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

Today Britain has more corrupt judges than ever before - here's one of them!

Lets find out

WHO he is

Mr Justice Beatson

Court of Appeal

In a nutshell. This JUSTICE OF THE LAW has made it clear. A defendant can have all his defence evidence withheld, including any alibi, provided he is not questioned on his evidence and alibi.


Mr Justice Beatson

Beatson stated:

(1) “The time had long expired for service of a defence statement before your trial team was instructed. In any event you suffered no prejudice from the failure to serve a statement because you were not cross-examined on this matter, nor was it the subject of an adverse comment in the judge's summing-up;”

Therefore a defendant at trial can have all his evidence withheld provided he is not questioned on it!

Yet in Regina and Newell [2012] EWCA Crim 650.

The Court of Appeal stated:

The judge is required to exercise a managerial role with a view to progressing the case at this Hearing.

  • 34. “A typed defence statement must be provided before the PCMH. If there is no defence statement by the time of the PCMH, then a judge will usually require the trial advocate to see that such a statement is provided and not proceed with the PCMH until that is done. In the ordinary case the trial advocate will be required to do that at the court and the PCMH resumed later in the day to avoid delay and further cost to be borne by the public purse. Given that position, the trial advocate at the PCMH should see it as part of the trial advocate's duty to help the court with the management of the case by setting out information on the PCMH Form without the risk of the information being provided being used as a statement admissible in evidence against the defendant, provided the advocate complies with the letter and the spirit of the Criminal Procedure Rules.”
corruption def

23 minute video be amazed.

The fucked-up people who run the English justice system.

Judge Wiggs said I lied to the court. Lets find out!

  • 10th May 2009 I was arrested without warrant, by DC Darkin (Dorset Police) at my home in Norfolk. And charged with alleged ‘Historical sexual abuse’ against two ex-stepdaughters.
  • 11th May 2009 Questioned by DC’s Darkin and Adams. I was represented by Ms Tracey Watson (duty solicitor) of Jacobs & Reeves Bournemouth. I was refused the presence of an ‘appropriate adult’ due to his mental health issues (depression and anxiety). In receipt of ‘Disability Living Allowance’ since 2000. The result of his divorce.
  • However, I  was able to point out the discrepancies between divorce affidavits made by the ex-stepdaughters and the selected questions taken from ‘Police Video Interviews’ made in October 2008.

CLICK here to see My Divorce Video

Contagious corruption1[1]

Those named below are just a few of those who occupy the DEEP DARK ALCOVES of the British justice system

My trial took place in November 10 2009. Those listed below acted against me. Witholding exculpatory evidence and failing to follow Criminal Procedure Rules.


Kate Brown CPS Wessex

judge Jarvis

Judge Jarvis

Kate Brown admits there was evidence available proving my innocence.

Refused to ask defence lawyers for a defence statement.


Withheld defence evidence and failed to do his sworn duty.

Senior Judge Wiggs

tracey watson

Tracey Watson 1st Solicitor

booty with drink

Paul Booty 2nd Solicitor


Christopher Wing Barrister

Ms Watson (solicitor) refuses all and any contact with me and a friend acting on my behalf. Therefore, a ‘Court Agent’ appointed (recorded with the Legal Complaints Service)to represent me.

She refused:

  • to have any contact with the me (answer his letters/take his phone calls)
  • Make a defence statement
  • Call witnesses
  • Make an application for ‘abuse of process’
  • Obtain (confirming) exculpatory evidence from 56 Bracknell Road Camberley (former residence)
  • Use case law provided by the defendant, due to lawyer’s refusal to do the same.

Bent solicitor and barrister

Defence Lawyers refused to

  • make a ‘Defence statement’ (sets out the defendants case against the prosecution)
  • complete the Plea and Case Management Form (i.e. what witnesses the defendant had requested)
  • use previous inconsistent statements (Affidavits) made by the complainants
  • have any contact with the defendant (documented) and a friend on his behalf (documented). Therefore Court Agent appointed to represent defendant
  • hand over the full police statements of the complainants, which contain evidence of admitted perjury in Affidavits made in 1999. Also different accounts too same allegations used in divorce proceedings.
  • hand over 2 (unused) witness statements both highly relevant to the defendants case
  • Make s9 Statements (Criminal Justice Act 1967) In any criminal proceedings (other than committal proceedings) section 9 provides that a written statement is admissible in evidence to the same extent as oral evidence.
  • Plea and Case Management Hearing (PCMH)
  • No defence statement
  • No PCMH Form
  • No request for witnesses
  • No request for further exculpatory [available] evidence be obtained requested by the defendant
  • No indication of any applications (i.e. abuse of process)
  • No case law cited (i.e. HUSAYN (ABU ZUBAYDAH) v. POLAND (Application no. 7511/13))
  • No skeleton argument  in accordance with the Consolidated Criminal Practice Direction
  • No comment by Judge Jarvis on why the Criminal Practice Rules had not been adhered too.