Academic to argue that conviction was unlawful

Sounds to me like our friend Mr Julius has tapped a gusher.

I wish the best of luck to Dr Fredrics, but I don't think he has a leg to stand on. The defence also sounds very hollow to me - although the case law does suggest that harassment cases need to be considered in light of the ECHR and Human Rights Act. Even with these in place, I think the defence is thin. However, were I Sir Peter Scott I would have pursued a libel case for reputation damage to the institution, rather than a harassment case for personal reasons.

@Damien -- libel claims require the proving that published information be false. I would suggest that you review the website in question to determine for yourself whether there are any false affirmative statements on the site or if the site merely reports factual information and/or documentary evidence. No doubt, the absence of falsehood is why the University/Prof Scott decided that a libel claim could not succeed.

Damien, I have gone over and over this site until I am heartily sick of it. But, as a laywer myself, and however hard I looked, I was unable to find the slightest element that could even remotely meet the criteria set by the current legislation on harassment. In addition, the police found no evidence of harassment, but the Crown Prosecution Service nevertheless pressed the charge. Looks very suspicious to me. If that is not a sound defence, what is?

You know yourself Dr Walter Cairns what happened when your University increased the students marks by 20% and to punish you management endeavoured to rubbish your teaching. Please try to understand that you and others such as Professor Paul Buckland and Professor Mahmoud El-Sayed and many many others are being victimised because they stood up against corruption and deception in their universities. You are trying to find logic, but what is happening defies any logic or justice. Dr Howard is a victim like yourself and others.He had to leave the country otherwise he would have been imprisoned. This is because he had exercised his human rights and raised reasonable concerns, in good faith, about quality and standard in higher education. Professor El-Sayed lost his career (established over 35 years in the UK), he lost his family and he lost his health because he raised concerns about plagiarism at Liverpool John Moores University. He was summarily sacked.The truth will come out no matter how long it will take. Who do you complain to? Who protects honest and truthful academics? Who holds up high the human right and freedom of speech? The IUSS Select Committee recent Report on "students and universities" highlights important issues about quality and standard in higher education. I am sure you will find it useful document to read.

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to instigate an open enquiry into allegations of workplace bullying / harassment in institutions of higher education and concerns about the way the judicial system has dealt with complaints about such bullying and with those who protest (publicly or otherwise) about wrongdoing by their employers; the enquiry to be conducted with a view to addressing issues of concern that it may uncover. Sign the petition at: http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/Justice-Bullying

The way the Kingston Magistrates Court handled the H Fredrics’ case in December 2009 is, in my view, unacceptable. This is consistent with the view of many others as evidenced by the comments submitted in response to the 7/01/2010
story. I see no point now for me to re-argue the same points, one can read them at http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=26&storycode=409869. ------ At this stage, I find it hard to understand how any honest person can justify any sympathy for Sir Peter Scott or for Kingston University’s senior management because their wrongdoing was exposed by Dr Fredrics (not to mention what they had subjected Dr Fredrics to before he went public). To the contrary, the bullying tactics used by ‘management’ in higher education and concerns with the way the judicial system has dealt with related complaints ought to be closely examined. That is what the petition at http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/Justice-Bullying/ is aiming for. ------ Please sign this petition and let others know so that they can consider signing it.

I second Walter Cairns, above: I'm also barrister-trained, and find Dr. Fredrics site meets none of even the UK's absurdly lenient criteria for harassment.That conclusion is supported by the police concluding that the site did not warrant that charge. It is - to put it mildly - odd and frightening for those of us who support free speech that Prosecution Service nevertheless pressed the charge. I look forward to Dr. Fredrics' quick and thorough acquittal on appeal.

Sir Peter Scotts claim that the website cause him harassment is under the claim that it caused him offense. Well under that criteria any politican that gets criticised in the press can prosecute the journalists on the grounds of harassment too?

Sir Peter Scotts claim that the website cause him harassment is under the claim that it caused him offense. Well under that criteria any politican that gets criticised in the press can prosecute the journalists on the grounds of harassment too?

It is going to be very awkward when a qualified judge looks at the case concerning this website, instead of a panel of magistrates led by a chair who is on the board of a directly associated institution and who had plenty to gain professionally by siding with Professor Scott. If I were Professor Scott I would be worried. I cannot see how an individual can continue to lead an institution of higher learning while abusing the criminal justice system in order to stifle free speech. The BOG should be asking for his resignation straight away.

If this district judge is not tainted by association with the hyper-sensitive Sir Peter Scott, then justice may have the chance to prevail. Unfortunately the magistrate Judith whatsername served on the board of a sister university and the whole set up stank to high heaven. In fact I could smell it 300 miles away on the day the verdict was given. A knight of the realm was embarrassed and humiliated, therefore somebody must go to prison - what twisted logic is this??

@Dr Fredrics - I am afraid you do not have a comprehensive understanding of British libel law. A claimant does not have to prove a statement is false, the onus falls on the defendent to prove that it is true. Even if the statement IS revealed to be true, if it was made with malice or made to cast aspersions beyond the statement, it can still be considered as defamatory. I know because my University are in the process of taking me to the High Court at the moment for defamation. @Walter Cairns - I totally disagree with this statement. Protection From Harassment Act 1997 provides only two qualifying criteria - that the harasser knew or ought to have known that their actions would have caused harm, and that a course of conduct was pursued (i.e. not just a one-off incident). Dr Fredric's website certainly constitutes a course of conduct by my reckoning. The police will have been looking at the criminal remedy and will have found an insufficient base for criminal prosecution. Perhaps the Magistrates court was looking at the civil remedy the act affords? We will never know as Dr Fredrics was not present. @EliseV - I point you to my previous comments. There are different criteria for civil/criminal harassment.

Whatever the nature of the law, I know I would feel harassed if someone started a website in my name and outlined all my wrongdoings. Surely it is possible for H Fredirics to have been treated very badly indeed by Kingston University, and for Fredrics to have harassed Sir Peter Scott.

@ Damien & @ Silent Minority: Whatever the 'technicalities' of the respective laws, and these of course can't be ignored, there is another wider picture of huge relevance that employment law in particular, fails to consider. There is overwhelming research that workplace bullying is a fact of life and not only in academia. The impact upon the victims (targets) is devastating to say the least. Very few ever manage to go as far as Dr Fredricks when challenging the odds and the system. To attribute to Dr Fredricks some possible errors in tactics, takes away from the big picture: As a society we have failed to deal effectively with workplace bullying. We consider what Kingston Uni has done to Dr Fredricks and others, as well as what some other HEIs are doing, as the big evil upon which we need to focus. The laws are not perfect - to state the obvious, and certainly university regulations are there to be ignored or used against the victim. An open investigation on how some HEIs have dealt with similar issues will uncover huge problems, and this is why we are calling for a review through our petition: http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/Justice-Bullying

@ Damien & @ Silent Minority: Whatever the 'technicalities' of the respective laws, and these of course can't be ignored, there is another wider picture of huge relevance that employment law in particular, fails to consider. There is overwhelming research that workplace bullying is a fact of life and not only in academia. The impact upon the victims (targets) is devastating to say the least. Very few ever manage to go as far as Dr Fredricks when challenging the odds and the system. To attribute to Dr Fredricks some possible errors in tactics, takes away from the big picture: As a society we have failed to deal effectively with workplace bullying. We consider what Kingston Uni has done to Dr Fredricks and others, as well as what some other HEIs are doing, as the big evil upon which we need to focus. The laws are not perfect - to state the obvious, and certainly university regulations are there to be ignored or used against the victim. An open investigation on how some HEIs have dealt with similar issues will uncover huge problems, and this is why we are calling for a review through our petition: http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/Justice-Bullying

Pierre - none of which I disagree with, but speculative interpretations do not concern a court of law and the technicalities will decide the outcome. If Dr Fredrics wants to win his case he needs a better defence than the one he is proposing.

You have no idea what defense Howard's very esteemed lawyers will be presenting. When the case is presented either Howard will be acquitted or it will be the end of free speech in Brittan.

Silent Minority, certainly Sir Peter Scott may have felt harassed by having all the crap that happened on his watch exposed, but it is not harassment when the subject is purely professional and the content is entirely true.

With all due respect to those who advocate that the H Fredrics’ website was somehow against the law, please take note of the following:
(1) That website did not expose wrongdoing by Sir Peter Scott in his private life, it exposed the wrongdoing of an institution (Kingston University) and its management, that are supported by public funds to perform a public service.
(2) The fact that Sir Peter was unhappy about this publicity is irrelevant. In fact it would be very worrying if he was happy or indifferent about it.
(3) The fact that this website bore the name ‘sirpeterscott.com’ is not against the rules. This has already been established by the appropriate authority, the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO).
(4) The argument about possibly libellous contents of the website, is hypothetical and a waste of time. Sir Peter and / or Kingston University have not made such claims (other than some Mini Mouse sobs here and there). The very fact that Sir Peter and KU have wasted so much effort and taxpayers’ money to pursue approaches, other than a law suit for libel, shows that they are fully aware that they have no chance in hell in winning such a law suit.

@Damian -- Try, as you may, to provoke a negative response from me, but I have no intention of engaging with you or others who might wish to offer their layperson's opinions on the legal basis for my case. We shall simply have to wait and see what the outcome will be.

@To Damian - "The academic – who is represented by Anthony Julius, a well-known lawyer in the firm Mishcon de Reya – will argue before a district judge on 23 April that the prosecution was a breach of his right to free expression and, therefore, unlawful." @Rex - I'm not advocating anything. I personally have no issue with the website. However I am trying to assess whether it meets the criteria for harassment. In my opinion it plausibly does - perhaps this is a fault with the law. @Dr Fredrics - I really don't care what kind of response I provoke from you. I mentioned your case to your MP when I had dinner with him, and I am seeing him again soon so I shall follow it up there. I have said before that your being absent from the court created more problems than it solved - Vince Cable agreed with me on this in our discussions. I wish you the best of luck but I just don't think your defence is up to much.

Is there a difference between the intent to cause harm and the intent to stop bad (as they appear to the accused) practices? It seems that only the accused is qualified to tell, surely, he knows better.

Thank you Damien. ---- Let us apply some simple logic. Whether Dr Fredrics’ website was in breach of the law (any law) is one issue. Whether the absence of Dr Fredrics from the December 2009 hearing at the Magistrates’ court was in breach of the law is another. -------- Dr Fredrics’ absence from the December 2009 hearing post-dated the existence of his website. No rational person should therefore argue that that absence made his website in breach of any law. -----------
The notice and explanation given by Dr Fredrics for his absence from the December hearing is relevant in establishing whether the Magistrates’ Court acted outside the law by holding a hearing and convicting him in his absence, without offering him the opportunity to secure legal representation which is a right stipulated by the Human Rights Convention. ----- So, let us keep our arguments clear and logical, please.

@Damien: "The police will have been looking at the criminal remedy and will have found an insufficient base for criminal prosecution. Perhaps the Magistrates court was looking at the civil remedy the act affords?"

Forgive me, but this is legal illiteracy - the magistrates' court's brief was to consider exclusively the criminal issues, not the civil. As others have pointed out, if there is a civil angle to this it is that of defamation - and I do agree that there is a possibility (however remote) that an action on those grounds could succeed. But this is not the road down which Scott chose to go. Also, the criterion that the accused must have known that their actions would cause harm has to be viewed in the context of the rationale behind the law, which was essentially to deter stalkers. The point is that if Dr Fredrics's website falls foul of the 1997 Act, then the internet might as well cease to exist, as it will be subject to thousands of prosecutions per week.

Walter - my impression was that PHA 1997 created an unusual legal oddity in that a Magistrates court had the power to impose civil remedy. My impression was they had power to impose damages and injunctions. I could be wrong, but that is was my reading has indicated.

But as far as I know the court only had regard for the criminal charges. Of course I may be wrong as I have not seen the transcript of the decision (has anyone?) but that is the way I understood it.

It is of interest that KU is now unable to secure anything other than a low response rate to the NSS now that Dr Fredrics has made it more difficult for students to be bullied 1) to complete it and 2) to lie when doing so.

It is of great importance to all academics and inded free thinking peope lin the UK that Dr Fredrics win his case. All should support him in his.

RE the master KUSU has been quite active in harassing students to make sure they give positive marks in the student survey, reminding students that positive marks in the survey are 'important for the universities reputation' and that positive marks in the NSS will 'enhance the value of your degree' KUSU has ceased being independant voice for Kingston Students quite some time ago.

@Damien

There is no provision whatsoever in the Act for the Magistrates to try a civil action under the Act nor to consider or impose a civil remedy. It is true that a civil action in respect of harassment may be brought to the County or High Court, but this is no different from the civil actions that can be brought in tort for most instances of criminal conduct that constitute a tort (e.g., assault, battery etc).

I can also not see why you believe that Dr Frederic's defence is so weak. Assuming that the evidence and comment he provides on the website in question is true, he would seem to have a strong defence under the reasonable-person's test imposed by s.1(2) and the defence of reasonableness under s.1(3)(c).

If, as has been alleged in messages above, the chairman of the board of magistrates has a connection with the complainant, then it would also seem unbelievable that he did not recuse himself.

Good luck, Howard.

It's depressing to the point of immobilizing that such immoral behavior on the part of the leaders of society (courts, academic institutions, etc.) can be so defended by their own like kind, leaving it to the non-powerful, non-rich folks of the world to see the immorality clearly. In places like North Korea, it's at least more honest; there they just call it totalitarianism. But in supposed "free" countries (i.e., England, the United States) it is the same damn thing, only with clever, many-layered disguises.

If "Sir" Peter Scott should ever visit my school in America, I'd let him know just how insignificant I find his "sir-hood." What a creep.

Good luck, my friend.
-Jode

"In addition, the police found no evidence of harassment, but the Crown Prosecution Service nevertheless pressed the charge."

I don't understand this, as I understood the police investigated and the CPS only get involved if the police pass them a file of evidence with a recommendation to prosecute.

If the police found no evidence, how would the CPS get involved and proceed. I don't believe they have their own investigators who investigate and try and find evidence.

The CPS' rules state that they should only prosecute when it's in the public interest and they have a reasonable chance of conviction. I fail to see how they could think they had a reasonable chance if they had no evidence.

@David Jones -- This is the puzzling thing. With the report by the police showing that there was no evidence of harassment, the only logical reason the CPS decided to prosecute is because of some external pressure being applied either to the police and/or to the CPS. Either that or it no longer matters whether or not there is evidence in order to obtain a conviction in Britain, provided that the will to do so is there.

Perhaps the prosecutor is in bed with Scott's legal team. That is the way it works sometimes. The prosecutor is approached by lawyers, knows exactly what the clerk can put over on the magistrates, gambles that some poor sod will not be able to defend himself, and there you have it!

There are usually a few people that share the same bed - not literally of course... but then again, who knows? HR in the management bed, not unusual, normal practice. 'Independent' investigators in the management bed, normal practice. Governors in the management bed, not unusual, normal practice. Judges in the management bed and so on and so forth... This is one of the reasons and of course not the only one, that victims have great difficulty getting justice. It is time to expose such 'bed sharing'. Please sign our petition at: http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/Justice-Bullying

We are forgetting the harassment issue. Most of us are bullied by our managers at various stages. We fight them internally and if we do not succeed leave the university. This academic set up a website in the name of the VC of the institution in which he worked and started posting messages in that website. That is harassment. It will be harassment if the VC or his minions set up a website in the name of this academic and started posting messages. The person concerned has left the country and wants to prove his innocence despite what he did in respect of that webiste.. Surely, the website which he set up in the name of the VC should be taken into consideration while the appeal is heard. Please let us not condone this behaviour of the academic while submitting the petition.

@Kevin -- have you actually viewed the site? --http://www.sirpeterscott.com -- If you had, you would quickly realize that it merely presents the words of the individuals as they said/wrote them in emails or other documents. If people are unable to deal with having their words presented in public, then they ought to think twice before saying them. Also, you forget that many of the things posted on the site are simply publicly available documents with findings by government agencies of proven wrongdoing by the University (e.g. QAA report on the External Examiner scandal) and its officials in their professional capacity as well as previously published press articles. There is absolutely not a single word about anyone's personal or private life on the site. Obviously, you also have not the slightly clue about what constitutes harassment under the law. Perhaps you need a refresher course in the Protection from Harassment Act.

You have not done anything wrong-why you can't have a website with your own name like "Fredrics replies", why use the VC's name ? You left out this so conveniently in your long response!

We have not got a satisfactory reply from you -Fredrics, about why you named the website in question as www.sirpeterscott.com. Why not any give it any other name? You answer this question first before you claimyourself be a victim of injustice. Why www.peterscott.com?

This thread was moved to second page in this website as posters were interested in other threads. Fredrics brought it out to the top by simply repeating what he has been saying all along without explaining the reason for calling his website in Kingston's Vc's name. Do not give him the oppotunity to
keep hisrepetitions, prevarications going until he answers the question, the previous posters have asked. He is in America having escaped the law, and he should move on in life there.

@Kevin: Why indeed? Why did he not name it "Disgusted, Tunbridge Wells"? Point is he didn't and does not need to justify himself to use his right to free speech, and the finding of harassment based on this caustic but tame website was a travesty of justice.

@Cairns. You say tame. Try this on MMU VC and let us see. Tame or not it is a mischief intend to embarrass/ ridicule/harass the Kingston VC.

But, Kevin what is written in the website 'sirpeterscott.com' is TRUE. How come you are not concerned about the fact that such wrongdoing takes place and Peter Scott is responsible? That is something that should be known. You seem more concerned that Peter Scott will be ridiculed. What would you prefer that this wrongdoing is kept secret?

@Rex. Surely it is possible for the content of the website to be true and it still be inappropriate to use an individual's name as the name of the website. From reading Kevin's posts there is nothing to indicate that he would prefer that the worngdoing be kept secret. Being wronged does not give us a free hand as to how we respond to that wrongdoing.

Hmmm.. how interesting that Fredrics' completely legal activities on his website in the previous post are deemed "inappropriate". So it is inappropriate for fee paying students, their parents, taxpayers and the public at large to know about what went on at Kingston, is it?
It is getting a bit tedious,all these posts in THES which continue to deny the legitimacy of any activity or person who/which exposes or attempts to challenge wrongdoing---even by their own organisations' definition of it.

Colleagues here don't get it. I am not against exposing any appearent wrong doing by the VC or the senior management or governors. Indeed I very much welcome it. But I object to the way it was done. Colleagues would not like if some one sets up a website in the name of Lily, Cairns or Rex or Kevin and then argue that it is done to draw attention to the wrong doing of these people. It is harassment even if it is argued as true. We say it is "true " but the court has to convinced about it if the individual or institution concerned takes issue with it. . There are better ways of doing it. For example, one could set up a website with a name like www. Fredrecssays the truth.com.

To Silent Minority: You write ‘IT IS INAPPROPRIATE’. This case went beyond the realm of good manners a long time ago. H Fredrics’ career, life and health have been destroyed. He has been financially ruined trying to get justice from a system that does not respond as it should. Peter Scott and his entourage are largely responsible for that. And you are talking about being ‘inappropriate’? Why, what would you rather H Fredrics do, commit suicide? Or just do anything, so long as he does not ROCK THE BOAT? ---- Kevin, you also hover around the issue of good manners. You say one ‘would not like’. Here we have a serious conflict, I daresay a conflict between David and Goliath. Goliath is equipped with the power of his position (including a knighthood), unlimited funds for litigation, the HR machinery of Kingston University, a team of lawyers and possibly (as we have recently been given grounds to suspect) the support of the judicial system. Goliath is abusing this strength to hurt David, but when the latter uses a stone to attack Goliath you say ‘it is not nice to use a stone’. ---- I personally hope that this conflict ends up like the biblical one.

And one more point. Goliath’s strength is supported by the taxpayer (our money). Do something about this, sign the petition at http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/Justice-Bullying/

Whether anyone thinks Dr Fredrics went about this in the right way is irrelevant. The UK has some of the most onerous libel laws in the world and if anything on the website was libelous, then Peter Scott should have sued for libel (although I think the laws need to protect those highlighting wrongdoing from being gagged in this way). It's ridiculous to claim that the website is harassing Peter Scott (he hardly needs to look at it if he doesn't want to), it's clear from the contents that it's about Sir Peter Scott's actions and not dishonestly trying to pretend that it's his site and this prosecution was a gross abuse of the law. I'm sure there are many people in Kingston who are experiencing real harassment and threats (for whom this law was supposedly enacted) who are getting no assistance from the authorities. It's about time the CPS' decisions were subject to oversight and challenge as they seem to be a law unto themselves at the moment and repeatedly ignore their own prosecution guidelines.

Seems like Martin Hall VC of University of Salford ,was emboldened by what Peter Scotts lawyers did to Howard Fredrics and is using the public purse to fund a team of lawyers to take down a student who dared to be outspoken and critical.. Peter Scott opened up Pandora's box. Now VCs are invincible. The union, I understand did not support Dr. Fredrics, and that is quite unfortunate. The repercussions are coming fast and furious. Now even student whistle blowers are not safe. Sir Peter Scott has dismantled England's great tradition of free thinking in the academy. That is how he thanks his country and Queen for honouring him for service to higher education. How ironic. I urge readers to read the recent THES article concerning the student who received threats at Salford.

@ Kevin:" You say tame. Try this on MMU VC and let us see. Tame or not it is a mischief intend to embarrass/ ridicule/harass the Kingston VC."

And if the MMU VC responded in the way Scott did, I would find that just as objectionable. I am not my VC's keeper, far from it, the pages of this journal are redolent of our little disagreements with each other!

"Colleagues would not like if some one sets up a website in the name of Lily, Cairns or Rex or Kevin and then argue that it is done to draw attention to the wrong doing of these people"

Gosh I should be so lucky! But what cause for complaint would I have if a website was set up that told the truth about my failings and engaged in a little Private eye-type banter?

I will reiterate for the last time, the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) ruled that I was perfectly entitled to use the domain name, www.sirpeterscott.com, following a complaint made by Prof Scott (with the financial support of the University and at a cost to the British taxpayer of over £4,000). I do not need to justify the choice of domain name, as that should be plainly obvious to all. Indeed, a number of posters have already correctly cited the reasons in the comments section of an earlier THES article, and they have nothing to do with a desire to harass or embarrass anyone.

@Not Suprised -- I would agree completely with your post about the connection between my case and that of the student from Salford referenced in today's THES. The precise facts and legal tools are quite different, of course, but the underlying notion of silencing the dissemination of uncomfortable information in the public interest is one and the same. This latest event is, in my view, the logical outcome of what happened in my case, and I suspect, will not be the last of its type unless and until such legal rulings are found to be unlawful. Even if they are, the damaging chilling effect upon the British whistleblower is done, and will take some time to dissipate. This is a very sad situation, indeed.

Really, this bonkers nonsense goes on and on without ceasing. As I've read Howard Frederics' comments on this and almost everything else over a period of months I have slowly, and at first unwillingly, become an admirer of Sir Peter Scott. I believe that he is a living saint, and that his patience has been tested beyond measure. I believe he has behaved in a moderate and sensible way. I do not believe that as a consequence of his actions the quality of public discourse, civil society, or free speech has been terminally damaged.

I can see both sides of the argument here and think the legal argument boils down to this. The convicted wrote a set of assertions at least believed to be true. He did so with honest intent and intending to expose something he thought was wrong. He registered a domain name and hosted a website in that name, both of which did not contravene any law. However, it was the use of the domain name and the material it contained that created an intended thrust against a particular individual that causes a crime according to UK anti-harassment legislation. In particular, the knowledge that the domain name itself would carry huge weight in search engines and so strike at and cause extreme discomfort, possibly fear, to an individual from search engine returns and the individual's knowledge and fear of those search engine returns that constitutes absolutely the nature of harassment. If that point is proved then in the absence of any positive associations about the individual in content a court will be bound to find that an intended malice occurred. That is unfortunate, for unlike some genuinely nasty websites containing falsity or manipulated conjecture, the "culprit" had an honourable intention to do the right thing. It occurs to me that if the "offender" now publishes that he had not intended to abuse the web as a device of harassment (which removes mens rea/culpa), thinking instead the domain name was simply a jolly good idea because that's who he was writing about and his localised audience within the university would know it, an appeal court would clear his name (there being nothing else to merit criminal liability). That stance would also maintain the status quo as regards fair comment, expose and other reporting via the Internet. I can see, though, and based on this case, should newspapers and the like start setting up domain names in the name of their story target then the courts would quickly find they have crossed well over the boundary of legitimate reporting into that of deliberate long-term harassment, and therefore crime.

@Mike, Just Mike "In particular, the knowledge that the domain name itself would carry huge weight in search engines and so strike at and cause extreme discomfort, possibly fear, to an individual from search engine returns and the individual's knowledge and fear of those search engine returns that constitutes absolutely the nature of harassment" Very well put. But I differ in your analysis, the "culprit" had honourable intention. If he had he would name the website in his own name, as some one suggested something like "Fredrics speaks the truth". The vehemence with which he now protests and looks for any flimsy opportunity to ram his side of his case down the throats of the readers of THE threads . This shows that he intended just the way you say above. The best approach for theis "culprit" hence is to tender unreserved apology in the appeals court for the wrong doing. He would not do it, his appeal will fail.
I fully agree with " Oh,who cares?". Forget this person who skipped to his native country and let us move on.

@Mike, Just Mike and @ Morgan -- you are both fools to draw all sorts of conclusions based on false assumptions of intent on my part. Perhaps, instead of commenting here, you might want to use your time more fruitfully by commenting on something whose facts you understand. Or at least, first go back and look at the comments on the earlier articles reporting on the case to understand the significance of the domain name and how it has nothing whatsoever to do with the basis for the charge of harassment. I have nothing to apologize for, and have no intention of doing so. Indeed, if you read the coverage, you will see that Prof Scott and the University both publicly state that they have no intention of or desire to curb my right of free expression via the website, including the rendering of criticism. It therefore appears disingenuous to me (and to many others) that Prof Scott would give his blessing, then launch a criminal complaint in relation to precisely that web content. It just doesn't make logical sense, unless his intent was to mislead the public into believing that he supports free speech on one hand, while at the same time, his underlying desire was to seek advantage in the ongoing Employment Tribunal case against the University by pressing forward a criminal complaint.

For avoidance of any doubt, and as clearly stated on the website, the purpose of the site is: "This site tells a story through documentary evidence, images, music and video. It paints a picture for the reader/viewer to judge for him/herself, rather than putting forth a particular point of view about relevant events, by asking difficult and important questions to consider about what it means to work and study at Kingston University." The site is NOT directed at nor is its content focused on Sir "Peter" Scott.

It is amazing to read your argument that the website you set up in the name of
Sir Peter Scott was not direct at him! Perhaps set up to eulogise him? Any way, I suppose the Brits are funding your appeal's legal cost-that is legal aid? May be we are all fools in the eyes of you!

Why don't you move on in US? I saw a few music academic jobs advertised in US colleges and universities. You could send your resumes to them. Beware, there will be search committees for these positions and they will find out what you were upto so far. They will know about your Sir Peter Scott website.

@Move on -- No legal aid, I'm afraid. Out of pocket only, since the case is not before a Crown Court, and also because of the changes to Legal Aid rules that make getting it quite difficult. You, as a Brit, ought to be aware of your own country's policies on such matters. My appeals are on principle, the principles, as set forth in the HRA, ECHR and UDHR, of the right to fair trial and the right to free expression. Also, my colleagues in the US are already well aware already of the events surrounding this website. People who know me, support me and are appalled at what is going on in my case. So I'm not particularly bothered by anyone in US academia knowing what's gone on. Unfortunately, however, because of the injuries to my health caused by this whole ordeal, it may/may not be possible for me to ever return to working life. Only time and medical treatment, if I can get it, will determine that.

@ Mike, just Mike: "However, it was the use of the domain name and the material it contained that created an intended thrust against a particular individual that causes a crime according to UK anti-harassment legislation."


Could you please indicate the section in the relevant Act which states this? And if indeed the legislation covers this scenario, why did the police investigating the case not think so?

I read this and I wonder (with all my sympathy for Dr. Fredrics and all my absolute outrage at any persecution of free speech) just how one dares to appeal a decision of a court to which one didn't even come. I think that Court of Appeal might even refuse to hear the appeal for this reason. Nothing less than a very strong evidence of physical impossibility to come to the hearing will suffice.

@Michael Pyshnov -- adding into the equation the Catch 22 fact that I'm barred under immigration regulations from entering the UK at the present time makes it impossible to attend any further hearings. If what you meant was the original hearing, I was ill with H1N1 flu and, under doctor's orders and NHS policy guidelines, unable to attend. But the Court has already accepted that I'm able to have my case considered by a District Judge in my absence with my lawyers in attendance for possible quashing of my conviction and subsequent re-trial.

Yes, I meant original hearing. Now, I can say that British court system is not all bad. Good luck!

Please consider attending the Court hearing on 23 April at 2:00 p.m. at the Kingston Magistrates' Court, Guildhall, Kingston-Upon-Thames. At this hearing, an application to quash the conviction will be heard.

Remember, "mushrooms don't grow in the light of day."

Today, at a hearing before a District Judge, my conviction on charges of harassment was overturned. Questions remain as to how and why the prosecution was allowed to go forward in the first instance, and further investigation of this matter is now underway.

Congrats. I havent found a media report on this as yet.

Dr Fredrics

Congratulations.

Milicent Fenwick had once remarked 'I have come to believe that one thing people cannot bear is a sense of injustice. Poverty, cold, even hunger are more bearable than injustice'.

Dr Howard, I had sent you an e-mail on blowthewhistle address as I thought I had information which may be beneficial as well as some bearing to your case but didn't get a reply from you. Please check as it may have gone to the bulk folder.

@David2 -- Thanks! It is interesting and strange that the press was quick to report on my conviction but slow to report on its overturning. As of today, there have been no press reports that I'm aware of having been published.

Congratulations, Dr. Fredrics!
It should be interesting to hear about legal grounds.

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL CASE: Dr H Fredrics v Kingston University.

The Employment judge Mr Zuke, in his decision to strike out the above case, relied largely on the conviction of Dr Fredrics by the Kingston Magistrates’ court, despite representations that that conviction would be contested.
Given that this conviction ha...s now been set aside, what are the implications for the ET decision? Was Mr Zuke’s decision to strike out the case against Kingston University premature and hasty?

It is incongruous that the comments here are now ahead of the above story. Melanie Newman or somebody else at THE should produce a new updated story. The above story is in anticipation of the court case taking place so you would have expected it to have been updated now the event has now actually happened.

Word has it from people who attended the hearing that the case was overturned because Dr. Fredrics right to free speech was violated. What interests me is why a university that should prize the free flow of ideas has cooperated with, if not instigated the restriction of free speech in the UK. When an entity has nothing to hide, it does not have to interfere with the flow of information. Many student reporters at Kingston University have attempted to write articles about the website and the harassment case but nothing has ever been published in the student newspaper. Under the control of sir, Peter Scott Kingston University is really no longer, in the traditional sense fulfilling the role of being a university. What is Scott running? A degree factory?

Following a re-trial today, the Court ruled that there was "NO CASE TO ANSWER" on the charge of harassment. The Judge pointed out that the harassment law was not designed to protect a person's reputation and that in any event, the site addressed matters of professional conduct rather than personal issues.

The Judge made it clear, therefore, that there was NO EVIDENCE of content on the website to sustain a charge of harassment.

This shows that there is some sanity within the system.