A Gloucestershire Brexit supporter failed in a bid to avoid a conviction by citing obscure Australian case law and arguing police are “badly trained dummies”.

John Timbrell pleaded not guilty to obstructing a police officer in Mitcheldean – despite freely admitting yesterday in court that he obstructed a police officer.

The 76-year-old, of The Stenders in Drybrook, told Cheltenham Magistrates’ Court a police arrest warrant is “fraudulent” if it does not have a wet seal.

He attempted to prove his innocence by quoting 18th century Prime Minister William Pitt – but Timbrell was found guilty and ordered to pay £850.

Speaking to Gloucestershire Live after the trial, Timbrell said he does not consider himself a ‘freeman on the land’ – a term used by people who say they have ‘opted out’ of the law.

Asked how he would define himself, he said: “I am a person who is extremely knowledgeable about the law.”

Unprompted, he added: “I agree with the sentiments of UKIP and Brexit, but not the way the Government is going about it.”

How Timbrell obstructed a police officer

PC Varden and PS Freeman attended a house in Carisbrook Road on the morning of January 2 to execute an arrest warrant.

Colin Turley was wanted in relation to £23 worth of criminal damage to a car door – an offence he was later convicted of, then fined £500.

Turley refused to let the officers into his house and called his friend Timbrell.

Timbrell arrived on the scene shortly afterwards and told the officers they had no right to be there and they could not lawfully enter the property.

Giving evidence to the court, PC Varden said: “I didn’t know what he was on about.”

PS Freeman said Timbrell spent 20 minutes quoting legislation. The officers did not understand the point of this.

PC Varden and PS Freeman climbed over the side fence and entered the house through the back garden.

By this point, Turley had let Timbrell into the house through the front door.

Timbrell dialled 999 to report West Mercia police officers were breaking into his friend’s house.

Turley composed an email to the Chief Constable of West Mercia police saying officers were “about to break in”.

The officers walked into the living room, then Timbrell placed his hand on PS Freeman and took hold of PC Varden’s fleece, telling them they should leave.

“At this, PC Varden applied a thumb-lock to remove Mr Timbrell’s hand from him and informed him he was under arrest,” prosecutor Matthew McCabe said.

Turley and Timbrell were taken to Hereford police station. Turley criticised the lack of seatbelts in the police van.

Timbrell cross-examines police

The defendant represented himself in court and cross-examined both PC Varden – who had been set to retire last month but held off because of the court case – and PS Freeman.

Police bodycam footage was shown in court, which Timbrell claimed had been “cleverly edited” and, later, “badly edited” to take out evidence that he quoted common law to the officers.

In court he asked PS Freeman: “Did you know you have to show someone an arrest warrant in order to execute it?”

PS Freeman, 51, replied: “In 26 years I have never shown a warrant to someone I have arrested.”

Timbrell then described the officers as “badly trained dummies” who do not know the difference between ‘lawful’ and ‘legal’.

“Your rights as a police officer do not give you the authority to break common law,” he told PS Freeman.

“The fact a living man can refuse jurisdiction from a court is not known to many police officers.”

Timbrell then described the legal system as the “illegal system”.

Timbrell quotes the First Earl of Chatham

The prosecutor pointed out police can enter a property to execute an arrest warrant under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.

But Timbrell responded by quoting William Pitt, the First Earl of Chatham: “The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown.

“It may be frail; its roof may shake; the wind may blow through it; the storm may enter; the rain may enter; but the King of England cannot enter; all his force dares not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement.”

He then quoted the transcript of an Australian case from 1984, Halliday v Nevill.

“A police officer who enters or remains on private property without the leave and licence of the person in possession or entitled to possession commits a trespass and acts outside the course of his duty unless his entering or remaining on the premises is authorized or excused by law,” he said.

Timbrell added: “I have stopped police breaking into people’s houses in Gloucestershire.

(Image: Gloucestershire Live)

“I stopped a sergeant breaking into my house to detain a mental patient I was protecting. She was a whistleblower and they unlawfully tried to silence her.”

Chairman of the magistrates Michelle Eccles broke in: “I don’t want you to say anything that will incriminate yourself later.”

Timbrell replied: “I don’t mind.”

'Did you use the internet in your research?'

Mr McCabe asked Timbrell why he considered the arrest warrant fraudulent.

“It did not have a wet seal on it,” the defendant said.

Mr McCabe asked: “Did you use the internet in your research?”

“I am not going to be trapped into that,” Timbrell replied.

The defendant then asked the prosecutor: “Would you say common law is superior to statute law?”

Mr McCabe said: “With the greatest of respect it is not for me to answer your questions.”

Mrs Eccles then ordered Timbrell not to quiz the prosecutor any further.

Timbrell then said: “I know I obstructed police.”

Mrs Eccles asked: “Can I just check you said you obstructed police?”

“Oh yes, I did,” was the response.

Timbrell found guilty of obstructing police

The magistrates found Timbrell guilty after deliberating for around 20 minutes.

Mrs Eccles said: “The defendant stated in his evidence he obstructed police. Police had a legal authority to enter the property to effect an arrest.”

Timbrell sighed and said: “Oh well, I half-expected it anyway.”

Mr McCabe then told Mrs Eccles that Timbrell was fined £500 in 2014 for assaulting a police officer.

Timbrell shouted out: “I voided that.”

The defendant, who earns £11,000 per year, said “no way” when asked if he could pay £850 that day.

He said he would pay his fine in instalments of £10 each week – but then expressed an intention to appeal.

Show more

Mrs Eccles told him he would need to appeal within 28 days.

Laughter rang out around the courtroom when he replied: “Oh, I won’t take that long.”