James Colton FIGHTING BACK against judicial corruption

Never in the field of British justice has so many been let down by so few!

HOMEThe Police Arrest -   The Defence Statement PTPH FORM -   Lawyers  -  Divorce UK Style -  Info on VideoMy Kafka Trial  -

British Judges BEWARE!Criminal Case Review Commission  - Chris Saltrese corrupt solicitor - Documents

Email: jamescolton1943@gmail.com

Lots of evidence Saltrese supported by 199 page bundle of evidence establishing Saltrese as totally corrupt.

How to expose a

bent solicitor

Chris Saltrese letter

Download Saltrese Preliminary (8 page) Report (PDF format) Click

Saltrese is embroiled up to his neck in the following:

Chris Saltrese 2

Part of Saltrese Preliminary Report on my case



The above (bottom paragraph) clearly establishes BLACKMAIL. Under the Statutory offence of blackmail

The offence of blackmail is a statutory offence under section 21(1) of the Theft Act 1968.

What are the elements of the offence?

The offence has the following four elements:

  • A demand.Made with menaces.
  • The menaces are unwarranted.
  • The menaces are made with a view to gain for himself or another or with intent to cause loss to another.

However Saltrese goes on and states:

Page 6 Saltrese report.

blackmail not proven


Saltrese had my case files, including the transcripts of the complainants police interviews (TRACEY GORE and her sister FLEUR THOMPSON) along with affidavits they made at my divorce.

In Tracey Gores Police Statement she stated:

Gore blackmail
Gore blackmail 2

The admittance of blackmail seals Saltrese as one of the most corrupt solicitors in the UK.

The term demand is not defined by the Theft Act 1968. A demand can be made implicitly as well as expressly and may appear as a simple request. What is important is that it is clear that the  requester is making such a demand even if they try to disguise it as something different. This will usually be a question for the jury to  resolve unless the judge is of the view that the words used could not  constitute a demand under any circumstances. Following the decision of  the House of Lords in Treacy v DPP [1971] AC 537, there is no need for the demand to be received by the intended recipient for the offence to be committed. There is now deemed to be  communication of a demand within the jurisdiction if it is sent from  England and Wales to a place elsewhere, or sent from elsewhere to a  place in England and Wales (section 4(b), Criminal Justice Act 1993).

In R v Pogmore [2017] EWCA Crim 925, the Court of Appeal confirmed that blackmail could be tried in England and  Wales where the demand with menaces emanated within the jurisdiction or outside the jurisdiction but was directed within. For more information  see Legal update, Courts of England and Wales have jurisdiction to try blackmail demands emanating from abroad (Court of Appeal).

(R v Clear [1968] 1 QB 670.) Where the victim is particularly timid or susceptible to the particular  threat and the person issuing the threat does so with this knowledge or  with intent to act on that particular timidity or susceptibility, they  will be found to have acted with menaces. Conversely, where an  apparently serious threat fails to intimidate the victim, this does not  excuse the demander from liability if the ordinary person of normal  stability and courage might have been influenced or made apprehensive so as to accede to the demand.

See also

  • R v Ferguson [2017] EWCA Crim 356
  • R v Asare [2008] EWCA Crim 2516
  • R v Ford [2015] EWCA Crim 561
  • R v Ablewhite [2007] EWCA Crim 832
  • R v Fu [2017] EWCA Crim 248
  • R v Cunningham [2015] EWCA Crim 1884
  • R v Killgallon [1998] 1 Cr App R (S) 279
  • R v Agatha [2017] EWCA Crim 2434

Archbold, Criminal Pleading Evidence and Practice (Sweet & Maxwell, 65th ed,  2017): Chapter 21: Offences Under the Theft and Fraud Acts, 21-211 and Murphy, Blackstone's Criminal Practice (Oxford University Press, 27th ed, 2016): Chapter B5: Fraud and Blackmail (Westlaw).

Remember Saltrese stated:

blackmail not proven

All this and other exculpatory evidence was withheld at my trial by Judge Wiggs and my legal team.

Because this exposure is large I will be putting everything on video.

However I will state that the plan made by my ex-wife prior to the blackmail, was that she and her new lover and two daughters, would to kill me (admitted) for the purpose on obtaining my 2 Businesses.