Moj falsifying documents
•
0 likes•59 views
Freedom of Information request revealing the Ministry of Justice's involvement in criminally falsifying documents with Humberside Police as an accomplice deleted by WhatDoTheyKnow
Report
Share
Report
Share
Download to read offline
![Deleted by WhatDoTheyKnow
Criminal allegations of malfeasance and fraud
involving a false claim made by the MoJ
Pippa Clementine made this Freedom of Information request to Humberside Police
Pippa Clementine 29 March 2020
Dear Humberside Police,
Humberside police refused to record a crime initially when it was reported on 7 January 2017.
It was eventually instructed to do so by the then Independent Police Complaints Commission
(IPCC) on 28 July 2017, after a protracted period taking the matter through the statutory
complaints and appeals process. The matter was a serious (proven) case involving the
dishonest claims of a civil servant with the Ministry of Justice.
The matter (complaint/crime) was recorded on 9 August 2017 as follows:
"The complainant states the police have failed to investigate criminal allegations of
malfeasance and fraud involving a false claim made by Justices' clerk for Humber and South
Yorkshire that 10 items of post had been sent to him between the 19/12/2013 to 22/07/2016
which the complainant claims never to have received, and believes they were dishonestly
constructed later to satisfy enquiries made by the judicial ombudsman. The complainant
considers these matters should be investigated by Humberside Police as a Crime."
It was confirmed in writing on 17 September 2017 by a Detective Inspector that he had been
referred the matter to deal with. From then up until the outcome (date of letter 25 May 2018) he
communicated by email regarding the investigation on 3 occasions. Within those emails it was
shown manifestly that he had no intention of pursuing all reasonable lines of enquiry. For
example, he wrote to confirm that he had identified the person within the Justice clerk system
who he needed to speak with (he already had this information) and asked for other information
which he had already been provided with.
Another anomaly casting doubt as to the seriousness with which the investigation was being
pursued was an email purportedly sent by the Judicial Ombudsman (JACO) which stated that it
had "been approached by Humberside Police in connection with a complaint of corruption that
[had been] made regarding the North East Lincolnshire Council, including that [the
complainant] had not received letters that the Council had sent".
Enquiries should have been made about the missing letters purportedly sent by the Ministry of
Justice (MoJ), not the council. The outcome letter also supports that there was a fundamental
misunderstanding about what was required to be investigated on account of references to
enquiries made "with a number of Officers from North East Lincolnshire Council' and "Andrew
Hobley from the Local Government Ombudsman". Also the evidence which proved the
allegations beyond reasonable doubt was not even mentioned in the 25 May 2018 outcome
https://tinyurl.com/tw8w7ku
Q1. What experience does the Detective Inspector have that made the force consider he was
suitably qualified to investigate this matter
Q2. What field of expertise does the Detective Inspector normally work in](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/mojfalsifyingdocuments-200401064135/85/Moj-falsifying-documents-1-320.jpg)
Recommended
Inf tribunal ea20170161 (you cant make me)
Freedom of Information request revealing collusion between the Information Commissioner and Humberside police deleted by WhatDoTheyKnow
Email to psd and response
More evidence of criminal misconduct within the Humberside Police Professional Standards Department. Concerns the Police's refusal to investigate allegations of perverting the course of justice on the grounds that the complaint is vexatious, tending to or intended to vex/worry/annoy officers. Allegations are that the officer has pursued a deliberate course of action to affect the course of justice; by intentionally frustrating a police investigation into serious crime to enable potential defendants to evade arrest or commit further offences. The 17 April 2019 investigation outcome along with correspondence entered into in the matter between 2 February and 30 March 2019 supports incontrovertibly that the investigation was staged to effect a cover up of serious criminal wrongdoing to vindicate the accused. An account briefly summarising each aspect of the alleged conduct relating only to allegation (1) as referred to in the investigation outcome letter of 17 April 2019 is provided in the annex to this form. Further details relating to allegations (2) an (3) may be provided as and when required. A complaint is suitable for local resolution if the appropriate authority is satisfied that the conduct being complained about, even if proven, would not justify criminal or disciplinary proceedings against the person being complained about. The conduct being complained about in this complaint would without any question if proven justify criminal and disciplinary proceedings against the person being complained about so this complaint is clearly not suitable for local resolution. It is not a repetitive complaint because I have never made a complaint about the named officer perverting the course of justice or a complaint of any sort for that matter.
Outcome letter co 632 18
Humberside Police outcome letter of 7 March 2019 (ref: CO/632/18) which was dealt with unlawfully in just about every way imaginable. This matter 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 a letter 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 ‘the matter was referred to the Information Commissioners Office as a data security breach’ and the believed recipient of the letter stated that she did not receive it. The complainant's case was severely prejudiced in respect of both the police conduct complaint and that of the Information Commissioner. The force's unlawful and deliberate mishandling of the complaint ensured that the Commissioner’s conclusions were based on hopelessly inadequate information as well as its own investigation failing to reach a conclusive outcome. The Investigating Officer clearly failed to carry out her investigation in line with the vast majority of the rules and standards for how the police should investigate complaints. All the anomalies were identified in the appeal to the IOPC and appropriately cited (the rules and standards) for every occurrence, yet the Casework Manager deliberately handled the appeal unlawfully knowing that if the complainant was misguided enough to take the matter to the high court he would simply be asking to be fleeced in the casino justice system which always falls on the side of the crooked public body.
Perverting course of justice annex a-b
Humberside Police's refusal to investigate allegations of perverting the course of justice on the grounds that the complaint is vexatious, tending to or intended to vex/worry/annoy officers. Allegations are that the officer has pursued a deliberate course of action to affect the course of justice; by intentionally frustrating a police investigation into serious crime to enable potential defendants to evade arrest or commit further offences. The 17 April 2019 investigation outcome along with correspondence entered into in the matter between 2 February and 30 March 2019 supports incontrovertibly that the investigation was staged to effect a cover up of serious criminal wrongdoing to vindicate the accused. An account briefly summarising each aspect of the alleged conduct relating only to allegation (1) as referred to in the investigation outcome letter of 17 April 2019 is provided in the annex to this form. Further details relating to allegations (2) an (3) may be provided as and when required. A complaint is suitable for local resolution if the appropriate authority is satisfied that the conduct being complained about, even if proven, would not justify criminal or disciplinary proceedings against the person being complained about. The conduct being complained about in this complaint would without any question if proven justify criminal and disciplinary proceedings against the person being complained about so this complaint is clearly not suitable for local resolution. It is not a repetitive complaint because I have never made a complaint about the named officer perverting the course of justice or a complaint of any sort for that matter.
No investigation perverting course of justice
Humberside Police's refusal to investigate allegations of perverting the course of justice on the grounds that the complaint is vexatious, tending to or intended to vex/worry/annoy officers. Allegations are that the officer has pursued a deliberate course of action to affect the course of justice; by intentionally frustrating a police investigation into serious crime to enable potential defendants to evade arrest or commit further offences. The 17 April 2019 investigation outcome along with correspondence entered into in the matter between 2 February and 30 March 2019 supports incontrovertibly that the investigation was staged to effect a cover up of serious criminal wrongdoing to vindicate the accused. An account briefly summarising each aspect of the alleged conduct relating only to allegation (1) as referred to in the investigation outcome letter of 17 April 2019 is provided in the annex to this form. Further details relating to allegations (2) an (3) may be provided as and when required. A complaint is suitable for local resolution if the appropriate authority is satisfied that the conduct being complained about, even if proven, would not justify criminal or disciplinary proceedings against the person being complained about. The conduct being complained about in this complaint would without any question if proven justify criminal and disciplinary proceedings against the person being complained about so this complaint is clearly not suitable for local resolution. It is not a repetitive complaint because I have never made a complaint about the named officer perverting the course of justice or a complaint of any sort for that matter.
Iopc response letter before action 24 oct 19
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....
Out 535 17-appeal 49-18
Outcome of Local Resolution to a complaint (CO 535/17) into Humberside police failing to investigate criminal allegations of malfeasance and fraud involving a false claim made by Justices' clerk for Humber and South Yorkshire that 10 items of post had been sent to the complainant between 19 December 2013 and 13 December 2016 which the complainant claims never to have received, and believes they were dishonestly constructed later (to cover their tracks) to satisfy enquiries made by the judicial ombudsman (JACO). The complainant considers these matters should be investigated by Humberside Police as a Crime....//..... Appeal against the Outcome of Local Resolution to a complaint (CO 49/18) into Humberside police failing to investigate criminal allegations of malfeasance and fraud involving a false claim made by Justices' clerk for Humber and South Yorkshire that 10 items of post had been sent to the complainant between the 19/12/2013 to 22/07/2016 which the complainant claims never to have received, and believes they were dishonestly constructed later to satisfy enquiries made by the judicial ombudsman. The complainant considers these matters should be investigated by Humberside Police as a Crime
S.Z. v. Bulgaria - Systemic problem of ineffectiveness of investigations in B...
The ECHR found Bulgaria violated Article 3 by failing to effectively investigate the illegal confinement, rape and trafficking of S.Z. The criminal investigation took over 14 years and was closed and reopened 4 times due to lack of investigative measures and irregularities. While some perpetrators were convicted, the authorities failed to examine S.Z.'s allegations that an organized criminal network was involved in human trafficking or take steps to identify two other suspects. The lengthy and delayed proceedings had negative psychological impacts on S.Z. by prolonging her uncertainty and forcing her to repeatedly relive the events. The ECHR determined Bulgaria needs to address the systemic problem of ineffective investigations revealed in over 45 prior judgments.
Recommended
Inf tribunal ea20170161 (you cant make me)
Freedom of Information request revealing collusion between the Information Commissioner and Humberside police deleted by WhatDoTheyKnow
Email to psd and response
More evidence of criminal misconduct within the Humberside Police Professional Standards Department. Concerns the Police's refusal to investigate allegations of perverting the course of justice on the grounds that the complaint is vexatious, tending to or intended to vex/worry/annoy officers. Allegations are that the officer has pursued a deliberate course of action to affect the course of justice; by intentionally frustrating a police investigation into serious crime to enable potential defendants to evade arrest or commit further offences. The 17 April 2019 investigation outcome along with correspondence entered into in the matter between 2 February and 30 March 2019 supports incontrovertibly that the investigation was staged to effect a cover up of serious criminal wrongdoing to vindicate the accused. An account briefly summarising each aspect of the alleged conduct relating only to allegation (1) as referred to in the investigation outcome letter of 17 April 2019 is provided in the annex to this form. Further details relating to allegations (2) an (3) may be provided as and when required. A complaint is suitable for local resolution if the appropriate authority is satisfied that the conduct being complained about, even if proven, would not justify criminal or disciplinary proceedings against the person being complained about. The conduct being complained about in this complaint would without any question if proven justify criminal and disciplinary proceedings against the person being complained about so this complaint is clearly not suitable for local resolution. It is not a repetitive complaint because I have never made a complaint about the named officer perverting the course of justice or a complaint of any sort for that matter.
Outcome letter co 632 18
Humberside Police outcome letter of 7 March 2019 (ref: CO/632/18) which was dealt with unlawfully in just about every way imaginable. This matter 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 a letter 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 ‘the matter was referred to the Information Commissioners Office as a data security breach’ and the believed recipient of the letter stated that she did not receive it. The complainant's case was severely prejudiced in respect of both the police conduct complaint and that of the Information Commissioner. The force's unlawful and deliberate mishandling of the complaint ensured that the Commissioner’s conclusions were based on hopelessly inadequate information as well as its own investigation failing to reach a conclusive outcome. The Investigating Officer clearly failed to carry out her investigation in line with the vast majority of the rules and standards for how the police should investigate complaints. All the anomalies were identified in the appeal to the IOPC and appropriately cited (the rules and standards) for every occurrence, yet the Casework Manager deliberately handled the appeal unlawfully knowing that if the complainant was misguided enough to take the matter to the high court he would simply be asking to be fleeced in the casino justice system which always falls on the side of the crooked public body.
Perverting course of justice annex a-b
Humberside Police's refusal to investigate allegations of perverting the course of justice on the grounds that the complaint is vexatious, tending to or intended to vex/worry/annoy officers. Allegations are that the officer has pursued a deliberate course of action to affect the course of justice; by intentionally frustrating a police investigation into serious crime to enable potential defendants to evade arrest or commit further offences. The 17 April 2019 investigation outcome along with correspondence entered into in the matter between 2 February and 30 March 2019 supports incontrovertibly that the investigation was staged to effect a cover up of serious criminal wrongdoing to vindicate the accused. An account briefly summarising each aspect of the alleged conduct relating only to allegation (1) as referred to in the investigation outcome letter of 17 April 2019 is provided in the annex to this form. Further details relating to allegations (2) an (3) may be provided as and when required. A complaint is suitable for local resolution if the appropriate authority is satisfied that the conduct being complained about, even if proven, would not justify criminal or disciplinary proceedings against the person being complained about. The conduct being complained about in this complaint would without any question if proven justify criminal and disciplinary proceedings against the person being complained about so this complaint is clearly not suitable for local resolution. It is not a repetitive complaint because I have never made a complaint about the named officer perverting the course of justice or a complaint of any sort for that matter.
No investigation perverting course of justice
Humberside Police's refusal to investigate allegations of perverting the course of justice on the grounds that the complaint is vexatious, tending to or intended to vex/worry/annoy officers. Allegations are that the officer has pursued a deliberate course of action to affect the course of justice; by intentionally frustrating a police investigation into serious crime to enable potential defendants to evade arrest or commit further offences. The 17 April 2019 investigation outcome along with correspondence entered into in the matter between 2 February and 30 March 2019 supports incontrovertibly that the investigation was staged to effect a cover up of serious criminal wrongdoing to vindicate the accused. An account briefly summarising each aspect of the alleged conduct relating only to allegation (1) as referred to in the investigation outcome letter of 17 April 2019 is provided in the annex to this form. Further details relating to allegations (2) an (3) may be provided as and when required. A complaint is suitable for local resolution if the appropriate authority is satisfied that the conduct being complained about, even if proven, would not justify criminal or disciplinary proceedings against the person being complained about. The conduct being complained about in this complaint would without any question if proven justify criminal and disciplinary proceedings against the person being complained about so this complaint is clearly not suitable for local resolution. It is not a repetitive complaint because I have never made a complaint about the named officer perverting the course of justice or a complaint of any sort for that matter.
Iopc response letter before action 24 oct 19
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....
Out 535 17-appeal 49-18
Outcome of Local Resolution to a complaint (CO 535/17) into Humberside police failing to investigate criminal allegations of malfeasance and fraud involving a false claim made by Justices' clerk for Humber and South Yorkshire that 10 items of post had been sent to the complainant between 19 December 2013 and 13 December 2016 which the complainant claims never to have received, and believes they were dishonestly constructed later (to cover their tracks) to satisfy enquiries made by the judicial ombudsman (JACO). The complainant considers these matters should be investigated by Humberside Police as a Crime....//..... Appeal against the Outcome of Local Resolution to a complaint (CO 49/18) into Humberside police failing to investigate criminal allegations of malfeasance and fraud involving a false claim made by Justices' clerk for Humber and South Yorkshire that 10 items of post had been sent to the complainant between the 19/12/2013 to 22/07/2016 which the complainant claims never to have received, and believes they were dishonestly constructed later to satisfy enquiries made by the judicial ombudsman. The complainant considers these matters should be investigated by Humberside Police as a Crime
S.Z. v. Bulgaria - Systemic problem of ineffectiveness of investigations in B...
The ECHR found Bulgaria violated Article 3 by failing to effectively investigate the illegal confinement, rape and trafficking of S.Z. The criminal investigation took over 14 years and was closed and reopened 4 times due to lack of investigative measures and irregularities. While some perpetrators were convicted, the authorities failed to examine S.Z.'s allegations that an organized criminal network was involved in human trafficking or take steps to identify two other suspects. The lengthy and delayed proceedings had negative psychological impacts on S.Z. by prolonging her uncertainty and forcing her to repeatedly relive the events. The ECHR determined Bulgaria needs to address the systemic problem of ineffective investigations revealed in over 45 prior judgments.
Iopc outcome 26 aug 2020 r
IOPC’s criminally handled appeal outcome letter dated 26 August 2020. Concerns Humberside Police's refusal to investigate allegations of perverting the course of justice on the grounds that the complaint is vexatious, tending to or intended to vex/worry/annoy officers. Allegations are that the officer has pursued a deliberate course of action to affect the course of justice; by intentionally frustrating a police investigation into serious crime to enable potential defendants to evade arrest or commit further offences. The 17 April 2019 investigation outcome along with correspondence entered into in the matter between 2 February and 30 March 2019 supports incontrovertibly that the investigation was staged to effect a cover up of serious criminal wrongdoing to vindicate the accused. An account briefly summarising each aspect of the alleged conduct relating only to allegation (1) as referred to in the investigation outcome letter of 17 April 2019 is provided in the annex to this form. Further details relating to allegations (2) an (3) may be provided as and when required. A complaint is suitable for local resolution if the appropriate authority is satisfied that the conduct being complained about, even if proven, would not justify criminal or disciplinary proceedings against the person being complained about. The conduct being complained about in this complaint would without any question if proven justify criminal and disciplinary proceedings against the person being complained about so this complaint is clearly not suitable for local resolution. It is not a repetitive complaint because I have never made a complaint about the named officer perverting the course of justice or a complaint of any sort for that matter
Misconduct in public office 26 nov 2020 redact
A host of allegations of misconduct, implicating senior officers at North East Lincolnshire Council, Humberside police, Local Government Ombudsman, Information Commissioner etc. Primarily concerning the council's legal department refusing to acknowledge or respond to any correspondence regarding proven allegation and evidence of criminal wrongdoing. As a consequence of the criminal negligence, the person affected has been engaged continuously with either the police, various Ombudsmen and other regulatory bodies but without justice as they have all been proven to be complicit in related matters.
Letter before action 26 sept 2019 r
This letter before claim concerns a proposed application for judicial review of a decision by the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) not to review findings of a police investigation. The letter provides background on the claimant's criminal case where he believes false witness statements and police misconduct occurred. It details the claimant's police complaints process regarding the witness statements and arresting officer. The letter argues the IOPC should intervene as the police complaints process was mishandled and statutory obligations were breached. The claimant seeks to challenge the IOPC's decision not to review the police investigation findings.
Monitoring officer 22 jan 2021 r
The letter responds to a complaint by noting that the matter has been exhaustively dealt with through the internal complaints procedure and council policy. It states that further investigations will not be conducted since an ombudsman investigation is underway, and that allegations of criminal conduct by a deputy lack evidence and credibility. The complainant is advised to take independent legal advice or refer unsubstantiated allegations to the police. The council asserts it has acted appropriately regarding a liability order.
CIC ORDER AGAINST DELHI STATE LEGAL SERVISCE AUTHORITY DATED 25 SEPTEMBER 2014
1) The appellant filed an RTI application seeking information about the action taken on his complaints from Delhi State Legal Services Authority.
2) The PIO provided a partial response which did not satisfy the appellant. He filed first and second appeals.
3) The Information Commissioner directed the PIO to provide information to the appellant within 3 weeks on the specific actions taken on his complaints from February and May 2012.
Perjury to commit fraud 2 dec 15
Statement reporting North East Lincolnshire Council for committing perjury with intent to defraud the defendant for a hearing at Grimsby Magistrates' court in which the judge was complicit.
Judgment eat registrar ms donleavy
On this occasion I am prepared to give the appellant the benefit of the doubt and accept the email as his challenge but he should be aware that such leniency is exceptional.
bangalore principles
Pb&har hc order, oct 30
The petitioner seeks regular bail in a case where he is accused of sedition and inciting communal disaffection for statements made against the unity and integrity of the nation during a Facebook live video. The court notes that the petitioner has been in custody for over six months, and the trial is unlikely to conclude soon. After reviewing a transcript of the video, the court finds that while abusive language was used against government officials, the statements do not amount to exciting disaffection against the government or inciting religious tensions. The court determines that the petitioner's comments were an expression of dissatisfaction with government policies and handling of the pandemic, which is permissible criticism. Considering the time already served and no other pending cases, the court grants the
CRLOPSR15141
The petitioner filed a petition in the High Court of Madras seeking an order directing police to investigate the forgery of her grandfather's signature on a 1999 partition deed. The court notes that the police had already investigated and filed a report in 1999. The court ruled that a direction for new investigation in 2015 cannot be given for an incident from 1999, but that the petitioner can challenge the deed in a civil court. The petition was therefore closed and the registry's objection upheld.
Negligence obfuscation - delaying tactics etc
Evidence of Humberside Police's continued and deliberate use of obfuscation tactics to ensure that serious criminal misconduct of senior officers serving with Humberside Police, raised in July 2017, have been successfully covered up and never investigated. (Complaint refs: CO/400/18 – CO/49/18 – CO/498/17 – CO/886/17 – CO/535/17).
Discontinue 12 june 19 co498-17
Discontinuance request submitted by the Professional Standards Department to the Humberside Police Appeals Body (HPAB). Evidence of Humberside Police's continued and deliberate use of obfuscation tactics to ensure that serious criminal misconduct of senior officers serving with Humberside Police, raised in July 2017, have been successfully covered up and never investigated. (Complaint refs: CO/400/18 – CO/49/18 – CO/498/17 – CO/886/17 – CO/535/17).
Exhibit a 7
Supporting document (Exhibit A-7) to Appellant’s notice of appeal against a Decision Notice issued by the Information Commissioner, in accordance with rule 22 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009. Concerns requests for information made to Humberside police to obtain the number of times the phrase "YOU CANT MAKE ME" appeared in police officers witness statements. Humberside Police relied on section 14(1) (vexatious requests) of FOIA.
Police complaint 17 april 2020 - r
Allegations that the officer has pursued a deliberate course of action to affect the course of justice; by intentionally frustrating a police investigation into serious crime to enable potential defendants to evade arrest or commit further offences. The 17 April 2019 investigation outcome along with correspondence entered into in the matter between 2 February and 30 March 2019 supports incontrovertibly that the investigation was staged to effect a cover up of serious criminal wrongdoing to vindicate the accused. An account briefly summarising each aspect of the alleged conduct relating only to allegation (1) as referred to in the investigation outcome letter of 17 April 2019 is provided in the annex to this form. Further details relating to allegations (2) an (3) may be provided as and when required. A complaint is suitable for local resolution if the appropriate authority is satisfied that the conduct being complained about, even if proven, would not justify criminal or disciplinary proceedings against the person being complained about. The conduct being complained about in this complaint would without any question if proven justify criminal and disciplinary proceedings against the person being complained about so this complaint is clearly not suitable for local resolution. It is not a repetitive complaint because I have never made a complaint about the named officer perverting the course of justice or a complaint of any sort for that matter.
Moj criticised over forging documents
Freedom of Information request revealing the Ministry of Justice's involvement in criminally falsifying documents with Humberside Police as an accomplice made unsearchable by WhatDoTheyKnow
Ipcc 29 august 2017 redact
Independent Office of Police Conduct (IOPC) directing Humberside Police to re-investigate complaint. This matter 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.
Jaco 23 may 2016 provisional report
Provisional Investigation Report of the Conduct Ombudsman (JACO) in relation to the mishandling of a complaint by the Humber Advisory Committee. The papers are littered with factual errors even before considering the criminal handling of the cover-up. Even before refusing to accept the complaint for a full investigation the Ombudsman knew that there was at least one other letter additional to the 3 letters referred to in the refusal letter that the MoJ produced after the event to cover their tracks (on further investigation by HMCTS it was eventually discovered that there were 10 in total). Note that the Secretary to the Humber Advisory Committee – to whom the complaint was addressed, was also the Justices’ Clerk for Humber & South Yorkshire against whom the complaint was made and who the Conduct Ombudsman dealt with in his investigations. In summary, the matter ultimately concerned malfeasance and fraud involving a false claim made by the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) that 10 items of post had been sent to the complainant between 19 December 2013 and 13 December 2016 which the complainant claims never to have received, and believes they were dishonestly constructed later (to cover their tracks) to satisfy enquiries made by the judicial ombudsman (JACO) and an investigation carried out by HMCTS complaints team.
Lgo premature final decision 18 011 180
LGO final decision 18 011 180. North East Lincolnshire Council claims to have video footage which it has relied on to support what it claims has been captured relating to an allegation that its contractor left a demand for money that is not owed somewhere accessible to persons other than the intended recipient (a personal data breach). The taxpayer affected asked to see the video evidence but the Council refused and stated that it would not be taking any further action or entering into any further correspondence regarding the matter. The Local Government Ombudsman took the Council's side and refused to investigate but proceeded to the final decision before the complainant had chance to actually comment on the draft. The Ombudsman states in paragraph 3 of the 21 November 2018 final decision that the complainant's comments on the draft had been considered even though complainant's comments had not been submitted until 26 November 2018. This all follows North East Lincolnshire Council fraudulently obtaining a Council Tax liability order by committing perjury (lying in a witness statement to the court). There was no monies owed but the Council criminally engineered a non-payment scenario. The Police, Local Government Ombudsman and Court were all complicit because they looked the other way. Bailiff firms Rossendales and subsequently Jacobs have been instructed in the Councils attempts to defraud the complainant with their enforcement fees. Events stem from High Court appeal and claim made by Justices' clerk for Humber and South Yorkshire that 10 items of post (appeal correspondence) had been sent to the Appellant between 19 December 2013 and 13 December 2016 which the Appellant claims never to have received, and believes they were dishonestly constructed later (to cover their tracks) to satisfy enquiries made by the judicial ombudsman (JACO) and an investigation carried out by HM Courts and Tribunal Service.
Proposed areas to be investigated
This matter 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.
Sra complaint 28 november 2018 r
1. The document outlines a report made to the Solicitors Regulation Authority regarding concerns with Sally Laycock, a solicitor at Humberside Police.
2. The report alleges that Laycock improperly dealt with appeals of complaints made to Humberside Police regarding criminal allegations against a court. Laycock allegedly distorted facts and did not properly address the concerns raised.
3. The handling of the complaints by Humberside Police and appeals by Laycock involved obstruction tactics that prevented the concerns from being properly investigated according to the report. This caused significant hardship for the complainant.
Exhibit a 4
Supporting document (Exhibit A-4) to Appellant’s notice of appeal against a Decision Notice issued by the Information Commissioner, in accordance with rule 22 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009. Concerns requests for information made to Humberside police to obtain the number of times the phrase "YOU CANT MAKE ME" appeared in police officers witness statements. Humberside Police relied on section 14(1) (vexatious requests) of FOIA.
Exhibit a 5
Supporting document (Exhibit A-5) to Appellant’s notice of appeal against a Decision Notice issued by the Information Commissioner, in accordance with rule 22 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009. Concerns requests for information made to Humberside police to obtain the number of times the phrase "YOU CANT MAKE ME" appeared in police officers witness statements. Humberside Police relied on section 14(1) (vexatious requests) of FOIA.
Justice raja judgment
This document is a court judgment regarding a request made under the Right to Information Act for details of corrupt police officers in Kerala. The State Information Commission ordered the disclosure of information regarding officers convicted of corruption or human rights violations, or against whom a final police report was submitted to court. However, details of officers under ongoing investigation were not to be disclosed. The petitioners challenged this order, arguing the State Crime Records Bureau is exempt from RTI requests. The court heard arguments from both sides and the judgment discusses the issues around applying exemptions for ongoing investigations versus ordering disclosure of certain established misconduct details.
More Related Content
What's hot
Iopc outcome 26 aug 2020 r
IOPC’s criminally handled appeal outcome letter dated 26 August 2020. Concerns Humberside Police's refusal to investigate allegations of perverting the course of justice on the grounds that the complaint is vexatious, tending to or intended to vex/worry/annoy officers. Allegations are that the officer has pursued a deliberate course of action to affect the course of justice; by intentionally frustrating a police investigation into serious crime to enable potential defendants to evade arrest or commit further offences. The 17 April 2019 investigation outcome along with correspondence entered into in the matter between 2 February and 30 March 2019 supports incontrovertibly that the investigation was staged to effect a cover up of serious criminal wrongdoing to vindicate the accused. An account briefly summarising each aspect of the alleged conduct relating only to allegation (1) as referred to in the investigation outcome letter of 17 April 2019 is provided in the annex to this form. Further details relating to allegations (2) an (3) may be provided as and when required. A complaint is suitable for local resolution if the appropriate authority is satisfied that the conduct being complained about, even if proven, would not justify criminal or disciplinary proceedings against the person being complained about. The conduct being complained about in this complaint would without any question if proven justify criminal and disciplinary proceedings against the person being complained about so this complaint is clearly not suitable for local resolution. It is not a repetitive complaint because I have never made a complaint about the named officer perverting the course of justice or a complaint of any sort for that matter
Misconduct in public office 26 nov 2020 redact
A host of allegations of misconduct, implicating senior officers at North East Lincolnshire Council, Humberside police, Local Government Ombudsman, Information Commissioner etc. Primarily concerning the council's legal department refusing to acknowledge or respond to any correspondence regarding proven allegation and evidence of criminal wrongdoing. As a consequence of the criminal negligence, the person affected has been engaged continuously with either the police, various Ombudsmen and other regulatory bodies but without justice as they have all been proven to be complicit in related matters.
Letter before action 26 sept 2019 r
This letter before claim concerns a proposed application for judicial review of a decision by the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) not to review findings of a police investigation. The letter provides background on the claimant's criminal case where he believes false witness statements and police misconduct occurred. It details the claimant's police complaints process regarding the witness statements and arresting officer. The letter argues the IOPC should intervene as the police complaints process was mishandled and statutory obligations were breached. The claimant seeks to challenge the IOPC's decision not to review the police investigation findings.
Monitoring officer 22 jan 2021 r
The letter responds to a complaint by noting that the matter has been exhaustively dealt with through the internal complaints procedure and council policy. It states that further investigations will not be conducted since an ombudsman investigation is underway, and that allegations of criminal conduct by a deputy lack evidence and credibility. The complainant is advised to take independent legal advice or refer unsubstantiated allegations to the police. The council asserts it has acted appropriately regarding a liability order.
CIC ORDER AGAINST DELHI STATE LEGAL SERVISCE AUTHORITY DATED 25 SEPTEMBER 2014
1) The appellant filed an RTI application seeking information about the action taken on his complaints from Delhi State Legal Services Authority.
2) The PIO provided a partial response which did not satisfy the appellant. He filed first and second appeals.
3) The Information Commissioner directed the PIO to provide information to the appellant within 3 weeks on the specific actions taken on his complaints from February and May 2012.
Perjury to commit fraud 2 dec 15
Statement reporting North East Lincolnshire Council for committing perjury with intent to defraud the defendant for a hearing at Grimsby Magistrates' court in which the judge was complicit.
Judgment eat registrar ms donleavy
On this occasion I am prepared to give the appellant the benefit of the doubt and accept the email as his challenge but he should be aware that such leniency is exceptional.
bangalore principles
Pb&har hc order, oct 30
The petitioner seeks regular bail in a case where he is accused of sedition and inciting communal disaffection for statements made against the unity and integrity of the nation during a Facebook live video. The court notes that the petitioner has been in custody for over six months, and the trial is unlikely to conclude soon. After reviewing a transcript of the video, the court finds that while abusive language was used against government officials, the statements do not amount to exciting disaffection against the government or inciting religious tensions. The court determines that the petitioner's comments were an expression of dissatisfaction with government policies and handling of the pandemic, which is permissible criticism. Considering the time already served and no other pending cases, the court grants the
CRLOPSR15141
The petitioner filed a petition in the High Court of Madras seeking an order directing police to investigate the forgery of her grandfather's signature on a 1999 partition deed. The court notes that the police had already investigated and filed a report in 1999. The court ruled that a direction for new investigation in 2015 cannot be given for an incident from 1999, but that the petitioner can challenge the deed in a civil court. The petition was therefore closed and the registry's objection upheld.
What's hot (9)
CIC ORDER AGAINST DELHI STATE LEGAL SERVISCE AUTHORITY DATED 25 SEPTEMBER 2014
CIC ORDER AGAINST DELHI STATE LEGAL SERVISCE AUTHORITY DATED 25 SEPTEMBER 2014
Similar to Moj falsifying documents
Negligence obfuscation - delaying tactics etc
Evidence of Humberside Police's continued and deliberate use of obfuscation tactics to ensure that serious criminal misconduct of senior officers serving with Humberside Police, raised in July 2017, have been successfully covered up and never investigated. (Complaint refs: CO/400/18 – CO/49/18 – CO/498/17 – CO/886/17 – CO/535/17).
Discontinue 12 june 19 co498-17
Discontinuance request submitted by the Professional Standards Department to the Humberside Police Appeals Body (HPAB). Evidence of Humberside Police's continued and deliberate use of obfuscation tactics to ensure that serious criminal misconduct of senior officers serving with Humberside Police, raised in July 2017, have been successfully covered up and never investigated. (Complaint refs: CO/400/18 – CO/49/18 – CO/498/17 – CO/886/17 – CO/535/17).
Exhibit a 7
Supporting document (Exhibit A-7) to Appellant’s notice of appeal against a Decision Notice issued by the Information Commissioner, in accordance with rule 22 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009. Concerns requests for information made to Humberside police to obtain the number of times the phrase "YOU CANT MAKE ME" appeared in police officers witness statements. Humberside Police relied on section 14(1) (vexatious requests) of FOIA.
Police complaint 17 april 2020 - r
Allegations that the officer has pursued a deliberate course of action to affect the course of justice; by intentionally frustrating a police investigation into serious crime to enable potential defendants to evade arrest or commit further offences. The 17 April 2019 investigation outcome along with correspondence entered into in the matter between 2 February and 30 March 2019 supports incontrovertibly that the investigation was staged to effect a cover up of serious criminal wrongdoing to vindicate the accused. An account briefly summarising each aspect of the alleged conduct relating only to allegation (1) as referred to in the investigation outcome letter of 17 April 2019 is provided in the annex to this form. Further details relating to allegations (2) an (3) may be provided as and when required. A complaint is suitable for local resolution if the appropriate authority is satisfied that the conduct being complained about, even if proven, would not justify criminal or disciplinary proceedings against the person being complained about. The conduct being complained about in this complaint would without any question if proven justify criminal and disciplinary proceedings against the person being complained about so this complaint is clearly not suitable for local resolution. It is not a repetitive complaint because I have never made a complaint about the named officer perverting the course of justice or a complaint of any sort for that matter.
Moj criticised over forging documents
Freedom of Information request revealing the Ministry of Justice's involvement in criminally falsifying documents with Humberside Police as an accomplice made unsearchable by WhatDoTheyKnow
Ipcc 29 august 2017 redact
Independent Office of Police Conduct (IOPC) directing Humberside Police to re-investigate complaint. This matter 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.
Jaco 23 may 2016 provisional report
Provisional Investigation Report of the Conduct Ombudsman (JACO) in relation to the mishandling of a complaint by the Humber Advisory Committee. The papers are littered with factual errors even before considering the criminal handling of the cover-up. Even before refusing to accept the complaint for a full investigation the Ombudsman knew that there was at least one other letter additional to the 3 letters referred to in the refusal letter that the MoJ produced after the event to cover their tracks (on further investigation by HMCTS it was eventually discovered that there were 10 in total). Note that the Secretary to the Humber Advisory Committee – to whom the complaint was addressed, was also the Justices’ Clerk for Humber & South Yorkshire against whom the complaint was made and who the Conduct Ombudsman dealt with in his investigations. In summary, the matter ultimately concerned malfeasance and fraud involving a false claim made by the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) that 10 items of post had been sent to the complainant between 19 December 2013 and 13 December 2016 which the complainant claims never to have received, and believes they were dishonestly constructed later (to cover their tracks) to satisfy enquiries made by the judicial ombudsman (JACO) and an investigation carried out by HMCTS complaints team.
Lgo premature final decision 18 011 180
LGO final decision 18 011 180. North East Lincolnshire Council claims to have video footage which it has relied on to support what it claims has been captured relating to an allegation that its contractor left a demand for money that is not owed somewhere accessible to persons other than the intended recipient (a personal data breach). The taxpayer affected asked to see the video evidence but the Council refused and stated that it would not be taking any further action or entering into any further correspondence regarding the matter. The Local Government Ombudsman took the Council's side and refused to investigate but proceeded to the final decision before the complainant had chance to actually comment on the draft. The Ombudsman states in paragraph 3 of the 21 November 2018 final decision that the complainant's comments on the draft had been considered even though complainant's comments had not been submitted until 26 November 2018. This all follows North East Lincolnshire Council fraudulently obtaining a Council Tax liability order by committing perjury (lying in a witness statement to the court). There was no monies owed but the Council criminally engineered a non-payment scenario. The Police, Local Government Ombudsman and Court were all complicit because they looked the other way. Bailiff firms Rossendales and subsequently Jacobs have been instructed in the Councils attempts to defraud the complainant with their enforcement fees. Events stem from High Court appeal and claim made by Justices' clerk for Humber and South Yorkshire that 10 items of post (appeal correspondence) had been sent to the Appellant between 19 December 2013 and 13 December 2016 which the Appellant claims never to have received, and believes they were dishonestly constructed later (to cover their tracks) to satisfy enquiries made by the judicial ombudsman (JACO) and an investigation carried out by HM Courts and Tribunal Service.
Proposed areas to be investigated
This matter 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.
Sra complaint 28 november 2018 r
1. The document outlines a report made to the Solicitors Regulation Authority regarding concerns with Sally Laycock, a solicitor at Humberside Police.
2. The report alleges that Laycock improperly dealt with appeals of complaints made to Humberside Police regarding criminal allegations against a court. Laycock allegedly distorted facts and did not properly address the concerns raised.
3. The handling of the complaints by Humberside Police and appeals by Laycock involved obstruction tactics that prevented the concerns from being properly investigated according to the report. This caused significant hardship for the complainant.
Exhibit a 4
Supporting document (Exhibit A-4) to Appellant’s notice of appeal against a Decision Notice issued by the Information Commissioner, in accordance with rule 22 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009. Concerns requests for information made to Humberside police to obtain the number of times the phrase "YOU CANT MAKE ME" appeared in police officers witness statements. Humberside Police relied on section 14(1) (vexatious requests) of FOIA.
Exhibit a 5
Supporting document (Exhibit A-5) to Appellant’s notice of appeal against a Decision Notice issued by the Information Commissioner, in accordance with rule 22 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009. Concerns requests for information made to Humberside police to obtain the number of times the phrase "YOU CANT MAKE ME" appeared in police officers witness statements. Humberside Police relied on section 14(1) (vexatious requests) of FOIA.
Justice raja judgment
This document is a court judgment regarding a request made under the Right to Information Act for details of corrupt police officers in Kerala. The State Information Commission ordered the disclosure of information regarding officers convicted of corruption or human rights violations, or against whom a final police report was submitted to court. However, details of officers under ongoing investigation were not to be disclosed. The petitioners challenged this order, arguing the State Crime Records Bureau is exempt from RTI requests. The court heard arguments from both sides and the judgment discusses the issues around applying exemptions for ongoing investigations versus ordering disclosure of certain established misconduct details.
APPEAL CASE NO. 2422 OF 2019 Kanika aka Kusum Relan D/o Sh. Sita Ram Relan, 5...
SIC, HARYANA
SCO NO. 70-71, SECTOR 8-C, CHANDIGARH
APPEAL CASE NO. 2422 OF 2019
Appellant Ms. Kusum Relan D/o Sh. Sita Ram Relan,
5/335, Railway Road, Sonepat.
Chief Information Commissioner Shri Yash Pal Singal
2. Ms. Kusum Relan, the appellant addressed RTI dated 22.03.2018 to the SPIO of the office of Superintendent of Police, Sonepat and submitted that a complaint dated 11.03.2016 was lodged by her with the police against Sh. Navneet Verma and his family but it was withdrawn in the morning of next day. The In-charge of the Police Station instead of returning the complaint kept it on the record stating that it has now been filed. The complaint was withdrawn in view of the respect of her parents in the society. Thereafter, Sh. Navneet Verma has been able to obtain the copy of the said complaint under the provision of RTI applications and succeeded in spoiling her future by taking up the matter with her in-laws.
3. The respondent SPIO further submitted that appellant is making allegation that her complaint dated 11.03.2016 has been shared with information seeker who used the said complaint with her in-laws. Now, on the complaint lodged by the applicant against her husband, a case no. 794 of 2017 has been registered under section 323, 354, 377, 406, 498 A, 506, 34 IPC, in City Police Station, Sonepat and challan of the case stands put in the court of jurisdiction.
4. Sh. Sita Ram Relan, represented the appellant, alleged that the respondent SPIO has not acted in accordance with the provision of RTI Act, 2005 and furnished information to third party which was closely related to her daughter . The said information was later on misused and the future of her daughter has been spoilt. He prayed for taking strong action against the SPIO and also requested to grant the appellant compensation for the detriment and mental agony caused to her.
5. The Commission carefully considered the matter. Records of the case have been perused. The averments submitted by the parties have been noted. The appellant has agitated for wrongly furnishing of personal information to third party which was later on misused and her future has been spoilt. The representative of the appellant requested to take action against the SPIO and compensate the appellant as per provisions of the Act. The Commission in is regard perused Section 21 of the RTI Act, 2005 reads as under:-
“ No suit, prosecution or other legal proceeding shall lie against any person for anything which is in good faith done or intended to be done under this Act or any rule made thereunder.”
The Commission cannot take any action against the respondent SPIO in view of the fact no mala fide of SPIO has been established and in view of the provision of Section 21 of the Act as reproduced above.
6. In view of the above stated facts, the Commission decides to close the matter. Announced. To be communicated.
Sd/-
(Yash Pal Singal)
Place : Chandigarh. CIC,
Dated: 24.04.2019 Haryana.
Malfeasance and fraud - moj
Humberside Chief Constable turning blind eye to police failing to investigate criminal allegations of malfeasance and fraud involving a false claim made by Justices' clerk for Humber and South Yorkshire that 10 items of post had been sent to the complainant between 19 December 2013 and 13 December 2016 which the complainant claims never to have received, and believes they were dishonestly constructed later (to cover their tracks) to satisfy enquiries made by the judicial ombudsman (JACO). The complainant considers these matters should be investigated by Humberside Police as a Crime (Local Resolution complaint CO 535/17)
Scaiff 191215005-foi-response-corrected date
Ministry of Justice's 14 January 2020 response to Freedom of Information request originally submitted 7 September 2019, though due to obstruction by whatdotheyknow and obfuscation tack-ticks by MoJ (changing reference numbers etc) the effective submission date deemed by the MoJ was 15 December 2019. Eventual reference number: 191215005, original 190907001 and other previously quoted numbers 191020004 and 191125041. Concerns late production and backdating of documents designed to ‘plug gaps’ and corruption of documents by conflation, amendment or post-dated creation.
Co 498 17 appeal outcome r
Humberside Police Appeals Body outcome (4 April, 2019) to appeal against the decision of Humberside Police's Professional Standards department (PSD) in respect of a complaint (ref: CO/498/17). This matter concerns a police conduct complaint submitted 14 July 2017 raising issues about the PSD and an Investigating Officer who had not bothered to open a previous conduct complaint file until 370 days after it had been allocated to him. The present matter required by law to be referred to the Independent Office of Police Conduct (IOPC). However, the force wrongly categorised the complaint effectively downplaying the seriousness of it, thus enabling it to be dealt with by way of Local Resolution (not fully investigated). Further mishandling followed, presumably as a deliberate tactic to delay and obfuscate the process due to the seriousness of the allegations. As a consequence it has been referred back twice to the PSD to be dealt with appropriately and has so far (17 March 2020) been ongoing 977 days
Reply ea20170161 redact
Appellant’s Reply to Commissioner's Response to the Appellant’s grounds of appeal in accordance with rule 24 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009. Concerns requests for information made to Humberside police to obtain the number of times the phrase "YOU CANT MAKE ME" appeared in police officers witness statements. Humberside Police relied on section 14(1) (vexatious requests) of FOIA.
Exhibit a 6
Supporting document (Exhibit A-6) to Appellant’s notice of appeal against a Decision Notice issued by the Information Commissioner, in accordance with rule 22 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009. Concerns requests for information made to Humberside police to obtain the number of times the phrase "YOU CANT MAKE ME" appeared in police officers witness statements. Humberside Police relied on section 14(1) (vexatious requests) of FOIA.
Cobra Post Delhi HC Order
This document summarizes a court case between DB Corp Ltd and Forum for Media and Literature regarding a defamation suit filed by DB Corp. Key points:
- DB Corp filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against defendants from publishing alleged false news and information about DB Corp in a documentary "Operation 136: Part II" and related communications.
- The court granted an ex-parte temporary injunction for the duration of the suit, restraining the defendants from releasing the documentary or related materials.
- The defendants have appealed, arguing the injunction is too broad as it freezes publication of news for the entire suit duration, and amounts to censorship impairing free speech rights.
- The court must discuss the merits and
Similar to Moj falsifying documents (20)
APPEAL CASE NO. 2422 OF 2019 Kanika aka Kusum Relan D/o Sh. Sita Ram Relan, 5...
APPEAL CASE NO. 2422 OF 2019 Kanika aka Kusum Relan D/o Sh. Sita Ram Relan, 5...
More from Evidence_Complicit
Exhibit 7
This document is a prosecution application from Grimsby and Cleethorpes Magistrates' Court against Humberside Police. It is dated April 26, 2016 and relates to starting a prosecution under section 1 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980. The court document is labeled as Exhibit 7 in the case.
Discontinuance request
Freedom of Information request revealing Evidence of Humberside Police's continued and deliberate use of obfuscation tactics to ensure that serious criminal misconduct of senior officers serving with Humberside Police, raised in July 2017, have been successfully covered up and never investigated. (Complaint refs: CO/400/18 – CO/49/18 – CO/498/17 – CO/886/17 – CO/535/17). Deleted by WhatDoTheyKnow
Outcome 17 april 2019
Bogus investigation outcome of 17 April 2019 littered with what are effectively red herrings for the benefit of the uninformed observer who would be ignorant of how compelling the evidence really was (which has been omitted from the outcome). The reality however, is that to anyone informed it would be so overwhelmingly obvious that the content is not worth the paper it is written on – a shameful example of the establishment covering for their own.
Associated docs crime report 15 feb 19
I wish to report criminal and dishonest conduct regarding the Judicial Appointments and Conduct Ombudsman (JACO), Paul Kernaghan, and a number of officers holding various positions acting on behalf of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO). I have evidence accumulated over a several year period relating to these officer’s which proves beyond reasonable doubt that their actions have routinely amounted to a betrayal of trust and violation of the laws which impose a duty on officers in their positions to act impartially, fairly and without discrimination or bias.
Extract unlawful arrest
Extract from an appeal to the Independent Office for police Conduct (IOPC) against the decision of Humberside Police in respect of a complaint (ref: CO/432/15). This matter 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
Lgo response to judicial review pre action
Local Government Ombudsman's (LGO) letter of response pursuant to the requirements of the Judicial Review Pre-Action Protocol (Letter Before Action, 4 Sept 2017) in the matter of a proposed application for judicial review of the Local Government Ombudsman's decision No 17 003 081. Concerns a complaint about North East Lincs Council regarding the authority's unlawful application to Grimsby Magistrates' Court for a Council Tax liability order.
Letter before action 4 sept 2017 redact
Letter Before Action (4 Sept 2017) in the matter of a proposed application for judicial review of the Local Government Ombudsman's decision No 17 003 081. Concerns a complaint about North East Lincs Council regarding the authority's unlawful application to Grimsby Magistrates' Court for a Council Tax liability order.
Complicit in cover up 10 dec 19
Allegations against various public bodies for complicity in covering up misconduct in public office including Humberside Police, Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC), Judicial office holders, North East Lincolnshire Council (NELC), Judicial Appointments and Conduct Ombudsman (JACO), Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC), Information Commissioner's Office (ICO)
More from Evidence_Complicit (8)
Recently uploaded
Genocide in International Criminal Law.pptx
Excited to share insights from my recent presentation on genocide! 💡 In light of ongoing debates, it's crucial to delve into the nuances of this grave crime.
Lifting the Corporate Veil. Power Point Presentation
"Lifting the Corporate Veil" is a legal concept that refers to the judicial act of disregarding the separate legal personality of a corporation or limited liability company (LLC). Normally, a corporation is considered a legal entity separate from its shareholders or members, meaning that the personal assets of shareholders or members are protected from the liabilities of the corporation. However, there are certain situations where courts may decide to "pierce" or "lift" the corporate veil, holding shareholders or members personally liable for the debts or actions of the corporation.
Here are some common scenarios in which courts might lift the corporate veil:
Fraud or Illegality: If shareholders or members use the corporate structure to perpetrate fraud, evade legal obligations, or engage in illegal activities, courts may disregard the corporate entity and hold those individuals personally liable.
Undercapitalization: If a corporation is formed with insufficient capital to conduct its intended business and meet its foreseeable liabilities, and this lack of capitalization results in harm to creditors or other parties, courts may lift the corporate veil to hold shareholders or members liable.
Failure to Observe Corporate Formalities: Corporations and LLCs are required to observe certain formalities, such as holding regular meetings, maintaining separate financial records, and avoiding commingling of personal and corporate assets. If these formalities are not observed and the corporate structure is used as a mere façade, courts may disregard the corporate entity.
Alter Ego: If there is such a unity of interest and ownership between the corporation and its shareholders or members that the separate personalities of the corporation and the individuals no longer exist, courts may treat the corporation as the alter ego of its owners and hold them personally liable.
Group Enterprises: In some cases, where multiple corporations are closely related or form part of a single economic unit, courts may pierce the corporate veil to achieve equity, particularly if one corporation's actions harm creditors or other stakeholders and the corporate structure is being used to shield culpable parties from liability.
Energizing Communities, Fostering Growth, Sustaining Futures
USDA grants bolster rural communities, driving growth, sustainability, and prosperity through strategic development initiatives and financial support.
From Promise to Practice. Implementing AI in Legal Environments
Pim Betist's presentation about generative AI in the legal sector at Lexpo.com '24
The Future of Criminal Defense Lawyer in India.pdf
https://veteranlegal.in/defense-lawyer-in-india/ | Criminal defense Lawyer in India has always been a vital aspect of the country's legal system. As defenders of justice, criminal Defense Lawyer play a critical role in ensuring that individuals accused of crimes receive a fair trial and that their constitutional rights are protected. As India evolves socially, economically, and technologically, the role and future of criminal Defense Lawyer are also undergoing significant changes. This comprehensive blog explores the current landscape, challenges, technological advancements, and prospects for criminal Defense Lawyer in India.
在线办理(SU毕业证书)美国雪城大学毕业证成绩单一模一样
学校原件一模一样【微信：741003700 】《(SU毕业证书)美国雪城大学毕业证成绩单》【微信：741003700 】学位证，留信认证（真实可查，永久存档）原件一模一样纸张工艺/offer、雅思、外壳等材料/诚信可靠,可直接看成品样本，帮您解决无法毕业带来的各种难题！外壳，原版制作，诚信可靠，可直接看成品样本。行业标杆！精益求精，诚心合作，真诚制作！多年品质 ,按需精细制作，24小时接单,全套进口原装设备。十五年致力于帮助留学生解决难题，包您满意。
本公司拥有海外各大学样板无数，能完美还原。
1:1完美还原海外各大学毕业材料上的工艺：水印，阴影底纹，钢印LOGO烫金烫银，LOGO烫金烫银复合重叠。文字图案浮雕、激光镭射、紫外荧光、温感、复印防伪等防伪工艺。材料咨询办理、认证咨询办理请加学历顾问Q/微741003700
【主营项目】
一.毕业证【q微741003700】成绩单、使馆认证、教育部认证、雅思托福成绩单、学生卡等！
二.真实使馆公证(即留学回国人员证明,不成功不收费)
三.真实教育部学历学位认证（教育部存档！教育部留服网站永久可查）
四.办理各国各大学文凭(一对一专业服务,可全程监控跟踪进度)
如果您处于以下几种情况：
◇在校期间，因各种原因未能顺利毕业……拿不到官方毕业证【q/微741003700】
◇面对父母的压力，希望尽快拿到；
◇不清楚认证流程以及材料该如何准备；
◇回国时间很长，忘记办理；
◇回国马上就要找工作，办给用人单位看；
◇企事业单位必须要求办理的
◇需要报考公务员、购买免税车、落转户口
◇申请留学生创业基金
留信网认证的作用:
1:该专业认证可证明留学生真实身份
2:同时对留学生所学专业登记给予评定
3:国家专业人才认证中心颁发入库证书
4:这个认证书并且可以归档倒地方
5:凡事获得留信网入网的信息将会逐步更新到个人身份内，将在公安局网内查询个人身份证信息后，同步读取人才网入库信息
6:个人职称评审加20分
7:个人信誉贷款加10分
8:在国家人才网主办的国家网络招聘大会中纳入资料，供国家高端企业选择人才
V.-SENTHIL-BALAJI-SLP-C-8939-8940-2023-SC-Judgment-07-August-2023.pdf
सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने यह भी माना था कि मजिस्ट्रेट का यह कर्तव्य है कि वह सुनिश्चित करे कि अधिकारी पीएमएलए के तहत निर्धारित प्रक्रिया के साथ-साथ संवैधानिक सुरक्षा उपायों का भी उचित रूप से पालन करें।
The Art and Science of Cryptoforensic Investigation: Best Practices and Tools
The Art and Science of Cryptoforensic Investigation: Best Practices and Tools
Sangyun Lee, 'Why Korea's Merger Control Occasionally Fails: A Public Choice ...
Presentation slides for a session held on June 4, 2024, at Kyoto University. This presentation is based on the presenter’s recent paper, coauthored with Hwang Lee, Professor, Korea University, with the same title, published in the Journal of Business Administration & Law, Volume 34, No. 2 (April 2024). The paper, written in Korean, is available at <https://shorturl.at/GCWcI>.
Business Laws Sunita saha
Business law for the students of undergraduate level. The presentation contains the summary of all the chapters under the syllabus of State University, Contract Act, Sale of Goods Act, Negotiable Instrument Act, Partnership Act, Limited Liability Act, Consumer Protection Act.
Search Warrants for NH Law Enforcement Officers
Training aid for law enforcement officers related to search warrants, the requirements needed, drafting, and execution of the search warrant.
Synopsis On Annual General Meeting/Extra Ordinary General Meeting With Ordina...
Synopsis On Annual General Meeting/Extra Ordinary General Meeting With Ordina...Syed Muhammad Humza Hussain
Synopsis On Annual General Meeting/Extra Ordinary General Meeting With Ordinary And Special Businesses And Ordinary And Special Resolutions with Companies (Postal Ballot) Regulations, 2018Matthew Professional CV experienced Government Liaison
As an experienced Government Liaison, I have demonstrated expertise in Corporate Governance. My skill set includes senior-level management in Contract Management, Legal Support, and Diplomatic Relations. I have also gained proficiency as a Corporate Liaison, utilizing my strong background in accounting, finance, and legal, with a Bachelor's degree (B.A.) from California State University. My Administrative Skills further strengthen my ability to contribute to the growth and success of any organization.
一比一原版(Lincoln毕业证)新西兰林肯大学毕业证如何办理
Lincoln硕士毕业证成绩单【微信95270640】办理新西兰林肯大学毕业证原版一模一样、Lincoln毕业证制作【Q微信95270640】《新西兰林肯大学毕业证购买流程》《Lincoln成绩单制作》新西兰林肯大学毕业证书Lincoln毕业证文凭新西兰林肯大学
本科毕业证书,学历学位认证如何办理【留学国外学位学历认证、毕业证、成绩单、大学Offer、雅思托福代考、语言证书、学生卡、高仿教育部认证等一切高仿或者真实可查认证服务】代办国外（海外）英国、加拿大、美国、新西兰、澳大利亚、新西兰等国外各大学毕业证、文凭学历证书、成绩单、学历学位认证真实可查。
[留学文凭学历认证(留信认证使馆认证)新西兰林肯大学毕业证成绩单毕业证证书大学Offer请假条成绩单语言证书国际回国人员证明高仿教育部认证申请学校等一切高仿或者真实可查认证服务。
多年留学服务公司,拥有海外样板无数能完美1:1还原海外各国大学degreeDiplomaTranscripts等毕业材料。海外大学毕业材料都有哪些工艺呢？工艺难度主要由：烫金.钢印.底纹.水印.防伪光标.热敏防伪等等组成。而且我们每天都在更新海外文凭的样板以求所有同学都能享受到完美的品质服务。
国外毕业证学位证成绩单办理方法：
1客户提供办理新西兰林肯大学新西兰林肯大学毕业证学位证信息：姓名生日专业学位毕业时间等（如信息不确定可以咨询顾问：我们有专业老师帮你查询）；
2开始安排制作毕业证成绩单电子图；
3毕业证成绩单电子版做好以后发送给您确认；
4毕业证成绩单电子版您确认信息无误之后安排制作成品；
5成品做好拍照或者视频给您确认；
6快递给客户（国内顺丰国外DHLUPS等快读邮寄）
— — — — 我们是挂科和未毕业同学们的福音我们是实体公司精益求精的工艺！ — — — -
一真实留信认证的作用(私企外企荣誉的见证):
1：该专业认证可证明留学生真实留学身份同时对留学生所学专业等级给予评定。
2：国家专业人才认证中心颁发入库证书这个入网证书并且可以归档到地方。
3：凡是获得留信网入网的信息将会逐步更新到个人身份内将在公安部网内查询个人身份证信息后同步读取人才网入库信息。
4：个人职称评审加20分个人信誉贷款加10分。
5：在国家人才网主办的全国网络招聘大会中纳入资料供国家500强等高端企业选择人才。问山娃想买什么想吃什么山娃知道父亲赚钱很辛苦除了书籍和文具山娃啥也不要能牵着父亲的手满城闲逛他已心满意足了父亲连挑了三套童装叫山娃试穿山娃有点不想父亲说城里不比乡下要穿得漂漂亮亮爸怎么不穿得漂亮望着父亲山娃反问道父亲听了并不回答只是吃吃地笑山娃很精神越逛越起劲父亲却越逛越疲倦望着父亲呵欠连天的样子山娃也说困了累了回家吧小屋闷罐一般头顶上的三叶扇彻夜呜呜作响搅得满屋热气腾腾也搅得山娃心烦意乱父亲一的
San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflict at Sea
Presentation by Justin Ordoyo
University of the Philippines College of Law
Patenting_Innovations_in_3D_Printing_Prosthetics.pptx
slide deck : Patenting innovations in 3D printing
Receivership and liquidation Accounts Prof. Oyedokun.pptx
Receivership and liquidation Accounts Prof. Oyedokun.pptxGodwin Emmanuel Oyedokun MBA MSc PhD FCA FCTI FCNA CFE FFAR
Receivership and liquidation Accounts
Being a Paper Presented at Business Recovery and Insolvency Practitioners Association of Nigeria (BRIPAN) on Friday, August 18, 2023.
原版制作(PSU毕业证书)宾州州立大学公园分校毕业证学历证书一模一样
学校原件一模一样【微信：741003700 】《(PSU毕业证书)宾州州立大学公园分校毕业证学历证书》【微信：741003700 】学位证，留信认证（真实可查，永久存档）原件一模一样纸张工艺/offer、雅思、外壳等材料/诚信可靠,可直接看成品样本，帮您解决无法毕业带来的各种难题！外壳，原版制作，诚信可靠，可直接看成品样本。行业标杆！精益求精，诚心合作，真诚制作！多年品质 ,按需精细制作，24小时接单,全套进口原装设备。十五年致力于帮助留学生解决难题，包您满意。
本公司拥有海外各大学样板无数，能完美还原。
1:1完美还原海外各大学毕业材料上的工艺：水印，阴影底纹，钢印LOGO烫金烫银，LOGO烫金烫银复合重叠。文字图案浮雕、激光镭射、紫外荧光、温感、复印防伪等防伪工艺。材料咨询办理、认证咨询办理请加学历顾问Q/微741003700
【主营项目】
一.毕业证【q微741003700】成绩单、使馆认证、教育部认证、雅思托福成绩单、学生卡等！
二.真实使馆公证(即留学回国人员证明,不成功不收费)
三.真实教育部学历学位认证（教育部存档！教育部留服网站永久可查）
四.办理各国各大学文凭(一对一专业服务,可全程监控跟踪进度)
如果您处于以下几种情况：
◇在校期间，因各种原因未能顺利毕业……拿不到官方毕业证【q/微741003700】
◇面对父母的压力，希望尽快拿到；
◇不清楚认证流程以及材料该如何准备；
◇回国时间很长，忘记办理；
◇回国马上就要找工作，办给用人单位看；
◇企事业单位必须要求办理的
◇需要报考公务员、购买免税车、落转户口
◇申请留学生创业基金
留信网认证的作用:
1:该专业认证可证明留学生真实身份
2:同时对留学生所学专业登记给予评定
3:国家专业人才认证中心颁发入库证书
4:这个认证书并且可以归档倒地方
5:凡事获得留信网入网的信息将会逐步更新到个人身份内，将在公安局网内查询个人身份证信息后，同步读取人才网入库信息
6:个人职称评审加20分
7:个人信誉贷款加10分
8:在国家人才网主办的国家网络招聘大会中纳入资料，供国家高端企业选择人才
What are the common challenges faced by women lawyers working in the legal pr...
The legal profession, which has historically been male-dominated, has experienced a significant increase in the number of women entering the field over the past few decades. Despite this progress, women lawyers continue to encounter various challenges as they strive for top positions.
Recently uploaded (20)
Lifting the Corporate Veil. Power Point Presentation
Lifting the Corporate Veil. Power Point Presentation
Energizing Communities, Fostering Growth, Sustaining Futures
Energizing Communities, Fostering Growth, Sustaining Futures
From Promise to Practice. Implementing AI in Legal Environments
From Promise to Practice. Implementing AI in Legal Environments
The Future of Criminal Defense Lawyer in India.pdf
The Future of Criminal Defense Lawyer in India.pdf
V.-SENTHIL-BALAJI-SLP-C-8939-8940-2023-SC-Judgment-07-August-2023.pdf
V.-SENTHIL-BALAJI-SLP-C-8939-8940-2023-SC-Judgment-07-August-2023.pdf
fnaf lore.pptx ...................................
fnaf lore.pptx ...................................
The Art and Science of Cryptoforensic Investigation: Best Practices and Tools
The Art and Science of Cryptoforensic Investigation: Best Practices and Tools
Sangyun Lee, 'Why Korea's Merger Control Occasionally Fails: A Public Choice ...
Sangyun Lee, 'Why Korea's Merger Control Occasionally Fails: A Public Choice ...
Synopsis On Annual General Meeting/Extra Ordinary General Meeting With Ordina...
Synopsis On Annual General Meeting/Extra Ordinary General Meeting With Ordina...
Matthew Professional CV experienced Government Liaison
Matthew Professional CV experienced Government Liaison
San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflict at Sea
San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflict at Sea
Patenting_Innovations_in_3D_Printing_Prosthetics.pptx
Patenting_Innovations_in_3D_Printing_Prosthetics.pptx
Receivership and liquidation Accounts Prof. Oyedokun.pptx
Receivership and liquidation Accounts Prof. Oyedokun.pptx
What are the common challenges faced by women lawyers working in the legal pr...
What are the common challenges faced by women lawyers working in the legal pr...
Moj falsifying documents
- 1. Deleted by WhatDoTheyKnow Criminal allegations of malfeasance and fraud involving a false claim made by the MoJ Pippa Clementine made this Freedom of Information request to Humberside Police Pippa Clementine 29 March 2020 Dear Humberside Police, Humberside police refused to record a crime initially when it was reported on 7 January 2017. It was eventually instructed to do so by the then Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) on 28 July 2017, after a protracted period taking the matter through the statutory complaints and appeals process. The matter was a serious (proven) case involving the dishonest claims of a civil servant with the Ministry of Justice. The matter (complaint/crime) was recorded on 9 August 2017 as follows: "The complainant states the police have failed to investigate criminal allegations of malfeasance and fraud involving a false claim made by Justices' clerk for Humber and South Yorkshire that 10 items of post had been sent to him between the 19/12/2013 to 22/07/2016 which the complainant claims never to have received, and believes they were dishonestly constructed later to satisfy enquiries made by the judicial ombudsman. The complainant considers these matters should be investigated by Humberside Police as a Crime." It was confirmed in writing on 17 September 2017 by a Detective Inspector that he had been referred the matter to deal with. From then up until the outcome (date of letter 25 May 2018) he communicated by email regarding the investigation on 3 occasions. Within those emails it was shown manifestly that he had no intention of pursuing all reasonable lines of enquiry. For example, he wrote to confirm that he had identified the person within the Justice clerk system who he needed to speak with (he already had this information) and asked for other information which he had already been provided with. Another anomaly casting doubt as to the seriousness with which the investigation was being pursued was an email purportedly sent by the Judicial Ombudsman (JACO) which stated that it had "been approached by Humberside Police in connection with a complaint of corruption that [had been] made regarding the North East Lincolnshire Council, including that [the complainant] had not received letters that the Council had sent". Enquiries should have been made about the missing letters purportedly sent by the Ministry of Justice (MoJ), not the council. The outcome letter also supports that there was a fundamental misunderstanding about what was required to be investigated on account of references to enquiries made "with a number of Officers from North East Lincolnshire Council' and "Andrew Hobley from the Local Government Ombudsman". Also the evidence which proved the allegations beyond reasonable doubt was not even mentioned in the 25 May 2018 outcome https://tinyurl.com/tw8w7ku Q1. What experience does the Detective Inspector have that made the force consider he was suitably qualified to investigate this matter Q2. What field of expertise does the Detective Inspector normally work in
- 2. Yours faithfully, Pippa Clementine Humberside Police To: Pippa Clementine (Account suspended) Date: 30 March 2020 Good Morning, Section 8(1)(b) of the FOIA requires that a request for information must include the real name of the requester. If the requester; fails to provide a name; can't be identified from the name provided (for example because they have only used their first name or initials); or, is using an obvious pseudonym, then the request won't meet the requirements of section 8(1)(b) and will technically be invalid. For a request to be valid, the requester must provide enough of their real name to give anyone reading that request a reasonable indication of their identity. This means that if the staff processing the request cannot identify the requester from the name provided, that request will be invalid. Whilst it is not routine that we would seek identification, we have determined that that on this occasion owing similarities to previous requests we require your identification to proceed with this request. Kind Regards, Information Compliance Unit