Appendix A:
My Letter To The
Lord Chancellor’s Department

Lord Chancellor's Department.              93c Venner Road,
                                           London SE26 5HU.
                                           0181 659 7713

May 15, 1997

Dear Sir,

I am writing to complain about the conduct of His Honour Judge 
Watts during my recent trial at Southwark Crown Court. From April 
22nd to May 1st I stood trial on two charges: making a threat to 
kill with intent, and intimidation. A third charge, assault occa-
sioning actual bodily harm, was not proceeded with following the 
judge's direction to the prosecution. I would have preferred the 
prosecution to proceed with this charge because it would have 
illustrated even further the malice of this prosecution, but 
Judge Watts said the prosecution would be faced with insuperable 
difficulties on account of this "assault" having been effected by 
a letter which a police officer showed to the so-called victim!

Prior to the jury being sworn in I dismissed my barrister and 
conducted my own defence. The judge advised against this, as well 
he might, but obviously my decision was the correct one or I 
wouldn't be here to write this letter. This was no rush decision 
either; I informed my solicitor some time prior to the trial that 
I would be conducting my own defence and he had informed the 
court well in advance.

During the course of the trial, Judge Watts claimed repeatedly 

that he was allowing me to "get away with" things that a 

barrister wouldn't, simply because I was acting in person and the 

court had to bend over backwards to give me a fair hearing. That 

was what he claimed, however it is not what he did.

Throughout the trial he severely restricted my cross-examination 
of witnesses, not simply to credit but in a wider sense. After I 
had cross-examined the investigating officer for some two hours 
Judge Watts said he would restrict me to another twenty minutes 
after which he would order the cross-examination to be terminated 
and if I had any objections I could take them up on appeal. He 
assumed all the way through that I would be convicted. This 
curtailment was most unreasonable because this was a complex 
case. The investigating officer had arrested me before and I 
wanted to prove malice on his part. There was also the salient 
fact that in the first instance he hadn't charged me with making 
a threat to kill but with two counts of witness intimidation. The 
prosecution claimed these were holding charges but the important 

point I wasn't allowed to make - except in my closing speech - is 

that the arresting officer had not taken the threat to kill at 

face value but had accused me of making it to intimidate a so-

called witness. In fact, at the material time this woman was not 

a witness. Not against me.

Judge Watts consistently took the prosecution's side and stressed 

both during the course of the trial and during his summing up 

that the prosecution relied on a number of passages in a document 

that I had sent to a police officer, ignoring the fact that I 

relied for my defence on the entire text of the document, out of 

which my unfortunate phrases had been taken, and the wider con-

text of my, at times shocking, literary style.

He seemed not to be aware of the fact that the prosecution had 

claimed that I had "stalked" the so-called victim. In this docu-

ment, I had made a number of claims about the so-called victim 

which the prosecution dismissed as lies or fantasy. The point 

being that if I had made all this up, this would have been prima 

facie evidence of mens rea, ie intent. But if I were telling the 

truth then the threat to kill could be taken as an unfortunate 

figure of speech, as indeed it was.

I could say much more about the conduct of the trial but I would 

prefer to focus on Judge Watts' summing up, which was disgrace-

ful. The jury were out for nearly seven hours before returning 

not guilty verdicts on both counts, but during that time they 

asked two questions, and we were recalled. On one of these occa-

sions I told Judge Watts that he had made eight material errors 

in his summing up. He replied that if they were errors of law I 

should save them for the Court of Appeal, but if they were errors 

of fact I should tell him what they were. I did, and he ignored 

every single one.

In his summing up, Judge Watts referred to an interview under 

caution that I had had with the so-called victim. He said that 

nobody had made a complaint about the tone of this interview and 

that my solicitor - who was present - had not come forward to 

support my version of events. This is simply not true. 

I referred to the tone of the interview and her offensive remarks 

in an affidavit dated February 27, 1996 which I served on the 

Benefits Agency (and which was put before the jury) and in a 

letter to William Hague (then Secretary of State for the Dis-

abled). This letter was dated April 2, 1996. With regard to my 

solicitor not coming forward to support this claim, I had wanted 

him to give evidence at this trial but he advised me that it was 

against legal protocol for a solicitor to give evidence for his 

client, in view of the solicitor/client relationship. I actually 

stated this when I was cross-examining the so-called victim, and 

Judge Watts cut me off at the time.

Judge Watts stated that the so-called victim had no power to 

restore or withdraw my benefit. This was what she, Rita Broadway, 

had claimed. The fact remains though that my benefit was cut off 

after her interrogation and it was her "evidence" which led to 

this decision. And whether or not she could restore my benefit 

the fact remains that she led me to believe that she could.

Of the claim I made that Rita Broadway could “fix” Gerry Gable, 

Judge Watts said that how she could do this was beyond the jury's 


In this connection I can do no better than quote from the docu-

ment I delivered to the police, and which was the subject of the 

threat to kill charge:

“In about her fourth phone call she told me that if I played ball 

with her she could not only get my benefit restored but that she 

could fix Gable for me. I asked her what she meant by fix him, 

and she said that all the agencies: the Benefits Agency, Customs, 

etc, worked together, and all she had to do was make a few phone 

calls to have Gable subjected to an intensive audit, raids by the 

VAT men, you name it.”

Judge Watts ridiculed the reference to Rita Broadway's medical 

history, stating that an abortion is not the same thing as a 

miscarriage. Actually, the medical term for miscarriage is spon-

taneous abortion. More importantly, it was part of the prosecu-

tion case that I had obtained access to this woman's medical 

records, something that I obviously could not have done. 

Judge Watts said I had claimed that the trial was the result of 

collusion, conspiracy and entrapment, that the arresting officer 

was part of this conspiracy and that it was difficult to see how 

this could be a fit-up or fabrication because the evidence came 

from the defendant, that the allegations I had made against Rita 

Broadway should not affect this, and that I should not be allowed 

to put up a smokescreen. Again, this was a gross distortion.

The fact is that I demonstrated that the arresting officer DC 

Nemeth had passed information about the August 6th raid on my 

flat to Gable. They both denied this and Gable claimed, falsely, 

that this information had come from a member of the British 

National Party. In fact, there were only six people who knew the 

details of the raid on my flat: myself, my solicitor, DC Nemeth, 

DS Wall and two other police officers. This information had to 

have come from one of them, and it is inconceivable to me that it 

didn't come from Nemeth, especially when Nemeth subsequently 

raided two people named by Gable in his witness statement, both 

of whom were, surprise, surprise, in litigation with Gable.

The claim I actually made about collusion and entrapment was that 

Gable was engaged in some sort of bizarre plot with Rita Broad-

way, that she had tried to lure me somewhere so that I could be 

"dealt with" and that she was acting on Gable's instructions. The 

allegation I made about DC Nemeth is that he had exploited my - 

admittedly crassly stupidly worded - deposition to DS Wall to do 

Gable's dirty work for him.

Judge Watts' claim that the allegations I made against Rita 

Broadway constituted a smokescreen is an outright lie. If these 

allegations were false then the jury was entitled to draw the 

conclusion that I had indeed stalked this woman and that the 

threat to kill had been made with intent. If on the other hand 

these allegations and details about her phone calls were true, 

then the jury might rightly conclude that the threat to kill was 

simply hyperbole, strong language used for the sake of effect. 

Fortunately the jury believed me.

Judge Watts noted that Gable denied passing any money to Rita 

Broadway, as Gable would obviously have done. But what he didn't 

stress was that under cross-examination Gable had claimed at 

first that he had never bribed anyone in his life, then he had 

admitted that at his 1992 trial he had claimed to have bribed a 

man named Keith Thompson, whom he had paid nearly a thousand 

pounds for "extremely valuable information" in Gable's own words.

Neither did the judge mention that Gable admitted brazenly under 

cross-examination that he runs undercover agents in the British 

National Party and other "hate groups" and that some of these 

agents use racial abuse and incite racial hatred. All these 

admissions supported my claim that Gable had bribed or colluded 

with Rita Broadway.

The judge mentioned that my application for Judicial Review was 

dismissed but did not mention that it was not dismissed on the 

grounds that a criminal investigation was ongoing. No such in-

vestigation was ongoing, contrary to the claims of Rita Broadway 

and her superior.

Judge Watts then made an absolutely disgraceful statement; he 

said that the only purpose of the letter of September 13, 1996 

could have been to intimidate Rita Broadway. Yet the prosecuting 

barrister herself suggested an entirely different reason for my 

writing this letter: spite. Spite does not constitute intimida-


The jury should not consider the truth or otherwise of the depo-

sition, he said. Again, this is plain wrong. By this Judge Watts 

was as good as ordering the jury to convict me.

The final point I would like to make is that in his summing up, 

Judge Watts said that DC Nemeth took the threat to kill at face 

value and was immediately concerned that I would carry out this 

threat. In the first instance, the intent that had to be proved 

was my intent, not his belief in my intent. In the second in-

stance this is plain wrong because, as I pointed out in my clos-

ing speech and have already mentioned in this letter, DC Nemeth 

did not take this as a threat to kill with intent. In the first 

instance he took it - or would have had me believe that he took 

it - as an attempt to intimidate a witness or potential witness. 

This is clear when one reads the full transcript of the interview 

at Belgravia Police Station. Not the edited transcript, the full 

one. In the first instance, Nemeth charged me with two counts of 

witness intimidation, one of which was later dropped. The threat 

to kill charge was added later. In her closing speech, the prose-

cutor tried to claim that these were holding charges. Clearly 

this is nonsense because if Nemeth had believed the threat to 

kill was made with intent he could and would have brought that 

charge himself. This charge was in fact brought later by the CPS. 

The fact that Nemeth himself didn't bring this charge is surely 

evidence that he didn't believe this threat was made with intent, 

and if he didn't consider this in the first instance that fact 

alone should have been enough to create a reasonable doubt in the 

minds of the jurors and to lead to my acquittal. Judge Watts 

failed to point this out and, in my opinion, was criminally 

irresponsible for failing to do so.

As a postscript I will add that Judge Watts was obviously most 

displeased with the not guilty verdict. He showed his pique by 

refusing to allow me to shake hands with the jury. I would re-

spectfully suggest that his conduct be investigated because if 

other defendants have suffered such partisan treatment in his 

sixteen years on the bench there must be not a few innocent 

people languishing in gaol due to his bias, bigotry and preju-

dice. I was extremely fortunate in having an intelligent, 

thoughtful, independent-minded jury. Other defendants may not 

have been so fortunate.

Yours sincerely,

A Baron

To Appendix B
To Notes And References
Back To Text
Back To Baron Pamphlets Index
Back To Site Index