My website, COLIN PETERS BEFORE THE COURT OF PUBLIC OPINION at tells of how, as a small works builder, I was tricked by a friend/client into undertaking a large job of works to his properties on an agreement that he proposed and I accepted,  but one which he never ever had any intention of honouring.


It was a con trick which gained him his own home at no cost to himself but at the cost to myself of losing my own home and property and everything that I had.


He could not have succeeded in his blatant deceptions but for being aided and abetted by lawyers and professional people who had no interest in truth, no interest in justice, but only interested in how much money they could screw out of the public purse - legal aid - for themselves.


At the onset of litigation Nicholas P Luty was the legal executive, now solicitor, who got Dennis Bottomley and his wife their legal aid certificates on a pack of lies without checking on the veracity of their claims.


The deceptions advanced by Bottomley were that he had supplied many costly items towards the works, which he had not been credited for, and that there were many defects to the works.

Even when I had supplied the receipts for the items which B had claimed to having supplied, in proof of his deceptions, Luty refused to advise the Legal Aid Board as was his duty as a condition of legal aid.


Paul S Withey was the surveyor who aided and abetted Bs deceptions by issuing an 'expert' 7 paged report that was a fabrication from start to finish. The report purported to itemise and put values to all the materials that B had claimed to having supplied towards the works.

The report also claimed a 'contract price' that was false and went on to claim that there were many defects in the works which would cost a large amount of money to remedy.

This constituted a large counterclaim against myself, the value of which which at all times, was kept greater than Bs debt to myself.


John Walford, now a judge, was the barrister who drew up the Defence and Counterclaim document which reiterated all of the deceptions contained in the Withey report. It might well be said that, at that time, he did it in good faith perhaps having no cause to doubt the report.

But, there was no excuse for him when almost 5 years later, he stood by and remained mute whilst B put claims of contract and inducements to contract, to the court which were different to, and conflicted with, the pleaded case that he had authored closest to the event.


As a barrister it was his duty to not allow the court to be misled.


There were other professionals and lawyers who became involved along the way, but by and large, together with judge Arthur Hutchinson QC, these were the ones who all played their parts in causing me injustice.


A read through of the outcome driven judgement of judge Arthur Hutchinson clearly shows that he had no interest whatsoever in me nor had he any interest in justice for me.

 It is quite possible that he had no real interest in Bottomley either!


What does shine through for all to see was his determination to cover up for, and protect the interests of his fellow lawyers and professional peers. It was all just one great big cover up.


Regarding the surveyor, he stated, "Mr Withey. With a deal of regret and no small measure of embarrassment I say that he is a witness on whose evidence alone I would not choose to rely

His evidence, has to be said, reads well - but so it should - he is a professional witness.

His whole approach, I felt, was that he had been retained by the Defendants and he was going to give them value for money."


Is attempting to aid and abet a clients deceptions and to gain him a pecuniary advantage by deception and to attempt to pervert the course of justice, really and truly the legal and judicial definition of the giving of Value for Money?


It would appear so.


On the day of the giving of the judgement a replacement barrister for John Walford, Andrew Thompson, represented the Bottomleys.

Immediately before the judgement began he sprang to his feet and conceded the counterclaim with regard to the items that Bottomley had claimed in his evidence to the court of having supplied to the works.


Judge Arthur Hutchinson simply waived it aside with a "Very well" as though it was of no consequence, - it didn't matter - and then proceeded with his outcome driven judgement.


This was outrageous. It was the proof beyond any doubt at all that in the giving of his evidence, Bottomley had committed the criminal act of Perjury in his court.


By his condoning of, and giving his blessing to, the two criminal acts committed in his court by two Defence witnesses, judge Arthur Hutchinson QC made himself a party to the acts of fraud and deception which were being progressed through the court that he was supposed to be presiding over as an impartial and unbiased judge.


Judge Hutchinson said of the barrister, John Walford, "I must pay tribute to Mr Walford, who has sought to balance his duty to those he represents against his duty to the court."


The truth was that John Walford had stood by and remained mute whilst his client, Bottomley, put claims to the court which were different to, and conflicted with, the claims that he had authored as being the pleaded case, at the time nearest the event, almost five years earlier.

In the interests of justice, any duty he owed to the court was to not allow the court to be misled.


The pleaded case claims which had fraudulently gained the Bottomleys their legal aid certificates being rejected by the judge, the facts show beyond any doubt at all, that there was one pack of lies to gain legal aid certificates and a conflicting pack of lies to procure a favourable judgement. 


£32,000 of public monies were expended on aiding and abetting Bottomley to evade a debt of just £6,173 and each and every person who received a share of this £32,000 was paid from public monies gained by fraud and deception.


Bottomleys profit from his acts of deception and downright dishonesty as been in the region of £100,000 and to date he has not reimbursed the Legal Aid Board the public monies which gained him this ill gotten profit.