continued existence of the Restraint Order is an abuse of the Courts Process.
- CONVICTION OF BOILER ROOM GANG
- Starting in December 2009 11 suspects, part of the boiler room fraud gang, were arrested in the UK and Sweden, others were later arrested in Spain. The arrests were for an International Fraud including the companies Regal and Archer and Quantum Holdings stated in the Restraint Order to be controlled by the Defendant and the Bank Accounts in Cyprus said in the Restraint Order to be the personal assets of the Defendant.
- In December 2010 Paul Slack was arrested at Heathrow Airport and confessed to conspiring with others to obtain funds from various investors by falsely representing legitimate and fraudulent companies between 2007 and December 2010. These companies included Regal and Archer and Quantum Holdings.
- The Companies Regal and Archer and the Bank accounts were controlled my members of the Boiler room Gang and any assets in the Cyprus Bank Accounts were controlled and or owned by the Gang. The Prosecution were aware that the Defendant had no interest in the said companies or bank accounts.
- In May 2011 6 members of the gang were jailed at Harrow Crown Court
- On the 15th June 2011 Paul Slack pleaded guilty in Derby Crown Court to conspiracy to defraud and conspiracy to conceal criminal property. This included the companies Regal and Archer and Quantum Holdings
- On June the 22nd 2011 9 people were convicted in Newcastle Crown Court
- On July 15th 2011 Paul Slack was sentenced in Derby Crown Court By Fraud Group North with Felicity Gerry as the Prosecuting Barrister. (AD6 page 21-23 ) DC Winnard said "these are professional criminals at the top of their game, operating outside UK jurisdiction, thinking they will never be caught"
- The full story was widely reported in the Newspapers and even a two part ITV documentary (AD6 page 24 to 26) was made with the help of the Police. The documentary quoted Sheila Wright Hogeland, whom the Restraint Order names, in which she says "I have lost virtually everything I had, and virtually everything my mother had, Its all gone, I can't pay my bills, I'm going to lose my home, I have been here twenty years. They have taken our livelihood" The Defendant empathises with Sheila Wright Hogeland as the Defendant is also a victim of this Boiler room fraud gang and has been placed in a similar position by the Prosecution.
- CURRENT PROSECUTION AGAINST THE DEFENDANT
- The current prosecution concerns documents stated to have been seized during this search 13.01.2010 of the Defendants home for evidence useful to the investigation of this said International Boiler Room Fraud.
- One year and 5 months later the Defendant was charged on the 22nd of June 2011 with two counts of theft contrary to section 1 (1) and 7 of the theft Act 1968 and was bailed to appear in the Magistrates Court on the 5th of July 2011.
- The Fraud Prosecution Service later increased the charges to 12 All the charges are either way Offences and there is no suggestion that anyone has lost any money because of the Defendant or that anyone has been harmed. There have been no complaints made against the Defendant.
- The Prosecution know the Defendant was not involved in the International Fraud she had been arrested for in January 2010 and for which the Restraint Order was made in April 2010 and should have told advised her of this and discharged the Restraint Order. Oppressively the Fraud Prosecution Service has kept the Restraint Order. The Fraud Prosecution service then went on to prosecute the Defendant for minor either way offences which, if there was any justification at all in the prosecution, should have been proceeded with shortly after the seizure of the documents on the 13th January 2010. The delay was deliberate and to the Defendants detriment.
2.Unconscionable behaviour by the Executive
2.1.The Defendant repeats paragraph 1- 1.25
2.2.In the 1980's and 1990's the defendant investigated covert arms shipments and the financial network underpinning this. In 1989 The Defendant was chosen to communicate with the Labour Party in Opposition and advice them the Conservative Government of the Day were selling arms to Iraq. The Defendant did this and subsequently worked in the background assisting with information to expose the covert trade. The Defendant was a key player in a secret Intelligence War which put her life is danger.
2.3.The Defendant gave evidence to the Scott Inquiry' into Arms to Iraq and was an intelligence adviser to the Trade and Industry Select Committee into arms to Iraq.
2.4.When the exposure was complete the Defendant was told by an intelligence organisation she worked with that despite the danger she was in she would not be given a new identity but would be protected. She was told to keep a low profile and protect herself by keeping her identity obscure.
2.5.Although the Defendant retired from the front line and did go back into obscurity, no-one ever actually retires from Intelligence work and the Defendant had been important. The Defendants small business had the potential to attract persons who may be a danger to the Security of the Nation. This proved to be the case when the Defendant helped to prevent a fraud against NATO in 2004 by unearthing Mr Brock who was involved in a massive fraud against NATO and the Defendant was advised by the Ministry of Defence Fraud Squad to "carry on doing what you are doing".
2.6.The Defendant submits it is quite wrong of the Executive to guarantee protection and to encourage the Defendant to lead a lifestyle which they now seek to use against her in a belated prosecution for minor alleged offences. The Defendant submits that the current Conservative Government are attempting to silence the Defendant because the Defendant held evidence against them which they have seized and because the Defendant continued to assist in the exposure of corruption within the establishment.
2.7.The Defendant also submits that members of the Conservative Government and those who are behind them are deeply involved in fraud and corruption and are because of this determined to silence those who have worked for the good side of intelligence.
2.8.The Defendant, in January 2010 was working on exposing who really owns the Britain's nuclear deterrent and who really benefits financially from the contracts.
2.9.The Derby police seized the Defendants current investigations into the British Nuclear Deterrent and its ownership by a foreign power. Its relationship to the lies made in the house of commons with regards to the previously placed contracts to develop a new nuclear weapons programme after the withdrawal of support from the USA. The support being withdrawn due to the infiltration of the British security services by Middle Eastern powers; including the removal of support from the United Kingdom ballistic capacity by the USA. This included the full cost breakdown for the replacement of the British Nuclear deterrent not only in the weapons systems but also the delivery system and the delivery platforms all of which had been discussed with the MOD. Provisional contracts being placed and classified presentations made to the contractors involved (2007 2008). This information is currently being disseminated piecemeal to the British public through government sources although they are saying that none of this has been formally agreed by the British Parliament
2.10.No-one has lost any money or been harmed by the Defendant. It is in fact the Defendant who has suffered losses and been harmed because of the Prosecution which has been brought with the sole purpose of silencing the Defendant
. 2.11.The Defendant is a former Investigator of serious crimes and although her illness and age have dulled her abilities it is clear and has always been clear to the Defendant that the pursuit of the Defendant by the Prosecution is extraordinary, disproportionate and unwarranted.
2.12.The Police failed to investigate the evidence which proved the Defendant was not involved in the International Fraud although they had seized all the evidence. The Police had the passwords to access the Defendants e-mail clients which proved beyond doubt a person calling himself Robin Jacob has sent a scanned copy of his passport in 2008 and had opened
two Accommodation Addresses accounts with the Defendant. These addresses, along with numerous others supplied in the UK and around the world by other Virtual Office and Accommodation Address suppliers, none of whom have been arrested, were used by the Fraud Gang on their websites and for document delivery. Regal and Archer used the Cheshire address the Defendant supplied to them on their Website.
2.13.The Police seized two of the Defendants work computers on which the evidence of the scanned passport of Robin Jacob existed.
2.14.The Police failed to investigate and prove the innocence of the Defendant instead they have conducted a long campaign of harassment and intimidation with an unknown objective against a vulnerable disabled senior citizen who has harmed no-one. There was accumulative investigative failure on behalf of the prosecution. I refer to the Chronology of events. (AD6 page 27-28)
2.15. What is clear is that the Prosecution have not been and are not impartial or fair and the Defendant has been seriously prejudiced by the Prosecutions delay, oppressive behaviour and Gross negligence which undermine the dignity and integrity of the judicial process
INVESTIGATIVE IMPROPRIETY
2.16.A complaint has been made to Derby Professional Standards and the complaint has been recorded. 2.17.
Breach of Code B PACE An officer obtained a search warrant under Section 352 of the Proceeds of Crime Act authorising the search puff premises including the hoe address of the complainant and seizure and retention of material likely to be substantial value to the investigation. The complaint is that items subject to legal privilege and excluded material were seized which had no connection with the investigation.
Almost every documents and every movable item of value was seized from the premises including £100 and $0 Euro, under the £1000 limit. The seizure included a large amount of documents and items not related to the investigation and also included documents subject to legal privilege and excluded material.
2.18.
Oppressive Conduct Harassment Officers encouraged the journalists to harass her causing a series of articles adverse to her to be published contrary to her convention rights.
2.19.
Irregularity in evidence /Perjury An officer stated to be a financial investigator made a witness statement in support of a Restraint Order which was fanciful, did not make full and frank disclosure and contained false statements such as the Defendant, who was of pension age, was in receipt of Benefit Payments when she was not. In consequence the Defendant was prevented by the Court from buying anything at all even those things necessary to sustain life because the Restraint order prevented the Defendant from spending any money other than "State Benefits from the Department of Social Security" and she was in receipt of none.
The Restraint Order which first describes the Defendant Andrea Davison as the Defendant states that the Companies Regal and Archer and Quantum Holdings are controlled by the Defendants and that the associated bank account in Cyprus are to be treated as the personal property of the Defendant. And the defendant on pain of imprisonment for Contempt of Court is ordered to repatriate the one use from the Cyprus Bank accounts with 21 days of the Order.
2.20.
Improper disclosure of information Officers provided journalists with an incident number in respect of allegations about her involvement in the alleged murder of the deceased in the Chinook disaster on the Mull of Kintyre. This incident number encouraged the journalist to pursue the complainant, causing her acute distress and putting her at risk.
Officers encouraged the journalists to harass her causing a series of articles adverse to her to be published contrary to her convention rights.
Officers provided information about her to two named journalists, including her bail dates and details of the investigation against her whilst she was on pre-charge bail. The journalists have no connection in any way with the case the officers were investigating or with the Defendant. The Officers knew or were careless whether the course of justice would be impeded by talking to and encouraging the journalists.
RESTRAINT ORDER DATED 16th APRIL 2010
2.21.The Defendant had already been deprived of all her business files and her computers on the 13th of January 2010 and was materially hampered in carrying out her legitimate work on which she was entirely dependent. The Restraint order finally prevented the Defendant from continuing her business activity which was her only source of income.
2.22.The Restraint Order personally prevented the Defendant from buying any item even those essential for life
2.23.The Restraint Order commercially prevented the Defendant from continuing with her legitimate work as she was unable to pay her suppliers or buy any other item essential for her work
2.24.The Restraint Order conferred a risk on the Defendant of serious and irreparable harm both financially and mentally.
2.25.The Defendant has suffered anxiety, distress, loss of work prospects, feelings of injustice, deterioration of her way of life over a prolonged period.
2.26.The Restraint Order placed the Defendant from the 7th May 2010 in Contempt of Court because she could not repatriate monies from 6 Cyprus Bank Accounts the she had no knowledge of or interest in. This allowed the Prosecution an ultimate intimidation as they could arrest the Defendant and charge her with Contempt of Court at any time.
2.27.The restraint order prevents the Defendant from having legal advice or assistance
2.28.The Serious fraud office (SFO) says "a restraint order is a powerful measure that has a considerable impact on a person named in the order. The Protections given to an Defendant and other individuals under the European Convention on Human Rights must be considered at all stages of the restraint process" and as to orders under condition 1, as is this order, the SFO says "the power to make an order under this condition is particularly draconian" The Prosecution did not and do not consider the Defendants Human Rights at any stage of their pursuit of the a disabled senior citizen who has harmed no-one.
2.29.The witness statement in support of the Restrain Order has been written in such a way as to extrapolate meanings that the facts cannot possibly bare. D.C Winnard made statement of fact on oath that were designed to pervert the course of justice and or careless whether the course of justice was perverted or not
. 2.30.Following the arrest and conviction of the member of the Boiler Room Fraud gang instead of apologising to the Defendant for wrongly arresting her for International Fraud and wrongly removing her property and the property of Mr Mills and wrongly causing her substantial losses and substantial damage to her mental and physical health, the Prosecution compound the abuse by not discharging the Restraint Order and charging the defendant with minor offences which could have been brought shortly after January 13th 2010, if they were brought at all.
2.31.The Prosecution know that the Defendant is not involved in any way with the International fraud for which she was arrested but seek to cover up their own abuses by using the Court Process to cause further harm to the Defendant. The Defendant submits the Court should not permit its process to be abused in this way.
3.ADVERSE PUBLICITY
3.1.Two Journalists Peter Eyre and Gordon Bowden, both from Derby, began writing about the Defendant in the Palestine Telegraph in September 2010 it was in the Palestine Telegraph Newspaper that the Defendants name and full address were first published and details of the Police investigation against the Defendant. Their articles revealed that the Journalists had been provided with information and encouragement from the Derby Police. The Journalists have named the following Derby Police Officers in their articles, and e-mails, who have made improper disclosure or been involved in harassing the Defendant.
- DC Winnard
- DS Hunt
- DC Cyples 1772
- DC Ahmed
- DC Rigby 1134
3.2.The Derby Journalists have been deliberately misled by the Prosecution and given false information which has led to them writing over 49 articles with various unspecified allegations against the Defendant. These articles have spread all over the internet and damaged the Defendants ability to have a fair trial. The Journalists faithfully repeated the lies which the prosecution told them to their detriment and to the Defendants.
3.3.The Prosecution were responsible for and are aware of the adverse publicity against the Defendant. This includes the publication of the Defendants name and address together with allegations which put the Defendant at risk. Knowing the Defendant is a vulnerable adult against whom proceedings are active the Prosecution have not taken any action to halt the flow of publicity in print and by TV broadcasts.
3.4.An Application for disclosure has been made to the Chief Constable of Derby and this has now been listed for a one day hearing on February 2nd 2012 4.Excessive AND UNJUSTIFIABLE delay 4.1.The defendant repeats paragraph 1 .21 to 1.25 and paragraph 2.11 to 2.12 and refers to the Chronology (AD6 page 27 28)
4.2.The Defendant was arrested on the 13th of January 2010 for International Fraud and will plead with a chronology extensively on the excessive delay and prejudice to the Defence. The Defendant has been re- bailed 20 times in nearly two years.
4.3.The Defendant has been prejudiced by the delay especially as the Defendant suffers from an illness which effects memory. The Defendants age and health have not been considered by the Prosecution. The Delay was unnecessary and unjustifiable. 4.4.The Defendants convention Rights have been ignored and continually breeched by the Prosecution throughout the course of their investigation and pursuit of the Defendant for crimes she has no involvement in.
5.Breach of convention Rights
- The Prosecution continually and consistently breach and have breached the Defendants Basic Human Rights.
5.2.Article 1, Right to peaceful enjoyment of Property. The Defendant repeats Paragraph 1.3 to 1.7 the Prosecution still hold valuables owned by the defendant and Mr Mills but have failed to even provide a list of 5.3.the valuables seized nearly two years later. The warrant obtained by the prosecution did not given the rights to seize anything which was not of assistance to their Investigation. The Valuables belong to the Defendant and Mr Mills were and are in no-way connected with the Prosecutions investigation into the International Boiler Room Fraud Gang. 5.4.
Article 3, inhuman and degrading treatment The Defendant will plead harassment and inhuman and degrading treatment. The defendant repeats paragraph 1.5 and 1.9 -1.10 and 2.15 and 2.18 to 2,28 and 3.1 5.5.The Restraint Order served on the 16th of April 2010 gave the Defendant 21 days to repatriate monies from 6 Cyprus Bank accounts which the Defendant had no knowledge of or interest in and the Prosecution knew this. Failure to repatriate the moneys from the 6 Cyprus Bank accounts placed the Defendant in Contempt of Court and has left the Defendant open to be arrested at any time from the 7th of May 2010 at the Prosecutions whim. 5.6.The Restraint Order also prevented the Defendant from being able to even buy necessities of life on pain of being in Contempt of Court from April the 16th 2010 until May the 7th 2010.
5.7.
Article 5, Right to Liberty the defendant repeats paragraph 1.5
5.8.
Article 6, Right to a Fair Trial. The Defendant has not had a fair hearing and could not have a fair hearing whilst a Restraint Order prevents her from having legal advice or assistance and a legal aid certificate is not in place. This is a clear breach of Article 6 and particularly so where the Restraint Order itself was obtained improperly by perjury. One of the Basic features of a fair trial (van Geyseghem v Belgium) is the right to legal representation. The Restraint Order which was improperly obtained should have been discharged in any event following the confession of Paul Slack to the Prosecution. But not only have the prosecution not discharged the Restraint Order they continue the oppression and injustice and abuse of Courts process by preventing the Defendant from having legal advice and assistance.
Presumption of innocence
The presumption of innocence, guaranteed by Article 6 § 2, will be violated if a judicial decision or a statement by a public official concerning a person charged with a criminal offence reflects an opinion that he is guilty before he has been proved guilty according to law (see Deweer v. Belgium, judgment of 27 February 1980, Series A no. 35, § 56; and Minelli v. Switzerland, judgment of 25 March 1983, Series A no. 62, § 37). Furthermore, the scope of Article 6 § 2 is not limited to criminal proceedings that are pending (see Allenet de Ribemont v. France, judgment of 10 February 1995, Series A no. 308, § 35). The improper disclosure of information to the Journalists indicating the Defendant was guilty breeched her article 6 rights
Delay Article 6(1) ECHR states:
"In the determination … of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law"
The court will have regard to:
The period of delay;
The complexity of the case;
The defendant's conduct; and
The manner in which the matter was dealt with by the authorities
The Defendant repeats paragraph 2.9 to 3.4 and 4.1 to 4.4
5.9.Article 8 Right to a Private and Family Life the Defendant repeats paragraph 1.7 and 3.1 to 3.5 6.Crown Prosecutors code 6.1.I refer to the CPS full Code Test (AD6 page 32 - 34) and raise issue at from can the evidence be used' paragraph 1 and Is the evidence reliable paragraph 4 and 7-9 and paragraph 17 subsection 1 and 4 and 6 and 10 and 11. 6.2.The Decision to prosecute on the seized documents was taken 17 months following the seizure and arrest of the Defendant. The seized documents have no connection with the International fraud in 2007 and 2008 for which the Defendant was arrested save the files mentioned in paragraph 1.8 herein. 6.3.The Defendant is, and was at the time of the alleged offences, save in 1980 when the defendant received her full driving licence from the DVLA, suffering from significant organic mental and physical ill heath, and her illness severely affected and still does to a lesser extent the mind, memory, cognition and produces hallucinations and paranoia. The Defendant also had real reason to be paranoid and her illness increased this. The Defendants illness is incurable. 6.4.The alleged offences are not serious and as there are no complainants and no victims there is no need to protect the public from the Defendant as the Defendant has harmed no-one. 6.5.The Prosecution of these minor offences may require details to be made public that could harm intelligence sources and operations and be detrimental to National Security and may affect Britain's International standing. 6.6.The prosecution which has already taken two years of the Defendants life has and is likely to have adverse effect on the Defendants physical and mental health and at her age is more damaging than it would be to a younger person. The Defendant can never recover from the financial losses and mental anguish which the Prosecution have caused the Defendant. Prosecutions have a significant negative impact on older people and this prosecution has been oppressive, unfair and delayed. 6.7.This Prosecution is clearly not in the public interest to pursue and the Defendant repeats the whole of this document.
6.8.The Defendant refers to the Governments own Website
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/abuse_of_process/ which gives legal guidance concerning abuse of process for the Crown Prosecution Service which I downloaded and attach relevant parts herewith states. (AD6 page 35-39)
This states on the front page that "the courts have an overriding duty to promote justice and prevent injustice"
Under Unconscionable behaviour by the executive
"This category of the doctrine of abuse is more exceptional than those described above. It arises from the duty of the High Court (first articulated in the case of Bennett v Horse ferry Magistrates' Court) to oversee executive action so as to prevent the State taking advantage of acts that threaten either basic human rights or the rule of law (including international law).
Applications for a stay based on this ground cannot be determined in any tribunal below the High Court because they involve the judiciary exercising a supervisory function over the actions of the executive (Bennett v Horseferry Road Magistrates' Court, per Lord Griffiths at 152 H-J). Where the defence wishes to make such an application at the beginning or as a preliminary to trial, the proper procedure is for the instant proceedings to be adjourned and for the defence to commence proceedings in the High Court for a declaration that continuing the prosecution would amount to an abuse of the process."
6.9.The Defendant submits that her Abuse of Process Application should be properly transferred to the High Court in London.
The Facts relied on above believed to be true
Signed:
Andrea Davison
[/FONT]
![[Image: gordon-on-patrol.jpg?w=446&h=164]](http://eyreinternational.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/gordon-on-patrol.jpg?w=446&h=164)
![[Image: tara-photo.jpg?w=224&h=252]](http://eyreinternational.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/tara-photo.jpg?w=224&h=252)
Spy, or ex-Spy? Agent Andrea Davison pictured on camping trip.