‘Calm down’ whilst my detective colleague assaults you

David Rogerson is an unpleasant, foul-mouthed bully, a view readily formed by most people viewing films of his interaction with Huddersfield businessman, Stephen Bradbury, outside of West Yorkshire Police’s prestigious divisional HQ at Havertop, near Featherstone.

It is also the view of at least two WYP colleagues who worked with him at Havertop and, having now retired, are relieved to be no longer in his orbit. But not, it must be said, Rogerson’s own Professional Standards Department, within WYP, or his staff association, the Police Federation. Or, indeed, the recently retired chief constable, Dee Collins. The latter, incredibly, signed off a promotion for Rogerson in the face of his odious conduct that could, and some argue should, have led to a criminal conviction.

On 18th June, 2015, Mr Bradbury had attended Havertop in order to gather information, including video footage and photographs for a forthcoming documentary with which he was concerned.

A short time after his arrival, he was approached by Sergeant Dale Wooffinden, and then surrounded by six other police officers (with nothing better to do), and asked to explain his presence outside the police station and his intentions. Mr Bradbury gave his explanation and produced a letter from Chief Constable Andy Trotter, of the Association of Chief Police Officers (now renamed the National Police Chiefs Council), as it related directly to members of the public and photography in and around police premises.

Sgt Wooffinden, and his restless posse, having read the letter, was satisfied with the explanation and allowed Mr Bradbury to go about his lawful business.

Soon afterwards, CCTV footage shows the arrival of Acting Inspector Rogerson, as he was then, before his subsequent promotion to substantive inspector, and a short interchange with Mr Bradbury, prior to the officer entering the secure staff car park, ended with Rogerson calling him “an arsehole”.

The police officer, is then captured on footage accompanying Detective Constable Lisa Redfern, emerging from the car park and walking towards Mr Bradbury. A plainly agitated Rogerson tells DC Redfern: “I’m going to arrest him“. He offers no explanation to his female colleague as to the suspicion of any offence. She, in turn, offers no challenge as to the lawfulness of such an action, or the likely consequences.

As Rogerson approached, Mr Bradbury says: “You are going to lock him up are you, is that what you said?”. He took out a hand-held digital camera in order to record what was happening. The police officer then claims that Mr Bradbury is “harassing him” before grabbing his camera, and then the lanyard attached to it, which was draped around his neck. An assault had clearly taken place, the camera had been damaged, and the officer was asked to stop. Rogerson ignored the request and proceeded to drag his victim towards the police station, falsely claiming he had been assaulted by Mr Bradbury.

At this point, Rogerson told Mr Bradbury he was under arrest, but released his grip on the camera and lanyard. He did not caution him, disclose the suspicion of any offence, or give any grounds for doing so. He simply fulfilled the promise he had made to his female accomplice a short while earlier.

At this point, DC Redfern intervenes but only, quite incredibly, to tell Mr Bradbury to “calm down”. She offered no challenge to her police colleague, as she is required to do under Police Regulations, and no protection to a member of the public subject to a pre-meditated, unprovoked verbal and physical attack. As a police officer she also should have known that the arrest was unlawful and there had been manifest breaches of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, 1984. Her later accounts, during the complaints process that followed, suggest she did not. She was entirely supportive of Rogerson’s actions.

Mr Bradbury attempted to explain the prior exchange with Sgt Wooffinden and when the three ‘combatants’ reached the foyer of the police station, Rogerson marched off after refusing to provide details of his name and collar number. It is not clear if he subsequently spoke to Sgt Wooffinden, or not. Mr Bradbury’s camera was damaged and he had suffered abrasions and soft tissue injury to his neck.

DC Redfern failed to respond at all when asked if Mr Bradbury was under arrest. A point she failed to mention in her later account. As a result, he left the police station voluntarily, if not a little shakily, and was never subsequently detained or questioned about the ‘arrest’ by the police. Ms Redfern did not offer any first aid or make any enquiries about his well-being, or fitness to travel home. Another police officer who was sat in a vehicle nearby, and had witnessed the events involving Rogerson, declined to give either his own details, or those of his male colleague. Similarly, he made no enquiries about Mr Bradbury’s welfare.

Screen Shot 2019-04-22 at 16.26.39
Detective constable Lisa Redfern

Shortly after the incident a complaint was submitted to WYP. It set out carefully, and comprehensively, the events that had taken place. The matters therein were not only supported by CCTV film obtained on Mr Bradbury’s Go-Pro camera, there were five cameras in the police station precincts that had captured the attack on Mr Bradbury and the events leading up to it.

After a delay of almost two months, the complaint was allocated to Sergeant Penny Morley of WYP’s notorious Professional Standards Department. This was a clear indication that the police were going to try to fudge the complaint and ensure that the six month limit for a prosecution of Rogerson was going to pass, whilst they prevaricated. Sgt Morley had, some years previously, been called out by a circuit judge, HHJ Peter Benson, following a trial in Bradford Crown Court during which she gave untruthful evidence. Taking the College of Policing‘s Code of Ethics as a guide, she should no longer be part of the police service, let alone sitting in judgment of other officers, after such a condemnatory judicial finding.

A decision was taken by Mr Bradbury, in conjunction with his police complaints advocate, Neil Wilby (the author of this article), to lay an information at Kirkless Magistrates Court. This is more commonly known as a private prosecution. The necessary documents, witness statement and copies of film and photographs, were filed at court on 14th December, 2015, just before the six month statutory limit expired. The allegations concerned assault and criminal damage.

West Yorkshire Police and the Police Federation were livid when they discovered that the Resident District Judge, Michael Fanning, had issued a Summons against Rogerson, in early January 2016, under Section 6 of the Prosecution of Offences Act, 1985. They did not believe that the threat to issue court proceedings, privately, against Rogerson would be carried through. It was the first of its kind in living memory of court staff at Huddesfield and Leeds.

A pre-trial review was held the following month in Huddersfield and the Federation sent Nick Terry, a partner with Burton Copeland solicitors in Manchester, to try and have the case dismissed. Even with support, by way of an email from the District Prosecutor of the Crown Prosecution Service, Malcolm Christy, on the morning of the hearing, the judge was unpersuaded by Mr Terry’s increasingly desperate arguments, and those of the CPS rendered by email, and the matter was set down for trial on 16th April, 2016. Mr Bradbury, having represented himself at the first hearing, then appointed a leading local solicitor advocate, Michael Sisson-Pell, to prosecute the case on his behalf.

ScrMalcolm Christyeen Shot 2019-04-24 at 08.50.28
District Prosecutor Malcolm Christy failing to appease Stephen Bradbury over his ‘back door dealings’ with WYP.

Three days before the trial the CPS notified the court that they were taking over the prosecution for the sole purpose of discontinuing it. Mr Bradbury was not notified until the day before the hearing. The Deputy Head of CPS Yorkshire and Humber Region, Andrew Penhale, said that whilst the prosecution did not meet the public interest test, the evidential threshold was satisfied and there was a reasonable prospect of a conviction against Rogerson.

Smiles and handshakes all round at the police and Federation HQ in Wakefield, but Mr Bradbury was left with a £600 bill for legal fees (which Mr Sisson-Pell had very kindly reduced to the bare minimum) for which the CPS and the police steadfastly refused to reimburse Mr Bradbury.

The complaint that the CPS were ‘in thrall’ to WYP, and the Federation, did appear to have some merit. A review of the decision not to prosecute Rogerson also failed. As did Mr Bradbury’s entreaties to the CPS regional head, Gerry Wareham. Approached for comment about this article, Mr Wareham said: “Our job is to take over prosecutions like this one [Mr Bradbury’s] that have no merit”. Which flies in the face, completely, of everything the CPS has written and reported about the case previously. Not least that it met the evidential test and that a conviction was likely.

Screen Shot 2019-04-25 at 18.30.27
CPS lawyer Gerry Wareham who has attempted to re-write history over the private prosecution of A/Insp Rogerson

WYP’s PSD then dragged their heels for another two years before finalising the complaints against both Rogerson and Redfern. They, of course, found nothing wrong and both escaped any meaningful sanction. Rogerson was given words of advice after a misconduct hearing and, of course, promoted. Redfern’s alleged misdemeanours were dismissed out of hand. The misconduct hearing was, bizarrely, chaired by Inspector Richard Close, an officer who had acted adversely against Mr Bradbury several times over the past six years, including being a central player in a well-organised ambush and arrest outside police HQ in Wakefield. A malicious prosecution of Mr Bradbury followed, but it didn’t get beyond ‘half-time’ at the nearby Magistrates Court as District Judge Day threw the case out. Gerry Wareham is curiously silent on that CPS debacle.

Vigorous protests to Dee Collins, were, disgracefully, brushed aside in the face of the most compelling evidence against Close. Including the fact that Close had not seized relevant filmed and photographic evidence, including the clip embedded in this article and pictures of his injuries and the damaged camera. Or, obtained witness statements from either Mr Bradbury or Sgt Wooffinden. It was a classic West Yorkshire Police ‘cover-up’.

But the last word went to Mr Bradbury, via his solicitor Iain Gould of DPP Law in Bootle. Letters before claim were drawn up regarding this and a number of other incidents in which Mr Bradbury was adversely affected by the unlawful actions of West Yorkshire Police and he was awarded £13,750 in compensation. The out of court settlement that meant the police avoided having to air their dirty washing in public.

Two of the other cases that led to the compensation award are covered in a separate article on this site and can be read here.

The ambush of Mr Bradbury outside of police HQ and the subsequent shambles of an arrest, detention, investigation and prosecution is to be the subject of a further article on this website in the near future.

 

Page last updated: Thursday 25th April, 2019 at 1810 hours

Corrections: Please let me know if there is a mistake in this article. I will endeavour to correct it as soon as possible.

Right of reply: If you are mentioned in this article and disagree with it, please let me have your comments. Provided your response is not defamatory it will be added to the article.

Photo credit: West Yorkshire Police In Action YouTube Channel

© Neil Wilby 2015-2019. Unauthorised use, or reproduction, of the material contained in this article, without permission from the author, is strictly prohibited. Extracts from, and links to, the article (or blog) may be used, provided that credit is given to Neil Wilby, with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

 

Court set to hear £5 million civil claim against police

A county court claim filed in October, 2015 by a Bradford doctor, Abdul Rashid, is, finally, set to be heard later this year. The defendant is the chief constable of West Yorkshire Police.

A second trial, to determine quantum, will follow if the claim succeeds in establishing liability against the police. The first trial is listed for hearing in Bradford County Court between 9th and 19th September, 2019.

Since July, 2018, two case management hearings and a pre-trial review have focused mainly on unresolved disclosure issues.

The court has already heard that the claim, for aggravated, exemplary and special damages, including loss of earnings, concerns events that took place over seven years ago.

Shortly after 6.15am on Wednesday 7th March, 2012, eighteen police officers attended at Dr Rashid’s home in a pre-planned operation, threatened to break down the front door, arrested him in front of his wife and three children, then searched the house before taking him to Trafalgar House police station in Bradford, a short time later.

The arresting officer was Detective Constable Mark Lunn, who features centrally in a claim that turns upon the lawfulness of this officer’s actions before, during and after the arrest of Dr Rashid. Expressed succinctly by HHJ Neil Davey QC at the second case management hearing: ‘There is only one issue: Did the arresting officer have reasonable grounds‘.

The court has also heard that the large group of WYP officers, led by DC Lunn, not only searched Dr Rashid’s home, in full view of his neighbours, but also seized computers, other electronic devices, as well as life-saving medication for the use of one of Dr Rashid’s three children, putting that child’s health and safety at risk. The police deny the latter allegation.

DC Lunn was, at the time, involved in an investigation codenamed Operation Thatcham, seeking to disrupt a large scale ‘cash for crash‘ fraud in Huddersfield, where he was based. Lunn was working under the supervision of Sergeant Mark Taylor (now an inspector in Bradford CID) and the operation was led by Detective Chief Inspector Paul Jeffrey. Counsel for WYP, Olivia Ceca-Dover, has told the court that Sergeant Taylor (as he was then) will give evidence in these proceedings and the police will rely on his account for the necessity of the arrest.

The Ministry of Justice and the Insurance Fraud Bureau were partners assisting the police in the investigation. It followed a similar, three year investigation that had led to conviction of two Huddersfield men at Bradford Crown Court in March, 2011. DC Lunn had been ‘officer in the case’ in that investigation. Operation Thatcham began the following month.

The court has heard that a Huddersfield-based insurance claims management company, trading as Advanced Claims UK Ltd, was at the heart of the second investigation. A large number of men were convicted of fraud at Leeds Crown Court in April, 2014. Counsel for Dr Rashid, Ian Pennock, has told the court that disclosures within the course of this civil claim have revealed that the police knew before they arrested Dr Rashid that it was unrealistic to connect him to that company. That assertion is disputed by WYP.

Dr Rashid’s surgery and other premises were also raided on that same March morning in 2012. At the time, he also ran a very successful medico-legal practice, employing four people, in addition to his two general practices at Thornton and Denholme. This involved travelling the country at the request of many different firms of solicitors, providing expert medical reports upon predominantly soft tissue injuries such as ‘whiplash’. The loss of his private medico-legal practice alone is said to have cost Dr Rashid at least several hundred thousands of pounds per year.

Very shortly afterwards DC Lunn told others, including the Bradford Primary Care Trust (PCT) and the General Medical Council (GMC), that Dr Rashid was involved in a conspiracy to defraud insurance companies by assisting fraudulent ‘cash for crash’ claims. Mr Pennock asserts that such an allegation was ‘without foundation, baseless and ludicrous’.

He also told the court that ‘there was no evidence at the time, and there is still no evidence, whatsoever, to even reasonably suggest he has acted dishonestly within such an alleged conspiracy, or otherwise’.

Following his arrest, a large squad of WYP detectives carried out a protracted investigation of Dr Rashid’s private and personal life. Ranging from his early educational life at school, university and, thereafter, his early career as a doctor.

The court has heard that the investigation into the minutiae of Dr. Rashid’s life failed to reveal any criminal offences, or any other wrongdoing, by Dr. Rashid, in relation to any of the medical reports which he compiled, and submitted, on behalf of solicitors acting for insurance claimants. Mr Pennock says that this was an unsurprising conclusion given that it is widely known within the insurance, medical and legal arenas that such ‘expert’ reports are prepared, independently, by doctors, for the benefit of the courts. Not for either the underwriters or injured parties and their legal representatives.

This detailed and seriously intrusive investigation, says Mr Pennock, was motivated by the police’s increasingly urgent need to justify the wrongful arrest and detention of Dr. Rashid. The police deny such a motive and say that there were a number of identified defects in the medical reports, and Dr Rashid appeared to charge solicitors above the ‘going rate’ for the work. Both gave rise to suspicion of other wrongdoing.

At the forthcoming trial, says Mr Pennock, Dr Rashid will rely upon that same police investigation to prove that he is a man of integrity, who fully deserved the respect and standing he had in the Bradford community at large, together with his well deserved reputation amongst other doctors, solicitors, barristers and other fellow professionals, prior to the arrest. The police have told the court that Dr Rashid will be put to proof on those points.

The court has heard that the mere fact that Dr Rashid, along with other doctors, accepted instructions from solicitors of good standing to examine a claimant, and report upon the same, makes him no more involved with any alleged fraudulent claim than any other professional such as a barrister, psychologist, psychiatrist, doctor, occupational therapist,  or other such expert also instructed by those same solicitors. As such it was an insufficient basis for any reasonable grounds, or belief, to justify the arrest and detention of Dr. Rashid says Mr Pennock.

The court also heard that it has not been alleged, or even suggested, during the numerous and prolonged interviews by the police, that he was knowingly involved in any claim that was said to be fraudulent, and upon which he is said to have reported. He played no part in the Thatcham prosecutions, either as defendant or witness

In those interviews, lasting many hours, and cumulatively days, in various police stations in the Bradford, Huddersfield and Wakefield areas, the detectives only concerned themselves with matters such as Dr. Rashid’s qualifications, income, properties and background. Not one specific allegation was put to the doctor by the police. The interview transcripts, says Mr Pennock, summarise the police’s position at that time: “You are guilty of committing crimes and should own up to them, this is your last chance to tell us”. The court has heard that Dr Rashid was released from police bail in June, 2013. A file had been submitted to the Crown Prosecution Service, later reviewed at the police’s request, but no charges were authorised as a result.

The court has heard, on at least two occasions, that the arresting officer, Mark Lunn, appeared to claim he was also the officer in charge of the investigation against Dr Rashid and others. Ms Ceca-Dover says that Lunn was not in charge and he, in fact, reported to Sergeant Taylor (as he was at the time). She went on to say that the basis for the arrest of Dr Rashid is set out in some detail in the witness statement of Inspector Taylor (as he is now).

At the time of Dr. Rashid’s arrest, and subsequently, DC Lunn purported to be a director of a company called “Insurance Fraud Consultants Ltd”, an operation which sought work from insurance companies, including a well known name in Sussex, to investigate suspected insurance fraud claims. But no such company existed in official records at Companies House.

Ms Ceca-Dover told the court that WYP has not admitted that such an enterprise was in place, or that such records existed on police systems, or that they did exist and were, subsequently, deleted.

Enquiries with Companies House revealed that the purported company did not exist before the arrest of Dr Rashid. But, on the same day that DC Lunn was removed from the Operation Thatcham investigation, a company of that name was incorporated at Companies House.

The company was dissolved in 2014, and this was, Mr Pennock says, shortly before Mark Lunn started work for the IPCC (Independent Police Complaints Commission) in January, 2015. Ms Ceca-Dover has told the court that WYP will not be calling Mr Lunn as a witness at the trial and that her client does not know where to locate him, in any event.

She has asserted, on instructions from WYP’s Deputy Force Solicitor, Alison Walker, that his actions were at all times lawful and proportionate. The police also deny that DC Lunn was acting as ‘a malicious, lone decision maker’.

DC Lunn did not have the authority of the chief constable to undertake this additional employment and/or have any involvement with the so-called “Insurance Fraud Consultants Ltd.” The claimant’s lawyers have sought an explanation from the police, or Mark Lunn, to refute the fact that he held himself out as being a director of IFCL, who sought work from insurance companies to investigate suspected insurance fraud claims. The court has heard the claimant’s allegation that Lunn, for his own financial gain, was allegedly acting wrongfully, in purporting to represent a company that did not exist.

The court has heard details of a specific allegation that Lunn prepared a detailed business plan, using police computers, and may have received a payment of £183,000 from an insurance company as a result. Ms Ceca-Dover has told the court that searches of WYP files, systems and archives, conducted by Sergeant (now Inspector) Taylor, have not, so far, revealed the information sought by the claimants.

It has also been asserted by Mr Pennock that this unauthorised business association created a serious conflict of interest with DC Lunn’s Oath of Constable, and his obligations as an independent and impartial police officer. Particularly, when coming to assess the involvement of Dr Rashid in examining personal injury claimants, and the decision to arrest him. Mr Pennock told the court that Dr Rashid was a ‘prized scalp’ for Lunn in his attempt to establish credibility for his ‘burgeoning private enterprise’.

After complaints by Dr Rashid’s criminal defence solicitors, DC Lunn was removed, by his superiors, from the investigation into Dr. Rashid. That was in July 2012. Mr Pennock asserts that Lunn was, following those complaints, subject to a professional standards investigation, Operation Waffleedge, and no longer works for the police. He left the force in August, 2013. Ms Ceca-Dover told the court that Lunn resigned of his own volition. He was not forced to, or asked to, resign by the police, or dismissed. Any wrongdoing by the officer is denied. She added that the police admitted he was the subject of a UPP (Unsatisfactory Performance Plan), more of a human resources sanction than a disciplinary process, she explained. The police also say that Operation Waffleedge was not a covert investigation into Lunn.

The court also heard that reference had been made, in earlier disclosures by the police to Dr Rashid, to a written warning given to DC Lunn by WYP regarding misuse of police databases, and an admission that he had used WYP computers during his lunch hour to send correspondence, on his official police email account. This was alleged to be in connection with his own business interests. The police position is that their professional standards department has no record of this written warning.

HHJ Davey asked, during the pre-trial review, if the written warning was part of the materials that Ms Ceca-Dover says the police have ‘weeded out’ as part of their data management obligations. Ms Ceca-Dover, after taking instructions, told the judge that would be dealt with in later disclosures and after further internal enquiries had been made by the police.

Mr Pennock also told the court that Lunn has ‘a track record of unlawful arrest allegations’, citing the reference numbers of five complaints. The relevance being, Mr Pennock added, that there was a ‘wrongful motive’ by DC Lunn to arrest Dr Rashid and that this would, in any event, negate any reasonable grounds. Mr Pennock has told the court, on several occasions, that Lunn is presented by the claimant in this case as a “bad apple” and asserts that is why he left, or was asked to leave the police force.

The police force’s Professional Standards Department say DC Lunn did not have any disciplinary findings against him and that Sergeant (now Inspector) Taylor gives an explanation in his statement, as credible evidence, as to why DC Lunn left WYP.

On 7th March 2012, the day of the arrest, Detective Constable Lunn approached and informed Dr Rashid’s ’employers’, Bradford Patient Care Trust (PCT), of the fact that he had arrested Dr Rashid, whom he said ‘was involved in a serious and substantial conspiracy to defraud’. Mr Pennock says that the wording forming that contact is important. DC Lunn did not, he says, describe Dr Rashid as a suspect and, instead, asserted guilt.

As a result of DC Lunn’s approach to the PCT, they wrote to the General Medical Council to initiate complaints against Dr. Rashid, which included his previously unpublicised arrest that day and the reasons for it, as provided by DC Lunn.

At the end of that month, the court heard, Dr Rashid’s contract as a general practitioner with the PCT was terminated and he lost his practice, built up over a number of decades, operating from two surgeries. Mr Pennock asserts that this was all as a direct consequence of the wrongful actions of the police. An allegation they strongly deny.

He went on to say that DC Lunn again circumvented police policies and procedure for deciding if, and when, to make any disclosure to professional bodies and communicated directly with the GMC. Ms Ceca-Dover denied their had been any breach of protocol by her client. Mr Pennock lifted up a bundle of papers, approximately 300mm thick, to demonstrate to the judge the welter of information given to the PCT, and the GMC, by the police. Which, he says, consisted mainly of improper disclosure of selective and prejudicial material. The police assert that all disclosures were made in good faith, lawful, proportionate, in line with force policy and bore on their responsibility to keep the public safe.

On 24thApril 2012 the GMC suspended Dr Rashid from practice for a period of 18 months, as an interim measure pending a final hearing, if any, before the Fitness to Practice Panel of the GMC. The court heard that the final hearing did not take place until October, 2016. Dr Rashid had challenged the interim suspension in the High Court in Leeds in September, 2012 and, as a result, it was quashed.

The police evidence supporting the GMC’s interim suspension was described by the judge, HHJ Mark Gosnell, as ‘sparse’. A point noted by HHJ Davey at the pre-trial review.

Mr Pennock says that even though the suspension was lifted, by this time irreparable damage had been done to Dr Rashid’s personal and professional reputation. Mr Pennock has told the court that Dr Rashid fears that his reputation may never be restored.

The GMC Panel found that Dr. Rashid’s fitness to practice was not impaired, because he was not culpable of any of the misconduct previously alleged by the police. Mr Pennock says that the allegation he was actually involved in a large scale conspiracy to defraud, involving false personal injury claims, rather than merely being a suspect, is particularly damaging.

It was, he says, also demeaning and offensive to a respected and well established medical doctor working within that particular sector of personal injury claims.

The court has also heard of an Application, made in the same Bradford County Court, for third party disclosure from WYP to identify the complainants (if any) and reasons for his arrest. This court action, instigated in August 2012, was compromised by the parties, ahead of a scheduled hearing, after West Yorkshire Police confirmed, in writing; “…not one specific allegation has been made against him by any individual outside, or within, the West Yorkshire Police”.

At the pre-trial review, there was a lengthy examination, by HHJ Davey, of the progress of disclosure requests made by the claimant, and the responses so far made by the police. The court heard that despite the protracted investigation into Dr Rashid’s private and professional life the police have only been able to conclude that, out of thousands of professional medical reports compiled by Dr. Rashid, only nine were not entirely accurate, or that his examination of them was not entirely proficient.

Mr Pennock asserts that this conclusion is drawn by the police despite those, as yet, ‘anonymous insurance claimants’ having read and approved Dr. Rashid’s report, and signing confirmation that it was accurate, and that they wished to rely on that same report in support of their claim for damages.

He further contends that the police sought to frustrate Dr. Rashid’s ability to practice as a doctor by disclosing only limited, and highly selective, details of those alleged nine complainants to the GMC as a basis for suspending, or terminating, Dr Rashid’s licence to practice. The police do not rely on evidence from any of those nine as part of their defence in this wrongful arrest claim. Their identities are known to the police.

Mr Pennock complained to the court that the police had ‘drip-fed’ disclosure to his client and previous searches for relevant materials by WYP had been ‘inadequate’. This amounted to Dr Rashid, and his lawyers, being given ‘the runaround’ by the police, he says. ‘The object of the exercise is to establish what the arresting officer knew, why was Dr Rashid arrested, and a definition of the offence over which he was arrested, beyond being told at interviews he was being detained over a cash for crash conspiracy’. The police have refused to inform the claimant whether any other doctor was arrested in connection with Operation Thatcham.

One of the main, and repeated, complaints by Mr Pennock was that the police appeared to have weeded out materials relating to the ‘cash for crash’ investigations and prosecution, when that criminal case concluded only the year before the claim form in this case was filed at court and served on West Yorkshire Police. He maintains that, in such instances, and as required by the Criminal Investigation and Procedures Act, all documents should be retained for six years after conclusion of the Advanced Claims UK Ltd trial. Ms Ceca-Dover told the court, on behalf of WYP, that all documents would have been destroyed at the end of the statutory period. Further, she said that her clients did not consider that such materials were relevant to the issues in this case (the civil claim).

HHJ Davey told the court that the submissions for the pre-trial review amounted to 621 pages – and that he had read all of them by way of preparation for this hearing. He retires in June, 2019 and will not be available to preside over the trial of a case he describes as “interesting”. It is uncontroversial to note that Neil Davey QC’s steady hand, wise words and pleasing court manner, will be missed on the circuit bench in Bradford.

Proceedings continue. A further pre-trial review is expected to be listed for hearing in July or August, 2019.

 

Corrections: Please let me know if there is a mistake in this article. I will endeavour to correct it as soon as possible.

Right of reply: If you are mentioned in this article and disagree with it, please let me have your comments. Provided your response is not defamatory it will be added to the article.

Photo credit: Telegraph & Argus

© Neil Wilby 2015-2019. Unauthorised use, or reproduction, of the material contained in this article, without permission from the author, is strictly prohibited. Extracts from, and links to, the article (or blog) may be used, provided that credit is given to Neil Wilby, with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Second investigation into ‘lying’ chief constable flounders

Retired murder detective, Peter Jackson, the country’s best known police whistle blower, has written to the Mayor of Greater Manchester’s office to point out that his complaints against the region’s chief constable, Ian Hopkins, are, once again, not being investigated properly.

Under the applicable statutory framework, the Mayor is, ultimately, the Appropriate Authority who deals with such complaints. After a calamitous first investigation, in which his Deputy, ‘Bev’ Hughes attempted to dispose of the complaints by a hopelessly misconceived local resolution process, and misled the complainant by claiming she was conducting an ‘investigation’, Durham Constabulary was asked to assess and manage the probe into the misconduct allegations (read more here).

The ‘investigation’ by Mrs Hughes subsequently turned out to be no more than a phone call to Mr Hopkins. Not one scrap of paper was produced by her after the Independent Office for Police Conduct (more widely recognised under its previous guise of the IPCC) directed the hapless Deputy Mayor to disclose all documents relating to the process. Mr Jackson’s complaint against her ‘local resolution’ findings was, unsurprsingly, upheld by the police ‘watchdog’.

Bev Hughes had falsely claimed that she had conducted a three month investigation and Peter Jackson was, understandably, disconcerted when the truth emerged. She has faced no disciplinary process or sanction, arising from that disgraceful farrago.

Greater Manchester Combined Authority, which hosts the Mayor’s administrative functions first contacted Durham on 5th December, 2018. Three weeks later, after a flurry of communication between GMCA’s Deputy Director of Policing, Clare Monaghan, and a Durham civilian investigator, Darren Ellis, the small county police force took on the job of tackling serious misconduct allegations against the chief constable of the country’s fourth largest metropolitan force.

It looked a mis-match from the outset, and so it has proved. Not helped, it seems, by the unexpected announcement of the retirement of the Durham chief constable, Michael Barton. He is the Gold Commander of the Hopkins investigation, even though he appears to spend an extraordinary amount of his time ‘out of force’.

There are serious and well-grounded questions presently being asked surrounding the reasons given for that retirement, and its proximity to accepting the investigation into Chief Constable Hopkins. Mr Barton was less than half way through a contact extension agreed in 2016, which would keep him at the Durham helm until February 2021 (read more here).

Mr Jackson says he has lost confidence, both in Mr Ellis and the Durham investigation. He cites the following principal reasons:

– Witnesses that were identified in his evidential statements have contacted him to complain about the conduct of Ellis towards them.

– Those witnesses, a serving and a retired police officer, Paul Bailey and Scott Winters respectively, plus journalist Neil Wilby, have no confidence in Mr Ellis and, particulary, his ability to conduct a correctly framed, robust, proportionate investigation.

 – He is not reassured that Mr Ellis is adopting an appropriately thorough and independent investigation of his complaint. He fears another ‘whitewash’, along the lines of the previous feeble attempt to dispose of the complaints by the Deputy Mayor.

 – Ellis has been accused variously, of being sarcastic, patronising, confrontational, aggressive, insulting, deceitful, evasive, inept, unethical and unprofessional. Seeking, from the outset it seems, to break off contact with all parties on the complainant’s side.

 – Providing a straight answer to a straight question also appears to be beyond Durham’s finest.

Mrs Monaghan was provided with relevant e-mail correspondence to evidence this serious and quite astonishing catalogue of allegations. She has acknowledged the communication from Mr Jackson and is set to discuss the matter with the Mayor, Andy Burnham in the near future.

Clare Monaghan 2
Gretaer Manchester’s Deputy Director for Policing, Clare Monaghan.

Those Ellis emails, highlighted by Peter Jackson, include one to Neil Wilby, where, amongst other smearing, misdirected remarks, he references visiting the toilets at a friend’s house. Mr Ellis cites quotations he read on the walls of both the upstairs and downstairs facilities, referring to him as a fool. Ellis might well be correct in his assertion, but to use a police email address and IT systems, is unethical and unprofessional, at best. Not least, as the journalist is a deponent in the investigation of which the Durham detective is seized, at the behest of the complainant, and has extensive and detailed witness evidence relevant to what is asserted by Peter Jackson.

At the initial meeting between investigator and complainant, Mr Ellis gave the impression that he understood the seriousness of the matters in issue, and would conduct a thorough investigation. More crucially, he agreed to ‘go where the evidence takes him’, adding it into Mr Jackson’s first witness statement and asserting that such a crucial caveat would form part of the investigation’s Terms of Reference, agreed with GMCA.

As a former head of GMP’s elite Murder Investigation Team (MIT), Mr Jackson is much more aware than most, including Mr Ellis, that it is a well recognised, and sound, approach to examine evidence arising out of similar conduct in other incidents when conducting any investigation.

To Mr Jackson’s obvious dismay, Mr Ellis is said to be conducting the investigation ‘with his fingers in his ears’ whilst acting in an antagonistic manner towards highly informed and experienced witnesses. Conversely, and perversely, there appears to be excessive contact between Ellis and Mrs Monaghan. More alarmingly, Durham Constabulary appear to be willing to break the law to conceal the extent of it (read more here). 

Mr Jackson was recently contacted by a well informed local journalist, based in Manchester, who has reinforced the complainant’s view that the outcome of the present investigation is going to be another ‘whitewash’. Firmly held views, emanating from highly placed sources within both GMP and GMCA, are that the complaint is ‘trivial’ and ‘the investigation is going nowhere’. 

In an article, published on Wednesday 3rd April, 2019 in the Manchester Evening News, that has the look and feel of the under-fire Mr Hopkins calling in a favour from his friends at the local newspaper, the prospect of a ‘whitewash’ increases.  ‘Chief constable vows to clear his name’ screams the headline. The oxymoron, ‘I did not deliberately lie‘ is the theme of an article almost entirely absent of journalistic rigour. 

Mr Jackson has made it clear, in his evidence to both the Durham team and Mrs Monaghan, that the conduct of the chief constable in response to The Times article at the heart of the present complaints, was not a ‘one off’. It forms part of a much wider pattern of alleged behaviour that includes deceit, lies, ‘cover up’ and misleading of the public. 

For his part, Mr Ellis has repeatedly refused to inform the complainant of the outcome of his severity assessment. Although Ellis asserts that a Regulation 15 notice has been served on Ian Hopkins, he refuses to say whether the allegations amount to misconduct, or gross misconduct. Adding to the opaqueness, GMCA have refused requests by the BBC to confirm whether the regulation notice has been issued. GMP referred such enquiries to GMCA. The latter has been approached by Neil Wilby, via a freedom of information request, for a copy of the notice.

The terms of reference have been disclosed publicly and they appear to be a diluted version of what Mr Jackson was told to expect. There is no mention of the recording of the disreputable conduct that is alleged by Jackson, and the ‘go where the evidence takes us’ is missing. Mr Ellis has refused to explain these disparities and has cut off contact with the complainant, accusing him of leaking information to journalists.

In the light of the alleged misconduct of Darren Ellis, together with the highly conflicted position of the Deputy Mayor and GMCA, flowing from the disgraceful first attempt at the investigation of the Jackson complaints, a firm request has been made for a referral of these matters to the IPCC (now IOPC) for an independent investigation, by them, as a matter of urgency.

Page last updated on Monday 8th April. 2019 at 1725hrs

Corrections: Please let me know if there is a mistake in this article. I will endeavour to correct it as soon as possible.

Right of reply: If you are mentioned in this article and disagree with it, please let me have your comments. Provided your response is not defamatory it will be added to the article.

Picture credit:  Manchester Evening News

© Neil Wilby 2015-2019. Unauthorised use, or reproduction, of the material contained in this article, without permission from the author, is strictly prohibited. Extracts from, and links to, the article (or blog) may be used, provided that credit is given to Neil Wilby, with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Mackrell caught in Hillsborough net

On Wednesday 4th April, 2019, at shortly after 12.15pm, a jury of six men and six women trooped into Court 1 in Preston Crown Court for their final time.

They had been deliberating in the trial of Graham Mackrell and David Duckenfield for 29 hours and 6 mins. Aked for their verdicts, the jury foreman said his peers had failed to reach a verdict on count 1, gross negligence manslaughter, against Mr Duckenfield. For count 3, a health and safety breach by Mr Mackrell, a finding of guilty, by a majority verdict of 10 – 2. For count 2, another safety breach by Mr Mackrell, they had been directed by the judge, Sir Peter Openshaw DL, to return a verdict of not guilty. That formality was completed, before they were thanked ‘on behalf of the community‘ by the judge for their public service, and discharged.

The charges related to the Hillsborough Stadium Disaster which happened almost 30 years ago, when 96 Liverpool football supporters went to a football match and did not return. Mr Mackrell is the first person to be found guilty of any disciplinary, regulatory or criminal offence in the decades since that tragic day. He was the Sheffield Wednesday club secretary and, more crucially, their safety officer at the material time.

He will be sentenced by the judge on 9th May, 2019, after consideration of written submissions from both his own counsel, Jason Beer QC, and the Crown Prosecution Service’s leader, Richard Matthews QC.

The CPS has already indicated that they will seek a re-trial of Mr Duckenfield. Counsel for the defendant, Benjamin Myers QC, told the judge, at a short hearing which followed discharge of the jury, that he will apply to have such proceedings stayed as an abuse of process. A further hearing, to determine that stay application, is listed for 24th June, 2019, with a time estimate of 2 to 3 days.

Strict reporting restrictions remain in place in respect of the Duckenfield trial and its aftermath. This also impacts on the reporting of the Mackrell trial. Nothing can be said that prejudices any future trial of Mr Duckenfield, or another Hillsborough trial that involves three other defendants, Donald Denton, Alan Foster and Peter Metcalf, and is listed to begin in September, 2019. The first two named are retired South Yorkshire Police officers and Mr Metcalf was retained by the police as their civil litigation lawyer.

The proceedings against Graham Mackrell, still a leading light in football administration, after a glittering post-disaster career, began in Warrington Magistrates Court in July 2017. The first appearance at Preston Crown Court was in September, 2017 when he sat in the dock, along with five other men charged with a variety of offences arising from the disaster. Sir Norman Bettison was, subsequently, found to have no case to answer after the prosecution withdrew.

The substantive trial began on 14th January, 2019 in Preston. Mr Mackrell was allowed, by the judge, to sit in the well of the court, amongst his lawyers, throughout those proceedings. 

Mackrell, who did not give evidence during the trial, gave a no comment interview to Operation Resolve, a police led investigation, whose officers interviewed him in April 2017. He was charged two months later.

Shortly before he began summing up the trial, the judge had directed the jury not to draw adverse inference from the fact that Mackrell had chosen not to give evidence. It was found that none of the questions given to his lawyers, in an interview pre-brief, had made their way on to the indictment, as it then stood, nine weeks into the trial. One count had fallen away, and part of the second had decayed at that point.

No defence witnesses were called to give live evidence on Mackrell’s behalf. The court did hear read evidence from eight witnesses, of high standing in football and political spheres, who attested that the club secretary, a chartered accountant, was diligent and co-operative in that, and other footballing roles. No mention was made, by any, of how he carried out his job of safety officer. A point that would not have been lost on the jury.

The jury found him guilty of failing to take reasonable care of the safety of 10,100 spectators on the West Terrace of the Sheffield Wednesday stadium. A regular FA Cup semi-final venue, in spite of repeated incidents and complaints of crushing in that area. Most notably, in 1981 and 1987. Mackrell joined Sheffield Wednesday in December, 1986.

Only seven turnstiles were allocated to admit those spectators in that area in 1989 and, inevitably, a dangerous crush built up in the approach to the Leppings Lane entrance.

Eleven turnstiles had been in use for the same terraces in the 1988 semi-final match between the same two teams, Liverpool and Nottingham Forest. Nothing heard in evidence came close to explaining why Mr Mackrell did not challenge, in his role as the football club’s safety officer, the catastrophic change in turnstile arrangements. Instead, he relied on the more general proposition that he left such matters to the police to deal with in their operational order.

In that era, and the jury were directed to discount either the benefit of hindsight, or consideration of modern stadia and the policing of them, segretation of fans was a primary consideration to prevent hooliganism. The jury heard that led to the closing of turnstiles on the Penistone Road side of the stand to Liverpool fans in 1989. Access to the North Stand was funnelled through the Lepping Lane entrance, adding to the build up of Liverpool fans.

Throughout the trial, the jury did not see, or hear corroborated evidence of, one single incident of hooliganism, disorder or excessive drinking at that end of the ground.

The jury did see, however, graphic images and film of the developing crisis as the crowd built up from around 2.10pm. What is clear is that the jury rejected the submission of Mr Beer that the crowd arriving late was a more material factor than the number of turnstiles allocated. All the evidence heard, and the film and photographs viewed, concerning the charges against Mr Mackrell, pointed to the opposite: Fans arriving at the ground early – long before the invitation on the rear of their ticket stated – was a contributory factor in the disaster. He was directly responsible for the printing of those match day tickets. They stated on the rear that fans should be in the ground by 2.45pm. Fiteen minutes before kick off.  

Graham Henry Mackrell, by then a convicted criminal, was allowed to slip out of the back door of Preston Crown Court. An affront to open justice, the media who had waited for days at the front of the court, the public who were denied the opportunity of hearing what he had to say and, most crucially, the bereaved families and survivors who did not hear him offer contrition, or an apology.

Steve Kelly, who lost his brother Michael, told me that, in calmer waters than immediately after the verdicts, “I will support every bereaved family member, and survivor, who wants to see a re-trial go ahead – and in the meantime, continue to respect due process and try to ensure that nothing is done to prejudice any future Hillsborough trial”.

Jenni Hicks, who lost her teenaged daughters Sarah and Victoria, said, “We have been chasing rainbows for thirty years. But, of course, we cannot express fully how we feel until all the trials are over”.

Barry Devonside, who lost his 18 year old son Christopher, added, “As a magistrate for 20 years, I know how important it is for the integrity of the trial process to be preserved. But 96 people were found, unanimously, by an inquest jury, to be unlawfully killed and it is right that those responsible are held to account”.

Richie Greaves, who has campaigned tirelessly for almost 30 years on behalf of the survivors from pen 3 and 4, and the bereaved families, concluded, “The conviction of Mackrell is a step in the right direction, and I support the prosecution team, the families, and my fellow survivors, in aiming for a re-trial. Once all the trials are concluded, the Government is urged to fulfil their promises on the Hillsborough Law”.

Page last updated on Friday 5th April. 2019 at 1525hrs

Corrections: Please let me know if there is a mistake in this article. I will endeavour to correct it as soon as possible.

Right of reply: If you are mentioned in this article and disagree with it, please let me have your comments. Provided your response is not defamatory it will be added to the article.

Picture credit:  Crown Prosecution Service

© Neil Wilby 2015-2019. Unauthorised use, or reproduction, of the material contained in this article, without permission from the author, is strictly prohibited. Extracts from, and links to, the article (or blog) may be used, provided that credit is given to Neil Wilby, with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Barton beats an unexpected retreat

Earlier this week Durham Constabulary announced the retirement of its chief constable, Mike Barton, both on social media and via a press release issued to local, regional and national media. The story attracted little attention, given the controversial figure he has frequently cut.

Screen Shot 2019-03-13 at 11.04.09

But this announcement took many people by surprise, not least policing colleagues whom he had told that he wanted to complete 40 years police service before contemplating retirement. That would have taken him through to at least 2020, having joined Lancashire Police in 1980. 

In a typically robust Sunday Mirror article (read here), published hours before the retirement announcement, there was absolutely no inkling that the Durham chief was about to abandon his post and the high profile, and hugely important, war on knife crime.

Born into a farming family, Mike Barton became a constable with his local force in Blackpool, where his beat included the resort’s famous Golden Mile. He was awarded the Queen’s Police Medal in 2014.

Now aged 62, and a self-proclaimed ‘maverick’, Mr Barton agreed a five-year contract extension in November 2016 (read more here). That arrangement was intended to take him to the end of the current Police and Crime Plan agreed with his employer, the Durham Police Crime and Victims Commissioner, Ron Hogg,

For reasons that are unclear, for the present at least, the Sunderland Echo reported that Barton’s contract extension was only three years, and that ‘he had worked beyond his intended retirement date’.

News of chief Barton’s departure also came as a shock to those closely involved with Operation Lackan, a misconduct investigation into alleged dishonesty and disreputable conduct of Ian Hopkins, chief constable of under-siege Greater Manchester Police. The complainant is retired GMP superintendent, Peter Jackson. Currently, the country’s best known, and most widely reported, police whistleblower. The author of this article is, also, a deponent in those proceedings.

Mr Barton is Gold Commander of that highly vexed probe. A role he accepted at the very end of last year from Greater Manchester Combined Authority, the appointed body to deal with complaints against the region’s chief officer. At the present rate of progress, with terms of reference taking, it seeems, twelve weeks to agree, it is difficult to see Barton signing off the investigation outcome before he retires.

The question also hangs in the air as to why he took on the highly significant Manchester investigation if retirement was front of mind. His temporary replacement as chief will be present Deputy Chief Constable, Jo Farrell. Nothing in her police record, or via other open source material, suggests that she has experience of heading up such a controversial gross misconduct investigation. The major significance of that apparent deficiency unfolds as the sudden, and unexplained, departure of another chief constable is analysed later in this piece.

In these circumstances, the statement issued by his police force press office is worthy of further scrutiny: It begins by saying that the chief constable confirmed his retirement, in writing, that morning (11th March). Suggesting that he had already told his employer, verbally, that he was leaving the force. A leaving date of 7th June might imply that such a conversation took place during the previous week, on 7th March.

The usual valedictory prose pads out a substantial portion of the rest of the statement – and it is much nearer the beginning than the end where the reason for the sudden exit is given: Mr Barton wants to ‘spend more time in his greenhouse and with his grandchildren‘.

Earlier in the statement he is quoted thus: ‘There remain many challenges in policing that I would have relished tackling, but there comes a time when one should hand the baton to the next generation of talented and committed people who will bring their own style, thinking and approach’. Which is an oddity, of itself, as the National Police Chiefs Council, of which Mike Barton is a very prominent, outspoken member, openly admit there is a troubling, and worsening, dearth of senior officer talent in this country.

But above all, he said, the role as Durham’s chief constable had been ‘exciting’ and ‘enormous fun‘. His police colleagues in Durham, and possibly elsewhere, refer to him as a ‘nutter’. In the comedic sense, one assumes?

The statement concludes by saying that details of the procedure to recruit the next chief constable will be announced by the PCC’s office over the coming months. Which precludes any handover, by Barton, to his successor in the top job. The role currently attracts a remuneration of £134,400 per annum, plus the use of a pool car for private use and generous pension benefits.

This unexpected, and largely unexplained, departure is in a similar mode to that of a another experienced, long-serving, recently retired chief, the enigmatic Dave Jones, who ended his service at neighbouring North Yorkshire Police. Except that Jones did what was, effectively, a ‘moonlight flit‘. On the day his departure was announced, 9th April, 2018, after a period of annual leave over the Easter period, he put in a three month sick note and never appeared at force HQ again. NYP were then forced to seek a successor in his absence, with no smooth transition period, and the consequent cost and operational penalties.

Pertinent public interest questions put to the disgraced North Yorkshire Police and Crime Commissioner, Julia Mulligan, concerning proposed action over a possible contract breach, drew the usual blank. Jones’ had willingly committed to remain at NYP until May, 2020. Turning his back on around £350,000 in salary and benefits to ‘spend more time with his family‘. His three months of sick leave was worth over £40,000 in pay and benefits.

It is worth noting, in a wider context, that Dave Jones spent the first 21 years as a Greater Manchester Police officer and was, at one stage, a CID colleague of Peter Jackson.

Mike Barton has walked away from a similarly large sum, and given much the same reason for doing so. Which, in both cases and taken at their face, appears scarcely credible.

Jones was facing a mounting series of operational problems, adverse inspection reports, quite astonishing criticism from an appeal court judge, and other serious questions about his competence and integrity posed in the media. Other possible reasons for his departure are explored in another article on this website (read here).

But Barton has, previously, faced none of the sort of relentless journalistic scrutiny which came the way of North Yorkshire Police before, and during, the Dave Jones era, and he appears to have an excellent relationship with local and national media. Basking in the glory of being rated as the country’s best police force, according to Her Majesty’s Inspector of Constabulary, and being a ‘colourful character’ to boot. Relations between chief constable and police commissioner also appear to be always positive. A situation that could not be said of Jones and his own controversial, and soon to depart, PCC.

But taking on the Hopkins investigation has brought about a different type of scrutiny, not least from this quarter, from whence, and with ample justification, Durham Constabularly is frequently referred to as “a grubby little police force” – and it is already very clear that Durham are not enjoying the oversight. Blocking posts on social media would be a particularly peurile, and futile, example. If a detective chief inspector, and a senior professional standards officer to boot, doesn’t want to hear the truth about the failings of her police force, then Victoria Martin might reflect on her Oath of Constable and whether she is, in fact, deployed in the right vocation. 

04421A9E-714A-4D1A-97A7-930932EDDD9F

Operation Lackan is very likely to turn out to be highly toxic and Mike Barton has appointed as his Silver Command an officer who appears, on all the evidence seen so far, to neither have the requisite competencies, judgement, resilience or the temperament, to cope with what faces him across the Pennines: Investigating the chief officer of a police force beset with very serious organisational and leadership issues, at least six times the size of his own. A journey so arduous he has, on at least one occasion, required the services of both a detective sergeant AND a driver.

Darren Ellis, a civilian investigator who appears to be Barton’s favoured bag-carrier, has already been placed on written notice concerning some of the professional failings identified, so far, and reacted to reasoned, and well evidenced, criticisms with a grotesquely unprofessional, spiteful, childish response. Ellis also appears to be highly sensitive to fair, and plainly expressed, comment on social media. Even though, surprisingly, and for one who has such an extraordinarily high opinion of himself, he appears to have no presence on Twitter. He was, also, previously a close working colleague of DCI Martin (and may well still be a subordinate in her department). Which may well imply a cultural, or organisational, issue within Durham Constabularly in dealing with hard truths. 

The obsession, stoutly maintained by Ellis, of the existence of a partnership, or other influential or advisory arrangement, between Peter Jackson and Neil Wilby does him no credit. He has been told, repeatedly, by both, it simply does not exist. There is simply no evidence to support his near-frenzied repetition. 

Neither does his bizarre authorisation of the release of lengthy, and unredacted, email correspondence between complainant and police investigator, to an investigative journalist, and all the consequent breaches of the Data Protection Act.

In a previous investigation in which Darren Ellis was closely involved, as lead investigator, Durham Constabularly were criticised, for apparent lack of understanding of data legislation, by Police Scotland’s Deputy Chief Constable, Rose Fitzpatrick. In the same letter, which can be read in full here, she also noted that Durham had stepped outside of the agreed terms of reference.

The Lackan investigation, conducted with appropriate rigour, and following the evidence, will see the end of the career of Hopkins, if he hasn’t already joined the ranks of disgraced senior officers from the Manchester force who have either resigned, or retired over the past few years. These include ACC Rebekah Sutcliffe (Titgate), ACC Steve Heywood (lied to Grainger Inquiry; forged policy log entries), ACC Terry Sweeney (Operations Poppy 1, 2 and 3), ACC Garry Shewan (Operation Redbone; Operations Lamp/Redhill; £70million iOPS failure).

Sweeney’s departure, whilst facing gross misconduct investigations, including the Shipman body parts scandal, infuriated many policing commentators and, actually, led to a change in the law. The other three departed on Hopkins’ watch as chief constable. He was deputy chief when Sweeney slid out the back door of GMP HQ.

Two of their replacements are already mired in controversy, ACC Mabs Hussain (read more here) and T/ACC Annette Anderson, who is currently on a three month absence from the force, whilst attending a senior leaders’ course at the College of Policing. Hopkins is directly involved in the former and, indeed, created it. His deputy, DCC Ian Pilling is closely involved with the Anderson scandal and is also the subject of robust, well-evidenced, criticism over a series of alleged ‘cover-ups’ that have already featured, regularly, elsewhere on this website. He presently faces no misconduct proceedings, but will definitely be cited in evidence supporting the section of the Jackson complaint that deals with institutionalised deceit.

Ex-ACC Dawn Copley could also, feasibly, be added to the list of controversial ex-Manchester retirees. She became the shortest ever serving chief constable in police service history when her tenure lasted just 24 hours at South Yorkshire Police. It has been well reported that ‘Big Dawn’, as she is commonly known, and Peter Jackson, clashed a number of times, as he repeatedly insisted that an investigation should be launched by another police force concerning the ill-starred Operation Nixon (read more here).

Both Copley and Pilling are former Lancashire Police colleagues of Mike Barton, and therein at least part of the answer to the latter’s sudden departure may lie. If, as might be expected, the dishonesty complaint against his chief constable colleague, Ian Hopkins, widens to examine an institutionalised culture of deceit and ‘cover-up’ that cascades down from the top of the Manchester force. A point presciently made in one of a series of articles by The Times journalist, Fiona Hamilton, who is also likely to give witness evidence in the Lackan investigation.

On any independent view, Greater Manchester Police, absent of any meaningful oversight from those public bodies responsible, principally the Deputy Mayor and the perenially hopeless Independent Office for Police Conduct, is a ‘bandit’ police force that, to maintain public confidence, requires urgent intervention from the Home Office. Reminiscent of the dark days of the infamous Leeds City Police in the late 1960’s and eary 1970’s. In slightly different terms, The Times newspaper has twice called for a public inquiry, via its hugely influential leader column. Read by every Prime Minister since 1788.

Which poses a second question concerning Mike Barton: In the twilight of what is reported to be a long, illustrious, and decorated, police career would the Durham chief want to risk being dragged, wittingly or unwittingly. into a situation that has already stained the careers of so many other senior police officers – and likely to end several more? 

Comment about any investigation would normally, and quite properly, be reserved until its outcome is published, so as not to engage prejudice. But this particular matter is wholly exceptional, as it has almost entirely been played out in the public domain. The complainant is a very high profile police whistleblower and the misconduct complained of concerns the chief constable of the UK’s fourth largest police force. Two of the witnesses are journalists. Another one is a retired police officer, a fourth is a serving police officer. There are a large number of national newspaper articles, and publicly accessible investigation reports, concerning the Jackson disclosures, which date back to 2014. Indeed, Operation Lackan centres around one of those articles, published by The Times in June, 2018; the Hopkins response; and two follow-ups in The Times that destroyed both the police statement and one made in support of it by the Deputy Mayor of Manchester, Beverley Hughes

In my own extensive and informed knowledge, there can only be one conclusion: Hopkins has, on any view of the facts, misconducted himself and, with it, brought disrepute to the door of his force. The only matter to be determined is one of degree. Which may be the third reason why Mike Barton has decided to go.

Fourthly, Operation Lackan promises to be neither ‘exciting’ nor the ‘great fun’ that the Durham chief says is his more familiar experience in police HQ at Aykley Heads. Far, far from it. There is likely to be a some banging of heads against brick walls dealing with the Manchester Mayor’s office and Barton may have decided, after his experience of the Police Scotland investigation, that enough is enough (read more here).

By way of another curious coincidence, a gross misconduct investigation, carried out on behalf the the Cheshire police commissioner, into another chief constable, Simon Byrne, was one of the reasons mooted for the abrupt departure of Dave Jones. Described by John Beggs QC as ‘sub-optimal’, at the subsequent disciplinary hearing, the much-feared barrister was being uncharacteristicly over-generous. As the public hearing unfolded in Warrington Town Hall, it became clear that Jones had been out of his depth: The investigation was a shambles, almost from start to finish. He had previously told the commissioner, David Keane, that he was experienced in such matters. It appears as though he was not. What was not disclosed to Mr Keane was that Jones and Byrne had a professional association, via the Scrutiny Board of the National Police Air Service. A member of that same body, at the material time, will say that the two ex-chiefs were friends. Both Byrne and Jones were also senior ex-Greater Manchester Police officers.

By contrast, there is no doubt at all that, given a free hand, Mike Barton could, and very probably would, investigate the Hopkins allegations effectively, and report back efficiently, with appropriate findings. But the big issue is, whether his terms of reference from the Manchester Mayor’s office, where knowledge of the applicable statutory framework appears seriously limited, would have allowed him such liberty. That could be advanced as the fifth and most crucial reason. Who wants to conduct an investigation with their hands tied behind their back? But now, with Barton’s impending retirement, we will never know.

Greater Manchester Combined Authority, on behalf of the Mayor of Manchester, Andy Burnham, confirmed, in a press statement dated 15th March, 2019, that Chief Constable Hopkins would not be either suspended, or placed on gardening leave, whilst the misconduct investigation is in progress. That strongly implies that Mayor Burnham has not passed the matter over to Durham Constabulary as a ‘gross misconduct’ investigation, but a much lesser one of ‘misconduct’. GMCA has not confirmed, as yet, whether a Regulation 15 notice has been served on the chief constable. Enquiries to Greater Manchester Police press office on this subject were referred to the Mayor’s office.

Terms of reference for the investigation have now been disclosed by Durham (read here), after unnecessary delay, apparently as a result of invervention by Darren Ellis, and, put shortly, fall well short of what Ellis promised the complainant in correspondence with him and, it appears from that email chain, assurances given in the face-to-face meeting they had. Peter Jackson has emphasised two key points throughout his contact with Ellis:

– Firstly, that a term of reference be included to the effect that the investigation will ‘go where the evidence takes it’. In layman’s terms, that means if other offences, either misconduct or criminal, are uncovered during the taking and examining of the evidence, then the investigating officers would pursue those appropriately.

– Secondly, Jackson has maintained that the very public and deliberate smearing of himself, Fiona Hamilton and her newspaper by Chief Constable Hopkins cannot amount to anything other than an abuse of his position, and conduct that brings disrepute to both his own force and the wider police service. Hopkins has made no attempt to put the record straight with a correction statement and that fact simply adds an aggravating feature to the offences.

Screen Shot 2019-03-20 at 21.23.11

Allowing the scope to be limited in this way, after a delay of what appears to be almost three months, does not bode well for the efficacy of the Mike Barton investigation. Neither does the secrecy surrounding his sharp exit from it.

The acquisition of further knowledge behind the Durham chief’s retirement decision, and the PCC’s enthusiastic endorsement of it, are now the subject of two searching freedom of information requests (read here and here). 

Page last updated on Sunday 24th March, 2019 at 1335hrs

Corrections: Please let me know if there is a mistake in this article. I will endeavour to correct it as soon as possible.

Right of reply: If you are mentioned in this article and disagree with it, please let me have your comments. Provided your response is not defamatory it will be added to the article.

Picture credit:  Durham Constabulary

© Neil Wilby 2015-2019. Unauthorised use, or reproduction, of the material contained in this article, without permission from the author, is strictly prohibited. Extracts from, and links to, the article (or blog) may be used, provided that credit is given to Neil Wilby, with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

 

 

More sex abuse failings uncovered in ‘House of Secrets’

Two weeks ago, the first of a series of five articles was published on this website that will shed more light on the unethical, unprofessional – and in some cases unlawful – conduct of Police and Crime Commissioner, Julia Mulligan, and her growing team of extravagantly rewarded senior officers, headquartered in what has previously been dubbed ‘The House of Secrets‘.

This second article re-opens the running sore of extracting disclosure from the PCC’s office and, in doing so, also re-visits two other long held concerns: Failing to hold the chief constable to account and Mrs Mulligan’s apparent distaste in addressing alleged senior police officer failings over child sexual exploitation.

A more recent concern, since he was appointed in 2017, is the ineffectiveness, duplicity and sleight of hand of her deputy, Will Naylor. That was explored in some detail in the first article in this series (read here).

On 24th January, 2019 a simple enquiry was sent by email to Naylor. It concerned matters already well ventilated in the public domain. The catalyst for the request was Mrs Mulligan’s extraordinary, and belated, claim that she had been raped as a 15 year old, together with inside information passed to me about her former chief constable. To the effect that he had, allegedly, not co-operated with the Greater Manchester Mayor’s inquiry into police failings around the Rochdale and Manchester ‘Curry Mile’ child sex abuse scandal.

That, of course, is his inalienable right. It was not a judicial, or even a Departmental inquiry, to which witnesses could be summonsed. Except that the State is funding his gold-plated pension, worth around £70,000 per annum. The reasonable expectation is, therefore, that he should have given evidence. Cleared the air. The corollary being that adverse inference may be drawn if he has not.

The request for information from the Deputy PCC was expressed in the following terms:

“You may recall that, at the last PCP meeting I attended, at Selby Civic Centre in January 2018, it was brought into public knowledge, by Cllr Peter Dew, that a complaint had been raised against the then chief constable [Dave Jones]. At the time, and my notebook records this, Julia told the Panel that there would be a robust, thorough investigation. The PCP minutes (see attached) do not reflect that, but I am sure that the tape recording of the meeting will.

“I am told, by a policing source, that there was a disapplication and no investigation by the PCC took place into Mr Jones’ alleged knowledge of child sex abuse and the shutting down of police investigation(s) by senior officers within GMP. No further mention of the matter is recorded in subsequent PCP minutes. Cllr Dew, of course, left the Panel last year over Julia’s unpleasant behaviour towards him, which further obscures the issue.

“In summary, and please forgive the convoluted route, can you please tell me [1] on what date a recording decision was made regarding the complaint raised by Cllr Dew in the PCP meeting against Mr Jones, and [2] the outcome?

“It is not possible to distil such knowledge from the scant information provided on NYPCC website.

https://www.northyorkshire-pfcc.gov.uk/how-can-we-help/complaints/complain-chief-constable/

The reply from Naylor, after the standard delaying tactics, was short and to the point:

“In response to your questions about the response to a Chief Constable complaint (sic), I am unable to share that information with you. We publish the overall number of complaints against the Chief Constable (current and past), and actions taken thereafter. We do not, and do not intend to, go into the detail of each of those with about (sic) individuals who were not part of that complaint.”

This email was sent by way of reply:

Screen Shot 2019-02-16 at 09.21.19

As of 22nd February, 2019 that email had been ignored by all the recipients. Not even the courtesy of an acknowledgement. A polite reminder, sent to Jane Wintermeyer, on 15th February, 2019 urging her to deal with the matter, at her earliest convenience has also remained unanswered.

In the meantime, other enquiries had revealed a troubling chain of events. It was discovered that the complaint against ex-chief constable, Dave Jones, had been made on 8th December, 2017 by Anthony Nixon, a retired solicitor and North Yorkshire resident. It followed the refusal by Jones to respond to a letter sent to him, by Mr Nixon, following the airing of the seminal BBC documentary series, Three Girls. 

Mr Nixon holds the view, shared by a number of others, including some very high profile Greater Manchester Police whistleblowers, that Jones, Head of the Criminal Investigation Division of GMP at the material time, may know more about the shutting down of complaints of child rape, within his operational area, than he is prepared to admit. Put shortly, the allegation is that either Jones (and others) was complicit, or he was incompetent and negligent in his duties with the most awful consequences for hundreds of victims in Rochdale and on the Manchester ‘Curry Mile’.

On 29th March, 2018, Dave Jones, less than three months after the complaint against him was aired at the Police and Crime Panel meeting by Cllr Dew, did what is described in Yorkshire as a ‘moonlight flit’. He was not seen again on duty after that date. He had booked annual leave until 9th April, 2018, then gave notice of his retirement on that day. In the same moment, he went on sick leave until the end of his notice period, 9th July, 2018. He collected over £40,000 from the taxpayer during that short time. Not a word has been heard of him since.

PCC Mulligan has never explained why she, at first, gave two misleading accounts over her chief constable’s shock exit and has not, since, pursued Jones over breach of the service contract he signed, that should have kept him in post at NYP HQ until 2020. A freedom of information request I made to her office confirms that no legal action was taken against him.

The reason she has given for Jones’ disappearance is that ‘he wants to spend more time with his family’. Giving up at least £350,000 in salary and benefits to do so. The reader is invited to draw their own conclusion as to the plausibility of that arrangement.

An underperforming chief constable, who failed miserably in the running of almost every single operational area of his police force, in the five years he was in post; had little regard for the law or other regulatory strictures; overspent his budget by over £1,000,000 in each of his last three years in post; scarcely faced a single word of criticism from the elected official, whose primary functions include setting the budget for the police force and holding the chief constable to account: PCC Julia Mulligan.

Conversely, and perversely, she made excuse after excuse after excuse, each more implausible than the last, to explain away a lengthy series of catastrophic failings. The only recorded criticism that can be traced is over the rating of North Yorkshire Police as ‘inadequate’ over the recording of crime. This finding was made by Her Majesty’s Inspector of Constabulary in March, 2018. 

Whether the complaint against Jones, by Mr Nixon, was a factor in the unexpected departure of Jones is still a matter of speculation, but the likelihood of that is diminished by the discovery that, on 26th January, 2018, a letter from the PCC’s office was received by Mr Nixon. It was signed off by Fraser Sampson, the chief executive, and set out the reason why the complaint against Jones would not proceed: Essentially, claims Mr Sampson, the complaint was a repeat of another made in 2015, over much the same matters. It ignores completely the issues raised by the complainant that could only have come to light since 2015.

There is another troubling feature, insofar as the four year investigation, relied on by Sampson (Operation Span), to dismiss the second of Mr Nixon’s complaints, did not cover either the relevant period, or the GMP senior management, of which Jones was, of course, a key player. An even more concerning aspect is that Span was a joint enterprise between the disgraced Independent Police Complaints Commission and GMP’s notorious Professional Standards Branch, the latter charged with investigating their own officers. Unsurprisingly, in spite of 1,000’s of preventable criminal and very serious offences of child rape, trafficking and exploitation, not one single GMP officer faced misconduct proceedings.

It has transpired that Mr Nixon was completely unaware, until I told him very recently, that his complaint had been raised in the PCP meeting by Cllr Dew, a retired North Yorkshire Police officer who served for 30 years, from 1971 onwards. Mrs Mulligan, Fraser Sampson and Will Naylor were all present in that meeting, but neglected to keep Mr Nixon informed. Indeed, there was no communication at all between him and the PCC’s office betwen his complaint being made on 8th December, 2018 and the Sampson decision letter seven weeks later. A recording decision should have been provided to Mr Nixon within 10 working days to comply with the applicable statutory framework.

In fact, on 15th January, 2019, as he was perfectly entitled to do, Mr Nixon made a complaint against Mrs Mulligan over her failure to respond to his complaint against Jones. He did, however, make that complaint to the IPCC, who by then had attempted to disguise their dreadful reputation with a name change to Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC), rather than to the Police and Crime Panel, who are the ‘Appropriate Authority’, in terms of the legislation, for dealing with such matters.

Nevertheless, the IOPC forwarded the complaint to the PCP for them to deal with. The fate of that complaint, and the troubling manner in which it was dealt with, is the subject of a further article, yet to be published. Put shortly, the PCP did not even record the complaint against Mrs Mulligan, even though she has been criticised by Panel members, on a number of occasions, over her office’s handling of correspondence and dealing with complaints.

Mr Nixon maintains, and it is a strong argument, that without them being made aware, by the IOPC and then, in turn, the PCP, of the consequent complaint against Mrs Mulligan, his issues concerning Dave Jones would have been ignored altogether by both the PCC and Mr Sampson.  With, or without, the intervention of Peter Dew.

The Nixon hypothesis is supported strongly by the fact that no report to the PCP, over the fate of the complaint against Jones, was made at the meeting in February, 2018. Or, at any subsequent meeting. Cllr Dew has, helpfully, confirmed that he was not informed, either. He was aware that a matter raised by Mr Nixon had been referred to the IPCC (IOPC) at the time, but was, quite understandably, not clear as to either the substance, or its outcome. Particularly, as he resigned from the PCP in July 2018 before Mr Nixon’s IPCC/IOPC/PCP matter was settled.

It is fair to say that the failure to record Mr Nixon’s complaint, which taken at its face, and after filtering out the hyperbole, appears to have merit, was brushed under the carpet by PCC Mulligan. She plainly hoped that the matter would be forgotten about. As it very nearly was.

The allegations, in any event, decayed when Jones left North Yorkshire Police. The sex abuse victims in Rochdale and Manchester, and the police whistleblower who first brought the matter to light, Maggie Oliver, incensed at the outcome of Operation Span, were undoubtedly let down once again. This time by a police commissioner who portrays herself, quite wrongly in my own personal, and professional experience, as a victims’ champion.

This was not the first time child sex abuse victims were let down by senior officers within North Yorkshire Police and Julia Mulligan. The antics of both, as a large number victims of such abuse at the hands of former BBC celebrity, Jimmy Savile and ‘Mr Scarborough’, Peter Jaconelli, was painstakingly uncovered by two citizen journalists, Nigel Ward and Tim Hicks, contributing to the North Yorkshire Enquirer website, simply beggared belief.

The two journalists were subject to a £1 million pursuit by the police, enthusiastically funded by Mrs Mulligan, in order to silence the Enquirer’s stinging criticism of the force and the PCC whom, between them, had found not a single Jaconelli or Savile victim. The police, and its commissioner, went to extraordinary lengths to deflect rebuke, despite the fact that the two infamous perverts had offended, unchecked, for decades in North Yorkshire. There appears to be little, or no, trace of support for those victims and a reluctant, mealy-mouthed apology was eventually squeezed out of the now retired assistant chief constable, Paul Kennedy.

Dave Jones, chief constable at the time, remained silent on the topic, apart from leading the disgraceful criminal, then civil, action against the journalists (read more here). Others notably involved as claimants in that private civil action, fully paid from the public purse, were Jones’ deputy, Tim Madgwick, who is now, incredibly, Chair of York Safeguarding Board and, even more incredibly, the present NYP chief constable, Lisa Winward.

The Jaconelli and Savile ‘cover-up’, by the force and its beleagured PCC, repeatedly alleged by the Enquirer, is serious enough of itself. Many thousands of words have been written about the scandal by Messrs Hicks, Ward and other media outlets. Viewed in the light of what now may also be a second alleged ‘cover-up’ involving child sex abuse and North Yorkshire Police, or, at least its most recent ex-chief, and the PCC, and the well-publicised and catastrophic failings of the force’s Protecting Vulnerable Persons Unit (PVPU), also glossed over by Mrs Mulligan at the time (read more here), a deeply troubling pattern emerges.

On any view, it does not sit well with her own positioning as a victims’ champion. Nor does it chime with her recent ‘stage-managed’ claim to have been raped, as a 15 year old, and relating it to the desperate fate of the child sex abuse victims in Rotherham and the ‘Me Too‘ campaign. Absurd, given that all those victims have, very bravely, named their attackers and supported prosecutions, where appropriate.

A story, according to a very reliable source, that was published by the Yorkshire Post as a quid pro quo for that newspaper burying reports over Julia Mulligan’s association with convicted kidnapper, Mujeeb ur Rehman Bhutto. She is alleged to have asked a member of her PCC staff to trawl through her personal Facebook account and delete all references to Bhutto. A Conservative campaigner, and donor, that Mrs Mulligan now claims was just one of three hundred people working on her campaign to become an MP in 2010.

This Bhutto/Mulligan exclusive was published by the Northern Echo (read full story here), two days before the Post’s public relations exercise, and produced what is described by an insider as a ‘nuclear reaction‘ from the short-fused police chief. She had previously told a select group of journalists (which, of course, excluded myself) that she had been sexually assaulted in her earlier life, but asked them not to publish any details.

The police commissioner’s rape claim – and her insistence that it is not investigated and the alleged rapist not brought to book – is the subject of another searching article that will be published on this website in the very near future.

Julia Mulligan, Fraser Sampson, Jane Wintermeyer and Will Naylor have all been offered right of reply. As has the Police and Crime Panel.

Only Mrs Wintermeyer has responded: “No comment, thanks”

Page last updated on Wednesday 27th February, 2019 at 1030hrs

Corrections: Please let me know if there is a mistake in this article. I will endeavour to correct it as soon as possible.

Right of reply: If you are mentioned in this article and disagree with it, please let me have your comments. Provided your response is not defamatory it will be added to the article.

© Neil Wilby 2015-2019. Unauthorised use, or reproduction, of the material contained in this article, without permission from the author, is strictly prohibited. Extracts from, and links to, the article (or blog) may be used, provided that credit is given to Neil Wilby, with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Drowning in deceit

On this website rests a significant number of articles that robustly challenge the integrity, ethics and transparency of Julia Mulligan, the Conservative politician who has twice been elected as Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) for North Yorkshire and the City of York. She has been offered right to reply to all of them. In almost every case the request for comment was ignored. They stand unchallenged.

There are also two exoriating articles written about the appointment of her deputy, Will Naylor, and the deceit and subterfuge surrounding the recruitment process.

Will’s credentials, and career history, regrettably, did not withstand scrutiny at that time – and still don’t. Described to me only last week, by an insider, as ‘chaotic‘, the PCC’s office perenially staggers from crisis to crisis. Neither does the Naylor record on providing a straight answer to a straight question. Those articles, and their imputations of dishonesty, also stand unchallenged (read here and here). He declined to comment on either of them, when approached.

He has, very recently, reverted to type: Deliberately ‘running down the clock’ then providing what, taken at its face, is a calculatingly fallacious response to two straightforward, but important, questions asked by a member of the public: In this particular case, the enquiry came from another experienced freedom of information requester, Edward Williams, whom, like myself, has tasted relatively rare success at the First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights).

A second recent instance, involving Naylor, concerns the refusal to disclose very basic information held by the PCC’s office, in connection with complaints against ex-chief constable, Dave Jones. This is to be the subject of a separate article, which will follow shortly after the publication of this one.

On 26th October, 2018, Mr Williams made a simple, plainly expressed request to the PCC’s office via the What Do They Know website:

He referenced the PCC’s response to a report that had been published two days earlier by the North Yorkshire Police and Crime Panel. Its findings were that a complaint of bullying, made by one of Julia Mulligan’s staff, and supported by three others, had been been upheld. A significant public interest story that was, quite understandably, widely published and broadcast on TV and radio locally, regionally and nationally.

It is trite, therefore, to say that the PCC must know all about the bullying issues raised by four of her own staff. Any pretence to good standing as an elected policing representative, such as remained after exposure of a lengthy series of other failings, had been well and truly trashed by the adverse publicity.

The information request was promptly, and cheerily, acknowledged, by a junior member of the PCC’s staff, three days later.

Alex’s turn of phrase was notably impressive, but rather unfortunate as events unfolded. There was no ‘prompt’ response (as required by section 10 (1) of the Freedom of Information Act), and a coach and horses was driven through the statutory limits (a backstop of 20 working days). At the very latest, disclosure should have been made before 23rd November, 2018.

Indeed, there was a stony silence until Mr Williams prompted the PCC’s office on 10th January, 2019 by requesting an internal review of his unfulfilled information request. This elicited a reply from Holly Earnshaw, the PCC’s complaints caseworker and an officer whom, in my own experience, is always pleasant and helpful, if not a little exasperated at what goes on around her.

Holly does not say whom the ‘relevant person’ is. Or explain why this request, as are all others to North Yorkshire Police and Crime Commissioner, was not being dealt with by the specialist disclosure officers in the Civil Disclosure Unit (CDU), headed up by a police lawyer. It can be plainly inferred that the CDU had not been involved up to this point.

Supported by the fact that at least one freedom of information request, submitted well after the one from Mr Williams, had been finalised on 4th January, 2019. That originated from another journalist, Nigel Ward, very well known to Julia Mulligan (she spent £450,000 on legal fees trying to silence him, and a colleague, Tim Hicks). The Ward request, controversial on any view, was partially successful and dealt with by Liz Fryar in the Civil Disclosure Unit, albeit outside the statutory time limit by a couple of weeks, or so (read here).

There followed a further two weeks of unexplained silence from the PCC’s office. In spite of understandable frustration, Mr Williams cheerily wrote to Harrogate HQ on 25th January, 2019 and gave them five more days to disclose a minimal amount of readily retrievable information he had first requested three months ago. Failing that, he intimated, a report to the Information Commissioner’s Office would be made.

It was Holly Earnshaw who responded again, on the same day. Saying much the same thing as two weeks previously, but still not identifying whom the relevant person, or department, might be that was causing the delay. She did add, however, albeit belatedly, that she appreciated ‘this is a matter that needs to be prioritised‘. 

Ten days later, on 4th February, 2019, Mr Williams finally received his response. It was accompanied by an apologetic note from Will Naylor. There is no explanation offered as to the either the cause of the delay, or why Naylor has finalised a request when he has no apparent knowledge of freedom of information law:

This is the essential contents of the accompanying letter. Which is, strangely, unattributed. If it had been determined by a disclosure officer within the CDU they, invariably, put their name to such finalisation letters, with an invitation to contact them to discuss the decision:

Decision 
I have today decided to disclose the located information to you. 

1) The Office of the Police, Fire and Crime Commissioner for North Yorkshire (OPFCC) hold record of 1 complaint made against the PFCC, by staff, since 2014. 

2) The OPFCC has no record of any compensation being paid to any complainants, and should there ever be compensation paid, that information will appear in the end of year accounts. 

In spite of its brevity, and having taken 101 days to compile, the disclosure contains several grotesque errors:

The reply to Question 1 beggars belief given the information already in the public domain.

Question 2 should have contained an ‘information not held’ Refusal Notice in order to comply with Section 17 of the Freedom of Information Act which, again, supports the proposition that this request was dealt with by a person with very limited knowledge of the relevant statutory framework. As does the superfluous reference to annual accounts which has little, or no, bearing, on disclosure requested by way of the Act.

With regard to Question 1, the BBC, no less, has reported: 

(i) That four members of her staff have complained about PCC Julia Mulligan and their collective complaints of bullying were upheld by an independent panel. 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-yo…

(ii) That, since the first round of bullying complaints were upheld, two others have surfaced. The panel’s finding on those is expected shortly. 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-yo…

That makes six complaints, in total, that are already in the public domain. It is impossible to reconcile that number with the proposition that there are records of only one in the PCC’s office, according to Will Naylor. 

This is an extract from the complaint report published by the Police and Crime Panel: “The Panel received a complaint lodged by an individual who, in the interests of ensuring confidentiality, shall be referred to as “AB” for the purposes of this report. AB’s complaint alleged that in the course of their employment with the PCC, AB had been subjected to bullying behaviour by the PCC, which had impacted considerably on AB’s confidence, health and wellbeing. AB also provided supporting statements from three other individuals who similarly alleged that they had been subjected to bullying behaviour by the PCC“.

All the materials comprising the core complaint from AB, and three other members of the PCC staff who also made complaints of bullying by the PCC, in their statements supporting AB, were supplied to Julia Mulligan as part of the assessment undertaken by the Panel. It is inconceivable, to a right thinking person, that data relating to those complaints is not held in her office and properly characterised as complaints.

The Sub-Committee considers that the multiple accounts of staff perceiving themselves to being subjected to frequently irascible and intimidating behaviour by the PCC is sufficient to demonstrate a misuse of power or position and an overbearing approach to supervision of staff.

There is also the issue of the second wave of bullying complaints submitted to the Police and Crime Panel in early November, 2018. Details of Mrs Mulligan’s questionable association with a convicted kidnapper and gangster, and the alleged use of a member of her staff to erase records on Julia’s personal Facebook account, have also surfaced. Is the position of the PCC that she is unaware of those?

It has been suggested to Mr Williams that, in respect of any internal review of the information request that he may contemplate, he puts Will Naylor to proof over the data searches he has undertaken (when, where, how), and to also ask for disclosure of the internal emails within the PCC’s office where his information request is either the subject, or part of, the body text. 

The outcome of such an internal review would, if conducted appropriately by an experienced disclosure officer, or information rights lawyer, be highly revelatory. Developments are keenly awaited in that regard. Particularly, as Julia Mulligan recently made a statement to the same Panel that she was not sighted in freedom of information requests made to her office and played no part in their finalisation. I, for one, find that very hard to believe.

Mrs Mulligan retains her position as Ethics and Integrity Lead at the Association of Police Commissioners and continues to sit on its Board of Directors.

She robustly denies having bullied any of her staff and blames a politically motivated vendetta by those complaining about her. What cannot be denied, however, is that she told a public meeting, in December 2017, that she would “squeeze the pips of the civil disclosure officers harder”. This was in response to stinging criticism of the PCC’s abject performance, ever since she took office, regarding responses to information requests. I was sat less than a metre away from Julia Mulligan when she uttered those words. They were reported to the CDU the following day:

IMG_0262

Surprisingly, none of this collateral evidence found its way into the Police and Crime Panel’s bullying report, despite them being made aware of my email and the prima facie disclosure of that class of conduct . 

Both the PCC, and her Deputy, have been offered right of reply to the entirety of this article. Mrs Mulligan has previously declined to respond to questions regarding the email set out above.

A statement has also been requested from the Head of the Civil Disclosure Unit regarding their apparent exclusion from this freedom of information process.

The requests for comment and a statement did not even receive acknowledgement from Julia Mulligan or Jane Wintermeyer, Head of Legal Services, whose responsibilities include line management of the Civil Disclosure Unit. Will Naylor did respond but has not taken issue with any of the points raised in the article.

Holly Earnshaw was also invited to name the colleague, within the PCC’s office, to whom she passed on the communications from Mr Williams. No acknowledgement has been received to the email sent to her on 12th February, 2018. Indeed, this must have caused considerable discomfort to Will Naylor as access to Holly’s email address has now been blocked.

Screen Shot 2019-02-15 at 16.43.39

All in the interest of ethics and transparency, of course.

 

 

Page last updated on Friday 22nd February, 2019 at 0030hrs

Corrections: Please let me know if there is a mistake in this article. I will endeavour to correct it as soon as possible.

Right of reply: If you are mentioned in this article and disagree with it, please let me have your comments. Provided your response is not defamatory it will be added to the article.

© Neil Wilby 2015-2019. Unauthorised use, or reproduction, of the material contained in this article, without permission from the author, is strictly prohibited. Extracts from, and links to, the article (or blog) may be used, provided that credit is given to Neil Wilby, with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.