Dear Peter Wright,

The Mail has been the only paper fair enough to carry the story that my submission to the Court of Human Rights has been accepted and is being considered this summer.

If they were to decide in my favour I suspect you might agree with them, as opposed to Judge Hoffman’s comments in general in your paper today.

Is it really fair that the dates on an indictment can be changed after the defendant has proved they cannot have been correct, without any opportunity being given to prepare or present an alternative defence for the new dates?
And can it really be fair that a man can be convicted of crimes that never took place and then, years later, discover he has a cast iron alibi that he was on another continent during one set of the later dates?
Can it be fair that a jury can be sent out to consider verdicts without hearing a single word of defence for the 4 out of 6 changed dates?

The prosecution argument is that it’s not when but whether something took place that matters.
Our point is that most jurors would have had grave doubts if dates were to be changed twice (always to later dates - quite possibly eventually putting the ages of the complainants over 16).

I must tell you - in sex charges, the accused is now essentially considered guilty unless he or she can prove themselves innocent; not only difficult but often impossible when it is one person’s word against another’s.
The reversed decisions and overturned convictions in the Court of Appeal are mounting daily (and rarely seem to get media attention). But they often take forever.
I promise you - I am absolutely totally 100% innocent of the convictions against me.


Thank heavens for the Court of Human Rights which sometimes examines decisions in our British courts. This is the other side of the coin; something that the Mail often seems to be alone in pointing out.
So please bear in mind. There are many, many circumstances where we should give thanks for the Human Rights court. The “simple, cold clarity of the laws of England and Scotland” often get it dreadfully, dreadfully wrong.

As you well know from Sean Hodgson to Barry George to Sally Clark to Jonathan King.

Best wishes,
Jonathan King

Unfortunately,as I'm now discovering to my cost what you say is true.
A case against me covers a period of nearly 2 years,and it was based on testimony given 10 years later!
British law in some cases now is based,not on justice,but on pampering the tabloids.
I was very anti-european,but now have had to reverse that stance,due to the hard evidence of truth.
Judge Hoffman,while he may consider the independance of the judicary important,should balance that with the wider picture.The simple fact is British justice is tainted,from the innocent/framed pub bombers,to Sion Jenkins,and of course to Jonathan King.
Simply put if Europe is prepared to stand up for injustice in British courts then old fools who have facilitated the injustice have to make way.
The biggest crime here is that the judiciary didn't stand up against this injustice,so that we don't need to look to foreigners to do the job for us.

Judge Hofmann's comments reek of xenophobia and racism especially with his dig at Latvia. I think he protesth to much.

He sounds annoyed the Court of Human Rights is treading on his patch and seems to indicate that the rest of Europe cannot teach Britain much which is far from the truth.

Note-the only case he can dig up as criticism is an obscure case about assault concerning a doctor with a quite startling attempt to claim a woman's suicide was because of it..but where is the proof ?

Is that the best he can do ?

Contrast that with the dreadful catalogue of human right's abuses that have happenen in British courts for decades, with only some being now reversed (as in JK's examples).

There are any things I question about the EU but this Court is a necessity for all citizens.

The very fact it is removed in distance and influence from local judges and politicians is the very reason it's needed.

When the powerful get rumbled and see their influencce and power threatened, they fight back like crazy.

I would think that they "bend" the truth for many cases JK - not just yours. The JILL DANDO case for instance - the SION JENKINS case - and probably 90% of all terror related cases.

The truth is the victim.

Hopefully the European Court will give you a fair and proper chance of clearing your name by presenting this real evidence to them.

However, New Labour have ignored the European Court ruling on DNA passed in December. They are still holding MILLIONS of INNOCENT people's DNA and are refusing to destroy it. Every person who has not been charged at the very least should have their DNA destroyed - the keeping of it means they HAVE A CRIMINAL RECORD ( not officially of course but in reality )

Our Government breaks the law all the time - its ministers and its police do not abide by the law.

That is why the general public has lost faith with the Political and Justice System in this country. It is totally corrupt at its very heart.

and starting soon..the trials of lie detector tests on "sex offendors" who are to be realeased with threats of non-release if they won't take the test.

This is going to be fasinating. I predict major probems if not a complete catastrophe over this. It will end in tears.