DPS Appeals Unit,
Metropolitan Police Service,
22nd Floor ESB,
Lillie Road,
London
SW6 1TR
Email: Appeals@met.police.uk
CC
Rt Hon Theresa May MP (Home Secretary)
Rt Hon Dominic Grieve MP (Attorney-General)
Alison Saunders (DPP)
G McGill (CPS Head of Organised Crime Division)
Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe (Commissioner)
Commander Neil Basu (Head of Operation Elveden)
Detective Inspector Daniel Smith (Operation Elveden)
John Whittingdale MP
George Eustice MP
Sir Gerald Howarth MP
Mark.lewis@thlaw.co.uk
6 April 2014
Dear Sirs,
This is a formal appeal against the refusal of the Metropolitan Police to investigate Piers Morgan and Jeff Edwards for the illegal receipt of information from the police and perjury before the Leveson Inquiry and Det Supt Jeff Curtis (now retired) for a failure to investigate Morgan and Edwards when the complaint was first submitted to the Met.
You will find below the following correspondence in this order:
My correspondence with Operation Elveden (Elveden)
My correspondence with the Directorate of Professional Standards (DPS).
The two batches of correspondence are clearly delineated. Each set of emails runs from the earliest to the latest in that order, that is , the latest email will be the last one in the set.
The matter looks complicated simply because of the volume of correspondence. This is entirely due to Elveden and the DPS prevaricating. You will see from the correspondence that I made the complaint in January 2013 and I did not receive a conclusive answer from the DPS until March 2014 and only then after I had written to the Home Secretary to complain.
Stripped of the volume of correspondence the business is very simple. I have provided Elevden with a letter sent by Piers Morgan to the Press Complaints Commission when he was editor of the Daily Mirror in which Morgan admits that he received information from a Metropolitan police officer in circumstances which can only have been illegal. A facsimile copy of Morgan’s letter is attached.
Edwards was the Mirror’s chief crime reporter who wrote the story based on the information obtained illegally from the police. Even without Morgan’s letter it is clear from the Mirror story that information had been illegally obtained because of the nature of the information in the story. I supplied Elveden with a photostat copy of the story
For the perjury complaint I supplied Elveden with the relevant extracts from Leveson stating that they have never obtained information illegally.
As for Det Supt Curtis, not only did he fail to question anyone at the Mirror or examine their records for evidence of payment for information, he did so after promising me that he would be doing both things. I provided Operation Elevden with a tape recording of Curtis making those promises.
The fact that I made the complaints against Curtis 14 years ago and the PCA rejected them is neither here nor there because of the peculiar circumstances which obtained at the time. Tony and Cherie Blair attempted to have me prosecuted and failed in the most humiliating fashion during the 1997 General Election campaign (the CPS sent the papers back to the police within hours of receiving them with NO CRIME emblazoned across them) . The Mirror story concerned the Blairs’ failure to have me prosecuted. After that failure the Blairs set Special Branch and MI5 on to me (I used the Data Protection Act to force both to admit they held files of me) and I consequently suffered ten years of harassment (for Blair’s entire premiership) which the Tory MP Sir Richard Body made public in the following Early Day Motion:
CONDUCT OF THE RIGHT HONOURABLE MEMBER FOR SEDGEFIELD 10:11:99
Sir Richard Body
That this House regrets that the Right honourable Member for Sedgefield [Tony Blair] attempted to persuade the Metropolitan Police to bring criminal charges against Robert Henderson, concerning the Right honourable Member’s complaints to the police of an offence against the person, malicious letters and racial insult arising from letters Robert Henderson had written to the Right honourable Member complaining about various instances of publicly-reported racism involving the Labour Party; and that, after the Crown Prosecution Service rejected the complaints of the Right honourable Member and the Right honourable Member failed to take any civil action against Robert Henderson, Special Branch were employed to spy upon Robert Henderson, notwithstanding that Robert Henderson had been officially cleared of any illegal action.
This motion is now part of the official House of Commons record – see http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDetails.aspx?EDMID=16305&SESSION=702
The reason I could not get the police and the PCA to act is horribly simple: they were not willing to act because Blair was Prime Minister, that is they refused to apply the law for illicit reasons to protect the most powerful politician in the land. This was truly a who shall guard the guards situation. To reject my complaint on the grounds that it is out of time would be perverse in these circumstances. At the least, those at the PCA who refused my complaint should be charged with misconduct in a public office.
As this matter has already been reviewed by the DPS, I presume that they have the full documentation and other items such as the tape recording of Curtis. Should anything be missing let me know and I will supply duplicates. If the DPS do not have the complete papers and other supporting artefacts, the DCI Neligan’s review of the case is by definition a sham.
My grounds for appeal are as follows:
1. I have not been adequately informed about the findings of the investigation or any proposals resulting from the report
As I have already pointed out, the handling of my complaints has been a dismal catalogue of prevarication. In addition, despite my repeated requests to be interviewed byElveden and give a formal statement and to be interviewed by the DPS, astonishingly I have been denied any face to face contact with any member of Elevden or the DPS and consequently have not been able to make a formal statement. This behaviour strongly suggests that both Elevden and the DPS know very well that I have provided cast-iron evidence and are desperate not to be subjected to questioning as to why no investigation has occurred because they know that it is impossible to give a rational reason for why they have not acted on Morgan’s incriminating letter.
- I disagree with the findings of the investigation including whether a person has a case to answer for misconduct or gross misconduct
The findings are absurd because of the Morgan letter alone, but the Mirror story and Curtis’ failure to investigate Morgan, Edwards and the Mirror generally make them doubly ridiculous.
All that both Elevden and the DPS have done is say we do not choose to investigate. They have not meaningfully justified their refusasl. For example, take DCI Neligan’s dismissal of the complaints against Morgan and Edwards,viz:
As Appropriate Authority, I am required to consider the findings and conclusions of complaint investigations to determine:
- whether the report should be referred to the Director of Prosecutions (CPS);
- whether or not any person to whose conduct the investigation relates to has a case to answer in respect of misconduct, gross misconduct or no case to answer;
- whether or not any such person’s performance is unsatisfactory;
- what action, if any, we will take in respect of the matters dealt with in the report; and
- what other action (if any) we will take in respect of these matters.
After considering these points I am satisfied the outcome does not need to be referred to the CPS.
I can also inform you that it has been determined there has not been a breach of the professional standards by any officer. Furthermore, I have conducted review of the officers’ performance, which I found to be satisfactory. This means that no further action will be taken in respect of your complaint.
Absolutely no explanation of why the complaints were refused is provided , merely the grounds on which they have been considered. That is shamefully inadequate. Worse, there is good reason to believe DCI Neligan cobbled together this judgement after I had panicked him into doing something by writing to the Home Secretary and copying the email to the type of distribution list that is attached to this email. I very much doubt whether he has even read most of the correspondence which arose from the case before it came to his desk.
The evidence is cast-iron and a failure to investigate is clear evidence of misconduct in public office and an attempt to pervert the course of justice by every officer who has handled my original complaint and the referral to the DPS.
3. I disagree with the police proposals for action – or lack of them – in light of the report
I disagree with them for the reasons given in 2, that is the evidence is cast-iron and a failure to investigate is clear evidence of misconduct in public office and an attempt to pervert the course of justice by every officer who has handled my original complaint and the referral to the DPS. Please take this as a formal complaint against all these officers. You have their names in the supporting correspondence.
4. I disagree with the decision not to refer the report to the CPS.
I disagree for exactly the same reasons I have given under 3.
The hard facts which are being ignored are these:
a. The Piers Morgan letter to the PCC is enough to convict Morgan of receiving information illegally from a police officer, conspiracy to breach the Official Secrets Act and conspiracy to commit misconduct in a public office and breaches of the Data Protection Act. All that applies whether or not it can ;proved that money or any other material inducement was given to the police officer.
b. Morgan’s letter plus the Mirror story which used the illicit information is enough to convict Edwards of receiving information illegally from a police officer, conspiracy to breach the Official Secrets Act and conspiracy to commit misconduct in a public office and breaches of the Data Protection Act.
c. The evidence given by Morgan and Edwards under oath provides strong grounds for investigating them for perjury. If it could be shown that the police officer received money – which was almost certainly the case – they would be open and shut cases of perjury. At the least Morgan and Edwards should be investigated to see whether money did change hands.
d. The Morgan letter, the Mirror story and the tape recording of Curtis promising to investigate Morgan, Edwards and the Mirror generally is enough to convict Curtis or misconduct in a public office and of perverting the course of justice.
I suggest you print out the attached Piers Morgan letter and sit and look at it for a while and ask yourself how on earth a failure to investigate such evidence could be explained in a court or before TV cameras.
Finally, I repeat the request to meet with whoever is going to deal with this case at the DPS and to give a formal statement.
Yours sincerely,
Robert Henderson
—————————————————————-
From: robert henderson [mailto:anywhere156@yahoo.co.uk]
Sent: 09 April 2014 17:20
To: DPS Mailbox – Appeals
Subject: Appeal against failure of Operation Elveden to investigate Piers Morgan and others – please acknowledge
Directorate of Professional Standards (DPS)
Appeals Unit,Metropolitan Police Service,
22nd Floor ESB,Lillie Road,
LondonSW6 1TR
Email: Appeals@met.police.uk
9 April 2014
Dear Sirs,
I sent the appeal reproduced below to you on 6th April. I have not received an acknowledgement. Please acknowledge receipt of the original email by return.
Yours sincerely,
Robert Henderson
—————————————————————–
To
Dear Mr Henderson,
Thank you for your appeal regarding your recent complaint against police, reference PC/0455/14. This was received in this office on 6th April 2014.
I regret to inform you it is taking approximately sixteen (16) weeks to consider new appeals. Therefore, you ought to expect not to hear anything in the intervening period. However, we are constantly reviewing cases and that timescale may be reduced. If not, we will write or email you again in 16 weeks time with an update, providing a realistic timescale of when you can expect your appeal assessment to be completed.
Yours sincerely,
Elizabeth Gibbs
Police Sergeant
Directorate of Professional Standards
Appeals Team
———————————————————————–
Directorate of Professional Standards
Empress State Building
22nd Floor
Lillie Road
West Brompton
London
SW6 1TR
Telephone: #0207 230 1212
#Email:
Your ref: #
Our ref: # #PC455/14
Date: 16 April 2014
Mr Robert Henderson
156 Levita House
Charlton St
London
NW1 1HR
Dear Mr Henderson,
On 10/03/04 a letter was sent to you, which asked for your representations in relation to the complaints you made concerning Operation Elveden, as it was considered your complaint was out of time. You were given 28 days to make these representations and informed that at the end of this period an application for permission to take the the investigation no further (disapplication) may be made.
This letter is to inform you that due to the lack of representations, or sufficient representations, an application was made to the DOPS Complaints Support Chief Inspector, who has been delegated by the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police to consider disapplications.
I can now inform you they have decided to grant disapplication on the grounds that this case is out of time. This decision was made on the information and the evidence provided for your complaint and has been deemed appropriate because as explained in my original letter, the events you are complaining about happened some 14 years ago.
As your complaint has been disapplied the DPS Complaints Support Inspector has also considered what, if any, further action needs to be taken with the conduct or performance of any MPS officers or staff. They have decided no further action is required.
You have the right of appeal in relations to the decision to disapply your complaint and the outcome of it, to the Appeals Unit of Directorate of Professional Standards . There is no right of appeal to the IPCC. You have 28 days from the day after the date of this letter within which to make your appeal. The 28th day is 16/05/14. Appeals received after 28 days may not be allowed unless there are exceptional circumstances.
If you do decide to appeal, this is the address to write to:
DP S Appeals Unit, Metropolitan l Police Service, 22nd Floor ESB, Lillie Road, London SW6 ITR
Further information about appeals and how to appeal can be found on the IPCC website:
Yours sincerely,
TM Neligan
DCI DPS
———————————————————————–
Tim Neligan
Detective Chief Inspector
DPS SI
Empress State Building
22nd Floor
Lillie Road
West Brompton
London
SW6 1TR
Telephone: #0207 230 1212
#Email:
Your ref: # #PC455/14
CC
Rt Hon Theresa May MP (Home Secretary)
Rt Hon Dominic Grieve MP (Attorney-General)
Alison Saunders (DPP)
G McGill (CPS Head of Organised Crime Division)
Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe (Commissioner)
DCS Alaric Bonthron (Head of DPS)
DCI Tim Neligan (DPS)
CI Andy Dunn (DPS)
Commander Neil Basu (Head of Operation Elveden)
Detective Inspector Daniel Smith (Operation Elveden)
John Whittingdale MP
George Eustice MP
Sir Gerald Howarth MP
Directorate of Professional Standards (DPS) Appeals Unit
Date: 27 April 2014
Dear DCI Neligan,
I have your letter dated 16th April which only arrived today, 25th April. The envelope in which your arrived is postmarked the 23rd April. Why the delay? (I have included a copy of your letter immediately below to inform those on the circulation list).
Your letter is distinctly odd. It could reasonably be interpreted as you saying that I did not make an appeal within the 28 days allowed. In fact, I submitted an appeal on 6th April which was within the 28 days. Not only that I included you in the distribution list for that appeal. You will find below the original email and add the acknowledgement of its receipt on the 6th April. The acknowledgement informed me that the appeal was accepted but would probably not be looked at for six months. (Please note that I have copied this email to the DPS appeals section).
Wording such as “This letter is to inform you that due to the lack of representations, or sufficient representations…” is the type of cover-all eventualities phrasing which lawyers use. It does not give any indication of what has actually happened. The use of such wording together with your failure to (1) demonstrate anything but the sketchiest knowledge of the matter or (2) to address questions such as the Who shall guard the guards scenario leads me to believe that you have given this case little study or consideration. That being so please answer these questions:
1. What documents have you received relating to this matter? Please list the documents individually when you reply.
2. Please list the documents you have read.
3. Have you received the tape recording between D Supt Curtis and me in which he promises to question Morgan et al?
4. If you have the tape recording have you listened to it in its entirety? If not why not?
5. Were you aware when you wrote on the 16th April that I had appealed? If not why not?
6. If you were you aware when you wrote on the 16th April that I had appealed why have you not referred to the appeal in your letter?
7. Before receiving this email, had you read my appeal?
8.Which documents relating to the matter were submitted to the DPS Complaints Chief Inspector? Please list them.
9. Did the DPS Complaints Chief Inspector know of my appeal when he made the decision? If he did not I shall expect you to immediately bring this fact to immediately his attention so that he can consider the matter with all the facts before him.
In none of the correspondence with the DPS has there been any meaningful attempt to address the issues I have raised. To keep saying it is out of time is a nonsense because not only is there no statute of limitations for these crimes, serious crimes are routinely investigated and people charged after far more time has passed than has happened since I made my original complaint to the police.
The reason why my complaints were not initially investigated was the involvement of the Blairs. Once the failure of the police and every other part of the justice system to act on clear evidence of criminality by Morgan and others had happened, the failure itself became a bar to future attempts to get the matter investigated. Both those in authority who had failed to act and those who had not been originally involved but were now in positions of authority, had a vested interest in not investigating when the complaints were re-submitted together with fresh complaints in 2013. The vested interest was both individual and corporate. The latter (the corporate vested interest) meant that those not involved in the original failure to investigate refused to investigate when the old and new complaints were submitted to them, because to investigate would potentially mean criminal trials of those involved in the original cover-up with the subsequent bad publicity for the Met and many other people with power and influence.
I repeat yet again my request to meet with you or another senior officer, for example, the DPS Complaints Chief Inspector, to discuss the affair and give a formal statement.
A reply by return please.
Yours sincerely,
Robert Henderson
———————————————————————–
Metropolitan Police
Directorate of Professional Standards
Prevention and Organisational Learning Command
DPS Appeals Unit
22nd Floor
Empress State Building
Empress Approach
Lillie Road
London
SW6 1TR
E-Mail: Appeals@met.pnn.police.uk
Our reference: PC/00455/14
Date: 19th June 2014
|
|
|
This letter is about your appeal against the outcome of your complaint against police received on 5th December 2013. Your complaint was dealt with in two parts. Firstly, you received an ‘outcome of investigation’ report from DCI Neligan, detailing your complaints about DI Smith. Additionally, your complaint concerning retired Detective Superintendent Curtis was subject of something called a ‘disapplication’. You appealed against the outcome of the investigation, in your appeal email dated 6th April 2014. Upon receipt of a further letter dated 16th April 2014, informing you of the decision to disapply the latter part (against Mr Curtis) you submitted a further email of appeal, dated 27th April 2014. Both aspects of your appeal will be discussed and addressed in this letter.
1. Appeal against Investigation
In answer to the first part of your appeal (investigation), the Metropolitan Police Appeals Team’s role in the appeal process is to review the investigation into your complaint, not to re-investigate your complaint. This appeal outcome is completed on behalf of Superintendent Sarti, with delegated authority for dealing with Appeals on behalf of the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police Service.
Our decision on your appeal is linked to paragraph 25 of Schedule 3 of the Police Reform Act 2002. I have looked at the following issues in concluding your appeal:
· Whether the findings of the investigation need to be reconsidered
· Whether the outcomes, for example in relation to whether any disciplinary or other actions should be taken, are appropriate
· Whether you received adequate information about the findings of the investigation
I have reviewed your email of complaint dated 5th December 2013, addressed to the Commissioner. You complaint was recorded on 8th January 2014.
The decisions I have reached in relation to your appeal are outlined below:
1. Are the findings of the police investigation appropriate/ proportionate to the complaint?
Your heads of complaint have been obtained from the following:
- Your email of 5th December 2013 and accompanying attachments/email string
Your complaint was about the decision by Detective Inspector Daniel Smith, and his refusal to investigate three allegations of crime concerning Mr Piers Morgan and Mr Jeff Edwards, repeated below;
1. That Piers Morgan when editor of the Mirror obtained information from a Met Officer(s) in circumstances which can only have been illegal. The letter from Morgan to the PCC which I have supplied to Elveden and which you have a copy of in facsimile conclusively proves this.
2. That Jeff Edwards when chief crime reporter for the Daily Mirror illegally received information from Met Officer(s). Morgan’s letter plus the story printed by the Daily Mirror about me conclusively prove Edwards received such information.
3. That both Morgan and Edwards committed perjury when questioned under oath about receiving information illegally from the police. I provided Operation Elveden with the relevant Leveson transcripts.
In his response to your allegations of crime, DI Daniel Smith responded;
Dear Mr. Henderson,
I write in relation to the allegations you made following your contact with DC Rooke in January of this year. I have reviewed the matters raised by you in this, and subsequent communications, with DC Rooke.
I understand that the matters raised by you relate to an article published in 1997 and that the matter was investigated by the Metropolitan Police Service (Complaints Investigation Bureau). The matter was referred to the Police Complaints Authority in 1999.
I understand that there is no new evidence or information available and as a result I have decided that no investigation will be conducted into the points raised by you.
In relation to the Perjury allegation, having read the transcripts provided, I do not believe there is evidence that shows an offence has been committed. As a consequence this allegation will not be investigated.
Yours sincerely,
Detective Inspector Daniel Smith
Complaint Versus Criminal investigation
DCI Neligan was appointed to investigate your public complaint about DI Smith’s decision, not to investigate the criminal allegations about Mr Morgan and Mr Edwards. That is an important point to differentiate because in your email of appeal you appear to be confusing the two issues.
In the outcome letter sent to you, dated 10th March 2013, DCI Neligan has identified your complaint and the steps taken to investigate it. I therefore consider that a proportionate investigation has been carried out.
I have considered your grounds for appeal, as set out in your email dated 6th April 2014.
Point 1, you have appealed on the basis that you have not been interviewed personally by the Investigating Officers, either of the criminal investigation, or the complaint investigation. In my considerations, I have looked at the email strings you have submitted. The details of the criminal allegations are comprehensive and sufficiently detailed upon which DI Smith based his initial assessment in terms of the criminal allegations. Likewise, there is sufficient detail upon which DCI Neligan can base his assessment of his complaint investigation and therefore I do not consider it necessary to interview you at any stage up to those reviews being conducted.
In terms of the criminal investigation, DI Smith had articulated his rationale for not investigating your first 2 criminal allegations (that they were already investigated by the PCA in 1999) as there is no new evidence; there was no merit in further investigation of those allegations. The third allegation, (perjury), was subject to a preliminary review, as DI Smith explained, when he reviewed the transcripts. His assessment was that there is no evidence of the offence of perjury having been made out. Consequently, that allegation would not be further investigated.
In his report, DCI Neligan has elaborated upon these points and provided you with additional information in terms of the police obligations under National Crime Recording Standards as well as the MPS Crime Management Policy.
Point 2, you believe the findings of DCI Neligan’s investigation “are absurd because of the Morgan letter alone, but the Mirror story and Curtis’s failure to investigate Morgan, Edwards and the Mirror generally make them doubly ridiculous.”
I mentioned above, the difference between DI smith’s investigation and DCI Neligan’s, but following on from Point 2 above, it is important to make absolutely clear, the role difference between the two investigations.
DI Smith was asked to investigate your criminal allegations. You disagreed with his decisions and have made a public complaint about DI Smith. DCI Neligan was appointed to and has, investigated the complaint about DI Smith. DCI Neligan has not investigated your criminal allegations about Morgan and Edwards. However, in conducting his investigation, DCI Neligan has looked at the actions/decisions made by DI Smith when looking at the investigation of Morgan and Edwards.
I find the steps taken by DCI Neligan, in examining the actions of DI smith, to be proportionate and reasonable.
Point 3, I similarly refer to the response to point 2 above.
Point 4, DCI Neligan is being asked to consider if DI Smith has committed a criminal offence, by his (Smith) not investigating your criminal allegations any further. DCI Neligan has concluded that the actions of DI Smith are correct and therefore there are no criminal actions for the CPS to consider. I concur with that rationale.
On the basis of this assessment the conclusion reached by the Investigating Officer, DCI Neligan is appropriate. I do not uphold your appeal.
2. Is the decision that the police have made about whether an officer has a case to answer for misconduct appropriate?
Yes. The outcome of the Investigation is appropriate and the Investigating Officer has concluded there is insufficient evidence to prove a case of misconduct against DI Smith. I do not uphold your appeal.
3. Are the force’s proposed actions following the investigation adequate?
Yes. The Investigation has not found a case to answer and no action has been proposed. I do not uphold your appeal.
4. Have you been provided with adequate information following the investigation of your complaint?
Yes. The original report by DCI Neligan addresses all of the complaints submitted by you, the rationale behind the conclusions reached, and includes your right to appeal. I do not uphold your appeal.
5. Has the investigation been referred to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS)? If not, is this decision appropriate?
The report has not been referred to the CPS. I consider this decision to be appropriate as the investigation and the underlying evidence does not indicate that a criminal offence has been made out. I refer to my assessment under Point 4 above. I do not uphold your appeal.
After considering all the information available I have now made a decision about your appeal against the outcome of the investigation. I have not upheld your appeal.
You are not able to appeal against the assessment of your appeal. If you have any questions or need more information about the appeal decision please contact me using the details shown at the top of this letter.
2. Appeal against Disapplication
I will now respond to your other appeal, against the decision to disapply the requirements of Schedule 3 Police Reform Act 2002 to your complaint about ex-DSU Jeff Curtis. Your appeal was received on 27th April 2014. An appeal may be made to the relevant appeal body against a decision to disapply the requirements of Schedule 3 of the Police Reform Act 2002. The Chief Officer (where they are the relevant appeal body) must determine whether the decision to disapply those requirements should have been taken. This appeal outcome is completed on behalf of Detective Superintendent Sarti, with delegated authority for dealing with Appeals on behalf of the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police Service
In determining your appeal, I must consider the following points ;
Has the complaint been, or should it have been, referred to the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC)?
The complaint about retired Detective Superintendent Curtis concerned his alleged conduct in 2003 and specifically, that he deliberately failed to investigate your original allegations against Mr Morgan & Mr Edwards despite promises made to you in a telephone conversation. Such a complaint does not meet the criteria for a mandatory referral to the IPCC, nor was it so referred (to the IPCC). The Relevant Appeal Body is therefore the Force itself.
Was the decision to disapply made with the permission of the IPCC?
No. The complaint was not referred and did not require referral to the IPCC. Therefore, permission to disapply was not required from the IPCC.
Was the complainant offered the opportunity to make representations before the decision to disapply was made and if any representations were provided, were these taken into account in making the decision to disapply?
Yes. Within the Outcome of Investigation report, dated 10th March 2014, included a request for you to provide reasons why your complaint concerning ex-DSU Jeff Curtis ought not to be disapplied on the basis that it was ‘out of time’ i.e. More than 12 months have elapsed between the date of the incident complained of and the making of the complaint, and no good reasons could be shown for that delay.
You responded in your email of 6th April 2014, and those responses were considered by Chief Inspector Dunn who decided there were no good reasons for the delay of over 12 years in the making of the complaint. I accept that you had previously reported the matters originally to the Police Complaints Authority who had ‘rejected them’.
After considering your email of appeal, dated 27th April 2014, I consider the decision to disapply your complaint was appropriate. The incident complained of was more than 12 months before the complaint was made and no good reason for that delay has been demonstrated. Your appeal is not upheld.
Actions required of the MPS
The MPS will take no further action regarding your complaints or the appeals. You are not able to appeal the outcome of this appeal assessment. No further right of appeal exists with the IPCC. If you disagree with this appeal assessment, you are advised to seek independent legal advice.
Yours sincerely
David Corbet
Inspector
Appeals Unit
|
Like this:
Like Loading...
Living In A Madhouse 