Regina (on the application of John Allman) 
     v
HM Coroner for West Sussex

SECTION 8  Statement of facts relied on

1)	The deceased Darrim Daoud alleged during his lifetime that he was the victim of organised stalking and harassment using directed energy weapons, and that his life was being threatened.

2)	The deceased before his death stated that he suspected strongly that those who were abusing him in this manner might be agents of the state.

3)	The applicant shared the deceased beliefs, that some individuals are victims of organised stalking and/or harassment using directed energy weapons.  On 14 October 2009, the applicant attended a protest in London against organised stalking and abuse using directed energy weapons, organised by the deceased.

4)	The deceased asked the applicant to intervene in any inquest into the deceased’s future violent death, to prevent the deceased’s own testimony of the abuses and threats being overlooked or misrepresented, and the applicant promised the deceased that he would so intervene.

5)	The deceased met a violent death on 15 November 2009, 32 days after the final conversation of several between the deceased and the applicant during which the deceased told the applicant that his life was being threatened.

6)	During his final 36 hours of life, the deceased published on the internet, both video and text content, making the allegation that he was experiencing harassment that used directed energy weapons, whilst at his home.  This alleged assault apparently caused sleep deprivation that had already lasted 105 hours at the time of publication and a burn to the deceased’s check that is visible on the video footage the deceased published, to which the deceased pointed whilst on camera.

7)	There is abundant evidence in the public domain, including declassified documents until recently secret, that a class of weapons exists called directed energy weapons, which would be capable of inflicting the specific harm to which the deceased testified.  For example, there is an annual trade show cum conference organised in London by a company called Defence IQ, at which manufacturers of directed energy weapons have the opportunity to mingle with military and police personnel, and (it is hoped) with those who have budget that they might decide to spend on such weapons.  Moreover, in May 2009, the applicant was an invited speaker on the subject of some of the capabilities of directed energy weapons at a different conference, the 5th European Symposium on Non-Lethal Weapons.  Colonel John B Alexander admitted publicly after the applicant’s presentation, that the applicant’s presentation contained no false assertions about the capabilities his presentation covered.

8)	The applicant has given such help as he has been requested to give, with the police’s investigation into the death of the deceased, but has not been asked to provide evidence of the “existence” of directed energy weapons.  Had the applicant been asked to do this, he would easily have been able to do so.

9)	The applicant applied on 11 January 2011 for formal recognition as a properly interested person (PIP) at the inquest into the death of the deceased.

10)	The defendant refused to recognise the applicant as a properly interested person.  This is the decision of which judicial review is sought.

11)	The defendant later issued a written statement of her reasons for her decision to refuse to recognise the applicant as a properly interested person.  That complemented her oral reasons given on the day.

12)	The defendant stated in her written reasons for decision, that the deceased believed that he was subject to the deployment of technology that monitors or influences human thought.  The applicant is not offering evidence to this effect.  The defendant’s statement is based up a misunderstanding of the applicant’s witness statement, which is included in the bundle for the present application.

13)	The defendant’s reasons for her decision include the following assertion, in her paragraph 22: “there is no evidence of the existence or use of electromagnetic weaponry . . . which could form a proper basis for challenging the evidence of any witness.”  As stated in paragraph 8 above, evidence is plentiful, of the existence of electromagnetic weaponry.  If the police have not uncovered such evidence, it may be because the police have not wanted to consider that the cause of the deceased’s death could have been exactly the cause of death that the deceased feared whilst he was still alive.

14)	A psychiatrist is amongst the witnesses to be called, and the applicant anticipates that he might assert that the deceased suffered from “delusions”.

15)	Any actual beliefs of the deceased that the psychiatrist is likely to asssert are delusions, are beliefs that the applicant believes he could, as a properly interested person, convince the jury were beliefs that could possibly be true.  They are also beliefs that are the common beliefs of a significantly sizeable subculture, through which the applicant and the deceased met.

16)	The defendant wrote, in paragraph 21 of her reasons, “In so far as Mr Allman’s purpose is to explore or establish the truth of his and Darrim’s beliefs about such weapons this is outside the scope of this inquiry as defined in r. 36.”  The applicant believes the video and text that the deceased published on the internet during his final hours of life, taken together with his various emails and other communication over a much longer period of time, amount to firm evidence that the deceased alleged that he was in danger of being killed, and that it was very likely to be agents of the state that were posing this risk to his life, engaging the deceased’s Article 2 right to life, and creating the need for an “Article 2 inquest”, of scope as wide as the deceased himself wished his inquest to be, if he was found killed, as he feared he might be.

17)	At the time of the oral rejection of his application, and in the subsequent written statement of reasons, the applicant believed the defendant’s assurances that, even though his application was being rejected, he would be invited to give oral evidence and afforded other courtesies, at the eventual inquest, and that his partner Amanda Palmer would also be invited to give evidence.  These assurances influenced an initial decision (now reversed) not to apply for judicial review.

18)	On 7th April, and again on 8th April, the applicant telephoned the coroner’s office in order to ascertain the date on which his evidence and Ms Palmer’s would be heard.  It was implied that if he had not yet received a witness summons to one of the two days 5th and 6th May 2011, he might not be called as a witness after all.  Neither the applicant nor Ms Palmer has received a witness summons.  The applicant was refused any further information, until the relevant coroner’s officer returned from leave, by which date it will be more than three months since the (oral) decision of which judicial review is sought, and (potentially) too late to make the application, other than out-of-time.

19)	On 8th April, the applicant posted to the court an application for permission to apply for judicial review of the defendant’s decision of 11th January 2011.  This was returned unissued because the applicant did not enclose additional copies, and because the defendant was the named assistant deputy coroner, and received by the applicant on Sunday 17th April.  That letter is included as part of the bundle.

20)	Today (18th April), the applicant received an email from the Coroner’s Officer stating that his partner Amanda Palmer would not be called as a witness at the inquest, but that the applicant’s evidence was still needed.  The coroner’s decision (now reversed) to call both the applicant and his partner as witnesses that influenced the applicant’s decision (now reversed) not to apply for judicial review permission as soon as he had the coroner’s reasons for decision in writing.

21)	In this statement of facts, actions ascribed to the defendant coroner are likely to be acts on her behalf by assistant deputy coroner Bridget Dolan.

I believe that the facts stated herein are true.

John William Allman