I congratulate you on your recent, appointment, as interim chairwoman of the CCRC.
I am not sure what your directive is, but my own personal experience of dealing with the CCRC, over many years, may afford you some opportunity of understanding, why I believe the CCRC has failed many, in its very purpose of existence. As you and the general public are fully aware, through high profile media coverage, the CCRC continue to endure public criticisms, when cases are successful at the court of appeal, despite previously being turned down by the CCRC as ‘without merit,’ usually years earlier.
In my experience, there are specific, common problems, which significantly cause, the failure of CCRC cases, to expedite and correctly be reviewed, with diligence. Where the appellant is convinced the CCRC decision is wrong, especially if they have researched the law themselves, this will inevitably cause, them to re apply to the CCRC. Clogging up the system of reviews even further.
All the CCRC then do, is to put an order in place, which states you will not look at any further applications, unless submitted by a solicitor. They would of course be expected to have considered if there is any ‘merit’ in the application. But without a solicitor, the appellant may still be determined that years later they are still pursuing their right of appeal in one way or another.
Three specific problems associated with CCRC case reviews.
1. Targets and Time limits set on determining and completing cases.
2. Insufficient legally qualified professionals, who can accurately and without pressure, consider cases diligently.
3. An inability of appellants to afford, or obtain legal advice (legal aid) before applying to the CCRC for a case review. This basic inability of a convicted person, to obtain legal opinion on any case of ‘merit’ is frustrating for the applicant.
The Court of Appeal has previously ruled, that any material, which can assist the defence case, and which lessens the prosecution case, must be disclosed. In my case, the CCRC decided that the Court of Appeal ruling didn’t apply. That decision by the CCRC is extraordinary. To me that application (not this current re application) was obviously never considered properly.
I understand Criminal defence law states, very clearly, where not guilty pleas are anticipated or have been entered in a court of Law, secondary disclosure must be made by the prosecution.
I hope you may find some of this helpful.
The Law is clear, secondary disclosure of material.
So Karen Kneller, who has been the CEO of the CCRC for the past twelve years, has also resigned. In January this year Helen Pitcher also resigned from her senior role in the CCRC.
Three days ago, my Member of Parliament, after chasing Karen Kneller THREE times, finally had a response from her, concerning my case. A case which the CCRC are suppose to be reconsidering, under what they have stated ‘a substantive review.’
The CCRC keep repeating they have todate, looked at my case five time. For them to have stated, I have no grounds to seek referral of my conviction to the court of appeal, on the basis that the vale of glamorgan council, failed to disclose to my solicitor, secondary material, demonstrated the decision of the CCRC, was not in line with a previous ruling made by the Court of Appeal. It would appear therefore their decision making is not inline with that of the Judiciary.
February 2025. I am very pleased to confirm, this case, which was illegally prosecuted and totally without merit, is currently under legal review.
Some individuals, with their own agenda, do not wish to consider the actual facts and background to the case, as reported at the time by mainstream media.
The case was commenced unlawfully against me, after I had made three formal complaints, against Amanda Ewington Gape a licensing officer who worked for the vale of glamorgan council.
Deceiving Magistrates before the vale of glamorgan Magistrate’s court, on the 2nd July 2008, she obtained a warrant to enter my home. If I am wrong let the vale of glamorgan council sue me. They will not sue me, because they know I can prove this to be expressly true. What then followed was unprecedented.
Facing erroneous summonses issued by the council, on the 23rd March 2009, I entered pleas of not guilty, to every summons issued against me. Subsequently in the course of recovering from a mental break down, (caused by the actions of this licensing officer) and on extremely poor legal advice from a solicitor, I was strongly advised, to amend some pleas, to guilty. I have made the more detailed facts about this case, available on this website, for some years.
The current review of this case, (happening as I post this update), will later in 2025, lead to a substantial claim, against those who sought to damage my impeccable reputation for animal welfare. Those on social media, who continue to act in ignorance of the true facts, may also find themselves facing, the same legal action for damages.
In the United Kingdom, an individual or company, can only commercially trade in animals, if they are inspected, and pass the toughest of laws, and regulations concerning animal welfare. I have always passed all such regulations for the past forty three years,
Please add this website to your favourites, so you can follow the actual facts and update, in this unique case, as this legal review progresses.
A collective gathering outside the head offices of the CCRC
It was announced on Tuesday 14th January 2025, that Helen Pitcher has resigned. I feel this well over due decision, is the way forward for all victims who continue to be the subject of a ‘miscarriage of justice.’
Collectively we have to continue to apply pressure, to ensure some of the people employed at the CCRC Head Office either resign or are removed. This all started when I stood with a number of victims, or their representatives, and drew attention to the current ‘unfit for purpose state’ of the CCRC, outside their Birmingham Head Office on 10th May 2024.
However improvements towards achieving the very purpose of existence of the CCRC, can only happen if other things are sorted at the CCRC. This includes sufficient funding from central Government, to ensure enough, ‘qualified legal personnel’ are taken on, to deal with a massive backlog of cases, which at the very least should be treated with professionalism, courtesy and consideration of all their case facts.
Helen Pitcher can now concentrate, full time on promoting her Montenegro property portfolio, instead of working part time for the CCRC, dishing out part time results for victims.
Valley Vets Mark Evans Guilty under Animal Welfare Act 2006?
Mark Evans (the vet employed by the vale of glamorgan council) attended my home, a with Animal Licensing officer Amanda Ewington Gape.
Before they arrived our tortoises were kept on suitable substrate (what they walk on) and given a very good environment. This is evident in these two photographs.
Section 9of the Animal Welfare Act 2006
Duty of person responsible for animal to ensure welfare
states:
A person commits an offence if he does not take such steps as are reasonable in all the circumstances to ensure that the needs of an animal for which he is responsible are met to the extent required by good practice.
For the purpose of this Act, an animal’s needs shall be taken to include-
its needs for a suitable environment
Its need for a suitable diet
It’s need to be able to exhibit normal behavioural patterns
Any need it has to be housed with, or apart from, other animals, and
It’s need to be protected from pain, suffering, injury and disease.
The photograph below, shows the appalling way, in which Mark Evans treated these tortoises. He was supposed to be IMPROVING the environment not make them suffer. As you can see, not even a single sheet of newspaper or any form of substrate, did he provide them with, to avoid them slipping and becoming stressed on the bare plastic trays.
Mark Evans Valley vets Cardiff Guilty under Animal Welfare Act 2006?
There are other photographs, which confirm how Mark Evans also left these tortoises, without any shade, protection, or water, from the mid day July sunshine. I made him provide them with shade.
This whole episode, was even more cruel, because the Animal Licensing officer Amanda Ewington Gape, just stood there and allowed this to happen.
Two days after this dreadful situation took place, I instructed my solicitor to write to the vale of glamorgan council, and raise my deep concerns at the manner in which, these two council employees, conducted themselves. So called professionals. When you understand this was done by a vet, and a vet who says he specialises in reptiles, the whole situation must be considered appalling, cruel and a dereliction of his professional duty.
I also raised complaint with the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, about the lack of care shown by Mark Evans, for these tortoises. That complaint of course fell on deaf ears, as they primarily exist to protect their own members.
Isubsequently tried issuing a private prosecution against Mark Evans and Amanda Ewington Gape in Cardiff Magistrates Court. My application was refused, but not because of any lack of ‘Merit’ but simply the Magistrate ruled, I was ‘out of time.’
It would appear to me, Mark Evans and Animal Licensing officer Amanda Ewington Gape, were both, by evidence of the above single photograph, guilty under all sections of Section 9, of the Animal Welfare Act 2006.
It appears (if you believe everything you see in the news) Helen Pitcher the head of the Criminal Cases Review Commission, based in Birmingham, England, only works part time for the CCRC. I suppose therefore it is hardly surprising, we only get part time Justice in the United Kingdom.
It seems Helen Pitcher, spends a lot of time promoting her property empire in Montenegro.
Helen Pitcher of the CCRC property empire building in Montenegro.
On 4 July 2008 a warrant was executed at my home. Seven (all) of my Box files on the Lord Lucan case were removed by the vale of Glamorgan council, animal licensing officer (Amanda Ewington Gape). I had already made three formal complaints against her. She deceived Magistrates in to giving her a warrant to search my home. The warrants was issued, under the Animal Welfare Act 2006 section 52(5)(a).
Amanda had stated to Magistrate’s, she would find evidence of unnecessary suffering to animals at my home, specifically she stated ‘on a computer.’
The council spent thousands of pounds, having all my mobile phones, computers and children’s computer, forensically examined at great public expense, for this ‘alleged’ evidence. No evidence was ever found because there never was any to find.
Amanda then executed the warrant at my home. My solicitor correctly noted in his ‘Attendance notes of me, that no evidence of any animal suffering was found at my home, which justified the obtaining of a warrant.
Over a period of months, Amanda proceeded to build a fabricated case, against me, to save the council from a substantial claim for damages. It was Amanda who authorised all payments/invoices to their council employed Vet, Mark Evans, of valley vets, Gabalfa, Cardiff.
Realising the council were facing a substantial claim for damages, from me, the council had to rely on their own vet being prepared to state something, against me, in order for them to case build against me under the Animal Welfare Act. Foolishly he agreed.
By removing ‘my entire office contents,’ the licensing officer had achieved her aim, to simply disrupt my life as much as possible, without fear of consequence. My initial thought, when the warrant was executed, and the Lucan research material was removed, that perhaps security services were behind this. But that was not the case.
Removing ‘everything’ for ‘sifting later’ is an offence in itself under the Police And Criminal Evidence Act 1998. It was a further offence for journalistic material to have been removed. An offence known as ‘Ultra Vires’ was also committed by Amanda, as she was clearly investigating my company vat file. Ultra Vires is a legal term used, where the person executing a warrant, issued by a court, has exceeded the powers given to them by the court.
Legal letter from vale of Glamorgan council confirming they had seized all my Lord Lucan material.
The crucial point to understand is, the Lucan box files contained, hand written extracts, from a Diary Lucan’s friend living in Ebury street made, when Lucan visited him, late on the night of the murder. As a result of publicity and my involvement in this case over many years, in 2008 his son now a grown up man, contacted me. After an exchange of emails, he emailed me extracts of his late Fathers Diary entry written on Friday the 8th November 1974. The man subsequently agreed to meet me in Hereford. However, my home was then raided under warrant.This caused me to suffer a mental break down.
It did not help, that all my mobile phones, computers etc remained in the possession, and under the control of Amanda Ewington Gape for the next six months.
Perhaps the vale of glamorgan council, (Legal Department) should explain why they removed, such substantial unrelated material from my home. They are responsible for why the investigation of the Lucan case, did not advance back in 2008.
When the vale of glamorgan council, returned my property, numerous records, and documents, including the extracts of the Diary entry written by Lucan’s friend, and the DNA sample in my investigation of the Ben Needham case, sent to me by the RCMP (Royal Canadian Mounted Police) were missing. The story concerning the missing DNA, was covered in a story published by the Mail On Sunday 24 January 2016.
The mans son did not ask me for money. I concluded there was simply, a desire on his part, to finally let some truth, emerge in this case. After all he was not a friend of Lucan’s as his late father had been. There was no question of loyalty to consider.
Ridiculous claims have persisted for far too long, that Lucan lived as Jungle Barry Halpin as a Buddhist in Goa, India. I now understand, Neil Berriman (one of Sandra Rivetts Sons’) believes Lucan is living as a Buddhist in Brisbane, Australia. These are all simply ridiculous. Mad ideas of wishful thinking.
I recently read a newspaper report, that back in the mid eighties, Lucan was allegedly living with another disgraced Lord and his wife in the Philippines. Why do these ludicrous stories, suddenly get reported upon by mainstream media, after all these years? Conveniently coinciding with fifty years since Lucans disappearance.
After hundreds of alleged sightings, why has there NEVER been a single finger print or photograph of Lord Lucan taken after the 7th November 1974? Because he died, in the honourable way, in London, in the early hours of Friday 8th November 1974.
His death confirmed by Lady Lucan, and John Aspinall who stated Lucan committed suicide. Lucan’s Son George Bingham, now the eight Earl of Lucan, said in the Channel Four Documentary, The Hunt For Lord Lucan, that it was his ‘intuition’ that his Father never got out of London.
You can follow my investigation and conclusion of the Lord Lucan case on my YouTube Channel. Just search The Lord Lucan Case.
On the 10th May 2024 I was invited to attend a gathering outside the Birmingham Offices, of the CCRC, Criminal Cases Review Commission.
A number of us gathered which included supporters of wrongly convicted victims, such as Jeremy Bamber.
The general view is that the CCRC do not have the staff to properly review cases of conviction, and when they do the bar is set to high. Therefore people who have been convicted of an offence, are not receiving Justice.
Social media reporting and comments, can be extremely damaging to a business, and an individual, especially if all the facts, are not known to those making such comments.
In 2009 I faced a prosecution under the animal welfare act, brought not by the RSPCA but by the vale of glamorgan council. This action was strangely taken after I had made two formal complaints against a council licensing officer, Amanda Ewington Gape.
I entered not guilty pleas to all summonses. Unfortunately I was then repeatedly poorly advised by my solicitor, Michael Morgan of Vale Solicitors, Llantwit Major, to change some of my pleas to guilty, and plea bargain on the others. Recovering from a breakdown, I eventually, very reluctantly had no option, but to take his professional advice.
Contemporaneous notes taken by the council vet, who was present at my home for the whole five hours, in which the same licensing officer (whom I had made the complaints against) searched my home, were never disclosed to me. The prosecution (the council) had a duty in criminal law to disclose these notes, they never did. Michael Morgan also never asked for these notes. I was not aware of this non compliance until sometime after my case had been concluded in the Magistrates court. I was then shown an email from solicitors representing the council employed vet, in which it states:
‘Mr Crosby has made repeated requests to see these notes. These notes must not be disclosed to Mr Crosby under any circumstances.’
I knew full well, what had been recorded in the contemporaneous notes, during the five hour search of my home, was completely different to what the council vet Mark Evans, then wrote in his report against me five weeks later. Had the council not had this veterinary report then the council would never have been able to prosecute me. I had always cared for all animals, under my control, to the highest of standards over the previous twenty odd years.
The incomplete reporting of this case, and the fact I subsequently felt left with no option, but to change some pleas to guilty, have ever since impacted upon my everyday businesses and personal life.
I was unaware until receiving written Barrister advice on 12th January 2023, that J A Hughes Solicitors, of Barry in the vale of glamorgan, (who were employed to deal with my appeal) had taken my appeal to the wrong court.
The Barristers Advice is very clear, the case should have been taken back to the Magistrate’s court, where an application to vacate the guilty pleas, should have been made, and a date for a trial would have been set down. There has never been a trial in my case.The failure of J A Hughes (now trading as quality Solicitors) to act within the law, is irreparable, and I will have to live with this conviction for the rest of my life.
There is now in process, a substantial claim against J A Hughes. Their professional indemnity insurers, have employed lawyers RPC of Bristol, who have until 30th June 2023, to either admit my claim, deny the claim, or settle my claim without making any admission of guilt. Should it prove necessary for me to issue a claim at the Kings bench, at the High Court, RPC have been advised, that my claim will be for a considerably higher amount.
This is a case, where the continued resurfacing, on social media about this case, and the loss of business I continue to suffer, where those commenting, do not understand, or do not wish to understand the facts, can now greatly enhance my chances, of a successful out come to my substantial claim.
There will soon be a YouTube video on my Channel, about this case called The Truth of The Lie.
Involved in this case are:
Licensing Officer Amanda Ewington Gape (whom I had registered two formal complaints against, and who then illegally obtained a warrant to enter my home, and executed it).
Mark Evans Valley Vets Cardiff (the vale of glamorgan council vet). www.valleyvets.net
Michael Morgan of Vale Solicitors, Llantwit Major. (Mr Morgan was the solicitor who failed to request disclosure of ‘contemporaneous notes’ taken by both Amanda Ewington Gape, and Mark Evans). This resulted in Mr Morgan advising me on numerous occasions to change some of my pleas to guilty. www.valesolicitors.com
J A Hughes solicitors of Barry (now called Quality Solicitors). They were employed to represent me in my appeal against conviction. According to Barristers advice dated 12th January 2023, J A Hughes should have taken my case back to the Magistrates court, made application to vacate my pleas, and a trial date would then have been set. Most importantly the reason for referral back to the Magistrate’s court, in my case, was because clearly, my guilty pleas were ‘equivocal.’ www.qualitysolicitors.com
RPC Solicitors. Have been instructed by the Professional Indemnity Insurers acting for J A Hughes (Quality solicitors). www.rpc.co.uk
The following House of Lords ruling, likely to be pivotal, in having the case prosecuted against me in 2008 vacated.
“Fairness ordinarily requires that any material held by the prosecution which weakens its case or strengthens that of the defendant, if not relied on as part of its formal case against the defendant, should be disclosed to the defence. Bitter experience has shown that miscarriages of justice may occur where such material is withheld from disclosure. The golden rule is that full disclosure of such material should be made.” (R v H [2004] UKHL 3; [2004] 2 Cr. App. R. 10, House of Lords).
The Vale of Glamorgan Council with held veterinary ‘contemporaneous notes’ knowing full well they were in direct breach of the above House of Lords ruling on disclosure.
