If I was not innocent then :
- I would have immediately reported the incident myself.
- I would have confessed during the police interview at the time of my arrest. (Until you experience being arrested, you can not imagine the stress of the situation. It would take a much harder individual to consider lying under such circumstances !)
- I would not have appealed against the findings of the disciplinary hearing.
- I would not have undergone a polygraph examination to prove my innocence.
- I would not have passed the polygraph examination.
- I would not have exhausted my life’s savings in legal defence costs.
- I would not have written about my experience and my opinions on a public blog.
- I would not have allowed my story to be exposed and reported by the media.
- I would not have shared information with senior members of government, including Gordon Brown, Ed Balls, Jack Straw, David Cameron, Michael Gove and Barry Sheerman.
- I would not have contributed material to the House of Commons Select Committee Meeting of 17 June 2009.
- I would not have written to Her Majesty The Queen.
- I would not continue to fight against this injustice.
- Lancashire County Council failed to provide ‘natural justice’.
- Lancashire County Council denied me all my rights that were applicable to the policies and procedures relating to ‘Handling Allegations Against Staff’.
- Lancashire County Council sanctioned an investigation by the head teacher knowing that there was a history of significant resentment.
- Lancashire County Council denied my request to appear before an independent panel of governors due to the complex inter-relationships that existed between Duke Street Primary School governors and witnesses that precluded any possibility of a fair hearing. (The hostile witnesses were governors of the school. Another governor was the supply teacher who filled my vacancy - it was to her financial benefit that I did not return.)
- Lancashire County Council sanctioned an untrained and inexperienced disciplinary hearing committee that comprised a local florist and his employee. (All floral requirements of the school were supplied by this committee member !)
- Lancashire County Council intentionally excluded a governor at the appeal hearing.
- Lancashire County Council denied any consideration of character references / statements.
- Lancashire County Council attempted to silence me through litigation - they threatened me with a breach of the ‘principles of confidentiality’.
- Lancashire County Council attempted to silence me through bribery - they offered me £10,000 on the proviso that I did not discuss my case with anyone - including my own family !
- Lancashire County Council prevented the involvement of one member of their staff from speaking on my behalf.
- Lancashire County Council reinstated my position yet upheld the allegation of assault. Their action had only one intent - to prevent me taking my case before an independent and impartial hearing at an employment tribunal.
- The head teacher’s investigation and report was biased and set out to prove guilt at any and all costs.
- Evidence and statements that did not support the head teacher’s ‘beliefs’ were excluded.
- Statements were not signed or dated. The signatures and dates on my statement were removed.
- The hearing committees were not thorough in their consideration of presented evidence. (They missed fundamental context of my statement.)
- One key ‘hostile’ witness intentionally lied. Her decision to lie and to ‘lie by omission’ not only prejudiced my case but that of the child. Her action, as a teacher, failed to honour and respect the safety of children.
- The school had failed to adhere to child protection policies. At the time of the allegation, staff had received no Child Protection training for over three years. There were staff working with children whose CRB status had not been verified.
(I had occasion to write to Helen Denton’s predecessor, Pat Jefferson, on this very point.)
Without qualification, she replied : “I do not feel that it is in the best interests of all of the parties involved for this to be re-examined.”
On Monday, 11 January 2010, I provided Helen Denton with evidence showing that a ‘key’ hostile witness had lied and perjured themselves at both the disciplinary and appeal hearings.
Helen Denton immediately replied : “I do not see that does anything to change the current position with regard to your own closed case, so the situation remains that no further action will be taken within Lancashire County Council.”
Lancashire County Council had not even started considering the evidence that I provided, how can they then say it has no bearing on my case ?
Understanding the reasons why one witness chose to lie might provide a basis for explaining why others also lied.
Nothing has made any sense throughout my case.
It was claimed that I hit the girl so hard that she continued to suffer from post-traumatic abuse a year later. It was agreed that, at the time, she showed no reaction nor did any other children – that is not possible … it sounds like another ‘immaculate conception’ story … but I know it never happened – that is the truth and that’s what I can not bear and I will have to fight that injustice forever !
I was judged on ‘Balance of Probability’. Even in this brief summary, can anyone believe that I am guilty ?
The problem for Lancashire County Council is that they dare not and can not allow my case to be re-examined. To do so, would expose their failings and all those directly involved whose actions and inactions resulted in the destruction of my career and my life.
So their only recourse is to continue to ‘sweep it under the rug’ and then to ‘look the other way’.
They know that I will continue in my ultimate goal - I want the justice that they denied me - and the girl, for she was not given justice either.
I want my case re-examined by an independent body who are experienced and impartial - is that too much to ask ?
How much would it cost ? Very little. The value to me would be incalculable as would the lessons to be learnt that might benefit everyone in the future.
All that I want is justice and an end to my suffering and pain - a time when I can move on with my life and never have to look back at what is approaching three years of utter horror and from which there is no escape !
Today, the very core and fabric of my life has been destroyed. I am effectively homeless as my financial state is such that I could no longer afford the mortgage payments on my home ...
... a criminal is given better and fairer treatment and regard to them as a person. At least they can expect an impartial trial before a qualified judge and jurors. A criminal can appeal and not expect to come before the same quango court. A criminal is sentenced to a fixed term and can expect remission. A criminal has an expectation of a life at the end of their sentence. There is an end to the incarceration of a criminal. I did not experience such luxuries nor do I have any hope for the future.
All that I wish for is that my name be cleared and an end to this torment – living with the knowledge that I am innocent and did not receive a fair hearing is a burden that continues to devour my life.
Any miscarriage of justice is a travesty – all that I request is that my case be re-opened and re-assessed. I want to answer all questions before an impartial audience – to be given ‘natural justice’.
Jane Jameson (née Watts)
