Institutional Corruption, Part 2.
Posted 28 May 2023
I reserve the right to amend and update as and when. Please feel free to print and copy but please remember the copyright and intellectual property remains with me, the author.
The Revenge Arrest – 2015
Pictured image is the corrupt and sadistic PS 16259 Innes Dowlen.
The “Revenge Arrest” (RA) in 2015 is so called because I felt this arrest was more in revenge for the unlawful and unresolved arrest in 2012 and the four Devon & Cornwall Police (D&CP) officers who were given “Management Action” only between 2012 to 2014. This and the fact D&CP had a conflict of interest dealing with me again.
Three of the four officers were based at St Austell Police Station and the officers involved in producing enormous amounts of so called “evidence” against me in 2015 were also based at St Austell Police Station.
With the benefit of what happened later in 2018 my account of 2015/16, the Liberty Report, had to be re-written because it was a lot more Institutionally Corrupt than what I had first thought. This because D&CP was assisted by the same corrupt Government Departments and Regulators who denied me justice in 2015/16 and which I believe was orchestrated at a local level by Members of the Local Criminal Justice Board (LCJB) which was chaired by Chief Constable Shaun Sawyer.
The PIN
Things began when I was served with a Police Information Notice (PIN) around 10:35am on 06 November 2015. The serving officer was PC 10463 Michael Barnett and the witnessing officer was PS 15434 Paul Jones who was also later nominated to deal with my official complaint against D&CP as the Investigating Officer (I/O).
One failure on the PIN was my stated “Date of Birth: 23/04/15”, which is false and may have invalidated the Notice.
So having been served the PIN, I immediately advised the police officers that D&CP should not be dealing with this complaint because the arrest and detention in 2012 was unlawful and that four D&CP were reprimanded. I added that the IPCC failed to determine if the officers were ordered to do what they did or if they were bribed and PC Barnett noted “I’ve already been arrested for this before” in the “Recipient’s right to respond” box on the reverse of the PIN. “This” meaning Harassment.
A complaint of alleged Harassment had been made against me by Victoria Slavin and (X) and who I considered were both false accusers. We already know who (X) is and Victoria Slavin is the Cornwall Council Senior Solicitor for the NHS. Apart from being a false accuser it became clear later that the Trust Solicitor was being paid and took an active role with the CPS in the proceedings against me.
Between 06 November to 03 December 2015 some nine officers visited my address and on one occasion even suggested I attend an interview at St Austell Police Station. Despite me agreeing to this it was cancelled and I felt like I was being played.
Why D&CP did not consider these visits to my home as Harassment is unknown.
Rent Arrears
As if on cue, Sanctuary Housing began making demands for “Rent Arrears” awhile after the PIN was served and I assumed it was again to help its corrupt housing partner Cornwall Council apply pressure when needed. Daren Nowlan, Head of Income Services, claimed I owed rent in advance and which was attempted fraud because a week in hand had been paid in the mid 1990s by the then Restormel Borough Council.
Daren Nowlan was later promoted to Operations Director – Housing Services in 2017 when a Rob Watkins was appointed Head of Income Services and continued to dishonestly demand rent in advance. These fraudulent demands continued into 2016.
Despite asking Sanctuary Group Board Members every week for over three years, and counting, for proof in the weekly email that I owe one week or four weeks rent in advance, my request remains unanswered despite Sanctuary’s obligation to me in the Tenancy Agreement regarding my right of Access to information.
I have actually lost count of how many times Sanctuary and its lawyers have threatened me with legal action and repossession of my home and the day Alison died is without doubt the lowest of the low.
The Allegations
The wording on the PIN served on me on 06 November 2015 is as follows:
“The Police have received a formal allegation from” (X) “ and Victoria SLAVIN that the conduct exhibited by you and described below has caused them to feel harassed.
Details of alleged conduct (specific actions that are cause for complaint):
Posting Defamatory comments on social media, public websites and Public forums regarding” (X) “and Victoria Slavin
Taking pictures of” (X) “or Victoria Slavin
Posting pictures of” (X) “or Victoria Slavin on social media, public websites and public forums.”
The “described below” referred to the “Harassment (under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997).”
“Posting Defamatory comments”, is a civil matter until you add “has caused them to feel harassed” which then makes it a criminal offence. This I believe was in response to the Council’s threat of Defamation a year earlier which failed.
The picture of Victoria Slavin was courtesy of Linkedin and remains freely available on the internet. The pictures of (X) were taken by me and in the public interest. Ms Slavin’s view that the photos of (X) were taken “Clandestinely” is false and were taken from my bedroom window and no laws were broken. To the best of my knowledge neither (X) or Victoria Slavin had social media accounts at that time.
Despite the PIN being served on me and the officers continuing to visit me, I did receive a letter from complainant Victoria Slavin on 20 November 2015, on NHS headed paper, requesting that I:
“take down all the offending material (both past and present) that you have been posting within two days of the date of this letter ; and immediately cease from posting any further such material. Failure to comply with this letter will result in us immediately starting legal proceedings against you.” “Signed Victoria Slavin Solicitor On behalf of Cornwall Partnership Foundation Trust.”
Apart from the fact I would breach the conditions of the PIN if I replied to Victoria Slavin it was also quite obvious that if I removed anything it could have been interpreted as an admission of guilt. I also felt it unfair that I was being requested/threatened to remove/edit evidence from an ongoing investigation/proceedings. The letter also made it clear that the Solicitor was being paid to represent the NHS Trust having already had me arrested for harassment with another NHS Trust employee and which I felt was itself a conflict of interest as she was wearing two hats.
The letter also raised the question that if I was arrested would it mean the police was taking legal action against me or that the Cornwall Partnership NHS Foundation Trust had started legal proceedings against me?
In response to this letter from Victoria Slavin I sent an email to the CEO of the NHS Trust Philip Confue and other recipients on 26 November 2015 regarding the conflict of interest and the course of justice being perverted if I was again arrested by D&CP. The full list of recipients were: NHS Trust CEO Phillip Confue, Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner (OPCC), Cornwall Foundation Trust enquiries, Steve Double MP, NHS England, John Pollard, Leader of Cornwall Council, Local Government Ombudsman (LGO) Parliamentary Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) Jeremy Hunt/Parliament, Care Quality Commission (CQC), Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC), Department of Health, and Panorama. The OPCC and IPCC were included so they could advise Chief Constable Shaun Sawyer of the potential risk with his officers arresting me again, the obvious conflict of interest and perverting the course of justice.
The OPCC was headed by the very same PCC Tony Hogg who had appointed the then acting chief constable Shaun Sawyer to the official Chief Constable in February 2013.
This is an important email because it made all the recipients complicit for what followed.
Harassment with Violence
So on 03 December 2015 I was arrested at home for “Harassment with Violence”, and the arresting officer was PS 16259 Innes Dowlen. I immediately challenged this outrageous caution and much later acquired a copy of the police witness Note Book stating that:
“14.55 Arrest of Geoffrey McLaughlin by 6259 Dowlen — Cautioned “I don’t know what the violence bit is all about.” My signature “Arrested suspicion of harassment with fear of violence, having breached a PIN.” “I’ve never met him, I’ve never tried to contact him.” This in reference to (X).
A “Police Report” with an “Anticipated plea: Guilty” also acknowledged my “I DON’T KNOW ABOUT THE VIOLENCE” remark when I was cautioned on my doorstep. The “fear of violence, having breached a PIN” must have referred to the PIN served on me on the 06 November 2015 and the “fear of violence” is groundless.
So why the “Violence” remark? My personal view is that it was sadistic and was quickly dropped.
Three officers attended the arrest and one stopped outside whilst PS Dowlen and a PS 16048 Ian Richards followed me upstairs. PS Dowlen refused to let me put on a clean tee shirt, change my trousers for a pair with a zip, take any money or have a pee until we got to Newquay Police Station on the opposite coast. Once there I was given a much undersized pair of paper trousers to wear for a number of hours with all the indignity that went with them. This because what I was wearing had a cord.
I still have the grey paper trousers and they weigh around 75 grams and wouldn’t do up.
Neither my Solicitors, Coodes, or myself were ever told by D&CP who the victim/s of “Harassment with Violence” is or were and Coodes, my defence, was not really interested.
According to the “DETENTION LOG DOCUMENT”, I was officially charged and bailed To Court at:“21:02” on “03/12/2015” for “Harassment without violence.” So within hours and without discussion the offending “Violence” remark was dropped despite it causing a false arrest.
There is also a statement on the “CUSTODY RECORD FRONT SHEET” and “Created 03/12/2015” that:
“D/P has previously been issues an harassment notice but has continued his harassment of another including threats of violence.”
This statement is untrue and groundless and I believe refers to the events of 2012 and is in reference to Oonah Lacey and intended only to continue promoting the idea that I am a “violent” and “dangerous” offender but without a shred of evidence to substantiate it.
I had never met or tried to contact (X) since my complaint began in 2012 and only contacted Victoria Slavin by chance whilst making a Freedom of Information request (FOI) to the NHS Trust. The Deputy CEO Julie Dawson should have dealt with the FOI but requested Victoria Slavin deal with it. Victoria Slavin failed to answer the FOI request within the stated time limit so broke the law on behalf of the NHS Trust.
To stop me making further FOI request a vexatious order was requested and agreed, in keeping with the one Cornwall Council already had, to stop me making further FOI requests. This is common practice by the Information Commissioners Office (ICO) and is more about protecting authorities and employees than resolving outstanding issues.
When Sanctuary Housing Regional Director Richard Keeley twice invoked vexatious policies against me following the Mediation Scam it was not because I behaved in a vexatious manner but because I was asking questions he did not want to answer.
More about the ICO later and how it twice protectected D&CP.
Newquay Police Station
So having been arrested I was taken to Newquay Police Station in an unmarked police car and we arrived around 15:35 when I was then booked in by Custody PS 15428 Chris Wray. The usual procedures were carried out and I was assigned Cell 09 where I began making notes.
The first reference in the Custody Record of Rights regarding a Duty Solicitor is “I do want to speak to a solicitor at this time” which was recorded at “15:53” and which I signed.
The next reference in the “DETENTION LOG” by Civilian Detention Officer (CDO) 56630 Griffin is at “16:18.” Griffin’s one and only entry is “The detained person requested Duty Solicitor be contacted at 16:17 Ref: 151215946a.”
This entry is false and did not happen.
This is but one of number of inaccuracies recorded in the “DETENTION LOG” and which was contradicted by the cell CCTV footage and timings.
At “17:02” I was escorted to Consultation Room 1 by Custody PS Wray for consultation with Coodes Solicitor Stephanie Allen, CILEx. “Steph” to the officers.
According to the “DETENTION LOG” the consultation took some 47 minutes which I have always disputed because that would have made the consultation almost as long as the recorded interview itself, which I felt was quite ridiculous. Not letting a detained person wear his/her watch whilst detained is quite unreasonable.
It remains unknown if Coodes Solicitors was chosen randomly by the Defence Solicitors Call Centre (DSCC) or requested by name by D&CP. The DSCC declined to disclose any information to me as a member of the public.
According to Coodes Trial solicitor Lucy Bryant in an email to me dated 10 March 2016, Coodes was contacted by the DSCC with details of my case at “16:19” on 03/12/2015 following a call from D&CP to them at “16:18” and Coodes attended Newquay Police Station at “16:45.” There is nothing in Ms Bryant’s statement to rule out that Coodes was not requested by name by D&CP. The statement also makes it clear that Duty Solicitor Stephanie Allen attended Newquay Police Station some 15 minutes before we met.
The delay between requesting a solicitor at “15:53” and the DSCC contacting Coodes at “16:18” remains unexplained.
I believe I am right in saying that Mr Farrell, the Duty Solicitor in 2012, was chosen randomly and which D&CP most likely regretted and probably made sure it would not happen again. This I believe was also the case in 2018 when that Solicitor was described as not even being a Duty Solicitor. I also never received a Pre-Interview Disclosure again after 2012.
So following consultation we attended recorded interview in room 2 at “17:50” according to the “ DETENTION LOG” and the interview ended at “18:42”, when I was then returned to the cell. PS Innes Dowlen conducted the interview and I did not admit to Harassment. The earlier allegation of ”Harassment with Violence” was not mentioned and the amount of dialogue from Ms Allen during interview is less than a minute and mostly to correct something PS Dowlen had misunderstood. I don’t recall complainant Victoria Slavin being mentioned in interview.
Towards the end of the recording PS Dowlen asked to speak with Coodes Stephanie Allen on her own and this was recorded:
PS Dowlen: Right, okay, 18:39 this interview is concluded. Can I just speak to you? Do you want to speak to him first? (recorder tone sound).
Stephanie Allen: “When it stops.”
It has been suggested that this was an inappropriate request and unwise to have recorded it.
According to the “DETENTION LOG” I was returned to the cell after the interview at “18:43” by Custody PS Wray and also at “19:02” by CDO 56060 Watson and also at “18:38” according to the cell CCTV BST timing. I remain unclear if the time differences was to cover-up the fact the recorded interview was later edited and therefore interfered with timings.
The False Confession
What PS Innes Dowlen and Coodes Stephanie Allen discussed in private after interview soon became apparent when Ms Allen visited me in the cell some 7 minutes later at “18:47” and while an officer stood in the doorway. Ms Allen offered me a caution in return for agreeing to Harassment. A false confession in other words.
Having got my version of events on record I decided to accept the caution and Ms Allen left at “18:52” with my answer and I did not see her again that evening.
Charged and Bailed To Court
So having waited some considerable time in the cell and feeling hungry I used the cell intercom to try and get something to eat. I did speak to someone but there is no record of it in the “DETENTION LOG” and I got nothing to eat anyway. I was let out of the cell over 2 hours after Ms Allen had left the cell and at:
“21:02” Harassment without violence. Disposal at 20:05 03/12/2015 – Charged and Bailed to Court Wray PS 15428.”
When I was charged PS Dowlen was in view and I asked him why I was not being cautioned as agreed and he said something like we are the police and have the final say.
According to Coodes in writing on 09 December 2015:
“The officer sought advice as to what action should be taken and a decision was made that you should be charged with two offences of harassment, one against each individual.”
Coodes made no reference to the false confession or who PS Dowlen sought advice from.
Before I was driven home Custody PS Wray gave me some paperwork and had written Coodes phone number on the back and advised me to contact them ASAP. This I did on 04 December 2015 via email and Coodes was later granted a Representation Order to represent me from the public purse via the Legal Aid Agency.
I was comfortable with Coodes at that time and I felt Ms Allen must also have been duped by the false promise of a caution from D&CP. It was later that I realised Coodes was not chosen for my protection.
The Court appearance was listed for BODMIN MAGISTRATES COURT 2, Launceston Road, Bodmin, Cornwall, PL31 2AL, on 17/12/2015 at 9:30am.
So having been falsely arrested for “Harassment with Violence” and set-up for a “false confession” the next hurdle was the hearing on 17 December 2015.
The Hearing
My friends Peter and Janet kindly drove me to the Court and home on 17 December 2015 but the hearing had to be adjourned until 08 January 2016, and which I was excused from attending. Adjourned because I pleaded not guilty in a guilty only plea Court.
According to Coodes in writing to me on 21 December 2015:
“We tried to persuade the Court to take your not guilty plea, but the Magistrates chose instead to adjourn your case to enable the Prosecution to review the evidence and the charge.”
I believe what the review uncovered, if not already known, is that the charge against me was based on a false confession due to insufficient police evidence.
The emphasis of a Trial changed soon after the Magistrates adjournment when complainant and false accuser Victoria Slavin contacted Coodes the day before the re-adjourned hearing on 08 January 2016, to offer their client a Restraining Order. Certainly proof that the false accuser and complainant was assisting the Prosecution in the proceedings against me.
One of the problems with Institutional Corruption is that corrupt lowlife like Victoria Slavin are more likely to be protected for what they are unlawfully doing than dismissed for it. Almost as if it is honourable to protect one another despite it involving breaking the law.
I declined the offer of a Restraining Order and gave Coodes written instructions to plead not guilty on my behalf on 08 January 2016, mindful of the fact that Coodes was itself party to the false confession that had led to the adjournment by the Magistrates.
The Trial was listed for 26 February 2016 and those involved in the case applied enormous pressure to have me agree to accept a Restraining Order including Coodes itself.
I did not realise until much later that having me agree to receiving a Restraining Order in Court on 26 February 2016 was to have me agree that I had in some way committed a criminal offence. That the professionals had simply replaced one false confession with another, the Restraining Order, that had serious implications in me not being presumed innocent by the Court at Trial in 2018 and which denied me a Fair Trial under Article 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998.
The SAR Information
So in January 2016 I finally received the SAR information I had requested earlier and which proved invaluable.
I requested a copy of the recorded interview due to a number of comments I recall PS Dowlen making in recorded interview regarding Cornwall Council’s letter of Defamation in 2014. This when PS Dowlen told me in interview that Cornwall Council had no intention of taking me to Court for defamation because there was no money to be had from me.
Unfortunately, this and other comments had been edited from the recording so as not to incriminate the Council, the NHS Trust and D&CP and others.
The SAR information also identified a serious legal challenge relating to PS Innes Dowlen himself.
Request to Vary Conditional Bail
Between being charged and the hearing, PS Dowlen had his name included to the Bail Conditions alongside Victoria Slavin and (X).
I was unhappy about this because it gave the false and misleading impression that PS Dowlen was in some way an alleged victim himself.
“ Conditions 1. You must not contact directly or indirectly or approach in any way whatsoever, including email, social media, or by a third person, (X), “Victoria Slavin or PSDowlen.
2. You must not make any comment on the above named people or post any photos or pictures of the above named persons on social media or incite a third person to do so.”
The issue related to the “REQUEST TO VARY CONDITIONAL BAIL” on “Form MG 48” which was undated.
The “Variation requested is the removal of PS dowlen from condition one.” “Reason given for request is the solicitor states it is not legal.”
Below the declaration was “I request that the conditions of my bail be varied as above for the reasons stated above. I have not had an application to change my current bail conditions heard by a court.” This was signed as “INCAPABLE.”
Below this was the “DECISION” “(A) Application refused.” “The conditions of bail set out on form MGA4A remain unchanged.” “Signature by Arron Bevan Rank PS No. 14808.”
I researched PS Arron Bevan and found him on Linkedin where he is described as a retired police sergeant from D&CP. So this important legal challenge did not even go through the Force Legal Department but through a retired police Sergeant.
According to the “DETENTION LOG” on “11/12/2015” all entries were signed by “Arron Bevan BEVAN PS 14808.”
“22:04 “MCLAUGHLIN Geoffrey was incapable of signing because not present at custody.
22:06 Request to vary conditional bail. The following enquiries were made: I have reviewed the bail act and spoken to PS Dowlen.
22:07 bail conditions to remain. PS Dowlen states the last time male was dealt with by police he posted details of officers on websites face book etc causing harassment to them name calling being abusive etc. bail conditions to remain to prevent male from committing an offence whilst on bail.
22:08 I will call solicitor.”
I was unhappy that Coodes, my defence, decided to accept the word of a retired police officer rather than go through proper channels. PS Dowlen’s name remained on the bail conditions for a further two months and continued to give the false and misleading impression that I had in some way wronged him.
With regard to PS Dowlen’s comments to Arron Bevan he of course refers to the events in 2012 when four D&CP officers did things they should not have done and received “Management Action” due only to a corrupted complaints system by the PSD and the IPCC. There is nothing impartial about these comments and if D&CP felt I had a case to answer for my comments on social media following the events of 2012 then D&CP should have sought to legally challenge my right to freedom of expression and in the public interest at the time. I was wronged by D&CP and not the other way around.
So having been arrested, interviewed and charged on 03 December and attending the hearing on 17 December I sent Coodes a number of images on email attachments on 29 December 2015 showing PS Dowlen together with (X), and others on 21 May 2015.
D&CP already knew I had images of PS Dowlen and (X) together before I was arrested because some of the images were used online after 21 May 2015 and in the public interest. Images which D&CP used as evidence against me but which I could not use in my defence because of the conditions of Bail requested by PS Innes Dowlen and D&CP.
The events on 21 May 2015 was when D&CP and the NHS Trust and others removed a mentally ill tenant to a place of safety after a blog I had posted online on 02 February 2015 titled “Used and Abused.”
Please see Used and Abused at the end for further reading:
I believe the reason PS Dowlen had his name included on the bail conditions was to suppress evidence/images that would have shown him together with (X) and others outside my home on 21 May 2015. That PS Dowlen had a conflict of interest when he arrested and interviewed me some 6 months later and which involved complainant (X).
I also think it highly likely that the reason Coodes decided not to pursue the “Request to Vary Conditional Bail” with the Force Legal Department was to assist D&CP to suppress evidence and images rather than defend their client.
Coodes never discussed the images and evidence and it has to be asked if Coodes ever had my interest at heart as much as it did fellow professionals?
I had given Coodes Stephanie Allen the benefit of doubt following the false confession and that she had also been duped but on hindsight I believe she knowingly assisted D&CP to set me up for a false confession and Coodes was rewarded financially from the public purse.
The Trial
My friends Peter and Janet drove me to Bodmin Magistrates Court and home on 26 February 2016 for the Trial for me to be served with the two year Restraining Order. This was not without incident when Coodes Lucy Bryant tried to defraud me out of between £300 to £400 towards Legal Aid before the Trial.
Please see Coodes for further details.
Had I received the requested CCTV evidence from D&CP before Trial I would have gone to Trial and beyond because I knew the footage would have helped me prove the recorded interview on 03 December 2015 had been edited to protect Cornwall Council and others. This due to time differences between the interview and the cell to account for the time lost in editing.
The ICO assisted D&CP to withhold this CCTV evidence until after Trial by closing my complaint prematurely and before Trial to pervert the course of justice.
Please see The ICO for further details, including a 2nd attempt by D&CP and the ICO to withold CCTV and pervert the course of justice.
With the Trial over, I then set about lodging complaints against Coodes and D&CP.
A Year of Change
Apart from the Trial, 2016 was also a year of change for a number of reasons.
I still had the threat of further legal proceedings hanging over me by Victoria Slavin and on behalf of the NHS regardless of the outcome of the ongoing proceedings against me, Sanctuary Housing was still threatening legal proceedings and repossession of my home for alleged “Rent Arrears” and Cornwall Council was threatening me with legal proceedings for outstanding Council Tax. All Orchestrated I’m sure but all needing my attention to avoid the worst possible outcome for me.
This accumulation caused the biggest change of all when I decided to close my business after some nine years of trading and sign on for Job Seekers Allowance (JSA) because I felt in a very vulnerable position. I didn’t remain on JSA long after it was suggested that I would qualify for Pension Credits. It was during this time that I felt unwell and had a Blood Pressure test (BP) at the local Pharmacy and was advised to see my GP. This resulted in me being diagnosed with type 2 Diabetes and High Blood Pressure. I was 64 by this time and was only a year away from State Pension age. After the diagnoses I was put on medication which I remain on to this day.
One further change in closing my business was closing my business website which I should have closed a lot sooner as I had already opened up a WordPress site in response to threats from Sanctuary Housing and its law firm Wragge & Co.
Closing my business and signing onto benefits also meant I ceased to contribute as a self employed business man and my Rent and Service Charge was ironically paid by the same Cornwall Council who was party to Service Charge fraud with Sanctuary Housing since 2009. Seven years of being abused and defrauded.
Complaint against Coodes
I have already touched on this and for further reading please see Coodes.
What I will say here is that complaints against anyone would appear to be a total waste of time because they will be corrupted in some way to deny the complainant a fair outcome.
This is all perfectly true but there are benefits in complaining.
When I make a complaint I am in some way conducting my own investigation and raising questions and issues I seek answers to. In the case of Coodes, and as an example, I would not have received confirmation from Coodes Jeremy Harvey, who dealt with the complaint, that Ms Allen did engage in a false confession with D&CP in return for a caution. This raises the question that because Ms Allen knew D&CP did not have sufficient evidence to charge me why did she simply not request D&CP release her client. Although Coodes has never explained the answer to this question it is still none the less an invaluable part of the narrative and which would not have been possible had I not lodged a complaint.
Complaint against D&CP
This was lodged in mid 2016 via the IPCC despite the fact both the IPCC and D&CP had a conflict of interest in dealing with me again following the events of 2012, and that I should expect little in the way of impartiality or justice.
By letter dated 16 June 2016, the Executive Support Team, Office of the Chief Constable, forwarded my 17 page written complaint to a Superintendent Pete Windle, Head of the much criticised Dorset Professional Standards Department (PSD), who nominated a Mr P Chudley, Assessment Officer with the D&CP PSD, to deal with the complaint. Mr Chudley sought my cooperation which I could not give because of the conflict of interest issue and my request to have an outside police force independently and impartially investigate my complaint. I was also unhappy that Mr Chudley requested that I:
“restrict each individual allegation to just a line or two in detail.”
Having ruled out my request for an independent and outside police force to overcome the conflict of interest issue and to provide me with some degree of fairness and impartiality, Mr Chudley stated that he was:
“empowered to respond on behalf of the Chief Constable on complaint matters.”
Mr Chudley then advised me by letter dated 27 July 2016 that he had replaced my 17 page official complaint “Ref: 2016/065047”, with a single email paragraph he had taken from an email I had earlier sent to the Chief Constable on 20 July 2016.
I considered this a disturbing development and one likely only to obstruct the course of justice in choosing only what the PSD wanted to investigate and in the same way as in 2012.
A Mrs Angliss of the PSD advised me in writing that same day that:
“In accordance with the requirements of the Police Reform Act 2002, your complaint has been formerly assessed and recorded, and has been allocated the reference number shown above. Forwarded to T/Inspector Reid at Bodmin Police Station who, whilst maintaining an overview of its progress, will allocate it to an appropriate supervisor to deal.”
The reference number for the single email paragraph and referred to as “my complaint” is“PSD/CO/00679/16” and the officer who was allocated to investigate the single email paragraph by T/Inspector Reid was a PS 5434 Paul Jones who was based at the same St Austell Police Station where most of the named officers were based and including the three officers who received “Management Action” between 2012 to 2014 and where most of the so called evidence against me was produced in 2015/16. “00679” does not relate to PS 5434 Paul Jones.
Before continuing I should clarify, regarding Superintendent Pete Windle, Head of the Dorset PSD, that as the Alliance both Dorset Police and D&CP worked together despite not later merging as originally intended.
More about Mrs Angliss of the PSD later.
I received a very tacky and amateurish letter from PS Paul Jones dated 23 April 2017, my birthday, to explain his Investigation was complete and that he will now submit his findings to a senior officer for a determination and that I should hear something within 28 days.
Amateurish in that it was not even on headed paper and lacked any degree of professionalism or officialdom.
I received the determination in fact within a few days dated 27 April 2017 from Temporary Chief Inspector Rachael Bentley informing me that:
“there is not enough evidence to take further action in this case.”
On this occasion absolutely right because the investigation was not into my official 17 page complaint packed with evidence but into a single email paragraph lacking evidence.
On the issue of the email I sent to Chief Constable Sawyer on 20 July 2016, this was not my official complaint and was my personal copyright and intellectual property and which I did not permit D&CP to use without my permission or in a criminal way.
T/Chief Inspector Rachael Bentley later went on to become Detective Chief Inspector Rachael Bentley of the Major Crime Investigation Team.
With her determination T/Chief Inspector Bentley included a copy of the official Investigation Report published on 10 April 2017, and a leaflet explaining my right of appeal to the internal Complaints Appeals Unit (CAU). Obviously the Investigation Report was null and void in the eyes of the law and I had no intention of legitimizing it with an appeal.
One of those ‘I won’t dignify that with an answer’ sort of moments.
IPCC Fabricated Appeal
I received an email from James Cropper, Apprentice Casework Administrator from the IPCC dated 09 May 2017, advising me that the IPCC is in fact the correct Relevant Authority to consider an appeal and not the CAU. Mr Cropper added:
“Please could you inform us whether you are intending to appeal and provide us with your full grounds of appeal.”
On 17 May 2017 I received an email from Zak Stenhouse, Casework Administrator with the IPCC and his email was described as:
“IPCC Appeal Acknowledgement.”
This email was outrageous because it was about an appeal I had not even lodged despite the word “appeal/s” appearing 11 times in his short email.
On 23 August 2017, I received a letter from a Sophie Lawrence, Casework Manager with the IPCC, informing me that the IPCC had:
“decided not to uphold your appeal”, and went on to consider each point and why each individual “aspect of the appeal is not upheld.”
I wrote to Ms Lawrence one last time on 01 September 2017 to remind her that the IPCC still had a few days left to provide me with proof that I lodged an appeal. Proof that I never received.
So D&CP replaced my original 17 page complaint with a single email paragraph and the IPCC fabricated an appeal to protect D&CP. Precisely why I consider the official complaint in 2016 to be open and unresolved due to corruption by both D&CP and the IPCC and which was not unlike what happened in 2012 to 2014.
I believe the IPCC fabricated an appeal because it was running out of time and needed to protect D&CP before it closed in late 2017 and to reappear on 08 January 2018 as the IOPC.
I have often wondered how many toxic cases like mine also disappeared when the IPCC closed and later reforms served only to water down the police complaints system even more to better protect corrupt police forces, officers and staff and promote the Government as being a safe pair of hands with law and order.
The notion the Government was “Independent” of the IPCC and is “Independent” of the IOPC is as ridiculous as it is dishonest.
The unofficial line as to why the IPCC closed was due to excessive internal corruption which, based on my own experience and evidence, I wouldn’t disagree with.
Further to the IPCC fabricated appeal that I did not lodge in 2017, the same James Cropper, now with the IOPC, gave me quite the opposite advice in 2018, which I will come to.
So to recap before moving on, those involved in 2015/16 are:
The numerous officers who visited me between 06 November to 03 December 2015.
PS 16259 Innes Dowlen, arresting and interview officer who perverted the course of justice.
PS 16048 Ian Richards, witnessing officer.
PS 14808 Arron Bevan, retired D&CP officer who advised PS Dowlen on a Force legal issue.
Custody PS 15428 Chris Wray, falsified Custody Records.
Civilian Detention Officer (CDO) 56630 Griffin. False entry.
Superintendent Pete Windle, Head of the Dorset Professional Standards Department, orchestrated complaint cover-up.
Mr P Chudley, Assessment Officer with the D&CP PSD. Buried original complaint.
Mrs Angliss of the PSD. Assessed and Recorded single email paragraph as the complaint.
T/Inspector Reid at Bodmin Police Station who oversaw the investigation into the single email paragraph.
PS 15434 Paul Jones, originally the Witnessing Officer for the PIN on 06 November 2015 and later allocated to I/O to investigate the single email paragraph.
T/Chief Inspector Rachael Bentley, determined the investigation into the single email paragraph and went on to become Detective Chief Inspector Rachael Bentley of the Major Crime Investigation Team.
IPCC, fabricated an Appeal before it closed its doors.
Chief Constable Shaun Sawyer, complicit because the original complaint went through his Executive Team.
PCC Tony Hogg, complicit for not calling the Chief Constable to Account.
Coodes Solicitors
Having mentioned Coodes Solicitors, Newquay, a number of times I thought it might be helpful to explain a little bit more about them.
As we already know I did not choose to be represented by Coodes initially and was assigned Coodes Stephanie Allen to represent me as a Duty Solicitor as part of the Legal Aid process.
Coodes Stephanie Allen
My research into Coodes Chartered Legal Executive Stephanie Allen following her attendance at Newquay Police Station on 03 December 2015 revealed that her photograph and details were completely removed from the Coodes Newquay website in 2016, as is stll the case today in 2023, despite her continuing to be employed by Coodes and a member of the Cornwall Law Society.
I also researched the CILEx website and discovered in the Practitioners Directory an entry for Mrs S J Allen but without an employer or location.
CILEx Membership Advisor Tom Heasman declined to confirm if Stephanie Allen was accredited to represent me as a Duty Solicitor in 2015 and suggested:
This “matter must be taken up with the persons firm as the ‘Duty Solicitor’ status would be something that is approved and supervised by the firm rather than CILEx.”
Despite assurances from CILEx it would provide me with information I requested CILEx began dragging it’s feet and it later appeared to blame a colleague who had “had been off work due to a broken arm.” Nothing worse than an organisation with only one employee.
Access to the Cornwall Law Society and the CILEx website are now a lot more difficult to get into. The Cornwall Law Society in 2017-2018 listed Ms Allen under Coodes LLP for Newquay and I have not seen her name in connection with any Duty Solicitor roles.
Asking Coodes or even lodging a complaint against Stephanie Allen was not really an option because I already knew the futility of doing so. In fact when I did lodge an official complaint against Coodes Solicitors it was determined by a Senior Solicitor with Coodes and who was perversely described him self as being “independent.”
Unsurprisingly Coodes had no case to answer following its biased determination so I lodged a complaint with the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) who did not want to deal with it and advised me to contact the Legal Ombudsman. From experience I knew an Ombudsman would first seek to remove as much evidence as possible which he/she considered outside his/her jurisdiction, so a complaint to the Ombudsman was never going to be a realistic option.
In the case of collusion between PS Dowlen of D&CP and Stephanie Allen of Coodes to bring about a false confession in return for a caution, I believe I am right in saying the Legal Ombudsman would only have considered the role of Coodes Stephanie Allen.
So what you end up doing is wasting a lot of time making a number of complaints with different complaints bodies neither of which will fully investigate your complaint.
CoodesLucy Bryant
I first met Coodes Lucy Byant when she represented me at the hearing on 17 December 2015 and I corresponded with her and talked with her on the phone. I still do not know why she did not advise me before the hearing that it was a guilty only plea court.
On the day of the Trial for the Restraining Order Ms Bryant, Lucy Catherine Pope Bryant to be precise, requested between £300 to £400 from me towards Legal Aid which I could pay for by instalments. In reply I said that if I have to pay any money I will go to Trial and beyond.
Ms Bryant left and returned a few moments later to say that I did not have to pay anything.
Later that day Ms Bryant wrote to me saying:
“all costs in connection with this matter will be met by the Legal Aid fund and there is nothing for you to be concerned about in that regard.”
Although the letter was correctly dated 26 February 2016, the day of the Trial, it was the reverse side of that letter that explained that I did not have to pay anything and that side was alarmingly dated 22 February 2016.
Sheila Williams of the Legal Aid Agency (LAA) explained on 22 June 2018 that:
“Once legal aid was granted to Coodes to cover your case, there would have been no requirement for you to be asked to contribute any monies to your solicitor towards legal aid as your costs would have been met in full re representation by Coodes in this matter.”
I personally believe the reason Coodes tried to defraud me is because it knew the LAA was in no moral position to officially do anything about it.
The notion that Coodes, one of Cornwall’s largest law firms, or Lucy Bryant did not understand the Legal Aid process is as ridiculous as it is corrupt.
Had I known then what I know now I would have gone to Trial and beyond but I was being played by so many corrupt professionals that I felt my hands were well and truly tied.
I believe Coodes not only failed me as their client but defrauded the public purse in protecting only the Authorities, D&CP and others based on the evidence.
The other main problem I had with Coodes concerned the Representation Order (RO) that the Legal Aid Agency (LAA) issued to Coodes in 2015 to represent me. I will deal more fully with this issue in 2018 when the LAA denied my then chosen Solicitor Chris Nicholls with a RO two days before Trial.
Coodes Mike Gregson
Coodes Mike Gregson was the named “Litigator/solicitor” specified on the RO and it remains unclear if it was appropriate for him to delegate his responsibilities to Lucy Bryant. So much so that I never actually ever met Mike Gregson.
I was sent a statement by Coodes titled “Proof” on 29 January 2016 to read, sign and return to Mike Gregson by name. All eleven A4 sides had to be signed and dated and returned in a 2nd class franked addressed envelope which Coodes provided. Coodes also enclosed the only 3 pieces of evidence it would accept out of some 36 pieces I provided.
“Proof” was basically a reworked account of mine titled “Defence against Extreme Provocation.” I recall meeting with Stephanie Allen on 27 January 2016 at Coodes, St Austell, to work on the draft.
I now know that “Proof” could not have been used in Court under Legal Aid because the evidence related to Welfare, Housing and Medical issues etc., areas of law which were no longer funded by Legal Aid since the introduction of LASPO in 2012. I did not know about this important piece of legislation until the run up to the 2018 arrest.
So I could not understand why “Proof” being such an important and personal document, mostly about my late wife’s long term mental illness, was not intended to be returned more securely using a signed for postal service. I opted for my personal preference in the end and returned it via Recorded Delivery.
My other reason for not returning it and using Coodes franked envelope was because the post code on the envelope addressed to Mike Gregson did not exist. Not using the envelope meant keeping it as evidence should a problem arise. I believe had“Proof” become necessary Coodes would have claimed it did not receive it back in the post.
In my letter to Mike Gregson dated 09 February 2016, I stated:
“I have made the alterations and additions as directed. I have reintroduced all 36 pieces of evidence in Coodes possession because it has not been explained to me in which direction I am being directed.
I have decided not to use the prepaid envelope because postcode TR7 1BR does not exist.”
It was at the meeting at Coodes, St Austell, when Stephanie Allen advised me that Mike Gregson would be representing me at Trial on 26 February 2016, and that (X) and Victoria Slavin would be on the stand.
The Trial in the end was only for the purposes of issuing me with the Restraining Order to legitimize the false confession, much to the relief of every corrupt professional involved, including Coodes.
Coodes Jeremy Harvey
It was Coodes Jeremy Harvey, who dealt with my complaint against Coodes in 2016 and with regards to the false confession, this is what Mr Harvey had to say:
“You stated that you were deceived into making a false confession on the 3rd December. That is not correct. The police were willing to deal with this by way of a caution. However for that to be done, it required you to admit to the offence. You were adamant that you did not want to do this. Consequently nothing was admitted and no caution was given. The offer and its consequences were explained to you in great detail on that day. You were charged and bailed to attend court on 17th December.”
Mr Harvey’s statement does at least confirm that Ms Allen did offer me a caution in return for admitting to the offence, the false confession. Mr Harvey’s assertion that I did not admit to the offence in return for a caution is false.
The real question for Coodes to explain is if D&CP did not have sufficient evidence to charge me following the interview, the reason for the false confession, why did Coodes Stephanie Allen simply not request D&CP detain me no further and release me.
I believe charging me was almost a professional courtesy for Coodes because D&CP wanted me charged and because Cornwall Council and the NHS Trust needed protection and needed me to be gagged by NHS Trust Solicitor/Complainant Victoria Slavin. Coodes was rewarded from the public purse to protect those involved except their client.
When I was later charged I asked PS Dowlen, who was rocking in a chair with only the back legs touching the floor, his hands behind his head and with a big smug grin on his face, why I was not being cautioned he simply said something like because we are the police and have the final say. Which would suggest the police reneged on it’s promise of a caution.
To be honest, and having planned the “Revenge Arrest” I think it unlikely that D&CP had any intentions of letting me go when the Council and NHS Trust needed me silenced.
To the best of my knowledge Coodes never objected or complained to D&CP about my treatment by its officers.
It goes without saying that my complaint against Coodes did not go in my favour.
Coodes Jeremy Harvey is a past President of the Cornwall Law Society and worked for Coodes for over 26 years. He was also a Council member of Cornwall Chamber of Commerce. He left Coodes just over a year after dealing with my complaint and joined Stephens Scown where he remains as a Project Manager.
Coodes Jacqueline (Gilbert) Mansell
During the legal process I had reason to seek confirmation from Coodes regarding Coodes Jacqueline (Gilbert) Mansell, another CILEx employee, who I believed may have accessed the evidence I had sent to Coodes by email attachment towards the end of December 2015.
In reply Coodes could not confirm Ms Mansell did not access the email and I threatened to dismiss Coodes from my case. As if by magic Coodes then became very pro-active.
Jacqueline Gilbert was a Senior Legal Assistant with Cornwall Council between 2005 to 2012, courtesy of Linkedin, and before joining Coodes. She later married Simon JR Mansell MBE, another CILEx, and former Principal Legal Officer – Corporate Governance, with Cornwall Council Legal Services.
A man who I had crossed swords with a number of times when he was the Council’s Principal Legal Officer, and who I considered to be the Council’s most dishonest and corrupt henchman. I believe there were even attempts by some members of the public to have him stripped of his MBE.
I also believe it was Simon JR Mansell MBE who was behind the letter of Defamation from the Council’s Legal Services in 2014 and which PS Dowlen referred to in recorded interview when he said that the Council had no intention of taking me to Court for Defamation because there was no money to be had from me. I believe the reason the interview was edited was so as not to incriminate Cornwall Council, the NHS Trust and D&CP when civil defamation in 2014 became secondary to criminal Harassment in 2015.
I can only assume the Council’s solution, with every assistance from D&CP, was to use the NHS employees to make false allegations against me by way of making defamation a criminal offence. I would go even further and suggest that false accuser and Cornwall Council Senior Solicitor for the NHS Victoria Slavin not only helped plan the action against me but participated in the legal process and was a paid NHS employee throughout.
On the issue of Simon JR Mansell MBE, Principal Legal Officer for Cornwall Council Legal Services up until December 2014, according to LinkedIn, he was earlier involved in my complaint to the Local Government Ombudsman (LGO) regarding the alleged rigged Homechoice Welfare Priority Assessments. Although Mansell had an opportunity to correct the LGO’s belief that (X) was not a CPN he instead said nothing and the LGO continued to believe (X) was a CPN, needless to say the complaint went in the Council’s favour. Not that the LGO showed any degree of impartiality towards me anyway. I recall the LGO made its decision in favour of the Council before the LGO had even provided me with a copy of the Council’s response to my complaint.
When Mansell ceased to be the Principal Legal Officer (Corporate Governance) after December 2014 he became the Corporate and Information Governance Manager for Data Protection, Freedom of Information, Information Governance, Ethical Standards, I kid you not, Byelaws, RIPA, Maritime.
Link: Used and Abused
The following blog was first posted on my website on 02 February 2015 and was repeated on Twitter and FaceBook multiple times and in the public interest and which probably led to my arrest later that year.
“Within weeks of Cornwall Council becoming a unitary authority on 1st April 2009, the Council and Sanctuary Housing dumped a new tenant in one of the flats at Timber Close. A tenant who had spent the last 10 years of his life in a mental institution. Despite his background and the fact he was extremely vulnerable the Council and Sanctuary wilfully placed him below and next door to the worst anti-social tenant the flats had ever seen and who had previously received, and continued to receive, more written complaints than any other tenant since the flats came into being in the mid-1990s.
The vulnerable tenant, who has received little support from the Council or the local NHS Foundation Trust, should never have been dumped here and the only reason he was because no one in their right mind would have chosen to live below such a damaging influence. That the vulnerable tenant was used and abused by all concerned.
As part of the current ‘Detoxification’ program by Cornwall Council and Sanctuary Housing to make good the corrupt, perverse, abusive and unlawful decisions they have willfuly made over the years, the vulnerable adult will shortly be moved to a safer and more caring environment years too late given what he has had to endure and been subjected to since 2009.
Up-date: 9 March 2015. My understanding is the vulnerable adult is only on a waiting list and must therefore continue to be abused and bullied until he is eventually transferred. I have today advised the landlord, Sanctuary Housing, who also operate care facilities, not to ignore this adult in the same way it turned a blind eye to warnings last year and months before a 30 year old woman was removed in a body bag. Cornwall Council, Sanctuary Housing, and the Cornwall NHS Foundation Trust is responsible for this situation continuing and will remain responsible for any further harm this vulnerable adult is subjected to.
Up-date: October 2016. The vulnerable tenant was finally moved to a place of safety on 21 May 2015. On 03 December 2015 I was falsely arrested for the criminal charge of Harassment with Violence and twice attended court. The arresting, recorded interview and charging Sgt was one Innes Dowlen and one of the complainants was (X) who cannot be named for legal reasons. Both Sgt Dowlen and (X) were involved in the “Detoxification” process on 21 May 2015, and following my arrest and in 2016 Cornwall Council, Sanctuary Housing and the Cornwall NHS Foundation Trust each threatened me with Legal Proceedings to stop me engaging in free speech on the internet, which I continue to do.
The 30 year old woman who was removed in a body bag on 02 November 2014 and taken away in a black private ambulance was removed from the same flat occupied by the vulnerable tenant. As a sofa-surfer she spent most of her time staying at the “Drinking Den” and I often saw her in the communal area hanging out washing on the rotary driers.
It was somewhat surreal to see forensic officers wearing all white coming and going and it is something I will never forget. Another tenant was traumatised by the events because she had known the deceased woman since she was a baby.
This came after warning the then CEO David Bennett and other Group Board Members on 16 June 2014 in the weekly diary:
“that someone connected to the flat for drunks or flat” ** “will die here sooner or later.”
The tenant of the “Drinking Den” was given a “Notice To Quit” by 02 December 2014, and before the end of that year Sanctuary CEO David Bennett was awarded a CBE for his services to housing.
The Weekly Diary
I have always had an interest in keeping diaries and the one I update and send to the Sanctuary CEO and other Group Board Members every week began in 2013. It is therefore a mind of information and evidence which has helped me enormously remember events and dates and it currently, 30/09/2022, runs to 138 pages. My MP is also sent a copy every week.
It was introduced because of my wish not to engage with the regional office and it’s staff in the light of Service Charge fraud allegations and the Mediation Scam. An early entry was:
“With regard to Sanctuary Housing in Devon I still will not “engage” with anyone involved in the criminality of 2009, it’s cover-up and further criminality in 2010 which you, Crawley and Bennett have been kept fully informed of.”
Up-dating the diary every week provides an accurate record of Grounds Maintenance visits hence my reason for requesting the GMS every week for over a year. If it is not provided, more often the case and a breach of the Tenancy Agreement, I have no idea what tasks Sanctuary is supposed to carry out for the weekly Service Charge it demands.
In 2009, when my allegations of Service Charge fraud began Sanctuary neglected the environment within the flats community area to such an extent that overgrown hedgerows and bushes that had been neglected for so long had to be cut back or removed and all six rotary driers had to be completely replaced. All this whilst working flat tenants, like myself, and the local authority were obliged to pay the weekly Service Charge for the weekly up-keep of the grounds and appliances. This then led to the Mediation Scam in 2010 and my unlawful arrest by Oonah Lacey in 2012 to protect Sanctuary Housing and its housing partner Cornwall Council.
justiceforalison 