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
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.
Iopc response letter before action 24 oct 19John Smith
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....
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Iopc response letter before action 24 oct 19John Smith
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....
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Supporting document (Exhibit A-3) 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.
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.
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.
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
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.
1. The court ordered an inquiry into the arrest of four petitioners by police authorities in Gujarat, as the court believes this was a case of extreme excess and the petitioners appear to be victims due to their birth in a particular community.
2. While independent witnesses said the petitioners earned an honest living, police implicated them in around 5 cases based only on their confessions obtained through torture. The petitioners were acquitted in all cases by trial courts.
3. The court ordered the Inspector General of Police to conduct an inquiry and submit an affidavit regarding any excess committed by police in arresting and implicating the petitioners. The court will then decide on action against police officers and compensation for the petition
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.
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.
The criminal justice system involves reporting offenses to the police, who may register an FIR and begin investigating. For cognizable offenses, the police can make arrests without a warrant. If the police refuse to register an FIR, the complainant can approach higher authorities or the court. Arrested individuals must be informed of the reasons for arrest and produced before a magistrate within 24 hours. The criminal process also involves bail procedures, investigation, filing charges, and trial, which can result in conviction or acquittal. The key laws governing the criminal justice system are the Code of Criminal Procedure, Indian Penal Code, and Indian Evidence Act.
The document outlines the key stages of a criminal trial in India. It discusses the differences between a summons case and a warrant case, and covers the trial procedures for warrant cases before a Sessions Court and Magistrate. The trial procedures covered include framing of charges, examining witnesses and evidence, defenses, submissions, and judgment. It also discusses some common provisions like acquittal or conviction, absence of complainant, and compensation for false accusations. Overall, the document provides a comprehensive overview of the different stages and processes involved in criminal trials under Indian law.
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.
S.Z. v. Bulgaria - Systemic problem of ineffectiveness of investigations in B...Natasha Dobreva
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.
The document outlines the key steps and concepts in criminal prosecution in India according to the Criminal Procedure Code and other relevant laws. It discusses classes of criminal courts, registration of FIRs, investigation and arrest procedures, production of the accused before courts, police reports and charge sheets, trial procedures for both warrant and summons cases, and concepts like bail, cognizance, and judgments. The document provides a comprehensive overview of the criminal prosecution process in India from the registration of an FIR through investigation, trial and final judgment.
Copying from the Central Information Commission, the Kerala State Information Commission conducted a two day seminar on RTI at Thiruvananthapuram on 11th and 12th October 2013. The Governor was supposed to inaugurate the function. Well aware of how these 'fraud' shows are organised and how the unsuspecting chief guest is made to express inanities fed by the organisers I sent a mail to the Governor on 9 Oct 2013 highlighting some important issues in the matter of implementation of the law in the State. These were the same ones I had handed over to the CIC, KSIC in Jan 2007! But as expected this was not brought to the notice of the Governor and he ended up making a fool of himself by talking only on the misuse of the Act as fed to him by the information commissioners though the fact is that it is only the information commissioners who can misuse the Act. This was also communicated to him through another mail which also was not brought to his notice. So this feedback was sent on 16 Oct 2013 along with an application under the RTI Act! The replies received both from the Public Information Officer and the First Appellate Authority at the Rajbhavan indicates that even in this office of the 1st public servant in the State the work ethics and quality are a far cry from what is expected of such an office!
Investigation with respect to the cognizable offence by police- FIR, Chargesh...Utkarsh Kumar
This document summarizes key aspects of criminal procedure and investigation in India according to the Criminal Procedure Code. It discusses:
1) The police's authority to investigate cognizable offenses without a court order or FIR. However, high courts can intervene if the FIR or materials do not disclose an offense.
2) Requirements for FIRs - they must be written, signed by the informant, and read back. FIRs provide the first information that sets the investigation in motion.
3) A magistrate's power to order an investigation under Section 156(3). However, they cannot direct how the investigation is conducted.
4) Irregularities in an investigation do not necessarily invalidate legal proceedings unless they cause a
This document discusses the trial procedure for summons cases under the Code of Criminal Procedure in India. Summons cases involve less serious offenses punishable by up to 2 years imprisonment. The trial procedure for summons cases is simpler and less formal than for warrant cases. Key aspects of the summons case trial procedure include: recording a plea of guilty from the accused, allowing conviction in absentia for petty cases, acquitting the accused if the complainant does not appear, and case law rulings related to questioning of the accused and disclosure of defense. The discussion concludes that police need modification and social awareness training to fulfill objectives of protecting human rights and serving the welfare state.
The document discusses various aspects of criminal proceedings and charges under the Criminal Procedure Code, including:
- How criminal proceedings can be instituted through a complaint made to a magistrate, which is then written down and signed.
- What a charge is and the requirements for what it must contain.
- The concepts of joinder of counts, which allows multiple offenses to be charged together if they are connected, and joinder of persons, which allows multiple accused to be tried together if their offenses are related.
- Case examples where joinder was found to be improper, such as when offenses occurred on different dates or involved different victims or transactions.
Study circle Supervision of investigaton Role of Magistrates PresentationMohamad Zebkhan
The document discusses various provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) relating to the supervisory role of magistrates over police investigations. It notes that investigation, inquiry, and trial are the three main stages under the CrPC. Key areas where magistrates provide supervision include filing of FIRs, arrest/seizure, custody/remand, discharge of accused, interim orders regarding seized property, bail provisions, identification parades, recording of confessional statements, and submission of charge sheets. The document discusses relevant sections of the CrPC and case laws pertaining to each of these areas.
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).
During 2013/14, the IPCC has been carrying out work to look at ways of improving police handling of complaints, and to contribute to improving public confidence in the police complaints system.
Police forces have told us that there is a need for practical advice, in addition to our Statutory Guidance, to support them in handling complaints. In response, we have created a new publication – Focus.
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.
Supporting document (Exhibit A-3) 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.
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.
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.
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
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.
1. The court ordered an inquiry into the arrest of four petitioners by police authorities in Gujarat, as the court believes this was a case of extreme excess and the petitioners appear to be victims due to their birth in a particular community.
2. While independent witnesses said the petitioners earned an honest living, police implicated them in around 5 cases based only on their confessions obtained through torture. The petitioners were acquitted in all cases by trial courts.
3. The court ordered the Inspector General of Police to conduct an inquiry and submit an affidavit regarding any excess committed by police in arresting and implicating the petitioners. The court will then decide on action against police officers and compensation for the petition
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.
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.
The criminal justice system involves reporting offenses to the police, who may register an FIR and begin investigating. For cognizable offenses, the police can make arrests without a warrant. If the police refuse to register an FIR, the complainant can approach higher authorities or the court. Arrested individuals must be informed of the reasons for arrest and produced before a magistrate within 24 hours. The criminal process also involves bail procedures, investigation, filing charges, and trial, which can result in conviction or acquittal. The key laws governing the criminal justice system are the Code of Criminal Procedure, Indian Penal Code, and Indian Evidence Act.
The document outlines the key stages of a criminal trial in India. It discusses the differences between a summons case and a warrant case, and covers the trial procedures for warrant cases before a Sessions Court and Magistrate. The trial procedures covered include framing of charges, examining witnesses and evidence, defenses, submissions, and judgment. It also discusses some common provisions like acquittal or conviction, absence of complainant, and compensation for false accusations. Overall, the document provides a comprehensive overview of the different stages and processes involved in criminal trials under Indian law.
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.
S.Z. v. Bulgaria - Systemic problem of ineffectiveness of investigations in B...Natasha Dobreva
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.
The document outlines the key steps and concepts in criminal prosecution in India according to the Criminal Procedure Code and other relevant laws. It discusses classes of criminal courts, registration of FIRs, investigation and arrest procedures, production of the accused before courts, police reports and charge sheets, trial procedures for both warrant and summons cases, and concepts like bail, cognizance, and judgments. The document provides a comprehensive overview of the criminal prosecution process in India from the registration of an FIR through investigation, trial and final judgment.
Copying from the Central Information Commission, the Kerala State Information Commission conducted a two day seminar on RTI at Thiruvananthapuram on 11th and 12th October 2013. The Governor was supposed to inaugurate the function. Well aware of how these 'fraud' shows are organised and how the unsuspecting chief guest is made to express inanities fed by the organisers I sent a mail to the Governor on 9 Oct 2013 highlighting some important issues in the matter of implementation of the law in the State. These were the same ones I had handed over to the CIC, KSIC in Jan 2007! But as expected this was not brought to the notice of the Governor and he ended up making a fool of himself by talking only on the misuse of the Act as fed to him by the information commissioners though the fact is that it is only the information commissioners who can misuse the Act. This was also communicated to him through another mail which also was not brought to his notice. So this feedback was sent on 16 Oct 2013 along with an application under the RTI Act! The replies received both from the Public Information Officer and the First Appellate Authority at the Rajbhavan indicates that even in this office of the 1st public servant in the State the work ethics and quality are a far cry from what is expected of such an office!
Investigation with respect to the cognizable offence by police- FIR, Chargesh...Utkarsh Kumar
This document summarizes key aspects of criminal procedure and investigation in India according to the Criminal Procedure Code. It discusses:
1) The police's authority to investigate cognizable offenses without a court order or FIR. However, high courts can intervene if the FIR or materials do not disclose an offense.
2) Requirements for FIRs - they must be written, signed by the informant, and read back. FIRs provide the first information that sets the investigation in motion.
3) A magistrate's power to order an investigation under Section 156(3). However, they cannot direct how the investigation is conducted.
4) Irregularities in an investigation do not necessarily invalidate legal proceedings unless they cause a
This document discusses the trial procedure for summons cases under the Code of Criminal Procedure in India. Summons cases involve less serious offenses punishable by up to 2 years imprisonment. The trial procedure for summons cases is simpler and less formal than for warrant cases. Key aspects of the summons case trial procedure include: recording a plea of guilty from the accused, allowing conviction in absentia for petty cases, acquitting the accused if the complainant does not appear, and case law rulings related to questioning of the accused and disclosure of defense. The discussion concludes that police need modification and social awareness training to fulfill objectives of protecting human rights and serving the welfare state.
The document discusses various aspects of criminal proceedings and charges under the Criminal Procedure Code, including:
- How criminal proceedings can be instituted through a complaint made to a magistrate, which is then written down and signed.
- What a charge is and the requirements for what it must contain.
- The concepts of joinder of counts, which allows multiple offenses to be charged together if they are connected, and joinder of persons, which allows multiple accused to be tried together if their offenses are related.
- Case examples where joinder was found to be improper, such as when offenses occurred on different dates or involved different victims or transactions.
Study circle Supervision of investigaton Role of Magistrates PresentationMohamad Zebkhan
The document discusses various provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) relating to the supervisory role of magistrates over police investigations. It notes that investigation, inquiry, and trial are the three main stages under the CrPC. Key areas where magistrates provide supervision include filing of FIRs, arrest/seizure, custody/remand, discharge of accused, interim orders regarding seized property, bail provisions, identification parades, recording of confessional statements, and submission of charge sheets. The document discusses relevant sections of the CrPC and case laws pertaining to each of these areas.
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).
During 2013/14, the IPCC has been carrying out work to look at ways of improving police handling of complaints, and to contribute to improving public confidence in the police complaints system.
Police forces have told us that there is a need for practical advice, in addition to our Statutory Guidance, to support them in handling complaints. In response, we have created a new publication – Focus.
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
During 2013/14, the Independent Police Complaints Commission has been carrying out work to look at ways of improving police handling of complaints, and to contribute to improving public confidence in the police complaints system.
Police forces have told us that there is a need for practical advice, in addition to our Statutory Guidance, to support them in handling complaints. In response, we have created a new publication – Focus.
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)
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.
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.
Freedom of Information request revealing the Ministry of Justice's involvement in criminally falsifying documents with Humberside Police as an accomplice deleted by WhatDoTheyKnow
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.
This document provides definitions and explanations of key legal terms from the Indian Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C). It defines and discusses bailable and non-bailable offenses, charge, cognizable and non-cognizable offenses, complaint, inquiry, investigation, judicial proceedings, offense, police report, public prosecutor, and warrant and summons cases. For each term, it provides the definition in Cr.P.C. and relevant case law examples to aid understanding of how the terms are applied in legal contexts.
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 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.
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.
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.
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
This document summarizes a Supreme Court of India judgment regarding a writ petition related to the 1992-1993 Mumbai riots.
The petition called for the full implementation of recommendations from the Sri Krishna Commission report on the riots. While the state government accepted most recommendations, the petitioners argued the actions taken were insufficient.
The court examined disciplinary actions against erring police officials, the status of riot-related criminal cases, and the failure to provide legal aid to victims. It found that while most proceedings were long concluded, 97 criminal cases remained pending or dormant. The court directed expedited disposal of the lone pending case and administrative steps to address the dormant cases.
The document summarizes the process for filing a First Information Report (FIR) under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). It outlines what information should be included in the FIR, such as the name and details of the complainant, description of the incident, accused, witnesses, evidence, and more. It also discusses the duties of the police in registering an FIR and investigating the case, as well as the role of the judiciary in accepting chargesheets and issuing summons.
Media statement pravin gordhan_pp_judgmentSABC News
Today’s judgment by a full bench of the High Court in Pretoria, against a Report of the Public
Protector of 5 July 2019, is an indictment on Adv Busisiwe Mkhwebane, whose conduct was
found to be biased, egregious and dishonest
2013 Best Best & Krieger Labor & Employment Update: Discrimination, Harassmen...Best Best and Krieger LLP
1) The Ninth Circuit found that a sheriff's department lieutenant who oversaw contract police services for a city did not have a policymaking role and was therefore protected from retaliation based on his political speech opposing the sheriff in an election.
2) The Ninth Circuit also ruled that if one plaintiff in a class action alleging age discrimination exhausted administrative remedies by filing a complaint, other similarly situated plaintiffs could "piggyback" on that complaint to satisfy the exhaustion requirement.
3) In a third case, the Ninth Circuit held that statistical evidence of disparate treatment can support an inference of discrimination to establish a prima facie case, even if it does not address the employer's stated nondiscriminatory reasons for the adverse actions.
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.
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
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
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) 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.
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.
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)
Synopsis On Annual General Meeting/Extra Ordinary General Meeting With Ordinary And Special Businesses And Ordinary And Special Resolutions with Companies (Postal Ballot) Regulations, 2018
Defending Weapons Offence Charges: Role of Mississauga Criminal Defence LawyersHarpreetSaini48
Discover how Mississauga criminal defence lawyers defend clients facing weapon offence charges with expert legal guidance and courtroom representation.
To know more visit: https://www.saini-law.com/
Genocide in International Criminal Law.pptxMasoudZamani13
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.
Matthew Professional CV experienced Government LiaisonMattGardner52
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.
Sangyun Lee, 'Why Korea's Merger Control Occasionally Fails: A Public Choice ...Sangyun Lee
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>.
This document briefly explains the June compliance calendar 2024 with income tax returns, PF, ESI, and important due dates, forms to be filled out, periods, and who should file them?.
Guide on the use of Artificial Intelligence-based tools by lawyers and law fi...Massimo Talia
This guide aims to provide information on how lawyers will be able to use the opportunities provided by AI tools and how such tools could help the business processes of small firms. Its objective is to provide lawyers with some background to understand what they can and cannot realistically expect from these products. This guide aims to give a reference point for small law practices in the EU
against which they can evaluate those classes of AI applications that are probably the most relevant for them.
What are the common challenges faced by women lawyers working in the legal pr...lawyersonia
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.
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।
1. NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED
Serving our communities to
make them safer and stronger
CO 535/17
1/1 •.•.
Grimsby
N.E. Lincolnshire
DN3~
Humberside Police
Professional Standards Department
Police Headquarters
Priory Road
Hull HU55SF
Te1No:01482578240
Fax No: 01482 305004
Switchboard: 101
This matter is being dealt with by:
DJ Foster
psb@humberside.pnn.police.uk
www.humberside.police.uk
25 May 2018
Dear Mr (: _~l,
I am writing to inform you of the outcome of the complaint you made on 27th February
2017. Your complaint has been dealt with by way of the Local Resolution Procedure
and I agree that this is a suitable course of action in the circumstances.
Humberside Police is committed to providing a quality of service to all members of
the public and I am grateful, therefore, that you have taken the trouble to bring this
r matter to the Force's attention. Accordingly, the matter causing you concern was
recorded and I was appointed to enquire into it.
On 17th September 2017, I sent a letter to you informing you that I would be reviewing
this file and be in contact with you, subsequently I have made numerous contacts
with you by way of Email to update you and clarify some points.
I note that this complaint has been deemed suitable to be resolved by the Local
Resolution process, I believe you would have had sight of the Key Facts document
which sets out how this type of resolution works, as such I will try to set out details of
enquires I have made and my conclusion.
In the course of my enquires I have made contact with a number of Officers from
North East Lincolnshire Council, I have also spoken with Alison Watts HMCTS
Humber and South Yorkshire, Also Andrew Hobley from the Local Government
Ombudsman Office and reviewed numerous pieces of documentation.
Allegation in brief.
Operational Policing Policies.
The Complainant states the Police have failed to Investigate Criminal Allegations of
Malfeasance and Fraud involving a false claim made by the justice's clerk for Humber
2. NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED
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 enquires made by the
judicial ombudsman. The complainant considers these matters should be
investigated by Humberside Police as a Crime.
During the course of reviewing this allegation I have conducted extensive
enquires and contacted a number of people.
I have spoken with Alison Watts (HMCTS Humber and South Yorkshire), I am
aware she has responded to some of your concerns in past correspondence.
She has indicated that any letters issued would have been sent in the normal
course of events and posted with any other mail, copies of letters would be
kept which would be dated. She has no knowledge of why you did not receive
these letters.
I have also noted a response sent to you by the Cluster Manager for HMCTS
(Paul Hopgood), in this he sets out the response regarding the number of
letters sent by HMCTS Humber and South Yorkshire that were not received by
you nor returned to HMCTS by the Royal Mail. This response states that they
could not identify why you did not receive these letters nor if they were sent by
recorded or registered delivery as set out under the Magistrates Courts Rules
1981, they apologised for this.
I have also spoken with the Judicial Ombudsman's office (JACO), they have
reviewed two complaints to identify whether there was any maladministration
in the Judicial conduct Investigation process, one of the issues was that you
did not receive three letters from the advisory committee, these letters were
subsequently obtained and sent to you in February 2016. The Ombudsman did
not consider any issues regarding the Local Authority's handling of its
correspondence to you nor did they make any enquires, the Ombudsman have
no knowledge of any other letters being produced to them.
I also made contact with the Local Government Ombudsman, they were not in
a position to provide any details of complaints made to them as these are
strictly confidential and they are statutorily barred from sharing this
information.
In reviewing any allegation the Police have to satisfy themselves that a Crime
has occurred. They then need to demonstrate, beyond reasonable doubt that a
dishonest act has occurred, the definition of dishonesty is laid out in case law
ofRVGHOSH.
Having conducted these proportionate enquires, I cannot demonstrate that the
points to prove for the offences laid out in your complaint are satisfied,
therefore the matters will not be investigated.
Whilst there may be some differences between other people's explanation and your
account, I do not question your genuine belief and perception of the incident.
However, I hope the explanation provided goes some way towards allaying your
sense of grievance.
3. NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED
Please be aware that as your complaint refers to an organisational issue there is no
right of appeal against the outcome of the Local Resolution process. This is in
accordance with Paragraph BA Schedule 3 of the Police Reform Act 2002.
YOursSi~
.--?~~
f( 01 Foster
On behalf of the Appropriate Authority
4. Representations in respect of appeal
Ref: CO/49/18
Do you agree with the outcome of the local resolution? [No]
I don’t consider that the complaint was suitable for Local Resolution. Humberside police must be
satisfied in accordance with the Police Reform Act 2002 that the complaint is suitable for local
resolution. The criteria for whether a complaint can be dealt with by Local Resolution are set out in
paragraph 6 (sub-paragraphs 6 to 8) of Schedule 3 of that Act. Paragraph 6 provides so far as is
relevant, as follows:
“Handling of complaints by the appropriate authority
6. (1) This paragraph applies where a complaint has been recorded by the appropriate
authority.
........
(4) If the appropriate authority determines that the complaint is suitable for being
subjected to local resolution, it shall make arrangements for it to be so subjected.
(5) If the appropriate authority determines that the complaint is not so suitable, it shall
make arrangements for the complaint to be investigated by the authority on its own
behalf.
(6) A determination that a complaint is suitable for being subjected to local resolution
may not be made unless the following conditions are both met.
(7) The first condition is that the appropriate authority is satisfied that the conduct
complained of (even if it were proved) would not justify the bringing of any criminal
or disciplinary proceedings against the person whose conduct is complained of.
(8) The second condition is that the appropriate authority is satisfied that the conduct
complained of (even if it were proved) would not involve the infringement of a
person's rights under Article 2 or 3 of the Convention (within the meaning of the
Human Rights Act 1998).
(9) ........”
5. IPCC guidance on handling complaints elaborates on the relevant provision of the Police Reform
Act 2002 in this matter. It is evident from the guidance that the force need not take into account
anything other than the conduct complained of, i.e., the strength of evidence has no bearing on
whether the matter is deemed suitable for being subjected to local resolution as opposed to an
investigation.
Though no question arises, the guidance does state ‘if there is doubt about a complaint being
suitable for local resolution, err on the side of caution and conduct an investigation’. Quoted from
page 2 of the August 2014 issue (Focus) the following provides clarification for assessing suitability
for local resolution:
“The test is whether the conduct complained about, even if proven, would not justify
criminal or disciplinary proceedings. Therefore, when considering if the conduct would
justify the bringing of proceedings, there should be no consideration of the strength of the
evidence, whether the complaint is likely to be upheld, or the likeliness of prosecution.
When assessing a complaint using the suitability test, the complaint should be taken at face
value, focusing on the substance of the conduct being complained about. The decision
should not be based on the wording of the complaint alone (the relevant appeal body test is
applied in this way). It also should not be based on reviewing the evidence available and
exploring the likely outcome (the special requirements test on investigations is applied in
this way).
The person assessing the complaint’s seriousness should consider contacting the
complainant to better understand their complaint and to get further information. A mini-
investigation to assess the strength of evidence for the complaint (such as getting custody
records, incident logs, speaking to the officers concerned, etc) should not be conducted. If
the evidence does not support the complaint then the complaint is not upheld following an
investigation, it does not make it any more suitable for local resolution.
It is possible for a complaint that uses exaggerated language to be locally resolved, but the
right of appeal is to the IPCC. It is also possible for a complaint to be deemed unsuitable for
local resolution, but then the appointed investigating officer, upon reviewing the evidence,
does not apply special requirements to the subsequent investigation.”
Humberside police could not conceivably have been satisfied that if proven the conduct complained
of would not have justified the bringing of criminal and/or disciplinary proceedings against the
officer complained about.
The complaint raised a wide scope of concerns ranging from the failure to provide updates within
the appropriate time period to the improper exercise of police powers (an offence under s.26 of the
6. Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015). The response focussed only on the matter as it was
described briefly in the recorded complaint report, i.e., the failure to update within the appropriate
time period according to the IOPC Statutory guidelines.
The force has confirmed in its findings that it could not be relied on to pursue all reasonable lines of
enquiry, though, this would be more accurately expressed if it was said that the force pursued all
irrelevant lines of enquiry in a systematic effort to obfuscate the investigation process. The present
complaint was raised because it was clear that the investigating officer had no serious intentions of
satisfying himself that a Crime had occurred and the exercise was merely Humberside Police going
through the motions.
After eventually being referred the matter to deal with on 17 September 2017 after being instructed
to do so by the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) DI Foster communicated by email
regarding the investigation on 3 occasions up until the outcome of 25 May 2018. Within those
emails it was manifestly shown that he had no intention of seriously pursuing the matter. He wrote 7
weeks after he had received signed copies of the 10 letters purportedly sent by the Justices’ clerk to
confirm that he had ‘now identified the person within the Justice clerk system’ who he needed to
speak with, and asked for ‘the content of the letters in question’ to be identified. Other information
which he had already been provided weeks earlier was also asked for.
Another anomaly casting doubt as to the seriousness with which the investigation was being
pursued was an email apparently sent by the Judicial Appointment and Conduct Ombudsman’s
Office (JACO). The authenticity of the email was in question (hence ‘apparently sent’) as the
encoding revealed within the file’s properties was inconsistent with that of other JACO employees’
emails and appeared not to have been sent from an official government email server. However, it
was stated in the correspondence that the Ombudsman had been approached by Humberside Police
in connection with a complaint of corruption that had been made regarding North East Lincolnshire
Council, including that the complainant had not received letters that the Council had sent (a possible
red herring).
Putting to one side the email’s questionable origins, the anomaly in respect of the focus being on the
Council rather than the Ministry of Justice was consistent with the outcome of 25 May 2018,
because this report also supports, either by incompetence or design, that there was a
misunderstanding about what was required to be investigated. For a start, the report irrelevantly
referred to enquiries that were made with a number of Officers from North East Lincolnshire
Council (NELC) and Andrew Hobley from the Local Government Ombudsman. DI Foster had not
7. been led to believe that NELC was involved in the dishonesty (at least not in this matter). He had in
any event the opportunity to re-evaluate what lines of enquiry were pertinent when I asked him to
clarify why it was relevant that he enquired about whether a complaint had been made to NELC
(and if so any contact details). He was asked for clarification but this was never forthcoming.
The report is littered with what are effectively red herrings to distract anyone from what is really
going on, especially anyone unfamiliar with the case who had no idea how compelling the evidence
was that was omitted from mention in the report. The objective clearly with this ploy has been to
dupe those in the dark into believing that thorough enquiries had been carried out. The reality
however, is that to anyone informed it would be so overwhelmingly obvious that the content was
not worth the paper it was written on.
For example, it is not difficult to see how the following might have succeeded in prejudicing the
opinion of any uninformed person considering the merits of the investigation to the extent that they
were satisfied that all reasonable lines of enquiry had been pursued:
“The [Judicial] Ombudsman did not consider any issues regarding the Local Authority's
handling of its correspondence to you nor did they make any enquires, the Ombudsman have
no knowledge of any other letters being produced to them.
I also made contact with the Local Government Ombudsman, they were not in a position to
provide any details of complaints made to them as these are strictly confidential and they are
statutorily barred from sharing this information.”
To anyone informed it is glaringly obvious that Humberside police has been complicit in a cover-up
of serious criminal wrongdoing carried out by the Ministry of Justice. It is also obvious that
pretending to misunderstand the allegations thereby inventing matters to investigate is a well
practiced tactical ploy to obfuscate the process.
It is telling that the evidence which proved the allegations beyond reasonable doubt was not even
mentioned in the 25 May 2018 outcome, so is the fact that myself, who was under no statutory duty
to keep the complaint details confidential, could have provided what the LGO refused but I was not
asked to. However, it is puzzling what DI Foster thought could be achieved anyway by pursuing the
Council and LGO. Even the Judicial Ombudsman who has been most closely involved was hardly
going to reveal anything to the police willingly which would materially assist an investigation. The
Judicial Ombudsman had already made it clear it was only his concern that he had obtained the
8. letters; it was immaterial to him whether the letters had been created after the event to cover their
tracks once enquiries were made.
It also does not look good for the police that I had made it clear early on that I considered it unlikely
that the dishonesty would not have been known about or even instigated by officials more senior
than the Justices' Clerk. A response on 6 October 2017 contained the following to the police asking
me if there were any further comments I would like to add in regards to my complaint:
“Regarding further comments, I think it is appropriate given that you have referred to the
Judicial Ombudsman etc., that it is my opinion that the Ombudsman HMCTS/MoJ are more
likely than not complicit. I would think it highly unlikely that the Justices' Clerk would
make the decision herself to attempt to pull this off, and suggest either she has been
pressured to do so by someone more senior or has known she could rely on being backed up
by her employer. This has already been implied in an email (attached) to HMCTS' Head of
Customer Investigations, Richard Redgrave, responding to his 6 April 2017 outcome of the
investigation”
Apart from the deliberate obfuscation tactics employed it is also noted that the report’s findings
amount to zero. The declaration below tells me nothing I do not already know or reveals to DI
Foster anything that was not available to him in the various documents that the police had already
been provided:
“I have spoken with Alison Watts (HMCTS Humber and South Yorkshire), I am aware she
has responded to some of your concerns in past correspondence. She has indicated that any
letters issued would have been sent in the normal course of events and posted with any other
mail, copies of letters would be kept which would be dated. She has no knowledge of why
you did not receive these letters.
I have also noted a response sent to you by the Cluster Manager for HMCTS (Paul
Hopgood), in this he sets out the response regarding the number of letters sent by HMCTS
Humber and South Yorkshire that were not received by you nor returned to HMCTS by the
Royal Mail. This response states that they could not identify why you did not receive these
letters nor if they were sent by recorded or registered delivery as set out under the
Magistrates Courts Rules 1981, they apologised for this.
I have also spoken with the Judicial Ombudsman's office (JACO), they have reviewed two
complaints to identify whether there was any maladministration in the Judicial conduct
Investigation process, one of the issues was that you did not receive three letters from the
advisory committee, these letters were subsequently obtained and sent to you in February
2016......”
9. Clearly all the force has done here is exploit the findings of the Judicial Ombudsman and HMCTS
who were only ever, at the very most, going to concede that there had been “a very poor level of
service” which had incidentally taken a total 408 days from first being aware of the fraud on 23
February 2016 until 6 April 2017 when the admission was eventually prized from the multi stage
Complaints handling mechanism.
The force is clearly implying that because these two bodies are apparently satisfied there has been
no criminal wrongdoing it has been handed a get out from carrying out its duty to investigate. But
the force already tried to pull this one and failed in its attempt to circumvent the correct process in a
previous complaint. The IOPC found that this along with other grounds were unsatisfactory so they
upheld my complaint and directed the force to record it. The IOPC letter of 28 July 2017 upholding
the appeal contained the following:
“I do not consider that your complaint dated 25 February 2017 is an abuse of the police
complaints procedures. I note the force have referred to the Judicial Ombudsman and
HMCTS being the correct forum for this matter. However, I believe that the crux of your
complaint is that the police have decided not to criminally investigate the Magistrate's Court
for conduct which you consider to be criminal.”
The only relevance of the Judicial Ombudsman and HMCTS’ involvement in the matter is that they
elicited responses from the Justices' Clerk to letters which had, as far as I was concerned, not been
responded to over a several year period which gave me every reason to suspect they had been
produced afterwards. The protracted period over which the letters were purportedly sent and the fact
that there were as many as 10 of them was always going to make the task of covering their tracks a
difficult one and one which was evidently not managed successfully despite various officials
implying differently. It was these aggravating circumstances, along with other contributing factors
which demonstrated, beyond reasonable doubt that dishonesty was involved, and would
unquestionably have satisfied the test laid out in R v Ghosh [1982] QB 1053 (or whichever case
applies since the Supreme Court in Ivey v Genting Casinos [2017] UKSC 67 overturned the test).
The report’s findings yell out at you that the force’s handling of the complaint was no more than a
token gesture with obvious signs that generic content had been used from templates which had not
even been updated to reflect the Supreme Court’s overruling of the Ghosh test (see its barefaced and
utterly unsupported denial):
10. “In reviewing any allegation the Police have to satisfy themselves that a Crime has occurred.
They then need to demonstrate, beyond reasonable doubt that a dishonest act has occurred,
the definition of dishonesty is laid out in case law of R V GHOSH.
Having conducted these proportionate enquires, I cannot demonstrate that the points to
prove for the offences laid out in your complaint are satisfied, therefore the matters will not
be investigated.”
Presumably the above is officially stating that the force is not only unable to demonstrate beyond
reasonable doubt that a dishonest act has occurred but also that they are satisfied themselves that a
crime has not occurred. If so, the force must itself be guilty of dishonesty, because the accused's
conduct was incontrovertibly dishonest by the standards of ordinary, reasonable and honest people.
Incidentally, it is not now a consideration that a jury would need satisfying that the accused must
have realised that what he was doing was, by those standards, dishonest. The ‘proportionate
enquires’ referred to, as previously highlighted, were no more than a token gesture of accountability
which revealed nothing new and were obviously not meant to. This of course was gross misconduct
as the line of enquiry followed by the force pursued the route most guaranteed to lead nowhere and
a blind eye turned to the most relevance factors which would satisfy the force that it was dealing
with crime.
Records confirm that a substantial amount of material had been collated and made available to the
force in an email of 19 March 2017 in which Christine Wilson (head of specialist crime) was
copied. This evidence fully backed up the allegations recorded in police log of 7 January 2017 and
was of sufficient strength to satisfy the force that the matter was a criminal one and imperative that
it was fully investigated. The only logical explanation for the obstruction that involved channelling
the matter through the police statutory complaints process was that the force was complicit in a
cover up (the establishment protecting its own). There is every reason to suspect that the evidence
was given no consideration whatsoever. Instead, resources were disproportionately diverted to
initially rejecting a complaint on the basis that it was not a police matter, which then changed to an
abuse of the complaints process, because the allegations were a repetition of previously complained
of matters (entirely unconnected) and for which it presented a case to convince the police regulator.
11. Do you feel the outcome was a proper outcome? [No]
The outcome did not reflect the complaint I submitted on 2 February 2018. The response focussed
only on the matter as it was described briefly in the recorded complaint report (failure to update
appropriately). The force is obliged to take into account all of the representations including those
which have been provided additionally during the process (SI 2012/1204, regulation 6). The
prescribed complaint form in any event made it clear it would not be expected that the issues were
comprehensively set out initially.
Consequently the matters raised which were not dealt with are as follows:
1. Concerns about the Professional Standards Branch’s (PSB) inappropriate referral of the
complaint to DI Foster bearing in mind his “Operational commitments”. This matter has
been raised before and therefore is inexcusable. In any event, the seriousness of the reported
crime warranted the fullest attention of an investigator with the appropriate expertise in
dealing with the type of offence involved.
2. Inappropriately considering the complaint suitable for Local resolution when it should
instead have been referred to the IOPC. It was brought to DI Foster’s attention that the
allegation patently concerned the improper exercise of police powers (an offence under s.26
of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015) and any alleged conduct that could arguably
fall within the definition of an offence under s.26 of the 2015 Act must be referred to the
IOCC in accordance with the IPCC operational advice note (Mandatory referral criteria
update, April 2017). This matter has been raised before.
3. It was made clear in my response to DI Foster’s enquiries that I expected the allegation to be
recorded as a crime and an investigation undertaken pursuing all reasonable lines of enquiry.
I expressed also my opinion that the Judicial Ombudsman and or HMCTS were more likely
than not complicit as it would be highly unlikely that the Justices' Clerk under her own
initiative would have dishonestly constructed the letters and so suggested she has been
pressured to do so by someone more senior. There was no recognition of this and the
comments obviously not considered because the outcome letter demonstrates that the basis
of the “proportionate enquiries” revolved around the decisions of the Judicial Ombudsman
etc., and other irrelevancies. The present complaint raised these concerns but were evidently
12. not dealt with. The previous section goes into more detail (re, “do you agree with the
outcome of the local resolution”)
4. In the same response to DI Foster I queried why I was being asked if I had lodged any
complaint to North East Lincolnshire Council (it indicated a misunderstanding of the
allegations or more seriously that they had not even been considered at all). Again there was
no recognition of this and the comments obviously not considered as the outcome letter
stated without logical reason that ‘in the course of my enquires I have made contact with a
number of Officers from North East Lincolnshire Council’. These concerns were raised in
the present complaint after DCI Scaife contacted me on 17 April 2018 to confirm details of
correspondence that had been sent. The anomaly in respect of the focus being on the Council
rather than the MoJ was consistent as the 17 April correspondence asked for it to be verified
that I had emailed DI Foster on 21 February to confirm that I ‘did not receive council
letters’. I had sent an email that day to DI Foster but it was to reiterate that I had not
received the 10 items of post and to stress that I had provided evidence to support the
allegation so the question of identifying whether it amounted to a criminal offence did not
come into it. Also clearly stated was that it was the MoJ against whom the allegations were
made (not council).
5. I raised concerns in a subsequent email to DI Foster (15 March 2018) about a couple of
suspicious emails sent to me purportedly by John Critchfield of the Judicial Ombudsman’s
Office. The emails also wrongly refer to missing letters sent by the Council (referred to in
more detail previously). Again there was no recognition of this and the comments obviously
not considered as there was no evidence in the outcome letter that the matter formed any
part of the “proportionate enquiries”. These concerns were raised in the present complaint
in response to DCI Scaife’s 17 April 2018 enquiries but were evidently not considered.
6. Also in response to DCI Scaife’s enquiries I expressed that my principle expectation on the
outcome of the complaint was to discover why none of my communications / evidence had
been taken into account and I had been repeatedly asked for information I had already sent.
Again no evidence is present in either of the local resolution outcomes that this had been
taken on board. My response to DCI Scaife included a chronology of correspondence briefly
highlighting the anomalies with the expectation that this would assist his enquiries into the
doubt that had arisen as to the seriousness with which the investigation was being pursued.
The chronology of correspondence was duplicated in DCI Scaife’s outcome letter as a
13. declaration of what additional information I had provided but to reiterate, it was omitted
what my expectation on the outcome of the complaint was which I provided in the same
email.
20 June 2018