John Kear and Neural Technologies

Another Miscarriage of Justice

In 1999 I was headhunted to work for a company called Neural Technologies of Petersfield, Hampshire that turned out to be a mindlessly corrupt organisation supported by mindlessly corrupt lawyers and which began the start of a four year legal nightmare.

I cordially invite all recipients of this message to attend the Employment Appeal Tribunal, Victoria Embankment, London on June 2nd 2003 to witness the culmination of this fiasco. Evidence presented to the court will include proof that Neural Technologies have committed repeated and blatant acts of perjury over a period of four years, actually fabricated evidence for a counter-claim, their Barrister, Charles Spencer Taylor, knowingly presented false testimony to a previous appeal hearing and more recently their solicitors, Blake Lapthorn, repeated the same acts of perjury before an Employment Tribunal at Southampton, the Chairman recording the conflict of evidence as a “possible misunderstanding”.

The evidence incriminates the ET at Southampton as being the most biased and perverted court of law in the land.

Here’s the story:

In May 1999 I was recruited by Neural Technologies (Nt) to a relatively senior role. They immediately started to capitalise on my name and reputation publishing bumph in the public domain announcing my arrival. I was not happy.

One publication I considered defamatory and complained about it. I immediately became the target of a campaign coordinated by a small number of people, life became an absolute nightmare and the end result was that I was summarily dismissed on a made-up charge of gross misconduct and given no opportunity to defend myself or appeal.

Thus began the legal action.

I was accused of breaching company confidentiality by sending a copy of a newsletter to a former colleague who had helped to write it. The newsletter had been published and circulated to all and sundry in the industry two weeks previously.

February 2000: The then CEO of Neural Technologies, Nick Ryman-Rubb presented argument to the court that the newsletter contained sensitive company information. When it was pointed out that the content of the newsletter was available on the company website he changed his claim, stating that the newsletter had not been published on the date in question. When it was proved that the newsletter had been published two weeks previously the Chairman, Lewis Belcher exploded with fury shouting at the Respondents that there was nothing confidential in the document. Then something strange happened. As if a signal had been given Belcher sat back in his seat with a completely stunned look on his face, it took him a few moments to recover. My own legal advisor physically restrained me from giving further evidence while their Barrister, Charles Taylor went on the attack making scandalous accusations against me.

Belcher went on to find against me and that I had supposedly breached the rules of confidentiality. He made no mention in his summing up of the date of publication of the letter.

Belcher also allowed a counter claim against me which was not within the jurisdiction of the court, and was later proven to be supported with fabricated evidence.

I took the case to appeal. In June 2000 I successfully got the case through a preliminary appeal hearing where the panel agreed I had been stitched up. On July 5th 2000 my former legal advisor phoned me up and not trusting him I recorded the telephone call. He started asking questions about my case and wanted contact names in the Employment Appeal Tribunal. After this point the court became obstructive and delayed the full hearing until November 2001.

Notice papers were served on Neural Technologies in October 2000. Within one week there was a mass exodus of staff from the company including the CEO who had fabricated this whole case.

Blake Lapthorn solicitors and the Barrister Charles Taylor again presented argument to the appeal court that the newsletter had not been published, a fact that they knew to be untrue and even made the comment that “it is commonly accepted that there can be no confidentiality after publication”, words that were eventually used against the Barrister.

Applications were made to the appeal court to secure the Chairman’s notes of evidence to prove that there had been publication. All applications were declined with no valid reason given. In July 2001 by a stroke of luck I secured evidence to prove the publication date, a copy of the letter that had gone out to a prospective customer. Needles to say the Barrister was completely humiliated in the EAT but the court would not record that the Barrister had misled the court. Rather than overturn the judgement the Chairman advised us to settle out of court, when I would not agree he referred the case back to the corrupt court at Southampton.

The (Sworn affidavit) attached is a summary of my experiences at Southampton. The actions of the court are arrogant and mindless. Seemingly they act as if they are untouchable.

Neural Technologies and Blake Lapthorn again presented argument to the court that this bloody newsletter had not been published on the date in question despite the fact that the date had been clearly established at two previous hearings. The Chairman recorded the clash in evidence as “a possible misunderstanding” and neglected to address any of my claims for costs or damages.

Under the Data Protection Act 1998 I served a Subject Access Request Notice on Neural Technologies to secure evidence to prove that their counter claim was fabricated. They refused to comply with the request. I secured a court order against them for the release of the information. Again they refused to comply and the court that made the order would not enforce it.

So it goes back to appeal once more. It has taken the repeated intervention of my MP just to get dates secured. The staff at the EAT continue to mislead me and I have caught them out at every turn. Written letters of complaint to the court are ignored.

At the most recent preliminary hearing I was told that my appeal case would not be allowed to proceed if I maintained my allegations of bias and corruption, the Chairwoman striking out my claim. She has allowed me only half a day to present my full case to the court because she didn’t want “an overkill”.

The Bar Council refuses to discipline Charles Taylor for misleading the courts.

The Police refuse to charge anyone. After many months of perseverance I did get Hampshire CID to arrest Ryman-Tubb on a charge of perjury. When they realised that they could not possibly charge him without the whole sordid truth coming out they started piling pressure on me to do their job and became abusive. I have not spoken to them since and they have dropped all charges against Ryman-Tubb, though they didn’t have the courtesy to notify me of this fact.

On June 2nd 2003 the civil case returned to the EAT in London. The evidence proved that the Respondents had repeatedly misled the Employment Courts over a period of many years. The Chairman of the day saw nothing wrong in the Respondents misleading the court or in fabricating evidence for a counter claim. He was not bothered by the fact that the Respondents had refused to comply with a direct court order for the release of further evidence. The Chairman’s view was that this was within the Respondent’s right to defend themselves. The Chairman of the day made a costs order against me because I had made a complaint about the actions of the Respondent’s solicitor in misleading the Courts. The complaint had been made directly to the solicitor concerned and also to his seniors as a public interest disclosure since he continues to break the law and presides over a miscarriage of justice. The Chairman was blatantly biased and simply referred the case back to the original court in Southampton despite the fact I made a specific claim for the case to be dealt with in London.

He did not however have any choice but to allow my claims to proceed.

The Respondent’s solicitor had copies of personal communications between myself and my former legal advisor, proof that they are colluding.

The Chairman knew facts about me that were not in the evidence and had not been presented to the courts at any time, proof that there was collusion between the court and the Respondents.

By July 2003 I had still not received the written transcript of the judgement from the EAT court which in any case will be a complete fabrication and tissue of lies.

Full chronology of events.
Sworn affidavit.
Apellant's Skeleton Argument before the court.
Letter of complaint from John Kear to the Employment Tribunals Service.
Return to contents list.

Copyright © 2003 - John Kear
All Rights Reserved
E-mail john_kear@kear.fsnet.co.uk