Welcome to the UK Justice Forum > New members please introduce yourself here.

Misuse of Protection from Harassment Act against Justice Campaigners

(1/3) > >>


Thank you for allowing me to join your group. I have been campaigning on the Matthew Hamlen case which has clearly been a miscarriage of justice. We have taken a low profile on that on legal advice, so I'm not going to say too much about this case just at the moment. However, I would like to point out the dangers of the misuse of the Protection of Harassment Act against campaigners.


I could have gone on to say that I was twice brought to court for openly challenging the evidence given by a prosecution witness in a high profile murder trial.  It was clearly perjured. On neither occasion was any evidence offered. The intention was not to secure a conviction. I had a cast-iron defence because the PHA exempts anyone who is engaged in the "prevention or detection of crime".

The intention was to secure a restraining order in each trial to prevent me doing what I was previously doing totally legally, which is why I do have to be careful about what I say in public. Being truthful is no longer a valid defence in this country.

Welcome to the forum Peter.

A little background to the case...

DETECTIVES spent years probing the death of Georgina Edmonds, who was killed with her marble rolling pin at her Hampshire home in 2008.

The 77-year-old was tortured by her murderer, Matthew Hamlen, in a bid to get her to tell him her debit card PIN - but he was only found guilty after TWO trials.

Mrs Edmonds was bludgeoned and stabbed to death in her own home in the village of Brambridge. The 77-year-old widow was living alone in the property when she was attacked. She was described as a woman with restricted mobility but an "independent character who walked her two cocker spaniel dogs, drove her own car and did her shopping locally".

Mrs Edmonds was found dead in the kitchen of her riverside cottage in a pool of blood by her son, Harry, who lives in a larger house on the same estate.

She was stabbed 37 times with a knife on her chest, neck and upper back before being beaten with a marble rolling pin broke into three pieces.

A two-year manhunt began afterwards with almost 2,000 DNA samples taken from local people in an attempt to identify the killer.

Matthew Hamlen was convicted of murder.

The married dad-of-one was sentenced to a minimum of 30 years behind bars.

Hamlen, who was originally charged with her murder in 2010, was cleared of her murder in 2012.

But he was re-arrested in 2014, following a relaxation of the double jeopardy law, which had previously prevented anyone being tried for the same crime twice.

He was then convicted - four years after he was cleared of the crime - following fresh evidence which led to a six-week trial at Winchester Crown Court.

Hamlen, who had a history of domestic violence and cocaine use, was also suspected of dealing drugs and was thought to be considerably in debt.

He had always denied any involvement in the killing.


Thank you for the above is the official narrative of the case as reported by the Sun. We perhaps shouldn't be too reliant on accounts by such papers as the Sun, the Mail and the Express.

Matthew has admitted the recreational use of cocaine. He denies dealing in any illegal drugs. The history of "violent domestic abuse" relates to one particular domestic incident in which his partner admits it was partially her doing as well. There were no charges brought.  Since this one particular incident the couple had gone on to become married and have a child between them so the decision of Hampshire police to take no further action at the time would appear to have some justification. In any case, if Matthew had broken any laws relating to Class A drugs, or anything else, there other more appropriate charges than Murder.

The murder was indeed horrific in its nature. The question is who was responsible? The evidence against Matthew was shaky, to say the least, which is why he was acquitted in his first trial which was held in 2012 or some 4 years after the crime in 2008. It was just two years later in 2014, some six years after the crime, that the police put their hand into the evidence bag to "find" another sample of DNA that they had somehow missed previously. Some of us aren't totally convinced about this!


The issue that has most concerned me is the nature of the evidence on stature given by the police prosecution witness. She calculated that the killer was between 5ft 11in and 6ft 2in tall. Matthew's prison record shows him to be 5ft 9in tall. She calculated the height to the base of the neck to be between 5ft 5.5in and 5ft 6.5 in. Independent measurements show Matthew to be 5ft 0.5in. She calculated the length of trainers worn by the killer to be between 319 and 371 mm. See attached pdf file for photos and other comments.

Note that I am not allowed to use the real name of the expert witness on a public forum even though no evidence has ever been presented that I have committed any criminal offence.

This is what I would like to concentrate on rather than the wider issue of Matthew's case at the moment

For those unfamiliar with the full story of this case...





Probably the best place to start is the BBC Crimewatch program that was made shortly after the crime itself.


It raises some obvious questions.

If the motive was robbery, why was 30 in cash left in the kitchen? It isn't mentioned in this video but we also know that Mrs Edmonds had expensive rings on her fingers plus an expensive watch on her wrist. We also know she had an alarm bracelet which she could have used if she felt herself to be in any danger.

Why would anyone torture an old lady for her pin number when there was no way to check it? Why would the killer leave it until later in the evening to try out Mrs Edmonds bank card?

Why would anyone go around the back to climb in through the bedroom window when someone was close at hand with a key to the cottage?  It wasn't quite as close as shown in the BBC video but they were close enough.

Why would anyone steal a mobile phone just to throw it over to the opposite side of the riverbank? Why not throw it in the water? Why steal it in the first place when there were more valuable options at hand?

Why would anyone want to waste time telling the telephone operator why they went in through the bedroom window rather than just concentrating on the basic facts of what had happened and the location on the emergency?   "You can call an ambulance just to be on the safe side" ??? How odd is that?


[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

Go to full version