 |
| Adrian Yalland |
A
Tory PR man, arrested near the home of the founder of Fathers For
Justice, will not face any criminal charges, the Crown Prosecution
Service have ruled.
Adrian
Yalland, 44, says he was acting in self-defence during a
confrontation outside the home of Matt O'Connor, 46, in Stockbridge,
Hampshire.
Yalland,
of Maritime Avenue, Marchwood, Southampton was detained by police on
February 20 in Stockbridge High Street after attempting to serve
legal papers.
He
told Square Mile News today: “The police accepted I was acting in
self-defence, and have pressed no charges.
"I did not ‘break into their home'. Indeed, Hampshire Police will confirm that at the time they were interviewed, neither Mr or Mrs O’Connor ever alleged I did.
“The allegation that I ‘broke in’, which they have repeated widely, is an allegation which they have made subsequent to their interview with the police solely for the purposes of damaging my reputation.
“It
is however entirely false and I intend to take action against them,
calling, if needs be, Hampshire Constabulary as a witness in this
respect.
“The
police accept I did not ‘launch a roadside assault', but that in
fact I was attacked by Mr. O’Connor and then Mr. O’Connor’s
landlord, on whose wife I had just served legal papers regarding her
libel of me, based on the article which Square Mile News published
about me in October, which also contained false allegations and is
also actionable.
“The
police, who seized my phone at the scene, have confirmed there are no
photographs of their son, or the inside of their home, but there is,
as I claimed there would be, a picture of the outside of the house,
which I took, under legal advice, to demonstrate to the court that
service of legal papers had happened in accordance with Civil
Practice guidance, pertaining to an order for costs.
“Mr.
O’Connor’s own video shows I was not ‘removed
from the premises’.
“Furthermore,
I was never in the premises, but was at all times either on a public
highway, or on their driveway, with implied consent, lawfully
delivering letters.
 |
| Video: Yalland |
“In
fact, an attempt to prevent me from leaving the driveway was made by
Mr O’Connor, who also assaulted me both as he sought to prevent me
leaving, and prior to it.
“He
then assaulted me a third time after grabbing my phone.
“You
carry the claim: 'The
video clearly shows Mr. Yalland punching one man in the side of the
head and knocking him to the ground outside my home.'
“This
is a claim widely made by Mrs O’Connor, and is demonstrably false.
“The
video, in fact shows me repeatedly walking away from Mr. O’Connor,
who is being aggressive and using foul language, and who, at the
moment I am alleged to have punched him, can be scene grabbing my
phone from my outstretched hands.
“Mrs
O’Connor is therefore claiming that I punched Mr. O’Connor, a man
who must weigh in excess of 16 stone, ‘in
the side of the head’
with sufficient force to knock him to the ground, with him, as the
video shows, falling to my right, indicating he would have to have
been punched by my left hand on the left side of his head.
“Yet,
to the contrary, the video actually shows Mr. O’Connor claiming he
had been punched ‘in
the face’, not
the side of the head as Mrs O’Connor later claimed, whilst both my
arms were outstretched and holding a mobile phone and taking a
picture.
“I
invite you to view the video yourself in order for you to ascertain
the veracity of the claims made by the O’Connors, and to ask if it
is possible that I, with an already outstretched arm, could have
punched a man weighing in excess of 16 stone with sufficient force
‘in
the face’
to knock him over to his right.
“Mr.
O’Connor has supplied or published no medical evidence, or
photographs of bruising or reddening, to evidence his false claim
that he was punched.
“Furthermore,
the police have confirmed that both at the scene and later in
custody, my knuckles showed no signs of having been employed in a
punch, which due to the necessary force required to knock Mr.
O’Connor over, would have certainly shown some evidence had I
punched Mr. O’Connor as he falsely claims.
“Mr.
O’Connor further claims I bit him, even producing photographic
evidence of the ‘bite’. Yet he makes no mention of the ‘bite’
in his video.
“I
am informed the bite looks like it was not inflicted by teeth, but
with a knife. I was not found to be carrying a knife.
“You
carry the claim: 'A
second man attempted to restrain Mr. Yalland from continuing his
assault and was severely bitten by Mr. Yalland.'
“Yet
the Police have accepted it was I who was being assaulted, that I was
acting in self-defence, that there is therefore no evidence to
support this allegation.
“The
Police have confirmed an injury to the back of my head consistent
with a punch.
“Furthermore,
the injuries the landlord received were, to quote police press
release, ‘minor’, and not ‘severe’.
“I
invite you to examine Hampshire Constabularies comments to confirm
this for yourself.
“Mrs
O’Connor states: 'If
Mr. Yalland were serving legal papers there is a protocol for doing
so. He did not follow this protocol.'
“Yet
my solicitor has given a witness statement to Hampshire Police
stating I was indeed following Civil Practice guidance pertaining to
an order for costs, and was indeed, as Mrs O’Connor says.
‘following protocol’, not least of all Mrs O’Connor was using
deception to avoid service of the Letter Before Claim, the evidence I
have and have given to the police.
“Elsewhere,
Mrs O’Connor has claimed I was not delivering legal papers, but at
her house to confront her, and that there is no legal dispute between
us.
“Yet
Hampshire Police were, at the scene, handed copies of the Letter
Before Claim by the O’Connors, which I had just served.
“Ipso
facto, there is, inter alia, a legal dispute and I was delivering
legal papers.
“I
will leave it to you to decide if you believe the O’Connors have
acted honestly in this regard, but I hereby inform you I have handed
Police a 46 page bundle of evidence which details their year-long
‘war’ (as they describe it) against me, which includes defamatory
comments and false allegations which pre-date SQM’s article of
October, which was the final source of my original Letter Before
Claim, a letter Mrs O’Connor claims does not exist, even though she
handed copies of it to the police.
“You
will know that publishing the false allegations of others, or
repeating false allegations made elsewhere, is not a defence in
defamation proceedings.
“Furthermore,
I draw your attention to the fact that you made no effort to
ascertain the validity of the claims you have made/repeated.
“I
there hope you will agree to remove the article in its entirety.
“If
not, please consider this a Letter Before Claim. I reserve my rights
accordingly.
No comments:
Post a Comment