Citizens denied right to see 'justice being done' in trial of suspected pedophile Martin Smith

Martin Smith's trial took place at Manchester Crown Court and lasted eight days. Presided over by Judge Irwin, the jury found Smith guilty of 11 charges, including rape, attempted rape, indecency with a child and indecent assault. Although a verdict has not yet been handed down, to the British media and millions of people in the UK and around the world, Martin is already a criminal and a convicted pedophile.

Media feeding frenzy

At the time of the court hearing, the media was already intensely pursuing Martin Smith. Because he was Leanne Smith's long-time partner. Leanne Smith was a British mother living in Spain who admitted killing her two young children rather than allowing them to have children. She will be taken from her by Staffordshire Social Services.

The photo of her and her deceased children, Rebecca, 5 months old, and Daniel, 11 months old, was first published in the screeching Daily Mail newspaper, revealing the 'scoop' of the tragic event. The Mail was pleased to say: “One of Britain's most wanted men has been captured in Spain after more than two years on the run.”

reasonable suspicion

court layout

To convict in a criminal case, there must be “no reasonable doubt in the mind of a reasonable person that the defendant is guilty.” What the Mail's screaming headlines and Tom Lawston's sloppy reporting failed to mention was that Martin Smith was murdered by the word of a young woman, without any corroboration from anyone else, no medical evidence, no forensic evidence. He was found guilty. In the absence of evidence or corroborating evidence, reasonable doubt existed at every stage of the case, and certainly existed in the minds of the public present in court.

Allegations about bias in the conduct of the hearings began on the first day when members of the public were confined to public seats in the rear left of the courtroom, unable to see the courtroom or the entire jury, or listen in. Proper hearing and proceeding of the case by both the prosecution and the defense – Figure 1 shows the layout of the courtroom, including the bleachers. Simply put, the public “couldn't see justice being done” in open court. In addition to preventing public access to court, a crackdown on the press was ordered by Judge Irwin on December 6, 2010.
A public notice posted on the courtroom door reads: “Judge Irwin has postponed publication of the case report or any portion thereof until further notice to protect the identity of petitioner (name) in these cases. I was ordered to do so.”

It then seemed contradictory, if not foolish, that the accuser was actually named in Irwin's proclamation and revealed to the public. But why the secrecy, or cover-up?

What was not revealed in court was the background to the accusations against Martin, the true background of the accuser, and the intertwined sinister activities of the child welfare facility. These are also facts ignored by the Daily Mail and other mainstream media. What really happened?

The Smith Story

lian smith

In August 2005, Martin's partner Leanne Smith started working as Extended Service Reform Advisor for Cumbria County Council, reporting to Mrs Moira Swan, Director of Children's Services (DCS). In this role, Leanne also worked closely with the Training and Development Agency (TDA), a division of the Children, Schools and Development Agency. Her main task was to improve the performance of schools with unsatisfactory Ofsted inspection reports. In six months, Leanne Smith's team moved Cumbria from a 'county of concern' with the Department for Children, Schools and Families and the TDA to a state with good progress. However, she has made an enemy. In 2006, Leanne's strong performance and ability to obtain funding for school improvement rather than social welfare deeply upset SS leaders.

common purpose

More importantly, Leanne was highly suspicious of child welfare officials talking about “common purpose” regarding children. This “common purpose” purporting to “protect all children from harm” is actually a dangerous and controlling state move to turn anyone who works with children into a “quasi-social worker.” Lian saw that there was. This effectively places all children in the care of child welfare rather than their parents, even if there are no circumstances surrounding the child or family that warrant social welfare intervention.

When Leanne moved to become director of children's services to counter these plans, the heads of children's services became hostile. Some of her colleagues warned her that she was very brave to challenge “the system”. Unbeknownst to her, she had made additional enemies in the child welfare field through her dedication to homeschooling her children and her work as a regional advisor for the homeschooling organization Education Other. In contrast to the “common purpose” approach, home education, done properly, strengthens family bonds and weakens state control.

In October 2007, Leanne was promoted to Director of Staffordshire Children's Services. Less than a month later, Martin was suddenly accused of sexual assault by an adult female family member. As there was no supporting evidence, Martin was not charged, but was released on unconditional bail until January 2008, when he was reported to social services. They soon began to take an unhealthy interest in the couple's young daughter, Rebecca. At the mention of child welfare facilities, friendly colleagues warn Leanne: “These people are very smart.” Their predictions turned out to be correct, as children's services began searching Martin and Leanne Smith for custody of their daughter Rebecca. The family fled to Spain, and Martin was later arrested.

huge public interest

Returning to the Manchester trial, at the beginning of the second week, on Monday 13 December, public interest in the case increased and the number swelled to 40 people, most of whom were unable to find a seat. Ta. Inexplicably, Judge Irwin still refused to open the upstairs viewing room until a formal complaint was submitted directly to the court president, who then remanded the case. During the course of the complaint, three members of the public were called by police in the court administration area and accused of “obnoxious behaviour”. The officers later backed down over objections from a former police officer who was present to witness the incident.

During the trial, one complainant testified from behind a screen. Their testimony was oral and not directly corroborated by other material witnesses or medical or forensic evidence. There was also no professional psychological evaluation of the complainant's own credibility. On cross-examination, Leanne and her eldest son from a previous marriage did not provide any evidence in support of the prosecution, and the court relied heavily on statements made in court by Mrs. X, a “friend” of the plaintiff. Surprisingly, Mrs. A key witness to the crime, she did not know the complainant at the time of the crime, nor did she know Martin Smith.

The CPS's evidence in this case relied solely on police statements and police interviews with the complainant. They were unable to explain why basic investigation and follow-up procedures into the complaint were not carried out. Nor did he adequately explain the relationship between the police and Mrs.

Police witnesses who attended the court appeared nervous and agitated, and some even left the courtroom to make individual cell phone calls during the proceeding.

Judge Irwin, despite his position and experience, is unable to find a juror who is asleep during a trial, even though the person is already seated and long over There was a strange incident where he repeatedly told people to sit down. Many in attendance noted his strange behavior and felt that he was unusually nervous about public presence and attention. The conviction came as a considerable shock to the public, given that the burden of proof in criminal cases is “beyond a reasonable doubt” and no supporting evidence was presented against Martin Smith. A sentence has not yet been handed down, but the judge has warned it will be a long sentence. Whatever the verdict, the guilty verdict ensures Staffordshire Children's Services will be able to plead not guilty in the upcoming Spanish trial over Rebecca and Daniel's deaths. Despite the weakness of the charges and the case against Martin Smith, their aggressive, vicious and persistent activities to remove children from Leanne Smith have been protected. Was justice “considered done”? – Few people present at Manchester court thought so.