EXCLUSIVE: Man claims police and CPS 'slipped page from statement' and stole 'Range Rover' during criminal trial

A man claimed police and the CPS "slipped a page out of a statement" during his criminal trial and "stole a Range Rover" that should have formed part of a subsequent proceeds of crime case.

Julian Wright, 59, made the shock allegations at Snaresbrook Crown Court as he argued they had joined forces to launch a "vindictive" review of his assets because he made a complaint to a watchdog about alleged anomalies with his prosecution.

Wright told the court a Met Police financial investigator had applied for a new restraining order upon his home just seven days after the CPS Independent Assessor of Complaints (IAC) issued a report that partially upheld his complaint against the Government agency.

Wright had complained to the IAC, which independently looks at complaints about the CPS, that a page from a statement made by a prosecution witness who forensically examined his mobile phone was not included in the criminal trial bundle.

The new restraining order was granted upon his home at a private ex parte hearing at the court, which Wright had not been invited to attend.

Applying for it to be discharged, Wright argued it had been applied for as a vindictive act in response to what he said was a partially upheld complaint about the CPS and the force in respect of the alleged missing page.

Asked by His Honour Judge Ross Cohen why he believed the application was malicious, Wright said: "Because they (police and CPS) slipped a page out of a statement and they stole a Range Rover that should have been part of the POCA."

He argued that the timing of the restraining order application, seven days after the IAC filed its report to the CPS, coupled with his claim that none of his financial circumstances had changed since the earlier POCA proceedings ended, showed it was vindictive.

Michael Newbold, representing the CPS, assured Judge Cohen that there was no ill-intent, stressing that neither the police officer or the CPS barrister involved in the application, were subject to any of Wright's complaints.

About 460 grams of skunk weed was found at the proeprty he owns, in Ilford, in September 2014, in various locations and Wright was charged with four counts of the supply of cannabis in connection with it.

But, he was only convicted of one count of possession with intent to supply concerning just 16.2 grams worth about £100.

He was also convicted of the possession of £2,370 cash of criminal property at a trial at Snaresbrook in April 2016.

Wright, who continues to deny the offences, served three months of a 12-month jail sentence before being subject to a Proceeds of Crime Act (POCA) confiscation hearing.

The POCA case concluded that his overall criminal benefit of his offending was £776,538 but that £330,979 was available to be recovered through the sale of a number of properties and a pension.

The lower amount was supposed to be paid within three months of the POCA case which concluded in March 2017.

However, after he struggled to sell one of the properties, and the case was put on ice while he unsuccessfully took his conviction to the Court of Appeal in 2021, the total amount was not settled until September 2023.

Wright was able to clear the confiscation order without selling his home, but had racked up about £80,000 of interest, half of which had also been paid.

The CPS has also applied to the court for a production order to get details of Wright's mortgage account, so it can assess his level of equity in the property.

Wright argued the CPS was aware of the situation with the property since the original confiscation proceedings and nothing had changed since.

Judge Cohen, who told the court he had not read any of the skeleton arguments for the case ahead of the hearing, and was "skim reading" them during the hearing, initially said he was minded to side with the CPS by not discharging the restraining order.

Wright also sought a series of disclosure requests in relation to his trial, arguing the CPS had a "duty of candour" to release anything that could be seen to undermine the CPS case.

But, Mr Newbold argued none of his requests were relevant to the restraining order application and he should not be able to "use the restraint proceedings to bolster his case before the Criminal Case Review Commission.

Judge Cohen advised he did not believe the disclosure requests to be relevant.

However, after Wright requested an adjournment to see if he could find a lawyer to represent him, the Judge agreed to put off reaching a verdict until next year.

Judge Cohen also asked the CPS to provide a chronology of events, including of Wright's complaints, and why the CPS was taking the action now, in order to assess Wright's claims of bad faith.

However, he warned Wright that he did not currently expect to find any grounds of why he would discharge the restraining order or refuse the police production order request.

The case continues.