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...
Related
Living In A Madhouse 
Comments
I got a time out, too
Department Of Professional Standards
Empress State building
Empress Approach
Lillie Rd
London SW6 1TR
Ref.: PC/04507/15
Please find the letter, dated 18 December 2015. where PS Walker said that she is going to apply to the DPS to close her investigation. Her grounds are that the information I provided wasn’t sufficient. She said that she asked for additional information on the 10 September 2015. I sent that information to her and she acknowledges receipt of it on the 23 September. She then wrote on the 25th September to say that she took what she considers her part of the evidence and that she would forward the rest to Inspector Ben Coogan.
I sent a parcel, weighing about 500g, with paper evidence to her. I was never told that the evidence isn’t comprehensive enough. I asked to be able to meet with her in person, to show her additional evidence to support my claim of wrong doing by Inspector David Healy, PS Kevin Fagan, PC Shannen Emerton, PC Nick Ferris and DC Neil Readyhoof.
I have not been invited by her even though she knew that I have approx 6 big folders of evidence, it would have been cost prohibitive to send these in. I also feel that there should be an explanation with these documents, which I can only give in a face-to-face meeting.
Since I made this complaint I have obtained our met Police records. These make disconcerting reading and speak volumes about the abuse that Mr O’Flaherty has suffered not only from Mr Coward but also by the Police officers involved.
One such example can be found in the first record, where PC Ireland just doesn’t quit, no matter how many times a superior is finding that there was no crime. he re-opens and re-opens and puts CRIS after CRIS without evidence.
This case is so complex, that without an explanation these documents do not make sense to a person who is cherry picking one or three events (in this case the caution that said Mr O’Flaherty assaulted Count MAGISTUS, a person that legally does not exist) without considering the pattern that lead to this event and how it will repeat many times in future. The circumstances surrounding this event and the way in which the Met Police failed a person with a learning disability. Without hearing the whole case and without considering evidence that, though unrelated to this particular event in time, nevertheless proves the cover up and lies that I have been fed as fact by these officers in subsequent events, which in turn would make my allegations of wrong doing credible and which then lead back again to that particular event.
If the Met police lies and falsifies evidence and I can prove it in other situations, the probability that they may have done so in this case as well, is -without a doubt- relevant.
How come the initial complaint is being passed back to the officers I complained about in the first place, who then find themselves not guilty. D’oh! Example: PS Kevin Fagan, denied that I have a first instance harassment warning in the computer. When I gave him the reference number for it he needed to be reminded of what a Police Information Notice is. He then replied that my caution number is a crime number but that it has no consequences and quoted ‘best practice’ as per your guidelines. Looking at Mr O’Flaherty’s record this is clearly disregarded as more than one entry make reference to past, unproven allegations that have been found to be untrue, yet this part is being overlooked. He found nothing wrong and dismissed my complaint. Of course he would have, since it was he who authorised the First Instance Harassment warning and told PC Emerton to serve it without asking my side and in clear violation of 9 out of the 12 steps needed in order to do so. He is hardly going to be objective, is he? How could this be – is that common practice? Ask the Policeman in question to find whether or not he has done wrong with possible disciplinary action looming if he has not adhered to the guidelines given to him? How come he denies the warning until he painted himself into a corner? Even then he can’t remember his original involvement and suffers with selective amnesia?
Unbelievable! As is the fact that both Mr Coward and Mr O’Flaherty lived together at the time and that it would go without saying that Mr O’Flaherty would go ‘and knock the door’ at Ash Lodge . He lived there! His benefits were paid to that address. He was registered on the voters register at this address. His mail went there. Where else is he supposed to go? A fact that doesn’t cross your officers mind at all! yet Mr O’Flaherty gets re-arrested and cautioned for harassment?
Another corker is when Mr Coward alleges that a ring went missing. It took him nearly a week to report it and he’d done so after having kissed his lover, Mr O’Flaherty, good bye at Heathrow – helping him check-in as Mr O’Flaherty would not be able to complete this task without assistance due to his learning disability.
He then come straight from Heathrow to your station and the officers response is to get pissed off because Mr O’Flaherty didn’t take his mobile phone with him. I then read that the officer is looking to apply to the courts in order to break down the door, to secure evidence, even though he knows when Mr O’Flaherty returns. The next entry – the next day – is now vague, questioning whether Mr O’Flaherty will be returning at all and this then turns into such an urgent matter, that he is thinking of getting a port alert, so Mr O’Flaherty can be arrested when he returns. Thankfully someone had some sense and told him to calm down! Why all this fuss? Why not ask Mr Coward for the keys, which he had all the time? Well, Mr Coward finds the ‘priceless jewel’ in his hiding place, inside the shoebox inside his wardrobe in the bedroom and tries to call the whole thing off. But your officers are like a dog with a bone! Did it not occur to anyone to maybe call directories and find out the number of one of his sisters and call Ireland? And since when is not answering a mobile phone (he didn’t have the cash for it is PAYG and Mr Coward controlled the finances and stole all his money!) a crime? The outcome was then that Mr O’Flaherty had hidden the ring in order to take it at a later stage. How did he come to that conclusion? If Mr O’Flaherty had anything to do with the disappearance of this £5 silver and glass ring, would it not stand to reason to take said ring to Dublin with him, dispose of it there, rather than to hide it and wait until he is back in England to pawn it – where it could be traced back to him?
The list goes on and on.
If you add all the time from each ‘investigation’ together you will see that Mr O’Flaherty’s files were re-opened and re-opened time and time again, for no reason. Add the time up and you will get 7 years, 6 months, 3 weeks and 1 day. And those are only the files (heavily censored as they are) that we were allowed to see. I know that there are files we haven’t been given, so the timeframe extends. There were over 120 Police officers making remarks. Yes – I count officers like PC Ireland twice, as in between there was another officer, making comments.
These hearsay scenarios then become undisputed fact. Once example is that your officers refer to cautions or past events, which have never resulted in a charge or been in front of a judge as proven guilt. Once such example can be found when Mr O’Flaherty is arrested ‘on appointment’ in connection with an alleged theft of a wallet, that never was. Why was he arrested – he was cooperative, no flight risk – why put him in a cell and then question him 7 hours later? How come Mr Coward isn’t in a cell ’to secure evidence’?
This event is then later on referred to as ‘ has been arrested for theft in the past and has cautions’ . Doesn’t your own guidelines say that cautions must not be taken as proof of guilt? Why was no appropriate adult called or a solicitor? Your officers had the toolkits and didn’t use them. Aggression was taken as guilt, when any psychologist could tell you that this is the expected reaction of an innocent person, only the guilty stay calm and deflect and justify.
Yes, Mr O’Flaherty did not know at the time that he would have been entitled to outside help and having been falsely arrested myself, I can vouch that when you are given a choice of having to wait for a solicitor to arrive and go back inside the cell after having been there when you did nothing wrong for well over 8 hours or going home without legal representation, I would have gone home myself.
How come that when Mr O’Flaherty is being arrested at “The Goose’ Pub on North End Rd., Mr Coward gets a lift home and Mr O’Flaherty ends up in custody, allegedly common assault – which means lets-see-what-we-can-get-away-with-as-we-have-no-proof and for which he signed a caution he wasn’t aware of (I know from my own experience that you don’t get to see anything you sign upon discharge – you are told this is for …. and you will have to take the custody officers word).
This argument started with the fact that Mr Coward illegally withheld Mr O’Flaherty’s passport and Mr Coward refused to give the passport back. Police officers arrive and Mr Coward alleged that Mr O’Flaherty is a junkie and beat him because Mr Coward wouldn’t give him money for Cocaine. This investigation is open for 7 months, re-opened again and again. ALL officers lost sight of the real problem at that point. It is a criminal offence to withhold and destroy a persons passport. Mr O’Flaherty remains without his passport. The passport was then destroyed and Mr O’Flaherty had to apply for a single entry visa into his native country, Ireland and apply from inside Ireland for a new one. Penalty: LIFE for Mr Coward – yet he get’s a lift home and is the victim?
How come Mr O’Flaherty is a ‘prolific offender’ who hasn’t been charged and is never found in possession of drugs or even returns a positive test result? He has been tested often enough, so if the allegation were to be true, surely the evidence that would support Mr Cowards allegation could be obtained? Not so.
How come that Mr O’Flaherty is always picked up without any cash? The highest amount he is ever arrested with is 2P? Because Mr Coward controls his finances and abuses a person with a learning disability who cannot read or write properly and who needs help in conducting his personal affairs and who is unable to express himself properly and/or follow complex situations. A disability that is obvious by looking at his writing and his signature and behaviour (i am doing your ABCDE toolkit here).
Mr Coward changes into SIR Coward (no such thing – see St James’ palace letter) then into Count George Magistus etc… how come nobody looks at these changes in his reported name and concludes: Psychopatic behaviour – textbook – I refer this on to a mental health professional. Instead, 3 suicide attempts later Mr O’Flaherty is still being unable to be heard.
To put insult to injury a completely false account is entered onto the Met records (which are much more extensive than the ARCO ones, why?) saying he gave Mr Coward all the money willingly and doesn’t support my actions and had refused to answer the domestic violence questionnaire and he wishes for the Met to not continue their investigation. This – our first allegation against Mr Coward- is being closed in record time, since ‘no DV or crime could be detected’ and ‘no evidence of crimes’ was given. What a load of lies! Closed: in under 5 hours – yet nobody told us, so DC Readyhoof – who by now is our CSU officer after having warned us off reporting Mr Coward well before he became our CSU officer, too – as “everything you report will land on my desk and I will do nothing’. And, guess what, he hasn’t. See scan entitled ‘palaver’. you see my phone record!
CCTV evidence was lost (3 times) that could have ended this farce long ago, yet now we find that offence after offence that Mr Coward committed against Mr O’Flaherty reaches its statutory limitation and charges that could have been bought safely based on my evidence are not being bought and my evidence is being dismissed without even being given a look-over.
Investigational skill displayed so far by any of your officers is at best farcical and at worst ‘perverting the course of justice’ and maybe even a Public Justice Offences incorporating the Charging Standard. You may want to consult the document where Dc Neil Readyhoof berates me on being vague because I am unsure if Emmanuel is spelt with one M or two m’s. My suggestion to ask him, since there are only 4 people in Adult Services and only 1 Emmanuel in the whole of Hammersmith Adult Service building, Readyhoof says he will not be able to call as he would have not a chance of finding an Emanuel in Adult services without the correct spelling and his last name.
A further gem is the near verbatim conversational piece -count George name Fulham- that Inspector Healy and PS Fagan had with me, where they claim to be unable to verify a passport, find the observation field, know of which form to use if fraud is suspected and to have never heard of the IPC in Peterborough ( see false ID guidance). Needless to say Inspector Healy hasn’t been able to solve this conundrum as yet, though he’s tried very hard for the past 9 months.
Somebody put him out of his misery, please. I know the answer now – as I managed to see a copy in court documents. Mr Coward took out a non molestation order first on his then present lover, Jada Sazlovskic and when that wasn’t extended, he took one out on Mr Coward. He arranged for the order to be served on Mr O’Flaherty’s address on a day when Mr O’Flaherty has taken a flight to Dublin and has landed safely. Mr Coward opens the door and accepts the order and then keeps it from Mr O’Flaherty. We only found out for sure a month ago, when a court clerk was kind enough to spend an afternoon researching it.
I guess Mr O’FLAHERTY got off lightly since Mr Coward screamed ‘drug-rape’ at Jada, resulting in a rape alarm bought to him, courtesy of PC Victoria Penny. Now – THAT is really serious, yet Mr Coward get’s away with it (again)? The tax payer coughed up again and also paid for the bedlinen to be DNA’d… The Coward also withheld Jada’s passport and was ordered by Police to return it to it’s rightful owner.
I wouldn’t be surprised if you find domestic violence allegations against John Martyn Hoult made by Mr Coward, who was Mr O’Flaherty’s predecessor.
I hear you ask ‘what is the motivation of my officers to behave this way’? I tell you why: It has to do with a multi million Pound fraud, that started 25 years ago, in 1991 and is ongoing. It has been in front of a judge already, twice and a lot of officers from the Met in the process got the sack. Since I am being blocked at Inspector level – it makes sense. Time wise, apart from PC Nick Ferris who is obviously unsuited to even his present role as a PC after 20 years – a moderately able Police officer would have reached that level after “20 years in the business”. They held their hands open and Mr Coward knows it. Now they evaded detection twice and a third time – so close to retirement- must be avoided at all times. And it is.
When I set out on this journey all I wanted is for Mr Coward to be held accountable and be arrested and to be compensated for the money he stole off us and PC Ferris sacked for Gross Misconduct – which he undoubtedly committed by refusing to do his job, overstepping his competency and protecting his friend “The Count” from harm. It is because of his wrong doing that CCTV evidence with regards to the METRO Bank accusation was lost. Obviously Inspector Healy, PS Fagan and PC Emmerton and Dc Neil Readyhoof are equally to blame but I then had no idea of what was to come:
I can prove to you multiple ID and benefit fraud and involvement of YOUR officers in suppressing the truth about in excess of 100.000 companies involved in false accounting, money laundering and tax fraud, worth in excess of £10.000.000 – yes 10 MILLION Pounds.
I do not make these allegations light heartedly. In fact I wish I had never found out but – since I have done so, I can’t ‘forget’ what I know. I have enclosed a DVD – containing some of the evidence that I have. This DVD is only a snapshot – there is much more.
Given the fact that your officers have been threatening me and my partner and have been acting in the way they have, falsifying records, losing evidence, blatantly lying about the training they had or the existence of some of the files I now have, I have taken the precaution of duplicating a DVD video where I explain each piece of evidence and show it, in case something should be happening that is out of my control or renders me unable to do so myself, to specialist solicitors like (Fisher Meredith, Bindmans , Christian Khan)
It is with total astonishment that I find myself being afraid for my partners and my own safety and that the aggressor is the Met Police. I am concerned about the accumulation of ‘random events’ , for example a person coming unannounced to see us on 24 Dec at 4pm asking my neighbour to be let in and proceeds to knock on our wall and door ‘to see if it’s hollow’ and then drives off. I didn’t get the registration but our landlord confirmed that this person has not been acting on behalf of them and advised to report this to the Police. Ref: CAD5044/23 Dec.
A FOI also revealed that I have been placed under surveillance for 3 years and it looks like this is going on again. I am flattered at the interest in my mundane life but I can assure you that your resources would be better utilised in catching a real criminal, for example Mr Coward. The observations are quite spot-on, too. Once example says (on a Wednesday) ‘1am – the place is dark. Can’t see light or hear subject. next entry: 3am – I am going home now, looks like the subject is sleeping’ or ‘11am people seen going in out of the flat – next entry 12noon people seen leaning against the partition wall to number 5, laughing’ then next day ‘looks like furniture is being moved’ . Well – the house was in scaffolding, workmen were doing plastering on the inside, therefore going in and out of a property isn’t that unusual and yes, the same work was going on at number 5 and it is workers midday break – furniture will have to be moved as to protect it from dust.
Another comment states “ male voice being heard singing ‘sha-la-lei-di-da’ then 15 mins later ‘male is leaving the house, front door slammed’. That was the day the new Shirley Bassey single came out and the chorus is spot on and the front door was old and warped by the recent rain and full of moisture and needed a good slam or it wouldn’t close. I also like my description: 6ft tall, white, shaven headed, skinny, tattooed male – obnoxious and a foul mouth on him.
I am not so flattered at the news that a deportation order had been prepared for me – IM3- whilst I found myself at your custody suite whilst it took 11 hours to investigate whether or not Mr Coward was pushed. Note: Mr O’flaherty and I are inside – Mr Coward is enjoying freedom.
10 Police cars over 3 days? At 3am and 5:45 and at midnight? Surely a disproportionate response to what was clearly a non event or we would have been charged with something better than ‘common assault’. This has resulted in my having renounced my German nationality, so please make a record of it and tell your over zealous officers to back off, please. That pistol doesn’t fire twice! yet we can’t report REAL crime against Mr Coward!
Only when the anti-terrorism branch intervened did we get an appointment – 4 days later. A bit late and I cancelled it because all this is making my partner ill and he had been in A&E again and just came home this morning, so he can’t deal with all of this behaviour at this present moment in time.
We tried to be heard at Hammersmith Police Station, too, where we were subjected to another, never to be repeated, experience and abuse dealt by one of your officers. See CAD8019/21 Dec. We were sent home and we gladly did go home as it was clear that neither her nor her supervisor are able to apply the training they had received a few months back when the mental health act changed. Her behaviour was so questionable, unhelpful and uncalled for, that Mr O’Flaherty was very disturbed on his way home and is still upset to this day. In his words “she made me feel like a total dope and that big with a hat on, talking down to me. I just wanted to be out of the place and I will never ever go back in there again”. We were looking for someone who would record the fact that obvious offences against us had been committed – again the penalty could be LIFE imprisonment.
She read off the screen our ‘background’ information and asked Mr O’Flaherty questions. Mr O’Flaherty said he would prefer me to answer as he is a vulnerable adult and he can’t say what happened as well as I can. She then gave him the 3rd degree about ‘How do you know you are a vulnerable adult’. I answered that he fits the definition and he gets benefit for it and explained my role as safe-guardian. She wasn’t pleased and kept harping on about something that isn’t her business – as she isn’t trained. I asked her to remember her training and to use her toolkit. She said ‘which toolkit?’ and I couldn’t remember the name of it.
I was not aware that I have to come in with an arm full of training courses that I can quote back at an Officer – remember I am a civilian and it isn’t my job to be a Police man – so we left it at that. She then proceeded to humiliate Mr O’Flaherty further by asking questions and simultaniously reading the hogwash that has been put on your computer. From that she concluded that I must be coercing Mr O’Flaherty and since he doesn’t answer straight because his learning disability touches autism too and if you don’t ask a direct question then you will not get an answer.
One example at Fulham , when PC Bracegirdle asked Mr O’Flaherty “where were you born?” (implying City and date of birth) the answer came “actually I was born in my parents house and my mother had me in the front room’. Correct answer – answers the question – misses the implied – indirect question and doesn’t answer it in the slightest. Where is that front room, in which City?
The same happened with that snotty girl we had the misfortune to deal with. When I then asked her, after she looked satisfied that her questions were answered sufficiently, to repeat to me what she had heard Mr O’Flaherty had said to her – She said “ It’s to do with his ex partner and he’s been hitting him and doing things and thieving money for drugs and stuff”. None of this was said – this is what she read, and the bits she caught by not listening and then putting 1 & 1 together, making 5.
Since her questions were all implied and not straight forward, i had to spell out what wasn’t said in the question, which in turn made Mr O’Flaherty so nervous that he ignored the question completely and stuttered out other pieces of the abuse that we were not there to report and which had no relevance to what we were wanting to be heard but he said them because they are important to him and this delay in actually answering the question was not, as I explained, taken as proof of his learning disability but as implied reluctance to report this at all and that I am putting pressure on him again (she must have read the report from 30/12/14 where it says that Mr O’Flaherty gave everything out of his own free will and that he is unsupportive of my pursuing this matter relentlessly.
Mr O’Flaherty is wanting to get Mr Coward arrested and the fact that we have been sent home and were told that 7y, 6m, 3w, 1day – £10.000 – 13 false arrests – 210 man hours, 120 officers- is not a waste of police time, though false accusations of domestic violence are a serious matter and must be investigated, as per CPS guidelines, has been so thoughtlessly disregarded yet again, is another cause for concern.
i won’t be including all the evidence this time, other than the enclosed DVD and I am looking forward to meeting with Inspector Ben Coogan upon his return. I am able to support each allegation with proof and I am aware that these allegations are very serious indeed and that there might be consequences for me if I am unable to convince you that my findings represent the truth and aren’t plucked out of thin air.
You are welcome at any time to view the evidence I have, in person, on appointment and you are welcome at either of our homes at your own convenience to discuss the matter and to find a way forward.
We really want this farce to end sooner rather than later, as the psychological pressure is causing avoidable concern, distress, fear and trauma.
Yours sincerely
Ralf Kr
safeguardian to P O’Fla