Chickens come home to roost

On 3rd February, 2019, during a pre-trial hearing held in Bradford Combined Court Centre, a barrister, Olivia Checa-Dover, made several quite remarkable submissions to the judge, His Honour Neil Davey QC.

One of those was to the effect that West Yorkshire Police had, incredibly, instructed her to say they did not know where to locate one of their former officers.

More experienced, right-minded counsel might have told the instructing solicitor, Alison Walker, Deputy Head of Legal Services at WYP, not to place her in such a compromising position.

At the final hearing of a controversial, high profile civil claim, seven months later, Miss Checa-Dover denied making such a submission. The transcript of those earlier proceedings will tell a different story, as does the contemporaneous reporting of them, that has stood unchallenged by WYP, and their legal team, since its publication (read in full here).

The man in question, Mark Lunn (pictured above), was the lead investigator, and the only officer working full time, on a police operation codenamed Thatcham: The largest fraud investigation in WYP history, and one that ultimately led to the arrests of 91 men, and convictions for 45 of them, over ‘crash for cash’ insurance claims.

He was the arresting officer of a number of those men. One of which was a Bradford doctor, Abdul Rashid, who ran two general practice surgeries and a private medico-legal practice in the city.

BA55F835-C8F0-4088-B44E-EDBEEE10FEB7
Dr Abdul Rashid, arrested by Mark Lunn in March 2012

On 7th March, 2012, Lunn turned up at the doctor’s home with fifteen other officers at 6.15am. His wife and three children were asleep when the knock was made.

Dr Rashid was not, subsequently, charged with any offence and he had issued a civil claim against WYP on the grounds that his arrest and detention by the police was unlawful. As such, Lunn was at the very centre of those legal proceedings and the police were doing all they could to justify not producing him as a witness.

The reason the police say they ‘couldn’t locate’ Lunn is because he had, by a catalogue of dishonest actions, tainted Operation Thatcham and placed the entire investigation in jeopardy. If this was revealed by way of cross-examination of Mark Lunn, in open court, the public and the press would come to know that the 45 ‘crash for cash’ convictions are, very arguably, unsafe.

Appropriate disclosure of Lunn’s misdemeanours would have also greatly aided Dr Rashid’s claim for unlawful arrest.

It has only very recently been discovered, by a painstaking journalistic investigation (read more here), that by November, 2012, the police knew about the extent, and effect, of Lunn’s wrongdoing and its devastating impact on Thatcham. They chose to conceal that disclosure from the Crown Prosecution Service, and the suspects’ criminal defence lawyers, and thus began a sustained and far reaching WYP ‘cover-up’ that is now well into its seventh year.

The first stage of that audacious cover-up was to conceal Lunn’s wrongdoing from all except a small group of officers who had been involved in the internal misconduct investigations.

The second stage was not to prosecute him for what appears, arguably, to be at least one criminal matter (a second offence of computer misuse and associated data, licence breaches) and to apply no disciplinary sanctions at the end of that process, so that the misconduct investigation would attract no undue attention amongst the rest of the police force (at that time, misconduct findings against officers were published on police notice boards every Monday). A prosecution of Lunn would have also blown the cover-up.

The third stage was to keep Lunn under the WYP cloak, and out of harm’s way, until Operation Thatcham suspects were charged and the prosecutions of the ‘crash for cash’ perpetrators and beneficiaries were in chain. He is regarded as a loose cannon and his record both in the police and, subsequently, bears that out.

The fourth stage was to allow him, in August 2013, to resign from West Yorkshire Police with little, or no, adverse disciplinary record that would be a barrier to future employment. A reasonable hypothesis is that a deal had been cut with Lunn on this basis: Salary paid, and pension preserved, for at least another year; no adverse notes on his Human Resources (HR) file (the court heard during the civil trial that Lunn’s HR file had been ‘weeded’ and that disciplinary records had gone missing).

There is no other reason that WYP could justify overlooking a catalogue of serious misconduct issues, compounded by the fact that there is incontrovertible evidence that he repeatedly lied to two senior officers when confronted by some of them.

Mark Lunn’s lying did not stop when he left West Yorkshire Police. Before he had even left the force his name had already appeared, according to Companies House, on the list of Directors of a firm called Quo Vadis Investigation Services Ltd (QV). His biography on the company website was a fiction and he was forced to resign from QV after less than 3 months service. Lunn’s ‘success’ on Operation Thatcham was, apparently, the leverage for the appointment and the main feature of the bio, which included the claim he had been a detective for 20 years. The truth was he had been a CID officer for less than 5 years before forcibly removed from Thatcham, almost 2 years before the trial at which the men were convicted.

By 2014, Lunn was again attempting again to trade on Thatcham in a private venture. This time the vehicle was to be ‘Pennine Investigations‘. But a company of that name has never been registered and a Google search draws a blank.

In January, 2015 Mark Lunn started work at the Wakefield office of the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC). But, true to form, that is not what it says on his LinkedIn biography. Enigmatically, he is recorded as working for the Home Office as ‘an investigator’ and is still listed as working there.

Screen Shot 2019-10-02 at 09.07.46
Justice campaigners protest outside Pioneer House, Woolpacks Yard, Wakefield. The IPCC’s regional base in the North East.

This, on any view, was an extraordinary turn of events: An ex-police officer who has a string of misconduct investigations against his name turns up at the policing body charged with maintaining public confidence in the police complaints system. The IPCC purported to do that by oversight of the investigation of complaints made by members of the public against police officers. It is hard to imagine someone less suited to such a role as Mark Lunn.

These are just some of his misdemeanours that have been uncovered so far: He was subject to a large number of misconduct investigations whilst a serving police officer, including what appears to be a major covert operation codenamed Waffleedge; another covert operation codenamed Wademere; seriously compromised WYP’s largest ever fraud investigation; has twice been found to have misused police computers and software (many police officers are sacked after a first offence); tried to obtain £183,000 from a major motor insurance company using a bogus company as an investment vehicle whilst a serving police officer; discussed details of a sensitive police operation with unconnected third parties; is an obsessive and persistent liar; a fantasist who invents competencies and past vocational experience on his CV’s and biographies: and has confessed, in police interview, to having a very bad memory.

Lunn’s complaints record includes allegations of unlawful arrest (four); assault (four); neglect of duty (three); incivility (two); oppressive conduct and harassment of a female; and false imprisonment.

It is also more likely than not he was part of the conspiracy, along with a number of other police and civilian officers, to conceal his wrongdoing from the Operation Thatcham suspects. The driving force for that conspiracy appears to be the present Head of WYP’s Homicide and Major Enquiry Team (HMET), Chief Superintendent Nick Wallen. He was a detective inspector in the force’s notorious Professional Standards Department at the time.

It is anticipated that, when the full story eventually emerges, the list of Lunn’s misdemeanours may well be longer. Two former high ranking WYP colleagues describe him as “thick as a brick” and, not uncontroversially, lacking in the necessary integrity and intelligence to have ever been selected as a detective. Their actual words were much more direct and colourful.

Examination of documents authored by Lunn, and some of his emails, appear to bear that out. He is also given to inaccuracies, wild exaggeration and disparaging remarks about members of the public, and in one case a criminal defence solicitor, where and whenever it suited.

So the BIG questions are, how did Mark Lunn wangle a job with the IPCC in the first place, and why did he want to conceal that appointment from his LinkedIn connections, first and foremost, and anyone else amongst the wider public, curious enough to know what the miscreant officer was up to?

A subsidiary question is why did he leave the IPCC (now IOPC) fairly recently with, apparently, no other permanent employment to go to? Lunn is currently self-employed as a jobbing builder and free range egg vendor in rural Huddersfield, where he lives. Connexions Property Maintenance, ‘a family run business owned by Mark Lunn’, trades on the fact that he is a former police officer.

In what appears to be a regular ploy, Lunn sought external funding for Golcar Free Range Eggs. He raised £50 out of a crowdfunding target of £3,000. Rather less than the £183,000 he was sought from 1st Central Motor Insurance to fund his private investigation business in 2012.

Screen Shot 2019-10-02 at 08.50.19

A further question is why did the police tell a circuit judge that they couldn’t locate him when he was working at the IPCC, amongst other former police officers, less than 300 yards from WYP headquarters in Wakefield?

Press enquiries have been made of the Independent Office for Police Conduct, the successor organisation to the IPCC. Contact has also been made with Derrick Campbell, the IPCC Commissioner who controlled the Wakefield office at the material time.

The Home Office and West Yorkshire Police have also been approached for comment. The latter has been asked why a circuit judge was also told by Miss Checa-Dover that Mark Lunn was not the man leading the Operation Thatcham, before he was forcibly removed. Evidence heard, and documents exhibited at the final hearing of the civil claim last month plainly showed that he was (read more here).

The Police Federation press office has also been contacted. The present Chairman of their West Yorkshire branch, Brian Booth, is a friend of Mark Lunn. Mr Booth has been contacted previously but has not replied.

Enquiries have also been made of West Yorkshire Trading Standards regarding Connexions Property Maintenance. The Trading Standards mission is to aim to ensure that the people of West Yorkshire are well informed and empowered consumers who have the confidence to interact with businesses safely and securely. Mark Lunn’s history of misrepresentation and his naked attempt to solicit business by purporting to be an honest, ethical, professional police office is concerning to say the least.

Screen Shot 2019-10-02 at 08.48.01

A series of questions has been put to Mark Lunn. He has also been offered right of reply.

———————————————————————————————–

Page last updated at 1620hrs on Thursday 3rd October, 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.

The Smoking Gun

Earlier this week, an exclusive article revealed to an unsuspecting public the known misdemeanours of a ‘bad apple’ West Yorkshire Police detective (read in full here).

It is an important story because the reckless and, at times, dishonest actions of former Huddersfield based detective constable, Mark Lunn, may have placed the convictions of 45 men at risk.

Lengthy and forensic, the piece was almost entirely grounded in police emails and reports, together with notes from nine days of court reporting from the hearing of a high profile, high value civil claim in Bradford (read more here).

But, within the most explosive and damning piece of evidence, it has emerged that Lunn is only a bit part player: On 28th November, 2012, at the conclusion of an internal inquiry into his wrongdoing, Detective Inspector Nick Wallen, as he was then, wrote to a number of WYP colleagues in these terms:

Screen Shot 2019-09-27 at 08.20.06
Chief Superintendent Nick Wallen (centre) receiving an award recently at the Police Superintendents’ Association

“Subject: DC 3602 Mark Lunn

“Ladies/Gents. Our investigation. is now concluded, there is no need for me to re-iterate what is in this report.

“My own view is that Kirklees SMT and PSD were right to remove DC Lunn from the investigation [Operation Thatcham] and to investigate respectively (sic). There is no doubt that had this issue been raised, in the first instance, at Crown Court, that the case would have been seriously compromised and may have lead (sic) to the prosecution being withdrawn.

“Mark will have undoubtedly learnt lessons from this, and his removal from CID duties to his current post [Huddersfield South Neighbourhood Police Team] may be the most suitable sanction for him.

“So, I thank everyone for their efforts regarding this matter, PSD will contact DCI Jeffrey regarding any other sanction for Mark that might be considered appropriate.

“Regards, Nick W”

The internal inquiry was one of a number of investigations carried out into Lunn’s misconduct. Another followed a complaint raised by Opus Law, a leading firm of Bradford solicitors, on 14thMay, 2012. Opus were not made aware of the internal investigation, or its outcome. It is understood, from a lawyer formerly employed by Opus, that their complaint was not concluded before Lunn left the force in August, 2013.

The most senior of the recipients of the Wallen email, Detective Chief Inspector Paul Jeffrey (as he was then), retired in July 2017 at the rank of superintendent and was central to the previous article about Lunn.

Screen Shot 2019-09-23 at 07.44.49
Paul Jeffrey – who retired from West Yorkshire Police in 2017

Jeffrey hails from a family of police officers (read more here) and had first been made aware of the concerns over Lunn’s conduct, and the Opus Law letter, at a meeting on 8thJune, 2012. He instructed the local Professional Standards Department officers to carry out a scoping exercise. He was not aware that a covert police operation, codenamed Waffleedge, was already investigating Mark Lunn.

Nick Wallen is now a chief superintendent and Head of WYP’s Homicide and Major Enquiry Team: A remarkable rise for an officer whose career is littered with controversial investigations and faux pas. Not least the murder of Leeds schoolteacher, Ann Maguire, about which her widowed husband, Don, has repeatedly and justifiably complained and the ‘Bradford 4’ acid attack murder in which clear, and unchallenged, findings of evidence tampering forms part of the miscarriage of justice case of Andrew Feather Jnr, who was found on that evidence to be the secondary getaway driver. Mr Feather’s case presently rests with the Criminal Case Review Commission. He and his family has received widespread and positive publicity from a large number of regional and national newspaper articles, plus broadcast packages from the BBC and Sky.

The author of this piece has spent many hundreds of hours, collectively, on both cases. In the Maguire case there is a bizarre restriction on access to documents that were used in the inquest touching on Ann’s death, that Don has scrupulously observed, much to the frustration of both of us. Those include such as the investigation policy book (or log).

In the Feather case, unrestricted access was given to all the materials disclosed to the family, and the fruits of the remarkable post-conviction sleuthing of Andrew Feather Senior, which drew warm praise from no less than the bench at the Court of Appeal.

To be clear, there is no direct evidence that links Nick Wallen to any wrongdoing, but he was the senior investigating officer (SIO) in both cases and, as such should have signed off every action and decision in the policy book. If, indeed, actions that led to grotesque incompetence, or wrongdoing, were ever recorded there, about which there has to be considerable doubt, given the force’s very long and troubled history where policy logs and similar procedural or evidential requirements are concerned.

It can, however, safely be said that, in both cases, the timings relating to the murders, and the movements of those at or near the scene, now meticulously plotted and at variance to the police version, give rise to suspicion about the integrity of the rest of the investigation. Only a robust, thorough, independent enquiry, by another police force or policing body, can begin to allay those doubts.

The internal investigation into Mark Lunn, and the Wallen email at its conclusion, is concerning, to say the least. Taken at its face, it appears that a conscious decision was made not to disclose material, either to the Crown Prosecution Service or the criminal defence teams of the defendants, in a trial in which Lunn was centrally involved. As he was ‘officer in the case’ in only two investigations, Operation Thatcham and the one that preceded it, the field is very narrow.

The Criminal Procedures and Investigation Act, 1996 is explicit about what should be disclosed in criminal trials and failure to meet those statutory obligations could amount to an offence of perverting the course of justice. Or a conspiracy of the same, as this decision to deliberately conceal disclosure appears to involve at least five officers, including Paul Jeffrey.

West Yorkshire Police has said, in writing, that it is not investigating the matters exposed in the first Lunn article and, in those circumstances, a copy of the Wallen email was sent to Gerry Wareham, Chief Prosecutor for the Yorkshire and Humber Region, with a request that the matter be further examined by him and then referred to an appropriate policing body for a more complete investigation.

Mr Wareham, who features elsewhere on this website in a seriously troubling case (read more here), responded promptly and to the effect that he had no locus to investigate any offences that may be disclosed within the Wallen email. He has written to West Yorkshire Police, effectively passing the buck back to them, knowing they have no intention of progressing a matter that would cause the force huge reputational damage.

Screen Shot 2019-04-25 at 18.30.27
CPS lawyer Gerry Wareham pictured outside Bradford Combined Court Centre

Mr Wareham expressed no alarm, or even mild concern over what had been disclosed to him which, put shortly, was that the police had duped the CPS in high profile trials, leading to the conviction of 45 men, that now appear, on their face, to be unsafe.

He also appears to be unaware of the Attorney General’s robust, zero-tolerance stance on this very issue (read more here).

As expected, following the publication of the first Lunn article other material has emerged: A former Kent, Essex and Metropolitan Police officer, Darren Jones, says that the account of their interaction, given by Lunn in police interview, is false. They did meet in London on one occasion, but ‘Operation Thatcham was never discussed’ says Jones.

It has also been revealed that, in 2014, Lunn renewed contact with Mr Jones.  He told him that he was still looking to start up his own fraud investigation company. This time the trading style was set to be Pennine Investigations. There is no such company registered at Companies House.

Materials relating to the now defunct Quo Vadis Investigation Services Ltd (QV) have also been disclosed. They show that Mark Lunn was listed as ‘Operations Director’ and made several outlandish claims in his biography on the company website. Not least that he had ‘over 20 years of experience as a CID officer with West Yorkshire Police’. In truth, he only served as a police officer for 19 years, and less than 5 of those were as a detective.

Companies House records show that Lunn became registered was a Director of QV on 31st July, 2013. He didn’t leave West Yorkshire Police until the following month. By October of that same year he had resigned, following a letter sent to QV, by Opus Law, pointing out why he had been removed from Operation Thatcham and the falsehoods on his biography.

A fraud investigator who made fraudulent claims about his own credentials was more than the other directors could countenance.

A consultant to QV, Peter Taylor joined and left on the same days as Mark Lunn, so there appears to have been a link between the two and Lunn was, very likely, leveraging the ‘success’ of Operation Thatcham to make these connections and secure positions that appeared well above his station. Taylor, rather immodestly, describes himself as ‘a highly regarded Counter Fraud professional with over 25 years experience’. He currently runs a company called Peter Taylor Consultants Ltd. Mr Taylor has been invited to prove further insight into his apparent association with the disgraced Mark Lunn.

In 2015, according to Lunn’s LinkedIn page, he joined the Home Office as an investigator. At the civil trial in Bradford the court heard that the belief of the claimant’s legal team was that he was working for the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) at their Wakefield office. On that same CV, Lunn lists ‘well versed in police misconduct procedures’ as one of his self-stated competencies. That appears to support that hypothesis.

There is an unexplained gap 16 month gap in his LinkedIn CV, from when Lunn left WYP until he joined the Home Office. There is no mention of the ill-starred association with QV Fraud Investigation Services or Pennine Investigations. He is still listed as working at the Home Office up to the present time, but also now runs a jobbing builder business and sells free range eggs in the village where he lives. A man of many parts.

Screen Shot 2019-09-22 at 15.32.42

The press office of the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) was approached on 20th September, 2019 to confirm, or otherwise, whether Mark Lunn had worked for their predecessor organisation, the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) and, if so, how would public concerns over such an appointment be addressed. No response has been received from the ‘police watchdog’. Adverse inference can, of course, be drawn from that silence from an organisation that lists openness and transparency as two of its core values.

John James, a Leeds solicitor, has not responded to the email sent to him seeking an account of his interaction with Lunn. It was claimed, in police interview, by Lunn, that James was a ‘prospective co-director’ of a bogus company ‘Insurance Fraud Consultants Ltd’. It was also claimed in that interview that the two had met during police investigations upon which Lunn was engaged.

The Chairman of the perpetually noisy West Yorkshire Police Federation, Brian Booth, also failed to respond to the enquiries made of him and his association with Mark Lunn.

The Insurance Fraud Bureau (IFB) promised answers to these questions put to them concerning their involvement in Operation Thatcham: 1. A short statement from Insurance Fraud Bureau, covering the police decision to, effectively, conceal the serious misdemeanours of the lead investigator in Operation Thatcham from the CPS, and the defendants’ legal teams, would be helpful. 2. It would also assist, also, to know if WYP received any funding from IFB for Operation Thatcham.

After an inexplicable delay, they provided this statement which ducked both issues: ‘IFB’s role is to provide evidence of insurance fraud to UK police forces and to assist forces with their investigations into this criminal activity. In these circumstances, the relevant police force takes the lead with IFB providing information in an administrative role’.

A series of questions was put to the press office of 1st Century Motor Insurance in connection with the business plans for ‘Insurance Fraud Consultants Ltd’ that Lunn had compiled on police computers. After a series of meetings with two of their Directors at their Sussex HQ, he was asking the insurance company to make an investment of £183,000 in the bogus company. Police documents appear to show that at least some of that money was paid to Lunn. Clarification over the questions put to 1st Century was sought by their press officer and, following receipt, answers to at least some of the questions are promised in the near future.

In response to a freedom of information request that asked if West Yorkshire Police had undertaken a risk assessment, or a process whereby the they would have confirmed the authenticity and legal standing of the IFB, WYP said: ‘We hold no information. The Insurance Fraud Bureau has been contacted for basic information about the car insurance industry. They are not funding any aspect of the enquiry, it was a police-initiated operation. No risk assessment has been undertaken’. 

Of greater concern is that the police gave what appear to be false answers to other questions in that same request. Firstly, about the transfer of officers from other duties to run Operation Thatcham: They say there were none, Mark Lunn was certainly one as he was transferred from Huddersfield CID to the Proceeds of Crime Team at Batley Police Station to run Thatcham. Secondly, when asked whether any complaints had been received as a result of this investigation, they said there were none. In reality, there appears to be, from documentary evidence, at least three against Lunn, one of which it is known was from Opus Law.

The West Yorkshire Police press office has not repsonded to questions put to them about Mark Lunn and Operation Thatcham. Or provided a statement, as requested.

Nevertheless, and in spite of the obfuscation and false trail left by the police and the stonewalling by their perenially disgraced ‘watchdog’ and the ultra-defensive CPS, enquiries from this quarter are continuing, The next ports of call are the Police Superintendents’ Association, the Home Office, the Attorney General and the Justice Parliamentary Select Committee to test whether any amongst them has the resolve to tackle this disgraceful situation.

———————————————————————————————

Page last updated at 1130hrs on Saturday 28th September, 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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dr Abdul Rashid -v- West Yorkshire Police

Bradford Combined Court Centre is the scene for the opening of a civil claim between Dr Abdul Rashid and West Yorkshire Police. It concerns the arrest and imprisonment of Dr Rashid in 2012 and alleged trespass on his home. The pre-action letter claiming damages, exemplary damages and special damages was sent to the police in October, 2015.

The arrest of Dr Rashid was, purportedly, in connection with Operation Thatcham, an investigation into fraudulent ‘cash for crash’ motor insurance claims. 48 offenders were eventually convicted in two separate trials in 2014.

Screen Shot 2019-09-16 at 22.19.25

Dr Rashid, at the time of the arrest, operated a successful medico-legal practice examining and reporting on those injured in such incidents. He was, in all cases, instructed by either lawyers, or claims management companies, and his reports were for the use of the courts, as independent expert evidence, rather than for the benefit of personal injury claimants.

He was also a general practitioner, operating from two different surgeries, under the auspices of the Bradford Patient Care Trust.

The hearing, expected to last nine court sitting days, starting on Monday 9th September, 2019, will be presided over by Mr Recorder Nolan QC.

The claimaint is represented by Ian Pennock of counsel, instructed by solicitor, Simon Blakeley; the police are represented by Olivia Checa-Dover and Daniel Penman of counsel, instructed by solicitor, Alison Walker, Deputy Head of Legal Services at WYP.

A report on earlier case management and pre-trial hearings can be viewed here.

Monday 9th September, 2019

Proceedings opened at 10.45am.

A panel of eight jurors has been selected (the prescribed number in civil claims) with two reserves. They have been sent home until 10am on Tuesday. Mr Pennock is expected to begin his opening speech shortly after that time.

The court will hear evidence from five witnesses for the claimant and the police will be calling two officers to give evidence on their behalf.

The trial bundle presently extends to 12 densely packed lever arch files.

There are a number of ‘housekeeping’ matters for the judge and counsel to deal with after the lunch adjournment. These cannot be reported until the conclusion of the trial, unless permission is given by the judge.

Court rose at 3.30pm.

Tuesday 10th September, 2019

The judge is now in court and the jury filed in a little late at 10.15am

Following an oral application made by the police yesterday afternoon, the judge has discharged the jury and he will now hear the case alone. The application was grounded in Civil Procedure Rules (CPR 3.1(1)(m) and 3.3) which cover case management powers and section 66(3) of the County Court Act, 1994. The judge ruled that it would be ‘utterly inconvenient’ for a jury to sit and sift through what he described as ‘a shedload’ of documents, including a policy (investigation) log that extended to 200 pages.

There is no automatic right to a jury trial in a civil claim (in legal terms it is a ‘qualified right’) and the applicable legal test is whether it is ‘convenient’ for a jury to do so. Given the sheer volume of paper (4512 pages in total), and complexity of some of the issues to be tried, the judge found that it, plainly, was not convenient and made his Order accordingly.

With no jury in a fact-finding role, the shape of the trial alters and there will now be a reduced number of witnesses on the claimant’s side.

There is a short break whilst legal discussions take place. Detective Sergeant Mark Taylor, as he was at the time of the arrest, will give evidence first, followed by DC Andrew Christie (no relation to retired WYP inspector, Cedric Christie, who features elsewhere on this website). Mr Taylor is now a detective inspector based in Bradford. He will be mostly referred to in these reports as DI Taylor.

The judge returned to court at 11am with a warning against use of mobile phones as cameras or recording devices. He had received a report that there was such use in court yesterday afternoon. He reminded all present that this is regarded as a serious contempt of court.

DI Taylor is now being examined on his witness statement in the case by Miss Checa-Dover. The court has heard a chronology of events, and details of the nominals involved, in the prior investigation that led to the launch of Operation Thatcham, the ‘crash for cash’ investigation. Dr Rashid, the police say, was arrested as part of this wide ranging probe.

The focus of the prior investigation was mortgage fraud and led to the conviction of two brothers, Nadeem Khalid and Thazeem Khalid.

The court heard that the Huddersfield (or Kirklees) district, where DI Taylor was based with the Proceeds of Crime (POCA) team, was an insurance motor claim ‘hotspot’, according to data produced by both the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) and the Insurance Fraud Bureau (IFB). The MoJ is the statutory regulator for those involved in the running of claims management companies; the IFB is a not-for-profit organisation specifically focused on the detection and prevention of organised insurance fraud. Earlier, pre-trial hearings of this claim have heard that the MoJ and IFB were partners in the Thatcham investigation.

Two claims management companies were of particular interest to the police: Advanced Claims Ltd and Concept Accident Management Ltd. There was also an associated car hire company with shared directors, Advanced Car Hire Ltd. Nadeem Khalid and another local man, Sahir Mohammed were the principals involved in those companies, the police say. DI Taylor told the court that Op Thatcham was, initially, focusing on those associated with Nadeem. The police also say that the latter’s business activities also included a company registered as NK Business Consultants Ltd.

Court adjourns at 13.05 with DI Taylor part-heard. He has been taken through a chronology of events, based on policy log entries, that presently stands at the end of November, 2011. DI Taylor has invited the court to view the policy log as more of an investigation log than a record of decisions, rationales and records of actions taken. Detective Constable Mark Lunn was responsible for many of the entries to which the court has been taken. DC Lunn was the Officer in the Case in the prior investigation and had taken credit for it in press reports following its conclusion (read more here). He was ‘recommended’ to the Op Thatcham team, according to DI Taylor.

He told the court that DC Lunn was tasked with scoping Concept Accident Management, looking at lifestyle, houses, cars, and the ‘intel picture’. As a result, it was concluded by the police that Sahir Mohammed had a lifestyle well beyond the means that his association with Concept (and Advanced Claims) might confer that ‘he was involved in wholesale fraud’.

It has been heard in evidence that Dr Rashid first became a person of interest to Op Thatcham detectives, and recorded as such on the police log, in October, 2011, following the discovery of an appointments diary, relating to lists of Dr Rashid’s patients, in the car of another person under investigation, Fouad El-Habbal.

A young man of only 21 years of age (according to Companies House records he was born in May 1990), Mr El-Habbal had come to the attention of police, and the MoJ, by driving around in a Lamborghini motor car, worth £140,000, without any visible means to support the purchase, or lease, of such a vehicle. The court heard that it was registered to an address in Portsmouth.

Screen Shot 2019-09-16 at 22.28.29

A scoping exercise into the business activities of Dr Rashid was launched by DC Lunn on 8th November, 2011. DI Taylor told the court that this followed a conversation with him. The judge sought clarification over other evidence concerning Dr Rashid, apart from the appointments diary. DI Taylor said that it was the only link at that stage. A civilian fraud investigator, Anthony Thornton, was tasked with background checks on Dr Rashid.

The court heard that, in the same month, evidence related to the claims management companies (CMC’s) was seized at a location in Huddersfield known as Stadium Storage. It ultimately formed part of the evidence in the criminal trials that were concluded in 2014. DI Taylor asserted that this material contained the ‘smoking gun’: Details of how car crash claimants were coached to make personal injury claims by the CMC’s.

The judge asked why the documents related to the search, and subsequent prosecution, were not disclosed in the trial bundle. Ms Checa-Dover replied that they had not been located after extensive searches by both the police and the CPS.

The examination of DI Taylor has now reached the point in the chronology where Dr Rashid was arrested on 7th March, 2012. By this time, the court has heard, four decision makers were involved: DS Taylor (as he was then), DI Andy White, DCI Paul Jeffrey and Crown Prosecution Service complex crime specialist, Julian Briggs. The decision to arrest was made the previous month, says DI Taylor. The first operational order for the arrest was drawn up by DC Lunn and was dated 28th February, 2012, there was a subsequent, amended version dated 7th March, the day of the arrest.

The court heard that DC Lunn was, shortly afterwards, found to be in breach of professional standards over activities unconnected to his police role that were, it is said, carried out on police premises using police computers. He was removed from Operation Thatcham by DCI Jeffrey and moved to a non-investigative role with Huddersfield Neighbourhood Police Team [in June 2012]. The court heard that he was placed on a monitoring scheme called an Unsatisfactory Performance Plan (UPP). At an earlier hearing of this claim, before HHJ Davey QC, counsel for the police had submitted that DC Lunn had received ‘management advice’ as the only recorded disciplinary sanction. It was not disclosed whether this related to use of police computers for a non-policing purpose, or as a result of a different complaint. Miss Checa-Dover said the documents relating to the sanction had not been found.

The judge in the present trial noted that Lunn left West Yorkshire Police a short time later. DI Taylor advanced the view that Lunn was unhappy in his new position and that was the reason for his departure from the police service. The court has heard previously that the claimant’s legal team was of the belief that he, later, went to work for the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC), situated a short distance from police HQ in Wakefield. For their part, the police said they had been unable to trace him.

The examination of DI Taylor concluded at 3.40pm. Court rose shortly afterwards. A remarkable feature of the evidence heard today was the detective’s recollection of events that took place seven or eight years ago. For the most part he was clear, concise and consistent.

The cross-examination of the same witness will commence on Wednesday morning at 10am. Mr Pennock, counsel for the claimant, told the judge he anticipated being on his feet for most of the day.

Wednesday 11th September, 2019

Proceedings under way shortly after 10am, beginning with cross examination of Detective Inspector Mark Taylor. He was a sergeant based with the POCA team in Kirklees at the time of Dr Rashid’s arrest, as part of an investigation codenamed Operation Thatcham. He was the line manager of the Officer in the Case, DC Mark Lunn, presented by the claimant’s lawyers at pre-trial hearings as a ‘bad apple’. Both worked at Batley police station. [For clarity, DI Taylor’s position is that he was unaware of any activities of DC Lunn, prior to the end of May/beginning of June, 2012 that might support the claimant’s assertions of misconduct].

Ian Pennock is cross examining DI Taylor on behalf of the claimant. The thrust of his early questions is the extent of the role of DC Lunn in the both the initiation of Op Thatcham and its day-to-day running. DI Taylor has been presented by the police, in their written pleadings, and in oral submissions at pre-trial hearings, as the officer in charge of the investigation and the one best placed to present their witness evidence of the lawfulness of the arrest. DC Lunn was also the arresting officer in the actions central to this claim.

At the outset of his questioning, it was put to DI Taylor that DC Lunn was the ‘main man’ in Op Thatcham. He had led the investigation that resulted in the conviction of the Khalid brothers (read more here); he initiated Thatcham; was selected as officer in the case; and the only officer, from a team of six, who was working full time on the investigation; was allocated, as a detective constable, an office of his own. Reluctantly, DI Taylor agreed.

An email dated 26th March, 2012 from DC Lunn to Andrew Lockwood, a sergeant in Professional Standards, was shown to DI Taylor. In it, DC Lunn, when answering a public complaint of failing to return property, described himself as ‘Team Thatcham’. DI Taylor asserted that Lunn was not entitled to make such a claim. He was part of a team of six, that included DI Taylor (then sergeant) as his supervisor.

DI Taylor was taken to the policy log by Mr Pennock. It emerged during questioning that this document contravened a variety of policing protocols and practices (read Authorised Professional Practice here). For example: It was a free standing Word document with no police crest on it; it formed no part of any of the police’s recognised databases or systems; there was no records of decisions taken by the Senior Investigating Officer or rationales for such decisions; there was no restrictive marking on the document; no time or date stamp; it was not even marked ‘confidential’; there was no audit trail of entries or any amendments; no evidence of independent review or sign-off by a senior officer.

Screen Shot 2019-09-11 at 17.07.44

Despite being put forward by the police as the man who could answer all questions pertaining to Operation Thatcham, and the civil claim filed by Dr Rashid, when asked by Mr Pennock, DI Taylor could not take the court to one single entry in that log that was authored by him. Almost all the entries on the policy log were made by DC Lunn.

DI Taylor could not explain, either, why there was a ‘big blank space’, in Mr Pennock’s words, in the policy log, where it appeared that at least one log entry had been erased. He could not say when the gap became apparent.

Eventually, DI Taylor was forced to concede, under questioning from Mr Pennock, that DC Lunn did, in fact, have day to day control of the Thatcham investigation. This is a sea change from the position advanced by the police at the pre-trial review in February, 2019.

DI Taylor also conceded that, as part of his wider policing duties and responsibilities, he had 12 other ‘live’ investigations, apart from Thatcham, and ‘one or two’ that were in the criminal court process.

Mr Pennock put to DI Taylor, in further questions, that his knowledge of Op Thatcham was not what the police purported it to be: The officer conceded that Thatcham was the biggest mass arrest fraud operation in West Yorkshire Police history: 38 arrests were made in Phase 1. In his evidence to the court yesterday, DI Taylor said there were around 10 arrests. Today, he told the court: ‘I got it wrong’.

As part of his supervisory role, the court heard that DI Taylor held regular weekly meetings with his team in order to review actions and progress. This included DC Lunn. A record was kept of these meetings, DI Taylor told the court, and a report sent ‘up the chain of command’, as Mr Pennock put it, as a form of briefing. When asked by Mr Pennock, as the officer presented to the court in charge of disclosure to the WYP Legal Services Department, in this claim, DI Taylor could not explain why those reports were not in any of the twelve volumes of the trial bundle. He did say, however, that, given the opportunity ‘he could find them’.

It was then put to DI Taylor that the decision to arrest Dr Rashid would be contained in at least one of those reports. He agreed that was the case. His recollection was that the decision would have been discussed with his line managers, DI Andy White and DCI Griffiths (the latter was DCI Jeffrey’s predecessor), and was not DC Lunn’s decision.

DI Taylor could not explain to the court why, even though it was what Mr Pennock termed ‘best practice’, the reasons for the arrest were not recorded in the policy log, or why there was no entry between 28th February, 2012 and 7th March. 2012. The first date mooted for the arrest and the actual date it occured. The reasons for the arrest, said Mr Pennock, appeared to be the appointments diary; the 10 minute interval between patient appointments and the charge of £470 plus VAT for the medico-legal consultations. These were set out in a post-arrest report prepared by DI Taylor, he continued. The detective agreed that it was his subordinate, DC Lunn, who had provided the investigation with the reasons.

Mr Pennock also put it to DI Taylor that when DC Lunn put together his reasons to ‘scope’ Dr Rashid’s business activities there was no mention of the appointments diary. He agreed that was also the case.

‘They did not raise suspicion did they?’ said Mr Pennock. ‘Difficult to assess’ was DI Taylor’s response.

Mr Pennock then questioned DI Taylor on the extent of the investigation into the far-reaching activities of the organised crime group, seemingly led by the Khalid brothers. DI Taylor agreed that, to the best of his recollection, during the investigations, no other doctor [apart from Dr Rashid] had been spoken to.

He was also asked if, even now, he fully understood motor claims and the legal proximity, or otherwise, of medical examiners to patients; the widespread use of questionnaires; the admin work done by claims management companies; block bookings. Following a discussion centering on questionnaires, and the examination of a sample included in the trial bundle, involving the judge and counsel for both parties, he answered ‘no’ to the rest of the question. Despite the questionnaire saying ‘Personal Injury Claims Questionnaire’ at the top, DI Taylor’s evidence was that it was not a medical questionnaire.

The court heard that the audio recordings of the patient examinations were seized, examined and investigated by the police. DI Taylor was asked if any analysis was done. The answer was, ‘yes’ to that, but ‘can’t recall’ if any discrepancies were identified. He also told the court that suspicions arising from the apparent high frequency of appointments, quality of reports and ten minute ‘slots’ were those of experts, not his own.

Mr Pennock then turned to those ‘experts’. The court heard that, pre-arrest, these appeared to be Doctors Tedd and Moffatt; mainly looking at Dr Rashid’s examination reports. Asked if these were experts that could be relied upon, DI Taylor told the court that he was ‘content that Dr Tedd was an expert’ and that Dr Tedd was ‘independent’.

Mr Pennock then took DI Taylor to the evidence in the form of an email from DC Lunn to DI Taylor in which it emerged that Dr Tedd was ‘a family friend’ of the Lunns.

The court rose at 11.35 for a 15 minute break.

Dr Tedd remained the focus of attention after the adjournment. DI Taylor could not explain why a reply to an email sent by him, seeking details of the doctor’s qualifications had not been disclosed in the trial bundle.

Mr Pennock asked if DI Taylor had made any enquiries regarding the doctor’s credibility, rationality, thought processes. ‘Not to my recollection’, was the answer. He also answered in the negative when asked about his [Dr Tedd’s] knowledge of medico-legal reports.

The court then heard that Dr Tedd had written to DI Taylor on 10th July, 2012 and offered the view that ‘10% of neck pain is caused by clapping of hands‘. He wrote again to the police in August in what DI Taylor said were ‘eccentric’ terms and in a manner, tone and content described by Mr Pennock ‘not commensurate with that of an expert’. A further exchange betwen Tedd and Taylor contained the doctor’s view that ‘whiplash doesn’t exist‘.

Mr Pennock put it to DI Taylor that Dr Tedd was dropped from the investigation ‘like a hot brick’ after that email exchange. DI Taylor responded: ‘I would not use those exact words’.

The subject of ‘missing’ police evidence was raised with DI Taylor, yet again, by Mr Pennock. This time it concerned materials seized in a raid on one of the rented units at Stadium Self Storage Ltd in Huddersfield and, eventually, used in the Operation Thatcham trials, at which over 40 fraud offenders were convicted in 2014. This comprised, said DI Taylor, of one box containing a large number of wallet files. Mr Pennock was under the impression there were more boxes. By this time, Mr Pennock said, a number of firms of solicitors were co-operating with the police in the Thatcham investigation. DI Taylor agreed that was the case.

Screen Shot 2019-09-16 at 22.33.19

The judge observed that under ‘the six year rule’ the files should have been retained until 2020.

Mr Pennock said that Dr Rashid had been told during the pre-trial process that the files were ‘destroyed at the end of the statutory period’. DI Taylor told the court that the term ‘destroyed’ had come from him. His answer when questioned over non-production of that evidence to this court was ‘they were taken back to Batley police station’. He denied that any other WYP, or external, storage facility had been used. He could not tell the court when the files were destroyed, or by whom.

DI Taylor was then asked, once more, about missing disclosure. This time, Mr Pennock challenged him over the non-production of evidence that would ensure a fair trial and support the proposition that what Dr Rashid was doing, within his medico-legal practices, is not uncommon in the motor claims industry. DI Taylor had made this assertion to the CPS in a report he had sent to them in January, 2019. He said he had ‘no answer to that’. DI Taylor added: “Just because something is commonplace doesn’t mean it isn’t illegal.”

In that same report, the court heard that the police wanted to prosecute Dr Rashid to send ‘shockwaves’ throughout the insurance claims industry and get ‘other doctors to clean up their act’.

Court rose at 12.55pm for the lunch adjournment with DI Taylor’s evidence part-heard. At 2pm, Superintendent Richard Crinnion, acting Head of Professional Standards at West Yorkshire Police gave evidence.

The entirety of Mr Crinnion’s evidence was heard in camera and, as such, cannot be reported. It was submitted in open court that at least part of his evidence would cover Operation Waffleedge, an anti-corruption unit (ACU) investigation in which WYP has, at two pre-trial hearings, firstly submitted that this investigation was into DC Lunn then later said that he was not the target. Miss Checa-Dover told the court, at the pre-trial review, in February, 2019, that Waffleedge ‘was not an undercover operation’. Irrespective of that submission, it would be very surprising indeed if an ACU investigation carried out by any police force was not a covert operation.

Screen Shot 2019-09-16 at 23.17.00

Supt Crinnion was in court for less than 10 minutes. After he had left the courtroom the cross-examination of DI Taylor resumed. Dr Clive Tedd was again the subject of Mr Pennock’s questions. The court heard that in a report dated 7.11.12, authored by the doctor, he stated: ‘I would not consider myself an expert in any medical field’.

Dr Tedd was one of two ‘expert doctors’ consulted by the police prior to the arrest of Dr Rashid. Mr Pennock asked DI Taylor, ‘where are the reports within the disclosure made by the police in this claim’. There was no answer. Miss Checa-Dover rose to inform the court that ‘the police don’t have these’. DI Taylor said ‘I would speculate that they (the reports) would have come via email to DC Lunn’.

Mr Pennock now returned to the activities of the police prior to the arrest of Dr Rashid. He put to DI Taylor that at 8.11.11 the police could not link the doctor to Advanced Claims UK Limited. ‘You had the appointments diary, but still no link’. DI Taylor agreed.

Attention then turned to the meeting, previously referred to in these proceedings, that took place on 19.1.12. It was between DI Taylor, Julian Briggs of the CPS (whom, the court heard, both met on an almost daily basis), DI White and DCI Griffiths. DI Taylor said he remembers this specific meeting. Mr Pennock asked: ‘Did anything stand out? Your memory is vague on other matters’. DI Taylor offered no explanation.

The issue of allegedly underdeclared earnings by Dr Rashid was touched upon by Mr Pennock. He asked DI Taylor if he knew how many reports the doctor had done in that financial year (2008/2009) and if that gave rise to suspicion. The detective did not know the answer.

DI Taylor was then asked if the investigation into his financial affairs revealed any criminal offences committed by Dr Rashid. He said, ‘to my knowledge, no’.

Mr Pennock advanced the view that the police focused on Dr Rashid because he was a high-profile doctor [in the motor claims industry] producing a high number of medico-legal documents: ‘They thought he looked ‘a bit dodgy’ because of the high volume of reports and what he charged [between £90 and £470]’.

At the conclusion of the day’s questioning, Mr Pennock put to DI Taylor the matter of payments by other doctors, solicitors, consultants to claims management companies. One of the companies mentioned was NK Business Consultants Ltd, whose name was raised briefly in evidence yesterday. His reply was: ‘During Thatcham I did not see any payment from any doctor, or agency, to a CMC’.

He was then taken to a document in the trial bundle, by Mr Pennock, who read out a significant list of payments made by such agencies.

The court has heard that the history of NK, according to the police, is that it is a successor company to Concept Claims, and before that, Advanced Claims (as far as is known, the original company).. Both, seemingly, controlled by at least one of the Khalid brothers. The police believed it had been set up to circumvent restraining orders on other bank accounts controlled by the directors.

Court rose at 3.40pm. The cross-examination of DI Taylor will resume at 10am on Thursday morning.

Thursday 12th September, 2019

The trial resumed at 10.15am in Court 7. Counsel for the parties went into closed session in the judge’s chambers and returned to court at 10.45am. Unfortunately, due to illness of one of the members of the legal teams, court has been adjourned for the day.

The judge asked the parties to be in court for 9.30am on Friday.

Friday 13th September, 2019

Cross-examination of Detective Inspector Mark Taylor resumed at 9.40 am. Counsel for Dr Rashid, Ian Pennock, opened by asking DI Taylor questions relating to ‘Frank’ which was the nickname of Fouad El-Habbal, previously identified in these proceedings as a young businessman living beyond his means, according to the police, and driving an expensive Lamborghini motor car.

It was established that the account ‘Frank’ was using to pursue his business as a claims manager, NK Business Consultants Ltd, had been ‘missed’ in the round of restraining orders applied to other bank accounts in the suspected frauds being investigated by the Operation Thatcham detectives.

DI Taylor told the court that the effect of these restraining orders was to monitor [as opposed to freezing] the bank accounts. The court heard that ‘Frank’ was ultimately convicted of perverting the course of justice by way of movement of funds from restrained accounts to the NK account.

It was also heard that no other person was prosecuted in relation to offences connected to that same bank account. ‘Frank”s actions occured after the arrest of Dr Rashid and were not, in any way, connected to him. It has emerged that ‘Frank’ was not convicted of any other offence connected to Operation Thatcham

Mr Pennock then returned to the Op Thatcham policy log that has featured centrally in the trial. The policy log ‘stops at 11.2.12, where’s the rest’ he asked. DI Taylor said he didn’t know. The judge, Mr Recorder Nolan QC then directed the police to check on this point. Olivia Checa-Dover, counsel for West Yorkshire Police, said there was a seperate policy log for Dr Rashid but that she would refer the matter back to her instructing solicitors for further enquiries to be made.

The court heard that there appears to be a gap between the two policy logs. At the pre-trial hearing HHJ Davey QC had ruled that all materials relating to policy logs should be disclosed by the police to the claimant.

In answer to the point, an ancient police adage, made by Mr Pennock, ‘if it’s not recorded, it didn’t happen’, it emerged that DI Taylor’s decisions were recorded in his Work Book (sometimes referred to, at the time, as a Blue Book) not on the policy log. His book that covers the period relevant to the issues in this case cannot be located. A further search is to be undertaken at the direction of the judge.

Miss Checa-Dover told the court that the police had found ‘a huge amount of materials’ in this case. The fact the Work Book appears not to be there could be attributed to a number of possible reasons: incompetence, policy, human error. ‘We are where we are’.

The judge asked that an officer be designated to look into the circumstances of how the Work Book came to be missing and what procedures were followed. ‘We need to know what has happened’, he said.

The evidence of DI Taylor is that he believes his Work Book may have been part of the unused materials in the Op Tahtcham trials which concluded in 2014. [If that is so, one might reasonably ask why the MG6(c) Unused Schedule for those trials has not been disclosed to the Claimant’s legal team].

He also told the court that force policy is that tWork Books are retained for 5 years.

Questioning then moved on to the warrants obtained for the search of Dr Rashid’s home and two offices: One annexed to the surgery and another at the medico-legal practice he ran separately. The notes that would have been attached to the warrant applications, at the time they were submitted to Dewsbury Magistrates’ Court, have not been disclosed to Dr Rashid’s legal team. Under questioning, DI Taylor conceded that these should still be retained on WYP servers. Asked by Mr Pennock if he had looked there for them, DI Taylor said he hadn’t.

Screen Shot 2019-09-16 at 23.26.24

A search is also to be conducted for these items by the police at the request of the judge. As Mr Pennock put it to DI Taylor, these would give ‘reasonable grounds for the suspicion of offences’ that led to Dr Rashid’s arrest and good contemporaneous evidence of those grounds. DI Taylor agreed.

The judge asked DI Taylor how much detail would be attached to the warrant application. ‘Quite lengthy, which is usual for complex fraud’.

DI Taylor also said there were ‘numerous’ officers that attended Dr Rashid’s home at approx 6.15am on Wednesday 7th March, 2012 to execute the warrant. Mr Pennock had put it to him that there were 16 police officers present.

The court has heard evidence, in the form of read emails, that, within a few hours of arresting Dr Rashid, DC Lunn had made contact with the General Medical Council (GMC) with what he described as ‘our [the police’s] findings’. Before any questions had been put to the doctor in interview. Lunn said he was taken into custody over ‘large scale fraud, money laundering, connections with organised crime group’.

Asked if Dr Rashid was ever suspected of money laundering, DI Taylor answered: ‘Not by me’.

Mr Pennock then asked DI Taylor if he was aware that doctors are paid, whether or not personal injury (PI) claimants are found to be injured in a road traffic accident (RTA); DI Taylor said he knew that. Doctors are paid whether or not the claim succeeds: DI Taylor didn’t know that.

He also told Mr Pennock that he didn’t satisfy himself as to how the RTA/PI system worked, prior to the arrest of Dr Rashid. It emerged that the doctors DI Taylor relied on as experts, pre-arrest, hadn’t explained this system to him, either.

‘Did you ever investigate any solicitors, they must have been part of the same [alleged] fraud’ asked Mr Pennock. DI Taylor said ‘no’.

Mr Pennock: ‘No solicitors suspected [of conspiracy to defraud]’ DI Taylor: ‘No’.

When asked by Mr Pennock if the fact solicitors agreed fees with doctors, for between £90 and £470 [per examination], should not cause concern, DI Taylor said ‘no’.

Questions then turned to the custody record and the question of the necessity of the arrest of Dr Rashid. The judge interjected and reminded counsel that the applicable test in law is ‘Wednesbury reasonable‘.

The question of why the arresting officer, DC Lunn, was not giving evidence in this trial was put to DI Taylor. He replied that ‘he was not party to that [decision]’. When asked if he could find him, DI Taylor said: ‘I’m a police officer, I can find anybody‘.

Miss Checa-Dover had told the court at the pre-trial review in February, 2019 that ‘Mark Lunn couldn’t be traced’ by West Yorkshire Police.

The court then heard evidence, in the form of extracts read from police internal emails, that whilst working as a police officer, mainly investigating Dr Rashid, DC Lunn was holding himself out as a private investigator. He was using the name ‘Insurance Fraud Consultants Ltd‘. DI Taylor agreed, to the best of his recollection, that this company was not registered at Companies House.

Mr Pennock said that Lunn had been offered £183,000 funding to set up his company. He was corrected by the judge who said that ‘Lunn had asked for £183,000, and was not offered it by the insurance company‘.

Taken to an email from Sergeant Andrew Lockwood of the Professional Standards Department, to DCI Jeffrey, that said ‘he (Lunn) had got the funding’, DI Taylor said he didn’t know of this. He told the judge that the first he knew of Lunn’s private enterprise was when a POCA team colleague, DC John Barratt, told him about some of Lunn’s telephone conversations that he had overheard. He was very upset, the court heard. This happened towards the end of May, or the beginning of June, 2012.

Opus Law, a firm of Bradford solicitors, had made a formal complaint against DC Lunn on 14th May, 2012 regarding the private investigator concerns. This eventually found its way to DI Taylor on 7th June, 2012 when he was copied into an email sent by Sgt Lockwood to DC Lunn seeking an explanation of the matters raised against Lunn by Opus.

Court rose at 12.35pm and resumed at 1.30pm

The court heard that DC Andrew Christie, from whom more will be heard next week, was tasked with producing a disclosure report to GMC. DI Taylor signed off this report. When asked why the force’s specialist disclosure unit was not deployed, DI Taylor said that he had consulted with them, and with Andrew Keeling, his main point of contact at the GMC.

Mr Pennock then took DI Taylor to the dynamics of the investigation, and the shifting ground as it progressed. He asked when it became apparent that Dr Rashid was to be separated from Operation Thatcham; payments to Dr Rashid were no longer a cause for concern; and there was no issue with Dr Rashid’s tax affairs. The detective answered to the effect, on all three issues, that he couldn’t assist with a date.

DI Taylor was asked again about the Advanced Claims UK Ltd evidence seized from Stadium Storage. Mr Pennock put to him that, if his evidence was that there was only one box, why had Advanced rented a storage unit for just that? DI Taylor had no explanation.

Court rose at 2.45pm shortly after the conclusion of the cross examination of DI Taylor.

Monday 16th September, 2019

Proceedings resumed at 10.05am this morning with the examination and cross examination of Detective Constable Andrew Christie. His evidence concerned an investigation he had carried out which led to a large amount of disclosures, and 40 pages of submissions, to the General Medical Council (GMC) concerning Dr Rashid and the allegations being put to him at that time by the police. DC Christie had joined the POCA unit as part of D/Sgt (as he was then) Mark Taylor’s team in March 2012 and started working, more or less straight away, on this probe. The court heard two days of evidence from Mr Taylor (now an inspector) last week.

DC Christie was asked to clarify 4 points, by counsel for West Yorkshire Police, Miss Olivia-Checa Dover: The restraining orders obtained on the bank accounts of Concept Claims UK Ltd operated by ‘Frank’, the nickname of Fouad El-Habbal; the personal injury claimants (referred to also as ‘patients’) examined by Dr Rashid, with the focus being on ‘genuine’ accidents; How this informed what was disclosed to GMC; lastly, an analysis produced by DC Christie that looked at formulaic reporting of the patient examinations.

He told the court that the restraining orders against Frank’s accounts were obtained in October, 2011; ‘genuine patients’ were identified as: not being known to police; the accident was recorded on police systems; and there were no links between the patients and Concept. He was instructed to prepare the report to GMC by senior officers, who relied on medical experts, Dr Colin Holburn and Dr Watson, to assist their decision-making. They principally advised on level of physical contact between doctor and patient when assessing injuries, and ‘good medical practice’; the analysis referred to had formed part of a MG3 document submitted by the police to the CPS [an MG3 is a short overview of the reasons why the police consider there is sufficient evidence to charge a suspect] and it considered the use of identical phrases, and other standardisation, across a number of reports made by Dr Rashid.

The court also heard that as a result of analysis of CCTV, at locations where block bookings of patients were made, the average time for examination by Dr Rashid was calculated by DC Christie to have been between 7 and 8 minutes. Only two went over 10 minutes, and the longest was 16 minutes.

Mr Pennock then began his cross examination by asking if production orders were obtained for solicitors’ files where they were involved in instructing Dr Rashid to carry out examinations.  DC Christie agreed that was the case.

The court heard that none of the contents of these files, including the letters of instruction and personal injury claim questionnaires, were disclosed to the ‘expert’ doctors involved in advising the police. Instead, they were asked to rely on witness statements taken from patients identified from CCTV and the dictaphone recordings that Dr Rashid made of every examination, together with the report of those examinations compiled by him. All except one of the 12 witness statements was taken, face to face, by DC Christie.

DC Christie said he had read the solicitors’ files but couldn’t recall seeing any letters of authority in which patients confirmed they had read Dr Rashid’s report and signed the letter to confirm its accuracy. Those letters were not disclosed to the police experts. DC Christie said he couldn’t see their relevance.

The detective also said some patients said in their witness statements, they didn’t recall seeing their medical reports, or signing them.

The matter of personal injury questionnaires sent to patients, in advance of examination by a doctor, was then ventilated. Mr Pennock put it to DC Christie that these were important in terms of reducing the time needed to examine a patient, DC Christie’s evidence was they gave some information, were more of a general claim form than a medical questionnaire, and that at least one patient who gave evidence for the police investigation recalled seeing one.

Mr Pennock made the point that examinations that only took 4 minutes may have been of a patient with relatively minor injuries who had already made a full recovery. He also said in questioning that the police relied almost entirely on statements taken from witnesses, years later, but didn’t send any contemporaneous documents to the GMC. DC Christie agreed with the latter but said he couldn’t recall whether the patient who was seen for 4 minutes had recovered, or not.

DC Christie said he couldn’t recall seeing a letter, sent by the GMC to West Yorkshire Police, informing them that they had refused to put these matters raised by him, and the patients in their witness statements, to their Fitness to Practice Panel.

DC Christie’s witness box evidence concluded at 11.25am

Dr Rashid entered the witness box at 11.50am and was still part-heard at 1.15pm when court adjourned. His counsel, Ian Pennock asked just the one question and sought to adopt the rest of the doctor’s evidence from his witness statement: Dr Rashid was asked to confirm in what way, and by whom, he would be asked to conduct examinations of personal injury claimants. He explained that instructions would come from solicitors or medical reporting companies.

BA55F835-C8F0-4088-B44E-EDBEEE10FEB7

The judge asked him to confirm if separate staff were deployed in his medico-legal practice. The doctor told him that, when he started out, he used his general practice staff, who worked overtime. Once established, he had a separate office and separate staff.

Miss Checa-Dover’s questioning this morning focused on text messages received in 2010 and 2011 by Dr Rashid from persons with whom he had a professional, or more familiar, connection.  She explored the duty of the doctor [or any other doctor in the same position], to the court and as an expert medical witness, upon receiving such messages and the actions he took as a result.

A number of those messages were from Jamil Dad, with whom Dr Rashid had a burgeoning professional relationship. Mr Dad was also involved in promoting Dr Rashid’s medico-legal credentials and was paid for that work. They would meet to exchange cheques for the various services each carried out for the other.

The court heard several times that the text messages sent to Dr Rashid had been included, by the police, in the trial bundle, but the replies from him were not.

After a discussion involving both counsel, the judge asked that the police provide a final explanation as to why they were not seized from the doctor’s computer. The incoming messages had been downloaded from a backup of the doctor’s mobile phone which rested on the hard drive of his computer.

The court was also told that the police did not seek to prove that any examinations carried out by Dr Rashid were part of fraudulent claims.

The afternoon’s questioning of Dr Rashid, by Miss Checa-Dover, focused on those text messages. The point she advanced repeatedly was that same one made earlier in the day, Dr Rashid had breached his duty to the court, as an expert witness, by not reporting potential conflicts of interest. Those conflicts arose mainly through contact with members of the families of claims managers, Nadeem Khalid, ‘Frank’, and instructing solicitor Jamil Dad.

Dr Rashid explained that he maintained his professional independence at all times, his prognoses and reports were always open to external scrutiny, and, to the best of his recollection, would have discussed any conflicts with solicitors.

He also said he couldn’t be sure that he knew that those patients were connected to Khalid, Frank and Dad at the time of the examination. The court was of told of ‘a traumatic ten years’ suffered by Dr Rashid which had affected his recall of events

Miss Checa-Dover referred Dr Rashid to practice rules which state: ‘…only continue as expert if there is no conflict of interest’. The doctor conceded that he had not discussed these matters with the courts concerned, or the other parties in the injury claim.

She also put it to the doctor that some solicitors involved in discussions regarding potential conflict of interest would, themselves, have been part of that conflict. It was a ‘red flag’ issue, she said. The judge also pointed out that Mr Dad and Mr McIllaney were ‘not independent of the conflict’.

The court also heard that Khalid and ‘Frank’ had presented themselves to Dr Rashid as personal injury claimants. This was a few months after a meeting had taken place at Akbars restaurant in Bradford, between the three of them; Jamil Dad; and a solicitor from Wakefield, Damian McAlinney, in order to explore how they could further their respective businesses in the personal injury claims field.

A commercial agreement was reached whereby Dr Rashid was to be the doctor of choice of Advanced Claims UK Ltd (ACL) and, in return, he would pay ACL £50 per patient referral. Dr Rashid said that other doctors made payments to claim management companies in the same way. [DI Taylor said in his evidence that it was ‘common practice’ in the motor claims business].

Miss Checa-Dover put to Dr Rashid that he was asked to pay off the debt of a previous doctor to ACL. He said he didn’t recall being asked by Mr Dad to do so and no such payment was made. His recollection of that matter came from police interviews.

Dr Rashid was questioned about an examination where the injury claim patient claimed the accident was a side-on impact, but the injuries claimed were consistent with front to back displacement. He said he couldn’t recall the specifics of that examination but would rely largely on the account of the person being assessed.

The court had heard earlier from DC Christie on this topic. The mechanism of the accident was set out in the personal injury questionnaire, filled in by the claimant before the appointment with the doctor.

The judge asked Dr Rashid if he recalled any adverse reports he had made after examining an injury claims patient. The doctor said he recalled one in particular because it had caused a ‘falling-out’.

Miss Checa-Dover then questioned Dr Rashid on the layout of his report form. She was told that it was developed from a Ministry of Justice template issued in 2010. The doctor also confirmed that his administrative staff typed out the reports from his audio recordings and inserted an electronic signature. He then checked them before they were sent out. The court heard that his proof reading of reports had come under scrutiny by the General Medical Council and found to be satisfactory.

Dr Rashid was asked about his reaction to finding out that Nadeem Khalid, with whom he was conducting a significant amount of injury claims business, had been convicted of fraud in March 2011. He said he was told that Khalid had been prosecuted over mortgage fraud and would have been alarmed at discovering that Khalid was a convicted fraudster.

He tole the court that he had subsequently discussed the matter with Jamil Dad ‘to make sure our work was above reproach’.

The court heard that Dr Rashid had provided Khalid with a reference before the trial and that payments were made to ACL and Concept [the claims management companies] after the conviction of Khalid.

Court rose at 3.50pm

Tuesday 17th September, 2019

The cross examination of Dr Rashid continues. Miss Checa-Dover, counsel for West Yorkshire Police, is asking questions. She carries over the theme from yesterday relating to the conviction of ‘Noddy’ (Nadeem Khalid) in March 2011 and now his arrest, in prison, in October, 2011 as part of Operation Thatcham. He was arrested along with ‘Juggy’ (Sahir Mohammed) and ‘Frank’.

‘Was this another big red flag?’, she asked. Dr Rashid told the court that, although it was a big concern for him, the claims management companies remained regulated by the MoJ post arrest. The court heard that he had been informed of the arrests by Mr McIllaney, but he did not know the reason why.

Counsel then asked the doctor if he considered the option of terminating his working with Concept Claims following arrest. His reply was that his instructions for expert reports came from solicitors, not the claims management company.

The court heard that Dr Rashid had a conversation with Mr McIllaney in which they discussed ensuring that the arrest of the three suspects did not impact adversely on their respective practices.

Asked about contact with Frank the day after his arrest, the doctor said that he had called to find out more details. He went on to tell the court that ‘police have been through my medico legal practice, and all my reports, with a fine toothcomb. At the end of that, my integrity remained intact and there was no finding of my involvement with any fraudulent activities’.

Miss Checa-Dover turned her attention to payments being made to Concept/ACL (the CMC’s) after the arrest of the principals: ‘You were still sending money after their bank accounts were frozen’.

Dr Rashid said that it was industry practice to pay CMC’s promptly and ‘everything I sent is noted and accounted for’. The judge observed that Dr Rashid had been provided with another bank account, at Barclays, into which to make payment. This was the bank account of NK Business Consultants Ltd referred to earlier in the proceedings.

He was then asked by Miss Checa-Dover if he could recall Gill, a solicitor with a firm by the name of JCA Solicitors, telling him they had decided not to work with Concept from 11th November, 2011, one month after the arrest. Dr Rashid told the court that he believed Gill was a marketing manager with JCA, not a solictor, but he couldn’t remember that exchange with her.

It was then put to Dr Rashid, by counsel, that ‘he was in on it with Concept and needed another solicitor’. He said that at any one time he was working with between 30 and 60 solicitors.

Miss Checa-Dover then turned to the matter of the medico-legal reports. By asking a number of sequential questions she sought to establish that Dr Rashid didn’t have time to carry out all that was required for his expert report within a 10 minute time slot:

Patient’s details; Mechanism of accident; Seatbelt; Movement within vehicle at impact; Oral account of symptoms from patient; Time off work; Impact on social life; Medication; Psychological symptoms; Physical examination.

She also put to the doctor that as many as 53 patients had been block-booked on one occasion, when the appointments window was open from 12 noon until 8.10pm, and she took him to statements of two patients who said they had been ‘rushed’. 40 in a day was a more usual number, she said.

Dr Rashid told the court that all these matters had been reviewed, by experts, within a two year investigation at the General Medical Council and no issues found. He also said that he couldn’t understand why these matters were being ventilated again.

An very short audio file was played to the court of a dictaphone recording made by Dr Rashid. Miss Checa-Dover questioned him over speaking into the dictaphone whilst the patient was also talking about his injury. The doctor said that the patient had checked the post-examination report and signed it off.

The issue of whether the proof reading of his draft reports, typed up by his administration team, either took place at all or was rushed was put to Dr Rashid by counsel. One former employee had told the police, post arrest, that the doctor ‘had got sloppy’. As heard earlier, Dr Rashid told the court that the reports were proof read and that the GMC had found in their investigation that this aspect of his work was satisfactory.

Another former employee and personal friend, had made a statement saying that Dr Rashid had told her that “he would be a millionaire in 5 years”. The doctor said she had a good memory but he didn’t remember saying that.

Miss Checa-Dover then pursued the matter of a mistaken entry on Dr Rashid’s CV. She put it to him that ‘he had lied’. Again, in his answer, he said that this was a matter already considered by the GMC. He admitted that he had got it wrong. The Court heard later, in re-examination of the doctor by his counsel, Ian Pennock, that he had included membership of Expert Witness Institute (EWI) on his CV. He was, actually, a member of Expert Witness online. That entry did not appear on his CV. An application form had been filled out for EWI in 2006 but, Dr Rashid said, it, apparently, had not been posted.

Miss Checa-Dover’s cross-examination ended at 12.40. She did not appear to ask Dr Rashid one question pertaining to the events leading up to his arrest; any warrants produced by the police; whether he was cautioned; the events on the day of the arrest; his subsequent detention at at least three different police stations; or the deployment of an estimated 16 police officers at 6.15am on the morning of the arrest at his home, where he was with his wife and young children.

Mr Pennock then re-examined Dr Rashid. It emerged in evidence that after the search at the medico-legal offices ‘the police left thousands of files open and scattered all over the floor’; the phone and laptop that was seized from Dr Rashid was returned in 2014 and, when he tried to access his phone backup on the hard drive of his computer, he found the police had deleted it. This meant that all records of his text messages had been purged. The court has heard a number of times that the police have only exhibited, and questioned Dr Rashid, on text messages sent to him. His replies were not in the bundle.

Dr Rashid was then asked about appointments slots at his GP surgery (as opposed to the medico-legal examinations). He told the court that they were arranged at 10 minute intervals for face to face visits and 5 minute intervals for telephone consultations. He agreed with Mr Pennock that he would see 40 patients a day.

The judge then read witness statements, filed and served as apart of the Claimant’s case, from: Zakiyah Begum; Waseem Ahmed: Dr James McBride and Lawrence Horan.

Mr Pennock told the court that these statements are unchallenged by the Defendant, as is the witness statement of Dr Rashid which the judge said he had already read. The cross-examination of the doctor appeared to concern only matters raised in the police investigation, post-arrest.

The court will hear Final Submissions from both Claimant and Defendant on Wednesday. Thursday is a reading day for the judge. He expects to hand down judgment on Friday morning.

Key tests for determining whether the arrest of Dr Rashid was lawful are: (i) Did the arresting officer, Detective Constable Mark Lunn, reasonably suspect the doctor was guilty of the offence for which he was arrested (conspiracy to defraud); and (ii) Did DC Lunn have reasonable grounds to believe that the arrest was necessary.

Wednesday 16th September, 2019

Judge in court at 10am but, after a short discussion with counsel, he rose for 45 minutes to allow each to read a copy of the other’s submissions they are putting orally to the court today. Mr Recorder Nolan QC said that ‘the days of trial by ambush are long gone’.

Miss Ceca Dover has made her final submissions to the court on behalf of West Yorkshire Police. In summary, they set out to:

(i) Justify the arrest of Dr Rashid based on reasonable suspicion.

(ii) Justify the necessity of an arrest (as opposed to, for example, a voluntary interview).

Points (i) and (ii) are referred to as the Primary Liability issues

(iii) Provide an alternative scenario whereby if DC Lunn did not have the required suspicion of guilt, or belief in the necessity of the arrest, whether Dr Rashid would have been lawfully arrested anywayIf so, no harm was caused by the unlawful arrest meaning substantial damages will not be awarded. This was described in court as the Lumba/Parker test. [The Parker case is better known in the stage name of the former television celebrity, Michael Barrymore, who was unlawfully arrested by Essex Police in 2001. By an odd dint of circumstance, the solicitor representing Mr Parker all the way to the Court of Appeal, was Damian McIllaney, referred to a number of times elsewhere in the present proceedings]. For the legally curious, the Parker judgment can be read in full here. The Lumba case, which went all the way to the Supreme Court, and concerns the various legal tests for damages awards, can be read in full here.

Miss Checa-Dover submits that DI Taylor was present when the Claimant was arrested. He shared the reasonable suspicion in Dr Rashid’s guilt and is entitled to rely on what he has been told, including by his fellow officers, in order to form his own suspicion.

(iv) Provide a further alternative, in the event the arrest was found to be unlawful, by way of the ex turpi causa principle. That would require a finding by the judge that Dr Rashid’s conduct in preparation of medico-legal reports and/or his involvement with others, facilitating motor accident injury claims, was so culpable, negligent or reckless as to extinguish his claim. [In legal terms it engages ‘moral turpitude’.

Miss Checa-Dover submits that the duty owed by doctors conducting medico-legal work is onerous and of significant public importance. Where the motive becomes to get more reports out and make as much money as possible, to the expense of proper adherence to the duties owed, a serious risk to the proper administration of justice arises.

In reply, Mr Pennock, for Dr Rashid, said that to make such a finding the judge would have to ‘go behind’ the findings of the General Medical Council who cleared the doctor of the matters raised in Miss Checa-Dover’s submissions. He suggested that the judge ‘exercises caution’.

Mr Pennock, on behalf of Dr Rashid, completed his submissions shortly before 4pm. In some tense and, at times, intemperate exchanges between the bench and counsel the principal points advanced were:

(i) The burden of proof is on the Defendant to prove they had objectively assessed, reasonable grounds to suspect Dr Rashid of conspiring with Advanced Claims to defraud insurance companies with fraudulent claims for personal injury.

(ii) Dr Rashid had never reported in his medico-legal role on any fraudulent claim or even a suspected fraudulent claim. Requests for the police to produce any evidence of such claims had been ignored.

(iii) Detective Constable Mark Lunn was the designated Officer in the Case and, also, the arresting officer. At the time of the arrest, DC Lunn was holding himself out as a private detective to the insurance industry and he had received some, or all, of a payment of £183,000 from an insurance company, according to an email in the trial bundle from Andrew Lockwoood, a detective sergeant in Professional Standards, to DCI Paul Jeffrey.

(iv) There is no evidence of any credible investigation being carried out, by the police, into the payment of that money to DC Lunn and where it went (as opposed to a lesser investigation into DC Lunn holding himself out as a private detective). Similarly, there is no credible explanation of why an insurance company would want to give a serving police officer such [a large sum of] money when the insurance industry have set up the Insurance Fraud Bureau (frequently referred to earlier in these proceedings) working alongside the police as an open and transparent co-operation between them.

(v) In the circumstances, Mr Pennock submits that the bogus company run by DC Lunn, a company which did not actually exist in Companies House records, was, arguably, invented as a vehicle for an inducement for Lunn to arrest Dr Rashid. If the payment ‘to set up his business’ was discovered he could attempt to claim it was an ‘investment’ in his company by the insurers. [Lunn had attempted to set up the business from offices in Marsden, close to his home, but the insurance company said they wanted it to be based in Leeds, the regional economic centre].

(vi) The court, and the wider public, would expect DC Lunn to give evidence on oath to justify the arrest of Dr Rashid and explain the alleged receipt of a substantial sum of money from an insurance company, and running a substantial private investigation business, whilst a serving police officer. He could readily have been summoned to court, by the police, as their main witness. But, on the police version of events, that should not be needed, in any event, because he left the police service of his own accord without any duress being placed upon him.

(vii) Surprisingly, and very unusually, submits Mr Pennock, the Defendant is not calling DC Lunn to give evidence the court would normally expect to hear in such circumstances. There has been no explanation for his remarkable absence, other than ‘the police cannot trace him’.

(viii) In the circumstances, Mr Pennock invited the court to draw an adverse inference [against the police] from DC Lunn’s very notable absence.

(ix) The ‘reasonable grounds’ upon which the police suspected Dr Rashid of committing an offence have changed at least five times. First version is their original defence; second version their amended defence; third version within DI Taylor’s witness statement; fourth version given in his oral evidence (appointments lists kept by Advanced Claims of the appointments they made on behalf of Dr Rashid, the payment of £825 into the account of NK Consultants and the adequacy of his reports); fifth version found in the document now produced by the police, at the request of this court, to identify the reasonable grounds they rely upon, with reference to matters known pre-arrest.

(x) The court heard that it should expect the reasonable grounds for suspecting Dr Rashid in the alleged fraud conspiracy, for which he was arrested, to be recorded by the police (as was accepted by DI Taylor in his oral evidence). That would be the best evidence. The court should expect the decision to arrest Dr Rashid and the reasons for it to be recorded in;

DI Taylors day book; the Operation Thatcham policy log; the Application to the magistrates’ court for the search warrant; in the policy log set-up for Dr Rashid [as opposed to the Thatcham policy log].

The police have not disclosed any of those records.

(xi) The police obtained a Production Order for Dr Rashid’s mobile phone airtime provider to produce all call and text data from his phone, yet only disclose the police’s version of text messages, without any replies to those texts made by the doctor. After the police had Dr Rashid’s laptop and phone he can no longer access any of his mobile phone data.

(xii) Mr Pennock submits that it is hard to avoid a very strong suspicion that the police documentation has been ‘sanitised’ to remove anything harmful to them and helpful to Dr Rashid. A culture of failing to disclose evidence helpful to any opponent is corroborated by the alleged failure of officers to inform the criminal defence teams in the Operation Thatcham fraud case. The police should have known that DC Lunn’s activities would seriously compromise such a prosecution, if not lead to a stay [as an abuse of process]. A decision was taken by those same officers to keep DC Lunn’s activities secret until after the Operation Thatcham prosecutions were finalised two years later. In order words, convict the fraudsters and stay silent about Lunn.

(xiii) He further submits that the whole presentation of the police case smacks of hiding contemporaneous reasons given by DC Lunn for the arrest of Dr Rashid and the scrabbling around ex post facto for whatever justification they could find for the arrest.

At the end of Mr Pennock’s submissions there was an animated discussion between the bench and both counsel regarding undisclosed materials. The upshot is that the judge, who described it as ‘a grumble’ by Dr Rashid’d legal team, directed that such issues be dealt with overnight, by the two parties to this civil claim, and to report back to him if there was any outstanding issues following completion of that process.

Those present at the two previous hearings of this claim, heard before a different judge in December, 2018 (a case management hearing) and February, 2019 (pre-trial review), would place the repeated complaints over disclosure by Dr Rashid’s lawyers, and the numerous troubling explanations by the police, as rather higher than ‘a grumble’. A contemporaneous report of the second of those two hearings – sent to the police press office at the time – can be read here.

There is also an obvious tension in the police’s choice of disclosure officer, Detective Inspector Mark Taylor, who gave evidence as their main witness.

Similar tensions appear in the submissions of Miss Checa-Dover, presumably on instructions from the police, across the pre-trial hearings referred to above. Most notably, she claimed yesterday that it was never said, by her, to HHJ Davey QC that ‘the police could not locate Mark Lunn’. Regrettably, the transcript of that hearing will tell a different story. As does the contemporaneous report of those proceedings, to which the weblink is provided above, that has stood unchallenged by West Yorkshire Police, and Miss Checa-Dover, for over 6 months.

She also told the court, on that day, that the actions of DC Lunn ‘were at all times lawful and proportionate’ (see excerpt from that article below).

The various versions, again, presumably, on instructions from the police, of the disciplinary action taken, or, indeed, not taken against Lunn can, most charitably, be characterised as a muddle. As are the various explanations of what Operation Waffleedge is, or is not, about. A matter presently exercising the Information Commissioner. The police position, before her, is that they can neither confirm nor deny it exists.

Although Thursday 19th September, 2019 is a designated reading day, the judge said that the court would be open and he would make himself available to attempt to resolve, with counsel, any unfinalised issues over disclosure.

Disclosure failings by the police has been a very high profile news topic over the past year. From the press seats, at least, it is utterly extraordinary that disclosure is still being sought, on the ninth day of a trial, in a civil claim first intimated to the police in October, 2015.

Public confidence in both the police, and the civil justice system, is ill-served by such a debacle.

Friday 20th September, 2019

The police and Dr Rashid were told yesterday afternoon that judgment would not be handed down first thing this morning. Instead, there will be a hearing of the unresolved disclosure matters first.

This morning’s hearing was listed by the court for three hours.

Handing down of judgment commenced at 11am.

The court was told earlier this week that Olivia Checa-Dover is not in Court 7 this morning.  She is elsewhere in the building on another matter. The judge excused her, and Daniel Penman (Miss Checa-Dover’s junior throughout this final hearing) will represent the police at today’s hearing.

Detective Inspector Mark Taylor and Detective Constable Andrew Christie are in court this morning. They gave evidence earlier in the trial.

Mr Recorder Nolan QC completed the oral delivery of his judgment at 11.50. He dismissed the claim of Dr Rashid, finding that the arrest of the doctor, by Detective Constable Mark Lunn (as he was then), was based on reasonable suspicion, and as part of ‘an emerging picture’ of evidence that may have linked him to others who were running fraudulent claims management companies. He found that it was ‘a team decision’ to arrest Dr Rashid, not that of DC Lunn.

Dr Rashid was never charged with any offence. He was on bail for 15 months.

It was also found, by the judge, that if the arrest by DC Lunn had been ruled unlawful then, on the Parker principle referred to in Wednesday’s report, Dr Rashid would have been arrested anyway.

Dr Rashid is contemplating an appeal against the judgment. It appears to contains a significant number of factual errors. A full analysis will be posted over the weekend.

There are also grave concerns about the manner in which this trial has been conducted. A matter also exercising the author of this piece. At one point, when a National Union of Journalists press card was produced to the judge for inspection he said: “They give those out to anybody“.

 

Reporting restriction

The judge ruled, orally, that none of the patients examined by Dr Rashid, and named in court proceedings, can be identified in the reporting of this case. The exceptions being ‘Noddy’ (Nadeem Khalid), convicted of fraud and money laundering in 2011 and, again, for conspiracy to defraud in 2014, and ‘Frank’ (Fouad El-Habbal), convicted of perverting the course of justice in 2014.

Note

Fouad El-Habbab is also reported elsewhere by the name of ‘El Habbab Fouad’.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Page last updated at 2200hrs on Monday 7th October, 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.

 

‘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.

 

So I arrested him for something, sergeant.

It is said that renowned explorer Ranulph Fiennes has one stipulation about whom accompanies him on his far flung expeditions.  He is quoted thus: “I would be happy to take anyone on my expeditions, with one exception ….. people from Yorkshire”!  The characteristic Fiennes is, apparently, unable to tolerate is the Yorkshireman’s dourness and refusal to accept they are wrong.

This particular sterotypical characteristic of residents of God’s Own County might well be said of Stephen Bradbury who has recently successfully concluded a series of civil claims against West Yorkshire Police

Having acted as police complaints advocate for Mr Bradbury, since 2012, it must be said that in all my dealings with him he is found to be charming and affable. Also, no-one I know spends more of his own time helping others. A selfless, generous individual, on any independent view. That said, his case history undoubtedly reveals other classic Yorkshire traits; plain speaking, stubbornness and, unfortunately, for West Yorkshire Police an ability to stick to his guns in the face of hostile enemy fire.

Back in 2003, Mr Bradbury had raised concerns with his local council as regards quality and frequency of services to the tax-paying public by Kirklees. Looking back, how prescient those complaints were, as his local council staggers perenially from crisis to crisis. Not content with the council’s response, he attempted to raise issues in public meetings with both paid and elected officials. Unfortunately, Mr Bradbury’s persistence, and refusal to accept nonsensical answers from public officials, and detriment to his businesses, led, ultimately, to him being banned from all Kirklees Council buildings. Including libraries, wedding venues and sports centres.

In response, Mr Bradbury exercised his rights under the Data Protection Act and filed a data subject access request with the Council. In doing so, he discovered email correspondence between senior council officials, including Senior Legal Officer, Dermot Pearson, and another council lawyer who has since passed away, setting out that should Mr Bradbury’s “extreme behaviour” continue, they would take up the offer of Chief Superintendent John Robins, Kirklees Divisional Commander, whom had suggested that Mr Bradbury could be arrested for Breach of the Peace and “locked in a cell for a couple of hours while he cools down”.

Sure enough, a short time after that email exchange, Mr Bradbury, was indeed arrested and locked up for a few hours. He was, of course, released without charge. Robins was recently promoted, for a third time since that incident, and now heads up the force as Temporary Chief Constable, a matter that should concern every law abiding citizen in the county, based on this account. 

It is fair to say that Mr Bradbury, a man of exemplary character, did not ‘cool down’. He was, in fact, incensed by what appeared to be a pre-planned, but unlawful, conspiracy between the police and the council, and was not prepared to take this lying down.

Mr Bradbury decided to make a video film compilation that would chart his experiences with both the council and the police and, as such, appeared outside both council and police buildings, with his camera, taking photographs and filming with purpose, and intent, of exposing the police as (he sees it) “thugs”. This, ultimately, resulted in a YouTube channel being created. It is titled ‘West Yorkshire Police Action‘ and can be viewed here.

In its first four weeks after launch, unheralded, WYPA received over 500,000 views. In the twilight of a successful and varied business career, Mr Bradbury had fallen backwards into successful film production outlet. Over 80% of those making comments were supportive of Mr Bradbury, or critical of the appalling conduct of the officers . This video clip has received over one million views alone. The damage to public confidence in the police service is incalculable:

PC Cook was working for WYP at the time of this incident. He transferred to South Yorkshire Police a relatively short time afterwards.

As retired chief constable Andy Trotter, Communications lead for the Association of Chief Police Officers (now National Police Chiefs Council), advised all other chief constables in August 2010 “there are no powers prohibiting the taking of photographs, film or digital images in a public place.

Unfortunately, that very simple and direct statement didn’t get through to West Yorkshire Police, whose officers took a significant dislike to Mr Bradbury and his perfectly legitimate, commercially successful, if unconventional, film-making activities. Neil Wilby lodged a complaint, in 2013, with the Police and Crime Commissioner against two chief constables, Norman Bettison and Mark Gilmore, concerning their failure to circularise officers about the NPCC’s directive. It was proved that they hadn’t done as required by ACPO, but the PCC, Mark Burns-Williamson, decided not to uphold the complaint and took no action.

To compound matters, Mr Bradbury is aware of his right not to have to answer any police questions, or provide his name and address; a well established principle illustrated by the case of Rice and Connolly in which the then Lord Chief Justice, Hubert Parker, ruled in the following terms: That police had no power to insist upon answers to their questions, or to detain Mr Rice while they checked up on him: 

“It seems to me quite clear that though every citizen has a moral duty or, if you like, a social duty to assist the police, there is no legal duty to that effect, and indeed the whole basis of the common law is the right of the individual to refuse to answer questions put to him by persons in authority, and to refuse to accompany those in authority to any particular place; short, of course, of  arrest”.

And so, over a four year period, between July 2012 through to June 2016, Mr Bradbury was involved in numerous incidents with WYP officers where he was, variously, unlawfully detained, arrested, assaulted, and on one occasion, prosecuted.

It might usefully be pointed out, at this juncture, that Mr Bradbury, as at 2012, was 62 years old, small in stature (5′ 2″ tall) and light-framed.

It is for the police to establish that arrest, and use of force is lawful, and it soon transpired that, on every occasion WYP officers arrested Mr Bradbury (and different officers were involved in all seven incidents), not once could they prove that his detention, or arrest, was lawful. Either because detention and/or arrest lacked lawful authority, or because of the manner of arrest which, invariably, involved violence of varying degrees. 

On occasion, officers sought to arrest but failed, in breach of Section 28 of PACE, to advise Mr Bradbury that he was under arrest, or tell him the reason for the arrest. 

On other occasions, officers did seek to comply with Section 28 and advise Mr Bradbury that he was under arrest and sought to rely upon a variety of offences:  Breach of the Peace, Public Order and Anti Terrorism and yet, on the facts, no such offences had occurred .

One example is what happened on the afternoon of 31st January, 2013 when Mr Bradbury was outside the northern extremity of WYP headquarters, on the public highway, but close to the exit barrier from the car park.

At the time, Mr Bradbury was in possession of a handheld digital camera and a Go-Pro digital mini camcorder, resting on his chest.  A vehicle passed through the exit barrier, driven by DC Shaun Hurd.  As the vehicle of DC Hurd approached, Mr Bradbury took a series of photographs of the car.  DC Hurd drove through the exit barrier stopped his vehicle and then alighted, asking what Mr Bradbury was doing.  Mr Bradbury responded that he was minding his own business and doing nothing wrong. 

West Yorkshire Police’s Detective Constable Shaun Hurd assaulting Stephen Bradbury and unlawfully arresting him. WARNING: Some may find violent content distressing.

As Mr Bradbury was stood recording the unfolding events, DC Hurd turned towards his vehicle, removed a digital camera and took a photograph at close proximity of Mr Bradbury.  As Mr Bradbury explained that he in turn would photograph the lollipop-sucking detective, DC Hurd moved towards him and attempted to snatch the camera from his grip.

Mr Bradbury was then grabbed by DC Hurd and told that he was under arrest for conduct likely to cause a breach of the peace.  DC Hurd forced Mr Bradbury up against an adjacent brick wall, with his arm held tightly up behind his back. 

Mr Bradbury challenged DC Hurd as to the reason for his arrest, specifically what basis there would be to suggest a breach of the peace. DC Hurd (perhaps unaware that the arrest was being recorded) suggested that it was because Mr Bradbury had attempted to get into his car, which was manifestly untrue.  Mr Bradbury, quite correctly, denied this to be the case.  DC Hurd then falsely suggested (on more than one occasion) that Mr Bradbury had put his camera inside of his car.

Another officer, Detective Inspector Damian Carr from the force’s Professional Standards Department, then arrived on the scene and, after a private conversation with DC Hurd, Mr Bradbury was de-arrested and permitted to go on his way.

DI Carr, of whom, it is fair to say, had a chequered history in his role as a PSD officer, made no attempt to hold DC Hurd to account, either on the day or, subsequently, throughout an elongated complaints process.

Was Mr Bradbury guilty of causing a Breach of the Peace?

Breach of the Peace is a common law concept which confers upon police officers the power to arrest, intervene or detain by force to prevent any action likely to result in a Breach of the Peace.

A Breach of the Peace will occur whenever harm is done, or is likely to be done to a person, or in his presence to his property, or, whenever a person is in fear of being harmed through an assault, affray, riot or other disturbance.

An arrest may be made where a Breach of the Peace is being committed, or has been committed and there is an immediate need to prevent a further breach, or where the person making the arrest has a reasonable belief that a breach will be committed in the immediate future.

The courts have held that there must be a sufficiently real and present threat of a Breach of the Peace to justify the extreme step of depriving the liberty f a person who was not at the time acting unlawfully.

While a constable may, exceptionally, have the power to arrest a person whose behaviour is lawful but provocative, this power ought to be exercised only in the clearest of circumstances and when he is satisfied on reasonable grounds that a Breach of the Peace is imminent.

There was clearly no basis to arrest Mr Bradbury, and his arrest and detention were unlawful. As the arrest was unlawful then it is clear that DC Hurd seriously assaulted Mr Bradbury. The errant detective faced no charge, or disciplinary proceedings, in the face of the clearest of evidence.

Sometimes the reasons given to arrest Mr Bradbury changed upon either reflection, or advice, from more senior WYP officers.

On 7th December, 2012, Mr Bradbury was again situated at the rear of West Yorkshire Police headquarters, on the public highway, a short distance from the car park.

Pursuing his film-making ambitions, Mr Bradbury was engaged in taking photographs of police officers and vehicles.

Unbeknown to Mr Bradbury, information as to his whereabouts, and activities, had been reported to the WYP Control Room and, in consequence, Detective Constable 4613 Edwards decided to approach Mr Bradbury.

DC Edwards requested an explanation for the activity of Mr Bradbury which the latter, quite rightly, refused to give. When he then attempted to walk away, the bullying detective proceeded to grab him by the arm to prevent his movement. DC Edwards stated that Mr Bradbury would be conveyed to a nearby police station, without confirming that he was under arrest, or the reasons for his detention.

DC Edwards proceeded to escort Mr Bradbury to the local police station.  Upon his arrival, Mr Bradbury  was produced before the Custody Officer, Sergeant Knight, who had met him previously

The interaction was recorded on the custody CCTV camera.  The following is a transcript of the conversation between Mr Bradbury, the arresting officer and the custody sergeant.

Mr Bradbury  – Could you tell me for what reason I’ve been arrested, you haven’t err explained.

Police Officer – To establish who your details are cos you haven’t told us who you are.

Mr Bradbury – Am I obliged?

Police Officer – To establish who you are and what you’re doing.

Police Officer – Sergeant I’ve arrested this man cos he was stood outside the back door of Wood Street not Wood Street Headquarters.

Mr Bradbury – Laburnum Road

Police Officer – Taking pictures of vehicles exiting the premises and people exiting the premises and I’ve approached him and asked him why, he’s refused to answer and he’s refused to give me details.

Police Officer – I don’t know if he’s a member of an organised crime group or terrorist or whatever.

Mr Bradbury – Let me take me coat off it’s getting warm.

Police Officer – So I arrested him for something, sergeant.

Custody Sergeant – Ok, right, do you want to just give me a second out back for a moment please.

(and with this the custody sergeant escorted DC Edwards away from the spotlight of the camera, into a back room, where no doubt he challenged the detective as to what had occurred outside and, it is strongly suspected, coached DC Edwards to provide a more ‘reasonable’ basis for arrest than ‘terrorism’. Indeed a few minutes later, both sergeant and the arresting officer returned and all became clear ………..)

Custody Sergeant – Right the officers …hmm.. told me the circumstances with regards to you being brought to the police station, the fact is that you’ve been arrested for breach of the peace okay.  Hmm….

Mr Bradbury – Could I ask some questions please?

Custody Sergeant – You certainly can.

Mr Bradbury – Right how do you come to breach of the peace when I’m stood there not err I’m sure these people have realised that I’ve not uttered one word of bad language.

Custody Sergeant  –  No not in not in here sir no but

Mr Bradbury – Not

Custody Sergeant – err obviously at the…, at the…, at the……..

Mr Bradbury – Is this man accusing me of using bad and threatening behaviour outside?

Custody Sergeant – No, you’ve been …err… argumentative and obstructive with obviously there was there was a breach

Mr Bradbury – But but I’m not obliged to

Custody Sergeant – there was some concern that there be other offences …err… as well so initially the officer brought you in for a breach of the peace.  I’ve checked with the……..

Mr Bradbury – Sorry that’s not correct.

Custody Sergeant – Okay well you you can agree, or disagree

Mr Bradbury – he mentioned okay well I’d like it recorded please

Custody Sergeant – with me as you wish

Mr Bradbury – that he mentioned terrorism.

Custody Sergeant – “Yes that’s no problem I’ve made enquiries with the Counter Terrorism Unit ….hmm…. they’ve …err… confirmed with …err… for me that there’s ..err.. no ..hmm… incidents that of note where you are linked to terrorism or anything like that , there’s no offences that they’re …hmm… they would like to speak with you about so therefore with regard to any criminal side at all there is no criminal offences that you’re here for.” 

Mr Bradbury was promptly released from custody, by Sergeant Knight, as it was clear that even the alternative justification for his arrest – ‘Breach of the Peace’ – was without any foundation. 

Following a subsequent investigation into the incident, DC Edwards ‘clarified’ his version of the arrest circumstances.

In response to a call regarding a man stood at the rear exit photographing vehicles leaving the police car park, he walked to the barrier and saw Mr Bradbury holding a compact camera. The detective (the term is used loosely) claimed he approached Mr Bradbury, identified himself and asked what he was doing.  Mr Bradbury refused to provide an answer and asked what it had to do with him, (DC Edwards). 

Mr Bradbury again refused to account for his actions whereupon DC Edwards told him he was under arrest unless he provided an explanation and his details.  Again, Mr Bradbury refused.  DC Edwards then advised Mr Bradbury he was under arrest for offences under the Terrorism Act 2006.

On challenge, DC Edwards explained that he did not know under what specific section of the Terrorism Act under which he had arrested Mr Bradbury, but that it was on suspicion of the preparation of a terrorist act.

This is, actually, covered by Section 5 of the Terrorism Act 2006, which provides as follows –

Section 5  Preparation of terrorist acts

(1) A person commits an offence if, with the intention of—

(a) committing acts of terrorism, or

(b) assisting another to commit such acts,

he engages in any conduct in preparation for giving effect to his intention.

(2) It is irrelevant for the purposes of subsection (1) whether the intention and preparations relate to one or more particular acts of terrorism, acts of terrorism of a particular description or acts of terrorism generally.

(3) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for life.

As will be noted, this is a very serious offence which carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. To my mind, it is utterly ridiculous that Mr Bradbury was arrested under this law. Section 5 of the Act is intended to encompass such activities as travelling abroad to Syria to join jihadist groups, financially supporting terrorist organisations such as ISIS, or involvement in a bomb making plot.

It was utterly draconian to attempt to utilise this section of the law to justify the arrest of Mr Bradbury, for what was in reality the non-offence of “refusing to answer an officer’s question”, or indeed “infringing the officer’s sense of power” which I suspect was what was really motivating DC Edwards. Rather than any genuine belief that he was, in Mr Bradbury, confronting a ‘terrorist’. I think this is confirmed by the custody sergeant’s apparent attempt to get DC Edwards to change his ‘script’, as to the reason for arrest, to something that did not seem so obviously outrageous.

There is in fact an offence under Section 58A of the Terrorism Act 2000 which is designed to prevent the eliciting, publication or communication of information about members of the armed forces or police, where such information is designed to assist an act of terror. However, the Metropolitan Police’s own guidelines on this law state very clearly that “It would ordinarily be unlawful to use section 58A to arrest people photographing police officers in the course of normal policing activities” , unless there are further grounds for suspecting that the photographs were being taken to provide assistance to a terrorist.

There is also a power under section 43 of the 2000 Act which allows officers to stop and search anyone who they reasonably suspect to be a terrorist; this would certainly have been a less draconian action for DC Edwards to have taken against him (a simple search rather than an arrest) but he chose not to do so; and it is suggested that this was because he did not really think Mr Bradbury was a terrorist at all, but was just looking for a reason to arrest a man who was – in the officer’s eyes – being ‘disobedient’  or ‘disrespectful’ to him.

In my view, it is absolutely right that Mr Bradbury should take a stand against such egregious behaviour as demonstrated by DC Edwards. Individual liberty – and the right not to have to ‘produce your papers’ when challenged by a police officer, or to refuse to answer an officer who is questioning you because he doesn’t like your face (as it were) – is one of the hallmarks of British democracy, as opposed to a dystopian police state such as existed in Eastern Bloc countries not so very long ago. 

The stretching of powers granted under the Terrorism Act to encompass the harmless if eccentric – even, perhaps, bizarre and annoying – behaviour of individuals such as Mr Bradbury is something which we must absolutely guard against, lest it become a matter of routine for the police to use ‘terrorism’ as a catch-all excuse to arrest anyone they don’t  like, who hasn’t committed any specific ‘proper’ offence; although this is a much more extreme example, look at a country like increasingly authoritarian Turkey, where anti-terrorism powers are used as a matter of routine to justify the arrest of opponents of the government (including journalists and lawyers).

The powers of arrest granted under the various Terrorism Acts must not be taken lightly; and we all, as citizens, journalists or lawyers, have a duty to ‘police the police’ if individual officers attempt, either deliberately, or because they don’t fully understand the law, to misuse those powers. Regrettably, this happens all too often when dealing with West Yorkshire Police.

This is exactly what Mr Bradbury chose to do, by bringing civil claims against WYP for the no less than seven occasions he was unlawfully arrested as described above, or in very similar circumstances. Having threatened the police with litigation, Mr Bradbury’s solicitor, Iain Gould of DPP Law in Bootle, persuaded the police to the negotiating table and a sum of £13,500 in damages was secured for Mr Bradbury, plus recovery of his firm’s costs. Iain is one of the leading police complaints lawyers in the country and was also one of the first in the legal profession to report outcomes of cases on his own widely-read website (read here). 

What will probably prove of even more value in the long term, is the lesson the police have, hopefully, learned from this, and other similar actions police action lawyers have brought on behalf of their clients – not to overstep their powers of arrest, and to ensure that their officers keep their tempers in check, and properly understand the law of the land which they are charged with upholding.

*Clarification* West Yorkshire Police have two officers with rank, name of “DC Edwards”. One based in Wakefield, one in Bradford. The latter was invited to provide the given names of both, as was the police force press office, so as to eliminate doubts as to whom the detective interacting with Mr Bradbury actually was. No response was provided from either.*

Page last updated on Monday 1st April, 2019 at 1255hrs

Picture credit: Stephen Brabury; West Yorkshire Police in Action YouTube channel

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.

The counts of Monte Christie

Over the years, no force in the United Kingdom matches West Yorkshire Police (WYP) for sub-optimal criminal investigations, and the high profile miscarriages of justice that flow from their routine incompetence, and, in some cases, blatant dishonesty.

The known history dates back to just after their formation, in 1974, with the infamous cases of Stefan Kizsko and Judith Ward, both of whom were callously fitted up for crimes they didn’t commit.

A feature of both the Kizsko and Ward miscarriages of justice, and many others since, is confirmation bias. In other words, starting off an investigation with a pre-formed concept that a suspect is guilty, and only, it seems, considering evidence which supports that hypothesis.

The case of Ralph Christie is no Stefan Kizsko, that is for sure, but he was sentenced to 7 years in prison, following an eight week jury trial, at Bradford Crown Court, in March 2015. Those court proceedings had been preceded by a WYP investigation, codenamed Operation Laggan, that had stretched as far back as July, 2009. It is strongly argued by Christie that such confirmation bias was present in his own case.

Non-disclosure of key documents to the defence, by the police and prosecution, also features strongly. As it does in every other miscarriage of justice case involving WYP.

Coercion of prosecution witnesses by the police is, regrettably, also present in this troubling case.

Leeds-born Christie was found guilty by the Bradford jury of five counts of fraud by false representation, but NOT GUILTY of fourteen other counts of fraud by false representation, converting criminal property and perverting the course of justice.

On two of the counts, his co-accused, John Jessop, was also cleared and left court without a stain on his character.

All the charges on the indictment concerned investments in land and construction projects that were at various stages of development in Crete, where Christie had settled in 2004 and started his property developing business three years earlier.

Operation Laggan was launched following a complaint made to the police, in early July 2009, by a business associate of Christie, Stephen Thomas, who had, at first, invested in the early Christie projects in Crete, then partnered him in at least one of the later developments. Thomas has always denied being a business partner of Christie, but a notarised document lodged in 2007, in the Public Finance Office at Chania, Crete clearly shows otherwise.

Ralph Christie was, at the time of the Thomas complaint, already known to WYP by way of criminal intelligence passed by him to the police, via his brother Cedric, who was a detective inspector in the same force. That intelligence, it is said, spawned a police operation, codenamed Godstone, that led to the conviction of a number of drug dealers. Two years earlier, Cedric Christie had received a judge’s commendation for his investigative work on Operation Folkestone. That investigation also concerned drug dealing in the same West Yorkshire town of Halifax, from which Ralph Christie had also operated a successful flooring business for many years.

From the outset, it appears that the WYP officers principally involved in Operation Laggan, Detective Constable Charles Skidmore and Detective Inspector Stephen Taylor decided that Ralph Christie was guilty of something – they appeared unsure of what – and, seemingly, only considered material that supported that proposition. Or took actions that were, taken at their face, calculated to damage the reputation of their suspect and encourage other complainants to come forward. Their starting point was that Christie owned no land or property in Crete and that he was operating a multi-million pound Ponzi, or Madoff, scam.

Whether it was a coincidence, or not, within days of the Thomas report to WYP, Greek tax authorities raided the Christie family home in Crete and took away all documents, electronic records. Some of those records related to a trading style called Monte Crete, which was to feature strongly in the Laggan investigation and whose website is still functional today.

After the Greek raid, Christie was called in to have ‘an informal chat‘ with WYP detectives at the end of the same month. It turned out to be rather more intrusive than that.

Christie was exonerated by the tax inspectors in November, 2009. Shortly after that notification, he was interviewed, arrested and bailed by WYP. He remained on bail until the conclusion of his criminal trial in March, 2015.

Laggan was, on any independent view, a grotesque, six-year failure that cost well over £1 million of taxpayer funds. Potential prosecution witnesses were harassed and, in one case, ‘blackmailed‘ by the police according to an email he sent to Christie immediately after, reluctantly, giving a statement. One was summonsed to give evidence by deposition at Calderdale Magistrates Court. Another was threatened with a charge of perverting the course of justice if he didn’t give evidence against Christie. There is an email  trail between DI Taylor and the witness, a well respected, successful Halifax businessman, that clearly spells this out. The witness stood his ground and there was no prosecution.

The witness, whose evidence eventually resulted in Christie being sent to prison, had to be formally summoned to court following an application by the Crown. He appeared as neither defence nor prosecution witness.

In March 2014, the ex-wife of Stephen Thomas, Jane, was issued with an undated harassment warning by Sergeant 6215 James Firth, on behalf of DI Taylor, after she presented the latter with a comprehensive bundle of documents, evidence that set out alleged criminal offences against Thomas. Those allegations have never been the subject of investigation by WYP. It appears, to the independent reviewer, that it did not, and does not, fit the police agenda.

The entire Laggan investigation will be the subject of a forensic dissemination in a separate article to this one.

A further article will look at the role of Ralph’s brother, Cedric. Who turned from his biggest supporter – including via TV, radio, press interviews and a website substantially devoted to the case – to assisting the police in procuring complainants against his elder brother. After contact from Cedric Christie in 2014, some key defence witnesses migrated away from that position. Those actions had a profound effect on the outcome of the trial.

From the date of Ralph Christie’s first police interview in July 2009, it took almost three years for WYP, and the Crown Prosecution Service, to take the case before magistrates’ court in April 2012, where there were three charges. The most serious involving 300,000 euros, of which 85,000 was resting in a bank account, frozen following a request by WYP to Interpol, in October, 2009. This freezing of bank accounts, assets, took place before Christie was arrested, or charged. A matter that was not before the jury at the Bradford trial. Relevant documents were not disclosed to defence counsel, until the last week of the trial.

Another three years later, in January 2015, and, largely, after the intervention of his younger brother, Christie was facing nineteen charges at Crown Court. The court heard that the offences were committed between March 2007 and May 2009.

In between the magistrates’ and crown court appearances, in October 2013, Ralph Christie had been exonerated in a Greek trial covering much the same matters that were tried in Bradford. A certified translation of the court’s judgment can be found here:

The main prosecution witness was the same Stephen Thomas, who had complained to WYP in 2009. He did not give evidence in the Greek trial. Neither did the second prosecution witness, Susan Watt. Thomas was not produced by the prosecution at the Bradford trial, either. Watt did give evidence there but, from the press seats at least, was an unimpressive witness. She admitted in the witness box that she had provided a glowing reference for Christie in order to encourage investors, later claiming that it was false when she wrote it.

The genesis of the Greek criminal trial was a civil claim made by Thomas against Christie. The proceedings were changed to criminal, by the Greek authorities, after they received a seventy-three paragraph letter from the Head of Advocacy, CPS Central Fraud Unit in London, David Levy. That letter, dated 11th February, 2011, believed to have been drafted by DC Skidmore, and signed off ‘blind’ by Mr Levy, now stands discredited. It contained a large number of errors, misrepresentations and in some paragraphs, falsehoods. Inadvertent, or otherwise.

A civil trial between Christie and Thomas, in which the former seeks to recover substantial property assets in Crete from Thomas, is listed to be heard in Chania in March 2019.

As a category C prisoner, Ralph Christie served a total of 34 months in five different UK prisons: HMP Leeds, Doncaster, Hatfield Lakes, Lindholme, Sudbury. It would be true to say that, in spite of being a model inmate, well-liked by the majority of prison staff, Christie was constantly messed around by the authorities for no apparent reason. Other than routinely protesting his innocence.

He had previously served eight months in a Greek jail which counted towards the sentence.

In April, 2018, three months after his release from prison, on licence, Christie was back at Bradford Crown Court for a final Proceeds of Crime Act (commonly known as POCA) hearing. It was before the same judge who presided over the criminal trial, HHJ Durham Hall. The police were claiming over £1.6 million, the judge made an order for £480,000, plus interest. The part of the section 16 POCA application to recover funds connected to the charge that led to him being jailed, rather than a suspended sentence, was dismissed by the judge. This concerned an investment made by a blue chip company that at the time of the criminal trial was valued at £1.1 million.

The four remaining counts that comprised the POCA award against him are still the subject of bitter dispute, with Christie maintaining, staunchly, that those convictions are unsafe. He has, whilst in prison and since his release, compiled a detailed timeline connected to a substantial archive of information, and documents, that certainly add force to that view.

Upon his release from jail, Ralph Christie instructed Peters and Peters, solicitors, of Fetter Lane, London to prepare an application and statement of grounds for the Criminal Case Review Commission (CCRC).

The first hurdle to overcome is that the Bradford conviction has never been tested before the Court of Appeal. It requires ‘exceptional’ circumstances for the CCRC to allow an appeal application to be filed with them if the case has not already been rejected by the law lords.

The second is one of time, CCRC cases are now taking as long as six years before any referral to the Court of Appeal.

The third is that only a very small proportion of cases considered by the CCRC actually make it to the appellate court, where the threshold for overturning convictions from the lower courts is very high indeed. A separate article will cover, in detail, the grounds for the Christie appeal.

This is a story that is set to run for a considerable time yet and, in the meantime, Ralph Christie seeks to resume his home life in Crete and re-build business relationships upon which his earlier success on the island was founded.

I am determined to correct the wrongs done to me by the criminal justice system in the UK. I have never been convicted of any offences here in Greece, in what I now regard as my home country“.

Ends

Page last updated: Wednesday 3rd October, 2018 at 0945 hrs

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 2015-2018. 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.

Information rights ‘watchdog’ vexed by recent Tribunal findings

However, very recently the tide may well have turned back in favour of requesters, and the information rights ‘watchdog’ put back on its leash.
Two First Tier Tribunal appeals, decided within two months of one another, both resulted in ICO Decision Notices, upholding section 14 exemptions, being overturned (the legal terminology is ‘disturbed’).
The first, Paul Arnold -v- ICO and Department of Business and Energy (EA/2018/0061) was heard before Judge Stephen Cragg QC [1] and two lay panel members in July 2018.
The second, Roger Good -v- ICO and Sedgemoor District Council (EA/2017/0228) was heard before Judge Brian Kennedy QC [2] and, by a quirk of fate, the same two lay panel members as heard the Arnold appeal.
In the Arnold appeal the key parts of the judgment are set out here:
[22] In this case we are of the view that the Commissioner has wrongly labelled the Appellant’s request of 22 June 2016 as vexatious. We should say first of all that it may well be that the Appellant has been overly persistent over the years, that it may well be that continuing to try to persuade the Department to take action is now futile, and it is certainly the case that there have been occasions when the Appellant has used aggressive and abusive language to which officials should not be subjected.
[23] Additionally, we accept that it is right to look at the current request in the context of the almost 20 years of correspondence and contact (including a number of FOIA requests) which the Appellant has generated.
[24] But we do remind ourselves that we have to take all the circumstances surrounding the request into account, and that having done so we have to find that it is the request (and not the requester) that is vexatious.
[27] We should emphasise that our decision is based on the particular nature and circumstances of this request. Our decision does not mean that the Department would be necessarily be unsuccessful in relying on s14 FOIA if further requests are made by the Appellant in pursuing the issues which are important to him. As the case-law set out above demonstrates, the decision on each FOIA request has to take all the circumstances in relation to that particular request into account, when considering whether it is vexatious.
In the Good appeal these are identified as the key passages in Judge Kennedy’s findings:

[27] The Tribunal was provided with correspondence sent to the Commissioner, in which the Council laid out it’s reasoning as to why it considered the request to be vexatious. In it the Council confirmed that it had not sought clarification about the scope of the request, nor conducted any investigations into whether it was a repeat request. It explained that the Appellant had previously been warned that further requests for information would be considered vexatious, and the request itself appeared to be a ‘fishing’ expedition designed to damage the Council.

[28] A letter from the public authority dated 7 July 2017 was effectively a pre-warning that any further request would be regarded as vexatious and pre-empted the necessary assessment of the request.

[29] The Tribunal notes that there was no attempt by the Council to establish whether this was actually a repeat request. Page 96 of the Bundle before us demonstrates there was no reasoning to establish this is a repeat request. In fact, on the evidence before us, the Tribunal believes that the subject request is a fresh request.

[30] We do not concur with the Commissioner’s assertion that this request has no value. In fact we find it is a request that has value and on a specific subject which, on the evidence before us, has not been the subject of a previous request.

[31] The Tribunal accepts the request has value because the subject is correspondence relating to a specific planning application. We have heard the Appellants personally explain the detail and we are persuaded there is value to this request. He refers to information provided by the LGO to the Appellant at page 581 of the Bundle before us, which appears to reveal that specific instructions to delay the process of investigating the breach of planning control leading ultimately to the grant of permission were given by a planning officer at the Council. It appears this information was not supplied by LGO with the letter that is at page 130 of the Bundle before us. The Council did not provide it to the Appellant. It may provide information that would support a complaint, justify litigation or even end the need for further requests from the Appellant, or others in the circumstances of this subject matter.

[32] It is in the public interest that any possible fault on the part of the public authority in dealing with this planning issue is fully explored. Even though the decision in Dransfield suggests that an authority does not need to consider every part of a request in certain circumstances, we find that this case is not such as would fall into that category. On the evidence before us we do not accept that the request was “manifestly unreasonable”.

It should be noted that First Tier Tribunal judgments are not binding authorities, but the fact that, in these particular cases, the two judges were widely experienced, very highly rated QC’s will, no doubt, raise eyebrows at the ICO, and in public authorities up and down the country.

Journalists, seen as very much ‘the enemy‘ in my own specialist field of challenging policing bodies, can also take heart from these judgments – and live in hope that a more balanced view will be taken by the watchdog when assessing complaints against public authorities that have simply resorted to a ‘vexatious‘ label as a means to avoid deeper scrutiny of malpractice and wasteful use of public funds.

The only public body to label me ‘vexatious‘ – the joint Civil Disclosure Unit of North Yorkshire Police and its Police Commissioner – face me at a Tribunal hearing early next next year. On advice from my barrister, I was quietly confident of overturning the ICO’s Decision Notice before these latest Tribunal findings. Now that confidence has grown further.

I defeated the same Civil Disclosure Unit at a Tribunal hearing in September, 2017 (EA/2017/0076). But that concerned a section 40 exemption, not section 14. Heard before David Farrer QC and two lay panel members at Barnsley Magistrates Court, Elizabeth Kelsey of counsel represented the ICO and Alex Ustych appeared for the North Yorkshire Police Commissioner (NYPCC).

I have also succeeded against NYPCC in a county court claim over data protection breaches.

Page last updated Wednesday 24th September, 2018 at 2120hrs

[1] Stephen Cragg QC. Doughty Street Chambers bio: https://www.doughtystreet.co.uk/barristers/profile/stephen-cragg-qc

[2] Brian Kennedy QC. 4 KBW Chambers bio: http://www.4kbw.co.uk/members/brian-kennedy-qc/

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 2015-2018. 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.