UK Coat of Arms

British Justice ?


The Experiences of an Old Man with the Criminal Justice System in the UK.


The Official Complaints Process

There are many organizations and agencies that are supposed to oversee and regulate the various components of the Criminal Justice System. None of them work. They are all boondoggles, designed to waste the tax payer's money paying the salary of arrogant bureaucrats that have no interest in truth or justice, and are part of the very corrupt system that they are supposed to regulate. They will never willingly criticize, much less punish, the people and organizations that they are supposed to police. Rather they see their job as frustrating any complaint, running the victim around in circles, lying to the victim, outright refusing to communicate, wearing the victim down until they go away and leave the corrupt system in peace to assault the next victim.

Defilee of Complaint Correspondence Sorted by Organization

Complaints were filed with the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC), the Professional Standards Department of the Norfolk Constabulary, Group 4 Securicor (G4S), the General Medical Council (GMC) Fitness to Practice Directorate, Burlington Primary Care, the local Member of Parliament Richard Bacon MP, and the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR). The results are shown here:

Crown Prosecution Service

The Crown Prosecution Service has a well defined and speedy process for dealing with complaints. The complainant is allowed to send two letters of complaint, and will receive two response letters. If this very limited correspondence fails to address the issues raised, then the matter will not be resolved. It is of course quite easy to stall and evade the issue for two letters if they have no intention of addressing the issue.

My first letter was routed to David Taylor, the District Crown Prosecutor responsible for prosecutions in the Norwich Crown Court. His one response letter failed to adequately address the issues raised, and so I escalated the complaint to “Phase 2”. My second letter was routed to Frank Ferguson, the Deputy Chief Crown Prosecutor. Both these letters are provided below. My interpretation of these letters is that the writers are defending the actions of CPS no matter what, and refuse to admit any mistakes. By refusing to engage in any further discussion they willfully prevent any challenge or rebuttal of their position. In summary: They state that they are right and that is the end of the matter.

I have provided copies of these letters here on this website. I have redacted only personally identifiable information. Although I am concerned that the reader may be taken in by the smooth spin doctoring written by these professionals in the field, nonetheless I feel that they should be given equal opportunity to present their side of the case. I will not stoop to the treatment that I received at their hands, they would not allow me to rebut them in the court room.

Mr. Frank Ferguson states in his letter that not only does the Crown Prosecution Service refuse to prosecute [Redacted] now, but also threatens that if I were to commence a private criminal prosecution of [Redacted] they would take over the case and shut it down. Why is that? Because they don't want to get egg on their faces. Just think how professionally embarrassing it would be if CPS charges and prosecutes the victim of a crime instead of the perpetrator, looses the case, and then the victim successfully obtains a conviction against the true perpetrator whom CPS were treating as the victim?

Let us examine in more detail the decisions to prosecute me, and not to prosecute the offender: The Crown Prosecution Service has a published policy of basing it’s decision to prosecute on a two stage test. The first stage is called the evidential stage, the second is called the public interest stage. I will quote from the CPS website so you can hear their policy in their own words:

The evidential stage

This is the first stage in the decision to prosecute. Crown Prosecutors must be satisfied that there is enough evidence to provide a “realistic prospect of conviction” against each defendant on each charge. They must consider whether the evidence can be used and is reliable. They must also consider what the defence case may be and how that is likely to affect the prosecution case. A “realistic prospect of conviction” is an objective test. It means that a jury or a bench of magistrates, properly directed in accordance with the law, will be more likely than not to convict the defendant of the charge alleged. (This is a separate test from the one that criminal courts themselves must apply. A jury or magistrates’ court should only convict if it is sure of a defendant’s guilt.) If the case does not pass the evidential stage, it must not go ahead, no matter how important or serious it may be.

The public interest stage

If the case does pass the evidential stage, Crown Prosecutors must then decide whether a prosecution is needed in the public interest. They must balance factors for and against prosecution carefully and fairly. Some factors may increase the need to prosecute but others may suggest that another course of action would be better. A prosecution will usually take place however, unless there are public interest factors tending against prosecution which clearly outweigh those tending in favour. The CPS will only start or continue a prosecution if a case has passed both stages.

What was the evidence against me? What was the evidence against [Redacted]? Was the evidence that I had attacked [Redacted] any stronger or weaker than the evidence that [Redacted] had attacked me?

Let us examine the evidence:

  • [Redacted] ran to a passing car and begged the occupant, an old lady, to protect him by letting him inside her car. That old lady called the police.
  • I went to the nearest police station and made a report. My report was made within 10 minutes of the incident.
  • The old lady told the police that [Redacted] told her that I had attacked him with a knife. She also told the police that [Redacted] was shaking and obviously very scared.
  • [Redacted] had a small scratch on his finger, about the severity of a paper cut. He got that when he was pushed into a hedge. The scratch was inconsistent with [Redacted]’ version of events.
  • The old lady made a written report on the day of the incident in which she stated that when she arrived on the scene she had a clear view of both [Redacted] and myself. She said that she did not see an assault and did not see a knife.
  • The police searched me and did not find a knife. They searched my home, and found three folding pocket knives. One of these was a very small penknife that my parents had bought for me when I was a child. It was a souvenir of a holiday that we took together as a family. It was in a small leather case engraved as a souvenir item. It’s blade was about 2 inches long. There were two other pocket knives in my home. [Redacted] had alleged that I attacked him with a folding knife. All the knives in my home were lawfully possessed and had never been used in any crime.
  • The Crown Prosecutor told the court that the police were conducting a series of complicated and expensive forensic tests on the knives that they had taken from my home. On several occasions they cited the complexity of these tests as justification for delaying my trial. After 12 weeks they told the court that they had no forensic evidence to support their case. They were enthusiastic to spend large amounts of taxpayer’s money when they thought that might lead to evidence against me.
  • [Redacted] had attacked me on a previous occasion in the company of approximately 10 friends and family members. The police refused to interview these people or witnesses to this previous attack. The police and Crown Prosecution Service were unwilling to expend even minimal effort to find evidence in my favour.
  • The Police refused to search the homes of [Redacted] or other members of his gang who may have been involved in removing the knife from the scene. Thus the police willfully suppressed evidence that the gang removed the knife from the scene. If two or more people destroy evidence they have conspired to pervert justice. Since conspiracy to pervert justice is a more serious offence than ABH or knife possession the police have willfully refused to investigate a serious crime in favour of pursuing a lesser crime. The police did this in support of their own agenda. The police behaviour is itself perversion of justice.
  • [Redacted] stated that the scratches on his neck were caused by my fingernails. If I had a knife, why use my fingernails? Would it not be so much more effective to plunge the knife into his neck?

So, what does it mean to say that a prosecution is not in the “public interest”? Who are the “public” in this context? Does “public” mean the general public, the citizenry, the average reader of this website? Or, is “public” another code word, Orwellian Doublespeak used to disguise the true meaning of a phrase, and to make it sound more palatable? Governments often refer to themselves as “the people”, especially in the title of criminal proceedings. Could it be that “public” in this case means “The Crown Prosecution Service”? Are they really saying that to prosecute [Redacted] is not in the best interests of CPS? And why not? Because it would embarrass CPS to prosecute an offender that they have mollycoddled and treated as a victim for so long? Because it would embarrass CPS to admit that they have put an innocent victim in prison for 12 weeks, and caused that innocent victim great incidental damage in their life, business, and finances? In the words of my barrister, because they would “get egg on their faces”? But, is it in the best interests of the general public to have a Crown Prosecution Service that values their own image above justice? Dear reader, is it in your best interests to have such a powerful government agency so lacking in professional courage, indeed so deeply instilled with moral cowardice, as to engage in such a cowardly cover-up rather than to admit their mistake and endeavour to make it right?

In any event, the charges against [Redacted] would be identical to the charges that the Crown Prosecution Service made against me, plus the additional charge of perverting justice. If it is in the “public interest” to prosecute me, then how can it not be in the “public interest” to prosecute [Redacted] for the exact same offences? Or are some more equal than others? The crime of perverting justice is a much more serious offence, carrying a potential life sentence. Since an innocent person was sent to prison as a result of [Redacted]’ lies, the sentence imposed upon him should rightly be towards the high end of the sentencing guidelines. The seriousness of [Redacted]’ offences make it even more in the public interest to prosecute him than it was to prosecute me. To fail to prosecute [Redacted] now sends a clear message that making false accusations is condoned by the Crown Prosecution Service.

Frank Ferguson states in his letter that I did not tell my version of events when given the chance. That is not true. I tried many times to tell my side of what had happened that day. The police refused to listen. They made it very clear that they had no interest in the truth. Eventually I was worn down by their intransigence, and so I decided not to answer any further questions. My lawyer, arranged for by the police, told me to conduct a “no comment” interview.

Frank Ferguson dismisses my complaint about his failing to treat me as the victim by stating that as I had been charged I was not considered to be the victim. This is circular logic: He is using his earlier mistake in charging the victim instead of the perpetrator to justify his continued ongoing treatment of the victim as if they were the perpetrator. Since he now has all the evidence, and has dropped the case because the evidence does not support his charges, he should discontinue treating the victim as if they were the perpetrator. He should also cease pandering to the real offender, [Redacted], as if he were the victim.

Frank Ferguson has stated that the evidence of the passer-by was not hearsay as [Redacted] told her that I had attacked him immediately after the incident. This short time delay allows an exception to the hearsay rule. This only means that the Criminal Procedure Rules allow such evidence to be given in court. The evidence is not excluded because it is hearsay. However, it is still hearsay. The passer-by heard [Redacted] say that I had attacked him. She is not adding her own credibility to [Redacted]’ statement. The passer-by stated in writing, on the day of the incident, that she came upon the scene of the incident and saw no knife and no assault. She only heard [Redacted] say that I attacked him, she did not see it for herself.

Frank Ferguson has completely failed to address the issue of the unidentified males that were observed attending [Redacted]. Indeed I find Mr. Ferguson’s response to this item to be evasive. It was a key assertion upon which the prosecution’s case was based. It was also a key assertion used to justify arresting me and not arresting [Redacted]. The police asserted that because [Redacted] was never alone between the Frank Ferguson Frank Ferguson time of the incident and the arrival of the police he could not have disposed of his knife. However, the passer-by, Rosemary Ann Steer, stated that after she allowed [Redacted] into her car she left the scene to walk to the police station. At that time [Redacted] was indeed alone, and had opportunity to throw the knife. When Rosemary Steer returned to the scene she found [Redacted] in the company of two males. These mysterious males were never identified. They could easily have been members of [Redacted]’ gang, family, or friends. [Redacted] could have handed his knife to them. Moreover, any number of other unidentified accomplices could have arrived on the scene and left with the knife during the time that Rosemary Steer was away from the scene. Indeed, why would anyone other than [Redacted]’ family and friends stop to assist him? If you were walking along the sidewalk and saw a complete stranger sitting in the back of a parked car, would you stop to talk to them? However, if you chanced upon a family member or friend sitting in the back of a parked car then of course it would be natural to stop and ask them what was happening. [Redacted] admitted in a written statement that he used his cell phone to call his family for backup. So, dear reader, what is your guess? Who do you think these unidentified males might have been? The police failed to maintain a sterile crime scene, and have sought to make inappropriate and clearly flawed inferences.

Frank Ferguson also states that a Restraining Order will prevent further incidents. How can that be? They have put the restraining order on the wrong person. The offender is not the subject of the order, so how does the order restrain the offender? So, is the restraining order intended to restrain the victim? How is that supposed to work? If the victim is attacked with a knife are they expected to just stand there and allow the offender to stab them repeatedly because the restraining order prohibits them from defending their body or their life? Obviously that won’t work; the victim must defend themselves without regard to any court order. No restraining order can force a victim to suppress their survival instinct. No restraining order can force a victim to commit suicide for the court’s amusement. The true purpose of the restraining order is to give the Crown Prosecution Service an easy victory in their contrived case against the victim next time the victim is attacked. Remember, dear reader, the three points upon which the CPS base all their actions: Maximize the points in the win column, minimize the points in the loss column, minimize the effort.


CLICK HERE TO READ MORE ==>  •  Letter from David Taylor  •  Letter from Frank Ferguson  • 



Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC)

The rôle of IPCC thus far has been to send all complaints on to the Professional Standards Department of the Norfolk Constabulary. They have not provided any independent investigation whatsoever, and indeed refuse to get involved. It is hard to see how their budget paid for from public funds, or indeed their very existence, can be justified.

A particularly enlightening email from Melanie O'Connor, a Casework Administrator at IPCC, states that the Norfolk Constabulary has “decided that it is the correct organisation to consider your appeal”. In other words the police have the power to insist that they investigate themselves. Melanie O'Connor goes on to say that statute law imparts this power upon the police. Specifically she cites (sic) “Regulation 30 of the Police (Complaints and Misconduct) Regulations 2012.. The law Paragraph 31(1) Schedule 3 of the Police Reform Act 2002.” So, now we know that statute law renders IPCC irrelevant. Who is responsible for creating a statute law that renders IPCC a useless irrelevant waste of the public's money? Well, that would be the lawmakers, otherwise known as Members of Parliament.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE ==> Email From Melanie O'Connor

Professional Standards Department of the Norfolk Constabulary

I initially sent my complaint to IPCC. They in turn passed it on to the Professional Standards Department of the Metropolitan Police in London, even though it was made very clear to them that the case involved the Norfolk Constabulary. After some further confusion they passed it on to the Professional Standards Department of the Norfolk Constabulary. They acknowledged receipt of my complaint, and committed to provide updates on their investigation every 28 days.

Two whole months went by with no progress, and so I followed up with the Norfolk Constabulary. They ignored my letter, and so I wrote again to IPCC. I was then given the runaround for many months. They told me that some parts of my case were assigned to different people in different departments. When I tried to contact these people they ignored my correspondence until I filed additional complaints with IPCC regarding their refusal to communicate. There were several iterations of re-complaining to IPCC when communication with the Norfolk Constabulary was lost. My case was frequently reassigned to new personnel, who then promptly went on annual leave. Eventually my case was assigned to Mr. Alan Swain, a Case Investigator with the Professional Standards Department. He then immediately went on annual leave. Because of the earlier correspondence informing me that the investigation of my case was divided among several people and departments I tried to get clarification as to whether or not Mr. Swain was handling all aspects of my case. Eventually I was informed that he was.

The runarounds continued. I had to chase after status updates that were promised and not delivered. Often the response to asking for an update was annual leave. I am including here some of the correspondence so that the reader can see for themselves the obstacles that a victim must face when complaining to the Norfolk Constabulary.

From: !enquiries

To: [Redacted]

Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 10:47:55 +0100

Subject: IPCC reference 2013/008080

Dear Mr [Redacted]

Thank you for contacting the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC). We acknowledge receipt of your email dated 17 May 2013 regarding your complaint against the Metropolitan Police. The case reference number is 2013/008080, which you should quote in all future correspondence.

We are completely independent of the police service and are responsible for making sure that the police complaints system in England and Wales works effectively and fairly. However, each police force is responsible for considering complaints made against that force and recording your complaint.

Our role at this stage is to forward your complaint to the relevant police force. If you are not happy with the police's decision on recording your complaint, you have the right to appeal to us.

I have passed the matter to the Professional Standards Department (PSD) of the Metropolitan Police for them to consider and the police will be contacting you soon.

If you have not heard from the relevant police force within 15 working days you may wish to contact them directly.

Metropolitan Police Service
Serious Misconduct Investigations Unit (SMIU)
22nd Floor
Empress State Building
Lillie Road
London
SW6 1TR
Tel: 101
dpsmailbox-.cst@met.pnn.police.uk

If you have any further information you wish to pass on, please forward it directly to the PSD at the above address.

Yours sincerely

Simon Roome
Customer Contact Advisor
Independent Police Complaints Commission
Tel: 03000200096
Email: enquiries@ipcc.gsi.gov.uk

Help us develop and improve our website - please take a few moments to complete our survey at www.ipcc.gov.uk

The original of this email was scanned for viruses by the Government Secure Intranet virus scanning service supplied by Vodafone in partnership with Symantec. (CCTM Certificate Number 2009/09/0052.) On leaving the GSi this email was certified virus free. Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes.

From: !enquiries

To: [Redacted]

Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 10:54:51 +0100

Subject: IPCC reference 2013/008080

Dear Mr [Redacted]

Please ignore my previous email advising that your complaint has been sent to the Metropolitan Police. Your complaint has actually been referred to the Professional Standards Department of Norfolk Constabulary. If you have any additional information to pass on relating to this complaint, please send it to the contact address below.

Norfolk Constabulary
Professional Standards
Falconers Chase
Wymondham
Norfolk
NR18 0WW
Tel: 0845 456 4567
Decisions should be e-mailed to:
psd@norfolk.pnn.police.uk


Apologies for any inconvenience caused.

Yours sincerely

Simon Roome
Customer Contact Advisor
Independent Police Complaints Commission
Tel: 03000200096
Email: enquiries@ipcc.gsi.gov.uk

Help us develop and improve our website - please take a few moments to complete our survey at www.ipcc.gov.uk

The original of this email was scanned for viruses by the Government Secure Intranet virus scanning service supplied by Vodafone in partnership with Symantec. (CCTM Certificate Number 2009/09/0052.) On leaving the GSi this email was certified virus free. Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes.

Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2013 14:54:27 -0700 (PDT)

From: [Redacted]

Subject: PS/247/13/sc/jab

To: "psd@norfolk.pnn.police.uk"

You sent me a letter dated May 24th 2013 in which you committed to provide me with regular updates at least every 28 days. Considerably more than 28 days has elapsed since then, and I have not received any updates. Please could you send me an update now, and continue to send updates at least every 28 days as promised.

From: !enquiries

To: [Redacted]

Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2013 16:07:04 +0100

Subject: IPCC Reference: 2013/008080

Dear Mr [Redacted]

Thank you for your email to the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC)

I note the contents of your email and have forwarded the details to the Professional Standards Department (PSD) for their consideration. I have also reminded them they should be keeping you updated every 28 days, and requested that they provide you with an update also.

If you have been writing to them through the post you may wish to consider emailing or calling them. I have provided some contact details below for your reference.

Norfolk Constabulary
Professional Standards
Falconers Chase
Wymondham
Norfolk
NR18 0WW
01953 425 699
psd@norfolk.pnn.police.uk

Kind regards

Elly Goodman
Customer Contact Adviser
Independent Police Complaints Commission
Tel: 0300 020 0096
Email: enquiries@ipcc.gsi.gov.uk


The original of this email was scanned for viruses by the Government Secure Intranet virus scanning service supplied by Vodafone in partnership with Symantec. (CCTM Certificate Number 2009/09/0052.) On leaving the GSi this email was certified virus free. Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes.

From: "Sewell, Beverley"

To: [Redacted]

Subject: PS 247/13

Hello Mr. [Redacted]

I apologise that no-one appears to have contacted you and I am looking in to this for you.

Regards

Beverley Sewell
Case Management Assistant
Case Management Unit
Norfolk and Suffolk Professional Standards Department
Building 9
Norfolk Constabulary
Falconers Chase, Wymondham, Norfolk, NR18 0WW
Tel: 01953 425699 extension 2828 Fax: 01953 423948
E mail: SewellB@norfolk.pnn.police.uk

* It takes 24 trees to produce 1 ton of office paper! Think... is it really necessary to print this email?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The information contained in this e-mail is intended only for the named
person or organisation to which it is addressed. If you have received it

in error, please disregard and advise me immediately. Unauthorised
disclosure or use of such information may be a breach of legislation or
confidentiality. E-mails sent and received from and by members of staff
and officers of the Norfolk Constabulary may be monitored for purposes
including: - Virus scanning, unauthorised e-mail usage, and obscene or
inappropriate material. The Constabulary reserves the right to read all
such material and to reject and return any material which is considered
either to be a security risk or unsuitable. Any monitoring will comply
with the legislation currently in force and in particular the Human Rights
Act 1998.

The information contained in this e-mail may be subject to public disclosure under the Freedom Of Information Act 2000.

If this e-mail does not relate to Official Norfolk Constabulary business,
then it will be regarded by the Constabulary as "Personal". As such, it
will not be authorised by or sent on behalf of the Constabulary and the
sender will retain sole responsibility for any legal actions or disputes
that may arise.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "Williamson, Colin"

To: [Redacted]

Subject: Complaint of Malicious Prosecution and Unlawful Interrogation Methods

Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 12:11:36 +0000

Dear Mr [Redacted],

I have recently taken over as the Head of Custody Services for Norfolk and Suffolk. It has been brought to my attention that you made a Complaint against Police in May 2013. I understand that you have received no update s in relation to your complaint. This is unacceptable and for that I apologise. I have asked the Professional Standards Department to ensure that the matters you have raised are investigated as a priority and that you are updated as to the progress of those investigations.

If you hear nothing in the next 28 days please do not hesitate to contact me and I will find out what has happened and update you myself.

Once again please accept my apologies for the fact that you have not been updated.

Kind regards

Colin Williamson


T/Chief Inspector Colin Williamson
Head of Norfolk and Suffolk Custody Services


Police Investigation Centre
Willow's Business Park,
Saddlebow Road,
Kings Lynn,
Norfolk
PE34 3AG
Tel: 01953 425699 Ext. 2475
Fax: 01603 276164

www.norfolk.police.uk


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The information contained in this e-mail is intended only for the named person or organisation to which it is addressed. If you have received it in error, please disregard and advise me immediately. Unauthorised disclosure or use of such information may be a breach of legislation or confidentiality. E-mails sent and received from and by members of staff and officers of the Norfolk Constabulary may be monitored for purposes including: - Virus scanning, unauthorised e-mail usage, and obscene or inappropriate material. The Constabulary reserves the right to read all such material and to reject and return any material which is considered either to be a security risk or unsuitable. Any monitoring will comply with the legislation currently in force and in particular the Human Rights Act 1998.
The information contained in this e-mail may be subject to public disclosure under the Freedom Of Information Act 2000.

If this e-mail does not relate to Official Norfolk Constabulary business, then it will be regarded by the Constabulary as "Personal". As such, it will not be authorised by or sent on behalf of the Constabulary and the sender will retain sole responsibility for any legal actions or disputes that may arise.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "Rush, Paul"

To: [Redacted]

Subject: Complaint Against Police

Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 18:55:08 +0000

Mr [Redacted],

Your complaint against police has been passed to me to instigate the necessary investigations. Some of these I will complete myself and others will be passed to the relevant line managers of those officers involved in your case. In particular the actions of officers and staff within the PIC at Bury will be investigated by T/Ch Inspector Williamson who over sees the PICs and their staff.

Having read your letter of complaint I have identified the following areas which I will consider:-

Your arrest and the justification for it
The search of your house, the seizing of the knives and your signing of a disclaimer for their destruction
The removal of groceries from your car
The 'dumb insolence' of the officers driving you to Burt PIC.

In order to do this I will review the file of evidence prepared in this case and your custody record, I will obtain accounts from the officers involved and I will review the relevant legislation. Going through this will identify the staff involved and will decide whether I continue the investigation or pass elements of it onto a colleague.

Please accept my apologies for the delay in your case. I am unclear as to why this has happened but please accept my reassurances that this case was only allocated to me today and mindful of the delays you have already experienced I will expedite my enquires.

Thank you

Paul Rush
Duty Inspector
Wymondham Patrol Base
NR18 0WW

Tel: 01953 424163 Fax: 016953 424181


----------------------------------------------------------------------------- The information contained in this e-mail is intended only for the named person or organisation to which it is addressed. If you have received it in error, please disregard and advise me immediately. Unauthorised disclosure or use of such information may be a breach of legislation or confidentiality. E-mails sent and received from and by members of staff and officers of the Norfolk Constabulary may be monitored for purposes including: - Virus scanning, unauthorised e-mail usage, and obscene or inappropriate material. The Constabulary reserves the right to read all such material and to reject and return any material which is considered either to be a security risk or unsuitable. Any monitoring will comply with the legislation currently in force and in particular the Human Rights Act 1998.
The information contained in this e-mail may be subject to public disclosure under the Freedom Of Information Act 2000.

If this e-mail does not relate to Official Norfolk Constabulary business, then it will be regarded by the Constabulary as "Personal". As such, it will not be authorised by or sent on behalf of the Constabulary and the sender will retain sole responsibility for any legal actions or disputes that may arise.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "Rush, Paul"

To: [Redacted]

Subject: FW: Complaint Against Police

Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2013 15:13:21 +0000

Mr [Redacted],

I have not received any update from you regarding the below. I am now on annual leave until the first week in September. If I have heard nothing from you within 21 days I will progress your complaint on the basis of what is outlined below.

From: "Rush, Paul"

To: [Redacted]

Subject: Complaint Against Police

Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 18:55:08 +0000

Mr [Redacted],

Your complaint against police has been passed to me to instigate the necessary investigations. Some of these I will complete myself and others will be passed to the relevant line managers of those officers involved in your case. In particular the actions of officers and staff within the PIC at Bury will be investigated by T/Ch Inspector Williamson who over sees the PICs and their staff.

Having read your letter of complaint I have identified the following areas which I will consider:-

Your arrest and the justification for it
The search of your house, the seizing of the knives and your signing of a disclaimer for their destruction
The removal of groceries from your car
The 'dumb insolence' of the officers driving you to Burt PIC.

In order to do this I will review the file of evidence prepared in this case and your custody record, I will obtain accounts from the officers involved and I will review the relevant legislation. Going through this will identify the staff involved and will decide whether I continue the investigation or pass elements of it onto a colleague.

Please accept my apologies for the delay in your case. I am unclear as to why this has happened but please accept my reassurances that this case was only allocated to me today and mindful of the delays you have already experienced I will expedite my enquires.

Thank you

Paul Rush
Duty Inspector
Wymondham Patrol Base
NR18 0WW

Tel: 01953 424163 Fax: 016953 424181

----------------------------------------------------------------------------- The information contained in this e-mail is intended only for the named person or organisation to which it is addressed. If you have received it in error, please disregard and advise me immediately. Unauthorised disclosure or use of such information may be a breach of legislation or confidentiality. E-mails sent and received from and by members of staff and officers of the Norfolk Constabulary may be monitored for purposes including: - Virus scanning, unauthorised e-mail usage, and obscene or inappropriate material. The Constabulary reserves the right to read all such material and to reject and return any material which is considered either to be a security risk or unsuitable. Any monitoring will comply with the legislation currently in force and in particular the Human Rights Act 1998.
The information contained in this e-mail may be subject to public disclosure under the Freedom Of Information Act 2000.

If this e-mail does not relate to Official Norfolk Constabulary business, then it will be regarded by the Constabulary as "Personal". As such, it will not be authorised by or sent on behalf of the Constabulary and the sender will retain sole responsibility for any legal actions or disputes that may arise.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

To: "Rush, Paul"

Subject: Re: FW: Complaint Against Police

Dear Insp Rush:

You say: "I have not received any update from you regarding the below". There seems to have been a mis-communication here: I did not respond to your email copied below as it did not appear to contain any items phrased as questions. The list that you provide below contains only a small subset of the issues that I had raised in my original complaint. You now list a subset of the issues, and then say that that is all that you will investigate unless I update you otherwise. Clearly this is a tactic on your part to drop many of the important issues raised. I am attaching yet another copy of the original complaint document to this email. Perhaps you could extract from that the remaining issues that you have omitted from your very short list below. For avoidance of doubt: All issues raised in the complaint document are still valid issues needing your attention. In doing so perhaps you could address your blatant violation of UN Resolutions, your deliberate suppression of relevant evidence of previous assaults that amounts to conspiracy to pervert the course of justice on your part, and your deliberate lies regarding the removal of the knife from the scene. You may interpret "you" and "your" to refer to your organization rather than you personally.

Perhaps you could also address the verbal threats of physical violence made to me by the ring leader of the neighborhood gang occuring since my acquittal, and take some realistic sensible actions to prevent serious injury and potential loss of life that this gang seems determined to inflict upon me with your help and support.

Regards, [Redacted].



On 8/15/2013 10:13 AM, Rush, Paul wrote:
>
> Mr [Redacted],
>
> I have not received any update from you regarding the below. I am now
> on annual leave until the first week in September. If I have heard
> nothing from you within 21 days I will progress your complaint on the
> basis of what is outlined below.
>
>
>
> *From:*Rush, Paul
> *Sent:* 26 July 2013 19:55
> *To:* [Redacted]
> *Subject:* Complaint Against Police
>
>
>
> Mr [Redacted],
>
> Your complaint against police has been passed to me to instigate the
> necessary investigations. Some of these I will complete myself and
> others will be passed to the relevant line managers of those officers
> involved in your case. In particular the actions of officers and
> staff within the PIC at Bury will be investigated by T/Ch Inspector
> Williamson who oversees the PICs and their staff.
>
>
>
> Having read your letter of complaint I have identified the following
> areas which I will consider:-
>
> Your arrest and the justification for it
>
> The search of your house, the seizing of the knives and your signing
> of a disclaimer for their destruction
>
> The removal of groceries from your car
>
> The 'dumb insolence' of the officers driving you to Burt PIC.
>
>
>
> In order to do this I will review the file of evidence prepared in
> this case and your custody record, I will obtain accounts from the
> officers involved and I will review the relevant legislation. Going
> through this will identify the staff involved and will decide whether
> I continue the investigation or pass elements of it onto a colleague.
>
>
>
> Please accept my apologies for the delay in your case. I am unclear
> as to why this has happened but please accept my reassurances that
> this case was only allocated to me today and mindful of the delays you
> have already experienced I will expedite my enquires.
>
> Thank you
>
>
> *Paul Rush*
> *Duty Inspector*
> Wymondham Patrol Base
> NR18 0WW
>
> Tel: 01953 424163 Fax: 016953 424181
>
> This e-mail carries a disclaimer
>
> Go here to view Norfolk Constabulary Disclaimer
>
>

To: "Rush, Paul"

Subject: Fwd: Re: FW: Complaint Against Police

References: <520D9986.1010506@yahoo.com>

In-Reply-To: <520D9986.1010506@yahoo.com>

X-Forwarded-Message-Id: <520D9986.1010506@yahoo.com>

A further month has gone by with no update from yourself. You committed to an update every 28 days. Please could you provide an update now.

Regards, [Redacted].

From: "Rush, Paul"

To: [Redacted]

Subject: RE: Re: FW: Complaint Against Police

Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2013 14:31:14 +0000

Mr [Redacted],
Your complaint was taken on by our Professional Standards Department on 3 rd September. I apologise for the fact that someone from that department has not contacted you. I will ask them to do so.

> From: [Redacted]
> Sent: 14 September 2013 05:35
> To: Rush, Paul
> Subject: Fwd: Re: FW: Complaint Against Police
>
> A further month has gone by with no update from yourself. You committed to
> an update every 28 days. Please could you provide an update now.
>
> Regards, [Redacted].

Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2013 20:58:19 -0500

From: [Redacted]

To: "Rush, Paul"

Subject: Re: FW: Complaint Against Police

You earlier indicated that this case would be handled by multiple individuals. Please could you now clarify which individuals and departments are handling the various aspects of this case, and arrange for a co-ordinated status update from each of them every 28 days.

I remain concerned that the actions of the police and CPS have elevated the risk of death and / or serious injury to myself to an unnecessarily high level, and ask that you provide a plan to mitigate these risks. And by "plan" I mean something sensible and practical, not the usual ludicrous nonsense. I further ask that you formally take notice of my complaints against my attackers, and provide assurance that if the next attack renders me unable to speak for myself that you will consider my complaints as evidence in that matter.

From: "Swain, Alan"

To: [Redacted]

Subject: Complaint against Police PS 247/13.

Good Afternoon [Redacted],

With reference to the e-mail you sent to Inspector Paul Rush dated the 14th September,2013 who was the officer dealing with your complaints against police.

I am now the person within the Professional Standards Department who has been allocated to deal with your complaints. I am in the process of obtaining all the relevant documentation required in respect of the matters you have complained of. When this has been received/read and the necessary enquiries made I will obtain responses from the officers complained of following which a report will be produced for your information.

I will update you as to the progression of my investigation within the agreed timescales.

Thank you

Alan Swain
Case Investigator
Professional Standards Department
Norfolk Constabulary
Building 9
Falconers Chase
Wymondham
Norfolk
NR18 0WW

Tel: (01953) 42 5699 X2829 Mob/Fax: (01953) 42 3948
Professionalism with honesty, integrity, openness and impartiality.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The information contained in this e-mail is intended only for the named person or organisation to which it is addressed. If you have received it in error, please disregard and advise me immediately. Unauthorised disclosure or use of such information may be a breach of legislation or confidentiality. E-mails sent and received from and by members of staff and officers of the Norfolk Constabulary may be monitored for purposes including: - Virus scanning, unauthorised e-mail usage, and obscene or inappropriate material. The Constabulary reserves the right to read all such material and to reject and return any material which is considered either to be a security risk or unsuitable. Any monitoring will comply with the legislation currently in force and in particular the Human Rights Act 1998. The information contained in this e-mail may be subject to public disclosure under the Freedom Of Information Act 2000.

If this e-mail does not relate to Official Norfolk Constabulary business, then it will be regarded by the Constabulary as "Personal". As such, it will not be authorised by or sent on behalf of the Constabulary and the sender will retain sole responsibility for any legal actions or disputes that may arise.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

From - Tue Sep 17 19:11:59 2013

Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2013 19:11:37 -0500

From: [Redacted]

To: "Swain, Alan"

Subject: Re: Complaint against Police PS 247/13.

References: <625F67B8F259AC47A17BC70337EB3AD8ACF82D@EX-OCC20B.norfolk.police.uk>

In-Reply-To: <625F67B8F259AC47A17BC70337EB3AD8ACF82D@EX-OCC20B.norfolk.police.uk>

Could you please confirm if you are the only person/department investigating this complaint, or if there are others that I need to liaise with? Previous communications have left me confused on this point.

While detained at Bury PIC I asked for a copy of the audiovisual recording of my interview by the Police. I was told that it would be placed in my property and follow me through the system and be available to me upon my release. This was not done. I assert that I am entitled to this recording at no charge. I ask that you provide a copy of this recording to me now. It is the audiovisual copy that I want, not the written transcripts.

Please could you provide copies of the hi-res colour photographs of [Redacted]' finger showing the small scratch that you assert is a knife wound. I currently have only the low-res black and white photocopy. This is needed for a forensic expert. I observed these hi-res colour photographs during my interview at Bury PIC, thus I know that they exist.

Please could you provide a copy of the audio recording from the patrol car covering my transport from Harleston Police Station to Bury PIC.

I remain concerned that the actions of the police and CPS have elevated the risk of death and / or serious injury to myself to an unnecessarily high level, and ask that you provide a plan to mitigate these risks. And by "plan" I mean something sensible and practical, not the usual ludicrous nonsense. I further ask that you formally take notice of my complaints against my attackers, and provide assurance that if the next attack renders me unable to speak for myself that you will consider my complaints as evidence in that matter.

On 9/17/2013 7:59 AM, Swain, Alan wrote:
>
> Good Afternoon Mr [Redacted],
>
>
>
> With reference to the e-mail you sent to Inspector Paul Rush dated
> the 14^th September,2013 who was the officer dealing with your
> complaints against police.
>
> I am now the person within the Professional Standards Department who
> has been allocated to deal with your complaints. I am in the process
> of obtaining all the relevant documentation required in respect of the
> matters you have complained of. When this has been received/read and
> the necessary enquiries made I will obtain responses from the officers
> complained of following which a report will be produced for your
> information.
>
> I will update you as to the progression of my investigation within the
> agreed timescales.
>
> Thank you
>
> *Alan Swain*
> *Case Investigator*
> *Professional Standards Department*
> Norfolk Constabulary
> Building 9
> Falconers Chase
> Wymondham
> Norfolk
> NR18 0WW
> Tel: (01953) 42 5699 X2829 Mob/Fax: (01953) 42 3948
>
> */Professionalism with honesty, integrity, openness and
> impartiality/**/./*

From: "Swain, Alan"

To: [Redacted]

Subject: Automatic reply: Complaint against Police PS 247/13.

Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2013 09:27:53 +0000

Annual leave 21/12/12-26/12/12 inclusive.Any urgent enquiries please contact either D/Sgt Shaw or D/I Newman. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The information contained in this e-mail is intended only for the named person or organisation to which it is addressed. If you have received it in error, please disregard and advise me immediately. Unauthorised disclosure or use of such information may be a breach of legislation or confidentiality. E-mails sent and received from and by members of staff and officers of the Norfolk Constabulary may be monitored for purposes including: - Virus scanning, unauthorised e-mail usage, and obscene or inappropriate material. The Constabulary reserves the right to read all such material and to reject and return any material which is considered either to be a security risk or unsuitable. Any monitoring will comply with the legislation currently in force and in particular the Human Rights Act 1998. The information contained in this e-mail may be subject to public disclosure under the Freedom Of Information Act 2000.

If this e-mail does not relate to Official Norfolk Constabulary business, then it will be regarded by the Constabulary as "Personal". As such, it will not be authorised by or sent on behalf of the Constabulary and the sender will retain sole responsibility for any legal actions or disputes that may arise.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2013 22:06:23 -0500

From: [Redacted]

To: "!enquiries"

Subject: Re: IPCC Reference: 2013/008080

The Norfolk Constabulary continue to give me the runaround and are not treating my complaint professionally. Twice now they have assigned my complaint to a new person, who then immediately goes on annual leave. The latest incident of this occured yesterday with a transfer to Alan Swain, He then synthesized an automatic reply from his email system informing me that he had gone on annual leave. His reply was obviously bogus because it was delayed many hours from his receipt of my email, and because it refers to annual leave occurring last year. The police are also refusing to answer my questions. I ask that IPCC take over the investigation at this time, or a least tell the police to stop playing their childish games and investigate my complaint professionally. I include the fake auto response so that you can see for yourself the games that they are playing.

Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2013 22:18:01 -0500

From: [Redacted]

To: "Swain, Alan"

Subject: Complaint against Police PS 247/13.

You have sent an auto response many hours after receiving my email. If it were a genuine auto response the system would have sent it immediately. Your claim to be on annual leave is obviously bogus because it refers to annual leave occurring last year. I ask that you stop playing these games and treat my complaint professionally. I have today informed IPCC of your unreasonable behaviour. Here is another copy of my last email, please answer the questions now:

Could you please confirm if you are the only person/department investigating this complaint, or if there are others that I need to liaise with? Previous communications have left me confused on this point.

While detained at Bury PIC I asked for a copy of the audiovisual recording of my interview by the Police. I was told that it would be placed in my property and follow me through the system and be available to me upon my release. This was not done. I assert that I am entitled to this recording at no charge. I ask that you provide a copy of this recording to me now. It is the audiovisual copy that I want, not the written transcripts.

Please could you provide copies of the hi-res colour photographs of [Redacted]' finger showing the small scratch that you assert is a knife wound. I currently have only the low-res black and white photocopy. This is needed for a forensic expert. I observed these hi-res colour photographs during my interview at Bury PIC, thus I know that they exist.

Please could you provide a copy of the audio recording from the patrol car covering my transport from Harleston Police Station to Bury PIC.

I remain concerned that the actions of the police and CPS have elevated the risk of death and / or serious injury to myself to an unnecessarily high level, and ask that you provide a plan to mitigate these risks. And by "plan" I mean something sensible and practical, not the usual ludicrous nonsense. I further ask that you formally take notice of my complaints against my attackers, and provide assurance that if the next attack renders me unable to speak for myself that you will consider my complaints as evidence in that matter.

From: !enquiries

To: [Redacted]

Sender: Angela.Beart

Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2013 10:28:22 +0100

Subject: IPCC Ref: 2013/008080

Dear Mr [Redacted],

I refer to your email dated 19 September 2013 regarding your complaint against Norfolk Constabulary, the content of which has been noted and filed to the above reference.

I note that you have expressed dissatisfaction with the way the police are handling your complaint. The IPCC does not have any involvement in a police investigation into a complaint. This means that the IPCC cannot intervene in the progress of an investigation or instruct the police to change the person in charge of investigating your complaint. Any requests, comments or criticisms you have regarding the ongoing police investigation should be made either directly to the investigating officer or to the Professional Standards Department (PSD) responsible. Alternatively you can bring this to the attention of the IPCC at the end of the investigation through the appeals process if we are the relevant appeal body.

I would therefore recommend that you discuss this matter with the PSD directly at this stage. Their contact details are as follows:

Norfolk Constabulary
Professional Standards
Falconers Chase
Wymondham
Norfolk
NR18 0WW
01953 425 699
psd@norfolk.pnn.police.uk

If you have any questions regarding the information provided please do not hesitate to contact us.

Yours sincerely,


Angela Beart
Customer Contact Advisor
Independent Police Complaints Commission

Po Box 473
Sale
M33 0BW
Tel: 0300 020 0096
Email: Enquiries@ipcc.gsi.gov.uk

From: [Redacted]

To: "Rush, Paul"

Subject: Re: FW: Complaint Against Police

I received an email from Alan Swain on 17th Sept stating that he has taken over in the role of Profesional Standards. He has failed to answer my follow up emails, but has instead engaged in evasive tactics to avoid answering. He has synthesized an automatic reply from his email system informing me that he had gone on annual leave. That fake auto response was sent many hours after receiving my email. If it were a genuine auto response the system would have sent it immediately. His claim to be on annual leave is obviously bogus because it refers to annual leave occurring last year. As yet further proof of his lies his system failed to send a similar auto response to another email the following day. Thus clearly he has interacted with his email account in that time span. You have also assigned my case to a new investigator on a previous occasion, who then immediately went on annual leave. This is clearly one of your standard methods of obstructing an investigation. I ask that you stop playing these games and treat my complaint professionally. I have yesterday informed IPCC of your unreasonable behaviour. Here is another copy of my last email, please answer the questions now:

Could you please confirm if you are the only person/department investigating this complaint, or if there are others that I need to liaise with? Previous communications have left me confused on this point.

While detained at Bury PIC I asked for a copy of the audiovisual recording of my interview by the Police. I was told that it would be placed in my property and follow me through the system and be available to me upon my release. This was not done. I assert that I am entitled to this recording at no charge. I ask that you provide a copy of this recording to me now. It is the audiovisual copy that I want, not the written transcripts.

Please could you provide copies of the hi-res colour photographs of [Redacted]' finger showing the small scratch that you assert is a knife wound. I currently have only the low-res black and white photocopy. This is needed for a forensic expert. I observed these hi-res colour photographs during my interview at Bury PIC, thus I know that they exist.

Please could you provide a copy of the audio recording from the patrol car covering my transport from Harleston Police Station to Bury PIC.

I remain concerned that the actions of the police and CPS have elevated the risk of death and / or serious injury to myself to an unnecessarily high level, and ask that you provide a plan to mitigate these risks. And by "plan" I mean something sensible and practical, not the usual ludicrous nonsense. I further ask that you formally take notice of my complaints against my attackers, and provide assurance that if the next attack renders me unable to speak for myself that you will consider my complaints as evidence in that matter.

From: !enquiries

To: "[Redacted]

Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2013 10:53:26 +0100

Subject: IPCC reference 2013/015212

Dear Mr [Redacted]

Thank you for contacting the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC). We acknowledge receipt of your email dated 23 September 2013 regarding your complaint against the Norfolk Constabulary. The case reference number is 2013/015212, which you should quote in all future correspondence.

We are completely independent of the police service and are responsible for making sure that the police complaints system in England and Wales works effectively and fairly. However, each police force is responsible for considering complaints made against that force and recording your complaint.

Our role at this stage is to forward your complaint to the relevant police force. If you are not happy with the police's decision on recording your complaint, you have the right to appeal to us.

I have passed the matter to the Professional Standards Department (PSD) of the Norfolk Constabulary for them to consider and the police will be contacting you soon.

If you have not heard from the relevant police force within 15 working days you may wish to contact them directly.

Norfolk Constabulary
Professional Standards
Falconers Chase
Wymondham
Norfolk
NR18 0WW
Tel: 0845 456 4567
Email: psd@norfolk.pnn.police.uk

If you have any further information you wish to pass on, please forward it directly to the PSD at the above address.

Yours sincerely
Richard Steadman
Customer Contact Advisor
Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC)
Phone: 0300 020 0096
Email: enquiries@ipcc.gsi.gov.uk

Help us develop and improve our website - please take a few moments to complete our survey at www.ipcc.gov.uk

Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 17:37:03 -0500

From: [Redacted]

To: "Williamson, Colin"

Subject: Re: Complaint of Malicious Prosecution and Unlawful Interrogation Methods

Dear T/Chief Insp Williamson:

Several communications have left me confused as to whether multiple departments/people are investigating my complaint or just one. Insp Paul Rush and Alan Swain are refusing to answer this question. I would like to know who I need to liaise with to progress every aspect of my complaint. Periodically the case is assigned to a new person who then promptly goes on annual leave. Alan Swain went so far as to synthesize a fake email auto response as a stalling tactic.

While detained at Bury PIC I asked for a copy of the audiovisual recording of my interview by the Police. I was told that it would be placed in my property and follow me through the system and be available to me upon my release. This was not done. I assert that I am entitled to this recording at no charge. I ask that you provide a copy of this recording to me now. It is the audiovisual copy that I want, not the written transcripts.

Please could you provide copies of the hi-res colour photographs of [Redacted]' finger showing the small scratch that you assert is a knife wound. I currently have only the low-res black and white photocopy. This is needed for a forensic expert. I observed these hi-res colour photographs during my interview at Bury PIC, thus I know that they exist.

Please could you provide a copy of the audio recording from the patrol car covering my transport from Harleston Police Station to Bury PIC.

I remain concerned that the actions of the police and CPS have elevated the risk of death and / or serious injury to myself to an unnecessarily high level, and ask that you provide a plan to mitigate these risks. And by "plan" I mean something sensible and practical, not the usual ludicrous nonsense. I further ask that you formally take notice of my complaints against my attackers, and provide assurance that if the next attack renders me unable to speak for myself that you will consider my complaints as evidence in that matter.

Regards, [Redacted].


On 7/25/2013 7:11 AM, Williamson, Colin wrote:
>
> Dear Mr [Redacted],
>
> I have recently taken over as the Head of Custody Services for Norfolk
> and Suffolk. It has been brought to my attention that you made a
> Complaint against Police in May 2013. I understand that you have
> received no updates in relation to your complaint. This is
> unacceptable and for that I apologise. I have asked the Professional
> Standards Department to ensure that the matters you have raised are
> investigated as a priority and that you are updated as to the progress
> of those investigations.
>
> If you hear nothing in the next 28 days please do not hesitate to
> contact me and I will find out what has happened and update you myself.
>
> Once again please accept my apologies for the fact that you have not
> been updated.
>
> Kind regards
>
> Colin Williamson
> > *T/Chief Inspector Colin Williamson*
> *Head of Norfolk and Suffolk Custody Services*
> Police Investigation Centre
> Willow's Business Park,
> Saddlebow Road,
> Kings Lynn,
> Norfolk
> PE34 3AG
>
> Tel: 01953 425699 Ext. 2475
> Fax: 01603 276164
> *_www.norfolk.police.uk _*

From: "Williamson, Colin"

To: [Redacted]

Subject: Automatic reply: Complaint of Malicious Prosecution and Unlawful Interrogation Methods

Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2013 08:16:44 +0000

Thank you for your e-mail.

I will be out of the office on Thursday 26th September and Friday 27th September and will not be in a position to reply to your e-mails until Monday 30th September 2013. If your message is urgent then please contact the Duty Inspector. If it relates to custody issues please contact the Custody Bronze Inspector. If it is not urgent I will deal with the matter upon my return to work. Please recall this message if it will no longer be relevant after my return date. Thank you

Regards

Colin Williamson
T/Chief Inspector
----------------------------------------------------------------------------- The information contained in this e-mail is intended only for the named person or organisation to which it is addressed. If you have received it in error, please disregard and advise me immediately. Unauthorised disclosure or use of such information may be a breach of legislation or confidentiality. E-mails sent and received from and by members of staff and officers of the Norfolk Constabulary may be monitored for purposes including: - Virus scanning, unauthorised e-mail usage, and obscene or inappropriate material. The Constabulary reserves the right to read all such material and to reject and return any material which is considered either to be a security risk or unsuitable. Any monitoring will comply with the legislation currently in force and in particular the Human Rights Act 1998. The information contained in this e-mail may be subject to public disclosure under the Freedom Of Information Act 2000.

If this e-mail does not relate to Official Norfolk Constabulary business, then it will be regarded by the Constabulary as "Personal". As such, it will not be authorised by or sent on behalf of the Constabulary and the sender will retain sole responsibility for any legal actions or disputes that may arise.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2013 18:22:10 -0500

From: [Redacted]

To: "Williamson, Colin"

Subject: Re: Automatic reply: Complaint of Malicious Prosecution and Unlawful Interrogation Methods

Dear T/Chief Inspector Williamson:

You have still not replied to my email of Sept 26. Your auto responder said that you would be back at work today. You had previously made a personal commitment to me to step in if communications with other officers failed. I consider your failure to respond in these circumstances to be unprofessional, and is obstructing my investigation. I ask that you respond to my earlier email now, sending me the requested evidence, and advising me as to who is handling each aspect of my complaint.

I also ask that you address the matter of ongoing gang intimidation as a matter of urgency.

From: "Williamson, Colin"

To: [Redacted]

Subject: RE: Complaint of Malicious Prosecution and Unlawful Interrogation Methods

Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2013 14:50:07 +0000

Dear Mr [Redacted],

I have spoken to and can confirm that Mr Swain from our Professional Standards Department is the person who is dealing with your complaints. If you have any queries then you should address them to him directly. I have sent him a copy of your e-mail to ensure that he is aware of your concerns. He has informed me that he is currently writing to you and will be including a copy of your interview recording. He will also answer the other points you have raised.

I am aware that you also sent another e-mail to me earlier today stating that I had “previously made a personal commitment to me to step in if communications with other officers failed”. What I actually said was that if you had heard nothing within 28 days I would update you myself. Clearly you have corresponded with Mr Swain and so no further response was required from me.

Kind regards

Colin Williamson

T/Chief Inspector Colin Williamson
Head of Norfolk and Suffolk Custody Services
Police Investigation Centre
Willow's Business Park,
Saddlebow Road,
Kings Lynn,
Norfolk
PE34 3AG
Tel: 01953 425699 Ext. 2475
Fax: 01603 276164
www.norfolk.police.uk

From: [Redacted]

Sent: 26 September 2013 23:37

To: Williamson, Colin

Subject: Re: Complaint of Malicious Prosecution and Unlawful Interrogation Methods

Dear T/Chief Insp Williamson:

Several communications have left me confused as to whether multiple departments/people are investigating my complaint or just one. Insp Paul Rush and Alan Swain are refusing to answer this question. I would like to know who I need to liaise with to progress every aspect of my complaint. Periodically the case is assigned to a new person who then promptly goes on annual leave. Alan Swain went so far as to synthesize a fake email auto response as a stalling tactic.

While detained at Bury PIC I asked for a copy of the audiovisual recording of my interview by the Police. I was told that it would be placed in my property and follow me through the system and be available to me upon my release. This was not done. I assert that I am entitled to this recording at no charge. I ask that you provide a copy of this recording to me now. It is the audiovisual copy that I want, not the written transcripts.

Please could you provide copies of the hi-res colour photographs of [Redacted]' finger showing the small scratch that you assert is a knife wound. I currently have only the low-res black and white photocopy. This is needed for a forensic expert. I observed these hi-res colour photographs during my interview at Bury PIC, thus I know that they exist.

Please could you provide a copy of the audio recording from the patrol car covering my transport from Harleston Police Station to Bury PIC.

I remain concerned that the actions of the police and CPS have elevated the risk of death and / or serious injury to myself to an unnecessarily high level, and ask that you provide a plan to mitigate these risks. And by "plan" I mean something sensible and practical, not the usual ludicrous nonsense. I further ask that you formally take notice of my complaints against my attackers, and provide assurance that if the next attack renders me unable to speak for myself that you will consider my complaints as evidence in that matter.

Regards, [Redacted].

From: "Swain, Alan"

To: [Redacted]

Subject: RE: Complaint against Police PS 247/13.

Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2013 09:43:38 +0000

Hello Mr [Redacted],

With reference to your e-mail. I would first of all like to point out that I was on annual leave when you sent me this e-mail. I do not intend to enter into any further discussion about this other than I find your comments offensive.

I confirm that I am the person investigating your complaint against police. My remit is just that however I will not be re-investigating the matters for which you appeared at court as that has been quite rightly dealt with through the judicial system.

Although it does not fall within my remit I will obtain for you at no charge a copy of the audiovisual interview. I would be grateful if could provide me with an address to send this recording to you.

So far as relates to providing copies of the hi-res colour photographs of [Redacted]' finger showing the small scratch I am unable to do this and you should make a subject access request to the Freedom of Information Unit for these to be sent to you, details of which are contained with in the Norfolk Constabulary website.

There is no recording from the patrol car covering your transport from Harleston Police Station to Bury PIC on the 16th November, 2012 .

The Professional Standards Department does not deal with policing issues you have described in respect of providing a plan to you to mitigate what you describe as the risk of death and /or serious injury to you by you r attackers this is a local policing matter which they are aware of.

For your information Inspector Rush has no dealings now with your complaint against police. I have requested that should he receive any further e-mails from you concerning these matters that he forwards them to me for my information.

Thank you

Mr Alan Swain
Case Investigator
Norfolk Constabulary
Professional Standards Department
OCC Falconers Chase
Wymondham
NR18 0WW

Tel 01953 425699 Ext 2829

To: "Swain, Alan"

Subject: Re: Complaint against Police PS 247/13.

You say that my comments are offensive. I find the behaviour of your organization to be offensive. You have put an innocent old man in prison for 3 months with consequential damage to my credit rating and business affairs, and caused massive psychological trauma. You have committed a burglary of my home, contaminating my home and possessions, stealing an irreplaceable family heirloom which you later held hostage to extort your unreasonable demands. You pander to the the whims of the offenders while continuing to treat the real victim as the offender. And then you have the affront to suggest that I have been offensive. I have no sympathy whatsoever with your ridiculous phoney indignation. If you were in fact on annual leave, and I misinterpreted the behaviour of your email system in it's timing of auto responders, and misinterpreted the continued sending of a message referring to annual leave occurring over Christmas a year ago, then my analysis was incorrect and needs to be fixed. Perhaps you could understand that my interpretation of this evidence was against the backdrop of many months of staling, reassigning personnel, and what I perceive as a culture of obstruction. This is a very frustrating experience for me. If I accused you of something that you did not do, then for that I am sorry, and I stand corrected.


Please send the audiovisual recording to this address:

[Redacted]
[Redacted]
[Redacted]
[Redacted]
[Redacted]

In the mater of the hi-res colour photographs of [Redacted]' finger: The Freedom of Information Act 2000 is not the correct route for obtaining this information as the information is exempt under Part II 30(1). It is not helpful, and indeed it is obstructive, for you to deliberately mis-guide me by attempting to send me down a dead end path. Please explain to me now the reason that you are "unable" to send me these photos. Clearly the photos exist as I have seen them. They are in the possession of the police. Disclosure is proportionate and relevant to my investigation. They are needed for two investigations that are currently underway:

  • The investigation of police behaviour and bias in arresting me, and in not arresting [Redacted]. For this I want to know what the PoliceCPS knew, and when they knew it. I want my forensic expert to give a professional opinion, not only on what the likely cause of the finger scratch was, but also on whether the wrong interpretation insisted upon by the PoliceCPS was a reasonable error, or a deliberate willful malfeasance.
  • The intended private criminal prosecution of [Redacted] for assaulting me in the street, for possessing a knife in a public place, and for perverting justice resulting in an innocent person serving prison time for a crime that [Redacted] himself had committed. This action will give rise to a subpoena power for the photos.

If it becomes necessary to subpoena this evidence I will ask that the court takes your unreasonable refusal to co operate into account when making a costs order against you.

Your refusal to disclose this evidence, and some of your other comments regarding your “remit”, suggests that you do not see your job as seeking the truth, but rather justifying the actions of your colleagues and burying valid complaints. If you cared about finding out what really happened you would not look for excuses to obstruct my investigation, but would co operate enthusiastically with my investigation. If you are determined to bury the truth it will not satisfy me, and will have no benefit to either you or me. It will only serve to waste the taxpayer's money.

In the matter of further attacks upon me: You state that “local policing matter which they are aware of” (sic). I ask that you clarify the meaning of your statement. Are you stating that the police personnel with patrol responsibility for Harleston are aware of my concerns? I want a clear and explicit statement as to whether or not my concerns have been officially recorded in such a manner as to ensure that they will be brought to the attention of any police officer investigating future attacks upon me. If this is not within the “remit” of Professional Standards, then please provide me with contact information for the department/person whose “remit” does include future violent attacks upon my person, and also contact information for the department/person whose “remit” includes crime prevention in Harleston.

Date: Sun, 06 Oct 2013 20:07:36 -0500

From: [Redacted]

To: "Rush, Paul"

Subject: Complaint of violent attacks upon me.

Dear Insp Rush:

While held at Bury PIC I was told that after my release I could make a criminal complaint against the person that attacked me with a knife. Will you or your staff now accept that complaint? Will you now also accept my complaint about the earlier multiple assailant attack upon me by a local gang of which [Redacted] is a a member? Even if you refuse to prosecute these gang members for attacking me it is still relevant evidence in later attacks. If you will accept these complaints now then please tell me how I can proceed, in light of your staff's reluctance to accept these complaints. If you still refuse to accept these complaints, then please tell me why in clear and unambiguous terms.

Regards, [Redacted].

Date: Mon, 07 Oct 2013 20:10:13 -0500

From: [Redacted]

To: "!enquiries"

Subject: Re: IPCC reference 2013/015212

I have not as yet received any communication from Norfolk Constabulary re 2013/015212. Please could you ask them when they intend to contact me on this matter.


On 9/24/2013 4:53 AM, !enquiries wrote:
> Dear Mr [Redacted]
>
> Thank you for contacting the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC).
> We acknowledge receipt of your email dated 23 September 2013 regarding
> your complaint against the Norfolk Constabulary. The case reference number is
> 2013/015212, which you should quote in all future correspondence.
>
> We are completely independent of the police service and are responsible for
> making sure that the police complaints system in England and Wales works
> effectively and fairly. However, each police force is responsible for
> considering complaints made against that force and recording your complaint.
>
> Our role at this stage is to forward your complaint to the relevant police force.
> If you are not happy with the police's decision on recording your
> complaint, you have the right to appeal to us.
>
> I have passed the matter to the Professional Standards Department (PSD) of
> the Norfolk Constabulary for them to consider and the police will be
> contacting you soon.
>
> If you have not heard from the relevant police force within 15 working days you
> may wish to contact them directly.
>
> Norfolk Constabulary
> Professional Standards
> Falconers Chase
> Wymondham
> Norfolk
> NR18 0WW
> Tel: 0845 456 4567
> Email: psd@norfolk.pnn.police.uk
>
> If you have any further information you wish to pass on, please forward it
> directly to the PSD at the above address.
>
> Yours sincerely
>
>
>
> Richard Steadman
> Customer Contact Advisor
> Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC)
> Phone: 0300 020 0096
> Email: enquiries@ipcc.gsi.gov.uk

From: !enquiries

To: [Redacted]

Sender: Gary Culkin

Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2013 12:36:27 +0100

Subject: IPCC Reference 2013/015212

Dear Mr [Redacted],

Thank you for contacting the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC).

We are in receipt of your email dated 8 October 2013 regarding your complaint with Norfolk Constabulary.

I have checked your reference number and can confirm your complaint was sent to the Professional Standards Department for Norfolk on 24 September 2013. Under the Police Reform Act, the police have 15 working days in which to make a recording decision on your complaint and correspond their decision to you.

You should therefore expect to hear from the police by the 15 October 2013 . If you wish you make contact with the Professional Standards Department yourself for an update then you can do this by either calling them on 0845 456 4567 or you can email them at: psd@norfolk.pnn.police.uk.

Kind Regards

Gary Culkin
Customer Contact Advisor
Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC)
North Region - Sale
Phone: 0300 020 0096
Email: enquiries@ipcc.gsi.gov.uk

From: "Swain, Alan"

To: [Redacted]

Subject: RE: Complaint against Police PS 247/13.

Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2013 12:55:17 +0000

Hello Mr [Redacted],

a) With reference to your below e-mail, I have today received a copy of your audio visual interview DVD which I have sent by recorded delivery to the address provided.

b) An application for consideration of the provision to you of a copy of the colour photographs of the injury to [Redacted] finger needs to be made by you to the Compliance & Disclosure Unit, Norfolk Constabulary Headquarters OCC Falconers Chase, Wymondham Norfolk NR18 0WW for the reasons you have stated.

I am not refusing to disclose anything , the disclosure of the colour photographs of the injury to [Redacted] finger is a decision that the Compliance and Disclosure Unit will make following your application.

c) So far as relates to your concerns in respect of your personal safety and policing plan , a copy of the letter you sent to Mr Stuart Craig , Professional Standards Department Norfolk Constabulary dated the 8 th October, 2013 and associated documentation has been forwarded to the South Norfolk Policing Command for the attention of the Safer Neighbourhoods Team Harleston requesting that they make personal contact with you and deal accordingly.

Thank you

Mr Alan Swain
Case Investigator
Norfolk Constabulary
Professional Standards Department
OCC Falconers Chase
Wymondham
NR18 0WW
Tel 01953 425699 Ext 2829

Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2013 18:46:03 -0500

From: [Redacted]

To: "Swain, Alan"

Subject: Re: Complaint against Police PS 247/13.

Thank you very much for your email which was very helpful. I will carry out your suggestions.

I look forward enthusiastically to meeting the Safer Neighbourhoods Team Harleston in person. However I am currently out of the country. I expect to return to Harleston in approximately 1 month. Could you let the Safer Neighbourhoods Team know my schedule so that they will not get discouraged in they fail to contact me in the meantime. Alternatively, could you let me know their email address so that I can contact them directly.

Regards, [Redacted].

From: "Swain, Alan"

To: [Redacted]

Subject: RE: Complaint against Police PS 247/13.

Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2013 09:23:28 +0000

Hello Mr [Redacted],

I have passed the information as requested to the South Norfolk Policing Command who will ensure that this is relayed to the Safer Neighbourhoods Team at Harleston.

Thank you

Mr Alan Swain
Case Investigator
Norfolk Constabulary
Professional Standards Department
OCC Falconers Chase
Wymondham
NR18 0WW

Tel 01953 425699 Ext 2829

Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 01:01:34 -0800 (PST)

From: [Redacted]

Subject: Request for status update

To: "SwainA@norfolk.pnn.police.uk"

The last email message that I received from you was on October 18th 2013. It has thus exceeded 28 days since you provided me with an update. Please could you update me now as to the progress on your investigation. I have sent a disclosure request to the Compliance & Disclosure Unit as per your advice. I have not as yet received any response from them. Could you ask them why they are ignoring me? I realize that you will probably claim that this is beyond your remit, but it will save a lot of time and hassle in the long run if I can avoid having to file yet another IPCC complaint just to get them to reply to my correspondence.

Regards, [Redacted].

From: "Swain, Alan"

To: [Redacted]

Subject: Automatic reply: Request for status update

Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 10:48:34 +0000

Annual leave 8/11/13-1/12/13 inclusive. Any urgent enquiries please contact D/I Gray.

From: !enquiries

To: [Redacted]

Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2013 14:41:59 +0000

Subject: IPCC Complaint Ref: 2013/019170

Dear Mr [Redacted]

Thank you for contacting the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC).

We acknowledge receipt of your email dated 1 December 2013 regarding your complaint against the Norfolk Constabulary. The case reference number is 2013/019170, which you should quote in all future correspondence.

We are completely independent of the police service and are responsible for making sure that the police complaints system in England and Wales works effectively and fairly. However, each police force is responsible for considering complaints made against that force and recording your complaint.

Our role at this stage is to forward your complaint to the relevant police force. If you are not happy with the police's decision on recording your complaint, you have the right to appeal to us.

I have passed the matter to the Professional Standards Department (PSD) of Norfolk Constabulary for them to consider and the police will be contacting you soon.

If you have not heard from the relevant police force within 15 working day s you may wish to contact them directly.

Norfolk Constabulary
Professional Standards
Falconers Chase
Wymondham
Norfolk
NR18 0WW
Tel: 0845 456 4567

Email: psd@norfolk.pnn.police.uk
If you have any further information you wish to pass on, please forward it directly to the PSD at the above address.

Yours sincerely

Joe Kosub
Customer Contact Adviser
Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC)
North Region - Sale
Phone: 0300 020 0096
Email: enquiries@ipcc.gsi.gov.uk

From: "Swain, Alan"

To: [Redacted]

Subject: FW: Request for status update

Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2013 15:57:25 +0000

Hello Mr [Redacted].

Apologies for not replying earlier to your e-mail as I have not been at work from the 8/11/2013-2/12/2013. My investigation has reached a stage where I am requesting written accounts from the police personnel who are subject of your complaints. I anticipate it will be mid-January,2014 when I have completed my Investigating Officers report which then has to be submitted to the Senior Management Team within the Professional Standards Department for a determination to be made in respect of your complaints. Should there be a delay = in reaching this point I will update you by e-mail. When the determination has been done I will send a copy of the report to you for your information.

So far as your disclosure request to the Compliance and Disclosure Unit, Norfolk Constabulary Headquarters Falconers Chase Wymondham,NR18 0WW, I have been in telephone contact with them this afternoon to enquire on the progress of your application. I have been informed that they have no record of your application. Could I ask when you made this application please to the unit at Wymondham , by what means and the personal details contained within your application in order that I can make contact with them again.

Thank you for your assistance in this matter.

Mr Alan Swain

Case Investigator
Professional Standards Department
Norfolk Constabulary
Building 9
Falconers Chase
Wymondham
Norfolk
NR18 0WW

Tel:  (01953) 42 5699 X2829   Mob/Fax: (01953 42 3948
Professionalism with honesty, integrity, openness and impartiality.

Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2013 07:25:58 -0600 From: [Redacted] To: "Swain, Alan" Subject: Policy on counter accusations

Hi Alan:

As part of my investigation into the manner in which my case was handled
by the Norfolk Constabulary I have been attempting to locate the policy
regarding counter-accusations. I have been unable to locate such a
policy for Norfolk. I have however located policies for other police
agencies in the UK. For example Avon and Somerset which can be found
here:
http://www.avonandsomerset.police.uk/information/documents/cache/PDF/Document6245_996911.pdf

The behaviour of the Norfolk Police clearly came nowhere close to
following the Avon and Somerset policy. I would like to pursue the
following questions, and ask if you could assist me with this, and
possibly it could be addressed as part of your investigation:

* Does the Norfolk Constabulary have such a policy?
* If not, why not?
* Was the Norfolk policy followed in my case?


Regards, [Redacted]

From: "Swain, Alan" To: [Redacted] Subject: RE: Policy on counter accusations Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2013 18:13:25 +0000

Hello Mr [Redacted],

With reference to your e-mail below. The policy of the Norfolk Constabulary in respect of counter allegations is contained within the Police Visual Handbook and National Crime Recording Standards which will form part of my investigation into your complaints.

Thank you

Mr Alan Swain

Case Investigator
Professional Standards Department
Norfolk Constabulary
Building 9
Falconers Chase
Wymondham
Norfolk
NR18 0WW

Tel:  (01953) 42 5699 X2829   Mob/Fax: (01953 42 3948
Professionalism with honesty, integrity, openness and impartiality.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The information contained in this e-mail is intended only for the named
person or organisation to which it is addressed. If you have received it
in error, please disregard and advise me immediately. Unauthorised
disclosure or use of such information may be a breach of legislation or
confidentiality. E-mails sent and received from and by members of staff
and officers of the Norfolk Constabulary may be monitored for purposes
including: - Virus scanning, unauthorised e-mail usage, and obscene or
inappropriate material. The Constabulary reserves the right to read all
such material and to reject and return any material which is considered
either to be a security risk or unsuitable. Any monitoring will comply
with the legislation currently in force and in particular the Human Rights
Act 1998.

The information contained in this e-mail may be subject to public
disclosure under the Freedom Of Information Act 2000.

If this e-mail does not relate to Official Norfolk Constabulary business,
then it will be regarded by the Constabulary as "Personal". As such, it
will not be authorised by or sent on behalf of the Constabulary and the
sender will retain sole responsibility for any legal actions or disputes
that may arise.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "Swain, Alan"

To: [Redacted]

Subject: FW: Request for status update

Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2014 18:04:30 +0000

Hello Mr [Redacted],

With reference to my investigation into your complaints against police officers/police staff. There has been a slight delay, for which I apologise, in the anticipated completion date of my report due to awaiting the completion of written accounts from the police personnel concerned which I have now received.

I am now at a stage where my report is being finalised and will be submitted by the 31st January,2014 to the Senior Management Team within the Professional Standards Department for a determination to be made in respect of your complaints. When the determination has been done I will send a copy of the report to you for your information. In accordance with complaint procedures this report has to be sent by recorded delivery post to a nominated address. Could I ask what address would you like the report to be sent to please.

Thank you for your assistance in this matter.

Mr Alan Swain

Case Investigator
Professional Standards Department
Norfolk Constabulary
Building 9
Falconers Chase
Wymondham
Norfolk
NR18 0WW

Tel:  (01953) 42 5699 X2829   Mob/Fax: (01953 42 3948
Professionalism with honesty, integrity, openness and impartiality.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The information contained in this e-mail is intended only for the named
person or organisation to which it is addressed. If you have received it
in error, please disregard and advise me immediately. Unauthorised
disclosure or use of such information may be a breach of legislation or
confidentiality. E-mails sent and received from and by members of staff
and officers of the Norfolk Constabulary may be monitored for purposes
including: - Virus scanning, unauthorised e-mail usage, and obscene or
inappropriate material. The Constabulary reserves the right to read all
such material and to reject and return any material which is considered
either to be a security risk or unsuitable. Any monitoring will comply
with the legislation currently in force and in particular the Human Rights
Act 1998.

The information contained in this e-mail may be subject to public
disclosure under the Freedom Of Information Act 2000.

If this e-mail does not relate to Official Norfolk Constabulary business,
then it will be regarded by the Constabulary as "Personal". As such, it
will not be authorised by or sent on behalf of the Constabulary and the
sender will retain sole responsibility for any legal actions or disputes
that may arise.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "Swain, Alan" To: [Redactded] Subject: Complaint against police. Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2014 18:41:00 +0000

Hello Mr [Redacted],

In accordance with complaint procedures I have today sent you a copy of my report and associated documentation by recorded delivery to your contact address of [Redacted].

Thank you

Mr Alan Swain

Case Investigator
Professional Standards Department
Norfolk Constabulary
Building 9
Falconers Chase
Wymondham
Norfolk
NR18 0WW

Tel:  (01953) 42 5699 X2829   Mob/Fax: (01953 42 3948
Professionalism with honesty, integrity, openness and impartiality.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The information contained in this e-mail is intended only for the named
person or organisation to which it is addressed. If you have received it
in error, please disregard and advise me immediately. Unauthorised
disclosure or use of such information may be a breach of legislation or
confidentiality. E-mails sent and received from and by members of staff
and officers of the Norfolk Constabulary may be monitored for purposes
including: - Virus scanning, unauthorised e-mail usage, and obscene or
inappropriate material. The Constabulary reserves the right to read all
such material and to reject and return any material which is considered
either to be a security risk or unsuitable. Any monitoring will comply
with the legislation currently in force and in particular the Human Rights
Act 1998.

The information contained in this e-mail may be subject to public
disclosure under the Freedom Of Information Act 2000.

If this e-mail does not relate to Official Norfolk Constabulary business,
then it will be regarded by the Constabulary as "Personal". As such, it
will not be authorised by or sent on behalf of the Constabulary and the
sender will retain sole responsibility for any legal actions or disputes
that may arise.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2014 21:18:11 -0600 From: [Redacted] To: psd@norfolk.pnn.police.uk CC: "Swain, Alan" Subject: APPEALS PS247/13

My appeal in the matter of PS247/13 is attached as a pdf. Please could
you confirm that you have safely received this appeal, and that I have
fulfilled the necessary requirements to have by appeal considered.

[Redacted]

From: Professional Standards To: [Redacted] Subject: Automatic reply: APPEALS PS247/13 Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2014 08:48:43 +0000

Thank you for your email which will be looked at on the next working day.
If it is after 4pm on a Friday then the matter will not be looked at
until Monday morning.

If the matter is an emergency then please contact police via 999.

If it is something you wish to report now please call the 101 non-emergency number.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The information contained in this e-mail is intended only for the named
person or organisation to which it is addressed. If you have received it
in error, please disregard and advise me immediately. Unauthorised
disclosure or use of such information may be a breach of legislation or
confidentiality. E-mails sent and received from and by members of staff
and officers of the Norfolk Constabulary may be monitored for purposes
including: - Virus scanning, unauthorised e-mail usage, and obscene or
inappropriate material. The Constabulary reserves the right to read all
such material and to reject and return any material which is considered
either to be a security risk or unsuitable. Any monitoring will comply
with the legislation currently in force and in particular the Human Rights
Act 1998.

The information contained in this e-mail may be subject to public
disclosure under the Freedom Of Information Act 2000.

If this e-mail does not relate to Official Norfolk Constabulary business,
then it will be regarded by the Constabulary as "Personal". As such, it
will not be authorised by or sent on behalf of the Constabulary and the
sender will retain sole responsibility for any legal actions or disputes
that may arise.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Professional Standards To: [Redacted] Subject: Read: APPEAL PS147/13/AS/MP Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2014 09:19:53 +0000

Your message

  To: Professional Standards

  Subject: APPEAL PS147/13/AS/MP

  Sent: 04 March 2014 01:14:58 (UTC) Dublin, Edinburgh, Lisbon, London

  was read on 04 March 2014 09:19:53 (UTC) Dublin, Edinburgh, Lisbon, London.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

The information contained in this e-mail is intended only for the named
person or organisation to which it is addressed. If you have received it
in error, please disregard and advise me immediately. Unauthorised
disclosure or use of such information may be a breach of legislation or
confidentiality. E-mails sent and received from and by members of staff
and officers of the Norfolk Constabulary may be monitored for purposes
including: - Virus scanning, unauthorised e-mail usage, and obscene or
inappropriate material. The Constabulary reserves the right to read all
such material and to reject and return any material which is considered
either to be a security risk or unsuitable. Any monitoring will comply
with the legislation currently in force and in particular the Human Rights
Act 1998.

The information contained in this e-mail may be subject to public
disclosure under the Freedom Of Information Act 2000.

If this e-mail does not relate to Official Norfolk Constabulary business,
then it will be regarded by the Constabulary as "Personal". As such, it
will not be authorised by or sent on behalf of the Constabulary and the
sender will retain sole responsibility for any legal actions or disputes that
may arise.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------


Rebuttal of Alan Swain's Report

This section addresses the report produced by Alan Swain of the Professional Standards Department. The report itself can be read by clicking on the link above. The rebuttal will probably make more sense if the report itself is read first.

The Professional Standards report was finally produced 15 months after the incident. It fails to address the issues raised. There is no “investigation”, Alan Swain merely asks the police officers for their version of events, and then accepts their version without question. The report is self contradictory and evasive. It willfully misinterprets evidence.

It is useful to examine the techniques that the Criminal Justice System uses to handle complaints. The System splits itself into multiple fragments, pretending that they are independent. Each fragment is “investigated” separately. Each fragment under investigation then points the finger at other fragments that are not the subject of the current investigation. This is done between agencies (Police/CPS/Prison/Courts), between Police departments (patrol/custody/CID/G4S), and between individual officers within a department. By utilizing the techniques of refusing to address the behaviour of the entire system, insisting on considering only a subset of the system in any one investigation, and pointing the finger of blame at another system component not the subject of the current investigation, the System can always engineer an evasion of the issues. In reality these fragments are not in any way independent entities, they are all façades of the same underlying system.

Throughout the report there is a concerted attempt to create confusion between the concept of allowing me to file a criminal complaint about my attacker, and the concept of me stating my version of events at interview. To any system insider these are very different concepts, like night and day. To an outsider they are easily confused. The police seek to exploit this layman's confusion to their advantage. To this day the police refuse to accept a crime report from me despite numerous attempts to make such a criminal complaint.

This professional standards “Investigation” was an utter waste of public funds. It has achieved nothing of any value to either the victim, or to society at large. It leaves the original problem intact. The only winners here are a corrupt and broken System, and its employees who will continue to draw a salary for hurting the innocent, helping the offenders, and lying to conceal their own incompetence.

The Police Take Groceries from a Pensioner and Refuse to Return Them

Alan Swain has admitted that police officers took my groceries. He refuses to return them or pay financial compensation. He says that the groceries may have been given to the rental car company, and that my course of action is to sue Avis Rental Cars. He asserts that it is not a police matter. Avis Rental Cars took no active role in this theft; The actions were performed by the police. Why would my course of action be against Avis? The police are trying to make trouble for an innocent bystander in order to deflect the rightful claim against themselves. This is dumb insolence on the part of the police. It is moral cowardice.

PC Rout denies that any items were “seized” from my car, and denies seeing any groceries. PS Oldmeadow admits that there were groceries in my car. They assert that the car was returned to the rental company. Even as late as July 2013 the car rental company was still contacting me to ask what happened to their car.

The police forcibly took my groceries against my wishes, and have willfully deprived me of my groceries to this day. What they did with my groceries is of no relevance. Whether they ate my groceries or threw them away is irrelevant. Whether or not they gave my groceries to a third party who in turn ate my groceries or threw them away is irrelevant. Whether any such third party is the car rental company, or friends of the police officers involved, is irrelevant. When a thief takes property without consent it is not a defence to state that they have given that property away to a third party. All that matters here is that the police forcibly took my property without consent, and continue to this day to deprive me of my lawfully possessed property. If the police object to the use of the word “seized”, perhaps because it has some narrow jargon meaning for them, then by all means let us use a different term; Let us describe the police taking my groceries as “strong arm robbery”. If they gave my groceries to some third party then the police are “handling stolen goods”. Although some of the groceries were perishable, some were canned goods and not perishable. In any event I have suffered the loss of my property because of the police actions. I demand that my groceries be returned to me, or financial compensation paid.

Sergeant Oldmeadow

PS Oldmeadow states that he was given information that I had returned home. Other police officers have also referred to a witness stating that I returned home. Nowhere in any of their reports have they named this secret witness. I ask that they identify this secret witness now.

PS Oldmeadow states that the car and groceries were taken from me because I was sectioned under the mental health act. This is the first mention I have heard of any such sectioning under the mental health act. If PS Oldmeadow's testimony is true then the law requires that I be taken to a hospital. This was not done. Also, if PS Oldmeadow's testimony is true then the subsequent interview was unlawful. In the alternative, if PS Oldmeadow has fabricated his testimony regarding a sectioning under the mental health act, then his behaviour is unacceptable. A police officer should keep accurate notes, and provide accurate testimony when called upon to do so.

PS Oldmeadow states that an additional reason for taking the car and groceries from me was that I had hired the car under another name which was not my true identity. Once again PS Oldmeadow is contradicting the testimony of both himself and other police officers. The police have the car rental contract in their possession, and so they know the name under which the car was hired. That is the same name that the police have asserted is my true identity. Thus the police know that the rental car was hired under my true identity. Thus PS Oldmeadow's statement to the contrary is proven to be a willful lie.

The public have a right to expect honesty and integrity from the police. The public have a right to expect the police to give truthful testimony, and not to fabricate testimony as suits their purposes at the time.

PC Rout

PC Rout states that the arrest was “lawful for ABH assault which we had a positive allegation for from [Redacted]”. However, she also admits to having a positive allegation for assault from myself. Thus the decision to arrest was biased: I was arrested and [Redacted] was not, although both of us had made allegations of ABH assault. This arrest was therefore not lawful: It was contrary to the Human Rights Act 1998, and contrary to the published police policies on counter accusations.

The independent witness that PC Rout refers to is now know to be Rosemary Ann Steer. She stated at the time of the incident that she did not see an assault and did not see a knife. She also repeated this statement in writing. Rosemary Ann Steer did not state at any time that I had returned home. She did not even know where I lived, and thus could not possibly know if I had returned home. Thus PC Rout's version of events is disproved.

PC Rout states that I was “sectioned after interview”. What does she mean by this? Is she alleging that I was sectioned under the mental health act as PS Oldmeadow has claimed? If so procedure was not followed as a mental health determination must be made prior to interview. Elsewhere in the report the police have claimed that my mental health was evaluated by Dr. Dean Dorsett prior to interview. If I was indeed sectioned under the mental health act, or even if mental health concerns were voiced, then the interview was unlawful.

I was forced to sign the documents in order to save items of immense sentimental value that were being held hostage by the police/CPS under threat of destruction. There was no explanation of any disclaimer given to me, nor would it have had any bearing on the situation if it was: Hostage taking cannot be mitigated by a disclaimer. PC Rout also seeks to cause confusion by interchangeably referring to the documents that I was forced to sign at Crown Court, and the documents that she presented to me on my doorstep. These facts are clearly documented, and thus PC Rout's statement is proven to be incorrect.

It is never acceptable for any façade of the criminal justice system, whether police, CPS, courts, prison, or any other component of the criminal justice industry, to extort confession or compliance by means of coercion, torture, kidnapping, or hostage taking.

Justification for Search of My Home

The report refers to several witnesses who have not been identified. Secret evidence and secret witnesses are not acceptable. They should have been disclosed to my defence team. I ask that they be identified now. In particular, I ask that the police now provide the following:

  1. State clearly if the passer by, Rosemary Ann Steer, stated that I had gone home, or merely stated that I had walked into town?
  2. Identify the “relative” mentioned on page 15 ?
  3. Identify any other witness that stated that I had gone home ?

For example, near the bottom of page 17, PS Oldmeadow is quoted as saying that there was information that I had returned home. The next sentence states that I was seen walking into town, and that The Thoroughfare is near Redenhall Road. This sounds very sketchy. Is this the strength of the inference that I returned home? The part of Redenhall Road where I live is nowhere near The Thoroughfare. Is this the sum total of the witness statement relied upon by PS Oldmeadow?

By the top of the following page, page 18, Inspector Oliver is quoted as saying that “a witness has stated that the D/P has returned home”. I ask that the police identify this witness. Is it still Rosemary Ann Steer? If so her witness statement appears to be changing little by little every time the police tell this story. Is this the only witness statement that I returned home? Why does this witness statement morph incrementally on each telling to support the police position?

On page 15 the report states “[Redacted] had also done the same as had a relative”. Who is this relative? Did they claim to be at the scene? If not, how are they a witness? If they are a relative, how can they be considered independent? If it was someone that [Redacted] called on his cellphone then why did the police not consider it evidence in support of my allegation that [Redacted] was calling members of his gang for a beat down on me as they did during the previous attack? Why would [Redacted] call a relative for help instead of calling the police when he is so close to a police station?

On page 17 Alan Swain states that he has reviewed the “crime file”, and that “there was a witness who gave some information which indicated that Mr. [Redacted] may have returned home but did not wish to provide a statement”. I ask that the police identify this witness. I ask that the police provide me a copy of the “crime file”. I ask that the police explain why their sentence is so dense in wiggle words: Why say “may have returned home”: Did any witness claim that they had seen me return home? I ask for a clear, unambiguous, answer.

Why Do the Police Still Refuse to Accept My Crime Report Now?

Throughout the report numerous police staff have referred to my clearly stated wish to file a criminal complaint that [Redacted] attacked me with a knife. After my arrest PC Rout and PS Oldmeadow told me that I could make my criminal complaint at Bury PIC. It is now known that they lied: I attempted to make my complaint at Bury PIC, but they refused to accept my complaint. The fact that I made a no comment interview is irrelevant. I was told to do this by a solicitor provided by the police. I was denied a lawyer during interview. All that is relevant from the interview at Bury PIC is that Trevor Eagle and Steven Warby told me that I could not make a crime report at that time, but that I could make a crime report upon my release at any police station. Since they clearly stated that they would not accept my crime report during the interview, the fact that I said nothing has no relevance whatsoever. I did attempt to make such a report to PC Tim Tyler at Harleston police station after my release, but he refused to accept my report. Thus Trevor Eagle and Steven Warby had lied.

PS Andrew Mallet has stated “it would have been improper for a counter allegation to have been taken by the police whilst he was being dealt with as a suspect”. He further cements his position by stating “He was charged with matters that would tend to indicate the evidence available supported the police prosecution”. In other words the initial error in charging the victim justifies refusing to look at evidence that would reveal this charge to be inappropriate. The error justifies the error. PC Rout and PS Oldmeadow knew that I would be labeled a suspect from the instant of my arrest, so they knew even then that I would not be permitted to make a crime report. Thus they lied to me. Indeed it is now clear that all the police officers knew all along that they would not accept a crime report from me, and had all been lying to me from the very beginning. The police arrested the victim, and to avoid the embarrassment of admitting their mistake they instead used their mistake to justify their refusal to take a crime report from the victim.

In any event I still want to make a crime report that I was attacked in the street with a knife by [Redacted]. All of the fabricated excuses put forward by the police have now evaporated. So, why do the police still refuse to accept my complaint even now? I am no longer in custody, so that excuse has evaporated. I was acquitted of the attack, so I can no longer be considered the offender. All parties agree that there was a knife attack. All parties agree that either I did it or [Redacted] did it. The court has acquitted me, so the only remaining possibility is that [Redacted] did it. I demand that [Redacted] be arrested and charged now.

Policy on Counter-Accusations

The report includes the policy on counter accusations. The report contains admissions that clearly demonstrate that the policy was not followed. The report then goes on to assert that the policy was followed, even in blatant self contradiction.

Some deviations from policy (not an exhaustive list) are:

  1. Failed to record [Redacted]' prior history of verbal threats to the victim
  2. Failed to record [Redacted]' prior history of physical assaults upon the victim
  3. Failed to record prior multiple assailant attack upon the victim by a gang of which [Redacted] is a member
  4. Failed to record that I acted defensively.
  5. Did not take sufficient care to avoid recording a crime that did not occur
  6. Failed to obey the clearly stated policy: “counter allegations require investigation to establish the primary aggressor”.
  7. Failed to take notice of the stated policy: “the investigation must be conducted before making any/any further arrests”.
  8. Failed to classify injuries to [Redacted] as trivial.
  9. Failed to classify injuries to [Redacted]' neck as consistent with restraining him, and not consistent with seeking to cause him injury.
  10. Failed to analyze the comparative injuries to the parties involved.
  11. Willfully suppressed evidence of previous multiple assailant attacks. This rises to the level of perversion of justice, and conspiracy to pervert justice.

Website / Medical Interrogation

The website that Dr. Dean Dorsett interviewed me about was “corrinasjewellerybox.com”. I did not create that website. I had no connection whatsoever with that website. I had no knowledge of the existence of that website prior to Dr. Dorsett's Interrogation. How is interrogating me about a website that I had no connection to whatsoever in any way relevant to my mental health?

It is clear that the motive of the police in interrogating me about that website was to connect me to the website in order to prosecute me for creating it. It also demonstrates quite extreme levels of incompetence both on the part of the police, and Dr. Dean Dorsett. It is a blatant violation of United Nations Resolution and international law.

The website in question was traced to a Mr. Ian Roy Durrands, a resident of Felixstowe. He was arrested in February 2013, and forced to shutdown his website. He was charged in June 2013, and his case progressed through the Magistrates Court and was committed to Crown Court in September 2013 under docket number T20137134. The police know this, and therefore their behaviour in continuing to link this website to me is a deliberate willful lie.

The police have attempted to justify interrogating me about that website by claiming that it was a diagnostic test to determine if I was delusional. So, now we know that the diagnostic standard for insanity is a belief that the police are dishonest, corrupt and incompetent. The police assert that I should be sectioned under the Mental Health Act because they suspected that I had created a website that criticized them. Have other countries used this technique to suppress criticism? Well, yes they have: The Soviet Union used psychiatry as a tool to eliminate political opponents (“dissidents”) who openly expressed beliefs that contradicted official dogma. It was common practice for that government to diagnose mental disorders in cases where people disagreed with leaders.

Terms of Reference

The “investigation” did not follow the terms of reference stated at paragraph 5. No attempt was made to interview witnesses to the multiple assailant attack. Indeed, there was no investigation at all of any aspects of the complaint, merely a blind acceptance of whatever version of events the police choose to utter. This is a serious case, involving conspiracy to pervert justice by serving police officers, violation of United Nations Resolution and international law, bias, human rights violation, and medical malpractice. Thus it is proportionate to conduct a thorough investigation. This was not done. The case was not progressed as quickly as possible; It was dragged out for 15 months even though no investigation was performed.

Police Deny Responsibility for 12 Weeks Imprisonment

The police blame the Court for imprisoning me for 12 weeks. They say that it was not their fault. This is dumb insolence. The Court would not have imprisoned me if the police had not arrested me. The Court would not have imprisoned me if the police had not charged me under their alternate façade called the Crown Prosecution Service. The Court would not have imprisoned me if the police/CPS had not lied in court, indeed regurgitating the perjured statements of [Redacted] without proof, stating those lies as if fact, without even the qualifier of “alleged” or “accused”. The Court is not independent of the Criminal Justice System. The Court is itself just another façade of the same corrupt Criminal Justice System. There are no checks and balances here. I was not allowed to speak in my defence at any time during the 12 week ordeal. The Court was thus willfully ignorant of the facts of my case. The Court just did whatever the police/CPS asked of them, even denying bail without cause. The Court thus provides no protection to the public from the corrupt police/CPS. Thus the Court is itself just another co-conspirator in the imprisonment without trial of an innocent victim.

The police should exhibit the moral integrity to take responsibility for what they have done, and not hide behind finger pointing at other components of the Criminal Justice Industry. The British Criminal Justice System is as corrupt and dangerous as that of any rouge state on this planet.

Appeal and Rebuttal of Alan Swain's “investigation”

I have sent my appeal and rebuttal to Professional Standards by email and snail mail. I have also sent a copy to IPCC as well just in case they pretend they did not receive it. The content of my appeal is substantially identical to the preceding paragraphs. The only difference is the entity to whom the questions are addressed: For example, the phrase “the police” is replaced by “you”. For that reason it would serve no purpose to copy the actual document here.

Mrs. K. Walker

The appeal of Alan Swain’s “investigation” was conducted by Mrs. K. Walker. She described herself as a member of the “Senior Management Team”. She defines the scope of her “investigation” as being into Alan Swain’s work, and not into the original complaint. Since Alan Swain’s “investigation” was itself an investigation into the way the original investigation was handled, a meta-investigation, it follows that Mrs. Walker’s investigation is a meta-meta-investigation. This level of indirection serves no useful purpose. It merely gives the bureaucrats conducting these so-called “investigations” an excuse to avoid investigating the real issues. Instead they fixate on irrelevant points of procedure to mis-direct the reader’s attention.

Please be advised that the appeal process is to review the investigation into your complaint, not to re-investigate your complaint. - Mrs. K. Walker

The only “evidence” that Mrs. Walker considers are the statements made by the police officers themselves. Even then she is deliberately selective about which statements to use, carefully avoiding any statement that contradicts her agenda. She makes no attempt to conduct an independent investigation. Mrs Walker denies that Mr. Swain's report was self contradictory while clearly quoting self-contradictory statements from Mr. Swain's report. She clearly demonstrates that she is aware that Mr. Swain's report is self-contradictory, and thus Mrs. Walker's report is also self-contradictory and indeed disingenuous.

Counter Accusation against [Redacted]

Mrs. Walker denies that Mr. Swain’s report creates confusion between the concept of me wanting to file a counter accusation against [Redacted], and me being asked during interview about [Redacted] attacking me. Then Mrs. Walker herself, in her very same report, tries to create the exact same confusion. The fundamental issue here is whether or not I was permitted to file a crime report regarding the knife attack upon me by [Redacted]. Alan Swain and Mrs. K. Walker have attempted to cause confusion about this point. Alan Swain asserted that I was asked in the interview questions about [Redacted] assaulting me. This however is a totally different issue. Somebody unfamiliar with police procedure might assume that the purpose of the interview is to find the truth about what happened. However, that is not the case. The sole purpose of an interview under caution is to obtain evidence to convict the person being interviewed. There is no other purpose. If I were to say in interview that [Redacted] attacked me that would not result in a crime report being recorded against [Redacted]. At one point in her report Mrs. Walker appears to understand this distinction quite clearly. She says:

I conclude that the two matters that you refer to are not confused and the matter for which you have been interviewed, i.e. the alleged assault by you on [Redacted] is quite separate from the issue of a counter allegation being made. - Mrs. K. Walker

Both Mrs. Walker and Mr. Swain quote Sgt. Mallet clearly stating that no crime report will be accepted from me while I am under investigation.

Sergeant Mallett states whilst under his care the d/p remained a suspect and it would have been improper for a counter allegation to have been taken by the police whilst he was being dealt with as a suspect. He was charged with matters which would have tended to indicate the evidence available supported the police prosecution. During his time period as Custody officer over the night period it would have again been inappropriate to have taken a counter allegation. - Mr. Alan Swain

But, at another point in his report, Mr. Swain asserts that I was told at the time of my arrest that I could make a counter accusation during interview.

Pc Rout states that she advised Mr [Redacted] that he was under arrest and that any counter allegations would be taken into consideration by the investigating/interviewing officer. The officer also advised him that there was an allegation being made against him and that he would be interviewed at Custody to establish his side of the incident. - Mr. Alan Swain

Mrs. Walker also clearly states, in her very same report, that I was allowed to make a counter allegation during interview.

You were given opportunity during the interview to make any counter allegation you wished to - Mrs. K. Walker

In respect of the counter allegation that you wish to make regarding being assaulted by Mr. [Redacted] you were advised at the time of your arrest that this would need to be considered during the investigation and interview - Mrs. K. Walker

I have accused both Mrs. Walker and Mr. Swain of attempting to confuse these two issues. So, dear reader, are you confused yet?

There is a separate, but related, issue, as to whether or not not the published policies and procedures for handling counter accusations at the time of arrest were followed by PC Rout and PS Oldmeadow. Mr. Alan Swain includes these policies in his report. Indeed, he has copied and pasted them verbatim. Mr. Swain then describes the behaviour of PC Rout and PS Oldmeadow at the time of my arrest. Mr. Swain’s description makes it clear that the procedure was not followed. Mr. Swain then immediately asserts that the procedure was followed. Mrs. Walker has failed to follow up on Mr. Swain’s quite obvious evasion.

Medical Interrogation about Website

Dr. Dorsett interviewed me about a website that criticized the police. I had no connection whatsoever with that website. Prior to the interrogation I had never heard of that website, nor of the person that actually did create it. A few months later the person that actually did create that website was arrested, charged and their case committed to crown court. Alan Swain, and now Mrs. K. Walker, would have us believe that the motive for interrogating me about that website had nothing to do with collecting incriminating evidence linking me to that website, but was instead solely for the benefit of my mental health. So, Mrs. Walker, just how gullible do you believe my readers are?

Sectioning under Mental Health Act

So, am I insane? Well, not quite yet. But the police are working very hard to rectify that.

Both PC Rout and PS Oldmeadow stated to an official investigation that I had been sectioned under the Mental Health Act. In other words, they testified that I was adjudicated insane. Note, they were not stating an opinion. Their testimony was not that they thought I was insane. They were testifying to a fact. The fact that I had been ruled insane. This is an important distinction. PC Rout went on to elaborate that I was sectioned after interview at Bury PIC. Mr. Alan Swain quotes Sgt. Mallet as saying that the psych evaluation was conducted prior to the interview. It is unlawful to conduct an interrogation if I was insane.

Now, Mrs. Walker states in her report that I was never sectioned under the Mental Health Act, and indeed apologizes for the police officers saying that I was sectioned. Why the change? I believe that earlier it suited their purposes to say I was insane. When it was pointed out to them that this would render their interrogation unlawful they changed their story and said that I was never sectioned.

However, even if we believe the police version of events then PC Rout and PS Oldmeadow have both testified to an official investigation that I was sectioned under the Mental Health Act. In other words, they both gave false testimony regarding important facts in the case. Then, later, they say that they were mistaken, and reverse their testimony on this important fact. Clearly PC Rout and PS Oldmeadow cannot be trusted to give accurate testimony. They are police officers, and thus should be held to a higher standard than the general public. They should keep accurate notes, and give reliable testimony when called upon to do so. Indeed, the testimony of police officers in court is often believed without question simply because they are police officers. Whether a suspect in a crime is sane or insane is an important point. Inaccurate testimony on this point should not be dismissed as a minor misunderstanding. Whether or not I was sectioned under the Mental Health Act is a fact, not an opinion. Facts should be stated accurately in testimony. But PC Rout and PS Oldmedow have failed to accurately testify to an important fact. Hopefully this will be taken into account by members of the jury in future court trials when appraising the reliability of testimony given by PC Rout and PS Oldmeadow. Their testimony should not be trusted. Mrs. Walker dismisses the false testimony of PC Rout and PS Oldmeadow in this, and several other matters, with the phrase: “it was the officer’s explanation and belief at that time”. So, this is the standard of testimony we can expect from the Norfolk Constabulary. Indeed, given the lackadaisical attitude of Mrs. Walker, a senior police manager, in dismissing this false testimony so lightly, the testimony of all police officers with Norfolk Constabulary should be regarded with skepticism in the future. It appears that this slack attitude with the truth is an institutional problem.

Secret Witnesses and Secret Evidence

A defendant accused of a crime has a right to face their accusers. In practical terms this means that they have the right to see all evidence brought against them, a right to challenge that evidence and a right to cross examine witnesses that give testimony against them. In the United Kingdom we should not be convicted by some Kangaroo Court based on secret evidence and anonymous witnesses. Nor should the police be permitted to make decisions that do profound damage to our lives based solely on unreliable secret evidence. The criminal justice system should be open and transparent.

The police have asserted that a secret unidentified witness told them that I went home after the incident. The police also referred to a statement made by a “relative” of [Redacted]. They have refused to identify this relative.

You ask throughout the appeal documents who are the “secret witnesses” and “secret evidence” as you state that this is not acceptable. You also request the details of the “relative” referred to on page 15 of the invetigating officer’s report. I am not able to disclose this information to you as this does not form part of your complaint and it is personal data that you are not entitled to. - Mrs. K. Walker

Mrs. Walker gives one reason for withholding this information as “this does not form part of your complaint”. Well, yes it does form part of my complaint. The other reason Mrs. Walker gives for withholding this information is that I am not entitled to it. I suspect that the real reason that Mrs. Walker wishes to withhold the identity of the “secret witnesses” is because the “secret witnesses” do not exist. They were invented by the police to justify a search of my home.

You also ask for information regarding Rosemary STEER and what she witnessed, this forms part of the court case and has not been dealt with as part of the appeal. - Mrs. K. Walker

Well actually I did not ask what Rosemary Steer had witnessed, nor for any other information about her. I merely pointed out that she could not possibly have witnessed what the secret witness claimed to have witnessed, and thus Rosemary Steer could not possibly be the “secret witness”. What I actually asked was that the “secret witnesses” be identified. Also, Mrs. Walker states: “Unfortunately this person declined to make a statement and I cannot identify who this person is”. Rosemary Ann Steer did make a statement, and so Mrs. Walker’s statement rules out Rosemary Ann Steer as the secret witness.

Rental Car and Groceries

The details of the car and groceries are covered in detail in the next section, so I will not repeat all of the details here. Rather I will limit this section to Mrs. Walker’s report on this matter. The police say that they took my car because it was rented in a false name. However, the police have the rental contract, in my correct name, so they know that their assertion is untrue. Mrs. Walker dismisses this false testimony with her stock phrase: “it was the officer’s explanation and belief at that time”. This is a totally unacceptable standard for police officers giving testimony. Since Mrs. Walker is a senior police manager it is reasonable to conclude that it is the policy of the Norfolk Constabulary that their officers should be held to such a low standard of professionalism.

Mrs Walker states that “no items were seized from the car” and later “it is clear that none of your groceries were taken from the BMW by the police officers”. How is that “clear” Mrs Walker? Mr. Swain’s report quotes PC Rout as saying “After conducting the search I had to make direct contact with Avis … they arranged to collect the vehicle the following week … If there was anything in the vehicle then it would have gone with the hire company when they collected it”. So PC Rout has admitted taking my groceries and then recklessly abandoning my property while it was under her control. Even if PC Rout is telling the truth she is still liable for my loss. Or maybe she took the groceries for her own use, and feels that admitting to recklessly abandoning the groceries is a lesser crime. Why does Mrs. Walker state that it is “clear” that PC Rout didn’t take my groceries? Where is your evidence that makes this “clear” to you Mrs. Walker? Or do you just insert the word “clear” gratuitously to project the image that there is some evidence on which you base your conclusion Mrs. Walker? How is it clear to you, Mrs. Walker, that PC Rout didn’t take my groceries when PC Rout has testified to a formal investigation that she did indeed take my groceries? Indeed, let us ask a more general question: When the police conduct a search do they have any duty to protect the possessions of members of the public? Or is it acceptable for the police to recklessly destroy, or indeed steal, any property that they come across in their search, whether or not it is related to the evidence they seek?

Let us explore further the double talk written by Mr. Swain and Mrs. Walker: At one point the police say that they didn’t take my car, so they are not responsible for my groceries. Then they say that they took my car, but not the groceries contained within the car, because the “seizure” document doesn’t mention the groceries. Then they say that they gave the car and the groceries contained within it to the hire company, and that does not constitute “taking” my groceries. So, if the police search your home and see something they like, they can take it, but if they don’t fill out the “seizure” paperwork then they can say that they did not take it. For avoidance of doubt, Mrs. Walker, when I accuse your colleagues of “taking” my possessions I am not referring to the concept of “seizing” my property for use as evidence. I am referring to the much more general concept of taking my property against my wishes with the intent of permanently depriving me of my possessions. I think you know that distinction perfectly well Mrs. Walker. You are playing childish word games while the tax payers pay your salary. You are evasive and disingenuous.

Mr. Swain states in his report “Any dispute in respect of being compensated for the loss of the groceries is not a police matter”. However, Mr. S Girling, a legal officer acting on behalf of the head of legal services, states “In answer to your question regarding liability in this matter I would direct your attention to Section 88 of the Police Act 1996 which creates a liability on the Chief Constable for wrongful acts of constables i.e. it makes the Chief Constable vicariously liable for acts of his constables. Therefore, in plain terms in this particular case any allegation of loss will be the responsibility of Chief Constable of Norfolk to deal with.” So which is it Mrs. Walker? The police once again contradict themselves. But yet Mrs. Walker denies that the police reports are self-contradictory.

How much public money has been wasted on the salaries of these “investigators” and “senior police managers” in dreaming up reasons not to compensate an old man for his groceries that they stole. How much less would it have cost to compensate the old man so that he could buy replacement groceries?

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE ==> Mrs. K. Walker’s Report

Civil Court Proceedings against PC Rout for Theft of Groceries

At the time of my arrest I had some groceries in my rental car. These groceries went missing while my car was under the control of the police. In fact the entire car has gone missing. The Diss police claim that they returned the rental car to AVIS, although, even to this day, AVIS deny getting their car back. AVIS told me that they had made a stolen car report to the Metropolitan Police, even though I told them that the Diss police had the car. Although several years have now elapsed, the combined efforts of the British police have been unable to locate the car. In any event, the car is not my concern. I am only concerned with my groceries that were taken from me by force.

The groceries were my property. They were lawfully possessed. The police had no right to take these groceries from me and permanently deprive me of my property. Thus I included the theft of my groceries as one of my complaints to Professional Standards. In his report of the Professional Standards investigation Mr. Alan Swain stated very clearly that the theft of my groceries was “not a police matter”. I disagree with Mr. Swain on this point. However, I reasoned that if Mr. Swain is correct, that it is not a police matter, then PC Rout, et al, must not have been acting in the role of police officers when they took my groceries. They can't have it both ways. Indeed there is a principle in civil law that formalizes my reasoning. That is the principle of Collateral Estoppel. Essentially a legal doctrine that you can't have your cake and eat it too. If a party makes an assertion, and derives a benefit from that assertion, then they cannot subsequently make the opposite assertion and derive benefit from that assertion also. In this case it means that if the police are not responsible for the theft of my groceries because it is “not a police matter”, then PC Rout cannot say in her defence that she is not personally responsible because she was acting in her role as a police officer. Mr. Alan Swain pulled that rug out from under her.

Since PC Rout was acting as an individual member of the public, and not as a police officer, when she “caused my groceries to be lost” I decided to issue a claim in civil court for compensation for my loss. As required by Pre-action Protocol I began by sending her a “Letter of Claim”. This letter, and all subsequent correspondence on this matter, can be viewed by clicking the link at the bottom of this section. My motive in filing this law suit was not just about getting compensation for my groceries, but also exposing the obstructive arrogance of Mr. Alan Swain.

I received a response from Jonathan Mott stating that he would have “conduct of this matter on behalf of the Chief Constable and his insurers”. I replied to Mr. Mott expressing surprise that a lawyer representing the Chief Constable was defending the case when the Chief Constable was not a party to the case. I reminded him that the defendant was Louise Mary Rout, a member of the general public. I expressed concern that the use of Norfolk Constabulary resources to defend a case that they were not a party to was an abuse of public funds. I asked Mr. Mott if the involvement of Norfolk Constabulary lawyers meant that the police were now conceding that this was a “police matter”, and that Alan Swain was wrong.

I then received a response from Stephen Girling, stating that he had taken over the case from Jonathan Mott. His letter stated: “I have now been given responsibility for the conduct of this matter on behalf of the Chief Constable of Norfolk and his insurers.”. He asked me to prove that the value of my groceries was £60 as I had claimed. He demanded that I produce a “bank statement showing the purchases made or the corresponding cash withdrawal”. I responded that I paid for my groceries with cash. There would be no correlation between the amount paid for the groceries and any bank withdrawals since I would have obtained an amount of cash to cover many days expenses, and in any event, I would not know the exact cost of my groceries until I reached the checkout lane, and so I could not have withdrawn the exact amount even if I wanted to. I pointed out to Mr. Girling that I did get a cash register receipt for my groceries, but that was in the bags with my groceries in the rental car. The police officers that took my car, and my groceries, thus also took my receipt. The police had thus destroyed the evidence of the value of my groceries. It is unconscionable that the police should derive a benefit from willfully destroying evidence. I arrived at the value of £60 as a typical sum that I pay on a visit to the grocery store, and on the low end of the range so that any error would be in favour of his client.

Mr. Girling then responded stating: “I can find no evidence to support your allegation that Pc Rout took groceries from your hire car”. Well, the evidence is in the statements that PC Rout and PS Oldmeadow made to the Professional Standards investigation, and published in Alan Swain's report. Mr. Girling goes on to say: “at no point did police officers take your groceries into police possession”. Well they took the entire car containing the groceries into police possession. Thus I find Mr. Girling’s position to be quite perverse. Mr. Girling then goes on to say: “The responsibility for this property remained, at all times, yours”. How could I protect my groceries? I was handcuffed, and in the back of a police car. How can I physically prevent the police from stealing my groceries? Mr. Girling is trying to suggest that it was my fault that my groceries were stolen, that I was reckless with the safety of my groceries. If it is so reckless for a member of the public to leave their groceries locked in their car, parked in the parking lot of a police station, within 50 feet of the door of the police station, and surrounded by police officers, and expect that their groceries would not be stolen, what does that tell use about the level of honesty that we should expect from police officers?

Mr. Girling then goes on to accuse me of renting the car under a false name. This is a blatant deliberate lie. The police have the rental contract in their possession. They know what name it was rented in. And they know my name. And thus they know that the car was rented in my correct name.

Mr. Girling then goes on to state: “In answer to your question regarding liability in this matter I would direct your attention to Section 88 of the Police Act 1996 which creates a liability on the Chief Constable for wrongful acts of constables i.e. it makes the Chief Constable vicariously liable for acts of his constables. Therefore, in plain terms in this particular case any allegation of loss will be the responsibility of Chief Constable of Norfolk to deal with”. In other words Mr. Alan Swain was wrong to state that this was “not a police matter”. Mr. Girling further states: “Any statements made by Mr Swain will have to be referred to him for comment.” I did indeed contact Alan Swain and told him that his colleague Mr. Girling had contradicted him on his assertion that it was “not a police matter”. I invited Mr. Swain to rebut. He chose to ignore my email.

Ultimately I chose not to issue the court proceedings. My experience with the system has taught me that no matter how strong is the evidence in my favour, and no matter how correct my arguments on points of law, the system will never allow me to win. The financial costs of proceeding would greatly exceed the £60 claimed. But at least Mr. Swain now knows that it is “a police matter”, and that I don't have any confidence in his so called investigation.

The Norfolk Constabulary spent far more of the taxpayer's money on paying the salary of their lawyers to fight an old man than it would have cost them to pay for some replacement groceries for that old man.


Compliance and Disclosure Unit

I asked the police to provide me with a copy of the high resolution colour photograph of [Redacted]' finger showing the alleged knife wound. Currently they have only provided a low resolution black and white photograph that has been degraded by many generations of photocopying to the point that it is difficult to see the alleged knife wound. The low-res version is displayed elsewhere on this website. I know that the hi-res colour version of this photograph exists as I have seen it during my interview at Bury PIC. It clearly shows the wound shape and depth, from which it is possible to deduce the direction, force and shape of the instrument that caused the wound. This photograph contradicts the story told by [Redacted] and the police as to how the wound was caused. I need this photograph for these reasons:

  • For my investigation into the conduct of the criminal justice system in this matter
  • For an intended private criminal prosecution of [Redacted] for attacking me with a knife, and for perverting justice
The police are refusing to give me a copy of this photograph. They are citing data privacy concerns. I do not accept their excuse; What is so private about a photograph of a finger tip ? Most people are happy to go out in public with their fingers naked, exposed for all the world to see. A finger tip is not generally considered to be a private part of one's anatomy. The requested disclosure is proportionate and relevant to my investigation.

My initial request for the photograph was sent to Alan Swain. He then told me that this was not in his remit, and referred me to John McGuire:

John McGuire
Joint Information Compliance Manager
Joint Information Management Department
Norfolk and Suffolk Constabularies
Falconers Chase
Wymondham
NR18 0WW
Telephone: 01953 425699 Ext 2806
Fax: 01953 423948
Email: mcguirej@norfolk.pnn.police.uk


There was subsequently correspondence between myself and John McGuire both by email and snail mail. Mr. McGuire raised a series of objections to providing me with a copy of this photograph. These included, inter alia:

  • That I pay for the copy. I agreed to pay the amount he requested
  • That I provide an explanation of how this information is necessary for the proceedings
  • That I provide an explanation of how the proceedings would be prejudiced if I was denied the photographs
  • I must provide a confirmation that I do not already have the information (if I already had it then how would there be any privacy breach in giving me another copy?)
  • That I provide an explanation of why I don't just serve a Witness Summons on the Chief Constable, and agree to pay the Chief Constable's travel costs and compensation for loss of time to service (i.e. the Chief Constable's salary)
  • That I provide proof that a private criminal prosecution is already in progress
I demonstrated to Mr. McGuire that it is not necessary for a criminal prosecution to have been commenced in order to gain disclosure of the photo under the Data Protection Act 1998 ¶ 35(2)(a) thru 35(2)(b). Eventually Mr. McGuire agreed to consider disclosure under this act, but he asserted that such disclosure is discretionary on the part of the police. He stated:

I shall consider your request for information under Section 35(2) Data Protection Act and will write to you when a decision has been reached. Please note that as Section 35(2) is a discretionary exemption Norfolk Constabulary is not legally obliged to make disclosure. However, the information that you have kindly provided will be included within the decision making process.

I do not accept that disclosure is discretionary in this situation. The relevant section of the statute is:

35 Disclosures required by law or made in connection with legal proceedings etc. ...
(2)Personal data are exempt from the non-disclosure provisions where the disclosure is necessary -
(a)for the purpose of, or in connection with, any legal proceedings (including prospective legal proceedings), or
(b)for the purpose of obtaining legal advice,
or is otherwise necessary for the purposes of establishing, exercising or defending legal rights.

So, why all this stalling? Why are the police putting up such a fight to conceal this evidence? Because they don't want me to have a copy of the photograph because the photograph contradicts the story told by the police!

Eventually, after another 61 days had elapsed, Mr. McGuire wrote back to me informing me that he had decided to let me have a copy of the photograph.

The correspondence between myself and Mr. McGuire is available here in its entirety:

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE ==>   Letters and Emails to/from John McGuire

The Investigation of the Investigation of the Investigation

Since the “Investigation” conducted by Alan Swain was utterly useless for the reasons stated above, I filed an appeal of his “Investigation”. I received two letters, one from Mr. S Craig on 28th February 2014, and one from Mr. M Petersen on March 4th 2014. They both state, with identical wording, that my appeal “will be dealt with in good faith, fairly and in a timely manner. The process can be lengthly”. Well, that seems to me to be self-contradictory regarding the time scale of the response. Since Alan Swain's “Investigation” was completed 15 months after the incident it is clear that the strategy adopted by the police is to drag things out for a very long time. I have a long wait to endure, followed by some more senior police officer telling me that he agrees with the decisions of his subordinates, and that is the end of the matter.

A critical point to note about this latest appeal is that the police refuse to address the facts of the actual incident itself. Alan Swain's “Investigation” was constrained in scope to the behaviour of the police staff involved. This new “Investigation” is constrained in scope to the behaviour of Alan Swain. It is now a meta-meta-investigation; An investigation of the investigation of the investigation. By constraining the parameters of the investigation in this way the police have created yet a further tool to evade the real issues in this case.

Let's look at an example of how this indirection is used to deliberately sabotage their own investigation: If person A complains that person B has committed any arrestable offence, then it is lawful for the police to arrest B. Taken in isolation, carefully removed from the real situation, a meta-investigation can assert that the police behaved lawfully. However, if person B complains that person A has committed an arrestable offence, then it is also lawful for the police to refuse to arrest person A. As before, taken in isolation, carefully removed from the real situation, a meta-investigation can assert that the police behaved lawfully. But what if both these scenarios are parts of the same situation: Person A accuses Person B of an arrestable offence, and, as part of the same incident, Person B accuses Person A of an arrestable offence. What if the police arrest Person A but not Person B? Is this lawful? To answer that question we need to look more closely at the incident itself, the whole situation, not deliberately isolate small subsets of the situation that can be examined out of context. If the police have an agenda against Person A, but are best friends with Person B, is it lawful for them to use their discretion to arrest one and not the other? What if Person A is black and Person B is white? If the police base their decision to arrest on race is that lawful? Well, no it is not! It is bias. That is contrary to the European Convention on Human Rights, and thus contrary to the Human Rights Act 1998. Such an arrest would be unlawful.

Another aspect of this indirection is that unless it can be proven that a police officer acted deliberately to arrest the wrong person, the “investigation” will not uphold the complaint. If the police simply say that they did not intend to send an innocent person to prison, then that is the end of the matter. The “investigation” does not care that an innocent person was sent to prison; that is irrelevant to the meta-investigation.

In any event it is not just the behaviour of the police that is the issue here. It is also important that the original problem be addressed. [Redacted] attacked me in the street with a knife, he attempted to murder me. He then perverted justice by lying to the police resulting in an innocent person serving prison time for an offence that they did not commit. This issue is just as important, indeed more important to me, than the corrupt behaviour of the police. By redirecting their investigation the police are willfully refusing to correct the miscarriage of justice that they have inflicted on an innocent victim. They refuse to investigate the original knife attack. They have stated quite clearly in their correspondence with me that the original incident, the knife attack, will not be considered in these subsequent so-called “investigations”.

Group 4 Securicor (G4S)

My complaints to G4S were handled by two employees:

  • Mr Jerry Randle: Clinical Governance Manager.
  • Dr. Tony Knight: Clinical Director, Custody and Forensic Services.
Dr. Knight is the immediate supervisor of Mr. Randle.

Who is Tony Knight?

Dr. Anthony Knight is an employee of G4S. His email signature identifies him as follows:

Dr Tony Knight MB, BS, MRCP(UK), DMJ, DCH, MFFLM, MFMLM
Responsible Officer
Clinical Director, Custody and Forensic Services
G4S Forensic and Medical Services Ltd

He lives at:

5 Blenheim Avenue
Highfield
Southampton
Hants
SO17 1DW
Great Britain
Phone: 023 80671840 Fax: 023 80324105

He has signed the “Hampshire Document” on behalf on G4S, identifying himself as “Clinical Lead for Hampshire”.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE ==> Correspondence with G4S

From: [Redacted]

Sent: 12 June 2013 22:26

To: Tony Knight

Subject: Re: Ref: TEH.BJ.2.353 Complaint

You were asked if you personally signed the Hampshire Document. Please answer the question now, and refrain from evading the question. You were caught in a lie, further evasion does not help your case, or your credibility. Your assertion that I was not seen in Hampshire is ridiculously irrelevant: You are the responsible officer that oversees Dr. Dorsett. The Hampshire Document is an agreement binding the same G4S that you represent, and it is signed by the same Dr. Tony Knight. The Hampshire Document clearly states that you do indeed pass on information to the Police. Perhaps it would aid your understanding if you were explicitly told that it is now the behavior of Dr. Tony Knight, and of G4S, that is under examination. Thank you for your helpful advice that I bring this matter to the attention of GMC. However, the subject of my complaint on this occasion will be Dr. Tony Knight. I will pass on to them your assertion that they condone your behavior contrary to international law and United Nations Resolution, and asking them if your assertion is true. If they reply that it is true, then the GMC will be the subject of complaints to higher authorities. Since G4S is acting on behalf of a public agency, the decision of Dr. Tony Knight is subject to Judicial Review by the High Court. I intend to issue proceedings in the Royal Court of Justice in London as I believe this is the nearest venue to your residence. However, if some other venue is more convenient for you then please let me know promptly. Likewise procedure requires that I make the Home Secretary an interested party. If there are others that you wish to be included as interested parties please inform me promptly. In the event of a failure in the High Court the case will proceed through the Supreme Court and on to the European Court of Human Rights.

Perhaps you would be so kind as to pass on a message from me to Dr. Dorsett. Since Dr. Dorsett expressed such deep interest in what other web sites I had created, indeed asking me over and over and over again ad nauseam to the point of harassment, he might be interested to know that I will be creating a new website in the upcoming months. This new site will be about Dr. Dean Malcolm Dorsett, and will the engineered to reach the current customers, and the potential future customers, of the medical practice in which he is a partner, and of his pharmacy business. These customers will be informed of Dr. Dorsett's moonlighting job conducting medical interrogations for G4S. So next time Dr. Dorsett sees a patient at his other job that patient may well be aware of Dr. Dorsett's behavior. Such a website will of course be factually accurate, and thus not defamatory in any way.

From: Tony Knight

To: [Redacted]

Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2013 7:14 AM

Subject: RE: Ref: TEH.BJ.2.353 Complaint

Dear Mr [Redacted],

I reply to you when I have the time, I am not in the office every week. I would reiterate that I have not signed any illegal documents and would point out that you were not seen in Hampshire which is the county where the policy to which you refer was agreed. I repeat what I have said before, we do not obtain information from patients for the use of the police, G4S Medical Services does not and would not agree to any such action. All our medical practitioners are required to comply with GMC guidance on consent and confidentiality, I believe it does not contravene any international treaties but I am sure they will be interested to hear from you on that point. If you have concerns about an individual doctor's treatment that you feel contravenes the GMC guidance then you should take up that matter with the GMC. From my understanding of your case Dr Dorsett acted reasonably but I would be happy for the GMC to review the case, they may see it in a different light. It will be for Dr Dorsett to justify his actions. The GMC protects the rights of patients so I believe we can trust their deliberations. Should they find that our policies fall short of what should be expected then we would implement any changes that they recommended. I have nothing further to add to my last communication with you. As far as I am concerned the matter is now closed.

Dr Tony Knight

MB, BS, MRCP(UK), DMJ, DCH, MFFLM, MFMLM

Responsible Officer,

Clinical Director, Custody and Forensic Services,

G4S Forensic and Medical Services Ltd

Tel: 01371 812731

From: [Redacted]

Sent: 11 June 2013 01:36

To: Tony Knight

Subject: Fw: Ref: TEH.BJ.2.353 Complaint

You have still not replied to my email of last Tuesday. I ask that you do do now.

----- Forwarded Message -----

From: [Redacted]

To: Tony Knight

Sent: Tuesday, June 4, 2013 7:59 PM

Subject: Re: Ref: TEH.BJ.2.353 Complaint

Dear Dr. Knight:

Thank you for your recent email response. My tenor/style is intended to communicate clearly. I don't want any meaning lost in polite euphemisms. I encourage you to speak clearly to me also. I note that you are now beginning to address the issues. That is very encouraging. That is the way that progress can be made. You state: “unfounded assertions concerning documents that I am alleged to have signed”. That is a clear denial that you signed any such document. Your use of the word “unfounded” leaves no wiggle room. You have explicitly denied signing such a document. I am attaching an example of one of the documents that you signed. Do you deny signing a copy of this document? If you did sign it: Do you personally agree with the policies described in that document or was your signature coerced? Since Dr. Dorsett asked me questions only about the jewelry website, and nothing other than the jewelry website, explain how he arrived at the conclusion that I was a danger to society? You state that disclosure may be made if “a matter comes to light that relates to the safety of the public”. What came to light in Dr. Dorsett's interrogation of me that related to the safety of the public? Even if such information does come to light your policy is still contrary to UN Resolution. Indeed Principle 6 of the UN Resolution explicitly states that there are no exceptions, not even national security. If the survival of the entire population of your country depended on it it would still be forbidden. Please provide me with the “briefing given by the custody sergeant which may highlight matters that need to be taken into account”. It will help me to better understand the situation. I commend your candor in stating: “Sometimes this may result in quite persistent questioning in order to establish whether there is any merit in such matters”. However, when your colleagues continue this “persistent questioning” after the patient has clearly told you that the patient does not consent to this examination, and is uncomfortable with the line of questioning, then it clearly meets the threshold of harassment. Since you have stated that you are not conducting the interrogation in support of the Police investigation you are therefore collaterally estopped from claiming the law enforcement exception. You have committed a crime. You also state: “Our doctors do not perform an examination without first obtaining the consent of the patient”: So, what part of the patient saying that the doctor's questions are unacceptable and that they wish to return to their cell do you interpret as consent? You state: “I doubt there is anything I could say or do that would convince you of the strong ethical stand we adopt and follow in all our dealings with patients in our care”. Actually there is something you can do: If you wish to satisfy my concerns and get me out of your hair there are two ways that you could accomplish this: Either a or b will work.

  1. Convince me with evidence and/or reasoned logical arguments that the actions of your organization and colleagues are appropriate. You will find that I am receptive to this approach. I am not impressed however with your earlier approach of stating that you had unilaterally decided that there was no case to answer, and then cutting off communication. Pontification does not work with me.

  2. Make a full and candid acknowledgment of wrongdoing, and put in place effective measures to ensure that it does not happen again.
To address your comment: “exercise proper caution when making public accusations about named individuals”: I am well versed in the relevant law in all jurisdictions in which I operate. Truth is a complete defense against any defamation proceedings. If you feel that anything I have published is untrue then feel free to issue proceedings in any court you choose. You raise the issue of “practitioner’s safety to consider”. Did Dr. Dorsett think that I was a danger to him? I note that the female nurses that attended to me did not feel in any way threatened by me. Indeed I would like to add in passing that those nurses were professional, knowledgeable, and compassionate. A stark contrast to your Dr. Dorsett. I have the highest regard for their conduct. If you feel that I have incorrectly reinterpreted what you have said then please call it out explicitly and show me where I have misunderstood you.

Regards, [Redacted].

From: Tony Knight

To: [Redacted]; "Randle, Jerry"

Sent: Tuesday, June 4, 2013 6:01 AM

Subject: RE: Ref: TEH.BJ.2.353 Complaint

Dear [Redacted],

Thank you for your recent email. My reason for withdrawing from the proposed telephone conversation with you was as a direct result of the content of your email of 24/05/2013. The tenor, combative style, your own reinterpretation of what I said and your unfounded assertions concerning documents that I am alleged to have signed led me to believe that any conversation with you would not be productive for either of us. Far from being the behaviour of the small child to whom you refer it is more the behaviour of a person seeking to avoid confrontation with a person who chooses to act in a manner incompatible with reasonable discussion. Mr Randle has already been in touch with you to suggest that the GMC might be your best next step. I heartily agree with this as I doubt there is anything I could say or do that would convince you of the strong ethical stand we adopt and follow in all our dealings with patients in our care. I only hope that you feel able to rely on the independence of the GMC and do not see them as yet another agent of the establishment mounted against you. I wish to clarify the issue of confidentiality. Our doctors are required to comply with the GMC regulations concerning confidentiality. The police can only see our written notes with the consent of the patient or as a result of a proper legal order permitting their release. The same restrictions apply to what a doctor can say. Our doctors do not perform an examination without first obtaining the consent of the patient. With regards to assessment in custody the police will be informed of the outcome of a consultation, this may relate to a patient's medical treatment and supervision in custody, the interview process, release and subsequent care and management, and an assessment of risk. The only clinical information that will be provided is that which is required to preserve the life and comfort of the patient unless a matter comes to light that relates to the safety of the public. A Health Care Professional is required to disclose such information, i.e. the location of an explosive or the declared intent by the patient to harm an individual. An assessment will take account of any briefing given by the custody sergeant which may highlight matters that need to be taken into account by the doctor. This is only to inform the doctor and is not a shopping list of information required by the police. The information includes facts and allegations that help the doctor to assess the potential risk the patient may pose to himself or others. Sometimes this may result in quite persistent questioning in order to establish whether there is any merit in such matters. There is also the practitioner's safety to consider. Our staff will ask detention officers, and occasionally police officers, to be present if they feel that there is a risk of being assaulted by the patient. I would ask you to exercise proper caution when making public accusations about named individuals. Health Care Professionals have the same rights of redress as any member of the public with regards to the dissemination of falsehoods. Should you choose to take this matter to the GMC I can assure you that we will cooperate with them fully. Hopefully this will enable both of us to avoid a lot of unnecessary unpleasantness and give you some peace of mind.

Yours sincerely,

Dr Tony Knight

MB, BS, MRCP(UK), DMJ, DCH, MFFLM, MFMLM

Responsible Officer,

Clinical Director, Custody and Forensic Services,

G4S Forensic and Medical Services Ltd

Tel: 01371 812731

From: [Redacted]

Sent: 28 May 2013 22:05

To: Tony Knight; Randle, Jerry

Subject: Re: Ref: TEH.BJ.2.353 Complaint

Your sudden statement that you wish to break off communications suggests to me that you do indeed realize now that Dr. Dorsett and your organization has a case to answer. This inference is backed by empirical observation of the behavior pattens of a statistically significant sample of British solicitors. You are concerned that any further communication from yourselves might result in evidence contrary to your interests coming to light. If you are honest and honorable, or even if you have a scientist's respect for the truth, then you will co-operate with my investigation. Your current behavior is reminiscent of a small child, caught in some wrongdoing, saying that it has to go to the toilet in order to avoid a telling off. Mr. Randle had previously indicated that he was willing to send me the answers provided by Dr. Dorsett to my questions. I ask that he honor that commitment now, and send me those responses.

[Redacted].

From: Tony Knight

To: [Redacted]

Cc: "Randle, Jerry"

Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 7:33 AM

Subject: RE: Ref: TEH.BJ.2.353 Complaint

Dear Mr [Redacted],

I have reviewed this case thoroughly and I note the allegations you have made in your email. You appear to believe that our medical staff act as agents of the police seeking to gain information by nefarious means that may assist the police in their investigations. This most definitely is not so but I am sure you will never accept that. I am satisfied that Dr Dorsett handled your case appropriately. I do not propose to enter into any further discussion about this matter.

Yours sincerely,

Dr Tony Knight

MB, BS, MRCP(UK), DMJ, DCH, MFFLM, MFMLM

Responsible Officer,

Clinical Director, Custody and Forensic Services,

G4S Forensic and Medical Services Ltd

Tel: 01371 812731

From: [Redacted]

Sent: 24 May 2013 01:06

To: Tony Knight

Cc: Randle, Jerry

Subject: Re: Ref: TEH.BJ.2.353 Complaint

Dear Dr. Knight:

Thank you for your recent email. In light of the logistical difficulties in arranging a phone call perhaps we could continue our correspondence through email. Please could you now email me the answers given by Dr. Dorsett to my questions. You assert that “the notes we write are confidential, the police do not see them”. Your statement is untrue1. It is contradicted in my case by empirical evidence. It is contradicted in general by policy documents agreed upon by G4S, the Police, and the NHS Trust; documents that you, Dr. Knight, have personally signed. There is clear evidence of information flow in both directions between Dr. Dorsett and the Police. What medical school teaches that a psych eval should consist entirely of questions regarding jewelry websites? The Police wanted to know why a jewelry website is critical of Simon Ash. Do I really need to connect the dots for you? The police instructed Dr. Dorsett to use his position of trust as a medical doctor to conduct an unlawful interrogation for the purpose of obtaining evidence linking me to that website. Not that it matters, but that website was not one of mine. If Dr. Dorsett insists that a website cannot possibly exist while he is staring right at it isn't that evidence that Dr. Dorsett is delusional rather than his patient? What medical school instructs doctors to prevent a patient describing their symptoms? What medical school teaches doctors to be argumentative with their patients, to the point of being verbally aggressive? What medical school teaches doctors to harass patients when the patient has informed the doctor that they are not comfortable answering inappropriate questions? How is patient confidentiality possible when the doctor follows the patient back to their cell and asks the same questions again in the presence of 2-3 police officers? These are the tactics of detectives, not medical doctors! The last action was intended to demonstrate to the police that Dr. Dorsett at least attempted to carry out their unlawful instructions. The custody sergeant told me that Dr. Dorsett had told him that I was a danger to society. Thus clearly information flow in that direction is also demonstrated. The police used Dr. Dorsett's comment to justify denying bail. I was remanded in HMP Norwich for 12 weeks prior to being acquitted at Norwich Crown Court. This incarceration resulted in grave and irreversible damage being done to my life, credit, possessions, and business affairs. Dr. Dorsett's actions were damaging to his patient. The behavior of Dr. Dorsett in my case is contrary to international law and United Nations Resolution. The official policy agreed upon by G4S, the Police, and the NHS Trust, and signed by Dr. Knight, is contrary to international law and United Nations Resolution. The behavior of Dr. Dorsett in my case is contrary to the G4S/Police/NHS policy document. Since G4S operates in many countries, often under contract to the governments of those countries, it would be appropriate at this time to conduct a compliance audit in those countries also. I ask that you implement a policy immediately of mirandizing all your patients, and that you amend your policies to bring them into compliance with international law and United Nations Resolutions. It is your organization, Dr. Dorsett, and the Police, that are the real dangers to society.

Regards, [Redacted].

1I interpret “notes” to refer to the information contained in the notes rather than the physical documents, and “see” to mean to become informed of the information contained therein, regardless of which senses, visual, auditory, etc., receive the information.

From: Tony Knight

To: "[Redacted]

Cc: "Randle, Jerry"

Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2013 5:47 AM

Subject: RE: Ref: TEH.BJ.2.353 Complaint

Dear Mr [Redacted],

I will be happy to discuss this matter with you but the time frame you have given is difficult as I am returning to my home address at 16:30 when I have to negotiate the M25. If you wish to speak to me we will have to negotiate some other time. With regards to your questions, the questions were asked by the doctor to clarify whether or not you had some form of mental illness or delusional state. Such clarification would be to assist the doctor in his assessment and would not have been for the police as a source of data nor would the doctor have been asked to obtain such information to assist the police. The notes we write are confidential, the police do not see them and they can be released only with the consent of the patient or in compliance with a court order. I hope this addresses your concerns. Please note that I am in the office only one or two days a week so there may be some delays when other matters supervene.

Yours sincerely,

Dr Tony Knight

MB, BS, MRCP(UK), DMJ, DCH, MFFLM, MFMLM

Responsible Officer,

Clinical Director, Custody and Forensic Services,

G4S Forensic and Medical Services Ltd

Tel: 01371 812731

From: Randle, Jerry

Sent: 22 May 2013 08:33

To: Tony Knight

Subject: FW: Ref: TEH.BJ.2.353 Complaint

Gday Tony,

Can you please arrange to speak with Mr [Redacted]

Kind regards,

Jerry Randle DFMS, SRPara, ECP

Clinical Governance Manager

G4S Forensic and Medical Services (UK) Limited

Units 6-9 The Bardfield Centre

Great Bardfield,

Essex, CM7 4SL.

PH: 01371 812710

Mob: 07720 491810

jerry.randle@uk.g4s.com

From: [Redacted]

Sent: 17 May 2013 02:48

To: Randle, Jerry

Subject: Re: Ref: TEH.BJ.2.353 Complaint

Another 7 days have elapsed and still no contact from Dr. Knight.

From: "Randle, Jerry"

To: [Redacted]

Sent: Thursday, May 9, 2013 5:03 AM

Subject: RE: Ref: TEH.BJ.2.353 Complaint

Dear Mr [Redacted],

I can only apologise, I have emailed Dr Knight and asked him to get in touch. I am out of the office today but I will try to chase this tomorrow for you.

Kind regards,

Jerry Randle DFMS, SRPara, ECP

Clinical Governance Manager

G4S Forensic and Medical Services (UK) Limited

Units 6-9 The Bardfield Centre

Great Bardfield,

Essex, CM7 4SL.

PH: 01371 812710

Mob: 07720 491810

jerry.randle@uk.g4s.com

From: [Redacted]

Sent: 09 May 2013 02:35

To: Randle, Jerry

Subject: Re: Ref: TEH.BJ.2.353 Complaint

I still haven't received any response from either you or Dr. Knight to my last email. Perhaps you could send me Dr. Dorsett's answers by email now.

From: [Redacted]

To: "Randle, Jerry"

Sent: Friday, May 3, 2013 4:01 PM

Subject: Re: Ref: TEH.BJ.2.353 Complaint

Hopefully Dr. Dorsett has had sufficient time by now to provide answers to my questions. I have not received any communication from Dr. Knight regarding a time for our phone conversation. Due to time zone differences it would be most convenient for me to arrange the call as late in the day as possible. In order to give some overlap with normal working hours in the UK I could manage 4:30 pm your time, but if Dr. Kinight is available later into the evening that would be much more convenient for me.

Regards, [Redacted].

From: "Randle, Jerry"

To: [Redacted]

Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2013 3:24 AM

Subject: RE: Ref: TEH.BJ.2.353 Complaint

Dear Mr [Redacted],

Given the nature of your questions, which only Dr Dorsett could answer, I have sent him the questions. I will ask Dr Knight to contact you and arrange a time to speak.

Kind regards,

Jerry Randle DFMS, SRPara, ECP

Clinical Governance Manager

G4S Forensic and Medical Services (UK) Limited

Units 6-9 The Bardfield Centre

Great Bardfield,

Essex, CM7 4SL.

PH: 01371 812710

Mob: 07720 491810

jerry.randle@uk.g4s.com

From: [Redacted]

Sent: 22 April 2013 19:27

To: Randle, Jerry

Subject: Re: Ref: TEH.BJ.2.353 Complaint

Dear Mr. Randle:

Dr. Dorsett's notes are not worth £10 to me, and therefore I will not be buying them. The identification documents are therefore a mute point, and I will not be sending them. I do however look forward to a phone conversation with Dr. Knight, and I will contact you to arrange a mutually convenient time after Dr. Knight has had an opportunity to peruse the questions. Might I respectfully suggest that if the questions that I have posed are not answered by Dr. Dorsett's notes then perhaps Dr. Knight could pose these questions to Dr. Dorsett in advance of our phone conversation.

Regards,

[Redacted].

From: "Randle, Jerry"

To: [Redacted]

Sent: Monday, April 22, 2013 4:20 AM

Subject: Ref: TEH.BJ.2.353 Complaint

Dear Mr [Redacted],

I’m sorry you find the prospect of paying £10 distasteful, however we are entitled to make a small charge. This is a standard, charge across the board. Your claim that G4S has caused you injury is not, at this time, substantiated. In contrast our investigation of the case has shown you received appropriate care. I will not waive fees, should you wish to take this further I will refer the case to a colleague who deals specifically with processing requests. Identification documents; G4S do not use a public key, I can only suggest you send the copies via recorded delivery, addressed to me. In the expectation we can overcome the issues above I will pass your questions on to Dr Knight, so we can still move forward.

Kind regards,

Jerry Randle DFMS, SRPara, ECP

Clinical Governance Manager

G4S Forensic and Medical Services (UK) Limited

Units 6-9 The Bardfield Centre

Great Bardfield,

Essex, CM7 4SL.

PH: 01371 812710

Mob: 07720 491810

jerry.randle@uk.g4s.com

From: [Redacted]

Sent: 20 April 2013 05:12

To: Randle, Jerry

Subject: Re: Ref: TEH.BJ.2.353 Complaint against Forensic Medical Examiner 16.11.12

Dear Mr. Randle:

Ref: TEH.BJ.2.353 Complaint against Forensic Medical Examiner 16.11.12 Thank you for your email of April 19th 2013. In that letter you suggest that I apply for a copy of Dr. Dorsett's notes under the Freedom of Information Act. I do not believe that this is the appropriate statute as the information in question constitutes personal data of which the applicant is the data subject (FOIA 2000, Part II, 40(1) ). Even the slightly more relevant Data Protection Act (DPA 1998) is not appropriate in the context of requesting disclosure of documents that you have indicated are the primary evidence upon which you have based the decision that we are about to discuss. I find the notion of paying £10 to an organization that has caused me injury, in the context of discussing that injury, to be distasteful. I also believe that there is no possible outcome of our discussion that would result in any material gain to me that could form a justification to pay you money for your efforts. If you have a bona fide interest in conducting a search for the truth then I see no reason why you should demand £10 for sending me an email. You already have the documents to hand, email is free. As for identification documents: I am happy to send a copy to you. However, since these documents are of a sensitive nature it is not appropriate to transmit them in the clear over a public network. I therefore ask that you provide me with your public key in order that I may encrypt these documents to you. You have asked that I forward some preliminary questions. Hopefully you will allow me to add to this list of questions in reaction to your answers, and if and when disclosure of Dr. Dorsett's notes is forthcoming.

  1. Why did Dr. Dorsett ask me about a specific website that he described as a jewelry web site?
  2. From whom, and in what manner, did Dr. Dorsett acquire the knowledge that web sites were relevant to my case? If the Police put him up to this, what did they tell him?
  3. Is it Dr. Dorsett's normal practice to ask randomly selected patients about jewelry websites?
  4. If the Police did not put him up to this, where did he get the idea of asking me about this jewelry website, or about websites in general?
  5. How are web sites about jewelry relevant to an alleged knife attack?
  6. How are web sites about jewelry relevant to my mental state?
  7. Why did Dr. Dorsett refuse to listen to my description of the cause of my psychological pain?
  8. Was Dr. Dorsett aware that the jewelry web site that he presented to me was not about jewelry? If so, does he know what it was about?
  9. When I pointed out to Dr. Dorsett that the web site that he had displayed for me on his computer screen was not about jewelry, why did he say, in an accusatory manner, that I must have created it because I knew it was not about jewelry? How does Dr. Dorsett justify his assertion in light of the fact that it was quite obvious to any observer looking at his computer screen that it was not about jewelry?
  10. Did the Police ask Dr. Dorsett to probe for information about web sites that I might have created? If so, how was this relevant to treating my medical condition?
  11. When Dr. Dorsett asked me if I created the Jewelry web site, and I told him that I did not, why did he become argumentative? When I suggested to him that if he did not believe me he could consult domaintools.com for that information, why did he fail to follow that suggestion?
  12. Why did Dr. Dorsett follow me back to my cell, and then repeat his questions about web sites in the presence of three Police officers? Was he attempting to impress those officers that he was part of the interrogation team?
  13. Why did Dr. Dorsett ask me repeatedly, to the point of harassment, to itemize all websites that I had created?
  14. When I provided Dr. Dorsett with an example of a website that I had created, about a regional law firm, why did he insist that no law firm would allow such a website to exist when clearly it did exist as he was looking right at it?
  15. Did the Police tell Dr. Dorsett that they wanted evidence to use against me that they could not obtain by other means?
  16. Why did Dr. Dorsett take advantage of my weakened psychological state, and my trust in the medical profession, in his attempt to obtain information useful to the Police?

From: "Randle, Jerry"

To: [Redacted]

Sent: Friday, April 19, 2013 4:00 AM

Subject: RE: Ref: TEH.BJ.2.353 Complaint against Forensic Medical Examiner 16.11.12

Dear Mr [Redacted],

I would be happy to provide you with a copy of Dr Dawsetts notes, to do this I must ask for;

  • a written request made under the Freedom of Information Act
  • a copy of your identification which includes a signature (Passport or Drivers License)
  • A cheque for £10
I don’t foresee any problem with you initiating the call which can be done via our call centre 01371 812600. To get the most out of the conversation and to allow Dr Knight time to prepare appropriately I suggest we agree a mutually convenient time once you have received the notes. You might consider forwarding some preliminary questions but I leave this at your discretion. At this stage I shall await receipt of the requested articles above before I progress further.

Kind regards,

Jerry Randle DFMS, SRPara, ECP

Clinical Governance Manager

G4S Forensic and Medical Services (UK) Limited

Units 6-9 The Bardfield Centre

Great Bardfield,

Essex, CM7 4SL.

PH: 01371 812710

Mob: 07720 491810

jerry.randle@uk.g4s.com

From: [Redacted]

Sent: 18 April 2013 22:12

To: Randle, Jerry

Subject: Re: Ref: TEH.BJ.2.353 Complaint against Forensic Medical Examiner 16.11.12

Dear Mr. Randle:

Re: TEH.BJ.2.353 Complaint against Forensic Medical Examiner 16.11.12 Thank you for your email of April 18th 2013. In relation to the seriousness of Dr. Dorsett's actions I would like to draw your attention to 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 patients 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. I would welcome an opportunity to have a telephone discussion with Dr Anthony Knight. However I am currently traveling outside of the UK and so it is logistically difficult for me to provide a phone number. Perhaps you would permit me to initiate the call as this would simplify matters considerably. I confirm that the jurisdiction from which I will place the call has “Single Party Consent”; that means that it is lawful to record a telephone call if any party to the call consents, and since you will be recording the call your consent is implicit. I am concerned that Dr. Knight's investigation seems to have been based to a large extent, if not entirely, on the notes taken by Dr. Dorsett. I am concerned that Dr. Dorsett may have failed to record the full extent of his own actions. Thus I ask if you could email me a copy of Dr. Dorsett's notes prior to our phone call in order that we could discuss the evidence on which Dr. Knight's decision is based.

Regards, [Redacted].

From: "Randle, Jerry"

To: [Redacted]

Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2013 9:11 AM

Subject: Ref: TEH.BJ.2.353 Complaint against Forensic Medical Examiner 16.11.12

Dear Mr [Redacted],

My name is Jerry Randle, I am the Clinical Governance Manager for G4S Medical Services. Your letter of complaint, dated 23rd February 2013, was forwarded to me by the Burlington Primary Care Centre, BPCC. Your reference TEH.BJ.2.353 “Complaint of fraud, dishonesty and a serious breach of a patient’s confidentiality” I apologise for the time it has taken for me to address your concerns. Just to clarify why I am dealing with the letter and not the BPCC. Dr Dawsett is employed by both BPCC and G4S Medical Services and it was during a shift with G4S that Dr Dawsett saw you at the “Bury PIC”. We take your allegations very seriously and as part of our procedure I asked our Clinical Lead Dr Anthony Knight to review the notes made by Dr Dawsett. Dr Knight’s assessment of the notes and information recorded led him to believe the questions posed by Dr Dawsett were appropriate and constituted a mental state assessment which dealt specifically with your individual circumstances. Although contracted by the police G4S medical staff are obligated to remain objective and are there to ensure the medical welfare and rights of detainees are preserved. Given the challenges you have faced in the past and your “...long history of disputes with the police...” (outlined in your letter) I appreciate you may feel this assessment to be biased? I have asked Dr Knight if he would be willing to discuss his findings with you via telephone and he has agreed to speak to you directly. This conversation would be via the G4S call centre and would be recorded (all calls via our call centre are recorded). If you would like to speak to Dr Knight please let me know your telephone number and a date and time which is convenient for you.

Kind regards,

Jerry Randle DFMS, SRPara, ECP

Clinical Governance Manager

G4S Forensic and Medical Services (UK) Limited

Units 6-9 The Bardfield Centre

Great Bardfield,

Essex, CM7 4SL.

PH: 01371 812710

Mob: 07720 491810

jerry.randle@uk.g4s.com

Please consider the environment before printing this email. ********************************************************************* This communication may contain information which is confidential, personal and/or privileged. It is for the exclusive use of the intended recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient(s), please note that any distribution, forwarding, copying or use of this communication or the information in it is strictly prohibited. If you have received it in error please contact the sender immediately by return e-mail. Please then delete the e-mail and any copies of it and do not use or disclose its contents to any person. Any personal views expressed in this e-mail are those of the individual sender and the company does not endorse or accept responsibility for them. Prior to taking any action based upon this e-mail message, you should seek appropriate confirmation of its authenticity. This message has been checked for viruses on behalf of the company. ********************************************************************* The details of the company, which is part of the G4S group of companies, are included below:

G4S Secure Solutions is the trading name of G4S Regional Management (UK&I) Limited, Registered Office: Southside, 105 Victoria Street, London, SW1E 6QT. Registered in England No. 3189802.

G4S Assessment Services (UK) Limited, Registered in England No. 6854506.
G4S Care and Justice Services (UK) Limited, Registered in England No. 390328.
G4S Forensic and Medical Services (UK) Limited, Registered in England No. 5121608.
G4S Government and Outsourcing Services (UK) Limited, Registered in England No.3175173.
G4S Integrated Services (UK) Limited, Registered in England No. 3333860.
G4S Investigation Solutions (UK) Limited, Registered in England No. 3749819.
G4S Medical Services (UK) Limited, Registered in England No. 3670120.
G4S Monitoring Technologies Limited, Registered in England No. 2626613.
G4S Ordnance Management Limited, Registered in England No. 7068855.
G4S Policing Solutions Limited, Registered in England No. 4505239.
G4S Risk Management Limited, Registered in England No. 1540857.
G4S Secure Solutions (Iraq) Limited, Registered in England No.5128617.
G4S Specialist Training (UK) Limited, Registered in England No. 4047630.
G4S Utility and Outsourcing Services (UK) Limited, Registered in England No. 3076187.
The Registered office of all the above companies is Southside, 105 Victoria Street, London, SW1E 6QT.

G4S Aviation Services (UK) Limited, Registered in England No. 2837136.
G4S Secure Solutions (UK) Limited, Registered in England No. 1046019.
Group 4 Total Security Limited, Registered in England No.2380900.
Securicor ADI Group Limited, Registered in England No.2831083.
G4S FSI Limited, Registered in England No.6304482.
G4S Cash Solutions (UK) Limited, Registered in England No.354883.
G4S Cash Centres (UK) Limited, Registered in England No.1485104.
G4S Cash Centres (Basingstoke), Registered in England No.2220935.
G4S CIT (UK) Limited, Registered in England No.1973525.
G4S Bullion Solutions (UK) Limited, Registered in England No.7860383.
The Registered office of all the above companies is Sutton Park House, 15 Carshalton Road, Sutton, Surrey SM1 4LD.

This message has been scanned for malware by Websense. www.websense.com

From: "Randle, Jerry"

Sent: Thu, 30 May 2013 11:50:27 +0000

To: [Redacted], Tony Knight

Subject: RE: Ref: TEH.BJ.2.353 Complaint

Dear Mr [Redacted],

Dr Knight is my senior, my commitment was made in the event of Dr Knight not replying to you. He has replied. If you were truly concerned about “future victims” you would go to the GMC and not try to threaten Dr Knight or I with media exposure, which may give you some fleeting attention but will not give you redress. My conscience is clear and I am proud to work for G4S Forensic and Medical Services. Dr Knight has satisfied himself that Dr Dorsett’s examination was appropriate, G4S has nothing further to add. Personally, I would hate to live in a world where I thought everyone was out to get me. Have you ever considered the problem could be more to do with your perception? As you feel we have not satisfactorily answered your concerns the most effective and appropriate way for you to take the matter further would be via the GMC, I encourage you to do this. I will not engage in further correspondence with you.

Kind regards,

Jerry Randle DFMS, SRPara, ECP

Clinical Governance Manager

G4S Forensic and Medical Services (UK) Limited

Units 6-9 The Bardfield Centre

Great Bardfield,

Essex, CM7 4SL.

PH: 01371 812710

Mob: 07720 491810

jerry.randle@uk.g4s.com

From: [Redacted]

Sent: 29 May 2013 21:53

To: Randle, Jerry; Tony Knight

Subject: Re: Ref: TEH.BJ.2.353 Complaint

Dear Mr. Randle:

Are you going to honor your commitment to send me the answers given to my questions by Dr. Dorsett? Will it be necessary to ask these questions to the board at the upcoming shareholder's meeting at Salters' Hall in full view of the media? I will be careful to get your names correct. Of course, I may be trampled by all the other victims with similar intentions: http://stopg4s.net/node/80 I note in passing that the Guardian newspaper doesn't like you either: http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/g4s I end by reminding you that Richard Nixon was not impeached for Watergate, he was impeached for attempting to cover up Watergate. I asked only that you made reasonable changes to protect future victims from the likes of Dr. Dorsett. You could have kept this in your own back yard.


General Medical Council (GMC)

I wrote to General Medical Council regarding the behaviour of Dr. Dean Dorsett. I wrote to this address:

General Medical Council Fitness to Practise Directorate
3 Hardman Street
Manchester
M3 3AW

I also sent a copy of my letter by email to: practise@gmc-uk.org

A copy of the letter is provided here. For the moment personally identifiable information has been redacted.

CLICK HERE TO SEE THE LETTER ==> Letter to General Medical Council

Burlington Primary Care

I wrote to Burlington Primary Care regarding the behaviour of their partner Dr. Dean Dorsett. I wrote to this address:

Caryl Heath
Practice Manager
Burlington Primary Care
14 Burlington Road
Ipswich
IP1 2EU

They did not reply to me, but I later learned that they had passed on my complaint to G4S. Their reason was that Dr. Dean Dorsett was working for G4S at the time he attempted to conduct an interrogation of me.

A copy of the letter is provided here. For the moment personally identifiable information has been redacted.

CLICK HERE TO SEE THE LETTER ==> Letter to Burlington Primary Care

Richard Bacon MP

Amongst all the organizations and public servants that are supposed to protect the public from situations such as the one I found myself in, the only one that has helped me is my Member of Parliament, Richard Bacon MP. When all the others were covering up for their colleagues, defending a system they knew to be at Richard Bacon MP Richard Bacon MP fault, taking the cowardly way out, only Richard Bacon MP had the courage and integrity to help the victim. For this I will be eternally grateful. It is refreshing to know that there are still some people in the UK who have the courage to do the right thing.

Even amongst MPs this is a rare attribute. At various times in my life I have asked for help from two other MPs. They were utterly useless, just like all the other spineless time wasters that you will read about on this website. But Richard Bacon MP stands out from the crowd; he was willing and able to help his constituent in their time of need. I will be voting for Richard Bacon at all elections from now on. I encourage anybody else living in his constituency to do likewise. Even if you do not agree with his political agenda, or the agenda of his party, please vote for him anyway. It is more important to have a MP that will help you when you most need his help than to concern yourself solely with political agenda.

I also want to extend my thanks to the staff that work for Richard Bacon's office. In particular I would like to extend my gratitude to senior caseworkers Michele Savage and Jo Church, and office manager Tracy Reeve for their help with this matter.

The website of the UK Parliament states that: “MPs can assist their constituents in a variety of ways, from making private enquiries on your behalf, to raising matters publicly in the House of Commons”.

I first wrote to Richard Bacon MP on November 7th 2013. I sent a detailed account of the problems that I personally was facing as a result of this situation. Mr Bacon has achieved the following progress:

  • The Police are now treating me as the victim and [Redacted] as the offender
  • The Police are putting rapid response measures in effect to protect against future attacks by the gang upon me
  • The Police have taken a crime report from me regarding the knife attack upon me by [Redacted]
  • The police are interviewing witnesses to the previous multiple assailant attack

Mr Bacon has also informed me that he will write to the Minister of State for Policing and Criminal Justice, currently Damian Green, if that becomes necessary to remedy this matter.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE ==> Letter from Richard Bacon MP


PS 3022 David Burke

Richard Bacon MP made arrangements with the police to accept a crime report from me regarding the knife attack upon me by [Redacted], and to provide protection for me from the neighbourhood gang. I was contacted by PS Burke PS David Burke PS David Burke to make the necessary arrangements. He identified himself as a patrol sergeant, part of SNT Patrol Team 5, based at Diss Police Station. Initially he appeared helpful. He accepted the crime report from me, and put some protective measures in place. In particular PS Burke:

  • Apologized for the long time delay in getting the police to treat me as the victim
  • Agreed to talk to witnesses of the previous multiple assailant attack upon me by the neighbourhood gang to obtain evidence of, inter alia, [Redacted] throwing punches at me while gang members held him back
  • Agreed to make it clear to [Redacted] and all other gang members that the knife attack upon me by [Redacted] was now being re-investigated with me in the role of victim and [Redacted] in the role of offender
  • Agreed to provide me with regular status reports every two weeks

I left the meeting with PS Burke feeling that at last justice would be served. But it was not long before the disappointment set in. After almost a month had elapsed, and still no update from PS Burke, I asked him to provide a status update. He told me that he was in the process of talking to the witnesses to the multiple assailant attack upon me. He told me that he intended to get that completed within his next 6 shifts. Another 2 weeks elapsed and PS Burke did not provide me with any update. I therefore asked him again for a status update. He told me that he would be out of town for 2 weeks, and that he had already (past tense) delegated the task of speaking to the remaining witnesses to one of his colleagues. This implied that some witnesses had already been spoken to. It also clearly stated, with no ambiguity, that talking to these witnesses was already in progress. After another 2 weeks had elapsed, and still no update from PS Burke, I contacted him again. PS Burke did not respond, even though I know he read my email as I received an automated return receipt that I had requested from his email system. After another 2 days had elapsed I contacted PS Burke again asking for a status update. After another 2 days of email exchanges that contained no substantive information PS Burke told me that there would be no further investigation in this case. I then asked PS Burke point by point which of his promises he had carried out. It took another two weeks, and several iterations of emails, to get a complete answer from PS Burke. He then told me that he never had any intention of speaking to the witnesses, or of investigating the knife attack upon me by [Redacted]. Not only had PS Burke broken all his promises to me, but since he had previously told me that the investigation was in progress, then later told me that he never had any intention of investigating, he had outright lied to me.

In my email correspondence with PS Burke I asked him if the Police/CPS had arranged for a forensic expert to give an opinion on the likely cause of the tiny scratch on [Redacted]' finger tip. PS Burke responded as follows:

The photograph was not sent off for 'forensic examination'. This is not a proportionate line of enquiry, and it would be incredibly difficult for any 'expert' to conclude with any authority what had caused a minor injury on a finger.

The Police/CPS spent 12 weeks, and a large amount of taxpayer's money, conducting what they described as “difficult” DNA forensic tests on the knives taken from my home in an attempt to incriminate me. But yet they consider that asking an expert to look at a photograph of the alleged knife wound would have been disproportionate! The alleged knife wound was a pivotal part of the case against me. If the case had gone to trial a jury would have been asked to look at the photograph to decide if the cut on [Redacted]' finger tip was a knife wound. But yet it was too much trouble to have a forensic expert look at the photograph of the finger cut! I believe that the real reason was that they were only interested in evidence that supported the accusations against me, and wanted to conceal any exculpatory evidence.

It is also worth noting that PS Burke describes the finger scratch as “a minor injury”. But yet one of the reasons given by the Police/CPS to justify their decision to arrest me, and not to arrest [Redacted], was that [Redacted] sustained greater injuries than me. Not only is that of no probative value in determining who was the aggressor, but since the only injury sustained by [Redacted] was the finger scratch, the differences between his injuries and mine are also trivial.

In his final email to me PS Burke invited me to phone him at Diss police station for an explanation. I called him one time only after receiving his email invitation. His attitude towards me was immediately hostile and combative. He said: “I will not be interrogated by you”. The conversation ended with no satisfactory explanation.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE ==> Email Correspondence with David Burke

Complaint to IPCC and Professional Standards about PS David Burke

I filed a complaint with the Independent Police Complaints Commission, IPCC, about the behaviour of PS Burke. This was passed on to Andy Bushell of Professional Standards. The report of the Professional Services Investigation is available by clicking the link below:


Andy Bushell states in his report: “You indicated that you wished to make a counter assault allegation against [Redacted]. You were given the opportunity during your detention to make the allegation but chose not to provide the information for this to take place”. Thus Andy Bushell is clearly aware that I asked to file a crime report at the time of my arrest. At my interview I was clearly told that I would not be allowed to file a crime report at that time, and not until after I was released. Thus when Andy Bushell says: “You were given the opportunity during your detention to make the allegation but chose not to provide the information for this to take place” he is outright lying. I was not given any such opportunity. Any questions put to me in an interview under caution following my arrest are designed to build a case against me, and for no other purpose. The police made it very clear to me that in order for me to “have the opportunity … to make an allegation” I would first have to wait until I was released, and then file a crime report alleging that [Redacted] attacked me. This procedural issue is difficult for the layman to understand, and so Andy Bushell exploits this confusion to hide what really happened.

PS David Burke states that my crime report was not sufficient to arrest [Redacted]: “His MG11 alone does not provide sufficient evidence to prosecute”. But yet [Redacted]' allegation was sufficient to get me arrested and charged. So, why the difference in response to my report and [Redacted]' report? The evidence was the same in both cases, so why the different outcome? The reason was that if they arrested [Redacted] they would be admitting that they had previously sent the wrong person to prison. The police and CPS will go to any lengths to avoid admitting their mistake.

PS David Burke goes on to say: “The gathered evidence suggests that [Redacted] is a victim and he gives his account in the form of an MG11 at the time of the offence”. What evidence? There was none! The only independent witness, Mrs. Rosemary Steer, stated that she did not see a knife and did not see an assault. She only confirmed that [Redacted] had told her that I had a knife, she did not see any knife. There is no evidence beyond [Redacted]' own assertion. Thus there is no more evidence that I assaulted [Redacted] than that he assaulted me.

Later PS David Burke states: “Ultimately, there are no independent witnesses who can for certain say who was the aggressor in this incident”. Thus PS David Burke is contradicting his own statement given in the paragraph above. PS Burke cannot even keep his own story straight as to his reasons for his own actions. He is now saying that the evidence against me is identical to the evidence against [Redacted]. PS David Burke states clearly that the police did not know who was the aggressor, but yet I went to prison for 12 weeks, and [Redacted] did not.

PS David Burke states that he would speak to about 10 witnesses to the earlier multiple assailant attack upon me by [Redacted] and his gang. Then PS Burke said that he was going on annual leave and had arranged for his colleague to speak to these witnesses. Then he said that he would only speak to the witnesses if they offered new evidence. How could he possibly know if they had any new evidence until he spoke to them? This is a ridiculous excuse to avoid speaking to the witnesses. Then he said that he would not be speaking to any witnesses and never had any intention of doing so. How can willfully refusing to talk to witnesses ever be in the interests of finding the truth? How can deliberately suppressing evidence ever be in the interests of justice? The only reason that PS Burke refused to talk to the witnesses was that he was afraid of what they might tell him.

PS Burke refers to a previous conviction that I had for assault. This was also the result of a multiple assailant street attack upon me. In that case I defended myself with the minimum necessary force. I won that fight. I made a full report to the Police at interview, but they decided to charge me anyway. It seems that if one is attacked by multiple assailants then those assailants are considered to be multiple witnesses against one. Thus the victim of a multiple assailant attack is by definition the guilty party! I was remanded in that case. During my remand I was repeatedly offered a deal: Either I could insist on my innocence and stay in prison for 3-6 months waiting on a trial date, or I could make a false confession and be released immediately. I took the deal, and was released. Perhaps some of my readers will criticize my actions in making a false confession in that case, but I ask you to examine your own mind and ask yourselves what you would do in such a situation. Would you sacrifice months of your life in order to win the moral high ground against an uncaring system? Indeed, I think that situation reflects badly on a criminal justice system that would use remand as an interrogation weapon to extort a false confession. My confession was de facto a ransom paid for my release. Now PS Burke has sought to use my previous conviction for assault as evidence of bad character against me. He claims that this prior conviction is evidence that I was the aggressor in the fight between myself and [Redacted]. But yet PS Burke, in his same report, states that evidence of [Redacted]' participation in a previous multiple assailant attack upon me is of no evidential value. PS Burke states: “Even if this offence had been proved against [Redacted], bad character cannot bolster a weak case”. So my alleged bad character is evidence that I was the aggressor, but [Redacted]' bad character is of no evidential value. Once again PS Burke wants to have his cake and eat it too. Also, my assault conviction was the result of me defending myself against multiple aggressors ‐ I did not start that fight. [Redacted]' bad character is the result of him taking part in a cowardly multiple assailant attack on one old man. So, just who has the worst character? Which of us is the more likely to be the aggressor in the fight between myself and [Redacted]?

What really happened here is that during PS Burke's investigation he came to realize that if [Redacted] was arrested and charged it would embarrass his colleagues and the Norfolk Constabulary. This fact then dominated his thinking and he looked for ways to make my crime report go away. Instead of investigating to find the truth and give me justice he instead looked for excuses to drop the case. PS Burke perverted justice, and conspired with others to pervert justice, in order to hide the sordid truth that they had sent an innocent person to prison.

The only criticism that the Professional Standards Investigation made of PS Burke was in managing my expectations: “the officer has received Management Action in terms of advice concerning the need to update victims of crime within the required time scales. This process has afforded the officer the opportunity to reflect upon the requirement to update victims in accordance with the victim code”. This is a totally trivial rebuke that was not even a primary issue in my complaint.

Follow Up by Richard Bacon MP

I wrote again to Richard Bacon MP informing him that the police were refusing to arrest and charge [Redacted]. Mr. Bacon again interceded with the police, but was unable get a result. Mr. Bacon's response is available by clicking on the link below.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE ==> Second Letter from Richard Bacon MP

A MP has no authority to order the police to do anything when acting on behalf of a constituent. All they can do is pass on the citizen's concerns to their contacts within the police. However MPs do have power to change the law. I wish that Richard Bacon MP, and other MPs, would use that power to rectify the problems within an out of control police force. The police, and other components of the criminal justice system, are a danger to society. Only new legislation can fix the problem. I urge my readers to contact your own MPs and ask that they use their power to change the bad laws that allow a rouge criminal justice system to continue unfettered.

United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR)

A written complaint letter was sent to the United Nations at their published address for the receipt of Human Rights complaints. That address is:

Complaint Procedure Unit
Human Rights Council Branch
Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights
United Nations Office at Geneva
CH-1211 Geneva 10
Switzerland

There was no response, not even an acknowledgment of receipt. The letter was also sent to the published email address for Human Rights Complaints. That address is: CP@ohchr.org Likewise there was no response to this communication either. A followup email was sent to the same address asking them to confirm whether or not they had received the earlier correspondence. This email was also ignored. No response of any kind has been received from the United Nations.

I find it hard to understand why the United Nations would behave in such an un-businesslike manner as to ignore correspondence directly relating to a blatant breach of a UN Resolution by a nation state. In any event basic business etiquette would require at least an acknowledgment of receipt. If they considered my correspondence to be inappropriate they could at least reply telling me so.

A copy of the letter is provided here. For the moment personally identifiable information has been redacted. The letter was accompanied by copies of all relevant correspondence that had been sent to other organizations.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE ==> Letter to United Nations OHCHR

After this website was published the United Nations Office in Vienna UNOV, and the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime UNODC, read this website many times. However, they made no attempt whatsoever to contact me to discuss the situation described here. They preferred to skulk from the shadows, reading what was written about them. I know this from analysis of the server logs.

Norfolk Police and Crime Commissioner

Stephen Bett Norfolk PCC Stephen Bett A Police and Crime Commissioner is required by law to carry out a set of functions prescribed by the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act (2011), and the Police Act (1996 and 2011 amendment). In summary the function of the Norfolk PCC is to represent the people of Norfolk, and to control the police in the interests of the people. Stephen Bett brags on his website that he “hires and fires” the Chief Constable. Stephen Bett is thus saying, in very clear language, that he has absolute power to deal with complaints against the Norfolk Constabulary. The buck stops with Stephen Bett.

The PCC hires (and, if necessary, fires) the Chief Constable and holds him/her to account for running the force. He also sets Norfolk’s policing priorities and monitors performance against those priorities. - Norfolk PCC Website

On another page on his website, Stephen Bett discusses “Supporting Victims - Providing support services for victims and witnesses of crime”. He then goes on to applaud his Code of Practice claiming that it “puts victims at the heart of policing and criminal justice”. He states: “Among the revisions to the Victims’ Code is a broadening of the definition of victim, aimed at ensuring services and support can be accessed by all victims regardless of the type of crime by which they’ve been affected”.

Victims’ needs must be at the heart of both policing and criminal justice. It is vital that victims are properly supported and have a choice and a voice. The introduction of the Code in 2013 was a step towards achieving that. Any change to the Code which improves access to information and quality support services for those affected by crime is to be welcomed. - Stephen Bett, Norfolk PCC

A large part of Stephen Bett’s website is devoted to telling a story of how he is dedicated to helping victims. He states that the Police and Crime Commissioner is a “service provider” that is responsible for helping victims. But all this is of course utter hypocrisy! When I asked for his help in dealing with a lethal situation in which I was the victim his immediate response was to toss the problem over the wall back to the police. For avoidance of doubt: He did not use his authority to order the police to rectify the problem. Rather he just washed his hands of the matter and allowed the Professional Standards Department to drop the matter saying that they had already dealt with the matter on a previous occasion.

Under the Code, which was revised and re-published in November 2015, your PCC is a ‘service provider’, responsible for providing support services to victims of crime. Services must be available for those who wish to contact the police and for those who seek support but do not want the police to be involved - Stephen Bett, Norfolk PCC

Another fundamental failure in all of the complaint handling is the classification of who is the victim and who is the offender. If these roles are reversed then even a system that would otherwise be effective at helping the victim is perverted into hurting the victim yet further. If the victim is treated as the offender, subjected to yet further damage, cost, imprisonment and embarrassment, then the full force of the system is employed to hurt the victim. Likewise, when the offenders are pandered to, treated like they are the victim, it causes yet further damage to the real victim. The first, and most important, step in rectifying an injustice is to correctly assign the roles of victim and offender.

Stephen Bett’s website also talks at length about restorative justice. In any restorative justice program the first step is for the offender to admit what they have done. Only then can they accept responsibility for the damage they have caused. I am the victim of the police and the Crown Prosecution Service. They both refuse to accept responsibility for their actions. Stephen Bett will not make any attempt to intercede in any meaningful way. His claims to be a ‘service provider’ and his claims to be victim focused, are utter lies and hypocrisy.

Stephen Bett Fails To Handle The Situation And Gives Me the Runaround

Well, let’s see how Stephen Bett lives up to all his claims: I wrote to Stephen Bett describing the situation that I was facing with the Norfolk Constabulary. I made it clear to him that the case had already been willfully frustrated several times by Professional Standards and IPCC. Mr. Bett’s response was to send the complaint right back to Professional Standards. Mr. Bett conspicuously ignored the description of the life threatening situation, the absurdity of the advice given by the police, the clear allegation that the police were covering up their prior mistakes by refusing to conduct a proper investigation now, and the fact that the behaviour of the police contradicted their own published policies. My letter made it clear to Mr. Bett that the intervention of the Police and Crime Commissioner was needed as all other avenues within the police and IPCC had been exhausted. What did Mr. Bett do? He kicked it right back to the very police departments that were being complained about.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE ==> First Letter From Stephen Bett and PSD

I received a response from Mr. Beverley Sewell and Mr. M. Petersen of Professional Services. They stated that the current complaint was “substantially similar” to an earlier complaint. Of course it was not really “substantially similar”, rather it was identical, it was the very same complaint. Of course Mr. Bett knew this because he had deliberately and wilfully sent it back to Professional Standards in order to run me around in circles yet again. Mr. Petersen says that he will not record the complaint because “The complaint is repetitious; You previously raised substantially the same issues under complaint reference PS 247/13. At that time you were provided with an outcome and a right of appeal. You exercised this right and your appeal was not upheld”. Mr. Petersen is criticizing me for sending the same complaint back to Professional Services; but I did not send it back to them again, Stephen Bett did. This technique of frustrating legitimate complaints falls into the category of “Using Previous Failures to Justify Refusing to Act Later”. It is one of a standard set of techniques used by Professional Standards, IPCC, and now Stephen Bett.

In that same letter Messrs. Sewell and Petersen told me that Professional Standards did not have a remit to address complaints about the Police and Crime Commissioner and so they were forwarding that part of the complaint to IPCC. But yet the website of the Police and Crime Commissioner says that IPCC will forward all complaints about the Police and Crime Commissioner to the Chief Executive of the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner for Norfolk. Stephen Bett, the Police and Crime Commissioner for Norfolk, obviously knew that when he sent a complaint about himself to Professional Standards. So, here we go around the Mulberry Bush yet again. And while these deadbeats conspire to protect and cover up for each other, their salaries are paid for out of the public purse. They are a financial burden to the people of Norfolk as well as wasting the victim’s time.

I received another letter from the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner, this one authored by one of Stephen Bett’s assistants, Sharon Lister. In this letter Ms. Lister said: “I am writing to advise you that all complaints made in relation to the Norfolk Police and Crime Commissioner are dealt with by the Norfolk Police and Crime Panel … Your correspondence has been forwarded to the Police and Crime Panel for assessment”. So, yet another conflicting statement from Mr. Bett’s office as to who handles complaints about his behaviour. It seems that creating confusion as to where to send complaints is yet another technique in their arsenal of weapons of obstruction.

I informed Sharon Lister and Stephen Bett that all their statements about who handles complaints about the Police and Crime Commissioner were wrong. I informed them that complaints about Mr. Stephen Bett, the Norfolk Police and Crime Commissioner, are dealt with by the voters on election day. I told him that his trying to justify his actions by pretending to subject himself to independent investigation was not fooling anyone. The “Norfolk Police and Crime Panel” are his buddies, and will always pat him on the back and say “well done” no matter what he has done. This is in no way a legitimate investigation.


I then received a letter from another of Mr. Bett’s assistants, Claire Buckley. She states that: “The Professional Standards Department of Norfolk Constabulary and personnel working within that Department, come under the direction and control of the Chief Constable and not the Police and Crime Commissioner”. In other words she is telling me that the Police and Crime Commissioner, Stephen Bett, has no control over, or responsibility for, the actions of Professional Standards, or indeed any police officer. She then advises me to complain to IPCC yet again. But yet Stephen Bett has made it very clear on his website that he has complete control over the Norfolk Constabulary. I wrote back to Stephen Bett reminding him that he does have control over Professional Standards, albeit an indirect control by way of his control over the Chief Constable. To spell it out in little baby steps:

  1. Mr. Stephen Bett, the Norfolk Police and Crime Commissioner, orders the Chief Constable to order his employees to fix the problem.
  2. If his employees refuse to fix the problem, then the Chief Constable fires the offending employees.
  3. If the Chief Constable defies this order, then the Norfolk Police and Crime Commissioner fires the Chief Constable.
  4. If the Norfolk Police and Crime Commissioner refuses to do his duty, then the electorate fires the Norfolk Police and Crime Commissioner on Thursday 5th May 2016.
Now, hopefully that clarifies the purpose and duties of the Norfolk Police and Crime Commissioner, and the chain of command within the Norfolk Constabulary, in such a manner that even Stephen Bett can understand it.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE ==> Third Letter To Stephen Bett / Claire Buckley

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE ==> Fourth Letter To Stephen Bett

Of course all this talk about the Professional Standards Department is itself a red herring; just another obstructive, evasive detour engineered by Stephen Bett and his numerous assistants. Let’s not lose sight of the fact that my original purpose in contacting the Police and Crime Commissioner was not to complain about Professional Services. Rather, my true purpose was to ask Stephen Bett to fix these problems:

  1. The bullying by a local neighbourhood gang
  2. The attempt murder of me by a member of that gang
  3. The sending of the victim to prison without trial
  4. The refusal to act against the offenders
  5. The emboldening of the offenders by treating them as the victim
  6. The refusal to talk to witnesses that would provide evidence contrary to the version the police wanted to tell
  7. The coverup of Police incompetence
  8. The failure of the Police to follow their own published policies and procedures
I asked Stephen Bett to address these issues. I told him that Professional Standards had refused to address the matter, and that was why I was asking the Police and Crime Commissioner to deal with the original issues. Mr. Bett had no legitimate reason to involve Professional Standards again.


Also on Mr. Bett's website he lists the campaign promises that he made at the last election in 2012. These included:

  • Support victims of crime, vulnerable and elderly people
  • Use targeting and prevention to reduce demand on police
  • Listen carefully to the community, reaching out to minority communities and the disengaged to ensure policing is fair and equitable
  • Reduce vulnerability, promote equality and support victims
Mr. Bett has failed miserably in achieving these commitments. Let’s take a look at just how miserably Stephen Bett has failed to keep his campaign promises:

I am a victim of crime. He has failed to support me. Indeed, his police have sent me to prison without trial for being the victim of a knife attack on the street. On his watch his police have failed to send the attacker to prison, or even to arrest him. He has failed to address the issue of making the victim the subject of a restraining order to protect the attacker, thus further emboldening the offenders. Not only does he refuse to target the neighbourhood gang that attacked me, but indeed he allows his police to refuse to talk to witnesses that would tell them what really happened. This is willful ignorance on the part of his police. He is allowing his police officers to conspire to cover up their own incompetence. He refuses to listen to me, instead giving me the runaround. He allows his police to take active steps to perpetrate the vulnerability of victims. He promotes inequality, applying different standards to me and the gang members that attacked me.

Stephen Bett’s website promotes Restorative Justice. The first step in Restorative Justice is for the offender to admit their actions. I am the victim of the Norfolk Constabulary. Before there can be any Restorative Justice the Norfolk Constabulary must man up to what they have done to me. But of course Stephen Bett has no intention of allowing that to happen. Instead Stephen Bett and his police force will insist that they have not made any error no matter how rigorous the evidence to the contrary. Thus Stephen Bett frustrates Restorative Justice in my case.

Stephen Bett Gets A Taste Of His Own Medicine

The BBC reports an interesting tale of poetic justice involving Stephen Bett: HM Revenue & Customs, HMRC, forced Mr. Bett to repay £2,700 in mileage expenses that he had claimed for traveling between his home and the Police HQ. HMRC insists that Mr. Bett is not entitled to claim these expenses. Mr. Bett is not happy with that decision: He insists that the government agency is in the wrong. Mr. Bett is quoted as saying that he would: “fight until I get HMRC to admit they are wrong”. Indeed the BBC reports several other interesting quotes from Mr. Bett on this matter. Here are a few of them:

No-one wants to make a decision and it seems that my papers are currently lost in the system - Mr. Stephen Bett Complaining About HMRC Handling Of His Expenses
It’s typical of a government department, they are ineffective - Mr. Stephen Bett Complaining About HMRC Handling Of His Expenses
They keep passing my case around and want to be as obstructive as possible in order to avoid a tribunal hearing - Mr. Stephen Bett Complaining About HMRC Handling Of His Expenses

Well, Mr. Bett, do you see any similarities between your situation and mine? You don’t like it one little bit when a government agency gives you the runaround do you Mr. Bett? So why do you do the exact same thing to me? Why do you allow the Norfolk Constabulary, Professional Standards, and even the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner, to run me around in circles, trying their very best to wear me down, doing everything in their power to frustrate valid complaints? And as you are very well aware Mr. Bett, your agency has treated me far worse, and ran me around to a much greater extent, than HMRC did to you. You have stated on your website, Mr. Bett, that you hire and fire the Chief Constable of Norfolk. Thus you are saying, Mr. Bett, that you have total control over the Norfolk Constabulary. The buck stops with you Mr. Bett. So, why do you do unto others that which you cannot abide being done to you? Mr. Bett - You are a hypocrite!

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE AT BBC WEBSITE ==> Stephen Bett Gets Runaround From Government Agency


Bett Family Values

Henry Bett Henry Bett Stephen Bett raised more than a few eyebrows when he publicly declared that speed limits should be abolished, and drivers should be allowed to drive as fast as they wanted. Mr. Bett’s opinion has been denounced by, inter alia, the Guild of Experienced Motorists, David Quarmby, chairman of the RAC Foundation and Tim Passmore, the Police and Crime Commissioner for the neighbouring county, Suffolk.

So, should speed limits be abolished? What could go wrong with that? Well, Stephen Bett’s son, Henry Bett, drove his Fendt tractor at high speed down a narrow country lane in Norfolk. He certainly drove his tractor at a speed way higher than he could safely control his vehicle. He was at the time in a cocaine induced rage. He crashed head on into a Fiat driven by Rebecca Brown. She was killed in the crash. Her son Thomas was also in the Fiat. He desperately tried to resuscitate his mother. Thomas was only 17 years old at the time. He held his mother in his arms and watched her die. Henry Bett only sustained quite trivial injuries in the crash.

Rebecca Brown Rebecca Brown What happened next gives us clear insight into the ethics of Henry Bett: He continued to drive for a considerable distance before returning to the scene. Even then he did nothing to help the dying victim. While other passing motorists stopped and tried to help, Henry Bett just stood around making a series of gormless attempts to shed responsibility for the collision. First he claimed that he was on the correct side of the road and the Fiat was in the middle of the road. This was later refuted by forensic evidence that showed Henry Bett was driving in the middle of the road, and the Fiat driven by Mrs. Brown was well over on the correct side of the road. Indeed, immediately prior to the collision, Mrs. Brown drove her Fiat onto the verge to allow Mr. Bett to avoid hitting her. But, he hit her anyway. The force of the collision was sufficient to demolish one side of the Fiat, the side where Mrs. Brown was seated. Next Mr. Bett claimed that his speed was not his fault because the governor that limited the speed of his tractor was malfunctioning. Forensic examination revealed that this also was a lie. It was also irrelevant: A driver does not need a governor to tell them that their current speed is so dangerously high that they cannot avoid hitting oncoming traffic. Henry Bett also lied about how recently he had used cocaine. He claimed he had last used the drug 4 days before the crash. Expert testimony revealed that he had used cocaine no longer than 12 hours before the crash.

Fendt Tractor Fendt Tractor So, was this behaviour out of character for Henry Bett? Well, no, it was his normal behaviour. This is proven by the fact that at the time of this fatal collision Henry Bett was already being prosecuted for another incident involving speeding and careless driving in his Land Rover. He also has four prior speeding convictions in the previous four years.

Did Henry Bett show any remorse for the death he caused? No, he did not. Right through the trial he continued to blame Rebecca Brown for the collision. He only cried when the jury returned a guilty verdict and the judge told him he would be going to prison. He wept for himself, not for Rebecca Brown.

So, does this behaviour of Henry Bett reflect on the Police and Crime Commissioner Stephen Bett? I believe it does. The son works on the same farm owned by his father. They are thus in close contact every day. The father has repeatedly and publicly shown disdain for speed limits. This very likely influenced his son’s contempt for speed limits. Stephen Bett has also demonstrated a snobbish, elitist, attitude in his dealings with me. He does not give a damn about the suffering of members of the public. He responds to cries for help as if they are opportunities for him to brag about his own importance.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE ==> Daily Mail
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE ==> The Guardian
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE ==> The Telegraph

Will You Help The Cause ?

You can help rid Norfolk of this time wasting parasite: Please print out a few copies of the election flyer here and leave them lying around in strategic locations. Some good choices would be on buses, trains, in taxis, in library books, in hymn books in church, or pinned to the bulletin board in coffee shops.

CLICK HERE FOR ==> Election Flyer

Mission Accomplished !

Stephen Bett is gone. He was voted out in the May 5th 2016 elections. He ranked fourth in number of votes.

I would like to thank all of you that helped to get this result. It was a team effort. Many people helped by distributing election flyers, getting the message out on social media, and of course by voting against Stephen Bett on election day. We, the public, have learned that we do have the power to put a stop to corrupt and ineffective officials. Stephen Bett has learned that he cannot turn his back on the job he was elected to do and redefine his job to suit his own agenda.

Summary of the Complaint Process

Some of my readers will probably be wondering why I would publish this defilee of the complaints process in such detail. Well, I wanted the public at large to see the evasive tactics used by the system to stifle legitimate complaints. This is not unique to my situation. I have corresponded with a large number of victims who have described similar experiences with complaint handling agencies in the United Kingdom. These agencies are designed to willfully frustrate complaints. Their goal is to wear the complainant down until they are exhausted and give up their campaign for justice. This situation is ridiculous. It hurts the public in many ways. It allows bad government to go unchecked. It wastes the tax payer's money in paying the salary of these time wasters and for the facilities they use.

An Open Invitation to Other Victims

I know that many other people have been victimized by the Criminal Justice System. Often this reaches the level of the victim being on the receiving end of a police vendetta. In prison I met many brave and honorable people that had been worn down, and forced to compromise their principles, or even in some cases to make false confessions, by prolonged and cowardly police conduct which overcame their will to resist. I would like to hear from anyone that is willing to come forward and tell their story. I realize that in many cases the costs of doing so are horrendous, but if you wish you can remain anonymous. I would like to collect evidence for academic study into police and CPS bias, and in support of efforts to bring meaningful change to the system. You may contact me using the contact form on the left side bar.




I am soooo fake pre-loading this image so the navigation doesn't skip while loading the over state.  I know I could use the sliding doors technique to avoid this fate, but I am too lazy.