Applications by Defendant Jack Beecham to vacate 14th August 2023 trial date and have public funds pay for transcript of previous hearing both denied by HHJ Swinnerton at Liverpool Crown Court
By John Brace (Editor)
First publication date: Friday 28th July 2023, 17:36 (BST).
Previous published articles on this blog about hearings in this case can be read at:-
ICO accuse Jack Beecham of breaching bail conditions (24th November 2022)
and
Trial of Jack Beecham at Liverpool Crown Court delayed due to COVID (8th November 2022)
This was a For Mention hearing heard before His Honour Judge Swinnerton in Court 4–3 on the fourth floor of the Liverpool Crown Court. The Defendant was Mr Jack Beecham (who was present but unrepresented, but not sitting in the dock). Representing ICO (Information Commissioner’s Office) was Mark Friend (who was a barrister at Lincoln House Chambers).
This was a hybrid For Mention hearing as although Mr Jack Beecham was present physically, Mark Friend (for the prosecution – ICO) joined remotely via video. The hearing was listed to start at 2.00 pm on Monday 10th July 2023.
HHJ Swinnerton referred to Mr Jack Beecham’s application to sit at the back of the Court, rather than in the dock, for this hearing HHJ Swinnerton would allow it, but this would not necessarily be the case for future hearings and for every single hearing an application would have to be made every time, which would be a matter for the Trial Judge.
Having read the email (from the Defendant’s) in case there was any misunderstanding, defendants were normally in the dock but for today the defendant could sit where he was now as it was not necessary for the case but it was for the Trial Judge to decide at trial not necessarily HHJ Swinnerton.
HHJ Swinnerton asked Mark Friend whether he was Trial Counsel or Counsel just for today’s hearing?
Mark Friend replied that Miss Anam Khan was still Trial Counsel.
HHJ Swinnerton said he had been sent an email (from the Defendant), but he would get the right one and referred to an email dated 30th June [2023], but he would quote from it. The email said that the Defendant would now like to ask the Judge for a later date for the hearing, due to lost time, his thinking was in relation to a transcript that the Defendant had not yet received. HHJ Swinnerton explained that that had been treated as an application to vacate the trial date fixed for 14th August and they were now at 10th July, so the purpose of today’s listing was to treat the email and he asked the Defendant if he wished to vacate the 14th August trial date or try to?
Jack Beecham replied that until he received the transcript he couldn’t say why.
HHJ Swinnerton said that the hearing (that the transcript request related to) only was in relation to the amendment to the indictment to which the Defendant pleaded guilty on two counts, sorry not guilty, HHJ Swinnerton apologised at this point for earlier stating guilty and he asked the Defendant if he had a copy of the 2 counts?
Jack Beecham replied that he believed so.
HHJ Swinnerton said that the only other discussion was whether s.170 of the Data Protection Act 2018 applied to the Defendant, the Defendant suggested it didn’t, HHJ Swinnerton suggested it did, there was a discussion about the process regarding disclosure and the way statements trigger secondary disclosure which was an ongoing duty. There had been various disclosure requests, he asked if the prosecution had disclosed item 79 in the Schedule to the Defendant and had done so?
Jack Beecham replied that the prosecution had done so.
HHJ Swinnerton said that it was further discussed, that the prosecution indicated it was likely to do it, then a copy of the section 170 of the Data Protection Act 2018, had the Defendant got the full bundle but not brought it with you?
Jack Beecham replied that the prosecution said they had sent it to me, but the trial bundle hadn’t been received, he said was going to sit as they hadn’t done it?
HHJ Swinnerton asked if he hadn’t brought it with him?
Jack Beecham referred to a different version, and that the “prosecution lady” [Miss Amin Khan] said it was organised but hadn’t?
HHJ Swinnerton said it may be an email?
Jack Beecham said he had asked for a hard copy.
HHJ Swinnerton said it was important the Defendant had a full copy of the trial bundle.
Mark Friend said he would ensure it was done, if not done already, even if it had been done, it would be done again.
HHJ Swinnerton said it was important they were singing from the same hymn sheet and referring to the same page numbers, the 14th August 2023 trial date had been fixed on 23rd November 2022, as at the time the Defendant had COVID, on the 7th November 2022 as it was listed, it wasn’t indicated that it wasn’t trial ready, simply that the Defendant had COVID, the Defendant had since parted company with his legal representatives?
Jack Beecham replied that he had parted company, he had the benefit of a legal aid certificate and he explained the basis on which he had parted company with his legal representatives.
HHJ Swinnerton replied that in any event the date of August had been fixed on 23rd November 2022.
Jack Beecham replied, “Probably, yes”.
HHJ Swinnerton referred to his own contemperaenous note and asked why if the Defendant was not ready for trial on 14th August 2023 had this been known since 23rd November 2022?
Jack Beecham replied that the last hearing was two and a half hours, as a older person his memory of a two and a half hour discussion on many points, he had forgotten a good number, if he could help with background, when he had taken Merseyside Police in 2019 in a civil claim, during this case there was an important issue within a trial lasting 2 days, a hearing had ordered a transcript (at the Court’s cost), but when the transcript arrived it was only for 1 day (of the 2 days) not the other day, the appeal then was because the Defendant was in receipt of a state pension and eligible for fee remission, so he thought as a natural progression it would follow…
HHJ Swinnerton said that at the last hearing on 9th June 2022, it was a long time deliberately (a whole afternoon), to allow the Defendant to have time to say and discuss various things with the Defendant, without the Defendant it would have taken a much shorter time. HHJ Swinnerton continued that in his understanding there was a discussion as to whether section 170 of the Data Protection Act 2018 applied to the Defendant as a person, the Defendant was a person, but the Defendant tried to tell HHJ Swinnerton that the Defendant had been on a website and didn’t believe it applied to the Defendant, but instead companies, whether the Defendant wanted to run with that at trial was discussed at length in a further case management hearing, transcripts were typically ordered where there was evidence in dispute, in all of the case management hearing the Judge ordered count 2 to be added and disclosure was discussed, the Judge didn’t make any order on disclosure other than the prosecution’s position on 79 which the Defendant had now been sent a copy. HHJ Swinnerton asked if the Defendant had the [trial] bundle?
Jack Beecham answered, “Yes”.
HHJ Swinnerton said he noted that, and asked Mark Friend if he had any other orders he wished him to make?
Mark Friend answered, “No”.
HHJ Swinnerton said that all that really came out of the hearings was a discussion that the Defendant and HHJ Swinnerton had whether the law applied to the Defendant as a human being as opposed to companies or organisations, but that HHJ Swinnerton wasn’t prepared to order a transcript to be paid from public funds, as the Defendant had received the judgement and the rest was unecessary as it was discussion.
Jack Beecham said there was an awful lot of relevance to the circumstances prior to when he was alleged to have committed a crime and the situation,…
HHJ Swinnerton said that could be explained at trial on relevant evidence, but that HHJ Swinnerton was not there to retry other things, or other earlier matters.
Jack Beecham disagreed with HHJ Swinnerton, without getting argumentative, he wanted an opportunity to bring relevant circumstances that led to it happening.
HHJ Swinnerton said (regarding the trial due to start on the 14th August 2023), if HHJ Swinnerton was not the Trial Judge it was likely to be Judge Murray, who was likely to be the Trial Judge, matters as to what would be admitted as evidence would be put before the Trial Judge, HHJ Swinnerton would help as much as he could, but he couldn’t give the Defendant legal advice, but could help steer the Defendant to try and find what points it is the Defendant wished to argue and direct you to the public interest defence…
Jack Beecham said that was part of it.
HHJ Swinnerton said he couldn’t do the Defence, that was done to the Defendant, but that did remind HHJ Swinnerton of an email from today, which Mark Friend wouldn’t have seen, he asked people to bear with HHJ Swinnerton for a moment while he found the right one. HHJ Swinnerton said here we go and started quoting from it, it was from the Defendant and said please help me with case law, case law regarding ICO, I have to assume theer is no case law, just statute, was there anything else that ICO wanted the Defendant to know?
Mark Friend said it was his understanding that there was no case law, Miss Anam Khan had not suggested otherwise.
HHJ Swinnerton said to Mark Friend to please remind Miss Anam Khan that if she was relying on cases, that Mr Beecham was a litigant in person so copies in advance had to be provided, to Mr Beecham [the Defendant] HHJ Swinnerton said that as no case law was currently relied upon, just statute, HHJ Swinnerton thought it had been sent to Mr Beecham?
Mr Jack Beecham confirmed he had been copied in.
HHJ Swinnerton said that as no case law was relied upon, that Miss Anam Khan would have to provide a copy in advance as the Defendant was a litigant in person, he couldn’t be expected to find these, the lawyer could ask ICO if relying on statute to provide a copy of that and he referred to what was said last time at a previous hearing.
HHJ Swinnerton continued that if Miss Anam Khan was relying entirely on statute, that was the whole answer, he continued that (referring to the Defendant’s email) that it may not please the Defendant but HHJ Swinnerton was not going to order public funding for a transcript of the whole two and quarter hours, regarding orders to be made regarding admissibility of evidence, that was up to the Trial Judge to rule on it, were there any issues to be raised?
Jack Beecham said that was ok, but would the Trial Judge do that prior to trial or at the trial?
HHJ Swinnerton said that it may help to put it in writing, a written application that the Defendant wished to rely on the following to give to the Trial Judge and Miss Anam Khan in advance so that they both had notice. He asked the Defendant if he was happy and able to do so?
Jack Beecham said he thought so, but since the last hearing, regarding the word obtain in that section of the Data Protection Act 2018, he had written to the Home Office for their direction on it, he’d received an email back to himself saying that the aim of the Data Protection Act 2018 was not to go after 72 year old OAPs but was about processing by businesses, organisatoins and the self-employed and the way to read it had been mentioned in the last hearing.
HHJ Swinnerton said that he didn’t want to get into a debate as he’d be there all afternoon and he had a jury waiting for him, he was not making a ruling, he was just discussing it with the Defendant, he said to the Defendant that the Trial Judge would have to rule, therefore HHJ Swinnerton would not making a binding ruling, he had just tried to point the Defendant in the right direction. HHJ Swinnerton continued that any order prohibiting or adducing evidence would be made by the Trial Judge and HHJ Swinnerton didn’t want to bind the hands of the Trial Judge who may have a different view to HHJ Swinnerton.
Jack Beecham said that following on with that train of thought, discussing witnesses and disclosure, that afternoon he vaguely remembered there were different witnesses that weren’t needed and asked for HHJ Swinnerton’s opinion,…
HHJ Swinnerton replied that the prosecution could call all witnesses that the prosecution wanted to rely upon to prove their case, which included the [Merseyside Police] Force solicitor, who HHJ Swinnerton indicated should come, prosecution witnesses were needed. Sometimes witnesses were agreed, but HHJ Swinnerton thought that the prosecution approach was not to agree witnesses, but all witnesses could be called to prove their case, but not every person the Defendant might like to see might be called. To use a far fetched example, names couldn’t be picked out just because they were wanted, such as X, Y and Z. The prosecution would choose [which witnesses] to prove their case, if not sufficient then the case would fail. The Defendant could call relevant witnesses if willing and able, but if the Defendant called witnesses, the Defendant could not pick prosecution witnesses and call them.
Jack Beecham replied that one prosecution witness was a solicitor, so it would be embarrassing for that witness to be here.
HHJ Swinnerton replied that that witness would have to come.
Jack Beecham said that in her witness statement, it referred to a younger member of staff as the culprit.
HHJ Swinnerton said he was not trying [the case] today.
Jack Beecham asked if he could call the witness separately himself?
HHJ Swinnerton said that the Defendant could call such witnesses regarding the Defendant’s case, but as the Defendant could cross examine prosecution witnesses, the Defendant couldn’t call a witness that was a prosecution witness against him.
Jack Beecham replied, “Alright”.
HHJ Swinnerton said that as the Defendant was a litigant in person, it was essential to do what the Defendant could to help prepare for cross examination and prepare in advance, in terms of the transcript HHJ Swinnerton would not order it from public funds, but the Defendant could fund it himself, however if the Defendant listened to the recording it would be a cheaper fee than a transcript, if the Defendant really wanted to listen to 2.5 hours..
Jack Beecham asked if he would apply to the Court for this?
HHJ Swinnerton replied that if the Defendant was prepared to pay to listen to the tape, HHJ Swinnerton believed there was a fee, HHJ Swinnerton didn’t get involved as he wasn’t an administrator, but the Defendant could listen to it, HHJ Swinnerton believed there was a fee, just HHJ Swinnerton didn’t deal with it.
HHJ Swinnerton asked the Defendant if he thought he would be ready by 14th August?
Jack Beecham answered, “Probably, probably not.”
HHJ Swinnerton replied that the Defendant would never feel 100 percent, but that the Defendant had had since November [2022]. He said he assumed Mr Friend opposed the application to vacate [the trial date].
HHJ Swinnerton said that the Defendant had had long enough, however much time the Defendant had he was never be fully ready as a litigant in person, he suggested the Defendant got someone to represent him. HHJ Swinnerton continued that if all was well and good the trial would start here [Liverpool Crown Court] on 14th August [2023]. HHJ Swinnerton continued that to help everyone, he referred to applications seeking to admit evidence from events that had happened some time ago (14 years ago)…
Jack Beecham replied, “2010”.
HHJ Swinnerton replied that if the Defendant wanted to adduce evidence it was helpful to set it out in writing.
Jack Beecham said that he only wanted to elaborate the action that caused this and what had happened since.
HHJ Swinnerton said that it needed to be set out in writing so it could be ruled upon, but that HHJ Swinnerton was not going to rule in or out because that was the job of the Trial Judge.
Jack Beecham said he wanted to ask one more question, as Miss Anam Khan was on the last video link, had it been recorded at their end?
HHJ Swinnerton replied that no, it would be illegal and unlawful to record a video link and if you were ever on a video hearing don’t record it as that would be breaking the law.
Jack Beecham referred to ICO from one hearing that it appeared to be very well remembered?
HHJ Swinnerton said that notes had probably been taken, which ICO’s representative were perfectly entitled to make, recording equipment couldn’t be brought into courtrooms, but the Court recorded it on a digital box, nobody else was allow to bring in recording equipment as that would be unlawful, so no it won’t have been recorded but a note might as well have been taken.
HHJ Swinnerton continued that the trial date would stay at 14th August [2023], that there is a fee for a transcript and it would not be paid from public funds, as the Defendant could pay it HHJ Swinnerton didn’t think it was necessary, the focus now should be on getting ready for trial, he thanked everyone very much (including Mr Friend who connected on a video link) and asked Mr Mark Friend if there was anything he wished to raise?
Mr Mark Friend replied, “Not at all”, then shortly after that the hearing ended.
If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.
