After journalist Richard Carvath intervened in the Samantha Baldwin case in 2019, he came under massive attack by the State.
Between December 2019 and December 2020, Richard was forced to endure three criminal trials and one re-trial on a total of four malicious and vexatious charges, with simultaneous prosecutions in two different regions of England.
Richard was defended throughout this nightmare ordeal by barrister Frances Pencheon and solicitor-advocate Willem Louw.
Richard was acquitted in two trials of three of the four charges, but wrongfully convicted after a non-jury (magistrates) trial on one charge.
That solitary wrongful conviction was appealed to Sheffield Crown Court, and a full re-trial took place before HHJ Jeremy Richardson QC. The outcome of the re-trial was decided not by a jury but by Richardson.
Richard Carvath has never been convicted of any crime by a jury – but only by means of the State’s resorting to the unfair trial process that is trial-by-judge.
HHJ Jeremy Richardson QC, aka the Recorder of Sheffield, is the judge who concocted the Richardson Judgement – an extreme hatchet job against Richard Carvath – in February 2021.
Richard is regularly attacked online by trolls citing the Richardson Judgement, but Richard is gagged by Richardson’s court orders from defending himself.
Richard obtained a transcript of the re-trial, and that transcript proves what utter rubbish the Richardson Judgement is – but Richardson’s court orders gag Richard from publishing the transcript (along with transcript analysis and rebuttal comments set side-by-side with the Richardson Judgement).
Richard sought leave to appeal Richardson’s judgement to the High Court, but Richardson refused Richard leave to appeal against Richardson.
The wrongful conviction remains unfinished business, so far as Richard is concerned. There is a need that this egregious error of judgement be corrected by the State’s legal system. Furthermore, Richard requires that Jeremy Richardson make a full public apology for his defamatory libel offence.
*** REFUTING RICHARDSON ***
Not a full and comprehensive rebuttal of Richardson (the 8 February 2021 ‘judgment’, in case A20200054) but a limited refutation, not contrary to any court order, yet of some meaningful value in setting the record straight.
Samantha Baldwin references on pages 3, 4, 7, 8, 11, 13, 14, 18, 34, 36, 40, 41 and 42.