...flailing. As he got to the van, Colin Russell ran up behind him and restrained him a second time. This is the second incident and, as a result of it, the plaintiff fell once more to the ground, from which on this occasion he did not rise, having suffered injuries, until an ambulance arrived.

My approach to the evidence is guided by the following impressions. Firstly, the plaintiff cannot, in my judgment, be regarded as a reliable witness. He is plainly an obsessive and embittered man, with strong feelings against the Hall family and the defendant firm. Secondly, I felt able to rely upon the evidence of Colin Hall and Colin Russell as to their beliefs and intentions. Thirdly, and most importantly, I found Mr Higgett an impressive source of independent evidence, albeit that he was behind the camera lens and did not see everything that occurred. Against the foregoing background, I find the following facts.

1. At the outset of the encounter, no-one was intending or contemplating violence. The plaintiff was wearing carpet slippers and carrying a camera, and the hammers were carried solely for use in the removal of the sign.

2. The plaintiff’s evidence of aggression on the part of Colin Hall and Colin Russell as they came to the sign and started to free it, is evidence that I reject.

3. I find that the plaintiff was at all times indicating his contention that both men were trespassing and were not entitled to remove the sign...

WARNING!

Any person retaining the services of Cripps Harries Hall, PricewaterhouseCoopers, Brachers, Rix & Kay, could face the prospect of assault & battery, supported by Sussex Police, as I did, when I discovered fraudulent conduct. All are co-conspirators in this matter together with other named parties.

( continued overleaf [11] )