THE Examiner reminds us that Mr Daniel Bleazard was no angel and I ask who is? A clearer picture of Daniel is emerging to show that disaffection with authority and a poor education left their marks on him.
The love and support of family and friends endures in pitiful letters to Mailbag, indicating that there are positive things to say about him too. The most painful part of this case is that there is not a single shred of evidence against him to demonstrate that he ever intended to use the axe in his bag as the judge described.
There was no evidence to show that it was his intention to use it on anyone, let alone the Queen. I recall how the police recently over -reacted to a man carrying a table leg in a bag. They shot him dead in the paranoid belief that he may have been carrying a gun to use on an unknown person.
A parallel can be found in Daniel’s case. If we feel some weight of the unjust six-year sentence on him, think how his relatives, children and friends are taking it. Conscience aside, whoever remains silent on this one cannot see the bigger picture. That the proceedings are now rumoured to be the result of a personal crusade by a local police inspector makes me question who is in charge of bringing proceedings if it is not CPS?
Turning to the judge in the case, Jonathan Durham-Hall QC is no stranger to controversy. Recently sitting at Bradford, he lost self control whilst sentencing an elderly man. The judge had to call the defendant back to the dock immediately to reduce the sentence by two years!
It seems reasonable to assume that Judge Durham-Hall QC may be inclined to believe that anyone can fly into instant rage just as easily. That incident should have alerted the Ministry of Justice to injudicious action, dare I say, a judge in need of counselling. If such safeguards failed Daniel Bleazard he could remain in jail whilst the Appeal Court takes a view of conduct.
Barry Gibson’s column (February 6) distills Court remarks with mature analysis. Details of the Judge fawning over the Queen’s courage make one reach for the vomit bag and ask why, if this Judge knew the potential victim so intimately, he tried the case at all, failing to disqualify himself at the outset. Who was the Judge trying to impress with his obsequious comments? Did he have anything to gain by exploiting an opportunity presenting itself in his Court?
The trial and the sentence were clearly political although the Crown Prosecution Service had anticipated the criticism. They wriggled on the hook with claims that they were reluctant to bring the proceedings, fearing it would be branded for what it was.
The only thing that can be said with certainty is that Daniel Bleazard had a small axe in a bag on a day the Queen was due to visit Huddersfield. On any other day Daniel would be a free man and this invites speculation. Huddersfield commoners caught with anything that could be construed as a weapon when a 'VIP' decides to visit the Town, may be imprisoned.
If so, can we continue to regard Huddersfield as OUR Town? We all have a vested interest in securing the release of Daniel unless we are content to be subject to the sufferance and whims of a plutocracy.
Dr M T Gray