click here to read more

Says Naomi Smith

Says Naomi SmithIt is all too possible to round a corner on horseback and come upon a group of cattle with no prior warning -this WILL result in a horse being badly spooked at best, bolting at worst -it is only a matter of time ........... read more

Legal right of access

Tony Barnett writes to Ms Alison Saunders, Director of Public Prosecutions.

"- During my actions to remove the gates I was attacked by one of the persons that had erected the gates, since then I have been on walking aids.

- I have requested my rights under article 6 of the European Convention on Human rights and each time have been denied, on being arrested I have asked for documentary evidence to show that my arrest is lawful

- The compensation for damage to the vehicles was made, I often wonder why I was not compensated for the damage caused to me. "

Says Tony Barnett

Says Tony Barnett Having read in the newspapers concerning Mr. Jenner and his past activities, I wish to write to you as the director of DPP on a different matter altogether but it is regarding prosecutions and convictions which the CPS fully supported, which I do not understand how the matters have been allowed to stand.

I have always enjoyed the countryside, and country pursuits, in my day there were plenty of access lands common lands included although not for shooting etc., being a commoner rights was hard to understand, if you don't own the land, how can you tell me what to do, like put your dogs on a lead and don't ride that bike as well.

I think the 1965 CRA enlightened me and gave me a better understanding of conservation and the legislation concerning common lands, further studies also informed me that unless the land is freehold it cannot be conveyed, there is no one to make grants of easements or deeds of grant, so although the land was identified as land where no owners could be traced, the public still had unimpeded access from all points of view and the council, under the section 9 of the 1965 act had no jurisdiction, but had power to take action against unlawful occupation as an owner in possession could.

Ownership of common lands that were part of the demesne lands of an estate, were registered for the 1925 law of property act and again in 1936, so, the land that was waste land, not subject being demesne land was registered from lands capable of rights of common to being registered common land, the common land I wish to draw to your attention is CL21, subject to section 9 status in 1965, but section 45 under the 2006 commons act.

For the lands registration acts, 1925 and 1936, common land in Shropshire was not made part of the acts due to them being waste lands of villages, and were made registerable under the section 9 of the 1965 act, the Clerk to the council by order/requirement of the University of Aberystwyth, the commissioners agents, prepared and amended the register of the common lands for registration under the 1965 act and presented the information in 1968.

The registration regarding the rights section and the 1965 registration is held by the council, the history of the MOD requisition is also recorded, and for WW1 1914-18 the common land CL21 was requisitioned for trench warfare and was identified as Prees Camp, Whitchurch Heath.

For WW 11 it was first registered as Whitchurch air field and then later as Tilstock aerodrome Whitchurch Heath and de-requisitioned in 1968 and all rights returned.

However, this common land has an also known as (AKA) Prees Heath, using the aka is part of my reasons in contacting you, which, I hope you will read.

I hope to have created a skeleton presentation of Whitchurch Heath common CL21 as common land not subject to ownership/freehold estate, this then will help you to understand the criminal activities I wish to bring to your attention.

My first arrest was in 2001, police were called to the common by persons that had erected gates across the only access point albeit an access used as of custom,( the ancient right had been blocked off to prevent new age travellers camping there) during my actions to remove the gates I was attacked by one of the persons that had erected the gates, since then I have been on walking aids.

The police refused to question a lady that had observed the entire proceedings and so I was taken to Shrewsbury police station and charged with criminal damage, I was put before the local Magistrates, I chose the Crown court even though the matters were civil, my choice was the right one because the Judge scratched out the prosecutions claim, the matters were judged as civil.

My witness did make a statement, but was persuaded not to sign it by the police and my legal counsel, up to 2005 I appeared before Telford and Shrewsbury County and district courts by the person that had erected the enclosure, the council and Prees Heath Ltd who claimed ownership, each time the applications were scratched, they were for committal, efforts at making me bankrupt and various methods of injunctions, none succeeded.

I did make an application for full disclosure and although accepted the court also accepted an application by the solicitors for the defence that I should sign clause 22 of the disclosure act before taking possession, I refused, although Judge Mitchel (now deceased) never supported any attempt to have me convicted, he also ran with fox and hounds

In 2002 I started my examination to claims that the land was Prees Heath and that the former owner was a Lord, and that he had conveyed to another in 1920 and that in 1899 a covenant had been made, was in fact not true, no such actions had been made, this became more clearer after gaining opinion and by examination of records at the archives in the county, in Lincoln and in Cheshire archives of the Duke of Westminster (I have statements from all persons connected) on July 15 2002 I applied to have registered our organisation Common Heritage 2001 as owners of Prees Heath, this was accepted and a signed record on the Owners Register was made, but we only own the aka and not any land, we have no jurisdiction, it was hoped that no more fraudulent claims to Whitchurch Heath Common CL21 could be made, but Prees Heath is the vehicle used in which to steal CL21.

I was again before Telford County court in 2003 where another application was made to prevent me from removing works from the common, from that is a full transcript, the court refused the application.

In February of 2003, I had been successful in forcing the secretary of states to become involved, the result was to favour Common Heritage 2001 and other objectors.

Since the 2005-6 commons act civil action has become criminal and longer goes before a county/district court, first quest why is this allowed? The common lands are not freehold, the works were applied for by false representation to the planning inspectorate, this the government body is aware of, or might not be a truthful application and so a "Supplementary" is included with the consent, this shows that the application is unsafe.

However, PINS, once its decision has been given, one must apply the county court to have the decision overturned, the applicant fails every time, again one must ask why?

Since the 2006 commons act I have been arrested numerous times, each time I have been put before a criminal court, the judge always states that he has no jurisdiction because the matters are civil and he is criminal yet the hearing continues, again one asks why this is allowed to stand.

Each time I have been before the courts I have requested my rights under article 6 of the European Convention on Human rights and each time have been denied, on being arrested I have asked for documentary evidence to show that my arrest is lawful, as article 7 provides there is no punishment without law, again denied, again why is this allowed.

The land registry in my county is creating land registry documents with any disclosure, all are in the name of Prees Heath, we own the aka, the solicitors for G.J.F.Berkeley created a fraudulent epitome of titles and presented it to the land registry to gain registration, this was in 2003, 12 months after common heritage 2001 were registered as owners of the aka, how can this happen, in 2003 judge Mitchell judged that it was unsatisfactory in law also the deed of grant drawn up by the same firm of solicitors, allegedly for £875 for grant of easement over the common.

I had spoken to the head conveyance solicitor whose firm was dealing with matters relating to this common land, I explained to him that the common land was being used as collateral to gain loans, the reply was that the action of his colleague and client was mortgage fraud, I relayed that statement to the court on the forthcoming Friday, I was there after the leasing agents for Prees Heath was applying for damages to the common by reinstating the ancient rights of way as a private and public lawful access, Judge Mitchell scratched out the claim and on my statement regarding the mortgage fraud was directed to approach the Attorney General's office with the information , HH Judge Mitchell also corresponded.

Unfortunately, the minister's office would not become involved unless the local fraud squad did so too, however, the CID would not, they also refused to take action on behalf of the members of the public that that had been prosecuted and convicted for none pay and display on the common land stolen to develop a vehicle park, so never has there been support against fraud.

I have been arrested because of support for the none pay and display by assuring members of the public that the council do not have title and that there is no insurance/public liability on the facility, well there isn't, neither is there any on the road works, this came about when two large vehicles overturned on the unlawfully developed round-a-bout, the newspapers and police would give no information, but the compensation for damage to the vehicles was made, I often wonder why I was not compensated for the damage caused to me.

In 2006, an alleged conveyance of the "Western side" of CL21 was to be effected, and allegedly was, as there are no pre-registration of titles to either CL21 and that Prees Heath the aka was registered to Common Heritage 2001, how could there be a purchase, who turned out to be Butterfly Conservation, the person dealing with the alleged purchase was a member, his reward was to become the ranger if the application was a success, Lewis made an approach to Natural England for funding, this was refused, but they helped with an application for funding from Landfill, and gained £571,000, claiming the application met with procedure, being within a 10 mile radius of a landfill site and that the applicant owned the land.

Both statements were false, a complaint to "Entrust" fell on Stoney ground, Natural England who also had no locus stan-di were giving consent from every direction, the work started by digging trenches around the entire common, cutting off lawful access, then the land was ploughed to a depth of 18 inches totally extinguishing flora and fauna and commoners grazing rights.

I made contact with the police alleging criminal damage, there was a visit to the site and on my behalf made a request for evidence of title, the only paper that could be shown was a lease agreement, I asked the police officer to put in writing a statement which he refused and said that if I was to make an application for him to attend the court, he would be prepared to commit perjury.

I was in court again but as the litigant, this was to have the works on CL21 stopped and reinstated also to have full disclosure, Lewis was ordered to disclose but on the Monday, solicitors acting for Lewis emailed to say his clients (he included Butterfly Conservation) had no title deeds, Butterfly conservation's Martin Warren also stated that there are no title deeds.

Out of the £571,000, Prees Heath solicitor and Lewis and butterfly Conservation and Natural England stated that £ 42,000 had been paid over for the part of CL21, by using the aka as the vehicle in which to falsely claim ownership, without a conveyance document, copy of the a certified receipt for the money and without a copy of pre-registration of title deeds , these were required by the district judge, but as I have noted earlier a statement was made that none were available, I should have had judgement, but courtroom fraud took over as was the norm with district judge Brown, he also denied me article 6 and even if I did apply for the matters to be put before judge Mitchell, he would refuse to.

Metal gates had been installed by Lewis using the money gained from landfill; also an application to PINS for consent to carryout works on the common but the works had already been completed, which in any case would have been unlawful subject to the repeal of the 1285 enclosure act, but also the applications made so far were subject the 2006 fraud act, false representation, failure to disclose.

Consent was given even though PINS were in possession of documentation to show the status of the registration of the common land Whitchurch Heath CL21, and statements to show that there were no title deeds, the consent contained the customary supplementary, "providing the works are not in breach of any enactment or bye-law they will be lawful, there are no bye-laws as the common is rural, two of the many enactments where already breached before any application could have been read, "failure to disclose and false representation" so why was the supplementary required if not a get out by PINS.

Pins have no more contact once they have reached their decision, so an application under section 41 was the only way, but that was refused by Judge Brown, still ringing in my ear was the words of judge Mitchell when I was before him because of removing unlawful works before from this common land "Mr. Barnett is entitled to remove obstructions from rights of way as is any other member of the public, so I hire a JCB and removed the metal gates from the common by digging them up, it was a JCB that helped to put them there in the first place, and that was unlawfully undertaken, my rights in removing them was lawful according to article 7 (no punishment without law, there was/is no law protecting any of the works on CL21).

I was arrested and taken to Shrewsbury police station, I was always treated well in fact I have more fans there than Manchester united has altogether.

I would not make a statement or sign bail conditions, some explanation for my actions was made, but not as a statement to be used against me, so there was no signature from me, later I was arrested and charged with criminal damage section 1, and given a date to appear at the magistrates, don't you mean the county I asked, no this is criminal damage and you will appear under a criminal court.

My date for the hearing came and I was before judge Morgan, as this judge was out on his ear and disqualified from the bench, I applied to have the matters be set before a circuit civil judge, this was refused, I did complain that I was in the wrong court and before a judge that had been removed, "I am not aware of that he said" then stated that the matters before him were outside his jurisdiction, he being criminal and the matters being civil.

I applied under article 6 to have full disclosure and witnesses, this was refused, eventually the day of my trial came and I was found guilty and asked when would I pay the costs which I replied never, you may be asking why I don't have solicitors to defend me, that is because I am aware of the arrangements between council and courts "court niceties" is the reason, even with Barristers, I will lose on my own initiatives, I know I am right on this subject, so I prefer a moral victory to nothing.

Gerald Gadsden wrote that where the council are the offenders and in many ways they are, then what the public can follow is a relator action in the high court, I was not and am not an offender, just an objector.

I applied to the Crown Court Shrewsbury to have this matter/this judge's judgement to be overturned, and for article 6 to be allowed, I was refused and was also ordered not to enter prees heath common, my organisation of which I am chairman have been registered as owners, but then again I replied I am visiting Whitchurch Heath Common CL21, if it looks like land on this plan you are forbidden.

Without evidence to show that the claims and works were not subject to law, then I would not comply, this I made abundantly clear, so why was I not sent down there and then?

I did go onto the common and was arrested and remanded for Crown, I stated that I had lawful excuse to go on there and after a conservation with the prosecuting barrister, he offered no evidence to send me to prison and the court discontinued, as the matters were not tracked, I am unable to obtain a transcript.

However, the cost awarded by discharged judger Morgan meant that I was ordered to court to give reasons why I had not paid the amount ordered, my reasons remained to same, I was not guilty of any criminal act and that the judge making the order had no jurisdiction.

In the meantime I approached the local court under section 41 of the 2006 commons act, this is just an application to a court for the judge to make an order for the works to be removed and reinstatement of the land, there is no offender or claimant, objectors are entitled to write to the court to object, if not then unless the court allows they will not be invited to speak.

As would be procedure, I sent a copy of my intent to Telford county court, knowing that they would need to follow my instructions to forward my application to the chancery division in London, this was because the council were the offenders, however, judge Brown, on his own initiative included on a court order form as me being the claimant and those who would be objectors as defendants and forwarded the papers to Birmingham to a district judge who had "chancery experience".

I demanded my papers to be returned along with the check, this was refused and a date settled for a hearing to include "defendants", I protested that I had nothing to do with prees heath, my application was for works to be removed from Whitchurch Heath Common CL21, it was suggested that I turn up to the hearing as it was for directions only.

I did turn, Judge Ridge disallowed the directions, refused my application under article 6 and began making up the list of costs, he read out article 6 saying that it was not for civil matters and although he also read out section 41 chose to ignore it.

I had previous to attending court in Birmingham sent in my application by suggestion and paid the £480 to have the matters heard there, the Master Price sent my application to Birmingham again ignoring my request not, so much for justice, the application was not heard there, so I would assume that the check for £480 should be sent back, but it will not.

The following week, 3 bailiffs from Winston Green and 2 local police came to arrest and take me to prison for 45 days, this was very distressing to my wife and friends, I do suffer panic attacks in enclosed conditions, I was not going to pay any money, I did not refuse to go to prison, but as the local police understand my illness I have always rode in the front of the vehicle, I am after all disabled, if they had allowed me to be in the front I would still be in prison a victim of unlawful arrest and false imprisonment.

The other reason why I had decided to go with the bailiff's was that if my dogs tried to defend me they would be shot, as I happened I did not go to prison, my wife and friends gathered the amount I was alleged to owe I would not ever pay fraudulent demands, this council and those that brought this endemic fraud to Shropshire have questions to answer, I hope you are able to bring relief not just here but to thousands that are and have been threatened that what has happened to me is just as likely to happen to them.

Your colleagues in CPS Shropshire supported the claims against me yet could not disclose evidence to show, my mitigation was never examined either

Regards ........

Says Linda Wright

Says Linda WrightWe moved to a Shropshire location a year ago having surveyed the local OS map and noted the significant number of bridleways around the property. Sadly the map appears a total fiction. Scarce any of the bridleways are usable ........... read more

Read more here