Want the best Coventry and Warwickshire news delivered straight to your inbox? Sign up here! Sign up here! Thank you for subscribing See our privacy notice Invalid Email

A man had a harassment case against him dropped, after repeated requests to see a phone which would help him prove his innocence were ignored.

And magistrates have been told that the police and Crown Prosecution Service’s withholding of evidence which could help the defence is not confined to serious sex cases in the crown court, following a number of recent high profile cases .

Paul Baden, formerly of Maple Gardens, Rugby, had pleaded not guilty to harassing his former partner by constantly calling her and sending her texts and messages.

The 56-year-old appeared before magistrates in Leamington to stand trial on that charge and a further allegation of causing criminal damage to a lock belonging to his former partner.

Asked for his address, Baden, who had a bail condition not to go to Maple Gardens and has recently been living in his car, replied: “I don’t have an address because the courts have made me homeless.”

With the trial due to start, the magistrates were told that there was an issue relating to Baden’s phone, which was seized from him following his arrest.

His solicitor Peter Gotch explained: “It is obviously of massive importance to Mr Baden, but also a matter of substantial public interest for the public’s confidence in the courts.

“Your worships will have seen of rape cases and so on which have been discontinued because of failures to disclose evidence.

“But what the public don’t realise is that it’s not just high profile cases in the crown court, it’s cases up and down the country in magistrates courts as well.”

Of the background to Baden’s case, Mr Gotch said that at the time he began a relationship with the woman, Baden had a flat of his own on which he had paid the mortgage.

“They decided to buy a house together, and he put in £30,000 and she put in £40,000 but, not long after, they split up and she moved out, and it was decided that the house would be sold and the proceeds shared.

“On the 29th of August, as he prepared to move out, she saw his car was not outside the house, and she went in and locked herself in.

“When he turned up and knocked the door, she phoned the police, and officers arrived and arrested him.

“She then said he had been messaging her, and the police took photographs of her phone, of the messages she said were unpleasant. There were no threats in them.

“What the police did not do is they did not carry out a fair and impartial assessment [of the messages]. They only took photographs of the ones she showed them.

“He was bailed with a condition not to return to his home. She had somehow managed to put the house in her own name, and also his flat in her name, so since August he has been living in his car.”

Mr Gotch said Baden was charged, and at the first court date in September he ‘got quite angry’ and accused the prosecution of perverting the course of justice on the grounds that they had taken away his defence by seizing his phone on which there were all the messages exchanged between him and the woman.

His trial was listed for November 9, but the phone was not produced as an exhibit by the prosecution who that day served a schedule of ‘unused material’ which did not include the phone.

“Mr Baden said they were deliberately hiding it. I would say it was incompetence. The prosecution told the court they did not have the phone, but then we found a statement from the officer who had seized the phone.”

Mr Gotch said he therefore made ‘strong representations’ about magistrates’ court disclosure rules, which say that if there is a failure to disclose evidence the prosecution had to seek an adjournment and, if that was refused, discontinue the case.

Despite that, the trial went off to December 22, when, despite repeated requests by him, the phone had still not been handed over on the grounds that the police had not examined it.

“Then a bizarre thing happened. The officer turned up with the phone in a bag and said we can have a look at it, but only with an officer present.”

The magistrates at that hearing allowed him time to do so – but with 1,040 relevant messages, at 30 seconds a message it would have taken more than eight hours to check them all.

Again the prosecutor argued that the case could go ahead on that day, but it was again adjourned with an undertaking that the phone would be handed over to the defence within a few days.

Mr Gotch said a new trial was set ‘for today,’ and in mid-January he had a call from the officer to say the CPS had told him to hand the phone over – only for his sergeant to tell him not to because it had not been examined by the police.

Then on January 31 he had a call from the CPS asking for details of the expert who would examine the phone, which Mr Gotch said was ‘utter nonsense’ because the defence may not have an expert.

He argued that, with the phone still not having been produced, the trial could not go ahead and that the prosecution should not be allowed any further adjournment.

And as a result, the prosecutor told the court he would discontinue the case against Baden.

Looking for an older story? Search our archives

Search for jobs, motors and property, or place an advert or family notice here.