I have been a bit tardy lately, largely due to the pressures of work I face. However, I have two bits of interesting news to impart. The first is that John, who features in the post of 7th June 2011 called “Men Behaving Badly????” has now submitted an appeal to the Criminal Case Review Commission. He knows it is a long shot but it is the only shot he has.
Many people who know him are of the opinion he was badly done to not only by the investigating force but also by the judiciary and his own force. A man who is a victim of regular and concerted domestic violence, 18 occasions of which he reports to the job, has photographic evidence of bite marks on his back, bruises to his arms and body, has colleagues who saw a stab wound from an eating fork, should be allowed to defend himself
Unfortunately, one bad investigation later, John is convicted of being reckless in his use of self defence. Clearly the magistrates did not understand the R-v-Beckford stated case quoted to them. We now know that Social Services were in possession of overwhelming evidence against him at least 4 weeks before he was ever interviewed by the police!! The evidence was so overwhelming that all the professionals including the investigating police officers in the meeting came away knowing that on his return to the police station he was to be charged. Why was he interviewed and why did he spend a further 8 hours in custody? I don’t know but it seems a bit suspicious to me. There are several other areas of difficulty which have been reported to the CCRC so we wish him good luck with his appeal.
On a new front, a former colleague is now in the process of trying to get an out of time Judicial Review of his debacle. His uPSD investigation team, quite simply, deliberately misrepresented the reality of his grievous bodily harm interview by neglecting to point out that the injury subject of the grievous bodily harm was caused by a car crash. Even more sinister is the fact that they knew this fact before the interview for GBH because the doctor treating the “victim” told them so in a statement, conveniently not disclosed to our former colleague, his Federation Rep not his legal representative. Mr NCC has the evidence in his possession and no-one has been to see it. The point in question is this fabricated excuse for an interview was then used in a subsequent misconduct trial where the officer was sacked for excessive use of force. Without the interview was there any evidence? Only the word of a drug fuelled, burgling car thief who provided a statement which was a pack of lies to the uPSD. Why should we worry about the truth when the uPSD have an ulterior motive to the benefit of us all………… apparently!
We believe this to be a crime but the relevant force refuse to investigate. The IPCC hide behind the Police Reform Act and both organisations use delaying tactics to defeat the gathering of evidence. For example, the relevant Police Force is now at day 96 of the Data Protection Act request that they are required to complete within 40 days. They have originally denied the existence of certain information and then suddenly found it when challenged with identities of persons known to have the information. How about an ACC who carried out a full review of the case but failed to notice that his own uPSD may have acted corruptly? If the courts won’t help us then it may have to be the press. I will keep you posted.
Noble Cause Corruption!!