British Justice ?
The Experiences of an Old Man with the Criminal Justice System in the UK.
Initial Police Response
The Police searched me and found no knife, nor any other unlawful items. They then arrested me. They did not arrest Kevin Miles, the person who had attacked me. I asked the Police why they had arrested me, and not the offender. They gave two reasons:
- Kevin Miles had called the Police before I called the Police.
- Kevin Miles had not been alone between the time of the attack and being searched by the Police, thus he could not have disposed of his knife.
- The time difference between the two reports was of the order of 10 minutes. I was unable to reach the Police Station any sooner than that because my path was blocked by what I believed to be members of Kevin Miles' gang. I did not have a cell phone with me. It is ridiculous to rely on this short delay as evidence of guilt on my part.
- A prosecution witness, Rosemary Ann Steer, made a written statement shortly after the incident. Her statement was witnessed by the Police Officer that had arrested me, PC Louise Rout. In that statement she states that Kevin Miles was indeed left unattended prior to the Police searching him. She also stated that later he was attended by several unknown males. Since Kevin Miles has admitted calling for backup from his gang using his cellphone, it is reasonable to draw the conclusion that these unidentified males could be members of his gang. They could easily have removed Kevin Miles' knife from the scene. The police have attempted to characterize these “unidentified males” as random passers by. But is it likely that some random passers by would stop to talk to Kevin Miles as he sat in the back of a car parked at the side of the road ? Of course not; it is much more credible that they knew Kevin, that they were in fact members of his gang.
The Police conducted a search of my home. They fabricated evidence to justify this search. They claimed that a witness had told them that I went home after the incident. The Police lied: No witness told them any such thing. The witness told them that I had gone into town. The witness did not know where I lived, and thus could not possibly have told the Police that I went home.
Interrogation at Bury PIC
While at the Bury PIC I was in considerable distress as a result of the Police
contaminating my house. I was banging my head against the wall in an attempt
to render myself unconscious. I felt that this was a better alternative than
facing the pain that I was experiencing.
A Police officer, feigning concern for my well being,
told me that I should talk to their doctor. She set up the interrogation by
advising me to answer all his questions truthfully and fully in order that he
could give me the best possible medical help. I was taken to see Dr. Dean Dorsett,
a forensic medical examiner employed by G4S. I started to explain my situation
to Dr. Dorsett, but he told me that he was not interested. He then asked
me about a jewelry web site. I told him that I had no knowledge of any jewelry
website. He then brought the site up on his computer screen. Although the URL
of the site did indeed refer to a jewelry merchant, the page contents consisted
of material criticizing Simon Ash, the former chief constable of Suffolk. He
Dr. Dean Malcolm Dorsett
asked me why I had created that web site. I told him that I had not created it,
and that I had no knowledge of it. He then proceeded to ask me what web sites
I had created. I told him of one, which he examined. He then asked me what other
websites I had created. I felt uncomfortable with his questions, and declined
to answer any further questions on this topic. He persisted with his interrogation
to the point of harassment, and so I then asked to be returned to my cell.
After I had been in my cell for a few minutes, he entered the cell and repeated
the same questions. There were 2 or 3 Police officers in the cell with us at
that time. Again I stated that these were not legitimate medical questions,
and refused to answer. I believe that the Police must have asked Dr. Dorsett
to interrogate me about websites, since I cannot imagine why he would ask such
bizarre questions of a randomly selected patient if he did not have some
instructions to do so. The allegations against me that led to my arrest were
in no way connected to websites. The Police were clearly looking for evidence
to link me to websites critical of the Police, and were using Dr. Dorsett
to conduct an interrogation that they were unable to undertake themselves. It
is unconscionable that a medical doctor would abuse their position of trust by
acceding to such a request. It is particularly heinous to behave in this way
when the patient is so obviously at a time of psychological weakness. By acting
as an agent of the Police, to allow himself to be drafted into the role of
detective while taking advantage of the trust afforded a doctor, Dr. Dorsett
has committed fraud, and has acted dishonestly towards his patient. The
international community has robustly condemned the involvement of medical
professionals in interrogations. For example, United Nations Resolution 37/194,
the text of which can be found at: http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/37/a37r194.htm
In particular I draw your attention to Principle 3, which forbids physicians
from engaging in conduct that is not solely to evaluate, protect or improve
the patient's physical and mental health, and to Principle 4, which forbids
physicians from assisting in interrogation of prisoners. I believe that a
physician who collects, or attempts to collect, evidence to help the Police,
acts in violation of this UN Resolution.
Since the police and G4S have violated international law and UN Resolution in an attempt to suppress websites critical of their behaviour it sends a clear message that they fear public awareness of their actions. Thus I will now publish this website to tell the world what they did to me, and to many others currently victimized by their actions. Indeed a google search for “G4S” will find a large number of sites critical of their hehaviour.
Who is Dr. Dean Malcolm Dorsett ?
In addition to being a Forensic Medical Examiner with G4S, Dr Dean Dorsett is a partner in the Burlington Primary Care in Ipswich. Their website describes him as follows:
Dr Dean Dorsett (m) BA(Oxon) MB BS MRCGP
Dr Dorsett originates from Dominica in the Lesser Antilles archipelago of the Caribbean. He attended Oxford University and qualified from St Georges Medical School, London University 2000. He has previous experience of working in A+E before joining BPC in 2005 as our GP Registrar, he then worked as one of our Associate GPs before achieving partnership in February 2008. Dr Dorsett's clinical interests include ultrasound scanning and he works as a Forensic Medical Examiner. He is studying for a Masters in business admin. Outside interests include architecture, martial arts and custom motorcycles. At BPC he is a trainer for GP Registrars.
Dr. Dorsett was born in 1974, and currently lives at:
| Gressgrava House |
| 308 Main Road |
| Kesgrave |
| IPSWICH |
| IP5 2PS |
In addition to his partnership in Burlington Primary Care, and his work as an medical interrogator for G4S under contract to the police, Dr. Dorsett also has a pharmacy (chemist shop) in Ipswich, Brightwell Healthcare Ltd, co-located with Burlington Primary Care.
Refusal to Accept Criminal Complaint against Kevin Miles
During the period that I was in Police custody I asked to file a crime report about the previous multiple assailant attack. They told me that as that was over 6 months ago they would not accept a crime report now. I asked why not. They said that there was a six month time limit to bring an action in the Magistrates Court. My solicitor told me that there is no time limit for an indictable offence such as an assault of this level of seriousness. While I was in Police custody I also made numerous requests to file a criminal complaint against Kevin Miles for attacking me with a knife. The Police refused to accept my report. They told me that I could file a crime report when I was released, and not before. Then they said that I would not be released. They then asked me if I wanted to file a counter complaint. I said that I did. They said that I would have to go to any police station after I was released to file a counter complaint. I asked if I would be able to file a crime report regarding the knife attack if I was not released for over 6 months; the police said that I would not. I asked if I would be released within 6 months in order that I could file a crime report regarding the knife attack upon me; the police said “you will have to wait and see”. The police made it very clear to me that they had no interest in truth or justice, and that they had no intention of conducting a fair and impartial investigation. They were determined not to accept any crime report from me regarding what was done to me; they were only interested in the allegations made by the attackers. The duty solicitor appointed to represent me also voiced the opinion that the police were determined to railroad me. He told me to make a “no comment” interview. He then said that he had a dinner appointment and so would not be present during my interview. I was entitled to have a solicitor present for my interview, but was denied this right.
Even if the time limit for reporting the previous multiple assailant attack upon me had elapsed it was still of great evidential importance in the case for which they had arrested me. If there is a fight between two people, and each accuses the other of being the aggressor, is it not highly relevant that one of them attacked the other in the past? Is it not relevant that the previous attack was perpetrated by a co-ordinated gang of at least 10 attackers against one old man? Why did the Police insist on suppressing this evidence? I consider this behaviour of the Police and Crown Prosecutors to be a conspiracy to pervert justice. Since it resulted in an innocent person serving prison time it should be at the high end of the sentencing guidelines. The maximum sentence for their offence is life imprisonment.
When I was eventually released I did go to a Police Station and asked to file a report. They refused to accept my report. I asked them why they were now refusing to accept my report when they had assured me that upon my release I could make such a report. They said that the matter “had quite rightly already been dealt with by the courts”. Their argument is of course bogus: The court would only hear a case brought before it. I was the only one arrested and charged, and thus the court would only have heard, and ruled upon, the accusations made against me. I was not allowed to voice my side of the story at any time. The court would only hear, and rule upon, my accusations against Kevin Miles if the Police charged him, and the Crown Prosecution Service prosecuted him. They refused to arrest or charge him, and so the court never heard my account of events, and thus never ruled upon the accusations against Kevin Miles. I consider the behaviour of the Police and Crown Prosecutors to be dumb insolence.
How Should Counter-Accusations be Handled ?
I was unable to find any policy on counter accusations published by the Norfolk Constabulary. However, several other UK police forces do publish their policies. The policy published by the Avon and Somerset Constabulary is a representative example of such a policy, and so I will use that policy in this discussion. The behaviour of the Norfolk police officers clearly came nowhere close to following the Avon and Somerset policy: The Norfolk police showed no interest whatsoever in listening to my account of what had happened. At the scene I asked PC 1660 Louise Rout why she had chosen to arrest me and not to arrest Kevin Miles. She told me that her decision was based solely on the fact that he had called the police before I did. She later elaborated that he had not been left alone since the incident and so he could not have disposed of his knife. However, she was aware that this was not true. The written statement of the prosecution witness Rosemary Ann Steer clearly contradicted PC Rout's assertion. While I was being driven to Bury PIC in a police car PS 3456 Oldmeadow gave me a lecture on how deep a knife wound needed to be in order to kill. This was clearly his way of telling me that he thought I was guilty. There was no impartiality, no open mind, no interest in discovering the truth. The policy 1.2 clearly states: “consideration must be given to both parties being jointly culpable or to the original complainant proving to be the aggressor and the original suspect/ counter complainant being the genuine victim”. PC Rout and PS Oldmeadow did not make any attempt to follow this policy. Is this a national policy, or only the policy of some police forces ? The Avon and Somerset policy refers to “NCRS”. This abbreviation stands for The National Crime Recording Standard. That standard states:
An incident will be recorded as a crime for offences against an identified victim, if, on the balance of probability:Clearly in this case there was evidence to the contrary that easily met the civil standard, the balance of probability.
- the circumstances as reported amount to a crime defined by law (the police will determine this based on their knowledge of the law and the counting rules) and
- there is no credible evidence to the contrary.
The police also failed to follow Policy 2.2:
During any investigation involving a counter allegation, independent evidence or corroboration should always be sought. This action is necessary both to properly investigate the original allegation and to ascertain if any action is required against any other individuals.Indeed, throughout the entire investigation neither the Police nor Crown Prosecution Service have shown any interest in following this rule. They refused to talk to witnesses that I asked them to interview. They refused to look at evidence that I pointed out to them. Elsewhere on this site there is a letter from the Crown Prosecutor still stubbornly refusing to consider the evidence that Kevin Miles was the perpetrator.
There are several other ways in which the police failed to follow this policy, however, I will leave these as an exercise for the reader. The policy is available by clicking below. One should of course remember that this is the policy for the Avon and Somerset police, and is not necessarily the same as that followed by the Norfolk Police.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE ==> Avon & Somerset Police Policy on Counter Accusations •
There are several parts of this policy that I find inappropriate. Policy 3.6 deals with the identification of the more guilty party, and suggests that it requires skilled judgement. If the case is too close to call, should the police proceed to charge either party? Also, the warning about undermining a case seems to prioritize wining a court case above an impartial investigation. I am also concerned about the reliance on the relative severity of injuries to the partys: Sometimes the aggressor that starts a fight loses that fight, and ends up with greater injuries than the intended victim. To base the decision to arrest and charge the winner of a fight rather than the party that started the fight intimidates a victim from defending themselves. This could easily result in a hesitation to act that has fatal consequences to the victim. One should never feel afraid to defend oneself when attacked in the street. Once again 3.6 directs the police to take previous incidents into account; in my case they refused to do so even when asked to do so. Policy 3.10 seems to take an incompatible stance and directs that statements should not be taken from suspects and charged persons. This seems to me to contradict earlier paragraphs of the policy.
Summary
To summarize: The police refused to listen to my side of the story. They gave ludicrous reasons why it was their official policy not to listen to my side. They pretended to believe everything that my attackers had told them, no matter how ridiculous their story was. The police refused to talk to witnesses that I provided to confirm my version of events, or to look for physical evidence that I itemized for them. I ask my readers to imagine how you would feel if you were arrested for something that you did not do, and indeed for something that was done to you, and it became very clear to you that the police had some personal agenda against you.
