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.

1. Online Complaint Form
Please use this form if you wish to make a complaint about the police or other organisation covered by the
police complaints system. If you are unable to complete this form please call us on 101
COMPLAINT DETAILS
Which police force or organisation are you
complaining about?
Humberside police
Date(s) and Time(s) of when this happened
(if known)
18 April 2019
Investigation report filed as NO CRIME
Incident or reference number(s)
(if you have any)
What is your complaint about? (Please enter details below)
The officer subject of this complaint is alleged to have 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.
What would you like to happen as a result of
your complaint?
Please select
Individuals or other organisations involved to
be criminally prosecuted
Individuals involved to face disciplinary
procedures
OFFICER/POLICE STAFF DETAILS (if applicable/known)
Rank Number First name Surname
Detective Sergeant

2. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
The suitability test.
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 DS perverting
the course of justice or a complaint of any sort for that matter.
CONFIRMATION AND COMPLETION
Please tick
I confirm that I understand that the information provided in this form will
be used by public bodies involved in the police complaints system,
including the police and IOPC
Date of submission 17 April 2020

3. Annex
Allegation (1) as referred to in the investigation outcome letter of 17 April 2019
Element 1
1. Review’s findings of the investigation into 10 items of post claimed to have been sent by the
MoJ over the period from 19 December 2013 to 13 December 2016 that had allegedly been
constructed by the court to cover their tracks:
“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 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.”
2. The above has just been reiterated from information sent to the force by myself. A number of
documents were sent as attachments in an email on 16 March 2019. The document entitled
“Case stated application missing docs” contained the Judicial Ombudsman’s provisional
investigation report and was clearly the source of DS ’s initial comments.
3. If enquiries were carried out in good faith, rather than merely to appear accountable as a token
gesture, all evidence that had a bearing on the offence under investigation would have been
taken into consideration. Investigations have to be thorough and the police have a legal duty
to follow all reasonable lines of enquiry. The Judicial Ombudsman, whom I alleged to be
complicit, was only ever going to defend the accused, regardless of the evidence. Simply
reiterating his findings does not constitute a line of enquiry.

4. 4. It would have been reasonable to enquire into the postcode error on the three purported letters
for which the Ombudsman had jurisdiction and why, when it would not have affected delivery
was it so central to the Ombudsman’s report. It is feasible that if a postcode error was planted
as a red herring when the letters were later constructed it would provide a diversionary tactic
to shift focus from the alleged dishonesty. It would enable the Ombudsman to consider a
token error so minor he could justify dismissing the complaint for a full investigation,
however, this contrived course of action had to rely on him being wilfully blind to the fact that
the letters were not sent.
5. The following was even contained in the same document of compiled correspondence from
which DS had sourced the Ombudsman’s findings but chose not to pursue it as a line of
enquiry (email 27 May 2016):
“From the Ombudsman statement at paragraph 4 of his decision the matter is narrowed
down to such triviality as to decide whether he considers the alleged letters containing a
minor error in the post code constitutes maladministration, which of course it wouldn’t but
is not the issue.
The deliberate postcode error was an obvious and half-hearted attempt at a red herring, but
did serve as something on which the Ombudsman could base his report. It should be noted
that other correspondence sent by the Justices' Clerk, properly addressed, have been
received both before and after the alleged letters were sent.”
6. Continuing to the matter I had specifically raised regarding when copies of the purported
letters had been created. Again, there was no line of enquiry pursued; rather the outcome
merely reiterates what I had said in my email to DS on 20 March 2019.
“The copies of the letters allegedly sent to me by Mrs Watts over the three year period
have the date they were created embedded in the properties of the PDF files. The three
which the Judicial Ombudsman obtained and sent to me on 23 February 2016 indicate a
creation date of 8 February 2016. The seven others which were sent to me on 3 January
2017 by HMCTS (including final case stated unsigned) were created on 16 December
2016.
The final case stated (signed) dated 18 December 2013 which was sent to me on 16
January 2017 by HMCTS was created on 12 January 2017.
The above date information only relates to the files that were sent to me and does not
mean that copies had not also been made previously. It is most likely though that copies
would have been made of the letters at the same time they were produced and allegedly
sent which might even be a policy requirement. If so the Justices’ Clerk should be able to
at least prove that the letters had been created at the appropriate time by providing the
original copy, however, it would not prove that they were sent.”

5. 7. The purpose of the above was to propose a new line of enquiry but it was made categorically
clear that I was not claiming it to be proof that the actual documents (if there had been any)
had been created on the dates indicated by the file properties. The information was seized
upon by the police to exploit as a smoke screen to mislead the uninformed observer. Anyone
who had read DS ’s investigation outcome without knowing what information he had
been provided would be under the false impression I was claiming the electronic file data had
proven the alleged misconduct in public office. The uninformed observer who had read only
DS ’s outcome would have been misled further by the fact that it would have appeared
that a relevant line of enquiry had been followed when clearly no enquiries were made at all.
The outcome had simply recounted the information I had already provided.
8. The police were under a duty to have obtained the original electronic copies made at the
purported time they were sent (they would have been scanned for office records), not concede
defeat at the first opportunity. That duty was even more imperative owing to an Employment
Tribunal already discovering that the MoJ had falsified documents by late production and
backdating with the intension to plug gaps or to confuse and mislead. Excerpts from the
Judgment dated 5 February 2019 (3400502/2016) record that the circumstances surrounding
the wrongdoing were strikingly similar to those alleged in this case.
“167. In this case the commissioning manager was Governor Marfleet. The investigation
should have been completed by 8 February 2016 (28 days from 11 January). It was
in fact completed on 26 April 2016.
168. In his witness statement Governor O’Connor acknowledged that “this process took a
little time” and that he obtained extensions of time. He did not identify where the
extension of time forms were in the bundle of documents but there is a form for
extension which bears the date 1 March 2016 (21 days after the due date for
completion) and which extends the completion date to 10 April 2016. The
document’s properties were provided at the request of Ms Braganza and show that
the document was created on 30th November 2017 and modified 1 minute and 31
seconds after creation. There is a single letter to the claimant of 10 February 2016
confirming that Governor O’Connor “would hope to have submitted a full report to
the Governor by 6th March” and that he was “waiting to interview one member of
staff and two prisoners” but would not be able to do so until 25th February due to his
own leave. Another extension form is dated on its’ face 11 April 2016 and gives a
new completion date of 1 April 2016 (10 days before the purported date of the
document). The properties of that document show it was created on 27th March 2017
at 09.21.
.........

6. 170. We find as a fact that these documents were created on the dates shown on their
properties, that the purpose of their creation was to give the wholly false impression
that contemporaneous extensions had been given for “acceptable and justifiable
reasons” at the time of the investigation, when they had not and that the creation of
the document in March 2017 (less than 4 months before the final hearing in this case
and over 11 and a half months after the date which it bears on its’ face) was done to
mislead the claimant and the tribunal, no other explanation being forthcoming.
Governor O’Connor referred to their creation as “plugging gaps” and thus in our
unanimous view confirming our finding.
.......
372. No contemporaneous extensions were sought or given in accordance with this policy
and no proper information about delay was given to the claimant as it [should] have
been. The respondent sought, belatedly, to indicate that extensions had been given
by producing documents bearing the dates 1 March 2016 purporting to extend the
date for completion of the investigation to 10 April 2016 and another dated 11 April
2016 “extending” time to 1 April 2016. The properties of those documents were
sought by counsel for the claimant. The first mentioned document was created on 30
November 2017 (and modified the same day). The second was created on 27 March
2017. Governor O’Connor postulated that these documents had been produced to
“plug gaps”. It appeared to be of no further concern to him that these documents had
been produced many months after their purported dates and were put in evidence
before the tribunal with, we find, the deliberate aim of misleading the tribunal into
believing that the respondent had complied with the requirements of its own policies.
373. By contrast we consider that to be a matter of utmost seriousness.”
9. The forgery was proven simply because the claimant’s solicitor Ms Braganza (para 168)
bothered to ask for the document’s properties which were provided. The claimant’s solicitor
was acting in good faith; her intentions were to pursue all reasonable lines of enquiry so why
would she bother but Humberside’s CID manifestly show that it had no intention of seriously
pursuing the matter? A good guess is that a solicitor, as a way of gaining reputation, is
motivated by getting the best outcome they possibly can for their clients whereas the force
was continuing its long held tradition of covering up for the establishment.
10. It is also reasonable to deduce that papers relating to various complaints and proceedings I
have been provoked into pursuing were made available to the parties for use in Employment
Tribunal 3400502/2016 and as a source of reference for assisting the production of the
Judgment. For example, it refers several times to the date and time properties embedded in
electronic documents which reveal when they were created to cross reference when they were
purported to have been produced (paras 168, 170 and 372). This concept was raised as a line
of enquiry in an email to the force (copied to IOPC) on 15 March 2018 and subsequently in
proceedings due to the police not bothering to pursue it. Later it was raised in an appeal to the
Upper Tribunal in the matter of the Information Rights decision (EA/2017/0165). Earlier than

7. that there is a record of the letter creation concerns being raised in correspondence with the
Judicial Ombudsman (27 May 2016) specifically regarding the three letters purportedly sent
by the Magistrates Advisory Committee.
11. There are further telltale signs pointing to the almost certainty that my representations to
HMCTS complaints handing team dated 19 March 17 (see para 14 below) had been made
available as a source of reference for the Employment Tribunal. For example, a line of
enquiry recorded in the Tribunal Judgment mirrored how I had gone about identifying the
inconsistencies in the MoJ’s attempt to cover their tracks. My HMCTS complaint refers in
consecutive paragraphs to time limits within which the court had an obligation to comply
(paras 23 and 24). For example in paragraph 23 it states with emphasis added the following:
“....On this basis, the latest date by which the court had to state and sign the case would
have been 21 October 2013 (42 days from 9 September).”
The Employment Tribunal Judgment refers in paragraph 167 (see para 8 above) to a similar
concept and follows the identical format in respect of when an action should have been
completed (emphasis added):
“.....The investigation should have been completed by 8 February 2016 (28 days from 11
January). It was in fact completed on 26 April 2016.”
12. Returning to the force’s failure to obtain properties of the documents, it would also have been
perceived by the uninformed observer that the whole matter of whether or not the letters were
fabricated at a later date hinged on this one point. It did not, it was simply a new line of
enquiry suggested as the process moved forwards and one which the force implied it would
follow but instead exploited in the way already described. In fact none of the evidence that I
had initially been asked for which warranted properly investigating was considered. The force
had no more than trawled all the paperwork for anything it could use to support its findings
which was to clear the accused of wrongdoing (whether justified or not).
13. The evidence attached to my 16 March 2019 email contained the information I had been asked
for subsequent to the previous day’s meeting which established the terms of reference for the
investigation.
14. I was asked to supply the correspondence I had entered into with the court spanning the period
of the undelivered letters. I arranged the document chronologically with the letters in question
identified and placed within the correspondence according to their purported dates. From this

8. it was easier to spot flaws in the court’s attempt to cover their tracks. I had also extracted the
relevant content from a submission to HMCTS complaints handling team dated 19 March 17
which highlighted these anomalies. One of the letters, for example, purported to have been
sent to me on 19 December 2013 acknowledges receipt of my letter and attached
representations I sent 4 months previously on 19 August 2013 to the Justices’ Clerk (‘I
acknowledge receipt of your representations upon the draft case’). However, this letter in
particular (unlike all the others) did not refer to the date of my correspondence she was
acknowledging receipt of, presumably because she wanted to avoid drawing attention to the 4
months it had taken her to purportedly reply.
15. The MoJ, taking such an obvious risk as this, must have been able to rely on the assistance of
all relevant regulatory bodies and police. 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.
16. Another factor contributing to the flawed plan was their oversight of an email I was sent by
the Justices’ Clerk on 6 March 2014 stating that written communication would be with me
shortly setting out the position with my case and advising me on next steps. However, the
purported letter acknowledging receipt of my representations upon the draft case had already
set out the position with my case and advised me on next steps and that was dated 19
December 2013. This purportedly had enclosed the draft case which I was required to lodge
with the Administrative Court if I wished to pursue my appeal. The letter purportedly sent on
20 February 2014 also reiterated the advice as did another purportedly sent after the 6 March
2014 email on 1 May.
17. It would not help them if they denied sending the 6 March email (electronic mail does not
provide that flexibility), so they had no control over this aspect and the attempt to cover their
tracks lost all credibility. It was inconceivable in any event that the court would advise a
litigant the following when the 10 day statutory limit within which the case had to be lodged
had been exceeded so significantly:
“If you wish to pursue your appeal, the case must be lodged with the Administrative Court
Office at the Royal Courts of Justice within 10 days of receiving it from this office..”
18. By the time the 20 February 2014 letter was purportedly sent the 10 day statutory limit had
overrun by 53 days and by 1 May 2014 it had overrun by 123 days. For there to have been any
consistency, the email of 6 March 2014 would have also mentioned the 10 day limit and that

9. the draft case had already been provided on 19 December 2013. There is no perspective from
which any of this makes sense which tells you that all the letters as alleged were retroactively
created. It was these aggravating circumstances, along with other contributing factors raised in
my evidence which demonstrated, beyond reasonable doubt that dishonesty was involved, and
presumably why DS turned a blind eye to them.
Element 2 of Allegation (1) as referred to in the Investigation outcome letter of 17 April 2019
19. Review’s findings of the investigation into allegations that North East Lincolnshire Council
(NELC) had committed fraud and perjury by making a statement knowing it to be false with
the intention of misleading the judge to justify obtaining the court’s permission to enforce a
sum of money to which it was not entitled.
“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.”
20. The force used the same tactics to cover up the criminal wrongdoing as were employed in
investigation element 1. Failing to pursue any lines of enquiry; concealing evidence;
misrepresenting evidence to mislead the uninformed observer; turning a blind eye to relevant
evidence, etc. etc.
21. The statement that I was ‘withdrawing this judicial review claim’ was included in the final
paragraph of the letter referred to in the investigation outcome which was in fact dated 20
November 2013. This followed 8 paragraphs explaining what had happened in the
proceedings and what I as the Applicant in the high court appeal (case stated) challenging the
costs was intending to do as a consequence of the case stated application apparently being put
back on track due to the judicial review claim (for a mandatory order) being successful in
prompting the court to serve a draft of the case.

10. 22. It was categorically made clear in the 20 November letter that the appeal disputing the costs
was a Case Stated appeal, not a judicial review claim and the letter referred to the withdrawal
of the judicial review claim for a mandatory order as it was no longer necessary to pursue
further because it had done its job (the mandatory order required the Justices to state a case
because the application was being obstructed by the Magistrates’ court). DS was
provided evidence showing that the Council had obtained the contents of the 20 November
2013 letter from a source which proved indisputably that I had continued pursuing the high
court application challenging the costs and it was the judicial review for a mandatory order
that was no longer necessary and had been withdrawn which comprehensively accounted for
why the allegations were proven beyond reasonable doubt. The reference here is the 7
February 2019 email sent to DS to which was attached the relevant document (12 July
2017 application form).
23. DS puts emphasis on the fact that he has seen the letter (sent by myself) which he
exploits to justify his contrived findings, yet does not mention any of the relevant evidence I
provided which proved indisputably that I had continued pursuing the high court application
challenging the costs. Another document attached the 7 February email (Pursuing appeal
correspondence) proved beyond any doubt that NELC’s Deputy Monitoring Officer, Mrs
Richardson-Smith had been copied in on emails I sent to the Justices’ Clerk dealing with
correspondence in pursuit of the high court (case stated) appeal that were sent after the letter
of 20 November 2013.
24. The outcome proceeds to defend the indefensible in respect of the involvement of District
Judge Daniel Curtis whom I allege is complicit. A magistrates hearing is referred to as being
held in November 2013 when it was not; it was in fact nearly two years later (30 October
2015). DS obtained from somewhere that I was unable to provide a current high court
reference when asked by the District Judge and was the reason he accepted the Council’s false
statement (which was that the case had been withdrawn), yet written evidence had been
submitted in respect of the court hearing. The judge therefore knew that the high court
application challenging the costs had not been withdrawn and the evidence adduced was
perjured.
25. The evidence I sent directly to DS was sufficient alone to satisfy himself that the
District Judge was complicit. However, he was advised that DCS Wilson would have further
relevant information. An email I sent to HMCTS on 19 March 2017 in which DCS Wilson
was copied had attached further documents containing more proof that the judge deliberately
concealed evidence to cover-up perjury committed by NELC. But there is something at odds

11. with the force defending the MoJ against allegations of falsifying letters whilst at the same
time defending NELC against allegations of perjury for stating to the court (knowing it to be
false) that it had no further reason to believe that the costs were being disputed because the
case had been withdrawn. The purported letter dated 19 December 2013 sent by the court
contains the following:
Re: Application to State a Case
I acknowledge receipt of your representations upon the draft case.
North East Lincolnshire Council sought an extension to the time in which they may
submit representations on the draft case as the Council stated that they had not received
the draft case. This request was granted.
Enclosed herewith is the final case.
If you wish to pursue your appeal, the case must be lodged with the Administrative Court
Office at the Royal Courts of Justice within 10 days of receiving it from this office, and
within four days of lodging the case, the you must serve on the Respondent a notice of
entry of the appeal together with a copy of the case.
I shall be grateful if you would kindly acknowledge receipt of this correspondence and
enclosure.”