Posted 23 April 2024, The continuation of The 3rd Trilogy.
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.
Summary
So having been arrested by PC Jason Abbott of Devon & Cornwall Police (D&CP) on 14 May 2018, who was already up for Investigation by the Professional Standards Department (PSD) for being malicious to me weeks before and following an official complaint to CC Shaun Sawyer on 27 April 2018 which I copied to PCC Alison Hernandez and my MP Steve Double, PC Abbott was accompanied by a 2nd Officer at the arrest. I later had a Mental Health episode in the cell but this was covered-up and I was charged following interview with Harassment and a later Court appearance by the 2nd Officer who may have impersonated a Sergeant. IT equipment that was seized during the arrest, containing my evidence, was seized and withheld for some 5 months and D&CP requested the Court destroy them if I was convicted and that I should also be given a lifetime Restraining/Gagging Order. The Hearing was a month later on 14 June 2018 at Bodmin Magistrates Court and I pleaded not guilty. I was informed by an NHS employee at the Court that an anonymous telephone call had been made to D&CP expressing concern for my MH, but this was not investigated. I dismissed the appointed Solicitor after the Hearing and chose my own for the Trial but the Legal Aid Agency denied my chosen Solicitor a Representation Order and I was advised to attend the Trial on 27 July 2018 and represent myself. I then brought about a postponement and my chosen Solicitor dismissed himself from my case weeks before the new Trial and the Court appointed a Court Appointed Solicitor at a Pre-Trial Hearing at Truro Magistrates Court a few days before the new Trial took place on 21 September 2018. In the run up to the new Trial I requested the Court allow me time to have my case heard outside the South West because I did not believe I would get a fair Trial in Cornwall based on what happened to me in 2015/16, but the request was refused. I was also refused any Witnesses for the Trial.
The Trial
CROWN PROSECUTION SERVICE
Regina
v
Geoffrey Richard MCLAUGHLIN
So on 21 September 2018, the day of the Trial at Bodmin Magistrates Court, Ed picked me up a little before 8:15am and once at Bodmin we spent some time chatting in the car park before entering the Court building around 9:15am. It turned out to be a long drawn out day and fortunately Ed kept me company throughout.
Waiting in the foyer was complainant (X), by himself, and PC Abbott, Witness for the Crown, sitting with another officer who I later found out was PS 10423 Tony Hannaford, the PSD Investigating Officer (I/O) into my complaint against PC Abbott.
I asked the Court if Ed could sit with me during the proceedings because of my hearing impairment but the Court refused so I later lodged a formal complaint which was upheld.
Please see “Hearing Facilities” for further details.
Before proceedings got under way William Hazelton, my Court Appointed Solicitor, took me aside and explained that he was having the Magistrate replaced because they worked part time for Cornwall Council.
I still do not know if this was genuine or just a piece of drama to make me believe that I was finally going to get a fair Trial in Cornwall.
This admission obviously implied the Trial could be corrupted in some way by a Magistrate working for Cornwall Council or by the Council itself. Bizarre really when one thinks about it and one that raises more questions than it answers.
I have since advised those on social media of the potential of Cornwall Council interfering with a Trial to protect itself, employees and partners.
To be perfectly honest, I had no idea if the Magistrate had been replaced or not.
The Presiding Justice on the bench was Dr J Hultgren JP and the Court Clerk was Renee Gallin. Presiding Justices are usually little more than lay people. The other Magistrates on the bench each side of Dr J Hultgren JP were C Robinson and J Argent.
Hazleton cross examined (X), his only task, and suggested I cross examine PC Abbott who I asked only one question and felt out of my comfort zone. I asked PC Abbott, the arresting officer on 14 May 2018, if he was still under investigation by the D&CP PSD and he replied that he was.
Presiding justice Dr Hultgren JP immediately intervened to protect PC Abbott, in my opinion, by asking him:
“If a senior officer had advised PC Abbott not to investigate the matter or not to arrest you and he replied no.”
This statement was provided to me by PS Hannaford in an email dated 04 October 2018, so I cannot guarantee its accuracy or truthfulness. I was advised that notes would be taken during the Trial but nothing materialised. Later evidence will demonstrate that I/O PS Hannaford lied during the course of his Investigation into PC Abbott and events.
I felt Dr Hultgren had an opportunity to ask PC Abbott who the senior officer was that instructed him to Investigate and arrest me. A question I also regret not asking.
I still find the intervention from the bench somewhat defensive in PC Abbott’s favour.
Sometime during the proceedings Hazelton called for a recess and we headed for a back room. Hazelton felt the verbal responses from (X) did not amount to Harassment.
Ed felt Hazelton wanted to continue but his brief cross examination role was over.
I didn’t really feel the question I put to PC Abbott was appreciated by Hazelton and I believe he suggested I did not ask any more. This may have had something to do with “Sub-judice” still being an issue regarding PC Abbott and my complaint against him.
Sometime during the day Nicholls approached me and asked me to sign a single sided A4 form which I signed without giving it much thought with so much on my mind but I did later request a copy of it.
Please see “Application To Withdraw Representation Order” for further details.
Speaking personally, I felt the greatest damage to my case was when I no longer had legal assistance and the Victim’s Personal Statement (VPS) was introduced.
Perhaps the most perverse thing about the VPS is that it was at PC Abbott’s suggestion and which he helped (X) to compose.
That having been “malicious” and “vindictive” to me on 22 April, and in person on 14 May 2018, PC Abbott now had a further opportunity with his suggested VPS to (X).
The VPS was a work of fiction and was intended to cause me the maximum amount of damage with events that never happened or the suggestion they could have.
In reality, I never went out of my way to meet or contact (X) in any way over the 6 years I was commenting on social media and in the public interest. Even when I realised (X) had begun using the cafe I used every Saturday morning in town to meet with my friends I let D&CP know. On one occasion (X) actually sat at the table next to mine.
The notion that I was a threat to (X) and was responsible for every hiccup in his life was I’m sure influenced by PC Abbott’s own personal dislike for me and in retaliation for reporting him to the Chief Constable on 27 April 2018. That PC Abbott had a conflict of interest and was an inappropriate Witness for the Crown to choose and certainly whilst PC Abbott was still under PSD Investigation, and which I now believe had more to do with the CPS not wanting the 2nd officer involved, despite him being a police witness, and to support D&CP’s own cover-up to exclude the 2nd officer from events.
(X) was but one of a number of Members on the Welfare Priority Assessment Panels and the only non professional despite being described as a Community Psychiatric Nurse (CPN). Mentally ill and vulnerable applicants were not properly assessed or were protected by the NHS Trust and Cornwall Council because (X) was not representing the Health Authority whilst he was a Panel Member and the Health Authority was itself absent from the Welfare Priority Assessments despite Council Policy requesting a representative of the NHS Trust attend as a Panel Member.
The notion that the NHS Foundation Trust and Cornwall Council did not realise (X) was only a support worker and was not a Representative of the Health Authority is as ridiculous as it is unreasonable.
Unlike (X), the Professional Members of the Welfare Panels were all employees of Cornwall Council and assisted the Council to prioritize the Council’s ‘certain types’ above all others.
The Council’s ‘certain types’ being people the Council was legally obliged to assist and included the homeless, substance abusers and alcoholics etc.
With limited housing stock I claim many mentally ill and vulnerable applicants were discriminated against by rigged Welfare Priority Assessments. That the Council’s policies and procedures and those of the NHS Trust were corrupted in the process. A sign perhaps of the Local Authorities managing central government policies in whatever underhanded way they could.
Please don’t get me wrong, I genuinely believe the ‘certain types’ should be helped but not at the expense of others in priority need or by rigged Welfare Priority Assessments that discriminated against the mentally ill and vulnerable, violated their rights and broke the law. One also has to consider if LASPO was introduced in 2012 to partly deny victims of rigged Welfare Priority Assessments justice.
Convicted
The outcome of the Trial was that I was found guilty and was given a Restraining Order” (gagging order) for an undisclosed length of time. I was also given a “Community Order” to serve for up to 15 hours.
Financially I was ordered to pay the so-called victim “£85” and I was also ordered to pay “£380” which I understand was for the CPS, despite me previously qualifying for Legal Aid.
Rewarding (X) “£85” for abusing my wife and other applicants in need was clearly down to the NHS Trust and Cornwall Council rigging the Welfare Priority Assessment Panels to exclude the Health Authority.
During the Trial (X) did admit to serving on other Panels which would suggest his appearance on these Panels were more by design than by accident, and that despite the PHSO informing me in 2014 that:
“The Trust has advised that the Panel member you refer to is a support worker, and although he is employed by the Trust, he was not acting in an NHS capacity whilst he was a Panel member.”
This statement is somewhat contradicted by (X) himself in a Witness Statement to D&CP on 21/10/2015, when (X) admitted: “I was only ever acting as a Trust representative, as requested by my team manager”, which would suggest (X) was acting for the NHS Trust as requested by his team manager and in an NHS capacity and was paid.
That comments I made on social media that (X) was not an NHS CPN and was a fraudster were true and that he did impersonate a mental health professional could not be described as “Harassment” by D&CP. That the Health Authority did have a Duty of Care towards the Welfare Priority Assessment applicants in need, like Alison, but failed them.
Following my conviction, Legal Adviser Renee Gallin advised me to arrange for the return of my computers from D&CP, and without explanation, and I don’t think she appreciated my remark that I would send them a Tweet about it.
Community Order and Probation
With the Trial over, some time was spent afterwards arranging the Community Order with Max Holgate of Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS), and what was expected of me. The 1st appointment was for me to attend an initial Induction course at the Truro Probation Office on 26 September 2018 at 2pm.
Please see Probation Service, a Law Unto Itself for further details.
Ed drove me home after the Trial and I got indoors around 3.30 and felt as though I had been dragged through a hedge backwards and was glad to be home and I later made some notes.
So Were my Human Rights Violated
In the wake of the Trial it was time to evaluate if my right to a Fair Trial under Article 6 of the Human Rights Act 1989 was fair and lawful. I also include Article 10 and my right to Freedom of Expression given the nature of the Charge against me regarding my comments on social media and in the public interest.
Probably the strongest indicator of my rights being violated is when Court Clerk Martyn Stephens stated at the Pre Trial Hearing that “it was too late for that”, in reply to my Human Rights being protected.
A Kangaroo Court
I have often referred to the Trial as being a Kangaroo Court (KC) and as humorous as it sounds a KC is anything but funny. Having twice been a victim of them the sense of injustice and being criminally violated is overwhelming.
A KC is described as being a sham legal proceeding which is set-up in order to give the impression of a fair legal process. In reality, it offers no impartial justice as the verdict is to the detriment of the accused and a conviction is decided upon in advance.
During my analyses into what happened in 2018 I also had good reason to compare it with what happened in 2015/16. Although I refer to this as the “Revenge Arrest” I did not realise when I wrote the ‘Liberty Report’ that it also had all the signs of it too being a KC. Much in the same way as the LASPO factor played in explaining why neither Coodes, in 2015/16, or Nicholls, in 2018, would have anything to do with my evidence from 2012, and when LASPO was being introduced.
KCs are usually associated with a group of individuals that need to dispense an unfair form of justice that is normally outside a formal judicial process.
The KCs in 2015/16 and 2018 involved the same Court, the same West Country CPS, the same Legal Aid Agency, the same HM Courts and Tribunal Service, the same Cornwall Council, the same NHS Trust, the same Devon & Cornwall Police, the same Devon and Cornwall Police and Crime Commissioner and others who all protected each other with little regard for the rule of law, my Human Rights or my innocence. That which I usually refer to as “Institutional Corruption.”
The only group that I have found that fits the bill perfectly in 2015/16 and 2018 and operated on a Local level is the Devon and Cornwall Criminal Justice Board (CJS) which I will return to later. All I will say for now is that the various group Members and agencies have not denied what I have claimed.
My main concern in 2018, apart from the level of criminality that D&CP had engaged in to have me appear before Bodmin Magistrates Court, was the violation of my right to a Fair Trial under Article 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998, and my right to freedom of expression under Article 10 since the charge of Harassment began with a threat of Defamation by Cornwall Council in 2014 to silence me but which failed and became a criminal offence a year later by false accusers Victoria Slavin, the Cornwall Council Senior Solicitor for the NHS, and (X).
My Human Rights under Article 6
To understand how my right to a fair Trial was violated requires a basic understanding of Article 6 of the Human Rights Act 1989. The following 10 requirements are in bold followed by my brief comments to explain why I do not think think I got a fair Trial.
Before I begin I make no apology for repeating that Martyn Stephens was the Court Clerk on the day of the pre-Trial hearing and advised the Justices on the law. The same Martyn Stephens who was of the opinion that “it was too late for that” with regard to the Court protecting my Human Rights.
To be presumed innocent until proven guilty:
I was never presumed innocent because my evidence was never investigated by D&CP. Clearly the Witness Statement admitted by (X) in 2015 supported my comments that (X) was not a CPN and was a fraudster and as such my comments were truthful and not “Harassment.”
When I was charged on 14 May 2018 the officer who charged me presumed me guilty 10 days before the arrest and interview when he stated on 04 May 2018:
“In light of suspect failing to attend as a V/A arrest is required with a view to seizure of IT equipment after continuance of Harassment.”.
The officer who charged me with “Harassment”, and planned the unlawful theft of my computers 10 days before the arrest was the 2nd officer and who was part of the cover-up.
When the Court denied me cross examining the main witness against me at Trial on 21 September 2018 the Court did not presume me innocent and therefore violated my Human Right to a fair Trial.
The Restraining Order issued in 2016 did not make me guilty of any crime and was the result of a false confession on 03 December 2015 resulting from insufficient evidence. That I was duped.
To be told as early as possible what you are accused of:
I was told via an alleged “Malicious” and “extremely vindictive” telephone call that led to an official complaint to the Chief Constable and the officer later being officially investigated by the PSD. I was accused of “Harassment” but the officer did not say by whom.
To remain silent:
It was known before the arrest that it was my intention to exercise my right to remain silent in recorded interview on 14/05/2018, because the recorded interview on 03 December 2015 was edited. When PC Abbott introduced himself to me in recorded interview in 2018, I felt overwhelmed and could not contain myself. PC Abbott’s presence therefore denied me my right to silence because he should not have been involved.
To have enough time to prepare your case and have legal assistance of your own choosing:
Although Nicholls was legal assistance of my own choosing, valuable time was wasted by both Nicholls and the Legal Aid Agency over the Representation Order fiasco.
With regard to the pre-Trial hearing I was not given enough time to prepare for it or seek legal assistance of my own choosing. In real terms I had little more than one working day.
With regard to the Trial itself, I was denied adequate time to prepare my case and I did not meet with the Court Appointed Solicitor until late afternoon on the day before Trial for a 90 minute consultation. Largely because the Court Appointed Solicitor worked part time only.
Despite the Court having the option to have the Court Appointed Solicitor represent me throughout the Trial, the Court decided instead to have the Court Appointed Solicitor cross examine only despite the LAA recognising that my case was “so complex.”
For much of the Trial I was therefore without legal assistance.
To have legal aid (funding) for a lawyer if you cannot afford one and this is needed for justice to be served:
There was no question I did not satisfy the means tested legal aid funding conditions because it had already been agreed by the Legal Aid Agency.
Justice was not served because the Legal Aid Agency refused my chosen Solicitor a Representation Order and the Trial on 27 July 2018 had to be postponed. This led to my Solicitor later dismissing himself from my case and the Court appointing a Court Appointed Solicitor at my expense and my disadvantage.
To attend your Trial:
I attended both the pre-Trial Hearing at Truro Magistrates Court on 17 September without legal assistance and the Trial at Bodmin Magistrates Court on 21 September 2018 with only limited legal assistance.
To access all the relevant information:
Clearly I was denied all the relevant information and evidence held on the 3 computers unlawfully seized by D&CP on 14/05/2018 which it knew I would need before Trial. They were not returned to me until after Trial to pervert the course of justice and were withheld for some 5 months altogether without explanation.
I was also denied CCTV evidence of the MH episode in the cell and should have received the footage within 40 days of the SAR application on 18 May 2018, and by law. Having been denied this crucial evidence since 2018, this evidence is now presumed to have been destroyed 6 years ago.
To put forward your side of the case at Trial:
The Court knew weeks before Trial that I could not and would not defend myself without legal assistance. Without legal assistance or a transcript I do not even know if I was permitted to put forward my side of the case in my defence.
My request to have my case heard outside the West Country was denied despite Nicholls endorsement.
To question the main witness against you and call other witnesses:
I was not permitted to question the main witness against me because the Court did not presume me innocent and contrary to the Human Rights Act 1989.
The witnesses I requested for Trial at the pre-Trial hearing were all denied to me without explanation.
My request to send out Witness Summons was refused and the offer of Witness Statements never materialised.
To have an interpreter, if you need one:
In the context of better understanding what is going on:
I would liken this to not having legal assistance to help me through the Court procedures and protocols to protect my Rights.
I would also liken it to not receiving the hearing facilities I requested before Trial and being denied a friend to sit with me during Trial to assist my hearing disadvantage. My written complaint to Allesandro Roveri, Head of Legal Operations and Justices Clerk, about this issue was later upheld by Mr Roveri.
My partial deafness had been known to the Courts since 2015/16. Asking to stand outside the dock to better hear what was being said are examples.
My concentration tends to wander if I cannot properly follow what is being said and it only takes one person talking quietly or from a distance or facing the wrong way for me to lose the plot so to speak.
At home I often wear headphones which helps me follow and better understand what is being said on TV and to assist my concentration.
Sub-Judice Lifted
By letter dated 25 September 2018 I received a letter from Miss G Cheriton of the PSD advising me:
“With reference to your complaint recorded under the above reference number we acknowledge your wish to proceed with it now the matter is free of sub-judice.”
The “above reference number” “PSD/CO/00407/18” , is the same used by the PSD in its letter to me dated 09 May 2018.
In fact the letter dated 25 September acknowledged its letter of 09 May 2018 and added:
“The matter has been forwarded to Inspector Setchell at St Austell Police Station who, whilst maintaining an overview of its progress, will allocate it to an appropriate supervisor to deal.”
This following the re-location of my complaint from Camborne Police Station to St Austell Police Station and was at odds with PS Tony Hannaford introducing himself to me as the I/O on 04 June 2018, some 4 months earlier.
The Return of My Computers
These were returned to me on Monday 09 October 2018 by arrangement and resulted in a complaint.
They were returned around 10: 00am in an unmarked police car which drove into the nearby car park. I/O PS Hannaford, who I last saw at the Trial with PC Abbott, got out of the driver’s side and opened the boot containing my computers. An officer then got out of the passenger side and who I immediately recognised as PC Abbott. We put the computers near my front door and they then left.
PC Abbott asked me to sign a receipt which I did and I wrote that I had not checked them.
I later complained about their return because PC Abbott was still under investigation following my complaint in April 2018 and I felt his presence was inappropriate and somewhat intimidating.
In reply I/O PS Hannaford, and Insp Setchell said it was not PC Abbott but a PC Hankins who had helped return the computers as if I had never met PC Abbott before.
More about PC 7099 Tristan Hankins later and the officers who lied about me meeting him again.
Over the following months I continued my correspondence with D&CP and the Court and others involved in my case. The PSD investigation into PC Abbott continued.
It was also a time when I could now better scrutinize the Subject Access Request (SAR) information at my leisure that was provided to me in late June 2018.
So who is the 2nd Officer?
So now that the Trial was over, I have my computers back, Sub-Judice has been lifted and the investigations into my complaints are back on track, it was time to find out who the 2nd Officer at the arrest on 14 May 2018 is.
In the order of events, I received an email from I/O PS Hannaford dated 04/10/2018 stating, amongst other things:
“As you are aware the Professional Standards Department assessed your complaints as suitable for ‘Local Investigation.”
This was news to me because when the PSD assessed and recorded my complaint against PC Abbott for PSD investigation by letter dated 09 May 2018, it then identified “Local Resolution” as being suitable and provided me an explanation of the process. I can only assume changing the method of the complaint to “Local Investigation” months later must have been advantageous to D&CP?
Regarding the 2nd Officer, I received an email from I/O PS Hannaford, and on behalf of Insp Setchell, dated 16 November 2018 informing me that:
“On the day of your arrest I believe that PC Hankins attended with PC Abbott – this is standard procedure to transport an arrested person. Other than this he has had no involvement in your case.”
I was unhappy with this explanation because I felt the 2nd Officer was in some way more senior, to which I/O PS Hannaford added:
“the allegation that Constable Hankins is a more senior officer than PC Abbott and is responsible for your arrest – they are both officers of the same rank.”
So there we have it in writing, the 2nd Officer is PC 7099 Tristan Hankins. Or is it?
The 1st Official PSD Investigation Report
With the publication of I/O PS Hannaford and Insp Setchell’s 1st official PSD Investigation Report on 30 January 2019, it became blatantly obvious that the Investigation Report was a whitewash, a cover-up and a work of fiction.
There was no mention of the 2nd officer who accompanied PC Abbott on the day of the arrest and the Report even went as far as to declare “No police witnesses identified”, which is untrue because not only did I meet and talk with the 2nd officer and witness, but he accompanied PC Abbott into my home.
Without the 2nd officer/witness being named and investigated by the PSD the Report is worthless.
Apart from PC 13074 Jason Abbott, the only other “OFFICER/STAFF DETAILS” on the !st Investigation Report was a 57251 Miss Britnall, PSD Administrator, who was also named in the complaint and Detective Inspector Buck was named as her Line Manager.
According to 57251 Miss Britnell, PSD Administrator, she claimed she wrote to me on 11 May 2018, before I was arrested, to advise me that the complaint against PC Abbott was to be re-allocated” from Inspector McWhirter at Camborne Police Station to Inspector Setchell at St Austell Police Station due to an “error”, and that the PSD did not know about my arrest on 14 May 2018. Although my allegation was “not upheld”, I still maintain the date of “11 May 2018” was backdated because I did not receive Miss Britnell’s letter until the day after I was arrested and on 15 May 2018. Accepting the 1st official PSD Investigation Report was worthless, in not naming or Investigating Morcom, I still believe, on the balance of probabilities, that the letter from Miss Britnell was back dated to better cover-up the damage done on 14 May 2018.
The “error”, as I understand it, is that Inspector McWhirter and his nominated Investigating Officer at Camborne Police Station were in the wrong location and would be unlikely to protect the officers and staff based at St Austell Police Station as well as Inspector Setchell and his nominated I/O, who were both based at St Austell Police Station. That the latter could better protect D&CP and the PSD itself.
After all the absurdities of the 1st official PSD Investigation Report to lie and exclude the 2nd officer, I doubled my efforts to find out who this officer was and after much research I eventually had one of those eureka moments when I found a picture of the 2nd officer on FaceBook (FB) and who I immediately recognised as the 2nd officer.
Despite I/O PS Hannaford and Insp Setchell claiming the officer who accompanied PC Abbott on the day of the arrest was a PC Hankins, the 2nd Officer was in fact PC 11358 Kevin Morcom, PC Abbott’s Supervisor and key witness.
According to a disclosure sent to the CPS ahead of the Trial on 27 July 2018 by D&CP the 2nd officer is described as PS Kevin Morcom, a Sergeant, despite evidence to the contrary. For this reason I will continue to refer to him only as Morcom.
On Morcom’s FB site I recognised some of his friends but access to the site became more difficult and I believe D&CP and Morcom had realised I had found his identity.
Personal friends like Insp Matthew Setchell who oversaw the 1st official PSD Investigation Report and was named in the 2015 arrest as a PS. Insp Emma Fox who oversaw the 2nd official PSD Investigation Report and I recall seeing Hannaford’s name later who was the I/O for the 1st Investigation Report.
The most surprising name of all was that of PC 5851 Mark Pomery and family who were friends with Morcom and family.
PC Pomery is one of 4 officers who received “Management Action” between 2012 to 2014 and was the lead interviewer who couldn’t stop himself from inappropriately using the complainant’s Victim Personal Statement (VPS) in interview because D&CP had no evidence. This use of the VPS frustrated my Solicitor such that he stated in recorded interview that it was “oppressive.” The uninvestigated written complaint that provided D&CP with no evidence itself to arrest and detain me has remained covered-up and withheld from me for what is now over 12 years (2024). PC Pomery’s statement denying me a copy of the written complaint was dated 16 May 2012 and can be read in the 1st Trilogy.
I don’t think it unreasonable to suggest that because PC Mark Pomery is a personal friend of Morcom, the nature of the arrest and charge on 14 May 2018 may well have been in retaliation for what happened in 2012. Morcom certainly had a conflict of interest dealing with me in any event.
Knowing who the 2nd officer was then led me to research every reference to PC/PS 11358 Kevin Morcom amongst the internal documents I had received from D&CP as a result of SARs.
I should explain before continuing that Morcom was described as a PC up until the arrest on 14 May 2018 when he is then referred to as a PS in the following Disclosure:
An “Official Sensitive” document disclosed to the South West CPS ahead of Trial for 27 July 2018 by D&CP concerned a “Supervisor’s certification” which named “PS 11358 Kevin MORCOM” as the Supervisor for “PC 13074 Jason ABBOT.” The document was dated 14 May 2018, the day of the arrest.
The disclosure serves to prove that CPS Prosecutor Jill Wilson would have known about the association between PC Abbott and Morcom, a witness on the day of the arrest, and before she chose PC Abbott to be a Witness for the Crown and whilst he was still under PSD investigation following my complaints against him.
Morcom was wilfully excluded from every single investigation and Appeal into the events of 14 May 2018 and thereafter in a conspiracy of silence that just went on and on despite Morcom being PC Abbott’s declared Supervisor and an undeclared key witness.
My most ReTweeted Tweet on Twitter best sums this up:
“Cornwallgate The reason why a complaint against one @DC_Police officer grew into a complaint against over 20 is because they lied, cheated, covered-up, committed criminal offences, falsified Records and destroyed evidence.”
Further evidence is provided from the D&CP Data Protection Unit regarding: “Subject Access Disclosure 223/18.”
This internal document provided to me by D&CP included statements from both PC Abbott and PC Morcom, who as I have explained was officially described as a PC at that time and when both officers worked on the complaint against me by (X) prior to my arrest.
“Enquiry I have called the suspect and arranged for him to come in on the 2nd May 2018 Responsible Officer PC 13074 12 JASON ABBOTT Log Entry Type INVESTIGATION FREE TEXT Creation Date 23/04/2018 13:52.”
This entry refers to PC Abbott’s alleged “malicious” and “vindictive” telephone call to me on the morning of Sunday 22 April that led to the official written complaint against him to the Chief Constable on 27 April 2018.
PC Abbott’s telephone call was more accurately created on the morning of Sunday 22/04/2018 and not the stated: “23/04/2018” at “13:52”, which is untrue.
“Enquiry In light of suspect failing to attend as a V/A arrest is required with a view of seizure of IT equipment after continuance of Harassment. Responsible Officer PC 11358 12 KEVIN MORCOM Log Entry Type SUPERVISOR Creation Date 04/05/2018 23:22.”
This entry serves to prove that it was PC Morcom who planned the seizure of my computers 10 days before the unlawful arrest on 14 May 2018. Not for evidence but to stop me using the equipment having presumed me guilty.
The Human Rights Act states one shall be presumed innocent until proven guilty.
As officers of the law, both PC Abbott and Morcom should have known that a charge of Harassment would only be a Summary Offence and not an Indictable Offence and that the seizure of IT equipment from my home without some form of warrant would involve them, and others, in committing a criminal offence.
To be honest, I did not fully appreciate until the publication of the 1st official PSD Investigation Report in 2019, that PC Abbott and Morcom had committed a criminal offence when they seized IT equipment from my home on the day of the arrest without producing a warrant.
One has to recognise that both officers had more than enough time, 10 days in fact, to consider the seriousness of what they were intending to do.
It is ironic that the seizure of IT equipment from my home was the only allegation I/O PS Hannaford and Insp Setchell upheld in their 1st official PSD Investigation Report. The allegations not upheld (7) came down to them being a matter of PC Abbott’s word against mine and because there were: “No police witnesses identified.”
A brief example of this charade concerns my medication that was denied to me on the day of the arrest in Custody. According to I/O PS Hannaford and Insp Setchell in their Report:
“PC Abbott states that at the time of the arrest he advised Mr McLaughlin that the medication needed to have his name on it, so he would have been aware of this fact.”
In fact PC Abbott said nothing of the sort and nor did Morcom who was with PC Abbott in my home and was a witness. Neither of the officers enquired to know what the medication was for and which is surprising considering one of PC Abbott’s duties 12 days before the arrest was to check:
“for any warning markers or previous information which may be relevant to the Health/Welfare of the subject.”
Clearly PC Abbott checked nothing and Morcom was excluded from events.
Anticipating I might be arrested following PC Abbott’s “malicious” and “vindictive” telephone call on 22 April 2018, I asked for advance warning in the complaint to the Chief Constable regarding my medication.
The only allegation that was upheld in the 1st official PSD Investigation Report was briefly explained to me as:
“There was no legal power to enter the property and seize items within.”
I will give a more detailed response from D&CP shortly.
Apart from the fabricated disclosure to the CPS mentioned earlier, another reference to Morcom being a “PS” is in the “DETENTION LOG DOCUMENT”, page 4 of 15, on 14 May 2018, at “19:48” when Morcom charged me following PC Abbott’s inappropriate interview:
“FREE TEXT – Detainee MCLAUGHLIN – PS 1358 Morcom THE D/P has admitted the offence in interview but raise a partial defence that he doesnt believe there to be any issues with his behaviour: In the circumstances there is sufficient evidence to charge and it is in the public interest. Signed PS 11358 12 KEVIN MORCOM OFFICER RECORDING.”
So did Morcom impersonate a “PS” to charge me and was my arrest really “in the public interest.”?
This entry also serves to show Morcom was present at Launceston Police Station on the day of the arrest when he charged me.
Despite I/O PS Hannaford and Insp Setchell agreeing in writing in 2018 that:
“PC Hankins attended with PC Abbott – this is standard procedure to transport an arrested person.”
The fact is Morcom got to and from Launceston Police Station on the day of the arrest the same way I did and PC Jason Abbott did all the driving.
I do not recall admitting to any offence in interview but I can remember being in a state of duress and confusion for much of the time following PC Abbott introducing himself to me.
With regard to “PS 11358 12 KEVIN MORCOM” charging me for Harassment on 14 May 2018 it has to be remembered that “PC 11358 12 KEVIN MORCOM“ presumed me guilty 10 days before the arrest when he planned the seizure of my computers and that his decision to charge me was premeditated and possibly in retaliation for his friend PC Mark Pomery receiving “Management Action” in 2012.
I still find it perverse to be charged for committing an alleged criminal offence whilst at the same time being made a victim of criminal offences by D&CP.
A news report in 2019 described Kevin Morcom as a PC, so he had either been demoted or he had not been a PS?
I much later came across a page from the D&CP Website dated 24/06/2018, some 5 weeks after my arrest on 14 May 2018. The page showed pictures of officers and info relating to the “St Austell Urban local Policing team”, and pictured was “PC Kev Morcom 11358.”
I found one other reference in the SAR information sent to me under “NOMINAL RECORD” Subject Access Disclosure 223/18, Page 1 of 1, where “PC 11358 12 KEVIN MORCOM” is described as an “Assessing Officer.”
My quest continues.
Officer In Charge (OIC)
To further unravel the rank of Kevin Morcom, I noted a number of references to an un-named “OIC” in the Custody Log, such as the Risk Assessment which took place not long after arriving at the Station and which I referred to in Part 1. According to my research the police acronym and jargon buster states “OIC”stands for “Officer in Charge” and “is effectively an acting sergeant with all the authority and responsibilities associated with a permanent rank sergeant.” This would indicate Morcom is a “PS”, and the “OIC” but this became less clear when “PC ABBOTT” twice stated in an “OFFICIAL – SENSITIVE Witness Statement”, that he is the “OIC.” To confuse matters further, PC Abbott is described in the SAR information as the “Officer in Case” and which I believe is intentionally misleading?
The 1st CAU Appeal
With the 1st official PSD Investigation Report being a work of fiction, I decided to Appeal if only to expose everything I felt was wrong with the 1st official PSD Investigation Report and for the record.
Unlike 2012, Appealing a Local Investigation was now a role for the internal D&CP Complaints Appeals Unit (CAU) to investigate and I Appealed on 26 March 2019.
Of course I had my doubts the CAU would deal with my Appeal fairly and I was right to be concerned.
Although I did mention Morcom in the Appeal it was only in passing really because I still did not fully understand the importance of his role as things were still developing.
I responded to every single allegation that I/O PS Hannaford and Insp Setchell upheld and did not uphold. On reflection a waste of my time really when the Investigation Report itself was just simply worthless because it failed to mention Morcom, but it did at least serve to record my dissatisfaction.
The Appeal was also copied to multiple email addresses on 29 March 2018, a paper trail.
I received the Appeal decision dated 20 June 2019 and of the 8 allegations dealt with by I/O PS Hannaford and Insp Setchell and determined by Chief Inspector Brent Ireland, none were upheld by T/Detective Chief Inspector Matthew Bourne, Complaints Appeals Officer for the CAU.
I felt the most perverse decision by T/Detective Chief Inspector Bourne was not to uphold that a criminal offence had been committed by police officers regarding my computers being taken on the day of the arrest.
The following is from the CAU decision by T/Detective Chief Inspector Bourne:
“5. Should the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) be involved. No.
The CPS decides whether to take action against someone working for the police because they may have committed a crime. The report has not been referred to the CPS. I consider this decision to be appropriate as the report and the underlying evidence does not indicate that a criminal offence has been committed.
This aspect of your appeal is not upheld.”
I/O PS Hannaford and Insp Setchell upheld the allegation in their 1st official PSD Investigation Report because PC Abbott had:
“no legal power to enter the property and seize items within.”
Bourne would have been aware of their decision and the following statement by I/O PS Hannaford and supported by Insp Setchell and Chief Inspector Brent Ireland before his Appeal decision. The following is taken from the 1st Investigation Report:
“PC Abbott has explained that he returned to the address and conducted a search in accordance with S.32 Police Criminal Evidence Act 1984. This provides a power to enter and search a premises in which the suspect was arrested for evidence relating to the offence, providing that offence is an indictable offence. In this case the offence in question, namely harassment, is a summary offence. As such the power of S.32 Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 would not be available to him to return to the address and seize property from within.”
The thing to remember here is that PC Abbott did not act alone in the theft of IT equipment from my home on the day of the arrest and that Morcom, his Supervisor and police witness, planned the theft 10 days before the arrest. An arrest Morcom participated in as the 2nd Officer and who was knowingly excluded from the 1st official PSD Investigation Report by I/O PS Hannaford and Insp Setchell and others to cover-up that theft and Morcom’s involvement. This further assisted by Custody PS Burt when he covered-up the seizure of that property in his Custody Report.
It was Chief Inspector Brent Ireland who gave his determination to the 1st official PSD Investigation Report and provided me with the Complaints Appeals Unit instructions for appealing.
In his determination dated 04 March 2019 Chief Inspector Brent Ireland stated:
“While I have come to the view that there is not enough evidence to take further action in this case on the majority of the allegations, I have to stress that my decision is based solely on the evidence that was available. My findings simply reflect the fact that there is not enough evidence to show that the officer/police staff members have breached the police/police staff Standards of Professional Behaviour.”
“I find that your complaint was correct with regard to the seizure of equipment from your property following arrest. I have decided that training and awareness to the officer is necessary on this occasion. We have also sent out refresher information to other staff in this regard. This has been undertaken by the Investigating Officer.”
Unbelievably, Chief Inspector Brent Ireland had chosen I/O PS Tony Hannaford, the same “Investigating Officer”, who had knowingly lied and corrupted the 1st official PSD Investigation Report with Insp Setchell to exclude the very officer who had planned the theft of my property.
(On 10/08/2022, the beginning of the Newquay Boardmasters Festival, Brent Ireland was seen on TV in connection with the event and I noticed he was no longer a Chief Inspector and had been promoted to a Superintendent for what I believe is his reward for being corrupt. I will name another bent copper later and who I also believe was promoted for being corrupt).
What I/O PS Hannaford, Insp Setchell, Chief Inspector Ireland and T/Detective Chief Inspector Matthew Bourne all have in common is a willingness not to admit PC Abbott committed a criminal offence. That perhaps PC Abbott simply made a mistake on 14 May 2018. This is plausible until you factor in Morcom and question why Morcom was never named or investigated for his role that day or the conduct of the PSD itself who also knowingly covered-up events to protect D&CP and Morcom. I recall I/O PS Hannaford considered the theft of my computers that day as a:
“A genuine mistake and there is no evidence to suggest dishonesty or malpractice.”. This of course is reasonable until you factor in Morcom and what really happened.
Had Morcom been named and investigated for his part in the unlawful seizure of property, and Custody PS James Burt had been investigated for covering up that theft of property in his Custody Report, Bourne would not have found it so easy to lie and engage in a cover-up to protect D&CP and the CPS.
Given that the computers were taken unlawfully and withheld for some 5 months and until after Trial to pervert the course of justice, D&CP did not return my stolen property to me until after the Magistrates had convicted me and had refused the “Deprivation of property” order by D&CP to destroy them. Whatever the reason was for refusing to comply with the order, the Court, D&CP and others protected each other and the corrupt Criminal Justice System.
The CPS has known for some time why it should have contacted D&CP regarding a criminal offence being committed by D&CP officers but it has continued to pervert the course of justice and do nothing about it and in keeping with what the IOPC knew and ignored. The officers should have been prosecuted but the CPS instead colluded with D&CP and others. Had the CPS Investigated Morcom, the 2nd officer and key witness, I doubt a Kangaroo Court would have been neccesary.
Max Hill QC/KC, Director of Public Prosecutions for England and Wales, is aware of my evidence but has sought only to Block me on Twitter from Following him and reading his Tweets. One of over a dozen Professionals and Organisations that have Blocked me.
For a current list of individuals and bodies who have Blocked me please see: Blocked
On the day of the arrest I heard no dialogue between the 2 officers regarding the computers so the theft was obviously planned in advance. Taking my keys in a way a petty thief might would suggests they knew what they were doing was wrong.
There were of course other issues I was dissatisfied with regarding what really happened but when the key areas were corrupted to the extent they were it all seemed rather pointless.
In T/Detective Chief Inspector Bourne’s Appeal decision of 20 June 2019 he stated:
“Having read your appeal e-mail I find the following matters need to be recorded and assessed as new complaints.”
The matters referred to 5 further points which Bourne described as new Expressions of Dissatisfaction and which he:
“will ensure that these are recorded and assessed as per the provisions set out in the Police (Complaints and Misconduct) Regulations 2012.”
On 25 June 2019 I received a letter from Miss Dabb of the PSD advising me that the 5 additional complaints have been formally assessed and recorded:
“In accordance with the requirements of the Police Reform Act 2002.”
Miss Dabb added:
“The matter has been forwarded to Inspector Fox at Camborne Police Station who, whilst maintaining an overview of its progress, will allocate it to an appropriate supervisor to deal.”
In a later written explanation from Mrs Angliss, PSD Assessment Officer, dated 02 September 2021, Mrs Angliss explained that the 5 additional allegations:
“were recorded under the Police (Complaints and Misconduct) Regulations 2012.”, “reference PSD/CO/554/19.”
An obvious difference of opinion within the PSD as to how the additional allegations would be dealt with and a problem for me because both PSD Officers had proven themselves to be untrustworthy.
I believe recording the complaint “In accordance with the requirements of the Police Reform Act 2002”, was to avoid involving the IOPC though if the 5 additional allegations “were recorded under the Police (Complaints and Misconduct) Regulations 2012” the IOPC was involved like it or not. This requires further research and I am mindful that “Local Resolution” was changed to “Local Investigation” later on and after Trial presumably to eliminate IOPC involvement?
“554”relates to Inspector Fox who disappeared from her role overseeing the PSD investigation and was not even mentioned when the 2nd official PSD Investigation Report was published in 2019.
My only thoughts on this matter is that Inspector Emma Fox was identified as being a personal friend of Morcom on his FB page in 2019. I also think it possible the 2nd official PSD Investigation Report had nothing to do with Inspector Emma Fox and may explain why she was not named on the Report itself.
The 2nd Official PSD Investigation Report
So on 01 July 2019 I received a letter from Inspector Blackford who introduced himself as the appointed Investigating Officer (I/O) for the complaint consisting of the 5 expressions of dissatisfaction. Appointed by Inspector Emma Fox.
I was immediately concerned when Insp Guy Blackford gave his location as the “Newquay Custody Unit” and I felt he would have an obvious conflict of interest dealing with issues relating to Custody PS James Burt, the Custody Officer who falsified his Custody Records at Launceston Police Station on 14 May 2018, because Custody PS Burt is actually based at the same Newquay Police Station as Insp Guy Blackford.
In the same way the 1st official PSD Investigation Report by I/O PS Hannaford and Insp Setchell failed the Morcom Factor in not mentioning or investigating Morcom, the 2nd official PSD Investigation Report also failed to mention or investigate Morcom. That despite Morcom being the 2nd Officer and having a more senior role on 14 May 2018, and was a police witness, I/O Insp Blackford continued the cover-up to exclude any reference to Morcom as the 2nd officer in the 2nd official PSD Investigation Report.
Despite references to the MH episode and the falsified Custody and Medical Records at no time did Insp Blackford mention or investigate why Custody PS Burt failed to officially Record the seizure of property from my home in connection with the arrest on 14 May 2018. In fact Insp Blackford’s only direct comment about Custody PS Burt was;
“Excellent treatment by Sgt Burt, explained matters thoroughly and ensured he understood.”
Almost as if Sgt Burt had just been successfully promoted.
Following on from the publication of the 2nd official Investigation Report it was announced in the local press that “Newquay top cop Inspector Dave Meredith retires today after 26 years.” The article was dated 24 DEC 2019, and that Newquay Insp Guy Blackford replaced him. A coincidence perhaps but I very much doubt it.
The most contentious part of the 2nd official PSD Investigation Report for me personally was the claim by Insp Blackford that he watched the cell CCTV evidence. CCTV evidence that I had legally requested and had already been denied for well over a year despite it being a legal requirement within 40 days.
Had Insp Blackford not lied so much and perverted the course of justice to the extent he did in his Report I may well have considered his promotion simply a coincidence.
The Investigation ran until the publication of the 2nd official PSD Investigation Report on 15 November 2019.
The only reference I received from Insp Fox was by letter dated 31 December 2019 when she apologised for the delay in the complaint being determined.
As mentioned earlier, Insp Fox was assigned to oversee the investigation according to Miss Dabb of the PSD, and it appears Insp Fox was replaced without explanation by the named:
“Criminal Justice Department (CJD) as the “Basic Command Unit BCU/Department.”
I believe this to be the Criminal Justice System (CJS) that relates to the Devon & Cornwall Criminal Justice Board and who I normally refer to as Institutional Corruption because of who its Members are.
I had not seen an individual replaced by a Department before and I assumed it was because of the amount of lies Insp Blackford had engaged in and the amount of support his lies would need.
The determination that accompanied the publication of the 2nd official PSD Investigation Report was by a Chief Inspector B Davison, “Head of Custody”, which concerned me in the same way Insp Blackford did as the “Custody Inspector in charge of Newquay Custody.” Almost as if there was a concerted effort to protect Custody PS James Burt no matter what.
The expectation that Custody PS James Burt would come under some form of scrutiny for falsifying his Custody Records to exclude the MH episode, failure to record the seizure of IT equipment from my home and destroying cell CCTV evidence didn’t happen and he was instead praised for his efforts that day.
The 2nd CAU Appeal
The 2nd Appeal was sent on 17 February 2020 and was more confrontational than the 1st because I felt offended that so much of my time had been intentionally wasted.
I even likened the Investigations and Appeal to be like spending many months researching World War 2 but forgetting to mention Adolf Hitler, in reference to Morcom.
I even named over a dozen officers and staff in an opening statement who I considered had colluded to pervert the course of justice.
Included with my Appeal were some 10 scanned copies of D&CP internal documents and emails as evidence that mostly related to Morcom.
Most of the evidence provided to the CAU is contained within this work so there is little the CAU did not know and receive.
I received the CAU decision dated 04 March 2020 and I was shocked to see the 2nd Appeal was dealt with by the same T/Detective Chief Inspector Matthew Bourne who dealt with the 1st Appeal.
No elements of the 2nd Appeal were upheld despite overwhelming evidence against Morcom who, again, was not even mentioned. Despite providing internal evidence that D&CP officers had committed criminal offences regarding the theft of my computers on 14 May 2018, the evidence made no difference.
Proof that Bourne was again engaging in a cover-up to corrupt both his Appeals and pervert the course of justice by again saying no criminal offence had been committed and that the CPS should not be involved.
Chief Inspector B Davison, Head of Custody, provided his determination with the copy of the 2nd official PSD Investigation Report assisted Bourne with the 2nd Appeal.
I put it to the PSD that C/Insp B Davison was not acting in an official capacity in the Appeal and that he was just providing support to Bourne. The PSD declined to answer.
There is something very perverse about an Appeals System that allows the same Complaints Appeals Officer to twice consider the same Appeal and disregard critical internal evidence so as not to be proven wrong a second time and to avoid not involving D&CP officers or the CPS again.
PSD Dirty Tricks
I received an email from Mrs Wills of the PSD dated 23 September 2019 regarding my complaints against I/O PS Tony Hannaford, Insp Matthew Setchell and T/Detective Chief Inspector Matthew Bourne.
Mrs Wills had decided not to record my complaints against them because she felt:
“It is an abuse of the complaints procedure and oppressive.”
Mrs Wills then quoted the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) Statutory Guidance that defined an abuse of the complaints procedure as follows:
“Where there has been manipulation or misuse in order to initiate or progress a complaint which, in all the circumstances of the particular case, should not have been made or should not be allowed to continue.”
That the IOPC Statutory Guidance defined Oppressive as being:
“A complaint that is without foundation that is intended or likely to result in burdensome, harsh or wrongful treatment of the person complained against.”
Mrs Will’s concluded by saying that I have a right of appeal to the IOPC within 28 days.
I felt quite speechless by this e-mail because the PSD was well aware that I had provided it with overwhelming evidence against all 3 officers.
So if officers lie and cheat and pervert the course of justice, as I/O PS Hannaford, Insp Setchell and T/Detective Chief Inspector Bourne did, then it is me who has wronged and oppressed them and abused the complaints system.
The IOPC had been kept copied into the complaint early on and had even given me a number of Ref No.. The IOPC knew that criminal offences had been committed and however inappropriate it was for D&CP to deal with these the IOPC chose not to intervene.
One such email was from a James Cropper, IOPC Customer Contact Advisor, dated 30 October 2020, who stated:
“Please note that the IOPC has no remit to become involved in a complaint where we are not the relevant body to consider an appeal/review against the outcome of a police complaint. As such,you will need to contact the Devon and Cornwall Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) if you wish to appeal.”
Under the IPCC it would have dealt with an appeal/review as it did when I appealed to it following the 2012 complaint. Under the IOPC this appears to have changed and Mrs Wills must have been aware of this.
Some 3 years earlier in May 2017 the very same James Cropper, Apprentice Casework Administrator with the then IPCC, stated:
“They have also informed us that the IPCC are in fact the correct relevant Authority to consider this appeal.”
The appeal in 2017 by the IPCC had nothing to do with me and was fabricated by the IPCC to assist and protect D&CP. Having then closed the appeal in favour of D&CP the IPCC then closed its doors before the end of 2017 only to re-appear in early 2018 as the IOPC. As far as I am concerned the complaint against some 10 D&CP officers and staff prior to 2018 therefore remains open and unresolved to this day.
Despite the IOPC replacing the IPCC, the IOPC has shown no willingness since to finish the official 2016 complaint despite public funds already being spent.
It was said at the time that the IPCC grew too big and requested structural changes to better suit its much expanded organisation and the IOPC came into being on 08 January 2018.
I personally believe the IPCC closed its doors to bury toxic cases like mine and to reappear as the IOPC to erode the police complaints system further with reforms to protect bad police forces, officers and staff and to maintain police numbers to make Government look less incompetent having previously dismissed some 20,000 officers and staff. Local Resolution, which is not a disciplinary process, has become the norm under the IOPC and Local Investigation and Appeals are no longer dealt with by the IOPC to weaken the complaints system further.
In its own guidance the IOPC has stated:
“If we think a police officer or member of the police staff may have committed a criminal offence, we will pass our report to the CPS. The CPS is then responsible for deciding whether the person should be prosecuted.”
An almost impossible thing to do when the IOPC will not accept your complaint or appeal and will constantly refer you back to the police force that dealt with your complaint regardless of the fact that criminal offences may have been committed.
James Cropper of the IPCC and later of the IOPC explained to me via email on 05 March 2019. that “The IOPC acts as the guardian of the complaint system, however, the police force concerned is responsible for officially recording the complaint, and in the majority of cases, investigating the complaint.” Given the evidence I had gathered one can understand why the IOPC did not wan’t to get involved and offer reforms that made it less of a “guardian of the complaint system.”
Hate Crime
Following on from Mrs Wills corrupt and dirty management of complaints, I return to the SAR information I received from the Data Protection Alliance on 29 June 2018, and documents I claim were fabricated and intended only to assassinate my character. Although the documents purported to date from 2015, the Revenge Arrest, I had not seen them before 2018, despite there being a SAR in 2015. I complained to the PSD about these entries but the PSD later claimed it did not know anything so I just put it down to more lying and cheating from the PSD. The officer responsible for the offensive documents is a PC 12796 Cassie Osborne and the ICO was also provided with details of this SAR information I received but did nothing.
On “Subject Access Disclosure 2223/18 – Geoffrey McLaughlin Page 3 of 3” is the following:
“Mr McLaughlin was issued a PIN in 2012 for a very similar case that mirror’s this whereby he was harassing a member of Cornwall County Council from housing. He has an apparent hatred for female officers. I have completed a PIN to be issued. Sgt 15016 Carhart dealt with him on a previous ocassion and states that this needs a double crewed unit to serve the PIN, he needs to be fully aware that if he continues then he will be arrested and he records everything officers say and do.
Responsible Officer PC 12796 12 CASSIE OSBORNE LOG Entry Type INVESTIGATION FREE TEXT Creation Date 04/11/2015 08:49
There are a number of factual inaccuracies with the above statement and collectively they give the false impression that I am in someway dangerous, in needing“a double crewed unit to serve the PIN”, and that I have “an apparent hatred for female officers”, which I found extremely upsetting and disturbing given the years I had spent caring for my wife before she died.
With regard to the “PIN”, the Police Information Notice, or Early Harassment Notice, I was not issued with a “PIN” in 2012 at all. Please see the 1st Trilogy when I was asked by a male and female officer to accompany them to St Austell Police Station on 24 April 2012, when I was ready. This arrest was unlawful due to D&CP having no evidence to arrest and detain me and which remains coverered-up.
The only “PIN” I have been served with was in 2015, please see the 2nd Trilogy. There is a panel on the reverse side of a “PIN” to enable the serving and witnessing officer to sign. The notion I needed “a double crewed unit to serve the Pin”, is somewhat scaremongering and is a matter of procedure.
I have no idea about “he was harassing a member of Cornwall County Council from housing” and I suspect it implies Onnah Lacey eventhough she was not, as far as I know, a member of Cornwall Council despite her association with the Council’s corrupt housing partner Sanctuary Housing, and is of course the person who had me arrested on the basis of a written complaint for Harassment that I have never seen or read. Cornwall Council came into being on 1st April 2009 when it became a unitary authority.
With regard to “Sgt 15016 Carhart” he was the intimidating Custody Officer I refer to in the 1st Trilogy and was given “Management Action” by the IPCC in 2014, along with “I/O PS 3097 Dave Cartwright” who Investigated my complaint on behalf of D&CP. “PC 5851 Mark Pomery” and “PC 1685 Jo Wyatt were given “Management Action” in 2012 for their part in a charade that remains covered-up to this day.
The reference “he records everything officers say and do”, was not observed by D&CP officers when the statement was created on “04/11/2015 08:49” because I did not start recording what “officers say and do” until 03/12/2015 and after I had been arrested that day. I assume the reason I did not receive the above statement in 2015/16 is because it hadn’t been created then.
Amongst other SAR information I had not seen before were references to the “AGGRIEVED”, (Oonah Lacey), and “WAS ADVISED THAT ALL MEETINGS SHOULD BE IN PUBLIC PLACE AS OFFENDER WAS DEEMED DANGEROUS”, this in reference to one of the many lies stated by Oonah Lacey in her written complaint against me. The reference “AGGRIEVED EVENTUALLY HANDED IN HER NOTICE”, is totally untrue because Oonah Lacey was dismissed by her employer TPAS for alleged fraud, had D&CP bothered to check. There were numerous references, some repeated, that were all in bold capital letters for impact and had nothing to do with D&CP acting fairly or impartially.
The 3rd PSD Complaint
This was lodged on 11 September 2020 and specifically concerned the opening comment:
“A conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime at some time in the future. The crime in question being the theft of IT equipment from my home on 14 May 2018.”
I purposely lodged this complaint to force the PSD to assess, record and investigate what Morcom and PC Abbott did prior to the arrest and on the day of the arrest when they were both unlawfully involved in the theft of IT equipment from my home.
As per usual the complaint was copied to multiple email addresses as before and to continue the creation of a paper trail.
The evidence ignored by T/Detective Chief Inspector Bourne and C/Insp Davison on 18 February 2020 was provided to the PSD as evidence via email attachments on 14 September 2020.
I received an acknowledgement from Mrs Angliss, PSD Assessment Officer, on 14 October 2020 detailing 9 allegations and stating:
“Your complaint has now been officially recorded as a ‘complaint against police’ in accordance with the provisions of the Police Reform Act 2002.”
On the specific allegation concerning:
“1 That PC Morcom planned the theft and that PC Abbott stole your keys, entered your home without a warrant and stole IT equipment.”
Mrs Angliss went on to say:
“With reference to Allegations 1,5,6, & 7 These allegations have previously been recorded and investigated under PSD/CO/407/18 and PSD/CO/554/19, you were provided a right of appeal of the outcome of these investigations, which you exercised that right. Therefore, I believe these allegations to be repetitious and will be taking no further action.”
This statement is of course at odds with Mrs Angliss opening statement that:
“Your complaint has now been officially recorded as a ‘complaint against police’ in accordance with the provisions of the Police Reform Act 2002.”
The response from Mrs Angliss to all 9 allegations were very much the same and that no further action would be taken on any of them.
Regarding the most important allegation to me personally “PSD/CO/407/18”, relates to I/O PS Hannaford and Insp Setchell’s 1st official PSD Investigation Report that did not even mention or investigate Morcom.
I also do not know who officer “407” is or why the number was still in use after the complaint was “re-allocated” to Insp Setchell in May 2018. Insp Setchell’s number being: “15996.” Number “407” did not even relate to Inspector McWhirter at Camborne Police Station who was originally chosen to oversee the complaint and whose number is: “14619.”
“PSD/CO/554/19”, relates to Insp Fox and Insp Blackford’s 2nd official PSD Investigation Report that also did not record, investigate or mention Morcom. Insp Fox’s number is: “15543.”
The CAU Appeals also did not investigate or mention Morcom, meaning Mrs Angliss wilfully lied and obstructed the course of justice regarding Morcom not being recorded or investigated.
If the most serious allegations are wilfully corrupted to cover-up the truth, it is reasonable to assume that all other allegations will also be covered-up.
The 4th PSD Complaint
This complaint specifically concerned itself with the D&CP Data Protection Unit and was made on 27 January 2021. The most contentious issue for me was the “CCTV evidence of the cell”,which I specifically requested via SAR on 18 May 2018, 4 days after the unlawful arrest.
Although a copy of the cell CCTV footage should have been provided to me within 40 days of the application by law it wasn’t and the only explanation I can remember is that it was withheld because it was part of an on going investigation.
When I received the SAR information on 29 June 2018, S Ashford, Alliance Data Protection Officer, did not even mention the specifically requested “CCTV footage of the cell.”
Every time I had reason to contact the Unit, and there were many, I reminded the Unit that I was still awaiting the “CCTV footage of the cell.”
As time grew longer I began to feel the cell CCTV footage must have been destroyed, as I had originally thought. My rationale for thinking this is why would the Custody and Medical Records be falsified but the cell CCTV evidence remain to contradict what really happened.
Insp Blackford, in his 2nd official PSD Investigation Report, confused matters further when he claimed he watched the cell CCTV footage sometime between 01 July 2019 and the publication of the 2nd official PSD Investigation Report on 15 November 2019.
In that Investigation Report Insp Blackford claimed that:
“Both clips of cell CCTV of cell 8 reviewed in real time and no breaks in timings is seen.”
He then added:
“The cell footage shows no visible signs of any mental health episode. It was viewed in real time and there is no disruption to the recording. In the cell he sat down on the bench and wrote on the paper provided for the majority of that time and was also seen to be visited by the HCP. Mr McLaughlin has stated in his email dated 2nd August 2019 that his mental health episode occurred in cell 8 between 1755hrs and 1810hrs. The footage between these times is present on the CCTV and shows no visual change in his behaviour.
The burden of proof for this type of investigation is the civil one of “on the balance of probabilities” which means as investigating officer I have to be satisfied that it is more likely than not that the conduct alleged has occurred.
I can find no evidence that any CCTV has been destroyed or a mental health episode occurring in the cell. I can only see that the corridor footage was not downloaded. My conclusion as investigating officer is that I do not uphold this allegation and there is no case to answer.”
I have always thought the cell CCTV footage was destroyed around the time the Custody and Medical Records were falsified and the most likely person to have done this is Custody PS James Burt. Why would he falsify the Custody and Medical Records but leave cell CCTV evidence to contradict those falsified Records. Cell CCTV evidence that was requested well over a year earlier and should have been provided to me within 40 days by law. Why did D&CP not provide me with a copy of the “CCTV footage of the cell” to support its conclusion?
I believe the viewing of cell CCTV evidence in mid to late 2019 was fabricated and was possibly in response to the DPA18 which was introduced soon after I requested the SAR.
I suspect the reason the corridor footage was not provided is because it may have shown Morcom.
Despite requesting a copy of the cell CCTV evidence multiple times since May 2018 and making another SAR application for it in 2020 and lodging a complaint with the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) about the cell CCTV footage not being provided, D&CP admitted some two and a half years later that it could not provide me with a copy of it.
No explanation was given as to why it could not be provided to me and I think it reasonable to assume it was destroyed before Insp Blackford claimed he watched it over a year later.
Even if the cell CCTV footage was available it would only have been a bird’s eye view and recorded high above the cell using an ultra wide angle lens. There would have been no audio so any interpretation by Insp Blackford into what was said would have been both a guesstimate and biased to protect Custody PS Burt, the HCP and D&CP. The MH episode was not a physical thing and it was just something I shared with the HCP in desperation and having had enough. That there was no drama.
Without the cell CCTV evidence, the only proof D&CP has is that it cannot substantiate its claim.
I can only assume that the reason the Criminal Justice Department (CJD) was named on the 2nd official PSD Investigation Report was an attempt to provide some credibility to the corrupted Investigation Report. The problem is that without Morcom being named, recorded and investigated the 2nd official PSD Investigation Report is as worthless as the 1st Report and CAU Appeals.
One further expression of dissatisfaction that concerned me referred to PC Hankins, again.
Nothing to do with the earlier lies when I/O PS Hannaford and Insp Setchell claimed PC Hankins accompanied PC Abbott on the day of the arrest. In fact that issue was not even mentioned in any Investigation Report and itself contradicted the “No police witnesses identified” statement. I will return to PC Hankins later.
Before the end of 2019 Insp Guy Blackford was promoted and replaced Newquay Inspector Dave Meredith. One cannot help wonder what Insp Blackford had to do to be rewarded with such a promotion.
Before moving on, Insp Blackford also confirmed in his Report that:
“the new five expressions of dissatisfaction will be recorded and assessed as per the provisions set out in the Police (Complaints and Misconduct) Regulations 2012.”
As per T/Detective Chief Inspector Matthew Bourne’s instructions in his Appeal decision, but not according to the PSD who stated it would be dealt with under:
“the requirements of the Police Reform Act 2002.”
My limited understanding of the 2012 Regulations is that when I made the Chief Constable aware of my complaint about a person under his direction and control, namely PC Abbott, defined as an expression of dissatisfaction by a member of the public, myself, about the conduct of a person serving with the police, PC Abbott, the Police (Complaints and Misconduct) Regulations 2012 applies and the complaint should be recorded and referred to the IOPC.
So under the Police Reform Act 2002 was my complaint referred to the IOPC?
I have given numerous reasons already why I believe Insp Blackford lied and fabricated his official PSD Investigation Report and I will introduce the DPA18 shortly.
In desperation to obtain a copy of the cell CCTV footage that Insp Blackford claimed he watched months earlier I made another SAR application on 04 February 2020 and received confirmation dated 07 February 2020.
On 19 February 2020, I received the following from the D&CP Data Protection Unit:
“I am writing to provide you with an update. Due to the temporary unavailability of team members and the high volume of requests, we have still been unable to complete your request. The Office of the Information Commissioner (ICO) is aware of our non – compliance and they are monitoring this matter.”
The important thing to remember here is that the specific request for the “CCTV footage of the cell” was made on 18 May 2018 via SAR and that the cell CCTV footage should have been provided to me within 40 days to comply with the law.
The Alliance Data Protection Team wrote again on 14 April with further apologies, and again on 11 June and again on 06 August 2020.
On 07 August 2020 I received the following:
“Custody CCTV 14 May 2018, Arrival, Booking in, Fingerprint Room, Cell M8 and Charge. Please note that audio is only available in the Booking In / Charge Room.
There are no Pocket Note Book entries made by either PC Hankins or PC Morcom.”
Having checked the contents, no footage from “Cell M8” had been provided.
The issue regarding the Pocket Note Book entries is that I did not request this information in relation to PC Morcom but PS Morcom. I already knew there would be no Pocket Note Book entry from PC Hankins because his attendance on the day of the arrest was fabricated. In my reply of 14 August I requested the Data Protection Unit:
“stop playing games and do it properly.”
On 10 November 2020 it replied and repeated its misinformation again:
“We have completed an extensive search on your behalf for the data you have requested, however, this is not held and all your personal data regarding this matter has already been disclosed to you.
There are no other cell CCTV images held, and there are no Pocket Notebook entries made by PC Morcom and PC Hankins.”
Assuming the extensive search on my behalf was for the cell CCTV footage this was probably the first time I realised after some two and a half years of requesting it and patiently waiting for it that I would never see the“CCTV footage of the cell” or have closure.
So when Insp Blackford claimed he watched the “CCTV footage of the cell” in mid to late 2019, already over a year after D&CP should have provided me with a copy by law, why did D&CP not provide me with a copy of it following it’s 2nd Investigation Report in 2019? If correct, it certainly proved the footage had been retained beyond its initial 90 day period.
I did not expect to see any Pocket Notebook entries from Morcom because he was excluded from the arrest on 14 May 2018. PC Hankins was named by I/O PS Hannaford and Insp Setchell to protect Morcom.
As for “no other cell CCTV images held”, none were ever provided.
The “DETENTION LOG DOCUMENT”, page 4 of 15, at 19:48, confirms Morcom was a PS on the day of the arrest and that he therefore had a duty to note my comments in his Pocket Notebook as a police witness that day.
There still remains a question mark over whether or not Morcom is a PS. The replies from the Data Protection Unit would seem to suggest he was not a PS.
One aspect that did arise during the 4th Official PSD Complaint concerned my request for the PSD to send a copy of the complaint to the Anti Corruption Unit if it had one.
On 10 February 2021 Mrs Angliss stated:
“We can also confirm that Devon and Cornwall do have a Counter Corruption Unit and as requested in your correspondence a copy of your email has been passed to them.”
I then requested all emails I send to the PSD are passed on to the Unit.
Despite later requesting contact from the Counter Corruption Unit nothing happened and I have to assume Mrs Angliss had lied to me yet again.
The DPA18
I mentioned earlier a legal reason why Insp Blackford may have lied about viewing the cell CCTV footage in 2019, despite the fact I had never received or seen a copy of it myself.
Quite by chance I picked up on a Tweet in 2020 on social media that mentioned the DPA18 and I decided to find out more.
The Data Protection Act 2018 (DPA18) achieved Royal Assent on 23 May 2018, days after my SAR application, to implement the government’s manifesto commitment to update the UK’s data protection laws.
“Section 173 of the Data Protection Act 2018 (“DPA18”) which created a new criminal offence for organisations to alter, deface, block, erase, destroy or conceal information with the intention of preventing disclosure in the context of a data subject access request (“DSAR”).”
It is now some 6 years since the SAR was made and D&CP has never explained what happened to the requested “CCTV footage of the cell.”
One further dark shadow over this issue came in the form of the Information Commissioners Office (ICO) who I lodged a complaint with by email dated 26 February 2019.
Please see: ICO Case Reference Number RFA0622872 for further details.
Charity Starts At Home
So on 02 September 2019 I had reason to lodge another complaint to Chief Constable Sawyer’s office regarding reimbursement for the computers I had to buy to replace those stolen by D&CP officers. I provided 2 copies of receipts for the computer I bought on 15 May and a back-up computer and the total amount I was owed was for £178.99. I made it clear that:
“Failure to reimburse me will result in an application to the County Court to recover what I am owed including interest.”
In reply to the complaint Miss Dabb of the PSD advised me to put my claim in writing to The Admin Hub, Bodmin Police Station.
I did this in writing on 20 November and in it’s reply on 20 December 2019 it stated that they had:
“spoken to the investigating officer who has agreed to authorise payment of the invoices attached in your letter.”
The Admin Hub requested my bank details for payment to be arranged.
In reply I sought confirmation as to who the investigating officer is by email dated 31 December 2019 and in its reply of 07 January 2020 it stated:
“The Administration Services Department contacted the investigating officer Sergeant 10423 Tony Hannaford, who confirmed that the complaint had been upheld and authorised payment of £178.99, the total for the invoices submitted in your letter dated 20th November 2019.”
This statement is an important milestone because it acknowledges, via the Chief Constable’s office, that a crime was committed when my computers were seized from my home on the day of the arrest. Had a crime not been committed there could have been no reimbursement.
The statement also recognises that the crime was not officially recorded or Investigated by the PSD and that all the Investigations, Reports and Appeals that followed were totally worthless. That the same “investigating officer” who upheld the complaint and authorized the reimbursement of £178.99 is the same I/O PS Hannaford who, with Insp Setchell, failed to mention or investigate Morcom in their 1st official PSD Investigation Report.
This of course also contradicts T/Detective Chief Inspector Matthew Bourne’s view that:
“the underlying evidence does not indicate that a criminal offence has been committed.”
I contacted the Admin Hub again on 11 October 2021 and apologized for the delay and said it was not helped by their suggestion the payment was “compensation.”
I then requested the payment be made to a local cat rescue charity and provided the account details which I had obtained from its Face Book site.
On 16 November 2021 I again wrote to the Admin Hub and explained:
“To be clear, the reimbursement to me is NOT to reimburse the cat charity. I have never met the owner or owe them any money. The reimbursement of £178.99 is to be a donation to the cat charity for helping me out last year, without charge, to collect and deliver my deceased cat to the vets for cremation. Tiger being my friend and companion for over 19 years. The only payment was made to the veterinary practice.”
In its reply dated 19 October 2021 the Admin Hub explained:
“As the claimant, Devon and Cornwall Police will arrange payment of £178.99 to yourself as full and final settlement of the claim. Should you wish to make a payment to a charity, you can do this should you wish to after the monies have been received into your account. If you wish to accept this offer of payment, we require the following details:
Name of Account Holder/Registered Address of Account Holder / Bank Name/Sort Code/Account Number.
I provided the Admin Hub with the requested information on 16 November 2021 having sent the Hub a number of emails before explaining how the reimbursement came about.
This included references to the theft of my computers and the officers involved and the cover-up by D&CP for over 3 years. I/O PS Hannaford was named a number of times. I also mentioned the reimbursement amounted to defrauding the public purse to pay the sum owed and that it was dirty and tainted money.
I received “Remittance Advice” from D&CP dated “29/11/2021” and the payment was paid into my account on 30 November 2021.
I donated the money that same day to the cat charity via my Lloyds Bank account at 11:09, and at 14:20 received an email thanking me from a “Sally Hannaford – Aspire Director.”
I immediately thought her surname was quite a coincidence so I asked her at 14:59:
“Are you in anyway related to or know of PS 423 Tony Hannaford of Devon & Cornwall Police?
In her reply at 17:14 she stated: “I am yes he’s my nephew.”
At 19:35 she clarified this by stating: “Well to be fair only by marriage he’s my husbands nephew…..”
Further emails were exchanged and at 21:25 I explained:
“The money was owed to me by Devon & Cornwall Police as reimbursement for computers it stole from my home in 2018. PS Hannaford was involved in a cover-up that has now gone on for three and a half years involving close to 20 officers and staff and involving 4 PSD Investigations and 2 Appeals.
The officer who upheld the reimbursement complaint and authorised the payment of £178.99 was I/O PS Tony Hannaford so there is a conflict of interest. Once the money is back in my account I will choose another cat charity so the cats won’t lose out.
Based on what evidence I have against PS Tony Hannaford he is a bent copper.”
On 01 December 2021 I lodged an official complaint with Detective Chief Inspector Kevin Till, Head of the PSD, regarding what I felt was fraud involving PS Hannaford and his Aunt.
The complaint was not officially recorded and was dealt with by a Miss Cramphorn of the: “PSD, Early Intervention Team” and who was of the opinion that my donation was “compensation” , and asked me to explain why I chose that specific Cat Charity and gave me 21 days to respond or she would assume I longer wish to proceed with the matter.
The cat charity owner refused to pay the money back to me using my account details which I had provided on 09 December 2021, and a Laura Hewings, a Trustee of the cat charity, promised to reimburse me the money “in the next couple of days.”
It was Laura Hewings who was inappropriately of the opinion that:
“Our charity helped you in good faith last year when your cat was not well.”
I found this somewhat insensitive because my cat had died prior to me contacting the charity.
By letter dated 15 December 2021 I wrote to my bank for more information on the donation and the recipient and to date, June 2022, Lloyds has never responded.
On 17 December 2021 I finally received the £178.99 back into my account.
As far as I am aware when I made the donation on 30 November 2021 it did not go to the cat charity but to an educational charity to which Ms Hannaford is a Director.
I replied to Miss Cramphorn on 17 January 2022, and within 21 days, and gave her the information she requested regarding why I chose that particular cat charity, and I added:
“It remains a matter of some urgency for me to know if Devon & Cornwall Police officer 11358 Kevin Morcom has ever been a police Sergeant (PS) and if so under what conditions and when.
I would appreciate the answer coming from Detective Chief Inspector Till.”
Having received no answer I wrote again to DCI Till on 28 January 2022, and copied it to some 23 recipients.
Eureka 2
On 04 February 2022 Miss Cramphorn replied and on the issue of Kevin Morcom, the 2nd officer involved in my arrest on 14 May 2018, Miss Cramphorn stated:
“in relation to PC Morcom. I can confirm he has never been a Police Sargent; I understand you wished for this response to come from DCI Till. I hope that my response to this question is acceptable in Mr Till’s stead, as the answer would remain the same coming from either myself or DCI Till.”
So there we finally have it after waiting nearly four years, Morcom: “has never been a Police Sargent”, and did therefore impersonate a PS on the day he charged me following interview on 14 May 2018 and was recorded as being a “PS” on other statements .
I am advised that some people misspell the word “sargent” in line with its pronunciation and is a shortened and informal version of Sergeant.
In reply to the charity complaint, Miss Cramphorn concluded by saying:
“PC Hannaford didn’t influence your decision, and therefore I do not believe it would be appropriate to enquire further.”
I wrote to DCI Till again on 17 February 2022 and queried a number of references, including poor spelling and inaccuracies and including Miss Cramphorn referring to “PC Hannaford” and requested DCI Till clarify if officer Hannaford had been demoted.
I also acknowledged that it was a “PS Kevin Morcom” who charged me on 14 May 2018 and who was named in the fabricated disclosure to the CPS ahead of Trial.
Miss Dabb of the PSD replied on 27 May 2022 and stated:
“I have checked our records and all of your complaints have been finalised.”
On the issue of the cat charity complaint Miss Dabb drew my attention to Miss Cramphorn’s email of 04 February 2022, a copy of which she attached, which I took as meaning the complaint against the Hannafords would not be recorded or investigated.
Although Miss Dabb’s email was short she also referred to “PC Hannaford” meaning that he had either been demoted or both Miss Cramphorn and Miss Dabb were lying to me.
I replied briefly to Miss Dabb’s within hours and addressed it to DCI Till, and stated:
“I regret the Head of the PSD, DCI Till, has declined to explain why the owner of the cat charity uses 3 different surnames. A case of the PSD protecting PS Hannaford yet again after Mrs Will’s perverse attempt on 23 September 2019.”
I did not pursue the complaint any further for fear of harming the cat charity but I did later increase the donation to another worthwhile pet charity in Plymouth to help feed pets in need.
I also acknowledged that “PC 7099 Tristan Hankins” had recently been dismissed from D&CP for actions amounting to gross misconduct and that D&CP officers had lied to me in writing when they claimed I had met him.
The Dismissal of PC Hankins
PC Tristan Hankins was dismissed without notice after a misconduct panel found his actions amounted to gross misconduct at a hearing on 16 May 2022. PC Hankins had been an officer for 27 years and admitted to the allegations against him.
I understand he visited Homebase whilst on duty to collect a mat for his hot tub instead of responding to an urgent mental health call.
Although his dismissal had nothing to do with my case it does I believe make him a less creditable witness for I/O PS Hannaford, Insp Setchell and Insp Blackford who all lied in writing that I had met PC Hankins on 14 May and 09 October 2018, when in fact I have never met him.
It was said that that PC Hankins actions were found to have breached the standards of professional behaviour, found in the Code of Ethics, in respect to honesty and integrity, authority, respect and courtesy, discreditable conduct and duties and responsibilities.
It was also said: “The dishonesty in telling the control room that he would be free to respond very shortly when in fact he was professionally available at the very moment he took the call is at the heart of this case.”
In my case, I/O PS Hannaford and Insp Setchell claimed on 16 November 2018 that:
“On the day of your arrest I believe that PC Hankins attended with PC Abbott – this is standard procedure to transport an arrested person. Other than this he has had no involvement in your case.”
We now know that I/O PS Hannaford and Insp Setchell lied because it was in fact PC Kevin Morcom who attended with PC Abbott on the day of the arrest and that it was PC Abbott who did all the driving.
When I/O PS Hannaford and Insp Setchell claimed PC Hankins helped return my computers on 09 October 2018 they again lied because it was in fact PC Jason Abbott who attended despite him still being under PSD Investigation for being “malicious” and “vindictive” to me and inappropriately arresting me on 14 May 2018.
Insp Guy Blackford went further in his 2nd Investigation Report with an alleged statement from PC Hankins to say it was he who helped return the computers with I/O PS Hannaford and not PC Abbott.
The very same Insp Blackford who failed to mention Morcom in his Investigation Report, covered up Custody PS Burt’s falsified Custody Records, covered up the cell MH episode and destroyed cell CCTV evidence which Insp Blackford claimed he watched over a year later.
Given the lead roles of all 3 officers in the official PSD Investigation Reports, and which dictated the Appeals and Reports that followed, I think Sir Walter Scott’s:
“Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive”, is fitting.
This of course could not have been possible without a very corrupt and complicit PSD and an equally corrupt Chief Constable Shaun Sawyer and where the buck stops.
It would be nice to see Tristan Hankins in Court one day and become the first domino if he was party to the deception by I/O PS Hannaford, Insp Setchell and Insp Blackford and others that discredited everything they said and did.
As far as I am aware no police officer or member of staff has ever been held to account for what they did between 22 April 2018 to 27 May 2022 when my complaints were “finalised” according to Miss Dabb of the PSD on 27 May 2022. Not even “Management Action.”
I still miss Tiger and I would love another cat companion because I know it would be good for my health and well being. The trouble is as I get older and with deteriorating health requiring hospitalization, as in 2023, I would be unlikely to outlive another cat and that is not something that I could easily live with. That at some time in the future he or she would be left without me.
Chief Constable Shaun Sawyer
So having been the acting chief constable when I was first unlawfully arrested in 2012 and which has resulted in a cover-up ever since, and Sawyer being appointed the Chief Constable in 2013, by Tory PCC Tony Hogg, it was announced that Sawyer would stand down as Chief of the South-Western Force in August 2022.
It is reported that Sawyer did apply for a couple of appointments, including the MET Commissioner, but was unsuccessful. Too corrupt I suggested. I have since been reliably informed that he wasn’t interviewed as a potential Cressida Dick replacement.
The preferred candidate to replace Sawyer was chosen by Tory PCC Alison Hernandez was Will Kerr OBE, who joined D&CP in December 2022 when he was also awarded a KPM. An assistant chief constable in Scotland and who Hernandez described as “an exceptional strategic leader.” According to a Tweet on Twitter Will Kerr was an ACC of Professional Standards.
My personal issue with CC Will Kerr is that he has since endorsed Jim Colwell as the Deputy Chief Constable and who former CC Shaun Sawyer had promoted to DCC. According to my evidence, then Superintendent Jim Colwell was involved in my corrupt and unlawful treatment in 2012, as covered in the 1st Trilogy, that has remained covered-up for over 12 years to deny me closure having still not seen or read the written complaint against me by Sanctuary Housing associate Oonah Lacey.
It was announced from St James’s Palace on 29 December 2018, just over 3 months after the Trial, that the Queen had approved the award of the Queen’s Police Medal (QPM) for Distinguished Service to Shaun Sawyer Chief Constable, Devon and Cornwall Police, ENGLAND AND WALES.
I was very unhappy about this because I did not feel my appearance in Court would have been possible without the Chief Constable knowing what his officers and staff had been unlawfully doing. I was also very unhappy that the Trial against me was in the name of Regina and I felt the QPM was the System rewarding one of its own for being corrupt.
(In 2023 CC Will Kerr OBE was suspended from duty by PCC Alison Hernandez for what was described as “serious allegations of sexual offences” and faced a criminal investigation. The allegations are said to have originated when Kerr served with the Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI). As I write, April 2024, Kerr is still suspended and under investigation. DCC Jim Colwell remains to be the Acting/Chief Constable (A/CC) despite his corrupt past. (Further details will be found on the internet).
PCC Alison Hernandez
Having mentioned the Tory Police & Crime Commissioner Alison Hernandez numerous times in the Trilogies I feel this is an opportune time to say a little about her and her office in connection with the Chief Constable and remind readers of what she and her office knew before my arrest on 14 May 2018, and of course what my Tory MP Steve Double also knew. I refer to the written complaint to Chief Constable Sawyer at the beginning of the 3rd Trilogy dated 27 April 2018.
My association with PCC Alison Hernandez goes back to 2016 when she became the PCC after PCC Tony Hogg decided not to seek re-election. My current MP Steve Double was elected the year before having replaced LibDem MP Stephen Gilbert. Naturally I corresponded with them all and the paper trail is quite substantial but a waste of time in terms of what they did in response to what they were told and chose to cover-up to protect D&CP and the Government they represented.
I have long been of the opinion that when Tory Home Secretary Theresa May introduced the current PCC system between 2010 to 2016, and before then serving as Prime Minister between 2016 to 2019 , it was more about protecting Chief Constables and forces than making them more accountable. The 3rd Trilogy would seem to support the fact that Chief Constable Sawyer, his police officers and staff could break the law with impunity and in numbers knowing that the Criminal Justice System and Regulators would protect them. This with help from PCC Hernandez, the Devon & Cornwall Local Criminal Justice Board (DcLcjb) and others like the Devon and Cornwall Police and Crime Panel.
If I am wrong the Government will probably agree to my statutory request for a Public Inquiry if only to prove me wrong. If I am right, as I truly believe I am, then turkeys probably won’t vote for Christmas.
Having posted many comments on social media my most recent offering is as follows:
“Cornwallgate When I officially complained about Chief Constable Shaun Sawyer @DC_Police, and more than once, the office of the Police and Crime Commissioner (OPCC) would play all sorts of tricks to interfere and reduce those complaints to protect him.
@stevedouble @DcLcjb”
The suggestion by The Police Foundation that “PCCs are here to stay”, is I believe foolhardy based on my own experience, and I feel PCCs only represent their Party before the Public Interest and are not therefore impartial. That if their Party is not doing well politically scandal and corruption will go un-noticed, as in my case, for years to come. Of course PCCs can never be truly “Independent” because I do not believe the true meaning of the word exists in politics. PCCs are clearly supported by the people they represent and none is more keen to represent PCCs than the Conservative Government and for its own political agenda and advantage. Having survived 14 years of a Tory Government the model has to change or Governments and society must accept future cases like mine.
Odds and Sods
One of the many officials who have received Tweets and Blogs that I have sent to them is the High Sheriff of Cornwall, @HSofCornwall. The current Sheriff for 2022/23 is Andrew Williams, who I sent the following Tweet to:
“Cornwallgate The High Sheriff of Cornwall is the highest official in Cornwall who represents the sovereign and upholds all matters relating to the Judiciary and maintaining Law and Order. The @HSofCornwall is supposed to uphold Law and Order but looks the other way
@stevedouble
Although this Tweet was re-Tweeted and Liked by others on Twitter it was truly amazing to have it Re-Tweeted and Liked by the: High Sheriffs’ Association of England and Wales.
One Last Surprise
So as the year came to an end in 2022 and xmas is just around the corner one last surprise was announced during the first week of December 2022 when the Independent Office for Police Conduct Director Michael Lockwood, the first to be appointed Head of the IOPC in 2018, resigned from the IOPC. According to the Home Office he was asked to resign or face immediate suspension amid an investigation into a historic allegations. It was later confirmed that he was charged with nine sexual offences allegedly committed in the 1980s. This comprising 6 counts of indecent assault and 3 offences of rape against a girl under the age of 16. The Trial was set for mid June 2023.
Throughout the Trilogies I believe the Tory Government and others have much to answer for. (Further details about Lockwood will be found on the internet).
Blocked
As mentioned earlier, those who have Blocked me on Twitter are: @MaxHillQC/KC, @CCShaunSawyer, @DCCJimColwell, @DC_PCC, @DC_Police, @LegalAidAgency, @NewquayPolice, @StAustellPolice, @DcLcjb, @CornwallCouncil, @CornwallFT, @sahcgp @policeconduct (IOPC), @tpasengland, @HelloSanctuary and others, and all in the name of transparency.
The Links
So Did Solicitor Chris Nicholls attend Plymouth Crown Court on 27 July 2018?
So on 03 November 2022 I sent the 14th request, the 1st being sent on 25/04/2021, to Plymouth Crown Court and multiple recipients, and a Miss Hazel McDonald, Officer of the Court, passed my request to Crown Court Clerk Jeremy Croasdale for his attention.
During our correspondence Mr Croasdale requested a case number and introduced a Paul Lewis, Magistrates Court Criminal Business Team Listing Officer, to assist and who confirmed:
“that Mr C Nicholls attended Bodmin Magistrates Court on the 26th July 2018”, so no help there. Not surprising really since the case number related to Bodmin Magistrates Court.
I next forwarded a follow up email:
“Re: For the Attention of Jeremy Croasdale, Crown Court Clerk”, and a Leanne Griffey, Plymouth Combined Court Centre, passed it to Mr Croasdale.
On 08 November 2022 Jeremy Croasdale stated that:
“Unfortunately we have no way of being able to ascertain that.”
That the Court had no way of being able to ascertain if Chris Nicholls was in attendance at Plymouth Crown Court on 27 July 2018. Mr Croasdale ended by saying:
“As I’m sure you can appreciate all records relate to defendants that attend court and not their legal representatives.”
This statement is somewhat contradicted by his colleague Paul Lewis who did ascertain:
“that Mr C Nicholls attended Bodmin Magistrates Court on the 26th July 2018.”
I thanked Mr Croasdale for his time and said that I will not be contacting him or Plymouth Crown Court again.
The notion that a Solicitor can enter a Government Court Building without an appointment, security checks or for Health and Safety reasons etc. is I find somewhat implausible and defensive.
That despite providing Plymouth Crown Court the time and information to investigate my request, neither the Court or HM Courts and Tribunals CEOs have offered any proof that Solicitor Chris Nicholls attended Plymouth Crown Court on 27 July 2018, and that he did therefore lie to me. Job done.
I am reliably informed that “Solicitors are officers of the Court.” The Law Society.
Hearing Facilities
I complained about this matter in writing to Alessandro Roveri, Head of Legal Operations and Justices Clerk, on 19 December 2018 and he replied on 25 January 2019 stating:
“I uphold your complaint in this regard. As it is clear you asked for the facilities to be available, I am very sorry that we did not provide the appropriate hearing enhancement equipment. We should have fully liaised with you prior to the trial and ascertained exactly what equipment you needed to ensure you could hear everything.”
Mr Roveri went on to say:
“The legal advisers present at your hearings have been asked about this, and each have commented independently that, whilst the lack of appropriate equipment was extremely regrettable, it appeared to them that you were able to hear what was being said. They say that this is due to the fact that when asked questions, you responded with appropriate answers. I do appreciate that is their view only, and in your email to Mr Bennett of 26 October 2018 you expressed your disagreement with that position. I return to your options regarding appeal.”
Alessandro Roveri’s reply to my complaint on 25 January 2019 was some six pages long and included text of my correspondence, and his attempt to answer my points in turn. With regards to my email to Mr Bennett, Mr Roveri would only say “I am unable to comment on the activities of the other agencies you mention, and so far as the court process is concerned your correct course is to appeal.”
Mr Roveri also confirmed that “costs of £380 to the Crown Prosecution Service,” and that the CPS “seeks costs on a national scale which represents average expenditure incurred per case.” So £380 for turning a blind eye to what D&CP officers did on the day of the arrest must have been a bargain?
I suppose all one can say in reply to Mr Roveri’s somewhat biased opinion is that the legal advisers are representatives of the Court and were therefore hardly independent. What I may have missed or answered inappropriately will never be known without the “written record” I was promised by Mrs Debbie Thorogood, Court Support Officer, on 23 August 2018, but which the Court has not provided. “Responded with appropriate answers”, appears somewhat nonsensical and may well have brought about my wrongful conviction. Without a written record we will never know.
The legal advisers did have a conflict of interest in being representatives of the Court and I must assume they had been asked for their opinions months after the fact and after I had lodged my complaint. If before then the Court obviously had doubts about its unfair decision to deny me hearing assistance on the day of the Trial and violating my right to a fair Trial under the Human Rights Act 1989.
Perhaps Mr Roveri upholding my complaint says it all though I am bound to say that the option of me appealing my conviction, which he repeated a number of times, after what I had already unfairly and mentally been put through, and as reported in the Trilogies, has nothing to do with justice but a further attempt by the system to railroad me again and protect itself.
Mr Roveri’s suggestion that I should appeal the conviction does not explain why on earth I should trust the same corrupt Criminal Justice System that brought about the Miscarriage of Justice in the first place, or if an appeal would be outside the South West, as also requested before Trial?, though I accept it would still be part of the same corrupt criminal justice system.
With the Trial over and having no Solicitor in my corner to help me understand what grounds I had to appeal I really felt there was not enough time or arrange legal representation and outside the West Country and having less than a month to appeal.
I recall reading a piece on social media in 2019 about Miscarriages of Justice by the Criminal Case Review Commission.
The Criminal Case Review Commission
So having first sought assistance from a number of Human Rights organisations without success after the Trial I applied to the CCRC on 28 August 2019. Much of my concern at that time was about the violation of my Human Rights as I saw it and without the overwhelming criminal evidence I later accumilated over the following years and after researching my case more fully. This also bearing in mind that D&CP did not officially finalise my complaints until “27 May 2022.” meaning just over 4 years.
The Decision on 24 October 2019 by Celia Hills, Commissioner (on behalf of the CCRC) was that “The CCRC has considered your application and has decided not to send your conviction for an appeal.”
“This is because you have not appealed your conviction. This means that the CCRC could only send your case for an appeal if there were “exceptional circumstances” (very special reasons)” which I took as meaning a Kangaroo Court was not seen as “exceptional circumstances.”, or the fact that being unable to get a fair Trial in the West Country was equally “exceptional circumstances.”
Perhaps had I applied later and presented more criminal evidence it would have been more successful, though by then I knew that Government Departments were involved in both 2015/16 and 2018 and which I felt was not helpful or by accident.
Despite being described as an “independent” body set up under the Criminal Appeal Act 1995, the CCRC is responsible for “independently” reviewing suspected and alleged miscarriages of criminal justice in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, and is funded by the Ministry of Justice (MOJ). The notion the CCRC is described as “independent” and is funded by the MOJ, a contradiction in terms I felt, would have been enough to deter me from applying again given the Government Departments who were implicated.
I frequently say on social media these days that the most corrupted word in the English language is “Independent”, when used by #HMGOV.
Application to Withdraw Representation Order
According to Nicholls cover email regarding the form he asked me to sign during the Trial:
“The form that you signed was to formally remove me from the record as your solicitor so that you can proceed with an alternative Solicitor of your choosing.”
The form was a “Legal Aid Agency” document.
One would have thought dismissing himself from my case on 05 September 2018 and informing the Court and the CPS in writing the day after would have been more than enough to formally remove himself as my solicitor, but I feel the delay had an ulterior motive.
The most obvious being my signature on a LAA form dated 21 September 2018 which gave the false and misleading impression that he represented me up until the day of the Trial.
With the Trial being over to “to proceed with an alternative Solicitor”, is somewhat nonsensical. I am also bound to say that neither Coodes in 2016 or Jon Holmes in 2018 requested I formally Withdraw the Representation Order they had been sent by the LAA.
Although signing the form without reading it was a foolhardy thing to do it does actually provide written evidence of fraud with Nicholls being paid Legal Aid up until the day of the Trial and which the LAA paid despite it knowing that Nicholls ceased to represent me weeks before.
If Nicholls was serious about formally removing the RO why did he not simply ask me soon after dismissing himself from my case? I do not ever remember being asked to sign a form before and I acknowledge it suited the LAA, the Court, the CPS and others to have matters delayed to pervert the course of justice.
The problem for the LAA is that the CPS, the Court and myself were instructed in writing by Nicholls himself on 06 September that he had dismissed himself from my case on 05 September 2018, thus making the Court, the CPS and others witnesses to fraud because the LAA paid Nicholls up until the day of the Trial from the public purse.
The Probation Service, A Law Unto Itself
Thankfully my friends Janet and Peter drove me to the initial Induction Course in Truro on 26 September 2018 and they did some shopping before returning me home afterwards.
Part of the Community Order was that I attend St Austell Probation Office once a month which was not that easy because I live in a valley and the Probation Office is located at the very top of town. I did walk it a few times and it took me about 35 minutes in typically wet, cold and windy weather for that time of the year. 10 years ago I could have walked it in under 15 minutes but I was now a pensioner and on Meds.
Fortunately Ed drove me to most of the monthly visits which usually lasted about 40 minutes or more and we would occasionally have a coffee afterwards.
My first Probation Officer was an ex copper who threatened to report me to D&CP for looking her up on social media. I felt uneasy and vulnerable about this so I made a formal complaint to have her replaced.
I had to do 6 weekly sessions in Truro during December/January 2018/19 and fortunately Ed was able to drive me there and back. I had rail vouchers but I did not need to use them.
I was but one of a number of men on the course and some of them had done prison time. I actually found them okay and more open and honest than I had first expected. Certainly more trustworthy than most professionals I had met. Over time I felt they would all have benefited from some form of individual help but I soon realised they would not get any.
As one might expect, it did not take long for me to lodge an official complaint against the Probation Service.
My main gripe was that the Court Order requested I serve up to 15 hours Community Service, non working, over a period of one year. The 6 weekly sessions that began after the Induction course counted as 6 hours but the hour long introductory course and the 12 monthly attendances to the Probation Office in St Austell counted for nothing. I felt this was unfair and a violation of my rights and freedoms because the Probation Service had in affect increased the amount of my time I would serve above that ordered by the Court.
I also felt it unfair that if I did not attend the Probation Office every month, that which did not count towards the time ordered by the Court, I could be ordered back to Court and punished for not complying with the Probation Service.
So having lodged an official complaint to the Probation Service It turned out that the official Complaint Form I obtained from the Probation Office itself was years out of date and the address to send the Form to was no longer in use so my complaint was delayed for some time until the post office returned my complaint as non deliverable.
Despite reporting the matter to the Probation Office and the Probation Service I continued to see the same old out of date Complaint Forms for months to come even though I had reported it.
The complaint ran for some considerable time and was not helped by the fact the Probation Service was in a state of transition at the time. I gave up wasting my time in the end for the sake of my sanity and to continue with my ever growing complaints against D&CP.
The complaint did work in so far as the hours I anticipated I would have to serve were closer to the 15 hours Community Service than the hours above this which I could have served had I not complained.
Having the Court impose 15 hours Community Service only to then be increased by the Probation Service to above double the amount in real terms just seemed so unfair.
Mrs Angliss, PSD Assessment Officer
Mrs Angliss, PSD Assessment Officer, is one of the officers I encountered both during the 2016 and the 2018 complaints against D&CP.
In the 2nd Trilogy, following my official complaint being reduced from 17 pages to a single email paragraph, it was Mrs Angliss who advised me 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.”
As we now know the “complaint” Mrs Angliss refers was not my official complaint but a single email paragraph taken from an email sent to the Chief Constable’s Office beforehand. The complaint by the officers involved was a scam and the IPCC created an Appeal which I never lodged in an attempt to conclude matters in favour of D&CP before the IOPC was introduced in 2018.
As the 2018 complaints have shown, Mrs Angliss is still as dishonest as she was when the IPCC was corrupting things to prove that police conduct is still as rotten as it ever was. I continue to maintain that until the official 2016 complaint is resolved properly, Mrs Angliss and the other officers named in that complaint still have a case to answer and still cannot be trusted in the public interest.
As for the 2018 complaint one needs only remember that it was Mrs Angliss who claimed the theft of my computers involving PC Kevin Morcom was investigated by the PSD and that she lied about forwarding my emails to the anti-corruption unit who never contacted me despite my written requests.
ICO Case Reference Number RFA0622872
Part of my complaint to ICO Lead Case Officer Benjamin Ash on 15 March 2019 against D&CP best sums up my concerns about what it is I think D&CP did wrong
“There has been a cover-up regarding a mental health episode in the cell and despite requesting a copy of the cell CCTV on the (SAR) Application and within days of the incident it would appear at this time that the CCTV evidence has been destroyed.”
On the issue of the Custody and Medical Records being falsified Mr Ash felt that:
“such a matter is likely to fall outside the ICO’s remit and we are unable to take action on this matter. In this case you may instead need to raise the issue with DCP’s Professional Standards Department.”
This despite the fact the inaccurate data was provided to me as part of the requested SAR application of May 2018 to D&CP.
I contacted Mr Ash on 24 June 2019 and provided him with a scanned copy of the reverse side of Form No: SA1 of the SAR signed and dated 18 May 2018, and drew his attention to the requested “CCTV footage of the cell” and “everything the law says I am entitled to receive.”
In his reply dated 02 September 2019 Mr Ash stated:
“You have advised that you wrote again to DCP on 4 March 2019 to raise a concern that you had not been provided with all the information requested. In particular, this relates to CCTV footage taken during your custody in May 2018.”
We have written to DCP about this matter. In its response DCP has confirmed that the custody footage of 14 May 2018 was provided to you on 29 June 2018. It has advised that no other footage is held as this has been deleted in line with its retention policy.
In view of this we are unable to determine that DCP has inappropriately withheld the CCTV footage. For this reason there is no further action the ICO is able to take on this matter.”
Needless to say I was livid because I had never received a copy of the specifically requested “CCTV footage of the cell” as opposed to the “custody footage“ and felt that Mr Ash should have done more to secure me a copy of the“CCTV footage of the cell” and explain why D&CP had not provided it sooner and within the statutory time limit of 40 days.
The fact Mr Ash had stated “there is no further action the ICO is able to take on this matter” and whilst he knew I was still without a copy of the requested “CCTV footage of the cell”, felt, on the balance of probabilities, that the ICO had also engaged in its cover-up.
Although I was not personally aware of the DPA18 at that time, D&CP and the ICO were.
The statement “the custody footage of 14 May 2018 was provided to you on 29 June 2018” is quite misleading when I specifically requested the “CCTV footage of the cell.”
In any event the cell CCTV evidence had to be retained for 90 days and the SAR application requesting it was made 4 days after the incident. If the “CCTV footage of the cell” was destroyed within 90 days of the incident a criminal offence had been committed and Insp Blackford lied when he claimed he watched the “CCTV footage of the cell”, over a year later.
For the record, “Custody CCTV 14 May 2018, Arrival, Booking in, Fingerproof room, Cell M8 and Charge”, was provided to me on 07 August 2020 by the D&CP Data Protection Unit” and not before. Once again footage of “Cell M8” was not included.
According to Mr Ash’s letter of 02 September 2019 D&CP “has advised that no other footage is held as this has been deleted in line with its retention policy.”
The footage I received on 07 August 2020, almost a year after the ICO had closed its complaint, I had not seen before. So why did I not receive this footage sooner and why did D&CP retain this footage beyond 90 days except the requested “CCTV footage of the cell.”?
I believe the reason this footage was sent to me on 07 August 2020 is because the 2nd official PSD Investigation Report published on 15 November 2019 referred to the footage in stating:
“Custody CCTV from 14th May 2018 – This CCTV covers the arrival, booking in procedure, going to processing, processing, cell and charging footage.”
I can only repeat that no “CCTV footage of the cell” was provided to me on 29 June 2018 or 07 August 2020 or at any other time since.
As I have said before there is no evidence D&CP viewed the cell CCTV footage over a year after I officially requested a copy of it via SAR and which should have been provided to me within the statutory time of 40 days. All we do know is that D&CP cannot substantiate it’s claim that there was no MH episode without disclosing the requested cell CCTV evidence to me, that which it did not do.
Mr Ash knew I was dissatisfied with his handling of the complaint so he introduced a Review Reference Number RCC0871432” relating to Reviewing Officer Elizabeth Walters who would review his handling of the complaint and not D&CP handling of my SAR.
Predictably perhaps, Ms Walters agreed with Mr Ash’s handling of the complaint and said: “A case review is the final stage of the ICO’s case handling process. Please take this as our final response on this matter relating to DCP.”
Ms Walters then offered me a number of options if I still remained dissatisfied including contacting the Parliamentary Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO), a corrupt body that also likes to close complaints prematurely to protect professional bodies that break the law, as it did to me in late 2014 to protect the NHS Trust and Cornwall Council who had spent years covering-up the qualifications of (X) and rigged Welfare Priority Assessments.
My closing comment on 06 September 2019 was: “I am bound to say Mr Ash, and to the ICO Reviewer, that as things stand at this time the ICO appears complicit in assisting DCP get away with a criminal offence.”
I have no doubt whatsoever that the ICO did commit a criminal offence when it assisted and protected D&CP to deny me a copy of the “CCTV footage of the cell.”
The last time I heard from the ICO was by email dated 13 May 2021 under Case Reference: “IC-85780-JOY 2.”
Ref RFA0622872 was included and ICO Case Officer Alexander Massey felt the matter with D&CP had already been dealt with and went on to say:
“Your comments have been noted. However, I believe Mr Ash has already explained his view.
Should we receive any further correspondence, unless it raises any new data protection or freedom of protection issues, it will be retained on file but it will not receive a response.”
I will provide the ICO with a copy of this chapter for retention on its files.
So despite two SAR applications, the DPA18 and the involvement of the ICO, who should have protected my right to SAR information, I am still without a copy of the requested “CCTV footage of the cell.” having now waited over 5 years and being left without closure.
On 02 February 2024, it was reported by the ICO that the Chief Constable Devon and Cornwall Police had been “Reprimanded” because he had:
“continuously infringed Article 12(3) of the UK GDPR and Part 3, Chapter 3, Section 54 of the DPA 2018 for over four years. In this case, Devon and Cornwall Police have had a subject access request backlog since 2018 which has resulted in a large number of subject access requests not being responded to within the legislative timeframe of one or three (where extension is appropriately applied) calendar months.”
When I first read this on Google my immediate reaction was how convenient. The notion I may still get my “CCTV footage of the cell”, is not likely and I am sure if it was possible both the ICO and D&CP would have said something then. So much for “openness.”
“The ICO’s mission is to uphold information rights in the public interest, promoting openness by public bodies and data privacy for individuals.”
I will leave it up to you to decide if the ICO, a Government Regulator, is incredibly gullible or incredibly corrupt.
Unfortunately, this is not the first time the ICO has assisted D&CP to withhold CCTV evidence and to pervert the course of justice.
There remains an unresolved issue indicated in the 2nd Trilogy under ICO Case Reference No: FS50609357 when the ICO closed a complaint against Devon & Cornwall Police prematurely and before I had received the requested CCTV evidence via SAR before Trial to pervert the course of justice.
Had I received the CCTV evidence before Trial in 2016, not only would I have rejected the offer of a Restraining/Gagging Order with my hands tied behind my back but I would have elected to go to Trial and beyond.
I eventually received the CCTV evidence after Trial which helped demonstrate the recorded interview in 2015 had been unlawfully edited because of time discrepancies between the interview and cell CCTV.
The difference between what happened in 2016 to what happened in 2018 is the DPA18 and that both D&CP and the ICO committed criminal offences in denying me disclosure of the requested cell CCTV.
My association with the ICO went even further back than 2016 concerning Freedom of Information (FOI) requests and complaints to the ICO against Cornwall Council and separately the NHS Foundation Trust. Both failed to respond within the statutory time limit and both requested vexatious policies against me, which the ICO agreed. Not because I was vexatious but to stop me making future FOI requests.
In the case of the NHS Trust, it was the Cornwall Council Senior Solicitor for the NHS Victoria Slavin, the main false accuser to have me arrested in 2015, who failed to respond to that earlier FOI in time.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, there was no penalty served upon the Council or the NHS Trust for breaking the law in not providing FOI within the legal time frame by the ICO.
I also had a number of complaints with the ICO, that went back before 2016, when Cornwall Council and my landlord Sanctuary Housing were jointly rigging Cornwall Homechoice properties by illegally ring fencing them and which involved them in criminally deceiving Homechoice bidders. The ICO was not interested despite the public being deceived by misinformation. I refer to the 1st Trilogy.
The Devon and Cornwall Local Criminal Justice Board (LCJB)
I am reminded that the Human Rights Act 1989 applies to public authorities and other bodies and most of those I had problems with were collectively found within the LCJB and operated on a Local level. In the case of 2015/16 I believe Chief Constable Shaun Sawyer not only was the most Senior Officer representing D&CP but was also the Chair of the LCJB. In early 2018 Sawyer continued his role of Senior Officer on behalf of D&CP and the Chair passed to PCC Alison Hernandez.
It is stated that “The purpose of the Local Criminal Justice Board is to work in partnership across agencies to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the Criminal Justice System and to improve the experience of the victims of and witnesses to crime.”
My spin on that is contained in a Tweet I posted in February 2024 “Cornwallgate There are some 41 Criminal Justice Boards #LCJB throughout the Country and each is capable of perverting the course of justice to cover-up Local corruption resulting from Central Government Policy.” The Tweet was sent to my MP @stevedouble @UK HomeSecretary @DcLcjb and @DC_PCC and others.
So what really happened when I accused Cornwall Council and the NHS Trust of unlawfully rigging Welfare Priority Assessments and my allegations just wouldn’t go away. Unlawfully rigged Welfare Priority Assessments that the “PHSOmbudsman” knew all about but covered up to protect those involved. Unlawfully rigged Welfare Priority Assessments resulting from a shortage of housing that would have reflected badly on Central Government? Was this the reason my unlawful and questionable arrest in 2015, and 2018 that led to my conviction and lifetime gagging order involved those very agencies named below and who all did things they should not have done? I most certainly think so.
“The Devon and Cornwall Local Criminal Justice Board (LCJB) was established in April 2003. It brings together the Chief Executive Officers of the key agencies involved in the criminal justice system across Devon, Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly.”
“The Board is currently chaired by Alison Hernandez, the police and crime commissioner for Devon and Cornwall. Alison took over the chair from Chief Constable Shaun Sawyer in January 2018.”
“The agencies that make up Devon and Cornwall LCJB are; The Office for the Police and Crime Commissioner, Devon and Cornwall Police, Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), Her Majesty’s Court and Tribunal Service, Devon & Cornwall area (HMCTS) The Community Rehabilitation Company (CRC) The National Probation Service (NPS), A representative of the 3 prisons across Devon and Cornwall (Exeter, Channing’s wood and Dartmoor), A representative of the Youth Offending Teams (Cornwall, Devon, Plymouth & Torbay). In addition, to the main criminal justice agencies, we have representation from ; The Legal Aid Agency and Defence Community, NHS Mental Health Commissioners, The Voluntary, Community and Social Enterprise Sector (VCSE), The High Sheriff of Cornwall.“
So the agencies who all failed me are Members of the LCJB and I was particularly offended by one of the “Areas of Focus” on the LCJB’s website regarding “Improving the experience of people with mental health issues who come into contact with the criminal justice system.” How difficult that must be when fellow Members covered-up a Mental Health episode in Custody on 14 May 2018.
Considering the overwhelming evidence against those involved in the 3rd Trilogy not one single officer or agency was ever called to account in 2015/16 and 2018, as if they were all protected by a group like the LCJB operating at a Local level to protect and cover-up Local and Central Government issues in the way a vigilante group would. I could go over chapter and verse again but I feel to do so would most likely insult your intelligence. So how could so many police officers and staff get away with this?
Devon and Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly is the largest police force area in England and covering 4,000 square miles with over 750 miles of coastline and is not the kind of Police Force that I want.
I continue to request a statutory Public Enquiry from James Cleverly, the current Home Secretary, and it should include what happened in 2012 and in 2015/16.
After Posting
So after posting Part 2 of the 3rd Trilogy, Twitter and social media sites refused to accept it and there have been no views of it days later in the WordPress stats. I have accused the Government of gagging me and I think it unlikely I will get a statutory Public Inquiry if it can be covered-up. The 3rd Trilogy is my Human Right and is in the public interest.
justiceforalison 