Our reference: 2017/082079

Mr

Grimsby
DN32

4 December 2018

Dear Mr

This letter is in response to your appeal against the decision Humberside Police
have made in respect of your complaints (Humberside police reference:
CO/432/15). We received the appeal on 8 November 2018.

Please note that we are independent of the police. Our role in the appeal process
is to look at the way the police investigated your complaint, not to re-investigate
your complaint and the surrounding circumstances. The IOPC looks
independently at the evidence presented and makes an assessment based on
that evidence and on knowledge of policies and regulations which dictate how
police forces should act.

The police complaints process is evidence based and decisions are made using
the civil standard of proof; the balance of probabilities. This means I have
considered whether it is more likely than not that the conduct took place as you
allege, based on evidence available.

I have decided not to uphold your appeal. When making my decision I considered:

• your appeal and all documentation you have provided to the IOPC
• the report by the police investigator Chief Inspector Harrison (IO) and the
decision letter dated 12 September 2018;
• the evidence referred to in the report; and
• the rules and standards for how the police should investigate complaints.

Our legal duties are set out in paragraph 25 of Schedule 3 of the Police Reform
Act 2002 or Regulation 77 of the contractor regulations if your complaint is about
a contractor working for the police. We have to see:

1. if the findings need to be reconsidered, either by us or the police;

2. if any person has a case to answer for misconduct or gross misconduct
or whether a person’s performance is unsatisfactory;

1
 3. if the proposed police action is appropriate, for example if there needs to
be any disciplinary action or other actions;
4. if the Crown Prosecution Service should be involved so that they can
decide whether a crime might have been committed by someone working
for the police; and
5. if the information you were provided with was sufficient?

My letter to you will consider each point:

1. Do the findings need to be reconsidered, either by us or the police?

To make a decision I have to see:

 if the investigation dealt with all of your complaints;
 if the investigation was carried out in a proportionate manner and if
enough evidence was gathered; and
 if the right decisions have been made about the complaints which have
been investigated

I am satisfied that the investigation dealt with all your complaints. Humberside
Police have recorded and investigated your complaints in a proportionate and
thorough way, using all relevant information and evidence available.

The investigation report is thorough and I consider that the IO has addressed the
complaints in the investigation report in a meaningful and proportionate manner.

I consider that all relevant and appropriate evidence was gathered to enable the
IO to address the complaints in the investigation. The investigation report shows
the evidence used by the IO. The IOPC were supplied with the evidence used by
the IO whilst investigating your complaint.

In your appeal form you have stated that you do not agree with the findings of the
investigation. You have made a large amount of points and I shall make attempts
to address them. I assure you I have read all your points made and have
considered them alongside all documentation. However, I do not consider it
proportionate to respond to each and every appeal point made.

1. You state that the investigation is not proportionate to the nature of the
allegations. Whilst I agree that the allegations you have made are serious in
nature, however the evidence does not corroborate your assertions. A
proportionate investigation looks at the allegations made and the evidence
available. You have made assertions perjury and of collusion between the
police and the court/Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) and you have set out
an analysis of this in the Appeal of 22 April 2017 and your report of 19 February
2018, but these are your interpretations and observations, which are not
supported by the evidence.

2. You allege that you were wrongly convicted due to the failures of Humberside
Police, the Court and the CPS. I do not agree with this assertion in relation to
the police, I concur with the decision of the IO. Whilst you do not accept the
accounts of the witnesses who provided evidence against you, these have

2
 been tested in a Court and furthermore there are no evidence of any failures
by the police which have been identified. I note that you have made attempts
to appeal to the Court, the CCRC and the CPS and they have also not identified
any failures.

3. In the appeal you reiterate that there has been collusion of the police and
CPS/Court in relation to the failure to secure CCTV and the lack of a provision
of legal representation. I agree with the conclusion of the IO, there was no
CCTV available and the CPS were informed of this by the investigating officer.
The evidence does not support any collusion.

In terms of legal representation, you were informed by the custody officer when
you were detained following arrest, that you were entitled to free legal advice.
You were provided with a duty solicitor. Once you leave custody it is for you to
source your own legal representation for the court and not for the police.

4. You say you have been able to prove beyond doubt that the evidence of the
Johnsons was false and that the full code test (evidential stage) could not have
been met. I appreciate that you consider you have proven this, but the CPS
nor the Court raised any concerns about the evidence.

5. You assert again that you have been wrongly convicted and that your report of
19 February 2018 provides evidence pointing to the cause of the wrongful
conviction. I do not agree with your assertion based on the evidence available
and furthermore, I note that your case has been to the CCRC and was
unsuccessful.

6. You state that the IO did not include all complaints which the IOPC stated they
should. Please note that the decision letter in respect of your appeal of the local
resolution decision recommended Humberside Police to record new
complaints, but this recommendation is not a direction and therefore
Humberside Police are not duty bound to record them. If you wish to make
complaints, please make these online and Humberside Police will make a
recording decision in the usual way. However, I can see from the IO’s decision
letter that they have addressed more than the 2 complaints originally recorded.

7. You reiterate that your arrest was unlawful. I disagree and concur with the
conclusion made by the IO. You appear to be unhappy with the IO’s discussion
of PC Blake’s statement when he discusses ‘further grounds for arrest’ and
necessity for arrest with your refusal to provide your name. The arresting officer
provides further reasoning for his decision to arrest, not an alternative. I fully
agree with the reasoning provided by the IO and furthermore highlight that the
custody sergeant could have refused detention and did not and an Inspector
further reviewed the position in custody.

8. You question whether the CPS can alter the charges and they can and it can
be usual. The police are gatherers of evidence and present this to the CPS
who then can make a decision on whether or not to charge a person and also
make a decision on which offence.

3
I have read through all you appeal, supporting documentation and I have identified
nothing which would lead me to uphold the appeal. I find that the IO has arrived
at reasonable conclusions based on all the evidence available and that there has
been sound reasoning given for such decisions.

2. Does any person have a case to answer for misconduct or gross

misconduct or was any person’s performance unsatisfactory?

Here I have to look at the decision that the appropriate authority has made about
whether any officer or contractor may not have acted within the behaviour and
standards expected, or if any person’s performance may have been
unsatisfactory.

Further to the discussions above, I am satisfied that there is insufficient evidence

available that any officer may have a case to answer for misconduct or gross
misconduct.

The appeal is not upheld on this ground.

3. Are the appropriate authority’s proposed actions following the

investigation appropriate?

Where there is a case to answer that the standards have not been met or any
person’s performance is unsatisfactory the discipline and performance system
provides for a range of outcomes. These range from a hearing where the officer
or contractor may be dismissed to action taken by their superiors to address their
failings. In this part of your appeal I have considered how appropriate the
proposed action is against my view of the investigation’s findings about a case to
answer, the seriousness of the conduct alleged and the underlying evidence.

The appropriate authority have proposed no further action following the

investigation and I consider this to be an appropriate decision, given that there is
no evidence available that any officer may have a case to answer.

Some learning has been identified for the Investigating officer to include further
details for clarity when completing schedule of unused material for the CPS and I
consider this reasonable.

The appeal is not upheld on this ground.

4. Should the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) be involved?

The CPS decides whether to take action against someone working for the police
because they may have committed a crime.

It is appropriate that no referral was made to the CPS as there is no indication

that any police officer may have committed a criminal offence.

The appeal is not upheld on this ground.

4
5. If the information you were provided with was sufficient?

Yes, I am satisfied that the IOPC were sent all information and evidence that the
IO contemplated during the course of the investigation.

The appeal is not upheld on this ground.

Are there any points that we cannot consider?

You state that there has been a cover up by the Information Commissioner. This
is outside the remit of the IOPC and the police complaints process.

You said the court failed to explain the process. This is also outside the remit of
the police complaints process.

You are unable to appeal about the assessment of your appeal. I hope my
decision and the reasons for it are clear. If you have any questions or need more
information about the way we have looked at your appeal please contact me using
the details at the end of this letter.

We are committed to providing the highest possible standard of customer service,

but are aware that sometimes things might go wrong. If you are unhappy with the
service you have received from us, please tell us and we will do our best to put
things right. We will listen to you and try to resolve issues quickly.

Yours sincerely

Sarah Turner
Casework Manager
Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC)
IOPC contact:
Sarah Turner
Casework Manager
Tel: 0161 246 8623
Email: sarah.turner@policeconduct.gov.uk