IOPC’s 24 October response to Letter Before Action (26 September 2019) in the matter of a proposed application for judicial review of the Independent Office for Police Conduct decisions (refs: 2017/082079 and 2019/115969) in relation to appeals against Humberside Police complaint investigation outcome letters of 12 September 2018 and 7 March 2019 (refs: CO/432/15 and CO/632/18) which were dealt with unlawfully in just about every way imaginable. The initial matter (CO/432/15) concerns a police conduct complaint submitted 8 November 2015 which was initially dealt with by way of Local Resolution. The outcome (which was appealed and referred to the IOPC) was provided on 3 April 2017. On completing the review, the IOPC deemed the statutory conditions were not met for the matter to be suitable for local resolution and directed the force to fully investigate the complaint, taking into consideration further information such as evidence in support of alleged collusion between the police, CPS and Courts. Humberside Police ignored the IOPC and dealt with the complaint omitting to consider the further information and evidence and the IOPC was satisfied with how the complaint was investigated. The following matter (CO/632/18) concerns a police conduct complaint submitted inadvertently on 10 October 2018 which was deemed appropriate to be proportionately investigated. The force had – so it claimed – sent the complaint investigation outcome letter concerning CO/432/15 to the wrong address thereby failing to provide sufficient safeguard against unauthorised access, loss or damage to someone’s personal data. The letter contained details of the criminal record of the person whose data protection rights were infringed upon and the reason for his arrest. The data breach (if the letter had in fact been sent) was more severe/unfair due to the disclosed details of the criminal record relating to a wrongful conviction contributed by witnesses committing perjury (the arresting officer is suspected to have incited them). The correspondence to the police on 10 October was not intended as a formal complaint but was handled as one by the force in accordance with the complaint’s procedure under the police reform Act. The communication was predominantly to alert the force of its obligations to refer the personal data breach to the Information Commissioner and to obtain some preliminary information in anticipation of submitting a complaint (to the force) in case it was a prerequisite to raising the issue with the Commissioner. The queries were never answered and the Investigating Officer just ploughed on with the process regardless ignoring the complainant. Consequently the complainant was unable to feed into the process in respect of the information he was denied throughout the course of the investigation because it was not until it was too late when the investigation had completed that the questions he had asked were answered. The Investigation outcome revealed that....

1. Mr
Grimsby
DN 32
By email only on . @gmail.com
24 October 2019
Dear Mr ,
Re: Proposed Judicial Review Claim against the Independent Office for Police Conduct t
We acknowledge receipt of your email dated 26 September 2019, attaching a word document
containing details of your proposed claim against the IOPC. We have carefully considered this in
conjunction with the documents we hold under IOPC reference 2017/082079 and 2019/115969.
Your proposed claim for judicial review challenges the two separate decisions of the IOPC to not to
uphold your appeals against the outcomes of complaints to Humberside Police.
• 2017/082079 a complaint that the officers who arrested you for indecent exposure
perverted the course of justice.
• 2019/115969 a complaint that officers or staff within Humberside breached the Data
Protection Act by sending the outcome letter in 2017/082079.
We have carefully considered your representations and set out below the IOPC’s response.
Proposed Claimant
Mr
Grimsby
North East Lincolnshire
DN32
Proposed Defendant
Independent Office for Police Conduct
10 South Colonnade
Canary Wharf
London
E14 4PU
Reference Details
This matter is being handled by Miss Asil Mehaisi (Lawyer) of our Legal Services
Department under reference 00008507.

2. Summary Background
2017/082079
1. On 8 November 2015, you made a complaint to Humberside Police regarding a prosecution
of Indecent Exposure, whereby you allege that the arresting officers incited witnesses of the
incident, to make false statements. This complaint was recorded on 24 November 2015
however the investigation was suspended awaiting criminal proceedings to conclude.
2. You were convicted of Indecent Exposure on 15 December 2015 at Grimsby Magistrates
Court.
3. On 29th
December 2015, Humberside Police wrote to you advising that the investigation
into the complaint would resume, as the trial had concluded, and was to be dealt with by
way of local resolution.
4. You also appealed your conviction at the Crown Court, this was not upheld. You have
complained to the Judicial Complaints Authority and to the Police about the judge involved
in the trial. I also understand that you have applied to the CCRC.
5. On 28 February 2016, you submitted an online police crime report alleging perjury and
collusion between the courts and CPS.
6. You submitted a further complaint regarding a delay in investigating the 8 November 2015
complaint, which was recorded and deemed to be suitable to be dealt with by way of Local
Resolution on 24 December 2016. I understand this complaint was upheld and no appeal
has been made in relation to its outcome.
7. On 3 April 2017, you received the outcome regarding your 8 November 2015 complaint.
Your complaint was not upheld.
8. On 22 April 2017, you appealed on the grounds the complaint should not have been dealt
with by way of local resolution given the severity of the complaint.
9. On 29 August 2017, the IOPC upheld your appeal decided that the matter (November 2015
complaint) was not suitable to be dealt with by way of local resolution. You were informed
would be investigated by Humberside Police and the IOPC were unable to comment on the
scope of the investigation as it could prejudice the case, in the event of a further appeal.
10. On 8 October 2018, you had still not received a response regarding the outcome of your
complaint so you contacted the Investigating Officer requesting an update. The
Investigating Officer responding advising that a response had already been sent out in a
letter dated 12 September 2019 that you should have received it by now and that it would
be resent. The AA had decided not to uphold your complaint.
11. Once you had received the letter, you appealed the decision that the AA had taken not to
uphold any of your complaints. (November 2015 complaint 2017/082079)
12. On 8 November 2018, you also made further complaint under 2019/115969.
13. The IOPC determined on 14 December 2018 not to uphold your appeal.

3. 2019/115969
14. In your complaint you questioned whether the outcome letter had been sent on the dated
claimed and requested an electronic version with metadata which was sent to you. The
date on the document was 10 October 2018. You were not satisfied with this as the letter
was supposedly sent to you on 12 September 2018. You queried this with the Investigating
Officer who advised you that the file had been converted to PDF format for security
purposes hence dated 10 October 2018.You also noticed that the letter had been sent to
the wrong address.
15. When Humberside Police became aware that the letter had been sent to the wrong address
they reported the breach to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). The ICO made
recommendations to Humberside Police.
16. You were advised that the complaint had been forwarded to Superintendent Hall who would
contact you in due course. Between 7 December 2018 and 27 December 2018 you chased
a response on two occasions to no avail. You were eventually contacted by another
Superintendent who informed you that she was now dealing with your matter. You
communicated to her that you had never intended to submit a complaint, you simply wanted
to query several matters regarding this data breach and several other concerns. You did
not receive a reply therefore you contacted Superintendent Roe on 10 January 2019.
17. In the absence of a reply, you made contact again on 21 February 2019 to which you
received a response on 22 February 2019 apologising and explaining that several matters
had been raised with PSD and that she was dealing with the data breach matter.
18. You understood this to mean that she ceased to deal with the complaint and you felt you
still did not have the information regarding the data breach you originally requested. You
decided that if you did not receive a response by 1 March 2019, you would submit a
complaint the Information Commissioner ‘ICO’. You did not receive a response therefore
you submitted the complaint on 2 March 2019 setting out how your data protection rights
had been infringed.
19. The Investigating Officer for your complaint replied on 3 March 2019 explaining she was in
the process of finalising a letter to be sent to you. You note that your requests for
information were ignored and it proceeded, wrongly, as a complaint, also failing to keep you
updated with each stage of the investigation.
20. On 7 March 2019, you received an outcome for the investigation. Your complaint regarding
the letter being sent to the wrong address was upheld but your complaints that the officers
had lied about sending the letter and/or deliberately entered the wrong address as a “red-
herring” were not upheld. You were also advised that the ICO had made recommendations
to Humberside Police regarding improving their systems but took no other action.
21. The letter stated the following :
“Your complaint has been investigated in accordance with the terms outlined in the
Investigation Agreement and the investigation is now complete. All reasonable and
necessary enquiries have been made to address the issue(s) which you have
raised. The enquiries conducted and proportionate to the nature of the allegation(s)
made and are sufficient to justify the outcome”
You did not agree with this, as you state there was never any agreement regarding the
investigation. In addition, your initial enquiries were never answered which would potentially
form the basis of your complaint therefore you never submitted a full complaint.

4. 22. You also only became aware that the matter was referred to the ICO as a data security
breach on this date. You claim you were unable to feed into the Investigating Officers
investigation as you were denied information throughout the course of the investigation.
23. The ICO complaint had been upheld however the Police were not ordered to take any
further action as the breach appeared to be as a result of human error.
24. You are of the view, that the Investigating Officer potentially, intentionally failed to provide
you with information regarding the data breach in order to eliminate the risk of more serious
conduct matters being identified and raised by you.
25. You appealed to the IOPC on 28th March 2019.
26. The IOPC determined not to uphold your appeal on 25 April 2019.
The IOPC’s response to your proposed judicial review claim
2017/082079 25 April 2019 decision.
27. Appeal ground (a) that you were unable to feed into the investigation and were unaware of
the of the nature of the data breach
The IOPC did not uphold this ground and explained that a police conduct complaint is done
on the basis of the original complaint; the complainant does not have ‘input’ into this
process as they have the opportunity to make any dissatisfaction known at the appeal
stage. The decision as to what it is a proportionate investigation is a matter for the
investigator, as set out below the steps which you consider should have been taken were
not necessary for a proportionate investigation. To any extent that you were unable to
provide input, doing so would have made no substantial difference.
You were aware that the letter had been sent to the wrong address, which is what the data
breach had concerned. Although your complaint and the forces report to the ICO concerned
the same facts they were separate processes; whilst you were entitled to be kept informed
of the progress of the investigation of your complaint, you were not entitled to such
information in relation to the force’s report to the ICO. There is no material respect in which
the force failed to understand the nature of your complaints and to inform you of the
outcome of the investigation into them.
There is no basis on which the IOPC’s decision on this ground of the appeal should be
quashed.
28. Appeal ground (b)
“There was no investigation agreement as stated in the final outcome letter”
As previously stated in the decision later (dated 25 April 2019), this is as a result of
human error. There is no evidence to suggest that there was any intent on the part of
the officer to deliberately omit this paragraph. Human error of this nature would not
constitute misconduct or gross misconduct. The force acknowledged its error and so
there is no need to reconsider the findings.
The appeal determination on this ground was rational and reasonable.
29. Appeal ground (c), (e) and (f)
“You cite IOPC guidance that “proportionate” need not mean limited or small scale.”
The IOPC Statutory Guidance paragraph 9.14 goes on to state:

5. “Every investigation needs to be proportionate to:
• the seriousness of the matter being investigated;
• the prospects of a criminal trial, misconduct proceedings or unsatisfactory
performance proceedings resulting;
• the public interest; and
• the investigation producing learning for the individual or organisation.”
You argued that a relevant line of enquiry would be to establish whether the letter had ever
been sent (given that the recipient at the incorrect address stated they never received it).
You also speculate that the incorrect address may have been added as a “red herring” as
the electronic properties of the original letter allegedly produced on 12 September (as
opposed to the one that was sent to you) would show it was prepared on a later date.
You also consider if the “red herring” theory was ruled out, the Investigating Officer ought to
have investigated whether the incorrect address was entered “maliciously” to disclose your
personal data. In order to verify this, you believe that the circumstances of the caseworker
leaving the organisation ought to have been considered and they ought to have been asked
for an account, as this could be a conduct issue. You note that the caseworker was still part
of the organisation when your complaint was submitted therefore an account should have
been obtained as part of the information gathering stage.
Taking into account the IOPC guidance, the investigation needs to be proportionate to the
above factors. Whilst your allegations are serious, there is no evidence to support either of
your theories regarding the letter. There is no evidence to suggest there was any malice or
intent nor does there appear to be any motivation for any caseworker to do so. Further,
your theory that it was never sent, was disproved as the IOPC caseworker obtained an
image showing the electronic properties which evidence that the letter was not prepared at
a later date. Therefore, it would not be proportionate to contact the previous caseworker
given that the investigation had not commenced whilst she was still a member of the
organisation.
Further, the prospects of this resulting in a criminal trial, misconduct proceedings or
unsatisfactory performance proceedings is very unlikely given there is no evidence to
suggest your information was disclosed intentionally or maliciously. It appears to have been
an isolated incident.
There is no public interest given that it was an isolated human error which was fully
investigated. Finally, the investigation by the ICO produced learning for the Police.
The investigation was proportionate in line with the Statutory Guidance thus the decision of
the IOPC not to uphold this ground of your appeal was reasonable and lawful.
14 December 2018 decision
30.
a) The investigation is not proportionate to the nature of the allegations – the
allegations were serious in nature however no evidence corroborated these
assertions.
b) You were wrongly convicted due to failures of Police, Court and CPS – all evidence
was tested in court and numerous failed attempts to appeal to the Court, CCRC and
CPS.
c) There had been collusion of the police CPS/Court in relation to failing to secure
CCTV – there was no CCTV available and you failed to instruct your own solicitor.
d) You are able to prove beyond reasonable doubt the witness statements were false –
the CPS and Courts did not raise any concerns about the evidence.
e) The Investigating Officer did not include all complaints which were recommended by
IOPC - the IOPC only make recommendations to Humberside Police regarding

6. which complaints to record, there is no obligation for Humberside Police to record
them.
f) Your arrest was unlawful – valid reasons were provided for your arrest which were
reviewed by a custody sergeant and an Inspector.
31. The decision of the IOPC not to uphold any of these complaints was lawful and reasonable
for the reasons given in the appeal determination. Your allegations and theories alleging
police misconduct are merely speculative and not supported by any evidence. Your
complaint is, in reality an attempt to further appeal against your conviction. If you wish to
challenge the safety of your conviction then the appropriate avenue is through the Criminal
Cases Review Commission.
32. You present no evidence that suggests collusion or corroboration.
Limitation
33. The Civil Procedure Rules (“CPR”) governing judicial review claims states that a claim form
must be filed with the court promptly and in any event, no later than 3 months after the
grounds upon which the claim is based first arose (CPR 54.5). The IOPC’s decisions you
seek to challenge are dated 14 December 2018 and 25 April 2019. The three month time
limit to challenge this decision has long passed. You are therefore time barred from
pursuing a judicial review claim.
34. You fail to provide a reason as to the delay therefore the IOPC is firmly of the view that
there is no reasonable justification for the delay and that your claim is time barred.
Consequently, if proceedings are issued then the IOPC will submit that the claim is time
barred and that permission be refused.
Alternative Dispute Resolution (“ADR”)
35. As your claim is out of time, we do not believe ADR is appropriate or necessary.
Address for Service
36. In the event that you decide to issue a judicial review claim then the IOPC’s address for
service is as follows:
Independent Office for Police Conduct
10 South Colonnade
Canary Wharf
London
E14 4PU
37. Please quote reference 00008507.
Should you have any queries then we would recommend that you seek independent legal advice.
Yours sincerely,
Legal Services Department
Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC)