Ive noticed in some of the pro-pengelly articles that have been written he has disclosed his home. "If" he had received threats of any nature, was this a wise thing to do? I think the the only threat this man has ever received is that of legal action.Originally Posted by tolman
UPDATE.
As announced earlier Adrian Pengelly had the court hearing today. He was faced with 4 charges. 2 under the Cancer Act and 2 under Consumer Acts.
He did NOT attend the court hearing. However, the reason for this could be as he had showed his intent in advance to plead guilty. Yes, those of you betting on it.....he did go down the route of a guilty plea. Due to him pleading guilty on all 4 accounts Trading Standards chose to drop one of the charges. So in theory it was only 3 counts he was pleading guilty to in the end.
It did seem at first that the magistrates were swaying to a conditional discharge, but could not consider this in Pengelly's absence. They did not consider the custodial sentence possibly because of the plea and again due to his absence.
What was of interest to those in attendance was the declaration from the defence lawyer, that they indicated that Pengelly had not had any previous convictions relating to this type of offence. It wasn't worded as Mr Pengelly has no previous convictions. I will let you guess and speculate over that.
There was a great deal of press in attendance. The defence solicitor was going to be reading out a statement to the press after. It has been hinted that it probably will contain language similar to what Pengelly wrote on his own website yesterday. That is..."There are these nasty people who had it in for me". Reminiscent of Scooby Doo and the villain indicating "I would have got away with it if it wasnt for you pesky kids".
Outcome...Adrian Pengelly will most likely have a criminal record. He has been ordered to pay £2000.48 in costs, £600 in fine and £15 as a victim surcharge.
For someone who indicated a defiant attitude and "Im going to go down fighting" echo, he didn't. He never appeared
GUILTY
It's unsurprising that he was too scared to give evidence, since he couldn't lie to a court as easily and happily as he lies to terminally ill people.
There could be someone who attended court that could give further details. Interesting though he wasnt brave enough to attend and take his punishment for the "greater good" as you would expect a real martyr to. Im sure he will still try to adopt that role nevertheless.
Well done to everyone that worked so hard to protect the vulnerable and the people who are the real heroes.....The cancer sufferer.
GUILTY AS CHARGED!!
Excellent news, and Rockers, thankyou for the reports.
http://www.worcesternews.co.uk/news/...uilty/?ref=rss
Nice to see the Worcester News brought in a few of his previous comments into this one and also included why the magistrate felt it appropriate to give a fine
Brief notes from someone who attended the court hearing. Prizes given to the one who spots the most porky pies
Charges- 13th July 2009 Public advert offering to treat cancer- Pleaded GUILTY.
25th November 2009- Pleaded Guilty.
One further same kind of charge- pleaded GUILTY.
Because of the three GUILTY pleas a fourth charge was dropped by Trading Standards.
Michael Jones represented Herefordshire Trading Standards.
Because of the nature of the charges permission had to be sought from the Attorney General's Office before a prosecution was brought- permission was granted upon application.
There was a request for Sentence in absence although no explanation was given or demanded for this. It was established that the magistrates had the power to give a fine in the defendant's absence but if they wanted to give either a custodial sentence or give a conditional discharge then they would have to adjourn until the defendant could be brought before them at a later date.
So it would appear that Pengelly felt he could manipulate and pressure the magistrates into giving a fine in his absence and getting it over and done with there and then...and it worked.
The prosecution case evidence wasn't given in full because of the guilty pleas- indeed more time was spent justifying
Trading Standards small costs than presenting the facts or the case or giving background information to demonstrate the crimes and their impacts. The defence lawyer gave in mitigation many facts that were misrepresentative of reality- yet he was not required to provide evidence for his nonsense.
It was stated that there was a "Notable lack of remorse" from Pengelly.
The Trading Standards interview with Pengelly took place in November 2009.
Pengelly claims that in the Autumn of 2008 the basic website was set up and it was changed to the 'fancy one' about 6 months ago.
The website is controlled by a friend.
He does not have the ability to change its contents.
Costs for Trading Standards are £931.98 and £1,068.50 for the Solicitor.
The defence declared that there are numerous testimonials and that there was no allegation that they are anything other than genuine and that all can be produced in original form.
One wonders if the defence has seen them in their original form. He read many of them out to the court.
Pengelly works with animals with considerable reported success it was also claimed by his defence.
Looking at his links, I was wondering if Penny Brohn Cancer Care uses Adrian, or refers anyone to him, and/or if they really want to be linked to from the site of someone convicted for making claims about healing cancer (for commercial gain), let alone someone who has claimed to be able to 'get rid of' 60% of terminal cancers?
Notes from someone who attended court hearing continued. Again directly copied across....
His defence, one young Mr Grey/Gray (wearing a rather fetching friendship bracelet) said of Pengelly "He's an honest and straight talking man that doesn't suffer fools gladly"
"He's been healing for 17 years"...this is untrue as those around him at that time can verify.
Interestingly "He has no convictions of a similar nature" Not no convictions....just none of a similar nature.
His defence made great play of the persecution complex...that three individuals have made it their life's work to etc etc. and it's their complaints that have brought about his court case..
He is proud to be guilty.
Importantly The magistrate said that fines were more appropriate than a conditional discharge due to the potential future impact on vulnerable members of the public.
So he got a £600 fine. Costs of £2000.48, a £15 victim surcharge and because he hadn't advised his solicitor about how he would pay he got granted 28 days to pay.
A weak case presented seemingly without a full investigation into the man's activities and without answering the question of the impact in the past and present of vulnerable members of the public.
This case was dealt with in as minimal a way as possible and in the court room mitigation statements were announced as facts when they were in fact nothing of the sort and not backed up with evidence.
The magistrates were not presented with all the facts that they needed to make a good judgement. Despite this, they saw enough to convict.
Those pesky magistrates must be out to get him too (not so) poor thing
I have a question one of you may actually be able to answer...If someone doesnt appear in court Im assuming that they have not sworn the oath to tell the truth etc etc. Even a written statement contains the sworn signature part doesnt it?
Therefore, can their words and indeed any persons testimony be considered as evidence?
More asking out of curiosity.
Adrian is registered as the owner of the domain name.
Is he claiming that a friend is running it and won't let him change the contents, or merely that he's abdicated responsibility to someone else?
If the 'friend' wouldn't let him alter the contents, than presumably he's accusing his 'friend' of illegally advertising cancer treatments. I'll believe that when I see the friend in court.
Oddly, the website seems to have changed now.
Was that the friend acting on their own initiative, but somehow getting statements from Adrian that make it look like Adrian is very much involved with the website?
I'd be extremely interested to see Adrian's proof of his categorical claim to be able to get rid of 60% of terminal cancers.
In fact, it's a real wonder he hasn't presented such proof already, given the impact that such proof would have on doubters the world over.
Which itself seems rather strange.
Why on earth would someone with such amazing gifts waste time treating horses with dodgy legs or gerbils with anxiety problems when he could be curing terminally-ill humans?
Tolman, I've just e-mailed Penny Brohn Cancer Care and attached a summary of all the info we have on Pengelly.
Congratulations to everyone involved in bringing this about - and a special mention for Julia who has worked long and hard with this case.
Now that Pengelly has a conviction against him, I would think that he will end up behind bars if he's caught doing it again. The narcissismthat comes through from his sense of entitlement to do whatever he wants and his refusal to admit that he was actually wrong (he's right, it's the law that's wrong!) doesn't preclude that.
I see he's resorted to the Argument to Benevolence ("I'm only trying to help people") fallacy and claiming to be persecuted but I doubt too many people will fall for this. As we've said all along, what he's been claiming is illegal and it's illegal because it is life-threatening to people who are possibly at a very low ebb, hence especially vulnerable, by the time they resort to seeing him.
.
Could a relative of someone who died after following Adrian's suggestion that chemotherapy can interfere with his healing have any kind of legal case against him?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks