Tag Archives: Judiciary

Reports of my Demise are Grossly Exaggerated!

Posted on by
1

What a great day May 10th 2012 was for all the wrong reasons. In that I mean it was a fantastic turn out of possibly 30,000 off-duty police officers who were worried about the future of policing. I applaud everyone who attended and the many who gave comment about the dangers we all face if the police is privatised or the conditions of service are changed so dramatically that the special nature of being a crown servant and unable to enter into industrial action is forgotten. The police are not to be tinkered with or put on an industrial employment footing if you want to retain impartiality and integrity.

ACC Steve Heywood - Rewrites the definiton of a Racial Incident to suit his and GMP's own circumstances.

In another issue I have to marvel at the senior command of Greater Manchester Police who can, somehow, manage to dismiss a racial issue by stating it is not a racial issue. It would be funny if it wasn’t so serious. Even the head official of the Ramadan Society went on television to state publically that he knew that the Asian men who preyed and groomed the white girls for their own sexual gratification were doing so because they were white. The would not get away with it had they done the same to an Asian girl. I know it, they know it, the head official of the Ramadan Society knows it yet Assistant Chief Constable Heywood simply dismisses GMP’s own definition of a racial incident and denies it.

BY doing so Heywood has lessened the true impact of this incident. Whether the intent of the offenders was racial or not is immaterial to the recording of the incident. I have lost count of the number of officers who have fallen foul of inadvertently misdiagnosing a racial incident only to have the uPSD or IPCC criticise and discipline them accordingly. Of course, we know it is one rule for them and another for us.

An email from part of a series I have received albeit about three weeks ago accused me of being involved in a rant which I could neither evidence nor justify. I have been asked by the contributor not to publish their comments as they do not wish to contribute to the site. He or she simply wishes to berate me. So be it. I do enjoy reading the well structured and superbly constructed arguments which form an opposing opinion to mine. However, this pr*ck could not string more that a few sentences together in a form of pigeon english and, as they know who they are, you could do with reading some books and working out how to punctuate. That way I might actually think you have something pertinent to say.

To further evidence my point of view I should refer the email pr*ck to the new investigation into the Corruption in the Metropolitan Police in respect of the Stephen Lawrence enquiry. The allegation is that the Met failed to pass potentially relevant material to the 1998 public inquiry into Stephen’s death. Another in a long series of corruption type incidents from ACPO officers all around the country. ACPO being that private business who control the police and allow non police officers to join their ranks and develop policy. At what rank do you think this decision was taken? Just like Steve Heywood’s remark from GMP there is no doubt in my mind that this reflects the decision of senior officers within the Met irrespective of who ends up biting the bullet. At some stage, surely, the public should realise that the integrity of ACPO and senior command in many forces in this country should be subject to a root and branch enquiry.

Criminal Case Review

Posted on by
2

John is a male victim of domestic violence. He was mentioned on this blog back in June 2011 to attempt to highlight the issues faced by officers who may be the subject of violence against them. John is still fighting to get justice and is awaiting his latest submission to the Criminal Case Review Commission (CCRC) to see whether they will agree that the case should go back to the appeal court.

www.abusedtotheaccused.co.uk

I now know John through a friend of a friend. He has decided to try and publicise his plight through the medium of the internet and has built a new website called www.abusedtotheaccused.co.uk. In time he will populate it with updates not only about the criminal court process but also about the consequences of the conviction namely his loss of house, his loss of job and the lack of access to his children. His case is a tragedy. Not only was he abused by his wife but he was prosecuted rather than investigated. Had he been investigated then evidence would have been presented to the court which would have shown him to be a victim trying to defend himself rather than an aggressor. That evidence has now been made available to the CCRC.

I know how much effort has been put into his appeal by John and a former Federation Representative and I wish him luck in his venture. It just goes to show just how precarious your position as a police officer is. John relied upon a number of factors which he thought would protect him should an unwarranted and malicious allegation be made against him. How wrong he was…….. but that is his story to tell!

Police? Could You……..?

Posted on by
3

Could you live for a day with no pay? How about a week or perhaps a month? What impact would it have upon your life, on your family, on your well being or on your sanity to have absolutely no income for any length of time because of something you did in performing a police duty? What’s the likelihood of being subject of a criminal investigation and facing a lengthy court hearing. Very, very easy, as it happens. Don’t think any of those hypocrites wearing highly polished buttons and insignia will care. Of course, if you are a regular police officer then you have no worries on this account. This is because you are entitled to pay when you work and also under Regulation 10 of the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2008 you are entitled to pay when you are suspended. However, if you are a Special Constable then you are not similarly protected.

Shame!

This issue has come to the fore following a recent small claims court matter in Greater Manchester where a Special Constable was REFUSED expenses namely subsistence and loss of earnings whilst defending himself at court. It did not matter that he was with two regular officers who were paid their salary and received their allowances for the same period and performing the same duties. Furthermore, don’t think this is an issue involving guilt or innocence. Quite simply, if you are a Special Police Officer then you face a significant financial jeopardy every time you pull on a police uniform. The stupidity of the decision is that if a regular Officer, Special, PCSO, Detention Officer and Civilian Staff member all attended an incident together, everyone would be paid during the investigation and court case EXCEPT the Special! Don’t believe me then ask your Chief Officer of Specials to get in touch with his namesake at GMP!!

It has caused so much angst and anxiety amongst Specials in Greater Manchester that they have been holding meetings in the previous week as they recognise the precarious nature of their duties. The scenario they now face, as do potentially all Specials in this country, is that should they be subject to a complaint of a criminal nature then they would have to defend themselves in their own time or rely upon a benevolent employer to foot the bill in respect of salary or earnings for the Special, entirely due to the fact that the job won’t pay you. So concerned are many that they are considering resigning because of the disadvantage it presents to them when facing ever increasing calls on their time. It is likely that the cost of solicitors and barristers would still be met by the local police authority but attendance at interviews, solicitor and barrister appointments and any attendance at court would not attract any loss of earnings placing the Special at a serious and significant detriment and certainly at odds to the payment of salary to their regular colleagues.

Significantly disadvantaged and in real financial jeopardy

The jeopardy is apparent for Specials, put on your police uniform and you may lose your access to your livelihood for performing exactly the same duties as your regular colleagues. It is up to you whether you believe this or not. Just make sure that you don’t do anything that could possibly mean you end up defending yourself through the criminal or misconduct process because you WON’T be paid loss of earnings whilst everyone else will. At least, if it happens to you, you cannot say you weren’t warned. Special Constables work for nothing and have no representative body to address these potentially life changing financial imbalances as they are not members of the Police Federation. As a Special Constable said to me, “Any Special who goes out performing any duty in this country in uniform thinking he will be protected by the job in the event of an allegation being made must be crazy.”

Live and Learn.

Posted on by
Reply

ACPO Rank Training. Is it sufficient?

If anyone disbelieved me over the difference between being a Federated rank and being a senior officer then there can be nothing more apparent than the treatment of Deputy Chief Constable Adam Briggs from North Yorkshire Police. You may remember that this officer was found guilty in a misconduct process of trying to help a relative to get a job in North Yorkshire police. It followed a recruitment exercise where 200,000 people contacted a hotline enquiring about 60 jobs. In my book, this conviction alone would be sufficient to get a Federated member sacked. North Yorkshire Police decided to deal with it by way of a misconduct meeting and anybody facing a meeting rather than a tribunal knows that the ultimate sanction is a final written warning.

In my book, nepotism is a dishonesty. Whether or not it was well intended is immaterial the fact remains that any officer who is found to lack honesty and integrity will do well to keep his job. Surprise, surprise, that’s just what the “Dep” managed to do. In February 2011 he retired from the force.

A new revelation about Former Deputy Chief Constable Adam Briggs is that between 2007 and 2011 he has claimed a substantial amount of additional money for training purposes despite receiving £10,000 per annum as a training allowance. In addition to this generous allowance he, somehow, managed to spend another extra £11,750 of unaudited money on a 24 month contract with a company who coach people to be leaders. In a disciplined service do we really need advocates of tea and sympathy to be mentoring the leaders of our forces?

Interestingly, this information has been uncovered by a review of the force by the IPCC who appear not to be happy with the Police Authority. Far be it from me to make any allegations of any particular offence but if the IPCC Commissioner for the area says

“Although Mr Briggs has retired one would think he would want to take an opportunity to explain what he did with the money and why he claimed a further £11,750 from the public purse. It may well have been used entirely legitimately but Mr Briggs, who while holding a senior public office should have been acting in a financially responsible way, which was open, transparent and auditable, has chosen not to tell us.”

Far be it from me to make any allegations at all, if there is any suggestion of impropriety from the former Deputy Chief Constable, shouldn’t he made to account for his actions? I know if the allegations were directed at me or my colleagues then I am certain I would have been compelled to an interview, even arrested.

However, you live and learn!!

Police Injury Pension Victory

Posted on by
1

I make no bones about reproducing the below legal report of the victory of former Inspector Edward Crudace over the shambolic attempt to reduce his injury pension simply because he had reached 65 years of age. Additionally I have no qualms about publicising the PIPIN website (which stands for Police Injury Pension Network) The offending circular is HO Circular 46/2004:

The court case concerns former Inspector Edward Crudace, who served with the Northumbria police. Mr Crudace, now aged 67, was seriously injured whilst arresting a prisoner and was forced to retire as a police officer. His injuries meant he could not work and he was awarded a substantial police injury pension. However, when he reached the age of 65 his pension was slashed by Northumbria Police, relying on Home Office guidance, leaving Mr Crudace with a vastly reduced income.

Last month the High Court in Leeds heard Mr David Lock, QC, of No5 Chambers, on behalf of Mr Crudace, condemn the Home Office guidance as unlawful because it led to police injury pensions routinely being reduced to the lowest level when former officers reached the age of 65. 

The Judge, HHJ Behrens, has now released a judgement upholding these criticisms and quashing the decision of the Northumbria police to reduce Mr Crudace’s pension. The Judge decided the Home Office guidance was unlawful because it was inconsistent with the statutory scheme under which the pensions were paid. In another part of the judgement which will cause concern to other Police Authorities, His Honour Judge Behrens confirmed that former police officers who have had their pensions reduced in this way are entitled apply to the Police Authority for the decisions to be reversed and for their pensions to be restored. 

Mr Ron Thompson of Lake Jackson solicitors says: “This judgement opens the door for thousands of injured police officers who have had their pensions reduced unlawfully to apply to have the decision reversed. When the decision is reviewed they will be entitled to a pension at its proper level and, in many cases, to a substantial back payment. 

“The right thing for Police Authorities to do now is to identify every former injured police officer whose pension has been wrongly reduced, and to agree to review each one. If they do not do this it seems inevitable that they will face further legal actions as former injured officers assert their right to the pension to which they are entitled.

“I also hope that the Home Office recognises that the fault for this misconceived guidance lies with officials at the Home Office rather than individual police forces. The cost of putting this debacle right ought to be met by the Home Office and not individual police forces.”
Mr Crudace adds: “I always knew that my pension had been wrongly reduced but Northumbria Police Authority refused to accept this, and have wasted thousands of pounds of taxpayers money attempting to defend an unlawful decision. 

“I would like to express my sincere thanks to my superb legal team, Mr Ron Thompson and David Lock QC of No5 Chambers, who took this case on a “no-win, no fee” arrangement despite all its risks. I know there are many former police officers who have been injured serving their communities in the same position as me. They have seen their pensions cut to the lowest level when they reach 65 in reliance on this unlawful Guidance. I hope they will be able to use this landmark decision to get their pensions restored to the level they are entitled to.”

The Northumbria Police Authority wasted tens of thousands of taxpayers money trying to reduce the wealth of former serving officer who only became injured as a direct result of being a police officer serving their local community. No doubt with the support and blessing of the Home Office. We are worth nothing to those in power. They should be ashamed of their abuse of power and their attack on those injured in the line of duty.

The full Judgement can be read here: Crudace Judgement

All in a Day’s Work

Posted on by
Reply

The sobering case of PC James Holden of Hampshire Constabulary should show what the job thinks of those of us still in it. To put this in context I need to ask those readers of this blog who are not police officers to consider the following scenario.

Imagine, if you will, getting up to go to your work. You shower and dress, eat a breakfast and possibly drink a cup of coffee or tea to wake you up for the day. You kiss your partner goodbye and, without much thought, drive or commute to your place of work. What then takes place is that you try your very hardest to do a day’s work. However, what sets PC James Holden apart from most of the non police readers is the fact that his constabulary tried to send him to prison for trying to do his very best.

Could it really be possible that you try your very hardest and some third party, in an office, looks at your best efforts and decides that you should face life changing consequences and incarceration? Welcome to the world of uPSD.

PC Holden followed a stolen van containing burglars which chose to crash through a level crossing railway barrier. The van driver was arrested on the other side of the crossing by a colleague because PC Holden did not cross the railway line. Did PC Holden instigate the dangerous driving or did he merely respond to a situation unfolding in front of him? Of course, we all know the answer. Thankfully the jury also knew the answer and took less than two hours (note: less than 2 hours!!!!) to see through the fallacy of Hampshire Senior Command. So that’s alright then. Another police officer freed following over zealous judicial process. You must be joking.

The next time PC Holden or his colleagues see a stolen van driving dangerously what is he likely to do? Try his very best and face going to prison? What would you do?

Hopefully, if I have been burgled and the thieves are trying to escape justice, officers like PC Holden will respond because it is the right thing to do. Hopefully, the public will back and support police officers dealing with errant criminal underclasses by continuing to show  the pricks that continue to lead the uPSD of many forces in this country that they want police officers to be robust and effective. Is there anything more effective than arresting burglars driving a stolen van?

As the last paragraphs of the BBC report states: “After the verdict, Hampshire Constabulary said: “Police officers do a difficult job often in very difficult circumstances and the people being pursued were caught as a result of this pursuit and convicted of burglary, vehicle theft and a number of other offences.

“Police officers involved in pursuits are subject to a high level of specialist training, adhering to national policy and codes of practice. Following the outcome of this case we will identify any organisational learning that comes out of it.”

The ONLY organisational learning is that the senior management should stop trying to criminalise hard working police officers.

The Root of all Evil

Posted on by
1

In a week where a Labour Front Bencher uses racist and inflammatory language, I marvel at the inconsistencies in this country between “Them” and “Us. If you are one of “Us” then you know exactly who you are. We are the ones who only have to think a racist comment to be in jeopardy of facing dismissal. Yet “Them” can issue scurrilously racist comments only to be admonished or suspended for a short period.

Bernard Manning's World Famous Club somewhere in Manchester

A number of months ago I was at a party in a pub. In the group with me at this time was a retired detective, a British Black West Indian (Cal), two serving police officers and me. Other than the retired detective, none of the others knew my occupation and still don’t. Cal was talking about the time he had been to Bernard Manning’s Club in Manchester many years ago and how he had found it to be very funny. In fact he told us one of Bernard’s jokes which was quite racist but very funny.

The incongruity of Cal telling a racist joke about a black man was not missed by yours truly which, if told by a white man, would be frowned upon but, as I said, the punch line was very funny. Cal laughed, the retired detective laughed and so did I. It was only then that I saw the two known cops, relatively young in service, who were smiling that awkward smile that comes from seemingly smelling something awful but you just don’t want to say anything.

The retired detective and I spoke later and we both remarked on the embarrassment obviously felt by the two cops at the joke. It was clear to me that they were worried about their career if they were seen to be laughing at an inappropriate joke. Either that or they did not find the joke funny. In reality, it had to be the former. The pressures of the everyday cop scared to death to say anything, use initiative or simply relax.

Contrast

In contrast, we have Diane Abbott using not one but two comments of a racist nature in two days and all she has to do is apologise and everything is alright. How comforting it is to those officers who have fallen foul of this current piece of Misconduct legislation. I’m sure they take great heart that an apology was all it took for her while they queue at the job centre for their job seeker’s allowance. How they would have loved to be banned for 8 weeks like Louis Suarez for uttering a racist comment knowing that they were being paid at the same time and able to return to secure employment.

This country needs to deal with racists. I find it interesting that Sky News run a story about Abbott, Suarez, the subsequent Anfield abuse overnight of an Oldham footballer and the two recent convicted murderers and they produce a silver haired ACPO muppet who was so interesting I can’t remember his name, to voice his opinion how they are rooting out all evil racists from the force. Clearly the media, backed by ACPO, consider the square root of all racism must somehow involve the policeman and woman patrolling the street.

It’s all so very clear now. It’s “Us” we are the problem!!!!!!!!!!