GET THE LATEST NEWS FROM ACROSS THE COUNTY IN YOUR INBOX SIGN UP Thank you for subscribing See our privacy notice Invalid Email

A feisty Forest pensioner told a Gloucester judge yesterday that he wants to summon the Gloucestershire Chief Constable to court appeal to ask him why he failed to protect him.



John Timbrell, 76, of Cidermill Cottage, The Stenders, Drybrook is appealing against convictions for offences of assault on June 25 and July 8 last year. He was wearing just his boxer shorts when he attacked his neighbours in a dispute about a field and has repeatedly cited obscure laws in a bid to defend his actions.

At Gloucester Crown Court on Monday Timbrell told Judge Michael Cullum that he wanted a witness summons issued for Chief Constable Rod Hansen to attend his appeal on April 26.

Judge Cullum asked: “Do you still pursue a witness summons for the chief constable?”

“Yes I do,” Timbrell replied.

“Can you give me the grounds?” the judge asked.

“He can give evidence on why he has not protected me, meaning that I have had to take the law into my own hands,” Timbrell replied.

“The chief constable did not do his duty and that caused me to take the law into my hands.

“He needs to explain why he did not. He did not answer the affidavit.”

The judge ruled: “I am satisfied that any point can be made without Chief Constable Hansen being present.

“I do not grant the witness summons.”

Timbrell referred to the convictions at the magistrates: “I have voided that.”

“You cannot do that,” the judge said.

“I disagree,” Timbrell told him.

“I thought you might say that,” the judge observed.

Timbrell suggested that the judge had 'disqualified' himself from sitting on the case, and began to cite laws and procedures that he said applied.

(Image: Simon Pizzey)

“I am going to stop you there,” the judge said, “and ask you to put it in writing within seven days.

“You are to provide anything that you state will be an abuse of process along with any relevant binding authority.”

The judge began to warn him that in the event of the appeal failing, he would be liable for the costs.

“Finally as I say to each appellant,” the judge said, “litigation in the crown court comes with a financial cost it unsuccessful.

“I anticipate you have made that decision...”

Timbrell interjected: “This court requires you to follow our constitution or Magna Carta. Do you accept that?”

“I simply want to make you aware that if you are unsuccessful there will be a significant financial cost,” the judge replied.

“What you are suggesting is against our law,” Timbrell remarked.

“That is why it is more important for you to understand the process,” the judge said.

“It is a clever reply,” Timbrell observed.

The judge said: “It is a courteous reply, unlike your retort.”

“You are disobeying the law,” Timbrell claimed.

“I am telling you that it is a process that if unsuccessful it will cost you a significant amount of money. I would not want you to embark on it without knowing that. You now know that,” the judge told Timbrell.

The judge fixed the appeal hearing for April 26, and appointed a solicitor to cross examine the witnesses on Timbrell's behalf.