Appealing against the police Investigation into your complaint

Internal Use Only

We must receive your appeal within 29 days of the date of the letter telling you about the outcome of the complaint. This includes the time your appeal spends in the post. .

___________________________________________________

Please tick the appropriate box: Mr Mrs Miss Ms Other (please specify) .

First name: (Please write clearly) Surname: (Please write clearly)

X X Your address:

X

X Postcode: X

Daytime telephone number: Evening telephone number:

N/A N/A

Email address:

X.com

___________________________________________________

Date you made your complaint: Reference number ( if known ):

24 November 2013 CO 19/14/SB1

Please give the date of the letter you received about the outcome of the investigation.

1 July 2015

Please tell us why you are appealing against the investigation into your complaint by selecting one or more reason(s) below. Please tick the relevant boxes:

Do you feel you were not given enough information about what the investigation into your complaint found or the action the appropriate authority plan to take following their investigation?

Do you disagree with the findings of the appropriate authority investigation into your complaint?

Do you disagree with the proposed action resulting from the appropriate authority investigation into your complaint?

Do you disagree with the decision that the appropriate authority has made about whether an officer you complained about has a case to answer or if there has been unsatisfactory performance?

Do you disagree with the decision that the appropriate authority has made not to refer the investigation of your complaint to the Crown Prosecution Service? Please explain why you want to appeal based on the reason(s) selected above, continuing on a separate sheet if necessary. Introduction There is an overall sense from dealing with Humberside Police on related matters since 2009 that the force has an inability to deal openly and honestly with the public. I will make it known now that there are a number of people who I consider have been grossly negligent over this period against whom I wish to bring charges of Misconduct in Public Office, including those outside the force namely the former Chief Executive of Humberside Police Authority and Humberside's Police and Crime Commissioner. To give a flavour of what I'm getting at, it was stated in the letter dated 4 February 2014 from DI Calvert, that she had been informed by DI Welton that in 2009 I had been visited at my home with the reasons explaining why my allegations were not of a criminal nature. This was completely untrue as there was no visit then and there has been no visit since. Despite a letter 25 February 2014 (Annex A, para 16) addressed to DI Calvert clearly pointing out that the claim of a visit was untrue, the same statement was reiterated in a revised letter sent by the unit dated 1 May 2014. There was no explanation of the anomaly and nothing has been forthcoming since. This in my opinion characterises the force for being one which completely ignores challenges to its findings.

Not given enough information about what the investigation found There was no information about what the investigation found other than it being expressed by DCI Killeen that; (i) he had reviewed all documentation, (ii) was satisfied that DS Wood's investigation was conducted appropriately, and (iii) he (DS Woods) was satisfied that a criminal offence had not been committed. Clearly the above information suggests yet another layer in the cover-up to protect North East Lincolnshire Council and its bailiff contractor, Rossendales. The documentation which DCI Killeen claims to have reviewed contains several correspondence contending DS Woods findings which have been completely ignored by everyone involved. The letter dated 25 February 2014 addressed to DI Calvert summarises the points raised at Annex A which is reproduced in its entirety below:

ANNEX A

Wrongly recorded complaint

1. The complaint was recorded on 14.1.14 and classified as an organisational decision

(direction and control) when it was clearly a conduct matter. The relevant case law for

defining direction and control complaints, as opposed to conduct matters is (North

Yorkshire Police Authority v IPCC (Jordan) 2010). The court ruled that a complaint could

not be classed as direction and control if a conduct issue was raised. The judge found

that a direction and control (decision), is essentially concerned with matters which are of

a general nature, and "a decision which is made by a chief officer which is confined to a

particular subject falls outside the definition of direction and control."

2. There can be no doubt that the complaint concerned conduct. For example there had

been a complete failure to research and understand the law relevant to the allegations.

This is made categorically clear in my letter (24.11.13). The councils word was sufficient

to satisfy the ECU that there was no criminal wrongdoing which is also a conduct matter

(negligence) where an obvious conflict of interest exists for a council officer to volunteer

information that would incriminate the contractor for which the council is responsible.

3. The mis-categorisation of the complaint has effectively deprived me of the right to appeal

to the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC). There is the further issue

arising where the PSB has used the term organisational rather than direction and

control. This could be seen as misleading complainants that the PSB is justified in only

recognising a complaint as a conduct matter when specifically naming an officer.

4. Where it has been stated at the end of the PSB response (4.2.14) that there is no right of

appeal against the outcome of this process, the reference to the Police Reform Act 2002

has incorrectly been stated as, Paragraph 8A Schedule 3. The correct reference is

Paragraph 4(8)(a) and was amended by Paragraph 5(2) Schedule 14 of the Police Reform

and Social Responsibility Act 2011. In any event; though there is no right of appeal, the

correspondence could have been more open and stated that there is provision, subject to

the Commission consenting, that the authority may refer the complaint to the IPCC.

Paragraph 5(2) Schedule 14 of The Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011,

provides so far as is relevant , the following:

"(2) In Schedule 3 (handling of complaints and conduct matters), in paragraph 4

(reference of complaints to the Commission), after sub-paragraph (7) insert

"(8) In a case where

(a) a complaint relates to a direction and control matter, and

(b) there is no obligation under this paragraph for the

appropriate authority to refer the complaint to the

Commission,

the appropriate authority may refer the complaint to the Commission

under this paragraph only if the Commission consents.

Believing council officers there has been no criminal wrongdoing

5. The organisation (against which allegations were made) stating that there has been no

criminal wrongdoing appears to have been chiefly relied on as the basis to satisfy the

force that the alleged sums being defrauded are legitimate. The ECUs decision not to

investigate on this basis is therefore indicative of collusion between Humberside Police

and NELC. If the aforesaid is untrue then there must be unimaginable naivety on the part

of the ECU if it believes council officers (under enormous pressure to lie) will say anything

other than what best protects councils reputation and legal position.

6. Local authorities notoriously deny that their bailiff contractors are unlawfully imposing

enforcement fees. This is evident in the way complaints from the public are dealt with, i.e.,

concluded as unfounded rather than upheld. Councils strive to keep upheld complaints to

a minimum as they are required to submit details each year to the Local Government

Ombudsman (LGO). Complaints are categorised into the number unfounded/upheld etc.,

which determines whether the LGO need investigate any failings. Another incentive for

councils to pretend there is no malpractice, stems from the pressure existing for the head

of department to submit a form 5 complaint about an offending bailiff to the certificating

court.

7. For further insight into how councils make a priority of protecting their reputation over the

rights of its residents by having what appears to be a policy to lie to the public, see

attached: (Response 28 Jan 13 EA20130002). The document provides a case study of

the way complaints about bailiff malpractice are dealt with in the case of four local

authorities. The appeal aimed to establish why there was such consistency with regards

councils lying to the public in these circumstances.

Home Office Circular 47/2004

8. The Home Office Circular 47/2004 has in regards this and a previous complaint been

quoted in the context of justifying a decision not to investigate. The PSBs reply (4.2.14)

contained text taken verbatim from the publication with no reasonable argument to support

why any of the quoted content applied. Rather than providing guidance on where priority

should be given by the police, the document is being used in an arbitrary way to justify

inaction. Given its primary function is to prioritise cases for the investigation of fraud,

rather than suggesting it fell outside recommendations, the nature of the alleged fraud

would appear to align with many of those listed under the Priorities:

Frauds involving substantial sums of money. [Note: this would likely run into

many millions of pounds if fully investigated]

Frauds having a significant impact on the victim(s).

Frauds affecting particularly vulnerable victims (eg the elderly, people with

disabilities, businesses providing key services in difficult circumstances) or in

distinct communities.

Frauds giving rise to significant public concern (possibly highlighted by a high

degree of press interest).

Frauds where law enforcement action could have a material deterrent effect.

Frauds which indicate a risk of more substantial / extensive fraud occurring.

R v Ghosh [1982] EWCA Crim 2

9. It was contended in DS Woods email (9.11.13) that to prove fraud had taken place, it was

necessary to demonstrate dishonesty beyond reasonable doubt. The court of appeal case

(R v Ghosh [1982] EWCA Crim 2) was cited as the judgment defining dishonesty used in

criminal prosecutions and was stated, without justification, that it was viewed that the

allegation did not meet those requirements.

10. A test to define dishonesty was developed from the Ghosh case requiring (subject to the

first) two stages. The first, an objective test, where a jury would be required to decide if an

act was one that an ordinary decent person would consider to be dishonest and the

second, a subjective test where a jury would need satisfying that the accused must have

realised that what he was doing was, by those standards, dishonest. The second test

(subjective) is not applied if objective test fails.

The objective test needs to be established first and the subjective test is not applied if the

objective test fails. The judgment of the Court that is material to the test is as follows:

In determining whether the prosecution has proved that the defendant was acting

dishonestly, a jury must first of all decide whether according to the ordinary

standards of reasonable and honest people what was done was dishonest. If it was

not dishonest by those standards, that is the end of the matter and the prosecution

fails.

If it was dishonest by those standards, then the jury must consider whether the

defendant himself must have realised that what he was doing was by those

standards dishonest. In most cases, where the actions are obviously dishonest by

ordinary standards, there will be no doubt about it. It will be obvious that the

defendant himself knew that he was acting dishonestly. It is dishonest for a

defendant to act in a way which he knows ordinary people consider to be dishonest,

even if he asserts or genuinely believes that he is morally justified in acting as he

did.

11. Clearly a properly informed jury as to the facts of the case would have no difficulty

establishing the objective test. Similarly, for the reasons laid out in the letter to DS Wood

dated 24.11.13, there can be no doubt that even if councils held genuine beliefs that their

actions are morally justified, they must realise that ordinary people would consider them to

be dishonest.

Evans v South Ribble Borough Council 1992

12. The ECUs belief that no criminal offence was committed based on the Evans v South

Ribble case is misconceived for reasons laid out in letter (24.11.13) to DS Wood and in

the attached Argument to Ross & Roberts Opinion - Head H. The aforesaid (attachment)

contends Counsel Opinion (David Holland QC) sought by bailiff firm, Ross & Roberts to

advise them as to the recoverability of certain charges (Head H) under the Council Tax

(Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992 (the Regulations). The Counsel

Opinion is also attached; see Ross & Roberts Opinion - Head H.

13. The ECUs decision appears based on the fact that because seized goods in the custody

of the law can either be left on the debtors premises or removed elsewhere, bailiffs do not

have to physically remove items to be entitled to impose a charge under Head H.

Unfortunately, the question is not simply about whether goods have been "seized"; it more

surrounds Parliaments intention when referring to the provision under head H (regulation

45(4)). Here it refers clearly to goods which have been removed, because the goods shall

be made available for collection by the debtor.

Regulation 45(4) states the following:

Where an authority has seized goods of the debtor in pursuance of the distress, but

before sale of those goods the appropriate amount (including charges arising up to

the time of the payment or tender) is paid or tendered to the authority, the authority

shall accept the amount, the sale shall not be proceeded with and the goods shall

be made available for collection by the debtor.

Though there is reference to seized goods, this can not refer to goods which have been

left on the debtors premises such as is the case where a walking possession agreement

has been entered into. The reference to seized goods can only refer to goods which

have been physically removed and can be made available for collection by the debtor.

Fraudulent charges (not addressed) regarding vehicle attendance

14. The matter of head C charges (attendance with a vehicle) has been omitted in all the

responses from Humberside Police. For reference to the issues there is attached

Argument to Opinion - Head C. Similarly as in the charges under Head H, the aforesaid

contends Counsel Opinion (Alastair Tomson QC) which appears to have been sought by a

Local Authority to advise them as to the recoverability of Head C charges under the

Regulations.

Magistrates Court abetting NELC in NNDR/Council Tax summons costs Fraud

15. Several documents were sent to the ECU comprising evidence of residents/charge payers

being defrauded by the council (abetted by Grimsby Magistrates Court) by way of Council

Tax and Business rates court summons costs. In all responses from Humberside Police

none of the issues were addressed.

Home visit by Detective Inspector Welton in 2009

16. It is clear from the PSBs letter (4.2.14) that Humberside Police believe that a visit was

made to my home in 2009 where an explanation was given for the reasons why previous

allegations were not of a criminal nature. That this would be recorded as fact, when

untrue, raises serious concerns about the reliability of procedures involving

communications in the force. Naturally the reasons for this happening require

investigating.

Disagreeing with the findings of the investigation There is no evidence that the facts of what I have complained about have been investigated. Please refer to Annex A under the previous heading which summarises the relevant issues.

Disagreeing with the proposed action resulting from the investigation into the complaint As it is stated that there will be no action taken by the authority resulting from the complaint I completely disagree that this is appropriate. See under the following two headings. Decision that the authority has made regarding the person complained about not having a case to answer See also under next heading (person ultimately responsible) It is evident there has been a concerted effort, with the improper exercise of police powers, to deliberately and inordinately prolong investigating the allegations over a period of eight months, only to arrive at the conclusion (with no evidence) that there had been no criminal offence committed. Any reasonable person presented with the relevant information would have been satisfied that the 'token' investigation was deliberately oriented toward covering up criminal behaviour to protect North East Lincolnshire Council and its bailiff contractor, Rossendales. Decision made not to refer the investigation of the complaint to the CPS I disagree with the decision not to refer the investigation of the complaint to the Crown Prosecution Service, but in the context that it is understood that the person who is the subject of the complaint may or may not be the person ultimately responsible. If found that the person responsible for perverting the course of justice is not the person who is the subject of the complaint, then it is expected that referral to the CPS would be in respect of the person with overall responsibility (See previous for further details).

If you have any documents that support your appeal please list below or attach to them to this form when submitting your appeal.

1) No Investigation 24 November 2013.pdf

2) police investigates itself fails 25 February 2014.pdf

3) Argument to Opinion - Head C.pdf

4) Ross & Roberts Opinion - Head H.pdf

5) Argument to Ross & Roberts Opinion - Head H.pdf

___________________________________________________

Signature of the person making this appeal: Date:

X 24 / 07 / 2015

All public bodies, are obliged to record the ethnicity of people using its service. Being able to identify the ethnicity of complainants helps us to check we are reaching all sections of society. Please describe your ethnicity using the boxes below. WHITE MIXED

White British White and Black Caribbean White Irish White and Black African Any other White background White and Asian

Any other mixed background ASIAN OR ASIAN BRITISH BLACK OR BLACK BRITISH

Indian Caribbean Pakistani African Bangladeshi Any other Black background Any other Asian background

OTHER ETHNIC GROUP OTHER

Where to send this form Humberside Police Appeals Body Professional Standards Branch Police Headquarters Priory Road Hull HU5 5SF Email: PSBAdmin@humberside.pnn.police.uk

Guidance You can appeal if:

You have not received enough information about the findings of the investigation or what action the police force plan to take. At the end of its investigation into your complaint, the police force should give you a good-quality explanation of what the investigation has found, if it intends to take any action as a result of its findings and, if so, what action it proposes to take. It should also tell you about your right of appeal and who this is to. The police force may give you a copy of its investigators report in order to provide you with this information. Alternatively, it may communicate it to you by letter or email. You can appeal if you think that the police force have not provided enough information to enable you to understand what their investigation into your complaint found or what action it intends to take because of it. You disagree with the findings of the investigation. The police investigation into your complaint will gather evidence in order to establish the facts of what you have complained about. These facts are its findings. You need to keep in mind that the police investigation will be proportionate to the seriousness of your complaint and the likely outcomes. You can appeal if you think that the findings of the investigation need to be reconsidered. For example if: some witnesses you consider important were not traced and/or interviewed you do not think that the police properly understood what your complaint was

about you do not think that parts of your complaint were investigated you do not think that the evidence the police have gathered supports the

conclusions it has reached you do not think the police have come to the right decision about whether or not

your complaint should be upheld You disagree with the action the police force plan to take as a result of the investigation. When the police force tells you what their investigation has found they should also tell you what they plan to do as a result. This may mean changes to the way the police

work; an apology and commitment to stopping the same thing happening to someone else; or advice being given to the officer you complained about by their manager. In some serious cases, it may mean an officer being asked to explain what they did in formal misconduct proceedings. Alternatively, there may be reasons why the police will take no action at all. You can appeal if you disagree with the action that the police plan to take. For example, if you think that: the police have not done enough to prevent the same thing happening again the action the police have said they will take against the person you complained

about is not right You do not think the police have made the right decision about whether an officer you complained about has a case to answer for misconduct, gross misconduct, or whether their performance was unsatisfactory. At the end of the investigation into your complaint the police will decide whether or not the officer you complained about has a case to answer for misconduct or gross misconduct, or whether their performance was unsatisfactory. Misconduct means the officer has done something that fails to meet the Standards of Professional Behaviour expected of a police officer. Gross misconduct means the failure to meet those standards is so serious that the officer could lose their job. Unsatisfactory performance means that the officer has failed to do their job, or does not have the ability to do their job, to a satisfactory level. However, this behaviour does not breach the Standards of Professional Behaviour expected of an officer. You can appeal because the police have said that an officer does not have a case to answer and you think they do. You can also appeal if the police have said that an officer has a case to answer for misconduct, but you think it should be for gross misconduct. You disagree with a decision the police force have made not to refer the investigation of a complaint to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS). When the police force has finished their investigation into your complaint they will decide whether to send your complaint to the CPS for consideration. The police must send your complaint to the CPS if they think a crime may have been committed. There may be some circumstances when it is not appropriate to do this, and the police will decide whether this is the case.

The CPS makes decisions about whether someone accused of a crime will be prosecuted in a criminal court. You can appeal if the police have decided not to send your complaint to the CPS and you think they should have done. When the police do send your complaint to the CPS, this does not necessarily mean that the CPS will decide to prosecute an officer you have complained about. You cannot appeal if the CPS decides not to prosecute the officer. The IPCC has no powers to change decisions made by the CPS. Please note: you cannot appeal if the investigation into your complaint was managed or independently conducted by the IPCC. .