Forum Topic

Regina v Paul Slattery

I decided to start a new thread to make it easier to follow and the case against Paul is now a separate, and larger issue. Comments are meant as a follow on from 'Wheelie-bins in Brentford'.I attended Uxbridge Magistrates' Court on Monday along with Anne England to hear the case against Paul Slattery. This was a prelimary hearing to see if there was a case to answer. On legal grounds there is though before the case is heard in July there will be further legal arguments put before the courts.The prosecution case consisted of Cllr. Curran's statement to the police - nothing else. Also in attendance was the police case officer and an official, who I understand, was from the London Borough of Hounslow. What a council officer was doing there when it is a prosecution by an individual (i.e. Cllr. Curran) I do not know.It is true that, as Anne said, Paul has been granted Legal Aid, but there will be other costs no doubt. Given that Paul is restricted, for perfectly sound legal reasons, in what he can do. I am happy to take any steps to assist Paul. If you have any information which may be of assistance to Paul's defence please contact me, outside of this forum, on bayleaf@waitrose.com. I will assist in ensuring that such assistance is directed to the correct quarter.

John Bradley ● 3390d46 Comments

And now the case has been rightfully dropped after so much waste of our (public) money, maybe we can ask for some real justice?

Nick Kilby ● 3322d

Fair enough. But just for the record I was there throughout the incident. I know what happened and if the police had asked I would have been happy to give my recollection of events - but they haven't.

John Bradley ● 3334d

Indeed Anne, that's why I won't personally pass judgement on the Leader until the court case has been heard, and IMHO nor should others.

Adam Beamish ● 3335d

You would surely need to have been with Paul or in close proximity to the event on the evening in question to have something to say about it. What may or may not have been on Paul's mobile or laptop leading up to the event is perhaps another matter. As far as I am aware, there is no 'after' bar the 'dumping' of some wheelies along a fence in St Paul's Park by a number of residents. The charge is: Harassment of a Person in their own Home. The trial is set to run for two days (5th July - full day, 6th July - half day) at Ealing Magistrates' Court, West Ealing.

Anne England ● 3335d

On the face of it I agree, but it never has made any sense to me.Last thing I'd do as a Leader of any organisation would be to trigger anything that is likely to lead to someone who disagrees with me being seen as a 'martyr'.  Whatever the outcome it is effectively completely shooting yourself in the foot, much better just to not make a big deal of it.Nor am I convinced that any one individual (at least in terms of Leader of a Council) has the power to make the Met or the CPS swing into action.  Nor can it be ignored that the court has already concluded that there is a case to answer.I wasn't there, I don't know Paul Slattery from the next person, and unless I know and was with PS for 24/7 both before, during and after the event in question I don't feel anyone is in a position to make a definitive statement about the court action.As you say, if (as I'm sure there are) there are 2 sides to this story then they will come out in court.

Adam Beamish ● 3335d

Another interesting incident reported on last night's local evening news.Self-employed builder has material stolen from his home and van four times. The last time he has clear CCTV footage of the robber stealing from his van. Police reaction:  insufficient evidence; can't do anything; have you tried a Facebook campaign?How different from our own experience here in Brentford. It takes one phone call with no evidence or witnesses in support and local constituent banged up, charged and arrayed in court.The evidence is clear: if you're a self-employed family man you're on your own. If you're the Leader of the Hounslow Council however, the Met and CPS swing into action. Now I wonder why that is? Maybe we'll find out in court.

John Bradley ● 3335d

Just focusing on the case featured in 24h in Police Custody, to me there was no way the CPS could have charged the alleged offender.What I found odd was that, at least from what viewers saw, the police never re-interviewed the alleged victim about the circumstances that let up to her going to the hotel.  She alleged the guy threatened to kill her if she didn't go back, whereas the CCTV footage painted a very different picture.Clearly something 'went wrong' in the hotel room as she was a completely different person when trying to flee the hotel, but her credibility was greatly undermined by what appeared to be an untruthful account of how she ended up at the hotel.A sad case, I didn't believe the guy for a minute when he said she wasn't happy because of his poor performance.I agree with you re. Paul Slattery, I still wonder if there is more to this than we know because it seems absurd that the CPS felt there was sufficient to charge.

Adam Beamish ● 3340d

Don't know if anyone saw last night's '24 hours in Police custody' which followed an alleged rape. It was a really difficult call, but what struck me was the level of evidence the CPS demanded before they would proceed. Which immediately prompted us to have discussion about just why the case of the Wheelie bin protest has been jumped on with enthusiasm by the CPS? It simply doesn't add up - are there differing levels of evidence required when a local politician makes a complaint to the boys in blue? Will common sense prevail, or will this just be another case of the taxpayer picking up the costs because some self important twerp has had their fragile ego bruised?

Vanessa Smith ● 3341d

Very well put, Phil. I haven't had the pleasure myself - and I hope to keep it that way - but this certainly sums up everything I've been told in the few years I've been here. The worst has come from council employees.A classic corrupt little man, just clever enough to keep everyone scared & himself at the top.

Steve Allen ● 3353d

Oh dear I dropped a right clanger with that post "Minor Incident". The Problem was not wearing my glasses

Bernard Allen ● 3372d

Your penultimate post speaks of a 'minor indecent'. Predictive text is to blame no doubt.

Anne England ● 3372d

the incident that this thread is about

Bernard Allen ● 3372d

What 'minor indecent' was that then?

Anne England ● 3372d

How is it the CPS back off from taking rape ceases to court yet they waste public money on a very minor indecent ?

Bernard Allen ● 3374d

As far as I am aware no-one actually verbally threatened Cllr. Curran - I stand to be corrected on that, so how does the piling up of some plastic bins by your neighbours most of whom you know, manage to frighten the bejesus out of any sane person?

Vanessa Smith ● 3374d

I've been scratching around on the internet because I had a feeling that I'd heard or read something to the effect that a complainant must have "experienced at least two incidents by the same person or group" for it to be classed as harassment.  I couldn't find anything in the legalese jargon on the professional legal sites, but I did find this document from the good old Citizens Advice Bureau,it's really meant to be advice for complainants but sauce for the goose and all that.https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/discrimination/taking-action-about-discrimination/taking-action-about-harassment/It's under the sub heading "When is something harassment under the Act?"It's hard to imagine that officialdom could have made such a mistake,but they may have?

Tony Wood ● 3374d

Or did he get one of his acolytes to do it and pull a few strings.?Either way it all seems far too heavy handed for such a trivial matter.

Raymond Havelock ● 3375d

Well said, Guy. Regardless of the fact that Mr Curran himself ought to be up before the court for malicious prosecution, misconduct in public office and wasting police time, the case does affect the council due to his job there, and the council's communications department needs to keep an eye on it.

Bryan Betts ● 3375d

When I was the Lead Member for Community Safety I use to have the then Borough Commanders mobile number so I am sure that the Leader of the Council would have it and it would be interesting to find out if he used it itstead of calling 999 using or abusing his power so to speak

Paul Fisher ● 3376d

I suspect that to get the response that this apparently warranted the 'phone call to the boys in blue would have made the point that the caller was the Dear Leader. I still don't understand why if there was an alleged 'crowd' why only one person was arrested?

Vanessa Smith ● 3376d

The concern for me remains did he make the allegation of harassment as a joe bloggs member of the public or did he make it as Cllr Steve Curran Leader of LBH?If it is the former as I suspect then there is no reason at all why LBH feel they should be in attedance wasting public resources on meaningless court hearings. I totally agree that the actual issue has still to be resolved but the CPS (on the back of an MPS request for prosecution) deem fit to waste time and money on such a ridiculous case!I do wonder when i work with perpetrators every single day at work and the CPS dont want to pursue prosecutions on the back of breaches of court imposed orders yet they want to pursue this???

Kathy Riley ● 3376d

In which case surely the CPS should be prosecuting all present, especially as a council officer has made a claim of it being of relevance.I understand that the police have not spoken with a single witness or appealed for witnesses.

Raymond Havelock ● 3376d

It's the C.P.S. V Slattery, we can only hope that common sense prevails and this gets slung out, this surely can't be in the public interest?

Vanessa Smith ● 3376d

> If it is MPS v Slattery then there is no need for anyone from LBH to attend court?> If it is LBH v Slattery then I would assume it would be being paid for out of tax payers money> If it is Curran v Slattery then again no LBH staff should attend.The thread title "R v Paul Slattery" would suggest none of the above.

Dave Robertson ● 3377d

One question from a lay person...What did the couirt listing say who the respondent and defendant were in this case?If it is MPS v Slattery then there is no need for anyone from LBH to attend court? If it is LBH v Slattery then I would assume it would be being paid for out of tax payers moneyIf it is Curran v Slattery then again no LBH staff should attend.Regardless of protecting the council in this matter I have not given permission for my council tax (that pays their wages) to attend court to report back on what is a seemingly massive waste of time because someone wanted to make a point! What a total utter farce!

Kathy Riley ● 3377d

Let it just be sorted out in court....Although if he is convicted then the whole court system will also be wrong or biased according to this forum.

William Prentice ● 3379d

Phil I am the proud Son of man who fought in the international  brigade against Franco. Something I expect many of our local socialists incumbents have never heard of.  He fought in Spain and then in our army  in Europe for freedom against against fascism and for a decent life for his family and friends. He did not want the generations that came after to experience what he had seen - and what did my father and his comrades get ? I will tell you what they got  - they had their pure and simple vision of a fair life for all crapped on by the champagne socialist, the people who have  taken over the Labour Party for their own ends ( Blair, Kinock ) to name a few .My father would be turning in his grave - a Labour leader using the law against  a fellow member of  his own and our  community, sending spies to the courts. This is unacceptable in my view and his fellow Labour members should stand up and tell him so they should also realise what they have been elected for (To champion the rights of the underprivileged; To ease the burden on the common people;  To help and foster a sense of real community; To help people live their lives free from poverty.)  These Councillors should realise that they can make a real difference to people's lives for the better. Unfortunately our Councillors only seem to want to make life better for themselves.

Robert Ayres ● 3379d

Section 126 of the SOCPA amended the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 (CJPA) and created a new offence of causing harassment, alarm or distress to a person in his or her home. The offence contains four ingredients which need to be proved. A person will commit an offence under section 42A(1) if:*he or she is present outside or in the vicinity of any premises that are used as a dwelling;*he or she is there to represent to the resident or another individual or persuade the resident or another individual that he should not do something he is entitled to do; or that he or she should do something he is not under any obligation to do;*the person intends his presence to amount to the harassment of, or to cause alarm or distress to the resident; or knows or ought to know that his presence is likely to do so; and*the presence of the defendant amounts to the harassment of, or causes alarm or distress to the resident, a person in the resident's dwelling, or a person in another dwelling in the vicinity of the resident's dwelling; or is likely to result in the harassment of, or cause alarm or distress of any such person.

Anne England ● 3379d

"Without entering into the rights and wrongs of the case the police/CPS are pursuing a case against Paul Slattery for allegedly harassing the leader of the council in his home. So Vanessa's comment that it's a case 'brought by one individual' is just wrong. Steve Curran's role is as a witness, and the person who reported the alleged crime in the first place.It's pretty obvious that it involves the council - apart from anything else Paul Fisher is asking me for a comment on something that took place in my ward. If the police brought a case involving harassment of David Cameron would you really expect the government to stand by without monitoring developments?"What a pathetic and miserable response - no wonder we're all brassed off with what passes for local government in these parts  - 'threatened and harassed'? Oh! please do me a favour, Curran just isn't that important.

Vanessa Smith ● 3380d

Who is on double time plus expenses?Without entering into the rights and wrongs of the case the police/CPS are pursuing a case against Paul Slattery for allegedly harassing the leader of the council in his home. So Vanessa's comment that it's a case 'brought by one individual' is just wrong. Steve Curran's role is as a witness, and the person who reported the alleged crime in the first place.It's pretty obvious that it involves the council - apart from anything else Paul Fisher is asking me for a comment on something that took place in my ward. If the police brought a case involving harassment of David Cameron would you really expect the government to stand by without monitoring developments?

Guy Lambert ● 3380d

RobertI would disagree with you on one point only.  Socialism, whether one approves of it or not, is a political philosophy at the heart of which is an honest desire to create a fairer and more equitable society.  Now one could argue, and some do, that in practice that is seldom the outcome but regardless of where one happens to stand on the subject the intentions at least are honourable.There is nothing remotely socialist about Curran's administration.  During the recent Labour leadership contest his preference was for the most conspicuously "Red Tory" option, Liz Kendall, who in the event enjoyed the support of just 4.5% of the party membership. In office he has bestowed favour upon colleagues who in some instances operate at best on the fringes of the law, not according to their talents but on the basis of their loyalty to him as an individual.  Nowhere has this been more in evidence than here in Isleworth.He has got away with this, so far, for three main reasons:1. Because his traditional political opponents do not hold him to account, instead being content to enjoy the scraps from the table in the form of an untroubled existence in one small corner of the borough in which they would appear to have jobs for life.2. Because any voice of protest from within the community is ruthlessly suppressed, at elections using the weight of a huge national party machine which considers rotten leadership in the colours of the party to be preferable to any form organic involvement by the community, and at other times by the cynical deployment of officers employed by the taxpayer as effective political assistants.3. Because there appears to be no sufficiently well-organised voice of objection from within the local party, despite the fact that it has recently elected a leader who has promised us a new and more open and honest approach to politics.Any or all of these factors has the potential to change, but unless or until they do the reality of the situation is that the unconcealed political gangsterism exemplified by Curran and his cronies will continue to hold sway in the London Borough of Hounslow.  This simple fact needs to be recognised and understood in its entirety if it is to be successfully challenged.

Phil Andrews ● 3381d

This is by no means the first instance of Curran apparently using officers paid for by the taxpayer as effective political and personal assistants.  Many officers were complaining of similar antics prior to the last local elections, when he held the Housing portfolio on the Cabinet.  The boy has form.All it takes is for one of these individuals, whose professional integrity would seem to be being compromised, to break ranks and spill the beans.  There is a whole lot of woe still to come on this front, mark my words.

Phil Andrews ● 3381d

One wonders just who is doing the harassing.Manipulating the police and council officers. Not to mention leaning on his elected chums to curry favour.Exactly who ordered said Council Flunky to go and observe? In actual fact spy.Why is it so important?Addressing the concerns of unhappy residents and wheelie bins has gone completely ignored, yet hundreds are very unhappy.No concern given whatsoever.It absolutely stinks and if anyone knows how to get this looked into. Please do.

Raymond Havelock ● 3381d

Although the case is based on the alleged harresment of The one who must be obeyed the so called incident occurred due to the wheelie bin saga so it could be argued that it does involve the LBH.

Neil Chippendale ● 3381d

They are on double time plus expenses . I cannot believe our local socialist overlords think they can get away with this. What say TW8 members to a complaint  to the local government  ombudsman. Let us call upon our elected Councillors to raise this issue and take it through the council complaint procedure after which it can be refered to the ombudsman.

Robert Ayres ● 3381d

As this case has bugger all to do with Hounslow Council why was it felt necessary for any officers to attend. I may be missing something here but this is a case bought by one individual not an 'official' council matter - what the hell are this lot on? Bloody outrageous.

Vanessa Smith ● 3381d

My eyesight isn't too good these days so I asked somebody to read me the title of this thread.  When they did so I thought what a wonderfully apt summary of this whole affair.Unfortunately my hearing isn't too clever either, and it transpires that I slightly misheard the word "regina".

Phil Andrews ● 3381d

"I am employed by the council to do this"So just to be clear Clare, your attendance at court was in work time and thus funded by the taxpayers who pay your wages?Or have I misunderstood you?

Phil Andrews ● 3381d

Dear allI'm Clare Saul and I"m the Deputy Head of Communications for Hounslow Council.I was the officer at Mr Slattery's court hearing and as soon as an opportunity presented itself, I introduced myself to Mr Slattery and explained who I was and why I was at his hearing. I gave Mr Slattery my contact details and asked him to contact me if he had any further questions about my role at the council and my presence at court.Mr Slattery did email me a few days after the hearing. I will paste below the email that I sent to Mr Slattery, I'm hoping that this will help to explain why I was at court.  If anyone has any further questions about my role then I'd be happy to answer them. Please email me at clare.saul@hounslow.gov.ukDear PaulMy role at the council is in the communications team and as it is my responsibility to be aware of what people think about the council, what they're saying about the council, why they're saying it; and to try and ensure that what people are saying is factually correct. To confirm - I am employed by the council to do this.Your court case involves Steve Curran and is partly in regards to his position as Leader of the Council. I attended magistrates court on Monday as I needed to ensure that if asked by anyone - be it a resident, a member of staff, or any councillor - that I could accurately let people know what was said in court.Since you were arrested there has been no public comment from the council or from Cllr Curran through his political party. This is now a legal matter and any comment on the case would be inappropriate and even unlawful.  I did not attend court in order to proactively publish any information on the proceedings.I hope this answers your questions.  I will be attending the case management hearing on 27 May and any further hearings. If you would like to talk with me more about my role and my attendance at court then I would be happy to do this.  My contact details are below.Best wishesClare

Hounslow Council ● 3381d

Whoever said 'There's now't as queer as folk' certainly knew what they were talking about.

Vanessa Smith ● 3381d

Can't disagree with you there Vanessa, in 10 years of working as a Council Officer I was physically assaulted once and received verbal abuse/threats on countless occasions.  I've been with colleagues (ex-police officers) when we've been told by outwardly respectable appearing middle aged men living in suburbia that they'd slit our families throats, and once had to deal with a far more amusing cretin who suggested I was "getting excited about his wife" (old enough to be my mother) because whilst he was droning on I was playing with my car keys in my pocket !.So yes, as you say, it comes with the territory, and whilst the above extremes are ones which did on occasion require police intervention or appropriate internal reporting, the vast majority of the time you'd just keep your cool, let them have their rant, walk away and then either fall about laughing or call them all the names under the sun once you're somewhere private, not go running off to the police everytime someone wasn't very nice to you.Perversely I sometimes miss dealing with such delightful members of the community !.

Adam Beamish ● 3382d

If you are going to stand for an elected position then you really do need to 'man-up' and get a thicker skin. You will never please all of the people all of the time, and yes, some do go over the top, however, this incident from what I've read hardly registers, no-one was hurt physically, did anyone actually threaten the Dear Leader verbally? In my sixteen years on the council I had my car vandalised on several occasions, an air-gun pellet through a bedroom window and I was 'stalked' by some creep on the 'phone for months. It took forever to get the Police and B.T. to even take any bloody notice! It wasn't unusual to come home from work and have several people outside waiting to speak to me about some issue or the other, to a degree people's irritation with you goes with the territory but you have to keep things in proportion, try talking to people is a good start. Unfortunately this council doesn't seem to have the political nous required and just behave on many occasions like petty dictators, if you pursue that sort of policy then people will object out of sheer frustration. Seems to me that Curran needs to get over himself and grow up, I only hope that we aren't funding his legal costs.

Vanessa Smith ● 3382d

I was at the hearing (went entirely independently) and I can't say that I have any idea who the 'extra' at the back was. It could presumably have been a Council official but I don't think anybody actually knows as such and I don't suppose that the Council are under any obligation to tell us.The whole thing is a waste of public money though and that's for sure. Not knowing much about legal things, I am wondering whether the case could still be dropped after the case management meeting at Uxbridge Court on 27th May. If not, the case itself is due to be heard at Ealing Magistrates' Court on 5th and 6th July. (5th Court No. 1 - one day, 6th Court No. 4 - half day). The charge is Harassment of a person in their own home (contrary to section 42A f the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001).

Anne England ● 3382d

Could not agree more Vanessa and perhaps Cllr Lambert will let us know why this council official was there or at least try and make an excuse considering the alleged offence was in his ward?

Paul Fisher ● 3382d

Perhaps someone from Hounslow Council would like to explain to us why it was felt necessary for a borough employee to be in attendance at what is a complaint brought by a private individual? Why as taxpayers are we paying for that? The only 'evidence' seems to be Cllr. Curran's statement, this whole farce is a disgraceful waste of public money to persecute an individual who had the temerity to try and show how upset he, and others were, over the imposition of a council policy imposed with scant consultation.

Vanessa Smith ● 3382d

> This was a prelimary hearing to see if there was a case to answer.The fact that he has appeared before magistrates means that by definition there is.  If there wasn't, he wouldn't be in court.

Dave Robertson ● 3390d