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.

1. RESTRICTED - CRIME
Humberside Police
Grimsby Police Station
Victoria Street
Grimsby
N E Lincs DN31 1PE
Switchboard: 101
Tel: 01472 721238
This matter is being dealt with by:
DS 171 POTTER
enquiries@humberside.pnn.police.uk
www.humberside.police.uk
Mr
17 April 2019
Grimsby
North East Lincolnshire
DN32
Mr
I have now completed the review of the documentation you have provided and other
documents supplied to me from the Humberside Professional Standards Department
and our crime records department, that I requested.
I emailed you on 16/03/2019 after our meeting of the 15/03/2019 and we agreed the
parameters of my review would be:
1) Allegation of perjury re the magistrates clerk Mrs Alison WATTS with regards
to allegation of sending you letters that never arrived.
2) Allegation of collusion within the police re your alleged unlawful arrest
3) Report of misconduct by various named senior officers.
I must start by reiterating that prior to receiving this case I had not been involved with
any previous reports that you had made and albeit you may consider me not to be
independent due to being employed by Humberside Police I have in my review
started with a fresh and clear mind and looked into various issues that had been
previously reported by yourself in relation to the above agreed parameters.
1) From paperwork you supplied it was clear you escalated your complaints re
perceived lack of action by Humber Magistrates court re ongoing complaints
you had registered with them. This ultimately went to the relevant
Ombudsman who conducted their own review and returned advice that there
was no evidence to suggest the letters had not been sent to you. I noted it
was reported that your postcode was wrong on a number of letters but it was
clear this would not have prevented the letters reaching you. It seems clear
that once written the letters would have gone to admin staff and it would be
their role to ensure they were added to envelopes, stamped and posted in the
normal postal manner. The Ombudsman found no evidence to suggest that
the letters had deliberately not been posted. When spoke/emailed you
mentioned that the letters you had been provided from the Ombudsman
investigation had embedded data suggesting they had been created in 2016
which was months after when the letters were alleged to have seen sent. On
review of the documents you forwarded to me I could also see that some
documents were marked with creation on 08/02/2016 and others on
16/12/2016 and were created from a Xerox device. What this data actually
RESTRICTED - CRIME File classification: NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED - NO DESCRIPTOR

2. RESTRICTED – CRIME
refers to is that the PDF was created on these dates and not the actual
document. The property embedded data actually refers to the date the
document was likely scanned through a multi functional device and the PDF
created. Therefore this embedded data does not prove the letters were
fabricated at a later date as a result of your complaint and due to this there is
no evidence to support your allegation of misconduct in public office for Alison
Watts
You also made reference to the council and courts reversing their block on the
claim for the disputed £60 issued as a result of a letter sent to you regards no
payment of council tax. You advised that the council had blocked any
attempts to obtain this money pending your high court review which had been
submitted. I have seen from yourself and also the council a letter you emailed
to the high court and copied to magistrate representatives stating you were
‘withdrawing this judicial review claim’. I see no reason why this would not
be reviewed by any reasonable person as notification of withdrawal of your
high court claim and as a result that the block on collection of these monies
would have been lifted. I believe during the magistrates hearing in November
2013 you raised this issue but were asked to provide a current high court
reference and could not and as such the liability order was issued. Therefore I
do not find any credible evidence that would suggest any collusion by the
courts and council to manufacture a decision against you to facilitate recovery
of monies owed.
2) Reference your arrest in 2015 I have reviewed the summary you provided and
also obtained the original file. I have to say on review of the evidence I would
have likely referred the case to CPS for review also. I note in your case review
you refer to the statements being very detailed, but you indicate they miss
relevant points. The officers who take statements can only record what the
witnesses recall. In my experience you would not also expect to find each and
every statement from witnesses of the same incident to be exactly the same
due to different view points, recall and recollections.
You have stated also you feel you should not have been arrested, but it is
clear PC Blake asked for your details and when they were refused he only
then executed an arrest utilising his arrest powers. I note you were
interviewed and bailed and subsequently charged to court where you failed to
attend and were found guilty in your absence.
In reviewing the evidence, the police act as ‘gatekeepers’, reviewing the
evidence and if it is felt that there is a realistic prospect of conviction with the
evidential and public interest test being met this can be charged by police. In
some cases some offences require a crown prosecution service (CPS)
review. In your case the case was one that required CPS review and they
have independently reviewed the case and deemed that there was sufficient
evidence to charge you. At that point and in simplistic terms it is then down to
the courts as a further independent body to review any contested offences or
evidence.
I also note you have contested some of the evidence in this case in your own
review and raise issue of discrepancies in your summary. By refusing to
attend court you did though in essence give up your opportunity to contest
2
RESTRICTED – CRIME
File classification: NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED - NO DESCRIPTOR

3. RESTRICTED – CRIME
these issues to the court. The court can only review the evidence and issues
presented to them on the dates of the trial, whether from the prosecution or
the defence if they are present.
As a result I find that there is no evidence of misconduct re this matter also.
I did notice that within your review you made issue of being referred to as ‘a
known suspect’. It was my interpretation that you felt like you were dealt with
differently due to your belief that this phrase referred to your previous
complaints and Humberside Police’s previous knowledge of you. When in
fact, this is a standard phrase used by the police for each individual
crime/investigation to denote if the suspect for the offence is identified (thus a
known suspect) or unknown (an unknown suspect). This terminology was in
no way at all representative of any of your previous dealing, reports or
complaints to Humberside Police.
3) The final issue that I agreed to review was your report of misconduct by the
various other names listed. I asked for anything specific that you wanted to
raise and you have not supplied anything to me and as such I have made an
assumption that you have reported these officers as they all seem to have
had some involvement in replying to you or updating you regards previous
complaints (some regards the same complaint which have been escalated
through the police ranks). There is therefore no specific evidence to suggest
there is any misconduct from any of the named individuals.
I hope that this letter helps to reinforce what we have discussed in person. While I
will make an assumption that you will not be entirely happy with these results the
police can only review the evidence provided and there is no specific evidence to
corroborate any misconduct that I have seen, as above. I hope that by speaking in
person I was able to adequately explain the above as it appears in the past you have
mainly been updated by letter.
Yours sincerely
Ian POTTER
DS 171
Grimsby CID team 5
3
RESTRICTED – CRIME
File classification: NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED - NO DESCRIPTOR