Black Cap Murder of English Justice

James Colton - Justice Online

English Justice is Injustice

Nemo tenetur prodere seipsum

(‘no one is obliged to accuse himself)

youyube icon

Youtube Channel



Black-Cap Murder of English Justice

Notice to the Police

Reported Crimes

Published material on My Appalling Kafkaesque Trial (click) are true and evidenced. Crimes reported range from:

  • Crimes: of “Fraud and Blackmail (Theft Act 1968 Section 21 s.47 ) and Threats to Kill” (Section 47 Section 16) Click to see
  • Conspiracy to pervert the course of justice (Criminal Law Act 1967, ss 4). Click to see
  • Perjury (Perjury Act 1911 Section 1).Click to see
  • Crimes Against the Administration of Justice. Click to see
  • Misconduct in Public Office (also known as malfeasance in public office) Click to see


Are an examples of crimes committed. There are more!

The police do not investigate crimes committed by public bodies and criminal activities by the judiciary the Crown Prosecution Service and lawyers who are Officers of the Courts. Instead the police usual trick is to bring a charge for harassment for publishing criminal activity. Under the Harassment Act 1997 (Click to see) there is a defence:

.Section 4 of the Act states:the course of conduct was pursued for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime.” See Hayes (FC) (Respondent) v Willoughby (Appellant) [2013] UKSC 17

In regards publishing the facts of crimes (and in graphic language) as stated above see James Rhodes (Appellant) v OPO 2015] UKSC 32 Click to open

The Deep State protect all aspects of unlawful activity by public bodies

The rule of law is the legal principle that law should govern a nation, as opposed to being governed by decisions of individual  government officials. It primarily refers to the influence and authority of law within society, particularly as a constraint upon behaviour,  including behaviour of government officials.[2] The phrase can be traced back to 16th century Britain, and in the following century the Scottish theologian Samuel Rutherford used the phrase in his argument against the divine right of kings.[3]John Locke wrote that freedom in society means being subject only to laws made by a legislature that apply to everyone, with a person being otherwise free  from both governmental and private restrictions upon liberty.

The rule  of law was further popularized in the 19th century by British jurist A. V. Dicey. The concept, if not the phrase, was familiar to ancient philosophers such as Aristotle, who wrote "Law should govern".[4]

Rule of law implies that every person is subject to the law,  including people who are lawmakers, law enforcement officials, and  judges.[5] In this sense, it stands in contrast to an autocracy, dictatorship, or oligarchy where the rulers are held above the law. Lack of the rule of law can be found in both democracies and dictatorships, for example because of neglect or ignorance of the law, and the rule of law is more apt to decay if a government has insufficient corrective mechanisms for restoring it. Government based upon the rule of law is called nomocracy.

Director of Public Prosecutions

My Appalling English Kafkaesque Trial

Book-Rights Available

Click to see

The deep state

Man Hater Alison Saunders


Alison Saunders, the director of public prosecutions, said an alleged rapist's previous behaviour in relationships could be put before jurors at trial in a bid to get more convictions

A woman can bring a charge of rape or sexual assault without ANY EVIDENCE. While the MAN has to prove his innocence.

Around 23,000 rape allegations are made to the police in Britain each year but fewer than 3,000 end in conviction. Because the accused man is proved innocent. Saunders will have none of it. She wants all (innocent) men imprisoned.

Click to see Mail Online article.

See 16+ people exposed as corrupt. Lying scum


See also: Negligence and Professional negligence

A decomposed snail in Scotland was the humble beginning of the modern law of negligence

Liability for negligence arises when one person breaches a duty of care owed to another. The main elements of negligence are:

  1. A duty of care (see Donoghue v Stevenson)
  2. Breach of that duty (see Nettleship v Weston)
  3. Breach causing harm in fact (see Smith v Leech Brain & Co.)
  4. The harm must be not too remote a consequence of the breach (see The Wagon Mound (No. 2))

In some situations, defences will be available to negligence. Special rules, and considerable bodies of case law have developed around four further particular fields in negligence: for psychiatric injury,  economic loss, for public bodies, and when concerning omissions and third parties.

This video exposes those judges in English Justice System as corrupt to the core. Sickening!

Jury 2

Been accused of an historical sex offence ?

Procedure Goes Like This:

Your arrested on a sexual offence charge which you dispute. It was either consensual or never happened or is historical.

You are interviewed by the police. All the police have is an allegation (a claim or assertion that someone has done something illegal or wrong, typically one made without proof). The police are instructed to believe the complainant, therefore everything you say is a lie. What they want from you is confirmation that you committed the offence. You have nothing to hide, and start talking. Talking your way into prison.

The police place before you some vague times when they claim the offence occurred. You state the offence couldn’t happened for various reasons. You say for example you were out the country at that time. The police and Crown Prosecution Service will re-interview the complainant and the dates will be change.


Feminist, man hating Theresa May the Prime Minister of the UK. Wants more innocent men imprisoned.


UK judges give false warning to juries on ‘Fight or Flight response’

How to dispute these claims.

The Deep State

You and Sex Offences

Been accused of a sex offence you are on very dangerous ground indeed if a sex-assault allegation is made against you these days - because no hard evidence is needed to convict you. And so, in practice, the police only have to stir up some kind of hostility towards you to get the ball rolling. And, in many cases, the uncorroborated testimony of only one woman will do!

Indeed, if the police were to interview 100 women about you and 99 of them said that you were an angel while just one of them gave them some phony evidence to suggest that you might be a potential sex-assaulter, then I can assure you that only this one woman would end up in the courtroom while the jury would never even hear about the existence of the other 99.

Remember: The police will never have to prove any lies that they used in order to stir up witnesses against you, and the law entitles them to engage in just about any deception that they care to use in order to convict you - apart from actually planting evidence.

Taken from the late Angry Harry web site click to see full article



saltrese letter heading

Organisations supporting Saltrese




Smiling Criminals

Home | About | Probation | Dorset Police | Downloads | Disclaimer | CPS | Big Lie | Theresa May | My Case |