The Met Police’s Directorate of Professional Standards has knocked back my appeal against the refusal of the police to investigate Piers Morgan’s illegal receipt of information from one or more police officers – see the email below the one to Anne Owers. Below that is the ongoing correspondence with the IPCC.
The refusal is based on the usual guff about the matter having been previously investigated when it has never been investigated. I have now referred the matter to the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) . In terms of officialdom that is as far as I can go because I have exhausted all other channels.
For previous posts on this subject click on the tag Operation Elveden
Robert Henderson
———————————————————————————————————-
Chair
Independent Police Complaints Commission
PO Box 473
Sale
M33 0BW
8 July 2014
Dear Dame Anne,
On 21 January 2013 I passed to Operation Elveden clear evidence of serious criminality involving the Daily Mirror newspaper and one or more Metropolitan Police officers. The criminality consisted of the then editor of the Mirror Piers Morgan and the paper’s then chief crime correspondent Jeff Edwards receiving information illegally from one or more Metropolitan Police officers and their subsequently perjury before the Leveson Inquiry.
I appended to these reports of crime a further complaint against a senior Scotland Yard officer, Det Supt Jeff Curtis, who had years before failed to investigate, despite having been given the strongest evidence possible, namely, a letter from Piers Morgan to the PCC in which Morgan admitted receiving the information in circumstances which can only have been illegal, viz: “The police source of our article (whose identity we have a moral obligation to protect”.( A copy of that letter in facsimile is attached. You will need to load it into an Adobe Reader). I was the subject of the information illegally received by the Mirror.
You will also find enclosed my complete correspondence with variously Operation Elveden, the DPP and other staff at the CPS and the Met Police’s Directorate of Professional Standards. This correspondence is divided between those three categories and within each category the documents run from the earliest to the latest in descending order.
The most efficient way to read yourself into the matter is to read the first document down which is my original submission to the then head of Operation Eleveden, Deputy Assistant Commissioner Steve Kavanagh.
As you work through the correspondence you will encounter the same absurdity over and over again: I keep being told that the matter has already been investigated and found to be unsubstantiated. This is simply false. The original officer Jeff Curtis failed to investigate and no one since I made the complaint to Operation has done so. Yes, that is right, despite having the letter from Piers Morgan, neither Morgan or anyone else at the Mirror has ever been interviewed or any examination of the Mirror’s records been made to see if there was evidence of payment being made for the information. A very telling fact is, as you will see from the enclosed correspondence, the blanket refusal of the police to meet me to take a formal statement, despite my persistent requests that they do so. It is reasonable to interpret that strange reluctance as a cynical device to avoid having to justify their failure to act to my face.
Throughout I have met with the same corrupt refusal to investigate that the many victims of sexual abuse have experienced. The simple truth is that where those with power, wealth and influence are involved neither the police nor the prosecuting authorities will investigate properly or at all if they can possibly help it. Such refusals amount to both misconduct in public office of the grossest kind and an unambiguous perversion of the course of justice.
The story I have to tell should come as no surprise to you. In March of this year you made this statement in a radio interview “Police officers that come to us appear all too often like sulky teenagers and won’t say anything in interviews. I and the public find it very difficult to understand how a police officer, who is a professional, doesn’t want to cooperate with an inquiry as a witness to what happened, why it happened and how something like that can be prevented in future.”
I have exhausted all other avenues, both informal and formal. Consequently, I ask you to take up my complaints to (1) ensure that those within the police who have refused to investigate the cast-iron evidence of criminality I have provided are disciplined and (2) ensure that an honest and complete investigation into my complaints is made.
We are in who shall guard the guards? territory here, Dame Anne.
Yours sincerely,
Robert Henderson
Cc
Rachel Cerfontyne (IPCC Deputy Chair)
Sarah Green (IPCC Deputy Chair)
Cindy Butts (IPCC Commissioner)
Derrick Campbell (IPCC Commissioner)
Mary Cunneen(IPCC Commissioner)
James Dipple-Johnstone (IPCC Commissioner)
Carl Gumsley (IPCC Commissioner)
Jennifer Izekor (IPCC Commissioner)
Kathryn Stone(IPCC Commissioner)
Jan Williams (IPCC Commissioner)
Jonathan Tross (IPCC non-operational commissioner)
Ruth Evans (IPCC non-operational commissioner)
David Bird (IPCC non-operational commissioner)
Sue Whelan-Tracy (IPCC non-operational commissioner)
Amanda Kelly (IPCC Chief Executive)
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
Mark.lewis@thlaw.co.uk
Directorate of Professional Standards (DPS) Appeals Unit
|
|
|
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 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
—————————————————————————-
!enquiries Jul 10 at 4:27 PM To ‘anywhere156@yahoo.co.uk’ Dear Mr Henderson Thank you for your email of 8 July 2013. I note that the Directorate of Professional Standards (DPS) have finalised the complaints that you made. You were provided with a right of appeal to the DPS Appeals Panel which you exercised. You were provided with the outcome of this appeal in an email dated 16 June 2014. In this case, the IPCC is not able to take any action in relation to your appeal. The IPCC can only act as an appeals body in cases where we are named as the relevant appeal body. I have attached a Frequently Asked Questions sheet which explains how the relevant appeal body is decided upon. The only avenue left open to you in terms of challenging the decision of the DPS Appeals Panel is judicial review. I appreciate that this is not the response that you were seeking from the IPCC, but I am unable to advise you any differently. Yours sincerely
Jack Paynter Customer Contact Advisor Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) Tel: 03000200096 enquiries@ipcc.gsi.gov.uk<mailto:jack.paynter@ipcc.gsi.gov.uk> http://www.ipcc.gov.uk<http://www.ipcc.gov.uk/> IPCC Statutory Guidance on the handling of police complaints<http://www.ipcc.gov.uk/page/statutory-guidance> ———————————————————————————————————— Jack Paynter Customer Contact Advisor Independent Police Complaints Commission PO Box 473 Sale M33 0BW 17 July 2014
Dear Mr Paynter, I have your response dated 10 July to my email of 8 July. Having scoured the IPCC website I am at a loss to understand why the IPCC cannot take it on. In the Statutory Guidance to the police service on the handling of complaints (yes, all 135 pages of it, an absurdly long and densely written document which is intended for the guidance of the ordinary person) I found this: Appeals 1.27 Chief officers now have responsibility for handling certain appeals. All appeals about the recording of complaints will continue to be dealt with by the IPCC. The IPCC will also deal with any appeal concerning a complaint about the conduct of a senior officer or complaints that have been or must be referred to the IPCC. Please explain to me how my complaints about senior officers do not necessitate their referral to the IPCC. The IPCC Mandatory referral criteria contains this The appropriate authority must refer complaints and conduct matters involving: serious corruption complaints or conduct matters which are alleged to have arisen from the same incident as anything falling within these criteria Please explain to me why my complaints do not fall within these categories, especially that of serious corruption. Let me remind you exactly how serious and extensive are the complaints I have made against the police. I provided Operation Elveden with a letter to the PCC from Piers Morgan when he was editor of the Daily Mirror – you should already have a copy of that letter in facsimile, but I attach a copy to this email. In that letter Morgan admits that he received information (about me) from a Met Police officer in circumstances which can only have been illegal, viz: ““The police source of our article (whose identity we have a moral obligation to protect)…” That letter alone would have been enough to charge Morgan and the Mirror’s then Chief Crime Reporter Jeff Edwards with criminal offences. In addition, there was also the evidence of a Mirror story which corroborated the Morgan letter. A copy of that Mirror story was supplied to Operation Elveden. The officer who dealt with my original complaint, Det Supt Jeff Curtis of Scotland Yard, promised me that he would interview Morgan and Edwards then failed to do so. I supplied Operation Eleveden with a tape recording of Curtis making the promise. No contact with the Mirror was made. This meant that not only was no investigation made of the certain offences resulting from the admitted illegal receipt of information in Morgan’s letter, but no investigation of the possibility of the information having been purchased was made. It is probable that the information was purchased by the Mirror. All of that constituted a clear misconduct in a public office and a perversion of the course of justice by Curtis. My complaint to Operation Elveden has met with the same wilful neglect of my allegations of serious crimes that Curtis displayed. Every person who has dealt with my complaint from Operation Elveden’s receipt of it to the rejection of my appeal has, by ignoring the cast iron evidence of Morgan’s letter to the PCC, committed the crimes of misconduct in a public office and a perversion of the course of justice. These people are: 1. Operation Elveden Deputy Assistant Commissioner Steve Kavanagh Commander Neil Basu Detective Inspector Daniel Smith 2. Metropolitan Police’s Directorate of Professional Standards (DPS) Det Chief Superintendant Alaric Bonthron Chief Inspector Andy Dunn Det Chief Inspector Tim Neligan Inspector David Corbet I have also kept Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe fully informed of the nature and treatment of my complaints. I want every one of these people investigated. A very telling fact about my complaints to Operation Eleveden and the DPS is that, despite my numerous requests to do so, I have been unable to meet with any police officer handling the case. That can only be explained by the facts of the case putting the persistent refusal to investigate beyond any reasonable explanation. Everyone involved knows I have given them an open and shut conviction. I ask that I meet with someone senior from the IPCC, preferably Anne Owers. There is a sinister absurdity in the position you are claiming for the IPCC. Iin effect you are saying that if a police force refuses to address a complaint honestly and does not refer it to the IPCC, then nothing can be done because the IPCC can only take cases which are referred to them. In short, the police can get rid of any complaint, no matter how serious, simply by refusing to record or refer it to the IPCC. Do you dispute my interpretation of the situation? Your suggestion that judicial review could apply is frankly adding insult to injury because there are very few people who could afford such a hideously expensive legal action. It is the equivalent to telling a poor man that the Ritz is open to all. Yours sincerely,
Robert Henderson ——————————————————————————————— IPCC ref: 2014/030525 !enquiries Today at 3:19 PM (21 July 2014) To ‘robert henderson’ Dear Mr Henderson Thank you for your email of 17 July 2014. While I appreciate that you are unhappy that there is no avenue of appeal to the IPCC, I am unable to advise you any differently. It is also significant that your allegation of corruption with regard to an unknown police officer passing information to the Daily Mirror was referred to the Police Complaints Authority (PCA) in 1999. The IPCC is not able to deal with matters which were dealt with by the PCA. However, I note that your email contains allegations about a number of officers within the Metropolitan Police which have not been made in your earlier complaint. Therefore, I have forwarded your email on to the Directorate of Professional Standards (DPS) so that these matters can be considered as a new complaint. Finally, the IPCC is unable to accede to your request for a meeting. Yours sincerely Jack Paynter Customer Contact Advisor Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC)
Tel: 03000200096 enquiries@ipcc.gsi.gov.uk IPCC Statutory Guidance on the handling of police complaints
—————————————————————————————————————
IPCC ref: 2014/030525 !enquiries Today at 3:46 PM (21 July 2014) To ‘anywhere156@yahoo.co.uk’ Dear Mr Henderson Further to my earlier email, I write to confirm that I have forwarded your email to the Directorate of Professional Standards (DPS). It is now their responsibility to assess the new allegations you have made. Please find attached a Frequently Asked Questions sheet which may be of some use. Yours sincerely
Jack Paynter Customer Contact Advisor Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) Tel: 03000200096 enquiries@ipcc.gsi.gov.uk<mailto:jack.paynter@ipcc.gsi.gov.uk> http://www.ipcc.gov.uk<http://www.ipcc.gov.uk/> IPCC Statutory Guidance on the handling of police complaints<http://www.ipcc.gov.uk/page/statutory-guidance> —————————————————————————- Jack Paynter Customer Contact Advisor Independent Police Complaints Commission PO Box 473 Sale M33 0BW 24 July 2014
Dear Mr Paynter, I have your two emails of 21 July. Two points arise: 1. You have not answered questions I put in my 8 July email, viz: Appeals
Please explain to me how my complaints about senior officers do not necessitate their referral to the IPCC. The IPCC Mandatory referral criteria contains this The appropriate authority must refer complaints and conduct matters involving: serious corruption complaints or conduct matters which are alleged to have arisen from the same incident as anything falling within these criteria Please explain to me why my complaints do not fall within these categories, especially that of serious corruption. And There is a sinister absurdity in the position you are claiming for the IPCC. In effect you are saying that if a police force refuses to address a complaint honestly and does not refer it to the IPCC, then nothing can be done because the IPCC can only take cases which are referred to them. In short, the police can get rid of any complaint, no matter how serious, simply by refusing to record or refer it to the IPCC. Do you dispute my interpretation of the situation? Do you refuse to answer these questions? If so on what grounds? I would remind you that the IPCC has a public service obligation to answer reasonable questions from the public. Your failure to answer my questions as a matter of course suggests that I am correct in believing that the IPCC does have the power to take this matter. 2. You say that because my complaint against Det Supt Jeff Curtis was refused by the Police Complaints Authority (PCA) it cannot be taken by the IPCC. The fact that it was refused by the DPA does one thing only: it unequivocally demonstrates that the DPA were part of the corrupt manipulation of my complaints against the Mirror, the police and the Blairs. Despite having the proof of Morgan’s letter and the knowledge that Jeff Curtis had failed to investigate this clearest of evidence, they refused to take the matter up. You can add them to the already large cast of those guilty of misconduct in a public office and a perversion of the course of justice. What the IPCC needs to understand is that this whole affair was very political, in fact just about as political as it is possible to get. If you look at the facsimile of Morgan’s letter to the PCC you will see that it involved Tony and Cherie Blair. During the six most important weeks of Blair’s life the Blairs suddenly decided to try to have me prosecuted under the Malicious Communications Act for letters I had written to them seeking their help after I was grossly abused by the media in 1995 and had exhausted all avenues – PCC, BBC Complaints, my MP – without getting redress. I wrote to Blair as the prospective next PM and his wife as a leading human rights lawyer. The Blairs suffered the gross humiliation of having their attempt rebuffed by the Crown Prosecution Service within hours of it being referred to them – just think of the pressure on the CPS to do what Blair wanted – with the CPS saying unequivocally my letters were perfectly legal. Not only that, but the Blairs did not go to the police when I sent them the letters. Rather, they only made their complaints later after I had circulated them and the non-replies I was getting from their offices to every mainstream media outlet at the beginning of the 1997 election campaign. Clearly the Blairs were not disturbed by the content of the letters as such. What worried them was their failure to meaningfully respond to my requests for help and a fear that this would be taken up by the mainstream media during the election campaign. Tellingly, after the Blairs failed to have me prosecuted they failed to take any civil action (with its much lower evidential standard of the balance of probabilities) against me. Instead they engaged in an illegal ten year long harassment of me using the state security apparatus and/or private operators. (The Mirror story which induced Morgan’s letter to the PCC stated that Special Branch had taken the matter up and I subsequently used the Data Protection Act to prove that both Special Branch and MI5 had files on me). The harassment covered everything from death threats to the ostentatious opening of my post. The harassment ceased as soon as Blair left Downing Street. In 1999 Sir Richard Body put down this EDM for me: 10 November 1999 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 I give you that brief précis so that you and your colleagues can understand exactly why everyone from the police to the DPP have been so desperately keen to keep this story under wraps. Of course, the longer the time it extends, the more people involved, the greater the scandal becomes and the more desperate is the desire to censor the matter . This is a wholly exceptional matter. I have given the IPCC the clearest evidence of wilful and sustained criminal behaviour throughout the police and justice system. When the guards can longer be trusted, they need to be overthrown. The IPCC has the power to do that. I ask again for a meeting with someone senior within the IPCC. You can of course continue to refuse but think on this: if I do manage to get the scandal into the public fold the IPCC will have to explain exactly what it was doing covering up serious criminal behaviour by the police. Yours sincerely,
Robert Henderson Cc Rachel Cerfontyne (IPCC Deputy Chair) Sarah Green (IPCC Deputy Chair) Cindy Butts (IPCC Commissioner) Derrick Campbell (IPCC Commissioner) Mary Cunneen(IPCC Commissioner) James Dipple-Johnstone (IPCC Commissioner) Carl Gumsley (IPCC Commissioner) Jennifer Izekor (IPCC Commissioner) Kathryn Stone(IPCC Commissioner) Jan Williams (IPCC Commissioner) Jonathan Tross (IPCC non-operational commissioner) Ruth Evans (IPCC non-operational commissioner) David Bird (IPCC non-operational commissioner) Sue Whelan-Tracy (IPCC non-operational commissioner) Amanda Kelly (IPCC Chief Executive) 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 Mark.lewis@thlaw.co.uk Directorate of Professional Standards (DPS) Appeals Unit —————————————————————————- Dame Anne Owers
Chair
Independent Police Complaints Commission
PO Box 473
Sale
M33 0BW
27 July 2014
Dear Dame Anne,
Further to my email of 8 July I have had a look at the Police Reform Act 2002 which established the IPCC. The sections of interest are:
12 Complaints, matters and persons to which Part 2 applies
(1)In this Part references to a complaint are references (subject to the following provisions of this section) to any complaint about the conduct of a person serving with the police which is made (whether in writing or otherwise) by—
(a)a member of the public who claims to be the person in relation to whom the conduct took place;….
(2)In this Part “conduct matter” means (subject to the following provisions of this section, paragraph 2(4) of Schedule 3 and any regulations made by virtue of section 23(2)(d)) any matter which is not and has not been the subject of a complaint but in the case of which there is an indication (whether from the circumstances or otherwise) that a person serving with the police may have—
(a)committed a criminal offence; or
(b)behaved in a manner which would justify the bringing of disciplinary proceedings.
(3)The complaints that are complaints for the purposes of this Part by virtue of subsection (1)(b) do not, except in a case falling within subsection (4), include any made by or on behalf of a person who claims to have been adversely affected as a consequence only of having seen or heard the conduct, or any of the alleged effects of the conduct….
(5)For the purposes of this section a person shall be taken to have witnessed conduct if, and only if—
(a)he acquired his knowledge of that conduct in a manner which would make him a competent witness capable of giving admissible evidence of that conduct in criminal proceedings; or
(b)he has in his possession or under his control anything which would in any such proceedings constitute admissible evidence of that conduct…..
My complaint ticks all the boxes:
1. I am the person directly involved.
2. The crimes which are the subject of my complaint misconduct in a public office and the perversion of the course of justice – are serious and thus should have been submitted to the IPCC under the Mandatory Referral requirement. The fact that they have not been submitted creates at least a disciplinary offence and quite possibly another a criminal offence if it has been done with the intent of suppressing a crime.
3. I have supplied to the police conclusive evidence of a serious crime, namely, Morgan’s own written word that he received information from the police in circumstances which can only have been illegal, and conclusive evidence of a large number of police officers refusing to investigate the crime.
3. All the evidence I have is admissible, viz:
a) The copy of Morgan’s letter was sent to me by the PCC and hence was not obtained by theft or subterfuge.
b) The Mirror story which utilised the illegal information is public knowledge.
c) It is a checkable fact (just look at the police record of my original complaint) that Det Supt Jeff Curtis did not interview Piers Morgan, Jeff Edwards or any other Mirror employee or freelance and consequently did not make any examination of the Mirror’s records to see if they had paid for the information.
d) The evidence of the persistent failure of the police from Operation Elveden to the Directorate of Professional Standards to investigate the conclusive evidence of serious crime is contained my correspondence with Operation Elveden and the DPS, copies of which the IPCC has and which I again include below.
Please explain to me by return why the IPCC is refusing to take up my complaint. The refusal is clearly in breach of the law.
Yours sincerely,
Robert Henderson
CC
Rachel Cerfontyne (IPCC Deputy Chair)
Sarah Green (IPCC Deputy Chair)
Cindy Butts (IPCC Commissioner)
Derrick Campbell (IPCC Commissioner)
Mary Cunneen(IPCC Commissioner)
James Dipple-Johnstone (IPCC Commissioner)
Carl Gumsley (IPCC Commissioner)
Jennifer Izekor (IPCC Commissioner)
Kathryn Stone(IPCC Commissioner)
Jan Williams (IPCC Commissioner)
Jonathan Tross (IPCC non-operational commissioner)
Ruth Evans (IPCC non-operational commissioner)
David Bird (IPCC non-operational commissioner)
Sue Whelan-Tracy (IPCC non-operational commissioner)
Amanda Kelly (IPCC Chief Executive)
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
Mark.lewis@thlaw.co.uk
Directorate of Professional Standards (DPS) Appeals Unit
—————————————————————————– PCC ref: 2014/030525 !enquiries Jul 28 at 4:45 PM To ‘anywhere156@yahoo.co.uk’ Dear Mr Henderson Thank you for your two emails of 24 and 27 July 2014. I will endeavour to answer the points that you raised. In your email of 24 July 2014, you questioned why your complaints against senior officers had not been referred to the IPCC. To support your assertion that your complaints should have been referred to the IPCC because they were against senior officers, you quote the following passage from the IPCC Statutory Guidance: ‘Appeals 1.27 Chief officers now have responsibility for handling certain appeals. All appeals about the recording of complaints will continue to be dealt with by the IPCC. The IPCC will also deal with any appeal concerning a complaint about the conduct of a senior officer or complaints that have been or must be referred to the IPCC.’ However, this passage does not state that complaints against senior officers need to be referred to the IPCC. Rather, it states that the IPCC will act as the relevant appeal body for any complaint about the conduct of a senior officer. I note that your complaints are against a DI Smith and a DS Curtis. In the context of the above passage, a senior officer is an officer holding a rank above Chief Superintendent. In both your emails of 24 and 27 July, you repeat your assertion that your complaints should have been referred to the IPCC because they constitute serious corruption. However, both of your complaints against DI Smith and DS Curtis essentially amount to an allegation that they have failed to investigate criminal allegations against Mr Piers Morgan and Mr Jeff Edwards. While I accept that your original complaint against the unnamed officer who passed information to Mr Piers Morgan would meet the mandatory referral criteria, I again remind you that this incident was referred to our predecessor the Police Complaints Authority (PCA) in 1999. The IPCC is not able to deal with matters which have already been dealt with by the PCA. I hope that my email is satisfactory.
Yours sincerely
Jack Paynter Customer Contact Advisor Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC)
Tel: 03000200096 enquiries@ipcc.gsi.gov.uk<mailto:jack.paynter@ipcc.gsi.gov.uk> http://www.ipcc.gov.uk<http://www.ipcc.gov.uk/> IPCC Statutory Guidance on the handling of police complaints<http://www.ipcc.gov.uk/page/statutory-guidance> —————————————————————————– Dame Anne Owers
Chair
Independent Police Complaints Commission
PO Box 473
Sale
M33 0BW
6 August 2014
Dear Dame Anne,
On 28 July I received yet another reply from Jack Paynter (see below) which failed to address the question of the IPCC’s legal obligations to investigate. He seems to either be unaware of the IPCC’s own definition of corruption or is aware of it and is cynically using that well tried and tested bureaucratic trick of trying to exhaust a complainant by multiplying correspondence through a deliberate failure to answer questions adequately or at all.
Mr Painter takes issue with me over the meaning of corruption. He claims that my complaints post Jeff Curtis do not fall within the meaning of the word as far as the IPCC is concerned. Well, here is the IPCC definition, viz.:
35. Police forces and police authorities are required by law to refer complaints or conduct matters to the IPCC if the allegation includes serious corruption which is defined in the IPCC’s Statutory Guidance 2010 as including:
• Any attempt to pervert the course of justice or other conduct likely seriously to harm the administration of justice, in particular the criminal justice system
• Payments or other benefits or favours received in connection with the performance or duties amounting to an offence in relation to which a magistrates’ court would be likely to decline jurisdiction
• Corrupt controller, handler or informer relationships
•Provision of confidential information in return for payment or other benefits or favours where the conduct goes beyond a possible prosecution for an offence under section 55 of the Data Protection Act 1998
• Extraction and supply of seized controlled drugs, firearms or other material
• Attempts or conspiracies to do any of the above18
All my complaints against the police are of misconduct in a public office and the perversion of the course of justice. The offences arise from a failure to act on conclusive evidence of criminal behaviour by Piers Morgan and Jeff Edwards when they were employed by the Daily Mirror. Ergo, these complaints indubitably fall under the IPCC’s “Any attempt to pervert the course of justice or other conduct likely seriously to harm the administration of justice, in particular the criminal justice system”. They are also relevant offences which qualifies them for mandatory referral to the IPCC..
By own rules and regulations you cannot legally refuse to investigate these complaints. The fact that they have not been submitted automatically to the IPCC as the law requires also means you need to take action against the responsible officers for failing to comply with the law. Most importantly, you must ensure that an investigation of Piers Morgan and Jeff Edwards is begun ASAP. If you fail to do any or all of these things you will yourself be guilty of misconduct in a public office and arguably of attempting to pervert the course of justice.
That leaves my complaint against De Supt Jeff Curtis and the failure of the Police Complaints Authority (PCA) in 1999 to investigate my complaints. Mr Painter says that the IPCC cannot investigate complaints rejected by the PCA Please let me know the legal basis for this claim.
But regardless of whether there is such a legal bar, if the other police officers who have entered the picture since Jeff Curtis’ involvement are investigated it would be absurd if Curtis was not also investigated.
I ask once again to meet you.
Yours sincerely,
Robert Henderson
Cc Rachel Cerfontyne (IPCC Deputy Chair)
Sarah Green (IPCC Deputy Chair)
Cindy Butts (IPCC Commissioner)
Derrick Campbell (IPCC Commissioner)
Mary Cunneen(IPCC Commissioner)
James Dipple-Johnstone (IPCC Commissioner)
Carl Gumsley (IPCC Commissioner)
Jennifer Izekor (IPCC Commissioner)
Kathryn Stone(IPCC Commissioner)
Jan Williams (IPCC Commissioner)
Jonathan Tross (IPCC non-operational commissioner)
Ruth Evans (IPCC non-operational commissioner)
David Bird (IPCC non-operational commissioner)
Sue Whelan-Tracy (IPCC non-operational commissioner)
Amanda Kelly (IPCC Chief Executive)
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
Mark.lewis@thlaw.co.uk
Directorate of Professional Standards (DPS) Appeals Unit
—————————————————————-
!enquiries Aug 12 at 3:15 PM
To ‘robert henderson’
Dear Mr Henderson
Thank you for your email dated 6 August 2014, unfortunately Dame Anne is not in a position to respond to individual enquires and your email has been passed to the Customer Contact Team to respond.
I am sorry that you feel we were unable to answer your questions in our previous response, however our position remains the same. This incident was referred to our predecessor the Police Complaints Authority (PCA) in 1999, the IPCC is not able to deal with matters which have already been dealt with by the PCA.
Kind Regards
Claire Parker
Customer Contact Advisor
Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC)
PO Box 473
Sale
M33 0BW
Tel: 0300 020 0096
enquiries@ipcc.gsi.gov.uk<mailto:enquiries@ipcc.gsi.gov.uk>
IPCC Statutory Guidance on the handling of police complaints<http://www.ipcc.gov.uk/page/statutory-guidance>
—————————————————————————-
Dame Anne Owers
Chair
Independent Police Complaints Commission
PO Box 473
Sale
M33 0BW
17 August 2014
Dear Dame Anne,
As you will see from the email from Claire Parker immediately below I have been sent yet another reply from your office which fails to answer my questions. Let me list the questions again:
1. Since when has a senior public servant not been in a position to answer individual queries from a member of the public with serious and pertinent reasons to ask for a meeting, namely, (1) the persistent refusal of the Met Police to investigate serious crimes and (2) the persistent refusal of IPCC staff to engage with the clearest evidence of serious criminality within the Met Police?
2. In my last email to you (6 August) I asked for the legal basis for Mr Paynter’s claim that a complaint already reviewed by the Police Complaints Authority (PCA) – my complaint against De Supt Jeff Curtis – could not be investigated by the IPCC. Ms Parker has failed to provide the legal basis. Please supply it.
3. I wrote this in my last email to you: “All my complaints against the police are of misconduct in a public office and the perversion of the course of justice. The offences arise from a failure to act on conclusive evidence of criminal behaviour by Piers Morgan and Jeff Edwards when they were employed by the Daily Mirror. Ergo, these complaints indubitably fall under the IPCC’s “Any attempt to pervert the course of justice or other conduct likely seriously to harm the administration of justice, in particular the criminal justice system”. They are also relevant offences which qualifies them for mandatory referral to the IPCC.” Ms Carter has failed to address this matter. Please explain to me why my complaints other than the one concerning Det Sup Jeff Curtis do not fall within the IPCC’s remit.
You are treading on very dangerous ground Dame Anne. I have provided you with ample opportunity to take up these matters and your refusal to do already constitutes the criminal offence of misconduct in a public office and arguably is an attempt to pervert the course of justice as the IPCC is de facto part of the justice system.
If the story got into the public fold you probably would be tempted to claim that you knew nothing about the business.
That would be a difficult position to sustain because (1) I have circulated my emails relating to the matter, including my emails to you, to enough people within the IPCC and the Police to make it improbable that you would not know of the case and (2) the nature of those involved with the case, including most importantly Tony and Cherie Blair, makes it exceedingly likely that it would have been brought to your attention.
Throughout my ten year battle with the Blairs I had these senior police officers personally deal with my complaints against the Blairs and others such as Piers Morgan who were attached to the story:
Det Chief Supt Tony Dawson – The Met’s Internal Investigations Command
Dept Supt Jeff Curtis
Chief Supt John Yates
Chief Supt Eric Brown
Supt Cliff Hughes
Supt Alex Fish
Chief Inspector Julia Wortley
Chief Inspector Ian West
Det Chief Inspector Stephen Kershaw
My complaints ranged from the Blairs’ attempts to pervert the course of justice by making allegations to the police about me which as lawyers they must have known were bogus to the death threats I was receiving. As I am sure you are aware officers of this seniority would not normally be involved at the operational level with such allegations of crimes. Yet I had the likes of Tony Dawson – a very influential as well as senior copper – personally taking my statements. The only reasonable explanation for such utterly exceptional treatment was the Blairs’ involvement.
You have a legal obligation to answer my questions. I suggest you do it before you put yourself unambiguously into the realm of criminality. I ask again that we meet to discuss the matter.
One further point. In his email to me of 21 Jusly Mr Paynter wrote “…I note that your email contains allegations about a number of officers within the Metropolitan Police which have not been made in your earlier complaint. Therefore, I have forwarded your email on to the Directorate of Professional Standards (DPS) so that these matters can be considered as a new complaint.”
I have received nothing from the DPS after 4 weeks. Please take action to make the DPS contact me about these complaints. Incidentally, they all fall within the IPCC definition of corruption. Therefore, the DPS has a mandatory duty to refer them to you.
Yours sincerely,
Robert Henderson
Cc Rachel Cerfontyne (IPCC Deputy Chair)
Sarah Green (IPCC Deputy Chair)
Cindy Butts (IPCC Commissioner)
Derrick Campbell (IPCC Commissioner)
Mary Cunneen(IPCC Commissioner)
James Dipple-Johnstone (IPCC Commissioner)
Carl Gumsley (IPCC Commissioner)
Jennifer Izekor (IPCC Commissioner)
Kathryn Stone(IPCC Commissioner)
Jan Williams (IPCC Commissioner)
Jonathan Tross (IPCC non-operational commissioner)
Ruth Evans (IPCC non-operational commissioner)
David Bird (IPCC non-operational commissioner)
Sue Whelan-Tracy (IPCC non-operational commissioner)
Amanda Kelly (IPCC Chief Executive)
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
Mark.lewis@thlaw.co.uk
Directorate of Professional Standards (DPS) Appeals Unit
—————————————————————————-IPCC 2014/030525enquiries Aug 26 at 10:17 AMTo
‘anywhere156@yahoo.co.uk’ Dear Mr Henderson, Thank you for your email of 17 August 2014. For the legal basis of my assertion that the IPCC is unable to take action with regard to a complaint that was referred to and investigated by the PCA, please refer to The Independent Police Complaints Commission (Transitional Provisions) Order 2004. With regard to your query as to why your subsequent complaints have not been referred to the IPCC, please refer to my email of 28 July 2014. Please note, I consider that I have dealt with these matters in my previous emails. Any further emails received which raise matters which have previously been deal with will be filed, but not responded to. However, as you have not received a recording decision concerning the complaint I forwarded on 21 July 2014 within 15 working days, I have forwarded your email to our Casework Administration department. They will process your appeal and you will receive a formal acknowledgment in due course. Please send any appeal related information via email to northcasework@ipcc.gsi.gov.uk. Finally, I note that you continue to copy numerous individuals within the IPCC into your emails. As you may have gathered, these emails are passed to the Customer Contact Centre to be dealt with. In future, please send any emails concerning your appeal to northcasework@ipcc.gsi.gov.uk<mailto:northcasework@ipcc.gsi.gov.uk>. Any general enquiries should be sent to enquiries@ipcc.gsi.gov.uk<mailto:enquiries@ipcc.gsi.gov.uk>. If you continue to send your emails to multiple individuals within the IPCC, we may consider restricting your email access to the organisation. Yours sincerely
Jack Paynter Customer Contact Advisor Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC)
Tel: 03000200096 enquiries@ipcc.gsi.gov.uk<mailto:jack.paynter@ipcc.gsi.gov.uk> http://www.ipcc.gov.uk<http://www.ipcc.gov.uk/> IPCC Statutory Guidance on the handling of police complaints<http://www.ipcc.gov.uk/page/statutory-guidance> ———————————————————————————————————————-
Dame Anne Owers Chair Independent Police Complaints Commission PO Box 473 Sale M33 0BW 30 August 2014
Dear Dame Anne, I have received another email from your office, this time from Jack Paynter. His email is dated 26 August. A copy is directly below. Mr Paynter has answered one of my questions, namely, the authority which debars complaints submitted to the Police Complaints Authority being accepted by the IPCC, viz: “(3) No conduct matter shall be recorded under paragraph 10 or 11 of Schedule 3 to the 2002 Act if its subject-matter was previously submitted to the appropriate authority or referred to the Authority under Chapter 1 of Part 4 of the Police Act 1996 and as respects that complaint or matter any of the events mentioned in paragraph (1)(a) to (e) occurred.” ( The Independent Police Complaints Commission (Transitional Provisions) Order 2004). As my complaint to the PCA was corruptly rejected by them, the legislation leads to the dangerous (for justice) situation whereby a complainant has no remedy for a gross abuse of power. However, in view of the legal position I will set this complaint aside for the moment. That does not get out of the deep hole you have dug for yourself. The rest of my complaints were never submitted to the PCA. Hence, the IPCC has a legal obligation to accept the complaints and a legal obligation to take disciplinary action against the various police officers who have failed to perform their mandatory duty of referring the complaints to the IPCC – all my complaints are relevant offences and hence the referral to you is mandatory Mr Paynter has simply ignored these matters, both in his latest email and his previous ones. It is high time you dealt with these matters yourself. You have the full details of the outstanding complaints in my previous emails so I will not repeat them. One last thing, Mr Paynter complains about the fact that I have been circulating my emails to the senior management of the IPCC and threatens to restrict my ability to email them. That is very telling. Stopping the circulation of damaging facts is the final refuge of the public servant in trouble because they have misbehaved. I am writing to the senior management to ensure that the failure of the IPCC to do its legal duty is known to each and every one of you so that none of those emailed will be able to say they did not know what was going on when the matter becomes public. I repeat my request to meet with you. Yours sincerely,
Robert Henderson ——————————————————————————————————————————- Independent Police Complaints Commission
PO Box 473
Sale
M33 0BW
Our reference no: 2014/030525
Mr Robert Henderson
156 Levita House
Chalton St
London NW1 1HR
11 September 2014
Dear Mr Henderson .
Thank you for your appeal, received in this office on 17 August 2014. You asked us to review the non-recording of your complaint by the Metropolitan Police.
This letter acknowledges receipt of your appeal. However, none of the issues have yet been considered.
As part of the appeals process the IPCC will contact the relevant chief officer or local policing body, to get all the papers they hold about your complaint. We will use this to assess your appeal.
We are currently experiencing a significant volume of work and therefore it may take up to 8 weeks for your appeal to be allocated a casework manager. We would like to assure you that we are doing all we can to manage our appeals work effectively and apologise for any delay you may experience. It is possible that your appeal may be allocated more quickly than this.
If you have any further information in support of your appeal you should provide this to us immediately. Any addition information you provide should relate to your original complaint. You will not be able to provide additional information for us to consider after a decision has been made on your appeal or about any new complaint you have made or will be making.
We deal with appeals in date order based on the date they are received by the IPCC. Please see the appeals area of the IPCC website for the latest forecast of the overall delay , and the date of receipt of appeals that are currently allocated and being reviewed by a Casework Manager.
Our role is to review whether or not the chief officer is the appropriate authority to consider your complaint and whether or not they should have recorded the matter as a complaint under the Police Reform Act 2002. If you have not been given a recording decision we can direct the chief officer to provide you with this. Once we have completed the review, the decision we make about your appeal is final. Any direction made about recording our complaint is not an indication from the IPCC about the merit of your complaint.
Yours sincerely,
Peter Keane
Casework Administrator
Mr Peter Keane
Casework Administrator
Independent Police Complaints Commission
PO Box 473
Sale
M33 0BW
Tel: 0161 246 8502
northcasework@ipcc.gsi.gov.uk
——————————————————————————————————————————- Independent Police Complaints Commission
Mr Peter Keane
Casework Administrator
PO Box 473
Sale
M33 0BW
23 September 2014
Your reference no: 2014/030525
Dear Mr Keane,
I have just received your letter of 11 September. There are problems with the mail in my area because deliveries are being outsourced to a private company who are regularly dumping post rather than delivering it. Consequently, it would be better to conduct future correspondence with me by email.
To ensure you have copies of the full correspondence relating to this case I enclose that correspondence below. It contains everything from my initial contact with Operation Elveden to my last email to Anne Owers dated 30 August.
The important thing to grasp is that my complaints fall within the category of those which must as a matter of legal obligation be referred by the police to the IPCC. The IPCC Mandatory referral criteria contains this
The appropriate authority must refer complaints and conduct matters involving:
serious corruption
complaints or conduct matters which are alleged to have arisen from the same incident as anything falling within these criteria
Serious corruption
For the purposes of paragraphs 4(1)(b) and 13(1)(b) of Schedule 3 to the 2002 Act
and regulations 2(2)(a)(iii) and 5(1)(c) of the Regulations, the term ‘serious
corruption’ shall refer to conduct that includes:
• Any attempt to pervert the course of justice or other conduct likely to seriously harm
the administration of justice, in particular the criminal justice system
• Payments or other benefits or favours received in the connection with the
performance of duties where a Magistrates’ Court would be likely to decline
jurisdiction
• Corrupt controller/handler/informer relationships
• Provision of confidential information in return for payment or other benefits or
favours where the conduct goes beyond a possible prosecution for an offence under
section 55 of the Data Protection Act 1998
• Extraction and supply of seized controlled drugs, firearms or other material
• Attempts or conspiracies to do any of the above.
All of my complaints apart from that against Supt Jeff Curtis fall within those regulations. I have made this clear to the IPCC in my emails to Anne Owers dated 8 July, 6 August, 17 August and 30 August and my email to Jack Paynter dated 17 July and 24 July.
When obtaining the information from the various police bodies involved please ensure that everything a sent to Operation Elveden is obtain. This includes a tape recording of Jeff Curtis promising to interview the Mirror editor and other personnel which he then failed to do.
Yours sincerely,
Robert Henderson
Cc Anne Owers (IPCC Chair)
Rachel Cerfontyne (IPCC Deputy Chair)
Sarah Green (IPCC Deputy Chair)
Cindy Butts (IPCC Commissioner)
Derrick Campbell (IPCC Commissioner)
Mary Cunneen(IPCC Commissioner)
James Dipple-Johnstone (IPCC Commissioner)
Carl Gumsley (IPCC Commissioner)
Jennifer Izekor (IPCC Commissioner)
Kathryn Stone(IPCC Commissioner)
Jan Williams (IPCC Commissioner)
Jonathan Tross (IPCC non-operational commissioner)
Ruth Evans (IPCC non-operational commissioner)
David Bird (IPCC non-operational commissioner)
Sue Whelan-Tracy (IPCC non-operational commissioner)
Amanda Kelly (IPCC Chief Executive)
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
Mark.lewis@thlaw.co.uk
Directorate of Professional Standards (DPS) Appeals Unit
——————————————————————————————————————————- From: !NorthCasework <_NorthCasework@ipcc.gsi.gov.uk>
To: “‘anywhere156@yahoo.co.uk'” <anywhere156@yahoo.co.uk> Sent: Wednesday, 24 September 2014, 12:26 Subject: IPCC appeal – 2014/030525 Our ref: 2014/030525 Dear Mr Henderson Thank you for contacting the IPCC. I have made a note on your case to ensure that all future correspondence is now sent to you via email rather than post. This email acknowledges receipt, it is not a response to any points you have raised. Your correspondence will be reviewed and a response will be sent to you. Yours sincerely Lucy Quin Casework Administrator Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) PO Box 473 Sale M33 0BW Tel: (+44) 0161 246 8502 Email: northcasework@ipcc.gsi.gov.uk<mailto:northcasework@ipcc.gsi.gov.uk> http://www.ipcc.gov.uk<http://www.ipcc.gov.uk/> IPCC Statutory Guidance on the handling of police complaints<http://www.ipcc.gov.uk/page/statutory-guidance> ——————————————————————————————————————————-
Lucy Quin
Casework Administrator
Independent Police Complaints Commission
PO Box 473
Sale
M33 0BW
23 September 2014
Your reference no: 2014/030525
Dear Ms Quinn,
I attach a facsimile copy of the Piers Morgan letter to the PCC in which he admits receiving information from the police in circumstances which can only have been illegal. I have supplied this to all the parties mentioned in the voluminous correspondence I have copied to Mr Keane and you should have it already. I send it to you to make absolutely certain that this vital piece of evidence does not go missing before the appeal takes place.
Yours sincerely,
Robert Henderson
|
Living In A Madhouse 