More on Crooked Judge Pearce

October 4, 2019

Another crooked part of Pearce’s judgment occurs to me, that is not mentioned in my critique of his performance and judgment. At the outset of the trial, he ruled that the witness statements would stand as evidence-in-chief. He did this at the request of defence counsel, Michael Armstrong, who clearly thought that the police witness statements were a true account of what occurred (in spite of the impossibility of them being so). He obviously did not expect the police witnesses to further perjure themselves by a complete change of story.

So, everyone having agreed that the witness statements should stand as evidence-in-chief, why did Pearce accept a complete change of testimony? It should also be pointed out that criminal constable Eoin Anderson said at the outset of his testimony, under oath, that his witness statement was true and correct. It was only under cross-examination, confronted with the impossibility of his written witness statement, that he changed his testimony.

Judge Pearce very kindly helped him explain the anomaly, so that he could then in his judgment say that he believed the perjured evidence of criminal constables Eoin Anderson and Nicola Rimmer. Then, to rub salt into the wound, he manufactured evidence, contrary to all the facts presented, to say that I could not be telling the truth. What a scumbag.

The thing is that once a judge has gone to such lengths to make a crooked judgment, how can he ever be trusted to make a fair judgment in accordance with the evidence and with the law ever again? We can have no confidence that he will not again rule in favour of the police, contrary to the evidence, or rule against a party because he doesn’t like their face, or accent, or race. Every judgment of his is tainted from here on. He is not fit to be a judge and should be sacked before he does more damage. It is quite scary that he sits in the High Court where his prejudiced rulings carry more weight.

Previous post:

Next post: